The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLanduse Case.CO.625 S West End St.A16-91 '\ ~-..,,{,;! . , ~ CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET city of Aspen DATE RECEIVE.D: ~~~~ DATE COMPLETE: ___ ) PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. ~737-I'{J-30-o(O .1<.. A16-91 STAFF MEMBER: LL PROJECT NAME: Clarendon Condominium Pun Amendment Anolication Project Address: West End Street. Asnen. Colorado Legal Address: Lot 1. Clarendon subdivision. Asnen. CO APPLICANT: Clarendon Condominium Association. Inc..c/o Asnen Club Realtv Applicant Address: 730 E. Durant. Asnen. Colorado REPRESENTATIVE: Snencer F. Schiffer Representative Address/Phone: 201 N. Mill Street. Suite 106 ~ Asnen. Colorado 81611 925-36ZS .~ ====---==================- -=-=----===- =============--=== PAID: YES x NO .AMOUNT: $1690.00 NO. OF . . TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date,:;Afll PUBLIC HEARING: COPIES RECEIVED 3 2 STEP: r CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO NO YES G YES VESTED RIGHTS: VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: InSUbstantial Amendment or Exemption: Paid: Date: =~==========~==========:=======:=============================== REFERRALS: city Attorney Mtn Bell ~ city Engineer Parks Dept. Housing Dir. Holy Cross Aspen Water Fire Marshall city Electric Building Inspector Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Con. S.D. Ejergy Center ~ F;N~:::~~~~ ___ city Atty ___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health FILE H:::::: AND LO~::::: CPL l ~ o . . School District Rocky Mtn NatGas State HwyDept(GW) State HwyDept(GJ) '. . , . COTTLE GRAYBEAL YAW ARCHITECTS ITD JOHN COTTLE, AlA DOUG GRAYBEAL, AlA LARRY YAW, AlA MARK HENTHORN, AlA 510 EAST HYMAN, SUITE 21 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE 303/925--2867 FAX 303/925,3736 ;>-i: ~ -~ JUNI6 June 16, 1992 Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S Galena Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Clarendon Condominiums Dear Leslie, 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, gob sc/i"j/~ Bob Schiller BS:sms Enclosure cc: Skip Behrhorst t""""\ - Aspen/Pit 130 Asp (303) 9 . ',I I ". ~ ',i " .~~. \~~ .:/ _. Io.: ~ :. r. ,":'" . '..,.. ,: ,J ~'. ing Office treet 611 920-5197 . . : 'I,' . - ".....- ~ 1 if" " .. I,,," ...- " ..... ~ : June 18, 1992 Mr. Bob Schiller cottle, Graybeal, Yaw Architects 510 East Hyman, suite 21 Aspen, Colorado 81611 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. @ recycled paper ,~ .~. LETTER FOR THE FILE: JANUARY 25, 1992 The purpose of this letter is to clarify the Amended and Restated PUD Aqreement 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. l~ the office and employee part of this 1991 PUD Additionally the final numbers do consider unit that exists on site but wa ot a amendment. ;jJ6/tt<~ ,....., .~ # / #34059401/16/92 11:07 fi.$25.00 BK 666 PG 879 Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty ~lerk, Doc $.00 :). AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT for The 91arendon Condominiums is made and entered into as of the /8/ 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"). WIT N E SSE 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 1""", f ~ #340594 01/16/92 11'07/ 'c $25.00 BK 666 PG 880 Si2u~:~_'[)~"":s, Pitkin Cnty Cler'k, 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 " 1~#340594 01/16/92 11:07 ~$25.00 BK 666 PG SSI Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnt, Clerk, Doc $.00 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 execut~ 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: ~/= ...--"r /~_ ~~ :.-- .---- President ~ ~ -,",~,,":;//" ...'to/.?" ~ -; sfs\clarende.agt 3 " ~ . ('1""""1 #340594 01/16/92 11'07~; $25.00 BK 666 PG SS2 Silvia Davis, Pitkin CI I Clerk, Doc: $.00 STATE OF~~ COUNTY OF f2t~ ) ) ss. ) The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE RENDON CONDOMINIUMS was aCknOWledged~fOre me this ~ay of . , 1991 by r I Lct-!ff'r/L1, . , esiden 'of the Clarendon Condominium Association. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary expires: AT~ Se ret ry "'" STATE OF ~o.J2D ) /) )ss. COUNTY OF f/if~ ) "'.' ,,,,,,,,. The foregoing AMENDED AND RESTATED P.U.D. AGREEMENT FOR THE RENDON CONDOMINIUMS was acknowledgedvbefore~e this /O~ay of . , 1991 by LJ.l.~ht1 ydl (''''/lei n T 'cretar of the Clarendon condominium Association. WITNESS my hand and official seal. .", '., ;;;(, 5 - 9 c2- fjj!f/4,:;J p~ N t Y Public ' Notary expires: .' , .. :" ',) . ~ , . j'" /",'\"'\B/7 ,\\, ~ : wO }:~-^~: 't .., ~ .{i~J.u~\ :' c.. \P~;.~;i;:;'t%1';:'2;::{'):~:.'.:~~ ~. "..1r"~:~~,~,~,~"~~ ~ '\ '. ..: .-if:;j>" ~" ~ THE CITY OF ASPEN By: o~ f, ;J~- Mayor ATTEST: f~ ..' ) I~~ 'city Cl k JJ ~-CU - sfs\clarende.agt 4 ~~#340594 01/16/92 11,07 ~25.00 BK 666 PG 883 Silvia Davis, Pitkin en, Clerk, 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 ~day of January, 1992 by John Bennett, Mayor of the city of Aspen. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary expires: . , J1 /;1'7/ tJ5 iku~~.~ Q: . ".'(;' \', i.~)\ ," ,:.' \' ~~, --:,: :<' ~ ,c (f :'~ \ \ -' ~l' f !~) L /' sfs\clarende.agt 5 ~" ~. 30 0EG-3 CITY, DATE: December 2, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: Jed Caswall, City Attorney~~ 180-day PUD Plat Recordation Deadline Clarendon Condominiums. Extension for RE: This matter is on your consent agenda for an extension of the laO-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 lao-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 e~pansion. 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 ofa 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. REOUESTED ACTION: Approve the proposed resolution extending the lao-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: ~or Spencer F. scn~ffer, Clarendon Condomimium Association @ recycled paper ,'-'" t~ . , lULH' TO: Mayor and council FROM: Carol O'Dowd, city Manager ~ ll~ Amy Margerum, Planning Director\}Jv~ Leslie Lamont, Planner Clarendon PUD Amendment - Second Reading Ordinance 28, Series 1991 THRU: THRU: RE: 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 CTION: In 1989 the Commission and Council denied an amendment applic on submitted by three homeowners to renovate their units. The Counc . structed 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. r""" r.. 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 2 r-. ,-' 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 lS 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) ena))led a development to "consist of individual lots and/or it may have common recreation and open space surro~ding 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 sub,ect nronertv 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. 3 1""'\ ...-". 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 1-906 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 consti tute 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-ll (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, Nonconforminq 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 uni ts.. However, the total floor area in both the existing Clarendon project and proposed Clarendon amendments is less than the total 4 ,"""'" i"""" 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. 5 f" - 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 6 ,-., ,-., 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 wi thin 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 7 I"". .-- 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 (specif ically def ined 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 eachj b. a master bedroom expans ion to each unit at 170 square feet eachj c. a living room expansion to each unit at 170 square feet eachj d. bay window projections to each unit at 25 square feet eachj e. the above represents total 6,715 square feet of expanded square footage for the entire buildingj f. the addition of one on-site parking spacej and g. the total amount of bedrooms in the Clarendon shall not exceed three bedrooms per unit. 8 ^ 1""'"'. 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. 2. 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 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 narcel 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 narcel 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 5. 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 R/MF floor area ratio = existing floor area ratio = proposed floor area ratio = = 70,872 = 54,450 = 36,300 = 10,500 = 7,650 = 54,450 1:1 .34 .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 . '-" .\ "':/ . , . 1"""\. ATTACHME;NT II CLARENDON .- ~..._' - . . PLAN/PROPOSED PARKING PLAN 1-3 ::r .a> [;l H I 8 ~ -. -... ~ .--..,......-,.. ::::::::.,- ...- -- .. ..-+---. .. . ___m_==-...::.:::. ______ u__.._._.__ ::.::.:'-:'-:, ..--.,......-.. -r=:=.--- -,-_.."" =: ~-----"-~:: ~ - - I I I ! , , ~,... I ia I <Q 0 i .... DECK Z '" ! , , , I , / I 1___ .- ---- - I ,. --..-,....--.. I 0 , I I ~ MASTER BEDROOM , I , 'i I : lj =, i'l I I I I 0: [tl I! 1 , I I , 1\ I I ~ 'I D<BiTH I C---J . ..~ I I Z OPEN l ~ , [ /71_611 I I --.. I 8 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - Existing T.wo Bedroom KEYPLAN - Pp-\()sed Building Improvements - ,- - b.:::,,,.::.... t_:'-:~_.. r. ---..-_..--- . J'" .- t~:C:': I !: i' I I -- .'~. -<:<-- <;; '" ~ z '" Cl...._... --,-....0.. "l" I : i I /' I ! I " i 0 I 0: Of ., O(l_AT / o '\ I e ~ . , !:( I ---,-1 -"- _....~--..-"'1 ~ DECK 'I" ' " , ~ < I: I ~---~-,~--, ..I~! , i , ,1 , , MASTER BEDROOM . i I I' -=.:..""'i'T:"',....--, I, " BEDROOM , I " I -----J e 17'-e:' -'--'--'''--''--'-- UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - Existing Three Bedrooni , I :NING WALLS ../ , l' EXTENDED DECK rP'~a" UVING DINING ,=Ji~][] K1CfHEN I I n !r-J .::::::... , "/ '1lATH ,..-'--' --'-~t--t . .:Zt iX ~ ''0.- .L-~;c~.; . ; ..--.- -0 .-- . , . V.P. .,. CI ' I 'l:'= ) /' BEDROOM < ( I... ~ , l _ _ /-z!::.$'I_ _ J --,--'.--...-- '8 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - Proposed and EJ{i~ting /"\ r , ,~ ~ '1 .~ . ~ .., <Xl DECK . a ,I vl -~ bIZ/[) ~ ',EXPANDED MASI'ER BEDROOM I@ 2 B.R. UNITS) ( I :T,I,"l" " I f I I ') " ~ I7L # ( ~ UPPER LEYE~LOOR Ph - Proposed . SCALE: 3/16"=1'-0" (TYPICALl rj~a; "~ ,;:\tr.:l ';~r '0 z" ,", "', t.:z:j .'; ~. "";~'.~ .r 1:1. ,j(Jl:l ;~ '.,,(tl (tl '!,.~.' ,;,< .ft.... :.$.<::),;: f.:,~',-O .".~j &S;; i~,",,;,: .~;~ '. : '{,:~ijl~\ : .if:: f.~'~"'>" '>i'~~~!ri: ".' '!:'''''\f'i:::'!'",~, '" ';;ij~\iiifX? ,,~ \'~<" .' .,.,~"i.'t".. ;(~if;' , .', If , ., ~~f ':" '~. : ,-.,. t. "'4, i r ;. '. '!..,. :-;".;.f4"" '6.' .f.. '';," .1 , l ~ ..:' .;.. " ',\.!' , .;~~. ... ,. /1""':": ~, ~ ;,,~ - .: .: .~~ ~ .~~ : .' i . " ~ \ 1''(,;,;'1:,; ,:'~~,,;,f:,~....;.}.!;..,',....:,.:.' ;A:," '--::~ ./;L, .~:<;y .' ':'1': .. ~z,:" ..~,~ ' ...' ~t.. rt,' .~" 'h' .. 5.', ~ ;~;(; '" :,~, ) ,... /..l 'j ^ ~..~ .;,~ '-r '. ". '..' f:' :' 'I'<i.f:i.< 1~ .~~;." ..:N' r . .' . .~~ . r. .". . ~- ',. '}'m:~,),: .\ .,~'i';f,-i\;;:i,(1' . .f:..r.,tr"..'1...,.,...JH"., .i;'~::~i~~.:~:~:'::;;:~:;.':..:t t;.:: .. 1,'.'1li:j;j,', '.. .. .:' ~:"<Ji~1'r('~;-~:X':". .. .,';., "'ll"T " . ~. ,~;\<~'lt"::y~ " ..:.~~;,)i~:~~'j. J('; .. ~ 4..Q!.~?,~. ':". .~'. ~.. ,. "",;'"' ..~'-~ '~:r \~~t" .~;~\ ;f_j:./,~:!,\:~~< .n:"''''4 ,........ "0'';;: ~iik'itt,.' "',,(~."~~:;:'. . >.:..'~tJ.~S %:....;. 'i:j\ :,i~:~~~i: ,. ': ~.;;';'i""\'- '. ,!y~1Q'. '!j " ~ ~~~ " :~1~1~?~i/ I"" '. 'j ..~ ., ..;:.'/:(".." .'.' .:ir. .l, )". ; \ li o' ~ t( ..tiij ':i~"'" ~,~r ..~';:., . 'i,: C> .,~. \.'~.. ,:1;1 gfl' O...~~ e .1' .J: : ',~ ,,,4 /.."" " " :j Ii , r'\ ~7-~;~:,.::~" , "tn..- !'.'-. ' ;:f~L~..,j . ..>~". " .4- J.:.. ,. j,;J '.'0'. "~...,.,:~ '. .~~' I J ~ " i' i 'I. '. < t, I'"! ~: J~ i . li'~' 'a 'I'" :.0;> .,..t\~ .,i~ ^ '. ~ .' T~ '.~.t~i':;!ei " . ~:t.' 1ii' ."", . !" . '~", .". - . .!.<'>-..~.~X-l'^ '.. . .;It' '1':0'" .:::~~.,. ,;~ ""l ,~.. :' ~,:. ',',,;," 1:1$" , ~.: l~ .? ':! :~,i:. ,.....i'.~.,'. ,.. <;<\. . l!t~ ~w< ~ .,.. : H'o"}':, ,~:;;.",.,iji;I''',li. ''<' . (.\:"I,\;; .,' $;1l....,c;)4jf':" .. '. .'" ;1\ "?'i.F','~Y ,.. '.,e,: '>~",'(lF:'" ~...,; " ~. (. :~~.~~. ~'~", -:. !;;: . ., ' ,. , , .t'" ~~... :':. ....~' " .-," r ".f , ~~" o' J ."" , " " .. (....1,. ";, .' )".:;;t' ~" .. -; ,_" ,~. ' :)J; :: t?~.? ~. ':~.r,:-. r~ !.~t"7:.f'il',:' . /t :~'.:.~ ~ .~ . 0 ~. " .;~' 'I'if! : '1"1 ;" ~ ~. ,':-- '.:~. r\ '- ) 'J.' ;; , ..... .' .":1. :\. ;::\~ .. " :~ .j';;,~ . ""'.'. " .,~~; '. . . ~:.~.:. ~.'), .;:~~ :'0,;.' ;,'" :;:!;" t:. , fl. . ~. .,.. ~.. .:~ ;". . f.'" ". '1~' ..~ ,;t:l ,l31,; '~:"~ ~;f':' ..,...-i/;.. " ':;-: .< , Ii. ...~?,~ ,. . ;j,.t:: 'f .'~; , , ;; ,. " 'i;~r "'j' . , .('"T;' ":'-':' .* '~:;;" .:, " " 1""'"'. r-,. lX . c. FROM: Mayor and Council Carol O'Dowd, city Manager Amy Margerum, Planning Directo~ Leslie Lamont, Planner TO: THRU: THRU: 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 POD 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 development the continuous in the public problems of unapproved rights-of-way, we would work like and 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 3-bedroom units 2-bedroom units = 15 10 5 = = floor area = 24,358 floor area ratio = .34 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 5 additional bedrooms living space expansions living room expansions bay windows = 1,225 = 2,550 = 2,550 = 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 'Daroel 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 paroel 4. R-6 DUPLEX ANALYSIS: duplex = 9,000 lot area/dwelling unit 'Daroel 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 lot area for 5 two-bedroom units total lot area = 36,300 = 10,500 = 46,800 lot area for additional 5 bedrooms = total lot area required for proposal = R/MF floor area ratio = existing floor area ratio = proposed floor area ratio = 7,650 54,450 1:1 .34 .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 1"""'\ r"'\ 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 developmentj 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. 6 1""1 1""1 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 .1"""\. ~ 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 ,Series of 1991. I move to adopt on first reading Ordinance ~Series of 1991. ATTACHMENTS: A.Ordinance B.Site plans- cc.clarendon.pud 8 r-. 1"""\ 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: submitted comments. The following referral agencies have 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 wi thin 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 I s recommendation that the applicant provide a plat to depict the final PUD amendment. STAFF COMMENTS A. Background - The Clarendon condominiums are a J.5 unit complex with J.O 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, J.975. 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 J.5 units. The 2 ,-.. ,-. 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 3-bedroom units 2-bedroom units == 15 10 5 '" '" floor area '" 24,358 floor area ratio == .34 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 5 additional bedrooms == living space expansions '" living room expansions == bay windows == 1,225 2,550 2,550 390 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 ma~imum 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 lot area for 5 two-bedroom units total lot area = 36,300 = 10,500 = 46,800 lot area for additional 5 bedrooms = total lot area required for proposal = 7,650 54,450 R/MF floor area ratio = existing floor area ratio = proposed floor area ratio = 1:1 .34 .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 amendment shall be approved pursuant to of the final development plan, provided is consistent with or an enhancement development plan. section 7-907 B., any the terms and procedures that the proposed change of the approved final 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. 6 .~. .^' 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 applicant may seriously consider a building into a conforming status. condition of approval, the zone change to bring the 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. ATTACHMENTS: A. site plans pz.clarendon.pud 8 1"""'\. 1"""'\. JUL - 9 199\ SPENCER F. SCHIFFER, P.C, ATTORNEY AT LAW ADMITTED TO COLORADO AND NEWYOAK BARS PARK CENTRAL BUILDING 215 SOUTH MONARCH, SUITE 202 ASPEN, COLORADO 61611 TELEPHONE (303)925-4041 TELECOPIER (SOS) 925-4043 ,'July 5, 1991 Ns. L!3s1ie Lamont Aspen - Pitkin Planning Department 1JJ South Galena street Aspen, Colorado B1611 ne: Clarendon PliD ArnenornHnt: [) r'l . e;3,:t' ..r2~S_ le: At first reading on the ordinarlce to approve the Clar~ndorl p ~ U ~ D. l\1:t!ondment:, F'rctnk P€~ters r,::d.sed the quest ion ofwhethe:r th€~ C~.Gr(::ndc!"t is a nonconform.i:r19 USE!. .I brie.fly stat.ed our posi t.io:n in rC':1pc'n;~c, tha.t it is not nonconforming', and told you 1 would f<~llot,,! up 'it/:i.t:.h a IrlHmo. section ]-101 of tIle Code defines nonconformii19 use as "... cHI]" U::;;,G: of luEd; building or stl:'uct.ure, vlhich ~"C1'=' estab} isned ~li.lrsuant to 'the zoning and buildi:ng laws in effec't at the ti:ne of i.ts devt~lopmentJ ~)ut which use is not a permitted \~~ condi~:i.o~:n'~ U3Cl under t11E~ r89ulations imposed by t.his CodE? t:D.t' t:he zone d,:u:itrict in ~...1b,1c:h it is locat(~d. 11 fl'he: !"~gu.J.)t.i.ons impc~~ed, by t:he Cede for the H.-6 POD zone {j,l;:;;trict:. ;:!rE~ tl1oS6' set forth in t.he final d,eveloprncnt I~,.l;;u1 for.- th,~~ Pt11't.:.iCiJ J.ar PUD. lrhat is, no ,..dovelopm,ent can t.al:E~ placl?- ina:n::{ z(nH~ di.s.trict rtiith a mandatcr:~i pun dt2:signation u,nlE~SS it is in (~ccord(;1.nce T-tllth an <,.rpprc\~~~d PUD. (Section 7 -902 j. rllhe develo';:liT1ent regulat.ion:'; fur Elrry PUD are .th(,s(~ SHt forth in the fina,l develapm2k.!t .p12l11. F'or example, Section 7-906 provicies tt,nt: 'I"r,'" ",' n"] ,., -, ',,] ')['."""',1" '-0] ~]1 ,.J]'] I ,.,::; ,':"""'-- ,-:I.. ,.t';::'j :.....l, .:m.;:.. __ 1. ..{'l,. .,' " .e....:..~~_~;._.:_ p ~..)J~ ~Jd..:..t!Jj~~L.._~:JH~~, .(1 f,~ y,q..l ,:n;;:I;~~;Jl.t.",;.~.fJ~EnLL.s.~~:.l.9.n s tor t.h ~3 [}rqpert:y. D€~velopT!~(?rit 0;: tllO proper'ty shall be J. i mi t,e.(1. t:(l tJl ,~: .~.L5,~E:S~ J :.~5;~~~n,~ijJ;.Y:; s:;;:;:>nf i9.1.1..:t:.ELt:,J ern a nO. .~L~L~L.QMt;JH2J~_..~~lj~J!u;:~n:~;;'~~..".,..~l.fri__.g~9ngit ions set f~:,.r,;J~.h...~~!n.._..tJLfZ:-..fj~Ll~l.1_...._~Jg:S.:~J.D_r:~~eD t. I-?.;t<a.n and PU [) A9!:t~enH:~nt..;j (E:t(i.PhiiS:!..~~~ add(~d). sf ,\.;~;~rc"do.5 1". ~ 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 concept. Clarendon a PUD constitutes a rezoning is by no means a new The zoning code which was in effect at the time the 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 subiect propertv final development plan. as stated in the (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\ctarendo.5 ~ ,~ 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 1976, the zoning was the same as it is today. In reading through the prior application 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. SFS: jw Enclosures ours, SCHIFFER, P.C. Schiffer cc: Mr. Chuck Frias Mr. Larry Yaw sfs\ctarendo.5 :w~,...." ., ~ . - l''''' ~ : ~ 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 shalI 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 ou~line devel~pment!,Ian! !heap licant IJJhe';j)ilfat~ijnriig'cIiiiiilie;SlfaITlie'~ 1518,2 I Supp, No, 1 . . . . . . f"""",. ! I ! fr : j ZONING ~ 24-10,1 1'-" ~ 24.10,1 ~~.~~~~~:; 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 J.-..~)",i~e'i.~~~irr"~ll~~~:ffi- V\ ~;~~'fum~;~v~&.pmentp1il~ '. ~ (5) .Mter.,1!I>I>rQval,!>Ltlt~!!.~al()evelopment plan and the bi[l!jing of reaL property and final re- zoning the applicant must <:omplywith 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 hereln;-thi'appli. I;\" cant must receive the necessary approvals prior to ...j . 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 r-.j ('.~, \ , 'J ,1""'"\ ,,-, . ~ 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. l (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. Planning commission action,-Outline development plan. (1) The planning commission shaIl 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. City council action,-Outline development plan. (1) The planning commission shaIl 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- . (c) (d) . Supp, No, 1 1518,& .,~,""",."-"~",, (""', ~. fi 24-10,1 ASPEN CODE ~ 24-10,1 Jished 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 oute line development plan has been approved for the area included within the planned unit de- velopment and that the zoninlr has been tenta- < tively approved subject to satisfactory com- pletion of the remaininlr nhases as set forth . in section 11-1-11 rsection 24-10,1] of this relrulation. 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 dl!1Jelopment-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 . . . ,1"""\ . ~ 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 inflJ'rmation for final development pw,n 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 maj or 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 be expected to begin and to be completed; . Supp, No, 1 1518,7 r-.. I 24-10.1 , . ,"'" , ., ~:: ,: ' I 24-10.1 ASPEN CODE ,(5) (f) Agreements, prOVISions or covenants'!;!';!;" which govern the use, maintenance' and. ". '.' continued protection of the planned unit , development and any of its common,,IIpen"";' spaces; . Vi . (g) Any other information which the plan- 'i': ' 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 "I,i.' ',',.it\:-, is marked on the ground. '.: ';.' (c) Planning commission action-Final development" plan. . (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 regulati0'n8-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. Procedures for change of zoning to PUD. (a) Tentative rezoning-Outline Mvelopment plan. (1) The annlicant for chan~e of zonin~ to the ap- propriate PUD zone shall submit a reauest in Supp. No, 1 1518,S ':;,{ : ,?/; ";:;,,.. . ~ 24-10,1 (b) . . Supp. No, 1 ZONING ~. 24-10.1 writing to accompany the outline develo1!mmt plan for the desired Jelnn nAp. $Inn l'1tl11Qity, which in no event shall exceed the limitations as set forth in the use permitted and n,m.ity. permitted sections of the existin z ne . ict or whir.h PUD zoninSl: is requeRten, (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. Final rezoning-Final development plan. (I) After approval of the final development plan by the planning commission,. the' city council shall rezonp. the ,.mhjA{!t propertv in $I(lp.nrn~n(l'p with the final development pl;1O. 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: On the ___.._.____ day of '____..L___;,..._____.._____., 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: I '. ., 1518,9 ^ f~ r 24-10;.1 'f '24-10.l ASPEN CODE , , '.. ,!,>' Mayor, City of Aspen, Colorado Attest: By______.______________.____________.____________ J (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 .', shan 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 f(J1" subdividing under section (11-1-11) [S6C- tion, $4..10;1]. (a) The plaimed unit development plan is not a sub- . division plat for any purpose, and it will be neces- . saryto 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 finll! development plan may be in whole by one subdivision plat ~r in parts by a series of sub- . division plats. Each-subd~ion plat submitted ~ll-b&-in..complian...!;.(! wit!! th;-nnaJ,qeveJopment ( 'Dlan -- . - Supp. No.1 1518.10 . . . ~'. .~ . , REAL~TATE AF};'ILIATES INCOHPnTED j 1660 Lincoln Street, Suite 2520,,) Denver. Colorado 80203 ;00,00 TO: Ci ty Council Members FROM~ Real Estate Affiliates Incorporated SUBJECT: Propo sed Ordinance 13 and CI arendon DATE: April 18, 1974 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 proposeddolmzoning only affects the Clarendon project. The City Attorney has provided you with her opinion that Ordinance 12 (modification of the Ordinance 19 map) does not affect the Clarendon project since Clarendon is a prior application under Ordinance 19. Also, she has expressed the opinion that down zoning as stated in the proposed Ordinance 13 would affect the pending Clarendon project. Ordinance 12 (modification of the Ordinance 19 map) effectively "dolmzones" 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 ~he 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-l zoning). Shortly after exercise of the option, the Ute City Protection agency petitioned to down zone the Ute area. (1 'J 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 ~o the Building Inspector for 46 apartment units (Parks ide Apartments). It ~s our opinion that this submittal is still valid and that we could build these apartments if we so desire. Since the Parks ide 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 poo 1 and tennis court, We hi Ted' a planning fi rm 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, We voluntarily eliminated 10 units and pro- ceeded with a 36 unit concept, 4. On October IS, 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&Zunder Ordinance 19 on November 20, 1973, 5. 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 t~o hours long and addressed all of the issues associated with the project. The major points made in our presentation are summarized below: ~. I ") City Council Members April 18, 1974 Page three a. Site location i. ii. S.B. quarter of City Near tourist oriented facilities: ski lift and downtown Convenient to City Market and Post Office Conclusion: Site location will minimize the use and dependency on the automobile. It is an appropriate location for a pedestrian- orient~d,tourist-related use. iii. iv. b. Site area i. 1.627 acres or 70,875.98 sq ft. ii. Under AR-l zoning, 47 units would be permitted. c. Site characteristics i. ii. iii. Flat, developable site Little vegetation except on Ute. Heavy concentration of condominiums on surrounding properties. d. Existing Neighborhood Land Use Study i. In the neighborh06d 80% 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-l zoning. ii, Only 36 units were proposed. A 23% reduction had been made. iii. 39 parking spaces are provided for the 36 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 42% of site is useable after City and owner constraints. j, Schematic Site Plan 1. ii. iii. 30 two-bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units, A tennis court, swimming pool and therapy pool. An underground phrking 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 sit& is pedestrian oriented, minimizing potential use of the automobile. ') .~ ,,-.,t 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 ,;ould 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 Plamling Office and the to-be-hired City Economist would perform additional studies for the City. 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 ",hat 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 concept approval ,;i th conditions as fo.1lo",s: B. 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 waspo'i nted out that this type ~f 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 Xransit 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 quantititive 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). We 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. ~ r-.. .-, . '"--,, City Council Members April 18, 1974 Page seven No decision the project meeting. was made, The P&Z agreed to make a decision on February 5, 1974, at the Commission's regular ~ 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 meet\ng, they decided to recommend to City Council modification of the Ordinance 19 Land Use Map rather than rezoning. 11. February 5, 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, I;e 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 paZ for a 24-unit townhouse project. A number of technical recommendations were made by the City Engineer and all issues were agreed upon or reiolved. 14. Ordinace 13. After passing Ordinance 12 making it law, the Council passed Ordinance 13 on first reading, which would down zone 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 ~ I "-". , City Council Members April 18, 1974 Page eight , z011ing). It is possibly ex-past-facto legislation ~imed at ~ 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 paZ, 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 paZ Commission that has given us concept approval and pr~liminary subdivision approval. We 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. h. ....-:.~ '-, MEMORANDUM '"' D rn~rnnl)j'~ n APR I 519911~ From: Leslie Lamont, Planning Department Rob Thomson, Project Engineer~ To: Date: April 15, 1991 Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment 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 I 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) . -- r--. ~ 4. It is staff's recommendation that the applicant provide a plat to depict the final pud amendment. cc Chuck Roth, City Engineer rtjmem091. 33 r'\ .,,-., t-L- ~ 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 tlle Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S. Galena st., Aspen, CO 920-5090. sIC. Welton Anderson. Chairman Pl.anning and zoning commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Published in The Aspen Times on City of Aspen Account ,1"'""'\ 1"'""'\ 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: FROM: RE: DATE: 1"""'\ city Engineer 1"""'\. MEMORANDUM Leslie Lamont, Planning Office Clarendon Condominium PUD Amendment Parcel ID# 2737-182-30-010 Case #Al6-91 March 26, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and Clarendon Condominium Assn. Amendment. comments is an application from requesting approval of a PUD Please return your comments to me no later than April 15, 1991. Thank you. ,. "'""', ATTORNEy AT LAW JEROME PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 201 NORTH MILL STREET. SUITE 105 ASP:::N, COLORADO 81511 ~~~~~\~ SPENCER F. SCHIFFER. ADMITTED TO COLORADO AND NEW YORK BARS TElEPHONE 03\925-562& 21 March 1991 TElECOPIER (303)925-5663 By Hand Delivery Ms, Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Clarendon Condominiums Dear Leslie: 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 a.s 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, SFS:jw Enclosures SCHIFFER, P.C, , Schiffer cc: Mr. Chuck Frias Mr, Larry Yaw , SCHIFFER\CLARENDO.SUB , 1) Praj ect Nama ,~\~1 ..~. L,,-'ID USE APPLICXrICN B:::FM ,...., Clarendon .;lndominiurns ,...-,. , ~ 2) P,,-uject L.x:aticr.. West End Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611, lot 1, Clarendon Subdivision.Pitkin County, Colorado' (i.rxlicat:.e ~L.=t aCd:ress, lot & bl=k r..1lIt>er, legal clesc::::i.p:icn ,,'here ~U':"-iate) , 3) Present zcnin:J R-€; Mandatory P.U.D. 4) Lot size 1.627 Acres 5) 1\j:plicarrt:'s Name, M:1ress. & ~ 'if Clarendon Condominium Association, Inc., c/o Aspen Club Realty, 730E.Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-2000 6) Representative's Nama, .l\ddress & Bloneif Spencer F. Schiffer. 201 N. Mill St. Suite 106, Aspen, Colorado '81611 (303') 925-5625 7) Type of 1\j:plication (please check all that awlY): Can:llticnaJ. Use _ .Carx:eptual SPA _ SJ?"<:"; '" 1 Review Final SPA _ Colx:eptual Historic :cev. _ Final Historic Dav. ,.." 8040 Greenline _' Carx:eptual RJD _ Min:Jr Historic IJev. _ st:ream Ma:tg.in --'L- Final RJD (Amendment) _ Historic Derolition MOuntain view Plane SUblivision - - _ Historic Designation a:nJcminiumization _ TextjMap 1Ill:enJment _ GQ5 Allotment: _ Vested Rights _ I.ot Split;Lot Line _ GQ5 Exelrption MjusbDent 8) Descciption of Ex::i.st:inJ Uses (rnmh>r ani type of exi.st:i.n3" st:roct::u:res; ~te sq. ft.; rn"""""x of ~UUIb; arrJ: pl:eVious awrovaJ..s g:r:anted to the property). See Supplement to ApplicatiOn 9) Description of :cevelcpnent Ag;llication Amendment to P.U.D.; See Supplement to AppliCati.on 10) ~ Have ycu attached the follcwin;? _ yes ~ to A~l",~,L:2 Minim.m1 Sllrmi=ion O::ntents - , yes Re:sp.:loSe to Atta. 1 '" _, ,L 3, SJ:>"<'ifi C Snrmi .....ion O::ntents yes ResparlSe to Attadlmenl: 4, Review st:andaJ::ds for Ycur Ag;llication . -, -"'C'-'__'_.''''_h"'", > "" "'-"'",-",."~,^,,-,.,..,....,,.... . .." ."....,~_.. '., , r", ..~ CITY OF ASPEN PRE~APPLICATION CONFERENCE S~Y PROJECT: r> 11\...vy'\cltS1\ ::9 l.) f') C\; Y'NLM &~~ - c~, \ ',',J J J APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: -d~d'f...,y\ C ~ ~ r. " i; / <L( P 1'\ /l7 '7..[ REPRESENTATIVE'S P~ONE: 5~' ~/r 'J 'l7's{!..;;lvl I (II' 1\' 'I{..../ OWNER'S NAME: .. ().:l QV\ iJ A~11\ \\ ,\'\110 b..,.,-,"T\ L'~'1 II ~J-( . . . . SUMMARY 1 '~ Type of Application: (\)0 D ~l,'Yv....tJih\..L/~/ ') ~Il , I CA / C -f.:. 10(j: ., I, ,1 <:"l -J L G~'\", Describe action/type of development being requested: ,'1 ~ () '\ rl L~0-''-) : fl-,'-'(<""" " 1 /:i--fc:.,. y'JCi i y '("1 I' I --J Ii" .r1!. iJ Iv\ ,....-C '--,. ..~-(ri'{\ !Z-;-r r,L~ 'J [YQ.:p'Octct\ / - r '-.J \ J r,,rl i~. ,1,/ ,......1 (!'V\\Ji'lUUv\..i.v0 \-' i. j.-; \ )JUn'J JOY:!." J Applicant has been requested to respond, requested: ~ '" 3 . Areas types is whil::h of reports Policy Area/ Referral Aqent Comment'S " C'--Y'^-</y\.I\x.,t ~ 1. .. ( () C" ... r!~'" "'-;-1\':1....~ ~/'1\J;k\t~ e0-:~c; 4. ~z then to~ 5. Review is: (P&Z onl~__~~ly) Public Hearing: YES). (NO) Number of copies of the application to be su~~itted: ~ What fee was applicant requested to submit: Ii (Q 90 -t 90 -J.l2J~a Anticipated date of submission: 3/3 cr ~ 6. 7. ~ 8. 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 Attachment~ 2, 3, and 4. The application is being submitted pursuant to and in accordance with 97-908B 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 ~he same time the surrounding neighborhood has undergone intensive ~evelopment such that, by comparison, the Clarendon has the lowest floor area ratio and is arguably the lowest impact development in the area. schiffer\c1arendo,saa .,..\ "~ s:: " 1"""\ .'-"'. ~ 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) 170 sq. ft. each (15 units) . 2. Additional Bedroom (5 units, Level 2) schiffer\clarendo.saa 2 ~';\""':"'-'~':"i",.",~.,:,':"""'.,.,.:., .,.",..,-...-,-, "'."'".. "":"'",',.-;:.- .~. "~-,:'~',: ",,,~ ,'-'." "'':'-',,'':~''''--'.':;'.~...-'':....'- ,..";,,.-...."'. .~..,..:..:~_.~:".....,,'.....,.:.,.,..-..:..._' . .... --~.".----.... . ":':':-"_':.~":"'.'-:/'.:"";.'~_-'",:?~::"",;:,-:.,:;_.;:;<.::,'";.""7:'-:""''''::;'.'''.....,..,.. , r- i~ 245 sq: ft. each (5 units) 3. Solarium Addition to Living Room (Ground Level) 170 sq. ft. ~ach (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. 7 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 root form, helps to break up the facade scale by individualizing it and ~dditionally 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 97-908 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 96-202 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 .'.'.....";-;,._-,-.'.'..--",,.......,,""'........... ..,~~.~ '''':'~'~'';':,~~."''''':.''~''''.~.,,..r:-.c;t".':''':''T'-;~7 '. ~ r, ~ site. Using the dimensional requirements of 95-302 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 of the development. In a letter attached hereto.as Exhibit D, the general manager indicates that " .. 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 requepts that any requirement for parking in addition to the 30 spaces be waived. Such a waiver is permissible under 97-903 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. nja 7. nja 8. nja 9. nja 10. nja 11. A supplemental or amended plat will be prepared following approval and filed for record from "as built" plans when applicable. .. schiffer\clarendo,saa 4 \ .'}-"'- ...-.',..."...".:..;"'............'C".":..'..". " r'1 ~ . IV. Response to Attachment 3 1. The written description of the existing conditions requested to be altered is as follows: The Clarendon is comprised of ten three-bedroom units and five 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 Three-Bedroom units A. Additional Bedrooms 245 sq. feet B. Master Bedroom expansions 170 sq. feet 170 sq. feet C. Living Room expansions 170 sq. feet 170 sq. feet D. Bay Windows projections 26 sa. feet 26 sa. feet Total additions/expansions 611 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 appl icable 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 < ,-, , ~ 22, 1975. B. Subdivision re-approval by City Council January 26, 1976. c. First Amendment to the P.U.D. Plan 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 - _._,,' "........ , . '" 91 I " I I nq I MM . · 91 is I 41 WRIGH'l' & ADG5:R ,...". lJY~ Vii" H'jlil" v".i;;/W ".t \ ,.... 11 P . 5.15 . 1""""'\ Ctl_4<m ~M.-'-'_ ",..'anon, l:UCl. 0/0 1I.1t. 0hl.l.0k ht.. ~a C1.uO b61.1l7 13~ S. _el: ......'11... Mi'ell., CQln.16o OU11 ~.~JhOCOI (30$) .*0-2000 ~h 8, un City ot ",en n&Mf.nS D6pg_...t .1:$0 $O\l.en. 0&1.... $1;:%..1: .up..", Colo11'&Go 8161.1. h: ~\""..t: to t.O.D. :pUn for Clltol:lc,Dn CO%l~m:l.1l1UlU ,:, ~Oll h 11&,. OlnlCltnl: 'l:htl 01&:ClIl:ll1Qn col14om=1.\IlI\ "'UOllial;:;.on, !ue:., o!t!l the l:'eool:'cl ownn of the sauetd on!! 11lll1t:8(\ llOllllllon e:l.OllllntJ &I clucl:'ibec1 in tile OD%l1iO!l1n1um f)ecl.al:"~'d.on (61: i1oiw. al&rllndon. C<>~dQlIl1ftl.\WI' nootel,1i l.n look 319 .1: Jap 413 '1'I<l eM COlIldoll!u;!.lllll llIap fUel!. \'ll- I'll'll look S 1.1: Pal' ~6. as ".U .., 111 IM'Aclmant:1I a:Id "..ppllllllet1.1:S l:llfll\'eto. ~1'I .the &li!QorM of the :Ut:1c1n COllZltY c1a~ Gel. :aOOO:l:'I1."'. ...,... on betlaU tlf l:he owns ot aJ.l CO~WIlIlN." ~ 1:110 al&ran~l!. Conliaml,N.1ilIlI'. heretly 4eont'1m. that ehe foJ..l.onna ,al IlJ:bor1alld to liO!: on bab..a IOf the Cl.al:endC%l CollClolll1.n1W1\ ASlOc1&c1on lllc. iUld all Wli.t OW'lllllrC e~ IlUbldt 41" :\1;'00." m &PElUoaUon fo:: an .."llnn't to the '.!J.ll. ~lan i",= lOh. Cl~~n4.(m ~l14orM.ni.1lllt& ; ',nett" F. Sob1ff" 201 ~.X11l S~t, S~tI 106 Aljlen, O(J1Q~adc 8J.'U 'l:ehjlhotle.; (303' 925.5625 lax:y YAW lIapan "lAW Architacn 510 Ii. Hrm'lI A"enu. AlPIn, Colo:a4o 11611 ralepboftA, (~OS) o'~'~~'7 '17~ m4,. ywra. CU!L!NDON ComxMt.N:lW ASSOCUnON, INC. 'By: ~ ~~ S$~e1;B.r1 Ken _ NAs.Ut>:!\~clCl.1. A r PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. .~ Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President .CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, lnc., 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. ~ , 1'""'. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. ('"'"\ Vincent J. Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E,Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925.6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP 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. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY:~ . authorized signature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . , ,. .""" ,,-,., .~. · PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.. . Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado St6ll (303} 925-1766 . (303} 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis 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: CONDOMINIVM 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. 8Y:'~~. X(k ~C/ authorized signature 0 DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 ~ "r., 1""'""\ '. '. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766 . (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M. Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP 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. PITKIN COUN:Y TITLE, ~ BY: ~.~ rX. Cl.ArJ authorized signature d . DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . ,....." 1'""\ : . PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.' . Vincent J. Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925.6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP pitkin County Title, lnc., 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. PITKIN COUNTY BY:~ authorized signature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 ~ \ '("""; .~ PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Vincent J, Higens President Title I nsurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title, Inc., a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the state of colorado heteby.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 futnished for informational purposes only. BY DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . Vincent J, Higens President ..~. r\ '.PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. Title Insurance Company 6111 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado at 611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President 'CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP 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 UNJT 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:~ authorized s~gnature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 ~ ..,...." PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. ~ Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen. Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis 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 DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 , .. , .l ..("', PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. .1""'\ Vincent J. Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 e, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 Christina M. Davis (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, BY:~ authorized signature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 ~ , ) t'""\PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, InC.~ Vincent J, Higens President TItle Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 8161t (303) 925.1766' (303) 925.6527 FAX Christina M. Davis 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. PITKI~ CO~NTY TITLE AC. - BY:~ll...U::2J~. Qltrl authorized signature 0 DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 " - . .,......" ~ , . PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. '. . ! . Vincent J, Higens President TItle Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Titre, 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 COU~TY TITLE'~ ' 8Y:'~rX. ,f/( authorized signature 6 DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 ~ , ) n PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. ~ . Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 816t 1 (303) 925-t766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice' President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP Pitkin County Title. In~.,a duly licensed Title Insurance Agent in the State of Colorado herehy 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. PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, 8Y:~~ QK. authorized signature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . , )> ',-.,r-.. , ' PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. . Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925-6527 FAX Christina M, Davis Vice President CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP 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 BY : D.-VLl..ooJl authorized DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . " ,-., ~ '. . PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc. . Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 60t E. Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925.6527 FAX Christina M. Davis 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 - BY: /A...A..>;;JJ authorized signature DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . - j . r", ~ PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.. · , Vincent J, Higens President Title Insurance Company 601 E, Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-1766' (303) 925.6527 FAX Christina M, Davis 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. , PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC. BY: ~ d7S. ~~C{ authorized signature 0 DATED: MARCH 13, 1991 . I I I ~ I "0" 1 . I rr' i \ 11 . ~ f-~ ~ ! .111 i ' I "-,. I . , t:i E. HYMAN "I" AVE... ". ~'lJffi1l i W~\lliJ i'WldJml. ~ ~------- -- t:i I fllILUJI ,'\ ~f ,.Iie ~ : 10 - 1111 [l~ I .,.. "d " , . .. \ .4~. .' VE. l...--..--~-"",-~_~:' . Ii; 1 . ," \.IJ ---------y.... "- ... ;,.;~ ;r; . wmrn i ():~. ~~I ml \ r:;.---~-T-..I.--------..:.-l . I : I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I , /,~ "-" I :_g I, " ,! \'11 \ ~.[[[] . " \ /~ .. ... _I. W ~ ..J U .-------- --../ <r , ' . ,:~-_...~. . r:r.::: ...., ! , - -..........""\l P.! . I 1 .;~~li \ , 1 \ \.p 1 " \ \ .... \ ,~- \ i-~ I ! I ...........\ , I \~;;jtl ..';'_1 _. :... I. I ~ .... '-~~J'.J>I. /.... ,- ~.... .... .,-~~ I ..h.,\/ '~" ~I .ld ~i:.1 .~ ,,~ ~~ ,'* .~ ,i ,,~ I;' '....... \'^- I,' ......,N '\ Sl , "\,. I , ,..1 ,,........ , ';'~'.R~1't . .-.....-.. (PUD)" .~. . .J..: c ('? . ~ R-15.i ~\, :(~UD);' .... flsf!:^ CMr Reafty March 20, 1991 , a ! Ci ty 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. Sincerely, Chuck Frias General Manager . CF/jlp 730 East Durant, Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-2000 800/882-2582 800/443-2582 (Colorado) 303/920-2020 (FAX) " i '1. i:).. : I ji i I I ," i~i,; :~'O ,,!~~~: ~ :<I~, ; 'l,.:, l '"":!iP~' .'.,~" , 'l' ,~: 0 i\':S1'-l fL ' .~~~~~ir ," , .. ~,~!~~~~ ..111>' '~ J Itt-r ^l <(.1 0 ;\): \J q~'u) I~}l' , {<l...1 ~ OH-iJ.};j , LWU) i.I\ n<; \), :J:.r:z~<r . ~1:'J\)1;~lfM...l' ~ n:r<(1 I , ' ~~@., 'i:: ,'~:\i~" ~~S'- \)8Wl'!]~ ~ t;:l. , \)O.cpj~j ~~ . .:l~~;j<i ""l. w,jrTl :~i4i ~~ , \:t ~il ~~ ~I I; (~I~ ,~'1:.. , I~i~~m~ ,. !-I dlllF'I~ ,,,..... ~ ,~ '~" ,~ ~, , A ~ ,~ ~ \\\: /'\ ~ . ~ , , : ii',' , cI 'I: , "~ia': .~t~' iij~l~ R~: ""I./fi. ,p!~1 1>:1' , .,' , ,u.I~ , ;z1iZ' J j~ II~ Hd) ;\\''- ~I~ L~,' I I. ; 1. -l'!l!) 0'~ ''''1:1 ;~ r\i fJ! ,I ... j ~ i J ! I; ! I .i I 1 I , . i ! 1,'111 ',ii" ! i~ II ~~ 1:1' '",,[ .~, I' ." , if\:..j :..i ;~' I' . i--' !.O. 1-1\: ::.! z~: i~ ~I~,:~':~I: I' ,1'=..'/ f'l',,: I'" I'~,d ','" 0,~ ' " n' ".J i~: "t-.:.~ 0, ,'5' I~ ,Ill I'Z: N i "Ql j ~ I ~ 'U's" " bl., i iI i<( : I :, \ '; I '-...) i , '\)i : i J'] "I". :J "J I.' --"':'.'" :;"!V'":,'~..;,,,,} I ,j , 1-' I ,.::, tIlii ...)l;l d)l>! .." ,\ -4' ., -~.:::. x_,f ..,-.10 ........ ~,-l, ,I\:v' ~~<; .-;-LlUt . " \ \ ,.... ~ I, 11 ,~ b ~ .,~ ~ "'/-\ ~' i _..----~ I ~:H ~ , I II ' \(,~ill "~,II 'igr I~ . . ~ii~ , '1- ~: I 't \.~ [ ! llJ. : ~I': ~!!w ~:; :> ,\:II 'i <;:) i...\, ' ,I ~:!: .." " ' i'U i i : ~Il I II : I II I ' 1 ii, ",II ' i I , I, i -