Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110823 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23; 2011 Comments 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 Lift One Lodge 2 Miscellaneous Code Amendments — vacation rentals 6 Miscellaneous Code Amendments — impact fees & school lands dedication 15 1 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 Stan Gibbs opened the special meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission in Council Chambers Meeting Room at 4:30. Commissioners present: Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Jasmine Tygre Cliff Weiss, Jim DeFrancia, Michael Wampler and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance: Jim True, Special Counsel; Don Taylor, Finance Director; Chris Bendon, Community Development Director; Sara Adams, Drew Alexander, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Comments Chris Bendon reminded staff there was an AACP Meeting on Thursday, August 25 and asked who would attend. It was just the City Meeting. Cliff, Bert, LJ and Stan would attend. Chris spoke about the Pro Cycling Race on Wednesday, August 24 Minutes MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve the minutes From August 2 " with Stan's amendment to page 4 adding "representation "; seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor, APPROVED. Conflicts of Interest None stated. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (07/05/11, 07/19/11 and 08/02/11): Lift One Lodge Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for Lift One Lodge final PUD. Chris Bendon stated that at the last meeting August 2" we reviewed the entirety of the resolution and made the appropriate changes in this resolution in tonight's packet. Chris said the last meeting was a 6 member commission and after a lot of discussions and debates about the particular exclusions and inclusions of the resolution; there were several attempts to make a decision and all of those attempts resulted in 3 to 3 votes, which is technically a no vote but it means no action. Chris said we do not have anything substantively to go through unless the commission has questions to raise issues. Staff does support the project; they believe it meets the land use code, that it is supported in the Aspen Area Community Plan and think that it is something needed in town. Chris said this is the base of Aspen Mountain where lodging should be; it may not be the perfect project in everyone's imagination but it is a very good project that will rejuvenate a forgotten area of town and is an important move to support the Core Resort functions of town. In some ways it is a presentable decision for this area; it can or could inspire others to follow in its example of updating facilities, upgrading their properties, providing an investment in the resort facilities on that side of the 2 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 mountain. Chris said it was certainly the opposite that a down vote would send likely a very negative message to people who want new lodging facilities in that area. Chris said it was risky to bet on the next round and we know that there have been several iterations of projects in this area, individually and collectively as a master plan and various features of those that we held onto in this plan. Chris entered 4 letters into the record: 1. Robert Daniel about Silver Shadow good faith dialogue; 2. Debbie Braun in favor of the project; 3. Frias Properties in favor of the project; and 4. Warren Klug, Aspen Square, in favor of the project. Stan Gibbs asked where we were in this process, we have expressed a lot of opinions and he wasn't sure of taking more public input. Jim True said that you would still have the opportunity to take public comments. Stan opened the public comment portion of the hearing. None stated. Stan closed that section of the meeting. Commissioner Comments and Questions for staff or the applicant. Jasmine Tygre said at the last meeting there was a lot of concern about the assurances of the lift, which is a big concern for a lot of people on the commission, she included. Jasmine thought that there would be some additional language that would address this because it doesn't do anything different from the previous resolution. Chris responded that she was right it does not do anything different from the previous resolution; there was discussion of a second resolution but there has been nothing provided in advance of that discussion. Chris said again at the commission's direction to staff to draft a second resolution. Stan said the concern of Counsel has a lot of validity to it. Cliff said to that end if nothing has changed why are we voting again. Stan replied because we had no action before. Cliff said no action was still a vote. Jim True stated under our code a tie means no action and the application is still on the table; there has to be some affirmative action to move forward whether it is a denial or approval otherwise it just sits in limbo. LJ said there was a reference to the tramway board making a determination that 40 feet on a surface lift was alright and was included in the exhibits, he said that he couldn't find it. Chris replied there was a requirement to provide that tramway board approval as part of the documents and the applicant has provided that to staff. 3 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 Jim True said that a tie vote was no action. Jim DeFrancia said there are no perfect applications and this fits in that category but that doesn't mean that it that it is not a very good application. Jim DeFrancia reminded everyone of the considerable public benefits: rejuvenation of a neglected part of town; providing some needed lodging facilities; importantly the easements in the corridor to return some ski servicing down to Willoughby Park; some reconstruction on Dean Street; renovation and donation of the Skiers Chalet Lodge for the Historical Society; street reconstruction and safety improvements on South Aspen Street; pedestrian infrastructure on South Aspen Street; expansion of landscaping in Willoughby Park; 100% employee housing mitigation; stabilization and protection of public historic assets, lift 1 the towers, the outhouses; cash of $600,000.00 towards the future surface lift from Willoughby Park to Lift 1A; improvements to the whole general area around the Winter National Race Course; exceeded the environmental standards, they have improved emergency access, improved utility systems, and improved the management of storm water drainage coming off of Aspen Mountain. Jim said there is a host of public benefits in this application that cause it to be supported and supportable; there was lengthy discussion about the easements in the corridor for the skiing and lift service to come down to Willoughby Park and it was clear that this applicant doesn't control that so they can't do it but they have done what they can. Jim said that in conjunction with providing some funding for that future surface lift that in conjunction with the ski company at a point in the future we have reasonable expectation that we are going to see that. Jim said it was clearly in the public interest to see that through. Bert Myrin said his comments were what they were before. Cliff Weiss said because there was a 7 commissioner here he would reiterate what he said before; there is no question there are a long list of public benefits. Cliff said after spending 2 years every Wednesday with the Lift One and then Aspen Mountain Lodge COWOPs a lot has changed from what they worked on diligently was to create and integral part of Aspen rather than a private enclave; things have changed. Cliff said that he doubted if there would be any lift replacement of Lift lA or a surface lift. He has lost faith in what is happening and it has nothing to do with the architecture or the need for lodging, yes all of those things are positives and we need it but we are not getting what we originally bargained for so he cannot support it. 4 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 MOTION: Jim DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution number 13 series of 2011 recommending that City Council approve the Lift One Lodge Subdivision PUD Final Application with the addition of the $600, 000.00 is specifically earmarked for the planned surface lift from Willoughby Park to Lift IA as represented in the application. Seconded by LJErspamer. Roll call vote: Jasmine Tygre, no; LJErspamer, yes; Bert Myrin, no; Michael Wampler, yes; Cliff Weiss, no; Stan Gibbs, yes; Jim DeFrancia, yes; APPROVED 4 -3. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert said the 2 issues that concern him the most are in the June 7 memo it says the planned surface platter lift will transport skiers and boarders from Dean Street to Lift I so that is not an if it is a will; it is not in our resolution and the June 14 staff packet on page 40 this will be Aspen's first LEED rated Lodge and that should be carried into the resolution. Bert wanted these moved into the resolution but LJ, seconded the first motion but would not second this amendment. LJ said they are going to match the LEED requirement. Bob Daniel stated his representation throughout the application has been exactly as it was in the resolution; he said that Bert quoted the staff comments. Bob said that they have committed to having the chief building official satisfied that we have met that standard. Chris said that staff was comfortable with that and that was the way it was in the resolution. Bert said on page 50 in the Introduction the platter lift will transport skiers and boarders approximately 600 feet from Lift IA to Dean Street. Stan said it was there in the transportation analysis. LJ asked Jim True if they can require the applicant to perform something on property someone else owns. Jim True said that this looks like their enhancements will provide provisions for the platter lift; they can only do what they can do in trying to make a condition that they can't do it. Chris said Bob can't go build a lift on someone else's property especially without their permission. Bert said it was important that Council knows that lift is important to Cliff and others on P &Z. Chris said that staff can make Council aware that sentence was provided in the application and he didn't think requiring the applicant to build something on someone else's property is something you should do. Jim DeFrancia said that we can't make it an explicit condition of approval but it may reinforce the intent by impeding what is here that it is a planned lift and they have provided easements and rights of way and committed to cash contributions and that keeps everybody focused on it and getting it in place. Stan said those provisions of easements clearly imply that such a lift is planned. Bob Daniel said that 12g would deal with this issue: this $600,000.00 shall be held in a separate account that is specifically earmarked for the purpose of a surface lift why not say it is specifically earmarked for the planned surface lift from Willoughby Park to Lift 1A as represented in the application. Jim and LJ agreed. Jasmine clarified her statement from the last meeting about the 5 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 height was specific to the portions of the project that exceeds the maximum allowed by the underlying zone district and how that relates to PUD approval. Stan said that he agreed with Jim in all of his comments earlier as to the benefits. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Vacation Rentals Code Amendment Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing on Vacation Rentals Code Amendment. Sara Adams said the code amendment was to allow Vacation Rentals, which was continued from August 16` Sara said to summarize the code amendment in one sentence: the amendment would allow vacation rentals as a permitted use in all zones districts that allow residential uses through a revocable permit process that has specific review standards and is handled administratively. Sara said there were 4 members of the commission here last week so there are 3 new members tonight. The staff memo outlines changes in clarifications in the draft you saw last week and addresses some concerns raised by P &Z. Sara said in summary it clarifies the difference between bed and breakfast and vacation rental; it clarifies who needs a business license and who can apply for the vacation rental permit. It clarifies that the owner can be the owner representative if the owner is residing in the valley and clarifies the noticing requirement for adjacent properties. Sara said the question for the Planning and Zoning Commission is not should vacation rentals pay taxes or should vacation rentals get a business license. The question for the Planning & Zoning Commission has to do with land use; should vacation rentals be allowed in Aspen as a permitted use. On page 3 of the packet there is a recommended discussion to help direct discussion tonight. Staff does find that the proposed code amendment meets the review criteria and recommends approval. Jim DeFrancia asked if the vacation rental permit was different than the business license, correct. Sara replied correct. Jim said if somebody owns a home and they rent it through a company with a business license then the homeowner does not need a business license but they do need a vacation rental permit. Sara responded that they do not need a business license but they need a vacation rental property permit and the business that is renting the home could apply for the vacation rental permit. Cliff Weiss asked if this was short term only or long term. Sara replied they have defined vacation rental as 30 days or less; long term would be 31 days or more. Cliff asked the cost of this vacation rental permit license, is a tax or a fee. Sara said that was a discussion staff was planning on having with City Council; it 6 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 depends on how the process is going to go; if it is administrative then we need feed back from the Planning & Zoning Commission; if it is Conditional Use staff needs to know how we should handle it in terms of bundling with the business license process and that sort of thing. Jim True answered Cliff's question the permit would be a fee adopted through the code and the business license would be in a different section of the code. Sara said if there is going to be a fee for the permit that has not been determined. Bert asked would there be any reason not to put the words "short term" before vacation rentals of the document. Sara answered that short term was before vacation rental in the zone districts because there is a definition of short term being less than 30 days and it could be repetitive if you think that might be helpful. Bert said he thought it could be helpful. Bert said on the staff memo page 6 Section 3; could you give us examples of where affordable housing short term rentals occur. Jim True replied that he did not know of any examples of affordable housing units that are acceptable and we are talking about residential properties; he didn't think it was fair that an affordable housing unit was appropriate; it would be done with deed restrictions and other mechanisms that are mostly in existence for them; he didn't think it was appropriate in this resolution. Jim True said that most have deed restrictions that prohibit it; there are a few that allow 2 weeks or less. Jim said that was a civil matter within an association. Bert said the notice section of this on page 7 number 7; he asked if notice was just once or was it every year. Sara responded that you notice every year as a requirement. Bert asked about the signs being for sale and for rent. Sara stated that the sign code already identified that in property management /timeshare identification signs; the building may have one side with an area not exceeding 2 square feet identifying a contact person or management entity for the property; multifamily buildings may have up to one sign per 10 residential units. Bert asked if the signs could be regulated at the front door rather than out by the street. Sara said if the commission agreed with that it could be considered but there are a lot of historic properties throughout town so we may run into some conflicts with putting a sign on a historic property. Jim True said that if appropriate under other regulations the sign shall be attached to the building and you could put in if there is a change in representative the owner shall notify the City. Sara said it was a recommendation not a requirement to place signs on properties. Bert asked for a map of the zone districts. Sara said that she did have a map. 7 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 Bert asked if everyone who rented their residence was considered a retailer where does that lead. Sara replied that she checked with the assessor's office if the residence classification would change to commercial and the assessor said that it would not change. Jim True responded the purpose of this section is to define as retailers pursuant to section 23.04.10 therefore have vacation rentals subject to 23.08 which is primarily sales and lodging tax. Bert asked if it would allow you to be a retailer out of your property. Chris answered no it would not allow you a change in use of your property. Don Taylor said there may be another way to reference to the sales tax code without determining it retailer. Cliff said if he was renting year round and he short termed sublet does this apply for vacation rental. Sara replied there would need to be a vacation rental permit in place for you. Jim True said that you would need a vacation rental permit to do that. LJ said that he was going to rent his place out for 2 weeks as a vacation rental and they include breakfast and dinner; does he need a license to do that; do you get inspected. Sara replied that she would have to talk to environmental health about a kitchen inspection. Stan Gibbs opened the public comments section of this hearing. Public Comments: 1. George Newall said he owned some rental properties. There has been a lot of confusion on this issue and a lot of things that aren't clear. In the latest memorandum it states that a business license would be required, a rental permit would be required, sales tax would be required and lodging taxes would be required. George said this is an addition in taxes, fees and in some cases a manager; it is clear that the proposal is based on the City collecting a lot of money for this and costs the property owner. George said that if the City was concerned about the cost of rentals in the City they wouldn't be doing this because this will be passed onto the renters by the landlord otherwise he will lose money on it. There will also be an enforcer required or hearing officers; that is increased bureaucracy. George said increased costs, increased tax, increased bureaucracy, and increased paperwork for the tax payer. 2. Lisa Price stated that she was with Chaffin Light Real Estate and she is in the vacation rental business. Lisa supports the document and asked if the intention was to cap the rental activity amount one homeowner can have in a year. Lisa said people come to Aspen to enjoy the lifestyle and it is 8 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 important that we have mini - vacation lodging options. Lisa said people who chose to go into single family homes are looking for a more intimate and private experience and it generates a lot of employment for people in the valley. Lisa said that there was a significant demand for single family residences for their vacation experience in Aspen and that is part of who we are. 3. Trisha McIntyre with Aspen Luxury Rentals said the lodges leave out the vacation rental companies and she does pay the city taxes on the rentals that she does. Trisha said she passes on the sales tax to the renter and they have never complained. Trisha said that they regulate the homes that they rent and it is not difficult to get a business license and fill out sales tax every month. Trisha likes the proposal and it should be passed. 4. Jeffrey Shoaf acknowledged the staff and P &Z; the way that staff has presented this the community benefits from it. Jeffrey said that this is a plus and putting some legal controls in place. 5. Jason Lasser said that he asked how much it costs for the application fee and he had concerns about how much the City was going to make from this versus how much staff time it will take. How much the costs are. Michael Wampler left at 6:05 pm. Sara introduced a letter from Steve Fallender to the commission and for the record and he is not in favor of the code amendment and feels that where he lives in R -6 should remain long term rentals. Sara said in response to Lisa's question about a cap on the number of rentals per year, no there is not a cap in the proposed language. Sara said that currently there is if you are not in a lodge zone district and you are allowed to rent twice a year for a time period of less than 6 months. Sara said that Mr. Newall was referring to the administrative hearing officer and it is already written into the code so it would not be a new process it would just follow the appeal process in the code. Sara said that they will address costs with City Council if there is a fee what that fee is and if a staff person needed to be added to implement this program. Sara stated P &Z is charged with making a recommendation the actual language of the land use amendments, whether short term rentals are appropriate and where should they happen and should there be a cap. 9 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 LJ said that he and Jeff Shoaf are friends and have done a real estate deal together. Bert said on page 3 the first question seems like they are already happening; keep question 2 b and delete the rest of them in 2; the next one about the process can work but the zones again are going to be a big concern for him and number 4 the trash and parking are redundant. Cliff said that people do need to be educated about bears and the rocky mountain lifestyle. Cliff said the 4 questions and number 1 vacation rentals were already here; number 2 he didn't see any zone as being off limits to short term rental; property management companies should be allowed. Cliff said that it shouldn't be taxed but a simple permit process so the City is aware that someone is renting out short term mainly for the purpose of giving them a piece of paper that is an education sheet that you need to pass on to each of your tenants. Cliff said he didn't want this to become an intrusive government fearing process; there is a place for education and a flat fee but he didn't like the tax. Jasmine stated the correct purview of P &Z is the land use implications and one of the things that disturbed her was that every single residence in every zone district can have unlimited short term rentals. Jasmine said that zoning districts were zoning districts for a reason; they didn't want to discourage tourist usage but we want to focus on where are tourist accommodations more appropriate. Jasmine said that she believed if you put lodging districts and commercial use districts which are fairly intense in use, those are the places short term rentals are appropriate and they are already now. The current code gives homeowner's some flexibility now and she didn't want to see all of the residential neighborhoods become business districts. Jasmine said that the retail end is opening the door to things that we may not understand the consequences of; her concern was that they haven't thought through what possible negative impacts could come from such a sweeping land use change. Jasmine said if they have to do this it has to be very specific and very limited in order to address a problem that she didn't think was all that big to begin with. LJ stated that he liked what his colleagues have said so far and vacation club is what you are talking about; you can't prevent vacation clubs from buying residential property. LJ said they don't want short term rentals in the residential neighborhoods. LJ said vacation rentals are 30 days or less; the IRS says they have a code that a person can rent out their residence for 2 weeks without a tax implication. LJ said that long term rentals should not be licensed; maybe it should 10 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 be over 30 days should not be licensed or taxed. LJ said there should not be rental signs in front of your house. Jim DeFrancia asked if there was a problem that precipitated this; these rentals have been going on for 60 years; why do we need to have vacation rentals now. Sara replied that staff has met with Council in a few work sessions and it is an issue that has been coming up at past meetings of the Colorado Ski Towns Association. Sara said the main issue has to do with what the land use code says and what is actually happening; we need to decide are we going to amend the code, enforce what is occurring right now that is not complying, that aren't paying taxes that are renting longer than the cap that is currently in the code. Jim DeFrancia said if there were specific issues with which we are concerned that the nature of the ordinance to be adopted would be those; not to just adopt a big broad new rental policy licensing program. Jim said that we have found out that there has been prevalent violation then we adopt something that addresses how to control those prevalent violations and restrict it to that. Sara replied right and she looked at VRBO on the WEB searching Aspen Luxury Rentals; there were about 300 properties within VRBO in Aspen and half of those were not allowed to do vacation rentals because of the zoning and the cap. Sara said there is a problem even though we haven't received a lot of complaints over the years but we have a conflict with what is going on and what is in the code so they are trying to resolve that. Chris said the Finance Department wants to issue business licenses and collect taxes on the operations that are happening. Community Development signs off on business licenses to make sure that the business is conforming with that zone district so if we can't sign off on a business license but the tax code says if they are operating this way then we have to collect taxes. Chris said one of the options they presented to Council was to replicate as closely as possible that current situation which is a revocable permit. Chris said if you are short term renting in a neighborhood that doesn't allow it; the reason Community Development finds out about it is that they are operating in some disrespectable way and upset their neighbors. Cliff asked aren't you asking for both a business license and a vacation rental permit and why both. Chris replied yes because they want to have something in the land use code that revocable; there may be something in the business license that might cause something to be revocable but in the context of land use we want to have a zoning permit that could be revoked on zoning reasons. Cliff said if the permit were revocable there is your enforcement tool; this is getting too bureaucratic for anybody that wants to rent during Christmas. Cliff said he doesn't understand why a business license in addition to the permit; why can't this be a fee simple permit that puts them on record that makes them legal; why isn't that enough. Chris answered the reason he 11 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 understands that business license needs to be issued is because they are functioning as a business so they need to have a qualified business license that permits the tax collecting. Jim DeFrancia asked for clarification that Sara checked the VRBO and about half of the properties were not permitted to be rented. Sara said right, they were in the zone districts that were outside of lodging. Jim asked if this will correct that. Sara replied yes. Stan asked if you rent long term say eight months do I have to pay sales tax on that property income. Sara said it was only short term that is subject to the tax. MOTION: Bert Myrin move to approve Resolution #14 series of 2011; Jim DeFrancia seconded. Discussion prior to the vote: Bert said the first amendment would be on page 3 was about what zones would be appropriate. Stan asked if we add to #2 b the CC, C 1 and MU; what are we talking; are there a lot of homes in those districts that are being rented out, do you know. Sara answered that there were so many different rental websites for Aspen and she created a map that shows where they are concentrated; she passed around a map Exhibit 2 from VRBO. Sara said downtown there were between 10 and 29 rentals; in the use corridor along Main Street and one block off Main Street there were 0 and 9 rentals. Stan asked if you added all the lodge district rentals together what would you come up with. Sara replied that it was really hard to honestly give you specific numbers and if you are in the lodge district you probably have property management companies. Sara noted there were rentals in every zone district. Stan said it doesn't make sense to change code to solve a problem that doesn't exist; there weren't many VRBO rentals that were non compliant in the Mixed Use District; were we just worrying about residential. Sara said in recognizing the current situation we have to look to the future to see if it is appropriate for zone districts that may only have 1 or 2 rentals in them right now; how would you differentiate between a mixed use and a commercial core zone district or a C 1 zone district when they are all together with similar uses. Cliff said that when we look at it zone by zone we are cutting off not only for rent by owners but as you start making zone changes inventory for property rental and companies. Cliff said we are a resort and the last thing we want to do is start stymieing the resort, start to choke inventory that is available, the neighborhoods are somewhat compromised by second homes; he didn't think the way to approach this was zone by zone but the use; in other words I think what I am taking from Steve Fallendar's comments and Jasmine's comments is some rental is appropriate and other types may not be appropriate. Cliff said he was reluctant to look at this R -15, Cl, R -6, Commercial Core, CC, he doesn't want to 12 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 make this an onerous bit of code for rent by owners or want it to suddenly more onerous for property management firms; that's what it sounds like to him right now. Bert said at the moment it is not very onerous; you can rent, do your Christmas rental, do your summer rental, less than 30 days in addition to that you can do a 6 month rental so 3 rentals under the current code. Bert said what you can't do is more than 2 short term rentals; we don't need this in every zone and for him it would be the lodging zone and if it works there it could be expanded. Bert said to change the entire community from being the purpose of their zone to be long term residential to be short term residential or nightly stays changes the entire community, the feel of everything. Bert said it is a whole different market than once or twice a year for less than 30 days and once for 6 months. Cliff said he was paraphrasing Bert that he is suggesting various rental uses or allowable uses for different zones but there would be some use or some cap some appropriate or inappropriate use for zones. Bert replied correct, so he is suggesting what we have in place today works in every zone except for the high intensive uses, the lodge and he thought there could be an element that works for commercial core as well but as it is you can rent on Cemetery Lane, the West End in all these neighborhoods twice a year for less than 30 days without a permit without any of that but you are supposed to still pay your lodging tax and this is where Jim's question came in because some people aren't paying their lodging tax and the city can't say we need to get your lodging tax from you by the way you are doing something that is illegal. Bert said that is where the City is struggling how do we regulate something so everybody is to pay the same rate and you would allow that; what we don't know is how much of a problem that we are trying to solve. Cliff said that we are not quite there yet with a proposal that is zone by zone or otherwise and how is there going to be enforcement and he agreed with Jasmine and the concern for unintended consequences; he is not sure the system that we have is broken and concerned about trying to vote on something that is not quite ready for a vote. Bert asked what the down side of trying this in the lodging district or a little beyond that. Stan said that we were not modifying the lodging districts are we. Chris said if you, Bert, can propose what you are suggesting and see if that has merit in terms of amending the motion that is on the table and move forward towards a decision. Bert would move to strike all zones except the Lodging Zone on page 3. Stan said that was a vote for don't change anything. Bert asked if it enabled the process for licensing or permitting that does not take place now. Chris said that it would be a redundant kind of process. Jim DeFrancia said it wouldn't correct the situation that you addressed for half of the rentals. Sara said the she assumed that you would be doing enforcement they already know about this problem is the cap on 13 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 the residential zones did not change. Stan asked for a motion to extend the meeting. Jim DeFrancia said he had to leave before 7:30. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to extend the meeting to 7:15 pm, Jasmine Tygre seconded, all in favor. Bert said b under 2 is no change from what we have now but allows you to implement the practice of the ordinance and see how it works; he would support that tonight and Council. Stan said that we are not changing anything. Jim True said that Bert wants to strike from the resolution numbers 3 through 16. Stan said we are not changing the current cap in the residential zones. Chris said there would be no change from the residential program to this program and would apply to the 4 lodge zones (L, CL, LP, LO). Stan said when Chris said program you mean the uses defined in the code. Chris replied right the short term rental permit program. Stan said we still can look at 3 and 4. Jim True said you are talking about preserving the present existing ability for a property to rent twice. Bert and Jasmine said yes. Jim True said they would have to change the current rental definition or redefine this. Chris said it was inerrant in the motion that there would be no change to the current program so we would make that change into the resolution going back to the current language. Jim True said we should change the definition of long term rental and either say as it applies to this program long term rentals exist otherwise long term rentals. Sara said that they would figure it out. Stan said Bert you made an amendment and Jim seconded. Stan asked if you support 3 a vacation rental revocable permit process. Bert said if someone has a permit and it is revoked then they are basically back where they are today without a permit and they go ahead and rent. Bert asked if they can rent twice a year for 30 days or less but they violate something and their permit is revoked. Jim True replied they can still be cited in court but they are not paying taxes. Bert said that wouldn't change. Stan said one of the issues is compliance in all zones so he would like to see that applied to all of the zones in the city; basically 2 goes away and we are talking about how do we enforce the current code and is there a process that we can put in place to help make that, do we need to provide tools to the city to do that. Stan said also to provide better relationships with neighbors and the leveling of the playing field. Stan said he wants to find a way for people to pay attention and that was valuable in the proposal and it wouldn't just be applied to the lodge districts it would be all of the zones; it would be a way of making sure that people were making money off the resort are contributing to the resort and doing it in an equal way with the other people doing business. Chris said that would be the administrative review rental permit and 14 Special City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — August 23, 2011 applies to all zones but it would an unlimited number of rentals within the lodge zone and a limited number of rentals (two) in the residential zones but everyone has the same permit that they apply for. Stan said that was his thinking. Bert said that 3a was included in the motion and Jim seconded that. Jim True said to simplify undo your motion to take out sections 3 through 16, put it all back in and have one sentence that says if you are these zone district you have 2 short term rentals. Chris said that Stan was looking for a revocable permit to address the issues of fairness and equity. Bert amended again to retain all the zones and before the short term it is limited to as it is currently to 2 per year less than 6 months; number 3a is kept. Jim accepted that amendment. Bert suggested that we keep all of 4 into the motion. Jim agreed. Stan said he was in favor of that. Bert wanted another amendment to Capitalize Vacation Rental throughout and include the word Short Term. Bert said on page 8 he would strike section b. Stan said that was with respect to the lodging zone district; it was written just to apply to the zones. MOTION: Jasmine Tygre moved to continue the public hearing on Vacation Rentals to September 6 seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor. MOTION: LJErspamer moved to continue the Impact Fees public hearing to Thursday, August 25 seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:20 pm. J ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 15