HomeMy WebLinkAboutLanduse Case.CO.625 S West End St.A16-91Clarendon Condominium PUD Amend.
Application
2737-182-30-010,etc. A16-91
CI
,,*a' 1
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
City
00113
-63250-134
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136
GMP/FINAL
-63280-137
SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139
SUB/FINAL
-63310-140
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00115
-63340-163
ENGINEERING
_
lJ
SUBTOTAL
County
00113
-63160-126
GMP/GENERAL
-63170-127
GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128
GMP/FINAL
-63190-129
SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130
SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131
SUB/FINAL
-63220-132
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133
ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125
-63340-205
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123
-63340-190
HOUSING
00113
-63360-143
ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113
-63080-122
CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123
COMP. PLAN
-63140-124
COPY FEES
-69000-145
OTHER
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Name: �42
r'X.'r'
Phone:
Address:
.1_�-
. : Project:
-
2S
0'A
Check #
�.6 It-17 n CIt)i
n
Date:
Additional billing:
_
#of Hours:___.
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3 21 91 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: c�7 3')-/k�-3U-Ulo , A16-91
STAFF MEMBER: LL
PROJECT NAME: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment Application
Project Address: West End Street, Aspen, Colorado
Legal Address: Lot 1, Clarendon Subdivision, Aspen CO
APPLICANT: Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc c/o Aspen
Club Realty
Applicant Address:_730 E. Durant, Aspen, Colorado
REPRESENTATIVE: Spencer F. Schiffer
Representative Address/Phone: 201 N. Mill Street, Suite 106
Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-5*21-� `-
PAID: YES x NO AMOUNT: $1690.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED 3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:_
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING:(ii�
NO
CC Meeting Date
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Mtn Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
State HwyDept(GW)
State HwyDept(GJ)
Other
Aspen Con.S.D. E ergy Center
DATE REFERRED: c - INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: �v17- cu INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. He,.ith
Housing Other:
r
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
COTTLE
GRAYBEAL
YAW
ARCHITECTS
LID
June 16, 1992
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Clarendon Condominiums
Dear Leslie,
11 IN ! 6
As discussed during our meeting at the site last Tuesday, I've enclosed a
revised parking layout which includes (8) compact stalls (each 7'-6" wide). This
reduces the need to extend pavement into currently landscaped areas. By
doing so, it allows us to save (2) very large existing spruce trees which flank
the entrance.
Please review this layout. If it satisfies your concerns, please notify me in
writing. I will then issue it to the Contractor for construction. If it is not
satisfactory, please let me know so that I can revise it further.
Thanks for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
90-� 4 C//k //,-(,
Bob Schiller
BS:sms
Enclosure
cc: Skip Behrhorst
JOHN COTTLE, AIA
DOUG GRAYBEAL, AIA
LARRY YAW, AIA
MARK HENTHORN, AIA
510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
PHONE 303/925-2867
FAX 303/925-3736
0
►7
1W
Aspen/Pitkj*
130 SAM
(303) 92
June 18, 1992
Mr. Bob Schiller
Cottle, Graybeal, Yaw Architects
510 East Hyman, Suite 21
Aspen, Colorado 81611
ing Office
Ctreet
k611
M-5197
RE: Clarendon Condominiums Revised Parking Plan
Dear Bob,
I have reviewed your revised parking plan that was received in this
office June 16, 1992 proposing 8 compact parking spaces with a
stall width of 7.6 ft.
I discussed the revisions with the Engineering Department and
according to their resources the recommended minimum width for a
compact stall is 8.5 ft to 8 ft. However, because providing 30
standard width stalls would require the removal of 4 large spruce
trees and the Clarendon is a private lot without high turnover, it
is our opinion that your proposed 7.6 ft. compact stall width can
be accommodated.
Although, there may be an inherent risk for cars parked in the
compact spaces when the lot is full, this parking plan was
originally submitted for staff review by the Clarendon Homeowners
Association. The 30 spaces and the apparent ability to accommodate
those spaces was approved as part of the amendment to the Clarendon
PUD in order to mitigate the expansion of the dwelling units. The
City takes no responsibility for occasional "dings" or other damage
that could occur to cars in the compact spaces due to the 7.6 ft.
width.
I will insert the new and approved parking plan in the Clarendon
PUD Amendment file. Please consider this letter staff's approval
of the parking plan as revised June 16, 1992.
Sincerely,
Leslie Lamont, Planning
rec yc%d paper
LETTER FOR THE FILE: JANUARY 25, 1992
The purpose of this letter is to clarify the Amended and Restat
PUD Agreement for The Clarendon Condominiums.
Page 2, 1 (e) states that "a total of not more than 32,897 square
feet of expanded square footage for the entire parcel;" and
Page 3, number 8 states that "It is specifically understood and
agreed by and between the City and the Association that the total
allowable floor area for the entire parcel is 38, 270 square feet."
The difference in the two numbers is the total square footage of
a parcel may be greater than the total floor area due to the
procedure used for calculating floor area. Thus, floor area is
less than total square footage.
The Clarendon Amendment of 1991 granted additional square footage
for expansion potential for the 15 free market units. Not all of
the additional square footage is considered floor area. Therefore
when the final calculations were derived at based upon the
underlying zone district, PUD overlay, allowable floor area is less
than total square footage.
Additionally the final numbers do consider the office and employee
unit that exists on site but was not a part of this 1991 PUD
amendment.
0 ##340594 01 / 1.6/9^ 11.07 F, $25. 00 Bt 666 PG 879
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.U(_)
AMENDED AND RESTATED
P.U.D. AGREEMENT
FOR
THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT for The Clarendon
Condominiums is made and entered into as of the 157' day of
September, 1991, by and between The Clarendon Condominium
Association, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation (the
"Association") and the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal
corporation (the "City").
W I T N E S S E T H
WHEREAS, the Association is the attorney -in -fact and managing
agent for The Clarendon Condominiums pursuant to Articles IV and V
of the Condominium Declaration for The Clarendon Condominiums
recorded in Book 319 at Page 415, et sea. of the records of the
Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder; and
WHEREAS, the Association has processed and received approval
from the City for amendments to the P.U.D. for The Clarendon
Condominiums as specifically set forth and contained in
Ordinance No. 28 (Series of 1991) (Fourth Amendment to the
Clarendon P.U.D.) and the Insubstantial Amendment thereto approved
by the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department as of September 11,1991
(Fifth Amendment to the Clarendon P.U.D.)(both amendments are
collectively hereinafter referred to as the "Approval"); and
WHEREAS, as a condition of the Approval, the Association, on
behalf of The Clarendon Condominiums, has agreed to enter into this
Agreement to memorialize and formalize the assurances given to the
City in connection with the Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the mutual
covenants herein contained, and the approval, execution and
acceptance of the Amended Final P.U.D. Plat of The Clarendon
Condominiums by the City for recording, the parties hereby agree as
follows:
1. The Amendment to the Final P.U.D. Plan is limited
to:
a. One additional bedroom to each two -bedroom unit
at 245 square feet each;
b. A master bedroom expansion to each unit at
170 square feet each;
sfs\clarende.agt
#340594 01 / 16/92 1 1 : 070 $25. 0 ) BK 666 PG 880
Silvia Davis, PiU:An Cnty Clerk:, Doc $.00
C. A livingroom expansion to each unit at
170 square feet each;
d. Bay window projections to each unit at
25 square feet each;
e. A total of not more than 32,897 square feet of
expanded square footage for the entire parcel;
f. The addition of one on -site parking space.
2. The number of bedrooms approved is forty-five (45)
and that number shall not be increased without the prior
written approval of the City.
3. The Association shall provide and maintain:
a. One more on -site parking space for a total of
thirty (30) spaces;
b. An on -call shuttle service for owners and
guests as an auto -disincentive, providing transportation
from The Clarendon Condominiums to and from anywhere
within the City limits and the Aspen Airport at Sardy
Field;
C. A parking pass system for non -rental unit
owners allowing a maximum of one car per unit and one
extra pass per unit for use by guests on a short-term
basis only.
4. The Association shall demonstrate to the Engineering
Department that any increased run-off attributable to the new
construction and development in accordance with the Amended
Final P.U.D. is adequately maintained on site by providing to
the City calculations from an engineer registered in the State
of Colorado with comments on the functional aspects of the
facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for
continual, proper performance.
5. In the event of any development within public
rights -of -way the Association shall first consult with City
Engineering for design considerations and shall obtain
permits, including any necessary encroachment licences, for
any work or development within public rights -of -way from the
City Engineer.
6. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 24-7-906
of the Municipal Code and Section 2 of Ordinance No. 28,
Series of 1991, the parties agree that the Association shall
not be required to record a final PUD plat or final
development plan within one hundred -eighty days of approval by
sfs\clarende.agt 2
#34(--)594 01 / 16/9:2 1 1 : 0 '?5. 00 Bk:: 666 PC 981
Silvia Davis, Pitl::in Cn Clerk:, Doc $.cj(')
the City, but in lieu thereof the Association shall have a
continuing obligation to record an amended condominium map to
reflect any and all improvements made pursuant to the Approval
prior to the issuance of a final letter of completion by the
Aspen/Pitkin Building Department for any such improvements.
7. The Association specifically acknowledges its
understanding that the Approval is conditioned upon the
representations that the number of bedrooms will not exceed
forty-five (45) and that the shuttle service and parking pass
system hereinabove referred to will be maintained. In the
event that the City determines that the Association or any
unit owner has failed to adhere to such representations, the
City shall serve written notice of noncompliance upon the
Association with a demand that compliance be made within
thirty (30) days of the receipt of such notice. In the event
of failure to fully comply within said thirty -day period, in
addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or
remedies which the City may have, the City shall have the
right to compel compliance by filing a suit for a mandatory
injunction with the Pitkin County District Court.
8. It is specifically understood and agreed by and
between the City and the Association that the total allowable
floor area for the entire parcel is 38,270 square feet.
9. The Covenants and Agreements of the Association
herein shall be deemed covenants that run with the land, shall
burden the land included within the Amended Final P.U.D. Plat,
and shall bind and be specifically enforceable against all
present and subsequent owners thereof, including the
Association, its successors in interest and assigns.
10. Upon execution of this Agreement by all parties
hereto the City agrees that it will approve and execute any
amended condominium maps for The Clarendon Condominiums which
depict improvements made pursuant to the Approval and accept
the same for recording in the real property records of Pitkin
County, Colorado, upon payment of recording fees and costs by
the Association.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed on the year and
date first hereinabove set forth.
THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
By:
President
sfs\clarende.agt 3
.#34U,594 01 / 1.6/92 1. 1.: i 7 $225'1. 00 Bf:'. 666 PG 882
Silvia. Davis, Pitin C k:Clerk, Doc $.(-)()
STATE OF C96ry-a-ec )
) ss.
COUNTY OF �Z� )
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE
RE ON CONDOMINIUMS was acknowledged before me this ay of
, 1991 by �r 1 La t`tPrM A ,
P esidenYof the Clarendon Condominium Association.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary expires: 2 - !i - u_
ary Public
ATT
Se ret ry ' i+i )'
`Vol
STATE OF
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE
RENDON CONDOMINIUMS was acknowledged before me this Z�day of
1991 by i C,/,l� Y �'
S cretary of the Clarendon Condominium Association.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary expires:
L � ''� !
......=
ATTEST:
City Cle k
N ry Public t c
THE CITY OF ASPEN
By: 0'�' �; ,
Mayo
sfs\clarende.agt 4
#340594 01 / 1 b/92 1 1 : 07 25. o O BK 666 PG 883
Silvia Davis, Pitk:in Cn lerk:, Doc $.00
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE
CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS was acknowledged before me this /(-,tl)day of
January, 1992 by John Bennett, Mayor of the City of Aspen.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary expires: 2 /271
Notary
l
sfs\clarende.agt 5
lic
•
•
81roA1
p,SP
•
El
CITY
DATE: December 2, 1991
TO: Mayor and City Council
;,
EN
rkc -
FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney
C:
RE: 180-day PUD Plat Recordation Deadline Extension for
Clarendon Condominiums.
This matter is on your consent agenda for an extension of the
180-day recordation deadline for the Clarendon Condominium PUD
plat.
On June 22, 1991, City Council granted a PUD amendment to the
Clarendon Condominiums allowing for an expansion of the existing
units. Pursuant to Section 24-7-906 of the Municipal Code, the
PUD new agreement and plat for the condominiums are to be
recorded within 180-days (on or before January 16, 1992) from the
date of the final approval. While the condominium association is
prepared to record the PUD agreement, it wishes to delay the
filing of the new PUD plat until after the actual construction of
the approved expansion. This proposal makes sense in that the
remodeling and expansions of the various existing units may
proceed at different times and a final condominium/PUD plat will
not be able to be prepared until after the completion of all of
the work. In that there is no established deadline in the
Municipal Code for the filing of a final condominium plat, it
would not be inconsistent to allow a delay in the recordation of
the condominium/PUD plat until the proposed development work is
done. Therefore, it is suggested that Council approve an
extension in the recordation deadline for the plat until issuance
of a certificate of occupancy or letter of completion for the
improvements by the Building Department. A proposed resolution
to that effect is attached hereto.
REQUESTED ACTION: Approve the proposed resolution extending the
180-day recordation deadline for the Clarendon Condominium PUD
plat to a date no later than ten (10) days following the issuance
by the Building Department of a certificate of occupancy or
letter of completion for the improvements/expansions.
jc122.3
cc: Planning Director
Leslie Lamont
Spencer F. Schiffer,
Clarendon Condomimium Association
recycledpaper
Fill
W-44
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Director 1
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Clarendon PUD Amendment - Second Reading Ordinance 28,
Series 1991
DATE: July 22, 1991
SUMMARY: Staff recommends second reading of Ordinance 28, Series
1991. The Clarendon Homeowners Association seeks to amend the PUD
development to add bedrooms, bay windows, and expand living rooms
and general living space. Staff has determined that the proposed
expansions are a substantial amendment to the final PUD development
plan requiring a two step review process by the Commission and
Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the PUD with conditions.
At first reading of Ordinance 28, Council questioned whether this
was an expansion of a non -conforming use which is not allowed by
the land use code. Staff has researched this issue for Council
and it is discussed in the Problem Discussion section of this memo.
COUNCIL GOALS: This application is consistent with Council's goal
#14.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1989 the Commission and Council denied
an amendment application submitted by three homeowners to renovate
their units. The Council -instructed the homeowner's association
to submit a PUD amendment application depicting full build -out
potential.
APPLICANT: Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc. represented by
Spencer Schiffer.
LOCATION: West End Street, Aspen, Lot 1 Clarendon Subdivision
ZONING: R-6, PUD
BACKGROUND - The Clarendon Condominiums are a 15 unit complex with
10 three -bedroom units and 5 two -bedroom units. A detached one -
bedroom employee unit also exists on -site. There are currently 29
off-street parking spaces.
The Clarendon final PUD development plan and subdivision was
approved by Council September, 1975. The original approval was
for 9 two -bedroom and 6 three -bedroom units. Since then, there
have been three amendments to the PUD plan which have generally
increased the floor area of several units and have changed four
units from two to three -bedroom units. In addition, an on -site
detached deed restricted employee unit has been built.
In December 1989, the Homeowner's Association requested an
amendment to the PUD for a one -bedroom expansion for two units.
At that time staff recommended denial of the amendment due to the
piece -meal nature of review for the PUD plan. Staff supports a
more comprehensive review of PUD plans and requires review of all
potential changes at once. The Council and Commission also denied
the proposed amendment.
PROPOSAL - The Association seeks to add 1 bedroom to each of the
5 two -bedroom units, and expand the master bedrooms, add bay
windows and solariums to all 15 units. The total living area being
added is 6,715 square feet of floor area. Please see attached
plans.
One additional parking space is proposed for the parking lot. The
total will be 30 spaces, two spaces per unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted
comments.
Engineering - Having reviewed the above application and making a
site visit the Department has the following comments:
1. It appears the proposed new development will increase storm
runoff. It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go onto
any public rights -of -way. Per Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f of the
municipal code, all but historical drainage must be maintained on
site. The applicant must demonstrate to the Engineering Department
that the increased runoff is adequately maintained on site by
providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado. We also need the engineer to comment on the functional
aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be
cleaned for continual, proper performance.
2. The applicant is proposing the addition of one parking space
and a waiver for any additional parking requirements. Conditions
described in Section 7.903.5 of the municipal code allows reduction
in off-street parking requirements, which the applicant has
addressed. Also in Section 7.903.5 is the requirement that
whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the
city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will
not change. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant
7
provide assurance that the occupancy will not change and that the
shuttle service provided by the management be maintained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way, we would like the
following condition of approval:
The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and
shall obtain permits for any work or development within public
rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
4. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant provide a plat
to depict the final PUD amendment.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Expansion or Alteration to a Non -Conforming use:
The 15 unit Clarendon development was approved in January of 1976.
Ordinance 13, Series of 1974, had rezoned the property to R-6
Mandatory PUD. The PUD language in the Land Use Code at the time
of approval (Section 24-10) enabled a development to "consist of
individual lots and/or it may have common recreation and open space
surrounding clustered buildings. Common land must be an essential
and major element of the plan which is related to and effects the
long term value of the development." It is staff s interpretation
that the Clarendon is a clustered development surrounded by open
space that is an essential element of the plan.
The Zoning Code which was in effect at the time the Clarendon was
initially approved (Section 24-10) stipulated that "upon approval
by the Planning Commission of the final development plan the
applicant and the City Council shall enter into an agreement which:
(a) Binds the real property to those conditions listed by the
final development plan, and
(b) Rezones subject property as stated in the final
development plan.
The property was rezoned in accordance with the final development
plan to the use and density that presently exits today.
The language regarding the rezoning does not exist in the PUD
section of the current Land Use Code (Division 9). The current
language states that "the maximum density shall be no greater than
that permitted in the underlying zone district." A proposed PUD
development plan today would be unable to develop without a
rezoning to the desired density of the development plan.
It should be noted, that, although clustered, the density of the
Clarendon is consist with the underlying zone district (see Table
1, #4).
Another item to consider is that Section 7-906 of the current Land
Use Code sets forth the development regulations of the PUD via the
final development plan:
The final development plan .... and planned unit development
(PUD) agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder ... and shall constitute the
development regulations for the property. Development of the
property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration,
and all other elements and conditions set forth on the final
development plan and PUD agreement.
Since the final development plan constitutes both the development
regulations and a rezoning for the property, the Clarendon
development is a permitted use in the zone district.
It is staff's interpretation that the original approval of the
Clarendon constituted a conforming use in the R-6 (PUD) Zone
District because the PUD language enabled the clustering of the
residential units. Additionally, the recordation of the final
development plan for the PUD constituted not only a rezoning but
also the development regulations for that property.
Therefore, the Clarendon is a conforming use within the zone
district and not subject to Section 9-102, Nonconforming uses.
The Clarendon seeks to amend the PUD development plan through the
PUD amendment review process. It should be noted that they are
requesting additional floor area which complies with the allowable
floor area within the R-6 zone district. This amendment request
meets the dimensional requirements of the zone district pursuant
to the existing Land Use Code.
B. Zoning Analysis - When the Clarendon received approval in
September 1975 and final plat in 1976, floor area requirements did
not exist for the R-6 zone. The development was approved pursuant
to Subdivision and PUD review standards.
In an attempt to define the allowable floor area for the parcel,
given existing and proposed development, staff provides an analysis
of the lot area and floor area requirements for the single family
and duplex dwelling units within the R-6 Zone District and of the
lot area and floor area requirements within the R/MF Zone District
(Refer to Table 1).
In summary, the analysis shows that for the R-6 zone district, the
available lot area is exceeded with the 15 single family dwelling
units. However, the total floor area in both the existing Clarendon
project and proposed Clarendon amendments is less than the total
4
floor area permitted in the R-6 zone district. Additionally, the
lot area and the allowable floor area for duplex units in the R-
6 zone does support both the existing number of dwelling units
(15.6 dwelling units) and the proposed Clarendon amendments.
In the R/MF zone district, the lot area and total floor area
requirements would not be exceeded by either the existing Clarendon
project or the proposed Clarendon amendments.
Staff wanted to present this analysis to the Council for review as
floor area requirements did not exist in the R-6 zone in 1975.
The analyses are an attempt to put into context the existing
building and potential build -out given current zoning guidelines
and surrounding zoning which is a mixture of R/MF, R-6 and R-15.
Staff believes that the proposed Clarendon amendments meet the
underlying zone district dimensional requirements.
C. Development Review - Pursuant to Section 7-907 B. , any amendment
shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final
development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent
with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan.
During review the Commission and City Council may require such
conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community conditions.
This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions
of the development which have not obtained building permits or are
proposed to be amended by any new community polices or regulations
which have been implemented since the original approval, or taking
into consideration changing community circumstances as they affect
the project's original representation and commitments.
The following discussion responds to the specific elements of
review for this amendment.
1. Floor Area/Lot Area - When the applicants attempted to
amend the PUD in 1989, the primary question from the
Commission and Council was what are the floor area and lot
area requirements for this parcel. In addition, some concern
was expressed about the changing character of a development
that was carefully scrutinized during the original review.
According to staff's analysis, there is adequate floor area
and lot area available if the duplex scenario is used in the
R-6 district or if the applicant rezones the parcel to R/MF.
The total floor area in both the existing development and
proposed Clarendon amendments is less than the total floor
area permitted in the R-6 district. The additional square
footage would not exacerbate floor area or lot area concerns
for this parcel. In fact, the proposal is under maximum
allowable floor area for the zone district.
k,
The Commission's concern was that the carefully designed
building may be detrimentally impacted by the proposed
changes. The application provides that "the architectural
character resulting from renovation is designed to compliment
and enhance the existing architecture. A strong
characterizing aspect of the existing south facing facade is
the way the roof forms seem to extend to meet the ground. The
proposed living room addition will compliment this by
extending more of the lower roof form toward the ground. The
master bedroom expansion, with its additive gable roof form,
helps to break up the facade scale by individualizing it and
additionally creates an architectural character more
compatible with the "mountain image" of the surrounding area.
The "bay window" addition to the north facade has also been
designed to reduce the apparent scale of the existing building
by a composition of projections which architecturally scale
down the building facade." The applicant's architect will
present the proposal at the meeting.
The amendment is to add additional living space to existing
units and one parking space. The proposal will not increase
the building's footprint nor decrease open space.
2. Parking - Within the R-6 or R/MF zone, the parking
requirement is one space per bedroom. The Clarendon currently
has 40 bedrooms and 29 parking spaces with the potential for
one more space. The addition of five bedrooms would require
five spaces for a total of 45 parking spaces.
The applicant prefers not to encroach into the parcels open
space and/or landscaping to provide the required amount of
parking for the current and proposed bedroom additions. The
provision of one more space does provide two spaces per unit.
In addition, PUD review may vary the number of off-street
parking spaces based on the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the
proposed development;
RESPONSE: Thirty parking spaces provide two spaces per
unit. According to the application, "there is seldom,
if ever, more than 10-12 cars at the Clarendon occupying
the 29 physical spaces. Four of the fifteen units are
rented while the remaining eleven are used exclusively
by owners and their guests. Those owners are only
allowed one car per unit and are given one pass to be
used by guests on a short-term basis."
b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
RESPONSE: N/A
C1
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed.
RESPONSE: The use of a pass system by the owners helps
to reduce the amount of parked cars on site.
d. The availability of public transit and other
transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian
access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile
disincentive techniques in the proposed development.
RESPONSE: Not only is there a pass system in place but
the management provides a shuttle service.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the
commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City.
RESPONSE: The Clarendon is within close proximity to the
lifts and commercial core.
3. Development Schedule - The owners of units 1 and 11 would
like to add the third bedrooms as soon as possible. The
intent of a comprehensive review of the PUD plan is to enable
homeowners to make improvements at their convenience. This
comprehensive amendment will allow homeowners to pull a
building permit within the scope of the amendment without
further Planning review as long as the amended final PUD
development plan is in place.
4. Amended Plat - The applicant shall file an amended plat
and amended PUD agreement. The agreement and plat will be
recorded to depict the approved plans.
SUMMARY - Staff has interpreted the 1974 PUD regulations and the
1991 PUD regulations to mean that the existing Clarendon
development is a conforming use within the R-6 Mandatory PUD Zone
District.
Staff also supports the proposed expansion of the structure given
the current lot area and floor area requirements of the R-6 PUD
zone district provided that the expansion does not represent
additional units.
The City is currently encouraging auto disincentive programs for
new development within the City limits. Because of the close
proximity of the Clarendon to the commercial core and base area,
and the existence of a shuttle and pass program, staff recommends
approval of the reduction in required parking for a total of 30
spaces.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 6 YES 0 NO
FA
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the PUD with the following amended conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. All but historical drainage shall be maintained on site. The
applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Department that the
increased stormwater runoff is adequately maintained on site by
providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado. The engineer shall comment on the functional aspects of
the facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for
continual, proper performance.
b. The applicant shall provide assurance to the Planning and
Engineering Departments that the number of bedrooms will not change
and that the shuttle service (specifically defined in the PUD
agreement) provided by the manager and the parking pass system will
be maintained. Language to this effect shall be included in the
amended PUD agreement.
C. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and agreement to depict
the approved amendments to the final Development Plan.
d. The applicant shall provide one more on -site parking space for
a total of 30 spaces.
2. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall
obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -
of -way from City Streets Department.
3. All representations that the applicant has made regarding this
amendment shall be adhered to during any renovation. The amendment
to the final PUD plan is limited to:
a. one additional bedroom to each two -bedroom unit at 245 square
feet each;
b. a master bedroom expansion to each unit at 170 square feet
each;
C. a living room expansion to each unit at 170 square feet each,
d. bay window projections to each unit at 25 square feet each;
e. the above represents total 6,715 square feet of expanded square
footage for the entire building;
f. the addition of one on -site parking space; and
g. the total amount of bedrooms in the Clarendon shall not exceed
three bedrooms per unit.
0
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the amendments to the Clarendon
PUD and have second reading Ordinance 28, Series of 1991.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Ordinance 28
B.Site plans
cc.clarendon.pud
9
•
TABLE 1: ZONE DISTRICT ANALYSIS*
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
lot area = 70,872
number of dwelling units = 15
3-bedroom units = 10
2-bedroom units = 5
floor area =
24,358
floor area ratio =
.34
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
5 additional bedrooms =
1,225
living space expansions
= 2,550
living room expansions
= 2,550
bay windows
= 390
additional floor area**
= 6,715
total proposed floor area
= 31,073
proposed floor area ratio
= .43
3. R-6 SINGLE FAMILY ANALYSIS:
single family = 6,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 6,000 = 11.8
buildable lots
maximum floor area/single family = 3,240
3,240 X 11.8 lots = 38,270 total floor
area allowed on parcel
4. R-6 DUPLEX ANALYSIS:
duplex = 9,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 9,000 = 7.87 duplex lots or
15.6 dwellings
maximum floor area/duplex = 4,080
4,080 X 7.87 lots = 32,109 total floor
area allowed on parcel
10
•
•
TABLE 1: ZONE DISTRICT ANALYSIS
Page 2
S. R/MF ANALYSIS:
existing lot area
lot area required for proposal
- existing 10 three -bedroom units
- existing 5 two -bedroom units
- additional 5 bedrooms
Total
= 70,872
= 54,450
= 36,300
= 10,500
7,650
54,450
R/MF floor area ratio = 1:1
existing floor area ratio = .34
proposed floor area ratio = .43
total allowable number of units
R/MF zone district = 19.5 (3 bedroom)***
* all numbers are by square feet
** maximum proposed but true "floor area" may be less
*** 3 bedroom calculations were used because a 3 bedroom appears
to be the standard size
11
ATTACHMENT B CLARENDON.S TE PLAN/PROPOSED PARKING PLAN
IX
N W
r =
qA
\ - W
0
y
•
F DECK
w
I
I
(� MASTER BEDROOM I
I �
I
I
c;� I
I
BATH
621D 4RID
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Existing Two Bedroom
KEYPLAN - Pgrsed Building Improvements
1
I
x
0
E" DECK
z ,
i I
---- ` - ..
MASTER BEDROOM
I
LATH
a�iAT � I'
BEDROOM
IN
I
17 8„
y111V �a�ID
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Existing Three Bedroom
_;ING WkLj S __7
EXTENDED DECK
a
Q
rt
LIVING
1
DINING
rT
KIC'THEN
(!-BATH
rjl
I BEDROOM
I
- - 'ZL8 "—
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Proposed and Existing
I
DECK
w
,
as
w �\ \
04
i
i
I
i
I
I
EXPANDED
MASTER BEDROOM
I
(Q 2 B.R UNITS)
� I
I
I
�
\
I
l0i
T
w.,
NEW BEDROOM
N
n'-
UPPER LEVEE FLOOR PL.
- Proposed
SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" (TYPICAL)
�
D Y
r.
c
711
r 0 c
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manager
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning DirectoWl ram'
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Clarendon PUD Amendment - First Reading Ordinance
Series 1991
DATE: June 24, 1991
SUMMARY: Staff recommends first reading of Ordinance _, Series
1991. The Clarendon Homeowners Association seeks to amend the PUD
development to add bedrooms, bay windows, and expand living rooms
and general living space. Staff has determined that the proposed
expansions are a substantial amendment to the final PUD development
plan requiring a two step review process by the Commission and
Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the PUD with conditions.
COUNCIL GOALS: This application is consistent with Council's goal
#14.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 1989 the Commission and Council denied
an amendment application submitted by three homeowners to renovate
their units. The Council instructed the homeowner's association
to submit a PUD amendment application depicting full build -out
potential.
APPLICANT: Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc. represented by
Spencer Schiffer.
LOCATION: West End Street, Aspen, Lot 1 Clarendon Subdivision
ZONING: R-6, PUD
BACKGROUND - The Clarendon Condominiums are a 15 unit complex with
10 three -bedroom units and 5 two -bedroom units. A detached one -
bedroom employee unit also exists on -site. There are currently 29
off-street parking spaces.
The Clarendon final PUD development plan and subdivision was
approved by Council September, 1975. The original approval was
for 9 two -bedroom and 6 three -bedroom units. Since then there have
been three amendments to the PUD plan which have generally
increased the floor area of several units and have changed four
units from two to three -bedroom units. In addition, an on -site
•
deed restricted employee unit has been built.
In December 1989, the Homeowner's Association requested an
amendment to the PUD for a one -bedroom expansion for two units.
At that time staff recommended denial of the amendment due to the
piece meal nature of review for the PUD plan. Staff supports a
more comprehensive review of PUD plans and requires review of all
potential changes at once. The Council and Commission also denied
the proposed amendment.
PROPOSAL - The Association seeks to add five bedrooms to the 5
two -bedroom units, and expand the master bedrooms, add bay windows
and solariums to all 15 units. The total living area being added
is 6,715 square feet. This square footage is not all "floor area"
because some of the expanded space is not calculable "floor area."
However, the applicant did not provide a break down between "floor
area" and remodeled square footage. Please see attached plans.
One additional parking space is proposed for the parking lot. The
total will be 30 spaces, two spaces per unit.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have submitted
comments.
Engineering - Having reviewed the above application and making
a site visit the Department has the following comments:
1. It appears the proposed new development will increase storm
runoff. It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go onto
any public rights -of -way. Per Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f of the
municipal code, all but historical drainage must be maintained on
site. The applicant must demonstrate to the Engineering Department
that the increased runoff is adequately maintained on site by
providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State of
Colorado. We also need the engineer to comment on the functional
aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be
cleaned for continual, proper performance.
2. The applicant is proposing the addition of one parking space
and a waiver for any additional parking requirements. Conditions
described in Section 7.903.5 of the municipal code allows reduction
in off-street parking requirements, which the applicant has
addressed. Also in Section 7.903.5 is the requirement that
whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the
city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will
not change. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant
provide assurance that the occupancy will not change and that the
shuttle service provided by the manager be maintained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way, we would like the
2
following condition of approval:
The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and
shall obtain permits for any work or development within public
rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
4. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant provide a plat
to depict the final PUD amendment.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Zoning Analysis - When the Clarendon received approval in
September 1975 and final plat in 1976, floor area requirements did
not exist for the R-6 zone. The development was approved pursuant
to Subdivision and PUD review standards.
Using the current regulations of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code,
a multi -family development in the R-6 Zone District is a non-
conforming use. In an attempt to define the allowable floor area
for the parcel, given existing and proposed development, staff
provides an analysis of the lot area and floor area requirements
for single family and duplex dwelling units within the R-6 Zone
District. In addition, if the Clarendon were to seek a rezoning
to R/MF, bringing the use into conforming status consistent with
the surrounding neighborhood, staff has analyzed the proposal using
the lot area and floor area requirements of the R/MF Zone District.
TABLE 1: ZONE DISTRICT ANALYSIS*
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
lot area = 70,872
number of dwelling units = 15
3-bedroom units = 10
2-bedroom units = 5
floor area = 24,358
floor area ratio = .34
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
5 additional bedrooms = 1,225
living space expansions = 2,550
living room expansions = 2,550
bay windows = 390
additional floor area** = 6,715
total proposed floor area = 31,073
K
•
•
proposed floor area ratio = .43
3. R-6 SINGLE FAMILY ANALYSIS:
single family = 6,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 6,000 = 11.8 buildable lots
maximum floor area/single family = 3,240
3,240 X 11.8 lots = 38,270 total floor
area allowed on parcel
4. R-6 DUPLEX ANALYSIS:
duplex = 9,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 9,000 = 7.87 duplex lots or
15.6 dwellings
maximum floor area/duplex = 4,080
4,080 X 7.87 lots = 32,109 total floor
area allowed on parcel
S. R/MF ANALYSIS:
lot area for 10 three -bedroom units = 36,300
lot area for 5 two -bedroom units = 10,500
total lot area = 46,800
lot area for additional 5 bedrooms = 7,650
total lot area required for proposal = 54,450
R/MF floor area ratio = 1:1
existing floor area ratio = .34
proposed floor area ratio = .43
* all numbers are by square feet
** maximum proposed but true "floor area" may be less
In summary, our analysis shows that for the R-6 zone district the
available lot area cannot support 15 single family dwelling units.
However, the lot area and allowable floor area for duplex units in
the R-6 zone does support the existing number of dwelling units
(15.6 dwelling units) , current and proposed floor area on the site,
albeit the Clarendon is a multi -family structure not duplexes.
The R/MF zone district can support the number of dwelling units,
bedrooms, and current floor area. In addition the proposed bedroom
additions and other additional floor area can be supported under
R/MF zoning.
4
Although neither the R-6 or R/MF analyses are a perfect fit, staff
wanted to present these to the Commission for review. The original
approval was a PUD and floor area requirements did not exist for
the R-6 zone in 1975. The analyses are presented as an attempt to
put into context the current building and potential build -out given
current zoning guidelines and surrounding zoning which is a mixture
of R/MF, R-6 and R-15.
B. Development Review - Pursuant to Section 7-907 B., any amendment
shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final
development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent
with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan.
During review the Commission and City Council may require such
conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community conditions.
This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions
of the development which have not obtained building permits or are
proposed to be amended by any new community polices or regulations
which have been implemented since the original approval, or taking
into consideration changing community circumstances as they affect
the project's original representation and commitments.
The following discussion responds to the specific elements of
review for this amendment.
1. Floor Area/Lot Area - When the applicants attempted to amend
the PUD in 1989, the primary question from the Commission and
Council was what are the floor area and lot area requirements for
this parcel. In addition, some concern was expressed about the
changing character of a development that was carefully scrutinized
during the original review.
According to staff's analysis, there is adequate floor area and
lot area available if the duplex scenario is used or if the
applicant rezones the parcel to R/MF. It appears the additional
square footage would not exacerbate floor area or lot area concerns
for this parcel. In fact the proposal is well under maximum
allowable floor area and over the required lot area.
In response to the Commission's concern that the carefully designed
building may be detrimentally impacted by the proposed changes, the
application provides that "the architectural character resulting
from renovation is designed to compliment and enhance the existing
architecture. A strong characterizing aspect of the existing south
facing facade is the way the roof forms seem to extend to meet the
ground. The proposed living room addition will compliment this by
extending more of the lower roof form toward the ground. The
master bedroom expansion, with its additive gable roof form, helps
to break up the facade scale by individualizing it and additionally
creates an architectural character more compatible with the
"mountain image" of the surrounding area. The "bay window"
5
addition to the north facade has also been designed to reduce the
apparent scale of the existing building by a composition of
projections which architecturally scale down the building facade."
The applicant's architect will present the proposal at the meeting.
The amendment is to add additional living space to existing units
and one parking space. The proposal will not increase the
building's footprint nor decrease open space.
2. Parking - Within the R-6 or R/MF zone, the parking requirement
is one space per bedroom. The Clarendon currently has 40 bedrooms
and 29 parking spaces with the potential for one more space. The
addition of five bedrooms would require five spaces for a total of
45 parking spaces.
The applicant prefers not to encroach into the parcels open space
and/or landscaping to provide the required amount of parking for
the current and proposed bedroom additions. The provision of one
more space does provide two spaces per unit. In addition, PUD
review may vary the number of off-street parking spaces based on
the following considerations:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development;
RESPONSE: Thirty parking spaces provide two spaces per unit.
According to the application, "there is seldom, if ever, more
than 10-12 cars at the Clarendon occupying the 29 physical
spaces. Four of the fifteen units are rented while the
remaining eleven are used exclusively by owners and their
guests. Those owners are only allowed one car per unit and
are given one pass to be used by guests on a short-term
basis."
b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
RESPONSE: N/A
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
RESPONSE: The use of a pass system by the owners helps to
reduce the amount of parked cars on site.
d. The availability of public transit and other transportation
facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the
commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
RESPONSE: Not only is there a pass system in place but the
manager provides a shuttle service.
0
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
RESPONSE: The Clarendon is within close proximity to the
lifts and commercial core.
3. Development Schedule - The owners of units 1 and 11 would like
to add the third bedrooms as soon as possible. The intent of a
comprehensive review of the PUD plan is to enable homeowners to
make improvements at their convenience. This comprehensive
amendment will allow homeowners to pull a building permit within
the scope of the amendment without further Planning review as long
as the amended final PUD development plan is in place.
4. Amended Plat - The applicant shall file an amended plat and
amended PUD agreement. The agreement and plat will be recorded to
depict the approved plans.
SUMMARY - Staff believes that the existing structure may be
expanded given the current lot area and floor area and recommends
approval of the amendment.
Although a rezoning to R/MF is not a condition of approval, the
applicant may seriously consider a zone change to bring the
building into a conforming status.
The City is currently encouraging auto disincentive programs for
new development within the City limits. Because of the close
proximity of the Clarendon to the commercial core and base area,
and the existence of a shuttle and pass program, staff recommends
approval of the reduction in required parking for a total of 30
spaces.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 6 YES 0 NO
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends approval of the
amendment to the PUD with the following amended conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. All but historical drainage shall be maintained on site. The
applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Department that the
increased runoff is adequately maintained on site by providing
calculations from an engineer registered in the State of Colorado.
The engineer shall comment on the functional aspects of the
facility in order to determine that it can be cleaned for
continual, proper performance.
b. The applicant shall provide assurance to the Planning and
Engineering Departments that the number of bedrooms will not change
and that the shuttle service (specifically defined in the PUD
agreement) provided by the manager and the parking pass system will
7
be maintained. Language to this effect shall be included in the
amended PUD agreement.
C. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and agreement to depict
the approved amendments to the final Development Plan.
d. The applicant shall provide one more on -site parking space for
a total of 30 spaces.
3. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and shall
obtain permits for any work or development within public rights -
of -way from City Streets Department.
4. All representations that the applicant has made regarding this
amendment shall be adhered to during any renovation. The amendment
to the final PUD plan is limited to:
a. one additional bedroom to each two -bedroom unit at 245 square
feet each;
b. a master bedroom expansion to each unit at 170 square feet
each;
C. a living room expansion to each unit at 170 square feet each;
d. bay window projections to each unit at 25 square feet each;
e. the above represents total 6,715 square feet of expanded square
footage for the entire building;
f. the addition of one on -site parking space; and
g. the total amount of bedrooms in the Clarendon shall not exceed
three bedrooms per unit.
5. Prior to filing an amended final PUD plat and PUD agreement,
the applicant shall work with the Zoning Officer to specifically
identify what square footage is calculable "floor area" and confirm
the existing floor area for the parcel.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to read Ordinance
I move to adopt on first reading Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Ordinance _
B.Site plans
cc.clarendon.pud
Series of 1991.
Series of 1991.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Clarendon PUD Amendment
DATE: June 4, 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Clarendon Homeowners Association seeks to amend the
PUD development to add bedrooms, bay windows, and expand living
rooms and general living space. Staff has determined that the
proposed expansions are a substantial amendment to the final PUD
development plan requiring a two step review process by the
Commission and Council.
Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendment.
APPLICANT: Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc. represented
by Spencer Schiffer.
LOCATION: West End Street, Aspen, Lot 1 Clarendon Subdivision
ZONING: R-6, PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend the final PUD development plan.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral agencies have
submitted comments.
Engineering - Having reviewed the above application and
making a site visit the Department has the following comments:
1. It appears the proposed new development will increase storm
runoff. It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go
onto any public rights -of -way. Per Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f of
the municipal code, all but historical drainage must be
maintained on site. The applicant must demonstrate to the
Engineering Department that the increased runoff is adequately
maintained on site by providing calculations from an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado. We also need the engineer
to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to
determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper
performance.
2. The applicant is proposing the addition of one parking space
and a waiver for any additional parking requirements. Conditions
described in Section 7.903.5 of the municipal code allows
reduction in off-street parking requirements, which the applicant
has addressed. Also in Section 7.903.5 is the requirement that
whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the
city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will
not change. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant
provide assurance that the occupancy will not change and that the
shuttle service provided by the manager be maintained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way, we would like the
following condition of approval:
The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way
and shall obtain permits for any work or development within
public rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
4. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant provide a
plat to depict the final PUD amendment.
STAFF COMMENTS
A. Background - The Clarendon Condominiums are a 15 unit
complex with 10 three -bedroom units and 5 two -bedroom units. A
detached one -bedroom employee unit also exists on -site. There
are currently 29 off-street parking spaces.
The Clarendon final PUD development plan and subdivision was
approved by Council September, 1975. The original approval was
for 9 two -bedroom and 6 three -bedroom units. Since then there
have been three amendments to the PUD plan which have generally
increased the floor area of several units and have changed four
units from two to three -bedroom units. In addition, an on -site
deed restricted employee unit has been built.
In December 1989, the Homeowners Association requested an
amendment to the PUD for a one -bedroom expansion for two units.
At that time staff recommended denial of the amendment due to the
piece meal nature of review for the PUD plan. Staff supports a
more comprehensive review of PUD plans and requires review of all
potential changes at once. The Commission and Council denied the
amendment instructing the applicant to submit a PUD amendment
application depicting full build -out potential.
B. Proposed Amendment - The Association seeks to add five
bedrooms to the 5 two -bedroom units, and expand the master
bedrooms, add bay windows and solariums to all 15 units. The
2
•
0
total living area being added is 6,715 square feet. This square
footage is not all "floor area" because some of the expanded
space is not calculable "floor area." However, the applicant did
not provide a break down between "floor area" and remodeled
square footage. Please see attached plans.
One additional parking space is proposed for the parking lot.
The total will be 30 spaces, two spaces per unit.
C. Zoning Analysis - When the Clarendon received approval in
September 1975 and final plat in 1976, floor area requirements
did not exist for the R-6 zone. The development was approved
pursuant to Subdivision and PUD review standards.
Using the current regulations of Chapter 24 of the Municipal
Code, a multi -family development in the R-6 Zone District is a
non -conforming use. In an attempt to define the allowable floor
area for the parcel, given existing and proposed development,
staff provides an analysis of the lot area and floor area
requirements for single family and duplex dwelling units within
the R-6 Zone District. In addition, if the Clarendon were to
seek a rezoning to R/MF, bringing the use into conforming status
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood, staff has analyzed
the proposal using the lot area and floor area requirements of
the R/MF Zone District.
TABLE 1: ZONE DISTRICT ANALYSIS*
1. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
lot area = 70,872
number of dwelling units = 15
3-bedroom units = 10
2-bedroom units = 5
floor area = 24,358
floor area ratio = .34
2. PROPOSED
5 additional bedrooms = 10,225
living space expansions = 2,550
living room expansions = 2,550
bay windows = 390
additional floor area** = 6,715
total proposed floor area = 31,073
3
proposed floor area ratio = .43
3. R-6 SINGLE FAMILY ANALYSIS:
single family = 6,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 6,000 = 11.8 buildable lots
maximum floor area/single family = 3,240
3,240 X 11.8 lots = 38,270 total floor
area allowed on parcel
4. R-6 DUPLEX ANALYSIS:
duplex = 9,000 lot area/dwelling unit
parcel 70,872
required lot area 9,000 = 7.87 duplex lots or
15.6 dwellings
maximum floor area/duplex = 4,080
4,080 X 7.87 lots = 32,109 total floor
area allowed on parcel
5. R/MF ANALYSIS:
lot area for 10 three -bedroom units = 36,300
lot area for 5 two -bedroom units = 10,500
total lot area = 46,800
lot area for additional 5 bedrooms = 7,650
total lot area required for proposal = 54,450
R/MF floor area ratio = 1:1
existing floor area ratio = .34
proposed floor area ratio = .43
* all numbers are by square feet
** maximum proposed but true "floor area" may be less
In summary, our analysis shows that for the R-6 zone district the
available lot area cannot support 15 single family dwelling
units. However, the lot area and allowable floor area for duplex
units in the R-6 zone does support the existing number of
dwelling units (15.6 dwelling units), current and proposed floor
area on the site, albeit the Clarendon is a multi -family
structure not duplexes.
The R/MF zone district can support the number of dwelling units,
bedrooms, and current floor area. In addition the proposed
bedroom additions and other additional floor area can be
supported under R/MF zoning.
4
Although neither the R-6 or R/MF analyses are a perfect fit,
staff wanted to present these to the Commission for review. The
original approval was a PUD and floor area requirements did not
exist for the R-6 zone in 1975. The analyses are presented as an
attempt to put into context the current building and potential
build -out given current zoning guidelines and surrounding zoning
which is a mixture of R/MF, R-6 and R-15.
D. Development Review - Pursuant to Section 7-907 B., any
amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures
of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change
is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final
development plan.
During review the Commission and City Council may require such
conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the
development will be compatible with current community conditions.
This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the
portions of the development which have not obtained building
permits or are proposed to be amended by any new community
polices or regulations which have been implemented since the
original approval, or taking into consideration changing
community circumstances as they affect the project's original
representation and commitments.
RESPONSE: As is presented above, the amendment is to add
additional living space to existing units and one parking space.
The proposal will not increase the building's footprint nor
decrease open space.
The following discussion responds to the specific elements of
review for this amendment.
A. Floor Area/Lot Area - When the applicants attempted to amend
the PUD in 1989, the primary question from the Commission and
Council was what are the floor area and lot area requirements for
this parcel. In addition, some concern was expressed about the
changing character of a development that was carefully
scrutinized during the original review.
According to staff's analysis, there is adequate floor area and
lot area available if the duplex scenario is used or if the
applicant rezones the parcel to R/MF. It appears the additional
square footage would not exacerbate floor area or lot area
concerns for this parcel. In fact the proposal is well under
maximum allowable floor area and over the required lot area.
In response to the Commission's concern that the carefully
designed building may be detrimentally impacted by the proposed
changes, the application provides that "the architectural
character resulting from renovation is designed to compliment and
5
enhance the existing architecture. A strong characterizing
aspect of the existing south facing facade is the way the roof
forms seem to extend to meet the ground. The proposed living
room addition will compliment this by extending more of the lower
roof form toward the ground. The master bedroom expansion, with
its additive gable roof form, helps to break up the facade scale
by individualizing it and additionally creates an architectural
character more compatible with the "mountain image" of the
surrounding area. The "bay window" addition to the north facade
has also been designed to reduce the apparent scale of the
existing building by a composition of projections which
architecturally scale down the building facade." The applicant's
architect will present the proposal at the meeting.
B. Parking - Within the R-6 or R/MF zone, the parking
requirement is one space per bedroom. The Clarendon currently
has 40 bedrooms and 29 parking spaces with the potential for one
more space. The addition of five bedrooms would require five
spaces for a total of 45 parking spaces.
The applicant prefers not to encroach into the parcels open space
and/or landscaping to provide the required amount of parking for
the current and proposed bedroom additions. The provision of one
more space does provide two spaces per unit. In addition, PUD
review may vary the number of off-street parking spaces based on
the following considerations:
1. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development;
RESPONSE: Thirty parking spaces provide two spaces per unit.
According to the application, "there is seldom, if ever, more
than 10-12 cars at the Clarendon occupying the 29 physical
spaces. Four of the fifteen units are rented while the remaining
eleven are used exclusively by owners and their guests. Those
owners are only allowed one car per unit and are given one pass
to be used by guests on a short-term basis."
2. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
RESPONSE: N/A
3. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common
parking is proposed.
RESPONSE: The use of a pass system by the owners helps to reduce
the amount of parked cars on site.
4. The availability of public transit and other transportation
facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the
commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
N.
RESPONSE: Not only is there a pass system in place but the
manager provides a shuttle service.
5. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
RESPONSE: The Clarendon is within close proximity to the lifts
and commercial core.
C. Development Schedule - The owners of units 1 and 11 would
like to add the third bedrooms as soon as possible. The intent
of a comprehensive review of the PUD plan is to enable homeowners
to make improvements at their convenience. This comprehensive
amendment will allow homeowners to pull a building permit within
the scope of the amendment without further Planning review as
long as the amended final PUD development plan is in place.
D. Amended Plat - The applicant shall file an amended plat and
amended PUD agreement. The agreement and plat will be recorded
to depict the approved plans.
F. Summary - Staff believes that the existing structure may be
expanded given the current lot area and floor area and recommends
approval of the amendment.
Although a rezoning to R/MF is not a condition of approval, the
applicant may seriously consider a zone change to bring the
building into a conforming status.
The City is currently encouraging auto disincentive programs for
new development within the City limits. Because of the close
proximity of the Clarendon to the commercial core and base area,
and the existence of a shuttle and pass program, staff recommends
approval of the reduction in required parking for a total of 30
spaces.
Staff will attempt to meet with the applicant prior to the
Commission meeting to determine the type of assurances that will
be provided regarding the issue of occupancy and shuttle service.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of
the PUD amendment with the following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any building permits:
a. All but historical drainage shall be maintained on site. The
applicant shall demonstrate to the Engineering Department that
the increased runoff is adequately maintained on site by
providing calculations from an engineer registered in the State
of Colorado. The engineer shall comment on the functional
aspects of the facility in order to determine that it can be
7
cleaned for continual, proper performance.
b. The applicant shall provide assurances to the Planning and
Engineering Departments that the occupancy will not change and
that the shuttle service provided by the manager will be
maintained.
C. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and agreement to
depict the approved amendments to the final Development Plan.
d. The applicant shall provide one more on -site parking space
for a total of 30 spaces.
3. The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and
shall obtain permits for any work or development within public
rights -of -way from City Streets Department.
4. All representations that the applicant has made regarding
this amendment shall be adhered to during any renovation. The
amendment to the final PUD plan is limited to:
a. one additional bedroom to each two -bedroom unit at 245 square
feet each;
b. a master bedroom expansion to each unit at 170 square feet
each;
C. a living room expansion to each unit at 170 square feet each;
d. bay window projections to each unit at 25 square feet each;
e. the above represents total 6,715 square feet of expanded
square footage for the entire building;
f. the addition of one on -site parking space; and
g. the total amount of bedrooms in the Clarendon shall not
exceed three bedrooms per unit.
5. Prior to filing an amended final PUD plat and PUD agreement,
the applicant shall work with the Zoning Officer to specifically
identify what square footage is calculable "floor area" and
confirm the existing floor area for the parcel.
ATTACBMIMTS :
A. site plans
pz.clarendon.pud
E3
•
ADMITTED TO COLORADO
AND NEW YORK BARS
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, PC
ATTORNEY AT LAW
PARK CENTRAL BUILDING
215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 202
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
July '.), 1.991
Ms. Leslie Lamont
A: -;pen -- Pitkin Planning Department
1.30 S JLl Lh Galena Strt.et
AcE 'pen, Col-orado 31611
U.c: Clarendon PUD Amendment:
Dear Les'[ it.:
`'. JOL - 9 19a1
TELEPHONE (303) 925-4041
TELECOPIER (303) 925-4043
rit first reading on they ordinance to approve th.o Clar-m-do :
P.U.i). , tendment, Frank Peters r,a—L.sed the question of whether the
i..:rc.r!don is a nonconforming use. I briefly stated our posit.iari in
rc_opr_',n< ;c, that it is not nonconforming, and told you i would f .-t low
L11.3 w i. lk h a itte rlL) .
,,ec:t icn 3-101. of the
Code di.-Ji.nes
nonconforiming
use as 11 . . .
a iy a :c of lani-J, bui.idling
or structure, which was
estab.lishierci.
pursuant to the
zoning and
building laws
in effect Fit
the tine r;f
Otit wni ct-1
-a e is not a
permitted or
W.*-1 ..: uni—Jc r t:he
regulations
imposed by
this Code the zone
in :t:.ic:h
it is located.11
::. r_ru). -:t.i .-)r,s ir!tpo_scd by t.I-=e. Cade for, thr ..-6 I' -UT' zone
ci.__,Lr'ict:. >t'e thr..se set. forth in the final development Irian 1 r the
I.:) a L' t i c u la., t' PUD. 111h.at is, no develop-Iment cal: t<lke plarla in, ;:i-n ^r:i'ic?
dintrict with a mandat: cry PtiD desigr_ation unless i.t is in
a....c ;rd;ance with an rapprovcd 1-11Jr). (Section 7-902) . `l'he develo:omrllt
r.equlatift-:27 any PUD are those set forth in the final
dlenrejl_op i.''!l. plan. For exaT^.,ple, Sect i.Orl 7-906 provides that:
11he f. i.n::jl clev(.=I plan ';1ial 1
c )nsi:st-ui w !..:'te' C:E:�%e1c_�ir.e2_1t rc'•(�ll„[_c-I.hr)1lS j'Or the
F;rcl.le:r�.,T. Deve ►.r,pin.-1'tt. ()�' the property shall
be 1.rin. l.te,I to thr! tltit?_:, Jei)`_., Lv, c_:) nfiq, ur�luion
and all c.-j4}- er and conditions et
ff::•z'1:Pi =1n t;lz I l !1 9 i ( I :,J:'1 (�!;12'IE�n pl�ln and P� 11)
----�--- � .----...._.__._....._._._....._.....__.._._..-I.-� _....----
r
i° a lt_IE3C�� ic ?rill 1]L'-. I� � iY1��:1:7a.... .
•
•
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen - Pitkin Planning Department
July 5, 1991
Page 2
Since the final development plan constitutes the development
regulations for the property, the multi -family use is obviously a
permitted use for the Clarendon PUD. That is, the final development
plan for a PUD constitutes a rezoning.
That a PUD constitutes a rezoning is by no means a new
concept. The zoning code which was in effect at the time the
Clarendon was initially approved states, at Section 24-10.1(b)(4):
Upon approval by the planning commission
(after public hearing) of the final
development plan the applicant and the city
council shall enter into an agreement which:
(a) Binds the real property to those conditions
listed by the final development plan, and
(b) Rezones subject property as stated in the
final development plan. (Emphasis added).
Section 24-10.1 (b)(5)(b) states:
(b) Final rezoning - Final development plan
(i) After approval of the final development plan
by the planning commission, the city council
shall rezone the subject property in
accordance with the final development plan .
(Emphasis added).
Clearly then, the property has been rezoned in accordance with
the final development plan to the use and density that presently
exists. By definition therefore, it cannot be considered
nonconforming.
sfs\clarendo.5
•
�J
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C.
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen - Pitkin Planning Department
July 5, 1991
Page 3
It is also significant to note that when the project was
initially approved in 1.976, the zoning was the same as it is today.
In reading through the prior �ppl.ication I was led to believe that
it had been R-15. However, as you can see from the Subdivision
Agreement you requested, a copy of which is enclosed, it has always
been R-6 PUD. Presumably it could not have been approved then if it
was nonconforming. Moreover, that fact alone would preclude the
Clarendon from beeing deemed nonconforming since, by definition, a
nonconforming use is one which was initially conforming but which
became nonconforming as the result of a zoning change. Since there
has been no change in the zoning, it cannot now be nonconforming.
I have also enclosed copies of the old code sections to which
I referred.
Please call me after you have had an opportunity to read this.
Very truly ,yours,
SPE14CER F/.///SCHIFFER, P.C.
Spericer/FA Schiffer
SF'S: jw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Chuck Frias
Mr. Larry Yaw
sfs\clarendo.5
§ 24-10.1
ASPEN CODE
§ 24-10.1
(e) An efficient use of land resulting in smaller net-
works of utilities and streets and thereby lower
construction costs;
(f) An environment of stable character in harmony
with surrounding development;
(g) A more desirable environment than would be possi-
ble through strict application of other sections of
the zoning resolution.
(2) General considerations.
(a) The planned unit development is designed to pro-
vide for small and large scale developments incor-
porating a variety of uses which are planned and
developed as a unit. Such development may consist
of individual lots and/or it may have common rec-
reation and open space surrounding clustered
buildings. Common land must be an essential and
major element of the plan which is related to and
effects the long term value of the development.
(b) A building permit for any structure or permit to
develop in any manner in a planned unit develop-
ment shall be issued only after the final develop-
ment plan for such development has been approved
by the planning commission and city council and
the applicant has complied with the subdivision
regulations of the City of Aspen.
(b) Procedure for application and approval:
(1) General.
(a) Each applicant for PUD approval under this sec-
tion (11-1-11) [section 24-10.] shall be subject to
the following phased procedures:
(1) Submission of an outline development plan as
required herein.
(2) Upon approval by the planning commission
and city council (following a public hearing)
of the outline development plan, the applicant
_ g"AIM "Wd
;property. The final zoning change shall be sub-
Supp. No. 1 r
1518.2
•
•
§ 24-10.1 ZONING § 24-10.1
jest to-t1*_prmcedure outlined, he No build-
ing permit or permit to develop 1!ty manner
shall be issued at this point.
(3) Submission of final development plan as re-
quired herein.
(4) Upon approval by the planning commission
(after public hearing) of the final develop-
ment plan the applicant and city council shall
enter into an agreement which:
(a) Binds the real property to those condi-
tions listed by the final development plan,
and
(b) rezones enbiect nronerts as stated in the �.
final development plan.,-,
(5) After approval of the-Ti-n—arldnelopment plan
and the binding of real property and final re-
zoning the applicant must comply with the
subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen
prior to receiving building permits or a permit
to develop subject property in any manner
whatsoever.
(2) Standards for approval.
(a) The developer shall present plans, written state-
ments, and related information in sufficient detail
to enable the planning commission and city council
to evaluate the proposed development in accordance
with the provisions of this section. At the culmi-
nation of each phase as set forth herein, 'the appli-
cant must receive the necessary approvals prior to
formally proceeding into subsequent phases or into
actual development. Lack of sufficient and continu-
ous progress as defined herein may lead to nullifi-
cation of all approvals by the planning commission
or city council.
(b) A planned unit development may include varia-
tions in lot area, lot width, yard and building
height requirements and off-street parking pro-
visions provided the following features exist:
Supp. No. 1
1518.3
-'�• � � ,i;'p:: w - 4'4 �. e.� � .l '� � lg�, 'nFHy, �T•.f(erp-���� i, "., �-k.�.:.*e�s�, <.-.�r;pp s r�.�,
r ... � �y`� � � �. '�. t4 • ,� .•64r. .t ..yR,w.:. .i. '1 ..[yr 1 _ a 9�i�aiw+�: n1�..A., 1e
NOW
Z
§ 24-10.1 ASPEN CODE § 24-10.1
(1) The tract or parcel of land involved is either
in one ownership or the subject of an applica-
tion filed jointly by the owners of all property
included;
(2) The planned unit development constitutes an
area of at least 27,000 square feet;
(3) The development includes open space for the
mutual benefit of the entire tract;
(4) The project is designed to provide variety and
diversity, so that maximum long-range bene-
fit may be gained and the unique features of
the development or site are preserved and en-
hanced; and,
(5) The project is in harmony with the surround-
ing neighborhood.
(3) Outline development plan phase.
(a) Application.
(1) An applicant shall make application for the
approval of a planned unit development by
first submitting an outline development plan
for the development to the planning commis-
sion. The outline development plan shall in-
clude both maps and a written statement and
shall show enough of the area surrounding the
proposed planned unit development to indicate
the relationship of the PUD to adjacent uses,
both existing and proposed.
(b) Required information for outline development plan
phase.
(1) Each applicant shall provide sketch maps (5
copies) of subject property accurately drawn
at no less than a 1" = 400' scale. The sub-
mitted maps shall show 20' contours, all exist-
ing natural and man-made features, existing
zoning and a vicinity map showing all adja-
cent property within 1/2 mile of the applicant's
land. The requirements with regard to scale,
Supp. No. 1
1518.4
•
•
§ 24-10.1 ZONING § 24-10.1
contour interval and vicinity map area are
given as general standards and the developer
shall communicate with the planning depart-
ment to ascertain applicability with regard to
a particular submission. If the sketch plat does
not accurately represent the information
shown on subsequently required survey maps,
the planning commission shall reserve the au-
thority to retract or alter its decision with
reference to such discrepancies.
(2) Each applicant shall provide a schematic plan
(5 copies) identifying use types, locations,
densities and acreage consumed by all pro-
posed land uses.
i (3) A written statement (5 copies) is required
outlining present ownership of all land in-
volved within the PUD, an expected schedule
of beginning and completion, and a statement
of intent concerning the provision of water,
sewer, and highway improvements noting
their feasibility and when and by what means
each is intended to be provided.
(c) Planning commission action, —Outline development
plan.
(1) The planning commission shall prepare a writ-
ten report to the city council recommending
that the plan be approved, disapproved or ap-
proved with modifications. In its report the
planning commission shall give the reasons for
its recommendations and shall indicate the
extent to which the outline development plan
complies with each of the standards governing
its approval.
(d) City council action --Outline development plan.
(1) The planning commission shall forward a sum-
mary of the proposed plan, with copies of its
report to the city council. After providing no-
tice in a newspaper of general circulation pub-
Supp. No. 1
1518.0
§ 24-10.1 ASPEN CODE § 24-10.1
lished in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in not
less than one issue to be published at least
fifteen (15) days in advance of a regular or
special meeting, the city council, in public ses-
sion, shall review the outline development plan
and either disapprove, approve as presented,
or approve the outline development plan with
modifications.
(e) Notation of tentative zoning —Outline development
plan.
(1) If the outline development plan is approved,
the city council shall authorize a notation on
the official zoning map to indicate that an out-
line development plan has been approved for
the area included within the planned unit de-
velopment and that the zoning has been tenta-
tively approved subject to satisfactory com-
pletion of the remaining phases as set forth
in section 11-1-11 (section 24-1011 of this
regulation. If the outline development plan is
approved with modifications, the city council
shall not authorize such notation on the offi-
cial zoning map until the applicant has filed
with the city council a written consent to the
plan as modified.
(f) Building permits and permits to development --Out-
line development plan.
(1) No building permits or permits to develop the
land in any manner may be issued on land
within the proposed planned unit development
until the final development plan has been ap-
proved by the planning commission under the
procedures provided in the following para-
graphs of this section, and until the applicant
has complied with the subdivision regulations
of the City of Aspen.
Supp. No. 1
1518.6
§ 24-10.1 ZONING § 24-10.1
(4) Final development plan phase.
(a) Application.
(1) The applicant shall submit a final develop-
ment plan to the planning commission within
thirty (30) months following the approval of
the outline development plan by the council.
(b) Required information for final development plan
phase.
(1) The final development plan shall include 5
copies of the following information:
(a) A survey map showing the circulation
system, off-street parking areas, loading
areas and major points of access;
(b) A comprehensive plan shown on a survey
map for all utility services, including
storm drainage;
(c) Areas, if any, shown on a survey map,
which are proposed to be conveyed, dedi-
cated or reserved for common open space,
parks, parkways, playgrounds, school
sites, public uses;
(d) A site plan (survey map) showing the
density, location of all permitted uses
(building, structures and improvements),
and indicating the parking, loading and
open areas around buildings and struc-
tures. (The site plan shall be in sufficient
detail to enable the planning commission
to evaluate the architectural, landscaping
and design features of the planned unit
development. At its discretion, the plan-
ning commission may require preliminary
evaluation and perspective drawings of
proposed structures and improvements) ;
(e) A development schedule indicating the ap-
proximate date when construction of the
total project or stages of the project can
Supp. No. 1 be expected to begin and to be completed;
1518.7
§ 24-10.1 ASPEN CODE Q 24-10.1
(f) Agreements, provisions or covenants
which govern the use, maintenance and
continued protection of the planned unit
development and any of its common open
spaces;
(g) Any other information which the plan-
ning commission determines to be needed
because of any topographic, circulation,
traffic, design, siting, or other special
problems of the proposed PUD.
(h) Survey map as required in this section is
defined as a map of the proposed PUD
area which has been accurately surveyed
by a registered surveyor and such survey
is marked on the ground.
(c) Planning commission action —Final development
plait.
(1) After providing notice in a newspaper of gen-
eral circulation published in the City of Aspen,
Colorado, in not less than one issue to be pub-
lished at least fifteen (15) days in advance of
a regular meeting, the planning commission,
in public session, shall approve the final devel-
opment plan if it is in substantial compliance
with the outline development plan, and if it
conforms to all other standards applicable to
planned unit developments, whether or not
considered when the outline development plan
was approved.
(d) Conformity with other regulations —Final Devel-
opment plan.
(1) Approval of the final development plan shall
not supersede the requirements of the building
codes and regulations of the city.
(5) Procedures for change of zoning to PUD
(a) Tentative rezoning —Outline development plan.
(1) The applicant for change of zoning to the ap-
propriate PUD zone shall submit a request in
Supp. No. 1
1518.8
•
•
0 § 24-10.1 ZONING 1.24-10.1
writing to accompany the outline develoknneuL
p an for the desired land use and dPnaity,
_which in no event shall exceed the limitations
as set forth in the use permitted and density
permitted sections of the existiniz zone district
or which PUD zoning is requested-
(2) When the outline development plan has re-
ceived the necessary approvals, the city council
shall authorize that a notation be made on the
official zoning map to indicate that the out-
line development plan has been tentatively ap-
proved subject to satisfactory completion of
the remaining phases as set forth herein.
(b) Final rezoning —Final development plan.
(1) After approval of the final development plan
by the planning commission, the' city council
shall rezone thegubJP.Pt property in accordancp
with the final development plan and the
owner and the mayor of the City of Aspen
shall execute and record in the clerk and re-
corder's office of Pitkin County, Colorado, an
instrument in substantially the same form as
set out in paragraph (a) below..
(a) Statement of zoning change:
Onthe ------------ day of ----------------- <---------------
19---------- the Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, zoned the following described
property to Planned Unit Development
by City Council Resolution No- -----------------
The development of the .following de-
scribed property shall be in accordance
with the Planned Unit Development Plan
on file in the office of the City Building
Inspector.
The above referred to property is lo-
cated in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, and is described as follows:
Supp. No. 1
1518.9
X-. i�ItM�G.Y11tJiY�A!�.,.]�,�t.�.....1�:i:a.a�f�s.[L.4�lir _ _ __ � _ '--J'�' - \' 1....'• _s.,.s.... , _ i
§ 24-10'1 ASPEN CODE §'24-104
Mayor, City of Aspen, Colorado
Attest:
-----------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Applicant)
State of Colorado )
ss..
City of Aspen )
The foregoing instrument was acknowl-
edged before me this ---------- day of ------------
---- - — -, 19---------- by ----------------------
My Commission expires:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Notary Public
c. Binding of real property.
(1) A change of zoning when finally approved in
conjunction with the final development plan
shall bind the development of real property so
zoned to the uses and density and all other
conditions set forth in the final development
plan approved for said property.
(6) Procedure for subdividing under section (11-1-11) (sec-
tion 24-10.1 ] .
(a) The planned unit development plan is not a sub-
division plat for any purpose, and it will be neces-
sary to subdivide the property and comply with
subdivision regulations of the City of Aspen before
building permits and permits to develop in any
manner will be issued within the property zoned
under this section.
(b) Subdividing the property contained within the
final development plan may be in whole by one
subdivision plat Qr in parts by a series of sub-
division plats. Each-subdivipion plat submitted
shall-be-in_coui fiance with the�inal deve opment
-
Supp. No. 1
1618.10
77
'5.:'. �v { X
TO:
FROM1-
SUBJECT:
DATE:
REAL4#TA'CI: AFFILIATES INCORPIPTED
1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2520
Denver, Colorado 80203
City Council Members
Real Estate Affiliates Incorporated
Proposed Ordinance 13 and Clarendon
April 18, 1974
-7 0 C) ' 0V
This coming Monday evening you will be holding a public hearing
on the Ute Avenue downzoning (Ordinance 13). Because the only
project materially affected by this Ordinance is Clarendon, we
feel that you should understand this proposed project, the pro-
cedures and reviews that have been completed before the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) to date and the issues
that have been resolved through good faith negotiations with the
City P&Z.
As a practical matter, the proposed downzoning only affects the
Clarendon project. The City Attorney has provided you with her
opinion that Ordinance 12 (modification of the Ordinance 19 rtap)
does not affect the Clarendon project since Clarendon is a prior
application under Ordinance 19. Also, she has expressed the
opinion that downzoning as stated in the proposed Ordinance 13
would affect the pending Clarendon project. Ordinance 12
(modification of the Ordinance 19 map) effectively "downzones"
all property in the Ute Area other than Clarendon; therefore,
the downzoning (Ordinance 13) has an effect only on this
specific project.
Therefore, we believe that next Monday night you will not be
hearing a general zoning issue, but you will specifically and
exclusively be considering an ordinance affecting only one
project. Since this is the case and the Council might be
assuming the total decision powers relating to this project,we
feel that you should have the benefit of all the facts already
presented to the P&Z Commission, and we ask to be permitted
to make a presentation and to discuss with you all the issues
of this project that have been considered to date.
A brief summary of the events to date as well as some of the
basic issues is presented below:
1. March 30, 1973, Brewer, Inc., exercised an option to
acquire the Clarendon site. The site was purchased with
the expectation of construction 47 condominium units
(existing AR-1 zoning). Shortly after exercise of the
option, the Ute City Protection agency petitioned to
downzone the Ute area.
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page two
2. In response to the threat posed by the Ute City petition,
we quickly submitted a plan to the Building Inspector
for 46 apartment units (Parkside Apartments). It is our
opinion that this submittal is still valid and that we
could build these apartments if we so desire. Since the
Parkside Apartments were quickly designed and not the
type of development with which we wish to be associated,
we decided to design a more responsible project and
process it under Ordinance 19.
3. After considering alternative land uses, we decided to
process a condominium project with a swimming pool,
therapy pool and tennis court. We hired a planning firm
to design a site plan for the project. After detailed
site studies, we came to the conclusion that the 46 units
permitted under existing zoning was not appropriate and
that due to the constraints imposed on the site (view,
corridor, donations to the City, set backs, height
limitations, etc.) a plan of 36 units was a better
solution. Ile voluntarily eliminated 10 units and pro-
ceeded with a 36 unit concept.
4. On October 1S, 1973, a site plan was submitted to the
Building Inspector and a building permit fee of $1,968.75
was paid. The Clarendon project was scheduled for con-
cept review before P&Z under Ordinance 19 on November 20,
1973.
S. November 13, 1973. One week prior to the scheduled
meeting, we presented a booklet relating to the basic
issues and summarizing the results of a project impact
study. Since complex issues were addressed, these
materials were presented in written form prior to the
meeting to permit study by the P&Z members. These
materials are available at the Planning Office for
your review and consideration.
6. November 20, 1973. Due to a scheduling error, the
Clarendon was not included on the agenda. We were
rescheduled to December 11., 1973.
7. On December 11, 1973, our concept presentation was
made. It was over two hours long and addressed all
of the issues associated with the project. The major
points made in our presentation are summarized below:
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page three
a. Site location
i. S.L•. quarter of City
ii. Near tourist oriented facilities: ski lift
and downtown
iii. Convenient to City Market and Post Office
iv. Conclusion: Site location will minimize the
use and dependency on the automobile. It
is an appropriate location for a pedestrian -
oriented, tourist -related use.
b. Site area
i. 1.627 acres or 70,875.98 sq ft.
ii. Under AR-1 zoning, 47 units would be permitted.
C. Site characteristics
i. Flat, developable site
ii. Little vegetation except on Ute.
iii. Heavy concentration of condominiums on
surrounding properties.
d. Existing Neighborhood Land Use Study
i. In the neighborhood 8096 of units are tourist
ii. In the neighborhood 57% of the acreage is in
tourist use.
e. Condominium Ownership
i. Over 11% of all condo units in the city are
used as permanent residences.
ii. The Clarendon will not discriminate against
permanent resident buyers.
f. Existing Zoning
i. 47 unlimited units or 94 studios or hotel
room are permitted under AR-1 zoning.
ii. Only 36 units were proposed. A 23% reduction
had been made.
iii. 39 parking spaces are provided for the 56 units..
g. Aspen Interim Land Use
i. Site lies in Mixed Residential.
ii. Project to be used by permanent residents
and tourists. Therefore is a true mixed
residential use. (Original definition of
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page four
mixed residential did not preclude tourist
accommodations.)
h. Owners Commitments
i. Commitments included: donations to City,
West End dedication for possible street
extension, a trail easement, preservation
of two 50' spruce trees, landscaping, view
preservation, storm drainage, etc. These are
best shown graphically in our presentation.
i. Design Constraints
i. A drawing summarizing the design problem was
presented.
ii. Only 420 of site is useable after City and
owner constraints.
j. Schematic Site Plan
i. 30 two -bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units.
ii. A tennis court, swimming pool and therapy pool.
iii_. An underground parking structure under the
tennis courts.
k. Site Plan and Sections
i. Renderings of proposed project were presented.
1. Project Impact
i. All utilities exist and are adequate.
ii. Transportation: Table of walking times at 2.5
miles/hour walk.
- to
Little Nell
3.5
min.
- to
City Market.
4.5
min.
- to
Post Office
6.5
min.
- to
Bus Center
7.2
min.
- to
Galena &
Hyman corner
9.2
min.
The site is pedestrian oriented, minimizing
potential use of the automobile.
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page five
iii. Economic study conclusions:
- Fiscally, the tourist is very beneficial when
compared to permanent residents. This area
is complex and we would like to elaborate more
on this if given the opportunity.
After the presentation, the Commission requested that the
applicant withdraw for 90 days during which time the
Planning Office and the to -be -hired City Economist would
perform additional studies for the Cit.y.
We questioned the Commission on exactly what they proposed
to come up with in the 90 days, and further questioned the
Commission on what more would be required of the applicant
that we have not already submitted. It was not clear what
the Commission desired, and it is interesting to note that
since this request in December, very little additional
planning and analysis has occurred to date.
The discussion was continued to the next meeting.
8. January 8, 1974. The Planning Office recommended conce_ot
approval with conditions as follows:
a. Covenant deeds to restrict rental to periods of
less than 6 months.
b. Phase the development
C. Eliminate on -site parking.
d. Remove all fireplaces
Our response, in summary, to each of these conditions
was that:
a. A restrictive covenant is not appropriate since the
site is tourist oriented due to its location and
surrounding uses. We prefer to let the free market
determine the tourist/permanent mix rather than have
government intervene. It was pointed out that this
type of request by the City might be discriminatory.
b. We agreed to phase the development.
C. We agreed to make provisions to eliminate the surface
parking lot at a future date when -the transit system
was in operation.
d. We challenged the validity of the Air Pollution
Control Division's air quality study. There were
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page six
many quantitative errors in the study that over-
estimated the fireplaces' contribution to air
pollution (the study used 4 cords per season as
the rate of wood consumption while actual useage
is 1 to 1.25 cords per season). Ile pointed out
that the new Colorado Air Pollution Control
Ordinance written by the same Commission permitted
fireplaces in mountain or resort areas. The real
pollution source in Aspen in the automobile. No
significant benefit can be achieved by banning
new fireplaces. This issue is covered in great
detail in our presentation.
Much discussion followed, and P&Z did not vote on the
project. The meeting was continued.
9. January 10, 1974. Under Ordinance 19, the Commission had
to make a decision by this date (30 days from submission).
More issues were brought up and discussed. Major ones
being:
a. At the previous meeting, it was suggested that low
or moderate cost housing for employees should be
constructed on the Clarendon site. A presentation
of densities which made such a use economically
feasible was made. P&Z concluded that such
densities in that area were not acceptable and
abandoned the idea of low cost housing on the
site.
b. The applicant agreed to extend the deadline for
the P&Z Commission decision for approximately 15
days so that the Planning and Zoning Commission
could have the Planning staff review and recommend
a definition of mixed residential.
C. At our next meeting with the Planning and Zoning
Commission at which time we were expecting to
have a comprehensive definition of mixed
residential, the Planning staff presented a
proposal for downzoning the Ute Avenue area. This
was a surprise to the applicant and appeared to be
a surprise to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To this date the Planning staff has not presented
any additional information or recommendations to
the Planning & Zoning Commission on definition or
clarification of mixed residential.
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page seven
No decision was made. The P&Z agreed to make a decision on
the project February 5, 1974, at the Commission's regular
meeting.
10. January 29, 1974. P&Z held a public hearing to consider
the downzoning proposal initiated by the Planning Office
for the Ute Avenue area. At a later meeting, they
decided to recommend to City Council modification of the
Ordinance 19 Land Use Map rather than rezoning.
11. February S, 1974. After a long discussion on the pros and
cons of Clarendon, the issue was distilled to that of
density. P&Z felt that even at 36 units there were too
many units, too many cars, and too many people. In order
to solve this basic problem and to continue through the
approval process in an attempt to make this summer's
building season, we agreed to construct only 24 units.
This was acceptable to P&Z and the Clarendon gained
concept approval.
12. Ordinance 12. Agreeing with the recommendation of P&Z,
City Council proposed an Ordinance (Ordinance 12) to
modify the Ordinance 19 Land Use Map. This was passed
on first reading, a public hearing was held, it was
passed on second reading, and it -became law.
13. April 2, 1974. The Clarendon gained Preliminary Sub-
division approval .from P$Z for a 24-unit townhouse
project. A number of technical recommendations were
made by the City Engineer and all issues were agreed
upon or resolved.
14. Ordinace 13. After passing Ordinance 12 making it law,
the Council passed Ordinance 13 on first reading, which
would downzone the Ute area. Next Monday the Public
Hearing on this Ordinance is being held.
In summary, we ask you to consider the following points
before you take action on Ordinance 13:
1. The Ordinance before you is not a comprehensive zoning
ordinance supported by a Master Plan. It is fragmented,
spot zoning.
2. The proposed Ordinance 13 only materially affects one
specific project which is a prior application under
former existing law (Ordinance 19 and the previous
City Council Members
April 18, 1974
Page eight
zoning). It is possibly ex -post -facto legislation aimed
at a specific project and could be interpreted as spot
zoning.
3. The Clarendon plan, approved conceptually, is not
detrimental to the area. It is residential in character
consisting of 24 townhouse units. It is a good plan and
is the result of good faith negotiations with City P&Z.
4. Ordinance 13 will still permit 16 units on the subject
property. The approved Clarendon plan is for only 24.
Only eight units are the issue.
S. Since only this one project is affected, we request that
you allow -us to make a presentation to you so that you
are as informed as the P&Z Commission that has given us
concept approval and preliminary subdivision approval.
Ile are prepared to do this Monday night or at a sub-
sequent study session convenient to you.
We.thank you for your time and would appreciate consideration
of the opportunity to discuss our project with you in detail.
IL
0
MEMORANDUM
•
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Department
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer
Date: April 15, 1991
Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment
D VFE
APR 151991
Having reviewed the above application and making a site visit the
engineering department has the following comments:
1. It appears the proposed new development will increase storm
runoff. It is preferable that no runoff from the buildings go
onto any public rights -of -way. Per Section 24-7-1004 C.4.f of
the municipal code, all but historical drainage must be
maintained on site. The applicant must demonstrate to the
engineering department that the increased runoff is adequately
maintained on site by providing calculations from an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado. We also need the engineer
to comment on the functional aspects of the facility in order to
determine that it can be cleaned for continual, proper
performance.
2. The applicant is proposing the addition of one parking space
and a waiver for any additional parking requirements. Conditions
described in Section 7.903.5 of the municipal code allows
reduction in off-street parking requirements, which the applicant
has addressed. Also in Section 7.903.5 is the requirement that
whenever the number of off-street parking spaces is reduced, the
city shall obtain assurance that the nature of the occupancy will
not change. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant
provide assurance that the occupancy will not change and that the
shuttle service provided by the manager be maintained prior to
issuance of a building permit.
3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way, we would like the
following condition of approval:
The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5080) for
design considerations of development within public rights -
of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or development
within public rights -of -way from city streets department
(920-5130).
•
•
4. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant provide a
plat to depict the final pud amendment.
cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer
rt/memo91.33
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CLARENDON CONDOMINIUM FINAL PUD AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 21, 1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130
South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application
submitted by Spencer Schiffer on behalf of Clarendon Condominium
Association requesting approval of an amendment to the Clarendon
Condominium PUD to allow certain additions to the condominium
units. The Clarendon Condominiums are located on West End
Street, Aspen, Lot 1, Clarendon Subdivision.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on
City of Aspen Account
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
March 26, 1991
Spencer Schiffer
201 N. Mill Street, Suite 106
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment
Dear Spence,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the
captioned application. We have determined that this application
is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review at a public hearing
by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 7,
1991 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to the application is available at the Planning
Office.
Please note that it is your responsibility to post the subject
property with a sign for the public hearing and mail notice to
property owners within 300' of the subject property.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan,
Office Manager
TO: City Engineer
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment
Parcel ID# 2737-182-30-010
Case #A16-91
DATE: March 26, 1991
Attached for your review and comments is an application from
Clarendon Condominium Assn. requesting approval of a PUD
Amendment.
Please return your comments to me no later than April 15, 1991.
Thank you.
t
f
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER,
!
ATTORNEY AT LAW
JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
201 NORTH MILL STREET, SUITE 106
ASPEN, COLORADO 81G11
!
ADMITTED TOCOLORADO
L
21 March 1991
AND NEW YORK BARS
Ms. Leslie Lamont
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Clarendon Condominiums
Dear Leslie:
TFLEPHONE
03) 925-5625
TELECOPIER
(3031925-5663
By Hand Delivery
Enclosed herewith is a Land Use Application for the Clarendon P.U.D.
Amendment together with a check in the amount of $1,780.00 representing the
application fee, and the Letter of Authorization, Certificate of Ownership, and
the letter from the general manager attached as exhibits. Also submitted
herewith are the architectural drawings and site plan. The Supplement to the
application for amendment contains all of the responses to Attachments 2, 3, and
4.
Would you please let me know as soon as possible when this is scheduled for
a P&Z meeting. I have already received all of the mailing information for notice
to adjacent property owners from Pitkin County Title Inc.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
SPENCER F7 SCHIFFER, P.C.
Bv:
Spen e Schiffer
SFS:jw
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Chuck Frias
Mr. Larry Yaw
SCHIFFER\CLARENDO.SUB
LAND T- E APPLT =,TTCN `r -'-T .'4
1) P- o-jec`- Name Clarendoondominiums •
West End Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Lot 1, Clarendon
Subdivision,Pitkin County, Colorado
( indicate �t address, lot & block r- legal c3�r--i tcn w * e
a7grq, l.a;�e)
3) present 7cring R-5 ; r,landatory P.U.D. 4) Ict Size 1.627 Acres
5) APp
l.i.c aI t' S Name, Address & 1:bcm # Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc . ,
c/o Aspen Club Realty, 730E Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-2000
6) REpresa-itative,s Name, Address & FbYse n Spencer F Schiffer 201 N. NLill St.
Suite 106, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303 925-5625
7) Type of Applicatian (please cheer all that a} -ply) :
c„m-xiiticnal. Use c=xnptual SPA _ Fiistaric Dev.
Special Rsview Final SPA Final Historic Dev.
8040 Greenline omymptualPUD Minor Historic Dev.
Stream Margin X Final PUT) (Amendment) Historic Demolition
Main View Plane Subdivision Historic Desic�aticaz
(m3cmi ni u+i nation Text/Map Ammdment GIQS Allotment
Tot split/Tot 1 M &K�S motion Vested Riots
Adjustment
8) Descr;� i cn of Existing Uses (rim ber and type of ,existing � the ; app�m .te
sq. ft. ; M=ber of bedrooms; any previous approvals granted pr�Y
See Supplement to Application
9) D,,,i pticn of Develqment Application
Amendment to P.U.D.; See Supplement to Application
10) a'' Have you attached the follaTi - ni,n am �ubmi_ ion its
yes Lse to Attachme_ 2, M-
yes to Attacf ent 3, Specific ad37 4Gim Cmt'Prfta
-S'�-Respcnse to Attachment 4, Review Standards for Yc= Applicaticn
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE S Y
PROJECT:
APPLICANT IS REPRESENTATIVE •
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME:
SU 4MARY 1
1. Type of Application:W�3 C��ti`�` �`�'�ti�L'►,
2.
Describe action/type of development being requested:
�L)
J
3.
Areas is whi6h
Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports
requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent
Comments n,
�1
4.
Review is: (P&Z
Only) (C Only) C(P�&Z�thento
5.
Public Hearing:
YES) (NO)
6.
Number of copies
of the application to be submitted:
7.
What fee was applicant
requested to submit: /, (P 9n
8.
Anticipated date
of submission:���
9.
COMMENTS/UNIQUE
CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
SUPPLEMENT
TO
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT
OF THE P.U.D.
FOR
THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS
I. Introduction
This Supplement to Application for Amendment of the P.U.D. for
The Clarendon Condominiums is submitted with, and as a part of, the
Land Use Application Form, Attachment 1, and will contain the
responses required to Attachments 2, 3, and 4. The application is
being submitted pursuant to and in accordance with §7-908B of the
Land Use Regulations.
II. Background
The Clarendon Condominiums consist of ten three -bedroom units,
five two -bedroom units, and one one -bedroom employee unit. The
Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc. .(the "Association"), on
behalf of all unit owners, hereby applies for an amendment to the
existing P.U.D. to permit an addition of one bedroom to each of the
five two -bedroom units, the expansion of all master bedrooms and
living rooms, and the addition of bedroom bays as indicated on the
attached plans.
When an application was last presented in December, 1989 for
a P.U.D. amendment to permit one -bedroom additions to two units,
the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern regarding
changes to an approved P.U.D. Development on a piecemeal basis and
recommended that an application be submitted that identifies the
ultimate build -out of the project. Following that recommendation
the Association engaged the original architects, Hagman Yaw, to
develop a plan that would not only address ultimate build out, but
which would also enhance the overall appearance, function, and
aesthetic appeal of the project as a whole and which would provide
ultimate flexibility for unit owners to undertake additions and/or
expansions at their discretion. This application does precisely
that.
Since 1975, when the project was initially approved, numerous
changes have taken place within the complex and in the surrounding
neighborhood. Owners of four two -bedroom units have been granted
approval, through P.U.D. amendments, to add third bedrooms. An on -
site deed -restricted employee unit has been built and other
amenities that enhance the project have been added, such as a
shuttle service to reduce auto use by owners and guests. At the
same time the surrounding neighborhood has undergone intensive
aevelopment such that, by comparison, the Clarendon has the lowest
floor area ratio and is arguably the lowest impact development in
the area.
schiffer\clarendo.saa
The Clarendon unit owners are interested in improving the
quality of their project functionally and aesthetically while
enabling those owners of two -bedroom units to add third bedrooms if
and when they so desire.
The overall impacts of the proposal would be negligible, if
any. None of the proposed expansion/addition would add to the
existing footprint or decrease open space. While there would
obviously be an increase in the total square footage of the
building, there would also be FAR credits gained from reducing
interior volumes and partial below grade living spaces. There are
presently 29 parking spaces with room for the addition of one which
would then provide two per unit for all fifteen free market units.
Given the close proximity to the lifts and commercial core as well
as the shuttle service and on -site manager there is little need for
autos at all, much less two per unit.
III. Response to Attachment 2
1. Letter of authorization attached as Exhibit A.
2. (a) Street address:
Clarendon Condominiums
West End Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(b) Legal Description:
Lot 1, Clarendon Subdivision,
Pitkin County, Colorado
3. Disclosure of Ownership is contained in the certificate
from Pitkin County Title, Inc. attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4. Vicinity Map is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
5. (a) Written description of the proposal:
The Clarendon development proposal is intended to provide a
needed overall and final expansion strategy within which individual
owners can undertake renovation measures of prescribed size,
location and architectural (visual) character. Each of the four
building areas of expansion are designed to enhance, individualize
and give unit scale to the existing project. None of the building
areas contemplated for renovation add to the existing building
footprint, nor do they decrease the open space currently provided
on the Clarendon parcel. The following descriptions and enclosed
architectural drawings summarize the proposal:
1. Master Bedroom Expansion (Level 2)
a 170 sq. ft. each (15 units)
2. Additional Bedroom (5 units, Level 2)
schiffer\clarendo,saa 2
245 sq. ft. each (5 units)
3. Solarium Addition to Living Room (Ground Level)
170 sq. ft. each (15 units)
4. Bay Window Projection at 3rd Bedroom (Level 2)
26 sq. ft. each (15 units)
The above renovation measures are indicated in actual square
feet and do not include FAR credits gained from reducing interior
volumes, and partial below grade living spaces.
The individual unit areas to be included in the proposed
expansion are depicted on the typical architectural floor plans
included with this submission. With the exception of solarium
expansion to the typical living room (approx. 2.5 feet below grade) -
all proposed renovation work is located on the second level.
The architectural character resulting from renovation is
designed to compliment and enhance the existing architecture. A
strong characterizing aspect of the existing south facing facade is
the way the roof forms seem to extend to meet the ground. The
proposed living room addition will compliment this by extending
more of the lower roof form toward the ground. The master bedroom
expansion, with its additive gable roof form, helps to break up the
facade scale by individualizing it and additionally creates an
architectural character more compatible with the "mountain image"
of the surrounding area. The "bay window" addition to the North
facade has also been designed to reduce the apparent scale of the
existing building by a composition of projections which
architecturally scale down the building facade.
The existing parking area will be reconfigured to include a
total of 30 cars, or two cars per unit.
(b) How the proposal complies with the review standards
relevant to the Development Application:
This development application is submitted under §7-908 B. of
the Land Use Regulations which requires approval pursuant to the
terms and procedures of the Final Development Plan. Section 7-903
C.2.(a) thereof specifies the following application contents:
1. General application information required in §6-202 is
contained herein as Response to Attachment 2.
2. The detailed plan of the proposal is contained in III,
5(a) hereof.
3. The R-6 zone district requires one parking space per
bedroom for residential uses and special review for all
other uses. There are presently 29 parking spaces on
schiffer\clarendo.saa 3
site. Using the dimensional requirements of §5-302 of 8%
feet by 18 feet, one additional space can be, and will
be, provided, for a total of 30 spaces. It is physically
impossible to create any more spaces on site without a
significant removal of landscaping and reduction in open
space. It is submitted, however, that two spaces for
each of the fifteen units is more than adequate to meet
the needs o.Lc' the development. In a letter attached
hereto as Exhibit D, the general manager indicates that
it . . . there is seldom, if ever, more than 10-12 cars at
the Clarendon occupying the 29 physical spaces." Four of
the fifteen units are rented while the remaining eleven
are used exclusively by owners and their guests. Those
owners are only allowed one car per unit and are given
one pass to be used by guests on a short-term basis.
Shuttle service provided by the Manager is a significant
auto disincentive which, given the close proximity to the
lifts and commercial core, virtually eliminates the need
for autos by guests as well as owners. Under the
circumstances, there is simply no need for any additional
parking and the applicant requests that any requirement
for parking in addition to the 30 spaces be waived. Such
a waiver is permissible under §7-903 B.5.
4. No additional public facilities will be needed to
accommodate the proposed development.
5. There is no specific development schedule proposed or
contemplated. The owners of units 1 and 11 would like to
proceed with third bedroom additions as soon as possible
and, if they satisfy the requirements of the Association
regarding construction assurances, guarantees, and
indemnities, those renovations may take place this
summer.
6. n/a
7. n/a
8. n/a
9. n/a
10. n/a
11. A supplemental or amended plat will be prepared following
approval and filed for record from "as built" plans when
applicable.
a
schiffer\clarendo.saa 4
IV. Response to Attac:iment 3
1. The written descripticn of the existing conditions
requested to be altered is as follows:
The Clarendon is comprised of ten three --bedroom units and f i.ve
two -bedroom units, plus a caretaker unit and pool house building.
The three -bedroom units have 1610 square feet each and the two -
bedroom units have 1360 square feet each. The proposal would
change those as follows:
Additions/Expansions Two -Bedroom
Units
A. Additional Bedrooms 245 sq. feet
B. Master Bedroom
expansions 170 sq. feet
C. Living Room
expansions 170 sq. feet
D. Bay Windows
projections 26 sq. feet
Total additions/expansions 611 sq. feet
Three -Bedroom
Units
170 sq. feet
170 sq. feet
26 sq. feet
366 sq. feet
Thus, each of the two -bedroom units could potentially be
expanded by 611 square feet and each of the three -bedroom units by
366 square feet.
When the Clarendon was originally developed, it was under R-15
zoning which would have permitted one unit per 4500 square feet of
lot area. There was no FAR applicable then nor is there an FAR
applicable now. However, calculated by present standards, the
total project FAR is .34 or 24,358 square feet on a parcel of 1.627
acres (70,872 square feet). By comparison, that is significantly
lower than other projects in the immediate neighborhood, such as
Billings at .98:1 and 777 Ute at .94:1.
2. Site plan drawings and elevations are attached hereto.
3. All previous development approvals:
A. Subdivision approval by the City Council September
schiffer\clarendo.saa 5
0
22, 1975.
B. Subdivision re -approval by City Council January 26,
1976.
C. First Amendment to the P.U.D. Flan approved
September 22, 1980, allowing Unit 12 to convert
from a two -bedroom unit to a three -bedroom unit.
D. Second Amendment to P.U.D. Plan approved September
27, 1982, allowing Units 6, 7 and 8 to convert two -
bedroom units to three -bedroom units and requiring
two additional parking spaces.
E. Third Amendment to P.U.D. plan approved May 14,
1984, and July 24, 1984, to add one low/moderate
deed restricted employee housing unit and granting
an exception from additional parking requirements
and an exception from GMP.
4. Copies of the following recorded documents, plats, and
maps have previously been provided:
A. Subdivision Agreement, recorded in Book 310 at Page
959 of the records of Pitkin County, Colorado (all
references to Books and Pages are to the records of
the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Pitkin County,
Colorado).
B. Condominium Declaration, Book 319, Page 415.
C. First Amendment to the Condominium Declaration,
Book 410, Page 80.
D. Second Amendment to the Condominium Declaration,
Book 448, Page 581.
E. Final Subdivision Plat, Plat Book 5, Page 1.
F. Condominium Map, Plat Book 5, Page 36.
G. First Amendment to Condominium Map, Plat Book 11,
Page 71.
H. Second Amendment to the Condominium Map, Plat Book
18, Page 67.
V. Response to Attachment 4
Since this application is submitted and being processed under
§7-908 B "other amendment," the terms and, procedures of Final
Development Plan are being followed and are addressed herein.
schiffer\clarendo.saa 6
R4V D I, LVDV:66- 6R I� i nnnn6; i N- I i a i i r, 1 i r +n V v v •• .
MAR 08 191 13141 A, IG FT & ADW
Clarendon CondomWum Asaoed,ation, Inc.
o/o Mr. Chuck Fviaa
Aayon club fealty
730 S. Dvxant evens
"?*L%, Colorado OL611
Ta:ephoast (305) 920.2000
Xarah 8, 1991
City of Aapan planning Depaxtuo=t
130 South Cal&=& $treat
ASpars, Colorado 61611
Re, Amastdxaat to Q.U.D. p14t for Clarendon Condominiu=
To Whom It day Concern:
The Qlarendon CondomIzaium Aasociat an, Inc., as the ratord cWMar of the
sereral and Iimited aozmon alozenta as cheer,bad _n t�ze uQrdomirjUM Declaratiion
fo: the. Gla«aridtir_ Coadom.intuts recorded Ln Book 319 ac US* 415 and the
Condominium map tiled ifi. Plat Boob 5 at Page 36, as veil as all aroanda&ats and
supplements rhaxsto, in .the records of rbe Pitkin Co=ty Clerk and Recordar, avtd
on behalf of t.1A owaars of all Condominium unizz in tho clar-andon condom;niumir,
hereby aonf::=t th9c :he fo110aring &re autharized to act. on haho.lf of tho
Clarendou Condominium Asfo4iation i-ac. and all unit owners to submit and proceao
an application for an am nftent to the P.D.D, ;Ian £or the C1--Lv4adon
Condominiums:
Spancer F. Schiffer
201 ff.Xill Strait, Suits 106
Aspen, Colorsde 81611
Telaphoz,e: (303) 925.5625
? axry Yaw
Hagman J'&W Archicsors
SLO E. Hyman Avenua
ASDen, Colorado 81611
Tolaphora- 00%) 005_2447
'fiery tzuly yoaza,
4LAA&"U= Cfl Z.HIUM AS80CSAT+ON, :,YC.
by:
Preaident Earl latter;
5acretary Ken Pese�
sohtzfa'm%ela =da.I
* PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 0
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that JEFFREY WILSON is the owner in
fee simple of the following described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 1, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
B Y-'1��--D ►l
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
a
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Christina M. Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that CLARENCE A. HERBST, JR. is the
owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 2, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKI
N COU TITLE, INC.BY :�L�� O ) J��
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
a
0 PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that DONALD E. KOLMER is the owner's
in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 3, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
BY: go,,
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
a
OPITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Christina M. Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that D. KENNEDY FESENMEYER AND
DELORES J. FESENMEYER are the owner's in fee simple of the following
described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 4, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKI~N� nCOUNTY TITLE, INC
BY: -
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that RICHARD S. CONANT AND RUTH H.
CONANT are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 5, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKI\N COUNTY TITLE, �NC.
BY: ` YD
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
61
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 0
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that DEAN L. GREENBERG is the
owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 6, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TI LE, NC.
By B Y l /C
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
4
•PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 0
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Christina M. Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that ANN S. BOWERS AND ROBERT N.
NOYCE are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 7, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
BY�t-U��' l�
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
b
i PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that LEE GLADSTONE AND GERTRUDE F.
GLADSTONE are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 8, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
BY : L'1111�1 � �A . 4� &--K
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that MONTE SMITH AND PEGGY SMITH are
the owner's in fee simple of the following described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 9, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, NC.
BY: ►- C r0
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
0
OPITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that JAMES A. SHIRK AND LINDA S.
SHIRK are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 10, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKKIIN�COUNTY TITLE, INC.
B Y : 1k-1LA<2J Z9.C�_ b(
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
4
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. •
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that JEROME P. EPSTEIN AND DEBORAH
R. EPSTEIN are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 11, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
BY
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
4
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that EARL M. LATTERMAN is the
owner's in fee simple of the following described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 12, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PIT(KKIN� COUNTY TITLE, �NC .
BY: K- LAO P uL
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
n
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 10
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Christina M. Davis
Vice President
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that HESSION PROPERTIES U.S. INC., A
CANADIAN CORPORATION is the owner's in fee simple of the following
described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 13, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record_
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN
COUNTY TITLEINC.
BY 4�40—x
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
4
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. 0
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that KENNETH D. BERNSTEIN is the
owner in fee simple of the following described property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 14, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, If -NC .
B Y :
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
4
i •
• PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
Vincent J. Higens 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis
President (303) 925-1766 • (303) 925-6527 FAX 'Vice President
CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP
Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the
State of Colorado hereby certifies that EDGAR STANTON, JR. AND ROSAMOND
B. STANTON are the owner's in fee simple of the following described
property:
CONDOMINIUM UNIT 15, CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS, COUNTY OF PITKIN,
STATE OF COLORADO.
Subject to easements, rights -of -way and encumbrances of record.
This certificate is not to be construed to be a guarantee of title and
is furnished for informational purposes only.
PITKINN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
B Y : LLy. -� 4- LL
authorized signature
DATED: MARCH 13, 1991
i pi
E. HYMAN I AVE
17
UT� L4I J
AO L
I * tract
20 33
is
IT
16
L/--TR 14
L
F
,.f �;
ui �II
13
44
-,;LPG' I I � I
mm--"WATERS
pact
124
(PUD
2
R - 15,.1'
(PUD)"
S
March 20, 1991
City of Aspen
Planning & Zoning Commission
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Commission Member:
As the Manager of the Clarendon Condominium Association I've
been asked to evaluate the use of the parking area. We currently
rent four of the Clarendon Condominiums and the other eleven are
used by the owners or their guests on a non -rental basis.
Our rental guests are provided with free transportation around
Aspen and very seldom have automobiles because of their proximity
to downtown and the lifts. The non -rental owners are allowed one
car per unit and one extra pass to be used by guests on a short
term basis.
In total, there is seldom, if ever, more than 10-12 cars at the
Clarendon occupying the 29 physical spaces. There are generally a
few extra cars during the day which belong to our housekeepers and
maintenance people as they are servicing the project, but in total
there is more than sufficient parking for the complex.
Please feel free to call me if I can help clarify further the
use of the Clarendon parking area.
h
CF/jlp
Sincerely,
Chuck Frias
General Manager
730 East Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000
800/882-2582 800/443-2582 (Colorado) 303/920-2020 (FAX)
MR5p)c/-/cE To K)EI�Ajbl
15-115 1 K14 -I 'A--4-,--
p;
r-1 A ILI< F, D-, C,
\A
k4A, L-V
EARCA
L) C/
7
K-Y
-Tk) 171 4HA LL
S,
L4
JE m
; fee -
0 --E-
ALJ,6 h P-OWt,4---
I r)
-A.C-PFIV5D - WITH�90T'-:
I- I-7,JM U r- E, - 'TIZ.E.Ehi ---- ---
LA kA E, P- ov F.- 0
efo,
0
, -,. I - 1-
D.�4 -:—A 1, 3.
-(5-e;R,
21-5 F, � PF, D
P
• Tbe—Gai
lZr--- !'VrKlPe 'O�J
7,3
LD4 7,
•
ii-
Glory Hole Park
new atriums 4
extended patios
\ 3
The Gant
to
I ZqI
Em yee Revised Park4ig- r m 7 to 30 par 'ng places
13 -
Ute Avenue
Site Plan
tin. = 20ft.
HAGMANYAW
ARCHITECTS
LTD
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925-2867
9
a�
�
O
o
�
O
O
O
O
ITZ
'
o
r
7-
ss JE:
171
REVISIONS:—�#-
S
a
w
O
z DECK
w
I �
MASTER BEDROOM
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I �
I
OPEN
/7'-B
Gf Gtzl
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Existing TWO Bedroom
0 •
KEYPLAN - Proposed Building Improvements
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Existing Three Bedroom
•
ATRIUM 156 sq. ft.
MASTER BEDROOM EXPANSION 170 sq. ft.
ADDITIONAL BEDROOM
Raise roof and add second floor bedroom of 245 sq. ft.
Optional additional space end units number 1
55 sq. ft. (Owner's Option).
BAY WINDOW 26 sq. ft.
RAILROAD TIE RETAINING WALLS
1 EXTENDED DECK
ff+CAI► !
DINING
KICTHEN
Oo
00
I
BEDROOM
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Proposed and Existing
i�
i
� 191
IEXPANDED
MASTER BEDROOM
B.R.
Hill
.
1
�� �' " I I 1• 1 1
�� , IIIII II • IIII III II IIIII pp`III �III�III
III IIII \
i
bl�ID (oRl D
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
- Proposed
• SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" (TYPICAL) "
HAGMAN YAW
ARCHITECTS
LTD
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
303/925-2867
r
�
•
Q
O
"♦
bZ
M� t
O
O
ISSUE:
29
D
C
98
REVISIONS:
i
`l
®I988 HAr
NORTH ELEVATION - Proposed 1/81,
SOUTH ,EVATION -Existing 1/811
0
HAGMAN YAA
ARCHITECTS
LTD
210 SOUTH GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 L
303/925-2867 I
I 4
Not" -
-91jimplohop im -r.*-fr*,- _ Wpov."
I