Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19850820 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AWZ ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 Vice Chairman Jasmine Tygre called the meeting to order at 5: 00 p.m. with members Roger Hunt, Al Blomquist, David White, Mari Peyton, and Jim Colombo present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Hunt asked if anything was known about the Mill Street Station elevator. Alan Richman, planning director, replied that back in 1982 when the building was constructed the applicant petitioned the building inspector to allow removal of the elevator, which was allowed under the UBC code. Mr. Richman wrote to the applicant stating that UBC had nothing to do with the issue, it was a commitment made by the applicant during the GMP process and we should have been asked about it. Richman added the elevator was removed legally al though not properly. Hunt said the el evator was a requirement of the GMP and asked if the planning office would proceed in that direction to get the elevator back. White agreed. White said he had gone to the City Council meeting with the Commissions Resolution on the Curton Duplex roof. Council decided to do nothing about it, they feel the same material is on the roof of City Hall and is not a hazard. White added that Doug Allen was present at the meeting and said they would be willing to etch or change the roof, but Council did not formally ask them to do so, therefore, White was unsure whether they would. Tom Baker, planner, told the Commission that Council has suggested that the planning office work program be changed to focus on transportation. Therefore, the next element that will be worked on, in terms of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, will be Transportation and Downtown Land Use. Council asked that an outline of the approach to that element be prepared for their meeting on August 26, 1985, which is being done. Baker asked if the Commission could have a brief lunch session before the Council meeting to touch base on the outline. After the Council meeting the plan will come back to this Commission for a work session on September 10, 1985. MINUTES July 2. 1985: Hunt moved to approve the minutes of July 2, 1985; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AII1Il.Z ONING COIIMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 PUBLIC BEARING LITTLE RRJ.T. CONCEPTUAL SPA - OVERLAY BOUNDARY REDESIGNATION Tygre opened the public hearing. Richman said the purpose of this public hearing was to consider the appl icant' s proposal to change the area that is de signa ted as SPA. The present CC SPA zone was outlined on the map as well as where the proposed boundary change was located. Richman told the Commissioners' that this proposal is significantly different than the one reviewed in 1983. The requested extension is approximately 1 acre in size. Richman thought it was important to note that the applicant is not requesting the entire area be designated CC SPA but simply to designate the additional I acre parcel as C SPA. There would be an area where the existing boundary crosses the hotel, therefore, there would be an area of the hotel that falls within the Conservation zone. Those uses would need a variance from the Conservation use list to allow the hotel to protrude into the Conservation zone. That is the variance being requested in this SPA process. Richman said the findings of the planning office, with respect to the change in the SPA boundary, are the advantage or benef it to the public associated with this increase. It allows looking at the base area as one intergraded whole. He felt it was desirable to look at the pedestrian amenities, skier amenities, and the commercial hotel aspects of the project as one whole piece. Richman said he did not have problems with the hotel and commercial space protruding into the conservation zone since there are substantial set backs between property where they are showing development and the Aspen Alps who showed concern in the past application of 1983. Richman did not think there was a negative associated with this SPA increase if some conditions were met. Richman added the application would not get any increased density associated with the additional acre of land. We would suggest an FAR on this site of 1.8 to 1 as a condition. Richman said the planning office was also recommending, if the Commission wants to approve this boundary change, that it only occur in conjunction with final approval of this precise plan. The planning office recommends that this Commission make a recommendation on the zoning proposal, let Council accompl ish a first reading associated with its conceptual review, and that the second reading be tabled until such time that it is ready to give the final approval to the precise plan. 2 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND.Z ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 In addition Richman recommended if the project is finally approved, and if that final approval expires at some time, the SPA should revert b<;lck down to the base area. His reasoning for this was because the reason for showing the SPA designation was because the Commission believed this project worked and not necessarily because the SPA boundary needed to be extended. There is a precedent for that action. The planning office found that the Little Annie base area had a reversion clause in its rezoning. Peter Forsch, applicant, said they would like to have a decision tonight as they are trying to make the GMP submission deadline in order to accommodate some lift building that as to happen in 1987. Mr. Forsch added that the whole issue of GMP and GMP allocation is a threshold question issue that they would like to have both Planning andZ oning and City Council address at their earliest opportunity. It would be a waste of everybodys time to go through this process only to find out that it is a question that does not have an answer or has an answer to the negative. Tygre suggested for the public hearing portion of this meeting that the boundary area rezoning be discussed in an abbreviated version. That issue could be resolved first and then we can move on to the next stage. Richman said there were 3 issues before the Commission tonight. The first issue being the SPA boundary, which the publ ic is here to speak to. The other issues are the technical questions and the conditions proposed, and the growth pol icy questions. Richman said he fel t the issues should be taken one by one so as not to confuse them. The Commission and applicant agreed to proceed one issue at a time. Mr. Forsch outlined their plans and request for the change in zoning. Mr. Forsch said in putting the boundary line where they have they feel they have responded to the request of Planning and Zoning and City Council that they include the total base area redevelopment in the submission. It was clear that both P&Z and Council wanted the lift terminals included in the submission. Mr. Forsch took exception to Richman's comment about the floor area ratio (FAR). He said the FAR is based solely on the CC SPA parcel. Mr. Forsch said they are doing their planning f or the whole parcel and see the whole base area as the area that is being developed. If you look at the whole area the FAR is .8 to I well below the limitations on the site. It is not a dense si tuation considering there is a 1. 5 to 1 allowed wi thin the CC zone. The extension area requested is really the more significant 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGm.AR MEETING PLANNING ANDZ ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 part of the submission and application because that is part of the hotel and hotel amenities phase. Gideon Kaufman, applicant's attorney, offered the previous meetings minutes and the Planning office memorandum dated August 6, 1985 in to the record for the public hearing. Blomquist asked if by adopting conditions tonight would the Commission not in effect be adopting the entire conceptual plan? Shouldn't the boundary be dealt with alone, with no conditions? He felt the parcel was a natural. Regardless of what might happen with it, there is an advantage to treating it as a unity. Therefore, there is no need to put conditions on it. Richman said in his opinion the conditions would be part of the conceptual action. Therefore, the Commission would be directing the planning office as to whether the conditions should be included in the eventual resolution. Hunt expressed concern that there would be a fair amount of excavation outside of the proposed SPA activity. He questioned what control there would be. Mr. Kane said a building permit would be required. Richman added that he had requested a detail grade plan at the precise level. Hunt said, as a predisposition, he agreed with the planning office on the 1.7 to I FAR because that is what is allowed in the basic CC zone. He was not concerned about the extension in to the C zone but thought they should be limited to the size of the commercial portion of the project. Mr. Kaufman said there were uses being inter graded in to the site that they felt justified inclusion of the whole site within their FAR. Richman said he was not saying this applicant should be limited to 1.7 to I, he is saying for calculation purposes the Commission should look at the site as being a 1.8 to I FAR. Tygre opened the floor for comments and questions from the public. Tygre read a letter from the Tipple Lodge stating they liked the concept but had reservations that they might lose their access to the ski slope. John Doremus, citizen, thought the proposed plan was good and hoped it got approval. His concern was that there was supposed to be a trail linking Dean St. with the Ute Mountain trail and he did not see this in the proposed plan. Mr. Forsch said the trail would be accommodated. Mr. Doremus then asked if the trail would 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING ANDZ ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 be accommodated in a fashion to also include bicycle traffic. Mr. Forsch replied yes. Selma Feldman, North of Nell resident, said they have had a noise problem in that location for the last 3 years due to construction. Her concern was how food was going to be loaded on to the lifts for the mountain restaurants. Mr. Forsch outlined on the plans the food service area and snowcat maintenance facility explaining how the food would be transported. Ms. Feldman was not happy with the explanation, feeling this would continue to be a noise problem and might also lower their property values. Mr. Forsch said they have been in contact with the North of Nell association and plan to work closely with them in mitigating the problems. Ms. Albert Hartman, Hartman Properties at Aspen Square, said they feel the applicants do not need more acreage for the proposal. Mark Bradley, Aspen Square property owner, said it seemed the zoning variance requested applied not to the hotel but the commercial space. He thought the commercial area had substantial development that is not very well explained as to what will be done with it. He said his other concern, as an Aspen Square owner, is that in the design of the hotel roof line appears to severly impair the view from the D building of Aspen Square. Mr. Forsch responded that the commercial space in question is going to be ski, base area space for the ski area administration offices, ski school, ski services, ticketing, etc. which are allowed conditional uses in the C zone. In response to the view question Mr. Forsch said they would be incorrect to say there would be no loss of view but they feel the improvement to the base area is clearly an overriding benefit. J.D. MUller, Tipple Inn Condominium owner, submitted a letter for the record addressing the conceptual plan as well as the boundary change issue. He said their concerns are: #1 there may be hydrol- ogical and geological hazards in the area, and #2 the working out of the problem of mul tiple uses of Dean St. Spencer Schiffer, representing the Copper Kettle and Tippler, said they support the application with reservations. The first being some of the platts show the ski area boundary inclusive of property owned by the Copper Kettle. Another concern was concerning the hydrology of the soils. There is a possibility of at least one migrating spring in the area. Their concern is that wi th extensive excavation and foundation work it could create a problem on the property owned by the Kettle Corporation. Other 5 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 concerns were what impact the underground storage ramp will have on their property, how it will affect pedestrian and skier access to their property, drainage, to what extent it will be used, and the use of Dean St. to access the ramp with deliveries. Mr. Schiffer said they were also concerned about the treatment of Dean St. because it seems uncertain at this stage exactly what is planned and that is the primary access for the Copper Kettle. They were also concerned about the height of the proposed roof on the building which will house the Ski Company offices. The concern being pedestrian and skier access, and a potential drainage problem. Mr. Schiffer submitted a letter for the record outlining these concerns. David Stapleton, on behalf of the Aspen Ski Company, said that people should not lose point of the fact that alot of the buildings buil t in the past had the same objections voiced against them. He felt the Ski Company had a lot of things going for them with the set backs in the new buildings, and the set backs in the planning and zoning requirements that make this project viable. It will clean up the downtown area a lot and help us get back to the growth and plan we are all here for. George Laswell, General Manager of the Aspen Square, said they would have more input as this gets closer to the use of the area. He commented that their Board has voted neither to endorse nor oppose the project. As far as the actual change of the SPA zone they have major concerns about drainage. At present they have alot of water coming down Spring St. and Hunter which comes in front of their A building that fronts on Cooper St.. Currently the City does not have adequate drainage on either of those streets and as a resul t all the water sits in front of their building. In the late afternoon the water freezes. Mr. Laswell said they had recently spent alot of money on a snow melt system to solve that problem. Their concern is if they lose the natural drainage of the area it could add more drainage on Cooper St. Jerry Huey, General Manager of the Aspen Alps Condominium, said this plan had been submitted to his Board and owners and they have unanimously approved the plans as presented with the qualif- ication that they remain as presented. They look forward to working with the Aspen Ski Company in this endeavor. Charles Bopton, Manager of the North of Nell Condominiums, read a letter from His Board and owners stating that the problems presented by this proposal far outweigh the benefits of having the base area cleaned up (letter on file). 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AII1IlZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 EI izabeth Bradley, Aspen Square property owner, said it seemed there were a lot of legal issues that appear to be unanswered. She asked how the City would answer to the property being used by the Ski Company when it is the City's property. Ms. Bradley also questioned how, after the years spent on SPA, it can be paid such disrespect by not asking for a detailed concept. There are no specifics stated in the plan. She felt without that information property owners, taxpayers, or the City could not be asked to approve it. Mr. Forsch responded that the SPA process is a conceptual and precise plan submission. Mr. Forsch said they feel they have far exceeded the requirements of the conceptual stage. Mr. Forsch added that they understand some of the concerns that exist at the Aspen Square and it is their intention to listen to the concerns and come back at the next stage, the precise plan, with a solution. Tygre closed the public hearing. Colombo questioned where the property line was between the Tipple Inn and Aspen Ski Company property. Mr. Forsch said there are 2 conflicting title commitments but what is shown on the plans submitted is reflective of the worst case scenario on their behalf. Kaufman added under the SPA Ordinance you can only designate SPA that which you own, therefore, there is buil t in protection. Colombo asked if the proposed snow mobil e ramp was within the SPA zone. Mr. Forsch replied partially, but entirely within their property. Mr. Colombo saw no problems with the proposal. Peyton said she saw no problems with the boundary change as long as the plan was eventually adopted. She added that she thought conditions should be attached to moving the boundary. Hunt said he had no problems with extending the boundary to include the C zone. He thought ultimately the western boundary of the SPA should be coincident with the western boundary of the applicants property and felt that should be so stated. Hunt said if development did not occur and reversion did he did not think it was necessary to condition it as long as it is indicated that the development is in line with the area of zoning. That area is the basis on which we will allow commercial uses on the entire property. The foundation on which we should allow the CC uses should be the area they have in the CC zoning. Kane said in formulating the boundary and understanding the basis for SPA they had come up with a site that allowed for a comprehensive renovation 7 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AII1IlZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 of the Little Nell base. In doing that we looked at a fluid exchange of uses between those things included in the hotel and those incl uded in the Ski Company Administrative space. There are a lot of public ski related functions proposed in the hotel which are occurring in the CC zone. The plan for the building now represents a very unintensive use. If you look at this proposal comprehensively, as one parcel of land, and think about the freedom of exchange between uses it creates a site plan that works. Hunt said if they are saying having a use that would normally be in the CC zone now in the commercial site then he would have to look at that. As long as it is a dedicated use and does not eventually become commercialized then it could be considered. White agreed with Hunt's philosophy and the conditions outlined in the planning office memorandum dated August 20, 1985. Blomquist said he thought this was a uniquely located and condit- ioned gateway parcel to Aspen Mountain which is a historic year around recreational resource of the community. He thought the simple thing would be to approve the boundary change stipulating that the east, west, and north boundaries are the ownership lines of the Aspen Ski Company. Then we could go on to conceptual planning. Motion: Blomquist moved to recommend approval of the SPA boundary change establishing a C-SPA zone, as requested by the Aspen Ski Company, provided the west boundary of the SPA shall be the boundary of the Ski Company property, as determined by an appropriate authori ty; Hunt seconded. Discussion: Hunt and White commented that there was no reversion statement included in the motion and they felt that was important. Blomquist and Hunt in favor, all others opposed; motion did not carry. Motion: Whi te moved to recommend approval, with conditions A, B, and C, outlined in the Planning Office memorandum dated August 6, 1985, of the SPA boundary change establishing a C-SPA zone as requested by the Aspen Ski Company provided the west boundary of the SPA shall 8 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING ANDZ ONING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 , be the boundary of the Ski Company's property as determined by an appropriate authority; Peyton seconded. Discussion: Kaufman questioned if the code contemplated the Commission giving a conditioned approval. He was unsure if the Commission was acting wi thin their authorization of the actual SPA ordinance. Blomquist opposed, all others in favor; motion carried. LITTLE NELL CONCEPTUAL SPA GR<JfTB POLICY ISSUES. REVIEW OF CONDITIONS Motion: Hunt moved to table the Little Nell Conceptual SPA technical issues to a special meeting on August 27, 1985; Peyton seconded. All in favor; motion carried. Richman said the planning office's recommendation on the project is strong support in the idea of redeveloping the base area and strong support for the broad concepts of the SPA project but the hotel portion of the project is contrary to the concept of the GMP and the timing and phasing aspects of the GMP. Therefore, the hotel project is not something the Planning office supports. This is a unanimous opinion of all of the planners in the office. They fel t the project could be approved wi thin the growth management system but, for the reasons I will state later, should not and if it is then the lodge growth management quota system should be eliminated. Richman said he was concerned about the approach, suggested by Blorrquist at the last meeting, that the applicant research the lodging inventory to evaluate the numbers of units that may have been lost in the 1970's. Richman thought that type of review would turn this review of the project in to a numbers game. The real issue is not the numbers but what the GMP is all about, why we have it, what are its goals, and what does a project like this mean to the community. Richman read a sentence out of the Growth Management Plan: "growth management would be a meaningless exercise in the manipulation of sterile numbers if some higher goal were not in mind", and said he fel t that was the case. We are talking about the way we want the community to develop and this project is not consistent with those development goals. The GMP talks about system balance and quality of life as its two basic goals. It talks very specifically about insuring that 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AII1Il.1 ORING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 proj ects don't happen which change the community in a rapid way such that government can not intervene and solve problems, protect the environment, and deal with the quality of life. Richman said he would like to pose 4 questions to the Commission. During the presentation if the questions can be answered positively then the Commission should be willing to support this multi-year allocation. If the questions can not be answered positively then a multi-year allocation should not be considered. The questions are: tl. Does government have the ability to solve problems at an accelerated rate to address an accelerated growth rate? #2. Why did the community adopt a growth management pol icy? Can you still have a growth management system when you have maj or proj ects that are exempt from the system and others that take us so far into the future that we are no longer phasing growth? #3. How do you properly handle the next development proposal if the precedent is set for future years of growth to the year of 1989 is acceptable? #4. What will be the effect of this project on growth in other sectors of commercial and ski development? What will be the effect of other major projects now under way on these sectors and the future growth sectors. Are we going to have the same quality of life after the cycle is complete? Kaufman said at the last meeting there were a number of Commissioners' that were concerned about the number issue the Planning office took and fel t that it was important to look at the numbers because the GMP had its basis in numbers. He felt the planning office, in its examination, realized that the numbers do not justify the position they took. Now they have put the applicant in the position of their project versus the sacred cow of the GMP which Kaufman did not think was fair. He thought what this applicant had done was examine the history of the GMP and the impact of the GMP. He thought their particular project not only was justified under the existing quota system but was necessary. He hoped the Commission would look at this not in terms of saying if the project is approved we are going to undermine the whole GMP but rather in terms of if the project is approved will we not improve a situation that needs improvement. 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AII1IlZORING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 Mr. Kane said that the GMP should be responsive to changing conditions. The plan policies referred to by Richman were written in 1977, an era when the City was concerned about transportation as a number I issue and a big concern over the balance between beds occurring in Aspen and ski capacity occurring in Snowmass. During the past 2 weeks the encouragement of the Commission gave us a chance to go back and rev iew some of the pol icies and respond to some of the numerical issues that were raised in the original memorandum. The memorandum characterized the application as one that was asking for a future year allocation in the year 1991. We have conducted research that will show an allocation in 1985 and don't agree that 1991 is an accurate representation of what is the first allotment year available. Mr. Kane said conditions have changed since the year 1977. There have been numerous debates in the community about the quality of lodging facilities. Rand McNally surveys of lodging told us we are not giving people a fair value for their dollar in terms of the quality of rooms. There has been concern about loss of market share. Summit County, Keystone, and Copper Mountain are bringing new condominiums on line at a much lower cost to the tourist. There has been a lot of community concern about the need for improved accommodations and lodging. Mr. Kane said the concern about how the Commission deals with future applications is legitimate. They, however, can only speak to the Commission from the perspective of their project but realize that policy has to be set in a broader context than individual projects. However, we would like to go through some reasoning which would suggest there is a sound logical and rational basis in numbers to give fair consideration to this project. Little Nell is probably the most significant symbol of the deterioration of Aspen as a resort. Aspen Mtn. is the premier ski experience in North America and it has a deteriorating wood structure that does not provide good services, has an indirect way of bringing the skier to the mountain and is a place that clearly does not reflect the quality of the terrain on Aspen Mtn. or the quality that is being committed in the form of lift and trail improvements. The Little Nell base represents the last great opportunity to do a project that deals with skiing. Mr. Kane said they are being characterized as applicants that are trying to maximize commercial gain and they do not feel this is the case. They are proposing taking some dusty gravel and ill-defined rights of way that don't lead pedestrians or skiers to the mountain and committing substantial sums of money to improve the quality of the ski experience and the community. II REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING ANDZ ORING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 Mr. Kane distributed a hand out to the Commissioners outlining four separate issue areas that deal t with how to respond to an application like this in the context of the GMP. 11. Relationship of short term accommodations to the skiing balance issue. 12. Units that have been lost from the short term accommoda- tions pool. 413. A technical correction to the Aspen Mountain quota system. '4. Deduction, as provided for in the city code, for units that will be built and issued building permits. Mr. Kane said this series of issues and discussions 1 eads to a conclusion about a number of units that are presented as a short fall. He said their situation is as follows: tl. The original GMP plan (written in 1977) was based on a balance of pillows in the short term accommodations pool and skiing capacity. The plan was updated in 1982 and looked at the number of beds available in Aspen to house people on a short term basis. The objective being to understand the relationship between those beds and skiing capacity. The concl usion of that study identified 10,670 pillows balanced against ll,500 ski capacity in what was described as the Aspen Ski Area which produced a ratio of .93 to 1. Aspen Mountain has been expanded from a capaci ty of 3000 to 4300. If you accept the balance determined in the revision of 1982 we have an expansion of 1300 to the ski capacity which suggests an opportunity to expand an additional 1300 beds to bring Aspen's accommodation balance with its skiing capaci ty. #2. We have talked to property managers of the Aspen Alps, Aspen Square, North of Nell, The Gant, Fifth Ave. Condominiums and the Mountain Queen. These managers have identified a number of units which are no longer available in the short term market. This represents a number of projects that are within reasonable proximity to our site and represent a quali ty level which is similar to that which is being proposed. #3. As part of approval and a condition of the Aspen Mountain Lodge two projects were required to be deed restricted, to be taken from short term accommodations, for employee housing or long term housing. There are 44 units taken from the Alpina House and the condition states that all units will be credited to L-l, L-2, CC and CL zones. Mr. Kane said the same was true of the Copper Horse with 14 units. Mr. Kane said that is 58 units that will be credited specifically to these growth management 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND Z ORING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 quotas. As a result the 1986 quota will be released and 23 units of the 1985 quota will be released. This means there are 58 units open for consideration and review right now. Rather than being applicants coming before you asking for a future allocation in 1991 our interpretation of the conditions on Aspen Mountain Lodge indicates that those units are available for review now. '4. Mr. Kane said Richman stated in the planing office memorandum several properties that were deducted for exempted units, being the Hotel Jerome, Sardy House, Nugget, and Independence Lodge. The Hotel Jerome process calls for an annual counting of building permits that have been issued for projects then those that are in the CC, CL, L-I, and L-2 zones will be tallied at the end of the year and off set against the quota for that year. Mr. Kane added that these building permits have not been issued yet and the expansion has not actually taken place only a remodeling activity. The Sardy House appears to be a generation of 19 new units which represents an expansion of the short term bed base. The Nugget took place in the L-3 zone and is exempted by provision of the code. Mr. Kane said it has been their understanding that the Independence Lodge has always been managed for short term accomm- odations and there is essentially no change in human use or occupancy. Mr. Kane said exempted units total 19. In summary, Mr. Kane said there were numerous ways to look at this and they are not suggesting that the pI an be amended and that they try to hustle up 451 units. We are trying to respond to the posture that we thought had been created at the last meeting whereby we are proposing a project with 96 units. We don't feel this is a project of a scale that is totally incompatible with the changing conditions, as reflected by this information, and the policies of the plan itself. There is information here and an opportunity to interpret this information and find that there is adequate quota to accommodate the project. Tygre suggested that the members of the planning office and the Commission might want to do some thinking about the number question but that she would I ike to avoid getting into any specific discussion of numbers at this point. Richman commented about Mr. Kane's point 413 saying the crediting of the Alpina House and Copper Horse units to a quota was a recommendation of the PI anning and -Z oning Commission as part of their conceptual approval of the Aspen Mountain PUD. That recommendation was not accepted by the City Council and was essentially put off by the City Council and they indicated that they did not want to address the issue. Therefore, the units have not been taken out of the 13 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING ANDZ DRING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 residential quota or credited to the lodge quota. Hunt asked if that lack of City Council action has in affect extended the allocation out further years. Richman replied no, it would go to the years suggested. Mr. Forsch said in summary whether the Commission accepts arguments 1,2,3,and4 or not there are a number of ways to look at the whole thing. We are coming in with an application for 96 rooms and there are alot of ways to make that happen without a significant impact and without going outside the intent of the GMP. Our argument is that there is current allocation available. Mr. Forsch commented that if all things went as desired, they would start building in 1987 and not open the doors until 1989. Clearly by the time we opened the doors for this project there would then be more lodge quota available. He thought that was coinciding the GMP with the actual development. Tygre agreed and responded that the Commission does not really have the right answers in relation to the numbers game. Tygre added that part of the reason there is so much concern on the part of the Commission is that they just don't know. Colombo said this is conceptual at this point and it was his understanding that the aspects of the effect this w ill have is very technical. He questioned if the effects of growth couldn't be deal t with later. He thought at this point specifically the Commission should be looking at the concept of whether this project can work. He did not want to get involved at this point with all of the numbers and what the possible effects might be. Peyton said she thought the GMP had a good goal and concept but thought the numbers were misleading the way the code is written. One of the problems is that we equate units wi th units and if all we talk about is units the density etc. does not make any sense. Peyton said she was uncomfortable with the quota system, it is not specific enough as far as what kind of units we are talking about. She was sure that the GMP with the quotas were intended to provide a very gradual rate of growth. If you borrow future years inventories that is against the philosophy of the growth. Peyton added another problem with the numbers game is that we feel if we have enough studies and statistics we can tell whether something is going to work and what the impacts are going to be. She thought the best way to see what the impacts were is a direct way, when something is built then we will know. Hunt said the major problem, from his point of view, was that we are unable to see visually what is happening. We do not have a 14 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND Z DRING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 graphic description of how we are progressing along the desired GMP. Richman asked if it would be helpful if the growth rates were charted to which Hunt replied yes. Hunt added that he did not agree with Kane's argument if lift capacity is increased it increases the justification for growth somewhere else. White said in 1977 when the GMP was adopted we said it would be updated yearly and that has not been done. He thought we had lost lodge rooms. When we talk about balancing the quali ty of life, part of the balance is having growth balanced. We have seen, in the past 5 years, tremendous commercial growth and no lodging growth. White said, in addition, he was concerned about transportation and did not think it was well addressed in this proposal. Blomquist said he would like to see some charting on the GMP since 1977. He thought that the Commission could conceptually approve the conceptual plan without any commitment what so ever to GMP or quota. Tygre agreed that this could be done but did not feel it was fair to the applicant. Tygre thought the applicants request to get the Commission's feeling as far as its willingness to grant future years allocation, should the project succeed on its own merits was germane. Mr. Forsch said they would like guidance from the Commission and a recommendation on the conceptual SPA plan. Colombo said in broad terms he would agree to allot future use. Peyton said she did not think if some thing was all owed to be overbuil t or granted more quota than is allocated in one sector that is a justification for allowing something to be overbuilt in another sector. Peyton said she was opposed to going in to the future. Hunt said he had no problem with future allocation as long as when it comes on line is coincident wi th when we are back on track again. White said he thought you had to go into future years because you can not build a hotel at 35 units a year. Blomquist agreed you wi th the number base. be done in 2 parts. have to go into future years but disagreed He also thought conceptual approval could 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND Z DRING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 Tygre said she was concerned about measured impacts. She said she would feel more comfortable about dipping into future years quota if there was an opportunity to see what the impact of other already approved projects was. Tygre added by the time construction begins on this project we may know those impacts but she was unwilling to commit at this time. ANNUAL REVIEW TIMESRARR REGULA'I'IORS Steve Bur stein, planner, explained to the Commission that this annual review was required by code to look to see if the Timeshare Ordinance is effective, whether any code amendments should be initiated, and to look at the effect on the community. Burstein said at this time 2 properties have been timeshared, The Prospector and Shadow Mountain Lodge. Burstein outlined 3 issues the timeshared properties object to: II. A limit on gifts, set at $100. 12. The license fee, set at $5,000. 13. Restrictions set on timeshare units that require a certain fraction to be sold before any given unit can be closed on. Burstein said the planning office does not have specific recomme- ndations on code amendments at this time but ask that the Commission, if they chose to initiate some, make the recommendation to Ci ty Council. Boone Schweitzer, Shadow Mountain Lodge, said he had a problem with the license fee. He is selling real estate and his clients ask if they are paying a real estate transfer tax, an additional property tax or what is the $5,000 license fee and he has trouble expl aining that. Mr. Schwei tzer said, in addition, his property requires 5 fractions to be sold before they can be submitted for closing. That lost business because early in the project he would have 2 or 3 sales and found himself struggling to get that to the 5th sale in a hurry. People lose interest, we held escrows as long as 4 and 5 months and people can't close. Mr. Schweitzer added they have 50 or so fractions sold at this point out of 150 and he would like to be able to close each fraction henceforth with each sale. This makes more sense from the buyers and sellers standpoint. Mr. Schweitzer also said it is very difficul t for them to generate prospects with the inspection trip program requirement in the ordinance. He would like to have a program whereby he could operate like any other real estate firm and if there is a prospect in Houston he can bring him in to 16 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIOR AUGUST 20. 1985 look at the proj ect, give him a couple nights of lodging and possibly subsidize the airfare. Bill Venner, Shadow Mountain Lodge, said now that they are 33% sold out overall, which was their requirement, w ill that make any difference to the Commission regarding the closing of sales. Schweitzer added that they would now like to be able to close each sale as it occurs. The project is committed. Buzz Fedorka, Prospector Lodge, said there were 2 key issues of concern for them. The first issue would be having the ability to market their product the same way as any other real estate company. That is the ability for the seller to spend the dollars required to invite a client to come to Aspen and visit the project and City and then to make a buying decision. Mr. Fedorka felt the fact that they are restricted from doing this is a restriction of trade and a restriction that makes them unable to act or sell their product much 1 ike any other real tor. The second issue is that both timeshare proj ects feel that the restriction on the number of timeshare packages sold before a unit can be closed is detrimental to the best interest of their projects and consumers. He said they have had buyers who have contracted for a unit for as long as I year and have been unable to come and use their property. Tygre commented based on the planning office's memorandum the question of the number of intervals that must be sold before closing would have to be accomplished by subdivision exception and conditional use applications, initiated by the owners. She asked if the Commission felt this was an appropriate change to be made would it be appropriate for the Commission to facilitate their application for doing this. Burstein knew of a precedent on a class type application for use of open space and that was a way to facility a cheaper fee and faster process which could be applicable in this case. Blomquist asked what the basis for that requirement was, where it was in the code. Burstein replied that it was a condition of approval of the perspective projects. Blomquist responded that the applicant should initiate by due process any changes. Mr. Fedorka asked if in this process they could address as many issues as they wanted through a peti tion of their owner s? The reply was unsure. Bil Dunaway, Aspen Times, said he recalled when this was adopted the reason for it was that alot of people have gone broke and people have lost their money, therefore, this was to protect the consumer. Mr. Fedorka said if in fact there is 17 REGULAR MEETING RECORD-OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING AND ZORING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 a condition set up which makes it impossible for the developer to close on escrow dollars the ordinance itself would encumber and create financial problems, not the lack of buyers but the inability for the developer to reach dollars. Mr. Fedorka added that both projects are committed to the timesharing process and in the case that any negative action would happen the condi tion set up by Council of having 8 out of 15 units sold before closing would hasten or even create the problem. Whi te said he thought or iginally these conditions were put in to protect the buyer but al so saw now that it is effecting the buyer. He thought now that they have reached 1/3 of the project in sales then it should be opened up so that the applicants can put themselves in escrow and get out as fast as possible so the owners can get their use. Tygre suggested that the applicants go through the process for amending their percentage restriction. Tygre said as far as their other issues dealing with gift restrictions and the licensing fee she would take a poll of the Commissioner's feelings. Colombo said he did not know the issue and did not want to make a comment. Hunt said he would not be in favor of changing any of the areas in question. He added that the applicants knew the restrictions and requirements before hand. He thought for the protection of the community this was still valid. White thought the gift limitation was appropriate, to remain as written. He objected to the licensing fee being the same for every size project and thought it should be flexible to the units. He added that he would like to see the percentage restri- ction changed. He thought we should give the people who buy the timeshare units the ability to use them. Blomquist agreed with White that the license fee should be graduated as to the size of the project. On the gift limit Mr. Blomquist had heard that one of the projects had been giving travel allowances from $300. to $500. and asked the applicant if that was true. Mr. Fedorka replied that was not the case. Blorrquist agreed with the $100. gift limitation restriction. Blomquist also thought the percentage restriction should be examined to determine at what point there was protection for the buyer. 18 REGULAR MEETING RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNINGAII1Il ZORING COMMISSION AUGUST 20. 1985 Tygre said the idea was to provide protection to the consumer but at the same time we do not want to restrict people from actually using their units. She thought the Commission might entertain a revision that might be protective of the consumer and al so make it more logical for potential users of the unit. Blorrquist thought the record should show that there have been several articles in National newspapers that Aspen has been credi ted as having a very substantial ordinance preventing some of the uses that have been reported in other areas. Mr. Fedorka said the ordinance itself has become a benefit to the Prospector Lodge and they have used it in their marketing. However, if the City has an ordinance in place that restricts them from the abil ity to sell real estate as any normal real tor would do they view that as a substantial restraint of trade. Finally the restriction of 8 fractions being sold out of 15 is specifically damaging to the real estate buyer who wants to take possession of his condominium particularly in their case where they have over 40% of their sales contracted but unable to be closed. ~~J~ Kim ilhoit, Deputy Ci ty CI erk 19