The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.625 W End St.11-84(beL \ P %4 CLARENDON Amendment C, 1 625 0-â‚¬5* 66 4 6~ -PH'Me:GEQ*F. GMP Parking Exemptions 198-4~ ./.mija- 1 1 6 6 *-0 -0 7 8 1.1 1 U 1, Â¢1 I *1 =/92 1-AyORAVT -10 ~ \I~ 3 , 1 0041- .....-. --*- D 14 / : -- 0 k / e \ / 44\\ -- \Â» 1 f \\ \\-J /.7/ e 404 7 ic rip 1 % A C 4 950( //\43/ C %0047 (- 4e \ tok.OF-9<\ * .-- ,â€¢r k OV / 1 1 i Houe PAP-14 \11 1 N /" --7 - - \ \Jj I I - - 1 A \ \ 1-31 - .. U \ ./ -./ .. \ -% <I.. -. - -7 /Â¢- 1 /7 2/ r: ./.. . /. ' 13 1- Jr -2 1 22 11 - 0*2 -- 4'f-# ./ - 1 11 /7 .1 I 51 i. V POOL 22Â· /3 40 11 - - -- . I9 --- h / 1- 01 / /4, 5-4.-11-:,3---~ --- .;.,2,0.FE; N- 10 -4-ve- -- 1 L- - 90/ / - \ .r I : 16 \ 4 ~ - 6- -47?3 0,0 1. f \ i - 4 /1 Â»-4/1 \ /0 \\ 1 / (,0,669 *--<z 0 1 00 /7 ir 0 \ 5-, 2Â»/ 3 -.4 1 .-E 1 OU / 9 ---4 4 033 9 .. 22-2=- - -- - -=.431,3,00"2 1 - -2 - .0, Lk- -- -- --2 - 58,631 40, / v + --- - 79 p. O1JFDOGMÂ»\ 0, / . V -- 7- V 1 + /// 9 9 -1 . 7- 2- --- 20 - ~77> coNC - \ 2 16 ' - V -----41_ 1 7 1 6. ' 9 -1 \ o / 9// /2 . \ C /O 4 // \ if -265. 4 4- , ~ 2,49,2 (\Sh- I 03*l ah . 1 -36 tk 0 jf 4 4% " 7 | , n i f- ; - 1 2412 1 1/1 / 41 1 1 I / 1 1 1 f 7 \/ */ 1 / 92 r - f,1 1 -- ---- 4//VS>/57772Â·kage Ma.42;I4/ ~ ~ / 18 . / - 22Â«7- / ./1 --- 000 '0' / </ -7- - ~4 124*/NG 77086 / /~~~~~~ ( 0 , 1 1 1-) 3 /\/ *. 1 '75' 7744/6 EASEMENT 41- A---- 2134411 \ / / i \ hi 439' ' C ,83, .> 1 \ 1 1 0,Â¢,1/ -<Cax/$77#63 / +4Â©8 5101cce aÂ«rrt - / / 12 --*- 0 1 - -/ C 6 A - 7/ 8-10 47' 34" W 344.QU- V 1' 1/ / 1 Fo) C C 4 6/2--) / 0 \ (0 -1 4--19 O /// 19 07 U 1_j- EK T/4 - EWS r-+72=r- - G 0 - 7/ 5 - ---- - - - -5 - 0 -rv TV UTE AIE. 1 dâ€¢ % 5 172 PLAN * C i Xe j + PecaaEÂ© \314'r\ON oF FROPofid) BM F L.OVE.8. ON & 58-DROCM MalÂ»ING U K ET- Illi~ ~-Ili~~ - - >'42 k 4* *F.*=pr<. '*zrTp*==9<=Fg=p=.,5~ 42 ky===='r=====n - c~4{i~~j>, ) -ft ') 61 '. 4. .. 3<9 /3,/*/~rtit.*Asill----/ -1 *3Â¢\ ~/1 3,1 L 4ft I f- *A Y\>v 47/ --Â« 1 \ />00' 95.LE=ir f V//eff //4 f0000091 1 1 tril i lil i --- - -1 0 1 .,/ -E=227-,-4-_1~-2- - - 2 1 - - ---- 1 11~ - 1 ht'liwp i rv '.' it Me-=~ 11<- -3 SOUTH ELEVATION ~ EAST ELEVATION --65Â« 4 0.11 ......milm A 0 0- A -~P~~h.1.-A \ 1 1,- -2, 4,0.... -A<i *.../=11"/Wil-,I...Ail/1/1./..~i~././/in//1/1/1,1//App 16.-A.-Al m========.IM. 1.lai - .... ~plaJE~ ..1 1 0.1.1.11. 111 1.,1 1..1 -Ill---1 ~ ./.:/1 .!~=imm 1~1 1111 11 tilliE!&1&' 4,1 .111:~=A=l J IU C . r-1 /1 j - -- i f f - 7 4/.4-- 1 1 Vi -Af ~B E DROOMLLi ' 4 Â«4 1 1,-'.1,1 .7 I /--ill' - - .1 1 C On S ./.-- 23Â£ I. 1 1.11,1 1 Â£--1 KITCHEN 00 00 1 , 2 - f --1 LIVING/DINING ~ Â£ \ 3> \/ I 60 I , 11 4 (f M . 4-1.1 1 -rr t\\ _ 0 -Â«21.1 -- - - k 9410 -- i 4 - . UPPER FLOOR PLAN I 1 - 1/8" = 1'-0" l 1 - i f 1 I l 1 0 0 0 7 -XE-- 1 . 0 0 . . . 1% f f l f' 0 -3 I. )-41 . f - bÂ· 0 t > < HOT ~ - ~ MSAUN4 TRASH < TUB ~ . . E- ' 4 1 1 . . 11. ~FENCE t . j .1 1 GAZEBO â‚¬ ~ Â· te ATE S 1 . . 1. . .. --- . STOR 1 0--1 I 1 . 2 J . 1.- 7 40 pOOL bFÂ¢f- . . . e . 1 ~ -- -- 1 I - - C I - ~-- - -- ..1 --Ili ... . 9-- ... , g. -P A~ l . . .1 o IF=-6 r 1 1.71 - NX 11-~ -r------ -/" ~~~ T .9 --le.. R -1 1.- . I . . . .. - I '. . / - ~ POOL OFFICE . n . 2_22:2 _22~ . 1 EQUIP I -- 7%/h. 7 - - - E.IÂ©~~F=- A E--7 -.)---44% Ad:=21,3..Dicttln--=-'e .Â·Â·_1-rh., -flezi=344/#.---/ . f- - ---4 J. Â·. h 1 - I- GATE *-332*F---f 5-R- -Gr ca ~ -J~._~_ -=f=67 - ' 951 0 -&Â« .GAYE f \ LINEN I . SA---23/. -5----- .. Â¢ GR OUb --- . .. 1/8" = \ \ ff ~ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen CASE NO. A- 24 4 STAFF: R i Â£*LAJ PROJECT NAME: C.lorendan Eend.Ds - 700 Afr\(Admen-1- \%'Â¢~9-fkhe~Â«3-92.-9\ . 0./S APPLICANT: , Phone: . (14Â« REPRESENTATIVE: 2411-2.4.4 j . ~*te- Au) Oe d l. Prk.+AD \ Phone: 01 05 - 28(Il TYPE OF APPLICATION: (FEE) I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($2, 730.00) 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00) 3. Final Plat ($ 820.00) II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00) 2. Preliminary Plat , ($1,220.00) 3. Final Plat ($ 820.00) III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) ~ 110 -AMÂ¢ R Uuâ‚¬i- IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00) 1. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use 4. Other: P&Z MEETING DATE: ~9~,~1 4-1 CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED: J 21/'n i CPJ REFERRALS: v~ City Attorney Aspen Consol. S.D. School District -1-City Engineer Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas 7 - Housing Director Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood) Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn) City Electric Fire Marshall Building Dept. Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief Other: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 3~23* City Attorney City Engineer ~>(~ Building Dept. Other: Â©ther: .,11 ~-. FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: (Â»4_ ~du lili 11Â¥Ill I Ill I 0 . DISPOSITION: CITY P&Z REVIEW: CTFovâ‚¬-2 op.3 ADrs)0)3 I 19%4 uj~ ek] di'lime CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: a-epre 4 op #11'4, Il 24 -4~Â«~Put) 02-'AQNA/YhON-i- < pab k-<c~_ rduck ont ct)~1 (imp P 2 * 29,41 i ok) S ul.\ 213- 40 46- To I (-0 wi 1-1-j 16*J &441 Ck) j ' 1. The amended development plan shall be recorded as an amendment to the final plat in accordance with the procedures established for the filing of the initial approved plan documents. 2. The employee unit shall be deed-restricted to the low or moderate income employee guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the parking lot shall be reconstructed as illustrated on the amended development plan to accommodate a total of twenty-seven (27) cars. CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CITY P&Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: .L 0 $ Ordinance No. -1 410'*, .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Clarendon Employee Housing Addition - PUD Amendment DATE: July 23, 1984 11 APPROVED AS TO FORM: i , . W../4â€¢ The attached letter from Gretchen Greenwood written on behalf of the Clarendon Condominium Association requests reconsideration of the Council's requirement for the dedication of a trail easement. You may recall that an easement to extend Ute Trail to Glory Hole Park was required as a condition of the recent Clarendon PUD Amendment. Also included in your packet is the Planning Office's original memo dated May 14, 1984, recommending approval of the request with conditions. Gretchen's letter provides a complete summary of the history of the Clarendon Condominium Project and a number of convincing arguments as to why the additional trail easement is unfair. Gretchen will be present at this meeting to discuss the request and arguments with Council. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 11 July 1984 D City Council C ity of A spen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Clarendon Employee Housing Addition P.U.D. Amendment Dear Council Members: As you will recall, the Clarendon, a 15-unit luxury condominium project, had applied for an amendment to its P.U.D. to add an employee-caretaker housing unit on the north side of the property near the swimming pool area. This area had been designated as future manager's site on the original subdivision plat recorded in 1975. This request received unanimous approval from the Board of Adjustment, the Housing Authority, the Planning & Zoning Commission and went to the City Council with a recommendation for approval from the Planning Office. At the City Council meeting on May 14, 1984, the P.U.D. amend- ment to allow this employee-caretaker unit was approved by the Council subject, however, to a condition added by Council at that meeting that the condominium association grant to the City a trail easement on the southern side of the Clarendon development from where the bicycle path terminates into Ute Avenue (approxi- mately 120 feet east of Glory Hole Park) extending west into Glory Hole Park on an alignment acceptable to the homeowners' association and the City. The representatives of the homeowners' association have met with the representatives of the Planning Office and, after several meetings, have not been able to agree on an acceptable alignment. The problem is that the homeowners desire that the trail be south of the trees and parallel Ute Avenue as it was originally planned and shown on the approved subdivision plat recorded in 1975. The Planning Office desires that the trail proceed through the grass yard of the condominium complex to the north of the trees now separating the complex from Ute Avenue in an area that severly impacts all of the views of the units and which alignment would run a public trail as close as ten or fifteen feet to the 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303â€¢925â€¢2867 .. =rpyamâ€¢ m. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to City Council 11 July 1984 Page Two south-facing patios and severely intrude on the privacy of the condominium unit owners. These units are fairly luxurious, and the owners have paid substantial sums of money for their privacy. The history of the public easements around the Clarendon follows. The eight-foot-wide bicycle path that is currently in place was installed prior to the subdivision of the Clarendon in 1975. The path enters the Clarendon property from Ute Avenue approximately 120 feet to the east of the east edge of Glory Hole Park and then substantially parallels Ute Avenue all the way to Ute Park and passes to the north of the Benedict Building to connect with The Aspen Club property. At its closest point to a condominium, the bicycle trail is approximately 22 feet from the patio area of Clarendon Condominium Unit 10; however, the owners of units 8, 9 and 10, which are most affected by the bicycle path, knew of its existence at the time they bought the units and bought them knowing that 22 feet away there would be a public bicycle path. The Clarendon made substantial dedications to the public as part of the original subdivision and this included not only the bicycle path as it presently exists and as it passes across the southwest end of the Clarendon property but also there was a ten-foot-wide trail easement given on the north side of the property between the Clarendon and the Little Nell Condominiums for the installation of a bicycle path that would run from Glory Hole Park to West End Street, which bicycle path has never been installed; and, further, there was parcel#2 on the very southeast end of the property which was reserved for dedication to the City for a period of 20 years in the event the City should ever decide to extend West End along what is now an existing bicycle path to connect into Ute Avenue. Further, a ten-foot strip of land (parcel #3) on the entire south boundary of the Clarendon property was given to the City for public right of way which expanded the effective width of Ute Avenue from 63 feet to 73 feet. At the present time, the pavement on Ute Avenue area is only approximately 22 feet in width and, therefore, there is substantial room for expansion of the width of the road, should it ever become necessary, and installation of side- walks and/or trails, should they ever be desired. In addition to these land dedications, the Clarendon paid $15,000.00 in park dedication fees, and Section 20-18 (a) (4) provides that "no land dedication or park dedication fee shall be imposed on the resubdivi- sion of land if a park dedication fee or a fee similar thereto was AA lili .. lilli- HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to City Council 11 July 1984 Page Three assessed by the City of Aspen and collected at the time of the initial subdivision." As a result of these various dedications on the north, south and east sides of the property providing for public rights of way on all three sides of the property which are not already abutting public property, i.e., Glory Hole Park, the condominium project has, in fact, already dedicated lands for easements around its entire perimeter except on the northwest side abutting the park, where none was requested. As a result, the condominium associa- tion feels it has paid its dues with respect to public dedications. There is a very viable route for an eight-foot-wide bicycle path for an extension west from where it leaves the Clarendon property. This is the alignment where it was originally planned to be located to the south of the existing spruce trees and parallel to Ute Avenue until it reaches Glory Hole Park. There would be room even for parking off the pavement on Ute Avenue and the eight- foot bicycle path while still not intruding into the vegetation along Ute Avenue. This would preserve the existing front yards and views from the patios and allow the existing vegetation to continue to insulate the public right-of-way movement from these people's privacy. It is noted that, as the existing bicycle path passes along The Gant property, the path is actually in the Ute Avenue right of way entirely and is separated from the pavement by railroad ties only. There is in that section of the bicycle trail no provision for parking off the pavement on Ute Avenue. In light of the ability to install it as it was originally designed on the subdivision plat in the area between the pavement of Ute Avenue and the existing vegetation and since the condominium originally gave a ten-foot strip to the public widening Ute Avenue by ten feet to some 73 feet along the south or southwest boundary of the property and because of the very severe impacts and loss of privacy and commensurate loss of value to the condominium units by putting a bicycle path in effect right next to their private patios, the homeowners' association does not agree to the alignment which the Planning Office desired. Drawings which show the alignment desired by the Planning Office and the impacts on the yards and patios .. t ..... HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to City Council 11 July 1984 Page Four of the Clarendon units are enclosed. At a meeting, I will present photographs showing the area where a bicycle path could be in- stalled along and parallel to Ute Avenue extending to Glory Hole Park, in part in the easement already granted by the Clarendon to the C ity. In light of these circumstances, the Clarendon respectfully requests that the City amend its approval of May 14 to delete the requirement for an additional trail dedication through the south part of the property and that the Association be authorized to proceed with the P.U.D. that was already unanimously approved at all of the lower levels of review. Very truly yours, Magman Yaw Architects, Ltd %44-Â»0~ Gretchen Greenwood GG: SV .. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Clarendon PUD Amendment/Parking Reduction/GMP Exemption DATE: May 14, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM The Clarendon Homeowners Association is proposing to modify their site with the addition of some common facilities to include: One-bedroom Manager/Caretaker Unit 725 s.f. Accessory Space (storage, office and equipment) 350 s.f. TOTAL enclosed space 1075 s.f. Covered Open Area of Roof and Building Overhang 500 s.f. Open Gazebo by Pool 120 s.f. TOTAL floor area increase 1695 s.f. Land Use approvals requested include: 1. PUD Amendment; 2. Parking Reduction Special Review; and 3. GMP Exemption The 1.627 acre parcel is zoned R-6 (PUD) allowing a total of 15.749 units. Currently, the site is improved with 15 units (five 2-bedroom units at 1360 s.f. each, ten 3-bedroom units at 1610 s.f. each). The applicant requested and received from the Board of Adjustment a zoning variance on March 1, 1984, to permit a total of 16 units on-site. If this PUD amendment is approved, the open space will be reduced by .02 acres from .88 acres to .86 acres. PUD_AMENDMENT The Municipal Code (Section 24-8.26[b]) provides for amendments to a previously approved PUD "only if they are shown to be reauired by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plat was approved or by changes in community policy." At the time of the original PUD approval in 1976, the entire project was owned by the original developer. Subsequently, the individual units were sold separately. Currently, the condominiums are primarily used as luxury vacation homes and only six (6) of the fifteen (15) units are ever rented. The average occupancy of the units has decreased to seventeen (17) weeks Der year, thirty-two (32) percent occupancy. This decline in occupancy is cited as the change in conditions which necessitates the proposed on-site manager/caretaker housing unit. PARKING REDUCTION The low occupancy rate is also cited as the justification for an exemption from the parking requirement for the employee dwelling unit. The standard parking requirement is one space per bedroom, however, in a PUD (Section 24-8.17), the parking requirement may be increased or decreased taking into consideration the following factors: " (A) The probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings in the PUD. .. Page 2 (B) The parking needs of anv non-residential uses. (C) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. (D) Available public transit or other transportation facilities to be supplied by the applicant. (E) The proximity of the PUD to the commercial core or recreational facilities of the Citv." The applicant argues that the only time the parking lot is full is one week at Christmas and one week in the spring. During the remaining weeks of the year the lot is only partially full. The Engineering Department supports the Darking reduction for the employee unit provided twenty-seven (27) parking spaces are made available on-site. Currently, the parking lot can accommodate only twenty-five (25) cars. Two (2) additional spaces, required to be added as condition of a previous PUD amendment, have yet to be installed. The apr)licant has proposed an amended site plan which the Engineering Department supports. It shows the footprint of the new employee unit and a parking lot capable of accommodating twenty-seven (27) cars. 1 GMP EXEMPTION A GMP Exemption for the proposed employee unit is appropriate since the unit will be pure employee housing and be deed-restricted to the low or moderate employee housing guidelines (Section 24-11.2[f]). The Housina Authority considered the proposal and recommended approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIESION AND PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicationon April 17, 1984, and recommended approval of the PUD amendment, parking reduction and GMP exemption with conditions. The Commission agreed to the conditions recommended bv the Planning Office. The Commission and Planning Office recommend your approval with the following motion: "Move to recommend approval of the Clarendon PUD amendment. parking reduction and G MP exemption subject to the following conditions: 1. The amended development plan shall be recorded as an amendment to the final plat in accordance with the procedures established for the filing of the initial approved plan documents. 2. The employee unit shall be deed-restricted to the low or moderate income employee guidelines. 3. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the parking lot shall be reconstructed as illustrated on the amended development plan to accommodate a total of twenty-seven (27) cars. .. ~I=mmm: dilp- HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 19 April 1984 * Mr. Richard Grice City of Aspen Planning 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment Application Dear Richard: This letter serves to clarify the total square footage of the employee housing unit that is being proposed for the Clarendon Condominiums. As originally submitted in the PUD Amendment Application, the employee unit was described as a 700 sq. ft. unit which decreased the open space from .88 acres to .86 acres. This is based on a 700 sq. ft. building footprint. After the application was submitted the design determined that for the benefit of the community, caretaker/manager and applicant, the unit is best located on a second level. This affords the caretaker southern exposure and privacy from the Clarendon pool. The tota I square footage of the employee unit is 725 sq. ft. It was further determined that there existed a need for accessory space such as storage, office and equipment rooms for the management of the condominiums. These functions served the development most efficiently at the lower level of the new structure. The addition of these spaces increased the square footage by 350 sq. ft. Along with the design of the structure, the site development, with an open air gazebo was developed as is shown on the enclosed drawings. The gazebo is approximately 120 sq. ft. This additional square footage is not reflected in the application. The design of the new structure has a covered open area at the lower level which reduces the perceived mass of the building and provides a view through the building the Glory Hole Park (see enclosed drawings). In establishing the increase in floor area to the PUD, all new square footage is included (both enclosed and covered) . The following list represents the total square footage of the proposed structure: 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303â€¢925-2867 .. .,2-Â·. .4. 3*1 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Mr. Richard Grice 19 April 1984 Page Two New Employee Unit 725 sq. f t. Accessory Space for the On-site Caretaker 350 sq. ft. Total Enclosed Floor Area Increase 1,075 sq. ft. Covered Open Area of Roof and Building Overhang 500 sq. ft. Gazebo 120 sq. ft. Total Floor Area Increase (as calculated by the Bldg. Dept.) 1,695 sq. ft. The building footprint has remained at 700 sq. ft. as originally sub- mitted in the PUD application. Thus, the change in open space as stated in the application is correct, changing from .88 acres to .86 acres. Although this square footage was clarified and approved at the Planning and Zoning meeting, I wanted to confirm the numbers for the Planning Staff. Please contact me for any additional information you may need. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Gretchen Greenwood GG: sv AA ITII .. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 6 March 1984 ~ Ms. Collette Penne, Planner Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Collette: Enclosed you will find the application for amending the P.U.D. Plan of the Clarendon Condominiums. We would like to be included on the April 3rd agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission for P.U.D. Amendment review. As required by the Aspen Zoning Laws, a variance in the under- lying bulk requirement from 15.75 to 16.0 allowable density was granted from the Board of Adjustments on March 1, 1984. The .25 increase was approved for the development of a deed restricted employee unit subject to the Housing Authority's low to moderate income guidelines. A resolution regarding the density increase from the City Attorney is forthcoming and will be presented at the P&Z meeting April 3rd. The enclosed application outlines the amendments to the existing P.U.D. due to the density increase for an employee unit. Please contact me if I can supply you with any additional informa- tion that will secure the passage of the P.U.D. amendment. We appreciate the review of the Planning and Zoning Commission April 3rd and urge a positive outcome for the Clarendon Homeowner's Association. Sincerely yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd /7 -164.,uu J k Gretchen T.G reenwood GTG:slv Enclosures 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303â€¢925â€¢2867 .. .. APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE P.U.D. PLAN OF THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS 1. RECITALS 1.1. The Clarendon Condominiums received subdivision approval from the Aspen City Council initially on September 22, 1975, and a reapproval on January 26, 1976. The First Amendment to the P.U.D. plan was approved on September 23, 1980. The Subdivision Agreement for the Clarendon Subdivision is recorded in Book 310 at Page 359, the Condominium Map is recorded in Plat Book 5 at Pages 36-39, the First Amendment to the Condominium Map is recorded in Plat Book 11 at Page 71, the Condominium Declaration is recorded in Book 319 at Page 415 g seq. and the First Amend- ment to the Condominium Declaration is recorded in Book 410 at Page 80 *. seq., all in the records of Pitkin County. 1.2. Section 24-8-26 of the Aspen City Code provides for the amendment of previously approved P.U.D. plans. Subsection (a) thereof provides that minor changes to a P.U.D. plan may be approved by the Planning Director alone. Subsection (b) thereof provides that, in other cases, a P.U.D. plan may be amended by the approval of the City Council after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a showing of changes in condi- tions since the final plan approval or changes in community policy. 1.3. Existing Project Description. Zoning: R-6 P.U.D. Land Area: 1.627 acres Land Coverage: .74 acres Open Space: .88 acres Density Allowed: 16 units (no F.A.R.) (16 units as of March 1, 1984 by the Board of Adjustments) Density Existing: 15 units (5 two bedroom units at 1,360 sq. ft. each, 10 three bedroom units at 1,610 sq. ft. each) 1.4. Prior P.U.D. Amendment: Under provisions of 24-8.26(a), the Planning Director has previously approved certain changes to the Clarendon Subdivision P.U.D. after determining that the changes were minor in nature. Those changes included (a) building moved five (5) feet south, (b) elevation increased three (3) feet, (c) relocation of utility building, (d) relocated swimming pool, (e) omitted the tennis court and (f) increase unit sizes eight percent (8%) without increasing land coverage by decreasing patio area. Further on September 23, 1980, the City Council approved an amendment to the P.U.D. Plan which allowed the owner of Unit #12 to convert his existing two bedroom unit to a three bedroom unit. In September 1982, the City Council approved an amendment to the P.U.D. Plan which allowed the owner's of Units #6, 7&8 to convert their two bedroom units to three bedroom units. .. Application for Amendment of the P.U.D. Plan of the Clarendon Condominiums Page Two 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT 2.1. Density Increase Approval by the Board of Adjustments The Clarendon Homeowner's Association was granted a variance from the Board of Adjustments on March 1, 1984. The variance received increased the existing allowable density from 15.75 units to 16.0 allowable density. This represents a .25 increase in the underlying bulk requirement of the allowed density. The variance was granted for the development of a deed restricted employee unit subject to the Housing Authority guidelines for low to moderate income housing. A resolution drawn up by the Aspen City Attorney designating the .25 increase in the density for the development of the employee unit is forth- coming and will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. 2.2. The changes to the P.U.D. Plan are as follows: a. Deed Restricted Employee Unit The proposed employee unit is deed restricted under the Housing Authority guidelines for low to moderate income. The unit will be approximately 700 sq. ft. with living, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, storage and small office. The employee unit will have no impacts associated with it as its location is towards the center of the site (see Exhibit B) and the architecture and materials will be consistent with the existing development. The architec- tural concept and design will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. b. Change in Square Footage to Existing P.U.D. The existing square footage of the building is 22,900 sq. ft. After the addition of the 700 sq. ft. employee unit, the total floor area of the building increases to 23,600. This is an increase in total floor area of 3%. The land coverage would increase by .018 acres from .74 acres to .758 acres. c. Change in Open Space to Existing P.U.D. The existing open space is .88 acres. The 700 sq. ft. employee unit changes the open space by .018 acres from an open space of .88 acres to .86 acres. d. Off Street Parking Employee Exemption Due to the low usage of the parking area at the Clarendon Condominiums, the Association is including in this application an employee exemption to off street parking requirements. According to Vacation Resorts who manages the condominium association, 80% of the owners do not have an automobile while in Aspen. There are usually three owners that leave a vehicle in the Clarendon parking lot year-round. The only time the parking lot is full is one week at Christmas and one week in the Spring and the remaining weeks of the year the parking lot is only partially full. .. Application for Amendment of the P.U.D. Plan of the Clarendon Condominiums Page Three For the rea sons listed above and the fact that the employee unit is near town and near a bus route, the Association is requesting an employee exemption from the off street parking requirements. 2.3. Exhibits a. The proposed development for the employee unit has received support from the Pitkin County Housing Authority. Exhibit A is a letter written to the Board of Adjustment by the Housing Authority recommending the approval of the density increase for the development of the employee unit. b. A Site Plan showing the approximate location of the proposed employee housing unit is Exhibit B. The architecture and materials will be consistent with the existing Clarendon Condominiums. Additional detailed drawings will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Meeting. 3. CHANGES SINCE PRIOR APPROVAL 3.1. At the time of the original P.U.D. approval in January 1976, the project was owned by the original developer. The first amendment to the P.U.D. plan was approved by the Planning Director as minor changes in the P.U.D. plan. At the time of the amendment, the project had been sold to the Centennial Partnership No. 1, a Colorado limited partnership, as an interim developer/owner, and that change in ownership status was recited as the change in circumstances since the final plat which authorized the amend- men t. 3.2. The individual units have since been sold separately to 15 individual owners. The existing profile of the Clarendon Condominiums is a luxurious vacation home development. There are no full time resident owners. Only six (6) of the fifteen (15) units are ever rented. The average yearly occupancy of all users both those that are rented as well as time of occupancy by the various owners is only 17 weeks out of the year, or a 32% occupancy throughout the year. 3.3. Since the final plat, the applicant's properties have been conveyed twice, once to the Centennial Partnership, a developer, and finally to the current individual owners. Further, the yearly occupancy of the owners has decreased to a 32% occupancy rate which has produced a need for a permanent on site manager and caretaker to insure the continued maintenance and security for the condominiums. 3.4. The Board of Directors of the Condominium Association and the requisite number of condominium unit owners have approved the proposed amendment and have endorsed the application for amendment of the P~.D. Plan. 1,11 11'4141 14.jiu-/ Deg Ur'~.~u.U- \â€¢ Gretchen T. Greenwood Clarendon Condominium Association Representative .. -n.-7%'V HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 3 April 1984 0 Mr. Richard Gr ice City of Aspen Planning 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment Application D ea r R ic ha rd: Enclosed you will find a revised site plan of the Clarendon Condo- miniums. We revised this site plan to include two additional parking areas that the Planning Department has requested to be included in this Amendment per PUD Amendment submitted September 7, 1982. The site plan indicates the 700 sq. ft. footprint of the proposed structure for the employee unit, office and storage area. The open space as stated in the PUD Amendment Application changes from .88 acres to .86 acres. The location of the proposed structure has necessitated the relocation of this parking spot next to parking spot #7 as shown on the site plan. Please contact me for any additional information. The design of the employee unit including office and storage area will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Sincerely yours, Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd Duu- 4-9-_ Gretchen G reenwood GG: sv Enclosure 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303â€¢925â€¢2867 Ed I/Ii d .. March 6, 1984 , Collette Penne, Planner Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Collette: As requested by the Planning office for the P.U.D. Amendment, the Board of Directors of the Condominium Association and the requisite number (80%) of condominium unit owners have approved the proposed amendment and have endorsed the application for amendment of the P.U.D. Plan. Attest: Clarendon Condominium Association 0 7% By -Â· /3/8 <91 / Plze**Z/'t~/ Vide President / .. MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering ~>?K--- DATE: March 30, 1984 RE: Fourth Amendment to the Clarendon Condominiums P.U.D. Plan Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection, the City Engineering Department has the following comments: At the time the City Council approved the last amendment to the Clarendon P.U.D. in September of 1982, the approval was conditioned on provision of two additional parking spaces for the three additional bedrooms created. It is apparent, from a comparison of the original P.U.D. plan with the plan submitted with the current application that the additional parking was never provided. Parking on site is currently 25 spaces for a 40 bedroom structure representing a 38% reduction from the code requirement,. We would support the current application only with the provision of three additional parking spaces, two of which are to comply with the 1982 approval and one for the new unit for a total of 28 spaces for 41 bedrooms or 32% below the code requirement. JH/co i , MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer's Officer Jay Hammond City Attorney's Office, Barry Edwards Housing Director, Jim Adamski FROM: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office RE: Clarendon Condominiums - PUD Amendment/GMP - Parking Exemptions DATE: March 8, 1984 Enclosed please find material submitted by Gretchen J. Greenwood of Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd., on behalf of the Clarendon Condominium Association, requesting a PUD amendment to create an employee housing unit, and a parking and growth management exemption for the employee housing unit. The Clarendon Condominiums are located at Ute Avenue and West End Street. Please review the enclosed material and return your referral comments to Richard Grice of the Planning Office no later than April 3, 1984, in order for Richard to have adequate time to prepare for this case's presentation before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April 17, 1984. Thank you. rh 22. k Z< fku *- i*, a.600&40( qf- 40 4 Ha/1 f lak) f e ace-Di ce- w il-k 44_ - fi-CC 4-t~Â£"â‚¬J _Q.)4Â·a~lit)â‚¬J ~Pe>-- 4 4 3,/j: op 94- 1 ertld 7r* f kâ€žj &-0 ow->30, pitkin county 506 east main street aspen, colorado 81611 , February 17, 1984 0 Board of Adjustment City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: Clarendon Condominiums request for a variance on the underlying bulk requirements. Dear Board Member: The Clarendon Homeowners Association is requesting a variance on the underlying bulk requirement which presently allows for 15.75 to 16 units. The .25 increase would allow for a 700 sq. ft. deed restricted employee unit which would house the caretaker employed by the Homeowners Association. This request was presented to the Housing Authority Board on February 16, 1984 at its regular board meeting. After discussion with Gretchen T. Greenwood, representative for the association, the Housing Authority unanimously and strongly support the .25 density increase requested by the Clarendon Condominium Homeowners Association. This request is totally consistant with the mandate of the Housing Auth- ority as directed to them by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, that is to provide affordable housing for those persons employed in Aspen and Pitkin County. In summary, it is the Housing Authority's recommendation that the Clarendon Homeowners Association request for a variance in the underlying bulk requirement which presently allows 15.75 units to allow an increase of .25 to 16.0 allowable unit density, so as to provide employee housing. It is also the recommendation of the Housing Authority that the proposed employee unit be deed restricted under the Housing Authority low or moderate guidelines. Thank you, Sinterely, ///, f /-1 A \ -- tt,arti~s L. Adakski, /birector ~Housing Authority