HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.bocc.gmc.ag.110999 AGENDA
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
PITK1N COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1999
$:00 PM AT PLAZA I
GROWTII MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
I. ROLL CALL
II. MINUTES (10/12/99)
III. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Chateau Chaumont Change in Use, Joyce Ohlson
V. ADJOURN
CITY AG15NDA
City Council Meetings- on the 2"d and 41h Mondays at 5:00 PM
Planning Zoning Commission Meetings- on the 1" and 3Id Tuesdays at 4:30 PM
Historic Preservation Commission Meetings- on the 2"1 & 4th Wednesdays at 5:00 PM
Board of Adjustment- on every other Thursday at 4:00 PM, or on Demand
Revised 11103199
11/3 Neighborhood Meeting (4:00)
Commercial Core
11/8 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Code Amendment- Accessory Dwelling Unit Program 2"d Reading (PH) (CB)
Saint Moritz Minor PUD 2"d Reading * Prenotice (PH) (CB)
HPC Contractor Licensing 1st Reading (AG)
Resolution Re: World Town Planning Day (JO)
Aspen Mountain PUD Public.Hearing cont'd from 10/25 (JA)
11/9 Growth Management Committee (5:00) at Plaza 1
Chateau Chaumont- Change in Use (JO)
11110 Housing Authority Presentation (5:00)
Planning and Zoning Commission Invited
11/10 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/19
Architecture 101 (AG)
Bavarian Conceptual- Advisory comments to council (JO)
330 Gillespie- Worksession
135 W. Hopkins- Conceptual — Cont'd from 10/27
1006 E. Cooper Worksession
11/11 Planning and Zoning (2:00 — 8:OOPM) at Council Chambers (Dinner Provided)
City Notice 10/19
Joint City -County meeting on AACP
11/16 Planning and Zoning (4:00)
City Notice 10/26
Gramiger 70/30 Sketch Plan Public Hearing (JA) (Meeting at 6:00 with Council, time tentative)
Code Amendments Worksession (CB)
Second Aspen Subdivision Lots #6 and #7 ADU, Special Review (NL) (PH)
Code Amendment- Planned Unit Development Public Hearing (CB)
11 /17 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 10/26
Special Meeting
11/22 Planning and Zoning(l 1:30-1:30) (Lunch Provided)
Aspen Mountain Drainage Master Plan (Nick Adeh and Consultants)
11/22 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/2
Bavarian Conceptual Public Hearing (JO)
Lighting Ordinance 2 nd Reading (JA) (PH)
Moore Family PUD and School District Housing Amendment 2 nd Reading (PH) (NL)
UBC 1st Reading
11 1/24 HPC
City Notice 11/2
Cancelled
11/30 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11/9
(PUB) Zone District & Definitions cont'd from 11/2 (NL)(PH)
Yellow Brick Rezoning to (PUB) contd from 11/2 (NL) (PH)
518 W. Smuggler ADU (NL) (PH)
1395 Riverside ADU (NL) (PH)
1225 & 1227 Alta Vista ADU (NL) (PH) (Tentative)
12/7 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11/16
Code Amendments Public Hearing (CB)
Hoag Lot #3 8040 Greenline Review (CB)
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD (NL) (PH) — (make up council notices for applicant mailing at
same time)
Moore ADU Public Hearing (NL)
510 Park Circle Minor PUD- amendment Public Hearing (NL) (Tentative)
12/8 HPC (12:00)
City Notice 11/16
939 E. Cooper — Variance (PH)
12/8 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11116
Winter and CO. Cont'd
Langley Minor HPC
12/13 City Council, (5:00)
City Notice 11/23
Code Amendment (PUB) Zone District 1" Reading (NL)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to Public 1't Reading (NL)
Contractor Licensing (HPC) 2 nd Reading (AG)
State Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resolution (AG)
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 1" Reading (NL)
2
12/14 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
Notice 11 /23
Williams Ranch Substantial PUD Amendment — Cont'd form 11/2
12/21 Planning and Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 11 /30
Holiday- No meeting
12/22 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /30
Holiday- No Meeting
1/ 4 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 12/14
1110 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
Molly Gibson Lodge Minor PUD 2nd Reading (NL) (PH)
Code Amendment (PUB) Zone District 2nd Reading (NL) (PH)
Yellow Brick School Rezoning to (PUB) 2nd Reading (NL) (PH)
UBC 2nd Reading (SK) (PH)
1/ 12 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/21
1/ 18 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 12/28
1/ 24 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
1126 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 1/ 4
2/ 1 Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 1 /11
Scheduling of Public Hearings are subject to change by discretion of Planning Staff.
cc: P&Z Packet
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen/Pitkin Growth Management Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Chateau Chaumont — Public Hearing
Change -in -Use, Commercial to Residential
DATE: November 9, 1999
SUMMARY:
The basement of the Chateau Chaumont building houses an office of approximately
1,600 square feet directly accessed from the underground garage. This space was
legally created in 1968 as part of another residential unit. Unit 7A was then converted
to an office and separated through the condominium declaration. The approved
condominiumization allowed eight of the units on this property to be both residential
and business use although this is the only office in the building. Since that time, the
zoning has changed to prohibit office use and Growth Management now requires a
change -in -use application be approved for these types of conversions. While the
office use is currently not a permitted use in the zone district, it was legally created
and may continue for the life of the building as a non -conformity.
The owner of Unit 7A, Dale Eubank, is requesting and change -in -use exemption from
Growth Management to convert this space into a residence. To accomplish this task,
an external entrance and adequate light and air needs to be provided to meet the
requirements of the Uniform Building Code as the only entrance is now from the
parking garage.
Chateau Chaumont exceeds the residential density allowed in the L/TR Zone District.
The applicant was granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment in May of this
year allowing this application to proceed to the Growth Management Commission. In
their deliberations, the Board of Adjustment discussed the presence of a hardship
versus the fairness of other units within the building which are used as residences.
Staff did not support the variance because the argument was primarily based on the
financial difficulty of the applicant finding an occupant. In other words, the
applicant's difficulty in securing lease for more than the market would bear was not a
justifiable reason for a variance. Eventually, however, the Board determined that the
variance standards had mostly been met. (BOA minutes are attached.)
The change -in -use provision allows the creation of one free-market residence in
conformance with the review criteria. It appears the application meets all of the
standards for a change -in -use and staff is supporting the request. There are six (6)
free-market allotments currently available. If approved, the one unit will be
accordingly deducted from the annual allotment pool.
Staff recommends the Commission approve this Change -In -Use, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Dale Eubanks. Represented by Michael Hoffman.
LOCATION:
731 East Durant Avenue. Chateau Chaumont Condominiums.
ZONING:
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR).
CURRENT LAND USE:
Commercial office.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Two -Bedroom residence.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application. The Aspen Board of
Adjustment granted a variance for this application. BOA minutes are attached.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Change -in -use. The Growth Management Commission shall, by resolution, approve,
approve with conditions, or disapprove the application at a public hearing.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The application includes an agreement between the applicant and the Condominium
Association. This private agreement is not enforceable by the City and merely acts as
a covenant between adjacent land -owners. As a point of interest, this private
agreement seems to prevent an owner from placing an affordable housing deed
restriction on his own property or selling the unit to the Housing Authority.
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit `B." BOA minutes have been
included as Exhibit "C." The application has been included as Exhibit "D."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Growth Management Commission approve the Chateau
Chaumont Unit 7A change -in -use from commercial to residential with the following
conditions:
2
1. The Building Permit Plans shall demonstrate the unit's compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Uniform Building Code including, but not limited to, natural light,
ventilation, automobile exhaust, and egress. The unit shall contain an entrance from the
exterior of the building and the entrance from the underground garage may not be the
primary entrance to the residence.
2. This change -in -use approval shall not be considered an approval or variance of any
other requirement of the Land Use Code or of the Uniform Building Code. The building
permit plans shall demonstrate compliance with all zoning requirements not granted a
variance including, but not limited to, setbacks and Floor Area.
3. Before a building permit application may be accepted by the Building Department, the
applicant shall record this Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder
located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the
alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the
resolution.
4. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Growth Management Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Chateau Chaumont Unit #7A change -in -use to residential with
the conditions outlined in the Community Development Department memo dated
October 12, 1999."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Comments
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- BOA Minutes
Exhibit D -- Development Application
3
the finished first floor." Waiving the window standard will allow the placement
of these windows as proposed without a Floor Area penalty.
Staff does not find the variance criteria to be met and does not support the
variance. The window standard allows for larger windows but requires a floor
area penalty. The purpose of this standard is to allow either large houses or large
windows — but not a large house with large windows. This is a vacant lot with no
constraints and the house can be designed to meet the City's Residential Design
Standards.
The Design Review Appeal Committee (DRAG), in this case the Planning and
Zoning Commission, may waive the Residential Design Standards upon finding
the proposal meets one of the variance criteria for each of the standards. Staff s
response to these criteria are included in Review Criteria and Staff Findings, in
Exhibit A.
Staff is recommending approval of the detached ADU and subdivision
variance, and denial of a variance to place a street facing principal window
in the "no window zone".
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Conditional Use for ADU. The Commission shall approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove the application at a public hearing.
Residential Design Standards. Upon receipt of an application for Residential
Design Standards, the Community Development Director shall determine if
the development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Standards. If
an application is found to be inconsistent with any item of the Standards, the
applicant may either amend the application or seek a variance. The Design
Review Appeal Committee (DRAC) may grant relief from the Residential
Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance is found to be:
a) in greater compliance with the goals of the AACP; or,
b) a more effective method of addressing standard in question;
or,
c) clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site
specific constraints.
• Special Review for subdivision variance. The Commission shall by
resolution approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a development
application, after recommendation by Community Development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the detached ADU and subdivision
variance, and denial of a variance to place a street facing principal window
in the "no window zone".
3
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and
Special Review for reducing the emergency access easement from 20 feet to 16
feet"
"I move to deny the variance to allow the street facing principal window between
nine (9) and twelve (12) feet."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A --
Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit $ --
Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C --
Vicinity Map
Exhibit D --
Development Application
Exhibit E --
Site Photographs
4
Qw --w4tw
Exhibit
STAFF COMMENTS: Change In Use
26.100.050 (B)(3) Growth Management Commission Exemptions that are
Deducted from the Pool of Annual Development Allotments and from the Metro
Area Development Ceilings.
a. Change in use. A change in use of an existing structure between the residential,
commercial/office, and tourist accommodation categories for which a certificate of
occupancy has been issued for at least two (2) years and which is intended to be reused,
shall be exempt from the growth management competition and scoring procedures,
provided the following conditions are met:
1) The Growth 1Ylanagement Commission determines that a minimal
number of additional employees will be generated by the change in use and that
employee housing will be provided for the additional employees generated.
Staff Finding -
The existing commercial office space has the capacity to generate more employees than
the residential use. In fact, the employee generation rates used in the land use code
determine this space to generate approximately 5.6 employees. The land use code does
o
not have a generation rate for residential land use. It is highly unlikely, however. that this
residence would generate anywhere near 5.6 full-time employees. Staff believes that no
additional employees will be generated by this change -in -use.
2) The Growth Management Commission determines that a minimal
amount of additional parking spaces will be demanded by the change in use
and that parking will be provided.
Staff Finding:
The parking regulations for residential use requires 1 space per bedroom or two per unit,
whichever is less. For commercial development, 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of net
leasable space are required.
The exis ng commercial space in question is approximately 1,600 square feet. This
requires 6.4 parking spaces on -site. The applicant is seeking to create a two -bedroom
apartment requiring 2 parking spaces. The apartment building does not meet the current
on -site parking requirements of the Land Use Code with approximately 20 off-street
spaces used in common by all residents. However, the proposed use requires fewer
spaces than the commercial use. Because there is proposed a reduction in the on -site
parking for this space, staff believes this standard is met.
3) The Growth Management Commission determines that there will be
minimal visual impact on the neighborhood from the change m use.
Staff Finding:
Changing the use of this unit will not have a substantial visual impact on the
neighborhood. Additional light and egress areas will need to be provided to meet the
requirements of the U.B.C. Other than these changes, the residential use will be virtually
invisible.
4) The Growth Management Commission determines that a minimal
demand will be placed on the City's public, facilities from the change in rrse.
Staff Finding:
This change in use is not expected to affect the provision of facilities. The unit is
currently served by all the necessary utilities needed for residential use.
S) No zone change is required
Staff Finding:
No zone change is required for this use. The applicant gained a variance from the Board
of Adjustment related to the density on the parcel.
6) No more than one residential unit will be created.
Staff Finding:
Only one residence is proposed. This criteria is met with this application.
7) The proposed use is consistent in all respects with the AACP.
Staff Finding:
The AACP does not address this parcel specifically, but there are statements for and
against this conversion which may loosely apply. The AACP spea':s to the provision of
additional housing in the core area of Aspen. This infill housing. however, is primarily
related to affordable, deed restricted, housing and projects with a substantial amount of
affordable housing. The commercial section then goes on to say "Office space costs are
driving many of these local business people and their local services out of the
community. Finding ways to provide affordable office space in the core of the
community is essential to the Aspen area quality of life." This "finding ways to provide
affordable office space," however, does not necessarily mean existing space cannot be
converted. In fact, this statement seems to indicate a need to create new subsidized or
deed restricted office space.
Lastly, a statement in the commercial section reads: "Revise the criteria for change -in -use
in zone districts outside of the CC zone district in order to prohibit the loss of locally
serving business through change -in -use." This proposed code amendment was never
accomplished and it would be unfair to hold this application to that increased scrutiny.
These statements may loosely apply but do not provide any certain direction regarding
this project. It is difficult to determine if a project is "consistent in all respects with the
AACP" if there is little concrete guidance given for that project. With some certainty,
however, staff can say that the project is not inconsistent with the AACP.
To:
Thru:
From:
Date:
Re:
1v1EMORA.NDUTM
Chris Bendon, Planner
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer
September 13, 1999
Chateau Chaumont - / A Change in Use (i 31 E. Durant Avenue)
The Development Review Committee has reviewed th.- above referenced application at their
August 11, 1999 meeting, and eve have the following comments:
Genera', — (1) These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is
accurate, that it shows all site features without misrepresentation, and that it is feasible. The
wording must be carried forward exactly as written t_aless prior consent is received from the
Engineering Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of
building permit." (2) If there are any encroachments into the public right-of-way, the encroachment
must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements if continuation
of such encroachment would be acceptable to the City.
1. Engineering Department — The application requests to convert an existing office space in a
condominium building to a residential space. There are no impacts of city engineering concern.
2. Building Department — The applicant needs to meet with the Building Department in order to
determine if it will be required to construct light wells for the unit.
DRC Attendees
Staff. Nick Adeh, Tom Bracewell, Ed Van Walraven, Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, Karma
Borgquist, Stephen Kanipe, Cheryl Christiansen, Jack Reid, Chuck Roth
99M1120
CITY -OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NLAY 1? 1999
jDid
les P rson, chairma pened the City of As n B
� at 4:00 p.m. w' members Rick Hea , im Iglel
Schott pres . City staff in atten ce were: Da`
ney; Sar omas, Community evelopmentZonil
t- C Clerk. /
S
MOTI : Rick Head move to approv inu
Apt ,1999. Jim Iel t second. PROM
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
%, , r
�A 1`CinuICS
�' Clie�U �0.UrN�^i
one
CO INTENT
Z
Jac1'e Lothian t d that the Cite C ncil would pro ly be interv',`�-inc the
�licants f the city boards w'1 In the next mon
PUBLIC HEARIN- &
CASE r99-03 CHATEAU CHAU��IONT CO��DOMI�IUMS. LTIT , / A
Charles Paterson, chair, opened the public hearing. David Hoefer, Assistant City
Attorney, stated that notice was provided but the list was not attached. (The list
NNvas provided to the city clerk's office on Ma`- 18, 1999.)
Sara Thomas stated that this building was built in 1968, when this tyne of
construction and zoning were allowed, but now, it was non-conform.nc. She
noted that this office space was part of a unit, NA-hich was connected with. a
residential anit. To convert back to residential was a two-step process to comply
with density; the next review would be with P&Z for a change in use request.
Thomas said that staff found no hardship to meet the criteria. The non -conformity
could be maintained as an office, but not chanced to residential.
The applicant, Dale Eubanks represented by Michael Hoffman, requested a
variance from the density requirements of the LT-R zone district to allow for the
conversion of this existing office space into residential space.
Hoffman asked for staff interpretation. He noted this had always been a separate
condominium and the current space was not allowed under current zoning law. He
1
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13 1999
said there were 2 other units that had been converted to residential from office;
Mr. Eubanks will limit the r of people if so desired by deed restriction. Hoffman
distributed his review criteria for variance setting (exhibit rlir'40); he felt there was a
hardship. Thomas stated that the other building permits all represented residential
remodels; these permits were for residential and not commercial.
Peter Wolford, Chateau Chaumont manager, stated that 923 was the office for the
Chateau Chaumont and was converted to residential. Hoefer explained to the
board that this was not a board of equity but must be consistent with criteria
presented and rule from that criterion.
Rick Head asked if the r of bedrooms had gone up or was it always the same.
Wolford stated there was a bedroom with an illegal use that was convened; there
were now 48 bedrooms. Eubanks said that unit;.'23 was used as an of Ze. He
said he made the mistake and stated his unit --,"'/'A was an of ice; he -was penalized
because he was honest and now could not make the unit residential.
David Schott asked wvhen purchased if it was an office. Eubanks replied that is
w-as an office. Wolford said the condo association didn't care if it was residential
or commercial but the parking was critical with only 11 spaces; there were no
designated parking places, but on a first come first serve basis. Hoffman said that
Dale placed a deed restriction. which puts his unit in full compliance with all of
the homeowner's requests. He said the parking was for only the owner with the
exception that one renter would be allowed. Hoffman further stated that the deed
restriction would include one adult per bedroom, if the variance was granted.
There would be 3 bedrooms depending upon the proper egress for those bedrooms.
Eubanks stated there was a plan to change the egress from access through the
garaze to the back stairwell, although there was no legal or code problem with the
existing. He stated that he has owned the unit since 1978 and nev.,r had a clue
about these problems. Eubanks paid that if he abandoned the commercial use then
he was left with 1500 square feet of unusable space. He noted this w-as brought
about by applying to put in window well in this unit. He asked where the equity
was from the city for someone who has lived here and owned a business here for
all these years. Paterson asked if there was a change in the town over the years in
this area. Eubanks replied there was a change and he moved his office down -
valley about 5 years ago. He said the type of business to go into this space wasn't
a viable option for the homeowners and maybe there would be a takings scenario.
Hoffman stated that the condominium declarations state that certain units can be
used for commercial, but the underlying assumption was that all can be used for
2
CITY- OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 13, 1999
residential. He said that Mr. Eubanks just wanted to, exercise his right for
residential when he bought it in 1978. Head said Eubanks bought it knowing it
was an office. Eubanks responded that he bought it knowing it was office but it
was also clear to use residentially. He said that he had to show consistent historic
office usage. Hoefer noted the condominium declarations were not binding on the
city; the city ordinance was the binding document which the finding was based
upon. Hoffman stated that the board had to consider the equities forming a
hardship. Head stated that this board could not consider financial hard I hip.
Hoffman did not agree. Paterson stated the board of adjustment was a board of
fairness for all sides. Eubanks stated that the space has not bee:: rented or sold in
two years. The board agreed that could be a function of price.
Head asked if this unit could be converted to parking spaces and if those spaces
could be sold. Thomas said the review process with P&Z might still be for a
chancre in use. Head said there was a viable use as office space now.
Jim IQlehart asked if there was a kitchen in the unit. Eubanks replied there was an
office kitchen, not a fi.ill residential kitchen. Howard DeLuca asked if this %vas the
only commercial use in the building. Eubanks answered that was correct.
� v
Iglehart, DeLuca and Schott concurred that office space was a bigger impact on
the neighborhood than residential. Schott stated concern for 3 additional
bedrooms without a parking provision.
Head stated the variant e was financially driven and parkin` was a problem. He
said even though the economy has changed the board could not consider financial
equity as a hardship. Head noted he would not Note in faN-or of this variance.
Paterson said this was consistent Nvith the AACP and felt there was a hardship
because of the chance in zoning and density--equirements at the time this was
built. DeLuca noted parking was a problem with only room for 11 cars and 48
bedrooms, 25 units, but asked to look to the future — public transportation can then
service Aspen tivhen cars won't be needed. Paterson noted that not too long ago
parking wasn't considered for any commercial or residential units and now it was
unfair to apply the present or future situation without considerincr the change a
hardship.
Icrlehart asked staff what review was necessary to cro through to cret 3 bedrooms
approved. Thomas noted that P&Z would review, the chancre in use to allow
residential conversion and a parking variance. Icrlehart said P&Z may grant only
K
t CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NLkY 13, 1999
one bedroom, and this was in town, so parking shouldn't be a problem. DeLuca
said that if things go as planned, to remove traffic out of the commercial core, then
a hardship is created for businesses because of the change in impact.
Hoffman stated the fairness issue was not the same as a takings analysis of all
value but rather fairness was the issue here. Hoefer stated the focus was
compliance with .A,ACP and the hardship with the minimum variance was not
dis c.ussed. He said that he followed Rick's statement about the request as
economicall`• driven without a minimum variance request. Hoefer stated the city
position was that this unit could be.rented commercially. Paterson asked what a
minimum variance request would be without granting what then were asking for.
Thomas responded that it would be a reasonable use of the parcel without
variances. She said the code still allowed that use. Eubanks asked what if he was
no longer able to use it for the purpose. Hoefer responded that they were able to
use it for that _)urpose. H-.-ffman said the code stated if he did nothing with it for
one year, he would not be allowed to use it. Hoefer stated that Eubanks purchased
and used the unit commercially.
Head stated that Eubanks was not denied reasonable use of the property. Paterson
reviex-v ed the criteria sheet and felt there were special conditions and
circumstances. He said that grantinc this variance would not confer upon the
applicant any special privileges because other people had the opportunity to have
residential. «"olford said there could be both good and bad residential and
commercial uses; if Eubanks could provide the egress and windows or whatever
was necessary- to be in compliance, then it -was fine. Head asked vvhy this couldn't
be done with the office.
MOTION: Charles Paterson moved to approve the request to vary the
minimum lot area per dwelling unit to allow for the conversion of an
office space to a residential dwelling unit at 731 East Durant, Unit 7A,
finding that the review standards have ,mostly been met, and that such
conversion shall be subject to Change in Use approval by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. David Schott second. Roll call vote: Iglehart,
ves; DeLuca, yes; Schott, yes; Head, no; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 4-1.
The meeting a urned at 5 :00 p.m.
�rckieLothian, Deputy City Clerk
11
LAW OFFICES
FREILICH, NIYLER, LEITINER & CARLISLE
A PARTNERSHIP !NCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Lei ASPEN COLOFL-kDO
106 Soc,7H tiIILL STREET
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Sc,TrE ?OL
DAVID J. `1YLER- P.C. ;
E..WCItAEL HOFr'vLkN
ASPEN. COLOR. 8 1611
SHAINE 1. HARVEY'
F aCUMILE,
(970)920-1259
TELEPHONE
(970)920-10I8
June 17, 1999
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Aspen tilunic:pal Government
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
IN IiANSAS CTY. WSSCURi
FREILICH. LETTER A C.\RLISLE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROBERT H. FREILICH, P.C. "'
MAW..LN' L. LEI NER ?,C.
RICIiARD G. CARLISUL P.C.
STEPHEN J. MCORE. ? C.
S. -N ARK IN c L)
KYLE -. FOOTE
ADNC-- rua W,xr-,tc,
CERTTFIED LAND USE ?LA. tMERS
MICIiAI:L J. LACER AIC?
JE`NIFER R 3AR -E'71. AIC?
KLM S. 3ROPHY, AIC?
Re: Request for Variance - Chateau Chaumont Condominiums, [,nit 7A (the ",Unit")
Dale Eubank-, Owner
Gentlemen:
By this correspondence Dale Eubank is requesting that the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission grant an exemption from the Growth -Management Quota System ("GMQS'') for a
chance in the use of Unit 7A (the "Unit") of the Chateau Chaumont Condominiums (the "Project")1
from commercial to residential use. tilr. Eubank utilized the property as the office for his accounting
practice for many years. More recently, the .Unit was leased to others for commercial purposes.'lovIr.
Eubank had planned to convert the Unit to residential use so he stay there occasionally when he
comes upvalley from his home in Carbondale. However, in the past week, .1vIr. Eubank has entered
into a contract to sell the property to Veronika, Inc., a local investment company. The Buyer wishes
to pursue ylr. Eubank's plan to convert the property to residential use.
I. Background of Request
What makes this application somewhat unique is that the Unit is zoned for residential, not
commercial use. This land use process began for W. Eubank when he asked the City for a building
permit to convert his office space to bedrooms. The City Zoning Officer turned him down even
though the requested use of the Unit is allowed in the L[M zone district while its current use is
prohibited. The City took this position because the number of bedrooms in the condominium Project
as a whole exceeds that which would be allowed if the building was to be constructed today.
The Project is located on the southwest side ofthe intersection of Original and Durant
Streets.
FREILIM MYLER, L EnWER & CARLISLE
r
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 2
Allowing .Mr. Eubank to use his Unit as a residence would only further increase density in the Project,
according to the City, and therefore would not be allowed.
Mr. Eubank was unable to find either a commercial buyer or a tenant for the Unit. The
combination of the City's refusal to allow him to convert the Unit to residential use.and the reality
that there is little demand for below -grade commercial space in Aspen, left Mr. Eubank with few
alternatives. In the Spring of this year, he asked the Aspen Board of Adjustment to grant him a
variance from stafF s interpretation of the density requirements of the L,, R zone district.
On May 13, 1999, the Board of Adjustment granted Nir. Eubank's request. In a 4-1 decision,
the Board round that it would be inequitable to prohibit Mr. Eubank from using the Unit as a
residence when every other privately -owned unit the Project was used for that purpose. The Board
also apparently believed that it would be unfair to prevent Mr. Eubank from converting the Unit from
commercial use when several other owners in the Project had done the same thing without any
otmosition from the City.
II. Need for OJOS Exemption
Even though the Board of Adjustment granted the request for a variance, the Land Use
Regulations require that the Planning and Zoning Commission review and approve the proposed
change in use. Section 25-102-040(B)(1)(b) provides that
[a]nv chancre in use of an existing structure between the residential, commercial/office
and tourist accommodations categories [may be exempted from G%1QS by the
Planning and Zoning Commission], provided that it can be demonstrated that the
change in use will have minimal impact upon the city.
The Code requires that the applicant demonstrate "minimal impact" in four key areas: employee
generation including adequate mitigation, demand for additional parking spaces including adequate
mitigation, the amount of visual impact caused by the change in use and the additional demand placed
on "the city's public facilities."
III. Interests of the Project's Homeowners' Association
Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc. (the "Association"), is the homeowners'
association for the Project. The impacts of a conversion of Mr. Eubank's Unit from commercial to
residential use will be more immediately felt by the members of the Association than they will by the
City of Aspen at large. Because of its intense concern over these impacts, the Association required
that ;Mir. Eubank enter into Deed Restrictions concerning the Unit as a condition of its support for
this application. A copy of the Deed Restrictions is attached to this application as Exhibit "A".
The Association is particularly concerned that (1) the Unit not be used in a manner which will .
disrupt other owners in their peaceful enjoyment of their property, and (2) that the few parking spaces
FREMICK MYLER, LEITYER & CaRIMLE
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Pate 3
which exist in the Project continue to be available for owners and not be used by tenants or guests.
These interests closely reflect the impacts of conversion which must be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Zoning Commission under the Land Use Regulations.
IV. Effects of Conversion on Fmt?lovee Generation
Allowing the Unit to be converted from office use will have a positive impact on the employee
housing problem in the City. When it is used for commercial purposes, the Unit contributes to the
number of people workinginAspen. If the opportunity to use the Unit for commercial purposes is
removed, fewer people can work here. Because commercial use of the property is not allowed in the
L/TR zone district, the eliminated employees cannot be "recreated" unless zoninv regulations are
chanced substantially. Such a change is unlikely.
Conversion to residential use will have little, if anv, impact on the number of Teeple employed
in the City. The Unit's physical characteristics, especially its below -grade siting, will peep its sales
price low, by Aspen standards. Local people can afford to own or buy this Unit. Most likely, the
property will be a de facto affordable housina unit, one through which the -owner may participate in
appreciation in the housing marketplace. Rental of the Unit to long-term unrelated tenants is limited
by the Deed Restrictions to "[n]ot more than one (1) person per legal bedroom." . o more than three
bedrooms can be created.' These two covenants alone will substantially reduce the impact of the
Unit's residential use on the community.
Even if the Unit is rented to Aspen visitors, the impact of these vests will have only a
minimal impact on employee generation. The Project was constructed in 1968 to accommodate
short-term visitors. N1anv Chateau Chaumont units are still used for that purpose. The
condominiums themselves are not large enough to require specialized employees, such as nannies,
cooks or gardeners, so guests will have only a generalized impact on the local economy. No direct
impacts should be created or realized upon the conversion of the Unit to residential use.
V. Little If Any, Additional Parking Will Be Required By Residential Use
The Unit can now be used for commercial purposes. For much of the past 20 years, Mr.
Eubank used the property as the office for his accounting practice. His clients and staff intensively
utilized the street for parking purposes. If the Unit is converted to residential use, those vehicles will
no longer occupy parking spaces near the Project during busy daylight hours. Nor will they
contribute to traffic within the City or along Highway 82 as their owners drive to and from work.
They will be replaced by cars owned either by (1) short-term guests or (2) a few loner term residents.
Although it is difficult to state with certainty the exact impact these two groups will have on local
parking availability, it is likely that they will little negative effect. Due to the Project's proximity to
Aspen Mountain, the central business core and RFTA bus lines, short-term Chateau Chaumont vests
Z Deed Restrictions, Section 3.
FREILICH, MYLER, LEn ER & CARLISLE
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Page 4
do not need to bring their personal vehicles with them. Long-term residents are likely to recognize
that they have little need for a car. The residential restrictions included in the Deed Restrictions'
encourage use of the Unit by a family, rather than by individual adults. The consolidated needs of
families should also rE sult in fewer vehicles being associated with the Unit. Conversion of the unit
from commercial to residential use will have minimal impact on the number of parking spaces needed
within the City of aspen.
VI. Conversicl Will Cause Nfinimal Visual Impact on the Nieiahborhood
The extent to which Mr. Eubank can make use of the Unit as a personal residence depends
in large part on his ability to bring the property to current uniform Building Code ("LBC") standards,
particularly in the area of ingress and egress. For this reason, the Association has already given its
consent to allow Mr. Eubank to construct alternative entrance,/exit portals to the L: nit at particular
locations as may be required to satisry the LBC and Aspen building officials. The Association agreed
to this construction because its officials believed that these improvements will have little impact on
the Project or the surrounding neighborhood.
As Nlr. Eubank, or his successor, work with the Community Development Department to
satisfv the L-BC, more definite construction plans will be established. 'r. Eubank ageles tha: an
appropriate condition of the Commission's approval of this request is that the final plan have a
minimal visual impact on the neighborhood.
VII. Demands on Public Facilities.
As with parking, conversion of the Unit from commercial to residential use will essentially
effect a change in the time of day during which occupants will utilize the space. Although residents
will more intensively use the snit during the evening and early morning hours, there is no evidence
that there will be a difference in the average demand placed on public facilities related to the Unit.
The only currently anticipated physical changes in the property will be for access to the bedrooms so
as to comply with the UBC. The residential restrictions contained in the Deed Restrictions limit the
number of people who can live in the Unit, thereby further limiting potential impacts on local
infrastructure There will be minimal, if any, additional demand placed on the city's public facilities
from the change to residential use.
VIH. Conclusion
It is likely that allowing 1NIr. Eubank to use his condominium Unit for residential purposes will
actually reduce traffic in the area of City Market, the Silver Queen Gondola, and in the commercial
core. Although residential use could have had some negative consequences if its use was not handled
responsibly, the Project's homeowners' Association recognized the risk and moved aggressively to
3 Deed Restrictions, Section 3.
FRErum MYLER, LEIT^tER & CARLISLE
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 17, 1999
Paae 5
pre-empt any such effects. Mr. Eubank agreed to his neighbor's requests, and the Deed Restrictions
which now efficiently govern use of the Unit. As described in this letter, conversion of the Unit to
residential use will have minimal impact on the City. Particularly in the areas of employee generation,
parking space requirements, visual impacts and demands on public facilities, the City will not be
harmed by allowing Mr. Eubank to make the same use of his property enjoyed by all other owners
of units within the Project. For this reason, we urge the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant
this request for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota System.
Sincerely,
FREILICH, MYLER, LEITNER & CARLISLE
E. Nlichael Hoffman
cc: Dale Eubank
THEE RESTRICTIONS are entered into as of this 13th day of May,
1 n99, by S. DALE EUBANK, hereinafter referred to �s "Owner".
WIT NESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Owner is the owner of Unit 7A (the "Property"), Chateau
Chaumont Apartments, a Condominium, according to the Plat the •=of and the
Condominium Dec;araticn therefor recorded in the records of Pitkin County, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, the Owner and Chateau Chaumont Condominium
Association, Inc. entered into an agreement dated May 13, 1999 (tf ,e "Agreement")
regarding the mccsidcn of certain restrictions upon the Property`cr the c.nsideraticn
recited in the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has received the ccnsideraticn sat forth in the
Agreement and is willing to memcrialiize the restrictions to be imposed upon the
Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, for ar,d in consideration of the berefits derived by
the Owner pc:r-:I C - to the Agreement, the Owner agrees as follows:
1, R Striction5 Regardinc�Use. The Prcperty shall nct, by deed restriction,
contract or any other form of covenant or commitment, be restricted for purchase, sate,
use and/or ocvipar;cy for only employee housing, or fcr only resident occupied housing
or for only deed restricted employee housing, inc'uding, but not limited to, affordable
housing or any other use which may subject the purchase, sale or use of the Property
to the control of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or any other governmental
agency which has any authority to control or affect the use or occupancy of the
Property other than zoning and building code authorities. by way of example only, and
not by way of limitation, this covenant shall include a prohibition against executing
and/or recording deed restrictions or any other form of covenant against the Property
intending to restrict the purchase, sale, use and/or occupancy of the Property to only
employee or resident occupied units or otherwise intended to bring the purchase and
sale of the Property under the auspices of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority;
or any successor or related entity or the City of Aspen or the County of Pitkin,
Colorado. This provision shall not preclude owners of the Property from selling the
Property as a free market unit, to employers or others who may desire to lease their
units to employees in accordance with the other terms hereof, not shall it preclude the
431120 n3aIiinpr`
i or 4 z�.¢e oe.o x a.c rrc:caunrco
sale of any unit to an "employee" or prospective "resident occupant". Rather, it only
prohibits the creation of a deed restriction of other covenant that would preclude the
sale of the Property as a free market unit to any prospective purchaser.
2. No U$e for Mitigation Purposes. No commitment cr use of any nature
shall directly or indirectly be made concerning, or of, the Preper;y which satisfies or
mitigates any gcvemmental zoning, planning, housing or other requirement applicable
to any land, building or portion of a building an}rNhere, or which has the direct or
in direct intended or actual effect of increasing the value or sales price cf arty lard,
building or portion of a building anywhere.
3 Resi s (a) Not mere than one (1) person per legal
bedroom in the Property shall reside in the Property at any time, except for (i) the
owner of the Property and his or her family; (ii) bona fide short-term guests ("Rental
Guests") who rent the Property through a property management company which
charges the owner of the Preper;y a commission of not less than thirty-five percent
(35%) of the gross amount Of such rent; (iii) between June 1 and September 1 in each
year, not more than two (2) persons per legal bedroom in the Property who each (a) is
not directly or indirectly employed en a part-time cr full -:ire basis by or for any
proprietorship or business or ncrprofit organization or ether entity, in Pitkin County,
al ce outside cf Pitkin County,
Colcraco, and (b) maintains his cr her rrinc,pa residence --
Ccicrado, while residing in the Property; and (iv) a single family comprised of a person
and his or her spouse and their children.
(b) The Propery shall have not more than three (3) bedrooms.
4. a e 'ctio . Each business operated from the Property,
^!I
employees, visitors, cu'stcrners, suppliers and others related to such business, and all
residents of the Property and their guests and visitors, shall be stric46
tly prohibited from
parking any vehicle in any Common Element parking space of the Chateau Chaumont
Apartments at any time, except that the owner of the Property and his or her family and
Rental Guests may park a vehicle in a Chateau Chaumont Apartments Common
Element park'ng space in accordance with Chateau Chaumont Condominium
Association, Inc. parking rules in effect from time to time.
5, preservation Q Par 'nct aer eas. The owner of
the Property shall not directly cr indirectly (i) seek approval from any governmentalof an
zoning, planning, housing or other authority to make any change or alteration y
kind whatsoever (a) to any Common Element parking place of the Chateau Chaumont
Apartments, in existence on the date of this Deed Restriction, or (b) to the area on th
west side of the Chateau Chaumont Apartment building, which on the date of this Dee
Restriction is used to store garbage containers which service such building, or (1i) make
any such change or alteration with or without the approval of any such authority, an
-2-
IIIIII IIIII IIIIII IIII IIIII IIIIII111111III IBIII IIII IIII
2 of 4 P 31.00 0 0.00 X 0.08 P�iKIX COuxii CO
sale of any unit to an "employee" or prospective "resident occupant". Rather, it only
prohibits the c�eaticn of a deed restriction of other covenant that would preclude the
sale of the Property as a free market unit to any prospective purchaser.
2. N01 Use fnr Mitigation Purposes. No commitment or use of any nature
shall directly or indirectly be made coneeming, or of, the Property which satisfies or
mitigates any governmental zoning, planning, rousing or other requirement applicable
to any land, building or portion of a building an; There, or which has the direct or
indirect intended or actual effect of increasing the value or sales price of any land,
building °,r portion of a building anywhere.
3. Sesidential Rest * tinn• (a) Not more than -one (1) person per legal
bedroom in the Property shall reside in the Property at any time, except for (i) the owner of the Property and his or her family; (ii) bona fide short-term guests ("Rental
Guests") who rent the Property through a property management ccrrpany which
charges the owner of the Property a commission of not less than thirty-five percerta�n
(M) d September 1 in e
of the gross amount of such rent; �ii between June 1 an ,
year, not more than two (2) persons per legal bedroom in the Property who eac:� (a) is
not directly or indirectly employed on a part-time er full-time bases 6y or for any
proprietorship or business or nonprofit organizf lion or other entity, in Pitkin County,
Colora -:o, and (b) maintains his or her princcpal residence outside of Pitk r, County?
Colorado, while residing in the Property; and (iv) a single family comprised of a person
and his or her spouse and their chiidrsn.
(b) The Property shall have not mcr= than three (3) bedrooms.
4. Parking Restrictions. Each business operated from the Property, a'l
employees, visitors, customers, suppliers and others related to such business, and all
residents of the Property and their guests and visitors, shall be strictly prohibited fr m
parking any vehicle in any Common dement parking space of the Chateau Chaumont
Apartments at any time, except that the owner of',h,e Property and his or her family and
Rental Guests may park a vehicle in a Chateau Chaumont Apartments Cemmen
Element parking space in accordance with Chateau Chaumont Condominium
Association, Inc. parking rules in effect from time to time.
res
5.
P e o a s Co a eas. The owner of
the Property shall not directly or indirectly (i) seek approval from any governmental
zoning, planning, housing or other authority to make any change or alteration of any
kind whatsoever (a) to any Common Element parking place of the Chateau Chaumont
Apartments, in existence on the date of this Deed Restriction, or (b) to the area on the
p which on the date of this D
west side of the Chateau Chaumont Apartment building,
Restriction is used to store garbage containers which service such building, or (ii) make
any such change or alteration with or without the approval of any such authority, and
_2-
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
the expense of removing snow from, and all maintenance of, any window wells,
walkways or entrance to the Property on the west side of such building shall be borne
by the owner of the Property, and shall not be an expense of the Association.
6. Penalties. The owner of the Property shall be subject to special
assessment by Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, inc. of up to (i) One
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($1 Wr-0.00) for each calendar day on which there has occurred any
violation of the restrictions set forth in Paragraph 3 above; and (ii) One Hundred Fifty
Dollars ($1,5 .00) for each calendar day on which there has occurred any violation of
the prohibitic�, against vehic!e parking in the Chateau Chaumont Apartments Common
Element parking space as set forth in Paragraph 4 above.
7. Prohibition Against Leaa_t Actions. The owner of the Property shall
neither institute nor take any action which causes any person or entity to instiMe any
legal or governmental proceeding which concerns the enforceability of the rs strictions
set forth herein on the purchase, sale, use and cc. -,up incy of the Property and the
owner of the Property shall pay any and all legal and related expenses incurred by any
owner of a Chateau Chaumont Apartment and by Chateau Chaumort Condominium
Association, Inc., as incurred, in connection with any su. 1 proceeding, and any
appeals cf any orders or findings issues in ary such proceeding, regardless of whether
such restrictions are found to be enforceable on unenfcrceable.
8. injunctive Rglie. The owner of the Pr..,, -.,eriy agrees that irreparable
damage would occur in the event that any of the provisions herec; were not perfcrmed
in accordanca with their specific terms or were otherwise breached. It is ac- rdirgiy
agreed that Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association, Inc. and any cwrer of a
Chateau Chaumont Apartment will be entitled to an injunction or irjune;icns to prevent
any breach of any provision hereof and to enforce specifically the terms and provisions
hereof in any court of the United States or any state having jurisdiction, this being in
addition to any other remedy to which they are entitled at law or in equity.
9. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation or arbitration between the
parties arising from the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to
collect all of its reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and court costs.
10. Running of Benefits and burdens. Al of the provisions of this
instrument, including the benefit and burdens, shall run with the Property and shall be
binding upon the successors and assigns of the owner of the Property.
11. SeyerablM. Should any part or parts of these restrictions be declared
invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining restrictions set forth herein.
1 3-
I���� I'il
�J ,� a0/f1i1➢B➢ aa:fAP DMaEs DAVIS sILv1
e 4 x 31. ¢0 p 0.00 x 0.00 PITk(N coUMiY CO
12. pamgraQh Headinas. The paragraph headings in this instrument are for
convenience only and shall not be construed to be a part of the restrictions contained
herein..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Owner has hereto set his hand and
seal on the day and year first above written. n .-I _.-Z7
STATE OF COLORADO }
)Ss.
C OU NTYS-IF P1TKl N )
N foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 13th day of
�;�Q;,, 1 gg9, by' � Dale Eubank.
s Wi MESS my hand and official seal.
\ °9 My corrAission expires: zo 61
Notary Public
111111111111111111-111111111111111111111111111111111 IN
i .r 4 rt x.ae o e.ea x e.e¢ rrnax courtr CO
-00Wpc0ocs 04NM1sm1
152
CHATEAU CHAUMONT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.
C/O COATES REID & WALDRON
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
May 13, 1999
B. Dale Eubank
533 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Chateau Chaumont Unit 7A
Dear Mr. Eubank:
The Board of Directors of Chateau Chaumont Condominium Association
has reviewed your January 4, 1998[9] letter concerning your request to move the
entrance door to Unit 7A to the exterior stairwell to the garage, and to seal the existing
door inside the garage.
The Board, and members of the Association generally, are concerned that
the quality of life of building occupants would be changed adversely if any Unit in the
building is occupied by the maximum number of people who would be permitted to live
in the Unit on a continuous basis if it became subject to the control of the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority.
Concerns about potential conversions of Units 22, 22A and 23 to
controlled housing caused the Association to obtain from the owners of those Units,
Deed Restrictions which benefit all owners of other Units in the Building, in
consideration for economic benefits provided to such Owners by the Association
through its purchase of Units 22 and 22A.
The Board has similar concerns about the potential conversion to
controlled housing of Unit 7A if it is used for residential purposes, because Unit 7A is
the largest unit in the building, and it is likely to be valued at the lowest square foot
price because of its limited exterior light and view —those factors combine to make Unit
7A economically feasible for controlled housing. Moving the Unit 7A entrance door to
the exterior stairwell to the garage, and sealing the existing door inside the garage,
could facilitate such use.
The Board is thus unwilling to permit the Unit 7A entrance door to be
moved to the exterior stairwell except in consideration for a Deed Restriction restricting
the use of Unit 7A to the same extent as the residential use of Units 22, 22A and 23 is
restricted.
The Board has reviewed the installation of the pedestrian door into the
garage from Durant Street in 1992-93. At that time, you and Chip Bishop were the
owners of Unit 7A and asked the Board for approval to install the new pedestrian door
to enhance access to Unit 7A in which you conducted your accounting business. You
May 13, 1999
Page 2
and Mr. Bishop asked the Association to pay half of the estimated cost to install the
door, and the Board agreed to do so —you and Mr. Bishop estimated the cost of the
door to be $4,000, so the Board agreed that the Association would pay $2,000 of such
costs. When informed that the actual cost of the door was $7,346, the Board approved
the Association paying an additional $1,000-150% of the amount it had originally
agreed to pay.
Enclosed for your review are copies of the following terms concerning the door:
1. Undated estimate of $4,456 from Professional House Care to
install the new door for Eubank/Bishop-
2. Excerpt from the minutes of the April 12, 1992 Chateau Chaumont
Annual Meeting approving the payment of $2,000 of the costs of the new door.
3. January 18, 1993 letter from Eubank & Bishop to Coates, Reid &
Waldron stating that the Association had agreed to pay $2,500 of the costs of
the new door, with the Summary of Actual ($7,346) and Budget ($5,956)
Charges for the "Exterior Entrance at Eubank & Bishop".
4. February 4, 1993 letter from Coates, Reid & Waldron to Eubank &
Bishop concerning the new door, with a copy of the excerpt of the minutes of the
April 12, 1992 meeting referred to in paragraph 2, above.
5. March 2, 1993 letter from Coates, Reid & Waldron to Eubank &
Bishop, with a copy of the Association check for $1,000 payable to Eubank &
Bishop.
6. Excerpt from the minutes of the April 5, 1993, Chateau Chaumont
Annual Owner's Meeting recommending a total payment by the Association of
$3, 000 of the cost of the new door.
Copy 7.
Co of the unanimous written consent of the Association Board of
Directors ratifying the payment of $3,000 to Eubank & Bishop for costs of the
new door.
The Board has reviewed your request that the Association reimburse you
for an additional portion of the costs of that garage pedestrian door, and for approval of
your request to relocate the entrance door to Unit 7A.
Accordingly, the Board agrees that, upon receipt by it of a Deed ed
Restriction which has been duly executed by the record owner of Unit 7A, notarized,
and is in the form attached to this letter, the Association shall:
1. Permit you to install at your sole cost (i) window well. emergency
exits from Unit 7A on the west side of the building (but not on the south side of
the building), (ii) an outside pedestrian entrance to Unit 7A on the west side of
May 13, 1999
Page 3
the building, (iii) one (1) fixed or double hung window (which shall not be
openable into the garage) in the north wall of Unit 7A looking into the garage, at
a location approved by the Association President, (iv) two (2) bathrooms and
one (1) kitchen, (v) one (1) fixed or double hung window (which shall not be
openable into the stairwell) in the east wall of Unit 7A looking into the exterior
stairwell into the garage, at a location approved by the Association President,
and (vi) a new exterior entrance door to Unit 7A at the lowest level of the exterior
stairwell to the garage, to open into Unit 7A and not swing into the stairwell, if
you (a) remove, fill in and seal off the existing Unit 7A entrance door in the
garage, at your sole cost, (b) remove and replace the existing door from the
stairwell into the garage so that it opens into the garage and is hinged on the
opposite (east) side of the door jamb from its current hinged side, at your sole
cost, (c) paint all disturbed surfaces to match surfaces adjacent to the disturbed
surfaces, at your sole cost, (d) perform all such work in compliance with ail
building codes, ordinances and other laws, and complete all such work within a
reasonable time after it is begun, and (e) indemnify the Association and its
agents, Directors and Officers for any expenses incurred with respect to any
liens of materialmen, mechanics or contractors as a result of any of such work.
2. Pay to you $1,000 upon receipt of the ,Deed Restriction duly
executed and notarized.
3. Appear at the May 13, 1999 hearing, and, on reasonable notice,
subsequent hearings concerning your request for a variance from the density
requirements of the L-T-or
R zone district in Case #99-3 before the City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment, or other regulatory authorities, to support such request other request to permit Unit 7A to be used as a residence in accordance with all
applicable laws and restrictions.
if you agree to the foregoing, please sign and return to Peter Wolford, of
Association president, or John French at Coates, Reid & Waldron, the enclosed copy
this letter agreement and the duly executed and notarized Deed Restriction prior to
4:00 p.m. on May 13, 1999, and he will issue an Association check payable to you in
the amount of $1,000.
Very truly yours,
Chateawd;9u,mont Condominium Association, Inc.
".
president
::ODMA\PCDOCS\CHICAG04\863184\1