HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202109211
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
September 21, 2021
4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting (See agenda packet for
instructions to join the meeting)
WEBEX MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
TO JOIN ONLINE:
Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting"
Enter Meeting Number: 2552 790 5626
Enter Password: 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
-- OR --
JOIN BY PHONE
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Enter Meeting Number: 2552 790 5626
Enter Password: 81611
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.COMMENTS
IV.MINUTES
V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS
VI.A.Aspen Hills - 331-338 Midland Ave. - GMQS Review
Aspen Hills_Memo_Continuation Request #2.pdf
VI.B.1050 Waters Ave #13, Stream Margin Review and Special Review
Memo 1050 Waters Ave #13.pdf
Resolution_No.___Series_2021_1050 Waters Ave #13.docx
Exhibit_A_Stream_Margin_Review_Criteria Unit 13.pdf
Exhibit_B_Stream_Margin_Special_Review_Criteria Unit 13.pdf
Exhibit_C_Application.pdf
Exhibit_D_Public_Comment.pdf
1
2
Exhibit _E_1050 Waters #13 Supplement - 8-26-21.pdf
Exhibit _F_1050 Waters Ave - RDS Notice Of Approval_Recorded.pdf
Resolution Exhibit A.pdf
VI.C.1050 Waters Ave #15, Stream Margin Review and Special Review
Memo 1050 Waters Ave #15.pdf
P&Z Resolution No. ____ Series 2021_1050 Waters Ave Unit 15.docx
Exhibit A - Stream Margin Review Criteria_unit 15.pdf
Exhibit B - Stream Margin Special Review Criteria_Unit 15.pdf
Exhibit C_Application.pdf
Exhibit D_Public Comment.pdf
Exhibit_E_1050 Waters #15 Supplement - 8-26-21.pdf
Resolution Exhibit A.pdf
VII.OTHER BUSINESS
VIII.ADJOURN
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised January 8, 2021
2
Page | 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Garrett Larimer, Senior Planner
THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: September 21st, 2021
RE: Aspen Hills – 331-338 Midland Ave.
Request for Growth Management, Residential Design Standards, and
Parking and Transportation reviews for the redevelopment of the Aspen
Hills Condominiums.
APPLICANT:
William Boehringer, Manager,
Midland View 1 LLC,
representing the current ownership
of all units, and the contractual
interest to purchase all units at the
Aspen Hills Condominiums.
LOCATION:
331-338 Midland Ave.
CURRENT ZONING & Land Use:
Residential Multi-Family (R/MF)
The property is currently developed
with an 8-unit multi-family residential
dwelling.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Applicant is seeking Growth
Management, Residential Design
Standard, and Parking and
Transportation approval to redevelop
the site with a 22-unit multi—family
residential building with a mix of
free-market and affordable housing
units.
SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested a
continuance to hold the public hearing on November
2nd, 2021.
The Applicant is continuing the process of refining the
design and responding to comments received during the
Development Review Committee (DRC) process. DRC
is an opportunity for City referral agencies to review the
application for compliance the agencies requirements,
and provide comments to the Applicant, Planning staff,
and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Staff is supportive of a continuance as it will hopefully
result in an improved project.
Figure 1: Property Location
3
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Planner II
THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEMO DATE: September 13, 2021
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2021
RE: 1050 Waters Ave #13, Special Review - Stream Margin Review Standard Variance
APPLICANT:
Andrew & Ivette Rothschild
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
1050 Waters Ave. #13
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the
Residential Multi-Family (R/MF)
zone district and is developed with
an existing 16-unit multi-family
residential building.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting a
Stream Margin Variance to allow
for a deck existing within the
restricted Top of Slope 15’ Setback
and in the common area of the
condominium association.
SUMMARY: The application was initially heard by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at a properly noticed public hearing June 1, 2021
and the Commission came to a tie-vote. A tie vote on a motion is a
failed motion and is not considered to be action. The applicant
requested a continuance to July 6th and another continuation to
September 7, 2021 to allow the applicant or staff to bring any
additional information to assist the Commission in making a final
determination on the request. The City requested to continue to
September 21, 2021 to finalize information for the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff acknowledges that the
construction timeline of the deck is not well documented in City
records, and does not expect more information to be discovered.
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission accept the
deck as a legally established non-conforming structure and approve
the recent repair work, but require the applicant to remove all recently
added zoning violations including the stairs, concrete pad, pergola
and modified wing walls.
Figure 1. 1050 Waters Ave. Aerial Image
4
Page 2 of 3
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Special Review (Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting a
Stream Margin Review variance to continue the encroachment of the deck in the Top of Slope
Setback and to allow recent deck improvements which requires Special Review by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
Existing Conditions: The subject property is located within the 16-unit multi-family housing complex
known as the Aspen Townhouses By the River Subdivision, located at 1050 Waters Ave, Unit #13.
The entirety of the 1050 Waters Ave 16-unit multi-family property, built in 1971 (prior to the adoption of
Stream Margin Review standards) resides within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area, is sited on a nd
below the Top of Slope, and projects into the 45-degree progressive height limit but is considered to be a
legally established non-conforming structure. The existing deck measuring approximately 18ft x 11ft
appears to represent an enlargement or expansion from the most recent recorded approval of 15ft x 4.33ft.,
however after lengthy review, no definitive documentation of the legally established deck size has been
found.
In 2019, the applicant received approval for Stream Margin Exemption and Residential Design Standard
review for a like-for-like replacement of building windows and patio doors facing the river, per Notice of
Approval recorded at Reception 657652 (Exhibit E). The like-for-like approval was exempt from Stream
Margin Review as the work did not expand and/or increase the nonconformity of the building.
In 2020, the property received a Red Tag stop order from the City of Aspen building department for building
permit and zoning violations for rebuilding of the deck, building a pergola feature over the back door onto
the deck, enlarged wing walls at both ends of the deck, and building stairs with a concrete landing into the
stream margin. A Pre-Application Summary was issued describing the options to remedy the zoning
violations including application for Stream Margin Review-Special Review for expansion of a
nonconforming structure into the Stream Margin.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Special Review: The application is subject to Stream Margin Review. At the previous hearing, staff had
taken the position that the deck needed to be reduced in size because it is larger than shown in the 1971
approval documentation and is arguably development not in conformance with Stream Margin Review
standards.
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented. Removal of the deck
at Unit #13 may be more disruptive to the stream margin than allowing the deck to continue as-is (with no
further expansion), as part of the existing non-conforming building at 1050 Waters Avenue. Continuation
of the deck as an existing nonconformity per Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 will restrict the deck
from expansion and subject the deck to be replaced with a conforming structure if purposefully destroyed.
Staff finds that these specific criteria, and all criteria in the Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030
advances the interest in protecting the Stream Margin of the Roaring Fork River.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements including the pergola,
enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete landing is appropriate as these items are
demonstrably new, unpermitted construction in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of
expansion and enlargement of a nonconforming structure.
5
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission approve the proposed request for Special Review requesting a variance from the
Stream Margin Review Standards to memorialize and allow the continuation of the existing deck as a
nonconformity within the Top of Slope Setback with the condition that recent zoning violations be removed.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The draft resolution is written in the affirmative. If the P&Z agrees with Staff’s
recommendation and wishes to approve the current request for Special Review for a Stream Margin
Review Exemption for the existing deck, the following motion should be used. “I move to approve
Resolution #__, Series of 2021 granting approval for Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin
Review Standards for the existing deck with the condition that all zoning violations are removed.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2021
Exhibit A – Stream Margin Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Stream Margin Special Review - Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Public Comment
Exhibit E – Application Supplement August 26_2021
Exhibit F -- Notice of Approval – Residential Design Standards and Stream Margin Exemption
6
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #___
(SERIES OF 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW/STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1050 WATER AVENUE, UNIT 13, ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE
RIVER CONDOUNIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN.
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-40-015
WHEREAS,the Community Development department received an application from
BendonAdams representing Andrew & Ivette Rothschild, requesting Special Review and Stream
Margin Review approvals related to a deck which was recently repaired and altered without
requisite land use and building permits and which is located at 1050 Waters Avenue, Unit 13 of
the Aspen Townhouses by the River Condominiums; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and,
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code standards, and referral of
the application to other City Departments for comments, the Community Development Director
recommends Special Review and Stream Margin approval to accept the deck as an existing non-
conformity, and to accept the replacement of the deck surface and some support structure as
maintenance of a legal non-conforming structure provided for in section 26.312.030 of the Land
Use Code. The Community Development Director recommends, however, that the Planning and
Zoning Commission require the removal of recently constructed expansions to the deck features
due to their non-compliant location within the Stream Margin; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the application under the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code as identified herein, in
particular Section 26.312.030, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing
on June 1, 2021 and September 21
st, 2021; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that approval of the request is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #___,
Series of 2021, by a ____ to ___ (x - x) vote, recommending approval for Special Review/Stream
Margin approval as identified herein.
7
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission finds as follows:
Section 1: Legal Non-Conforming Structure.
The deck is a legal non-conforming structure as defined in the Land Use Code. The applicant’s
representation that the recent replacement of the deck surface, benches, and select supports were
undertaken in the same dimension and location as has been in place for a long period of time are
accepted and the work is considered to have been maintenance and repair. The accepted dimensions
of the deck are as depicted on Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 26.312.030, moving forward, the deck shall be subject to regulation as a non-
conforming structure and may not be expanded, enlarged, or extended in any manner that increases
the nonconformity unless any required approvals are issued.
Section 2: Removal of Unapproved Expansions of the Non-Conforming Deck.
All elements that have been recently added to the deck, with the exception of those described above,
are subject to the following conditions:
1. The stairs and concrete landing adjacent to the deck shall be removed within a reasonable amount
of time, but in no event later than nine months from September 21, 2021.
2. A Revegetation Plan shall be submitted and approved prior to any construction or work on the
stairs and landing. Revegetation shall be completed in accordance with the Revegetation Plan.
3. The pergola constructed above the deck shall be removed within a reasonable amount of time, but
in no event later than nine months from September 21, 2021.
4. The walls on either end of the deck have been repaired and now exceed the original dimensions.
The deck walls shall be returned to their original size which shall be consistent with the adjacent
deck on Unit #15 within a reasonable amount of time, but in no event later than nine months from
September 21, 2021
5. All work completed in accordance with this approval shall comply with all building codes, and
building permits shall be obtained prior to commencement of work. All permit fees will be
doubled, consistent with penalties for work undertaken without a building permit.
Section 3: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an
authorized entity.
Section 4: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
8
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2021
Page 3 of 3
Section 5: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on September 21, 2021.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
_________________________________________________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachment:
Exhibit A-Approved survey of legal non-conforming structure
9
1 | P a g e
Exhibit A
Stream Margin Review Criteria
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques
on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development; and
Staff Response: The subject property is located within the 16 unit multi-family housing
complex known as the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision. The entirety of th e
development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area and is considered a
legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of the structure on the top of the
slope.). Aspen Townhouse by the River Condominiums were constructed in 1970, prior
to the adoption of Stream Margin Review Standards. The improvements under
consideration in this review have already been constructed.
Staff had taken the position that the deck needed to be reduced in size because it is
larger than shown in the 1971 approval documentation and is arguably development
not in conformance with Stream Margin Review standards.
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented.
Removal of the deck at Unit #13 may be more disruptive to the stream margin than
allowing the deck to continue as-is (with no further expansion), as part of the existing
non-conforming building at 1050 Waters Avenue. Continuation of the deck as an
existing nonconformity per Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 will restrict the
deck from expansion and subject the deck to be replaced with a conforming structure if
purposefully destroyed. Staff finds that these specific criteria, and all criteria in the
Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 advances the interest in protecting the Stream
Margin of the Roaring Fork River.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public
use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's
easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river
course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Staff Response: No public use, access, or easements exist on the property. Staff finds this
criterion not applicable.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
10
2 | P a g e
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
Staff Response: The applicant received approval for a Stream Margin Exemption,
Remodel of an existing legal non-conforming structure, and a Residential Design
Standards Exemption to replace three (3) existing windows and one (1) existing patio
door with new windows and a new door. The Applicant had represented that only
replacement of fenestration would occur and that there would be no change, addition,
or expansion of framing or fenestration as a whole. The Notice of Approval was
recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorded as Reception No. 657652 on August
2, 2019.
In 2019, Unit 13 received a building permit from the City of Aspen to replace windows.
On July 6, 2020, City staff discovered that the scope of the permit was exceeded by
replacement of an existing slider door/window combination with a floor to ceiling slider
door. Additionally, extensive unpermitted work was observed including work on the deck,
adding walls, a pergola style roof, and a set of stairs down to the river with a small
concrete landing. Staff does not know the extent of any vegetation removed by the
project.
A condition of this approval is that a revegetation plan be approved and implemented.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into
the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope; and
Staff Response: The applicant has noted “bank line marking routine erosion” below the
subject deck.
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented. It
has been discovered during this review that the existing deck footprint does not match
the records from the 1970 approval for the building. Past expansion of the deck from
the approved 65 square feet to 189 square feet may have created more on-site drainage
into the river or onto its banks.
If the work is legalized by an approval by P&Z, Drainage from the development shall
be treated and detained in accordance with the City of Aspen URMP.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
Staff Response: No new alteration of the watercourse is proposed. Written notice to the
Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
is not required. Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
11
3 | P a g e
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
Staff Response: The proposed development will not newly alter or reloca te the existing
water course.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
Staff Response: The subject property is located within the 16 unit multi-family housing
complex known as the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision constructed in the
early 1970’s. The entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin
Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of
the structure on the top of the slope. Staff accepts that the early construction history of
the deck is not well documented.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements
including the pergola, enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete
landing is appropriate as these items are demonstrably new, unpermitted construction
in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of expansion and enlargement of a
nonconforming structure.
Staff finds this criterion not met until unapproved constructed improvements are
removed.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below
the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of
the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River
shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development
Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
Staff Response: The proposed deck represents an expansion from the recorded approval
of 65 square feet to 189 square feet. This increases the extent of the development below
the top of slope line, which is not permitted for new work. Staff accepts that the early
construction history of the deck is not well documented.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements
including the pergola, enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete
landing is appropriate as these items are demonstrably new, unpermitted construction
in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of expansion and enlargement of a
nonconforming structure.
Staff finds this criterion not met until unapproved constructed improvements are
removed.
12
4 | P a g e
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed
a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at
the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development
Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of
calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A";
Staff Response: The existing structure projects into the restricted height area as defined
by this standard. Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well
documented.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements
including the pergola, enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete
landing is appropriate as these items are demonstrably new, unpermitted construction
in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of expansion and enlargement of a
nonconforming structure.
Staff finds this criterion not met until unapproved constructed improvements are
removed.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Staff Response: A lighting plan has not been submitted. Compliance with the Outdoor
lighting regulations would be confirmed at building permit.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Staff Response: The applicant has indicated that there are no wetlands or riparian zones
located within the property, and staff has no information to the contrary.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
13
1 | P a g e
Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
Exhibit B
Special Review Criteria
E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards
or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special
review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304.
The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published,
posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regard to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin
Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering
Department; and
Staff Response: The Top of Slope is not in question and no change is proposed. The
subject property is located within the 16-unit multi-family housing complex known as
the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision constructed in the early 1970’s. The
entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area and is
considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of the structure on the
top of the slope.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Staff Response: In 2019, Unit 13 received a building permit from the City of Aspen to
replace windows and a patio door, like-for-like. On July 6, 2020, City staff discovered
that the scope of the permit was exceeded by replacement of an existing slider
door/window combination with a floor to ceiling slider door. Additionally, extensive
unpermitted work was observed including work on a deck, enlarging wing walls at
either end of the deck, a pergola style roof, and a set of stairs down to the river with a
small concrete landing.
As was established with the Stop Work Order, the property owner had until July 20, 2020
to either initiate the removal of the unapproved work by applying for a permit to remove
the unpermitted work, or to indicate to the Chief Building Official that the owner will be
pursuing the Stream Margin Review land use process described in a Pre-application
Summary issued to the applicant.
14
2 | P a g e
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements
including the pergola, enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete
landing is appropriate as these items are demonstrably new, unpermitted construction
in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of expansion and enlargement of a
nonconforming structure.
Staff finds this criterion not met until unapproved constructed improvements are
removed.
3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the
following standards are met:
a. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and
Staff Response: The application does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the
existing structure. In fact, the current conditions (with deck encroachment) are under
the 15% floor area exemption allowed by the R/MF zone district standards.
The current calculation for the entirety of the Aspen Townhouses by the River
Subdivision for exempt floor area total approximately 1,739 sq.ft. (including the subject
deck as it exists today). The R/MF zone district allows for a 15% exemption of floor
area available for decks, balconies, loggias, gazebos, trellis, exterior stairways, and
non-street-facing porches. The allowable R/MF zone 15% floor area exemption for
deck, balcony, etc. floor area is approximately 2,470 sq.ft. as estimated below:
Estimated existing floor area
Building 1 9,258
Building 2 7,209
TOTAL 16,467 sq.ft.
15% of 16,467 = 2,470 sq.ft.
Estimated Existing Deck Area
Building 1 896
Building 2 843
TOTAL 1,739 sq.ft.
The recorded approvals for the property allow for a 15ft x 4.33ft deck, or 65 sq.ft. The
existing deck is 198 sq.ft., an increase of 133 sq.ft. within the available exempt FAR for
15
3 | P a g e
the property.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
b. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would
be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
Staff Response: Tree removal is not in question and no change is proposed.
c. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
Staff Response: The entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin
Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of
the structure on the top of the slope. Per Section 23.312.030.(c), a nonconforming
structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the
nonconformity.
There is no documentation of when the deck footprint changed from the recorded
approval. The current deck is closer to the stream margin than the recorded approvals
allowed for. Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well
documented.
d. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has
been designated through a prior review; and
16
4 | P a g e
Staff Response: There is not an approved building envelope for this property. Staff finds
this criterion is not applicable.
e. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount
of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
Staff Response: The entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin
Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of
the structure on the top of the slope. Per Section 23.312.030.(c), a nonconforming
structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the
nonconformity.
The proposed deck represents an expansion from the recorded approval and is an
enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity. Staff accepts that the
early construction history of the deck is not well documented.
Staff has determined that removal of current, unapproved constructed improvements
including the pergola, enlarged wing walls at each end of the deck, stairs and concrete
landing is appropriate as these items are demonstrably new, unpermitted construction
in the Stream Margin Review area and in violation of expansion and enlargement of a
nonconforming structure.
Staff finds this criterion not met until unapproved constructed improvements are
removed.
17
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
October 5, 2020
Updated April 14, 2021
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1050 Waters Avenue #13 – Stream Margin Special Review
Ms. Bonfils Thibeault:
Please accept this amended application for a
Stream Margin Special Review for the deck and
associated improvements at 1050 E. Waters
Avenue, Unit 13. This request follows issuance
of correction notice issued by the City of Aspen
for work being accomplished without a permit.
The work was performed in the Spring/Early
Summer of 2020. Pictures and survey
documentation prior to this work establish the
previous conditions. A current survey and
pictures of the installed improvements are also
provided.
In an effort to remedy the correction notice and memorialize the existing decks staff
directed the owners of Unit 13 to apply for a Stream Margin Exemption. However, early
review of the application materials and the lack of documented history of the building
raised questions around the floor area and deck allowances for the whole property and
the review was adjusted to a Stream Margin Special Review.
Due to the fact that the decks for Unit 13 and Unit 15 are adjacent and in the same
proximity to the Roaring Fork River, the City has asked the owner of Unit 15 to also apply
for Special Review so that the decks can be assessed simultaneously before the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
18
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Property History
The 1050 Waters Avenue property was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s, by Harry
Uhlfelder, prior to many of the land use code measures that are in place today – including
the requirement for property surveys, the Universal Building Code and Stream Margin
regulations.1
An excerpt from the minutes of a July 1971 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
reference that the building permit for the property was obtained March 9th 1970, and the
regulations went into effect on April 20th. The UBC and property survey requirements were
adopted after the permit for the 1050 Waters project was already issued.
While the building and land use files are sparce from this time period – the project team
has found Planning and Zoning minutes from 1968 and 1971 that reference the project’s
construction, and a pre-1990 permit file that has the final inspection listed as January 21st
1972 and Certificate of Occupancy signed January 26th 1972. The condo plat (Book 4
Page 227) for the building containing Units 9-16 was filed with Pitkin County on November
26, 1971.
Historical Documentation
The expansion of the decks on Unit 15 and Unit 13 appear to be a very early modification
to the building. In fact, we suspect the decks could have been built as a site adjustment
during the initial construction. Supports for both decks and the decking on Unit 15’s deck
appear to be vintage 1970’s construction. (Unit 13’s deck has been resurfaced).
2006 – Present
The Rothschilds, owners of Unit
13, purchased Unit 16, which
sits above Mr. Tye’s Unit 15 in
2006 and initiated renovation.
The renovation plans in the
building permit file, designed by
Rowland and Broughton, clearly
illustrate the Unit 15 deck in its
current configuration with the
staircase heading down
alongside the south elevation of
the property. The Rothschilds
have also submitted an affidavit
attesting to the presence of the
decks in their current
configuration.
1 Building permit for 1050 issued March 1970 – UBC and survey regulations relative to Stream Margin Review
went into effect in April 1970
Unit 15 deck in current configuration from 2007 drawing set
19
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
1996 – Present
Mark Tye, owner of Unit 15, provided an affidavit attesting to his
knowledge of the property – stating that there have not been any
changes to the dimensions of the decks under his ownership. Mr. Tye
purchased the property in 1999 from his then girlfriend, who had lived
in the unit since late 1996/early 1997. An appraisal of the property was
conducted at the time of purchase which confirms the decks at their
current configuration and dimensions. The assumption of value
recognized the deck as part of the overall property, although a discrete
value of the deck was not cited.
1990 – Present
Owner of Unit 10 since 1990, Edward Sullivan, attests that to his
knowledge and recollection, the decks in question have always been
in their present size. Owner of Unit 9 since 1991, Annilese Chumley,
also attests to the best of her recollection that these decks were
“were always big.”
To date, there have been 6 unique owners of the Unit 13
property, and 3 unique owners of the Unit 15 property.
The project team has attempted to track down contact
information for each of the owners including the two
original owners of the units to gain further information –
contact was attempted by telephone and mail.
At time of submission of the application we were
unsuccessful in reaching either of the original unit
owners, however, given the dimension of the decks is
nearly identical we believe that they would have been
installed at/or around the same time. The dimensions of
the decks are roughly the same – approximately 12 by 15
feet each or about 180+/-square feet each.
1967 – present
While not an owner at the Aspen Townhomes by the River, William “Scott” Geary and
Wendy Geary (owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue) have provided
a statement stating that their “house was built in 1967, and as a younger man, Scott
remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with decks –that they had a great view
from their back deck looking North on the Roaring Fork River and the Townhomes. Over
Unit 15 Deck Configuration from
1999 Appraisal
Current picture of Unit 13 Deck (stairs to
be removed)
20
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
the last 38 years they have
spent a major part of their time
in Aspen and recall the two
larger decks that are towards
the south side of the building.”
According to Scott and Wendy
Geary, “these two decks were
always larger than the other
decks since they are built over
ground and not the river.”
Floor Area
On behalf of the applicants, BendonAdams commissioned Red Room Design, local
Architects with expertise in measuring floor area of properties and existing conditions.
While accessing the interior all of the units was not possible, the calculations measure
exterior wall to exterior wall and include the existing deck areas on site.
The gross lot size is 21,929 SF based upon the survey dated September 3rd, 2020, which
allows for a FAR of 1.25:1 based upon 16 units on site – per code Section
26.710.090D.10.d. The property is allowed 27,411.25 square feet of development,
significantly above the gross and estimated Floor Area measured on the property.
Table 1: Floor Area Calculations
Building Units Gross FA (sf) Estimated FA (sf)
1 8 11,738.2 9,258.5
2 8 8,312.8 7,209.35
Totals 20,051sf 16,467.85sf
Table 2: Gross Deck Calculations
Building Deck Tally Across all
Units (sf)
1 896
2 843.3
Total Existing 1739.3
15% Allowable
Exemption
Based on Allowed FA
4,111
Google Earth view of 1050 and
1102 Waters Ave
21
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
This information clearly shows that even at gross estimates of the floor area, assuming
little to no exemptions, the property is significantly under zoning allowances for the RMF
Zone District. The decks are well within the 15% exemption threshold allowed and do not
present any challenges to the dimensional provisions for the RMF Zone District. No
expansion in floor area was created by the recladding of the deck on Unit 13.
Stream Margin Review
This application is subject to the Special Review Criteria in Code Section 26.435.040(e)
where an application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or
an appeal of the Stream Margin top-of-slope determination, shall be processed as a
special review in accordance with common development review procedures and may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance on the review
criteria.
Unique to these properties is their construction prior to these regulations coming into effect
– the byproduct of which can be seen throughout town along the Roaring Fork River. In
our research of available public files there is only one other property of similar
circumstance that the applicant believes would serve as a precedent for both staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission in their review of this property.
Land Use Precedent
In early 1992, Unit 25 of 1028 E Hopkins (Riverview
Association), was cited for replacing an existing deck without
applying for a permit. A permit was submitted and rejected by
the Zoning officer and the project was deemed subject to
Stream Margin Exemption Review for ‘replacing a
deteriorated deck and installing a stairway’ due to the unit’s
location being within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River.
The aerial to the right illustrates the proximity of the building
to the Roaring Fork River, and the location of Unit 25 within
the building. This is very comparable to the placement of
Units 13 and 15 of 1050 Waters.
Planning and Engineering staff found that the property had
replaced the deck in the same exact location and in the same
dimensions as the previous deck. Furthermore, their review
found that there were no property setback violations, that the
Floor Area and site coverage were not affected, and that the
deck was not in a trail easement nor would it retain more flood
debris than the previous deck. Although without a previous
Stream Margin approval, the reconstructed decks was
recognized as an existing condition and approved to remain.
1028 East Hopkins Unit 25 Location of
Deck and Staircase to River
22
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The full set of Stream Margin Exemption Review criteria applicable to the 1028 project are
listed below:
Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following
types of development within the stream margin
review area:
a) The development does not add more than
ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of
building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five
percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a
development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the
removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling
or reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one
has been designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the
amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
The project at 1028 E Hopkins was approved as built with the staircase – and granted a
permit to memorialize the replacement of the deck and creation of the stairs. The project
team believes that this land use case – with all of its similarities – provides a strong basis
for approval and memorialization of the existing decks at 1050 Waters Avenue.
1050 Waters Avenue
As mentioned above, the application for Unit 13 at 1050 Waters Avenue was initially
accepted by the City as a Stream Margin Exemption Review. The staff and applicant had
discussed removal of the stairs (as they are new construction) and processing the
remaining elements as a Stream Margin Exemption. Staff later staff pivoted the review to
a Stream Margin Special Review.
Where Stream Margins Exemptions are typically utilized for updates to previously
completed work – Special Reviews are used for authorizing a new ‘top of slope’ and an
appeal to a finding of Denial by the Community Development Director. Responses to the
full Stream Margin Review and Special Review are outlined in Exhibit 1.
Roaring
Fork River
Deck + Stair
Figure 6: Proximity of Unit and deck at 1028 E Hopkins to
Roaring Fork River.
23
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 7
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Please note that while this application responds to the City’s request for additional
information, many of the review standards do not apply to this circumstance. There is no
new top of slope being proposed nor is the applicant appealing a finding of denial of
compliance with the Stream Margin Review standards. This application requests
acknowledgement of an existing condition and allowance for improvements within the
existing footprint.
Our team has spoken with City Engineering,
a referral Department, and we understand
that while top of slope can present challenges
based upon where it falls on a property, it is
not looked at as stringently as the FEMA
Floodway which is a secondary measure
utilized to assess properties within the
Stream Margin area.
Using the information available through Map
Aspen, the Floodway crosses both the 1028
E Hopkins and the 1050 Waters Avenue
properties, however, it only intrudes upon a
portion of these properties, and units with
decks in question are outside of the Floodway
areas – another commonality between the
precedent land use case and 1050 Waters
Avenue.
The orange line in the Figures to the right
represent the mapped Floodway along 1050
Waters Avenue and along 1028 E. Hopkins
Avenue. Both properties have similar
orientations to the Floodway and the Roaring
Fork River.
The 1028 and 1050 properties have similar
proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Both
were initially stopped during deck resurfacing
work without a permit and called into question
regarding Stream Margin Review. Both
properties are of the late 60s early 70s
vintage construction and neither was able to
show definitive proof of an original building
permit – at least not with the precision that
today’s permit files offer. Upon review, the
1028 deck was considered to be an existing
Unit 25, 1028 E Hopkins Avenue
Units 13 and 15, 1050 Waters
Avenue
24
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 8
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
condition by the City and allowed to proceed with the deck resurfacing effort.
Given that Aspen continues to evolve, with properties being developed according to the
rules and regulations is effect at the time of their permitting, accommodation of existing
conditions is a necessary component of administering an ever-changing Land Use Code.
This appears to have been the case with the 1028 property – after an initial reaction from
the City there was appreciation and acceptance of the existing condition and
accommodation of the deck resurfacing effort. The deck 1028 deck was acknowledged,
documented, but not allowed to expand.
Unit #13 Deck Resurfacing & Supports. The deck surface and selected supports were
replaced in Spring/Early Summer 2020 in the same dimension and location as the
previous elements. The deck surface and structural members remained within the
footprint of the existing deck.
A survey of the property was performed July 2, 2019, prior to the resurfacing effort. This
survey is attached and a close-up of the deck area is shown below on the left. On
September 2, 2020, the property was again surveyed and the deck area is shown with
the same dimension. This Sept. 2, 2020, survey is attached and a close-up of the deck
area is shown below on the right. Please note that the surveys show the deck areas of
both Unit 13 and the adjacent Unit 15.
July 2, 2019 property survey -
close-up of the deck area Sept. 2, 2020 property survey -
close-up of the deck area
25
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 9
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Wooden support beams underneath
the decking were selectively replaced
as needed as some were rotten and
considered in need of replacement.
The stairs leading down to the
riverbank are not part of this request
and will be removed.
The picture to the
right highlights new
and old support
structure.
Unit #13 Divider Screening. Existing vertical screening elements on either side of the
deck were augmented in Spring/Early Summer 2020. The enhanced screening is placed
entirely within Unit 13’s existing deck area. The materials and design were updated to
a more-modern style and to enhance privacy. These elements are well within the
footprint of the existing improvements and are non-structural.
Picture showing divider screen
on north side of Unit 13 deck,
circa 2018.
Picture showing divider
screen on north side of Unit
13 deck, Summer 2020.
26
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 10
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Unit #13 Pergola Detailing. Wooden
detailing was added to the underside of the
deck located above the Unit 13 deck. The
picture to the right shows this wooden
detailing. This detailing is an aesthetic
improvement and has no structural or
functional necessity. This element is well
within the footprint of the existing
improvements.
The continued existence of the Unit 13 deck, with a new surface has no material effect on
river health. The repairs provide long-term function and stylistic improvements to enhance
the appearance of the deck area. Responses to each review criterion are attached to this
application as Exhibit 1. Subsequent to this land use review, the owner will obtain all
appropriate building permits and will perform all requested improvements to obtain needed
life/safety approvals from the City of Aspen.
Summary
The deck appended to Unit 13 has been in its current configuration for a very, very long
time. While the exactitude of a distinct permit for this deck is not in the City’s records,
every point of reference speaks to this deck being developed either with the initial
construction of the 1050 property or very shortly thereafter. The project team has
responded to staff’s three main areas of concern:
1) The owners of Units 13 and 15 have obtained approval from the HOA for deck
configuration and placement extending into the G.C.E of the property. This
approval from the HOA does require the stairs on Unit 13 to be removed – as has
been previously committed by the applicant. A permit will be obtained for this
removal.
2) The floor area exhibits demonstrate property-wide compliance with the RMF Zone
District requirements for both Floor Area and deck area. This application does not
seek additional deck area or seek to expand the property in any way.
3) Finally, the affidavits provided illustrate that these decks have been in place since
inception of the project, or shortly thereafter, and have been relied upon as
essential features of the property in value assessments and various transactions
to subsequent owners of the properties.
Requiring removal of these longstanding decks would be inconsistent with the City’s
handling of the one previous precedent – 1028 E. Hopkins. This inequitable outcome
would create a hardship and financial infringement upon the current owners who
27
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 11
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
purchased the properties in an ‘as is’ condition and who likely paid a premium for the
square footage associated with these features.
This application requests the memorialization of the longstanding existing condition of the
Unit 13 deck. The resurfacing did not expand the deck area and the aesthetic
improvements arw well within the existing footprint. No new construction is proposed.
Allowing the deck to exist in its current configuration, not expand, is compliant with the
applicable criteria and would be consistent with prior actions of the City.
The property is legally described as Condominium Unit 13; Aspen Townhouse by the River
Condominiums. The property is owned by Ivette and Andrew Rothschild. BendonAdams
has been authorized by the Rothschilds to submit this land use application. Approval from
the Homeowners association has been obtained for the deck and aesthetic features
described in this application.
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
We can also arrange a site visit at your request.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. Response to Review Criteria
2. Application Form
3. Authorization to Represent
4. Proof of Ownership
5. Agreement to Pay
6. HOA Form, with deck approval
7. Pre-Application Summary
8. Vicinity Map
9. Site Improvement Survey (2019, 2020 &
2021)
10. Historical Documents – 1050 Waters
11. Historical Documents – 1028 E. Hopkins
12. 2007 Unit 16 plans showing Unit 15 deck
13. Rothchild Affidavit
14. Tye Affidavit
15. Geary Email
16. 1999 Unit 15 Property Appraisal
17. Floor Area Measurements
28
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 1
Sec. 26.435.040. – Stream Margin Review.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development
within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood
Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain.
(b) Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of
development within the stream margin review area:
(1) Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for
irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and
specifications are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the
Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
Response – Not applicable. The documentation of existing improvements
discussed in this application are not civic improvements or flood control
devices.
(2) Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be
reasonably accommodated outside of the "no development area" prescribed by this
Section including, but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and
fire suppression systems provided the Community Development Director determines the
development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
Response – Not applicable. The documentation of existing improvements
discussed in this application are not essential for health and safety reasons.
(3) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided
the following standards are met:
a. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of
the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor
area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and
Response – The structure is not proposed for expansion and no increase
in floor area will occur. No expansion of deck area (exempt from floor area)
is proposed. A calculation of floor area and deck area is attached to the
application. Acknowledgement and documenting the existing condition will
not change this measurement.
29
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 2
b. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would
be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
Response – The proposal does not require the removal of any trees.
c. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing
development;
d.
Response – No portion of the proposed development is any closer to the
highwater line of the Roaring Fork River than is existing development. The
property was developed in 1970, prior to Stream Margin Review. The point
of the riverbank at which routine water exposure has eroded the soil can
be seen in the two pictures below.
Picture looking north at Unit 13 deck with
Roaring Fork River to right
Picture looking down from Unit 13
deck at the riverbank.
30
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 3
The deck resurfacing effort utilized the same exact footprint as the previous
decking. Some structural supports underneath the deck were replaced.
Shown below, the 2019 survey (left) and 2020 survey (right) demonstrate
how the footprint of the decking has not been expanded. The deck extends
from the face of the building approximately 10’-10”. Together with the
handrail, the improvements extend approximately 11 feet from the face of
the nominal building.
July 2, 2019 property survey -
close-up of the deck area Sept. 2, 2020 property survey -
close-up of the deck area
The privacy screening is likewise
within the footprint established by
the pre-existing deck. The
screening is of a new, more modern
style to provide enhanced
aesthetics and to improve privacy.
The screening is no closer to the
highwater line than existing
development.
31
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 4
Lastly, the pergola-type wooden
accent elements attached to the
underside of the deck above the
Unit 13 deck are no closer to the
highwater line than existing
development. The footprint of the
pre-existing deck is shown on the
2019 survey extending from the
face of the building approximately
11 feet and the wooden accent
elements extend from the face of
the nominal building approximately
5’-4”.
No element of the proposal is any closer to the highwater line than existing
development. The stairs extending from the deck to the riverbank will be
removed.
e. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has
been designated through a prior review; and
Response – Not applicable. The property does not have a building
envelope designated through a prior review.
f. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause not increase to the amount
of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plain.
Response – No increase to the ground coverage will occur. The existing
condition is not proposed to be changed. The finished level of Units 13 and
15 is noted on the survey as being at elevation 7,961ft (MSL) while the
highwater mark is noted on the survey as being at elevation 7,945ft (MSL).
(c) Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base
flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation
techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase
caused by the development; and
32
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 5
Response – Not applicable. No development is proposed within the Special Flood
Hazard Area.
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring
Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development,
to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be
dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting
public fishing access within the highwater boundaries of the river course shall be
granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Response – The Open Space and Trails Board does not have any adopted regulatory
plans that affect this parcel. The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan does not appear to be
effective of applicable. This plan is not referenced in the City of Aspen Municipal Code
or the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. A search of City ordinances reflects that
this plan was not adopted as a regulatory document and the plan does not appear on
the City’s website. City staff have not been able to locate a copy of this plan. If a copy
of the plan is located, the applicant will review regulatory aspects for applicability to
this property.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and
said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040(f)(1);
and
Response – No changes to any vegetation are proposed. This application is limited
to documenting an existing condition.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of
the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained
outside of the designated building envelope; and
Response – Not applicable. This proposal is limited to documenting existing
conditions and no construction is proposed.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
Response – No alteration of the water course is proposed. If, in the future, the water
course is altered or relocated the Colorado Water Conservation Board will be provided
written notice with a copy to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that
applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
33
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 6
Response – No alteration of the water course is proposed. If, in the future, the water
course is altered or relocated an appropriate guarantee will be supplied.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within
the 100-year flood plain; and
Response – Not applicable. No construction activities are proposed with this
application or planned.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high
waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing
riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers
and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be
native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be
submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood
plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin
Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City
Engineering Department; and
Response – No development is proposed. This application is limited to
acknowledging existing conditions for a deck that was built decades earlier.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot
setback from the top of slope does not exceed a
height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45)
degree angle from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined by the
Community Development Director using the
definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100
and method of calculating height set forth
at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Response – No new development is proposed. The application is limited to
documenting existing conditions.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A
lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Response – No additional exterior lighting is proposed. Any new lighting associated
with a development application will be downcast and not directed towards the river.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Response – The property survey identifies wetlands and riparian zones.
34
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 7
(d) Appeal of Director's determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a
stream margin application or in regards to the top of slope determination made by the
Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to
Subsection (e), below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall
be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed.
Response – A determination has not been made at the time of this application.
(e) Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review
standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be
processed as a special review in accordance with common development review
procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public
hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to
Subsection 26.304.060(e)(3) Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved,
approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review
criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a
different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain
than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department
and filed in the City Engineering Department; and
Response – This application is not requesting a different determination for top-of-
slope. The application is limited to documenting existing conditions. A survey has
been provided.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon
which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Response – Responses to the Stream Margin Review standards are provided
above. A determination or denial has not been rendered at the time of this
application.
35
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
1050 Waters Avenue Unit #13
2737-182-40-015
Andrew & Ivette Rothschild
8500 Maryland Ave. #505; St. Louis, MO 63124
314.517.4122 arothschild@lewisrice.com
BendonAdams
300So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com
Repair, replacement, improvements to Unit #13 deck on river-side of property
na na 1 (existing)
0 na
Stream Margin Review
x
x
x
x
4,550
Exhibit 2
36
Exhibit 3
37
INVOICE
Land Title Guarantee Company
5975 Greenwood Plaza Blvd Suite 125
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
970-925-1678
BENDON ADAMS
CHRIS BENDON
300 S SPRING ST
S-202
Aspen, CO 81611
Invoice Number:ASP-4410 Date: September 03, 2020
Order Number:62011718
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 13 ASPEN 81611
Parties:A Buyer To Be Determined
Invoice Charges
Service: TBD Commitment
Ref: 62011718
Addr: 1050 WATERS AVE # 13
Party: IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST AND ANDREW
ROTHSCHILD TRUST
Total Amount Invoiced:
Less Payment(s):
Balance Due:
$217.00
$217.00
$0.00
$217.00
Due and Payable upon receipt
Please make check payable to Land Title Guarantee Company and send to the address at the top of Page 1.
Please reference Invoice Number ASP-4410 on your Payment
Page 1
invoice.odt 14420 07/2015 07/30/13 11:06:43 AM
Reference
Your Reference Number:TBD Commitment - 62011718
Our Order Number:ASP-4410
Our Customer Number:81735.1
Invoice Requested by:CHRIS BENDON
Invoice (Process) Date:September 03, 2020
Transaction Invoiced By:Web Services
Email Address:system@ltgc.com
Exhibit 4
38
Land Title Guarantee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:Q62011718 Date: 09/03/2020
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 13, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title
Team
533 E HOPKINS #102
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Seller/Owner
IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST AND
ANDREW ROTHSCHILD TRUST
Attention: AROTHSCHILD@LEWISRICE.COM
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
CHRIS BENDON
Attention: CHRIS BENDON
(970) 925-2855 (Work)
chris@bendonadams.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
39
Land Title Guarantee Company
Estimate of Title Fees
Order Number:Q62011718 Date: 09/03/2020
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 13, ASPEN, CO 81611
Parties:A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED
IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST AND ANDREW ROTHSCHILD
TRUST
Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices.
Estimate of Title insurance Fees
"TBD" Commitment $217.00
Total $217.00
If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at
closing.
Thank you for your order!
Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants
conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal
assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your
property.
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 11/07/2018 under reception no.
651766
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 11/18/1970 at book 4 page 133
Pitkin county recorded 12/02/1971 at book 4 page 227
Pitkin county recorded 09/19/1977 at book 335 page 192
40
Copyright 2006-2020 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing
as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the
American Land Title Association.
Property Address:
1050 WATERS AVE # 13, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Effective Date:
08/21/2020 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commitment
Proposed Insured:
A BUYER TO BE DETERMINED
$0.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST AND ANDREW ROTHSCHILD TRUST
5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 13,
ASPEN TOWNHOUSE "BY THE RIVER" CONDOMINIUMS,
ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN PLAT BOOK 4
AT PAGE 133 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 227, AND AS DEFINED AND
DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN BOOK 251 AT
PAGE 928, AND AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN BOOK 259 AT PAGE 735,
SECOND AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192, AND THIRD
AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1981 IN BOOK 415 AT PAGE 59.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:Q62011718
41
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62011718
All of the following Requirements must be met:
This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company
may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or
both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
The following will be required should the Company be requested to issue a future commitment to insure:
1.EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
2.THE FULLY EXECUTED TRUST AGREEMENT OF IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST, A TRUST,
MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY PRIOR TO CLOSING SO THAT THE
COMPANY CAN CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF
AUTHORITY OR TRUST AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC RECORD.
3.WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR
IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST RECORDED NOVEMBER 07, 2018 AT RECEPTION NO. 651768
IS CURRENT.
NOTE: SAID INSTRUMENT DISCLOSES IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD AS THE TRUSTEE
AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING
TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF SAID ENTITY. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE, A
CURRENT STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED.
4.THE FULLY EXECUTED TRUST AGREEMENT OF ANDREW ROTHSCHILD TRUST, A TRUST, MUST BE
FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY PRIOR TO CLOSING SO THAT THE COMPANY CAN
CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY OR
TRUST AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC RECORD.
5.WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR
ANDREW ROTHSCHILD TRUST RECORDED NOVEMBER 07, 2018 AT RECEPTION NO. 651767 IS
CURRENT.
NOTE: SAID INSTRUMENT DISCLOSES ANDREW ROTHSCHILD AS THE TRUSTEE AUTHORIZED TO
EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL
PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF SAID ENTITY. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE, A CURRENT
STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED.
6.GOOD AND SUFFICIENT DEED FROM IVETTE SCHNEIDER ROTHSCHILD TRUST AND ANDREW
ROTHSCHILD TRUST TO TO BE DETERMINED CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS
NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF
ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE
AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO.
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO.
42
This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any
document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction,
or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed
insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN
UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958, IN BOOK 185 AT PAGE 69.
9.THOSE PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS, AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE
A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, BUT OMITTING ANY
COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS,
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970, IN BOOK 251 AT PAGE 928
AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1971, IN BOOK 259 AT PAGE 735 AND
AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977, IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192 AND AS
AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1981, IN BOOK 415 AT PAGE 59.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF BY-LAWS OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES "BY THE RIVER"
CONDOMINIUM RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN BOOK 251 AT PAGE 940.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62011718
43
11.EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT RECORDED
NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 133, AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT RECORDED
DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 227, AND AS CONTAINED IN FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192.
12.EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ELECTRICAL LINE PURPOSES AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS
ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 11, 1994 IN BOOK 747 AT PAGE 180.
13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF
WAY AS GRANTED TO US COMMUNICATIONS RECORDED JUNE 3, 1994 IN BOOK 752 AT PAGE 537 AND
RE-RECORDED JUNE 7, 1994 IN BOOK 752 AT PAGE 699.
14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN NOTICE OF APPROVAL
RECORDED AUGUST 2, 2019 AS RECEPTION NO. 657652.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62011718
44
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the
clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least
one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that,
the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or
filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title
Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal
documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy
when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of
Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in
which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides
written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real
property).
(B)
The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of
County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
(C)
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
(A)
No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land
described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
(B)
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and
material-men's liens.
(C)
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D)
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within
six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include:
disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the
contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company,
and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the
Company.
(E)
45
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface
estate, in Schedule B-2.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may
include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance
company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for
the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award
payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of
Regulatory Agencies.
Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing
protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(A)
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
(B)
46
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance
Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state
privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence
is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized
access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from
our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the
course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to
provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We
may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for
example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your
Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is
needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy
policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
47
Commitment For Title Insurance
Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE
POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING
ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. .
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is
effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the
specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met
within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates
and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or
other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The
Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a)
“Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any
property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues,
alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(b)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c)
“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company
pursuant to this Commitment.
(d)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e)
“Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this
Commitment.
(f)
“Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters
relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(g)
“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h)
the Notice;(a)
the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b)
the Commitment Conditions;(c)
Schedule A;(d)
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e)
Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f)
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g)
The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the
Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed
Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(a)
The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the
matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(b)
The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the
Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured.
(c)
The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment
Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(d)
The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
48
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the
Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma
policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown
in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the
Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements
have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(f)
In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g)
Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a)
Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b)
Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral,
express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment.
(c)
The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the
terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(d)
Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e)
When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f)
49
50
Exhibit 6see attached51
52
53
54
55
1
Exhibit 7
56
2
57
3
delineates the bank of the river.
58
4
59
Exhibit 8
1050 Waters Avenue #13 – Vicinity Map
60
Exhibit 961
Exhibit 9.162
Exhibit 10
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.6.&L.CO.
Public Hearing, P & z, 2/4/69, continued.
unit. Lets say develop the other 7S0 sq.ft. to green area. So you are
devoting 7S0 sq.ft. to living unit but you have to give up 7S0 sq.ft.
for green area.
Robin Molny - Thats pie in the sky. When you stop and think, in affect
you are reducing the density. I would think that that would be the result
of what you are saying. You are talking SO/SO aren't you.
Lennie Lookner - Maybe you could work up something to reduce the density and
give us more green areas to look at.
Robin Molny - That is what we are striving to do in slightly different
terms.
Harry Uhfelder - I have been developing the Aspen Townhouses. I have never
utilitized the full allowed density. For instance, this last year I
developed 11 units on S lots. I am leaving area for green space and off
street parking. And I think it works very well. It is popular and
acceptable. I think you have to find a compromise solution in between what
has been suggested and what is allowed. It can be done. It is popular
and keeping in the character of the place. Some kind of compromise.
Tom Benton - When we requested the density we did not only request the
density but also scale control, to go along with that. Our feeling in
this was the density is as recommended in the Master Plan were based ona
study almost a year of study whereas the densities that were adopted
finally were based on nothing more than a little Harassment by a few people.
Now what Mr. Uhfelder said there are a great many things that have been
built in Aspen that have densities of much less, actually those are
densities which are recommended in the Master Plan. There is no problem
here. I think thats the type of thing Aspen needs and is beneficial
to Aspen. But just these few thathave caused the big problem and so
unfortunately you have to regulate for those few. Now I think you are
right that the major problem is not completely densities in itself. It
is the use of space. Personnally I feel there is nothing wrong with a
compromise as long as the town achieves benefitas well as the people
who are building also. But our request was for two things, so that this
wouldn't happen, that we wouldn't be involved in cutting the densities
in half and find thatpeople are building the same size building with units
just twice as large. I think that the direction would be beneficial
and some sort of bonus system. But it has to be tied, we feel, absolute
requirement that certain amount of land be left open because if you don't
make it a requirement, it will never be.
Nancy Ward - I have never hadthis question answered to me. I have property,
I came out with a design conforming to multiple family dwelling. I was
told why not call yourself a lodge, then you can get more on that
property. Now I didn't intend to build a lodge, I want apartments. I
don't intend to run a lodge. Now what loophole is in the zoning code
that will allow me to pur more units on my land simply by calling myself
a lodge.
Chairman Heneghan - That was a loophole, and that has been changed. There
is no reference in the present zoning ordinance to a lodge, motel unit,
condominium none of these references are now made. There are only two -
limited and unlimited unit. What you call it or do with it is your own
N? 82
71
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.B:L.CQ.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
Goals Task Force
Objectives
PUD
Uhfelder Const.
a Minimal expense. Other plan calls for outlying parking
areas and mini buses with 2 hour parking in this general
area. Mini buses would shuffle people between the two
parking areas. Another plan is for parking under Wagner
Park and shuffle people up to the lift and also a transit
system.
Adams moved to recommend to the City Council that Plan #1
be adopted for the 1971 and 1972 season and feasibility on
financing be done by the Finance Department on Plans #2
and #3 and Plans #2 and #3 be reviewed by Voorhees.
Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried.
Goals Task Force Objectives - Mr. Bartel explained at the
last study session he had submitted the program on quality
skiing. Objective #4 was discussed and the Commission re-
quest a more definitive interpretation be inserted as re-
lates to economy. Also request the word maximum be modified.
Collins moved that the Commission accept the tentative
objectives as submitted by resolution and recommend that
the Planner and Goals Task Force proceed with development
of the programs for the balance of the objectives.
Seconded by Goodhard.
Collins moved to amend the motion to allow Herb Bartel to
change the woraing in Paragraph 4. Seconded by Goodhard.
All in favor, motion carried.
Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried.
Commission agreed to hold a study session next Tuesday to
discuss quality skiing, growth policy and Zoline preliminary
pms.
PUD - Commission request the Secretary schedule a public
hearing for August 17th.
Uhfelder Construction - Chairman Molny reported this con-
struction has been brought to his attention by citizens.
The stream margin regulation was effective on April 20th.
Mr. Uhfelder obtained his building permit on March 9th
and fulfilled his building permit on June 7th. City Attorney
Kern is checking into which date should be considered, the
March date of June date as relates to the regulations. The
plot plan shows the Roaring Fork River being about 10' away
from the building at the closest point. In checking the
site the stakes appear like the river will touch the build=
ing. Also following the March date, the City adopted the
Uniform Building Code and requires a certified survey. This
application appears to be an obvious attempt to circumvent
the City ordinance. Property located at the end of Waters
Avenue. The City Attorney is also checking to see if there
are any violations in this case. Also, one of the adjoin-
ing property owners feel the building is being built on dis-
puted land. Private citizens are checking into a perhaps
federal violation of streams.
2-
72
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.Il:L.CO.
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
It was pointed out the citizens in seeing this building
built practically in the stream by feel this is the result
of the stream margin regulations which is not the case.
Jordan moved the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
express their concern and would appreciate the City
Attorney looking at this in depth. Seconded by Collins.
All in favor, motion carried.
Adams moved to adjourn at 6:45 P. M., Seconded by Breasted.
All in favor, motion carried.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
73
Exhibit 11
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
Exhibit 12
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Exhibit 13106
107
Exhibit 14108
From:Reilly Thimons
To:Rothschild, Andrew; Chris Bendon
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:19:10 PM
Thank you Andrew! I will add this into the application letter narrative and PDF it to add to the
exhibits.
From: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Chris Bendon <chris@bendonadams.com>; Reilly Thimons <reilly@bendonadams.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Chris and Reilly- this just received from Scott and Wendy Geary. Should be helpful. Let me know if
you want me to forward without my comments. Thanks.
From: Scott and Wendy Geary [mailto:wwgeary@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
RE: Decks at the Townhomes By The River
We are William "Scott" Geary and Wendy Geary, representing the Geary Family, LLC, the
owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue in Aspen. Our house was built in
1967, and as a younger man, Scott remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with
decks. We have a great view from our back deck looking north down the Roaringfork River
and at the Townhomes. The past 38 years we have spent a major part of our time in Aspen and
recall the two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building. Those two decks
were always larger than the other decks since they are built over the ground and not the river.
They are not only accessible from the individual condominium but also from a walkway along
the building.
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender
of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy,
distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 15
109
11/13/2020
Mark M. Tye
P.O. Box 8992
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Consulting for litigation purposes regarding a deck improvement
1050 Waters Ave, Aspen Townhouses by the River Unit 15
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Tye,
This letter is being written to communicate my observations of your deck improvement on Unit 15. I previ-
ously appraised this unit at the time of your purchase in 1999 (my appraisal report date of value was June 29,
1999), at which time I performed a full property viewing and measurement of the residential unit as well as the
deck. Refer to the exhibits attached for the floor plan and deck photos.
This 1999 appraisal report shows the deck to be 12 feet in depth and 14 feet in width. The photo was also taken
in 1999 but my database has a February date on this picture. This shows the northeast corner of the deck, in-
cluding the north deck wall and the east knee wall with a bench top.
On November 10, 2020 I went back to the property and measured the deck and took pictures. I found the deck
to be the same size (12’ x 14’) and of the same finish that it was in 1999. My current photos are attached. As
such, it is my observation that no changes or extensions have been made to the deck since June 1999.
I was asked if I had a recollection or comment on the side path and staircase that leads down to the subject’s
deck. I do not specifically recall whether this path existed in 1999 and I have no pictures of the path in my sub-
ject 1999 file. However, I did find two other photos in my database – one undated and the other from 2007 –
which show the south side of the building and this common area path from a bit of a distance. I have included
these for your reference.
This summarizes my findings as to the state of the deck improvement. If you have any questions or need addi-
tional assistance with this case, feel free to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Ebert - Stone, SRA
CO. Cert. Res. 1767
Exhibit 16
110
2 | Page
EXHIBIT 1: FLOOR PLAN FROM 1999 FILE
111
3 | Page
EXHIBIT 2: VARIOUS PHOTOS
Photos taken November 2020
112
4 | Page
113
5 | Page
February 1999 photo August 2006 photo (just the top of the subject deck)
South side common area photos:
April 2007 Undated
114
A201
BUILDING 1
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
E 1 E 248.7 sq ft
E 3 E 449.2 sq ft
E 6 E 566.7 sq ft
E 7 E 849.0 sq ft
COMMONCOMMONSHED40.0 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"8'-9"8'-8"3'-6"8'-10"14'-113/4"15'-51/16"8'-9"B 185.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"5'-6"
B 285.3 sq ft
B 385.3 sq ft
B 485.3 sq ft
B 585.3 sq ft
B 685.3 sq ft
B 785.3 sq ft
B 885.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft
32'-9"128'64'16'48'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
SHED 40.0 SF
TOTAL 3,939.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
TOTAL SF 11,738.2 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
TOTAL 0 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
E1, E2 DECK 48.7 SF
E3, E4 DECK 49.2 SF
E5, E6 DECK 66.7 SF
E7, E8 DECK 49.0 SF
TOTAL 213.6 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B1 DECK 85.3 SF
B2 DECK 85.3 SF
B3 DECK 85.3 SF
B4 DECK 85.3 SF
B5 DECK 85.3 SF
B6 DECK 85.3 SF
B7 DECK 85.3 SF
B8 DECK 85.3 SF
TOTAL 682.4 SF
TOTAL SF 896 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,949.7 SF (@50%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 3,899.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL 3,409.4 SF (61.25 X 8)
TOTAL 9,258.5 SF
BUILDING 1
Exhibit 17
115
A202
BUILDING 2
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COMMON 11, 1276.0 sq ft
COMMON 9, 1076.0 sq ft
B 10 65.0 sq ft
B 1265.0 sq ft
B 1465.0 sq ft
COMMON
42.2 sq ft
UNIT 14435.3 sq ft
UNIT 16501.6 sq ft
UNIT 13386.3 sq ft
UNIT 12846.3 sq ft
UNIT10442.7 sq ft
B 11.516.7 sq ft
36'-9"
B 16 65.0 sq ft
B 1665.0 sq ft UNIT 16455.9 sq ft
UNIT 14868.3 sq ft
UNIT 12461.3 sq ft
UNIT 10962.2 sq ft
32'-5"
B 1165.0 sq ft
B 965.0 sq ft
UNIT 11947.8 sq ft
UNIT 9893.5 sq ft
UNIT 13435.3 sq ft
UNIT 15439.8 sq ft
COMMON13, 1442.2 sq ft
B 13189.1 sq ft
B 15182.5 sq ft
32'-5"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 15 439.8 SF
UNIT 13 435.3 SF
UNIT 11 947.8 SF
UNIT 9 893.5 SF
E 13, 15 42.2 SF
TOTAL 2,758.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 16 501.6 SF
UNIT 14 435.3 SF
UNIT 13 386.3 SF
UNIT 12 823.8 SF
UNIT 10 420.1 SF
COMMON 13, 14, 15, 16 42.2 SF
COMMON 11, 12 98.6 SF
COMMON 9, 10 98.6 SF
TOTAL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 16 455.9 SF
UNIT 14 868.3 SF
UNIT 12 461.3 SF
UNIT 10 962.2 SF
TOTAL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL SF 8,312.8 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
B 15 DECK 182.5 SF
B 13 DECK 189.1 SF
B 11 DECK 65 SF
B 9 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 501.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
B 10 DECK 65 SF
B 11.5 DECK 16.7 SF
B 12 DECK 65 SF
B 14 DECK 65SF
TOTAL 211.7 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B 16 DECK 65 SF
B 16 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 130 SF
TOTAL SF 843.3 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
BUILDING 2
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,655.15 SF (@60%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL 7,209.35 SF
116
From:Michelle Bonfils
To:Amy Simon
Subject:FW: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:33:18 PM
Amy – Cindy asked that the following emails for 1050 Waters Ave be uploaded with the packet.
There are several…
From: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 10:01 AM
To: Michelle Bonfils <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Attn: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing in support of the application for variation from the Stream Margin standard
submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their unit at 1050 Waters Ave., Unit 13. We are the
owners and residents at 1050 Waters Ave., Unit 12. Our second story balcony looks directly down
on the Rothchild's deck. We have no objection to maintaining the non-conforming deck, which has
been there as long as we have owned our unit and for many years before according to other
owners. The location of the deck does not interfere with the river and appears to leave ample room
for access and high water.
Please approve the application and allow the improvements to remain in place.
Thank you.
Clare Bronowski and Jeffrey Lee
1050 Waters Ave., #12
Aspen, CO 81611
mailing address: 625 E. Main St., Suite 102B-240, Aspen, CO 81611
117
From:Michelle Bonfils
To:Amy Simon
Subject:FW: 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application to be heard June 1st
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:33:41 PM
From: John Beatty <beatty@intotheusa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2021 5:52 PM
To: Michelle Bonfils <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application to be heard June 1st
Dear Michelle:
We have lived in Unit 11, which is the unit immediately adjacent to Andrew & Yvette's unit that is the
subject of the special review, for approximately the past 6 years.
We are sending this email in support of their application for Special Review. The improvements made to
the deck were made within the footprint of those that existed when we moved in, and have been a
significant benefit to the privacy of our unit without any negative impact to ourselves or the area. We
would urge the City to grant their application and allow the improvements to be maintained.
John Beatty & Victoria Haveman
Unit 11, 1050 Waters Avenue
tel: 970.920.1522
118
From:Michelle Bonfils
To:Amy Simon
Subject:FW: Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building Stream Review
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:33:33 PM
From: Mark <mark@uhlfelder.com>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 7:44 PM
To: Michelle Bonfils <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building Stream Review
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
By Email Only
Dear P&Z Commissioners:
This is written in response to numerous post cards received regarding a Stream
Margin review submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their Unit #13 at 1050
E. Waters Ave. I am the owner (through Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC) of two units, #11
and #14, both of which overlook the Rothchild's unit. I have no objection to the
Rothchild's non-conforming deck.
Thank you.
Mark Uhlfelder
Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC
119
From:Michelle Bonfils
To:Amy Simon
Subject:FW: Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:33:24 PM
From: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Michelle Bonfils <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Ms. Thibeault;
I am writing in response to the postcards which I recently received, regarding the hearings on June 1 for
Land Use Reviews on 1050 E. Waters Ave., Units 13 and 15. These reviews concern possible
unapproved expansions of decks for these two units. As the owner of Unit 10, I am in a position to see
both of these decks. I have occupied this unit for 25 years full-time, and can attest that with the exception
of a small staircase up to the deck of Unit 13, there has been no expansion of the square footage of either
deck during this time period. I lived on the adjacent property downstream during the construction of these
units, but obviously was not taking notes, and soon moved a few blocks away. Apparently neither deck
conforms to the original approved plans for the building, but no one can remember if they were originally
built that way 50 years ago, or were expanded at some later date. At this point it would seem that the
easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in both decks in their current configurations and
close the cases for both of the current owners. The developer/builder of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is
long dead, and I doubt if there is anyone, former owner or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more
light on the subject. Since the construction of this complex, and several others downstream, the
laws/codes have changed regarding setbacks from the river (stream margins), etc. I suggest that the City
of Aspen not waste any more time or money on this particular subject and move on to more important
matters.
As it is unlikely that this Hearing will be conducted in person with comments from the public, I am asking
you to forward this email on to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be included in the Hearing as
public input.
Thank you in advance,
Edward M. Sullivan
#10, 1050 E. Waters Ave.
Box 1324, Aspen, CO 81612
925-1021
120
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
August 26, 2021
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1050 Waters Avenue Unit #13
Application Supplement
Ms. Bonfils Thibeault:
Please accept this supplemental information regarding the Stream Margin Review for the
deck appended to Unit #13, 1050 E. Waters Avenue. We believe the deck is an existing
condition, having been in its present disposition approximately 50 years. We have
provided documentation, including affidavits from various people with historical insight, all
supporting the presence of the deck for as long as their memory serves. We request the
Planning and Zoning Commission utilize this information to acknowledge and accept the
Unit 13 deck as an existing condition. The applicant team is prepared to expand on any of
the research and/or assist in arranging a site visit with City staff and the Commission.
The map to the right shows the
approximate location of 1050
Waters Avenue, Unit #13
This property is subject of a Stream Margin Special Review application pending before the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The purpose of this determination request is to
ascertain whether such a Stream Margin Review is even necessary to acknowledge an
existing condition.
Property History
The 1050 Waters Avenue property was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s, by Harry
Uhlfelder, prior to many of the land use code measures that are in place today – including
121
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
the requirement for property surveys, the Universal Building Code and Stream Margin
regulations.
An excerpt from the minutes of a July 1971 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
reference that the building permit for the property was obtained March 9th, 1970, and that
the stream margin regulations went into effect on April 20th. The UBC and property survey
requirements were adopted after the permit for the 1050 Waters project had been issued.
The building permit file shows two Certificates of
Occupancy (one for each building) issued January 21,
1972 and a signed January 26, 1972. The condo plat
(Book 4 Page 227) for the building containing Units 9-
16 was filed with Pitkin County on November 26, 1971.
The building permit documents and the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting minutes are attached.
The expansion of the decks on Unit 15 and Unit 13
appear to be a mid-construction adjustment to the plans
or a very early modification to the building. The physical
supports for both decks and the decking on Unit 15’s
deck appear to be vintage 1970’s construction. The 4x4
posts, with no lateral bracing is also indicative of 1970’s
construction.
The deck surface of the Unit 13 deck along with selected supports were replaced in
Spring/Early Summer 2020 in the same dimension and location as the previous
elements. The deck surface and structural members remained within the footprint of the
existing deck.
A survey of the property was performed July 2, 2019, prior to the resurfacing effort. A
close-up of the 2019 survey showing the deck area is shown below on the left. On
September 2, 2020, the property was again surveyed and the deck area is shown with
the same dimension. A close-up of the 2020 deck area is shown below on the right.
Please note that the surveys show the deck areas of both Unit 13 and the adjacent Unit
15.
A 2018 property measurement report, prepared by True Dimensions, also reinforces the
dimensions of the Unit 13 decks prior to the 2020 resurfacing activity.
Current picture of Unit 13 Deck (stairs to
be removed)
122
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 2, 2019 property survey -
close-up of the deck area, pre-
resurfacing
Sept. 2, 2020 property survey -
close-up of the deck area, post-
resurfacing
Wooden support beams underneath the
decking were selectively replaced as
needed as some were rotten and
considered in need of replacement. The
stairs leading down to the riverbank are
not original and will be removed.
The picture to the right
highlights new and old
support structure.
Historical Observations
In 2006, the Rothschilds,
owners of Unit 13, purchased
Unit 16 within the same building.
Unit 16 sits above Mr. Tye’s Unit
15. The Rothchilds initiated a
renovation project in 2007.
The 2007 renovation plans
submitted to the City (and still
present in the building permit
file) clearly illustrate the deck in
its current configuration with the
staircase heading down
alongside the south elevation of
the property.
Deck in current configuration from 2007 drawing set
123
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The City reviewed the 2007 Rothchild permit and
stamped the plans as representing compliance with
City regulations. The City was aware at this point, if
not earlier, of the presence of these two decks. In fact,
notes on the plans refer to railing and drainage
requirements specifically for decks.
The image to the right shows
approval stamps and signatures of
City officials contained on the
2007 Rothschild building plans
The image to the left is a
close-up of notes
regarding decks scribed
by a City official on the
2007 Rothschild building
plans
The Rothschilds submitted an affidavit (attached) attesting to the presence of the decks in
their current configuration from the 2006 time period to present.
Mark Tye, owner of Unit 15, provided an affidavit attesting to his knowledge of the property
– stating that there have not been any changes to the dimensions of the decks since his
purchase of the property in 1999 from his then girlfriend, who had lived in the unit since
late 1996/early 1997.
In Mr. Tye’s words, “On approximately late 1996-early mid 1997…my girlfriend at the time
(Sheila Mize Kaufman), moved into 1050 Waters Ave #15 as a tenant. At that time the
deck, deck size, deck features and deck colors were exactly the same as they are
today. On approximately July 1998 Sheila purchased the property … exactly as described
in the Peak Appraisal. On approximately June 1999, I purchased the property as is, from
Sheila…another appraisal was done by Peak Appraisal. The deck was exactly the same
as previous 1998 appraisal. No work was done during my ownership or Sheila’s to
enlarge, redesign, or change the deck configuration one bit. Even the color is the
same.”
124
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
An appraisal of the property was conducted at the time of Mr. Tye’s
1999 purchase which confirms the decks at their current
configuration and dimensions. The assumption of value
recognized the deck as part of the overall property, although a
discrete value of the deck was not cited. In 2020, Susan Ebert-
Stone of Peak Appraisal inspected the 1050 Waters property and
confirmed the current location and size of the deck appended to
Unit 15 to be the same as during her 1999 appraisal. Ms. Ebert-
Stone’s letter is attached.
The image to the right is from the 1999 appraisal of Unit
15 and shows a large deck at the rear of the property
Mr. Edward “Ned” Sullivan, owner of unit 10, provided an affidavit. Mr. Sullivan states, “as
the owner of Unit 10, I am in a position to see both of these decks. I have occupied this
unit for 25 years full-time, and can attest that with the exception of a small staircase up to
the deck of Unit 13, there has been no expansion of the square footage of either deck
during this time period.” In an email exchange, Mr. Sullivan talks about his late mother
purchasing Unit 10 in 1990 or 1991 and that to the best of his recollection, the decks of
Units 13 and 15 have always been in their present size.
Mr. Sullivan lived in the neighborhood while the 1050 Water project was under
construction. Mr. Sullivan admits that he was not “taking notes” at the time, but also
suggested a reasonable means of moving forward - “At this point it would seem that the
easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in both decks in their current
configurations and close the cases for both of the current owners. The developer/builder
of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is long dead, and I doubt if there is anyone, former owner
or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more light on the subject.”
Mr. Rothchild spoke with Annalise Chumley, owner of Unit 9 since 1991. Ms. Chumley
reported to Mr. Rothchild that the decks of Unit 13 and Unit 15 were “always big” and
the same size as they are today.
While not an owner at the Aspen Townhomes by the River, William “Scott” Geary and
Wendy Geary (owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue) provided a
statement stating that their “house was built in 1967, and as a younger man, Scott
remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with decks –that they had a great
view from their back deck looking North on the Roaring Fork River and the Townhomes.
Over the last 38 years they have spent a major part of their time in Aspen and recall the
125
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building.” According to Scott and
Wendy Geary, “these two decks were always larger than the other decks since they
are built over ground and not the river.”
The ariel view to
the right shows the
1102 Waters “A-
Frame” residence
where Scott and
Wendy Geary have
been able to
observe the
riverside decks of
the 1050 Waters
property since 1967
The statements by multiple individuals with specific history and knowledge of the property
confirm the long-standing nature of the decks. No conflicting recollections were found. All
current and previous owners of units in the 1050 Waters building reported the decks being
in the current location and size for the entire duration of their occupancy. At no point did
any current or prior owner state that the decks were a recent addition. Mr. Geary’s
statement is particularly compelling in that his property has provided the optimal viewing
position to observe development activity on the 1050 Waters property since 1967.
According to Mr. Geary, the building was built with the two larger decks. This confirms our
position that the decks were a component of the original construction.
Acceptance by Current Residents and Owners
Current residents also support the continuation of the decks. All owners and tenants were
asked to provide their opinion and position regarding the decks remaining in their current
configuration. One-hundred percent of the respondents support the decks remaining.
Davis Parr, tenant in Unit 14 states about the decks “as the tenant of unit 14, I live directly
above units 13 and 15 and therefore have a direct view of the structures in question. To
put it very simply, I have absolutely no problem with these additions and believe that
they should be grandfathered.” Mr. Parr goes on to say, “they are well designed,
appropriately sized, and impeccably maintained. If anything, I believe that they are
additive to the overall structure as they add a sense of modernity and completeness to
what is otherwise a fairly aged building. As far as I know they present zero impairment to
any tenants' views of the river - which I assume is the operative issue here.”
Clare Bronowski and Jeffrey Lee own unit 12. Bronowski / Lee state, “We have no
objection to maintaining the non-conforming deck, which has been there as long as we
have owned our unit and for many years before according to other owners. The location
126
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 7
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
of the deck does not interfere with the river and appears to leave ample room for access
and high water. Please approve the application and allow the improvements to
remain in place.
Tenants of Unit 11, John Beatty and Victoria Haveman, provided their support for the
existing conditions to continue. “The improvements made to the deck were made within
the footprint of those that existed when we moved in and have been a significant benefit
to the privacy of our unit without any negative impact to ourselves or the area. We would
urge the City to grant their application and allow the improvements to be maintained.”
Mark Uhlfelder, owner of two units within the riverside building and the President of the
Homeowners Association stated his support. Mr. Uhlfelder states, “this is written in
response to numerous postcards received regarding a Stream Margin review
submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their Unit #13 at 1050 E. Waters Ave. I am the
owner (through Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC) of two units, #11 and #14, both of which overlook
the Rothchild's unit. I have no objection to the Rothchild's non-conforming deck.”
Removal of the decks would represent significant environmental degradation. The
proximity to the river and nature of the structural supports of the decks will result in
detrimental effects on the riparian area and surrounding trees.
Environmental Effects
Frank Reynolds IV is the owner of FRR Construction, an Aspen-based contracting and
construction company with 22+ years of experience developing and remodeling homes in
the Aspen area. Mr. Reynolds was asked to provide his professional opinion regarding
the impacts of removing the Unit 13 and 15 decks. Mr. Reynolds concludes, “the deck at
1050 Waters is approximately 14‘ x 14‘ The east end of the deck is approximately 12 feet
from the waters edge which is the roaring Fork River. The deck is supported by two
courses of railroad ties that support a framed floor system. Approximately 1 1/2 feet away
is a Spruce Street 28 inch in diameter. After years of growth the trees root system has
become intertwined with the decks structural supports being tied to the railroad ties.
Removal of the deck supports could/would damage the tree’s root system. Removal of
the decking itself will present an erosion problem in the spring with the snow melts and
runoff causing dirt and debris to end up in the roaring Fork River this would occur during
periods of rain as well. The access to do the actual demo of the existing deck would have
to take place on the riverbank disturbing natural grade as there is not enough room to
stage properly.” The continued existence of the Unit 13 deck, with a new surface has no
material effect on river health. Removal of the deck could negatively impact the river.
Effects on Property Value
Removal of the decks would cause irreparable harm to the value of Units 13 and 15. Galen
Bright has worked in Aspen real estate for over 25 years. Mr. Bright is the Vice President
of Residential Sales for the local real estate firm Setterfield and Bright. Mr. Bright has
127
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 8
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
specific knowledge of Unit 13 having served as the transaction broker for the buyer and
seller of Unit 13 in 2018. Mr. Bright was asked to opine on the importance of the deck, in
its current size and location, to the value of the property. Mr. Bright states, “the deck was
one of its most important features. . . For each of these transactions, one of the key selling
points for this property was the location on the river and the generous size of the deck.
Reducing the deck to less than 1/3 of its current size would significantly reduce the value
of this property.” [note: reducing the decks to 1/3 of their current size would be the impact
of not recognizing the current decks as an existing condition.]
Effects on Zoning Conformance
A determination that these decks are an existing condition will have no effect on floor area
conformity of the property. On behalf of the owners of Unit 13 and 15, BendonAdams
commissioned Red Room Design, local Architects with expertise in measuring floor area
and documenting existing conditions. While accessing the interior of all the units was not
possible, the calculations measure exterior wall to exterior wall and include the existing
deck areas on site.
The gross size of the 1050 property is 21,929 SF based upon the survey dated September
3rd, 2020. This property size allows a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25:1 based upon 16 units on
site – pursuant to code Section 26.710.090D.10.d. Accordingly, the property is allowed
27,411.25 square feet of development, significantly above the estimated gross and net
Floor Area currently developed on the property.
Likewise, developed deck area is significantly below the allowance for the property.
Table 1: Floor Area Calculations
Building Units Gross FA (sf) Net FA (sf)
1 8 11,738.2 9,258.5
2 8 8,312.8 7,209.35
Totals 20,051sf 16,467.85sf
Table 2: Gross Deck Calculations
Building Deck Tally Across all
Units (sf)
1 896
2 843.3
Total Existing 1739.3
15% Allowable
Exemption
Based on Allowed FA
4,111
128
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 9
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Land Use Precedent
In early 1992, Unit 25 of 1028 E Hopkins (Riverview
Condominium Association), was cited for replacing the
surface of an existing deck without applying for a
permit. A permit was submitted and rejected by the
Zoning officer and the project was deemed subject to
Stream Margin Exemption Review for “replacing a
deteriorated deck and installing a stairway” due to the
unit’s location being within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork
River.
The aerial to the right illustrates the proximity
of the 1028 building to the Roaring Fork River,
and the location of Unit 25 within the building.
This is very comparable to the placement of
Units 13 and 15 of 1050 Waters.
The site plan of the 1973 Condominium Plat of the 1028 property does not show a deck
on the riverside of the property.
The snip below to the left is taken from the
1973 condominium map. The snip below to
the right is taken from the 1992 planning file
in which the deck appears to have been
drawn-in.
129
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 10
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Other drawings in the City’s files for 1028
seem to indicate a deck, but with a
different dimension and layout.
Just like with the 1050 property, the size
and layout of the existing deck on the
1028 property appears to contradict
recorded documents and the City’s files.
The existing condition being a larger deck
much closer to the river.
Planning and Engineering staff found that
the property had replaced the deck in the
same exact location and in the same
dimensions as the previous deck. This
included a new small staircase down to
the river that did not exist in the prior
documentation. The City found that there
were no property setback violations, that
the Floor Area and site coverage were not
affected, and that the deck was not in a
trail easement nor would it retain more
flood debris than the previous deck.
The image above is taken from the
architectural plans of the Condominium
plat of the Riverview Condominiums
(1028 e. Hopkins Avenue) recorded with
Pitkin County in book 4, page 438
Although the deck at the 1028 property had no previous Stream Margin approval and
contradicted recorded documents, the reconstructed deck and addition of a new stair was
recognized as an existing condition and approved to remain and be rebuilt.
The 1028 example utilized the same code section and criteria as exists today. The full set
of 1992 Stream Margin Exemption Review criteria applicable to the 1028 project are listed
below: [note, the image below is taken from the City’s property file with added annotations.]
Exemptions. The Community Development
Director may exempt the following types of
development within the stream margin review
area:
a) The development does not add more than
ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of
building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five
percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a
Roaring
Fork River
Deck + Stair
130
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 11
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling
or reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one
has been designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the
amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
The project at 1028 E Hopkins was approved for replacement of the deck surface and the
addition of the staircase. This 1028 example, with all of its similarities, provides a strong
basis for approval and memorialization of the existing decks at 1050 Waters Avenue.
The 1028 and 1050 properties have similar proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Both were
initially stopped during deck resurfacing work without a permit and called into question
regarding Stream Margin Review. Both properties are of the late 60s early 70s vintage
construction and neither was able to show definitive proof of an original building permit –
at least not with the precision that today’s permit files offer. Both properties have
discrepancy regarding existing conditions and recorded files. the 1028 deck was
considered to be an existing condition by the City and allowed to proceed with the deck
resurfacing effort.
Given that Aspen continues to evolve, with properties being developed according to the
rules and regulations is effect at the time of their permitting, accommodation of existing
conditions is a necessary component of administering an ever-changing Land Use Code.
This appears to have been the case with the 1028 property – after an initial negative
reaction from the City there was appreciation and acceptance of the existing condition and
accommodation of the deck resurfacing effort. The deck 1028 deck was acknowledged,
approved, documented, but not allowed to expand.
131
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 12
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Effects on Floodway
Determining the Unit 13 and 15 decks to be an
existing condition will not have any effect on the
Roaring Fork River floodway.
Using the information available through Map
Aspen, the Floodway crosses both the 1028 E
Hopkins and the 1050 Waters Avenue properties,
however, it only intrudes upon a portion of these
properties, and units with decks in question are
outside of the Floodway areas – another
commonality between the 1028 land use case and
the 1050 Waters Avenue case.
The orange line in the maps to the right
represent the mapped Floodway along the
1028 E. Hopkins property (upper map) and
the 1050 Waters Avenue (lower map) Both
properties have similar orientations to the
Floodway and the Roaring Fork River.
Both properties have decks lying just
outside of the mapped floodway.
Summary
Determining the decks to be an existing condition is an appropriate determination based
on the facts and is an outcome acceptable to all parties affected by the decision. From all
perspectives, the deck appended to Unit 13 appears to have been constructed along with
the original construction of the building or very soon thereafter. Everyone with knowledge
of the deck has confirmed that is has been in its current size and location for as long as
they can recollect. The adjacent landowner, Mr. Geary, with arguably the best physical
position to witness the deck has stated that the decks were always larger. Mr. Geary has
no interest in this matter other than providing his factual observation. We believe and it
is our position that the present-day Unit 13 deck is an original feature of the property and
an existing condition.
The City has been in a position, at least since 2006 and possibly decades prior, to initiate
enforcement or approach the landowner regarding the disposition of the deck.
Landowners rely on the City to maintain accurate, comprehensive real estate records.
The lack of enforcement or any record ever questioning the deck for the past 50 years
Unit 25, 1028
E Hopkins
Units 13 and 15,
1050 Waters
132
1050 Waters Ave #13
Page 13
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
implies conformance and has arguably factored into various value assessments, tax
assessments, and transactions over the years.
Requiring removal of the deck would cause unnecessary hardship on the owner. This
inequitable outcome would create a “significant” financial infringement upon the current
owner who purchased the properties in an ‘as-is’ condition with a clear and documented
premium for the deck square footage and in reliance on City records. Removal of the deck
would threaten at least one very large Spruce tree and increase effects of erosion,
impacting both the river health and possibly the foundation and structural support of the
condominium building itself.
Affected property owners and tenants support the existing condition. The Homeowners
Association supports the existing condition. Memorializing the longstanding deck as an
existing condition would be consistent with the City’s handling of the one previous
precedent at 1028 e. Hopkins. We respectfully request the Planning and Zoning
Commission acknowledge and accept the deck appended to Unit 13 is an existing
condition.
The property is legally described as Condominium Unit 13; Aspen Townhouse by the River
Condominiums. The property is owned by Ivette and Andrew Rothschild. BendonAdams
has been authorized by the Rothschilds to submit this request.
We believe this request contains the necessary information for a complete and competent
review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your
review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. July 20, 1971 P&Z Minutes
2. 1970 and 1971 COs
3. 1971 Condo Plat
4. July 2019 property survey
5. Sept. 2020 property survey
6. March 2018 True Dimensions report
7. 2007 Rothschild permit drawings
8. Rothschild affidavit
9. Tye affidavit
10. Susan Ebert, Peak Appraisal letter
11. Edward Sullivan email
12. Scott Geary email
13. Davis Parr email
14. Clare Bronowski & Jeffrey Lee email
15. John Beatty & Victoria Haveman email
16. Mark Uhlfelder email
17. FRR Construction letter
18. Galen Bright letter
19. Floor Area Calculations
20. 1028 e. Hopkins Condo Map
21. 1028 e. Hopkins planning file A60-92
133
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.6.&L.CO.
Public Hearing, P & z, 2/4/69, continued.
unit. Lets say develop the other 7S0 sq.ft. to green area. So you are
devoting 7S0 sq.ft. to living unit but you have to give up 7S0 sq.ft.
for green area.
Robin Molny - Thats pie in the sky. When you stop and think, in affect
you are reducing the density. I would think that that would be the result
of what you are saying. You are talking SO/SO aren't you.
Lennie Lookner - Maybe you could work up something to reduce the density and
give us more green areas to look at.
Robin Molny - That is what we are striving to do in slightly different
terms.
Harry Uhfelder - I have been developing the Aspen Townhouses. I have never
utilitized the full allowed density. For instance, this last year I
developed 11 units on S lots. I am leaving area for green space and off
street parking. And I think it works very well. It is popular and
acceptable. I think you have to find a compromise solution in between what
has been suggested and what is allowed. It can be done. It is popular
and keeping in the character of the place. Some kind of compromise.
Tom Benton - When we requested the density we did not only request the
density but also scale control, to go along with that. Our feeling in
this was the density is as recommended in the Master Plan were based ona
study almost a year of study whereas the densities that were adopted
finally were based on nothing more than a little Harassment by a few people.
Now what Mr. Uhfelder said there are a great many things that have been
built in Aspen that have densities of much less, actually those are
densities which are recommended in the Master Plan. There is no problem
here. I think thats the type of thing Aspen needs and is beneficial
to Aspen. But just these few thathave caused the big problem and so
unfortunately you have to regulate for those few. Now I think you are
right that the major problem is not completely densities in itself. It
is the use of space. Personnally I feel there is nothing wrong with a
compromise as long as the town achieves benefitas well as the people
who are building also. But our request was for two things, so that this
wouldn't happen, that we wouldn't be involved in cutting the densities
in half and find thatpeople are building the same size building with units
just twice as large. I think that the direction would be beneficial
and some sort of bonus system. But it has to be tied, we feel, absolute
requirement that certain amount of land be left open because if you don't
make it a requirement, it will never be.
Nancy Ward - I have never hadthis question answered to me. I have property,
I came out with a design conforming to multiple family dwelling. I was
told why not call yourself a lodge, then you can get more on that
property. Now I didn't intend to build a lodge, I want apartments. I
don't intend to run a lodge. Now what loophole is in the zoning code
that will allow me to pur more units on my land simply by calling myself
a lodge.
Chairman Heneghan - That was a loophole, and that has been changed. There
is no reference in the present zoning ordinance to a lodge, motel unit,
condominium none of these references are now made. There are only two -
limited and unlimited unit. What you call it or do with it is your own
N? 82
Exhibit 1
134
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.B:L.CQ.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
Goals Task Force
Objectives
PUD
Uhfelder Const.
a Minimal expense. Other plan calls for outlying parking
areas and mini buses with 2 hour parking in this general
area. Mini buses would shuffle people between the two
parking areas. Another plan is for parking under Wagner
Park and shuffle people up to the lift and also a transit
system.
Adams moved to recommend to the City Council that Plan #1
be adopted for the 1971 and 1972 season and feasibility on
financing be done by the Finance Department on Plans #2
and #3 and Plans #2 and #3 be reviewed by Voorhees.
Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried.
Goals Task Force Objectives - Mr. Bartel explained at the
last study session he had submitted the program on quality
skiing. Objective #4 was discussed and the Commission re-
quest a more definitive interpretation be inserted as re-
lates to economy. Also request the word maximum be modified.
Collins moved that the Commission accept the tentative
objectives as submitted by resolution and recommend that
the Planner and Goals Task Force proceed with development
of the programs for the balance of the objectives.
Seconded by Goodhard.
Collins moved to amend the motion to allow Herb Bartel to
change the woraing in Paragraph 4. Seconded by Goodhard.
All in favor, motion carried.
Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried.
Commission agreed to hold a study session next Tuesday to
discuss quality skiing, growth policy and Zoline preliminary
pms.
PUD - Commission request the Secretary schedule a public
hearing for August 17th.
Uhfelder Construction - Chairman Molny reported this con-
struction has been brought to his attention by citizens.
The stream margin regulation was effective on April 20th.
Mr. Uhfelder obtained his building permit on March 9th
and fulfilled his building permit on June 7th. City Attorney
Kern is checking into which date should be considered, the
March date of June date as relates to the regulations. The
plot plan shows the Roaring Fork River being about 10' away
from the building at the closest point. In checking the
site the stakes appear like the river will touch the build=
ing. Also following the March date, the City adopted the
Uniform Building Code and requires a certified survey. This
application appears to be an obvious attempt to circumvent
the City ordinance. Property located at the end of Waters
Avenue. The City Attorney is also checking to see if there
are any violations in this case. Also, one of the adjoin-
ing property owners feel the building is being built on dis-
puted land. Private citizens are checking into a perhaps
federal violation of streams.
2-
135
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.Il:L.CO.
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
It was pointed out the citizens in seeing this building
built practically in the stream by feel this is the result
of the stream margin regulations which is not the case.
Jordan moved the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
express their concern and would appreciate the City
Attorney looking at this in depth. Seconded by Collins.
All in favor, motion carried.
Adams moved to adjourn at 6:45 P. M., Seconded by Breasted.
All in favor, motion carried.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
136
Exhibit 2
137
138
Exhibit 3139
140
141
Exhibit 4142
Exhibit 5143
Exhibit 6
144
Phone: 970-618-8351
Fax: 970-925-2498
Email: AspenTrueDimensions@comcast.net
True Dimensions
P.O. Box 10431
Certificate dated: March 6, 2018
TRUE DIMENSIONS
by: Leslie Miller
CERTIFICATE OF MEASUREMENT
Property: 1050 Waters Ave
Unit 13
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The undersigned hereby certifies that we have measured the property described above,
on March 6, 2018 and our findings are as follows:
Heated Livable Finished Area: 815 square feet (ANSI)
Deck: 157 square feet (not included)
The above findings have been calculated in accordance to the guidelines for the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), applicable to the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado . The
on-site/as built calculation for finished square footage is for a condominium residence. The square footage
total has been calculated with interior wall dimensions only, which are heated, sheet rocked, and which are
considered finished space.
True Dimensions has exercised its best efforts to perform an on-site/as built measurement of the
property as accurately as possible. It is understood however that there can be some uncertainty wit h respect to
the accuracy of any square footage measurement due to variations in finished surfaces as well as interior and
exterior wall construction, as well as other factors.
145
146
I
•
PHOTO OF EXISTING EXTERIOR
VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.) -�
--
Creek
A
B -
ROTHSCHILD RESIDENCE
REMODEL PERMIT NO. ___ 0 0_4 '. 2 o o 7.A-�'1�
OWNERr<Yh�cK ADORES 0-:. o . WA-r e1£.. sCITY/COUNTY� ZIP 8z(::I c
PARCELID 2737 1 •_2 4 --0�0 .
PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT DIRECTORY:
PROJECT:
ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER
1050 WATERS AVENUE
UNIT 16 REMODEL
ASPEN, CO 81611
PARCEL ID:
273718240018
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
OWNER:
IVETTE & ANDY ROTHSCHILD
1050 WATERS AVENUE, UNIT 16
ASPEN, CO 81611
314.517.4022
ARCHITECT:
ROWLAND+BROUGHTON
ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN
117 S. MONARCH
CONDO: ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER
UNIT 16
ASPEN, CO 81611
970.544.9006 PHONE
970 .544.3473 FAX
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
REMODEL
ZONE DISTRICT:
RI MF I LP
DRAWING LIST:
G-001
G-002
A-2.1e
A-2.1
A-4.1e
A-4.1
A-7.1
COVER
EXTERIOR ELEVATION IMAGES
CONTACT: SARAH BROUGHTON, AIA
CONTRACTOR:
JEFF KENTZ
P.O. BOX 847
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81623
970.618.7875 PHONE
CONTACT: JEFF KENTZ
EXISTING PLANS MAIN LEVEL+ SECOND LEVEL
PROPOSED PLANS MAIN LEVEL + SECOND LEVEL
EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
ASSEMBLY DETAILS
AREA CALCULATIONS:
FAR REMAINS THE SAME AS
C\jRRENTL Y CONSTRUCTED
445•1 Ml>.IN LEVEL GROSS
+482sf ·SECOND LEVEL GROSS
927·, 7� AREA GROSS
�.
♦ 77 .·�
-
MAR O 7 2007
A$ t:N BUILDING D EPARTMEN T
rowland + broughton
architecture and urban design
100 e. cooper ave, #3 3377 bloke st, 106 aspen, co 61611 denver, co 80205 970.544.9006 V 303.308.1373 V 970.544 3473 f 303.308.1375 f
Consultants
Issue:
17 JANUARY 2007
DESIGN REVIEW
7 MARCH 2007
CONSTRUCTION
ROTHSCHILD
CONDO
1050 WATERS AVENUE #16
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PROJECT NO:
2658
DWG FILE:
2658_COVER.dwg
SHEET TITLE
COVER SHEET
N.T.S.
G-001
CQPYAjOlfT )Ml ROY,V,NC--IROUOHTON AMIITtt'Tl.1111! NIO � D� THi f""Ol!:fMTION N>iD CiEl!GN INTliHT l::i:»l'l'AIN£11 ON ll-l!oo::i.Jl,l£J,ITIS Tlil F'ROPf.RTYOf!ICV!\.ANl),-IIRO\/GlirONAAC!lltl!CTI.MHl:t\.lM,,lt,J
on QN, NO �NIT Qf''fHI IH�ORl,\,lnON M,l,Y!leUSBlWno.<fM PRIOR
'M'.lfflN PelU,'IHI� OF fl:�BIIOI..IOl'(TON OACMTiiCTU'llil >llO �DN<I
t>U'ON ROW..,t,N0-9RC�JQ!rON AACHll"EC:Tll'lE NE IAll3,l,N CIE811lN 8!1IU REDJN "'-I.I. COU-1.,J,,.W IT..,_NTOfl:l NvO OHE" �� �
IM::I.UClNO COPlfl:l:JlolT TtEfl:ElO.
Exhibit 7
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
Exhibit 8157
158
Exhibit 9159
11/13/2020
Mark M. Tye
P.O. Box 8992
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Consulting for litigation purposes regarding a deck improvement
1050 Waters Ave, Aspen Townhouses by the River Unit 15
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Tye,
This letter is being written to communicate my observations of your deck improvement on Unit 15. I previ-
ously appraised this unit at the time of your purchase in 1999 (my appraisal report date of value was June 29,
1999), at which time I performed a full property viewing and measurement of the residential unit as well as the
deck. Refer to the exhibits attached for the floor plan and deck photos.
This 1999 appraisal report shows the deck to be 12 feet in depth and 14 feet in width. The photo was also taken
in 1999 but my database has a February date on this picture. This shows the northeast corner of the deck, in-
cluding the north deck wall and the east knee wall with a bench top.
On November 10, 2020 I went back to the property and measured the deck and took pictures. I found the deck
to be the same size (12’ x 14’) and of the same finish that it was in 1999. My current photos are attached. As
such, it is my observation that no changes or extensions have been made to the deck since June 1999.
I was asked if I had a recollection or comment on the side path and staircase that leads down to the subject’s
deck. I do not specifically recall whether this path existed in 1999 and I have no pictures of the path in my sub-
ject 1999 file. However, I did find two other photos in my database – one undated and the other from 2007 –
which show the south side of the building and this common area path from a bit of a distance. I have included
these for your reference.
This summarizes my findings as to the state of the deck improvement. If you have any questions or need addi-
tional assistance with this case, feel free to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Ebert - Stone, SRA
CO. Cert. Res. 1767
Exhibit 10
160
2 | Page
EXHIBIT 1: FLOOR PLAN FROM 1999 FILE
161
3 | Page
EXHIBIT 2: VARIOUS PHOTOS
Photos taken November 2020
162
4 | Page
163
5 | Page
February 1999 photo August 2006 photo (just the top of the subject deck)
South side common area photos:
April 2007 Undated
164
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:46:41 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 2:00:57 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Reply-To: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Ms. Thibeault;
I am writing in response to the postcards which I recently received, regarding the hearings
on June 1 for Land Use Reviews on 1050 E. Waters Ave., Units 13 and 15. These reviews
concern possible unapproved expansions of decks for these two units. As the owner of Unit
10, I am in a position to see both of these decks. I have occupied this unit for 25 years full-
time, and can attest that with the exception of a small staircase up to the deck of Unit 13,
there has been no expansion of the square footage of either deck during this time period. I
lived on the adjacent property downstream during the construction of these units, but
obviously was not taking notes, and soon moved a few blocks away. Apparently neither
deck conforms to the original approved plans for the building, but no one can remember if
they were originally built that way 50 years ago, or were expanded at some later date. At
this point it would seem that the easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in
both decks in their current configurations and close the cases for both of the current
owners. The developer/builder of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is long dead, and I doubt if
there is anyone, former owner or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more light on the
subject. Since the construction of this complex, and several others downstream, the
laws/codes have changed regarding setbacks from the river (stream margins), etc. I
suggest that the City of Aspen not waste any more time or money on this particular subject
and move on to more important matters.
As it is unlikely that this Hearing will be conducted in person with comments from the public,
I am asking you to forward this email on to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be
included in the Hearing as public input.
Thank you in advance,
Edward M. Sullivan
#10, 1050 E. Waters Ave.
Box 1324, Aspen, CO 81612
925-1021
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
Exhibit 11
165
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
166
From:Reilly Thimons
To:Rothschild, Andrew; Chris Bendon
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:19:10 PM
Thank you Andrew! I will add this into the application letter narrative and PDF it to add to the
exhibits.
From: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Chris Bendon <chris@bendonadams.com>; Reilly Thimons <reilly@bendonadams.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Chris and Reilly- this just received from Scott and Wendy Geary. Should be helpful. Let me know if
you want me to forward without my comments. Thanks.
From: Scott and Wendy Geary [mailto:wwgeary@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
RE: Decks at the Townhomes By The River
We are William "Scott" Geary and Wendy Geary, representing the Geary Family, LLC, the
owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue in Aspen. Our house was built in
1967, and as a younger man, Scott remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with
decks. We have a great view from our back deck looking north down the Roaringfork River
and at the Townhomes. The past 38 years we have spent a major part of our time in Aspen and
recall the two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building. Those two decks
were always larger than the other decks since they are built over the ground and not the river.
They are not only accessible from the individual condominium but also from a walkway along
the building.
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender
of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy,
distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 12
167
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] E Waters Ave land use reviews
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:11:25 PM
FYI. Last one. I saw Tye’s emails. I will be in your office at 11:00.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Davis Parr <davisparr@gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2021 at 3:07:31 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Cc: "Rothschild, Andrew" <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] E Waters Ave land use reviews
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regards to the upcoming hearings regarding land use reviews
for 1050 E Waters Ave. - specifically the outdoor additions to units 13 and
15.As the tenant of unit 14, I live directly above units 13 and 15 and
therefore have a direct view of the structures in question.
To put it very simply, I have absolutely no problem with these additions and
believe that they should be grandfathered. They are well designed,
appropriately sized, and impeccably maintained. If anything, I believe that
they are additive to the overall structure as they add a sense of modernity
and completeness to what is otherwise a fairly aged building. As far as I
know they present zero impairment to any tenants' views of the river - which I
assume is the operative issue here.
I was once involved in a similar situation with a neighbor in midtown
Manhattan - a city that is notorious for its stringent planning controls. After no
small amount of heartache, the senior members of planning finally opined that
it was really not their ultimate duty to interpret the last letter of the law, but
rather to make the city a better place overall. Thus the project was
approved. I would suggest that everyone here take a step back, look at the
big picture and move on.
Furthermore and with all due respect, I can't imagine that Aspen Planning and
Zoning does not have much better things to do with their time and budget
given the massive amount of current construction and what looks to be a
record year for real estate. Your team must have a huge amount of work to
do and getting lost in the minutia seems counter-productive.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Davis Parr
Exhibit 13
168
--
Davis Parr
Cell: 214-701-5528
email: davisparr@gmail.com
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
169
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:47:26 PM
Ditto- I’ll send more if I get any.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 1:04:13 PM MDT
To: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>, Jeff
<jlee@laurbanhomes.com>, "Rothschild, Andrew" <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1,
2021
Below is what I sent to City. Good luck.
Clare
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:01 AM
Subject: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
To: <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Attn: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing in support of the application for variation from the Stream Margin
standard submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their unit at 1050 Waters
Ave., Unit 13. We are the owners and residents at 1050 Waters Ave., Unit 12.
Our second story balcony looks directly down on the Rothchild's deck. We have
no objection to maintaining the non-conforming deck, which has been there as
long as we have owned our unit and for many years before according to other
owners. The location of the deck does not interfere with the river and appears to
leave ample room for access and high water.
Exhibit 14
170
Please approve the application and allow the improvements to remain in place.
Thank you.
Clare Bronowski and Jeffrey Lee
1050 Waters Ave., #12
Aspen, CO 81611
mailing address: 625 E. Main St., Suite 102B-240, Aspen, CO 81611
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
171
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application to be heard June 1st
Date:Wednesday, May 26, 2021 8:59:16 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Beatty <beatty@intotheusa.com>
Date: May 26, 2021 at 5:52:22 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application
to be heard June 1st
Reply-To: John Beatty <beatty@intotheusa.com>
Dear Michelle:
We have lived in Unit 11, which is the unit immediately adjacent to Andrew & Yvette's unit
that is the subject of the special review, for approximately the past 6 years.
We are sending this email in support of their application for Special Review. The
improvements made to the deck were made within the footprint of those that existed when
we moved in, and have been a significant benefit to the privacy of our unit without any
negative impact to ourselves or the area. We would urge the City to grant their application
and allow the improvements to be maintained.
John Beatty & Victoria Haveman
Unit 11, 1050 Waters Avenue
tel: 970.920.1522
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the
delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or
use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 15
172
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building Stream Review
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 8:30:10 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark <mark@uhlfelder.com>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 7:44:50 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building
Stream Review
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
By Email Only
Dear P&Z Commissioners:
This is written in response to numerous post cards received regarding a Stream
Margin review submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their Unit #13 at 1050 E.
Waters Ave. I am the owner (through Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC) of two units, #11
and #14, both of which overlook the Rothchild's unit. I have no objection to the
Rothchild's non-conforming deck.
Thank you.
Mark Uhlfelder
Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
Exhibit 16
173
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
After a site visit and review of 1050 Waters Ave #15 and #13 decks we have come to some
conclusions on the damage removing the decks will do to the surrounding area. Our assessment
is as follows:
The deck at 1050 Waters is approximately 14‘ x 14‘ The east end of the deck is approximately
12 feet from the waters edge which is the roaring Fork River. The deck is supported by two
courses of railroad ties that support a framed floor system. Approximately 1 1/2 feet away is a
Spruce Street 28 inch in diameter.
After years of growth the trees root system has become intertwined with the decks structural
supports being tied to the railroad ties. Removal of the deck supports could/would damage the
trees root system.
Removal of the decking itself will present an erosion problem in the spring with the snow melts
and runoff causing dirt and debris to end up in the roaring Fork River this would occur during
periods of rain as well.
The access to do the actual demo of the existing deck would have to take place on the river bank
disturbing natural grade as there is not enough room to stage properly.
Sincerely,
Frank Reynolds
Exhibit 17
174
W W W . A S P E N R E A L . C O M
457 E Hopkins Avenue | Aspen, Colorado 81611
galen@aspenreal.com | 970-920-9762
June 14, 2021
Re: Value of the existing deck at 1050 Waters Ave, Unit 13, Aspen CO
To Whom It May Concern:
I represented the Buyer and the Seller as a Transaction Broker for the sale of this property on
November 7, 2018. When the Seller and I discussed the pricing for this property the deck was
an integral part of that valuation. For everyone who looked at this property during the time
that I had it listed for sale, and for the Buyer who ultimately purchased the property, the deck
was one of its most important features.
Of the 42 two-bedroom condominiums that sold in Aspen during 2018, this property was the 6th
highest in terms of price/sf. The interior was well appointed, but the exterior and common
areas of the building were inferior to the other properties in this price range that sold that year.
Previously, this property sold on September 17, 2015. Of the 59 two-bedroom condominiums
that sold in Aspen during 2015, this property was the 5th highest in terms of price/sf.
Prior to that, this property sold on May 23rd, 2008. Of the 26 two-bedroom condominiums that
sold in Aspen during 2008, this property was the 2nd highest in terms of price/sf.
For each of these transactions, one of the key selling points for this property was the location
on the river and the generous size of the deck. Reducing the deck to less than 1/3 of its current
size would significantly reduce the value of this property.
Sincerely,
Galen Bright
Setterfield & Bright
Galen Bright
Exhibit 18
175
A201
BUILDING 1
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
E 1 E 248.7 sq ft
E 3 E 449.2 sq ft
E 6 E 566.7 sq ft
E 7 E 849.0 sq ft
COMMONCOMMONSHED40.0 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"8'-9"8'-8"3'-6"8'-10"14'-113/4"15'-51/16"8'-9"B 185.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"5'-6"
B 285.3 sq ft
B 385.3 sq ft
B 485.3 sq ft
B 585.3 sq ft
B 685.3 sq ft
B 785.3 sq ft
B 885.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft
32'-9"128'64'16'48'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
SHED 40.0 SF
TOTAL 3,939.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
TOTAL SF 11,738.2 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
TOTAL 0 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
E1, E2 DECK 48.7 SF
E3, E4 DECK 49.2 SF
E5, E6 DECK 66.7 SF
E7, E8 DECK 49.0 SF
TOTAL 213.6 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B1 DECK 85.3 SF
B2 DECK 85.3 SF
B3 DECK 85.3 SF
B4 DECK 85.3 SF
B5 DECK 85.3 SF
B6 DECK 85.3 SF
B7 DECK 85.3 SF
B8 DECK 85.3 SF
TOTAL 682.4 SF
TOTAL SF 896 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,949.7 SF (@50%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 3,899.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL 3,409.4 SF (61.25 X 8)
TOTAL 9,258.5 SF
BUILDING 1
Exhibit 19
176
A202
BUILDING 2
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COMMON 11, 1276.0 sq ft
COMMON 9, 1076.0 sq ft
B 10 65.0 sq ft
B 1265.0 sq ft
B 1465.0 sq ft
COMMON
42.2 sq ft
UNIT 14435.3 sq ft
UNIT 16501.6 sq ft
UNIT 13386.3 sq ft
UNIT 12846.3 sq ft
UNIT10442.7 sq ft
B 11.516.7 sq ft
36'-9"
B 16 65.0 sq ft
B 1665.0 sq ft UNIT 16455.9 sq ft
UNIT 14868.3 sq ft
UNIT 12461.3 sq ft
UNIT 10962.2 sq ft
32'-5"
B 1165.0 sq ft
B 965.0 sq ft
UNIT 11947.8 sq ft
UNIT 9893.5 sq ft
UNIT 13435.3 sq ft
UNIT 15439.8 sq ft
COMMON13, 1442.2 sq ft
B 13189.1 sq ft
B 15182.5 sq ft
32'-5"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 15 439.8 SF
UNIT 13 435.3 SF
UNIT 11 947.8 SF
UNIT 9 893.5 SF
E 13, 15 42.2 SF
TOTAL 2,758.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 16 501.6 SF
UNIT 14 435.3 SF
UNIT 13 386.3 SF
UNIT 12 823.8 SF
UNIT 10 420.1 SF
COMMON 13, 14, 15, 16 42.2 SF
COMMON 11, 12 98.6 SF
COMMON 9, 10 98.6 SF
TOTAL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 16 455.9 SF
UNIT 14 868.3 SF
UNIT 12 461.3 SF
UNIT 10 962.2 SF
TOTAL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL SF 8,312.8 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
B 15 DECK 182.5 SF
B 13 DECK 189.1 SF
B 11 DECK 65 SF
B 9 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 501.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
B 10 DECK 65 SF
B 11.5 DECK 16.7 SF
B 12 DECK 65 SF
B 14 DECK 65SF
TOTAL 211.7 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B 16 DECK 65 SF
B 16 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 130 SF
TOTAL SF 843.3 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
BUILDING 2
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,655.15 SF (@60%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL 7,209.35 SF
177
Exhibit 20178
179
180
181
Exhibit 21
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Planner II
THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director
MEMO DATE: September 13, 2021
MEETING DATE: September 21, 2021
RE: 1050 Waters Ave #15, Special Review - Stream Margin Review Standard Variance
APPLICANT:
Mark Tye
REPRESENTATIVE:
Chris Bendon, BendonAdams
LOCATION:
1050 Waters Ave. #15
CURRENT ZONING & USE
This property is located in the
Residential Multi-Family (R/MF) zone
district and is developed with an
existing 16-unit multi-family
residential building.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The Applicant is requesting a Stream
Margin Variance to allow for a deck
existing in within the restricted Top of
Slope 15’ Setback and in the
common area of the
condominium association.
SUMMARY: The application was initially heard by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at a properly noticed public hearing June 1, 2021
and the Commission came to a tie-vote. A tie vote on a motion is a
failed motion and is not considered to be action. The applicant
requested a continuance to July 6th and again to September 7, 2021
to allow the applicant or staff to bring any additional information to
assist the Commission in making a final determination on the request.
The City requested to continue to September 21, 2021 to finalize
information for the public hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff acknowledges that the construction timeline of the deck is not
well documented in City records and does not expect more
information to be discovered. Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission accept the deck as a legally established non-
conforming structure.
Figure 1. 1050 Waters Ave.
Aerial Image
208
Page 2 of 2
LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission:
• Special Review (Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting a
Stream Margin Review variance to continue the encroachment of the deck in the Top of Slope
Setback, which requires Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning
and Zoning Commission is the final review body.
SUMMARY OF PROJECT:
Existing Conditions: The subject property is located within the 16-unit multi-family housing complex
known as the Aspen Townhouses By the River Subdivision, located at 1050 Waters Ave, Unit #15.
The entirety of the 1050 Waters Ave 16-unit multi-family property, built in 1971 (prior to the adoption of
Stream Margin Review standards) resides within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area, is sited on and
below the Top of Slope, and projects into the 45-degree progressive height limit but is considered to be a
legally established non-conforming structure. The existing deck measuring approximately 15ft x 12 ft
represents an enlargement or expansion from the most recent recorded approval of 15ft x 4.33ft., however
after lengthy review, no definitive documentation of the legally established deck size has been found.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Special Review: The application is subject to Stream Margin Review. At the previous hearing, staff had
taken the position that the deck needed to be reduced in size because it is larger than shown in the 1 971
approval documentation and is arguably development not in conformance with Stream Margin Review
standards.
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented. Removal of the deck
at Unit #15 may be more disruptive to the stream margin than allowing the deck to continue as-is (with no
further expansion), as part of the existing non-conforming building at 1050 Waters Avenue. Continuation
of the deck as an existing nonconformity per Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 will restrict the deck
from expansion and subject the deck to be replaced with a conforming structure if purposefully destroyed.
Staff finds that these specific criteria, and all criteria in the Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030
advances the interest in protecting the Stream Margin of the Roaring Fork River.
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission approve the proposed request for Special Review requesting a variance from the
Stream Margin Review Standards to memorialize and allow the continuation of the existing deck as a
nonconformity within the Top of Slope Setback.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: The draft resolution is written in the affirmative. If the P&Z agrees with Staff’s
recommendation and wishes to approve the current request for Special Review for a Stream Margin
Review Exemption, the following motion should be used. “I move to approve Resolution #__, Series of
2021 granting approval for Special Review for a variance to the Stream Margin Review Standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #__, Series of 2021
Exhibit A – Stream Margin Review Criteria
Exhibit B – Stream Margin Special Review - Review Criteria
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Public Comment
Exhibit E – Application Supplement Aug_26_2021
209
P&Z Resolution # ____, Series of 2021
1
RESOLUTION #__
(SERIES OF 2021)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
GRANTING SPECIAL REVIEW/STREAM MARGIN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1050 WATERS AVENUE, UNIT 15, ASPEN
TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-182-40-017
WHEREAS, the Community Development department received an application from
BendonAdams, representing Mark Tye Trust, requesting Special Review/Stream Margin related
to a deck which is located at 1050 Waters Avenue, Unit 15 of the Aspen Townhouses by the River
Condominiums; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development department Staff reviewed the application for
compliance with the applicable review standards; and
WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code standards, and referral of
the application to other City Departments for comments, the Community Development Director
recommends Special Review and Stream Margin approval to accept the deck as an existing non-
conformity provided for in section 26.312.030 of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the application under the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code as identified herein, in
particular Section 26.312.030, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community
Development Director and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing
on June 1, 2021 and September 21
st, 2021; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that approval of the request is consistent with the
goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution
furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare, and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #___,
Series of 2021, by a ____ to ___ (x - x) vote, recommending approval for Special Review/Stream
Margin approval as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission finds as follows:
Section 1:Legal Non-Conforming Structure
210
P&Z Resolution # ____, Series of 2021
2
The deck is a legal non-conforming structure as defined in the Land Use Code. The applicant’s
representation that the dimension and location as has been in place for a long period of time are
accepted. The accepted dimensions of the deck are as depicted on Exhibit A.
Pursuant to Section 26.312.030, moving forward, the deck shall be subject to regulation as a non-
conforming structure and may not be expanded, enlarged, or extended in any manner that increases
the nonconformity unless any required approvals are issued.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented
before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such site development
approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an
authorized entity.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on September 21, 2021.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
___________________________________ ________________________
Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Spencer McKnight, Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________
Cindy Klob, Records Manager
Attachment:
Exhibit A-Approved survey of legal non-conforming structure
211
1 | P a g e
Exhibit A
Stream Margin Review Criteria
C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard
Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development.
This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer
registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be
raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which
compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and
Staff Response: The subject property is located within the 16 unit multi -family
housing complex known as the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision. The
entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area and
is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of the structure
on the top of the slope.). Aspen Townhouse by the River Condominiums were
constructed in 1970, prior to the adoption of Stream Margin Review Standards. The
improvements under consideration in this review have already been constructed.
Staff had taken the position that the deck needed to be reduced in size because it is
larger than shown in the 1971 approval documentation and is arguably development
not in conformance with Stream Margin Review standards.
Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well documented.
Removal of the deck at Unit #15 may be more disruptive to the stream margin than
allowing the deck to continue as-is (with no further expansion), as part of the existing
non-conforming building at 1050 Waters Avenue. Continuation of the deck as an
existing nonconformity per Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 will restrict the
deck from expansion and subject the deck to be replaced with a conforming structure
if purposefully destroyed. Staff finds that these specific criteria, and all criteria in the
Non-Conforming Structures 26.312.030 advances the interest in protecting the
Stream Margin of the Roaring Fork River.
2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open
Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the
proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public
use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's
easement granting public fishing access within the high-water boundaries of the river
course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Staff Response: No public use, access, or easements exist on the property.
212
2 | P a g e
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said
envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and
Staff Response: No vegetation is proposed to be removed now, however it may have been
removed at the time that the deck was enlarged. It is acknowledged that the Stream
Margin Review criteria and Building Envelopes standards did not exist at the time of
original approval of this project.
Staff finds this criterion cannot be evaluated with the information available.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into
the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope; and
Staff Response: The applicant’s proposal includes historical documents suggesting the
deck has existed in its current configuration for several decades, although without
formal land use approval. If the current size and configuration have existed as the
applicant suggests, impacts of the deck have been realized for several decades and no
change in impact is caused by continuing the existence of the deck in its current
configuration and size. That does not suggest that the criteria should be found to be met,
but rather that the impact of the expansion can’t be assessed.
Staff finds this criterion cannot be evaluated with the information available.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration
or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency; and
Staff Response: No new alteration of the watercourse is proposed. Written notice to the
Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
is not required. Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
5. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the
developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity
on the parcel is not diminished; and
Staff Response: The proposed development will not alter or relocate the existing water
course from the current condition.
213
3 | P a g e
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the
100-year flood plain; and
Staff Response: The entirety of the 1970s constructed building resides within the 100’
Stream Margin Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to
the presence of the structure on the Top of Slope. Similarly, the subject building is
located within the 100-year flood plain. Staff accepts that the early construction history
of the deck is not well documented. Future work to the building shall comply with
current regulations.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below
the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline,
whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation
and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of
the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as
approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development
applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River
shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development
Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and
Staff Response: Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well
documented. Staff recognizes the existing deck as a part of the nonconforming structure
status of the 1050 Waters Ave building.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed
a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level at
the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development
Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of
calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
214
4 | P a g e
Staff Response: The existing structure was built prior to the adoption of Stream Margin
Review Standards and is therefore considered an existing non-conformity.
Staff finds this criterion not applicable.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting
plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Staff Response: A lighting plan has not been submitted. Compliance with the Outdoor
lighting regulations would be confirmed at building permit.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Staff Response: The applicant has indicated that there are any wetlands or riparian zones
located within the property and no documentation to the contrary has been found by
staff.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
215
1 | P a g e
Exhibit B
Special Review Criteria Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review.
E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards
or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special
review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304.
The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published,
posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria:
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different
determination in regard to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin
Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering
Department; and
Staff Response: The Top of Slope is not in question and no change is proposed. The
subject property is located within the 16-unit multi-family housing complex known as
the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision constructed in the early 1970’s, prior to
the adoption of Stream Margin Review standards. The entirety of t he development
resides within the floodplain and the majority of the building resides within the 100’
Stream Margin Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to
the presence of the structure on the top of the slope.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the
Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Staff Response: The proposed development does not meet the review criteria of Section
26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review. The applicant has suggested the deck has existed
unaltered in its current size and configuration for several decades. Staff accepts that the
early construction history of the deck is not well documented. Land use approvals are
required to maintain the existing deck.
3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the
following standards are met:
a. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and
216
2 | P a g e
Staff Response: The application does not add more than 10% to the floor area of the
existing structure. In fact, the current conditions (with deck encroachment) are under the
15% floor area exemption allowed by the R/MF zone district standards.
The current calculation for the entirety of the Aspen Townhouses by the River Subdivision
for exempt floor area total approximately 1,739 sq.ft. (including the subject deck as it
exists today). The R/MF zone district allows for a 15% exemption of floor area available
for decks, balconies, loggias, gazebos, trellis, exterior stairways, and non -street-facing
porches. The allowable R/MF zone 15% floor area exemption for deck, balcony, etc. floor
area is approximately 2,470 sq.ft. as estimated below:
Estimated existing floor area
Building 1 9,258
Building 2 7,209
TOTAL 16,467 sq.ft.
15% of 16,467 = 2,470 sq.ft.
Estimated Existing Deck Area
Building 1 896
Building 2 843
TOTAL 1,739 sq.ft.
The recorded approvals for the property allow for a 15ft x 4.33ft deck, or 65 sq.ft. The
existing deck is 182 sq.ft., an increase of 117 sq.ft. When considered against the total
allowable floor area for the property, this is only a 0.7% increase in floor a rea from the
approved recorded amended plat.
Staff finds this criterion is met.
b. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would
be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
Staff Response: Tree removal is not in question and no change is proposed.
c. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
Staff Response: The entirety of the development resides within the flood plain and a
majority of the subject building is within the 100’ Stream Margin Review area and is
considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of the structure on the
217
3 | P a g e
top of the slope. Per Section 23.312.030.(c), a nonconforming structure shall not be
extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the nonconformity.
There is no documentation of when the deck footprint changed from the recorded
approval. The current deck is closer to the stream margin than the recorded approvals
allowed for. Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well
documented.
d. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has
been designated through a prior review; and
Staff Response: There is not an approved building envelope for this property.
Staff finds this criterion is not applicable.
e. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount
of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
Staff Response: The entirety of the development resides within the 100’ Stream Margin
Review area and is considered a legal non-conforming structure due to the presence of
the structure on the top of the slope. Per Section 23.312.030.(c), a nonconforming
structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the
nonconformity. Staff accepts that the early construction history of the deck is not well
documented.
Staff finds this criterion not met but accepts the deck in the current condition as a
nonconformity.
218
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
April 14, 2021
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1050 Waters Avenue #15 – Stream Margin Special Review
Ms. Bonfils Thibeault:
Please accept this application for a Stream
Margin Special Review for the deck located at
1050 E. Waters Avenue, Unit 15. This request
follows issuance of a correction notice issued
to Unit 13 by the City of Aspen for work being
accomplished without a permit in the spring of
2020 and a subsequent land use application in
October of 2020.
In an effort to remedy the correction notice and
memorialize the existing decks staff directed
the owners of Unit 13 to apply for a Stream
Margin Exemption. However, early review of
the application materials and the lack of documented history of the building raised
questions around the floor area and deck allowances for the whole property and the review
was adjusted to a Stream Margin Special Review.
Due to the fact that the decks for Unit 13 and Unit 15 are adjacent and in the same
proximity to the Roaring Fork River, the City has asked the owner of Unit 15 to also apply
for Special Review so that the decks can be assessed simultaneously before the Planning
and Zoning Commission.
BendonAdams is representing both the owners of Units 13 and 15. Historical information
demonstrates the longstanding (5 decades) presence of these decks in their current size
and location. We are requesting these decks be granted approval as an existing condition.
Property location
219
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Property History
The 1050 Waters Avenue property was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s, by Harry
Uhlfelder, prior to many of the land use code measures that are in place today – including
the requirement for property surveys, the Universal Building Code and Stream Margin
regulations.1
An excerpt from the minutes of a July 1971 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
reference that the building permit for the property was obtained March 9th 1970, and the
regulations went into effect on April 20th. The UBC and property survey requirements were
adopted after the permit for the 1050 Waters project was already issued.
While the building and land use files are sparce from this time period – the project team
has found Planning and Zoning minutes from 1968 and 1971 that reference the project’s
construction, and a pre-1990 permit file that has the final inspection listed as January 21st
1972 and Certificate of Occupancy signed January 26th 1972. The condo plat (Book 4
Page 227) for the building containing Units 9-16 was filed with Pitkin County on November
26, 1971.
Historical Documentation
The expansion of the decks on Unit 15 and Unit 13 appear to be a very early modification
to the building. In fact, we suspect the decks could have been built as a site adjustment
during the initial construction. Supports for both decks and the decking on Unit 15’s deck
appear to be vintage 1970’s construction. (Unit 13’s deck has been resurfaced).
2006 – Present
The Rothschilds, owners of Unit
13, purchased Unit 16, which
sits above Mr. Tye’s Unit 15 in
2006 and initiated renovation.
The renovation plans in the
building permit file, designed by
Rowland and Broughton, clearly
illustrate the Unit 15 deck in its
current configuration with the
staircase heading down
alongside the south elevation of
the property. The Rothschilds
have also submitted an affidavit
attesting to the presence of the
decks in their current
configuration.
1 Building permit for 1050 issued March 1970 – UBC and survey regulations relative to Stream Margin Review
went into effect in April 1970
Unit 15 deck in current configuration from 2007 drawing set
220
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
1996 – Present
Mark Tye, owner of Unit 15, provided an affidavit attesting to his
knowledge of the property – stating that there have not been any
changes to the dimensions of the decks under his ownership. Mr. Tye
purchased the property in 1999 from his then girlfriend, who had lived
in the unit since late 1996/early 1997. An appraisal of the property was
conducted at the time of purchase which confirms the decks at their
current configuration and dimensions. The assumption of value
recognized the deck as part of the overall property, although a discrete
value of the deck was not cited.
1990 – Present
Owner of Unit 10 since 1990, Edward Sullivan, attests that to his
knowledge and recollection, the decks in question have always been
in their present size. Owner of Unit 9 since 1991, Annilese Chumley,
also attests to the best of her recollection that these decks were
“were always big.”
To date, there have been 6 unique owners of the Unit 13
property, and 3 unique owners of the Unit 15 property. The
project team has attempted to track down contact
information for each of the owners including the two
original owners of the units to gain further information –
contact was attempted by telephone and mail.
At time of submission of the application we were
unsuccessful in reaching either of the original unit owners,
however, given the dimension of the decks is nearly
identical we believe that they would have been installed
at/or around the same time. The dimensions of the decks
are roughly the same – approximately 12 by 15 feet each
or about 180+/-square feet each.
1967 – present
While not an owner at the Aspen Townhomes by the River, William “Scott” Geary and
Wendy Geary (owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue) have provided
a statement stating that their “house was built in 1967, and as a younger man, Scott
remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with decks –that they had a great view
from their back deck looking North on the Roaring Fork River and the Townhomes. Over
Unit 15 Deck Configuration from
1999 Appraisal
Current picture of
Unit 15 Deck
221
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
the last 38 years they have
spent a major part of their time
in Aspen and recall the two
larger decks that are towards
the south side of the building.”
According to Scott and Wendy
Geary, “these two decks were
always larger than the other
decks since they are built over
ground and not the river.”
Floor Area
On behalf of the applicants, BendonAdams commissioned Red Room Design, local
Architects with expertise in measuring floor area of properties and existing conditions.
While accessing the interior all of the units was not possible, the calculations measure
exterior wall to exterior wall and include the existing deck areas on site.
The gross lot size is 21,929 SF based upon the survey dated September 3rd, 2020, which
allows for a FAR of 1.25:1 based upon 16 units on site – per code Section
26.710.090D.10.d. The property is allowed 27,411.25 square feet of development,
significantly above the gross and estimated Floor Area measured on the property.
Table 1: Floor Area Calculations
Building Units Gross FA (sf) Estimated FA (sf)
1 8 11,738.2 9,258.5
2 8 8,312.8 7,209.35
Totals 20,051sf 16,467.85sf
Table 2: Gross Deck Calculations
Building Deck Tally Across all
Units (sf)
1 896
2 843.3
Total Existing 1739.3
15% Allowable
Exemption
Based on Allowed FA
4,111
Google Earth view of 1050 and
1102 Waters Ave
222
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
This information clearly shows that even at gross estimates of the floor area, assuming
little to no exemptions, the property is significantly under zoning allowances for the RMF
Zone District. The decks are well within the 15% exemption threshold allowed and do not
present any challenges to the dimensional provisions for the RMF Zone District. No
expansion in floor area was created by the recladding of the deck on Unit 13.
Stream Margin Review
This application is subject to the Special Review Criteria in Code Section 26.435.040(e)
where an application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or
an appeal of the Stream Margin top-of-slope determination, shall be processed as a
special review in accordance with common development review procedures and may be
approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance on the review
criteria.
Unique to these properties is their construction prior to these regulations coming into effect
– the byproduct of which can be seen throughout town along the Roaring Fork River. In
our research of available public files there is only one other property of similar
circumstance that the applicant believes would serve as a precedent for both staff and the
Planning and Zoning Commission in their review of this property.
Land Use Precedent
In early 1992, Unit 25 of 1028 E Hopkins (Riverview
Association), was cited for replacing an existing deck without
applying for a permit. A permit was submitted and rejected by
the Zoning officer and the project was deemed subject to
Stream Margin Exemption Review for ‘replacing a
deteriorated deck and installing a stairway’ due to the unit’s
location being within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River.
The aerial to the right illustrates the proximity of the building
to the Roaring Fork River, and the location of Unit 25 within
the building. This is very comparable to the placement of
Units 13 and 15 of 1050 Waters.
Planning and Engineering staff found that the property had
replaced the deck in the same exact location and in the same
dimensions as the previous deck. Furthermore, their review
found that there were no property setback violations, that the
Floor Area and site coverage were not affected, and that the
deck was not in a trail easement nor would it retain more flood
debris than the previous deck. Although without a previous
Stream Margin approval, the reconstructed decks was
recognized as an existing condition and approved to remain.
1028 East Hopkins Unit 25 Location of
Deck and Staircase to River
223
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The full set of Stream Margin Exemption Review criteria applicable to the 1028 project are
listed below:
Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following
types of development within the stream margin
review area:
a) The development does not add more than
ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of
building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five
percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a
development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning
Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the
removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling
or reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one
has been designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the
amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
The project at 1028 E Hopkins was approved as built with the staircase – and granted a
permit to memorialize the replacement of the deck and creation of the stairs. The project
team believes that this land use case – with all of its similarities – provides a strong basis
for approval and memorialization of the existing decks at 1050 Waters Avenue.
1050 Waters Avenue
As mentioned above, the application for Unit 13 at 1050 Waters Avenue was initially
accepted by the City as a Stream Margin Exemption Review. The staff and applicant had
discussed removal of the stairs (as they are new construction) and processing the
remaining elements as a Stream Margin Exemption. Staff later staff pivoted the review to
a Stream Margin Special Review.
Where Stream Margins Exemptions are typically utilized for updates to previously
completed work – Special Reviews are used for authorizing a new ‘top of slope’ and an
appeal to a finding of Denial by the Community Development Director. Responses to the
full Stream Margin Review and Special Review are outlined in Exhibit 1.
Roaring
Fork River
Deck + Stair
Figure 6: Proximity of Unit and deck at 1028 E Hopkins to
Roaring Fork River.
224
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 7
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Please note that while this application responds to the City’s request for additional
information, many of the review standards do not apply to this circumstance. There is no
new top of slope being proposed nor is the applicant appealing a finding of denial of
compliance with the Stream Margin Review standards. This application requests
acknowledgement of an existing condition.
Our team has spoken with City Engineering,
a referral Department, and we understand
that while top of slope can present challenges
based upon where it falls on a property, it is
not looked at as stringently as the FEMA
Floodway which is a secondary measure
utilized to assess properties within the
Stream Margin area.
Using the information available through Map
Aspen, the Floodway crosses both the 1028
E Hopkins and the 1050 Waters Avenue
properties, however, it only intrudes upon a
portion of these properties, and units with
decks in question are outside of the Floodway
areas – another commonality between the
precedent land use case and 1050 Waters
Avenue.
The orange line in the Figures to the right
represent the mapped Floodway along 1050
Waters Avenue and along 1028 E. Hopkins
Avenue. Both properties have similar
orientations to the Floodway and the Roaring
Fork River.
The 1028 and 1050 properties have similar
proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Both
were initially stopped during deck resurfacing
work without a permit and called into question
regarding Stream Margin Review. Both
properties are of the late 60s early 70s
vintage construction and neither was able to
show definitive proof of an original building
permit – at least not with the precision that
today’s permit files offer. Upon review, the
1028 deck was considered to be an existing
condition by the City and allowed to proceed
with the deck resurfacing effort.
Unit 25, 1028 E Hopkins Avenue
Units 13 and 15, 1050 Waters
Avenue
225
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 8
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Given that Aspen continues to evolve, with properties being developed according to the
rules and regulations is effect at the time of their permitting, accommodation of existing
conditions is a necessary component of administering an ever-changing Land Use Code.
This appears to have been the case with the 1028 property – after an initial reaction from
the City there was appreciation and acceptance of the existing condition and
accommodation of the deck resurfacing effort. The deck 1028 deck was acknowledged,
documented, but not allowed to expand.
Summary
The deck appended to Unit 15 has been in its current configuration for a very, very long
time. While the exactitude of a distinct permit for this deck is not in the City’s records,
every point of reference speaks to this deck being developed either with the initial
construction of the 1050 property or very shortly thereafter. The project team has
responded to staff’s three main areas of concern:
1) The owners of Units 13 and 15 have obtained approval from the HOA for deck
configuration and placement extending into the G.C.E of the property. This
approval from the HOA does require the stairs on Unit 13 to be removed – as has
been previously committed by the applicant. A permit will be obtained for this
removal.
2) The floor area exhibits demonstrate property-wide compliance with the RMF Zone
District requirements for both Floor Area and deck area. This application does not
seek additional deck area or seek to expand the property in any way.
3) Finally, the affidavits provided illustrate that these decks have been in place since
inception of the project, or shortly thereafter, and have been relied upon as
essential features of the property in value assessments and various transactions
to subsequent owners of the properties.
Requiring removal of these longstanding decks would be inconsistent with the City’s
handling of the one previous precedent – 1028 E. Hopkins. This inequitable outcome
would create a hardship and financial infringement upon the current owners who
purchased the properties in an ‘as is’ condition and who likely paid a premium for the
square footage associated with these features.
This application requests the memorialization of the longstanding existing condition of the
Unit 15 deck. No new construction is proposed. Allowing the deck to exist in its current
configuration, not expand, is compliant with the applicable criteria and would be consistent
with prior actions of the City.
The property is legally described as Condominium Unit 15; Aspen Townhouse by the River
Condominiums. The property is owned by Mark M. Tye Trust . BendonAdams has been
authorized by Mr. Tye to submit this land use application. Approval from the Homeowners
association has been obtained for the deck described in this application.
226
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 9
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
We believe this application contains the necessary information for a complete and
competent review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward
to your review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
We can also arrange a site visit at your request.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. Response to Review Criteria
2. Application Form
3. Authorization to Represent
4. Proof of Ownership
5. Agreement to Pay
6. HOA Form, with deck approval
7. Pre-Application Summary
8. Vicinity Map
9. Site Improvement Survey (2020 & 2021)
10. Historical Documents – 1050 Waters
11. Historical Documents – 1028 E. Hopkins
12. 2007 Unit 16 plans showing Unit 15 deck
13. Rothchild Affidavit
14. Tye Affidavit
15. Geary Email
16. 1999 Unit 15 Property Appraisal
17. Floor Area Measurements
227
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 1
Sec. 26.435.040. – Stream Margin Review.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development
within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood
Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain.
(b) Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of
development within the stream margin review area:
(1) Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for
irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and
specifications are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the
Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
Response – Not applicable. The documentation of existing improvements
discussed in this application are not civic improvements or flood control
devices.
(2) Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be
reasonably accommodated outside of the "no development area" prescribed by this
Section including, but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and
fire suppression systems provided the Community Development Director determines the
development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards.
Response – Not applicable. The documentation of existing improvements
discussed in this application are not essential for health and safety reasons.
(3) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided
the following standards are met:
a. The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of
the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor
area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and
Response – The structure is not proposed for expansion and no increase
in floor area will occur. No expansion of deck area (exempt from floor area)
is proposed. A calculation of floor area and deck area is attached to the
application. Acknowledgement and documenting the existing condition will
not change this measurement.
228
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 2
b. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would
be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
Response – The proposal does not require the removal of any trees.
c. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing
development;
Response – No changes to the existing development are proposed and no
portion of the development will be any closer to the highwater line of the
Roaring Fork River than existing development.
Picture looking north at Unit 15 deck with
Roaring Fork River in background
Picture looking from river back to
deck of Unit 15 (on left)
Sept. 2, 2020 property survey -
close-up of the deck area
229
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 3
d. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has
been designated through a prior review; and
Response – Not applicable. The property does not have a building
envelope designated through a prior review.
e. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause not increase to the amount
of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plain.
Response – No increase to the ground coverage will occur. The existing
condition is not proposed to be changed. The finished level of Units 13 and
15 is noted on the survey as being at elevation 7,961ft (MSL) while the
highwater mark is noted on the survey as being at elevation 7,945ft (MSL).
(c) Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream
margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth
below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base
flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation
techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase
caused by the development; and
Response – Not applicable. No development is proposed and no development is
proposed within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board and the Roaring
Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development,
to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be
dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting
public fishing access within the highwater boundaries of the river course shall be
granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and
Response – The Open Space and Trails Board does not have any adopted regulatory
plans that affect this parcel. The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan does not appear to be
effective of applicable. This plan is not referenced in the City of Aspen Municipal Code
or the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. A search of City ordinances reflects that
this plan was not adopted as a regulatory document and the plan does not appear on
the City’s website. City staff have not been able to locate a copy of this plan. If a copy
of the plan is located, the applicant will review regulatory aspects for applicability to
this property.
230
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 4
3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made
outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be
designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and
said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040(f)(1);
and
Response – No changes to any vegetation are proposed. This application is limited
to documenting an existing condition.
4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of
the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during
construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to
prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained
outside of the designated building envelope; and
Response – Not applicable. This proposal is limited to documenting existing
conditions and no construction is proposed.
5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
Response – No alteration of the water course is proposed. If, in the future, the water
course is altered or relocated the Colorado Water Conservation Board will be provided
written notice with a copy to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that
applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and
Response – No alteration of the water course is proposed. If, in the future, the water
course is altered or relocated an appropriate guarantee will be supplied.
7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within
the 100-year flood plain; and
Response – Not applicable. No construction activities are proposed with this
application or planned.
8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place
below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high
waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing
riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers
and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be
native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be
submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood
plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin
Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City
Engineering Department; and
231
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 5
Response – No development is proposed. This application is limited to
acknowledging existing conditions for a deck that was built decades earlier.
9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot
setback from the top of slope does not exceed a
height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45)
degree angle from ground level at the top of slope.
Height shall be measured and determined by the
Community Development Director using the
definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100
and method of calculating height set forth
at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and
Response – No new development is proposed. The application is limited to
documenting existing conditions.
10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or
located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A
lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and
Response – No additional exterior lighting is proposed. Any new lighting associated
with a development application will be downcast and not directed towards the river.
11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones.
Response – The property survey identifies wetlands and riparian zones.
(d) Appeal of Director's determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a
stream margin application or in regards to the top of slope determination made by the
Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to
Subsection (e), below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall
be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed.
Response – A determination has not been made at the time of this application.
(e) Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review
standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be
processed as a special review in accordance with common development review
procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public
hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to
Subsection 26.304.060(e)(3) Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved,
approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review
criteria:
232
Exhibit 1
Review Criteria
page 6
1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a
different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain
than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department
and filed in the City Engineering Department; and
Response – This application is not requesting a different determination for top-of-
slope. The application is limited to documenting existing conditions. A survey has
been provided.
2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon
which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial.
Response – Responses to the Stream Margin Review standards are provided
above. A determination or denial has not been rendered at the time of this
application.
233
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
1050 Waters Avenue Unit #15
273718240017
Tye Mark M Trust
PO Box 8992, Aspen CO 81621
fun22@comcast.net
BendonAdams
300So. Spring St. #202; Aspen, CO 81611
970.925.2855 Chris@BendonAdams.com
Memorialize existing conditions of deck to Unit #15 deck on river-side of property
na na 1 (existing)
0 na
Stream Margin Special Review
x
x
x
x
4,225
Exhibit 2
234
Exhibit 3235
INVOICE
Land Title Guarantee Company
5975 Greenwood Plaza Blvd Suite 125
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
970-927-0405
CHRIS BENDON
CHRIS BENDON
300 S SPRING ST. #202
Aspen, CO 81611
Invoice Number:BA-350 Date: April 12, 2021
Order Number:64004139
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 15 ASPEN 81611
Parties:To Be Determined
Invoice Charges
Service: TBD Commitment
Ref: 64004139
Addr: 1050 WATERS AVE # 15
Party: MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
Total Amount Invoiced:
Less Payment(s):
Balance Due:
$217.00
$217.00
$0.00
$217.00
Due and Payable upon receipt
Please make check payable to Land Title Guarantee Company and send to the address at the top of Page 1.
Please reference Invoice Number BA-350 on your Payment
Page 1
invoice.odt 14420 07/2015 07/30/13 11:06:43 AM
Reference
Your Reference Number:TBD Commitment - 64004139
Our Order Number:BA-350
Our Customer Number:85189.1
Invoice Requested by:CHRIS BENDON
Invoice (Process) Date:April 12, 2021
Transaction Invoiced By:Web Services
Email Address:system@ltgc.com
Exhibit 4
236
Land Title Guarantee Company
Customer Distribution
PREVENT FRAUD - Please remember to call a member of our closing team when
initiating a wire transfer or providing wiring instructions.
Order Number:BAR64004139 Date: 04/12/2021
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 15, ASPEN, CO 81611
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR CLOSER OR CLOSER'S ASSISTANT FOR WIRE TRANSFER INSTRUCTIONS
For Closing Assistance Closing Processor For Title Assistance
Tanya Germany
200 BASALT CENTER CIRCLE
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3440
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(877) 346-4115 (Work Fax)
tgermany@ltgc.com
Contact License: CO523905
Company License: CO44565
Alyson Zuber
200 BASALT CENTER CIRCLE
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3440
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(877) 346-4115 (Work Fax)
azuber@ltgc.com
Company License: CO44565
Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title
Team
200 BASALT CENTER CIRCLE
BASALT, CO 81621
PO BOX 3440
(970) 927-0405 (Work)
(970) 925-0610 (Work Fax)
valleyresponse@ltgc.com
Seller/Owner
TYE MARK M TRUST
Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery
BENDONADAMS
Attention: CHRIS BENDON
300 SOUTH SPRING ST
#202
ASPEN, CO 81611
(203) 666-9370 (Cell)
(970) 925-2855 (Work)
chris@bendonadams.com
Delivered via: Electronic Mail
237
Land Title Guarantee Company
Estimate of Title Fees
Order Number:BAR64004139 Date: 04/12/2021
Property Address:1050 WATERS AVE # 15, ASPEN, CO 81611
Parties:TO BE DETERMINED
MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5,
2007
Visit Land Title's Website at www.ltgc.com for directions to any of our offices.
Estimate of Title insurance Fees
"TBD" Commitment $217.00
Total $217.00
If Land Title Guarantee Company will be closing this transaction, the fees listed above will be collected at
closing.
Thank you for your order!
Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants
conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal
assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the effect of these documents on your
property.
Chain of Title Documents:
Pitkin county recorded 08/11/1998 under reception no.
420585
Pitkin county recorded 04/21/1999 under reception no.
430100
Pitkin county recorded 07/20/1999 under reception no.
433568
Pitkin county recorded 12/06/2007 under reception no.
544700
Plat Map(s):
Pitkin county recorded 11/18/1970 at book 4 page 133
Pitkin county recorded 12/02/1971 at book 4 page 227
Pitkin county recorded 09/19/1977 at book 335 page 192
238
Copyright 2006-2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing
as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the
American Land Title Association.
Property Address:
1050 WATERS AVE # 15, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Effective Date:
04/02/2021 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"TBD" Commitment
Proposed Insured:
TO BE DETERMINED
$0.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
A FEE SIMPLE
4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in:
MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007
5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 15,
ASPEN TOWNHOUSE "BY THE RIVER" CONDOMINIUMS,
ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN PLAT BOOK 4
AT PAGE 133 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 227, AND AS DEFINED AND
DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN BOOK 251 AT
PAGE 928, AND AMENDMENT THERETO RECORDED DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN BOOK 259 AT PAGE 735,
SECOND AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192, AND THIRD
AMENDMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1981 IN BOOK 415 AT PAGE 59.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:BAR64004139
239
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: BAR64004139
All of the following Requirements must be met:
This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this
Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company
may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or
both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records.
The following will be required should the Company be requested to issue a future commitment to insure:
1.EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
2.THE FULLY EXECUTED TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007, A
TRUST, MUST BE FURNISHED TO LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY PRIOR TO CLOSING SO THAT
THE COMPANY CAN CONFIRM THE ACCURACY OF THE STATEMENTS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT
OF AUTHORITY OR TRUST AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC RECORD.
3.DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF
MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 AS A TRUST. THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST
STATE UNDER WHICH LAWS THE ENTITY WAS CREATED, THE MAILING ADDRESS OF THE ENTITY, AND
THE NAME AND POSITION OF THE PERSON(S) AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING,
ENCUMBERING, OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE ENTITY
AND OTHERWISE COMPLYING WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 38-30-172, CRS.
NOTE: THE STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK AND RECORDER.
4.GOOD AND SUFFICIENT DEED FROM MARK M. TYE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 TO TO BE
DETERMINED CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS
NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF
ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE
AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO.
THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO.
240
This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any
document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction,
or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender
identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin.
1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that
would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public
Records.
4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by
law and not shown by the Public Records.
5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the
public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed
insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment.
6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that
levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water.
8.RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE THEREFROM
SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES AS RESERVED IN
UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED AUGUST 29, 1958, IN BOOK 185 AT PAGE 69.
9.THOSE PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS, AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE
A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, BUT OMITTING ANY
COVENANTS OR RESTRICTIONS, IF ANY, BASED UPON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL
ORIENTATION, FAMILIAL STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, DISABILITY, HANDICAP, NATIONAL ORIGIN,
ANCESTRY, OR SOURCE OF INCOME, AS SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL LAWS,
EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTRICTION IS PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970, IN BOOK 251 AT PAGE 928
AND AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 02, 1971, IN BOOK 259 AT PAGE 735 AND
AS AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977, IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192 AND AS
AMENDED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED SEPTEMBER 25, 1981, IN BOOK 415 AT PAGE 59.
10.TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF BY-LAWS OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES "BY THE RIVER"
CONDOMINIUM RECORDED NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN BOOK 251 AT PAGE 940.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: BAR64004139
241
11.EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND OTHER MATTERS AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT RECORDED
NOVEMBER 18, 1970 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 133, AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT RECORDED
DECEMBER 2, 1971 IN PLAT BOOK 4 AT PAGE 227, AND AS CONTAINED IN FIRST AMENDMENT TO
CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 IN BOOK 335 AT PAGE 192.
12.EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR ELECTRICAL LINE PURPOSES AS GRANTED TO HOLY CROSS
ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC. IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 11, 1994 IN BOOK 747 AT PAGE 180.
13.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF
WAY AS GRANTED TO US COMMUNICATIONS RECORDED JUNE 3, 1994 IN BOOK 752 AT PAGE 537 AND
RE-RECORDED JUNE 7, 1994 IN BOOK 752 AT PAGE 699.
14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED
MARCH 11, 2021 AS RECEPTION NO. 674423.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: BAR64004139
242
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that:
Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the
clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least
one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that,
the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or
filing information at the top margin of the document.
Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters
which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for
recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title
Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal
documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy
when issued.
Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of
Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following
conditions:
No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or
agreed to pay.
The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in
which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides
written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real
property).
(B)
The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of
County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
(C)
The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a
condominium or townhouse unit.
(A)
No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land
described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months.
(B)
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and
material-men's liens.
(C)
The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D)
If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within
six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include:
disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the
contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company,
and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the
Company.
(E)
243
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface
estate, in Schedule B-2.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may
include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance
company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for
the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award
payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of
Regulatory Agencies.
Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing
protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-11(4)(a)(1), Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other
documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for
any document.
That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the
surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other
minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and
(A)
That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's
permission.
(B)
244
JOINT NOTICE OF PRIVACY POLICY OF
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY,
LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY OF SUMMIT COUNTY
LAND TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance
Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company.
We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state
privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence
is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized
access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information").
In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from:
applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based
transaction management system;
your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others;
a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction;
and
The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from
our affiliates and non-affiliates.
Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows:
We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in
order to provide products and services to you.
We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the
course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to
provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction.
We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your
Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion.
Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action.
We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal
Information.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT
IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW.
Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We
may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for
example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your
Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is
needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you.
Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy
policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
245
Commitment For Title Insurance
Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Corporation
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE
POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER
REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING
ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND
CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. .
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is
effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the
specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met
within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
1. DEFINITIONS
2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates
and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or
other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The
Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment.
5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a)
“Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any
property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues,
alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy.
(b)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c)
“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company
pursuant to this Commitment.
(d)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e)
“Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this
Commitment.
(f)
“Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters
relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge.
(g)
“Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h)
the Notice;(a)
the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b)
the Commitment Conditions;(c)
Schedule A;(d)
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e)
Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f)
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g)
The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the
Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed
Insured’s good faith reliance to:
(a)
The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the
matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
(b)
The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the
Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured.
(c)
The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment
Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount.
(d)
The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
246
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the
Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services.
8. PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma
policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of
either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at
http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown
in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory.
Issued by:
Land Title Guarantee Company
3033 East First Avenue Suite 600
Denver, Colorado 80206
303-321-1880
Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Land Title Insurance Corporation. This Commitment is not valid without the
Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and
a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are
prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements
have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
(f)
In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g)
Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a)
Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b)
Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject
matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral,
express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment.
(c)
The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the
terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
(d)
Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e)
When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f)
247
Exhibit 5248
Exhibit 6See attached approval249
250
251
252
253
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault (970) 429-2741, Michelle.Bonfils@cityofaspen.com
DATE: March 18, 2021
PROJECT: 1050 Waters Avenue, Unit 15
LEGAL: Aspen Townhouses by the River
UNIT 15 OWNER: Mark Tye
COMMON AREA OWNER: Aspen Townhouses by the River Condo Association
REPRESENTATIVE: Owner
REQUEST: Stream Margin, Special Review
DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is zoned Residential Multi-Family and contains 24 multi-family residential units in two
separate buildings located near the southwest bank of the Roaring Fork River.
The existing deck at unit 15 is considerably larger and varied shape than the approved and recorded plat
indicates the size of the deck to be (15ft x 4.33ft). The existing deck for unit 15 is located in the Common Area
owned by the Aspen Townhouses by the River Condo Association. No action to legalize this project on land
owned by the HOA can proceed without the submittal of an HOA compliance form indicating that the applicant
has HOA permission to expand in this area. If the deck and associated work is ultimately approved through the
processes described below, an updated Condominium Plat showing the improvements will be required prior to
issuance of a Letter of Completion. The HOA will need to be the applicant for that process and must
understand the time and costs involved.
A request to legalize the current deck will require calculations of all of the existing development on the site,
and authorization from the HOA for Unit 15 to consume any remaining area for this project. Please reference
Land Use Code Section 26.575.020.D, Floor Area Measurements. If there is not enough floor area or deck area
available, then it will not be feasible to acquire a land use approval or building permit for the unpermitted work
that has been done.
Finally, the deck is entirely within the protected 100’ stream margin review area of the Roaring Fork River.
Pursuant to Section 26.435.040, Stream Margin Review, “The provisions of the stream margin review shall
apply to all development within one-hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known
as the 100-year flood plain”.
From the scope of work observed, the project is not eligible for administrative Stream Margin Review approval
as it appears to be some 125’ below the designated Top of Slope that sits approximately in the middle of this
site. Among the required criteria that would not be met for a staff level approval is the following requirement
stated at Municipal Code Section 26.435.040.C.8:
Exhibit 7
254
2
The property owner may apply for a variance from this or other Stream Margin requirements through a Special
Review before the Planning and Zoning Commission per section 26.435.040.E of the Land Use Code.
To receive P&Z approval, the applicant shall respond to the review criteria found in Section 26.435.040.C -
Stream Margin Review Standards, Section 26.435.040.D (if an appeal of the location of the Top of Slope line is
requested) and Section 26.435.040.E – Special Review. Please be aware that there is no guarantee that the
application will ultimately be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If the Stream Margin application is successfully approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the property
owner and the HOA shall pursue the Condominium Plat amendment noted earlier in this description.
Below are links to the Land Use Application form and Land Use Code for your convenience:
Land Use Code
Land Use Application
Relevant Land Use Code Section(s):
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.435.040(C): Environmentally Sensitive Areas – Stream Margin Review
26.435.040(D): Appeal of Director’s Determination
26.435.040(E): Special Review
Review by: Staff for complete application and recommendation. Planning and Zoning
Commission for determination.
Public Hearing: Yes, at the Planning and Zoning Commission
Planning Fees: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time for Stream Margin Review. Any unbilled
portion of the deposit will be refunded at the conclusion of the case. Additional
staff hours, if needed, will be billed at $325 per hour.
Referrals: $975 for Parks Department (flat fee)
$325/hour for Engineering Review. All additional hours are billed at $325 per
hour).
Total Deposit: $4,450
255
3
To apply, email 1 PDF copy of the following information directly to the Planner identified above:
Completed Land Use Application and signed fee agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements,
contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for
the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the
name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
HOA Compliance form
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how
the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development
application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property.
Complete floor area and deck calculations of the existing conditions at the Aspen Townhouses by
the River property, using the methodologies provided in the Aspen Municipal Code, along with
calculations of the proposed expansion of Unit 13, verification that sufficient unused area is
available for the project and that the HOA authorizes allocation of adequate unused area to cover
the proposed work.
A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) including topography and
vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by
licensed in the State of Colorado.
One scaled copy of plans depicting the project and the Stream Margin Review Area, Top of Slope,
and the 15’ setback from Top of Slope to confirm applicability and any impacts to these areas. If
the applicant requests an appeal of the Top of Slope location, a proposed new Top of Slope must
be indicated on the plan and supported by evidence that the amended location is appropriately
delineates the bank of the river.
Once the application has been deemed complete by the Planning Director, then submittal of the total fee
deposit for review of the application will be requested.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on
current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may
not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
256
Exhibit 8
1050 Waters Avenue #15 – Vicinity Map
257
Exhibit 9258
Exhibit 10
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.6.&L.CO.
Public Hearing, P & z, 2/4/69, continued.
unit. Lets say develop the other 7S0 sq.ft. to green area. So you are
devoting 7S0 sq.ft. to living unit but you have to give up 7S0 sq.ft.
for green area.
Robin Molny - Thats pie in the sky. When you stop and think, in affect
you are reducing the density. I would think that that would be the result
of what you are saying. You are talking SO/SO aren't you.
Lennie Lookner - Maybe you could work up something to reduce the density and
give us more green areas to look at.
Robin Molny - That is what we are striving to do in slightly different
terms.
Harry Uhfelder - I have been developing the Aspen Townhouses. I have never
utilitized the full allowed density. For instance, this last year I
developed 11 units on S lots. I am leaving area for green space and off
street parking. And I think it works very well. It is popular and
acceptable. I think you have to find a compromise solution in between what
has been suggested and what is allowed. It can be done. It is popular
and keeping in the character of the place. Some kind of compromise.
Tom Benton - When we requested the density we did not only request the
density but also scale control, to go along with that. Our feeling in
this was the density is as recommended in the Master Plan were based ona
study almost a year of study whereas the densities that were adopted
finally were based on nothing more than a little Harassment by a few people.
Now what Mr. Uhfelder said there are a great many things that have been
built in Aspen that have densities of much less, actually those are
densities which are recommended in the Master Plan. There is no problem
here. I think thats the type of thing Aspen needs and is beneficial
to Aspen. But just these few thathave caused the big problem and so
unfortunately you have to regulate for those few. Now I think you are
right that the major problem is not completely densities in itself. It
is the use of space. Personnally I feel there is nothing wrong with a
compromise as long as the town achieves benefitas well as the people
who are building also. But our request was for two things, so that this
wouldn't happen, that we wouldn't be involved in cutting the densities
in half and find thatpeople are building the same size building with units
just twice as large. I think that the direction would be beneficial
and some sort of bonus system. But it has to be tied, we feel, absolute
requirement that certain amount of land be left open because if you don't
make it a requirement, it will never be.
Nancy Ward - I have never hadthis question answered to me. I have property,
I came out with a design conforming to multiple family dwelling. I was
told why not call yourself a lodge, then you can get more on that
property. Now I didn't intend to build a lodge, I want apartments. I
don't intend to run a lodge. Now what loophole is in the zoning code
that will allow me to pur more units on my land simply by calling myself
a lodge.
Chairman Heneghan - That was a loophole, and that has been changed. There
is no reference in the present zoning ordinance to a lodge, motel unit,
condominium none of these references are now made. There are only two -
limited and unlimited unit. What you call it or do with it is your own
N? 82
267
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.B:L.CQ.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
Goals Task Force
Objectives
PUD
Uhfelder Const.
a Minimal expense. Other plan calls for outlying parking
areas and mini buses with 2 hour parking in this general
area. Mini buses would shuffle people between the two
parking areas. Another plan is for parking under Wagner
Park and shuffle people up to the lift and also a transit
system.
Adams moved to recommend to the City Council that Plan #1
be adopted for the 1971 and 1972 season and feasibility on
financing be done by the Finance Department on Plans #2
and #3 and Plans #2 and #3 be reviewed by Voorhees.
Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried.
Goals Task Force Objectives - Mr. Bartel explained at the
last study session he had submitted the program on quality
skiing. Objective #4 was discussed and the Commission re-
quest a more definitive interpretation be inserted as re-
lates to economy. Also request the word maximum be modified.
Collins moved that the Commission accept the tentative
objectives as submitted by resolution and recommend that
the Planner and Goals Task Force proceed with development
of the programs for the balance of the objectives.
Seconded by Goodhard.
Collins moved to amend the motion to allow Herb Bartel to
change the woraing in Paragraph 4. Seconded by Goodhard.
All in favor, motion carried.
Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried.
Commission agreed to hold a study session next Tuesday to
discuss quality skiing, growth policy and Zoline preliminary
pms.
PUD - Commission request the Secretary schedule a public
hearing for August 17th.
Uhfelder Construction - Chairman Molny reported this con-
struction has been brought to his attention by citizens.
The stream margin regulation was effective on April 20th.
Mr. Uhfelder obtained his building permit on March 9th
and fulfilled his building permit on June 7th. City Attorney
Kern is checking into which date should be considered, the
March date of June date as relates to the regulations. The
plot plan shows the Roaring Fork River being about 10' away
from the building at the closest point. In checking the
site the stakes appear like the river will touch the build=
ing. Also following the March date, the City adopted the
Uniform Building Code and requires a certified survey. This
application appears to be an obvious attempt to circumvent
the City ordinance. Property located at the end of Waters
Avenue. The City Attorney is also checking to see if there
are any violations in this case. Also, one of the adjoin-
ing property owners feel the building is being built on dis-
puted land. Private citizens are checking into a perhaps
federal violation of streams.
2-
268
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.Il:L.CO.
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
It was pointed out the citizens in seeing this building
built practically in the stream by feel this is the result
of the stream margin regulations which is not the case.
Jordan moved the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
express their concern and would appreciate the City
Attorney looking at this in depth. Seconded by Collins.
All in favor, motion carried.
Adams moved to adjourn at 6:45 P. M., Seconded by Breasted.
All in favor, motion carried.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
269
Exhibit 11
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
Exhibit 12
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
Exhibit 13302
303
Exhibit 14304
From:Reilly Thimons
To:Rothschild, Andrew; Chris Bendon
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:19:10 PM
Thank you Andrew! I will add this into the application letter narrative and PDF it to add to the
exhibits.
From: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Chris Bendon <chris@bendonadams.com>; Reilly Thimons <reilly@bendonadams.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Chris and Reilly- this just received from Scott and Wendy Geary. Should be helpful. Let me know if
you want me to forward without my comments. Thanks.
From: Scott and Wendy Geary [mailto:wwgeary@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
RE: Decks at the Townhomes By The River
We are William "Scott" Geary and Wendy Geary, representing the Geary Family, LLC, the
owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue in Aspen. Our house was built in
1967, and as a younger man, Scott remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with
decks. We have a great view from our back deck looking north down the Roaringfork River
and at the Townhomes. The past 38 years we have spent a major part of our time in Aspen and
recall the two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building. Those two decks
were always larger than the other decks since they are built over the ground and not the river.
They are not only accessible from the individual condominium but also from a walkway along
the building.
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender
of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy,
distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 15
305
11/13/2020
Mark M. Tye
P.O. Box 8992
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Consulting for litigation purposes regarding a deck improvement
1050 Waters Ave, Aspen Townhouses by the River Unit 15
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Tye,
This letter is being written to communicate my observations of your deck improvement on Unit 15. I previ-
ously appraised this unit at the time of your purchase in 1999 (my appraisal report date of value was June 29,
1999), at which time I performed a full property viewing and measurement of the residential unit as well as the
deck. Refer to the exhibits attached for the floor plan and deck photos.
This 1999 appraisal report shows the deck to be 12 feet in depth and 14 feet in width. The photo was also taken
in 1999 but my database has a February date on this picture. This shows the northeast corner of the deck, in-
cluding the north deck wall and the east knee wall with a bench top.
On November 10, 2020 I went back to the property and measured the deck and took pictures. I found the deck
to be the same size (12’ x 14’) and of the same finish that it was in 1999. My current photos are attached. As
such, it is my observation that no changes or extensions have been made to the deck since June 1999.
I was asked if I had a recollection or comment on the side path and staircase that leads down to the subject’s
deck. I do not specifically recall whether this path existed in 1999 and I have no pictures of the path in my sub-
ject 1999 file. However, I did find two other photos in my database – one undated and the other from 2007 –
which show the south side of the building and this common area path from a bit of a distance. I have included
these for your reference.
This summarizes my findings as to the state of the deck improvement. If you have any questions or need addi-
tional assistance with this case, feel free to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Ebert - Stone, SRA
CO. Cert. Res. 1767
Exhibit 16
306
2 | Page
EXHIBIT 1: FLOOR PLAN FROM 1999 FILE
307
3 | Page
EXHIBIT 2: VARIOUS PHOTOS
Photos taken November 2020
308
4 | Page
309
5 | Page
February 1999 photo August 2006 photo (just the top of the subject deck)
South side common area photos:
April 2007 Undated
310
A201
BUILDING 1
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
E 1 E 248.7 sq ft
E 3 E 449.2 sq ft
E 6 E 566.7 sq ft
E 7 E 849.0 sq ft
COMMONCOMMONSHED40.0 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"8'-9"8'-8"3'-6"8'-10"14'-113/4"15'-51/16"8'-9"B 185.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"5'-6"
B 285.3 sq ft
B 385.3 sq ft
B 485.3 sq ft
B 585.3 sq ft
B 685.3 sq ft
B 785.3 sq ft
B 885.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft
32'-9"128'64'16'48'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
SHED 40.0 SF
TOTAL 3,939.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
TOTAL SF 11,738.2 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
TOTAL 0 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
E1, E2 DECK 48.7 SF
E3, E4 DECK 49.2 SF
E5, E6 DECK 66.7 SF
E7, E8 DECK 49.0 SF
TOTAL 213.6 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B1 DECK 85.3 SF
B2 DECK 85.3 SF
B3 DECK 85.3 SF
B4 DECK 85.3 SF
B5 DECK 85.3 SF
B6 DECK 85.3 SF
B7 DECK 85.3 SF
B8 DECK 85.3 SF
TOTAL 682.4 SF
TOTAL SF 896 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,949.7 SF (@50%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 3,899.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL 3,409.4 SF (61.25 X 8)
TOTAL 9,258.5 SF
BUILDING 1
Exhibit 17
311
A202
BUILDING 2
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COMMON 11, 1276.0 sq ft
COMMON 9, 1076.0 sq ft
B 10 65.0 sq ft
B 1265.0 sq ft
B 1465.0 sq ft
COMMON
42.2 sq ft
UNIT 14435.3 sq ft
UNIT 16501.6 sq ft
UNIT 13386.3 sq ft
UNIT 12846.3 sq ft
UNIT10442.7 sq ft
B 11.516.7 sq ft
36'-9"
B 16 65.0 sq ft
B 1665.0 sq ft UNIT 16455.9 sq ft
UNIT 14868.3 sq ft
UNIT 12461.3 sq ft
UNIT 10962.2 sq ft
32'-5"
B 1165.0 sq ft
B 965.0 sq ft
UNIT 11947.8 sq ft
UNIT 9893.5 sq ft
UNIT 13435.3 sq ft
UNIT 15439.8 sq ft
COMMON13, 1442.2 sq ft
B 13189.1 sq ft
B 15182.5 sq ft
32'-5"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 15 439.8 SF
UNIT 13 435.3 SF
UNIT 11 947.8 SF
UNIT 9 893.5 SF
E 13, 15 42.2 SF
TOTAL 2,758.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 16 501.6 SF
UNIT 14 435.3 SF
UNIT 13 386.3 SF
UNIT 12 823.8 SF
UNIT 10 420.1 SF
COMMON 13, 14, 15, 16 42.2 SF
COMMON 11, 12 98.6 SF
COMMON 9, 10 98.6 SF
TOTAL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 16 455.9 SF
UNIT 14 868.3 SF
UNIT 12 461.3 SF
UNIT 10 962.2 SF
TOTAL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL SF 8,312.8 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
B 15 DECK 182.5 SF
B 13 DECK 189.1 SF
B 11 DECK 65 SF
B 9 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 501.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
B 10 DECK 65 SF
B 11.5 DECK 16.7 SF
B 12 DECK 65 SF
B 14 DECK 65SF
TOTAL 211.7 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B 16 DECK 65 SF
B 16 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 130 SF
TOTAL SF 843.3 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
BUILDING 2
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,655.15 SF (@60%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL 7,209.35 SF
312
From:Michelle Bonfils
To:Amy Simon
Subject:FW: Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:33:24 PM
From: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2021 2:01 PM
To: Michelle Bonfils <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Subject: Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Ms. Thibeault;
I am writing in response to the postcards which I recently received, regarding the hearings on June 1 for
Land Use Reviews on 1050 E. Waters Ave., Units 13 and 15. These reviews concern possible
unapproved expansions of decks for these two units. As the owner of Unit 10, I am in a position to see
both of these decks. I have occupied this unit for 25 years full-time, and can attest that with the exception
of a small staircase up to the deck of Unit 13, there has been no expansion of the square footage of either
deck during this time period. I lived on the adjacent property downstream during the construction of these
units, but obviously was not taking notes, and soon moved a few blocks away. Apparently neither deck
conforms to the original approved plans for the building, but no one can remember if they were originally
built that way 50 years ago, or were expanded at some later date. At this point it would seem that the
easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in both decks in their current configurations and
close the cases for both of the current owners. The developer/builder of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is
long dead, and I doubt if there is anyone, former owner or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more
light on the subject. Since the construction of this complex, and several others downstream, the
laws/codes have changed regarding setbacks from the river (stream margins), etc. I suggest that the City
of Aspen not waste any more time or money on this particular subject and move on to more important
matters.
As it is unlikely that this Hearing will be conducted in person with comments from the public, I am asking
you to forward this email on to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be included in the Hearing as
public input.
Thank you in advance,
Edward M. Sullivan
#10, 1050 E. Waters Ave.
Box 1324, Aspen, CO 81612
925-1021
313
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
August 26, 2021
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
Community Development
City of Aspen
130 So. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 1050 Waters Avenue Unit #15
Supplemental Information
Ms. Bonfils Thibeault:
Please accept this supplemental information regarding the Stream Margin Review for the
deck appended to Unit #15, 1050 E. Waters Avenue. We believe the deck is an existing
condition, having been in its present disposition approximately 50 years. We have
provided documentation, including affidavits from various people with historical insight, all
supporting the presence of the deck for as long as their memory serves. We request the
Planning and Zoning Commission utilize this information to acknowledge and accept the
Unit 15 deck as an existing condition. The applicant team is prepared to expand on any of
the research and/or assist in arranging a site visit with City staff and the Commission.
The map to the right shows the
approximate location of 1050
Waters Avenue, Unit #15
This property is subject of a Stream Margin Special Review application pending before the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The purpose of this determination request is to
ascertain whether such a Stream Margin Review is even necessary to acknowledge an
existing condition.
Property History
The 1050 Waters Avenue property was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s, by Harry
Uhlfelder, prior to many of the land use code measures that are in place today – including
314
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 2
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
the requirement for property surveys, the Universal Building Code and Stream Margin
regulations.
An excerpt from the minutes of a July 1971 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
reference that the building permit for the property was obtained March 9th, 1970, and that
the stream margin regulations went into effect on April 20th. The UBC and property survey
requirements were adopted after the permit for the 1050 Waters project had been issued.
The building permit file shows two Certificates of Occupancy (one for each building) issued
January 21, 1972 and a signed January 26, 1972. The condo plat (Book 4 Page 227) for
the building containing Units 9-16 was filed with Pitkin County on November 26, 1971. The
building permit documents and the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes are
attached.
The expansion of the decks on Unit 15 and Unit 13
appear to be a mid-construction adjustment to the plans
or a very early modification to the building. The physical
supports for both decks and the decking on Unit 15’s
deck appear to be vintage 1970’s construction. The 4x4
posts, with no lateral bracing is also indicative of 1970’s
construction.
Current picture of Unit 15 Deck
The deck surface of the Unit 13 deck along with selected supports were replaced in
Spring/Early Summer 2020 in the same dimension and location as the previous
elements. The deck surface and structural members remained within the footprint of the
existing deck.
A survey of the property was performed July 2, 2019, prior to the resurfacing effort. A
close-up of the 2019 survey showing the deck area is shown below on the left. On
September 2, 2020, the property was again surveyed and the deck area is shown with
the same dimension. A close-up of the 2020 deck area is shown below on the right.
Please note that the surveys show the deck areas of both Unit 13 and the adjacent Unit
15.
A 2018 property measurement report, prepared by True Dimensions, also reinforces the
dimensions of the Unit 13 decks prior to the 2020 resurfacing activity.
315
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 3
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
July 2, 2019 property survey -
close-up of the deck area, pre-
resurfacing
Sept. 2, 2020 property survey -
close-up of the deck area, post-
resurfacing
Historical Observations
In 2006, the Rothschilds,
owners of Unit 13, purchased
Unit 16 within the same building.
Unit 16 sits above Mr. Tye’s Unit
15. The Rothchilds initiated a
renovation project in 2007.
The 2007 renovation plans
submitted to the City (and still
present in the building permit
file) clearly illustrate the deck in
its current configuration with the
staircase heading down
alongside the south elevation of
the property.
Deck in current configuration from 2007 drawing set
316
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 4
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
The City reviewed the 2007 Rothchild permit and
stamped the plans as representing compliance with
City regulations. The City was aware at this point, if
not earlier, of the presence of these two decks. In fact,
notes on the plans refer to railing and drainage
requirements specifically for decks.
The image to the right shows
approval stamps and signatures of
City officials contained on the
2007 Rothschild building plans
The image to the left is a
close-up of notes
regarding decks scribed
by a City official on the
2007 Rothschild building
plans
The Rothschilds submitted an affidavit (attached) attesting to the presence of the decks in
their current configuration from the 2006 time period to present.
Mark Tye, owner of Unit 15, provided an affidavit attesting to his knowledge of the property
– stating that there have not been any changes to the dimensions of the decks since his
purchase of the property in 1999 from his then girlfriend, who had lived in the unit since
late 1996/early 1997.
In Mr. Tye’s words, “On approximately late 1996-early mid 1997…my girlfriend at the time
(Sheila Mize Kaufman), moved into 1050 Waters Ave #15 as a tenant. At that time the
deck, deck size, deck features and deck colors were exactly the same as they are
today. On approximately July 1998 Sheila purchased the property … exactly as described
in the Peak Appraisal. On approximately June 1999, I purchased the property as is, from
Sheila…another appraisal was done by Peak Appraisal. The deck was exactly the same
as previous 1998 appraisal. No work was done during my ownership or Sheila’s to
enlarge, redesign, or change the deck configuration one bit. Even the color is the
same.”
317
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 5
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
An appraisal of the property was conducted at the time of Mr. Tye’s
1999 purchase which confirms the decks at their current
configuration and dimensions. The assumption of value
recognized the deck as part of the overall property, although a
discrete value of the deck was not cited. In 2020, Susan Ebert-
Stone of Peak Appraisal inspected the 1050 Waters property and
confirmed the current location and size of the deck appended to
Unit 15 to be the same as during her 1999 appraisal. Ms. Ebert-
Stone’s letter is attached.
The image to the right is from the 1999 appraisal of Unit
15 and shows a large deck at the rear of the property
Mr. Edward “Ned” Sullivan, owner of unit 10, provided an affidavit. Mr. Sullivan states, “as
the owner of Unit 10, I am in a position to see both of these decks. I have occupied this
unit for 25 years full-time, and can attest that with the exception of a small staircase up to
the deck of Unit 13, there has been no expansion of the square footage of either deck
during this time period.” In an email exchange, Mr. Sullivan talks about his late mother
purchasing Unit 10 in 1990 or 1991 and that to the best of his recollection, the decks of
Units 13 and 15 have always been in their present size.
Mr. Sullivan lived in the neighborhood while the 1050 Water project was under
construction. Mr. Sullivan admits that he was not “taking notes” at the time, but also
suggested a reasonable means of moving forward - “At this point it would seem that the
easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in both decks in their current
configurations and close the cases for both of the current owners. The developer/builder
of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is long dead, and I doubt if there is anyone, former owner
or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more light on the subject.”
Mr. Rothchild spoke with Annalise Chumley, owner of Unit 9 since 1991. Ms. Chumley
reported to Mr. Rothchild that the decks of Unit 13 and Unit 15 were “always big” and
the same size as they are today.
While not an owner at the Aspen Townhomes by the River, William “Scott” Geary and
Wendy Geary (owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue) provided a
statement stating that their “house was built in 1967, and as a younger man, Scott
remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with decks –that they had a great
view from their back deck looking North on the Roaring Fork River and the Townhomes.
Over the last 38 years they have spent a major part of their time in Aspen and recall the
318
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 6
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building.” According to Scott and
Wendy Geary, “these two decks were always larger than the other decks since they
are built over ground and not the river.”
The ariel view to
the right shows the
1102 Waters “A-
Frame” residence
where Scott and
Wendy Geary have
been able to
observe the
riverside decks of
the 1050 Waters
property since 1967
The statements by multiple individuals with specific history and knowledge of the property
confirm the long-standing nature of the decks. No conflicting recollections were found. All
current and previous owners of units in the 1050 Waters building reported the decks being
in the current location and size for the entire duration of their occupancy. At no point did
any current or prior owner state that the decks were a recent addition. Mr. Geary’s
statement is particularly compelling in that his property has provided the optimal viewing
position to observe development activity on the 1050 Waters property since 1967.
According to Mr. Geary, the building was built with the two larger decks. This confirms our
position that the decks were a component of the original construction.
Acceptance by Current Residents and Owners
Current residents also support the continuation of the decks. All owners and tenants were
asked to provide their opinion and position regarding the decks remaining in their current
configuration. One-hundred percent of the respondents support the decks remaining.
Davis Parr, tenant in Unit 14 states about the decks “as the tenant of unit 14, I live directly
above units 13 and 15 and therefore have a direct view of the structures in question. To
put it very simply, I have absolutely no problem with these additions and believe that
they should be grandfathered.” Mr. Parr goes on to say, “they are well designed,
appropriately sized, and impeccably maintained. If anything, I believe that they are
additive to the overall structure as they add a sense of modernity and completeness to
what is otherwise a fairly aged building. As far as I know they present zero impairment to
any tenants' views of the river - which I assume is the operative issue here.”
Clare Bronowski and Jeffrey Lee own unit 12. Bronowski / Lee state, “We have no
objection to maintaining the non-conforming deck, which has been there as long as we
have owned our unit and for many years before according to other owners. The location
319
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 7
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
of the deck does not interfere with the river and appears to leave ample room for access
and high water. Please approve the application and allow the improvements to
remain in place.
Tenants of Unit 11, John Beatty and Victoria Haveman, provided their support for the
existing conditions to continue. “The improvements made to the deck were made within
the footprint of those that existed when we moved in and have been a significant benefit
to the privacy of our unit without any negative impact to ourselves or the area. We would
urge the City to grant their application and allow the improvements to be maintained.”
Mark Uhlfelder, owner of two units within the riverside building and the President of the
Homeowners Association stated his support. Mr. Uhlfelder states, “this is written in
response to numerous postcards received regarding a Stream Margin review
submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their Unit #13 at 1050 E. Waters Ave. I am the
owner (through Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC) of two units, #11 and #14, both of which overlook
the Rothchild's unit. I have no objection to the Rothchild's non-conforming deck.”
Removal of the decks would represent significant environmental degradation. The
proximity to the river and nature of the structural supports of the decks will result in
detrimental effects on the riparian area and surrounding trees.
Environmental Effects
Frank Reynolds IV is the owner of FRR Construction, an Aspen-based contracting and
construction company with 22+ years of experience developing and remodeling homes in
the Aspen area. Mr. Reynolds was asked to provide his professional opinion regarding
the impacts of removing the Unit 13 and 15 decks. Mr. Reynolds concludes, “the deck at
1050 Waters is approximately 14‘ x 14‘ The east end of the deck is approximately 12 feet
from the waters edge which is the roaring Fork River. The deck is supported by two
courses of railroad ties that support a framed floor system. Approximately 1 1/2 feet away
is a Spruce Street 28 inch in diameter. After years of growth the trees root system has
become intertwined with the decks structural supports being tied to the railroad ties.
Removal of the deck supports could/would damage the tree’s root system. Removal of
the decking itself will present an erosion problem in the spring with the snow melts and
runoff causing dirt and debris to end up in the roaring Fork River this would occur during
periods of rain as well. The access to do the actual demo of the existing deck would have
to take place on the riverbank disturbing natural grade as there is not enough room to
stage properly.” The continued existence of the Unit 13 deck, with a new surface has no
material effect on river health. Removal of the deck could negatively impact the river.
Effects on Property Value
Removal of the decks would cause irreparable harm to the value of Units 13 and 15. Galen
Bright has worked in Aspen real estate for over 25 years. Mr. Bright is the Vice President
of Residential Sales for the local real estate firm Setterfield and Bright. Mr. Bright has
320
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 8
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
specific knowledge of Unit 13 having served as the transaction broker for the buyer and
seller of Unit 13 in 2018. Mr. Bright was asked to opine on the importance of the deck, in
its current size and location, to the value of the property. Mr. Bright states, “the deck was
one of its most important features. . . For each of these transactions, one of the key selling
points for this property was the location on the river and the generous size of the deck.
Reducing the deck to less than 1/3 of its current size would significantly reduce the value
of this property.” [note: reducing the decks to 1/3 of their current size would be the impact
of not recognizing the current decks as an existing condition.]
Effects on Zoning Conformance
A determination that these decks are an existing condition will have no effect on floor area
conformity of the property. On behalf of the owners of Unit 13 and 15, BendonAdams
commissioned Red Room Design, local Architects with expertise in measuring floor area
and documenting existing conditions. While accessing the interior of all the units was not
possible, the calculations measure exterior wall to exterior wall and include the existing
deck areas on site.
The gross size of the 1050 property is 21,929 SF based upon the survey dated September
3rd, 2020. This property size allows a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25:1 based upon 16 units on
site – pursuant to code Section 26.710.090D.10.d. Accordingly, the property is allowed
27,411.25 square feet of development, significantly above the estimated gross and net
Floor Area currently developed on the property.
Likewise, developed deck area is significantly below the allowance for the property.
Table 1: Floor Area Calculations
Building Units Gross FA (sf) Net FA (sf)
1 8 11,738.2 9,258.5
2 8 8,312.8 7,209.35
Totals 20,051sf 16,467.85sf
Table 2: Gross Deck Calculations
Building Deck Tally Across all
Units (sf)
1 896
2 843.3
Total Existing 1739.3
15% Allowable
Exemption
Based on Allowed FA
4,111
321
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 9
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Land Use Precedent
In early 1992, Unit 25 of 1028 E Hopkins (Riverview
Condominium Association), was cited for replacing the
surface of an existing deck without applying for a
permit. A permit was submitted and rejected by the
Zoning officer and the project was deemed subject to
Stream Margin Exemption Review for “replacing a
deteriorated deck and installing a stairway” due to the
unit’s location being within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork
River.
The aerial to the right illustrates the proximity
of the 1028 building to the Roaring Fork River,
and the location of Unit 25 within the building.
This is very comparable to the placement of
Units 13 and 15 of 1050 Waters.
The site plan of the 1973 Condominium Plat of the 1028 property does not show a deck
on the riverside of the property.
The snip below to the left is taken from the
1973 condominium map. The snip below to
the right is taken from the 1992 planning file
in which the deck appears to have been
drawn-in.
322
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 10
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Other drawings in the City’s files for 1028
seem to indicate a deck, but with a
different dimension and layout.
Just like with the 1050 property, the size
and layout of the existing deck on the
1028 property appears to contradict
recorded documents and the City’s files.
The existing condition being a larger deck
much closer to the river.
Planning and Engineering staff found that
the property had replaced the deck in the
same exact location and in the same
dimensions as the previous deck. This
included a new small staircase down to
the river that did not exist in the prior
documentation. The City found that there
were no property setback violations, that
the Floor Area and site coverage were not
affected, and that the deck was not in a
trail easement nor would it retain more
flood debris than the previous deck.
The image above is taken from the
architectural plans of the Condominium
plat of the Riverview Condominiums
(1028 e. Hopkins Avenue) recorded with
Pitkin County in book 4, page 438
Although the deck at the 1028 property had no previous Stream Margin approval and
contradicted recorded documents, the reconstructed deck and addition of a new stair was
recognized as an existing condition and approved to remain and be rebuilt.
The 1028 example utilized the same code section and criteria as exists today. The full set
of 1992 Stream Margin Exemption Review criteria applicable to the 1028 project are listed
below: [note, the image below is taken from the City’s property file with added annotations.]
Exemptions. The Community Development
Director may exempt the following types of
development within the stream margin review
area:
a) The development does not add more than
ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the
existing structure or increase the amount of
building area exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five
percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a
Roaring
Fork River
Deck + Stair
323
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 11
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling
or reconstruction will be any closer to the high-water line than is the existing
development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one
has been designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the
amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan.
The project at 1028 E Hopkins was approved for replacement of the deck surface and the
addition of the staircase. This 1028 example, with all of its similarities, provides a strong
basis for approval and memorialization of the existing decks at 1050 Waters Avenue.
The 1028 and 1050 properties have similar proximity to the Roaring Fork River. Both were
initially stopped during deck resurfacing work without a permit and called into question
regarding Stream Margin Review. Both properties are of the late 60s early 70s vintage
construction and neither was able to show definitive proof of an original building permit –
at least not with the precision that today’s permit files offer. Both properties have
discrepancy regarding existing conditions and recorded files. the 1028 deck was
considered to be an existing condition by the City and allowed to proceed with the deck
resurfacing effort.
Given that Aspen continues to evolve, with properties being developed according to the
rules and regulations is effect at the time of their permitting, accommodation of existing
conditions is a necessary component of administering an ever-changing Land Use Code.
This appears to have been the case with the 1028 property – after an initial negative
reaction from the City there was appreciation and acceptance of the existing condition and
accommodation of the deck resurfacing effort. The deck 1028 deck was acknowledged,
approved, documented, but not allowed to expand.
324
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 12
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Effects on Floodway
Determining the Unit 13 and 15 decks to be an
existing condition will not have any effect on the
Roaring Fork River floodway.
Using the information available through Map
Aspen, the Floodway crosses both the 1028 E
Hopkins and the 1050 Waters Avenue properties,
however, it only intrudes upon a portion of these
properties, and units with decks in question are
outside of the Floodway areas – another
commonality between the 1028 land use case and
the 1050 Waters Avenue case.
The orange line in the maps to the right
represent the mapped Floodway along the
1028 E. Hopkins property (upper map) and
the 1050 Waters Avenue (lower map) Both
properties have similar orientations to the
Floodway and the Roaring Fork River.
Both properties have decks lying just
outside of the mapped floodway.
Summary
Determining the decks to be an existing condition is an appropriate determination based
on the facts and is an outcome acceptable to all parties affected by the decision. From all
perspectives, the deck appended to Unit 15 appears to have been constructed along with
the original construction of the building or very soon thereafter. Everyone with knowledge
of the deck has confirmed that is has been in its current size and location for as long as
they can recollect. The adjacent landowner, Mr. Geary, with arguably the best physical
position to witness the deck has stated that the decks were always larger. Mr. Geary has
no interest in this matter other than providing his factual observation. We believe and it
is our position that the present-day Unit 15 deck is an original feature of the property and
an existing condition.
The City has been in a position, at least since 2006 and possible decades prior, to initiate
enforcement or approach the landowner regarding the disposition of the deck.
Landowners rely on the City to maintain accurate, comprehensive real estate records.
The lack of enforcement or any record ever questioning the deck for the past 50 years
Unit 25, 1028
E Hopkins
Units 13 and 15,
1050 Waters
325
1050 Waters Ave #15
Page 13
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
implies conformance and has arguably factored into various value assessments, tax
assessments, and transactions over the years.
Requiring removal of the deck would cause unnecessary hardship on the owner. This
inequitable outcome would create a “significant” financial infringement upon the current
owner who purchased the properties in an ‘as-is’ condition with a clear and documented
premium for the deck square footage and in reliance on City records. Removal of the deck
would threaten at least one very large Spruce tree and increase effects of erosion,
impacting both the river health and possibly the foundation and structural support of the
condominium building itself.
Affected property owners and tenants support the existing condition. The Homeowners
Association supports the existing condition. Memorializing the longstanding deck as an
existing condition would be consistent with the City’s handling of the one previous
precedent at 1028 e. Hopkins. We respectfully request the Planning and Zoning
Commission acknowledge and accept the deck appended to Unit 15 is an existing
condition.
The property is legally described as Condominium Unit 15; Aspen Townhouse by the River
Condominiums. The property is owned by Tye Mark M Trust. BendonAdams has been
authorized by Mr. Tye to submit this request.
We believe this request contains the necessary information for a complete and competent
review. Please let us know if additional information is needed. We look forward to your
review and will make ourselves available for any questions or concerns you have.
Kind Regards,
Chris Bendon, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
Attachments:
1. July 20, 1971 P&Z Minutes
2. 1970 and 1971 COs
3. 1971 Condo Plat
4. July 2019 property survey
5. Sept. 2020 property survey
6. March 2018 True Dimensions report
7. 2007 Rothschild permit drawings
8. Rothschild affidavit
9. Tye affidavit
10. Susan Ebert, Peak Appraisal letter
11. Edward Sullivan email
12. Scott Geary email
13. Davis Parr email
14. Clare Bronowski & Jeffrey Lee email
15. John Beatty & Victoria Haveman email
16. Mark Uhlfelder email
17. FRR Construction letter
18. Galen Bright letter
19. Floor Area Calculations
20. 1028 e. Hopkins Condo Map
21. 1028 e. Hopkins planning file A60-92
326
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FORM '0 C.F.HOECKELB.6.&L.CO.
Public Hearing, P & z, 2/4/69, continued.
unit. Lets say develop the other 7S0 sq.ft. to green area. So you are
devoting 7S0 sq.ft. to living unit but you have to give up 7S0 sq.ft.
for green area.
Robin Molny - Thats pie in the sky. When you stop and think, in affect
you are reducing the density. I would think that that would be the result
of what you are saying. You are talking SO/SO aren't you.
Lennie Lookner - Maybe you could work up something to reduce the density and
give us more green areas to look at.
Robin Molny - That is what we are striving to do in slightly different
terms.
Harry Uhfelder - I have been developing the Aspen Townhouses. I have never
utilitized the full allowed density. For instance, this last year I
developed 11 units on S lots. I am leaving area for green space and off
street parking. And I think it works very well. It is popular and
acceptable. I think you have to find a compromise solution in between what
has been suggested and what is allowed. It can be done. It is popular
and keeping in the character of the place. Some kind of compromise.
Tom Benton - When we requested the density we did not only request the
density but also scale control, to go along with that. Our feeling in
this was the density is as recommended in the Master Plan were based ona
study almost a year of study whereas the densities that were adopted
finally were based on nothing more than a little Harassment by a few people.
Now what Mr. Uhfelder said there are a great many things that have been
built in Aspen that have densities of much less, actually those are
densities which are recommended in the Master Plan. There is no problem
here. I think thats the type of thing Aspen needs and is beneficial
to Aspen. But just these few thathave caused the big problem and so
unfortunately you have to regulate for those few. Now I think you are
right that the major problem is not completely densities in itself. It
is the use of space. Personnally I feel there is nothing wrong with a
compromise as long as the town achieves benefitas well as the people
who are building also. But our request was for two things, so that this
wouldn't happen, that we wouldn't be involved in cutting the densities
in half and find thatpeople are building the same size building with units
just twice as large. I think that the direction would be beneficial
and some sort of bonus system. But it has to be tied, we feel, absolute
requirement that certain amount of land be left open because if you don't
make it a requirement, it will never be.
Nancy Ward - I have never hadthis question answered to me. I have property,
I came out with a design conforming to multiple family dwelling. I was
told why not call yourself a lodge, then you can get more on that
property. Now I didn't intend to build a lodge, I want apartments. I
don't intend to run a lodge. Now what loophole is in the zoning code
that will allow me to pur more units on my land simply by calling myself
a lodge.
Chairman Heneghan - That was a loophole, and that has been changed. There
is no reference in the present zoning ordinance to a lodge, motel unit,
condominium none of these references are now made. There are only two -
limited and unlimited unit. What you call it or do with it is your own
N? 82
Exhibit 1
327
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.B:L.CQ.
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
Goals Task Force
Objectives
PUD
Uhfelder Const.
a Minimal expense. Other plan calls for outlying parking
areas and mini buses with 2 hour parking in this general
area. Mini buses would shuffle people between the two
parking areas. Another plan is for parking under Wagner
Park and shuffle people up to the lift and also a transit
system.
Adams moved to recommend to the City Council that Plan #1
be adopted for the 1971 and 1972 season and feasibility on
financing be done by the Finance Department on Plans #2
and #3 and Plans #2 and #3 be reviewed by Voorhees.
Seconded by Goodhard. All in favor, motion carried.
Goals Task Force Objectives - Mr. Bartel explained at the
last study session he had submitted the program on quality
skiing. Objective #4 was discussed and the Commission re-
quest a more definitive interpretation be inserted as re-
lates to economy. Also request the word maximum be modified.
Collins moved that the Commission accept the tentative
objectives as submitted by resolution and recommend that
the Planner and Goals Task Force proceed with development
of the programs for the balance of the objectives.
Seconded by Goodhard.
Collins moved to amend the motion to allow Herb Bartel to
change the woraing in Paragraph 4. Seconded by Goodhard.
All in favor, motion carried.
Main Motion - All in favor, motion carried.
Commission agreed to hold a study session next Tuesday to
discuss quality skiing, growth policy and Zoline preliminary
pms.
PUD - Commission request the Secretary schedule a public
hearing for August 17th.
Uhfelder Construction - Chairman Molny reported this con-
struction has been brought to his attention by citizens.
The stream margin regulation was effective on April 20th.
Mr. Uhfelder obtained his building permit on March 9th
and fulfilled his building permit on June 7th. City Attorney
Kern is checking into which date should be considered, the
March date of June date as relates to the regulations. The
plot plan shows the Roaring Fork River being about 10' away
from the building at the closest point. In checking the
site the stakes appear like the river will touch the build=
ing. Also following the March date, the City adopted the
Uniform Building Code and requires a certified survey. This
application appears to be an obvious attempt to circumvent
the City ordinance. Property located at the end of Waters
Avenue. The City Attorney is also checking to see if there
are any violations in this case. Also, one of the adjoin-
ing property owners feel the building is being built on dis-
puted land. Private citizens are checking into a perhaps
federal violation of streams.
2-
328
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves
FOIlM!O C.F.HOECI(ELB.B.Il:L.CO.
Regular Meeting, Aspen Planning &. Zoning, 7/20/71
It was pointed out the citizens in seeing this building
built practically in the stream by feel this is the result
of the stream margin regulations which is not the case.
Jordan moved the Planning and Zoning Commission strongly
express their concern and would appreciate the City
Attorney looking at this in depth. Seconded by Collins.
All in favor, motion carried.
Adams moved to adjourn at 6:45 P. M., Seconded by Breasted.
All in favor, motion carried.
Lorraine Graves, Secretary
329
Exhibit 2
330
331
Exhibit 3332
333
334
Exhibit 4335
Exhibit 5336
Exhibit 6
337
Phone: 970-618-8351
Fax: 970-925-2498
Email: AspenTrueDimensions@comcast.net
True Dimensions
P.O. Box 10431
Certificate dated: March 6, 2018
TRUE DIMENSIONS
by: Leslie Miller
CERTIFICATE OF MEASUREMENT
Property: 1050 Waters Ave
Unit 13
Aspen, Colorado 81611
The undersigned hereby certifies that we have measured the property described above,
on March 6, 2018 and our findings are as follows:
Heated Livable Finished Area: 815 square feet (ANSI)
Deck: 157 square feet (not included)
The above findings have been calculated in accordance to the guidelines for the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI), applicable to the City of Aspen, County of Pitkin, State of Colorado . The
on-site/as built calculation for finished square footage is for a condominium residence. The square footage
total has been calculated with interior wall dimensions only, which are heated, sheet rocked, and which are
considered finished space.
True Dimensions has exercised its best efforts to perform an on-site/as built measurement of the
property as accurately as possible. It is understood however that there can be some uncertainty wit h respect to
the accuracy of any square footage measurement due to variations in finished surfaces as well as interior and
exterior wall construction, as well as other factors.
338
339
I
•
PHOTO OF EXISTING EXTERIOR
VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.) -�
--
Creek
A
B -
ROTHSCHILD RESIDENCE
REMODEL PERMIT NO. ___ 0 0_4 '. 2 o o 7.A-�'1�
OWNERr<Yh�cK ADORES 0-:. o . WA-r e1£.. sCITY/COUNTY� ZIP 8z(::I c
PARCELID 2737 1 •_2 4 --0�0 .
PROJECT INFORMATION: PROJECT DIRECTORY:
PROJECT:
ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER
1050 WATERS AVENUE
UNIT 16 REMODEL
ASPEN, CO 81611
PARCEL ID:
273718240018
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
OWNER:
IVETTE & ANDY ROTHSCHILD
1050 WATERS AVENUE, UNIT 16
ASPEN, CO 81611
314.517.4022
ARCHITECT:
ROWLAND+BROUGHTON
ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN DESIGN
117 S. MONARCH
CONDO: ASPEN TOWNHOUSES BY THE RIVER
UNIT 16
ASPEN, CO 81611
970.544.9006 PHONE
970 .544.3473 FAX
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
REMODEL
ZONE DISTRICT:
RI MF I LP
DRAWING LIST:
G-001
G-002
A-2.1e
A-2.1
A-4.1e
A-4.1
A-7.1
COVER
EXTERIOR ELEVATION IMAGES
CONTACT: SARAH BROUGHTON, AIA
CONTRACTOR:
JEFF KENTZ
P.O. BOX 847
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81623
970.618.7875 PHONE
CONTACT: JEFF KENTZ
EXISTING PLANS MAIN LEVEL+ SECOND LEVEL
PROPOSED PLANS MAIN LEVEL + SECOND LEVEL
EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
ASSEMBLY DETAILS
AREA CALCULATIONS:
FAR REMAINS THE SAME AS
C\jRRENTL Y CONSTRUCTED
445•1 Ml>.IN LEVEL GROSS
+482sf ·SECOND LEVEL GROSS
927·, 7� AREA GROSS
�.
♦ 77 .·�
-
MAR O 7 2007
A$ t:N BUILDING D EPARTMEN T
rowland + broughton
architecture and urban design
100 e. cooper ave, #3 3377 bloke st, 106 aspen, co 61611 denver, co 80205 970.544.9006 V 303.308.1373 V 970.544 3473 f 303.308.1375 f
Consultants
Issue:
17 JANUARY 2007
DESIGN REVIEW
7 MARCH 2007
CONSTRUCTION
ROTHSCHILD
CONDO
1050 WATERS AVENUE #16
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PROJECT NO:
2658
DWG FILE:
2658_COVER.dwg
SHEET TITLE
COVER SHEET
N.T.S.
G-001
CQPYAjOlfT )Ml ROY,V,NC--IROUOHTON AMIITtt'Tl.1111! NIO � D� THi f""Ol!:fMTION N>iD CiEl!GN INTliHT l::i:»l'l'AIN£11 ON ll-l!oo::i.Jl,l£J,ITIS Tlil F'ROPf.RTYOf!ICV!\.ANl),-IIRO\/GlirONAAC!lltl!CTI.MHl:t\.lM,,lt,J
on QN, NO �NIT Qf''fHI IH�ORl,\,lnON M,l,Y!leUSBlWno.<fM PRIOR
'M'.lfflN PelU,'IHI� OF fl:�BIIOI..IOl'(TON OACMTiiCTU'llil >llO �DN<I
t>U'ON ROW..,t,N0-9RC�JQ!rON AACHll"EC:Tll'lE NE IAll3,l,N CIE811lN 8!1IU REDJN "'-I.I. COU-1.,J,,.W IT..,_NTOfl:l NvO OHE" �� �
IM::I.UClNO COPlfl:l:JlolT TtEfl:ElO.
Exhibit 7
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
Exhibit 8350
351
Exhibit 9352
11/13/2020
Mark M. Tye
P.O. Box 8992
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Consulting for litigation purposes regarding a deck improvement
1050 Waters Ave, Aspen Townhouses by the River Unit 15
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Tye,
This letter is being written to communicate my observations of your deck improvement on Unit 15. I previ-
ously appraised this unit at the time of your purchase in 1999 (my appraisal report date of value was June 29,
1999), at which time I performed a full property viewing and measurement of the residential unit as well as the
deck. Refer to the exhibits attached for the floor plan and deck photos.
This 1999 appraisal report shows the deck to be 12 feet in depth and 14 feet in width. The photo was also taken
in 1999 but my database has a February date on this picture. This shows the northeast corner of the deck, in-
cluding the north deck wall and the east knee wall with a bench top.
On November 10, 2020 I went back to the property and measured the deck and took pictures. I found the deck
to be the same size (12’ x 14’) and of the same finish that it was in 1999. My current photos are attached. As
such, it is my observation that no changes or extensions have been made to the deck since June 1999.
I was asked if I had a recollection or comment on the side path and staircase that leads down to the subject’s
deck. I do not specifically recall whether this path existed in 1999 and I have no pictures of the path in my sub-
ject 1999 file. However, I did find two other photos in my database – one undated and the other from 2007 –
which show the south side of the building and this common area path from a bit of a distance. I have included
these for your reference.
This summarizes my findings as to the state of the deck improvement. If you have any questions or need addi-
tional assistance with this case, feel free to contact me.
Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Ebert - Stone, SRA
CO. Cert. Res. 1767
Exhibit 10
353
2 | Page
EXHIBIT 1: FLOOR PLAN FROM 1999 FILE
354
3 | Page
EXHIBIT 2: VARIOUS PHOTOS
Photos taken November 2020
355
4 | Page
356
5 | Page
February 1999 photo August 2006 photo (just the top of the subject deck)
South side common area photos:
April 2007 Undated
357
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:46:41 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 2:00:57 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Hearing - 13 & #15, 1050 E Waters Ave.
Reply-To: Ned Sullivan <novillus@earthlink.net>
Ms. Thibeault;
I am writing in response to the postcards which I recently received, regarding the hearings
on June 1 for Land Use Reviews on 1050 E. Waters Ave., Units 13 and 15. These reviews
concern possible unapproved expansions of decks for these two units. As the owner of Unit
10, I am in a position to see both of these decks. I have occupied this unit for 25 years full-
time, and can attest that with the exception of a small staircase up to the deck of Unit 13,
there has been no expansion of the square footage of either deck during this time period. I
lived on the adjacent property downstream during the construction of these units, but
obviously was not taking notes, and soon moved a few blocks away. Apparently neither
deck conforms to the original approved plans for the building, but no one can remember if
they were originally built that way 50 years ago, or were expanded at some later date. At
this point it would seem that the easiest solution to this hearing would be to grandfather in
both decks in their current configurations and close the cases for both of the current
owners. The developer/builder of the complex, Harry Uhlfelder, is long dead, and I doubt if
there is anyone, former owner or tenant, still in Aspen who could shed any more light on the
subject. Since the construction of this complex, and several others downstream, the
laws/codes have changed regarding setbacks from the river (stream margins), etc. I
suggest that the City of Aspen not waste any more time or money on this particular subject
and move on to more important matters.
As it is unlikely that this Hearing will be conducted in person with comments from the public,
I am asking you to forward this email on to the Planning and Zoning Commission to be
included in the Hearing as public input.
Thank you in advance,
Edward M. Sullivan
#10, 1050 E. Waters Ave.
Box 1324, Aspen, CO 81612
925-1021
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
Exhibit 11
358
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
359
From:Reilly Thimons
To:Rothschild, Andrew; Chris Bendon
Subject:RE: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Date:Wednesday, April 7, 2021 3:19:10 PM
Thank you Andrew! I will add this into the application letter narrative and PDF it to add to the
exhibits.
From: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:19 PM
To: Chris Bendon <chris@bendonadams.com>; Reilly Thimons <reilly@bendonadams.com>
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
Chris and Reilly- this just received from Scott and Wendy Geary. Should be helpful. Let me know if
you want me to forward without my comments. Thanks.
From: Scott and Wendy Geary [mailto:wwgeary@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2021 2:15 PM
To: Rothschild, Andrew <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Townhomes by the River
RE: Decks at the Townhomes By The River
We are William "Scott" Geary and Wendy Geary, representing the Geary Family, LLC, the
owners of the small A-frame house at 1102 Waters Avenue in Aspen. Our house was built in
1967, and as a younger man, Scott remembers the Townhomes by the River being built with
decks. We have a great view from our back deck looking north down the Roaringfork River
and at the Townhomes. The past 38 years we have spent a major part of our time in Aspen and
recall the two larger decks that are towards the south side of the building. Those two decks
were always larger than the other decks since they are built over the ground and not the river.
They are not only accessible from the individual condominium but also from a walkway along
the building.
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender
of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy,
distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 12
360
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] E Waters Ave land use reviews
Date:Thursday, May 27, 2021 4:11:25 PM
FYI. Last one. I saw Tye’s emails. I will be in your office at 11:00.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Davis Parr <davisparr@gmail.com>
Date: May 27, 2021 at 3:07:31 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Cc: "Rothschild, Andrew" <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] E Waters Ave land use reviews
To whom it may concern:
I am writing in regards to the upcoming hearings regarding land use reviews
for 1050 E Waters Ave. - specifically the outdoor additions to units 13 and
15.As the tenant of unit 14, I live directly above units 13 and 15 and
therefore have a direct view of the structures in question.
To put it very simply, I have absolutely no problem with these additions and
believe that they should be grandfathered. They are well designed,
appropriately sized, and impeccably maintained. If anything, I believe that
they are additive to the overall structure as they add a sense of modernity
and completeness to what is otherwise a fairly aged building. As far as I
know they present zero impairment to any tenants' views of the river - which I
assume is the operative issue here.
I was once involved in a similar situation with a neighbor in midtown
Manhattan - a city that is notorious for its stringent planning controls. After no
small amount of heartache, the senior members of planning finally opined that
it was really not their ultimate duty to interpret the last letter of the law, but
rather to make the city a better place overall. Thus the project was
approved. I would suggest that everyone here take a step back, look at the
big picture and move on.
Furthermore and with all due respect, I can't imagine that Aspen Planning and
Zoning does not have much better things to do with their time and budget
given the massive amount of current construction and what looks to be a
record year for real estate. Your team must have a huge amount of work to
do and getting lost in the minutia seems counter-productive.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Davis Parr
Exhibit 13
361
--
Davis Parr
Cell: 214-701-5528
email: davisparr@gmail.com
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
362
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 4:47:26 PM
Ditto- I’ll send more if I get any.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 1:04:13 PM MDT
To: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>, Jeff
<jlee@laurbanhomes.com>, "Rothschild, Andrew" <arothschild@lewisrice.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1,
2021
Below is what I sent to City. Good luck.
Clare
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Clare Bronowski <clareb1050@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 24, 2021 at 9:01 AM
Subject: 1050 Waters Ave., #13; Hearing date: June 1, 2021
To: <michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com>
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Attn: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing in support of the application for variation from the Stream Margin
standard submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their unit at 1050 Waters
Ave., Unit 13. We are the owners and residents at 1050 Waters Ave., Unit 12.
Our second story balcony looks directly down on the Rothchild's deck. We have
no objection to maintaining the non-conforming deck, which has been there as
long as we have owned our unit and for many years before according to other
owners. The location of the deck does not interfere with the river and appears to
leave ample room for access and high water.
Exhibit 14
363
Please approve the application and allow the improvements to remain in place.
Thank you.
Clare Bronowski and Jeffrey Lee
1050 Waters Ave., #12
Aspen, CO 81611
mailing address: 625 E. Main St., Suite 102B-240, Aspen, CO 81611
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
364
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application to be heard June 1st
Date:Wednesday, May 26, 2021 8:59:16 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: John Beatty <beatty@intotheusa.com>
Date: May 26, 2021 at 5:52:22 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 1050 Waters Avenue - Andrew & Yvette Rothschild Application
to be heard June 1st
Reply-To: John Beatty <beatty@intotheusa.com>
Dear Michelle:
We have lived in Unit 11, which is the unit immediately adjacent to Andrew & Yvette's unit
that is the subject of the special review, for approximately the past 6 years.
We are sending this email in support of their application for Special Review. The
improvements made to the deck were made within the footprint of those that existed when
we moved in, and have been a significant benefit to the privacy of our unit without any
negative impact to ourselves or the area. We would urge the City to grant their application
and allow the improvements to be maintained.
John Beatty & Victoria Haveman
Unit 11, 1050 Waters Avenue
tel: 970.920.1522
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message contains
information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney work product
privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message and notify the sender of the
delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or
use the information in this message if you are not the intended recipient.
Exhibit 15
365
From:Rothschild, Andrew
To:Chris Bendon
Subject:Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building Stream Review
Date:Monday, May 24, 2021 8:30:10 PM
FYI
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark <mark@uhlfelder.com>
Date: May 24, 2021 at 7:44:50 PM MDT
To: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Aspen Townhouses by the River, East Building
Stream Review
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault
City of Aspen Community Development Dept.
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
By Email Only
Dear P&Z Commissioners:
This is written in response to numerous post cards received regarding a Stream
Margin review submitted by Andy and Ivette Rothchild for their Unit #13 at 1050 E.
Waters Ave. I am the owner (through Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC) of two units, #11
and #14, both of which overlook the Rothchild's unit. I have no objection to the
Rothchild's non-conforming deck.
Thank you.
Mark Uhlfelder
Aspen Prime R.E. 2 LLC
This message, including attachments, is from the law firm of Lewis Rice LLC. This message
contains information that may be confidential and protected by the attorney-client or attorney
work product privileges. If you are not the intended recipient, promptly delete this message
and notify the sender of the delivery error by return e-mail or call us at 314-444-7600. You
may not forward, print, copy, distribute, or use the information in this message if you are not
the intended recipient.
Exhibit 16
366
Tuesday, July 20, 2021
To Whom It May Concern:
After a site visit and review of 1050 Waters Ave #15 and #13 decks we have come to some
conclusions on the damage removing the decks will do to the surrounding area. Our assessment
is as follows:
The deck at 1050 Waters is approximately 14‘ x 14‘ The east end of the deck is approximately
12 feet from the waters edge which is the roaring Fork River. The deck is supported by two
courses of railroad ties that support a framed floor system. Approximately 1 1/2 feet away is a
Spruce Street 28 inch in diameter.
After years of growth the trees root system has become intertwined with the decks structural
supports being tied to the railroad ties. Removal of the deck supports could/would damage the
trees root system.
Removal of the decking itself will present an erosion problem in the spring with the snow melts
and runoff causing dirt and debris to end up in the roaring Fork River this would occur during
periods of rain as well.
The access to do the actual demo of the existing deck would have to take place on the river bank
disturbing natural grade as there is not enough room to stage properly.
Sincerely,
Frank Reynolds
Exhibit 17
367
W W W . A S P E N R E A L . C O M
457 E Hopkins Avenue | Aspen, Colorado 81611
galen@aspenreal.com | 970-920-9762
June 14, 2021
Re: Value of the existing deck at 1050 Waters Ave, Unit 13, Aspen CO
To Whom It May Concern:
I represented the Buyer and the Seller as a Transaction Broker for the sale of this property on
November 7, 2018. When the Seller and I discussed the pricing for this property the deck was
an integral part of that valuation. For everyone who looked at this property during the time
that I had it listed for sale, and for the Buyer who ultimately purchased the property, the deck
was one of its most important features.
Of the 42 two-bedroom condominiums that sold in Aspen during 2018, this property was the 6th
highest in terms of price/sf. The interior was well appointed, but the exterior and common
areas of the building were inferior to the other properties in this price range that sold that year.
Previously, this property sold on September 17, 2015. Of the 59 two-bedroom condominiums
that sold in Aspen during 2015, this property was the 5th highest in terms of price/sf.
Prior to that, this property sold on May 23rd, 2008. Of the 26 two-bedroom condominiums that
sold in Aspen during 2008, this property was the 2nd highest in terms of price/sf.
For each of these transactions, one of the key selling points for this property was the location
on the river and the generous size of the deck. Reducing the deck to less than 1/3 of its current
size would significantly reduce the value of this property.
Sincerely,
Galen Bright
Setterfield & Bright
Galen Bright
Exhibit 18
368
A201
BUILDING 1
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
E 1 E 248.7 sq ft
E 3 E 449.2 sq ft
E 6 E 566.7 sq ft
E 7 E 849.0 sq ft
COMMONCOMMONSHED40.0 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"8'-9"8'-8"3'-6"8'-10"14'-113/4"15'-51/16"8'-9"B 185.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft 128'32'-9"5'-6"
B 285.3 sq ft
B 385.3 sq ft
B 485.3 sq ft
B 585.3 sq ft
B 685.3 sq ft
B 785.3 sq ft
B 885.3 sq ft
UNIT 1489.3 sq ft
UNIT 2489.3 sq ft
UNIT 3489.3 sq ft
UNIT4489.3 sq ft
UNIT 5474.3 sq ft
UNIT 6489.3 sq ft
UNIT 7489.3 sq ft
UNIT 8489.3 sq ft
32'-9"128'64'16'48'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
SHED 40.0 SF
TOTAL 3,939.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 1 489.3 SF
UNIT 2 489.3 SF
UNIT 3 489.3SF
UNIT 4 489.3 SF
UNIT 5 474.3 SF
UNIT 6 489.3 SF
UNIT 7 489.3 SF
UNIT 8 489.3 SF
TOTAL 3,899.4 SF
TOTAL SF 11,738.2 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
TOTAL 0 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
E1, E2 DECK 48.7 SF
E3, E4 DECK 49.2 SF
E5, E6 DECK 66.7 SF
E7, E8 DECK 49.0 SF
TOTAL 213.6 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B1 DECK 85.3 SF
B2 DECK 85.3 SF
B3 DECK 85.3 SF
B4 DECK 85.3 SF
B5 DECK 85.3 SF
B6 DECK 85.3 SF
B7 DECK 85.3 SF
B8 DECK 85.3 SF
TOTAL 682.4 SF
TOTAL SF 896 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,949.7 SF (@50%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 3,899.4 SF
UPPER LEVEL 3,409.4 SF (61.25 X 8)
TOTAL 9,258.5 SF
BUILDING 1
Exhibit 19
369
A202
BUILDING 2
SHEET NUMBER
SHEET TITLE 1050 WATERS AVE.ASPEN, CO 81611Red Room Design
1001 Grand Avenue, Ste 211
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
970.413.3144
DRAWING ISSUE
1/8/2021 10:31 AMCALCULATIONS
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
COMMON 11, 1276.0 sq ft
COMMON 9, 1076.0 sq ft
B 10 65.0 sq ft
B 1265.0 sq ft
B 1465.0 sq ft
COMMON
42.2 sq ft
UNIT 14435.3 sq ft
UNIT 16501.6 sq ft
UNIT 13386.3 sq ft
UNIT 12846.3 sq ft
UNIT10442.7 sq ft
B 11.516.7 sq ft
36'-9"
B 16 65.0 sq ft
B 1665.0 sq ft UNIT 16455.9 sq ft
UNIT 14868.3 sq ft
UNIT 12461.3 sq ft
UNIT 10962.2 sq ft
32'-5"
B 1165.0 sq ft
B 965.0 sq ft
UNIT 11947.8 sq ft
UNIT 9893.5 sq ft
UNIT 13435.3 sq ft
UNIT 15439.8 sq ft
COMMON13, 1442.2 sq ft
B 13189.1 sq ft
B 15182.5 sq ft
32'-5"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Middle Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Upper Level Plan
0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Lower Level Plan
0 4'8'16'
GROSS AREA CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
UNIT 15 439.8 SF
UNIT 13 435.3 SF
UNIT 11 947.8 SF
UNIT 9 893.5 SF
E 13, 15 42.2 SF
TOTAL 2,758.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
UNIT 16 501.6 SF
UNIT 14 435.3 SF
UNIT 13 386.3 SF
UNIT 12 823.8 SF
UNIT 10 420.1 SF
COMMON 13, 14, 15, 16 42.2 SF
COMMON 11, 12 98.6 SF
COMMON 9, 10 98.6 SF
TOTAL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL
UNIT 16 455.9 SF
UNIT 14 868.3 SF
UNIT 12 461.3 SF
UNIT 10 962.2 SF
TOTAL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL SF 8,312.8 SF
GROSS DECK CALCULATIONS
LOWER LEVEL
B 15 DECK 182.5 SF
B 13 DECK 189.1 SF
B 11 DECK 65 SF
B 9 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 501.6 SF
MIDDLE LEVEL
B 10 DECK 65 SF
B 11.5 DECK 16.7 SF
B 12 DECK 65 SF
B 14 DECK 65SF
TOTAL 211.7 SF
UPPER LEVEL
B 16 DECK 65 SF
B 16 DECK 65 SF
TOTAL 130 SF
TOTAL SF 843.3 SF
UNIT DIVISIONS ARE ESTIMATED
BUILDING 2
ESTIMATED FAR
LOWER LEVEL 1,655.15 SF (@60%)
MIDDLE LEVEL 2,806.5 SF
UPPER LEVEL 2,747.7 SF
TOTAL 7,209.35 SF
370
Exhibit 20371
372
373
374
Exhibit 21
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397