Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19830816 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.HOECKELB.B.flL.CJ. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1983 Vice Chairman Welton Anderson called the meeting to order at 5:00 P.M. with mem- bers Jasmine Tygre, David white, Roger Hunt, and Paul Sheldon present. COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS Vice Chairman Anderson mentioned that Chairman Perry Harvey had talked to the Mayor and planned a joint meeting between the P & Z Board and City Council the next week at 12:30 on Wednesday, August 24th, 1983, to meet with Spencer Schiffer, attorney for Cantrup,to discuss making progress concerning property. Gary Esary, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Spencer Schiffer had stated on public record that they wanted to present facts to Council and P & Z so those bodies could de- cide what to do, and Esary warned the Board that that would be improper. David Zaagman, from the audience, asked if it would be possible for the Board to form a sub-committee to gather information on that subject, and Vice Chairman Anderson replied yes. Alan Richman of the Planning Dept. said that Council met with CCLC and out of that discussion came a request to refer immediately to P & Z a proposal to realign Mill St. in the vicinity of the Wheeler Opera house to "neck down" the street to the mall. Richman continued that Council had asked P & Z to consider the proposal before their meeting on September 12, 1983, so their comments would be available to Council on their meeting on the 11th. Tygre made a motion to add that item to the P & Z agenda for September 6th, 1983. White seconded, all voted in favor and the motion carried. Colette Penne of the Planning Dept. then brought up the subject of the conditional use approval for the occupants of the upper elementary school. She stated that the approval was given until August 31st of this year, within which time a master plan for the use of that school was to be presented by the School District. Due to unforeseen delays, the School District had requested an additional month to complete the information, and to allow the uses to continue until the P & Z can consider it on September 24, 1983. Roger Hunt made a motion to extend the school district's conditional use permit to the last day of September, 1983. Seconded by Sheldon, all voted in favor, and the motion carried. Colette Penne then brought up an item that was supposed to have been on the agenda and was overlooked, namely that HPC had discussed questions regarding historic structures brought up by Welton Anderson. Vice Chairman Anderson asked if that could also be added to the agenda for the September 24, 1983 meeting. Anderson added that what was involved is a question of the land use code and it's appli- cation to some of the historic structures. HOTEL LENADO SPECIAL REVIEW Colette Penne introduced Frank Peterson forthe Hotel Lenado project, and began her presentation. ~he Hotel Lenado representatives had decided that it would be to their advantage, in regard to both construction expense and site disruption, to be able to build the exterior frame work in the phase II area with the under- standing that it could not be occupied until the GMP allotment for the unit space that is proposed as part of Phase II was successfully obtained. She continued that this is in an L-3 zone, and that the FAR currently approved was for .84:1, and that Hotel Lenado is requesting a special review to increase the FAR to 1:1, which is the maximum in the L-3 zone. Regarding the referral comments in the packet, the development company had said all along that they intended to go for 4 more units in GMP competition, and that the parking spaces would be held in re- serve for that competition, so the engineering comment about inadequate parking does not apply. The next question that had come up, she continued, was regarding the reduction of open space below that which is required in the L-3 zone. When the FAR ordinance, #11, was adopted, it had a provision that architectural projections not be countec in open space. The specific problem here is that there are several areas of in- dentations (points to scale model) with decks over them. The applicants had based there calculations on the portion of Ord. 11 that states that described -1- -2- architectural projections are allowed over the open space, as long as they pro- ject over half the space, and the area below them then could be counted as open space. Bill Drueding of the Building Dept. felt that the interpretation should be that only half the space should be counted, but Jim Wilson, also of the Buil- ding Dept., said he had felt it should all be counted. The Planning office felt that the applicant's open space provisions were fine, as the requirement was for 35% open space, specifically 3,150 sf in this case, and the Hotel Lenado had pro- vided for 3,221 sf. Colette concluded by saying that the applicant's had been very straightforward through the whole process, in stating that they intended to go for the Phase II allotment in GMP competition this fall for the additional units in Phase II, and that they understand that if the allotment is not awarded, the creation of the units cannot occur and the space will have to be non-unit space. To assure that, the applicant's are willing to comply with the methods set out in Section 20-23(A) (6) (c)of the Municipal Code, specifically that they will execute an interest-free promissory note payable to the City of Aspen which is secured by a Trust Deed encumbering that portion of the Hotel property, which in turn will allow the City to declare a default if that space is illegally rented Colette then said that the Planning office recommends approval of applicant's re- quest to construct the exterior portion of Phase II, to increase the FAR to 1:1, with the following conditions: the area not be used for rental purposes, that the promissory note as described in the memo be executed, and especially that this approval for the FAR special review will not be considered in the GMP scoring process this fall. Regarding the last condition, P & Z would have to score the project as if Phase II were just being applied for. The attending board members then briefly discussed the Hotel Lenado project and request, and all members expressed their support for it. Hunt did mention that someone should look into the controversy over the interpretations of "open space", and try to get a clear definition before any future questions come up. Vice- Chairman Anderson said he had discussed it with Bill Drueding and Drueding said they were working on the definition. After further discussion of "open space" requirements and how they were applied to the Hotel Lenado project, Vice Chairman Anderson asked the Board members for a motion. Roger Hunt made a motion to ap- prove the addition to the Hotel Lenado to build the exterior elements of their Phase II area, thereby increasing from the previously approved FAR of .84:1 to an FAR of 1:1, the maximum allowed in the L-3 zone, with the following conditions: 1) The area not be used for rental purposes until such time as the growth manage- ment plan quota is obtained, and that assurance of this be given through a promi- ssory note, and accompanying documentation as described in the memo (see file) which the City Attorney's office deems acceptable; and 2) the planning and zoning commission will view this hotel in light of the applicable open space ordinances on the book, and given the unclear ordinances, this project does, in their opinion meet those ordinances' standards and this Board would recommend that any reviewing board after this point take that into consideration. The motion was seconded by Jasmine Tygre, all voted in favor and the motion carried. EAST HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT - PUBLIC HEARING Vice Chairman Anderson introduces the next item on the agenda, a public hearing on the East Hopkins Time Share project, subdivision exception and conditional use review. Ron Austin, of Austin, McGrath & Jordan, representing the applicant, introduces himself and the applicant, Bob Silverman. Alice Davis summarizes the project for the Board. She stated that the planning office's recommendation is for denial. The project has to get a conditional use approval as well as a sub- division exception, requiring the public hearing. The project consists of 6 multi family units each with kitchens, divided into 52 weeks, 4 of which are reserved for maintenance, and the remaining 48 weeks are divided into 24 time share pac- kages of 2 weeks each. Each 2-week package contains one off-season week and one prime week. Prices will vary with the desirability of the different packages. Alice then went over each of the review criteria. First, the right to use: there is no problem with this item, since they don't have any leasehold and transferring will be by general warranty deed. Second, integration: this requires a time share project to be 100% time share with no mixed use within the project. The owners have agreed to this by providing to planning information that 100% of the owners agree to time sharing, and the second aspect of this is that to assure that the project will be 100% time share, planning requires them to tell how many of the different units they're going to sell before they start to occupy as a time share unit. Originally, the applicant proposed that 50% of the entire project would be sold before any Certificate of Occupancy is issued, but they have now revised that to be that 50% of each unit will be sold. In other words, 12 of 24 packages instead of 72 of the total 124 packages. The planning office felt that this is fine and similar to the Prospector, the only'thing that planning is re- questing is that if the applicants sell half the time share packages for 2 of the , ; RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'l C. F. HOECKEL B. B. lit l. C~. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16,1983 E. HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT (CONT'D) units, they are worried that the last 4 units might never be sold as time share units and would result in a mixed use project, not pure time share. So in order to prevent that, planning would ask for a condition that if the unsold time share units are rented, that they be done on a similar short term type basis as the regular time share units so that no impact is felt by perso~living there long term. Austin replied that would be acceptable. Alice continuea with the third criterion, marketing and sales practices: this is one of the most important items to be reviewed, since it was so important during the time share ordinance process. The marketing program, the applicants have stated, will be directed toward the returning Aspen visitors who were unable to afford a second home here in the past. This time share would be a version they could afford. Applicants have stated that a local real estate brokerage firm will be the marketing entity. The planning office feels that this is one of the major problems with this project, in that a marketing agent has not yet been identified. Davis said she felt there must be a problem with finding a local agent to handle the project, since there aren't too many firms in the Aspen area that have a great deal of experience in the time share area, so which ever agent they select will be an inexperienced person in the time share field. That may not be bad in certain types of ventures, she continued, but the risk involved in time sharing was one of the major concerns during the ordinance process, and it should be weighed heavily in evaluating this project. Davis continued that beside not having a local marketing entity, the packaging the applicants are asking for is also somewhat inadequate. They're recommending 2-week packages, and they are also suggesting that the purchasers themselves pick the packages. Experts through out the field have told the planning office that it is very important to predeter- mine the packages for the purchasers. The sellers should match up the weeks that will be sold, and that way the people don't take the best two weeks all the way along and leave unsaleable packages. The price can always be adjusted for the less desirable packages, but there is still the possibility that they would not be able to sell the last half of the project, if the packages are not predetermined. By predetermining which weeks go into the packages, it does not necessarily make them equitable, but it can make them saleable. Also, it has not been proven yet to the planning office that the off-season can be adequately marketed, which is a requirement of the ordinance. There may be more peak season weeks in the summer and winter than there are off season weeks to be matched up with. Austin has stated that the applicants are trying to get together a calendar which will demon- strate the off season weeks and peak season weeks and their ability to match them up. This ability is the first point the applicants need to clear up, and the second is the fact that the applicants do not at this point plan to pre-package. Davis concluded that there do not appear to be any prohibitive sales practices. Austin responded to Davis' comments, saying that the principal problem that appli- cants have had in getting a local broker or realtor has been the high pre-sale requirements, especially looking at the whole project. They have been very close to having an agreement made with realtors that the Board would know well, and they have all said that if they have to pre-sell 50% of the whole project, the brokers people are going to use a lot of time and effort and have to wait a long time before closings, and the real estate office would not have any cash flow, and that it is just too high a percentage. The change to 50% of each unit gives the brokers the hope that they can sell units and start closing much earlier than if they have to wait for half of the whole project to be sold. The reason applicant feels that this program should be acceptable to the Board is that it really is a business decision when to go ahead on closing or not. And the reason for the disclosure, as Gideon Kaufman said 2 weeks ago, was simply to inform the prospec- tive purchaser what the pre-sale requirement was, so that the purchaser would know how long he would have to wait before he could close on his unit and begin using the unit. That requirement has been the primary obstacle in getting a marketing entity. Nick Coates, of Coates, Reid and Waldron, is interested in this project, and has said that if applicants had the provision that 50% of each unit had to be sold before closings, he (Coates) would lean toward marketing the project. So applicant is hoping that the Board would recommend that if recommend- ing approval, so that before asking for City Council approval the applicant will have a marketing entity. -3- -4- EAST HOPKINS TIMESHARE PROJECT - (CONT'D) Austin continued, saying that in respect to the packaging of weeks, Bob Silverman can speak better on that subject than Austin, but he has prepared a pre-packaging calendar, consisting of a High List A and List B. List A is all high season, high season summer and high season winter, and purchasers must choose one from that list. List B is low season, spring and fall plus other low seasons. (See lists in file). Silverman says that from his own research and information that this gives enough flexibility to sell all the time weeks that needed to be sold to make this a 100! project. Austin said that obviously as they go along with this program, applicants will have to realize, and hope the Board does also, that if something doesn't work, applicants will have to come back to the Board and ask to change the program. It's not uncommon, however, to allow the pur- chaser to pick weeks as long as he has set lists to pick from, and he would not be allowed to pick 2 weeks from list A, he would have to pick one from List A and one from List B. Austin then passed around a sample List A and B for the Board to examine. Roger Hunt asked Austin if they were saying that by selling this 50% of the first unit, that is when the project can start closing? In other words, he continued, is the project going to go if you just sell 50% of the first unit, and that's all you ever sell? Austin replied if he was interpreting the question correctly, yes. Once they sell 50% of any unit, call them IN and 2N, as soon as you sell 50% of IN you can start closing on those and sell them. Hunt then inquired what would happen if they don't sell any other units? Austin replied then they would have a big flop on their hands, and that is why he is saying it is really a business decision when to start closing. Hunt responded that then they should be disclosing that business decision as to how many units at 50% will be sold before this whole thing goes. Austin said they would do that. Davis said once they have closed on the first unit it would be difficult to re- package all the others if they changed methods. Austin said that what Hunt was saying is that if you sell 12 packages of the 24 packages in Unit A, and that's all you sell, will they go ahead and start closing without selling any more. Silverman responded that he felt that was a business decision, and it seems to him that the question would be how long will it take to sell the 12 units, and that is what will make the decision. Hunt said then that the question, that Austin understands, is that he is won- dering where the threshold point is on this whole projec~where the project is indeed going to go, or where you're going to say it's a bust and there has to be a change - that is what should be disclosed as part of this disclosure, and he is interested in that percentage of the project. Austin interpreted for Silver- man, that they would not make the project go if they only sold 12 packages. Sil- verman replied that is correct. Austin then said Hunt wants to know, and wants the buyers to know, how many packages they would sell before the project proceeds and what they are suggesting is that 1/2 of each unit before we start closing out the units, but at what point are you going to decide you're going ahead? Silverman replied 25% of the whole project. Hunt stated that 25% of the project is in the record, and that is what they were after. Davis said that means that you cannot occupy it, though. Paul Sheldon said that that is something he is still not clear on, if the 25% is split among all the units, you could be at that 25% level without being at 50% of any of the units, basically you sell your peak weeks and still would not have 50% of any of the units, you could be at that 25% level of the whole project without being at 50% of anyone unit, so when would you start closing1 Silverman responds they have to have 50% of the unit to close the unit, and 25% of the project to close the first unit. Davis said that that would be 36 of the 144 units, and Silverman replied correct. Sheldon asked to clarify it again, and asked again if they sold 50% of one unit, and 25% of the whole project and never sell anything else, then the project is a go? Silverman replied correct. Gary Esary then mentioned that there is another element to this that can't be included at this point, and that is if they got 36 sold real fast with a bunch of prospects in line, that is something that really can't be written in. Austin siad that that is the element of the business decision they would have to make. Davis asked if the Board had any input at that point onthe predetermining of the packages, whether or not they should be allowed to pick or should it be pre- packaged? David White siad that the question he wanted to ask is that because this is in the RMF district, and 100% of it will be time share, the effect of it is going to be a drastic amount of people going into that end of town, and that he had thought at one time in the ordinance that things would not have to be 100% time " RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ~OR'" '0 C. f. HOECKEl e. B. I> L co. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1983 EAST HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT (CONT'D) share. Davis replied that the ordinance read all the units within a project had to be time share. Sheldon then said that perhaps he did not understand the ordi- nance but it seemed to him that on the allocation of List A and List B, that is a business decision, and that as long as they disclosed the method they plan to use, that is all the Board can require. And the only thing that he would wonder about would be that the Board should require that the List be included for the record as part of the disclosure. Davis said that she thought that was all they had to require. Austin said that would be no problem. Davis said then that they could require more, but that since the ordinance is very specific on the marketing program, the Board has the right to tell them what the Board wants to them to have as far as the marketing program is concerned. Sheldon said that he didn't think that it was the Board's prerogative to comment on the division of weeks, except to require disclosure. Davis then continued with the next item on the criteria, amenities: The project has one hot tub for the complex, and they have also proposed to put in two saunas plus possibly a membership in the Aspen Club and the golf course, which costs would be included in the association fees. Planning doesn't have any documenta- tion on the Club and golf course yet, and she guessed the applicants were working on that. Austin said they would add those items, and the Aspen Club and golf membership would be paid for for the first two years by the applicant, so the first two years for a purchaser would be without assessments. After that, it would be up to the association whether they would continue that or not. Davis said that that would be added to the conditions. Sheldon asked if that would be one membership per unit, or a family membership per unit, or one membership per occupant, or how would that work? Silverman replied that it would be 6 member- ships to be used by the owners, and since they would never be here at one time. Sheldon then asked if that meant that 6 individuals can use the Aspen Club at one time, or does that mean that all 8 occupants of one unit can use the Aspen Club? Silverman said his feeling at this point was that it would be family. Sheldon asked if the Aspen Club had agreed to that, even if the owner didn't have a family in the unit, but just 8 friends? Silverman said that has not been de- termined yet, but that he thought it would be, because what they would be paying for is the use of the Aspen Club for 8 people and/or your invitees and guests, so if there was a guest in the unit, why wouldn't that guest have the right to use the Club so long as it had been paid for. Davis clarified that that would be 8 memberships, for 6 units, for a total of 48 memberships. Silverman said no, it would be 6 memberships, that is what the understanding is with the Aspen Club. Davis then asked if the Aspen Club had said that one membership will include everyone? Silverman replied yes. Austin then said that the Aspen Club solicits these types of memberships through local lodges and bars. Sheldon said that when he had talked to them about his lodge, the Club had told him that one membership entitle one person to use the facilities, and that membership could be trans- ferred around as many times as needed, and can give it to 8 different people on 8 different days, but it's only one person per membership, and if there were 8 people staying in the condo, only one of them could use the facilities at a time. Silverman asked Sheldon what if there were a husband, wife and 4 children? Shel- don replied that the Club did not discriminate on that, they said that if you buy one membership, and that entitles one person to use the facilities. He said that that is what they had told him. Silverman said that they would get it clarified. Alice then started on the next item, parking: She said the parking requirement in the RMF zone is one parking space for every bedroom. These 6 units are 3 bed- room units, so they would have a parking requirement of 18 spaces. They only have 6 spaces because of physical limitations on the site. In the past, in con- dominiumizations, the planning office has waived the parking requirement because of economic and physical hardships, but after talking with the engineering depar- ment, planning and engineering feel that this should not be waived as a blanket waiver for all time sharing projects and that it should be reviewed on a case by case basis, to see if it would be appropriate and what kind of impacts would be the result of the waiver of the requirement for a specific project. She added that in this case in this RMF neighborhood, 6 spaces for a project that has a -5- -6- EAST HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT CONT'D for a project that has a total occupancy potential of 48 people could create a lot of impact on the neighborhood. The Board has the legal ability to waive the requirements some, but as a minimum the project should designate one parking space for each unit, which is the recommendation of the engineering department. She concluded that she felt it was another negative aspect of this project to consider the overall compatibility since there will be some difficult parking problems. Austin commented then that he hoped the Board had had opportunity to look at his memorandum (see file) regarding the parking issue. Applicants had done a survey both of the actual in-place parking spaces in this neighborhood and a review of the exemptions granted and which were listed in the exhibit to his memorandum. The occupancy allowed by th~ building code is 8 people per unit, and these are 3 bedroom units. Applicants feel that this project is going to be marketed to families, and there will most likely be families coming to occupy these units, and there may be 3 children or 4, an~ a husband and wife, but it is not the plan to market these as they will hold 8 people and that is how many people the occupants should plan on, but rather market them as 3 bedroom units. He contin- ued that there is a real difference of opinion in regard to impacts of condo- minium short term rentals as opposed to time sharing. It has always been his opinion throughout the whole process of the drafting the ordinanct and working with the applicants, and the distinction of time sharing is that there are longer seasons and more occupancy in terms of longevity, but at the height of the time that it is occupied, you really don't have more people in there at one time than you would on short term condominium rentals. There is no reason for there to be more people, and no incentive. When there is a condominium of 6 units, and the ownership can only be converted to time sharing, the chances are good, Austin felt, that there will not be any more people in there at one time than any other time. Since applicant is targeting on marketing to families, as opposed to the marketing at Prospector, for instance, or other facilities, they feel there is very little likelihood that there will be more than one car if there are any. It (the project) is close to the bus routes, close to Ajax, people who come to the project will just as likely walk to those areas as drive, and there is no addi- tional incentive for them to use a car. The other aspect, as mentioned in the memorandum, is that the Board is all familiar with the area and E. Hopkins and that it is all multi-family condominiums, lodges, a dorm, and very few single family residences. They don't have a larger percentage than the East Hopkins project, and since all applicant is doing is asking for the ability to change the form of condominium ownership from typical traditional condominium for short term rentals to time share, applicant feels the argument about parking impact is without substance. Davis then continued with the next item on the memorandum, maintenance: Four weeks have to be reserved for maintenance, and applicants have agreed to do so. Paul Sheldon asked to confirm that the maintenance weeks are May 7th to 21st, and November 5th to 19th. Silverman confirms. Davis then said that applicants have promised that the 53rd week of any year is also to be maintenance. She then went on to the next item, budget: Applicants have itemized their budget (see file) and it turned out to be $66.00 per month, or approximately $200.00 quarterly. Originally it was unclear as to what funds in the budget were to be escrowed for the interior and exterior reserve, but planning and the applicant have met and discussed that subject and amended the application slightly. What will happen is that $6200.00 from two different sources will actually be escrowed and only be used for interior and exterior re- serve funds. This includes $5,000 in furniture and appliance reserve and $1200 in the maintenance reserve. Again, similar to the Prospector, planning is making a condition that the $6200 be required for 5 years, and after that point the owners can vote as to whether they want to continue it at that rate, reduce it or eliminate it. Austin mentioned that since he had met with Alice last, they are increasing that reserve from $6200 to $10,000 a year, and according to their calculations there will be $80,000 in the reserve. Each fund will be $5,000 per year, instead of $5,000 for one and $1200 for the other. Davis begins the next item, conversions: The conversion requirements haven't been met, and planning does want applicant to document that they have done and will do the required renovations. Austin replied that is o.k. Davis continued with escrow requirements, saying that the requirements have been met,and assess- ment fees cannot be met without having a majority vote of the homeowners asso- ciation, and the applicant has agreed to that. Austin interrupted at that point, saying that he felt there was a difference of interpretation on this subject. \, ! _."---_.~-_..,....-,~...._-_._-~_.._~_.._.~--._~-~.~.,,~~ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves F ORM'~ C. F. HOECK El. B. a. It L. CJ. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AUGUST 16, 1983 E. HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT - CONT'D. Austin continued saying that applicants felt the reserves should not be changed without the owners', 75% of the owners' approval, but the assessments should be able to be changed by the Board of Managers. For example, if the cost of natural gas goes up, it couldn't be expected that they could get 75% of the owners to vote for a budget increase for the next year to pay for the gas increase. Alice interjected that she thought that the largest problem with time sharing, is that people pay $2,000 for a time share unit, and all of a sudden they are paying $500 per month for assessment fees. The way various time share ordinances around the country handled that was to try to keep some control over how it could be increased and still have the people have some say over it. She concluded that she felt it was important that they not be able to increase the fee. Austin then said that presumably there would be a board of managers that are responsible to the owners, in fact they're owners themselves, and that he thought it would create a real mess if the Board of Managers is not allowed to handle routine budgetary matters. Alice asked Austin if that Board would be responsible enough to increase the fees. Austin replied how would they go each year to get 75% of the people to decide whether you can pay your gas bill or not. The intent would be not to allow oversimplified way to increase assessments, it's only to deal with the practicalities, as you can often get a board of 5 together to vote on budgets, where you can't get 75% of the owners to vote on it. Paul Sheldon then asked how did they get from a majority to 75%. Alice said that is what they had agreed on, that 75% was fine. Austin said that the 75% was to change the reserves. Alice asked if a majority would be ok with applicant Austin clarified to change the assessments. Silverman asked what is normal with condominiums, since this is strictly a condominium. Alice replied that it is typical of time sharing. Silverman then said that what happens if the insurance premiums go up, the gas goes up, and the other uncontrollable expenses go up. He continued that his concern is not the maintenance, since they have adequate reserves for, but that his concern is that the whole thing not get hamstrung and the project doesn't go to forfeit because they didn't pay the gas bill. Sheldon asks what provisions were made, using the gas bill for example, and his weeks were in July and October? Silverman replied it is a common area expense. Sheldon then asked if he would have to pay a 1/24th share of the gas bills in December and January? Silverman replied certainly, it's a common area expense. Sheldon then responds that he might not approve any increase. Austin added that this would be typical of any condominium. Silverman said that is why he feels it would be properly handled by the Board of Managers, and the Board of Managers are elected by the homeowners. Jasmine Tygre then said there should be some way to differentiate the increases over which no one has control, some sort of mecha- nism for separating out those kinds of expenses, so the Board of Managers can't arbitrarily decide for the owners. Austin and Silverman mentioned that the Board of Managers would all be owners, that they must be owners. Silverman then added that they would agree to settle this question by stating that these de- cisions will be made by either the Board of Managers and/or a majority of the homeowners, and leave it at that. They would make sure that is in the conditions for approval. Alice presents the next item, the Reserve fund, that will be in addition to the escrow fund as far as maintenance. That will be a 3-month assessment fee in ad- vance to go to the reserve fund. The next item Alice mentioned is occupancy. Maximum occupancy by the Building Code is 8 people, and planning suggested that applicant consider a more desirable occupancy level which would create less impact than full occupancy would. Austin said that the thing they don't want to preclude is the family that has 5 children and if you say you can only have 5 people or 6, you are telling them they can't bring all their kids. That is a practical problem, since this is really in- tended to be a family project. Jasmine Tygre said that since she had been in- volved with Village Brokers, she is aware that there are always a lot of requests for locations for large families, because there aren't that many places in town -7- hI -8- EAST HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT - CONT'D. that are available for people who are unwise enough to have a lot of children, and very often what happens is that they will request a 3 bedroom unit. Then they are asked how many people are in their family, and if they respond 12, or something, then the answer is usually "I'm sorry, the management company or the owner of that unit have stipulated that there never be more than 8 people occupying this unit, due to too much wear and tear on the unit". There is a lack of facilities for large families, and with the time share project, the pressure is going to intensify. People are buying a "perpetual" vacation, they are buying 2 weeks in Aspen forever, and when it has already been paid for, and they show up with 20 children, well, who is going to stop them? Tygre added that with this particular project especially, since they are going to market to families, she felt they would have maximum occupancy more often than not. And if they have that many people, they won't all be in one car either. She con- cluded that she felt this was going to be a very serious problem. Austin responded by saying that Jasime is presenting both the positive and nega- tive of this problem, and the positive part is that there is a definite need for this type of housing, and that is what they are directing themselves to. There will be management on the project, and since people have to come and check in, they hope to be able to control occupancy. They realize that it would not be in the project's best interest to have families of 12 piling in. Silverman said that he felt that they had to establish rules and regulations, and he wasn't sure how they would enforce them, but there have to be guidelines. He continued that he believed the City of Aspen wants families to come here, but that he didn't know how to enforce limitations on number of people in units. Jasmine Tygre said that this has to do with the impact on the town. Austin said that if you had paid $350,000 for a 3 bedroom condominium, he believed there would be more incentive to stack the people in than in the timeshare unit that only cost $8,000 or so. Tygre replied that Austin is talking about a completely different income bracket there, the people who can afford a $350,000 condominium can afford to rent another place for their extra guests, but that the people that applicants are trying to attract can't afford that much. Austin responded that these people are also not going to be able to afford to rent two cars, etc., and that would eliminate the parking impact. Sheldon mentioned that since applicant would be marketing to people in Denver and Grand Junction, they would most likely be driving to Aspen, and would need as many cars as needed to transport them. Austin said he still didn't see how it was different from renting a condo. Alice then said that she thought the point everyone was talking about was not the specific occupancy standards, but the impact on the area, the overall problems created by the project. Austin asked what could applicant do to satisfy those of the Board that have expressed strong feelings about the project? Roger Hunt commented that if the applicant wanted to take back their application, he felt that would be the best thing they could do. He continued that his main concern with this application is that it is in a residential multi-family use area, and there are a few other large operations in that area, but applicant is talking about a very high turnover, which obviously comes with short term rentals even with regular condominiums, but this type project is more of a hotel type operation that already exists in the area, and he didn't think it belongs in a residential multi-family zone. He added that he didn't know why City Council had decided that ~IF zone was an appropriate area for time sharing, but Hunt felt that this time share project was not appropriate in that RMF area, because of the impacts that everyone had mentioned. He concluded that if the project was up in the lodging district, he would have no problem with it, but since it is in an already heavily impacted area, he could not approve of the appli6ants request to exacerbate an already bad situation by allowing time sharing. Vice Chairman Anderson said that he tended to agree with Hunt, and wondered if it would be worthwhile to make special conditions if the Board was going to approve this request. Sheldon stated that unfortunately, the Board can raise concerns about the application that has been presented to us, but that he thought there was a major flaw in the sense of the application in the existing zone, and as such he didn't feel it was within the Board's purvue to rewrite the application for the applicants. He concluded that there is no way the Board can change the problem with the parking spaces and the other impacts. Vice Chairman Anderson opened the public hearing for comments from the audience. Gideon Kaufman stated that it seems to him that the Board's concern about this application are concerns that were raised when they were drafting the ordinance, but the ordinance, like it or not, was adopted allowing this particular type of v RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 C.F_HOECKfLB.a.& l. CD. REGULAR MEETING PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION -9- EAST HOPKINS TIME SHARE PROJECT CONT'D AUGUST 16, 1983 time sharing project in the RMF zone, and he felt that the attitude that the Board is taking is taking away from the RMF zone that ability to have time share, which he is not sure the Board is really allowed to do. He continued that the Board can't say that there isn't a project in the RMF that is suitable, but that is not what the ordinance says, the ordinance says that you can have a time share project in the RMF zone, and the time share project has to meet certain conditions of the RMF zone, but the Board's attitude seems to be taking away allowed aspects of time share, and saying that you can never have time share in that zone. Vice Chairman Anderson interrupted to say that the Board is looking at this as a conditional use in the RMF zone. Kaufman said that what the Board is saying is there is no time share project that is suitable in the RMF zone. Hunt said that he was talking specifically about this project in that RMF zone, and he said specifically that this project is converting more towards a lodge-type operation, and applicant is asking the Board to exacerbate an already bad situation in that particular spot. He concluded that he felt it was very site-specific in the RMF zone. Alice said that she was definitely a strong proponent of the recommenda- tion of time sharing in the RMF zone, but after reviewing this application com- pletely and objectively, and came up with the fact that it is imcompatible. Austin requested his memorandum of August II, 1983, part of the record and asked P & Z to review the map attached. Austin said if there is ever to be time sharing in the RMF zone, this is the appropriate neighborhood in which to have it. This is a condominium that has been short term rented. Bill Stirling, manager of the property, said this has been a long term building lived in by locals. During this time, there were as many as 18 vehicles at the building. Since turning to short term, there have been six vehicles or less. In terms of density, it will be less dense in conversion to time share. Stirling said time sharing will be a benefit to the zone in terms of stablizing the building. Ms. Davis said Council's intent in putting R/~IT into time sharing was to give it a try and to see what people could come up with. Time sharing is allowed in the RMF zone only in structures which have short term uses. Anderson closed the public hearing. Hunt said there is no reference to anyon-site management in the application. Austin said it has been managed off-site for some time and will continue to be the same. Sheldon said he has trouble with this application and reserva- tions about time share in the ~ zone. Sheldon said the marketing plan is weak; the parking places are inadequate, but that is an existing condition and it will not worsen. Sheldon said he does not see ground to deny the applica- tion. Ms. Davis said in the code, time sharing is allowed in ~ only when it does not affect the character of the neighborhood, etc. The applicant has to prove theirs is a worthwhile project. Esary pointed out time sharing is a conditional use; there are criteria for condition uses in the code. These are outlined in the planning office memo. Esary recommended if the P & Z plan to deny this application, it should be done in resolution form. Austin said the commission must find that time shar- ing would be bad for the health and welfare of the neighborhood. This is a structure that is previously short termed and it is not out of character with the neighborhood. White said he would vote against the project. Sheldon said he would vote for the project as he does not have specific objections. Hunt said he would vote no as there are specific flaws in the application as well as adverse affects in the immediate areas. Ms. Tygre said she would vote not; this is a condi- tional use, there are a set of criteria. Ms. Tygre said time sharing does represent an intensity of use in any building. '_'__M"""~'._ Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 1983 Ms. Tygre said she does not feel time sharing would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Anderson said he would favor tabling the applica- tion until some of the problems can be straightened out. Hunt moved to have the planning office write a resolution denying this project for review by the city attorney, and to recommend denial to City Council Seconded by Ms. Tygre. Austin asked the Commission if there was some way he could alleviate their concerns. Anderson stated he does not feel this is the right neighborhood for~. White said he would abstain as he does not have enough information to make a vote one way or another. The P & Z has not gone through all the conditions. Hunt said this is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Roll call vote; Ms. Tygre, aye; Anderson, aye; White, Abstain; Hunt, aye; Sheldon, nay. Motion carried. HAN/EASTER WINDS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Colette Penne, planning office, presented a plat showing lot 2 Parry subdivision which was created by a lot split and only allows a single family house which is what is being proposed. Ms. Penne showed the flood plain line, the house is never any closer than 30 feet to that line. There is no part of the structure within the flood plain. There is a hiking and fisherman easement already there. Ms. penne said this is a flat lot. The planning office recommends approval of a house with the condition of compliance on criteria of section 24-6.3 Hunt moved to approve construction of a single family subdivision with the condition with compliance in the the criteria in Section 24-6.3; seconded by Sheldon. carried. house on lot 2, parry construction phase on All in favor, motion APPLEJACK LODGE SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION Colette Penne reminded P & Z this is an L-3 lodge; it is in conformance with the l:l FAR and has an expansion capability of 790 square feet. In lodge condomini- umization, the units are to remain in the short term rental market. There is to be evidence of this in the condominium declarations. The requirements which are stipulated are the owner's personal use of the unit; the city can require a report of the owners personal use. The service levels to be provided have to equal to those provided in the last three years. These are outlined in an affidavit. There has been one unit of employee housing, and that will be retained. The applicant has agreed to provide on-site management, someone will be at the front desk from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. during high seasons. Ms. Penne said the amenities will be changed some; the indoor pool will become an outdoor pool. Ms. Penne said there are some good reasons for this, one is the chlorine small. Gideon Kaufman said the indoor pool will be turned into a lobby and a large outdoor jacuzzi. Randy Gold said this jacuzzi will either be on a rear deck or the northeast corner of the parking lot. Gold said the parking lot will be reorganized. Ms. Penne said in any lodge condominiumization, the lodge must be upgraded to 30 per cent of the assessed value, which in this case is $56,700. The applicant is committing to an expenditure of $125,000. A building permit must be obtained in nine months, and the building must be finished in 12 months. The applicant must execute a promissory note to insure the upgrading is done. The planning office recommends approval of subidivision exception to condominiumize the Applejack with conditions outlined in the memorandum. Esary added two conditions, one is the filing of a statement of exception from the full subdivision process, and recording of the employee housing deed restriction for two pillows. Hunt moved recommend approval of the subdivision exception for the purposes of condominiumization of the Applejack Inn pursuant to Section 20-23 of the Municipal Code with conditions I through 9 in the planning office memorandum of August 16, 1983; seconded by White. All in favor, motion carried. Hunt moved to adjourn at 7:35 carried. p.m., Z;;;;;::J;J ;;;;~vor, motion v ,