The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutminutes.boa.19840301 CITY"14, SPEN . 130 reet asps r 1611 A G E N D A BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT MARCH 1, 1984 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 4 : 00 P.M. I. Minutes II. Case #84-4/Clarendon Condominiums III . Adjourn RogUM_MMAiDg________ ________M��h_1�_1984 ' Chairman Remo Luvugnino culled the meeting to order at 4: O3 p .m. with members Charles Paterson, Josephine Munn ' Fruncms Whitukerx and Rick Head present . MINUTES Francis Whitaker moved to uodress the minutes at the conclusion of the meeting ; seconded IV Charles Paterson . Al ] in favor , motion curried . CASE_#84�4/CLARENDON_CONDOMINIUMS Luvugnzno read vuriunce requesteM "Applicant appears to be requesting u variance of the density ullotment in the R-6 PUD for the development of the dee� restricted employee unit. The 15.75 units Figure was set during PUD consideration. Applicant is asking for an increase of . 25 densitV in order to build the employee unit. " Gretwen Greenwood of Hagman/Yaw Architects is representi.'/g Clarendon Condominium Association . Greenwood presented an uffiduvzi. and u photo of the public notification siyn . Greenwood made the presentation. Presently there is no method under the law in whzcn u condominium association cun build an employee unit . The Clarenao: is primarily u vacation-home use, luxury condcminium. There are no full-time resident owners . Only six of the fifteen units are ever rented . There is only u 32% occupu:cg rate throughout the gear which translates to seventeen weexs of use, including the full-time owners and week ' ly-montnly rentors . Because of the low occ:puncy rate thero is u need to have continued maintenance and securzt4 because OF |..e luxury status of the csndominioms . It is u small develop ment . There is no place on the existing property or is the existing Cyarendon Comominzom unzts tnut can hcose u caretaker on szte . It was neveloped anuer the existing R-6 PUD . The PWD Qt o�e time allowed fifteen private homes of 4, 703 square foot in .. uc/`es . mad the project hasp develnped to its ullowulle potential , Oere woula nave bees u Lola! squere 710tuye ", this purc,,l � RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS Board_gf_AQyptMgQ________M��h_1�_1984 of ! an,, whica � s 1 . 627 ucres , of 43JCV square feet. The Wurendon Condominiums were designed as u townhouse concept with muximu': open space . The concept ancouruge& urchztecturulQ u cluster�/'� effect for that land. There were no FAR requirements on the project . The existing Clarendon squnre Footage is 22,9CO squup�, Peet, it is u significant drop frcm wnut it could have beer developed to. The PM 6evelopmect Potential increused by 20,600 square feet to where it exists presentlg . The applicant is requesting uo amplogee unit . Present& t|.e ullowuvle 1 .627 acres had u development potential of 15.75 units. .75 snits under the law , regardless of what kind of ur,zt i�. As, does not qualify for one unit. .75 unit does constitute an emplogee unit in the §rcwth munugeme:t process, in the scoring. But the . 75 cunnot be used to develop the emplogee unit. At the time tte condominiums were developev, the applicant di., oot Peel thsre was u need for an employee unit. There is one MOW . The applicant wants to be able to use thut . 75 developseo� potential that is left for a development of u unit. The u,cwtect is going to be designing approximately u 70O s4uure foot, one story unit, if it is upproved. This is after two other udditionul approvuls, PUD und Dtg Council . A 700 square fee� free murket unit does not qualify as an employee unit. The 7OO square is Wf of u unit. Greenwood attended the Housing Authority meeting. Th94 were in favor of the employee unit. She reported that the Housing Authority believed that vhis Pits Aithin their guidelines . If the unit is approved at the three levels, tnen the unil �il | come under Housing Autnority guidelines W u low to moderu�e income unit. The applicant wishes to Wade housing for services . There will be no money excnunged , although that is not definite. There will be some urrungements ulcng thut line anzch she niscussec with the Housing Authoritg. The basic request is that toe Clarendon Condosipium Associution wants to use the udditicnul .75 cf their ullowuble �eve�opuent rights for the develoPment of this unit. Luvugnino asked how the caretaker' s chores are being handle.,.. POW. Greenwona unswerei they ure being handled througn e munugeuent company, and the usssciuncv has gone through u couple OT �zfferent r - RECORD_OF_PROCEEDI�GS ________ ________MgM_1X_1984 management com�unies . Luvugnino asked if there is u FAR GreenwDod so�d no . Luyognino usked whut cosstztutes a unit , is tnere fixed square footage for each unit . Greenwoud explained, at Me deve- loper' s discretion , the two bedrocm units were developed to 1 ,360 square feet and the ten three bedroom units were developed to 1, 610 squure feet . The upplicunt was Moved to have 15.75 units . There are fifteen units currently . Heud questioned why the applicant was ullocutec three- quurters cf u unit zo PUD. Greenwond tulked to Colette Penre, planning office, about this issue . Penne explu.ned that tnere is 4 ,500 square feet , that truoslutes to 15.75 units . That is how many units a�e determined per acre of land. Luvugnino asked why the POD not give the applicant three-quarters oP square footage of an axisting unit , whether it re bulk or square footage. Why w'.s this not trunsluted into practical terms of usage? If tAey gave the applicant half of u unit, would they not allow t�e upplicunt an average of let sag 1 ,500 square feet times 25, or 750 square feet . GreenwooK suzd the upplicunt questioneQ this also . This is u ruling by the building and planning oepurt- ments. Luvugnino interprets that the upplzcunt , oecuuse he does not have u full unit, cannot utilize . 75 unit at ul � . Who determined that? Sreenwood said that is correct an! Sunn� Vann , planning office, determined that the .75 does not qualify as cne unit . Whitaker usked no mutter wout the size is , it does not qualify? 3reenwood said yes. Whitaker noted the unit us presented man vary from 750 squere feet to 1 ' 362 square feet . novugnino questioned the parking situation . It appears u purkjng ureu will be removed. Greenwood stoted this is u three step process . The applicant will be required ,tc\ maintain the purking ratio in order to get Q building permit. Me parking spuce will be taken und relocated to another part of the site. Luougnino noted that the applicant is required to hove the purkiyy , un� if the applicant does not provide for toat purvinJ the upplicunt will huve to reoppeur before the Bourd . Greenwcod stuteC there is room cr the site fcr tMe parking, and the logical place is located by u dotted Kne on tne pluns . It would nnt uffec� the open space. It is close to the propertg line . Luvugnzno usked it there ere open Fpuce requirements on t�c 3 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS 820MM_MRIti00________Bg��d_gf_Adi��t��t________M��h_1�_1�84 property . Greenwoo? sail there are no open spate requirement,:.- developed under u PUD . Thera is open space . Luvugnino explained if some portion of the propertg is used for purning it ooe ` not qualify as open space. Greenwood noted that previously this project hoc gone through u PUP umendmen�, open space wa�.: not u stipulation. Whitaker noted that the open space requirement is in the commercial zone only . Greenwood said the applicant con set his own open space under the PUD. Whitaker said the open space requirement ones not uppiy to e residenviul comple`� in the R-6 zone. Luvugnino questioned if trees will be replaced and are Ke trees greater than 6" in 1zuneter. Greenwood suzc were are somp small conifers . She repo'ted that the owner wished the parking lot to be screened an much as possihle from the pool ant the condominiums. Luvugnino expressed his concern was loss oy trees. Puter,on sail the trees were plunteu there in the first place to screen the pool ureu from the parking lot . Greenwood reassured the Board there are ver , few trees. Greenwood said this is the proposed locution M the employee unit . The unit would be no closer to the pool , no closer to the parking lot. This is u Footprint, unn the footprint might change , but the location will remain the same . The unit wil �' be connected to the utility building . There is u possibilit� that the utility MilMng will come uoun, und the square footuye would decrease . Luvugnino asked if the applicant is coming under th& juriscictzon of PM u7a other Icarus to determine the exact locatior of the unit and under what criteria are they reviewing this. Greenxood said yes to the former . She is no ;-, SUM whut tne sther boards OCT require. If it is upprove� today, there will be u Final design for P&Z on April 3. A foutyrio�. will be provided for the PUD amendment process. '-uvugnzno walled to know whut the impact would to in 011owzcg the extru unit, und locution ouy have in impact. Greenwood assured the Bourc of the Vocation . Luvugnimo commented thot in mung creos the Board does not liKe to give variances until the 3ourd h�s seen u deszsn . He did not know z" it was pertinent in thi-, cose . Greenwood presented scme basic information . The u�it yinl be one ctory . The urchztecturul materials will match the 21urcodon " The unit will be visually u low profile structure. � RECORD_OF_PROCEEDI�GS Whitaker reiterated this is not u variance Par setbucK or height. This is u variance to increase the 75% uliocutzon to 100% to allow for one more unit. Since it dues not require u setb./ck for any other purpose , the prime consideration is the request for increase of the 751 tc 100%. Luvugnino usken on what criteriu lows the Bour, muKe e decision. Whztuker believed the ullocunor' is u hurdsmip, in that the .75 qualifies as u unit unler the scoring competition but does nct allow u unit to be bui10. Luvugnino noted caution in acing that argument . Mugbe there are conditions offered in the plan which are wrc�g for the Bc'zrf! to grunt that vuriunce. Parhups tie Board should review the benefits derived f/ ou this extra unit , which might be emplogee housing, an u reason for grunting the variance. He suggested not using the argument that the applicant has three-quarters of a unit , that development potential should not lie Pullow, und therefore the Pourd should grunt the applicant the extru .25 to create the one unit. Whitaker noted several points in the applicants favor. First, the applicant has reduced the permissuble lot coverage by 2O ,O�O square feet. Second , the tact that there will be u resident.- caretaker wzth the cr'e employee houszr'g is to the applicant ' s udvuntuge . Greenwood assured the Board that the applicant would not come forth and ask for another luxury ccndominium. T4ey would not uttempt to increase the density op the lot . The request Ms to allow this condominium association on this lot to have or. employee unit. At the time this project was developed there was no need for an employee unit. Luvugnzno suggested u condition of u deed restricted modification be uttuched to the motion grunting the vuriunce wh�ch will veep the unit within tne proper frumework. Greenwood said the Clarendon was built eight yeups ugo . Munn commented that the density in thut purt of town impresse''.1 her. It was not bud, things were nicely done and there was pleotj of open space , but there are certainly u lot of condominiums . Paterson compared the Clurenlcn to the white b /ilding ucross the street, he noted that this project is very mum u low proflie builOng. Luvugnino expluir.ed the low profile is due to the 5 RECORD_OF_PRGCEEDINGS RPgMMMA100________Bg��d_gf_Adj��t��t________M��h_1�_1984 little streetuge. Paterson said the building enjoys low usuge. It is very quiet there. Even the purkzcg spaces are not in full use. Whitaker suggested considering the Housing Authority ' s recommen- dations. And oe recommenued the applicant work with the ciqy attorney und draw up u document, approved by both attorneys, which states the conditions under which tnis vuriunce is yrur.ted. He suggested e condition that the unit be deed restricted to employee housing. The Housing Authority useu low or moderate guidelines. Greenwood said that would be ugreeable. Heu6 read into the record the letter from the Housing Authoritw , duted February 17, 1984, addressed to the Board of Adjustment, in regards to Clurendcn Condominiums request for u variance on the underlying bulk requirements, and signed by jumes L. Adomski , Dzrector : "The Clarendon Homeowners Association is requesting u vuriunce on the u:derlyis§ bulk requirement which presently Mows Pop 15. 75 to 16 units. The . 25 increase would allow Mr 700 sq . ft. Need restricted employee unit which would hous� the caretaker employed by the Homeowners Association., This request was presented to the vousimg Authority Boor� on Februury 16, 19G4, at its regular board meeting . After- discussion with Gretchen T . Greenwocd , representative fnr the association, the Housing Authority unanimously und strongly support the .25 density zncreuse requested hy the Clurendon Condominium Homeowners Association. This request is totally consistent with the mandate of the Housing Authority as directed to them bg the City of Aspen, uod Pitkin County , that is to provide affordable housing for those persons employed in Aspen and PitKin County. In summary , it is the Kousing Authority 's recommendation that the Clarendon Homeowners Association request for u vu'ionce in the underlying rulk requirement which presentl'.ji allows 15.75 units to allow an inc-ease of .25 to 16. 0 allowable unit densitg ' an as to provide employee housin§ . It is also the recommendution oF the Housing Authority thut the proposed smp�vgss unit he deed restricted unde� 6 RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS �� ________Bgard_gf_AdJustMg�t________M��h_1�_1984 the Housimg Authority low or moderate guidelines , '' Luvugnino closed the public hearing . He entertained u motion that would use language which would allow the city attorney to formulate u resolution, which would include deed restrictions for low unc moderate housiog, and which would use the Kousinj' Authority' s guidelines. 4e directed the secretary to infora the citg uttorneg to draw up u resolution . Francis Whitaker moved that the variance of . 25 units be grunted to the Clurentor. Condcminzum Associutioq. 7he reasons are thu � Me applicant has agreed to provide low and moderate emplo�ee housing, deed restricted . That the allocution of . 75 uni&� constitutes u hardship because it ulIows the applicant another- unit in point scoring but does not ul] ow the applicant tc buil� unother unit on the luod . The development is wuU under the allowable density . Me request will not adversely affect the general plan . Seconded Ig Rick Head . Whituker included thut this be in the form of u resolution upproved ty the city uttcrney and the attorney for the udplicunt. Luvugnino asked who should formulate the resolution . Wnituker said both attorneys shou�f.!. work together. Greenwood said it was agreeable for the city attorney to draw up the re0olution . Luvuynino suit someone is going to have to initiate drawing up the resolution. Wnituker suid thut should Ve by mutual agreement of toth uttorneys . Luvugnino hesit ed using the argument tMat txe .75 unit in itself constitutes u hurdshxp . He preferred to strike thut from tne motion. If the Boura receives cases where percentayes of allotment are allowed that to not meet one unit, tnzs could be used as u possible precedent . Paterson noted Luvugni:.� had u good point , but this is applied to employee housing . Luvugnino asked if everg time someone approaches the Board uith emplogee housing und they have .75 units, will the Board grunt the . 25. GaneruI consensus was no . Luvug:ino said therefore why put that language in the motzon . Munn suggested language about the need. Because there is low occupancy in that ureu there is u peed for u security und u moznteounce person . Whitaker added to the motion that there is need for u permanent employee to p'ovide nuintenunce security. Luvugnzno said that statement is specific to this � ' RECORD_8F_PROCEEDI�GS case, while the otner statement is too gene ,ul . Whitaker movet to delete the language "that the allocution o<` .75 units constztutes u hardship because it ullews the applicant another unit in point scoring but does not allow the epplicmn`. to build another unit on the luod; " secor.led by Charles Paterso',. All in favor , motion curried. Luvugnino noted the Board is making u notion only to approve this variance. The formulation of the resolution will como from the city attorney. Then the Bourn will approve the resolution. Luvugnino reopened tbe public hearing . Greenwood requestet language be used to indicate that there will be sixteen allowable units on the propertg with development of one unit . Luvegnlnu said all the applicant needs is . 25, which gives the upplicun^ u full unit ; that is the variance the applicant is requestzng , G'eenwood wanted the city records to show that the density wus developed to 16. 0. Whitaker added the language "which would increase the allowable total units to sixteen" to tha motio'. after " . . . vuriunce of .25 units. " Luvugnino questzone, wi,ut is in the language to restrict the unit to 700 square feet. Ke suggested using the lunguuge "no more thon. " Greenwood CUM. that the one bedroom employee housing guideline is 700-806, un& the applicant in using the Kous^ng Authority ' s guzdellneq . Head noted More are specific square footuge requirements . Whitaker Mded to the motion "un emplcgee housing unit ucder the Housing Authority 's guidelines. " Pate-son included ^ the Bourd is giving the uoplicunt thy . 25 vurionce to uccom�� i'�h this . " Luvugnino closed the public heuring. Whitaker reiterated the notion . The Bourc moves to grunt ^ vuriuoce for . 25 units , which would increase the allowable number of units to sixteen, to the Murendon Condominium Associutioo ., The Board grunts the .25 variance to uccomplisk the building of u unit which will be u Aped restricten, low to moderate employee housing unit under the guidelines of the "itki: Countq Housin., Authority. Me proctzcu! difficulty is the applicant neen', u permanent emplcyee to provide maintenance and security . The development is wag under the ullowuble densitg. 7me requeqt RECORD_OF_PROCEEDINGS ...t________M��h_1�_ 1984 will not uwersely affect the general plu,. . Tr.e request to be formulated into u rasolution written by the city uttorne� ann the attorney for the upplzcunt, and approved 1y ihe Boar;-,, of Adjustment. Seconded by Kick peud. All in fuvor; motion curried . Greenwood asked if she should contact the city attorney ubout the resolution . luvuynzco suggested the applicant' s legal repre - seotutive cull the citg GUorney to discuss wito him the procedure to accomplish the resolution. Churles Paterson moved to table the approval of the minutes of February 9 , l9w , to the next regular sesrion ; seconted by Francis Whitaker. All in Favor; motion curried . Luvugnico mentioned he had tulwd to Paul Tuddune , city uttorney , this morning about the illegal status c? Rick Heul' s land to s*e if the uttorneg could present soae criteria for grunt 'n� or denying u variance on an illegal lot. He reported that Tuddune wM einhe~ be more at the next meeting or sand u memu . Luvugninc reported that Tudduoe doss not want to grunt Heud u legal lnt . Lovugnzno suggested granting Head u variance in perpetuity . Tuddune did not respond well to that and felt tna Board should maintain ccntrol . Luvugnino seid that there will be some informutz� ' presented next week to help formuAute u busis for u decision. Luvugnzno said if the Board hus control he is more umenulle to granting the vurlunce on toe second story . But Luvugnjno wunts to know if the Morn con be that urbztrury ; tne Gttorne� indicated yes . Now there are no precedents, and ;aud zs under the Board ' s ccntrol . Tuddunp suid he would have to to some research on this issue. Fruncis Whitaker moved to adjourn the meeting at 4 :45 p . m. ; seconded Q Churles Paterson . All in favor; notio: currieu. ----------........--_-_~�'............. - Burburu Norris, Deputy City Clerk v