HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Greenberg Clarendon 625 S West End.1982 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)925-2020
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
63722 - 47332 - 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY
63723 - 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL
63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
63725 - 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY
63726 - 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL
63727 - 47350 - 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION "
63728 - 47350 - 52100 REZONING
63729 - 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW
County SUB-TOTAL
00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL
63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/PRELIMINARY
63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL
63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL
63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED
63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL
63717 - 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW
63718 - 47350 - 52200 REZONING
63719 - 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES SUB-TOTAL
00113 - 63061 - 09100 - 52200 COUNTY CODE
63063 - 09100 - 52200 ALMANAC
63062 - 09100 - 52300 GMP
63066 - 09100 - 52300 COPY FEES
63069 - 09100 - OTHER
SUB-TOTAL
TOTAL
Name:
Address " Phone.
Protect
Check No. r t4
Date:
Additional Billing:
No. of Hours:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Colette Penne, Planning Office
RE: Clarendon Condominiums - Amendment to P.U.D.
DATE: September 7, 1982
Location: 625 South West End Avenue
Zoning: R-6 P.U.D.
Parcel
Size: 1 .627 acres
Applicant' s
Request: Amendment to the P.U.D. plan for the purpose of adding a third
bedroom to three of the two-bedroom units in the complex.
Referral
Comments: Engineering Department
This is the second application for an amendment creating three-
bedroom units out of existing two bedroo units. The prior
application, approved in September of 1980, was for one unit.
While the addition of one bedroom did not significantly impact
most concerns relative to this office, the cumulative addition
of four bedrooms requires a more detailed review of this proposal .
Planning Office
Review: Section 24-8.26(b) of the Municipal Code provides a procedure
for amending a P.U.D. plan. A change in the use or character
of the development and any increase of greater than 2% in the
floor area must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Council .
The existing project has a land coverage of .74 acre with .88
acre area of open space. At present, the mix of the 15 units
is 8 two-bedroom units at 1 ,360 square feet each and 7 three-
bedroom units at 1 ,610 square feet each. After the addition,
there will be 5 two-bedroom units and 10 three-bedroom units for
a total of forty bedrooms. This is an 8% increase in total
number of bedrooms.
The existing square footage of the building is 22,150. After
the addition of the three 250 square foot bedrooms, the total
floor area will be 22,900 square feet, for a 3. 4% increase.
The units being expanded, #6, #7 and #8, are contiguous units
and the owners are proposing to raise the rear roof line to
create the additional square footage. The attached Exhibits
show the proposed addition and the visual change which will
result. Identical materials will be used and the addition
will alter the exterior appearance and building integrity to
a minor degree. The building footprint will not change and
the architectural integrity is maintained.
The owner of Unit #12 obtained an amendment to the P.U.D. on
September 23, 1980 to alter that two-bedroom unit into a three-
bedroom unit. The condominium association approved that
alteration and the Board of Directors of the Condominium Asso-
ciation have approved this proposal .
Memo: Clarendon Condominiums - Amendment to P.U.D.
Page Two
September 7, 1982
Section 24-8.26(b) further states that "such amendments shall
be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in
conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved
or by changes in community policy. The changes in this case
are that the ownership of the units has changed from the
developer to individuals and the family size of the owners
requires the additional living space. The applicant also makes
the point, which the Planning Office does not heartily support ,
that since Little Annie is in the final approval process, the
existence of it will alter the character of the area and reflect
a community policy toward a higher utilization of the area.
The only service concern of the proposed amendment which may
impact the community is that of parking.
The applicant has not provided enough information on the
provision of parking in the project for us to evaluate its
adequacy. Rather than delay this review, the information
will be available for your consideration at this meeting.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
The Planning Office recommends approval of the amendment to the
P.U.D. plan for the Clarendon Condominium Units #6, #7, #8 to
add a third bedroom with the following condition:
1 ) The addition of -three-parking spaces.- e-justification of
adequate existing parking.
1 - I
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 et seq. and
the First Amendment to the Condominium Declaration is
recorded in Book 410 at Page 80 et 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 conditions 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 acre
Open Space : . 88 acre
Density Allowed: 15 . 75 units (no
F.A.R. )
Density Existing: 15 units (8
two-bedroom units at
1 ,360 sq. ft. each)
(7 three-bedroom units
at 1 ,610 sq. ft. each)
Estimated Population: Maximum occupancy - 2
per bedroom = 74
persons;
Average occupancy - at
38% or 28 persons
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.
2 . PROPOSED AMENDMENT
2 . 1 The Clarendon Condominiums were constructed such
that the two-bedroom unit is the same basic construction as
the three-bedroom unit except the rear roof line is lower.
The respective owners of the two-bedroom condominium units,
#6 , #7 and #8 , which are contiguous , propose to raise the
rear roof line of those units following the original
construction procedures , thereby creating three-bedroom
units and adding an additional 250 square feet of floor area
to each of those units.
2 . 2 The changes to the project are as follows.
a. Unit mix. After the addition, there will be
five two-bedroom units and ten three-bedroom units for a
total of forty bedrooms. This is an eight percent (8% )
increase in total number of bedrooms.
b. Change in square footage. The existing
square footage of the building is 22 , 150 . After the
addition of these 250-square-foot bedrooms in each of the
three units, the total floor area of the building would be
22 ,900 square feet. This is an increase in total floor area
of 3 . 4% .
2 . 3 Illustration of Changes. The proposed changes are
illustrated in the exhibits to this application. Exhibit A
is a perspective view from the north side looking southeast
showing the exterior as it currently exists . Exhibit B is
the same perspective view showing the visual changes to the
building resulting from the proposed additions . Exhibit C
is a sectional drawing illustrating, in before and after
views , the expansion of and the changes which would be made
to each of the condominium units #6 , #7 and #8 . Exhibit D
is a letter from the architects who originally designed the
Clarendon Condominiums indicating that the addition can be
made without compromising the architectural and esthetic
integrity of the building. The architects have also
indicated the original construction materials are still
available and that the additions can be made with
conventional construction techniques and without endangering
adjacent units or the structural integrity.
-2-
3 . CHANGES SINCE PRIOR APPROVAL
3 . 1 At the time of the original P.U.D. approval in
January, 1976 , the project was still 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
amendment.
3 . 2 The individual units have been separately sold to
the various individual owners . The owner of unit #12
obtained an amendment to the P.U.D. plan granted by the City
Council on September 23 , 1980 , to alter his two-bedroom unit
#12 to a three-bedroom unit. The change in circumstances
since final plat authorizing this second amendment to the
P.U.D. was the ownership change from the developer to the
individual owner and an increase in the owner' s family size.
The change to Unit 12 was the same change sought here for
three (3) other units.
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 current applicants and
owners of units #6 , #7 and #8 have also experienced family
growth and now need the additional bedroom. In addition,
the Little Annie ' s Ski Area base facilities , which are in
the final approval process , will significantly alter traffic
on Ute Avenue and alter the character of the area and
reflect a substantial change in circumstance and community
policy towards a higher utilization of the area.
-3-
" ,
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 ap lication for amendment of the P .U.D. plan.
i
OWNERS x,LiCLARENDON ! OW ER OF CLARENDON
CO■DOM NIUM UNIT #6'' CONDOMINIUM UNIT #7
1 it Jr, 1
j ! i
OWNERS OF CLARENDON
CONDOMINIUM UNIT #8
ATTEST: CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION
LtprmindA ,S x By A,,-1 < ;r l
Secretary of Clarendon President
Condominium Association, Inc.
-4-
JOSEPH E. EDW�AApDS ����/tGsi
4� /,
vto,
am,a ,
41 -7,44
JOSEPH E. EDWARDS, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
THE JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET,SUITE#109
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (303) 925-7116
July 27 , 1982
Sonny Vann, Director
City and County Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Greenberg-Clarendon Condominium
Dear Sonny,
I am enclosing three (3) complete copies of an application
for amendment of the PUD plan for the Clarendon Condominiums
as provided for under §24-8 . 25 (b) of the Aspen City Code
and the application filing fee of $475 . 00 . The purpose of
the proposed amendment is to add a third bedroom to three of
the two-bedroom units in the complex.
I am also enclosing a copy of a list of the owners of the
Clarendon Condominiums. We have not planned to notify them
regarding the hearing as there is no notice procedure
specified in the City Code section regarding amending PUD ' s.
However, the owners all have been notified and, to date,
more than 70% of the owners (a number sufficient to amend
the declaration) have approved the proposed changes. These
written approvals are in my file and can be produced if you
so desire. Also, the Board of Directors has unanimously
passed a resolution authorizing the filing of the amendment
application, and the association is a coapplicant. I would
appreciate being scheduled on the next available Planning &
Zoning Commission agenda for their review and comment and,
thereafter, on the City Council agenda for decision.
If you need any further information or if any other fees are
required, please contact me immediately.
Very truly yours ,
Jo eqhE.L. a 4/
JEut�L�
Enclosures
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colette Penne, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, Engineering Office
DATE: August 30 , 1982
RE: Greenberg/Clarendon Amendment to P.U.D.
Having reviewed the above application to amend the design and
platting of the Clarendon P.U.D. Condominium, the Engineering
Department has the following comments :
1 . As stated in the application, this is the second application
for an amendment creating three bedroom units out of existing
two bedroom units . The prior application, approved in September
of 1980, was for one unit, this application is for three . It
should be noted that the previous applicant made the verbal represen-
tation that only two other units in the structure were in the
position to make such an expansion. I have attached minutes from
the September 22, 1980 City Council meeting addressing various
issues raised at that time.
2 . While the addition of one bedroom did not significantly impact
most concerns relative to this office, the addition of four bedrooms
could. It would seem appropriate, in light of the Greenberg
application, to look at the cumulative effect of these additions
on such needs as parking and utility service. The applicant should
be required to submit site plan information and confirmation from
the various utilities addressing these concerns .
JH/co
jJ
0
Esther Bcamor passed out a report of suggestions regarding pedestrian safety. City 1
Mant-gcr Chapman told Council there are three aspects of the pedestrian safety issue. One ,i
is Main street and what the city cc lo; Chapman appointed the police .ef, city engineer
and street superintendent to work wICh Mrs. Beamer on this aspect - whe.: the city can do
by themselves to improve pedestrian safety. A second aspect is what needs to be done but
must have the approval of the department of highways. This group will outline these i •
steps before the meeting with the department of highways.
The third element of pedestrian safety is a professional and technical study of pedestrian
safety of all areas in town. The city has received a proposal from Skrotzki 6 Associates 1
for a maximum cost of $5,000 to be completed in 4 months time. Chapman told Council there
is no one on the city staff that is qualified to carry out this aspect of the pedestrian •
study. Chapman said an alternative is to develop specifications and put this out for bids:
Developing specifications would cost the staff time. Another option is to consider this as
part of the 1981 budget and conduct the study January through April. ,I
Councilwoman Michael said the first two aspects of Main street are fine; as far as the
study, the city should seek proposals from other traffic firms and use 1981 money.
Councilman Collins agreed the first two recommendations are fine and the study should be
implemented as soon as possible as there may be some good ideas coming out of it. Council- - .
man Collins said he felt the study should preceed some of the suggested solutions in Mrs.
Reamer's report. Councilman Parry said the Council should go over the report and meet ,I
with the highway department before starting any study. Rob McClung, police chief, ;�
suggested the Council write to the department of highway safety and tell them Aspen has a ;�
•
pressing problem, this year there will be more cars. The Council needs to write the
highway department and tell them Aspen has to have more traffic regulatory devices.
Councilman Van Ness said the staff should develop a list of actions which the city may I E
take on it own; write a letter to the highway department regarding traffic safety on Main ;
street, develop a list of things that can be done on Main street.
Councilwoman Michael moved Esther Reamer's committee with the staff named proceed with
Main street proposals that require no highway department approval,- to recommend only I •
Main street proposals that do require highway department approval in preparation for the I
October 17 meeting; further that Council accept proposals from other traffic engineering
firms, use 1981 monies and begin technical study after Council has some sense of the I!
highway department; seconded by Councilman Parry. Councilwoman Michael clarified this
that Council will discuss with the highway department the proposals that the city can 1 .
implement before going ahead and doing them. All in favor, motion carried.
REQUEST TO USE PART OF RIO GRANDE LOT
•
Monroe Summers introduced Geof Canoon who is requested Council approve use of a portion
of the Rio Grande lot on October 4 to conduct a truck load solar water heater sale. These' .
water heaters can be sold cheaper if they can do so in a large volume. Canoon passed out 1
brochures of the product. Councilman Isaac asked if they were collecting sales tax; Ii 1
Canoon answered yes. Canoon said this truck would take up approximately 6 cars spaces,
they will have one demonstrator unit. j'
Councilwoman Michael moved to approve use of the Rio Grande parking lot for a truck load , •
solar hot water heater sale October 4 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All'
in favor, motion carried. 1
AMENDMENT TO PUD PLAN - Clarendon Condominiums II.
U
Jolene Vrchota, planning office, told Council this is a request to add a third bedroom •
to a .two-bedroom unit at the Clarendon. ' The request is for 250 square feet which is over
1 per cent of the total square footage and therefore has to come before Council to amend
the PUD. There is little change in the exterior appearance and the integrity of the
building. Ms. Vrchota said the P & Z recommended approval based on the consideration •
there is no increase in the building footprint and the architectural integrity is main-
tained. P & Z did have some concerns about setting a precedent. There are only two other. F
units in the same position. P & Z was concerned because there was no public input in the ;!
process.
ll
David Eisenstein, representing one of the owners in the 'Clarendon
pointed out that
Section 24.8-26 (b) said amendments may be made only if they are shown to be required by
changes in conditions since the final plan was approved or by changes in community policy.
Eisenstein said he was no aware of any changes. There are also eight other units that
could add a third bedroom. Eisenstein said it does not seem necessary to make this
expansion, and it may be opening the flood gates for other owners. This may be a danger-
ous precedent.
e ' I . ' • • '
/ , .
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council September 22, 1980
1 Joe Edwards showed Council the plans of the two bedroom units and what the changes are. :I
Some of the other two bedrooms if changed would alter the roof line. Edwards told Council,
the cumulative effect of changes is something Council can take into consideration at a
later time; this is not a binding precedent. More than 1 per cent changes requires coming .
to Council for approval; this is .013 per cent change. Edwards said they did not feel t,
this change would have a. significant effect. The applicant's circumstances have changed,
he has more family living with him. The Board of Directors of the condominium unanimouslyt
approved this. The original architect is available and the original materials are avail-
able. The architect feels when this is done, you will not be able to tell a change has I
been made. Councilman Isaac asked if the applicant will pay the park dedication fee. .1
Edwards said they would. - . I
Councilman Collins moved to approve the request; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in
favor, motion carried. E
CRATMAN C0NDOMIN1UMIZATION AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
Jolene Vrchota, planning office, reminded Council the Garrett condominiumization was
approved in July with three conditions; the six month minimum lease, notice and option
. requirements, and a 10-year moderate price restriction applied to one of the units. One
of the.one-bedroom units fell within the guidelines; the applicant offered a price ii
restriction on a five bedroom unit for 10 years. Ms. Vrchota told Council it has been II
found there are major changes that need to be made on the five-bedroom unit to bring it I
up to code. The applicant prefers to rebuild the unit. It appears from the building
department it is not reasonable to expect the unit to be brought up to Code. The appli- q
cant is having difficulty getting financing because of the 10 year price restriction.
•
tMs. Vrchota told Council the city would be getting a new unit for 5 years rather than a
sub-standard unit for 10 years. The P & Z recommended approval; their primary concern
was that there was no site inspection made prior to the original approval. Ms. Vrchota !
said there may be a Code amendment to require site inspections prior to hearings before '�
the City. Brooke Peterson told Council the amount of square footage will not change. iI
Councilman Isaac moved to approve reducing the term of the moderate price restriction
placed as a condition of condominiumization on Chatmas from 10 years to 5 years; 'l t
seconded by Councilman Collins. All in favor, motion carried. � :
I
RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS - Koval Project
Jim Reents, housing director, told Council this is an inducement resolution for bonds
for a project at 915 East Cooper for a 70/30 project with 8 deed restricted and 3 free
market units. This is brought to Council to see if they are willing to use IRB's to
finance the project. The applicant feels the projects is viable only if IRB's can be '!
used. Ms. Butterbaugh asked Council not to make a decision on this until they have seen
the proposal and the money backing the group and also look at the guidelines for IRBS.
Councilman Isaac said- projects asking for IRDS have to provide something for the community.
Councilman Van Ness said this does provide employee housing. It
. N
Art Walsh, representing the applicant, said they applied under growth management and were '..
not accepted. Walsh said they would like to get approval from Council and then submit a
proposal to P 6 Z. At this point, they are looking for an indication from Council that
I they are willing to consider this type of financing. Ms. Vrchota said the planning office
IN worked with the applicant and although there is no proposal, the discussion indicates
1 there is a good possibility this is the kind of project the city would like to see under
70/30. Reents told Council a project financed through IRBS can only be rental. There
are two suggestions from the city's financial advisor to modify the resolution. In
Section 4 change the length of commitment from 12 month to 6 month and add Section 5 to
add language to give the city the right to withdraw from this resolution without any
liability.
• I,
Councilman Van Ness asked if Council felt prepared to vote or wanted more review from
staff. Councilwoman Michael said she would like to see the guidelines used on the
Obermeyer IRB issue. Councilwoman Michael said if the city is putting their reputation
behind this project, she would like to know the private financial arrangemar.L' of ti,e
project. Councilman Isaac said he would like to know more about the -icCt and would
0 like to see an application. Councilman Isaac said he is in favor or the city helping
obtaining low cost housing, but would like to know more abon" this. Councilman Parry
said people are always saying the city should not get • .. olved but everytime a private
1 section tries to do housing, the Council blocks t}.-,n ou.. Councilwoman Michael said she
it did not want to wait until the design ++hale.--„ar. would like more background. City Manager
Chapman said there are many other r hun that are interested in this type financing.
tl Council should make sure mL ,-Y-` they do is legitimate and appropriate. Don Diones,
Kirchner/Moore, told C'c +^'`r cite city talked about IRB policy in March 1979 and that
II effort should be r.en'"ed so that Council know what the guidelines are and if someone has
P
0 ma} }hair rriher+"
4
I
September 27, 1982
SEF
� ,•i SEr S .
UF'fiN / i' INC t CO,
t4JNG OFFlQg.r�
Susan Michael
City Council
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Dean Greenberg/Clarendon Amendment of P.U.D.
Dear Susan,
As you know from reviewing your packet for the September 27,
1982 , meeting, three of the owners of the Clarendon Town-
houses desire to construct a third bedroom onto their
two-bedroom units in the same manner as was done by the
owner of Unit 12 several years ago. This building was
originally designed to be expanded in this way, and the
construction does not increase the building footprint. The
architect believes that the additions would not affect
architectural integrity of the building. Although we have
obtained a positive recommendation from the Planning Office,
the P&Z voted four to three to recommend a denial of the
requested third bedrooms. In light of that negative
recommendation, i believe some additional information may he
valuable to you in making this decision.
ZONING HISTORY
This property was zoned AR-1 , which allowed 45 units per
acre. The Gant Condominiums immediately to the east
developed at that density. The Clarendon property was
downzoned by Ordinance 19 from AR-1 , which would have
allowed 73 units, to a total of 36 units. The following
year, Ordinance 13 downzoned the property again to the
present zoning category of R-6 (nine units per acre) which
allowed 15 units.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CLARENDON DEVELOPMENT
The Clarendon was developed under the existing R-6 P.U.D. of
15 units on the property. This could have been developed as
15 homes on small 4 ,500-acre lots and, in fact the property
City Council
September 27 , 1982
Page 2
was at one time platted as single-family lots. However,
under the P.U.D. , a townhouse concept was used which
provided for additional open space. The number of
townhouses is the exact same number of units as would be on
the property if single-family homes had been developed. The
townhouse concept allowed 54% of the total lot area to be
held in open space.
It should be noted there are no floor area ratios in the R-6
zone, and there is no limit on the size of the floor areas
of either townhouses or single-family residences.
THE PRESENT REQUEST
The owners of Units 6 , 7 and 8 are requesting permission to
add a third bedroom to their existing two-bedroom units so
that their three-bedroom units will be exactly the same as
the other three-bedroom units in the project. More than 70%
of the owners of the townhouses have approved of the
proposed expansion in writing, and the board of directors of
the association has unanimously approved and joined in the
application.
If the property had developed as single-family houses and an
owner wanted to add a bedroom, there would be no review
procedures; and he would be granted a building permit as a
matter of course. Because this project developed under the
mandatory P.U.D. designation and there can be a variance and
a lessening of the requirements for open space, building
height, yard setbacks and a number of parking spaces, there
is a procedure for the review of any changes. The purpose
of that review procedure is that, with a P.U.D. This P.U.D.
is at variance only with the requirement for one parking
space per bedroom (which was not a requirement at the time
the Clarendon was built) . Since there is no floor area
limitation in the R-6 zone, size is by ordinance not an
element of consideration or public concern.
Therefore, the only standard affected by the proposed
addition is the parking-space-per-bedroom ratio, which will
be slightly decreased if the bedrooms are built. It is
possible without significant change to open space to
construct as many new parking spaces as there are proposed
new bedrooms. Two additional parking spaces which would
maintain the existing same ratio of parking spaces to
bedrooms. The addition of a third space, which would
require the moving of a line of trees which is part of the
P.U.D. landscaping, would improve the ratio of space to
City Council
September 27, 1982
Page 3
bedrooms. Since the actual use patterns of the project
result in the parking lot only being full during Christmas
and spring vacation, the owners .believe the additional
spaces are unnecessary but would comply with whatever wishes
the City expressed in that regard.
The applicant actually believes this change to be a minor
change within the definition of 524-8 . 26 (a) and, therefore,
could have been authorized by the planning director.
However, the applicant has gone through the review process,
since Unit 12 went through a similar process.
PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Office has recommended this request be approved
subject to the addition of an extra parking space for each
bedroom unless a lack of need for the additional parking was
demonstrated.
P62 R.ECOMMMENDATION
The P6Z voted four to three to recommend denial, but there
was an apparent lack of consensus in the reasons expressed
by those voting to recommend against the project. One
member thought that it would establish a precedent that
ownere of the Gant could thereafter use. However, the Gant
is a nonconforming use and could not be expanded (see
§24-13 . 3 (a) ) . Another member' s comment was that he thought
the applicant ' s attorney' s reasoning was as faulty as when
he had been a commissioner, and perhaps some residual
personal opinions regarding the applicant ' s attorney were
involved in that vote. A third member indicated that he did
not believe that a sufficient change in circumstances had
occurred to justify an amendment to the P.U.D. (the City
ordinance on such amendments 524-13.3 (b) indicates that they
should be granted on the basis of change in circumstances
since the final plan was approved or changes in community
policy. ) It is noted that exactly the same type of change
in circumstances, i.e. , substantial increase in family size
of the owners, was the basis for the granting of the third
bedroom for Unit 12 several years ago and that a change in
ownership, was the basis for the planning director' s first
amendment to the P.U.D.
CHARACTER OF THE CLARENDON
The Clarendon has developed as relatively luxurious
condominiums which are used primarily as vacation homes.
City Council
September 27, 1982
Page 4
There are no full-time resident owners. Further, only six
of the five units are ever rented. Most of the present
owners purchased the condominiums when first constructed six
years ago. 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 32S of
the time.
It is rare that the visiting occupants have more than one
automobile. The managing agent of the condominium has
stated that only for a week at Christmas and a week in the
spring is the parking lot ever full.
In summary, we have the owners of some second homes who have
had substantial increases in family size (Mr. Greenberg in
Unit 6 has 4 children now) , and it has been difficult to
accommodate their family in their vacation home when it only
has two bedrooms. Since there is no FAR or restriction on
unit size in the R-6 zone, there has been a policy
declaration that unit sizes is not a rector with which the
public need be concerned. It is suggested that the impact:,
on the community are nonexistent and that it
reasonable and e uitsble to allow the owners of. these would
be
second
.. cond
home townhouses to expand their units to add an additional
bedroom and accommodate the substantial changes and condi-
tion of their family size since they bought the condominiums
six years ago.
Very truly yours,
COPY tttlitrat.S
Joseph E. Edwards, Jr.
JPE ch
cc lan Greenberg
anning Office
i
3� +?y�
wi'iX�aC1` 1
VACATION RESORTS, INC.
27 September 1982
Joe Edwards, Esq.
Jerome Professional Building
201 North Mill
Suite 109
Aspen, Colorado
81611
Re: Clarendon Condominiums
Occupancy and Owner Data
Pursuant to your letter of September 13, I have addressed your five
specific questions and offered what answers and insides I could. You
should note that Vacation Resorts has managed the Association from
October 1980 to the present and, although our statistics cannot ap-
ply to any period of time except when the complex was under our ma-
nagement, I am familiar enough with the property and the owners to
conjure reasonable estimates where factual statistics are not avail -
able.
1. The number of units which have been historically rented_over
the years have been about 50%. However, now there are six
units in the rental pool and of these six, four have exten-
sive owner use (approximately four weeks) during the winter.
2. We do not keep statistics about the number of tenants that
use automobiles, but I would estimate that most - 80% - do
have an automobile while in Aspen. There are usually three
owners that leave a vehicle in the Clarendon parking lot
year-round.
3. To the best of my knowledge, 10 of the 15 units are still
owned by the party or parties that purchased a Clarendon
Condominium originally.
4. Mr. Hayes 's estimation sounds correct, i .e. , the parking
lot is "full " during Christmas and one week in the spring
and is only partially full the rest of the year.
5. The amount of time an owner of a condominium that does
not rent uses his condominium is difficult to gauge. (We
do not keep occupancy records on non-rental condominiums) .
My guess is about six weeks in the winter and four weeks
in the summer.
709 East Durant Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 • 13031925-6760
Joe Edwards
27 September 1982
page two
I hope this information is of use to you. I will be at
the September 27 City Council Meeting should you need any
additional information.
Sincerely,
1 i-N. RoSaSe
Timothy C. Roselle
General Manager
cc: Dean Greenberg
•
Hagman Yaw Architects, Lid
29 January 1982
Mr. Dean Greenberg
Sioux City Cold Storage
Post Office Box 129
Newport , Minnesota 55055
Dear Dean :
As per your request I have reviewed the Clarendon Condominium building
to determine which 2 bedroom units could be converted to 3 bedroom
units consistent with the existing architectural and visual concept
of the building.
Units 6, 7 and 8 can be converted as previously recommended based
on a central location in the building which can visually accept the
change in architectural massing, particularly with our recommendation
of a slight upper level projection.
We think unit #3 could also be converted in a similar manner. Although
the conversion of unit #2 is possible , we would be concerned that the
scale of the building at the west (Glory Hole Park end) of the building
would become too massive and "barrack" like to make a graceful transi-
tion to the open park environment . We would therefore recommend that
unit #2 not be a candidate for conversion .
This recommendation is based on our judgment of the visual acceptability
of such additions within the defined architectural character of the
building and has no basis on special or particular wishes expressed
by individual unit ownership.
Very truly yours ,
Hagman Yaw Architects , Ltd
; Ct,t vv Li t
Larry Yaw;' :A A
Principal'
LY:sd
fi
Enclosures
210 sOL'TH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN, COLL \IJO 303 925 2867
12/81
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS
0
1. Robert N. Noyce & Ann S. Bowers
690 Loyola Drive
Los- Altos , CA 94022
415-948-6173
925-8416
2. Schak & Schakowsky Partnership
3418 West,Main
. .Skokie IL , 60076
312-673-2250-
925-6679
t,th ,. 3: Donald E. Kolmer, DDS
302 Farmers Bank Building
Jacksonville, IL 62650
217-245-4516
925-8593
4. James S. & Joy Dubose
P.O. Box 2990
Fort Worth TX 76113
214-647-9200
925-1289
5. Richard F. & Sylvia Kaufman
f � 740 Lake Dr.
�n 'Rttt)` North Muskegon , MI 49445
616-744-1769
925-4312
ii�zD 6. Dean L. & Marilyn Greenberg
t \e kn fL Box 129
Newport MN 55055
612-698-8857
925-2620
7. Brian Wilson
Wilson House of Suede, Inc.
11840 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064
213-478-3505(office)
925-6447
8. Dr. Lee & Gertrude Gladstone
1212 Lake Shore Drive 23AS
Chicago, IL 60610
312-787-0791
925-8776
`„:; 9. Sam Lehrman Send Statement to: National Savings & Trust
Box 10061
Aspen , CO 81612 Trust Dept.
920-1345 15th and New York Ave. NW
202-966-0183 Washington, DC 20005
Attn: Vera A. Graham (copy to Sam also)
♦ 12/81
10. Nathan Landow
--� 4710 Bethesda Ave.
Bethesda, MD 20014
301-657-4600
925-5422
11. David & Elizabeth Kruidenier
3409 Southern Hills Dr.
Des Moines , IA 50321
515-288-8411
925-5435
> rtD 12. Earl M. & Marilyn Latterman
17‘t--tnV-aR_ 1230 Squirrel Hill Ave.
Pittsburg, PA 15217
412-682-1315 (home)
412-751-4700 (office)
925-9483
13. Calvin Lui
Hawaiian Adventure
1833 Kalakaua
Honolulu , HI 96815
808-941-2413
925-1315
14. Jaime Sada
P.O. Box 73
Colonia del Valle Office # 011-52-83-78-07-09
Nuevo Leon , Mexico
eavil 15. Edgar Stanton , Jr.
(n; rt,e a. 2320 Camino Lustre Home # 602-299-0771
Tucson , AZ 85718 925-7092
_C LAI .. .,,r1Dol.1 CEA.)DO. V` SVRV
4 _ WEEKS 12.En1TEb .
, ar2ra = WEEKS OWNER. OCCUPIED
13 wKC 2(,WKS. 29 WKS . 52WK
IN T#1 X11 l
I
Z 19''18 1 'g ; V///8///14
3
4 1 917 •U/!
6 191 ►/////,n:ninirn
8 197t7 1 10 pi/site
9
I
1 %
n
I Z Ig : %!e///,
13
14
c r' %/1// zo 1/J71111
•
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT #
OWNER.;r. .cJC -:1MK . r P KCB « I :�'�l(. I �% -IIUC�I�����
—7 r
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED / /
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? I (/
I
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED
ALL/
7 h.; e. '�-
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP, THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
3 t_ CV
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY /
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
SEP 3 ;. - ?
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT #
OWNE R t itst&
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED 1L1 1 WI
t41)IF THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? t4
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED
JAN Fib \A4 tik o.ro- - S wiAs
Cv. S inels
!a t4,„1 •�
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP , THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED / ' , aria(
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
witty gi
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IIN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY 0
art,e4
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
SEP 2 ',9'82
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT #
OWNER:' C,CuI
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? L/-*9
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED I ��U 1-920..-2-/
•
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP , THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
7 �
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY /
i.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
SEP 2 IS32
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT # 6
OWNER. DE40 m edipN Imo` e b el ..
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED U V , /977
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? //0
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED fJc r EP co
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP, THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED g_ 4( h VA. 77
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY Q
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY 014 €.
aieitnotAi
SIGNAT E OF OWNER
SEP 0 1'1.2
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
I ' L
UNIT #
HI
\}
OWNER j:��l i . t,i 0 (1 r� ` W c 1 �
`
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED i�-? 4 ' \�� . i l- ( / `/ / 3
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? ;A/ V)
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS /
°
a '' t
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED WA) 1r >= + 'v
•
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP, THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED AI .,
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
I'
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY 1
(7
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
•
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT #
OWNER ' .)•C L A 7l5C. t/flib'
/ ':1 777 .
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? /`r
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED .cT
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP , THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY (/-,'
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM USE INFORMATION
UNIT #
OWNER. td6Z.VVr .CrNA, `-d F
DATE UNIT ACQUIRED Der, 0 1 r ? O
/
IS THERE ANY PRESENT INTENTION TO SELL UNIT? ✓440
IF THE UNIT IS CURRENTLY RENTED DURING ANY PORTION OF THE
YEAR, TIMES OF THE YEAR RENTED AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS
PER YEAR THE UNIT IS RENTED Aldr_4 leg
IF UNIT WAS PREVIOUSLY RENTED DURING YOUR OWNERSHIP , THE
AVERAGE NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR IT RENTED m it Zl_ ,
NUMBER OF WEEKS PER YEAR OCCUPIED BY OWNER OR OWNER' S FAMILY
a a 10--U-k4 Cali _42,...,44,9
NUMBER OF AUTOMOBILES PLACED IN PARKING LOT DURIING OWNER' S
OCCUPANCY / !/W /O.2,C/J4/1/YI/J.//2- OW+ •
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
Engineering Department
Building Department
FROM: Martha Eichelberger, Planning Office
RE: Greenberg/Clarendon Condominium Plat Amendment
DATE: August 5, 1982
Planner Colette Penne has attached an application submitted on behalf of three
Clarendon Condominium owners and of the Clarendon Condominium Association for
amendment to the Clarendon Condominium Plat, and more specifically, to add a
third bedroom to three of the two-bedroom units in the complex.
The item has been scheduled for the September 7, 1982 City Planning and Zoning
Commission agenda, so if you would please review said application and return
any comments to our office by August 30th at the latest, it will be much appre-
ciated.
Thank you.
•