HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.009-83 RESOLUTION OF THE
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
DENYING THE APPLICATION FOR THE 825 EAST HOPKINS
TIMESHARE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CRITERIA IN
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 24-3.3, CONDITIONAL USE
AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL PURSUANT TO
SECTION 20-24, TIMESHARE REGULATIONS
Resolution No. 83 - 9
REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a
public hearing on August 16, 1983 at which time evidence was
taken on the 825 East Hopkins Timeshare Project, located on Lots
G and H, in Block 3, East Aspen Addition to the City and Townsite
of Aspen, and the project application, planning office recommenda-
tion, statements of interested parties and other evidence were
reviewed and considered; and
WHEREAS, since timesharing is a conditional use in the
applicable R-MF zone district and is also reviewed as a sub-
division, the application must comply with the criteria found in
Sections 24-3.3, Grant of Conditional Use, and 20-24, Timesharing
(specifically Section 20-24(C) (1)) of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did make findings
that the proposed project was not in compliance with these Sections
of the Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby deny the request for a
conditional use permit for the 825 East Hopkins Timeshare Project
and recommend denial of the application for subdivision review
for the following reasons:
1. The proposed timeshare project did not comply with
Section 24-3.3, Grant of Conditional Use, due to:
Section 24-3.3(b) (1) ~equiring full compliance
with all requirements imposed by the Zoning Code
was not met since the required eighteen (18)
parking spaces imposed by the Zoning'Code (Section
24-4.5) were not provided.
The use does not meet Section 24-3.3(b) (2) which
requires the project to be consistent with the
objectives and purposes of the Zoning Code and the
applicable R-MF zone district. This project is
inconsistent with the intent of the R-MF zone as
stated in Section 24-3.2 which says that this zone
is to provide for long term residential purposes.
The proposed use is not in compliance with Section
24-3.3(b) (3), regarding compatability with surrounding
uses in that the Planning and Zoning Commission
found the project to be incompatible with surrounding
uses due to:
(i)
Parking impacts generated from providing only
six (6) parking spaces in a project which by
Code requires eighteen (18) spaces for this
six (6) unit project;
(ii)
High impacts generated from a high occupancy,
family oriented project which could accommodate
eight (8) persons for each of the 6 three
bedroom units;
(iii)
Increased noise and traffic impacts resulting
from a more intensive use of the property;
(iv)
The results of the intensive, high impact
short term use on the surrounding mixed
residential neighborhood.
The proposed timeshare project did not fully comply
with the requirements of Section 20-24, Timesharing,
due to:
Section 20-24(C) (1) allows timesharing in the R-MF
zone, but only in those structures for which
short-term rental is otherwise allowed, provided
such use would not adversely affect the public
health and welfare, or the character and nature of
the surrounding neighborhood. The Planning and
Zoning Commission found that timeshare in the East
Hopkins Condominiums would adversely affect the
character and nature of the surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed project was found to be incompatible
due to parking, traffic and noise impacts which
would result from the more intensive use of the
project in the surrounding neighborhood.
Sections 20-24(D) (9), (E) (3), (F) (1) (c), (J) and
(O) provide requirements with respect to marketing
of the timeshare units and the Planning and Zoning
Commission found marketing to be a crucial area
for review. At the time of Planning and Zoning
review, the proposed project did still lack a
specific marketing entity. The project only
indicated that the marketing entity would be a
local brokerage firm, none of which have had past
timeshare experience. Historically, in other
- 2 -
-5-
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
30 percent of the qualified voters (present
or represented by proxy) of the Fractional
Owners Association must be present to obtain
a quorum.
The owners may not lease the common elements
or amenities (excluding the employee unit) which
they own as was proposed in the application.
To ensure compliance with the proposed marketing
program, the applicant must post with the
City suitable security in the amount of
$20,000 cash, a $20,000 irrevocable letter of
credit or a $100,000 surety bond.
Full details of the RCI exchange program
(cost, procedures, other projects involved,
confirmation percentages, etc.) must be
provided to the purchasers of Prospector
timeshare interests.
The applicant, not the applicant's attorney,
should sign the timeshare applica.tion.
An affidavit regarding the management, services
and maintenance offered when the Prospector
was previously in operation should be submitted
to verify that the services to be offered in
the timeshare project are of equal or greater
quality and quantity.
Further conditions may need to be placed on
the Prospector timeshare approval subject to
the presentation of the proposed laundry
facilities.
APPROVED by the Aspen Planning and
regular meeting on August 2, 1983.
Zoning Commission at their
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
ATTEST: