Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20010403ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 200! COMMISSIONER & STAFF COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 1 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. 1 IVIINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 LOT 1L SILVERLODE SUBDIVISION- DRAC VARIANCES .......................................................................... 1 ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDMENT OF CONCEPTUAL PUD, LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) & LOT 5 (GRAND ASPEN) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 10 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 Jasmine Tygre, vice-chairman, opened the regular meeting at 4:35 p.m. in Council Chambers. The following commissioners were present: Eric Cohen, Roger Haneman, Ron Erickson and Jasmine Tygre. Steven Buet~ow arrived at 4:45 p.m. and Bob Blaich was excused. Sta~Tin attendance were: David Hoefer, Assistant City A~tomey; Fred Jarman, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER & STAFF COMMENTS Ron Erickson asked staff if they had heard from Ben Dodge. Joyce Ohlson replied that Dodge was left the city. Ohlson distributed the in-fill project progress report. Roger Haneman asked for an update on the Caribou Alley. Ohlson responded that staff felt that there were violations that were being researched. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST None. MINUTES MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the minutes of February 20, 2001 and March 6, 2001 with changes as follows: page 5 ¶2 replace applying tofit the community with extrapolated to fit the local community_ and page 6 the last ¶ replace meant with it was by ty_pe of ownership. Roger Haneman second. APPROVED 4-0. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT 11, SILVER_LODE SUBDIVISION - DRAC VARIANCES · Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing with the Planning & Zoning Commission acting as DRAC on Lot 11, SilverLode Subdivision. Proof of notice was provided. Fred Jarman explained that there were two variance requests and provided the review criteria. The first variance was for the build-to lines on lots under 15,000 square feet had to have at least 60% of the front faqade within 5feet of the minimum front yard setback, porches may be used to meet the standard. This lot was 13,339 square feet but the site had a significant slope to it with an existing boulder retaining wall and the driveway cut. Jarman stated that the secondary mass standard required that all new structures have at least 10% of the total square footage above grade in mass, which is completely detached (garages, sheds, AD Us)from the principal building or linked by a subordinate connecting element. He said that secondary mass was meant to break up the mass and the connecting or linking element was 2 story in this case on 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 the front side of the lot but one story in the back because of the slope of the lot. He said that staff felt that this design met the intent of the standard. He said that the site contained unusual constraints. Ron Erickson asked that if the house were moved to the front of the lot would it conform to DRAC standards. Roger Haneman asked if the rest of the SilverLode building envelOPes complied with the setback standard. Jarman responded that the setbacks were determined by the subdivision. Jarman said that some of the properties met the requirements and some did not. Haneman asked if other lots had to go through DRAC as well. Jarman replied that yes, there were other lots that went before DRAC. Gregory Register, architect and applicant, stated that this was a tough design challenge with all of the restraints of the retaining wall on the front to prevent the front setback. He said that the original PUD did not have to abide by the DRAC standards but that original SilverLode PUD expired and the city standards now applied. Register stated that he made an effort to come close to meeting these two standards. Gary Wright, public, stated that he lived across the street from this lot; this was one of the last un-built lots, so there would not be any precedents set. Wright said that the methods that the architect designed were the best that could be done. He noted that he was surprised about the retaining wall placement because of the problems it may cause with building on lot 11. He requested that the commission to grant the variances. Erickson asked Gary if the retaining wall from Lot 12 encroached on Lot 11. Wright responded that was what it appeared like to him but that he was not involved in the development of Lot 12. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #13, series 2001, approving the variances from the Residential Design Standards for the build to lines and secondary mass finding that the proposal more effectively addresses the issue or problem with the given standard or provision responds to and is clearly necessary for the specific site. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Discussion of motion: Erickson discussed the retaining wall and asked Steven for input. Steven Buettow stated that he did not have a problem with the secondary mass or the build to line especially with the topography. Haneman agreed that the area was a tough one to work with on the topography. Tygre stated that this was a site-specific situation. 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (3/6/01): ASPEN MOUNTAIN AMENDMENT OF CONCEPTUAL PUD, LOT 3 (TOP OF MILL) & LOT 5 (GRAND ASPEN) Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Aspen Mountain PUD Amendment. Public notice had been previously presented. The commissioners discussed a condition that Lot 3 approval was conditioned upon Lot 5 approval. Ron Erickson asked if this was changed from the original approval on Lot 3. Sunny Vann replied that there was a condition that would not allow a change in the square footage. MOTION: Roger Haneman moved to approve P&Z Resolution #11, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 3, Aspen Mountain PUD were consistent with the previously approved plan and conditioned on the approval of P&Z Resolution #14, series 2001. Ron Erickson second. Roll call: Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Buettow, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Julie Ann Woods noted that Exhibit A in the packet addressed the information requested from the previous meeting. Woods confirmed the 1/20~ ownership interest instead of the 1/12; the unit would be part of an overnight exchange or available for rental if the owner did not utilize the unit. Ron Erickson asked if the project were a piece of real estate or a security. Vann replied that it was not a security. Varm explained the overview was conceptual and the final application would include the financial data of funding and financing as well as the time-share workings. John Burlingame stated that he did answer "yes" to the ownership question from the last meeting; he proposed the 1/20 interest with a fixed component I,a one week interest) and a floating componem which can be up to an additional 10 days. He said that both the fixed and floating components were available through the Hyatt's Central Reservation System, which fundamentally operates like a hotel system with the owners having some priority in the interest that they own. Dick Ragatz provided the financial information and answered questions from the prior meeting. He explained that the occupancy rate and rental space was the same as for the hotel industry rate and hotel rate statistics were 56.8% based upon wholly owned condo and hotel inventory with Aspen occupancy rates at 48.6%; therefore the year round occupancy rate projected for the 125 rooms, 51 units, dropped from 87% to 84.5%. 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 Writer said that the 48% was the condo market percentage in Aspen instead of the hotel percentage. Ragatz said that there were no figures from the Aspen Market on expenditure patterns for tourism and used a Steamboat Springs Company as a surrogate with a national occupancy rate of $119.00 to $140.00 per night in the hotel industry. He said that over the years, from impact studies a vacation ownership, the occupant spends 18% to 26% more than a hotel guest. Haneman asked where the information came from. Steve Ferrarini stated that 6,000 households were surveyed nationally. Ragatz said that the taxes collected would be more with fractional-share because of sales taxes over a 10-year period collected from consumer expenditures, marketing and services including the lodging tax relative to hotel and relative to vacation ownership project rental space with the Real Estate Transfer Tax. This was detailed in the report. Scott Writer noted that on page 4 of the report there was a breakdown of generated additional new visitors. Ragatz quoted from the executive summary of his report. There was discussion of mandatory occupancy, deed-restrictions and SCC issues. Burlingame stated that the Hyatt system had a rule that if the inventory had not been reserved 60 days in advance of use, then it was available for rental. He said that the rental would re-coup some of their assessment. Ragatz said the only way that he knew to legally insure that a person become part of a rental pool was through a hotel/condominium concept, which required registration through the SCC as a security. Ragatz stated that there were over 4,500 vacation ownership projects throughout the world and he said that he did not know of one that was registered with the $CC. Erickson said that there were condominium units that had by-laws that required rental. Tygre noted that at some point there would need to be some legal clarification since the commissioners were interested in the rental aspects. Vann stated that they can say that they share the same interest in renting it; he said that the 1/20th share would be the interest owned in a unit. Varm stated that the time-share component was the next issue to deal with at this time. Haneman asked how the additional 10 days were reserved. Buflingame replied that the days were reserved on a first come first serve basis through the Hyatt system or any other system that they were hooked into. The proposed details of reservations and ownership intervals were discussed tying them to the local reservations systems and the Hyatt reservations. Burlingame stated that reservations could be booked from the inventory with a 60-day advance or general 4 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 booking after then. Ownership of a certain unit would be purchased for the first 10-day intervals and then the next 10-day intervals were floating. Cohen questioned the amount of units that could be owned by one person and suggested that limiting the number of units owned by one person would be one unit. Tygre stated that they were looking for a mechanism for the turn over and prevent a 3-month ownership without the unit being able to be rented. Tygre reiterated that the intent was to limit the accumulated ownerships. Erickson asked for clarification on the Hyatt Vacation Club and asked how it differed from the Hyatt Hotel chain. Burlingame replied that they were affiliates. Erickson asked if they would be able to take advantage of the hotel chain marketing. Burlingame responded that they were separate but that they would be able to put inventory into that system, Erickson asked what was the estimated sellout period. Ragatz answered 3 years. Erickson asked if the numbers were adjusted and factored into the report figures. Ragatz replied that no they had not, except for the Real Estate Transfer Tax. Erickson asked if during that 3-year period would the unsold units be rented. Burlingame replied that they would rent them. Tygre asked for clarification on the Management Company that the Grand Aspen would use for the owners rental program. Burlingame replied that it would be I-Iya~t Vacation Management Corporation, which was an affiliate of Hyatt Vacation Management. Tygre asked the terms of that management contract. Burlingame replied that they were restricted by state statute and the association would sign that agreement. Tygre commented that the presentation that staff arranged last week with Don Schuster on time-share and fractional ownership was very good. The size of units and unit configuration were discussed at that meeting and how it effected the length of stay. Tygre stated that she was curious about the advantage behind 4- bedroom units. Scott Writer replied that they were re-thinking the unit mix as they evolved down this path and the recent plan had 3 or 4 4-bedrooms with 2 or 3 lock- offs in each unit. Writer said that they might eliminate 2 bedrooms from those units. Erickson questioned the direct and indirect maintenance fees. Erickson asked if there would be a budget presented for management and marketing. Varm responded that the submission requirements under the time-share were a full disclosure statement and budget information on the operations and maintenance as part of the final application. 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 I-Ianeman stated that the numbers did not add up with the shoulder seasons even if during the high seasons there was 100% occupancy; he said that without any conference facilities this would be difficult to attract occupancy for the shoulder seasons. Burlingame said that the Beaver Creek project a~ter the first two years ran at 76% occupancy on a year round basis and they fully expect that this property also will do the same. Burlingame said that at Beaver Creek the shoulder months of late April/May was at a low of 44% and in the fall occupancy was at about 60% or 64%. Haneman asked of those shoulder seasons just mentioned, how much of that occupancy were the owners. Burlingame responded that was occupied inventory without the statistics of what percentage of owners but it was probably half with the balance being renters and exchangers. Vann said that because of the exchange program (the size of the people pool) there was an ability to increase occupancy in the off-seasons just to be able to go to Aspen. There was discussion of the Aspen market in November prior to ski season with the figures provided by the applicant. Erickson asked where Aspen ranked in requests for Hyatt's destination resort. Burlingame replied that there was not any data on that. Tygre noted the skepticism about the numbers for the occupancy rates in the reports. Erickson asked what spaces and uses were eliminated from the old hotel project in terms of usage and square footage. Klm Wyle replied that deleted were the meeting rooms including the corridors at around 12,000 square feet; the restaurant and public bar was deleted at about 4,500 square feet and a health facility was added at 1500 square feet. Erickson asked what was going to happen with that 15,000 square feet~ Vann replied that most of it now went to on site affordable housing. Wyle stated that the first conceptual application had 12 employees and now there were approximately 28 employees on site, utilizing about 8,000 to 9,000 square feet. Vann noted that the original application was under the maximum 115,000 square footage and now with the affordable housing kept on site, they utilized the entire FAR 115,000 square footage. Vann said that the breakfast area could be a public bar area similar to the other hotels in town. Erickson stated that those were not time-share properties and had liquor licenses. Hoefer stated that there was a test case before the state liquor board now regarding time-shared properties and liquor licensing with the state. Cohen asked how the Silver Circle would bring vitality. Writer stated that they would actively market the Silver Circle Ice Rink and with the hotel occupancy. Vann said that the final submission would have the revised model. Public comments: Peter Thomas, public, stated that his client, Galena Place, generally supported the project with the exception of the monolithic height. 6 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 Hoefer noted that under the PUD the dimensional requirements were set so that there was no variance requested. Thomas said that the underlying zone district had a different height limit than this 45-foot high building. Thomas said that the 45- foot high building would lessen the surrounding neighbors' property value. Jerry Monkarsh, public, asked that the top fioor be removed, which was a total of 7 units. He said that they were not opposed to the time-share units; he asked the price range for the 1/20t~ ownership. Writer replied that the projected average price range was $100,00.00 to $150,000.00. Monkarsh said that he was skeptical of the whole project with the height. David Boothe, public, asked where to get the packets. Writer replied that he could supply him with the information and Hoefer noted that the clerk's office also had the information. Boothe said that the neighborhood in general supported the project with the exception of the height. He said that he would like to see a calculation on the net rental square footage of the hotel verses the salable square footage of the new project. Tygre stated that to summarize the review conceptually the commission needed to decide if they were in favor or not in favor of time-share and what conditions would be acceptable for the final review. Tygre asked for concerns in terms of the physical aspects of height, architecture, access and accessory uses. Tygre asked the commission if the time-share aspect was acceptable. Erickson replied that it would be acceptable with conditions. Haneman said that it would be unacceptable. Buettow said that it would be acceptable with conditions. Tygre said that she agreed that it was acceptable with conditions and that the resolution as prepared would not go far enough to satisfy the commission; she said that a lot of work needed to be done on that resolution prior to P&Z approval. Vann stated that it would not be just removing the fourth ~loor because then it would look like a square; they would have to take out the third fioor removing 17 or 18 units and not just 7 units from the fourth fioor. He said that maximizing the number of keys was what the community wanted preserving 125 or more rooms. He said that they were not proposing a 3-story hotel at this point. Vann noted the approval was not based on the specifics of the time share details but the conceptual conditions. Tygre stated that the commission might not be opposed to the concept with assurances to move forward if there was a limitation on the number of weeks or shares of ownership and units owned by one person. Vann said that the condition could be that the applicant was put on notice and council 7 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 would be aware of that concern. Erickson noted that when conceptual was more defined then final was easier to be accomplished. Tygre expressed concern for the height of the structure as seen from Durant and the restaurant and bar would attract the public; the form of the structure remained the same with the elimination of the public spaces. Erickson suggested trying to incorporate the Silver Circle to a public/private space to be shared with the community. Vann stated that there could not be a re-design of the project but more discussion could be on what to do with minor changes on the property. Hoefer stated that there was no requirement on the Silver Circle and the review t.onight was on Lots 3 and 5. The P&Z commissioners discussed the ways that the public interacted with the proposed building prior with public space and the new proposal did not include that space. Vann responded that they were not building a hotel per se and were not prepared to build a hotel per se with a restaurant but provided the same benefits to the community with sales tax and the other benefits. Erickson proposed continuing the meeting to prepare a resolution that included all of their considerations and concerns for clarity to the city council. Cohen replied that the he was comfortable with the resolution as it stood with the only change to condition #4 adding after the "," or less with a maximum of one ownership share perperson. Cohen stated that he bought into the applicant's chart that 80% would be full in October. Erickson stated that he would like to add conditions concerning owner usage that the owners provide calendars by April 1st for the summer and AugUst 31st for winter or they don't have usage of the units; the units become rental. Erickson stated concern for the large 3 and 4 bedroom vacation ownership type of project; he said that he would rather see more units of smaller sizes. Vann said that the time-share issue was a conditional use and would not have been discussed until the final PUD application but this was at a conceptual level at this time. Vann said that it was imperative that this is moved forward and the P&Z commission's concerns be considered. MOTION: Eric Cohen moved to approve P&Z Resolution//14, series 2001 finding the amendment to the conceptual approval for Lot 5, Aspen Mountain PUD the Top of Mill site, with the conditions stated being consistent with the previously approved plans and adding to condition #4 after the "," or less with a maximum of one ownership share 8 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION April 3, 2001 perperson. Ron Erickson second. Roll call vote: Haneman, no; Buettow, no, Cohen, yes; Erickson, yes; Tygre, no. DENIED 4-1. Discussion of motion: Haneman stated that he could not confirm the numbers from the other hotels and lodges in town and that the time-share units were at 23% owners of the 69% total occupancy for this past winter. He said that a hotel on this site accomplished more than a time-share could because of the proximity to Wagner Field with Food and Wine, the Motherlode tournament and fRuggerfest. Haneman noted the property tax numbers would be about one-third of that for a hotel, which would effect all the sources of income for the school and fire district. He said that would put the burden on the other businesses in town. Erickson agreed that there were problems with the numbers but had a problem denying an owner the right to develop his property how he wanted to as time-share. Erickson stated that the further away the project was moved from a 150-room hotel, the less benefit it was for the community. Haneman commented that this was being sold as an economic benefit. Vann stated that these issues were not appropriate at conceptual. Tygre noted the difference of opinion and there could be an objective motion submitted to council. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to deny the amendment of the Aspen Mountain PUD based upon not having enough information to make an accurate determination at this time and the applicant preferred to move ahead. Eric Cohen second. Roll call vote: Cohen, yes; Buettow, no, Haneman, no; Erickson, no; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 3-2 to deny. Discussion of motion: Haneman said that the information was presented but he did not agree with it; he voted no. Erickson stated that he did not feel that the project as presented was a benefit to the community. Hoefer stated that the motion should be advisory to council and the P&Z commissioners agreed with him. Erickson stated that there were many issues unresolved. Tygre excused herself at 7:25 p.m. Writer noted that they believed that the time-share or vacation ownership component generated better occupancy for the community from the data that they gathered from accepted the industry sources. Writer said that this project would bring in more new blood than a hotel would, according to the industry figures. .Mf~eti~ng,adjottl~ a~t J:35 p.rrg. ~/~a-ck~e Lothian, ~)eputy City Clerk 9