The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.155 Lone Pine Rd.A101-98.A'. z/j/-073-71005 Case A101-98 River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, DRAC Review 3<,1-+7 7/WA 74-3 \ 1 1 f7 'a *-3.-..- KNER BLOFF T- ft ON\65_ 1Â»t \INAF RN 1.- CASE STATUS SHEET Case No. Representative's ,Â·:72,-e,-, c.,1 J 6wd+ ~ //f) 999 -222.2 273 Name: 90 .1 Â£, O 1 4 Represenzarive' s Phone: O 00 0 19. ,â€ž7 Fax: DATE ACTION OR ACrIVITY i'/4/98 044.t 1,>01*J -4 MU #...r f#09-4 AA-JU- 4r- 63.- k elÂ«- PR-i + 146 n <Ppm Â·r.1 1- prt<ful, .. 9 m PAEEL. iD: ~737-073-71005 ~ DATE REVD: | 11/30/98 - #26@iES:[~ CASE NO|A101-98 CASE NAME:~River Bluff Townhouse Condominium DRAC Review PLNR:~Mitch Haas PROJ ADDR:~155 Lone Pine Road CASE TYP:|DRAC Review STEPS:j OWN/APP:: *River Bluff Townho ADR~155 Lone Pine Road C/S/Z: ~Aspen, CO 81611 PHN:~ REP:~Yong Cho, Architect/Studio ADR:|1410 Grant St, Ste B C/S/Z:~Denver, CO 80203 PHN1(303) 839-9997 FEES DUE:|450 (d) FEES RCVD~450 STAT: r- REFERRALS| REF:| BY~ DUE:~ MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED t DATE OF FINAL ACTION:|2/99 CITY COUNCIL: REMARKS~*application consists of 8 individual owners PZ: BOA: CLOSED:~4/1/99 BY: ~Sarah Oates DRAC: approved PLAT SUBMITD: ~ PLAT (BK,PG):| ADMIN: .. AGENDA DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS COMMITTEE January 7,1999 4:00 p.m. Thursday Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, City Hall I. Roll Call II. MINUTES III. Comments (Committee, Staff and Public) IV. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest V. New Business A. River Bluff Townhouse Condominium, 155 Lone Pine Road, Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 12 - Volume Standard - windows between 9 and 15 feet above the finished floor. VI. Adjourn .. MEMORANDUM TO: The Design Review Appeal Committee THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner/Interim Deputy Direct RE: River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums (155 Lone Pine Road, Units 2,3,4, 5,7,9,10,11, and 12) request for Variances from the "Volume" provision (Section 26.58.040(F)(12)) of the Residential Design Standards DATE: January 7,1999 SUMMARY: Pursuant to Chapter 26.58, Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58.020(13), of the Aspen Municipal Code, "an applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by staff In order to proceed with additional land use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This Section goes on to state that "if an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Residential Design Guidelines the applicant may either amend the application or appeal staff's findings to the Design Review Appeal Board [DRAC] pursuant to Chapter 26.22, Design Review Appeal Board." Community Development Department staff reviewed the application to remodel units 2,3,4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums for compliance with the "Residential Design Standards," (see Exhibit A). In staffs review, it was determined that the proposed designs violate the "Volume" standard. Thus, the applicants are requesting a variance from this standard (which is described below) in order to allow for approval of the architectural designs as proposed. The proposed design is provided in the attached Exhibit A, where Sheet A-3.0 highlights the noncomplying windows. Pursuant to Section 26.22.010 of the code, an appeal for exemption from the Residential Design Standards may be granted if the exception would: (1) yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan; (2) more effectively address the issue or problem a given standard or provision responds to; or, (3) be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints. Staff is recommending approval of variances from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it would apply to the proposed remodel of Units 2,3,4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums. APPLICANT: The applying owners include Roger Carl Schultz (Unit 2), Roberta Allen (Unit 3), Frances Ginsburg (Unit 4), Jerome Ginsberg (Unit 5), Joseph Starn (Unit 7), John F. Guiltinan (Unit 9), Mark Richmond and Sam Shamie (Unit 10), Glenn A. Daly (Unit 11), and Alexander G. Kaspar (Unit 12), all of whom are being represented by Yong Cho, architect, of Studio Completiva, Inc. 1 .. Note that the above provided list of applicants includes the owners of nine (9) of the twelve (12) condominium units (75% of the owners), and Section 26.52.040, Initiation of a Development Application, of the Aspen Municipal Code states that "A development application may be initiated by over fifty (50) percent of the owners of real property of a proposed development." Therefore, under the rules governing the City, the applicant is authorized to initiate this development application irrespective of the private agreements entered into by the homeowners under their Condominium Declarations. LOCATION: The River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums (a/Ida Lone Pine Condominiums) are located at 155 Lone Pine Road (described as Lot 2, Lone Pine Subdivision), which is situated north of Gibson Avenue, east of Red Mountain Road, south of Lone Pine Road, and west of the Mocklin Subdivision. The property is zoned R/MFA, Residential Multi-Family. FAR (Floor : Area Ratio): It has been confirmed by the City Zoning Officer that, under the current codes, the River Bluff Townhouses have 2,725.8 square feet of available/unused floor area remaining. With twelve (12) units, this breaks down to approximately 227 square feet of available FAR per unit, assuming the remaining FAR is to be evenly distributed. The proposed remodel would add a total of 114 square feet of floor area to each included unit. With nine (9) units included in the application, the remodel would use 1,026 square feet (9 x 114) of the site's total remaining FAR, leaving 1,699.8 square feet of unused FAR for the site, or 227 square feet of unused FAR for each of the four (4) units not included in this application and 113 square feet of unused FAR for each of the nine (9) units that are included. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume The proposed design contains a series of south elevation window groupings (one grouping per unit on Units 2,3,4,5,7,9,10,11, and 12) where said windows would violate the "Volume" standard (please refer to Exhibit A, Sheet A-3.0). The "volume" standard reads as follows: For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height of greater than ten (10) feet, shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as facade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor, and circular, semi- circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. Simply put, as it relates to the subject case, this standard requires that there be no windows (facade penetrations/fenestration) in any areas that lie between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the finished floor height of the particular room, and no non-orthogonal windows in 2 .. any areas that lie between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the finished fioor. As Sheet 3.0 of Exhibit A indicates, the proposed design would result in each of the aforementioned units containing approximately 13.5 square feet ((9 x 3) + 2) of triangular-shaped glazing in areas between 9' and 11'10" above the finished floor height ofthe second story. Given the lack of compliance with the "volume" standard, the applicants are left with the choice of pursuing one of the following three (3) options. First, the applicants could accept the two-to-one (2: 1) floor area penalty for each violating window while ensuring that the entire building, including FAR penalties, would fall within set FAR limitations. Second, they could redesign the proposed remodels such that the new form would comply with the "volume" standard, as well as the rest of the residential design standards. Lastly, the applicants could appeal staff s findings to the Design Review Appeal Board. Rather than accept the floor area penalties (not enough remaining FAR per unit to make this a viable option) or redesign the proposed remodels, the applicants have chosen to seek a variance from the "volume" standard. Consequently, if variances are not granted, the applicant would have to create new designs that would comply with the volume standard. If a variance is to be granted, it must be justified according to one of the three variance criteria outlined above (on page one of this memorandum). According to the proposed revisions to the Residential Design Standards, the purpose/intent of the "Volume" standard "is to ensure that each residential building has street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions." Although proposed code amendments do not hold any force in the review of current applications, staff feels this information might be helpful in understanding the issues/concerns that the volume standard attempts to address. Since the proposed design does not yield greater compliance with the Aspen Area Community Plan, if the requested variances are to be justified, it would need to be on the grounds that either the proposed design is necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site specific constraints, or the proposed design more effectively provides street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions than would a design that meets the exact letter of the "Volume" standard. In terms of site specific constraints, there are no unusual physical conditions (i.e., topography, natural hazards, ete.) where reasons of fairness would dictate that the proposed noncomplying windows must be included in the design. The site is presently developed and has been occupied for a considerable amount of time. Given that the units have been occupied since at least the early 1980s and have proven to be adequately livable, it would be difficult to make the case that there are site specific constraints where the only fair way to develop the site would be with a variance from the Residential Design Standards. The noncomplying windows appear to be included for decorative reasons, and for purposes of maximizing views from and sunlight into the master bedroom suites. Also, the existing roofs above the master bedrooms suites shed snow directly onto the balconies of the suites, and the 3 .. proposed remodel would eliminate these balconies and redirect snow from the roofs to the sides of the units. Notwithstanding the reasoning behind the proposed design, staff maintains that there are no site specific constraints that make these windows necessary. With regard to effectively providing street-facing architectural details and elements which provide human scale to the facade, enhance the walking experience, and reinforce local building traditions, staff feels the requested variance could be justified on these grounds. The south elevations (subject of the application) face Gibson Avenue, which has a sidewalk on its north side. This sidewalk sits roughly 10-15 feet lower in elevation than the base of the River Bluff Townhouses. Nevertheless, staff feels that the proposed remodel would add some architectural relief to the currently somewhat unbroken verticality by injecting new roof angles and glazing, thereby potentially enhancing the walking experience. Since the proposed windows of the townhouses would be set some 25-35 feet higher than the sidewalks, staff feels that whatever human-scale already exists on the facade would not be adversely affected. Cross gables with glazing in the south-facing gable ends are consistent with local building traditions. Moreover, the proposal could easily be made to comply with the volume standard if the glazing in the gable ends would stop at nine feet above the floor height; however, staff is of the opinion that this would result in a less successful overall design. Based on this consideration and those explained in the preceding paragraph, staff feels the design of the proposed remodel, with the noncomplying windows, should be approved since it more effectively addresses the issue the volume standard responds to. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the DRAC approve variances from Section 26.58.040(F)(12), Volume, of the Residential Design Standards for the proposed noncomplying windows on the south elevations of Units 2,3,4,5,7,9,10,11, and 12 ofthe River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These variances should be granted based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve variances from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it would apply to the proposed remodel of Units 2,3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These approvals are based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem the given standard or provision responds to." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit "A" - Submitted application package c:\home\mitchh\hpc&drac\rivbluff.doc 4 DESIGN REVIEW AiPEALS COMMISSION ~ January 7,1999 COMMISSIONER, STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 CONFLICT OF INTEREST 1 RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS. 155 LONE PINE ROAD, UNITS #2,3.4,5,7,9,10,11 AND 12 - VOLUME STANDARD - WINDOWS 1 6 5 9 #VED MAR 3 1 1999 ,Â·,cr cA j r, 1 Aify 4 JOMMONITY DEVELOPMENT DESIGN REVIEW ~EALS COMMISSION ~ January 7, 1999 Chairperson Steve Buettow called the Design Review Appeals Commission meeting to order at 4:12 p.m. with members Bob Blaich, Gilbert Sanchez, Roger Moyer and Tim Mooney present. Mary Hirsch was excused. Staff members present were Mitch Haas, Community Development, and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER. STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Bob Blaich stated there was a list ofDRAC projects and City Council and Community Development were working on the revisions for Ordinance 30. Roger Moyer said the new Community Banks Building street facing wall was only concrete block, not very inspiring architecture, which received comments from the public. He asked for clarification on the approval including brick on street facing walls. Blaich noted the P&Z approval seemed to include brick. Steve Buettow stated that Cap's was all concrete block. Mitch Haas said there were different proposals with different banks, he'lllook into the proposal. Buettow asked for DRAC meetings to begin at 5:00 p.m. The members agreed. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None. PUBLIC HEARING: RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS, 155 LONE PINE ROAD, UNITS #2,3, 4, 5,7,9, 10, 11 and 12 - VOLUME STANDARD - WINDOWS Mitch Haas, staff, stated the request was to pop-out the roof, gable and enclose the balcony. The floor height was really about 6' to 7' instead of a 9' difference because of the roo f stepping down. He said the staff felt the design as proposed would read as less than nine feet since it would be viewed from below, a very steep hill. Haas noted if the variance requests were not approved, then maybe something other than glazing would be used. The existing balconies filled with snow from the current roof design sloughing or shedding the snow; this design would shed snow to the side and was south facing providing more light. The balcony would no longer exist but become part of the master bedroom floor area. 1 DESIGN REVIEW A~EALS COMMISSION ~ January 7.1999 Haas stated the original intent of the glazing standard was to preclude the grandiose areas of glazing. This glazing did not extend from the first to the second story of living space. Gilbert Sanchez questioned the geometry o f the gable form because there were other ways to increase the height and windows. Yong, architect, replied that from the ideas a more traditional era was being brought out to break up the exterior of the facade. He said the overall height of the glazing, through the triangle, was less than 9 feet. Yong noted the intent of the ordinance was met. John Ginn, public, stated he was the developer of the project as well as a neighbor and resident. He said they were not notified in time to get in on this meeting and probably wanted to be on the next one. Some of the owners have proposed a different cover over the balcony. Ginn provided photos with drawings on them; he respectfully requested the meeting be tabled so other owners could study the plans and be part of this application. Haas noted the other homeowners were too late to be part of this application. Ginn said the west wall would block the view of one of the units. Jerry Ginsberg stated the issue that Mr. Ginn spoke about was an internal homeowners association issue and not an ordinance 30 issue. Haas stated there couldn't be glazing over 9' above the floor. Tim Mooney noted that if the other unit did not do the remodel then the view would be blocked, but that was an internal issue not a variance concern. Sanchez stated the real purpose o f the ordinance 30 issue was the relationship to context. This building has it' s own context, not in a neighborhood. He supported the notion of the windows but found the architecture problematic. He felt that the gables diminish from the integrity of the architecture and therefore he could not support the variance request. Buettow agreed the Victorian element did not fit the modern style of the building. Yong said there could be a more modern approach by using different expressions of details. Buettow noted a volumetric model or other line drawings would have helped the board members understand the architecture. Roger Moyer stated this was a window/glass issue and not a design issue. Sanchez stated these were design issues. Blaich noted from prior meetings, that these discussions had helped applicants re-design better projects. 2 DESIGN REVIEW ./PEALS COMMISSION ~ January 7, 1999 MOTION: Bob Blaich moved to approve the variance from the Volume provision of the Residential Design Standards as it applies to the proposed remodel of Units 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9,10, 11 and 12 of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums, as indicated in Exhibit A. These approvals are based on a finding that the proposed design more effectively addresses the issue or problem given standard or provision responds to. Roger Moyer second. Roll call vote: Mooney, yes; Sanchez, no; Moyer, yes; Blaich, yes; Buettow, yes. APPROVED 4-1. Haas noted that next month the other 3 units would be coming before this commission for the same request. Blaich asked why they had to go through the process again instead of a staff sign-off. Haas noted the city attorney would have to approve this process. MOTION: Tim Mooney recommended the Community Development director treat the future application of the next three units of the River Bluff Townhouse Condominiums as an incidental sign-off knowing the circumstances are exactly the same as to what was approved by DRAC on January 7, 1999. Roger Moyer second. APPROVED 5-0. Meeting adj ourned. Ir - d*kie Lothian,Deputy City Clerk 3 .. John C. Ginn River Bluff Townhome #6 C/O Interwest Realty 710 East Durant Ave Aspen Colorado 81611 December 29, 1998 Mr. Mitchell Haas City Planning Aspen Co Dear Mitch, As you requested in our telephone call recently, I am enclosing documents and letters from Mr. Leonard Oates, Esq., regarding the issue of bedroom expansions at River Bluff Townhomes. As shown in the enclosed information, several of us take the position that the use of General Common Elements by one or more, but less than all of the homeowners for their own personal use requires the unanimous approval of all the homeowners. In the 1988 expansions approved by the City, all the homeowners agreed to the use of Limited Common Elements appurtenant to each owner's unit for the purpose of expanding the living rooms and master bedrooms. As the drafter of the Condominium Declaration and the project developer, I can emphatically state that it was not our purpose or intention to allow a majority of homeowners to take any General Common Elements for the personal benefit of less than all the owners. The group now claiming they can take General Common Elements to expand their bedrooms without the unanimous approval of all the owners is incorrect in their interpretation of the paragraph they are using to make that claim. Several letters from Mr. Oates address that issue and a settlement with Mr. Ginsberg in 1989 reflect his acknowledgement of that fact. The Declaration describes the method of ownership as being that of tenants in common of the Common Elements. Specifically included in the General Common Elements are the roofs of all the buildings. Any expansion plan that would allow an incursion into the roof or roof structure to make a General Common Element part of that owners unit will need 100% approval from all the tenants in common. As presented in previous requests by this group, their plan will significantly affect the view plane from, and snow slides onto the patios of the neighboring units. In 1988 we were particularly careful to minimize that possibility with the plan approved under ordinance 31, and we would like to suggest that the integrity of that process be considered. We believe the applicants can expand their bedrooms as we did. .. The Association has accomplished other improvements over the years based on majority votes. Installation of garage doors, a new jacuzzi area, removal of a pond, and extensive landscaping come to mind. All owners benefited from those improvements. There is a clear distinction here because some neighbors will be negatively affected if the bedroom expansions are allowed to take General Common Elements for their own use. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, j-L 0 L z~5/John C. Ginn .. RECEWED L,LU 2 4 1998 River Bluff Townhome Association ASPEN / PITKIN C/O Arleen Ginn Â· -,44 r -4 JA Pr'.,RE / liTY DEVELOPMENT Interwest Realty 710 E. Durant Ave. Aspen CO 81611 12/19/98 Mr. Mitchell Haas Community Development City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen Colorado 81611 Dear Mitch, In response to your telephone call to me last week, The River Bluff Townhome Association has not approved the suggested bedroom addition recently submitted to the City by Jerome Ginsberg, one of our owners. Mr. Ginsberg represents that owners of seven units consisting of eight people are soliciting approval for a plan to expand their bedrooms in a form different from that approved for our association under City Ordinance 30 of 1991. The association will follow previous procedure for issues of this type. In order to make an informed decision we will require fully dimensioned drawings, a list of suggested materials and sprcifications, and accurate representations currently not available to our members. The association is planning to address this proposed idea in a special meeting of the owners to be called for January 16,1999. Similar proposals have been advanced to the members in the past and for various reasons have been rejected. This new plan will receive our prompt attention at that meeting and we will communicate the results of that meeting to you shortly afterward. Sincerely, - 0 V - - 71-3 Arleen K Ginn President - 0 0 RECEIVED Nuv 9 3 1998 ,/0, -EN / PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MASTER BEDROOM EXPANSIONS OF SELECTED UNITS AT RIVER BLUFF TOUNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS November 19, 1998 Submitted by Studio Completiva Inc. 1410 Grant Street Suite B 303 Denver, CO 80203 - 0 0 SCOPE OF WORK Selected unit owners at River Bluff Townhouse Condo wish to expand there second floor master bedroom which faces south towards Aspen Mountain. Plan: Essentially, the existing master bedroom balcony becomes part ofthe bedroom. The bedroom expansion to the south is defined by the south edge ofthe existing balcony and the west wall (see attached drawings). There are minor modifications to the interior layout that include relocation ofthe master closet and addition ofa fireplace (gas appliance). Total square footage added is 114 sf Elevation: All existing elevations remain as is except for the second floor, south elevation. A dormer will be added to the existing sloping roof as shown in drawing A3.0 and A3.1. .. RESPONSES TO ATTACHMENT 2 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. The applicant's name address, and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf ofthe applicant. SEE ATTACHED PROOF OF OWNERSHIP SECTION 2. The street address and legal description of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur. Expansions to bedrooms at selected units are to occur at Lone Pine Condominiums. The address for the River Bluff Townhome Association is: 305 South Galena Street, Suite A, Aspen, Colorado 81611. For individual unit owner 's address and legal description see attached improvement survey and disclosure of ownership. 3. Disclosure of ownership of the parcel on which the development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company listing the names of all owners ofthe property, and all mortgages, judgements, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owners' right to apply for the development review. SEE ATTACHED 4. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. SEE ATTACHED .. RESPONSES TO ATTACHMENT 3 GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 1. Neighborhood block plan at 1"=50' TO BE SUBMITTED 2. Site Plan SEE ATTACHED SURVEY 3. All building elevations, roof and floor plans at 1/8"=1'-0" SEE ATTACHED DRAWINGS UNDER SCOPE OF WORK: Typical unit's Yw floor plans, elevations 6outh and easO and roofplan. 4. A graphic verification that the project meets or does not meet the "Primary Mass" standard. Information not submitted per direction of officer at Community Development. 5. Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block, including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board. TO BE SUBMITTED 6. A written explanation of the requested variance and a discussion of why a variance would be appropriate and would not compromise the intended goals of the "Residential Design Standards." The applicant may provide any offsetting design features that may mitigate impacts ofthe variance requested. SEE FOLLOWING PAGE .. The applicant seeks a variance from an ordinance that pertains to window placements. The current design for the glazing at the dormer does not meet the following: 4. For the purpose of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area for a building or portion thereof whose principal use is residential, a determination shall be made as to its interior plate heights. All areas with an exterior expression of a plate height greater than ten (10) feet shall be counted as two (2) square feet for each one (1) square foot of floor area. Exterior expression shall be defined as faQade penetrations between nine (9) and twelve (12) feet above the level of the finished floor and circular, semi-circular or non-orthogonal fenestration between nine (9) and fifteen (15) feet above the level of the finished floor. The current glazing design at second floor bedroom includes fa*ade penetration between 9 and 12 feet. (shaded area on the south elevation drawing) We believe a variance should be granted based on following considerations 1. The window design meets the general intention of the ordinance: The said ordinance regarding glazing placement was adopted to deter overuse of glazing that resulted in aluminum curtains walls/glass structural walls spanning several floors with uninterrupted glazing. Such design detracted from the overall sense of community, place and identifying, aesthetical characteristics of Aspen. Though the design may not meet the ordinance to the letter, we believe it establishes and maintains a building faGade that has a sense of scale, materiality and characteristics that are consistent with the intention ofthe ordinance and the aesthetics concerns of Aspen. 2. Fagade below the glazing: The glazing does not immediately start from the floor plate of the second level. A low wall approximately 2'-11" tall serves as a base for the window areas, thus, minimizing overall glazing sf. Ifthe low wall above the floor plate is subtracted from the height ofthe glazing, the height of glazing is under 9'-0". 3. Building Location: The condominium complex is not close to other buildings. The complex is hidden, private and well screened from the public and neighbors. The complex is nearly surrounded by roads and landscaping making the units difficult to see from the street or adjacent buildings. Change in glazing will not have a large impact on the immediate area or to the public. Lycos Road Maps http:Uroadmaps.lycos.com:90/cgi-bihimqcustomconnect .. - LYCOR -~ F**aback ,Â» Help Your Personol Internet Guide allintdYSavin936.M :.-3% 6Â« :4 1-L#. \LanÂ¢Disihnjimroilly 9Â¢ *-"" ~'-+ a nitnuten.+ Click here and sign up now tor Al&1 One Kate(r) Online! ROADMAPS PRINT â‚¬ p. ST,2 .loom U1 ' 300ft Nort St RoarinE]brk River eD. 70 -42 32 ri ngle rk Pr f 04. dot' 4 ..5 fiallarn - ' 8 Hallam St R o Grande Ball 0 Field k B/eeker $ e 4 094 es, A E Bleeker 82 M An paepck 2 Park 01998 GeoSysterm Gbbal Corp.,Â©1998 NavTech 4 , Return To Map Custom Search . TopNews . TOP 5% . City Guide . StockFind PeopleFind . Companies Online . Road Maps . Software . About Lycos . Help Add Your Site to Lycos . Advertise with Lycos. Jobs4You . GTE Yellow Pages. New2Net Lycos Germany . Lycos Sweden . Lycos UK Copyrig_htÂ© 1997 Lycos, Inc. All Kights Reserved. LycosÂ® is a registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University Questions & Comments Terms and conditions 1 of 1 11/18/98 1:54 PM 3r St 200 S Slst St 1* St SEP-10-1998 13:57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 ATTACHMENT 1 LANO USE APPUCAnON FORM 1. Project name 862*DoM EX FANSIeN . @ BlvER- BWEF lou,NAoBLE C.065go . 2. Project location 1-9 6 LD Ng. PINIF. ROAt) / UNrr< 2- C C-Z) ZE: SURNEEY FOL_ 1-66,AL DESCR-WPTION (indicate sueet aacress. br and block number or metes and bounds descnption) REFER- sufy er 4 3. Present zoning RMFA 4- LOt size PRooF op owNE~HIP 5. Appticanfs name. address and phone nurnber -4 GEL GRILL SCHULTZ- ----12.--EENE-ELES_&2.E+-_.ELLLZE-2- ; ASPEN. co BIL, 11 TEL: 310Â·31%Â·56* 1 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number_*46 *HO, ARÂ£,HITEOT STUD[(2 COMPLert,/A , iktr.. 11-In A FLANT S-r, G,AITF-,1;no K . DENVER, co 9>07.03 TEL: 303Â· Sil '119-+ 7. Type cf acpticancn (check ai! that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Special Review - Final SPA _ Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PUD Minor HFC Stream Margin -I..-I Final PUD - Relocation HPC Subdivisicn Text/Map Amend. _ Historic Landmark GMCS allorment GMCS exemption Oemo/Partial Demo View Plane Condominiurrnzation ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description cf existing uses (number and type of existing structures, appr=imate sq. ft. number of bedrcoms, any previous approvals granted to tile property) BACM (ANIT f 5 -8Â£Â£62115ATELY 4 900 -SE THEAE AME: 12- UN \TS A T RWEA BLUFF Towe44-lou S E CoMPO M\NIUMS . -THâ‚¬ *5.E- 7-012- T,48 uh),Ts 1 5 RE, LDENTIA\.. ERCH uwl-T 14 PIC.Al,VY EACH KNLT Lowl-AIRS 3 8004 6 AND 1 BATHR.ooMS- ?F-EviouS APPS.ovAL polk. MviNG (UoM WAS *ANTEP IN 1991 9. Description af deveicpment application . EXPANSioN OF THE BE.PWOM ON SECOND Fl-002_ A MEU] De#-CMT#L ; - AND MINOR- MAP I r= 1 r Arl 0 W To 11) flglng..85 0 2.009.- UlkY n liT ADverioN AL- SP.) APPIUKIMAIFI,1 110 9p 10. Have you completed and attached the following? v Attachment 1- Land use application form 4 Response to Attachment 2 _V_ Response tc Atachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 I Illlllll SEF-10-1998 13:57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV TO 9-13038399998-090 P.04 .. UNiT e 5 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCAT1ON FORM 1. Project name _BERAmEL-REEMNSIoN 2 g.,VER- BwiFF TOWNHOIASE CONt>O 2. Project locarion @6 1.0 02 PINE ~Ar>: UN,1-T * S Cuwvr 9-3) RE: SUP.ver Foli- 1-&6A1- PESCAPTION (indicate sneer aadress. Lot and block number or mates and bounds description) BEE EA SUAV E Y # 3. Present zoning _RM PA 4- 1-Ct Nze. PRoof op owNED,HI P 5- Applicanfs name. address and phone number =JEAM E G[0,6 E#-6, 155 LoNE PINE 8.9 Apt 0 NIT* 5 ; A â‚¬fTEN. co B Iiâ€¢ 11 TEL: lIZ Â·644- Â·21-2.2- 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number. Yo#6 CHO: ARL-+1'IECT STUD{O COMPLF,-r-WAI Ikir.. 11-in AP.AN-r S-r , 4/1 IT F ~ do K . DRNV E!2 ; C. 0 9> 0,20 3 rEL: 103 Â· %49 999 -1- 7. Type of applicarion (check all that appiy): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Special Review - Final SPA - Final HPC 8040 Greentine Canceptual PUD Minor HFC Stream Margin _ _ Final PUD _ Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMCS ailctment GMCS exemption _ Demo/Partial Demo View Plane - Condominiummition ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing stuctures, approximate sci. ft. number of bedrcoms, any previous approvals granted to the property) EM.,1 uNK i S 8FF*UXIMA-ret-~ 11 900 SE_ THERE. AP-E 1 3_ UN \TS AT R,0 eza.. ~t-uFF Towe4+4ouS E CoNPOM\NIU,AS. THâ‚¬ *SE. Pof- TMS UNITS 15 12-EUREN'nAL. ERCH whtll 1YflaÂ®Y _EACK MwiT lo~nAINS 3 8DLMLAMP 1 BATHI:.00,*S f,-Eviou, Appe.oVAL FOK AlviNG ruoM WAS GBANTEP IN 19'81 9. Description cf deveicpment application EXPANSioN ov= THE BEOR-Dot.1 OM SECOND. puoog- 8 NEW 000-RFER- AND MINOR- MADIFIIATIOU TO. 14077;uft-13&0 9.0O1M LAYAUT . ADverio N AL SPL ApprzoKIMATELA 110 SP 10. Have you completed and attached the following? _Y Attachment 1 - Land use application form 4 Response to Attachment 2 ~.14 Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 I Illlllll ber-10-19'98 13:57 FROM ASPEN/PI TKIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 . . uu'T 2 7 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name BE..28*F[ E)<FANSIONG'RWEW PWFF -row,0 HÂ£WSE COAIDD 2. Project tocanon _15_Lnklg. PINE ROAb, IAN,-T * 1 C UNIJT D-5) 02: Sulvmy Fog 46,64 DF_5CF!.lP T{o hj (indicate srreer accress. :cot and block number or metes and bounds description) REE EA SUAver â‚¬ 3. Present zoning -&M.EÂ» 4. Lats:ze PRooF op owNECWHIP 5. Applicanfs name, address and Phone number -7 0 5EPH STAN-A 155 LoNE FINE. BOAR,i UNIT * 7 AspNEN, 6-0 8 160 1< ; TEL: 910Â·929Â·10521 6. Represemative's name. address. and phone number Your, CHO: ARE+11TEOT STUDIO COMPIATic/A 13.31(-14-ID ,/.AANT ST, *41-TE 1470:K) DENVEQ ; C.O 9>0203 TEL-: 303 . 331.999 + 7. Type of anplicancn (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HFC Special Review _ _ Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PUD Minor HFC Stream Margin Ill#-- Final PUD Relocadon HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMCS allorment _ GMQS exemption Oemo/Partial Demo View Plane _ Condominiurrnzation ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Descripton af exisling uses (number and type of existing SOuctures, approximate sq- ft. number of bedrcoms. any previous approvals granted to the property) EACM UNCT \ 5-_,8FPGUX,MATELTr li 900 S F THEME AP-E 1 1. UNUTS AT Rigma. BLUFF Towe44.-SE CoMPo M\NIUMS . -THE LAS# Poe- TRE uN\TS 1 5 8.Et LDENTIAL. EACH WVT lific,PÂ®Y E_ACLZNLI Low'AiNS 3 8DUVS AND 1 2.MTH 1&20* S P %.EVI OUS APPS-ovAL poll. UVING FooM WAS GAANTEP IN 19'81 9. Description cf development application EXPANS,ON OF -7718 2,6-99.,0,4 ON SE,coND PuooÂ£ 8 MEU} 00(2-(MFF- AND MINCÂ®__ELAALFIc Arlch.) To 'LUTEQ.102- rbEDÂ£-009 LAYouT ADMTIo N AL- SP I_APPBoKIMATBA 110 sp 10. Have you completed and attached the following? v Attachment 1 - Land use application form 4 Response to Attachment 2 _V_ Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 11111111 bEY-10-1998 13:57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCAT1ON FORM 1. Projecr name BEPUDMI EXPANSioN O'P-IvE.%-Buuff -rowebouSE. Co,400 2. Project locarion IS 5 . LoNg. P I NF . Ra Ab ; UN 11* 9 < u.0 N D - 7 3 Re: SURVEr Fok LGGAL DESCRIPTWN (indicate street accress. lot and blccx number or meres and bounds description) REE EA SUR.VE T 4 3. Present zoning RM FA 4. Lot size p.op op owNEQ;HIP 5. Applicant's name. address and phone number Jo HA r. Gul crit:A,1 !55 LoNE- FINE A-OAD, UNIT* 9 AsplEN, 40 BIL,Il._ TEL: leiÂ·640Â·9814 I - 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number_ 10Â£46 CHO: ARLHITECT STU D IO CO MPLETIVA, t kir.. 14 In /4 B ANT. S-r, Gu IT FE_B '6 0 â€¢~ . DE.KIV E I~ C.O 9>0 20 3 TEW 303Â· 8'31 Â· 919 + 7. Type of aopticanon (check ati that apply): Conditicnaj Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Spec:al Review _ Final SPA - Final HPC 8040 Greentine - Conceptual PUD Minor HFC Stream Margin _ Final PUD _ _ Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic Landmark GMCS ailorment GMCS exemption _ Oema/Partial Demo \new Plane Cortdominiurnization v- Design Review Lot Split/Lot Line Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Descripnon of existing uses (number and type of existing stuctures, apprnximate sq. ft. number of bedrcoms. any previous approvals granted to the propefty) EACH UNIT i 5 AFF42.01(*MAT*1-7' h 900 -SF THEAE AP-E 11- uN CTS AT. RWER- Bl-Upl_ Towe4+4Â©uSE CoNPo 14\Altli~S Â· THâ‚¬ USE- POF- TME UNITS 15 REW LDENTIAL. ERCH -111 lY PIC,Â®Y EACH wwl-r_le#01~INS 3 SDE=MLANTL 1 BATHRoollS ff-â‚¬w toUS APPS-ovAL poi kIVINIG FooM WAS GAANTEU) IN 081 9. Description cf deveicpment application ENFAISMN OF THE BEP,uootâ€¢t ON SEcoND Â·I'-0014 - 8 NEW DOWNFR- AND MINOR- MoDIF\LA'-rlow To 'INT.ER,te:L=IkED 2-oot,A LAYnuT AppiÂ·rioN A L SPJ APPIUKIMATELY 110 sp -. 10. Have you completed and atiached the following? -r Attachment 1 - Land use application form / Response to Attachment 2 _â‚¬_ Response to A#achment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 ~ Illlllll Ucr- 1 U- 1 7 3,0 10.Zy< FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-090 P.04 .. UN\T * 10 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCAT1ON FORM 1. Project name BE PRooM[ E>< PANS ION C% k.(vEILOb UMFF TowN lio USE- C.PA,po 2. Project location 16 6 Lo NE PINE Ro Ab , jAN 11' * 1 0 C UNIT E - I 1 RE: SURVEEY FoR. 1-GGAL DESCALPTION (indicate street access. :or and block* number or metes and bounds description) REFER. SUR.VEr 4 3. Present zoning KM F A 4. Lot size PRoop OP OWN EQ,Hip 5. Applicant' s name. address and phone number . MBYLA F-(644*4 0 80 155 1-oNE Flue 8.o,p ' UNIT* to A SFNEN, co B Â» U TEL : 305.652 Â· 100% i - 6. Representative's narne. address. and phone number Yo#6 040: ARLMITED-[ STUDIO COMPLETWA J ,Air.. 11-In 412Â·ANT S-rt GuITE-1&3,2 i,-DENIVEQ, co 9>0203 TEL: 303 Â· 639 Â· 9991- 7. Type of applicanon (check ail that apply): Conditional Use Conceptuai SPA Concectual HPC Spec:ai Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PUD Minor HPC Stream Margin .-' - Final PUD Relocation HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. _ Historic Landmark GMCS allotment GMCS exemption Oemo/Panial Demo View Plane Condominfurnization ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures, approximate sq. ft. number of bedrcoms. any previous approvals granted to the property) BAcM uNIT 1 5 AFFâ€¢Ul<$MATELY h Soo RY- THE fâ‚¬. Ap-E 1 1- UN \TS AT RWELA- BLUFF Towl'HouSE COMpot'lihjil,OAS . 1-4â‚¬ *SE- Poll- TMS UNITS I S REG IDENTIAL. gagl whill 1'Â·f PIC.P,K,Y EACK KNK lowl AINS 3 BMLMS AND -3 &+THR.gotlS FiLÂ·Evt o LAS APPS.ovAL Folt- 1-ly,NG 8.DOM WAS GAANTEP IN 199-1 9. Description cf deveicpment application E>(FÂ»'Sled 071 -r4-le 8699-cowl OM SEcoND A.002_. A NEU} 054-rKBR- AND MINOR, MADIFic. Aprlo,J To 'Il]TF.B,r,L_Q,~,0 Â£Â£;IM LAYnt,LT ADP,TioNAL Spt APPIZoKIMATELY 110 SF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? _v Attachment 1 - Land use application form 7 Response to Attachment 2 â‚¬_ Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 . Illlllll SEP-10-1998 13:57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 .. UN\ T *10 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCAT1ON FORM 1. Project name BED#Ft EXPANSIo N Q FesÂ¥- BLUFF To_wraouSE CORPO 2. Project location-L-flbug: PINF ROAb: IANI-T * to CMWIT 6-1) RE: SURVEDf FoR. 666A1- DESCAPTION Fndicsne street aadresa :ot and block number or meres and bounds descriptien) REFER. SURV E 1' 4 3. Present zoning _~&!:LEA. - 4. Lat size Pgoop op owN Ea-7 HI P 5. Applicant's name. address and phone number. SAM SHAM<E 155 LoNE PINE Aâ‚¬.AP_UNIT* 1 0 ASFTEN, co Bldplf TEL: 249'610Â·600 3 - 6. Representative's name. address, and phone number ZoN/, _EHO, ARÂ£+11-TECT STUDIO COMPIATWA J 1 AWL . 14.In AP.ANT S-r , 4,/ 1-r E 'FE; 02, o K) -DENVER j / 0 9>0 20 3 TEL: 303Â·631Â· 1997 7. Type of applicanon (check ati that appiy): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Special Review _ Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PLO - Minor HFC Stream Margin .......- Final PUD Relocation HFC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. Historic L.andmark GMCS allounent - GMCS exemption Oema/Partal Demo View Plane - Condominjurrnzation ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustrient 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing souctures, apprnximate sq. ft, number of bedrcoms. any previous approvals granted to the propefty) FACH (AH,r c S ,AFFâ€¢Ux,MA-rat-~ \, 900 s p THEME- AP-E I Lu# IT 5 AT RIVE.A. el-UFF Towe44-touSE COMPo 14\Wil.<~S . THâ‚¬ \AGE- fo P- ..TRE uNITS 1 5 9.EUC>EN'tiAL. ERCH -11 14 80Â·PÂ®Y ENCF KNIT low-IAINS 3 8DE-M S AND J BATHRootÂ·lS 'F+Evious AFFS-oVAL FOW kiVING (UOM WAS GAANTEP IN 1981 9. Description af development appffcation EXPANSioN of -r,te- FEewotâ€¢t ON SE.cof#D Pl-00Â£; A NaA} 00(LOA,"- AND MINOR- MQD_LF< c. Aflo w To 'tuTER.102- BEDÂ£.00,M LAY,]UT AD?trioNAL SE APPROKIMATELY \10 SP 10. Have you compieted and attached the following? _r Attachment 1 - Land use application form 4 Response to Attachment 2 -0 Response tc Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 ~ 11111111 -r-10-1'205 1.3:57 FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEV TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 0 0 ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCAT1ON FORM 1. Project name. _ BEPRooF[ EX FANSION 2 KNE,K BI.uve -roul.#EME CoND D 2. Project location 166 J aug P I NF. Ro Ab Â£ IA N 1-T * U ( UN IT E - z. ) Re: SURver Fog. 666-Al- PTL#CR-iPTIONI ~ (indicate street aacress. bt and block* number or metes and bounds description) REFER- SUAVET 4 3. Present zoning ._KM_56 4- Lot size pRooF op OWNEQ-5HIP 5. Applicanfs name. address and phone number GLENN A. PAL-21/ 155 l.oNE PINE BoAP~ UNIT* 11 ; AsplEN. CO Bloll TEL: 910 Â·935.9444 6. Representative's name. address. and phone number YoNG cHO, ARÂ£+11 -recT STUDIO COMPLETIVA, 194 11-in /.0.AN-r ST, GL"TF. 1:410:K DRNVER, /O 9>0203 TEL: 303Â· 834Â· 991* 7. Type cf applicaton (check al! that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA I....... Concectual HPC Spec:ai Review - Final SPA _ Final HPC 8040 Greentine Conceptual PUD - Minor HFC Stream Margin --*I- - Final PUD Relocion HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. _ Historic Landmark GMQS allotment _ GMCS exemption Oemo/Partal Demo View Plane CortdomirtiurnIzz~on ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjustrterlt 8. Description af existing uses (number and type of existing *uctures, approximate sq. ft. number of bedrcoms. any previous approvals granted to the property) EM-,1 u.liT CLAFÂ¥42.01(*MATEL.f h Boo SF THEAE APE 1 1- UN VES AT RWEA- BLUFF Towe444ouSE Co!4Po M\NIUMS . -THâ‚¬ weE- Pof-_TMS uNITS _15 REUDENTIAL . ERCH WVT 1wfla,Â»Y ENCh KNK lowlmNS 3 BDE.-11.6 AND 1 2KTHEE0KS fl.Evious Apps-ovAL po. wiVING (UOM WAS GAANTEP IN 1931 9. Description af development application EXPAWSioN of THE BEPROOM ON SE,CoND Buoot A Neul DOW{WÂ©K I AND MINOR MAR.JAc Al-LO 61 Tg 'LuTER,102_ 8602-00(M LAYnUT ApprrioN AL SP'Â· APPIUKIMATELY 110 SP 10. Have you completed and attached the following? _r Attachment 1 - Land use application form v' Response to Attachment 2 4- Response to Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 p.004 I 11111111 Jer--ity-1273'Ci 1 J i b'/ FROM ASPEN/PITKIN COM DEU TO 9-13038399998-090 P. 04 .. l/l A LT * C 1- ATTACHMENT 1 LAND USE APPUCATION FORM 1. Project name BEPRDOM E)<FANSIoN 0 E-10*,d-evaÂ¥F -row NHÂ©(ASS 6.-Do. 1 Project locarion___LiENâ€žAl=- PINF. ROAbl IANI-T * 12- 6.UNCT E-30 Re: Sue,VEY'_FOR. 66â‚¬81- 02-5-f-FIPTION I . (indicate street aadress. rot and block- number or metes and bounds description) BEE EA SUAV E 1' 4 3. Present zoning _AM FA, 4. Lot size PUOF O,1 OWNE,NHIP 5- Applicant's name. address and phone number- ALEMANDER G. MPLSFAB. 155 LoNE PINE 8-0 AR/ UNIT* 12. ASPNEN., co B Â» 11 TaL : 970 Â· 925Â· 6224 1 .i 6. Representative's name. address. and phorte number. YoNG 4140, ARÂ£,HITEOT STUD[ C COMPIA-rrt/A IAL....14=1LA,&8hll--2[-~--5UillE-aa,2,&â€žDEhilER j /0 80203 -rEL: 305.931Â·1191- 7. Type cf applicanon (check all that apply): Conditional Use Conceptual SPA Concectual HPC Special Review Final SPA Final HPC 8040 Greentine Canceptual PUD Minor HFC Stream Margin Final PUD Relocion HPC Subdivision Text/Map Amend. _ Historic Landmark GMQS allotment - GMCS exemption Oema/Panial Demo View Plane Cortdoninium:zation ,/ Design Review Lot Split/Lot Une Appeal Committee Adjuskment 8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing slnictures, appmximate sq. 1. number of bedrcoms, any previous approvals granted to the property) BAC,1 uNIT i S AFFâ€¢UnMATEL-Y h 900 SP THERE- AP-E 1 1- UNITS AT Rigma. Bluff Tovue*JouSE C914pot'hhliUMS. 1Â»4#_ ulle._p.of~Â· TMS u.) rr S 1 5 REW LDENTIAL . EBC,t~ Null 1X Pla,lut-_EACK whHT tohnAINS 3 8DAMS AND 1 ghTHâ€¢kgotl S f#EviouS APPe-ovAL FOF- UviNG fuoM WAS "-ANTEP IN 19(81 9. Description af deveicpment application EXPANS,ON 00 _THE BE.9-0 rl ON SE,coRD lp(-002-7 -8 NEW Dof-MiER- - AND MINog. Mop'Fic.A'ROAJ To '111]TE:LIDÂ£ CUDE.bo,M LAYRUT ADverioN AL SP: APPRoKIMATELY 110 SF 10. Have you completed and attached the following? _r Attachment 1 - Land use application form v' Response to Attachment 2 C Response tc Attachment 3 09/10/98 15:16 TX/RX NO.2638 P.004 . 11111111 NOV.13-98 19:29 FROM-LANSCO- 212-644-SAM T-311 P 02/13 F-381 .. 4 K . 1 CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION FOR THE LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.002 ~ , NOV-13-98 19:29 FROAFLANSCO ~ 212-644-6~ T-311 P.03/13 F-381 1 =4301 ::.:013 Recorded at 12:00 o'clock A .M. 4213 14. 1980 Reception No. 225323 Loretta Banner Recorder - INDEX fru- CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION -*~RECEIVED FOR ~ THE LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS ~ -/J 81 7 7 1.9 go paragraph Heading - Page 1. Definitions I. 2. Condominium Map 3. Division of Property into Condominium Units 4 4- Rights Reserved to Declarant 5 5. Limited Common Elements 5 6- pse of Certain Common Elements 5 7. Inseparability of a Condominium Unit 5 8. Method of Description 6 9. Separate Assessment and Taxation - Notice to Assessor 6 10. Ownership - Title 6 11. Non-Partitionability of General Common Elements 7 12. The Use of General and Limited Common Elements 7 13. Use and occupancy 3 _ 14. Easements for Encroachments 8 15. Termination of Mechanics' Lien Rights and Indemnification 8 16. Administration and Management . 8 17. Certificate of Identity g 18. Reservation for Access 9 19. Reservation of Access for Benefit of Board of Governors 9 20. Owner's Maintenance Responsibility of Unit, Balconies and Storage Areas 3 21. Compliance with Previsions of Declaration, By-Laws of the Association 10 22. Revocation. or Amendment to Declaration 10 23. Additions. Alterations and Improvements of , General and Limited Common Elements - 11 24. Assessment for Common Expenses 11 25. Insurance 12 26. Owner's personal Obligation for Payment of Assessments 1 3 27. Assessment Lien and Foreclosure 4. 4 28. Liability for Common Expense Upon Transfer of Condominium Unit is Joint 14 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.003 ~ NOV-13-98 19:30 FROM-LANSCO 212-644-64- T-311 P.05/13 F-381 ..391 ,-,a625 F consent and agree to such revocation by instrument(s) duly recorded. This Declaration shall not be amended unless the owners'reptesenting an aggregate ownership interest of eighty percent [80%) or more of the General Common Elements, and in the event such amendment affects the rights of the holders of security interests in the condominiums, then the holders of all recorded first or second mortgages Or deeds of trust covering or affecting any or all Condominium Units, must consent and agree to such amendment by instrument(s) duly recorded; provided, however, that the percentage of the undivided interest in the Common Elements shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the written consent of all of the Unit owners expressed in any amended Declaration duly recorded. r - -- i~33, Additions, Alteratiops and Improvements of General L /~ and Limited Common Elements. There shall be no additions, altera- 1 tions or'improvements by the Board of Governors or the Managing 1 Agent of or to the General or Limited Common Elements requirlng ~ an et[penditure in excess of One Thousand and No/100 Dollars 1 (51,000.00) in any one calendar year without prior written appro- ~ val of a majority of the owners holding a majority of the 1 interest in the General Common Elements, in writing, or as re- < ~ flected in the minutes of a regular or special meeting of the ownersil Such limitation shall not be applicable to the re- placement, repair, maintenance or obsolescence of any General or Limited Common Element. An individual Unit owner shall do no alterations, additions, or improvements to the General Common Elements or the Limited Common Elements without the approval in I writing of a majority of the owners holding a majority of the interests in the General Common Elements or as reflected in the minutes of a regular or special meeting of the owners. *004 24. Assessment for Common Expenses. All owners shall be obligated to pay the assessments, either estimated or actual, imposed by the Board of Governors of the Association to meet the common expenses. The assessments shall be made according to each owner's percentage interest in the General Common Elements as is set forth in PAragraph -3 above. Except as provided in Para- graph 20, the Limited Common Elements shall be maintained as General Common Elements, and owners having exclusive use thereof shall not be subject to any special charges or assessments for the repair or maintenance thereof. Assessments for the estimated common expenses shall be made at least semi-annually and shall be due immediately upon receipt. The Managing Agent or Board of Governors shall prepare and deliver or mail to each ownex a statement for the estimated or actual common expenses. 24.1 In the event the ownership of a Condominium Unit by grant from Declarant commences on a-day other than the first of the month, the assessment for that month shall be pro- rated. 24.2 The assessments made for common expenses shall be the sum which the Managing Agent, or if there is no Managing Agent, then the Board of Governors of the Association 6 /9 -'11 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.005 NOV-13-98 19: 30 FROM-LANSCOAIA 212-644-6~ T-311 P 06/13 F-381 .. -10-98 08=31A P.S. INTERIORS 310 378 1262 P.02 Nov-10-36 10.52 FE/l ANSCO 212-644-6444 T-178 P. 97/09 F-242 Novembcj 7, 1998 -2- Mr- Jere}m# D Ginsberg I .gree thar Ihiâ€¢ requâ€¢ST for :how Homeownen who wiâ€¢h to â€¢*pand rhâ€¢ir Mas,cr Redroums u indicatcd above SHALL >â‚¬ SHALL NOT - - 13: gn.n:ed- Sincerely, *682 19-4/id -D Homeowdcr / UniI *2 Jerome D. Ginsberg The L...0 Corporition Svs Lextn:ton Avenue Suir.,1600 Ncw York. NY 10022 (212} 644-2122 3 2,9 creo (212) 644-6444 0-1 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.006 NOV->3-98 19:31 FROM-LANSC01 212-644-6~ T-311 P 07/13 F-381 November 7, 1998 -2- c Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg I agree that this request for those 89:4owners who wish to expand their Master Bedrooms as indicated above SHALL SHALL NOT be granted. Sincerely, -OLL / jerome D. Ginsberg LJHomeowner / Unit #5 Â£557. Jerome D. Ginsberg The Lansco Corporation 575 Lexington Avenue Suite #1600 New York, NY 10022 (212) 644-2222 x 279 crel) (212) 644-6444 (Fax) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.007 ~ NOV-33-98 19:31 FROM-LANSCO~ 212-644-~ T-311 P 08/13 F-381 11-07-1998 3:48PM FROF-54_ENN DALY PROD. INC. 970-t-225 -maS P. 2 MOV-07-98 !5.00 FRO*-LAN5CC 212-044-Â§444 T-}21 p 04/05 ,-Igs November 7, 1998 -2- Mr Slanlgy STam 1 agree :hm,hts râ€¢quest for rhow Hgm;4wn0rs who *tsh zo expand Their Muger B.drooms . indicmed above SHALL V- SHALL NOT b....4 Sing.*ly. cfu{ D. S E- - 61.9 54,9// / Morncown=Â«Unir 17 Jerome D- G inÂ»ber. The 1...co corpor.nom 975 Lning[on Avenue Suive â€¢1600 New York. NY 10022 012} 644-2222 1 279 (Tâ€¢U (212} 644-6444 {Fâ€¢*1 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.008 NOV-13-98 19:31 PROM-LANSCO~ 212-644-6~ T-311 P 09/13 F-381 11-12-1998 12 48PM FROM JOHN GUILTINAN 714 640 6491 P. 3 Mov-OMB 18;66 F RCM-LAN SCO 2)Z-Â§44-6444 7-!35 p 04/05 F-204 Nov=nber 7.1998 -2- Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg I â€¢greâ€¢ :bal thi, requnt for ;how Ila=cowneri â€¢bu â€¢ 1â€¢h w npend thÂ®ir Meâ€¢*â€¢r 8-dreema am imdicazed â€¢bove SHAI-L X SHAW. NOT b.'ranted. Sing=tly. t.Â£ .1-2-- 1%46 Guiltinan 4!6mfowpor / Unit 1,9 J.rom. D. Ginsberg The Lm,vo Corporation 575 L#zingm= 4.mue scue *1600 New York, NÂ¥ 10022 {212) 644-2222 1 279 Cr.U {212) 6444444 (FI*) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.009 ~ NOV-13-98 19:31 FROM-LANSCO ~ 212-644-6411lk T-311 P 10/13 F-381 11/12/1998 14:55 8106269800 SHAMIE PAGE 03 NOV-07-90 12:59 PRO1-LANSCO 212-844-6444 7-137 P 04/06 F-205 November 7. 1998 -2- Mr. Jerome D. Giasberg 1 *greo char this requnt for theze Hsneownerâ€¢ who wish ro eâ€¢pand meir Muwr Bedroom. u indigated abovâ€¢ SHALL -br-' SHALL NOT be granted. Sincerely, 12 31Â«, Sam Shamie Homeown=/ Uniz #10 Jerome D. Ginsberg The Lauâ€¢go Corporalion 575 Le*ing, on Avenue Suite.1600 New York, NY 10022 (212) 644-2222 Â¥ 279 Crell (212) 64+6444 (Fal) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.010 ~ NOV-4 3-98 19:31 PROW-LANSCO ~ 212-644-6~ T-311 P 11/13 F-381 iv -11-98 05=38P P-01 Mav-11-91 12:35 FRQI*-LANSCO 212-644.Â§444 T-242 P. WOE ;-114 November 7.1998 2 Mr. Jerome D- Ginsberg I al:rec 111*, thil rÂ®ques, ror rhoitHomrowners who â€¢491: fo cipsod,beir Muver Bedrooms . indic.red.bove SHALL VE - SHALL NOT - be gran:ed. Sincerely, /UiAL ' Mar* Richman Home,Â¥wner / Unic #10 Jerome D- Gimberg The Laasco Corporazion 375 LeugKton Aptnue Suite Â»16110 New York MY 10022 (212} 64+2222 j 279 (Tel) {212) 64+6444 (Fal) 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.011 ~ NOV-13-98 19:32 FROM-LANSCO ~ 212-644-64l T-311 P 12/13 F-381 11-09-1998 6:34PM FROM GLENN DALY PROD-INC- 972+925 5445 P. 2 NOV-0749 11:04 FROM-,AMBCO 2 ; 2-644-6.4 T-139 p 04/12 F-207 November 7, 1998 -2- Mr Jerome D. Ginsbers 1 agree :bâ€¢; 00 -91-; for :bow Hommwnerâ€¢ who .61* w <*pmid their Masier BedroomÂ» m indical.d *bow SHALL 75 - SHAU NOT - beamated Sinewely. Â£ Glenn Daly Homeowner / Unir # 11 Jerome D. Ginaber: Tbâ€¢ Lanw. Corpurâ€¢men 575 Le=gron Avemic Smâ€¢ â€¢1600 New Yorlk NY 10022 (212) 644-2222 1279 creu (212) 644-6444 (F.:61 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 . NOV-,13-98 19:32 FROM-LANSCO ~ 212-644-64~ T-311 P 13/13 F-381 11-09-1 998 5 34PM FROM IENN DALY PROD. INC. 970+925 ~ FÂ·. M]Â¥-07-98 1@:07 FRC)MARSCO 211-844Â§444 T-)33 P 10/12 F-217 f. November 7.1998 -2- Mr. Iwome D. Cui,bers I *gr:, 1- fiD re'- * *0,0 Homee .* who wish m ,*paad *.ir M..s.r A--9" . indicates: above SHALL % SHALL NOT ...ranted- Si=:Fely. 6/= ca,~.a -*z_ <Coa.~*> Al=.d=r Ka=par He=own=/ Unit *12 Jerome Il GinÂ»bers The 1.88*Co Corporition 575 1.nia*Ha A"m' Sum â€¢1600 New Yort. NY 1092? Â£2121 644-2222. 279 Crcu BIZ} 04+6444 {Ful 11/13/98 17:33 TX/RX NO.2903 P.013 NOV-19-98 14:45 FROM-LANSCO ~ 212-644-64~ T-459 P 01/01 F-532 .. JEROME D. GINSBERG River Bluff Townhome #S 0155 Lone Pine Road Aspen, CO 81611 November 19,1998 City Of Aspen Community Development 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: This letter shall serve as notice that Mr.Yong Cho, architect for SrudioCompletiva, 1410 Omni Sweet, Denver, Colorado, is hereby authorized to serve as agent and/or representative to work in our behalf with reference to Requirement #1 of Atiachment #2, General Submission Requircments. Sincerely, C Opv....V,J, lm==1'.-J L-716~me D- dinsberg < ~>Â£iver Blullf Townhomes L-) 11/19/98 12:50 TX/RX NO.2930 . 04-08-1998 02:20PM FROM To 9252778 P.01 .. LAW OFFICSS OF OATES. KNEZEVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. PROFESGIONAL CORPORATION 1-MIRE FLOOR MPEN P,424 BOILDINC 028 EAST HOP>/INS /'Coâ€¢V~ IMIEN. COLORADO ! 1611 L.CONARD M. OATEd ,CLE/MON, ,/79) 920-1700 RICHARD A KNÂ«7rÂ·VICâ€¢-1 f ACM,â€¢â€¢,LE '970),ZOâ€¢1 121 7 20 6 4. A Au< 7 7,â€¢'K 0-Z e.,n&,1 or,kgw,erÂ·iâ€¢â€¢,1 Maxh 23, 1998 DAVID 0 KCLLY be (:CUNFEL JOIIN TWOMA9 KELLY Glen Daly President River Bluff Town Association 300 Puppysmith Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Solicitation of March 6, 1998 regurdiag Additional FAR Square Footage AvaU.ble to Homeowners Dear Mr, Daly: John (}inn has delivered to me the above correspondence and your solicitation of what purports to be a vote to somehow authorize the obtaining of approvals for master bedroom expansions at River Bluff Townhomes. As you are aware, I have written the Association on two prior occasions in connection with the position of John and Arleen Ginn, and others as to any such expansion- As proposed. the expansion would prot:rude outside ofthe air space ofthe existi:ng condominium units and therefoN take and convert to the use of individual units, land and air space which constitute general and limited oommon clements. Pwsuant tothe Condominium Declmation for River Bluff Townhomes, all ofthe owners of Gondominium units within that project are tenants in common as to all of the common elements. As a consequence, one or morÂ©. but less than all of the owners may not convert such pluperty held in tenancy in common to such owner's exclusive use without the consent of all of the owlers of units within the project The Ginns and others are unwilling to permit the use of that portion of the common elements which is proposed to be expanded into by the master bedroom extensions and will take whatever legal steps are available to them to block any such encroachment by any individual unit owner in property which they own an undivided interest to Very truly yours. DATES, I<NEaVICH & GARDENSWARTZ, P.C. 449*tant LÂ¢gnard M. Oatâ‚¬8 LMO/arnc ---- cc: Julie Ann Woods Da\08//1/6.â€¢24 of ~ / Post-it' Fax Nc te 7671 7/5 /7 g leages To AO-\ti A 5,4 A/ 404 4 0 1*L From Cidwal(Zterl'G/AMLry Dady 3-/7Â·9Â£Â»pd Co./Dept, 6,43'404Â£1 EA 0 Phone # Phone # . Fak # 9 g.- 4.,7*" - Fax ,# TOTAL P.01 .. February 24, 1998 Dear Glen, In an e#ort to fully understand the information I believe the board and the -0 1 homeowners will want to consider regarding Jerry and Roger's bedroom, I ~~~ attorney, *om the city and its oficials, *om the history Of2 previous . have been carefully studying the files on River Blufffrom the association Interwest expansions, from case law in Colorado, and condominium law in the country. No, I am not an attorney, however it is necessary to be a fully informed board member when it comes to matters of monumental consequence, and we all must make properly informed decisions. I do not take my job as board member lightly. I fully understand the difficulty of pleasing 12 very successful homeowners, all ofwhom are used to running their own business. Most wish to simply pay their association dues and trust all is being taken care of on their behalf For those of us who have chosen to be in a decision making capacity we have a great responsibility. I am enclosing documents I feel should be considered in your deliberations because the position clearly discusses the use of the common elements. All of these documents represent hours and hours ofwork and negotiation. There certainly is no need to spend any further association dollars on more attorney's fees. The documents speak for themselves. I send these to you with the intent of enabling us all to find some peaceable way to proceed with the use of available square footage as provided for in the statutes and documents. Over 400 Realtors in the Pitkin County have entrusted me to represent them for the next 3 years here and with the state of Colorado. I trust you, too, will take me seriously. Very truly yours, /7 C 11/1 Â£1.--~ Arleen K. Ginn .. February 13, 1998 Dear Neighbor, I do not wish to participate in a meeting called for February 16 without the full knowledge of all homeowners as was agreed upon at a special board meeting on February 9. Item 1. The first meeting was improperly noticed. There were referred to items in the notice of meeting given to the president, but not made available to all board members for consideration. I agreed to proceed with February 9 meeting since we were all gathered and had reserved the time for discussion. Item 2. Reference -was made in the notice ofmeeting ofpreviously consented to Master Bedroom Expansions passed by a majority. I was secretary during the past three years and my meeting minutes of all board meetings as well as the annual meeting do not indicate that this was the case. Itern 3. After 21/2 hours of discussion at the February 9 special board meeting, I feel that this is an effort by 2 Of the board members to ramrod an unapproved plan through the board. ANY PLAN HISTORICALLY HAS GONE TO THE FULL MEMBERSHIP FOR CONSIDERATION. Item 4. Traditionally the board members are polled to see what is convenient for everyone's schedule in order to have a board meeting. Neither Frances nor myself were asked to see what times would work for us. I am afull time real estate professional with an extemely busy schedule who is committed to service for the homeowners as well as my community. Item 5. I am aware of at least 5 homeowners who believe as I do. I believe that an informational package of what has taken place in the past, and what may happen in the future should be brought to the full attention of every River Bluff homeowner so they have complete knowledge of what gives their home the highest and best value. Respectfully submitted, Arleen K. Ginn id/1998 13:41 9709204432 ASBW PAGE 01 Post-11--d laximn.mittal memo 7Ng F - .1- -g 1 - 0-~Â£2~~* - A to. 50, Phone # R# Fox # 11 1 .:Â·4Â·4 Dear Neigkbor, For tke palt few years there 6. been much campaigning and 6 ours o f discussion about changing the approved bedroom extension plan (which kas already been clone by three homeowners during the specified time frame), The plan tkat we all agreed upon in 1991 was designed to create little or no impact on those not choosing to participate in the expangion. It is in keeping with the existing architecture of the buildings, can be completed in only two weeke time, and Joee not interfere with the views or privacy , of the adjacent neigkbors. Unfortunately, thin is not true of the plan tliat Jerry Ginsberg and Roger Schultz wish to use for their own uniti. Although no final design has even been presented to tile komeowners, it seems tliat .everal people have #iRned off on their approval of thig "slzetch plan". It troubl es me greatly tkat tkie has happened without sufficient understanding of tke implications to &11 the homeowners at River Bluff. It ig not a coincidence tkat the owners of units 1, 3, 4 and 6 are most upset by the high pressure tecknique, that kave been used on the other owners in River Bluff to O.K. something that would not affect them near ly as adversely as it would us, the immediate neighbors. We all ckooe River Bluff for the level of privacy afforded by the design of the buildinge, the wonaerful views and mn that we get and the quiet nature of this very epecial complex. Please consider how dianiptive to thoge of us wko live here, many months of construction would be. Tearing off existing rook trucks clogging our very limited parlting areas, noise, construction debris, etc., is not what living here is supposed to be. To the absentee ownen wko wish to impose that on us it would be of no consequence, but please let'â€¢ not forget those of us who call River Bluff kome Then further consider the permanent Jama#e that would have leen done to our views, .un, privacy and the architectural integrity of the entire complex. 02/10/1998 13:41 970920412. ASBW PAGE 02 I hope tkat before we allow two homeowners to railroad through their personal agendas we have an open meetint at which we can examine all the facts, proposals and consider the real impact on all of us. Than]2 you for hearing me out in thie rather long winded letter. If you would like to discuss tkis with me further, pl ease feel free to call me at home (925-7668) or at my office (920-1234). Sincerely, Roberta Allen .. LAW OFF;CES OF BROOKE A. PETERSON KALIFMAN & PETERSON. P.C. -ELEPHCNE 131[}FON I KALI;MAN' :970', 325-4166 VACSVILE '15 EAST HYMAN AVENUE Â·979,925'- 000 MAL .3- 0{SHLER - ASPEN. 221.CRACO 21611 OF COUNst ERIN L. FERNANDEZâ€¢- - e.l,SC AQI,FTwt IN VARYL:* - 450 AD,IrTTED M :Â·EXAS Â·Â· Ki,30,-ID,UrrTÂ·Ent,1 FLÂ©RIOA Januany -3. i o98 Ms. Sam Thomas via ZAND DELIVERY ASPEN / ?ITIGN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Calena Street Aspen. CO 81611 Re: RiverBIuff Townhome Association Located on 0155 Lane Pine Road, Aspen. CO Dear Sarai Pursnant to our recent conversation and information you have received from Richard Failin of Baker Failin ArcEtects. you have confirmed that there is available unused F AR. of 2,725,3 square feci for tbe reibrenced properdes subject to subsequenr law changes. Please execute this letter to confirm this calculated total {unused F.A.R.) and thereafter, the homeowners of the Riverbluff Townhome Association will be informed that they can use said available unused FAR. for construction of their respective master bedroom expansions, provided such are in compliance with Aspen / Pitkin Community Development Department Residential Design Standards. We unders[and thaI F.A,R. Â·will be recalculated upon application for Building Permits. Thank you again for all your assistance in this matter. Do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions or comments, Sincerely, KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C. A Professional Corporation By: Hal S. Dishler The F.A.R. calculation of1725.8 square feetof unused F.Al can be relied upon subjectto compliance with applicable Residential Design Standards, and other qualifications stated in this letter, ASPEN / PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4 By: 4lk (~.11 0, Â« 5 a j ~ \Â£ ) NY - Sara Thomas + -1- ' Thi) on.}Biorns aolvIson.1 t.1 44;re_orijl~, is buseR orÂ·~ CorreA, CÂ·Â·03,2- 00 4~64 irs- 66)lfiect -75 (3124=155Â©:&*(s-Fe*&%g0.*e{-nâ€¢crblufr HSD:pra does /10Â£ oredte- aw Ve-St20(- rigA/ ' :-ER 68 '96, 11:01 CATE:~HES & KNEZEVICH . 3.2'.13 LAW OFACEE OF GATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH PNOFESSIONAL COMÂ»OWATION Â¥MIMO FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA Â¥91.0.No 533 EAS' HOPKINS AVENUE ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 LEONARD d. DATES AREA CÂ©06 470 Rot#ENT W. MUCKES TELEPHONE BitÂ©47Â¢0 R,CrIARD A KNEZEV,Â¢â€¢1 February 7, 1996 TELE(COP!*R 920Â· 1121 TECÂ· D.GARDENSÂ·*-AR-rz DAVID 8 KELLY O% dOUNSEL JOHN THOMA* Kt.64Y VIA FACSIMILE (970) 925-5445 Glenn Daly President River Bluffs Condominium Association. Incorporated 300 Puppy Smith Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: USE OF COMMON ELEMENTS - RIVER BLUFFS TOWNHOUSE CONDOMINIUM Dear Mr. Daly: Please be advised that we represent John Ginn in his capacity as an owner of a condominium at River Bluffs Townhouse Condominiums (formerly Lone Pine Condominiums). Mr. Ginn has engaged us specifically to review and analyze what the Association, or a unit owner may and may not do in terms of alteration and use of the common elements for the use and benefit of the less than all of the condominium units within Ihe entire project. Specifically of concerik [o Mr. Ginn is the creation of walkways on the general or common elements benefiting less than all of the condominium units within the project, the relocation of the driveways within the project and the proposal to authorize the enclosure of a portion of the general common elements for the limited use and benefit of condominium unit number 5 owned by Mr. Jerome Ginsberg. In 1988 we were requested by Mr. Ginn to analyze the issue of tile enclosure of general common elements for the limited benefit of a unit owner or owners, but less than all of the owners. Based upon our review we researched the issue, and prepared and sent to Mr. Ronald Garfield, Esq., artomey for the Association, a letter, a draft copy which is enclosed herewith, together with a copy of the reported Ohio case Grimes. et. al. v. Moreland et.al.. 322 N.E. 2nd 699- We believe that the conclusion and position taken in our 1988 letter to Mr. Garfield and the case upon which we relied, are still good law and are equally applicable in connection with certain of the improvements which are now proposed for River Bluffs. We believe that the attempieJ 1989 amendment which apparently failed, has no bearing on our position which FEB 08 '96 11:02 OATWIIHUGHES & KNEZEVICH 0 5 /1 C . 0 OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH. P.C. Glenn Daily Riv.er Bluffs Condominium Association, Incorporated Page Two rests on basic principles of the law of real property as modified by contract provisions of the condominium declaration. While Mr. Ginn is generally in favor of many of the items of improvement which have bcen proposed by the Association, he does object to those items which will benefit less than the entire ownership of the projecr and in some cases, would be a detriment to some of the units (including his) in the project, i.e. the proposed enclosure by Mr. Ginsberg which would block Mr. Ginn' s views from his unit, While Mr. Ginn clearly recognizes that it is some times a fine line as to what improvements are for the benefit of all and what improvements would be for the benefit of only some of the units, the specific items to which he objects he feels are clearly inappropriate pursuan[ to the law as interpreted through the governing decument, the condominium declaration for River Bluffs Townhouse Condominiums. As to the remainder cf the items, although he may feel ace excessive in terms of cost relative to benefit, he understands are subject to the decision of the majority of the unit owners. It is my understanding that the Association intends to have a meeting this coming Saturday, February 10th at which Mr. Ginn intends to again state his position and his intentions in connecrion with enforcement of his legal rights. Thank you for consideration of this letter. Very truly yours, OATES. HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By: At 4 36ates, Esq, 4 ~ GARFIELD & liECUT, P.C~ RONALD GARFIELD* Al-rORNEYS AT LAW TELEPHONE ANDREW V. HECHT** VIC'rORIAN SQUARE BUILDING (303) 925-1936 WILLIAM K. GUEST, P.C.*** TELECOPIER ROBERT E. KENDIG 601 EAST HYMAN AVENUE (303) 925-3008 CABLE ADDRESS - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 "GARHEC" JANE ELLEN HAMILTON CATHERINE H. McMAHON**** â€¢also admitted lo New York Bar "also admined to District of Columbia Bar March 16, 1989 - /1 ---.. Ft'. +1.,7 - -4 \. 1 -9 "'also admitted zo -. k ' ' â€¢1 Nebraska ind Texu Bar a r.:# 0'Â·'7 .... also admitted to f ' i.3 f 4 4 A v .... -1 1 4 i k '' ':1Â·/1 r Illinois Bar L . Pill Buck Olmsted , 1.-' 1 777 29th Street Suite 301 Boulder, CO 80303 Dear Mr. Olmsted: We represent the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"). Roberta Allen has provided me with a copy of your letter of March 3, 1989. As to your concerns about attorney fees incurred relative to Ginsberg's Unit 5, I want to provide you with some background information. Sometime in July, 1988, it was brought to our attention by Roberta that Mr. Ginsberg may have constructed unauthorized additional modifications to his Lone Pine unit. I wrote to Mr. Ginsberg in this regard. Subsequently, it was brought to my attention that Mr. Ginsberg had obtained written consents from ten of the twelve unit owners including yourself to construct the additional modifications. The only unit owners not consenting were Roberta and John Ginn, owner of the adjacent Unit 6. With the consent of ten of the twelve unit owners, Mr. Gins }3 2 i- c was in a position to contend that he had approval for his additional modificatiops pursuant to Paragraph 23 of the Condon_njum Dec'laration. About this time Mr. Ginn engaged the services of a local Aspen attorney, contending that despite the approvals from other unit owners, Mr. Ginsberg still did not have authorization to construct the additional modifications and that lawsuit would be brought against the Association to compel Mr. Ginsberg to remove those modifications that were not in accordance with the approved Plans prepared by Michael Ernemann, Architect. Essei.tially, the Association was caught in the middle of a dispute between Mr. Ginn and Mr. Ginsberg. Had the other unit owners not approved Mr. Ginsberg's additional modifications, I believe the Association would have been more inclined to proceed against Mr. Ginsberg. After considerable discussion and negotiation with Mr. Ginn and Mr. Ginsberg and their attorneys, we were able to reach a settlement that avoided the necessity of 0 0 GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C. Buck Olmsted March 13, 1989 Page -2- litigation. The settlement agreement is presently being circulated for signature. While I am aware of the various provisions of the Declaration that you have cited, I could not guarantee the outcome of any litigation or that the Association would definitely recover its attorney fees. The attorney fees incurred by the Association in obtaining the settlement were only a fraction of what the attorney fees would be in the event of litigation. The settlement will also prevent this kind of situation from occurring again. In the future I would urge all unit owners not to sign letters of the kind circulated by Mr. Ginsberg without first conferring with the Board of Governors or the Association's attorney. 4 Copies of my correspondence with Ginn, Ginsberg, their respective attorneys and the settlement agreement are available for your review. I hope this letter adequately addresses your concerns about the attorney fees. Please feel free to telephone me if you have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, Ofirinal sioned by *p''A' D GARFIELD Ronald Garfield 1<G:il:lti-4 CC: Robe.rta Allen .. Buck Olmsted 777 29th Street, Suite 301 Boulder, Colorado 80303 December 13, 1988 Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg c/o LANSCO 122 East 42nd Street New York, NY 10168 Dear Jerry: I have just received a letter from John Ginn, dated December 2, 1988, in which he brings to my attention that he does not approve of the patio extension that you did and is therefore planning legal action, since he and you are unable to resolve the dispute. He also goes on to say that if this is the only way the dispute can be resolved, that he will be asking the court for compensatory damages from the Homeowners Association. At the time I received your note of July 15, 1988, and responded back to it with the pre-typed letter that you had sent me, dated July 1, 1988, in which I signed on behalf of Zuhair Fayez, there was no mention in any of your correspondence that the extension to the patio was being challenged, that it extended into common area, or that you considered my letter gave you approval to go ahead with the patio without going through the proceedings as outlined in the Condo Declarations. It has never been my intent to allow a homeowner to encroach upon what is considered common area within the complex. It also has never been my intent to by- pass any of the'Condo Declarations that were written , up and presented to us at the time we purchased the unit for Zuhair Fayez. I don't feel that the letter that I signed my name to, dated July 1, 1988, in any way indicates anything other than the fact that with the information provided to me at the time, I had no problem with the design of the patio. Had you told me at the time that it was encroaching upon common area, I never would have approved it. Had you told me that you were using the letter as a means to by-pass the Condo Declarations, I never would have approved it. I feel that Mr. Ginn has a legitimate complaint if his privacy is being effected by the exteneion of the patio. This letter is not an attempt to resolve the problem between yourself and Mr. Ginn. It is, however, a statement that Zuhair Fayez is in full agreement with ' 4 .. Mr. Jerome D. Ginsberg December 13, 1988 Page Two the Condo Declarations and the various rules and proce- dures as outlined within it. In ending, I would like to say that I sincerely hope that you and Mr. Ginn can resolve your differences of opinion without legal action having been taken. As the legal representative of a homeowner, I would take a very dim view of the Homeowners' Association being charged for any legal work brought about by one homeowner not following the various rules and regulations as outlined in the Condo Declarations. Sincerely yours, 71/112----- Buck Olmsted Attorney-in-Fact for Zuhair H. Fayez BLO:be CC: John Ginn .. LAWOFFICES OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH 03 08 LIJ 0 1' PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION THIRD FLOOR. ASPEN PLAZA BUILDING 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LEONARD M OATES ASPEN.COLORAD081611 AREA CODE 303 ROBERTW HUGHES TELEPHONE 920Â·1700 RICHARD A. KNEZEVICH TELECOPIER 920Â·1121 JOHN M ELY September 9, 1988 Ronald Garfield, Esq. Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 816 11 RE: Ginsberg, Unit 5, Lone Pine Townhouses Dear Ron: I am in receipt of your letter of September 7, 1988, and am sending you this letter in response thereto on behalf of John Ginn. Mr. Ginn takes exception to the position taken in your letter relative to Mr. Ginsberg's wrongful appropriation of portions of the General Common Elements of the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium Project and offers the following in support of his objection: 1. The reliance which you have made on Paragraph 23 of the Condominium Declaration is based on an inaccurate and misplaced interpretation of the intention of that paragraph. The provision which you have quoted is set forth in the Condominium Declaration solely to provide a mechanism wherein General Common Elements may be improved for the use and benefit of all of the condominium unit 4 owners by' an individual unit owner and is not intended to create a situation whereby an irYdividual unit owner may appropriate and take for his own use any portion of the General Common Elements which are owned in tenancy in common by all of the condominium unit owners. This . intention is clearly confirmed by other provisions of the condominium documentation which, for reasons we cannot understand, were not taken into consideration at the time that you wrote your letter to me, and apparently not considered at the time you earlier dealt with Mr. Ginsberg. .. OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9, 1988 Page 2 2. We have enclosed herewith for your review a 1974 .-2 of Grimes v. Morela..2, .v Willu 1/llou I 69, 04Â£ N.E.2d 699, which stands for the proposition that under circumstances wherein each of the unit owners in a condominium project is the owner of an undivided percentage interest in and to the C ommon elements in tenancy ln common, that unanimous consent is required for the type of activity similar to Mr. Ginsberg's to be properly authorized. The references to and reliances on the specifics of the Ohio condominium statute aside, the scheme of condominium ownership in Colorado, both under statute and from an historical ense in the developing area of condominium law, is similar to Ohio. 3. Referring to the documentation: a. Paragraph 1.3 of the Condominium Declaration for Lone Pine Townhouse Condominiums provides as follows: General Common Elements' means ..., patios, ..., all of which shall be owned ' as tenants in common, by the owners of the separate units, and each owner of a unit having an undivided percentage interest in such small general common elements as hereinafter provided." ' b. Para*raph 3 of the Condominium Declaration provides: "The real property is hereby divided into the following fee-simple estates ... consisting of ... units and the undivided interest in and to the General Common Elements." C. Paragraph 7 of the Condominium Declaration provides: "Each unit, the appurtenant undivided interest in the General Common Elements ..., shall together comprise one .. OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9, 1988 Page 3 condominium unit, shall be insenarable and may De conveyed, leased, devised or encumbered only as a Condominium Unit." d. Paragraph 12 of the Condominium Declaration provides "each owner may use the general ... common elements in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended, without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of other owners, subject to such reasonable rules and regulations as may, from time to time, be established pursuant to the by-laws of the Association." e. Paragraph 22 of the Condominium Declaration provides "... that the percentage of the undivided interest in the common elements shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the written consent of all of the Unit owners expressed in any amendment Declaration duly recorded. " 3. Specific provisions of the condominium documenation supporting the proposition that Paragraph 23 of the Condominium Declaration is not dispositive of the issue are: a. Paragraph 12.5 Of the Condominium Declaration provides: "Nothing shall be altered or constructed or removed from the general ... common elements, except upon the written consent of the Board of Governors (sic Managers) ." b. Paragraph 8 of the By-laws of the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium Association, Inc. provides: "Each owner may use the general common elements ... located within the entire condominium project in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended .. GATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P. C. Ronald Garfield, Esq. September 9, 1988 Page 4 without hindering or encroaching upon â€žu ..uvviul rignis ui the other owners. " C. Rule 5 of the rules and regulations appended as Schedule "A" to the By-Laws provides: "No work of any kind shall be done upon the exterior building walls or upon the general or limited common elements by any unit owner. Such work is the responsibility of the Association." The foregoing, we believe, makes it abundantly clear that the manner in which this matte- was deal L with by the Association and by Mr. Ginsberg was by an improper application of a provision (Paragraph 23) of the Declaration intended for another purpose. That is clearly illustrated by virtue of the other provisions of the documentation which I have cited above which stand for the proposition that the General Common Elements for the Lone Pine Townhouse Condominium project, properties held in co-tenancy were and are intended for the common use of all of the property owners within the project and may not be converted, appropriated, usurped or otherwise taken for the exclusive use and benefit of one of the unit owners without unanimous consent of all unit owners. We respectfully request that the Board of Managers of the Association and you as counsel review and reanalyze the position that you have taken in light of the materials which we have presented and conclude that Mr. Ginsberg's action was improper and could not have been done without the unanimous consent of the. unit owners; and, therefore must be removed with the General Common Elements returned to their original condition. Very truly yours, OATES, HUGHES & KNEZEVICH, P.C. By: Leonard M. Oates LMO:klm Enclosure 609 P.2d 1084 s l i 4 Q Page 1 . 12 1. 1 -/ 13 A.L.R.4th 591 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, 609 P.2d 1084) Harrison A. MAKEEVER and Ruby K. Makeever; Richard S. Schuman and Jean C. second floor additions were part of die general._.._~ Schuman, Appellants, common elements owned in common_ball.the v. apartment owners, and contemplated use was not a Dr. William H. LYLE and Mrs. William H. use-mcommon with other owners. A.R.S. Â§ 33- . Lyle, Apl)ellees. 553. No. 1 CA-CIV 4111. [3] CONDOMINIUM â‚¬= 7 89Ak7 Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, General provision in condominium bylaws which Department C. delineated responsibilities of council of co-owners and stated that "decisions and resolutions of the March 4, 1980. Council shall require the approval of a majority of a quorum of owners" did not constitute an unlimited Rehearing Denied April 7, 1980. grant of power to the council of co-owners to Review Denied April 22, 1980. consider any question which might conceivably be presented to the council, but merely allowed the Condominium owners brought an action seeking approval by a majority vote of questions which to enjoin another owner from proceeding with the council had been given authority to decide. A.R.S. construction of basement and second floor additions. Â§ 33-561, subd. A. The Superior Court of Yuma County, No. C-38766, Douglas W. Keddie, J., refused the injunction, and [4] CONDOMINIUM â‚¬= 10 plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Haire, 89Ak10 J., held that: (1) nothing contained in the statute Council of condominium co-owners must have setting forth powers conferred on the council of broad powers in determining and managing common condominium co-owners conferred upon a majority uses of general common elements, and such of the council the right to convert a portion of the determinations will be upheld if they are not general common elements to the exclusive use and arbitrary and capricious, bearing no reasonable control of an individual apartment owner; (2) the relationship to the fundamental condominium land and space which were to be occupied by the concept. proposed additions were part of the general common elements; and (3) nothing in the condominium [5] CONDOMINIUM Â®= 10 bylaws gave authority to the council of co-owners to 89Ak10 authorize the construction and taking involved. Power of council of condominium co-owners to convert common-gineIaL.NAmints_la_theexclusive Reversed and remanded. â‚¬@i?Fixate ustanicantml-of-nne-of.the-individual owners conalitutes a taking of the 2!lier_Emaining [l] CONDOMINIUM â‚¬= 10 individual_..0Â¥Uemlpmpoily-jahich--must-ha_cloarly 89Ak10 given by s~doclaration_.aL-submission or Nothing contained in statute setting forth powers bilaws hefore its existence will J-refogfi~zed. conferred on council of condominium co-owners A.R.S. Â§ 33-551 et seq. confers upon majority of the council of co-owners the right to convert a portion of the general common [6] CONDOMINIUM â‚¬= 10 elements to the exclusive use and control, and 89Ak10 thereby to the private ownership, of an individual Nothing-in-candominium_kiles-gave-authecituo apartment owner. A.R.S. Â§ 33-561, subd. A. council_ofco-ownerstee- or qthealiso.-auman=-laking_of_part of tht-general [2] CONDOMINIUM â‚¬= 10 coT~on-â€¢lements-fm-the-eeneueden-Â·of-basement 89Ak10 an~individual apartment Land -and--space-which-wefe-40.-beOCCupiÂ©d~ by owner. condomigium__-o'basement_51 *385 **1085 Bryne, Bradshaw, Ellsworth, Copr. Â© West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works .. 609 P.2d 1084 Page 2 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, *385, 609 P.2d 1084, **1085) Benesch & Thode by Thomas A. Thode, Yuma, for Appellants then commenced an action in Yuma appellants. County Superior Court seeking declaratory relief and also seeking to enjoin Dr. Lyle from proceeding Thaddeus G. Baker, P.C. by Thaddeus G. Baker, with the construction. Essentially, api)ellants Yuma, for appellees. contended that Dr. Lyle's contemplated construction of the second floor and basement workshop would OPINION constitute a wrongful appropriation or taking for his sole and exclusive use and control of cubic space HAIRE, Judge. belonging in common to all the apartment owners, and that such a taking could not be accomplished The issues raised on this appeal require a without the unanimous consent of all the unit consideration of the rights acquired by a owners. On the other hand, it was Dr. Lyle's condominium apartment owner in the "general contention that since there was no specific provision common elements" when a parcel of real property in the Laguna West bylaws governing the has been submitted to a horizontal property regime contemplated construction, the only approval pursuant to A.R.S. ss 33-551 et seq. necessary was by a majority of the owners. Each of the appellants own an apartment unit in ~ The trial judge adopted Dr. Lyle's position, \1 the Laguna West Horizontal Property Regime, a / refused to enjoin the contemplated construction, and 1 *r condominium development consisting of 16 separate / awarded Dr. Lyle judgment for attorney's fees / ~~ units located in Yuma, Arizona. Laguna West is not { against appellants. For the reasons set forth herein, j a vertical development, rather all the apartments ~ we reverse. --. *386 **1086 are built at ground level in blocks of --I --- four adjacent to the Yuma Golf and Country Club. The Arizona statutes governing and authorizing Within each block each apartment shares at least one horizontal property regimes (condominiums) were common wall with a neighboring apartment. Only first enacted in 1962. See A.R.S. ss 33-551 through four of the apartments have two stories and each of 561. In general these statutes authorize an owner to the apartments has its own two-car carport submit a parcel of real property to a horizontal immediately adjacent to its entrance. Surrounding property regime by filing a declaration of the apartments is an unfenced area, and the units submission, which must contain certain declarations. share a common bathhouse and swimming pool. See A.R.S. ss 33-552 and 33-553. The general concept involves a scheme of real property The circumstances giving rise to this litigation ownership whereby an owner individually owns a commenced in December 1976 when the appellees, horizontal layer of "cubic content space" [FN2] Dr. and Mrs. William H. Lyle, decided to purchase which is subject to his exclusive control, A.R.S. s apartment unit 12. This was a single-story 33-553(3), together with an undivided fractional or apartment, and Dr. Lyle wanted to construct a percentage interest held in common with other unit second story consisting of two bedrooms, a bath and owners in the "general common elements". Among a den, and also add a basement workshop other things, the general common elements include immediately underneath his carport. He the land, the foundations, floors, the exterior walls subsequently consummated the purchase of unit 12, of each apartment, ceilings and roofs, and in general and after receiving the approval of ten of the 16 unit all that portion of the property other than that which owners, started construction.[FN1] is subject to the exclusive ownership and control of an individual apartment owner. A.R.S. s 33-551(6). FN1. Initially, and apparently before he The fractional interest of the apartment owner in the consummated the purchase, Dr. Lyle obtained the general common elements is appurtenant to each approval o f 14 0 f the owners, subject to final apartment, A.R.S. s 33-558, and the ownership of approval of plans and specifications by the board of each individual apartment and the appurtenant directors. Thereafter, due to conilicting opinions interest in the general common elements is "vested concerning the legality of the proposed as... any separate parcel of real property is or construction, the board of directors failed to give may be under the laws of this state...." subject to their approval. certain limitations on alienation and partition set Copr. C West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 609 P.2d 1084 Page 3 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, *386, 609 P.2d 1084, **1086) forth in the statutes. A.R.S. s 33-557. freedom of choice which he might otherwise enjoy m separate, privately owned property. FN2. E. g., the cubic content space of his 6imomimum-~ unit owners comprise a little - apartment, carport or garage, or any other area democratic sub society of necessity more subject to his exclusive control. restrictive as it pertains to use of condominium property than may be existent outside the Although some states have enacted extensive condominium organization." (Emphasis added). statutory provisions specifying the uses which may be made of the general common elements and the (1) We agree with this concept. See generally 31 manner or means by which the owners may govern C.J.S. Estates s 150 (1979). However, even in "a or control *387 **1087 such uses, [FN3] the sole little democratic sub society", there must be some Arizona statutory provision of this nature is found in basic sources from which the principles governing A.R.S. s 33-561 A: the democratic sub society are derived. Here the sources arise from the statutes (A.R.S. ss 33-551 FN3. See, e. g., Fla.Stat.Ann. ss 718.103, 718.107, through 33-561), the Declaration of Submission of 718.108, 718.110, 718.113 and 718.123. Laguna West to a Horizontal Property Regime [FN6] and the above referred-to bylaws. We have 'A. The council of co-owners [FN4] shall be previously quoted herein the only Arizona statutory required to make provisions for maintenance of provision directly setting forth powers conferred on common elements, limited common elements the council of co-owners. See A.R.S. s 33-561. where applicable, assessment of expenses, Without repeating the specific language of that payment of losses, division of profits, disposition statute, it requires that the council of co-owners of hazard insurance proceeds and similar matters arrange for the maintenance of _1~le common - D and shall be required to adopt bylaws, rules and elements, the assessment of expenses relating regulations. " (Footnote added). thereto, the -ifisposition-of-hizard insurance $--i--I . pr628857and similiunateral_;4othing contained FN4. The "council of co-owners" is a reference to iliI]IiZEStatute--eeR-he remitply interpretril all the owners of the condominium units. See conferring upon a maiority_of the council of co-- A.R.S. s 33-551(5). owners the right to convertaportion of the general _ Em!non elements_12_tte-Â§1Â£lusive use and control,- While there was some question presented in the ?EZ]li-ereLL to the private ownership, of an 1 trial court as to whether valid bylaws had ever been Individual apartment owner. adopted for I..aguna West as required by A.R.S. s - 33-561 A, the trial judge found that the bylaws were FN6. The declaration of submission is recorded in adopted in compliance with the statute. That finding Docket 546, commencing at Pages 381 and 633, has not been challenged on appeal.[FN5] Records of Yuma County, Arizona. FN5. The full title o f the bylaws is "Declaration o f (2) Examining next the declaration of submission Restrictions and Bylaws and Rules and Regulations of the property to the horizontal property regime o f Laguna West", recorded in Docket 546, concept, we note that the declaration does not commencing at Page 392, Records of Yuma contain any provision directly bearing on the County, Arizona. question before this Court, although it does, as required by A.R.S. s 33-553 provide the Counsel for appellees cite Hidden Harbour Estates descriptions and means for determining the "cubic v. Norman, 309 So.2d 180, 181-182 (Fla.App. content space" of the property which is owned by 1975) for the following: the apartment owner individually, and that portion "It appears to us that inherent in the condominium of the property which is owned in common, the concept is the principle that to promote the health, " general common elements". Although the happiness, and peace of mind of the majority of declaration of submission presents some ambiguity the unit owners since they are living in such close as to the proper classification of the cubic content proximity and using facilities in common, each space of the carports,[FN7-] there can be no question unit owner must give up a certain degreE-o *388 **1088 but that the land and space which were ----- Copr. Â© West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works 609 P.2d 1084 Page 4 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, *388, 609 P.2d 1084, **1088) to be occupied by Dr. Lyle's proposed basement and provided, decisions and resolutions of the Council second floor addition were part of the general shall require the approval of a majority of a common elements owned in common by all the quorum of owners. " (Emphasis added). apartment owners. Appellees interpret the emphasized portion of FN7. The provisions of the declaration of Article III, Section 1 as constituting an unlimited submission were ambiguous as to whether the cubic grant of power to the council of co-owners to content space of the carport was part of the space consider any question which might conceivably be owned individually by each apartment owner, as presented to the council, and then to decide that opposed to being a part of the general common question by majority vote, except as otherwise elements owned in common. The trial court specifically required in the bylaws. We disagree. properly resolved this ambiguity, finding that the In our opinion the correct interpretation of the carport cubic content space was not part of the emphasized portion of Article III, Section 1, is that general common clements. it does not constitute a grant of power expanding the area of questions which might be decided, but rather Before considering the provisions of the bylaws, merely allows the approval by a majority vote of which constitute the third possible source of powers questions which are properly before the council, i. to be exercised by the council of co-owners, it is e., questions which the council has been given the important to note that the use by Dr. Lyle of the authority to decide.[FN8] contemplated second floor and basement was not a use in common with the other owners of Laguna FN8. Article II, Section 1, deals with the voting West. Rather, by the very nature of the rights of owners, and provides in part: "The vote of contemplated construction, the use necessarily a 'majority of owners' of a duly constituted quorum would be in the nature of a taking of that portion of as required by Section 3 of this Article shall decide the general common elements and converting it to any question brought before such meeting." When the exclusive use and control of Dr. Lyle as an considered in context it is clear that this provision, individual owner. The trial court, apparently likewise, was not intended as an all-inclusive grant recognizing that by reason of the proposed of authority to the council of co-owners. construction, a portion of the general common elements would be converted to Dr. Lyle's (4,5) This brings us to the heart of the issue individual ownership, directed in its judgment that presented here. In the absence of specific the declaration of submission be amended to reflect authorization in the statutes, declaration of an additional amount of cubic content space for unit submission or bylaws, may a condominium owner 12, belonging to Dr. Lyle. be deprived of his interest in a substantial portion of the general common elements without his consent? (3) As previously indicated, appellees and the trial We hold that he may not. This is not the type of judge have recognized that there is no specific bylaw power which may be inferred. It is recognized that provision which would authorize appellees to do the council of co-owners must have broad powers in this. Rather, they rely upon a general provision in determining and managing the common uses of the the bylaws, Article III, Section 1, as follows: general common elements, and such determinations "Section 1. Council Responsibilities. The owners will be upheld if they are not arbitrary and of units will constitute the Council of owners capricious, bearing no reasonable relationship to the (hereinafter referred to as ' Council') and shall fundamental condominium concept. Ritchey v. have the responsibility of administering the Villa Nueva Condominium Assoc., 81 Cal.App.3d property, approving the annual budget, delegating 688, 146 Cal.Rptr. 695 (1978); Hidden Harbour such duties as it elects to agents designated for Estates v. Norman, supra; Ryan v. Baptiste, 565 such purpose, establishing and collecting monthly S.W.2d 196 (Mo.App.1978). Uowever. in_our_, assessments, maintaining fire and other hazard and opinion *389 **1089 the power of tlhe council of co- -- liability insurance on the entire property, -owners to actually-convert the common general disbursement of fire and other hazard insurance elements to the exclusiveand private use and contro and other proceeds for repair or reconstruction of ,gf one oftheindividpers constitutes a taking any portion of the property. Except as otherwise -of the other remaining individual owners' property --. Copr. Â© West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works . .. 609 P.2d 1084 Page 5 (Cite as: 125 Ariz. 384, *389, 609 P.2d 1084, **1089) which must be clearly given by the statutes, -I-Ii -Ill-*.I --I 319*ration of submission- or bylaws before Jts existence will be recognized. See, e. g., Grimes v. Moreland, 41 Ohio Misc. 69, 322 N.E.2d 699 (1974). In our opinion it is a great step from a delegation of thS right to manage one's interest in Se-ieneral commgo elements for common purposes~~ Sagrantof the righj to dispose of that property- grest-completefy for -the sole, exclusive and-- pnvateuse of anolher. - (6) Refernng again to the bylaws in question, we note several instances in which minor intrusions into the general common elements have been authorized without the necessity of acquiring unanimous consent. Thus, in Article VII, Section 3 of the bylaws, the owner is given the right to attach fixtures to the interior service of bearing walls (part of the general common elements) so long as he does not interfere with or damage the structural integrity of the building. Article VII, Section 4, subsection 0) prohibits exterior antennae without prior written approval of a majority of the owners. Likewise, Article VII, Section 4, subsection (k) allows exterior clotheslines only if erected or maintained in such a manner as to be "non-visible" to the other owners. However, we find nothing in these provisions which would either directly, or by negative implication, give authority to the council of co-owners to, by majority vote or otherwise, authorize the construction and taking involved here. In summary, we hold that the trial court erred when it denied the injunctive relief sought by appellants. Accordingly, the judgments entered by the trial court'DEFiymgJIT[malve rellet ana awarging- .'.lilli.....1 attorney's fees against appellant are reversed. The '1matter is remanded for further procadlfiFF- not inconsistent with this opinion. CONTRERAS, P. J., and EUBANK, J., concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. Â© West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works .. 1. Definitions. Unless the context shall expressly provide otherwise the following definitions shall apply to the following phrases, or terms appearing in this Declaration. 1.1 "Unit" means an individual air space unit which is bounded by the unfinished interior surfaces of its perimeter walls, including the interior surfaces of windows and window frames, doors and door frames, trim, and the interior surfaces of the lowermost floors, uppermost ceilings and bearing walls of such unit in the building as shown on the Condominium Map to be filed for record, together with all fixtures and improvements therein contained but not including any of the structural compo- nents of the building, or common elements, if any, in such unit. 1.2 "Condominium Unit" means the fee simple interest and title in and to a unit, together with the undivided per- centage interest in the general and limited common elements appurtenant to such unit. 1.3 "General Common Elements" means and includes the real property described above, including the Common Areas as shown on the Lone Pine Subdivision Exemption Plat of record together with the structural components of the buildings, in- cluding but not limited to roofs, floors other than the interior surfaces thereof (and crawl spaces beneath the floors), foun- dation, pipes, ducts, flues, chutes, conduits, wires, and other utility installations to the outlets, bearing walls, perimeter walls, columns and girders, to the interior surfaces thereof, regardless of location; the balconies, patios, entryways lying outside perimeter walls, walkways and parking areas, which are now or hereafter contained within the project; all installations of power, lights, gas, hot, and cold water existing for common uses, and all other parts of such land and the improvements thereon necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety which are normally and reasonably in common use, including the air above such land, all of which shall be owned, as tenants in common, by the owners of the separate units, each owner of a unit having an undivided percentage interest in such general dommon elements as hereinafter provided. 1.4 "Limited Common Elements" means those parts of the General Common Elements which are either limited to or reserved for the exclusive use of the owners of one or more, but less than all, of the Condominium Units all as more fully described in paragraph 5 below. "Common Elements" includes General Common Elements and Limited Common Elements. 1.5 "Condominium Project" means all of the land and improvements initially and subsequently within the purview of this Declaration. 2 .. without the consent of all unit owners in the Project including Ginn. I. Ginn, Ginsberg and the Association now desire to amicably resolve their differences as to all construction relative to the Plans. WITNESSETH FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATIONS, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged and confessed the parties agree as follows: 1. Agreements of Ginsberg. Ginsberg agrees as follows: 3 i o on 304- 912 44 1.1 To pay to Oates, Hughes & Knezevich,~P.C. upon the execdtion hereof by all parties the sum of $7-9-6-:-99Â· which reprsents one-half (1/2) the attorney fees incurred by Ginn to said law firm prior to January 1, 1989 in connection with this matter. 1.2 On or before June 15, 1989 at the expense of Ginsberg to cause to be removed in front of his Unit 5 so much of the poured concrete patio so tliat after such removal the concrete patio in front of said Unit 5 shall not extend, following an east to west perpendicular line, more than forty (40) inches beyond the south end of the existing shed appurtenant to said Unit 5. TU=:2Ia- e-r-urrn-r--a-q.mÂ¥A-1,1-3Â£--bu-~u-U-ect.29Â· Ginsberg shall restore the area from where the poured concrete patio is removed to a natural condition existing prior to the construction of said patio said restoration to be accomplished through the installation of earthen berming, eockj 12*u=*Freir-treâ€¢ve- and planting of god <. NEETEE?-6 ,/v Fi e /9 hiv w Â£5",Z- 'fT= r/-/c-- A- 0 -ace,JT U Ail r +4-- G -S N tv bb;'170 O i GLBS,29 As 8#7.-~~44 R; TE.4 7-0 PLART FLGivens AMb A- 0,0 5 t# RUDS leJ -7-JH E- 1.-r; AlbscAD/* 6, 6-12.C-4- AE-FICT-Ab eN E_*A,8, T -rk'' 4-J 1.3 On or betore Julie 15, 1989 Ginsberg shall at his expAnse remove a tree which is the most easterly Aspen tree planted by Ginsberg in the summer of 1988 as part of the addition to liis patio. Ginsberg may relocate the tree more westerly of its present location iso as to not obstruct any views of Ginn. 1.4 Witli respect to * the relocated chimney on Unit 5 Ginsberg shall be responsible at his expense for mitigatirig any discharges from that chimney that unreasonably interfere with Ginn's use and enjoyment of Unit 6. Interference with Ginn's use and enjoyment of Unit 6 by discharges of the kind similar to other units iii the Project where chimneys have not been relocated shall not give rise to any obligation on the part of Ginsberg to mitigate the effects of discharges from his chimney. - 104 2. Agreements of Ginn. Ginn agrees as follows: ~ 085*21 'bUS 2.1 Subject to Ginsberg's performance under Parlgraph 1 above, Ginn hereby withdraws and waives any Abligatiovil to and approves all construction prior to the date hereof by Ginsberg to his Unit d 5 or which affects the General or Limited Common Elements of the Project including but not limited to any construction or -2- .. landscaping by Ginsberg pursuant to the Plan or as described in that certain letter of July 1, 1988 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" or otherwise. 2.2 The size and location of the existing patio in front of Ginn's Unit 6 shall not be enlarged or changed without the written consent of Ginsberg. 3. Mutual Agreements of Ginsberg and Ginn. Ginsberg and Ginn hereby mutually agree as follows: 3.1 On or before June 15, 1989 to agree upon landscaping and share equally (i.e. $750.00 each) for a total of $1500.00 the cost of installing such landscaping to create privacy between the patio of Unit 5 and the patio of Unit 6 through plantings of trees and/or other vegetation. Landscaping described in the preceding sentence does not extend to any vegetation that Ginn may desire to plant at his sole expense in front of Unit 6 for privacy or any other purposes but only relates to a buffer between the Unit 6 and Unit 5 patios. All landscaping whether to be installed mutually by Ginsberg and Ginn or solely by Ginn hereunder shall first be approved by the Association which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 3.2 Ginn and Ginsberg hereby agree that in the event of any controversy between them, Don Ensign of Design Workshop Inc., in Aspen will act as arbitrator hereunder for certain limited matters and that with respect to such limited matters the arbitrator's decisions will be final and binding on the parties. The limited matters to be submitted to binding arbitration, are as follows: (a) Subject to the agreed price of $1,500.00 the type of trees and other vegetation and the location thereof to create a privacy buffer between the patio of Unit 5 and the patio of Unit 6. (b) Whether or not Ginsberg has complied with his obligations under Paragraphs 1.2 hnd 1.3 and what further actions, if any, on the part of Ginsberg shall be necessary to be in compliance. Any party hereto may upon telephone notice to the other party and the arbitrator demand that any of the matters described above be submitted for arbitration. Within two (2) business days after demand for arbitration has been made, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, the arbitrator shall meet with the parties in a convenient location in Aspen selected by the arbitrator for purposes of rendering a decision. At such hearing only statements of the parties or their representatives shall be given. The parties shall not have any right to call witnesses; however, the arbitrator shall make a physical inspection of the property or conduct any investigations as shall be necessary. After concluding the hearing, the arbitrator may immediately -3- . .. render a decision, but in no event shall such decision be rendered later than two (2) business days after the date of the hearing. The arbitrator's decision shall be communicated to the parties by telephone. It is the intent of the parties that this arbitration procedure be both simplified and expeditious. If the party demanding arbitration prevails, then the losing party shall be obligated to pay all reasonable fees charged by the arbitrator. If the party demanding litigation does not prevail, then the party demanding litigation shall pay all reasonable fees charged by the arbitrator. If the agreed upon abitrator shall fail or refuse to perform its duties hereunder, then either party may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of a successor arbitrator. Except as to matters set forth herein, no other dispute, controversy or claim arising out of this Agreement shall be the subject of arbitration. 4. Agreements of the Association. The Association agrees as follows: 4.1 To cause to be prepared at the expense of the Association an amended Plat to evidence the enlargement of all living rooms and patio areas (subject to Paragraph 1.2 above); relocation of the chimney appurtenant to Unit 5 and any other physical changes to the Project in accordance with the Pl Ellis or as otherwise approved by the Association. Once prepared, the Association shall at its expense diligently process any governmental approvals required to amend the Plat and once said approvals are obtained cause the amended Plat to be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County, Colorado. 4.2 Cause to be prepared at the expense of the Association and submitted for approval at the next annual meeting of the Association an amendment to the Declaration providing (or clarifying) that General Common Elements may be improved only for the use and benefit of all the condominium unit owners in the Project and that no individual unit owner may, except upon the written consent,of all the other unit owners, appropriate or take for 1-tis or her own use any portion of the General Common Elements. 4.3 In the event any governmental approval shall be required to the amended Plat described in Paragraph 4.1 above and cannot, despite best efforts of the Association, be obtained, then the remainder of tliis Agreement, and especially paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 shall remain in full force and effect. In the event tlie amendment to the Declaration described in 4.2 above is not approved at the next annual meeting, the remainder of this Agreement and especially paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above shall remain in full force and effect. 5. Disclosure. In this Agreement the Association is represented by Ronald Garfield of Garfield & Hecht, P.C.; Ginn is represented by Leonard M. Oates of Oates, Hughes & Knezevich, -4- P.C. and Ginsberg is represented by Michael J. Herron of Cummins & Herron. 6. Costs. Except as provided in paragraph 1.1 above, each party hereto shall pay their own attorney fees in connection with the negotiation, preparation, review and execution of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the preceding, Ginn and Ginsberg acknowledge and agree that all attorney fees in connection with the negotiation, preparation, review and execution of this Agreement and any attorney fees and other costs (e.g. survey, fees for any land use application, recording fees) incurred in the preparation or approval of an amended Plat and amendment to the Declaration as more fully described in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 above shall be assessed to all members of the Association including Ginn and Ginsberg and Ginn and Ginsberg hereby agree to pay their prorata share of such attorney fees and other costs. 7. Release. Excepting only the obligations of the parties set forth in this Agreement, each of the parties hereto does mutually for itself, its successors and assigns (and in the case of the Association, its past and present shareholders, officers, directors, agents and employees) remise, release, forever discharge and hold harmless the other from and against any and all liability for any claims, demands, damages, costs, actions, rights and causes of action whatsoever of any kind and nature, resulting from or arising out of or with respect to any actions taken or omitted to be taken by any party hereto regarding any construction relative to the Plan, including but not limited to, the expansion of living rooms and appurtenant patio areas. Without limit to the foregoing, Ginn waives any right, claim or cause of action for damages or otherwise he may have against Ginsberg or the Association with respect to any construction or improvements described in Paragraph 2.1 above; any actions taken or omitted to be taken in connection with the approval of the Plans, use of any General or Limited Common Elements or any other matters relative to the expansion of living rooms, appurtenant patio areas, larrdscaping, ohimneys or any other matters related ' thereto. The making of this release shall not be construed as any admission by or. against the parties hereto. By making this Agreement and in particular this release none of the parties hereto admits or denies anything with respect to any claims or demands heretofore made by Ginn or any other parties. 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors and assigns and shall be a burden and benefit to the lands herein described, any present or future owner thereof, and shall run with the title to such lands. Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither this Agreement nor any memorandum hereof shall be recorded in the real estate records. -5- 8.2 Colorado Law Prevailing Party Attorney Fees. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning any provision hereof, or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto, the party prevailing in such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to a reasonable sum for its attorney fees in such litigation which shall be determined by the court in such litigation or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 8.3 Severability. If any provision of tliis Agreement is held to be illegla, invalid or unenforceable under present or future laws effective during the term of this agreement, such provision shall be fully severable; this agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision had never comprised a part of this agreement; and the remaining p.rovisioI-is of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be affected by the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provisions or by its severance from this Agreement. Furthermore, in lieu of such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision, there shall be added automatically as part of this Agreement, a provision as similar in terms to such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and still be legal, valid and enforceable. 8.4 Telecopy Execution. A facsimile, telecopy or other reproduction of this Agreement may be executed by the parties and shall be considered valid, binding and effective for all purposes. At the request of either party, the parties agree to execute an original of this Agreement as well as any facsimile, telecopy or other reproduction. 8.5 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and, as executed, shall constitute one agreement binding on all of the parties hereto notwithstanding that all said parties are not signatory to the original or same counterpart. 8.5 Further Acts. The parties agree to request to promptly perform such further acts and execute and deliver such further agreements or other documents as may be reasonably necessary to effectuate and carry out the provisions of this Agreement. -6- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is signed the day and year first written above. LONE PINE TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC.A a Col or~-d~ non-pro fitco rpora tion By: A %0Â·,l.*71-k,w, 42- Â·2-4 t~Â·Â· - #7-- 27 / ic .dill/V / rv_y_.~, A-/ Roberta Allen, Pr4sident v 3-4<gms D. Ginsber g ~ 7.3~fijic7 G inn /47 , 0 1/1 STATE OF 064*ld 0 1 )SS: COUNTY OF P ilti 0 j Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ~'*Al//1 , 1989 by Roberta Allen, President of Lone Pine Townhouse Association, Inc. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 72(,LE.((CLU/ (1(891 1/46Â£ PPA (.Ude/(_~) ~.Â·Â·->9390?..40.2 No<~ry Public Â·. 0 STATE OF i E. 4 4 y 1 0 t\ ' . )SS: .......t>.. .,% CouNTY OF /41-f, y646 ) # .'Â·ff>,1.--W .f~ , 4 , d 'Ly C Subscribed and. sworn to before me this 2 day of ~2Â·*C~ , 1989 by Jerome D. Ginsberg. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 1.46-lf k-9,//k No~ary Public JULES R. DANTO Notary Public, . tÂ·,to of New York No. 07Â·815917350 Quali,ied ir; ;le , -York County Cominissioi; u. ,Â·i,cs May 31, -7- J.S . .. STATE OF Odktkl.O ) )SS: COUNTY OF ~46-al ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this /2 4 day of , 1989 by John C. Ginn. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 3-/3-15 (lil 044Â£- Notary Public -8- ........ Lone Pine To-w nho-use Condominiums 58.68' 573Â°58'00"W Spff'Ss. 30,7 , 2'E A / 4/ A 1 1 to 0O 1 A I h /De Common ~~~ 40 Ocr 440 / .â‚¬0\ <32,3 + \ GRAPHIC SCALE \ -6- .. 4%*,liss.... 3~~ 120 // \ ,%5,5 0/0 \ / e.tÂ» 00 / \ \ ( IN FEET ) B+49 Â« A / \ 0 1 inch = 30 ft. 0 0- 0. 0 4 \ \ 7. L# * h D Ngo e 3%0;* Lot 1 0 1.0: \ (j 1 ys \ 744, 0- 6 4 44& <8' 0 4> \ cÂ¢ 0 4610 \ t. 0 <420 43.1 - 0 2\ 2?I>. 1 06 - 0%9, 49. 0 0 1 \ --- e> 4 Le> .31>- - - *47x \ L22 .4. 45 49 =3 eÂ·Â·Â·aeÂ· 4 4 ------ \ \ 21' ..... Â·Â·40. Â· L.2~ ........... L-2- ~sh'- C) ~4â€¢. ------- ~ 72 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· L2~~~â€¢â€¢â€¢ *~~ .6 0 7 ~ 1646 0. -..0. -.14> a = 29*02'05" Â·94. 1.-33Â© -04----- R = 217.76' IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE L = 110.35' _ - - - _ 4~~~,;71-1-7-72-72-71-,60 54 / / prepared for Zuhair fk,rez , that it is not a land survey plat I hereby certify that this improvement location certificate was - -6 1~~ ~ fence, building, or other future improvement lines. I further .................. and that it is not to be relied upon for the establishment of - - - this date 10 May 1991, except utility connections, are entirely certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on 07 .6......... . 45>br------ i I Ne ........... UNE \ DIRECnON \ DISTANCE ..67 fA>' ~2,3 4,4 - - ti:a, - - - - - ~ within the boundaries of the parcet except as shown, that Ll N64'12'147 2.00' N - 7.7......... ......Ely. 3) b .0-------/ U N2547'46-E 4 ....... there are no encroachments upon the described premises, except Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence or sign of U N64'12'14~W 160' ~0 - - - - - ~ ~ any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, L4 S2547'4674 5.50' ........... 0 -- LS N84'12'14'W 2.00' ...........0. Le N2547'467 1.30' .....Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·e 2393 --- / 1 - L7 N64'12'1474 3.50' .............4. ~ ~ 6~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r.~ except as noted. L6................ L41< Lot 2 *- N h - LB S25'47'467 , Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· L40 L.9 N64'12'1474 100' a = 13Â°19'47" - 3 ............ .... I 8................... 2 /33\ .0 L10 N254745'E 3 # L11 NG*'12'147 150' R = 170.00' - %................. f?. e ri-35~Â£,Z:k\43 \ --21 11 Â£ / \\ \ KENNETH R. WILSON L.S. 15710 DATE L12 S2547467/ 350' T = 19.86' ...................e / L13 N2551 '52'E 550' L = 39.55' L14 AW#WaeÂ¥ 3.60' ............j ............ .. Li,2 L15 s2551'52~W 1.30' / r... A- /9 ~1?~ \ \ L16 N64'08'0814 100' Description / k_-fyÂ·*./.9 L17 S25*51327 &50' I. .......... ...... 2 Lot 2, Lone Pine Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitkin L18 N64'08'0814 --31. Unnikinn4:Â·: 31* 1 mn 1 \-- State of Colorado. L19 325'51'5214 1.30' 12.27' 120 N649'08~V ZOO' 1.21 N~00'OYE + L22 N253733-E 5.40' Â·40' '' 2................ UJ t-72'277 1.80' ... 4 2 14 1 / L24 S293733"ll 1.20' tÂ· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·..... coÂ· L25 N2537'33~E 1.20' 0 ....................7.. L26 N6472'277 440' L53 L.92) j 01 127 S~373371 5.JO' 2% 12..................... L.28 N25*3TUT 530' .....il..................18...................... 2 -6-v - 112 l.29 N64'22'277 140' 9 42 Un A/*,I~ 50<6 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·t~ LF l.30 S253133V (@, 4- ......................... gl.3 LS d Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·4Â· G I , I I / 95: <) L31 NO472'277 2 10' L56 L55 L12 Seâ€¢12777E uo' ..7,0. .4.......5.36'. r,.,........, .... e ..'...4. ................... l.33 N25'37*33-E 260' .'............................ .L57 Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·: .......................... U BURIED mEPHONE LINE 9- 634 S64'22'27T l.35 S2537'1374 160' LA 72 0,........................... e L13 - 2- SUaED 849 LAE 04 @45 WUPE l.36 N2537'33~E ................................. *--*---* FENCE UNI c,â€¢09 smâ€¢ LA. 0 ........... L 16 ................................... L37 S64'22'27=E 0.80' . 2 . EL 0 Polle?' POLE 638 N25*51'527 530' .................................. L39 NG#ta'08V 160' - t--- 0~Â£ 1221=Ov Llf * UGHT POLE 202'~Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 2 1.40 S.5,52,V 1.30' Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· . teÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·â€¢Â·Â·â€¢â€¢â€¢'â€¢â€¢â€¢â€¢'â€¢â€¢ -0- DECTRIC,Â£ UNE *4 10171 w,LIE L41 AS#ve'VeÂ¥ ZOO' - m Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· 91 ................................... -I- NATER UIVE L42 N25'51'52'E U mE *D-Nr .................'....... ................................... SANITARY SEVER UE O 1E1EMOE MSM L43 N649'087 .......... Sm,1/ a,UV hIET LÂ« S2851'5274 1.30' ..........I...... .... ch, O.-8,0 umm upt O 0'tar /ame? 1.45 N64'08'MÂ¥ 2.00' 20,0 '- ~~ 9 SERER -IOLE ............... 0 206 EXIST. CUL,EmS L46 N649'087 ZOO' ................ m t.............. ty ..- L47 S25'513274 1.JO' 42.......................... I .30 0 0/=/m/8 711 O Euclme- L48 N649'Hy 160' | 4 NCHOR IOU L49 N2551'52'E iso' VUL.--/. 1 <0* . Sm.m ......... 00 N64'08'081Â¥ 2.00' 20 Â·00, .... L51 S25~1527 ... i ix; 84;for . L52 NGes'081Â¥ 100' 0 ... l.53 N2551'521E &50. 04 ... . , 42.43 / 04 N64'08'08'W ZOO' *' C e amenity L.55 S2531'52 lÂ¥ 1.30. eal L56 NOGe'0874 160' 157 N2551'52'E 350' tz :=: N / L84 NG<08*081Â¥ 100' a = 00Â°26'50'7~ Legend and Notes: R = 378.00'/ 98.29' T = 1.48' L = 2 99 - indicates found monument as described. 16*7517943' 00 - Ap - indicates set monument rebar and cap LS. 15710. - indicates control point - Survey Orientation based on found monuments as shown. Cornrnon Easements shown are from plat of Lone Pine Townhouse Condominiums I3 - 07'24'30" recorded in Plat Book 10 Page 12. 1R = -386.24 '- RECEIVED T = 25.01' L = 49.94' NOV 9 1 1098 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASr EN j Pt ; Al N NUM- REVISION DATE BY Drawing File: Ione Job 91055 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. BER Drawn by: kw OrDSÂ»jljj 1001 GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 2-E Lonepine Condominiums GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601 \UX-LIN-19 (303) 945- 1004 . Date: 3 May 91 / of 1 "'Q~ ASPEN, COLORADO (303) 925-6727 Appr. by: ........ 3,,00,00.005 ~ NO~'00"E 9008 'logg.1 0......111.. 1~I L r,4 1, Pt.li...6 . I. - - Ilii-- ... â€ž.: -I...8/ , 1 1 FdÂ¢.M< 2 f th I - FOX [: iÂ·Â·1 (1-1- fl Â·< 1+Â·.1 i.n16A >01 8 C.: 1 -Â·: ir:t :'::,1.3 N N I J 3 1 4 2 '.Â£.1 -Â·04 :, 0 7 j. t. // I L / 1,1/ I \ 0 11/ . I , . f A - 2.4 -, A V I 1 FOX PHOTO <Icâ€¢.19A>021 91 7 051 7, I Â·Â·I H N:J) Â·Â·04 2 E- 024 1 44 0. BEDROOM EXPANSION AND RENOVATION FOR UNITS #2 & #5 UNITS 5, 7, AND 10 RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOUES ASPEN, COLORADO ARCHITECT: STUDIOCOMPLETTVA 1410 Grant Street Suite B303 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.839 9997 Fax: 303.839Â·9998 CIVIL: 1 -111111111'lili Illllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllll I 111111111'llili 11111111111'llili 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 STRUCTURAL: - DEMOLISH EXISTING I / / I / / Il' I 41-t 1-Af -1,-- / ROOFING, ROOF FRAMING - , AND WALLS AS REQUIRED - (SEE PLAN) - 19 If MECHANICAL: %- 4- 1Â» 1 11 1 te.Lâ‚¬*. 1 - IJ Ill [I*ElUUmmÂ®ul]-1 1 62 1 - -- BEHIND WT'L CHIMNEY 2 ii 1 1 - NEW FIREPLACE 2 u--, - m ------ -- ~' / C ELECTRICAL: C) VENT(V. T.W.) - 3[ralm[-111]I]1111 ]I[ill. \ \ I'THTI -- - 1 / IUUII[L.... ...-I - I Â£11- - IE - -- --- 1[#11[[ 'ENÂ®Â®iII[: ELEVATION /71 EXISTING ELEVATION gih SCALE: 1/8. - 1.-0. ~9,7 SOLE: 1/8. - 11-0 422-~.9-~/ ISSUES PROJECT NUMBER: 9870101 DATE: 27 JUNE 1998 DI~WN BY: CHECKED KP APPROVED KP YBC SHEET nTLE SOUTH ELEVATION SHEET NUMBER -- 63,0 b - 0 0 -- BEDROOM EXPANSIONI AND RENOVATION FOR UNITS #2 & #5 0 A-it . I VI -- -- UNITS 5, 7, AND 10 .. BUILT-IN T 1 BUILT-IN 1-. RNER BLUFF TOWNHOMES ASPEN, COLORADO 1 1 GUEST BDRM GUEST BEDROOM 0. ARCHITECT: . 4 T STUDIOCOMPLETWA 1410 Grant StÂ·reet i,-r , _ ~ . Suite 8303 Den.9, CO 80203 Phone: 303.839Â·9997 ' Â»-4===~ Far: 303.839 9998 uc I r--d a/%+ /31 IG. 8*Ibl- r=.A 0 30 jr--1 CIVIL 1-1 gu) Â» 3-0 - 4.1 03 I - STRU CTURAL: ) HALL ~ 3 HALL -2-91#- M.BATH ~ 1 1 Mil- o i 201 - ON jici| I- e ON MECHANICAL: ./7=41- 11 12'-10Â· ~ T. CJ- LAV. : 1. WALL LEGEND OLD 1 e.21 :-B# VANITY EXIST. 2* WALL- ELECTRICAL: 1 1 TO REMAIN 2/'~ 1 -,N ~ MASTER BEDROOM 4 - = EXIST. 2x WALLS TO BE REMOVED 1. h \\\\Q CLOSET REMOVE SAP AND ALL BUILT-INS // MASTER BORM EXIST. 9068 XOX SL GL ~ TO BE R~ - L.3 ~0 Z ACCESS NE' DOOR ~ BALCONY 6, | IL 13.-5- ATTIC SPACE Â· , 11 0 Vily ISSUES PROJECT NUMBER 98701 01 DATE: 27 JUNE 1998 DRAWN BY: .P EXISTING/DEMO FLOOR PLAN /7~h NEW FLOOR PLAN 37% APPROVED YBC CHECKED KP SCALE: 1/8. - 1'--0. ~.0~ S~â‚¬ ET TITLE FLOOR PLANS (D - - * SE NUMB~ -- __ A 2,0 6. I. BEDROOM EXPANSION AND RENOVATION FOR UNITS 0 #2 & #5 UNITS 5, 7. AND 10 RIVER BLUFF TCWNHOWES ASPEN, COLORADO ARCHITECT: STUDIOCOMPLETIVA 1410 Grant Street Suite B303 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.839Â·9997 Faa: 303.839Â·9998 CIVIL: EXISTING UNIT UNIT STRUCTURAL: MECHANICAL: A ELECTRICAL: f DOSTING UNIT -- . ~ E NEW DORMER EXISTING BALCONY 1 -- ~ ISSUES PROJECT NUMBER: 9870101 DATE: 27 JUNE 1998 DRAWN BY: KP EXISTING/DEMO ROOF PLAN /Th NEW ROOF PLAN ri-1 APPROVED FC CHECKED KP SCALE: 1/8. = 1'-0. ~4~.1,/ SCALE: 1/8. = 1'--0. ~~~~~ SHEET TTLE ROOF PLANS SHEET NUMBER 42.1 4 0 . BEDROOM EXPANSION AND RENOVATION FOR UNITS #2 & #5 UNITS 5, 7, AND 10 RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOWES ASPEN, COLORADO ARCHITECT: STUDIOCOMPLETIVA 1410 Crant Street Suite 8303 Dmver, CO 80203 Phone: 303.839Â·9997 Fa=: 303Â·839Â·9998 CIVIL: STRUCTURAL: UNIT IN UNIT IN FOREGROUND 8ACKGROUND Â«-' Â«eD HON NEW MTL. ROOF1NG MECHANICAL: TO MATCH EXIST. NEW DORMER 14111 1/ \ ELECTRICAL: - -- .ik EXIST. FLUE TO REMAIN L 42Â« ROOF SLOPE 12 - -% 34 EXIST 1 ~sug --- EXIST. VINOOWS - TO REMAIN -~ ~~~~~-~ 11111111111111111111111 111 PROJECT NUMBER: 98701.01 DATE: 27 JUNE 1998 DRAWN BY: CHECKED KP WEST ELEVATION /73 APPROVED KP YFC SCALE: 1/8 - 1'-0' 49 SHEET nn.E WEST ELEVATION 5HEET NUMBER All \\