HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.625 W End St.11-84 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
CASE NO. i4444441:'4=4 T*1 :
STAFF: Q` • L-1^`A^
PROJECT NAME: e//!iten,Jcrn //a7/o5 -7UO A/Iendi{ton" I c ? ^ Cheoc∎ \EK
E ^-0,u..S
APPLICANT: Phone:
eintiz
REPRESENTATIVE: ,Sle-g,/fn ✓. ileee-n LJnry r.� kaLr� Phone: o - ‘286:7
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (FEE)
I. GMP/SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($2,730.00)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,640.00)
3. Final Plat ($ 820.00)
II. SUBDIVISION/PUD (4 step)
1. Conceptual Submission ($1,900.00)
2. Preliminary Plat ($1,220.00)
3. Final Plat ($ 820.00) nn
III. EXCEPTION/EXEMPTION/REZONING (2 step) ($1,490.00) ✓ h 4 0 ) (n!(4u4
IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) ($ 680.00)
1. Special Review
2. Use Determination
3. Conditional Use
4. Other:
P&Z MEETING DATE: V1 CC MEETING DATE: DATE REFERRED: Sigebi' 9 3
REFERRALS: ff
% City Attorney Aspen Consol. S.D. School District
City Engineer _Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Natural Gas
Nif Housing Director Parks Dept. State Hwy Dept. (Glenwood)
Aspen Water Dept. Holy Cross Electric State Hwy Dept. (Grd. Jctn)
_City Electric Fire Marshall Building Dept.
Environmental Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: , t)231g�
_City Attorney City Engineer Building Dept.
_Other: Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: CQ65ed
DISPOSITION:
CITY P&Z REVIEW: trovA A � W I
•
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: aP r 101 ) le-S% 614-1` -\-,tRub
Dyer,QrscQm.pNI- WY' re kc -i r or II ' eset aynP
p
QX $; (A.) Sv �_ o
-6 `'o ) ttwiurn cake( , — icuJ
1 . The amended development plan shall he recorded
as an amendment to the final plat in accordance
with the procedures established for the filing
of the initial approved plan documents .
2 . The employee unit shall he deed-restricted to
the low or moderate income employee guidelines .
3 . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the parking lot shall be reconstructed as illustrated
on the amended development plan to accommodate
a total of twenty-seven ( 27 ) cars .
•
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
Ordinance No.
CITY P&Z REVIEW:
-
CITY COUNCIL REVIEW:
•
Ordinance No.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE: Clarendon Employee Housing Addition - PUD Amendment
DATE: 'July 23 , 1984 A APPROVED AS TO FORM:
The attached letter from Gretchen Greenwood written on behalf of
the Clarendon Condominium Association requests reconsideration of
the Council ' s requirement for the dedication of a trail easement.
You may recall that an easement to extend Ute Trail to Glory Hole
Park was required as a condition of the recent Clarendon PUD Amendment.
Also included in your packet is the Planning Office ' s original memo
dated May 14 , 1984 , recommending approval of the request with conditions.
Gretchen ' s letter provides a complete summary of the history of the
Clarendon Condominium Project and a number of convincing arguments
as to why the additional trail easement is unfair . Gretchen will
be present at this meeting to discuss the request and arguments with
Council .
Ilil
11 July 1984 ,
City Council
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Clarendon Employee Housing Addition
P.U.D. Amendment
Dear Council Members:
As you will recall, the Clarendon, a 15-unit luxury condominium
project, had applied for an amendment to its P.U.D. to add an
employee-caretaker housing unit on the north side of the property
near the swimming pool area. This area had been designated as
future manager's site on the original subdivision plat recorded in
1975. This request received unanimous approval from the Board
of Adjustment, the Housing Authority, the Planning E Zoning
Commission and went to the City Council with a recommendation
for approval from the Planning Office.
At the City Council meeting on May 14, 1984, the P.U.D. amend-
ment to allow this employee-caretaker unit was approved by the
Council subject, however, to a condition added by Council at
that meeting that the condominium association grant to the City a
trail easement on the southern side of the Clarendon development
from where the bicycle path terminates into Ute Avenue (approxi-
mately 120 feet east of Glory Hole Park) extending west into
Glory Hole Park on an alignment acceptable to the homeowners'
association and the City.
The representatives of the homeowners' association have met with
the representatives of the Planning Office and, after several
meetings, have not been able to agree on an acceptable alignment.
The problem is that the homeowners desire that the trail be south
of the trees and parallel Ute Avenue as it was originally planned
and shown on the approved subdivision plat recorded in 1975.
The Planning Office desires that the trail proceed through the
grass yard of the condominium complex to the north of the trees
now separating the complex from Ute Avenue in an area that
severly impacts all of the views of the units and which alignment
would run a public trail as close as ten or fifteen feet to the
�1I1"r
Letter to City Council
11 July 1984
Page Two
south-facing patios and severely intrude on the privacy of the
condominium unit owners. These units are fairly luxurious, and
the owners have paid substantial sums of money for their privacy.
The history of the public easements around the Clarendon follows.
The eight-foot-wide bicycle path that is currently in place was
installed prior to the subdivision of the Clarendon in 1975. The
path enters the Clarendon property from Ute Avenue approximately
120 feet to the east of the east edge of Glory Hole Park and then
substantially parallels Ute Avenue all the way to Ute Park and passes
to the north of the Benedict Building to connect with The Aspen
Club property. At its closest point to a condominium, the bicycle
trail is approximately 22 feet from the patio area of Clarendon
Condominium Unit 10; however, the owners of units 8, 9 and 10,
which are most affected by the bicycle path, knew of its existence
at the time they bought the units and bought them knowing that 22
feet away there would be a public bicycle path.
The Clarendon made substantial dedications to the public as part of
the original subdivision and this included not only the bicycle path
as it presently exists and as it passes across the southwest end of
the Clarendon property but also there was a ten-foot-wide trail
easement given on the north side of the property between the
Clarendon and the Little Nell Condominiums for the installation of a
bicycle path that would run from Glory Hole Park to West End
Street, which bicycle path has never been installed; and, further,
there was parcel #2 on the very southeast end of the property
which was reserved for dedication to the City for a period of 20
years in the event the City should ever decide to extend West
End along what is now an existing bicycle path to connect into Ute
Avenue. Further, a ten-foot strip of land (parcel #3) on the entire
south boundary of the Clarendon property was given to the City
for public right of way which expanded the effective width of Ute
Avenue from 63 feet to 73 feet. At the present time, the pavement
on Ute Avenue area is only approximately 22 feet in width and,
therefore, there is substantial room for expansion of the width of
the road, should it ever become necessary, and installation of side-
walks and/or trails, should they ever be desired. In addition to
these land dedications, the Clarendon paid $15,000. 00 in park
dedication fees, and Section 20-18 (a) (4) provides that "no land
dedication or park dedication fee shall be imposed on the resubdivi-
sion of land if a park dedication fee or a fee similar thereto was
NSW IMAM
♦t`
if
imps HACMAN YAW ARI.I II TE 'S '
Letter to City Council
11 July 1984
Page Three
assessed by the City of Aspen and collected at the time of the
initial subdivision."
As a result of these various dedications on the north, south and
east sides of the property providing for public rights of way on
all three sides of the property which are not already abutting
public property, i.e. , Glory Hole Park, the condominium project
has, in fact, already dedicated lands for easements around its
entire perimeter except on the northwest side abutting the park,
where none was requested. As a result, the condominium associa-
tion feels it has paid its dues with respect to public dedications.
There is a very viable route for an eight-foot-wide bicycle path
for an extension west from where it leaves the Clarendon property.
This is the alignment where it was originally planned to be located
to the south of the existing spruce trees and parallel to Ute
Avenue until it reaches Glory Hole Park. There would be room
even for parking off the pavement on Ute Avenue and the eight-
foot bicycle path while still not intruding into the vegetation along
Ute Avenue. This would preserve the existing front yards and
views from the patios and allow the existing vegetation to continue
to insulate the public right-of-way movement from these people's
privacy.
It is noted that, as the existing bicycle path passes along The Gant
property, the path is actually in the Ute Avenue right of way
entirely and is separated from the pavement by railroad ties only.
There is in that section of the bicycle trail no provision for parking
off the pavement on Ute Avenue.
In light of the ability to install it as it was originally designed on
the subdivision plat in the area between the pavement of Ute Avenue
and the existing vegetation and since the condominium originally
gave a ten-foot strip to the public widening Ute Avenue by ten
feet to some 73 feet along the south or southwest boundary of the
property and because of the very severe impacts and loss of privacy
and commensurate loss of value to the condominium units by putting
a bicycle path in effect right next to their private patios, the
homeowners' association does not agree to the alignment which the
Planning Office desired. Drawings which show the alignment desired
by the Planning Office and the impacts on the yards and patios
MEL HAG M AN AAA R(Huh-
Letter to City Council
11 July 1984
Page Four
of the Clarendon units are enclosed. At a meeting, I will present
photographs showing the area where a bicycle path could be in-
stalled along and parallel to Ute Avenue extending to Glory Hole
Park, in part in the easement already granted by the Clarendon
to the City.
In light of these circumstances, the Clarendon respectfully requests
that the City amend its approval of May 14 to delete the requirement
for an additional trail dedication through the south part of the
property and that the Association be authorized to proceed with the
P.U.D. that was already unanimously approved at all of the lower
levels of review.
Very truly yours,
Hagman Yaw Architects, L
Gretchen Greenwood
GG :sv
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office
RE : Clarendon PUD Amendment/Parking Reduction/GMP Exemption
DATE: May 14, 1984 APPROVED AS TO FORM
The Clarendon Homeowners Association is proposing to modify their
site with the addition of some common facilities to include :
One-bedroom Manager/Caretaker Unit 725 s. f .
Accessory Space
(storage, office and equipment) _350_. s,.f,
TOTAL enclosed space 1075 s . f.
Covered Open Area of Roof and Building
Overhang 500 s. f.
Open Gazebo by Pool 120 s ._f .
TOTAL floor area increase 1695 s. f .
Land Use approvals requested include:
1 . PUD Amendment;
2 . Parking Reduction Special Review; and
3 . GPM Exemption
The 1 . 627 acre parcel is zoned R-6 (PUD) allowing a total of 15 .749
units . Currently, the site is improved with 15 units ( five 2-bedroom
units at 1360 s . f . each, ten 3-bedroom units at 1610 s . f . each ) .
The applicant requested and received from the Board of Adjustment
a zoning variance on March 1 , 1984 , to permit a total of 16 units
on-site . If this PUD amendment is approved, the open space will
be reduced by . 02 acres from . 88 acres to . 86 acres .
PUD AMENDMENT
The Municipal Code (Section 24 -8 . 26 [b ] ) provides for amendments to
a previously approved PUD " only if they are shown to be required
by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plat
was approved or by changes in community policy. "
At the time of the original PUD approval in 1976, the entire project
was owned by the original developer . Subsequently, the individual
units were sold separately. Currently, the condominiums are primarily
used as luxury vacation homes and only six ( 6 ) of the fifteen ( 15 )
units are ever rented. The average occupancy of the units has decreased
to seventeen (17) weeks per year, thirty-two ( 32 ) percent occupancy .
This decline in occupancy is cited as the change in conditions which
necessitates the proposed on-site manager/caretaker housing unit .
PARiang REDUCTION
The low occupancy rate is also cited as the justification for an
exemption from the parking requirement for the employee dwelling
unit.
The standard parking requirement is one space per bedroom, however,
in a PUD (Section 24-8 . 17) , the parking requirement may be increased
or decreased taking into consideration the following factors :
" (A) The probable number of cars owned by occupants of dwellings
in the PUD.
Page 2
(P) The parking needs of any non-residential uses .
(C) The varying time periods of use , whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed .
(D) Available public transit or other transportation facilities
to be supplied by the applicant .
(E) The proximity of the PUD to the commercial core or recreational
facilities of the City. "
The applicant argues that the only time the parking lot is full is
one week at Christmas and one week in the spring . During the remaining
weeks of the year the lot is only partially full.
The Engineering Department supports the parking reduction for the
employee unit provided twenty-seven ( 27 ) parking spaces are made
available on-site. Currently, the parking lot can accommodate only
twenty-five ( 25 ) cars . Two ( 2) additional spaces , required to be
added as condition of a previous PUD amendment, have yet to be installed.
The applicant has proposed an amended site plan which the Engineering
Department supports . It shows the footprint of the new employee
unit and a parking lot capable of accommodating twenty-seven ( 27)
cars.
GMR EXEMPTION
A GMP Exemption for the proposed employee unit is appropriate since
the unit will be pure employee housing and be deed-restricted to
the low or moderate employee housing guidelines (Section 24-11 . 2 [f] ) .
The Housing Authority considered the proposal and recommended approval .
PLANNING AM ZQNING COMMISSION_AND .PLANNING_OFFICE RECOMMENDATIQN
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the applicationon April
17 , 1984 , and recommended approval of the PUD amendment, parking
reduction and GMP exemption with conditions . The Commission agreed
to the conditions recommended by the Planning Office. The Commission
and Planning Office recommend your approval with the following motion:
"Move to recommend approval of the Clarendon PUD amendment,
parking reduction and GMP exemption subject to the following
conditions :
1 . The amended development plan shall be recorded
as an amendment to the final plat in accordance
with the procedures established for the filing
of the initial approved plan documents .
2. The employee unit shall be deed-restricted to
the low or moderate income employee guidelines .
3 . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy,
the parking lot shall be reconstructed as illustrated
on the amended development plan to accommodate
a total of twenty-seven ( 27 ) cars .
•
AA
Till
19 April 1984
Mr. Richard Grice
City of Aspen Planning
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD
Amendment Application
Dear Richard:
This letter serves to clarify the total square footage of the employee
housing unit that is being proposed for the Clarendon Condominiums.
As originally submitted in the PUD Amendment Application, the
employee unit was described as a 700 sq. ft. unit which decreased
the open space from .88 acres to .86 acres. This is based on a 700
sq. ft. building footprint.
After the application was submitted the design determined that for
the benefit of the community, caretaker/manager and applicant, the
unit is best located on a second level. This affords the caretaker
southern exposure and privacy from the Clarendon pool. The total
square footage of the employee unit is 725 sq. ft.
It was further determined that there existed a need for accessory
space such as storage, office and equipment rooms for the management
of the condominiums. These functions served the development most
efficiently at the lower level of the new structure. The addition of
these spaces increased the square footage by 350 sq. ft. Along with
the design of the structure, the site development, with an open air
gazebo was developed as is shown on the enclosed drawings. The
gazebo is approximately 120 sq. ft. This additional square footage is
not reflected in the application.
The design of the new structure has a covered open area at the lower
level which reduces the perceived mass of the building and provides
a view through the building the Glory Hole Park (see enclosed
drawings) .
In establishing the increase in floor area to the PUD, all new square
footage is included (both enclosed and covered) . The following list
represents the total square footage of the proposed structure:
PEMPISIMa
HAGMAN YAW ARC]iI Et a
Letter to Mr. Richard Grice
19 April 1984
Page Two
New Employee Unit 725 sq. ft.
Accessory Space for the On-site
Caretaker 350 sq. ft.
Total Enclosed Floor Area Increase 1, 075 sq. ft.
Covered Open Area of Roof and
Building Overhang 500 sq. ft.
Gazebo 120 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area Increase (as calculated
by the Bldg. Dept.) 1,695 sq. ft.
The building footprint has remained at 700 sq. ft. as originally sub-
mitted in the PUD application. Thus, the change in open space as
stated in the application is correct, changing from . 88 acres to .86
acres.
Although this square footage was clarified and approved at the
Planning and Zoning meeting, I wanted to confirm the numbers for
the Planning Staff.
Please contact me for any additional information you may need. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Hagman Yaw Architects, td
Gretchen Greenwood
GG :sv
A.,tc ril ¢E
6 March 1984
Ms. Collette Penne, Planner
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Collette:
Enclosed you will find the application for amending the P.U.D. Plan
of the Clarendon Condominiums. We would like to be included on
the April 3rd agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission for
P.U.D. Amendment review.
As required by the Aspen Zoning Laws, a variance in the under-
lying bulk requirement from 15. 75 to 16. 0 allowable density was
granted from the Board of Adjustments on March 1, 1984. The . 25
increase was approved for the development of a deed restricted
employee unit subject to the Housing Authority's low to moderate
income guidelines. A resolution regarding the density increase from
the City Attorney is forthcoming and will be presented at the P E Z
meeting April 3rd.
The enclosed application outlines the amendments to the existing
P.U.D. due to the density increase for an employee unit.
Please contact me if I can supply you with any additional informa-
tion that will secure the passage of the P.U.D. amendment.
We appreciate the review of the Planning and Zoning Commission
April 3rd and urge a positive outcome for the Clarendon Homeowner's
Association.
Sincerely yours,
Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd
Gretchen T. Greenwood
GTG :slv
Enclosures
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF THE P.U.D. PLAN
OF THE CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS
I . RECITALS
1. 1 . The Clarendon Condominiums received subdivision approval from the
Aspen City Council initially on September 22, 1975, and a reapproval on
January 26, 1976. The First Amendment to the P.U.D. plan was approved
on September 23, 1980. The Subdivision Agreement for the Clarendon
Subdivision is recorded in Book 310 at Page 359, the Condominium Map is
recorded in Plat Book 5 at Pages 36-39, the First Amendment to the
Condominium Map is recorded in Plat Book 11 at Page 71, the Condominium
Declaration is recorded in Book 319 at Page 415 et seq. and the First Amend-
ment to the Condominium Declaration is recorded in Book 410 at Page 80 et seq. ,
all in the records of Pitkin County.
1 .2. Section 24-8-26 of the Aspen City Code provides for the amendment
of previously approved P.U.D. plans. Subsection (a) thereof provides that
minor changes to a P.U .D. plan may be approved by the Planning Director
alone. Subsection (b) thereof provides that, in other cases, a P.U.D. plan
may be amended by the approval of the City Council after recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission upon a showing of changes in condi-
tions since the final plan approval or changes in community policy.
1 . 3. Existing Project Description.
Zoning: R-6 P.U.D.
Land Area : 1 .627 acres
Land Coverage: . 74 acres
Open Space: .88 acres
Density Allowed: 16 units (no F.A.R.)
(16 units as of March 1, 1984 by the Board of
Adjustments)
Density Existing: 15 units (5 two bedroom units at 1, 360 sq. ft. each,
10 three bedroom units at 1 , 610 sq . ft. each)
1 .4. Prior P.U.D. Amendment: Under provisions of 24-8. 26(a) , the
Planning Director has previously approved certain changes to the Clarendon
Subdivision P.U.D. after determining that the changes were minor in nature.
Those changes included (a) building moved five (5) feet south, (b) elevation
increased three (3) feet, (c) relocation of utility building, (d) relocated
swimming pool, (e) omitted the tennis court and (f) increase unit sizes eight
percent (8%) without increasing land coverage by decreasing patio area.
Further on September 23, 1980, the City Council approved an amendment to
the P.U.D. Plan which allowed the owner of Unit #12 to convert his existing
two bedroom unit to a three bedroom unit.
In September 1982, the City Council approved an amendment to the P.U .D.
Plan which allowed the owner's of Units #6, 7 & 8 to convert their two
bedroom units to three bedroom units.
Application for Amendment of the
P.U.D. Plan of the Clarendon Condominiums
Page Two
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
2. 1 . Density Increase Approval by the Board of Adjustments
The Clarendon Homeowner's Association was granted a variance from the
Board of Adjustments on March 1, 1984. The variance received increased
the existing allowable density from 15. 75 units to 16.0 allowable density.
This represents a .25 increase in the underlying bulk requirement of the
allowed density. The variance was granted for the development of a deed
restricted employee unit subject to the Housing Authority guidelines for low
to moderate income housing.
A resolution drawn up by the Aspen City Attorney designating the .25
increase in the density for the development of the employee unit is forth-
coming and will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
2. 2. The changes to the P.U .D. Plan are as follows:
a. Deed Restricted Employee Unit
The proposed employee unit is deed restricted under the Housing Authority
guidelines for low to moderate income. The unit will be approximately 700
sq. ft. with living, dining area, kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, storage and
small office. The employee unit will have no impacts associated with it as its
location is towards the center of the site (see Exhibit B) and the architecture
and materials will be consistent with the existing development. The architec-
tural concept and design will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting.
b. Change in Square Footage to Existing P.U.D.
The existing square footage of the building is 22, 900 sq. ft. After the
addition of the 700 sq. ft. employee unit, the total floor area of the building
increases to 23,600. This is an increase in total floor area of 3%. The land
coverage would increase by .018 acres from . 74 acres to . 758 acres.
c. Change in Open Space to Existing P.U.D.
The existing open space is .88 acres. The 700 sq. ft. employee unit changes
the open space by . 018 acres from an open space of .88 acres to .86 acres.
d. Off Street Parking Employee Exemption
Due to the low usage of the parking area at the Clarendon Condominiums,
the Association is including in this application an employee exemption to off
street parking requirements.
According to Vacation Resorts who manages the condominium association, 80%
of the owners do not have an automobile while in Aspen. There are usually
three owners that leave a vehicle in the Clarendon parking lot year-round.
The only time the parking lot is full is one week at Christmas and one week
in the Spring and the remaining weeks of the year the parking lot is only
partially full.
Application for Amendment of the
P.U.D. Plan of the Clarendon Condominiums
Page Three
For the reasons listed above and the fact that the employee unit is near
town and near a bus route, the Association is requesting an employee
exemption from the off street parking requirements.
2.3. Exhibits
a. The proposed development for the employee unit has received support
from the Pitkin County Housing Authority. Exhibit A is a letter written
to the Board of Adjustment by the Housing Authority recommending the
approval of the density increase for the development of the employee unit.
b. A Site Plan showing the approximate location of the proposed employee
housing unit is Exhibit B. The architecture and materials will be consistent
with the existing Clarendon Condominiums. Additional detailed drawings
will be presented at the Planning and Zoning Meeting.
3. CHANGES SINCE PRIOR APPROVAL
3. 1 . At the time of the original P.U.D. approval in January 1976, the
project was owned by the original developer. The first amendment to the
P.U.D. plan was approved by the Planning Director as minor changes in
the P.U .D. plan. At the time of the amendment, the project had been sold
to the Centennial Partnership No. 1, a Colorado limited partnership, as an
interim developer/owner, and that change in ownership status was recited as
the change in circumstances since the final plat which authorized the amend-
ment.
3. 2. The individual units have since been sold separately to 15 individual
owners. The existing profile of the Clarendon Condominiums is a luxurious
vacation home development. There are no full time resident owners. Only
six (6) of the fifteen ( 15) units are ever rented. The average yearly
occupancy of all users both those that are rented as well as time of occupancy
by the various owners is only 17 weeks out of the year, or a 32% occupancy
throughout the year.
3. 3. Since the final plat, the applicant's properties have been conveyed
twice, once to the Centennial Partnership, a developer, and finally to the
current individual owners. Further, the yearly occupancy of the owners
has decreased to a 32% occupancy rate which has produced a need for a
permanent on site manager and caretaker to insure the continued maintenance
and security for the condominiums.
3.4. The Board of Directors of the Condominium Association and the
requisite number of condominium unit owners have approved the proposed
amendment and have endorsed the application for amendment of the P .D.
Plan.
�.. ]y L1LC A.j 1,e-U1,t.c,
`Gretchen T . Greenwood
Clarendon Condominium Association Representative
■
Till
3 April 1984
Mr. Richard Grice
City of Aspen Planning
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Clarendon Condominium PUD
Amendment Application
Dear Richard:
Enclosed you will find a revised site plan of the Clarendon Condo-
miniums. We revised this site plan to include two additional parking
areas that the Planning Department has requested to be included in
this Amendment per PUD Amendment submitted September 7, 1982.
The site plan indicates the 700 sq. ft. footprint of the proposed
structure for the employee unit, office and storage area. The open
space as stated in the PUD Amendment Application changes from
.88 acres to .86 acres.
The location of the proposed structure has necessitated the relocation
of this parking spot next to parking spot #7 as shown on the site
plan.
Please contact me for any additional information. The design of the
employee unit including office and storage area will be presented at
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Flagman Yaw Architects, Ltd
Gretchen Greenwood
GG :sv
Enclosure
March 6, 1984
Collette Penne, Planner
Aspen-Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Collette:
As requested by the Planning office for the P.U.D. Amendment,
the Board of Directors of the Condominium Association and the
requisite number (80%) of condominium unit owners have approved
the proposed amendment and have endorsed the application for
amendment of the P.U .D. Plan.
Attest: Clarendon Condominium Association
By: 77/t' /
Vice President
MEP1ORANPUP•1
TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE : March 30 , 1984
RE : Fourth Amendment to the Clarendon Condominiums
P. U. D. Plan
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the City Engineering Department has the following comments :
At the time the City Council approved the last amendment to
the Clarendon P.U.D. in September of 1982 , the approval was
conditioned on provision of two additional parking spaces for
the three additional bedrooms created . It is apparent , from
a comparison of the original P. U. D. plan with the plan submitted
with the current application that the additional parking was
never provided.
Parking on site is currently 25 spaces for a 40 bedroom structure
representing a 38% reduction from the code requirement , . We
would support the current application only with the provision
of three additional parking spaces , two of which are to comply
with the 1982 approval and one for the new unit for a total
of 28 spaces for 41 bedrooms or 32% beisow the code requirement.
JH/co
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer ' s Office, Jay Hammond
City Attorney' s Office, Barry Edwards
Housing Director , Jim Adamski
FROM: Janet Weinstein, Planning Office
RE : Clarendon Condominiums - PUD Amendment/GMP - Parking Exemptions
DATE : March 8 , 1984
Enclosed please find material submitted by Gretchen J. Greenwood
of Hagman Yaw Architects , Ltd. , on behalf of the Clarendon Condominium
Association, requesting a PUD amendment to create an employee housing
unit , and a parking and growth management exemption for the employee
housing unit. The Clarendon Condominiums are located at Ute Avenue
and West End Street.
Please review the enclosed material and return your referral comments
to Richard Grice of the Planning Office no later than April 3 , 1984 ,
in order for Richard to have adequate time to prepare for this case ' s
presentation before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on April
17 , 1984 .
Thank you.
e
b •'� 10 , aTub
v o ..E
fito be_ neartho( Q,9 am-en-amid- 4-,
wa) Kati ; in3 ,y‘..„ W 4
ar
.EXHIE ' A
;•,*
'CO pitkin county
506 east man street
aspen, Colorado 81611
February 17 , 1984
Board of Adjustment
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
,
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Clarendon Condominiums request for a variance on the
underlying bulk requirements .
Dear Board Member :
The Clarendon Homeowners Association is requesting a
variance on the underlying bulk requirement which presently
allows for 15 . 75 to 16 units . The . 25 increase would allow
for a 700 sq . ft. deed restricted employee unit which would
house the caretaker employed by the Homeowners Association.
This request was presented to the Housing Authority Board
on February 16 , 1984 at its regular board meeting. After
discussion with Gretchen T. Greenwood, representative for
the association, the Housing Authority unanimously and
strongly support the . 25 density increase requested by the
Clarendon Condominium Homeowners Association. This request
is totally consistant with the mandate of the Housing Auth-
ority as directed to them by the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County, that is to provide affordable housing for those
persons employed in Aspen and Pitkin County.
In summary, it is the Housing Authority' s recommendation
that the Clarendon Homeowners Association request for a
variance in the underlying bulk requirement which presently
allows 15. 75 units to allow an increase of . 25 to 16 . 0
allowable unit density, so as to provide employee housing .
It is also the recommendation of the Housing Authority that
the proposed employee unit be deed restricted under the
Housing Authority low or moderate guidelines .
Thank you,
Sincerely,
7:2
J es L. Adamski, Director
using Authority