Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840619 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Welton Anderson, David White, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Harvey postponed the election of officers until after the discussion of the "TDP Final Approval " which will become the first item of business after the minutes. MINUTES April 17 , 1984 : Jasmine Tygre moved to approve the minutes of April 17 , 1984; seconded by Welton Anderson. All in favor; motion carried. April 24, 1984 : Harvey noted on the top of page thirteen, delete "akes. " On page fifteen, replace "vegematic house" with "Ron Popeil. " Welton Anderson moved to approve the minutes of April 24, 1984 , as amended; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. Ilay 1 , 1984 : Welton Anderson moved to approve the minutes of May 1 , 1984; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor; motion carried. RESOLUTION: TDP APPROVAL Glenn Horn, planning office, introduced Phil Haufman. Haufman advised the Commission of the changes to the TDP items since last week. Haufman said a chapter four has been added. This final chapter sums up the recommended improvements which he had suggested previously. It reflects the comments of the discussion at the last public meeting. (David White arrives in the chambers. ) Starting on page 59 , there is a program for the city and the county. Given the amount of dollars available , on page 60 , table 17 , seven different short-term capital improvements have been identified. Total estimated cost is $1 ,500 ,000 to $1 , 800 ,000 . The amount eligible for UMTA funding is less than that. The reason is that not all of the Snowmass Village transit center , around which so much discussion evolved last week, is eligible for UMTA funds. This may take away some of the funding. An amount is essentially reserved for use by rapid bus on a year- round basis. It is estimated 400 of the transit is eligible 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Neeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 for UMTA funds. That is the number to be dealt with. On page 62 there is a brief analysis of the current status of UMTA funds. Of the original budgeted $9 ,500 ,000 , $7 . 8 million is already committed or extended. This leaves 1.7 million dollars of uncommitted funds . 80% of that is federal money, 20% is local money already in the bank. This is the money he is going to try to respect. Hunt asked if this money will stay at the 80-20 ratio. Haufman replied this is the way it currently exists. There is a grant within a grant. It may change the ratio to 75-25. Hunt asked if there is a way to fight that. 1-like Slugocki, Pitkin County, said yes. There is no official written statement from U14TA that this going to happen. There will be an effort maintain the 80-20 ratio. If it comes down in writing then the ratio will be 75-25 . Hunt said it seems the justification is that those funds have already been allocated and it is unrealistic to switch in the middle. Slugocki said there is pressure from Washington to save money during this election year. All the money available for distribution may be called in. Haufman referred to page 64 , table 19 . This is essentially the financial program: the risks, the capital improvements recommended, their estimated costs, the - available potential UPITA funding at a 75-25 share, and the minimal local funding. With the available funds that are currently available in terms of UMTA dollars, all the projects can be funded with a surplus of $232 , 000 . That $232 , 000 will probably be used to finish the current projects under way. The bus maintenance facility needs some landscaping, it needs a tow truck, it needs a forklift, etc. The list does include some funding for Snowmass Village. Snowmass Village is the other major node in the system opposite Rubey Park. The controversial element around the Snowmass Village is the amount Snowmass Village should receive. John Young stated last week that that the village is ready, willing, and able to provide the local match for the UMTA funds. The resolution in front of the Commission adopts this document. The document provides the tool and the mechanism to go a step further to apply to UMTA for the use of the funds . Slugocki within a couple of weeks will come back with a Section 3 application to make sure the Commission agrees with what Slugocki wants to do. Harvey asked if the adoption of this document is subject to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority allocating some of these funds . Haufman said yes . Harvey understood at last week' s 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 meeting that RFTA would be responsible for the allocation . Horn explained this is similar to the comprehensive plan for zoning, this provides a guide for RFTA. RFTA can follow the plan or make better use of the funds. Hunt corrects clerical mistakes. First , the document refers to Aspen Ski Cor,ipany as Aspen Ski Corporation, please change. This occurs on pages 17 , 25, 29, 30 , 31, 32, and 44. Sometimes there are multiple references on the same page. On page 12 , under Area D vIest End, "short-term accommodations on Main Street within the neighborhood " is duplicated. Was the problem of buses through required residential streets to serve the Aspen Institute and the Tent forgotten because of the duplication? Haufman responded that the choice was not to put editorials in the document. This is only a description for each of the neighborhoods. Hunt argued that the editorial is included in the Shadow Mountain bus problem. Haufman noted it was an oversight. Hunt said on page 13 and early in the document there is reference to just "Rubey Park" as opposed to "Rubey Park Transit Center. " Later in the document "Rubey Park Transit Center" is used. It should be consistent. This occurs on pages 13 , 25 , 38 (Rubey Park) and on pages 41 , 41 , 44 (Rubey Park Transit Center) . On page 41 , under paragraph two, it may not be necessary but it may be worth considering to include the European plan bus stops . There are two types of stops : one stop is by demand, the other is mandatory, the bus stops whether there is someone there or not . If it is on demand, and it usually occurs on multiple bus route , then the pedestrian actually flags down the bus. Therefore, every bus does not stop. He does not know if should be included here or not ; but it is something RFTA should consider in their bus stop procedures. The plan appears to have major and minor stops. Even a major stop could be a stop on demand or a minor stop could be a fixed stop. This depends on the number of bus routes serving that stop, traffic loading, etc. Hunt applauded the comments on paragraph six, page four. On page 45 , under paragraph fourteen, Hunt does not know if RFTA is aware that a PUC bus service can negotiate with Amtrak. Amtrak can ticket to the destination using that service. This belongs in the document, it should be looked into further in 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 the future when the service is provided. Haufman said this concept could be developed in the five-year update, there is simply not the time now. Hunt suggested add the clause "along with a direct transit link with the Rubey Park Transit Center " to the last sentence of paragraph fifteen, page -45 . On page 48 , considering the Silverking route reversal , if the hypothesis is that the trolley will service Rubey Park and Rio Grande, it could also be extended in a straight line in each direction. Lift lA is not mentioned in this and needs to be serviced. The trolley is the only thing that could handle the grades. One councilmember will be developing a task force to determine what to do with the trolley. On page 54, he questioned the location of Aspen Village. Someone corrected Hunt that the Aspen Village is located on the east side of the road. Hunt remarked the last sentence of paragraph two is not complete. He referred to the comment "relocation of the Trailways terminal" at the bottom of the page. It was anticipated that would be at the multi mobile center here in town. He does not want this thought excluded from the ultimate planning. White thanked the representatives for the efforts on this document. He is pleased with what he sees. Hunt asked why the three alternate plans are still mentioned. He would assume to forge ahead with alternate one, call it "the plan. " Haufman replied that will happen in the application process. Hunt commented that number one closely approximates the plan that the Commission supports. White asked which plan the county supported. Haufman reported that the county planning and zoning agreed that alternative one makes the most sense. White reported that the resort task force sees this plan as a high priority , "Rubey Park Upgrade" is close to plan number one. Hunt asked again why bother with alternatives two and three . Haufman answered they are simply demonstrating to UiNTA that they looked at a variety of alternatives. White asked what Snowmass is receiving. Harvey reported last week the Commission had a meeting with county planning and zoning and RFTA. Snowmass made a presentation then. The conclusion was because Snowmass Village is the other end of the transit system, that it should be recommended that Snowmass be considered 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 for grants. Snowmass will match the funds, and RFTA will determine how to allocate the money. Roger Hunt moved to approve Resolution #84-7 with the understanding that the comments will be taken into consideration and included where feasible; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor; motion carried. White presented the neighborhood plan of San Francisco to the Commission. It addresses transportation. He presented also Carmel ' s transportation and parking solutions. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Harvey opened the floor for nominations. Roger Hunt moved to nominate Perry Harvey for chairperson, and Welton Anderson for vice-chairperson; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ASPEN CLUB: REZONINGg PUD, AND LOT SPLIT Andy Neck, representative for the applicant, reported the applicant may pursue this application but not at this time. If his client does pursue this application again, the application will be republished. Barry Edwards, city attorney, asked Heck to withdraw the applica- tion. Harvey closed the public hearing on the Aspen Club PUD amendment because the application is being withdrawn. PUBLIC HEARING SHADOW MOUNTAIN TIMESHARE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR TIMESHARING CHANGE IN USE GMP EXEMPTION PARKING EXEMPTION Colette Penne, planning office, introduced Andy Heck, representative for the applicants, Bill Vetter and Boon Schweitzer , who are Shadow Mountain Reality, Inc. , the applicants of the project. There are particular items from the memo which need to be discussed. 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning. Commission June 19, 1984 There are also certain items the applicants want to discuss . Harvey opened the public hearing. Penne highlighted the issues. Shadow Mountain Lodge is formally the Coachlight. It has been condominiumized. It is in the L-3 zone. Conditional use review is a requirement for all time- sharing projects. Subdivision exception is for the purpose of timesharing. A change in use in GMP exemption is needed. The GTIP exemption request is for change in use. There is also a request- for -parking exemption. (Pat Fallin arrives in the chambers. ) There have been two prior approvals on this project. One of those was condominiumization. At the time the three-bedroom unit, which is the only three-bedroom unit in the project, was a long term residential unit for the owner of the lodge. It is in the residential category rather than the lodge category. The change in use exemption, although not requested by the applicant, was discovered. It is required to change the residential unit to a lodge classification. [°then the lodge was condominiumized the condition of six month rental restriction was not placed on that unit. A simple change in use from residential to the lodge category will take care of this for the purposes of further subdividing for the fraction of the estates. The parking exemption request resulted because an earlier conditional use brought into being a second employee unit. There are two employee studios in the project. At the time the Commission granted the conditional use approval a parking exemption for those units was not a part of the approval . There are fourteen parking spaces. There are fourteen free market bedrooms in the project . Parking is adequate for this project and parking could be exempted for the employees. There are bike racks. The project is close to town. The project is close to bus routes. Harvey commented that it is apparent that the requirement of one parking space per bedroom has been excessive. Studies have shown that. If the Commission exempts parking for the employee units, does that mean that the employees will not have parking spaces or does it mean that there will be fourteen spaces available for their use. If there are employees there is a chance the employees will have cars. If the employees are parking on the street long term that will present more of a problem to street maintenance and the neighborhood than if occasionally there 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19 1984 were a couple of guest cars parked in the street. Anderson commented that the lodge is never filled up. Penne said there is a parking area which is large enough to accommodate parking spaces that are 8 ' -G " by 18 ' . The parking can be striped to be within one inch of that requirement. Fourteen snaces would be stripped. Numbers would not be assigned for the units. The spaces would be available to employees. Eleck addressed this issue . A parking space will not be assigned to a unit. however, there will be a priority for owners. The units will be sold with one space per bedroom with a disclosure that if the spaces are not used the spaces will be used by the employees . Harvey said it must be made clear during the time of set up of a owners ' management board t1lat the town feel-, that it is an in- For employees. The portant to provide parking - i reason there is parking is to keep the cars off the street . Certainly employees cars will be parked on the street frequently ii..L if the employee cars are not provided parking places. Penne continued . The lodge has twelve units . Eleven of the units are studios , 350 square feet. The twelfth unit is an 1 ,300 square foot three-bedroom unit. There is an of=fice lobby area of about 250 square feet. The two employee units are 300 square feet each. There is a basement area that is large and open and used for storage . It is currently filled with beds from the lofts which the building department would not allow to be used for habitation. Each purchaser would have a deeded one-fifteenth fractional estate. Seven weeks of the fifty-two weeks would be reserved for maintenance e,,ith at least two weeks in the fall and two weeks in the spring, probably November and Play. The owner ' s would purchase one week from the prime ski category. There is an attachment to the meiio which delineates the exact weeks ; one from the summer fringe category; and one wee;'l- from the spring- fall category. There are two packages that group prime weeks . There is one in December, two weeks prior to Christmas; there is one around Washington ' s birthday, the last week in N.arch and the first week in April . Hunt asked for clarification. Are the units lodge apartments or residential long-term apartments. Penne clarified the units are lodge units except for the three-bedroom unit uhich is viewed as a residential unit. "Residential" is not defined as in the category of growth management . The units are referred to as 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 "residential" because they have a sleeping area, a bath , and a kitchen. Hunt noted that studios can be classified as residential also. Penne is using "residential " in a generic manner. The units are lodge apartments. Penne touched on areas the Commission should discuss. In terms of referral comments, both the finance department and the attorney' s office, the prime referrals, seem to have no problems with this application. The building department reported that a CO was issued after a safety inspection. There were several deficiencies that were listed when the application first came in ten months ago. That- work has been done an(! the CO has been issued. The engineering department listed several ii.,..`Lnor plat changes. The upgrading points are conditions . The standard condition of the applicant agreeing to join future improvement districts is included . Also , there is a crushed area at the sidewalIz . There are curbs that are lower than the surrounding curbs . The engineering department feels that these curbs should adequately serve the drainage needs, for example, run-off. The engineering depart=ment asked the parking lot be striped. Tile applicants have agreed to the improvement district condition and the striping of the parking lot. 11ith regards to the curbs, the front yard has been well grassed and landscaped. Between the sidewalk and the curb is a gravel area that technically the code does not allow unless it is stopped and it is part of an overall plan. flit this time it is wise to adopt it as part of the overall plan, and to have the condition that the applicant will agree to join the future improvement- district to cure the curb problem. The reason tile curb is broken down and the reason there is gravel is its location, private property is across from the ice garden. People drive on the applicants ' property . Until there is a higher curb it -makes sense for the gravel to be -there . This .flay not need to be corrected Likimediately. The gravelly area seems to function all right. If there is a future improvement 6-istrict the curb will be rectified. Harvey asked if there should be sortie specific ,,.tention o.f this in the conditions, the applicant join in an improvement district. Penne responded that the status quo remains until an iraprovement district occurs is mentioned in the conditions. Penne said the orior lodge condominiui,,iization approval did not attach a six ttionta restriction on the residential unit. There 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 198 is a request for a change in use ea-zemption. The criteria for the exemption is that there is no growt.,h ii.ipact on the community; the impacts are -mitigated. There are already two units of employee housing for a twelve unit complex, there are already parking spaces provided for the three-bedroom L'ree market unit . The conversion is located in an area which will not impact city services, sewer , water and roads. it i.-,akes sense to grant the change in use and convert the residential unit to a lodge unit. The unit has to be a lodge unit to tiiniieshare a %100 of the project. The conditional use review which is final action by the Commission has to be approved for this project to progress further. The criteria for conditional use is neighborhood compatibility : does the proposed use coi..iply with all requirement's of the zoning code and is it consistent wit-h the objectives and purposes of the code and zone district. The project is in compliance with -'the zoning code and district . There is an FAR of . 75: 1 . L- 3 allows a maximum FA1: of 1:1 . The parking requirements , one space per bedroom, for the L-3 zone is met assuming the Conilhiissioli agrees the employee units do not specifically have to have two more parking spaces. Tilie use of the property as a timeshare project should be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. It sits on a corner , across from the Ice Garden, the Ajax apartments, a multi family project, a 6 the short-termed Kidsbule Lodge. Behind the project, across the alley is a multi family project . The reconstruction o-f the Coachlight cleans up the alley. Striping the parking lot should provide an efficient operation with handicap access from the parking lot to the units. There is a studio with a handicap bathroom. Conditional use review in terms of the project' s compatibility with the L-'-")' zone has been discussed at length. Loca- tions of L-3 zone are largely in R/MF tie ighlboriloods. The extent of single family or low density uses, this project should not impact the surrounding neighborhood. Two areas for discussion are first reserve budgets, page three, number eleven. There will be reserve accounts for -furniture and appliance replacement, for the exterior maintenance of the building, -for property taxes, and -for license -fees . These are set up by the developer in the budget. The reserve -fund assessment for the -first five vears begin fro-nn, the closing of the first sale. After the Live years., the managing board will deteryi-iine actual expenses after each fiscal Year. The board will assess or credit IC-he owners based on the records and actual expenditures. Tile intent is to keep the escrow account that is established 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 over that -five year period in tack to the degree it ,.,ill not be used for maintenance purposes . But the increased amount that is put into the escrow account would be determined by those figures and would be changed fiscally by the managing board based on actual expenses or needs of the project . The figures mtay fluctuate. The amount projected at the beginning is held in escrow for five years. After five years furniture may need to be re-,placed and exterior work may need to be done on the building. The main- tenance level may not be enough or may be too much. It is reasonable thai_- the managing board take over teat function after 'Live years. Harvey clarified that the -funds for furniture, appliances, exterior maintenance and property taxes are to be set up out of the proceeds of the timeshare sales . T-7ill the fund be set up by the new owners? Penne answered it is an additional assessment. Harvey asked wizen the funds will begin to build toward these levels. Penne said once a closing is idade on a unit the purchasers of the fractional fee estates will be assessed. The reserve will begin at the closing of the first unit. Despite any unsold fractional Lee estates , five fractional -fee estate releases the unit for closing , and those purchasers begin to pay their assessment from the time of closing. The other ten fractional fee estates on that unit are paid by the declarant until the fractional fee estates are sold. The reserves build up over five years from the first closing so the escrow account will be at these levels . After the five years the Y.ianaging board should be able to adjust the assessments based on actual expenses and needs. There will not be a dispersal of the escrow account. If after five years none of the funds have been used, it is not intender to distribute the money among the owners. The building escrow account will be maintained after five years, it is the assessment level that would be re-evaluated for the fifth year, sixth year , etc. Harvey remarked there will be an average of $1 , 100 per unit accumulated for furniture , appliances etc. Vetter clarified the amount is $5, 000 per unit. Harvey said then there is $13 ,4100 for furniture and appliances. Schweitzer said that -L":-Lgure is an annual -figure and at the end of five years there will be a -fund worth five times $13 ,400. HarveV Said t-I'eat is not high for the replacement of appliances, carpeting, etc. Heck proposed that after the five years the board of managers 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 will .project what -the sixth year assessment would be and what would be required in the reserved funds . The managing board will then make assessments accordingly. Do not tie the assessment in five years to a dollar amount now. Harvey said the Commission cannot tie property taxes; they have to be paid and assessments are based on that. Heck explained the board will have a judiciary duty to all the owners to project accurately and to not let the property deteriorate in the subsequent five 17cars. The purpose of the first five years is to insure that the developer kicks in whatever amount is necessary to give the project a decent start. After that it is a mutual obligation by the all the owners. !,,Thite said ten year old condo-.,iiniu-nis are not kept up to the level of ten year :sonnies. The intent is to Veep the level of_ timeshare units u-o. Harvey said the owners would want to kick. their 1/15 share of dollars to upgrade property. I'lleck said the owners can be made to kick in the dollars but the owners cannot be made to spend the dollars. Harvey said that is tie point. Deck-ICCI- said at some point the owners need to be released to manage their own property. This is a good control over the developer so that the developer does not get aT,,av for five years without installing a reserve Lund. Harvey does not have a problem with the way this is setup. Anderson agreed. Tygre asked why this should be changed necessarily after five years. At this point it is not known what is going to happen, therefore, leave it the way it is. If the applicant decides it needs to be changed aster five years for some particular reason then evaluate it. 1.,7hy anticipate now that that is the way it is going to be? T-1111ite supports Tygre. Timesharing has not been around long enough to evaluate it. Anderson asked if there is a iaechan 4 q - for the applicant to come back in five years and state this is what the actual costs have been. Heck said the applicant could probably come back in a year for recon- sideration. Froi-.i his Client' s perspective they want this as consumer-oriented as possible without being -too over-regulating so that the project is not saleable. Somewhere there is a com- p -r o.m J se. 1,71iite asked if licensing gives the applicant the oppor- tunity to come back and present something that can be changed . Penny answered that the licensing. fee is assessad by the finance department. 1-7hite thought Council was approving something in timesharing that would mace the applicant come back once a year . Hock replied that Council has the right to review it , but the applicant toes not have to coi-iie back . 'Harvey con_-Firmed t1io decision by the Commission to let this be. 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Harvey continued. The reserved funding shall not be suspended or reduced in the first five years from the closing of the first sale. After that period of time the managing board shall determine actual expenses at the end of each fiscal year and will either assess or credit each owner against the next assessment. That works except that the managing board will not be able to determine actual expenses at the end of each fiscal year because the purpose '14 C11-1 builds of what is being set up is a reserved -.Lund d up in anticipation of having to re-route the entire building. Just because in the first five years that has not been done does not mean that ti-ic money set aside for a roofing 'Lund can be dispersed back among the owners. Heck said that money will remain in escrow. The concept is that the roof may have three or four more years of life, and the fee may not have to be assessed as much over next three or 'Lour years because -t1--here will be an abundance of money in the account. If the roof after five years still has a life of three or flour more additional years , then do not assess as much for the sixth year. Penne said the annual licensing gives the city an opportunity to review a project that is noticeably deteriorating. When the owners come in for the license the city 1,ias the right to deny that license. If the city denies the license it then has the reasons to investigate `ahy repairs are not being glade. Dunaway said the city cannot deny a license unless there is clear breach in the law. Harvey said the city could not deny a license based on delinquent maintenance. Penne said the city does not particularly want, the applicant to co-me back at the end of a five year period, to report that nothing has been spent and that everything is still new, and receive approval that the nrojected assessment for the sixth year is acceptable. Harvey agreed . The concern is that the managing board, shall determine actual expenses at the end of each fiscal year and w 'll either assess or credit each owner against each assessment i period. He does not want to see a reserve fund being paid out back to owners. That implies credit to each o%,lner. Penne suggested the condition read that the initial five year deposits be held an6 beyond that the figures can be determined b\, actual need. White noted many condominiums have to return and establish large assessments. Harvey said that happens all the ti-11.1e with homes and condominiums. It is probably less painful in time sharing with the greater number of owners. Vetter remarked based on the $1S0 , 000 -figure the assessment per owner would be $100 . 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Heck noted consumer protection ceases after five years when he developer is out, at which time the developer does not really care. The question is what kind of imposition is this to the owners. Harvey arvey asked if the Coi,.i-iAssion should require t1ne first five vears to be held, then after five years allow the managing board to do whatever it wants . At least five times the a-i,.iount of the proposed reserve could be generated. Tygre argued that still may riot be enough in the long run. z It depends on what the purpose is. The Commission cannot overpro- tect, but this is one situation unlike most condominium compleNzes where the owners cannot be made to put in carpeting or whatever to riaintain the quality of the facility. If there is not enough each me money in the reserve then e, owner would have to con up with $500 and they will not do that. This results in 6eterioration of many condominiums that are used for tourists. To the e.�Iltent the Commission has the opportunity to provide a situation in which sufficient reserve funds are available so that the units 11 can be maintained, then keep this in the condition, not so much as a protection for the owners but as a community benefit for any kind of tourist use. White agreed. hunt unt said the purpose of the condition is to maintain the lodge. Harvey said a $65 ,000 furniture-appliance fund will have been established by the end of five years ; $25 ,000 will have been established for the exterior of the building . The owners can be required to keep the money but the owners cannot be required to spend the money for maintenance. Tygre said the owners are more likely to spend the money if it is there. Harvey asked if the Commission should require a -minimum be maintained, and interest be accrued; at least, the owners then have the money. It does not make sense for the Commission to require the owners to maintain some level in the fund which the Comi-Assion determines arbitrarily. White said at the end of three or four years, when the project is three-fourths of the way through, when the project is sold out, lie bets tine developer will be able to come back and determine what is going on. Support of this will help the lodge businesses in town. This expense is not going to be borne by the developer . In five or seven years from now this fund will insure the -project has a better chance of being Maintained. Maintain the annual for awhile, then change it if need be. 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Heck asked if the majority of commissioners is saying that this syst ein, is in perpetuity unless tee e .2 applicant returns and changes the coi,.imissionersl minds . If the Commission gave an approval to build a lodge there would be no requirement for a reserve and the lodge would deteriorate. On its own value, it is more likely that an oc.iner or user would improve his property as compared to someone who is just trying to drain the cash 1-flow. Edwards understood that the applicant is representing to the Commission that these amounts are adequate to serve reasonably forseeable maintenance and replacement needs for the project. The applicant has represented this figure as being true. The Council does have the right to withdraw its approval if in the approval future it finds out that that representation is materially untrue in any respect. The Council can call -the applicant in, Council can correct the problem, Council can revoke the approval. Council viould probably call in the applicant and direct him to correct the problem. The city is not without right forever to call the applicant or the association in on things that were re-presented as being true and turn out not to be. To that extent Penne is correct. The city does have the right to deal with the project. But the license fee does not deal with the problem, the license fee is a permit to do business. Heck suggested that after five years that the association be given the right to come in and show the actual figures to the city . Leave open the possibility of some variation. Harvey said then keep this reserve fund at the present level for five years . Heck said invite the applicant to show the actuals. Harvev said item ten of the planning office' s recommendations, "proof that the reserve accounts have been established as proposed must be docu.­.iented to the city of Aspen" should address this issue. Penne said a better condition is fourteen. Harvey said the language in item fourteen should be changed to read tit at after a five year period that the assessment as presently budgeted the applicant shall have the right to 7,,iake adjustments to according to the projections of actual expenses ; this shall be approved by Council or the city. Heck said the implication is that it is deei-iied adequate if the applicant keeps the same level , and if the applicant changes the level , then the applicant needs city approval. Penne said if the applicant substantially increases then the applicant should also have to come in. The city does not want assessments to go up considerably either. Penne said the second item for discussion is -Management and 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 assessment fees, number ten of page three. TI-ic ap-v-Jlicant suggests that a board of i-.ianagers will be formed of no less than three and no more than five i-Liembers, all will be owners, and all will be elected by a. quorum of all other owners. Initially the applicant will control the board because the applicant will have more fractional -fee estates than anyone else . The applicant .,,ill be paying the assessments --'--or the unsold -fractional estates . 1 Control of the owners' association according to this application 11 will become vested in the owners no later than four months after 75% of all -fractional estates have been conveyed to purchasers or five years after the -first conveyance, which ever comes first. Considering that the ordinance requires this and the applicant commits to playing an -active role in paying assessments and in the operation of the project , it seems to be a reasonable approach. As soon as it is necessary a managing agent will be appointed. The ordinance suggests this also. it is logical to hold off an association for a period of time. The Prospector made the same proposal in their application. The proposal was shortened from tour months to 31 days (after 75%, of the units ,,ere sold or five years after tine closing o-.,L" the first unit. ) Edwards questioned why the applicant needs Lour months. Hunt questioned the 75% which is 135 shares out of 180 . If there are 91 owners, and the developer owns 89 shares, he, as an owner, would be upset- not to be able to have more control over the project at that point. Tiie 7506 is questionable. Ponne said there are two ways to look at this. One is that as soon as the majority shifts to other owners the association should be formed. On the otherhand, the applicant has a certain level of expertise in running the association. Do not cut off the developer control -too quickly. Hec'r clarified that there will be an operating association foriued -prior to first closing of tine unit. T.Iie question is how long is the developer entitled to keep some control. Y.aintairling 25% interest in these units w.,en the developer is paying assessments is substantial. The developer is not an outsider or a disinterested party. This is not unreasonable. Often in condominium developments one sees even more. regardless who has control, there is a judiciary duty. The owners cannot be treated as a different class of owners. They are all entitled to the same protections by the board of managers. It is not unreasonable to say that if the developer owns 25% of the timeshare units that the developer maintain control over the board because the developer is the most interested party at that point in seeing that this -project runs well . 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 If the project deteriorates the developer loses an enormous a=mount of money compared to any other individual. Harvey asked if the control shifts, and a board says it does not like, for e-- ample, tine sales program, then can the board have the ability through the voting association to vote some for changes in the sales program which might be adverse someone who is trying to market. Boards decide assessments. Boards decide about i-,iaintenance. Boards decide about operating rules. He does not 1-11ave a problem with the control , he has been involved with similar things and it is important the developer keep control. The boar(f is still ons-L resp w to the other owners. Is there responsible a way that other owners who are brought to the management level could be part of certain control elements of the board? Is there some way to allow for this? Heck said it is tough to envision every circumstance. It is tough to relinquish control of the project by one with 25% investments to other owners with a smaller disproportionate share, i. e. , $10,000 . From fleckls experience, developers do not want to maintain control of the association. It is a disaster. The developer is vulnerable to every complaint , every lawsuit, etc . The developer wants to relinquish control but at the same time the developer just cannot abandon a project in which they maintain such a substantial investment. Hunt said there i.,,ay be a logical compromise. flay be the figure, should be two-thirds. I-lay be certain decisions should remain with the developer , for example, marketing decisions. I? ay'lay be at 75% complete control is transferred to the association . Penne said the plan makes a certain amount of sense because the people who are putting this together have more expertise in running the association. The period of time could be shortened to make it more palatable. Perhaps make the 75% figure less. This is a reasonable approach. Heck said all of this will be disclosed in the documents to the purchaser. The purchaser who has a problem .pith this will not buy . There are -enough safeguards to inhibit the developer from 1-rom misbehaving. Hlite noted -there are also problems with selling the last units. The developer should keep control until the project is completed. Fallin supported the provision. 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Hunt com7-�iented on page two, paragraph seven, there is a typographical error. The figure is not $1 ,354 .47 but $7 ,354 .50 . In one case total cost for the studio unit is discussed, and then the total expense for the three-bedroo=m unit. Are expenses being talked about in both cases? Also, no where in the proposal is there any indication of the cost of the unit. Penne answered a low of $0 ,500 to a high of $44 ,000 for 1/15th fractional interest. ilec!i, said the three-bedroom is the highest . Vetter said the total average for the unit will be $13 ,545 . 45. Schweitzer said ti=e three-bedroom. unit will average about $32,500 . Hunt asked about the thirty days under the second paragraph of article twelve, page four. Penne explained that lodge condor.,i- iniumization, which this project has been through limits the owners occupancy in nigh season to fourteen days. This insures the units will stay in the short term rental market. There may be a conflict with this requirement. Someone may want to buy L wo or three packages and this should be allowed. In the case of the Prospector this was increaseQ7, to thirty days. The packages are necessarily not one winter , one summer, or one off-season. There are two packages w1lich provide two weeks in December and the week in Harch and April . The ordinance does not preclude this but suggests that three week packages be from three different seasons. She does not have a problem with those two packages. They will be prime packages. They do not dilute the intent of the ordinance. If someone was to buy those two packages he would be at the limit. However , if someone bought three regular packages (a winter high season, a fringe and a surimer) he could buy three or four packages and still not exceed the thirty day limit on his use in high season. Lodge condor.itiniumizaltion sets 'the "high season parai-.ieters and prohibits the owner to no more than fourteen days. There has to be the ability for people to buy two or three packages and therefore increase the days to thirty. Harvey said this provision addresses a corporate -..:)urchaser . HT eck does not understand the concern of the regulation. No one is going to buy a fractional estate ei:cept to use it as a tourist. Harvey said that intent is to insure units are not kept out of the rental market . In the case of timesharing, there will a an exchange program. White cited the San Francisco tiritesiharing. The results are that many fractional estates are being sold' to corporations . Different people use the units. It is a marketing tool. 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 Hunt said his problem, is keeping the characteristic use of the lodge. Under these circumstances he has less of a problem with the timesharing. Heck said the project is a use product not an investment. Penne noted someone would probably not buy packages of til,,"eshares but buy a condoininiu.-cL if he wanted to come here in the high season. 1-1 arvey noted page t w marketing item to is the section. Schweitzer intends to sell this project as a piece of real estate. There is no interest in using gimmiclks or anything associated with traditional timesharing. Ile will use the newspaper , the .Tall Street Journal, etc. The-re will be no hype, no phone soli- citation; nothing that would cheapen the product. Heck said the timeshare ordinance talks about the common areas being owned by the association. Traditionally that is not the way that ownership of comrion elements is conceived. It is usually all of the owners in common own the common areas. The association is simply the management tool . Do not preclude the traditional condominium form of ownership. Harvey said the Commission ' s intent is that every owner own his pro rata share. Tice issue a to be avoided is the developer owns the pool and parking and three years after the project is sold out, an owner then has to lease the parking space. Heck said the common elements need to be owned in common and not by the operating entity. Heck said there is a provision that says that closing cannot occur until 5/15 fractional estates units have been sold in each condominium. If it is decided to close a unit after 2/15 fractional estates, what is t-71-le -problem if a release can be obtained from the mortgagee. Does this present a problem? Penne explained the Prospector required eight of the fifteen units to be sold for closing . That translates to a more than half of the units be sold for closing. The release from the financial institution is based on the amount of indebtedness. The financial institution would probably close after three sales on a unit. The applicant agrees to five . The applicant has the actual figures to explain how it could be released earlier. Heck said if this determination is for financial reasons let t1le applicant deter-,.-iine when a unit can be released. A fee title has to be delivered. If it is for another reason then impose this. Hunt noted some of this is for consumer protection. The intent is to guarantee the project' s success from a consumer .0 point of view. That is why the 501, was designated in the Pros- 1 C RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 erector. Because this project is smaller may be a third is more appropriate than a half. Again, this is -for the protection of the consumer, not for the -financial protection of the developer. Heck said the developer does not want a project that is committed t 0 timesharing, that is sold out with only two timeshare units, L and leaves the developer holding 99" Fallin asked if there is langua(ic in the ordinance regarding thi S. Dunaway addressed provision sixteen: "common areas are to be owned by the owners' association. " Is that being changed to read just "OWners?" Harvey said yes , it will read that the fractional owners are the owners who i-Liust own the common areas and common amenities in the lodge. Hunt suggested "fractional owners in common will o• n. . . " T,7 i I i te asked if the applicant wants the flexibility J'_'or a new owner to occupy his unit within a short period of time without waiting for the closing of the unit. Schweitzer answered that it is his experience with the Winter Park project that the first, second, or third buyer in a, unit usually wants to use. the unit .1 J before the closing (the sale of nine units was needed to close) . There may be some situations when it may be desireable to close and the developer should be able to release a fee sirtijz.)le title. Hunt argued that the developer who is in control could "rent" those units as well if there is not an owner or use the units rent free. W' ite said the ordinance 11 prohibits that. There is a $100 ceiling for a gift. Heck said the developer cannot take the purchaser ' s money until closing with the purchaser. Vetter asked if the concern is that the consumer receive a clear title. Hunt saiC-1 that does not worry him. It is the success of the overall project that nis is a concern. Harvey asked if the Commission is hurting the success potential by imposing a restriction. "Penno noted Council will not respond to a figure less than five. Hunt said one-third is reasonable. Heck suggested leave the figure at five. If this presents a marketing problem then the applicant will come back. Harvey concluded leave provision twelve as is. Heclir commented on paragraph twenty-five, page eight: 3010 qualified voters constitute a rquorun. One has to be able to do business with the Yaelnbers that are present . All owners will receive notice. Even if the owner does not want to send a pro.,y or attend the meeting the association' s business still needs to 19 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 be conducted. Five, ten, or thirty owners Iftay be present or by proxy, anC_"., this should not be said is not a quorum. Business would never be accomplished. Fallin asked what 30% presents in actual numbers. Heck answered 54 owners. Responses to asso- ciation i:ieetings are not usually good. Schweitzer said it is a practicality problem. Harvey argued the other half of the issue is that the developer ' s control of 30c.' does not constitute a quorum. Heck said business needs to be transacted at a meeting. Otherwise the association will have problems. Require a notice be sent. Allow those wino attend a meeting to conduct it. Hunt said the maxi-mu­t number of -I.ci,,ibers who could be iDresent at a meeting is the number of units, thirteen, -plus proxies. 12'arvey asked LE it is the Commission' s responsibility to write the legal documents for the owners' association. He does not think so. He does not like directing the owners on how to keep their house in order . Edwards suggested striking the entire paragraph. on the control issue, if the declarant cannot keep control until 75% is sold, then do not deal with quorui[i at all . Provision twenty-five is deleted. Harvey pens the public hearing. y I Harvev reads a letter from Ruth H. Brown dated May 23 , 19F,4 , into the record : "I will be unable to attend the hearing scheduled for June 19th on converting the Coachlight Lodge from a straight condominium to timesharing and wish to take this opportunity to voice my objections to such a change. I have had the opportunity to observe timesharing condominiums in Hawaii and in 1,7ashington state, and. in My opinion such an arrangement causes a deterioration in neighborhood values as well as contributing to greater than normal depreciation L, - j of the timesharing property due to heavier than normal usage and tile lack of an owner' s interest in maintaining the property in which he has only a fractional interest. As the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the Coach light, I would urge the Planning and Zoning Comi­.iission to deny the application. " Edc,7ar( s commented on tne language of the conditions under the 30 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 planning office' s recommendations for approval . Condition ten reads proof that reserve accounts which have been established as proposed must be documented to the city of Aspen finance department on or before the establishment of the accounts. Any changes in the balances of the accounts must be approved by the Council . The language should read any changes which decrease the contributions to the accounts must be approved previously by Council . Condition sixteen is revised to say that the fractional owners must own the common areas and common amenities in the lodge. "Association" is deleted. Condition seventeen, the board of managers must designate a managing agent and that agent must be a local agent. The purpose of the ordinance is to designate a managing agent first to be accountable to the city' s concerns and secondly to see service processed in other clatters . The agent will be dealing With realtors in town. That should not be a proble::lfor the applicant. Hunt returned to condition sixteen. Harvey said the languag` will read the fractional owners must own the common areas and common amenities in the lodge . Hunt argued it is the owners in common not some fractional owners. deck said the fractional interests would be pro rated. Harvey suggested "the fractional owners, in common. " Edwards agreed. Edwards continued. Condition twenty says the financing must be expressly subject to all restrictions and all documentation shall be presented to prospective purchasers . ]dwards asked if this means all financing documentation or all documentation required by the ordinance to be supplied. It should read all documentation required )y Section 20-24, Aspen flunicipal Code. Condition twenty-five is deleted entirely. Condition twenty-six, the language conforms to the language in condition sixteen : fractional owners association may not lease the common elements or amenities which are owned by the fractional owners, in common. Condition fourteen, add "with City Council approval " at the end. Condition twenty-eight, full details of the chosen exchange 21 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19. 1984 program must be provided to purchasers of Shadow Mountain timeshare interests, not to ProsyDcctor timeshare interests. Edwards suggested include "to prospective purchasers and owners as required by Section 20-24, Aspen THunicipal Code. " Condition twenty-nine, say "the applicant must sign i miediately. " Also state that the applicant roust sign the timeshare application and all other documents to be recorded or made a part of this application when tilie applicant is making representations to the city. Condition thirty-one , delete "currently estimated at (the first one) and insert "as determined by the city finance department . " Regarding the planning office ' s fees it should simply say the applicant must first pay all outstanding fees owed to the planning office and delete the second "currently estimated Edwards suggested get the applicant' s consent to all these conditions as revised on the record. The applicant would consent that the conditions as revised are all right. Hock said these are conditions of the approval, he is not trying to convince others the conditions should be otherwise , please recommend this to Council with -those conditions as discussed. Heck, said he represents the applicant, and he represents the conditions are acceptable. Heck will federal express 14--he application to the applicant for his signature. Penne suggested a new condition, which will become condition thirty-two : deed restrictions on the employee units must be documented and recorded with the city attorney ' s approval . Edwards noted all documents associated with t."ne finalization of the application must be approved by the city attorney' s office as col-tiplying with the ordinance. Generalize the condition to that effect . Harvey suggested language : "deed restrictions on employee housing and all other required documentation . Edwards agreed. Perry Harvey entertained a motion recommending Council approval for subdivision exception for the purpose of timesharing for Shadow Fountain Lodge in Aspen; further granting a conditional use approval for this project to be timeshared in the L-3 zone ; further approving a change in use in the growth management planning exemption for conversion of the three-bedroom residential unit to a lodge unit which will also be timeshared ; recommending granting a parking exemption for two employee; and recoy..imending 22 RECORD OF PROCEEDING Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission June 19, 1984 approval for the timeshare application subject to tie conditions 4'roin the planning office memo dated June 19, 190n , with amendments to item ten, fourteen, sixteen, seventeen, twenty, deletion Of t-wenty—five, and renui,,ibering the ite,-,is thereafter, and amendments to the old twenty-six , the old twenty-eight, the old twenty- nine , the old thirty-one, and the addition of a new condition which will be numbered thirty-t-uo requiring approval by the city attorney' s office of the deed restriction on the employee housing and all olu- iier documents pertaining to the approval . T�j el ton Anderson so moved; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; i motion carried. Edwards asked Heck if there is any confusion on the applicant' s behalf as to what those conditions are as revised here tonight. Heck re-olied no. Harvey closed the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS NEALE STREET BRIDGE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Welton Anderson i-iioved to approve Stream I'Largin Review for the fleale Street Pridge Project as represented with the condition that the property ownership question be resolved prior to con- struction; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried. JLasmine Tygre moved to adjourn the meeting at 7: 00 P.m. ; seconded by Roger Hunt. All in favor ; motion carried. dL O Barbara 11orris, Deputy City Clerk 23