HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20250604AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION
June 4, 2025
4:30 PM, Council Chambers
3rd Floor, 427 Rio Grande Pl,
Aspen
I.ROLL CALL
II.COMMENTS
III.MINUTES
III.A Draft Minutes - 1/7/25
IV.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V.PUBLIC HEARINGS
V.A Resolution #__, Series of 2025 - 823-825 E Dean Street - RDS Variations &
Alternative Compliance
VI.OTHER BUSINESS
VII.BOARD REPORTS
VIII.ADJOURN
minutes.apz.20250107 draft.pdf
823-825 E Dean Street Memo_LPA-25-015.pdf
823-825 E Dean Street_Resolution #__, Series of 2025.pdf
823-825 E Dean Street_Exhibit A_Review Criteria.pdf
823-825 E Dean Street_Exhibit B_Application RDS.pdf
823-825 E Dean Street_Exhibit C_Original RDS Submittal.pdf
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
1
1
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 9, 2021
2
2
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Commissioners in attendance: Maryann Pitt, Tom Gorman, Ken Canfield, Eric Knight, Christine
Benedetti, and Teraissa McGovern
Staff present:
Ben Anderson, Com Dev Director
Jeffrey Barnhill, Senior Planner
Haley Hart, Long Range Planner
Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk
Commissioner Comments: Ms. McGovern said congratulations to the two council candidates on our
board and Marcus Blue has moved so he is no longer on the board and Charlie will move into a regular
member position.
Public Comments: None.
Minutes: Ms. Benedetti motioned to approve the minutes for November 19th, 2024, and the motion
was seconded by Mr. Gorman. Ms. McGovern asked for a roll call vote.
Roll call vote: Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, abstain; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms. Benedetti, yes;
Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 5-0.
Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: None
Mr. Tarver entered the meeting at 4:36pm.
Submission of Public Notice for Agenda Items: Ms. Johnson said notice was provided.
Other Business, Item 1 – P&Z Meeting Day Change Request
Ms. Hart went over the reasons and details of the date change and the next steps. They want to move
the meetings from Tuesdays to Wednesdays in order to move the meetings into Council Chambers. Staff
recommend that P&Z approve resolution 1 of 2025.
Motion
Mr. Canfield moved to approve resolution 1 series 2025; Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern asked for
a roll call vote.
Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, no; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms.
Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 6-1
Other Business, item 2 – Response to Prop 122
Ms. Berne explained prop 122 and discussed it with the board.
Motion
Mr. Gorman motioned to take recess until 5:15, Ms. Pitt seconded, all in favor.
3
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Public Meeting, item 1: 823/825 E. Dean St-Appeal of Determination that Project Triggers Demolition
Staff Presentation: Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator
Ms. Varga said that this item is an appeal of an administrative determination that a project triggers
demolition. The followings is the criteria to access an appeal: the determination shall not be reversed or
modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process or the administrative body had
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
Applicant Presentation: Seth Hmeilowski, Melanie Noonan, and Max Hemmy with Z Group
Architecture and Interior Design
Mr. Hmeilowski does not disagree with what staff has said; they want to look at demo and how it affects
projects. He said it is not one size fits all when it comes to demo. We propose to look at what demo is
and what is not, if there is a grey area and where our project fits. He will present an alternative that fits
with the city’s goal, discuss the demo process, highlight the difference between recycling and
repurposing, outline energy efficiency and show how this proposal is unique to this project.
M. Noonan gave information about the project and location. Located within the RMF and per the code
they would lose 750 sq ft with a full demo. She went over the demo code purpose. They intend to
reduce construction waste and increase energy efficiency.
Mr. Hmeilowski said the issue is they have a 1950’s structure with 1950s codes and snow loads that does
not meet current code. Trying to bring it up to code would potentially cause the structure to collapse
and going the route of trying to beef up the structure will create more landfill than rebuilding. Their
proposal is a solution to a problem that aligns with the spirit of the code which will minimize waste,
enhance sustainability, and reduce environmental impact. They would keep framing, wood decking, and
exterior framing and reuse it on site. If this was a different home with proper framing we wouldn’t be
here, but it is not. They feel this lines up with the City’s desire for sustainability.
Board Questions:
Mr. Canfield asked if they concede that the city didn’t deny due process, jurisdiction, and due process.
Mr. Hmeilowski replied that he thought this was part of the due process.
Mr. Canfield asked if they contest procedurally with how staff handled this application. Mr. Hmeilowski
replied no, they thought this was a next step in the process and there would be open dialogue. He said if
this is not the forum to do that, where is that forum.
Ms. McGovern asked if the reduction in square footage is only to replace a single-family residence, if you
were going to do multifamily in RMF you would have zero reduction. Mr. Hmeilowski replied correct.
Ms. McGovern asked how they would track the reuse of the lumber. Mr. Hmeilowski replied they would
propose a third party come in and track it, number the studs, etc. He said this happens in Boulder and
other counties a lot.
Ms. McGovern asked how this would affect the timeline. Mr. Hmeilowski said he does not think it would
as they would take it down while they are putting up temp shoring.
4
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Ms. McGovern asked where the lumber would be stored. Mr. Hmeilowski replied on site.
Mr. Tarver asked what the other route is. Mr. Hmeilowski said to demo 40% of the structure.
Ms. Benedetti asked if the creativity was based around the demo allotment program. Mr. Hmeilowski
said no, it just seems strange to keep a structure that doesn’t meet any of the code.
Mr. Gorman asked what percentage of demo materials will be re-used. Mr. Hmeilowski replied 802
pieces of lumber. He said all the exterior sheathing is unusable and rotten, the siding and roof cannot be
saved, it comes down to just the lumber, probably half of all materials.
Mr. Gorman asked how much of the project would use the reused lumber. Mr. Hmeilowski replied the
2x4s can be used in any interior walls, the 2x8s would be used in the roof rafters.
Mr. Gorman asked what the maximum size is that they can build to the in R6 zone. Mr. Hmeilowski
replied 3,240 sq ft.
Mr. Hmeilowski said he thought this was part of the process, not that they would be dead on arrival.
Ms. Johnson replied that they have some legal options, but she cannot give them advice, she said this
board has no authority to override the land use code with respect to your issue.
Mr. Anderson said a lot if what they are bringing is good and there is coming shortly about an ordinance
about construction waste. He said the 40% trigger for demo is more than just sustainability. On top of
the sustainability piece, they are concerned about other land use outcomes that the 40% demo crosses.
In terms of paths forward, a land use code change is needed.
Mr. Hmeilowski said it is not one size fits all and that is what they are dealing with now that is causing
frustration.
Public Comment:
The next-door neighbors said it is a shack, and they support the project. There is already too much
traffic and it’s only a 1.5 lane road so they like the single-family option as it will not increase traffic. They
also appreciate the sustainability of the project.
Ms. Johnson replied that this is a public meeting, not a public hearing, so public comment is not allowed.
Board Discussion
Ms. McGovern said that Mr. Canfield summed it up well, that the procedure was followed, they just
don’t like the outcome.
The board discussed the standards of review and whether Community Development abused its
discretion in their finding.
Ms. Johnson replied that they cannot reverse or modify this decision unless they find there was a denial
of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
Motion
Mr. Canfield moved to uphold the Com Dev record of decision; Mr. Gorman seconded. Ms. McGovern
asked for a roll call vote.
5
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms.
Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 7-0.
Public Hearings, Item 1: 633 W Francis St– Replacement of Nonconforming Structures– Special Review
Applicant Presentation: Ryan Doremus, representing the applicant
Mr. Doremus is representing the client at 633 W Francis, and they are asking for a modification to an
existing non-conforming structure. There are 3 basic elements: an addition of 500 sq ft garage,
expansion of the existing basement with an access point through that existing wall and replacing existing
deck. They are being held under the accountability of purposeful destruction. This is a 6,000 sq ft lot in
the west end. It is non-conforming on far, setbacks, % of unit space for duplex, and was all approved per
city code. The calculations from the 1981 permit are 3,592, which is close to our current allowable floor
area at 3,240. Things that have changed since the 1981 code; increased the amount of floor area for
basements and overhangs now count toward floor area. The floor area as calculated today is 4,144 sq ft.
The proposed addition is on the alley side of the property and includes the addition of garage,
modification of deck, basement below the new garage, and connecting piece between the two spaces.
The footprint of the house is staying the same with one caveat, the hole in the wall that connects these
two spaces. The part of the code states that demo of an existing structure is leading us to have to be
here to talk about this one area. They are allowed by right to modify the deck, build a garage, and build
a basement but the only thing that is not allowed is the window between the two spaces. The only
criteria they did not meet is the hardship section. A literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of
the zone district would cause unnecessary hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of
the property. To meet the conformance of this code and our current it would require us to demo 40% of
this structure and require us to go into demo allotment. The hardship is putting the code against itself
and putting us into a hardship. We are trying to meet the intent of the zone, but the connection of the
two buildings is considered destruction by code.
Board Questions:
Mr. Gorman asked when it was built. Mr. Doremus replied 1982 or 1983. Mr. Gorman then asked if
there have been any renovations since then. Mr. Doremus replied that he does not know for sure but
there appears to be. Mr. Gorman asked about the condition of the life safety systems. Mr. Doremus said
the mechanical, heating and cooling, electrical, and storm water will be upgraded to current standards.
Mr. Canfield asked him to describe the window between the two buildings. He said it is not a window,
but they would be adding an access point between basements. He said this will not trigger demo
because it is subgrade. Mr. Canfield said he has serious questions if special review is even needed.
Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner
Mr. Barnhill went over the project, the request, and the criteria for special review. Staff does not feel
the literal enforcement of the dimensional provisions of the zone district will create unnecessary
hardship upon the owner by prohibiting reasonable use of the property, nor does staff find there are
any special site circumstances. Staff recommends denial of the project.
6
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Board Questions:
Mr. Canfield said he is struggling with whether a special review is required. He asked if it is staff’s
contention that whenever any part of an existing structure is destroyed as part of a construction project,
that triggers special review. Mr. Barnhill replied it depends on what they are trying to put there or the
scope of what is happening. He said it is the staff’s view that they are destroying those walls to create
more area. Mr. Canfield and Mr. Barnhill discussed what triggers special review.
Public Comment:
Seth Hmeilowski said these are the types of projects that are good for clients and architects, and they
are trying to do these designs around a complex code, and they are looking to P&Z to look at them
project by project to decide should an entire project be denied for one small thing that has no bearing
on anything. He thinks the hardship is the code.
Kate Johnson read a letter into the record from Mike Kremer from Kremer Land Planning. (see letter in
record)
Motion
Mrs. Pitt moved to continue the meeting until 7:30; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor
Staff rebuttal to public comment:
Mr. Barnhill said this project isn’t the worst project they have ever seen but this property is wildly non-
conforming; there are parts of it in the setback, they enjoy 600 sq ft more of floor area that is allowable.
He said they’ve put together reasons this is a good project and reasons why they don’t think it should be
approved.
Applicant rebuttal to staff rebuttal:
Mr. Doremus said realistically if they redevelop and ask to add a door to the garage they would be here
regardless of where it is. They are asking for something that has a minimal impact to the community for
something they have the right to build, except for the connection.
Mr. Canfield asked if a stairway and door to the back of the property would have been approved instead
of a door between the two. Mr. Doremus replied that they asked and didn’t get a clear answer. Mr.
Canfield asked if that is because you are asking for access to the house from the new space it is being
denied. Ms. McGovern replied that it would create three units.
Board Discussion:
Mr. Canfield said he does not think special review is required, the applicant wants to alter the existing
structure by adding a couple of doors and that in his view there should not be sufficient enough
destruction to trigger special review and staff has admitted there is a discretionary element of what can
trigger review. The proposed project does not increase the non-conformity.
Mr. Gorman said he sees a 40-year-old house that is an amalgam of different eras and if renovation is
blocked it will become a demolition project. He is approaching it as a pragmatic decision to allow a
minor renovation to avoid demolition.
Ms. Benedetti agrees with Tom and Ken and is in support.
7
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 7, 2025
Mr. Knight said he doesn’t see the hardship.
Ms. Pitt said it is a minimal impact to the community and she supports it.
Mr. Tarver has no comment, he said he can count.
Ms. McGovern said it is destruction not demolition so she cannot approve, they haven’t proved
hardship.
Motion
Mr. Gorman moved to approve resolution 3 series 2025 granting approval; Mr. Canfield seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, no; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Knight, no; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Ms.
Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, no. Motion passes 4-3.
Other Business, Item 3 – Election of Chair and Vice Chair
Ms. Johnson said the land use code requires boards to elect a chair and vice chair at the beginning of
every year.
Motion
Mr. Canfield moved to reappoint Ms. McGovern and Ms. Benedetti as Chair and Vice Chair; Mr. Gorman
seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Tarver, yes; Ms. Pitt, yes; Mr. Gorman, yes; Mr. Canfield, yes; Mr. Knight, yes; Ms.
Benedetti, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes. Motion passes 7-0.
Adjourn:
Mr. Canfield motioned to adjourn; Mr. Gorman seconded. All in favor.
Tracy Terry, Deputy City Clerk
8
823-825 E Dean Street – RDS Variation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey Barnhill, AICP, Senior Planner
THRU: Ben Anderson, AICP, Community Development Director
RE: 823-825 E Dean Street - RDS Variation for Articulation of Building Mass and
Alternative Compliance for Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions. Public
Hearing
MEETING DATE: June 4th, 2025
APPLICANT:
Alpine Bach, LLC, 825 E Dean
Street, Aspen, CO 81611
REPRESENTATIVE:
Seth Hmielowski, Z Group Architects,
411 E Main Street #205, Aspen, CO
81611
LOCATION:
823-825 East Dean Street, Aspen,
CO 81611
ZONING:
Residential Multi-Family, (RMF)
SUMMARY:
The applicant requests an RDS
Variation and Alternative Compliance
from the Residential Design
Standards to remodel/renovate an
existing single-family residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the
requests for the Variation and
Alternative Compliance from the
Residential Design Standards.
REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
The Applicant proposes an interior/exterior remodel of the existing residence. The proposed design does
not comply with the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard. The Articulation of Building
Mass Standard is a non-flexible standard; thus, no Alternative Compliance is permitted and the applicant
Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
9
823-825 E Dean Street – RDS Variation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 2 of 5
must receive approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for a variation. The applicant also
requests Alternative Compliance from the flexible standards: Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions.
❖ Residential Design Standards Variation (Land Use Code Section 26.410.020.C Variations)
The applicant requests a variation to the Articulation of Building Mass standard to remodel the existing
residence on site. Applications that do not comply with the standards contained in the Residential
Design section of the code, in which an applicant is applying for a variation, require approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission can approve, approve with
conditions, or deny an application after considering a recommendation by the Community
Development Director based on the standards outlined in section 26.410.020.C, Variation Review
Standards.
BACKGROUND:
823-825 East Dean Street consists of a one-story single-family residence. It was constructed around 1954
and the applicant proposes a renovation of the structure that does not trigger demolition. The property is
located within the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district inside of the Aspen Infill Area. The lot is
6,000 square feet and has frontage on East Dean Street to the North and Glory Hole Park to the South.
The property was developed prior to the existing Residential Design Standards. The proposed renovation
will add a covered front porch, a new two car garage, as well as some lower-level and 2nd story floor area.
The applicant proposes utilizing increased side setbacks at rear and a step down to achieve an appropriate
articulation of building mass. The increased side setbacks and one story step down occur at a depth of 54
feet. This exceeds the maximum depth for the Articulation of Building Mass standard (Option 3: Increased
Side Setbacks at Rear and Step Down) of 45 feet. As a non-flexible standard, no Alternative Compliance
is permitted. Therefore, the applicant seeks a Residential Design Standard Variation pursuant to Section
26.410.020.C, Variations.
The new garage area will be meeting the Garage Placement (Non-flexible) standard. Meeting the Garage
Placement standard necessitates the development to require Alternative Compliance for the flexible
standards: Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions. The Build-to Requirements & Garage Dimension
Alternative Compliance are combined with the review for the RDS Variation to eliminate redundancy and
provide a streamlined approval.
Figure 2: Existing Conditions
10
823-825 E Dean Street – RDS Variation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 3 of 5
Figure 3: Existing Front Façade
Figure 4: Proposed Front Façade
11
823-825 E Dean Street – RDS Variation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 4 of 5
DISCUSSION:
Staff Comment:
An application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard as
indicated in the intent statement for that standard as well as the general intent statements in
Section 26.410.010.A1-3; or
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
The general intent statement of the Residential Design Standards states that:
“The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong connection between
residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation to break up bulk and mass; and
preserve historic neighborhood scale and character. The standards do not prescribe architectural
style, but do require that each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to
the streetscape.”
The intent is to achieve the following objectives: connect to the street, respond to neighboring properties,
and reflect traditional building scale. The Articulation of Building Mass standard focuses on reducing the
perceived mass and bulk of a structure by utilizing articulation in the building wall and roof planes. The
proposed development does not meet the 45 feet standard depth where the increased side setbacks and
step down occurs, and creates a condition where the proposal occurs at 54 feet in depth. In Figure 5 (below)
the applicant provides a rendering of the proposed residence. The applicant proposes articulation not only
in the wall planes but with several variations to the roof planes. This reduces the perceived mass from the
street while also providing a human scale with one-story elements on the front façade. The applicant meets
the Set Back Garage standard by reducing the garage prominence as viewed from the street with a 10 feet
setback garage. This also increases the articulation of the proposed design.
Figure 5: 823-825 E Dean Street Articulation of Building Mass compared to adjacent properties.
As mentioned previously, staff supports the Alternative Compliance for the Build-to Requirement & Garage
Dimension standards. The Build-to Requirement is that 60% of the overall width of the structure should be
within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback. The proposed redevelopment provides roughly 55% of the
overall width of the structure to be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback. Staff believes that, as a
remodel that does not trigger demolition, the applicant is making a reasonable effort to bring these elements
into compliance with the standards while staying within their zoning regulations. The Garage Dimension
standards state that the width of the living area must be 5 feet greater than the width of the garage. The
width of the living area is 4.5 feet greater than the width of the garage. Staff finds that this 6” difference still
12
823-825 E Dean Street – RDS Variation
Planning and Zoning Commission
Page 5 of 5
minimizes the presence of wide garages as perceived from the street. Staff finds that the applicant meets
the intent of the Garage Dimensions standard and supports approval of this request.
This project is an interesting case on situations that applicants may face in redevelopment scenarios, and
showcases the flexibility of the RDS standards in pursuit of a well-fleshed out project. The RDS standards
are not meant to stymie architectural innovation, but rather create some uniformity and bring positive
contribution to our vibrant streetscapes. Staff believes that the project meets the intent of the general intent
statements and the intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard. Staff also finds that the intent of the
Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions are met with this proposal and supports the Alternative
Compliance requests. The proposed project provides increased articulation of the structure as perceived
from the street, responds to neighboring properties, and reflects traditional building scale in the City of
Aspen. Thus, staff recommends approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Development staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the
request for a variation from the Articulation of Building Mass Residential Design Standard and the
Alternative Compliance for the Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions. Staff finds that the
proposed design does not conflict with the intent of the Standards.
PROPOSED MOTION:
Two motions are proposed. The first approves the resolution while the second denies the
resolution. Should P&Z support staff’s recommendation, Motion 1 should be read.
If the Planning and Zoning Commission disagrees with staff’s recommendation and feels that the
review criteria have not been met and wishes to deny the variance request, motion 2 should be
read:
Motion 1.
“I move to approve Resolution #__, Series of 2025, granting approval of the proposed building
mass articulation, build-to requirement, and garage dimensions.”
If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides that the criteria are not met for the Residential
Design Standards Variation, and disagrees with staff’s recommendation, the following motion may
be used:
Motion 2.
“I move to deny Resolution #__, Series of 2025, granting approval of the proposed building mass
articulation, build-to requirement, and garage dimensions.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft Resolution #__, Series of 2025
Exhibit A- Residential Design Standards Review Criteria
Exhibit B- Application
13
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2025
Page 1 of 5
RESOLUTION #___
(SERIES OF 2025)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD VARIATION TO THE
ARTICULATION OF BUILDING MASS AND ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE FOR
THE BUILD-TO REQUIREMENT AND GARAGE DIMENSTIONS FOR THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 823-825 EAST DEAN STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS: LOTS N AND O, BLOCK 113, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 2737-182-58-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Alpine Bach, LLC, owner of 823-825 East Dean Street, Aspen, CO 81611 represented by Seth
Hmielowski, Z Group Architects, 411 East Main Street #205, Aspen, CO 81611 requesting
approval for a Residential Design Standard Variation and Residential Design Standard Alternative
Compliance for the property at 823-825 East Dean Street; 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 applicable Land Use Code standards,
the Community Development Director recommended approval of Residential Design Standard
Variation and Alternative Compliance requests; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered
the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein,
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and took
and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on June 4th, 2025; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development
proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the 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 Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #__, Series of
2025, by a ___ to ___ (___-___) vote, granting approval of the Residential Design Standard
Variation as identified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission:
14
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2025
Page 2 of 5
Section 1: Residential Design Standard Variation & Alternative Compliance
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for a Residential Design Standard
Variation and Alternative Compliance to renovate an existing structure (Chapter 26.410.020.C,
Variations), varying from the Articulation of Building Mass, Build-to Requirement, and Garage
Dimensions standards. Issuance of this Variation and Alternative Compliance does not alter the
applicability or intent of the Residential Design Standards as applied to development activities
within the City of Aspen. All other dimensional standards including height and setbacks shall be
met.
Section 2: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a vested property right attaching to and
running with the lot for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order.
However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result
in the forfeiture of said vested property right.
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.
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 Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting on June 4th, 2025.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
___________________________________ ___________________________
Katharine Johnson, City Attorney Teraissa McGovern, Chair
ATTEST:
15
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2025
Page 3 of 5
____________________________
Tracy Terry, Deputy Clerk
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
16
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2025
Page 4 of 5
Exhibit A: Approved Plans
17
P&Z Resolution #___, Series of 2025
Page 5 of 5
18
823-825 E Dean Street
Exhibit A
Residential Design Standards Review Criteria
Section 26.410.020.D, Residential Design Standard Variation Review Standards. An
application requesting a variation from the Residential Design Standards shall
demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variation, if granted would:
1. Provide an alternative design approach that meets the overall intent of the standard
as indicated in the intent statement for that standard, as well as the general intent
statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3; or
Staff Response: The general intent statement of the Residential Design Standards states
that:
“The City’s Residential Design Standards are intended to ensure a strong
connection between residences and streets; ensure buildings provide articulation
to break up bulk and mass; and preserve historic neighborhood scale and
character. The standards do not prescribe architectural style, but do require that
each home, while serving the needs of its owner, contribute positively to the
streetscape.”
The intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard is to ensure that there is a
reduction of the overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property as viewed
from all sides. The designs of the buildings should articulate the walls by utilizing multiple
forms to break up large expansive wall planes. This standard is critical in the Infill Area.
The Articulation of Building Mass standard provides that the “principal building shall
articulate building mass to reduce bulk and mass and create building forms that are similar
in scale to those seen in historic Aspen residential buildings”.
There are three options in meeting the standard for building mass articulation:
1. A maximum sidewall depth no greater than 50 feet as measured from the front -most
wall of the front façade to the rear wall.
2. A principal building shall provide a subordinate one -story, ground floor connecting
element at least ten feet in length and setback an additional five feet from the sidewall on
both sides of the building.
3. Increased side setbacks at the rear of the building. If the principal building is two stories,
it shall step down to one story in the rear. The increased side setbacks and one story step
down shall occur at a maximum of forty-five (45) feet, as measured from the front-most
wall toward the rear wall.
The applicant proposes a Variation to this standard to utilize Option 3 – Increased Side
Setbacks at Rear and Step down. The proposed development does not meet the 45 feet
standard depth where the increased side setbacks and step down occurs, and creates a
condition where the step down and increased side setbacks occurs at 54 feet in depth. In
the rendering below, the applicant proposes articulation not only in the wall planes but with
several variations to the roof planes. The one-story elements of the structure at the front
19
of the residence helps reduce the massing and scale of this project by pushing some of
the additional development towards the back of the property. This provides a distinction
between the main level and upper level spaces. It also reduces the perceived mass from
the street while also providing a human scale with one-story elements on the front façade.
The applicant meets the Set Back Garage standard by reducing the garage prominence
as viewed from the street with a 10 feet setback garage. This also increases the articulation
of the proposed design. Staff finds this variation criterion is met.
As mentioned previously, staff supports the Alternative Compliance for the Build-to
Requirement & Garage Dimension standards. The Build-to Requirement is that 60% of
the overall width of the structure should be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard
setback. The proposed redevelopment provides roughly 55% of the overall width of the
structure to be within 5 feet of the minimum front yard setback. Staff believes that, as a
remodel that does not trigger demolition, the applicant is making a reasonable effort to
bring these elements into compliance with the standards while staying within their
zoning regulations. The Garage Dimension standards state that the width of the living
area must be 5 feet greater than the width of the garage. The width of the living area is
4.5 feet greater than the width of the garage. Staff finds that this 6” difference still
minimizes the presence of wide garages as perceived from the street. Staff finds that
the applicant meets the intent of the Garage Dimensions standard and supports
approval of this request.
This project is an interesting case on situations that applicants may face in redevelopment
scenarios, and showcases the flexibility of the RDS standards in pursuit of a well-fleshed
out project. The RDS standards are not meant to stymie architectural inno vation, but
rather create some uniformity and bring positive contribution to our vibrant streetscapes.
Staff believes that the project meets the intent of the general intent statements and the
intent of the Articulation of Building Mass standard. Staff also finds that the intent of the
Build-to Requirement & Garage Dimensions are met with this proposal and supports the
Alternative Compliance requests. The proposed project provides increased articulation of
the structure as perceived from the street, responds to neighboring properties, and
reflects traditional building scale in the City of Aspen.
20
2. Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site -specific
constraints.
Staff Response: Staff finds that the applicant has provided an alternative design
approach that meets the intent of the general intent statements, and the intent of the
Articulation of Building Mass, Build-to Requirement, and Garage Dimension Standards.
This criterion follows an OR statement. By meeting criterion 1 this criterion is not
applicable. Staff finds this variation criterion is not applicable.
21
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PRE-25-011
DATE: January 13, 2025
PLANNER: Jeffrey Barnhill, 970-319-6636, jeffrey.barnhill@aspen.gov
REPRESENTATIVE: Seth Hmielowski, seth@zgrouparchitects.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 823-825 E Dean Street
PARCEL ID: 273718258003
REQUEST: RDS Variation
DESCRIPTION: The proposed design requires a variation to a Non-flexible Standard:
- Articulation of Building Mass (Section 26.410.030.B.1 – Non-flexible)
The Residential Design Standards chapter provides direction for reviewing variations to the
standards when the proposed design does not meet the standard. Per Code Section 26.410.020, if
an application is found to be inconsistent with any of the non-flexible standards the applicant may
either amend their proposal or seek a variation, pursuant to 26.410.020(c) Variations. The
variation review is reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The
review will determine if the design meets the overall intent of the standard as well as the general
intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3. Please include written responses or graphics that
demonstrate compliance with Section 26.410.020.D, showing the design meets the intent statement
of the standard and general intent statements in Section 26.410.010.A.1-3. Or, that the variation is
required for reasons related to fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints.
An initial administrative review of the proposed design has been completed for the other RDS
standards. Once an application is submitted, staff will re-review the design for compliance with all
standards. If any other standards are found to be not met, those may be added to the RDS Variation
review request, or the design may be revised to comply.
Once the application is ready to be submitted, please email the completed application packet to
CDEHadmins@aspen.gov. Once the application is deemed complete, we will contact you to provide
payment for the land use application fee.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
26.212.010.P Planning and Zoning Commission – Powers and duties
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.410 Residential Design Standards
26.410.010.A RDS General Intent Statements
26.410.020 RDS Procedures for Review
26.410.020.D RDS Variation Review Standards
26.410.030.B.1 Articulation of Building Mass (Non-Flexible)
HELPFUL LINKS:
• Land Use Application (PDF)
• Land Use Code (PDF)
22
REVIEW BY:
• Community Development Staff for determination of a complete application and recommendation
to P&Z.
• Planning and Zoning Commission for decision
REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S):
• RDS Variation Review – Planning and Zoning Commission
PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, with the Planning and Zoning Commission
PLANNING FEES: $3,250 deposit for 10 hours of staff time (additional or lesser time will billed
or refunded at a rate of $325/hr.)
REFERRAL FEES: None.
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $3,250
APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please
email the entire application as one pdf to cdehadmins@aspen.gov. Include PRE-25-011 in
the subject line. If more than 18 months has passed since this letter was issued, please
reach out to planneroftheday@gmail.com.
Completed Land Use Application, HOA Compliance Policy, and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the
applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative
authorized to action on behalf of the applicant.
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.
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form
of how the proposed development complies with the intent statement and review standards
associated with the request.
Completed copy of the Residential Design Standard Checklist
Written responses to all applicable review criteria.
Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the
application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s
representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of an electronic copy of the
complete application and the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be
assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin.
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.
23
24
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the
Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part
II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in
electronic form.
Copyright 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:
823 & 825 E DEAN ST, ASPEN, CO 81611
1.Commitment Date:
02/02/2024 at 5:00 P.M.
2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured:
"ALTA" Owner's Policy 07-30-21
Proposed Insured:
ALPINE BACH, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY
$8,200,000.00
3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is:
FEE SIMPLE
4.The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
R. BRUCE PARLETTE AND RICHARD S. PARLETTE
5.The Land is described as follows:
LOTS N AND O,
BLOCK 113,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule A
Order Number:Q62016860-8
25
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62016860-8
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.
1.EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
2.THE FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK ("FINCEN"), A BUREAU OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF THE TREASURY, HAS ISSUED A GEOGRAPHIC TARGETING ORDER ("GTO") TO ALL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANIES REQUIRING THE COLLECTION AND REPORTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION
WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS IN ADAMS, ARAPAHOE, CLEAR CREEK,
DENVER, DOUGLAS, EAGLE, ELBERT, EL PASO, FREMONT, JEFFERSON, MESA, PITKIN, PUEBLO, OR
SUMMIT COUNTIES. PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION, THE COMPANY AND
ITS POLICY-ISSUING AGENT MUST BE PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE IF
THE TRANSACTION MUST BE REPORTED TO FINCEN, INCLUDING COPIES OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO MEET THE GTO'S DOCUMENT/RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED
TRANSACTION WILL NOT BE CLOSED, AND THE PROPOSED POLICY WILL NOT BE ISSUED, UNLESS THE
REQUIRED INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY OR ITS POLICY-ISSUING AGENT AND FOUND
TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
3.(THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
4.(THIS ITEM WAS INTENTIONALLY DELETED)
5.DULY EXECUTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY SETTING FORTH THE NAME OF
ALPINE BACH, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. 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.
6.SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FROM R. BRUCE PARLETTE AND RICHARD S. PARLETTE TO ALPINE BACH,
LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
26
REQUIREMENTS TO DELETE THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS IN THE OWNER'S POLICY TO BE ISSUED
A. UPON RECEIPT BY THE COMPANY OF A SATISFACTORY FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT FROM
THE SELLER AND PROPOSED INSURED, AND A IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF THE LAND, ITEMS 1-4
OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED. ANY ADVERSE MATTERS DISCLOSED BY THE
FINAL AFFIDAVIT AND AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT WILL BE ADDED AS
EXCEPTIONS.
B. IF LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY CONDUCTS THE CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPLATED
TRANSACTIONS AND RECORDS THE DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, ITEM 5 OF THE PRE-
PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE DELETED.
C. UPON RECEIPT OF PROOF OF PAYMENT OF ALL PRIOR YEARS' TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS, ITEM 6
OF THE PRE-PRINTED EXCEPTIONS WILL BE AMENDED TO READ:
TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS FOR THE YEAR 2024 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS.
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part I
(Requirements)
Order Number: Q62016860-8
All of the following Requirements must be met:
27
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable by
law. This Commitment and the Policy treat any Discriminatory Covenant in a document referenced in
Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed, and not republished or
recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document will be excepted from coverage.
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.
ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER, OR ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION
HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS, AS RESERVED BY M.G. MILLER, COUNTY AND PROBATE JUDGE OF
PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, IN THE DEED TO THE COLORADO MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 12, 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 482.
9.
ANY OR ALL MINERAL RIGHTS AS CONVEYED BY THE COLORADO MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY, A
COLORADO CORPORATION, IN THE DEED TO THE ARGENTUM-JUNIATA MINING COMPANY, AN IOWA
CORPORATION RECORDED MAY 13, 1891 IN BOOK 92 AT PAGE 104.
10.EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCIES.
11.CLAIMS OF RIGHT, TITLE AND/OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BETWEEN THE BOUNDARY LINE AND
THE FENCE AS DEPICTED ON THE SURVEY PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC, JOB NO.
34005.01 WHETHER SAID CLAIMS ARISE BY ABANDONMENT, ADVERSE POSSESSION OR OTHER
MEANS.
SAID DOCUMENT STORE AS OUR IMAGE 65053827
ALTA COMMITMENT
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
Schedule B, Part II
(Exceptions)
Order Number: Q62016860-8
28
ALTA Commitment For Title Insurance
issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company
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 Amount of insurance 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 is not 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.
“Discriminatory Covenant”: Any covenant, condition, restriction, or limitation that is unenforceable under applicable law because it illegally
discriminates against a class of individuals based on personal characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity,
familial status, disability, national origin, or other legally protected class.
(a)
“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual knowledge or actual notice, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(b)
“Land”: The land described in item 5 of Schedule A and affixed improvements located on that land that by State law constitute real property. The term
“Land” does not include any property beyond that described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in any abutting street,
road, aavenue, alley, lane, right-of-way, body of water, or waterway, but does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land
is to be insured by the Policy.
(c)
“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, security deed, or other real property security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic
means authorized by law.
(d)
“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.
(e)
“Proposed Amount of Insurance”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Amount of Insurance of each Policy to be issued
pursuant to this Commitment.
(f)
“Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(g)
“Public Records”: The recording or filing system established under State statutes in effect at the Commitment Date under which a document must be
recorded or filed to impart constructive notice of matters relating to the TItle to a purchaser for value without Knowledge. The term “Public Records”
does not include any other recording or filing system, including any pertaining to environmental remediation or protection, planning, permitting,
zoning, licensing, building, health, public safety, or national security matters.
(h)
“State”: The state or commonwealth of the United States within whose exterior boundaries the Land is located. The term “State” also includes the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(i)
“Title”: The estate or interest in the Land identified in Item 3 of Schedule A.(j)
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 is not 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 is only liable 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 does not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment
Condition 5(a) or the Proposed Amount of Insurance.
(d)
The Company is not liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e)
The Company is not 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)
29
6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT. CHOICE OF LAW AND CHOICE OF FORUM
7. IF THIS COMMITMENT IS 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. CLAIMS PROCEDURES
This Commitment incorporates by reference all Conditions for making a claim in the Policy to be issued to the Proposed Insured. Commitment Condition 9
does not modify the limitations of liability in Commitment Conditions 5 and 6.
10. CLASS ACTION
ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS COMMITMENT, INCLUDING ANY SERVICE OR OTHER MATTER IN
CONNECTION WITH ISSUING THIS COMMITMENT, ANY BREACH OF A COMMITMENT PROVISION, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR DISPUTE
ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THIS COMMITMENT, MUST BE BROUGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL
CAPACITY. NO PARTY MAY SERVE AS PLAINTIFF, CLASS MEMBER, OR PARTICIPANT IN ANY CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE PROCEEDING.
ANY POLICY ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS COMMITMENT WILL CONTAIN A CLASS ACTION CONDITION.
11. ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Amount of insurance is $2,000,000 or less may be arbitrated at the
election 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, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company 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
Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. 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 2021 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.
The Company’s liability is further limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy to be issued to the Proposed Insured.(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 under the State law of the State where the Land is located and is restricted to the terms and provisions of this
Commitment. Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Proposed Insured against the Company must be filed only in a State or federal court
having jurisdiction
(b)
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)
30
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.
Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given:
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)
31
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 24-21-514.5, 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)
32
Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of
Land Title Guarantee Company
Land Title Insurance Corporation and
Old Republic National Title Insurancy 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
33
Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
thereof.
34
SHEDSHED
SHED
(ASPHALT SURFACE)
LOTS N&O, BLOCK 113
PARCEL NO. 273718258003
6,000 sq.ft.±
0.138 acres±
0.5'
TO BOTTOM
OF STONE
WALL
(B
A
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
)
S
4
0
°
3
8
'
2
5
"
E
(TI
E
O
N
L
Y
)
N
4
6
°
4
5
'
5
6
"
E
3
0
0
.
6
0
'
DEAN STREET
20.00' WIDE RIGHT OF WAY
ARROWHEAD APARTMENTS
REC. #212277
CHRISTMAS HOUSE LLC
REC. #627689
ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST
(CONDOMINIUMS)
REC. #122219
14
.
3
'
2.0'
9.
0
'
23.7'
24
.
9
'
48.4'
20
.
4
'
7.7'
4.
2
'
8.1'
9.
2
'
13.5'
14
.
4
'
24.4'
8ft WOOD FENCE
4f
t
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
WOO
D
W
A
L
K
SHEDSHED
SHED
GLORY
HOLE PARK(ASPHALT SURFACE)
825 DEAN STREET
ONE-STORY WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION
TELEPHONE
SERVICE PEDESTAL
WITH MAILBOX
823 E. DEAN ST
GAS
METER
ELECTRIC
SERVICE
METER
TELEPHONE
SERVICE
PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
ON CONCRETE
GAS
METER
LOTS N&O, BLOCK 113
PARCEL NO. 273718258003
6,000 sq.ft.±
0.138 acres±
EXTERIOR
FOOTPRINT AT
GROUND LEVEL
TELEPHONE SERVICE
PEDESTAL WITH MAILBOX
825 E. DEAN ST
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
(ILLEGIBLE) 0.1' ABOVE
GROUND
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND 1.25"
ORANGE PLASTIC CAP (PLS 27613)
FLUSH WITH GROUND
(ACCEPTED AS 0.5' WITNESS CORNER)
0.5'
TO BOTTOM
OF STONE
WALL
(B
A
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
)
S
4
0
°
3
8
'
2
5
"
E
(TI
E
O
N
L
Y
)
N
4
6
°
4
5
'
5
6
"
E
3
0
0
.
6
0
'
6FT PRIVACY FENCE
ED
G
E
O
F
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
5
.
0
"
x
1
2
'
5
.
3
"
x
1
2
'
7
.
5
"
x
1
5
'
7
.
4
"
x
1
2
'
1
2
.
0
"
x
1
5
'
1
3
.
1
"
x
1
6
'
1
2
.
2
"
x
2
0
'
2
-
4
.
2
"
x
9
'
4
.
0
"
x
9
'
4
.
2
"
x
9
'
1
2
.
5
"
x
2
2
'
7
.
7
"
x
1
5
'
4
.
0
"
x
1
0
'
5
.
5
"
x
1
2
'
4
.
8
"
x
1
1
'
XE
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XTVXTV
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
X
E
L
X
E
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XGASXGASXGAS
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGAS
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
X
U
T
XUT
XUT
XU
T
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XTV
XTV
DRIPL
I
N
E
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND
1.25" RED PLASTIC CAP L.S.
#25947
FLUSH WITH GROUND
PROJECT BENCHMARK
FOUND PK NAIL AND 1.25"
ALUMINUM SHINER IN
ASPHALT
ELEV = 7946.89'
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7948.4'
CONCRETE LANDING
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7947.9'
CONCRETE LANDING
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7948.7'
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
T
I
O
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
E
L
E
V
=
7
9
4
8
.
9
'
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
WOOD WALK
WOOD WOOD
WO
O
D
7
9
4
7
.
5
5
'
7
9
4
7
.
8
2
'
DRIPLINE OF
NEIGHBORING
CONIFER
7
9
4
8
.
5
8
'
7
9
4
8
.
4
4
'
PATIO
7948.16'
SMH
RIM ELEV = 7947.69'
INV. (8" CLAY PIPE) = 7943.97'
TOP METAL ROOF TRIM
7957.1'
7947
79
4
8
7947
7
9
4
8
7
9
4
8
794
9
7948
7
9
4
8
79
4
8
794
7
823 DEAN STREET
GPS-1 CITY MONUMENT
INTERSECTION OF DURANT
& WEST END
PK NAIL AND SHINER
(ILLEGIBLE) FLUSH IN ASHALT
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
1 inch = ft.
( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
010 10 20
10
405
5/16/2024 34005.02 CL G:\2024\34005 823DeanSt\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots\34005.02 ISP2024\34005.02_ISP.dwg
823 DEAN STREET, ASPEN, CO
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
[FROM THE TITLE COMMITMENT REFERENCED IN SURVEY
NOTE 5]
LOTS N AND O,
BLOCK 113,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
SURVEY NOTES
1)DATE OF FIELD WORK:JANUARY - MAY 2024
2)DATE OF PREPARATION:MAY 2024
3)LINEAR UNITS: THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S.
SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.
4)BASIS OF BEARING: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE 2009 MARCIN ENGINEERING-CITY OF
ASPEN CONTROL MAP, YIELDING A SITE BEARING OF S40°38'25" E FROM THE PK NAIL AND
SHINER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT K, BLOCK 113 TO THE FOUND REBAR AND CAP
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER LOT O, BLOCK 113, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AS SHOWN
HEREON.
5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON A TITLE
COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY UNDER ORDER NO.
Q62016860-3, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 12, 2024, AND DOCUMENTS AND PLATS OF RECORD AS
SHOWN IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS, HEREON.
6)ADDRESS: 823 DEAN STREET
7)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL NO. 273718258003
8) THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS A RETRACEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY OF LOTS N&O, ACCORDING
TO THAT CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE MAP PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN AND RECORDED
1959 AS RECEPTION NO. 109023. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS
LISTED HEREON; THE LOCAL CONTROL NETWORK REFERENCED IN NOTE 4; AND THE
MONUMENTS FOUND BY THIS SURVEY, AS SHOWN. THE CURRENT IDENTIFIED
OCCUPATIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY, INCLUDING A
SIX-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND A ROCK WALL, IS CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENTS USED
TO CONTROL THIS SURVEY AND THE LOCATIONS OF THE SAME EVIDENCE AND SURVEY
MONUMENTS SHOWN ON THE ADJOINING RECORD ARROWHEAD CONDOMINIUM MAP
(1981).
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
SITE
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
502 MAIN STREET · SUITE A3 · CARBONDALE CO 81623
(970) 704 0311 · soprisengineering.com
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO
SHEET 1 OF 1
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF:
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
I, LINDA CATHERINE LOVE, HEREBY CERTIFY TO ALPINE BACH, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, THAT THIS IS AN “IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT” AS DEFINED
BY C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9), AND THAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENT
LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES, WATER FEATURES AND/OR BODIES OF WATER ,
VISIBLE ROADS, UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLS SITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN
FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR
VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OF RECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
DESCRIBED IN THAT TITLE COMMITMENT REFERENCED IN SURVEY NOTE 5, OR OTHER SOURCES AS
SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1/15,000.
________________________________
LINDA CATHERINE LOVE, PLS 38427
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
·CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE MAP PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN AND RECORDED 1959 AS
RECEPTION NO. 109023
·MAP OF UTE ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1897 AS
RECEPTION NO. 061367
·MAP OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1965 AS RECEPTION NO.
122219 AMENDED JULY 9, 1982 AS RECEPTION NO. 242581
·MAP OF LE CLAIRVAUX APARTMENTS RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1966 AS RECEPTION NO.
123443
·MAP OF ARROWHEAD APARTMENTS RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979 AS RECEPTION NO.
212277, CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED MARCH 12, 1981 AS RECEPTION NO. 231505 AND
AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 2007 AS RECEPTION NO. 542589
·AMENDED WINTER HAVEN CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 1982 AS RECEPTION
NO. 239496
EXISTING LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GASXETCGXETCG
EXISTING GAS
XETC XETC
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE
XUT XUT XUT
XEL XEL XEL
XTV XTV XTV
XFO XFO XFO
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICOELOEL
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE
EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE
EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE
EXISTING GUY WIRE
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING WOOD FENCE
35
823-825 E. DEAN STREET
Planning and Zoning Presentation
36
Residential Design Standards
RDS Presentation
The City’s Residential Design Standards are meant to ensure buildings provide articulation to
break up bulk & mass, and contribute to the streetscape. The RDS Objectives are:
●Connect to the Street: establish physical & visual relationships between streets and residential
buildings.
●Respond to Neighboring Properties: Reduce perceived mass & bulk of residential buildings from
all sides. Provide offsets or changes of plane in the building facades.
●Reflect Traditional Building Scale: Retain scale & proportions in building design that are in
keeping with Aspen’s historic Architectural Tradition.
Intent - To reduce to overall perceived mass and bulk of buildings on a property from all sides.
Designs should articulate building walls by utilizing multiple forms to break up large expansive
wall planes.
37
Residential Design Standards
RDS Presentation
●Provide a visual and/or physical connection to the street
38
Residential Design Standards
RDS Presentation
●Respond to neighboring properties - Reduce perceived mass from all sides. Encourage a
relationship to adjacent development through similar massing and scale.
Front facade dropped down to meet smaller scale
residential neighbor
Larger 2-story mass pushed back to better align with
3 story multi-family neighbor
39
Residential Design Standards
RDS Presentation
●Provide offsets or changes of plane in the building facades.
40
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Review
Section 26.410.020.B. of the Land Use Code requires an Administrative Review for compliance with the Residential Design Standards (RDS) for
all residential projects, unless otherwise exempted pursuant to Section 26.410.010.C.
All residential projects affecting the exterior of the building shall submit for RDS Administrative Review prior to building permit submittal. If
exterior work is proposed, and the scope of work meets one of the exemptions listed above, staff shall provide a signed exemption form to be
included in the building permit application.
Review Process:
The Community Development Department staff shall review an application for applicability and compliance with Chapter 26.410, Residential
Design Standards. If the application complies with all applicable standards as written, a signed Checklist and stamped plan set shall be provided
to the applicant to be included with building permit submission.
If the application does not comply with one or more applicable standards, an unsigned Checklist and redlined plan set shall be emailed to the
applicant including comments from staff on which standard(s) the application does not comply with and a description of why the standard(s) is
not compliant. The applicant shall be provided the opportunity to revise and resubmit the design in response to the comments. Staff will keep an
application open for 30 days from the date an unsigned Checklist is emailed to the applicant. If after such time no revisions are submitted, the
application will expire.
Application for RDS Administrative Review:
An application for RDS Administrative Review that DOES NOT require Alternative Compliance (see Page 2) shall be submitted to the Community
Development front desk on a USB drive or emailed to planneroftheday@gmail.com. Applicants will be notified of received application by email
and if additional documents are required. Certain application requirements may be waived by staff depending on the scope of work.
An application for RDS Administrative Review shall include the following documents in digital format:
• Site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor (no older than one year from submittal date)
• Proposed Site plan (scaled 24”x36”)
• Proposed Floor plans (scaled 24”x36”)
• Proposed Elevations (scaled 24”x36”)
• Existing Elevations if a remodel (scaled 24”x36”)
• Complete scope of work noting all exterior areas affected by the proposed project
• Complete RDS applicant checklist (attached) addressing how each standard is met with sheet references for each standard
Page 1 of 2 41
Alternative Compliance or Variation:
Pursuant to 26.410.020.C, projects that do not meet the criteria for Administrative Review or Alternative Compliance (as determined by staff)
may be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, or HPC if appropriate, at the applicant’s request. An applicant may choose to apply
directly for a Variation from the Planning & Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.410.020.C.
A pre-application summary will be required for an Alternative Compliance or Variation request.
Application for Alternative Compliance or Variation:
An application for Alternative Compliance or a Variation will require a pre-application summary provided by Community Development staff,
and shall be submitted as a Land Use Application. Required application submittal items shall be outlined in the pre-application summary.
Page 2 of 2
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Review
42
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Articulation of Building Mass
(Non-flexible)
B.2.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.3.Build-to Requirement
(Flexible)
B.4.One Story Element
(Flexible)
C.1.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
C.2.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
C.3.Garage Dimensions
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 2 43
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
C.4.Garage Door Design
(Flexible)
D.1.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
D.2.Door Height
(Flexible)
D.3.Entry Porch
(Flexible)
E.1.Principle Window
(Flexible)
E.2.Window Placement
(Flexible)
E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit
(Flexible)
E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location
(Flexible)
E.5.Materials
(Flexible)
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Page 2 of 2
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist - Single Family and Duplex
44
45
2
46
3
47
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Address of Property:
Please type or print in all caps
Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner):
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone:
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2020, review fees for Land Use applications, and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner, I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees
are non-refundable.
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature, or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices sent by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the
City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an
invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy, including consequences for non-payment. I agree to
pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does
not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for processing my application at the hourly rates
hereinafter stated.
$ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Phillip Supino, AICP
Community Development Director
City Use:
Fees Due: $ Received $
Case #
Signature:
PRINT Name:
Title:
48
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)
49
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION COMPLIANCE FORM
CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN, CO 81611
___________________________________ _________ ___________________________
OR
ADDRESS UNIT #PARCEL ID #
50
SHEDSHED
SHED
(ASPHALT SURFACE)
LOTS N&O, BLOCK 113
PARCEL NO. 273718258003
6,000 sq.ft.±
0.138 acres±
0.5'
TO BOTTOM
OF STONE
WALL
(B
A
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
)
S
4
0
°
3
8
'
2
5
"
E
(TI
E
O
N
L
Y
)
N
4
6
°
4
5
'
5
6
"
E
3
0
0
.
6
0
'
DEAN STREET
20.00' WIDE RIGHT OF WAY
ARROWHEAD APARTMENTS
REC. #212277
CHRISTMAS HOUSE LLC
REC. #627689
ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST
(CONDOMINIUMS)
REC. #122219
14
.
3
'
2.0'
9.
0
'
23.7'
24
.
9
'
48.4'
20
.
4
'
7.7'
4.
2
'
8.1'
9.
2
'
13.5'
14
.
4
'
24.4'
8ft WOOD FENCE
4f
t
W
O
O
D
F
E
N
C
E
WOO
D
W
A
L
K
SHEDSHED
SHED
GLORY
HOLE PARK(ASPHALT SURFACE)
825 DEAN STREET
ONE-STORY WOOD FRAME CONSTRUCTION
TELEPHONE
SERVICE PEDESTAL
WITH MAILBOX
823 E. DEAN ST
GAS
METER
ELECTRIC
SERVICE
METER
TELEPHONE
SERVICE
PEDESTAL
ELECTRIC
TRANSFORMER
ON CONCRETE
GAS
METER
LOTS N&O, BLOCK 113
PARCEL NO. 273718258003
6,000 sq.ft.±
0.138 acres±
EXTERIOR
FOOTPRINT AT
GROUND LEVEL
TELEPHONE SERVICE
PEDESTAL WITH MAILBOX
825 E. DEAN ST
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND
1.25" YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
(ILLEGIBLE) 0.1' ABOVE
GROUND
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND 1.25"
ORANGE PLASTIC CAP (PLS 27613)
FLUSH WITH GROUND
(ACCEPTED AS 0.5' WITNESS CORNER)
0.5'
TO BOTTOM
OF STONE
WALL
(B
A
S
I
S
O
F
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
)
S
4
0
°
3
8
'
2
5
"
E
(TI
E
O
N
L
Y
)
N
4
6
°
4
5
'
5
6
"
E
3
0
0
.
6
0
'
6FT PRIVACY FENCE
ED
G
E
O
F
A
S
P
H
A
L
T
5
.
0
"
x
1
2
'
5
.
3
"
x
1
2
'
7
.
5
"
x
1
5
'
7
.
4
"
x
1
2
'
1
2
.
0
"
x
1
5
'
1
3
.
1
"
x
1
6
'
1
2
.
2
"
x
2
0
'
2
-
4
.
2
"
x
9
'
4
.
0
"
x
9
'
4
.
2
"
x
9
'
1
2
.
5
"
x
2
2
'
7
.
7
"
x
1
5
'
4
.
0
"
x
1
0
'
5
.
5
"
x
1
2
'
4
.
8
"
x
1
1
'
XE
L
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XTVXTV
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
X
T
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XT
V
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XTV
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
XEL
X
E
L
X
E
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XE
L
XGASXGASXGAS
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XGASXGASXGASXGAS
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
XG
A
S
X
U
T
XUT
XUT
XU
T
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
X
U
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XU
T
XUT
XTV
XTV
DRIPL
I
N
E
FOUND NO. 5 REBAR AND
1.25" RED PLASTIC CAP L.S.
#25947
FLUSH WITH GROUND
PROJECT BENCHMARK
FOUND PK NAIL AND 1.25"
ALUMINUM SHINER IN
ASPHALT
ELEV = 7946.89'
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7948.4'
CONCRETE LANDING
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7947.9'
CONCRETE LANDING
THRESHOLD
ELEV = 7948.7'
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
A
T
I
O
T
H
R
E
S
H
O
L
D
E
L
E
V
=
7
9
4
8
.
9
'
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
XS
A
WOOD WALK
WOOD WOOD
WO
O
D
7
9
4
7
.
5
5
'
7
9
4
7
.
8
2
'
DRIPLINE OF
NEIGHBORING
CONIFER
7
9
4
8
.
5
8
'
7
9
4
8
.
4
4
'
PATIO
7948.16'
SMH
RIM ELEV = 7947.69'
INV. (8" CLAY PIPE) = 7943.97'
TOP METAL ROOF TRIM
7957.1'
7947
79
4
8
7947
7
9
4
8
7
9
4
8
794
9
7948
7
9
4
8
79
4
8
794
7
823 DEAN STREET
GPS-1 CITY MONUMENT
INTERSECTION OF DURANT
& WEST END
PK NAIL AND SHINER
(ILLEGIBLE) FLUSH IN ASHALT
NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL
ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS
AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION
BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.
1 inch = ft.
( IN U.S. SURVEY FEET )
GRAPHIC SCALE
010 10 20
10
405
5/16/2024 34005.02 CL G:\2024\34005 823DeanSt\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots\34005.02 ISP2024\34005.02_ISP.dwg
823 DEAN STREET, ASPEN, CO
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
[FROM THE TITLE COMMITMENT REFERENCED IN SURVEY
NOTE 5]
LOTS N AND O,
BLOCK 113,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
COUNTY OF PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
SURVEY NOTES
1)DATE OF FIELD WORK:JANUARY - MAY 2024
2)DATE OF PREPARATION:MAY 2024
3)LINEAR UNITS: THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S.
SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL
INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.
4)BASIS OF BEARING: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE 2009 MARCIN ENGINEERING-CITY OF
ASPEN CONTROL MAP, YIELDING A SITE BEARING OF S40°38'25" E FROM THE PK NAIL AND
SHINER AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT K, BLOCK 113 TO THE FOUND REBAR AND CAP
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER LOT O, BLOCK 113, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, AS SHOWN
HEREON.
5)THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TO
DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. FOR ALL INFORMATION REGARDING
EASEMENTS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON A TITLE
COMMITMENT PREPARED BY LAND TITLE GUARANTEE COMPANY UNDER ORDER NO.
Q62016860-3, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 12, 2024, AND DOCUMENTS AND PLATS OF RECORD AS
SHOWN IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS, HEREON.
6)ADDRESS: 823 DEAN STREET
7)PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL NO. 273718258003
8) THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS A RETRACEMENT OF THE BOUNDARY OF LOTS N&O, ACCORDING
TO THAT CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE MAP PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN AND RECORDED
1959 AS RECEPTION NO. 109023. THIS SURVEY IS BASED ON THE SOURCE DOCUMENTS
LISTED HEREON; THE LOCAL CONTROL NETWORK REFERENCED IN NOTE 4; AND THE
MONUMENTS FOUND BY THIS SURVEY, AS SHOWN. THE CURRENT IDENTIFIED
OCCUPATIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARY, INCLUDING A
SIX-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND A ROCK WALL, IS CONSISTENT WITH MONUMENTS USED
TO CONTROL THIS SURVEY AND THE LOCATIONS OF THE SAME EVIDENCE AND SURVEY
MONUMENTS SHOWN ON THE ADJOINING RECORD ARROWHEAD CONDOMINIUM MAP
(1981).
VICINITY MAP
SCALE: 1" = 2000'
SITE
SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC
502 MAIN STREET · SUITE A3 · CARBONDALE CO 81623
(970) 704 0311 · soprisengineering.com
SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 85 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M.,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY COLORADO
SHEET 1 OF 1
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT OF:
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT
I, LINDA CATHERINE LOVE, HEREBY CERTIFY TO ALPINE BACH, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY AND THE CITY OF ASPEN, THAT THIS IS AN “IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT” AS DEFINED
BY C.R.S. § 38-51-102(9), AND THAT IT IS A MONUMENTED LAND SURVEY SHOWING THE CURRENT
LOCATION OF ALL STRUCTURES, WATER COURSES, WATER FEATURES AND/OR BODIES OF WATER ,
VISIBLE ROADS, UTILITIES, FENCES, OR WALLS SITUATED ON THE DESCRIBED PARCEL AND WITHIN
FIVE FEET OF ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUCH PARCEL, ANY CONFLICTING BOUNDARY EVIDENCE OR
VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS, AND ALL EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY OF A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
NATURE THAT ARE VISIBLE, OR APPARENT, OR OF RECORD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
DESCRIBED IN THAT TITLE COMMITMENT REFERENCED IN SURVEY NOTE 5, OR OTHER SOURCES AS
SPECIFIED ON THE IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT. ERROR OF CLOSURE IS LESS THAN 1/15,000.
________________________________
LINDA CATHERINE LOVE, PLS 38427
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
·CITY OF ASPEN TOWNSITE MAP PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN AND RECORDED 1959 AS
RECEPTION NO. 109023
·MAP OF UTE ADDITION TO THE TOWNSITE OF ASPEN RECORDED DECEMBER 6, 1897 AS
RECEPTION NO. 061367
·MAP OF ASPEN TOWNHOUSES EAST RECORDED OCTOBER 20, 1965 AS RECEPTION NO.
122219 AMENDED JULY 9, 1982 AS RECEPTION NO. 242581
·MAP OF LE CLAIRVAUX APARTMENTS RECORDED FEBRUARY 14, 1966 AS RECEPTION NO.
123443
·MAP OF ARROWHEAD APARTMENTS RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1979 AS RECEPTION NO.
212277, CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED MARCH 12, 1981 AS RECEPTION NO. 231505 AND
AMENDED CONDOMINIUM MAP RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 2007 AS RECEPTION NO. 542589
·AMENDED WINTER HAVEN CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED FEBRUARY 26, 1982 AS RECEPTION
NO. 239496
EXISTING LEGEND
EXISTING CONTOUR
EXISTING CONTOUR INTERVAL7900
EXISTING 8" WATER MAINXWLXWL
EXISTING 8" SANITARY SEWER MAIN
EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE, GASXETCGXETCG
EXISTING GAS
XETC XETC
EXISTING TELEPHONE
XGAS XGAS XGAS
EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
EXISTING CABLE
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC
EXISTING ELEC, TELE, CABLE
XUT XUT XUT
XEL XEL XEL
XTV XTV XTV
XFO XFO XFO
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICOELOEL
EXISTING IRRIGATION PIPEXIRRXIRR
XSA XSA
EXISTING ELECTRIC MANHOLE
EXISTING DRAINAGE DRY-WELL
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
EXISTING TELEPHONE MANHOLE
EXISTING UTILITY MANHOLE
EXISTING GUY WIRE
EXISTING POWER POLE
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT
EXISTING WATER VALVE
EXISTING CURB STOP
EXISTING GAS METER
EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
EXISTING ELECTRIC METER
EXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
EXISTING CATV PEDESTAL
EXISTING SEWER CLEANOUT
EXISTING LIGHT POLE
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING STORM INLET
EXISTING WOOD FENCE
51
UP
DW
DEAN STREET
20.00' WIDE RIGHT OF WAY
G
R
N
D
7
9
4
9
.
1
3
'
E
T
GV
T
S
W
V
W
V
WV
S
E
W
S
O
GVE
GV
E
T
W
V
E
T
GV
GV
E
T
T
S
W
V
W
V
W
V
WV
S
E
W
S
O
C
DW
DN
Dean Street
20' - 0" Wide Right of Way
10' - 0"
5'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
10' - 0"
GLORY HOLE
PARK
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
1
:
5
2
P
M
A-101
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
Author
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
3/16" = 1'-0"1 Site Plan
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
52
Wa
s
h
e
r
Dr
y
e
r
UP
DN
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
11
22
33
44
55
66
5 1/4"
5
1
/
4
"
5 1/4"9' - 5 1/4"2' - 0"
7'
-
6
1
/
8
"
FIRE PLACE
44' - 3 1/2"10' - 3 1/2"9' - 7 3/4"9' - 5 1/4"
5
1
/
4
"
10' - 2 3/4"
5'
-
1
0
3
/
8
"
GENERAL NOTES: PLANS,
ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND SIM.
REFERENCE SHEET A-0.02
NOTE: INSTALL AND HANDLE IN ALL RESPECTS ALL PRODUCTS, MATERIALS,
& FINISHES PER MFR. REQ. AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE BUT
NOT LIMITED TO: FASTENING METHOD, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING,
PREPARATION, SUBSTRATE, SEALING,PROTECTION, ETC. ENSURE SOLID,
FLUSH, DRY SUBSTRATES AS REC. BY PRODUCT MFR. AND INDUSTRY
STANDARD.
WALL/FLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES
REFER TO SHEETS A0.XX SHEETS FOR ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTIONS AND DETAILS
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
1
:
5
2
P
M
A-0.23
RDS LOWER
LEVEL PLAN
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
Author
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
1/4" = 1'-0"1 RDS LOWER LEVEL PLAN
KEYNOTE LEGEND
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
53
DN
B.1.d.3 BUILDING MASS - OPTION 3
A B C D E F
1
2
3
4
5
6
10'-0" Garage Setback
10' - 0"
45'-0" Max. Sidewall Depth
44' - 11 3/4"
One Story
20' - 0 5/8"
45'-0" Max. side wall depth
44' - 11"
One Story
31' - 4 1/2"
5'
-
1
0
3
/
8
"
10'-0" Front Yard Setback
10' - 1 1/2"
6' - 3 3/4"
10
'
-
0
"
Sidewalk
10'-0" Rear Setback
13' - 7"
5'
-
0
"
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
5'
-
1
1
/
2
"
10
'
-
0
"
S
i
d
e
Y
a
r
d
S
e
t
b
a
c
k
10
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
Li
v
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
24
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
Ga
r
a
g
e
20
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
5'
-
0
"
FRONT PORCH
59 SQFT
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
1
:
5
2
P
M
A-0.24
RDS MAIN LEVEL
PLAN
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
Author
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
1/4" = 1'-0"1 RDS MAIN LEVEL PLAN
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
54
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
11
22
3
4
5
6
10' - 3 1/2"
10' - 2 3/4"34' - 0 3/4"10' - 3 1/2"9' - 7 3/4"9' - 5 1/4"
13
'
-
1
"
OPEN TO
BELOW
ROOF BELOW
ROOF BELOW
2.
5
:
1
2
:
1
2
2:
1
2
:
1
2
2:12 :12
NO SLOPE
GENERAL NOTES: PLANS,
ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND SIM.
REFERENCE SHEET A-0.02
NOTE: INSTALL AND HANDLE IN ALL RESPECTS ALL PRODUCTS, MATERIALS,
& FINISHES PER MFR. REQ. AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE BUT
NOT LIMITED TO: FASTENING METHOD, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING,
PREPARATION, SUBSTRATE, SEALING,PROTECTION, ETC. ENSURE SOLID,
FLUSH, DRY SUBSTRATES AS REC. BY PRODUCT MFR. AND INDUSTRY
STANDARD.
WALL/FLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES
REFER TO SHEETS A0.XX SHEETS FOR ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTIONS AND DETAILS
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
1
:
5
3
P
M
A-0.25
RDS UPPER
LEVEL PLAN
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
Author
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
1/4" = 1'-0"1 RDS UPPER LEVEL PLAN
KEYNOTE LEGEND
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
55
GENERAL NOTES: PLANS,
ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND SIM.
REFERENCE SHEET A-0.02
NOTE: INSTALL AND HANDLE IN ALL RESPECTS ALL PRODUCTS, MATERIALS,
& FINISHES PER MFR. REQ. AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE BUT
NOT LIMITED TO: FASTENING METHOD, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING,
PREPARATION, SUBSTRATE, SEALING,PROTECTION, ETC. ENSURE SOLID,
FLUSH, DRY SUBSTRATES AS REC. BY PRODUCT MFR. AND INDUSTRY
STANDARD.
WALL/FLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES
REFER TO SHEETS A0.XX SHEETS FOR ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTIONS AND DETAILS
Main Level
100' - 0"
Upper Level
112' - 0"
Roof124' - 7"
ABCDEF
44' - 11"
Main Level
100' - 0"
Upper Level
112' - 0"
Roof124' - 7"
1 2 3 4 5 6
FR
O
N
T
D
O
O
R
8'
-
0
"
SIDE SETBACK
10' - 0"
SIDE SETBACK
5' - 0"
LIVING AREA
24' - 7 1/2"
GARAGE
20' - 1 1/2"
FRONT PORCH
10' - 0"
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
1
:
5
8
P
M
A-0.26
RDS ELEVATIONS
NORTH & EAST
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
MMO
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
1/4" = 1'-0"1 RDS East Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0"2 RDS North Elevation
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
EXIST. WINDOW
OPENING
20 SF
DEAN STREET
GLORY HOLE
PARK
56
GENERAL NOTES: PLANS,
ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND SIM.
REFERENCE SHEET A-0.02
NOTE: INSTALL AND HANDLE IN ALL RESPECTS ALL PRODUCTS, MATERIALS,
& FINISHES PER MFR. REQ. AND INDUSTRY STANDARDS, TO INCLUDE BUT
NOT LIMITED TO: FASTENING METHOD, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING,
PREPARATION, SUBSTRATE, SEALING,PROTECTION, ETC. ENSURE SOLID,
FLUSH, DRY SUBSTRATES AS REC. BY PRODUCT MFR. AND INDUSTRY
STANDARD.
WALL/FLOOR/CLG ASSEMBLIES
REFER TO SHEETS A0.XX SHEETS FOR ASSEMBLY DESCRIPTIONS AND DETAILS
Main Level
100' - 0"
Upper Level112' - 0"
Roof124' - 7"
123456
5' - 0"5' - 10 3/8"
SI
N
G
L
E
-
S
T
O
R
Y
15
'
-
0
"
Main Level
100' - 0"
Upper Level112' - 0"
Roof124' - 7"
A B C D E F
GARAGE SETBACK
10' - 0"44' - 11 3/4"SINGLE-STORY STEP-DOWN
Sheet #:
Copyright 2023 Z-Group Architects, P.C.
Project number:
Construction Date:
Prepared By:
Checked By:
Sheet Name:
Jurisdiction Use:
Seal:
12
/
1
9
/
2
0
2
4
3
:
4
2
:
0
5
P
M
A-0.27
RDS ELEVATIONS
SOUTH & WEST
SI
N
G
L
E
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
L
T
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
&
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
B.
A
.
C
.
H
.
01234
XX.XX.XX
Author
82
5
E
.
D
E
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
As
p
e
n
,
C
O
8
1
6
1
1
Checker
1/4" = 1'-0"1 RDS South Elevation
1/4" = 1'-0"2 RDS West Elevation
No.Description Date
1 Revision 1 Date 1
DEAN STREET
GLORY HOLE
PARK
57