Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19820907 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '.D C. F. HOECKU B. a. Ii L. C~. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 Perry Harvey called the meeting to order with members Pat Fallin, Jasmine Tygre, Al Blomquist, Roger Hunt, Lee Pardee and Welton Anderson present. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Alan Richman said that the next regularly scheduled meeting will be on September 28, 1982. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hotel Jerome - Rezoning/Conditional Use/PUD Alan Richman, of the Planning Office, said that there are two areas that he would like to spend some time on the rezoning and the conditional use expansion. The Planning Office adopted some criteria for evaluating rezoning applications and in the memo they addressed those specifically. First of all in terms of compatability Richman thinks there is little doubt about the site compatability with the surrounding uses in terms of commercial and tourist uses, particularly its uniqueness as a Historic structure. The key criteria that the Planning office wanted to mention is the traffic impact of the rezoning. Specifically three items were picked up at the last meeting; problems relating to the loading dock, secondly the height of the building could have some impact upon the ability of ice melt and third it was mentioned that the off street parking which now enters on Bleeker street could considerably inhibit the flow of traffic. .Tay Hammond. of the Engineering Department and Alan Richman talked about the issues that were raised at the last meeting and they agreed that in large part those issues were very valid concerns and they developed in their owns minds several ways of mitigating those problems, some of which are totally impractical and some that are not; one would be to bring service vehicles into the project off of Monarch Street the applicant and the Planning office feel this would be totally impractical solution and would totally destroy the design concept of the Hotel, secondly you could ask the applicant to move the service entrance along Bleeker St. to a point that it gets off of the grade,in speaking with the applicant the Planning Office agrees that that solution is totally impractical and impossible to redesign the project such that they could move the loading dock. At this point it is imprac- tical to require a change to the building. The Planning Office and Engineering Office looked at three different ways that the applicant could mitigate the impact in the surrounding environment and leave the building as it is. One way would be to have the applicant agree to the requirement that if the problem turns out to be as severe as some of us think it may be, in other words let the operation go along and if it turns out to be a problem, the applicant would be willing to work with the City and committ to participating with the City on a project on Bleeker Street. Secondly they think that some of the off street parking on Bleeker street, at least some of it should be eliminated to allow some vehicles to stack up in the area behind the Jerome Hotel. A third area would be some traffic re-routeing of the area. It is conceivable at least that by re-routeing the traffic on Bleeker Street making it one way possibly either down from Monarch to Mill or up from Mill to Monarch possibly allowing no left turns from Bleeker Street on to Mill Street Richman is not saying these are the answers but that they are possibilities that might merit some investigation, no left turn onto Bleeker Street. Richl'lan thi.nks that the concept of re-grading Bleeker Street and the concept of eliminating some off street parking on Bleeker Street are the serious ones that they are recommending and when we get into the conditions upon the applicationt Richman has somE changes to make to the ones that the Planning Office and the Engineering Dept. has recommended, since these discussions are subsequent to writingthis memorandum. Clearly, at this point, the Planning Office is in agreement that they are not going to require a redesign of the Hotel Jerome. The Planning Office thinks that the environment needs to be changed but not the building. Richman said that regarding the other issues, of rezo:l1ing in,'_,terms community need the Planni.ng offices draft short term accomodatiolls report have been clearly documents the need to upgrading the facilities which this project will accomodate. Richman said that the Aspen Area ~eneral Plan shows this project to be completely consistent in fact show this area as the Central Core. The lnajor issue in terms of the rezoningis obviously the traffic impacts. ,.........-..--..-- ..---.-,....-..--- 2 - Lee Pardee asked Alan Richman what time table the applicant is working in? Alan Richman said that right now the projection being given by the applicant on the timing is starting next Spring taking about a year and a half. The parking project as Richman recalls with the City Manager is a six month to a year time frame. Richman said that because of the nature of whats happened with the tax bill the City moves ahead now or doesn't move ahead period., so the intent is to move ahead now to get tax benefits of the historic capability of this bnilding and the tax write off etc. Perrv Harvev said that Alan Richman mentioned in item number two in his discussion of methods of solving this problem, it states that it requires the applicant to ,__ regrade Bleeker St., Harvey said that Richman's language was an involvement in re-grading.. . Alan Richamn said a participation in the project as opposed to a whole responsibility in the project. Richman said that would mean if the operation of the street was found to be deficient that we would have to sit down with the applicant and negotiate an agreeement to do it, unless the City wants to "upfront" it. Bill Dunaway said that the alley by Carl's is blocked eight hours of the day because of so many deliveries and the Aspen Times has a hard time getting in the alley at all. Tom Wells. architect for the project said that the alley dead ends here(pointing out on the plans). Wells shows the lines of the Jerome property. Lee Pardee said that he is curious as to how many parking spaces will have to be re- moved in order to have sufficient access and egress to service vehicles. Alan Richman said that he would like to introduce one point in that regard, which is something that John Gilmore gave him this afternoon which regards scheduling of deliveries... Tom Wells said that is a different point because the applicant is separating deliveries and service vehicles. Wells said that Hunt brought that point up last time which was a very valid point in that service vehicles or anyone else servicing the bnilding, what they are proposing is having a loadingzone of some size. Perry Harvev opens the Public Hearing. Perry Harvey thinks that it is going to be incumbent on the City to look at the intersection this winter and what type of traffic problems will exist. Lee Pardee said that the problem in this regard is whether or not the delivery trucks will be"slamming into everyone else" trying to make that turn. Pardee said that in the P&Z approval they should condition the approval on the determination to be made by the City Engineer that the problem does in fact exist with the delivery vehicles and if that case does arise then the applicant will participate to X level. Perrv Harvey said that what we can do is say that the X level will be determined according to the results of those prepared studies. Al Blomquist wonders whether or not there is a precedent setting here that they ought t, to look at more carefully. The applicants share of the road if it were a new road would be 50% because he owns half of the frontage, if you were doing it in a normal subdivied basis, bnt this road was rebuilt within the last few years after an exhausted Engineering study by the City Engineering Dept. and consultant in conjunction with Mill street. it is too steep but on the other hand they elected to make it that steep, they could have flattened it out but to save money they elected 1 to make it that steep. Blomquist asked if the thinking going on here means that any time a street is sloped at a certain grade and somebody comes along and struggles to meet that grade, with his sidewalks and driveways etc then all of the sudden he is to be notified that that grade is not the acceptable grade. Isn't the City Engineer somehow certifying that it is correct street Engineering. Lee Pardee said that he thinks this is a good question because here we are at the preliminary approval stage and there is not a stick in the ground and they have built their entry and designed the building around something that perhaps is not safe and we are only saying that this is something that may be a problem and if it turns out to be the P&Z wants to address possibilities now rather than having put something in and it certainly could be the City's problem. Al Blomquist said that if the City's responsibility is clear on this then the percentage should be no more than 10% of the cost. Perry Harvey said that in taking this just from the Commission's viewpoint the first time being the preliminary PUD, the preliminary PUD approval calls for a proposed development schedule. Alan Richman reminds the Commission that development schedule is in the P&Z packet. Harvey asked the Commission if they had any other items just on the PUD? Roger Hunt said that it goes back to the basic traffic and circulation problem and he hopes that the Commission takes the same philosophy about it as they did about the loading ramp. Hunt does see a contingent possible solution because what he sees so far is not a solution because there is not a large pull off area on Main ST. in front of the Jerome. Hunt feels that if this situation becomes unbearable in future the developer shonld agree to a contingent alternative plan. Hunt feels there is more of a problem with the Main St. access than they do with the service entrance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. F. HOECKE~ 6. 8. II: l. CO. PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER7, 1982 - 3 - P~rry Harvey asked what the City's position is on that pull off on Main St. in terms of just moving it along if it becomes a problem. Jay Hammond said that the pull off area is approximately 60 ft. Tom Wells said that when the Jerome gets it final approval the distance will be arrived at. Roger Hnnt said that the applicant hasn't done anything to improve the road width. Hunt said that the pull off that is in the plans is not adequate and that a contingent solntion to that is putting an accessory entrance in the back for some incoming traffic Perrv Harvev said that he believes it was one of Conncils statements that they wanted to see a larger sidewalk there. T,pp Pard~~ suggests that the posts be moved back and have it candlibered to protect from rain and snow. Tom Wells said that this will have to be reviewed by the HPC and that Main St. really needs to be looked at and all the lane widths from the center line over to the hotel. T.~~ Pard~~ said that he is not in agreement with Roger Hnnt on the back entrance and he thinks that the P&Z's approach to the grade on Bleeker can be legitimate but Pardee is not going to vote to approve the preliminary PUD with the access and entry plan the way they have it. Tom Wells adds, from a formal standpoint, in the relationships from the hotel out- ward to the streets and curbs and gutters etc it is certainly a direct relationship but formally the application is everything in the property line. Lee Pardee said that he feels the solution is to grant contingent except for this area in the front of the building Al Blomquist said that his feeling ic tloat this is a State Highway and curb cuts and other approvals must come from the State aighway Department. Wouldn't it be reasonable to ask the applicant to apply to the State Highway Dept. and the City Engineering Dept for the cnrb arrangement to be approved. Blomquist feels that the ultimate authority is the State Highway Dept. and it should be left to them to work this out. Perry Harvey asked the Cor~ission if they want to condition this upon the State Highway Dept. docunention as to whether or not the c~rb cut is a required for that kind of traffic. Pardee said that he prefers to grant Preliminary PLD problem with loading and unloading zones on Main St. will come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Alan Richamn said that number one of the conditions that is upon this whole thing is the semi-annual reporting process and continuation of the process and this could be one of the things the applicant reports back to the Planning office on and if the Planning office thinks that he substantially changed positively or negatively... the way this is written it will come to you in any case when something happens that you are interested in. Roger Hunt said that what if in six months can't get historic approval for moving the alternative there. Lee Pardee asked Jay Hammond of the Engineering ~ept if there is any reason why the State Highway vept. would not allow us to cut back a sidewalk a foot or two? ~ay Hammond said no probably not and generally the State Highway Dept. will defer to the Engineering Dept. in minor items like this. The Planning Office Recommends that the the P&Z take the action that is written in thE Planning Office mefuorandum of September 7, 1982. Alan Richman reads the proposal from the applicant: The applicant agreed to partici- pate with the City in a project to re-grade Bleeker St. if the City Engineer finds that the operation of the service and delivery vehicles for the Jerome makes this street inoperative for others. Participation will be based upon a before and after analysis of the operation of the Street by the Engineering Dept and a por- tion of the sharing of the problem by the City and the applicant. Perry Harvey asked the commission how they feel about this? Al Blomquist thinks it is fine as is and would vote to approve the way it its. Welton Anderson thinks it is fine. Jasmine Tygre agrees with Lee Pardee in that it is much too improtant not to foloow approval except for the and the applicant at his leisure we can't move the columns etc, what curb cut back and will be our - 4 - through and be absolutely certain that the P&Z has done their job thronghly as a Planning and Zoning Commission. Perrv Harvey asked Jasmin id she feels this should be a condition with Engineering or do wyou feel this should be not approved as part of the PUD. Jasmine said no I think it should be a condition with Engineering but she thinks it should come back to P&Z. ferry asked if she meant for a report? Jasmine said yes. Ro~er Hunt said that he agrees with that as just the very bare minimum. fat Fallin said that she agrees with Jasmine but wants to know when the time frame will be worked in. Perry Harvpy said that any condition the P&Z puts off Preliminary PUD has to be satis-: fied before final PUD. Lee Pardee said that we have put conditions throughout here, one of which they meet every six months and that is certainly after final. Pardee said there are numerous things that exist past final approval and one of the conditions of final approval can be that they work with the Engineering Dept. and come up with something satisfactory in the Engineering Dept and then the P&Z instructs the Engineering Dept to talk to the P&Z prior. Perry Harvey asked if a motion could be made now? Alan Richman said that the motion could be based on the memorandum as it has been amended. Perry Harvey said that the motion is made then: Item B will remain the same, Item C Welton An~Q~Qn~ asked if they could hear the language again from the Planning Office? Alan Richman said that the applicant agreed with the City in the project to regrade Bleeker St. if the City Engineer finds that that the operation and the service and delivery vehicles for the Jerome makes this street inoperative for others. Participation will be based on before and after analysis and the operation of this street by the Engineering Dept. in proportional sharing of the prob-< lem by the City and the applicant is questioned by the City Engineer. Lee Pardee said that he doesn't like the language of "inoperative for others" Perry Harvey said that the language should read that it is an unmanagable impact. Harvey said that that language will eliminate the current language in condition C. Condition D remains, Condition E is changed to covenant restricted. Condition F remains the same Condition G remains the same, Change in H to read the appplicant agreeing to construct new sidewalk and curb where needed and to replace Alan Richman said it reads to provide new sidewalks along Main, Monarch and Bleeker. Alan Richman discusses the language on the condition of the"pull-off". Richman had a small change about the traffic being re-routed and then the aplicant agreed to modify to the satisfaction of the Engineering Dept the length, the width of the "pull-off" area on Main St. Perry Harvey said that before the applicant gets final approval these conditions have to be met. Bill Drueding of the Building Dept. said they would have to be met prior to the is- suance of the building permit. Lee Pardee said that we should look at each of these. Perry Harvev said that Item D will have Building Permit written in. Lee Pardee said that in Item E Certificate of Occupancy is included, Item F is every six months, Item G is a condition of construction , Item H is CO,and Item I is as needed, Item J will be prior to final PUD. Roger Hunt said that he gathers by this language that everyone is happy with the "pull off " on Main St. and that if in the fnture unbearable that will just be "tuff" Is that the attitude of the Perry Harvey said that he is satisfied with the condition of the to take a look at it. Perry Harvey closes the Pnblic Hearing. Alan Richman reads the wording on the last one: The applicant agreeing to modify to the satisfaction of the Engineering Dept. the length and width of pull off area on the Main St. so that it does not encroach into the traffic on Main St. Perrv Harvev said that he would like to modify that so that it reads in conjunction with the City Perry Harvey entertains a motion. Lee Pardee moves that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant Preliminary PUD approval recommend to City Council to zone this site CC and grant Conditional Use Approval for Hotel Expansion and recommend that City Council exempt from the GMP the construction of ne lodge rooms and IO,469 sq. ft. of commercial space and the reconstruction of 39 lodge rooms and 20,156 sq. ft. of commercial space and that the total amount of new constrnction be deducted from the quota snbject to the following conditions as just amended and read by Alan Richman of the Planning Off: Pardee said that this motion is for the HOTEL Jerome rennovation. Welton Anderson seconds. Item A will remain the same, it becomes P&Z. Engineering Dept. '"' RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. r. HOECKEL B. B. a l. ~O, PLANNING AND ZONING REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 7, 1982 - 5 - Roger Hunt would lib"to make one final point in the the motion however he does consider the project to is the unbearable traffic situation in the front of future. Jasmine Tygre agrees with Roger in that if this problem will be responsible for correcting the problem. Jerry Harvey asked the secretary to call the roll. Pat Fall in AYE Jasmine Tvgre AYE Al Blomcuist AYE Ro~pr Hnnr AYE T,pp P::Irnpp AYE Welton Anderson AYE Pprry H::Irvpy AYE The Motion is carried unanimously record. Hunt will vote for have one fatal flaw and that the Hotel that may exist in the does occur the applicant Verification of Units Colette Penne, planning office, said this amendment is to verify units for demolition and reconstruction so there is an allowance made for the units and are exempt from the GMP. These are requests for units owned by Hans Cantrup. Ms. Penne presented the lot numbers and location on the map. On the Snow Chase, Ms. Penne told P & Z she is waiting for a copy of the demolition permit. Ms. Penne did a site visit before it was demolished. Units 4 and 5 still exist. Ms. Penne said the applicant would like reconstruction of two units on an adjacent lot owned by the same person. Spencer Schiffer, representing the applicant, requested permission to reconstruct the unit on lot 21 that had been demolished on a contiguous property, now known as the 750 South Mill subdivision Schiffer would also like an exemption to reconstruction the Snow Chase on a contiguous parcel in the same subdivision. Schiffer would like verification of the units as well as permission to reconstruct. Vann said because of the growth management implica- tions, he is recommending that the lot where the Snow Chase was torn down and reconstructed that the lot in which it was taken off, no longer has a single family exemption from growth manage- ment. Ms. Penne recommended the Commission verify the existence of several units so that the reconstruction will fit Resolution 82-9 further the reconstruction of the unit previously demolished from lot 21 and the Snow Chase on lot I at 750 South Mill be approved, and the lot from which the Snow Chase was demolished be deed restricted to reflect that there is no GMP exemption on that lot. Vann recommended that Schiffer amend this application to the planning office to reflect the request for an additional unit, and demonstrate that the lot from which the Snow Chase was removed is still in ownership of the owner. Hunt moved to verify the existence of seven units described in this application, the Cantrup application covered in the planning office memo dated 7 September 1982, at the location specified in the memo with the understanding reconstruction must fit the provisions of resolution 82-9, conditioned on (1) reconstruction of the unit previously demolished on lot 21 and the Snow Chase on lot 1 at 750 South Mill be approved, and the lot where the Snow Chase was removed be deed restricted so that no development right exists outside GMP competition; this request must be submitted to the planning office as an amendment to the applica- Planning and Zoning Clarendon PUD Amendment Regular Meeting September 7, 1982 tion which reflects the size of parcel and that the ownership has remained with the same individual; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. Colette Penne, planning office, told P & Z these condominiums are located on South West End street, zoned R-6/PUD over l~ acres. The amendment request to the PUD plan is to add a third bedroom to three of the two-bedroom units at the Clarendon. Ms. Penne said one of the units went through this process in 1980. This request is for three contiguous units. The owners are proposing to raise the roof line to create an extra 250 square feet for each unit. Ms. Penne said the architectural integrity is not changed, and is a minor change for the overall project. There is a lot of open space in this project. Ms. Penne said the only problem is the requirement for one parking space per bedroom. Ms. Penne said these parking spaces could be aaded; however, the Clarendon would prefer not to do this. Ms. Penne pointed out that amendments to PUD may be made only if changes in conditions have occurred since final plan or by changes in community policy. Ms. Penne said the reason for this request is changes in the size of the families who own these condominium units. Ms. Tygre asked when bedrooms are added to existing projects, does this get back to growth management. Alan Richman, planning office, said the growth management plan only deals in units. The Commission had a discussion of PUD amendments increasing more than 2 per cent of the floor area and whether this should be amended. Hunt said he would like to see the original PUD agreement for this project. Hunt said people bought these units knowing the size and the agreements, and does not consider it a change in conditions because of the increasing size of family. This change is not significant to the community. Harvey said the Commission should look at whether the applicants can mitigate impacts that might be created by this amendment. Joe Edwards, representing the applicant, told P & Z they are not increasing the density by adding a bedroom, which will be part of a unit. Edwards told P & Z that two of these three units are owned by the original owners and have never been short termed; the other is rented part time in the winter. Edwards pointed out that historically density means units per acre; per square feet. This is not increasing residential density, it is increasing the FAR, and increasing the bedrooms. The PUD amendment criteria does not address these. Edwards argued this application may not even have to be before P & Z. Edwards said they decided to use this process because that is the way it was done for the first amendment. Edwards said with respect to the parking issue, this complex has 37 bedrooms and 25 parking spaces so it is beneath the requirements of the zoning code. There is a provision in the PUD section for varying the parking requirements. One of the determinations is the probable number of cars; Edwards said out of the 15 units, there are only 4 cars kept there. Edwards said another criteria is the non-residential parking needs, which are none except to pick up garbage. Edwards said there is varying use of common parking at the site. Nine or ten of these units have not been rented during the year; the owners do not desire rentals and the Clarendon is primarily a second home project. '-' '----,/' ...- - RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM '0 c. F. ~O"CKEL B. O. II l. co. Planning and zoning Regular Meeting -7- September 7, 1982 Another criteria is transportation, and the Clarendon is a block and a half from two transit lines. This project is a block from the ski lifts and four blocks from the mall. Edwards said the Clarendon is not likely to turn into a short term rental project. It is expensive, ideally located, the turn over has been very low. Edwards showed the Board where they would be taking the space for parking, the berms would have to be pulled back to accomplish this. To get a third parking space, some trees would have to be removed. John Hayes, who has managed the project, told P & z that except for Christmas and maybe March, the parking lot is not full. Hayes said they have been managing this property since it was built in 1976. Edwards said there are 25 spaces for 15 units, people from out of town are one family and rent one car, if at all. Edwards said two of the people requesting an extra bedroom have had more children and need the extra space. Edwards showed the Commission how this will be done architectur- ally and there will be little impact. Pardee said he is concerne more about precedence and having this happen allover town. Pardee said he wants to know why, if this is approved, requests will not come in from allover town. Ms. Penne said if these three bedrooms are approved, if another person in the Clarendon wanted to do something like this, the mix of the development will be changed. Pardee said he felt the intent of the code in PUD amendments was not to allow successive two per cent increases. Ms. Penne pointed out this would change the mix of the project and have less two-bedroom units and more three bedroom units if this is allowed. Hunt said he feels this is a commercially rental development that happens to have some people as residents. Hunt said he looks at this as a commercially rental project. It is not the problem of P & Z if a person does not desire to rent their unit. Blomquist agreed that the parking lot is not fully used, it has been indicated that three parking spaces can be added. Blomquist said he feels there is no need to require the additional parking as it is not needed. Blomquist said there have been apartment buildings built allover town, and many of them need change or modification. The Commission should look at the mechanism for allowing this. Blomquist said he has no problem with the addition of these three bedrooms as it should be an owner's right. Pardee said this is a good project, but is concerned setting a precedent, interpreting the code by saying in family size requires P & Z to allow the increase. said the code says PUD amendments shall be made only are shown to be required by changes in conditions. with a change Pardee if they Harvey said he is not adverse to this request if the parking spaces are provided. However, change in family size is not a reason for the P & Z to grant a PUD amendment. Anderson said is a lot of to-do over nothing. Harvey agreed that may be the language in the code is not exactly clear. Edwards pointed out the Board did make a determination in the first application for PUD amendment for a third bedroom that an increase in family size was a change. _"k"'_~"""",_ Planning and Zoning Strandberg Lot Split Resolutions - Exemptions to GMP Regular Meeting September 7, 1982 Edwards said if the P & Z were to require more parking, they should only require the two and not have the trees moved by the pool. This will keep exactly the same ratio of parking. Anderson moved to recommends approval of the amendment to the PUD plan for the Clarendon condominium units 6, 7, 8 to add a third bedroom to those units with the following condition; the addition of two parking spaces to the existing parking; seconded by Blomquist. Pardee reminded the P & Z that PUD is a planned unit development looked at on a one time basis, the rules are broken for parking, clustering, etc. It is a negotiated arrangement; it is not intended to be changed except for that outlined in the code. Anderson, Blomquist, and Harvey in favor; Pardee, Fallin, Hunt and Tygre opposed. Motion NOT carried. Colette Penne, planning office, said this is a request for a lot split in the R-6 zone. This is 6~ lots totalling 19,000 square feet. There is a single family home on the larger lot, which will be 13,500 square feet and the other will be a 6,000 square foot lot. Hunt moved to recommend the approval of the Strandberg lot split subject to conditions 1 and 2 of the planning office memo dated 7 September 1982; seconded by Ms. Tygre. All in favor, motion carried. Alan Richman, planning office went through the changes in 82-9, Recommending Amendments to the Code Concerning Exemptions to the Growth Management Plan. Single family and duplex verification can be gotten by a deomolition permit. Another change in the resolution is that if a governmental project is to be exempt from GMP, it should mitigate its impacts. Also, P & Z should review any major governmental projects. Richman said he feels the 250 to 500 square foot for commercial projects should be a one-step review by P & Z. Richman also added language suggested by P & Z that 500 square feet be cumulative. Vann recommended if these small exemptions affect the FAR, they should be deducted from the GMP quota. The Commission agreed with this. Gideon Kaufman asked the P & Z what they were doing on the use problem, as it is not clear in this resolution. Vann said there are many issues and side-effects in the use question, and this resolution does not address them. The staff would like time to study these impacts and ramifications. Harvey said he would like to see a special review process for the change of use between commercial and residential, some market flexibility. Vann said the staff needs to deal with the implications of growth management and due process. Hunt moved to adopt Resolution #82-9 as amended and have the Chairman sign the amended copy verifying the amendments in paragraphs (a) (h) (k) and (j); seconded by Ms. Tygre. Anderson said he is going to vote against this because of throw- ing the employee units into the quota that has previously been free market. Anderson said this would have negative implications in the next few years. . Blomquist, aye; Anderson, nay; Ms. Tygre, aye; Hunt, aye; Ms. Fallin, aye; Pardee, aye; Harvey, nay. Motion carried. -' I -- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C. F. HO~CKEL B. 8. a. L. co. Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting -9- September 7, 1982 Timesharing Sunny Vann, planning director, said there are only some issues left unresolved. Vann said one if these is how to figure the assessed valuation for time share interests. The state statutes provide there be no individual assessment of the interests but rather one in the association. The Commission has questioned how a time share project would affect surrounding properties and Vann said it would not affect a non-condominiumized lodge. Kaufman went through the changes from the second draft. Time- sharing was added in L-3, and in RMF only in those buildings that have been short termed at the time. The new draft eliminated "any lodge which has been condominiumized pursuant to this code may be timeshared". "The applicable submission requirements for the appropriate step in subdivision exception process must be met" was added. It was also added that the applicant will pay the fees for subdivision exception, for conditional use and for any extra time to review the application. Kaufman pointed out a new subsection requiring the application to submit a map showing adjacent land uses and names of owners. A new section on review criteria was added after discussion with P & Z and added into that was that the applicant is to address how the RETT is to be collected. "A summary of the marketing entities business experience including any background related to timesharing and a resume shall be provided"was added. Another change is that the developer must disclose the minimum units he intends to sell before;he will procee'd with the completion of the timeshare project. Upgrading timeshare has been changed to say a minimum of 30 per cent of the assessed value of the property prior to conversion of timesharing shall be applied to upgrading the facility; upgrading shall be pursuant to building plans, which are to be submitted to and approved by the city building inspector within nine months. Sale of timeshare units has been changed involving $20,000 cash, $20,000 letter of credit and $100,000 assurance bond. Kaufman said he feels the best protection is the ability to revoke a person's right to continue the project. Kaufman said the people involved agree to a strict ordinance, but does not agree with adding a $20,000 requirement and it may break a project. Ron Austin said he feels this is an unnecessary addition; the city can stop the project, there are criminal penalties. Adding this additional cost may prohibit projects. Hunt said this is a front end cost, and the applicant will get the money back. The consensus of the P & Z is that this clause stays in the ordinance. Kaufman pointed out another addition that these regulations shall be subject to review one year from the effective date of this ordinance. Vann requested this should be on or before one year so it can be reviewed if there are problems. Kaufman said the standard penalty clause was added. Pardee said he would like a financial reserve for maintenance added to the ordinance. Pardee said he would like a clause for people who have purchased a timeshare unit to reconsider whether they really want it after they get home. Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting September 7, 1982 Harvey said the consensus of the Commission was that seven days to reconsider purchase was adequate. Blomquist said he is opposed to the giving of gifts including transportation or lodging in Aspen, as it cheapens the resort. Blomquist said he would like a free trip to Aspen prohibited. Harvey said trips in the off season would be beneficial. Kaufman said he would be willing to have the applicant disclose how he would get people to Aspen in their application. Pardee said he does not see a reason for any kind of gift for timeshare selling. Ms. Tygre said she did not feel a trip to Aspen is deceptive. The Commission's consensus was to leave the language as is. Hunt said he feels this is a fairly good docu- ment but wants the Commission to realize the impacts on the community if four projects come in at once, and the Commission has no experience. Hunt said he would like a limitation on the number of units up for timeshare at once. Austin said he feels this ordinance is strict enough so that won't happen. Ms. Tygre moved to adopt this resolution as amended recommending the timeshare ordinance to Council; seconded by Pardee. Pardee, aye; Ms. Fallin, aye; Hunt, nay; Ms. Tygre, aye; Anderson, aye Blomquist, aye; Harvey, aye. Motion carried. Ms. Tygre moved to adjourn at 8:45 p.m.; seconded by Pardee. All in favor, motion carried. ~ City Clerk ,~....- I