Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
minutes.apz.19951107
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska, and Steve Buettow. Excused was Robert Blaich. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Hunt informed the Commission, as an appointed member of the Entrance to Aspen Task Force, the first meeting was November 11, 1995, concerning the entrance to Aspen and what the City is going to put before CDOT; the Alternative H proposition. Hunt said if the Commission had comments concerning Alternative H to let him know. Hunt stated even though he thought Alternative H was not the best possibility, it is the one that is going to be proposed officially by the City. Hunt stated hopefully there would be some revisions of the proposition and said one of his major problems was taking the rail alignment out with the outbound traffic lanes; two sharp curves where one has to slow down, increase noise, made more sense to take the rail line out with the incoming rail line and go through the sweeping curves. Hunt stated the task force would have other problems in the future that would have to be worked out such as if cars are not staged outside the city limits, they will be staged with the present proposal at the Main and Aspen Street light. Garton asked what the goal of the task force was. Hunt responded the goal of the task force was to finalize the City's response to the EIS for the final EIS. Garton asked what the deadline was for the finalization of the City's response. Hunt replied the deadline to respond to CDOT was December 18, 1995 and Hunt thought the City would be submitting its proposal November 15, 1995. Hunt said City Council has absolute control regarding Alternative H, and however one likes or dislikes Alternative H, it seems for practical and political purposes to be the compromise the City will present. Buettow presented an update on the sidewalk on Hopkins and Cleveland from a meeting November 2, 1995. Buettow went to the meeting and presented the Planning & Zoning Commission's point of view and the Pedestrian and Bikeway Committee voted unanimously to leave the sidewalk as it is and recommended landscaping enhancements by the owner. STAFF COMMENTS PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Leslie Lamont presented Garton with a resolution for chair signature regarding minor amendments from Ordinance 30. Lamont reminded Buettow and Chaikovska there was a Design Review Appeal Committee meeting Thursday, November 9, 1995, at 4:00 p.m. Lamont stated the location of the meeting would probably be on the third floor of City Hall, Community Development Department, due to the construction of City Hall. Lamont said on November 15, 1995, at 5:00 p.m., there would be a public presentation on OTAK scheduled in the City Hall Council Chambers if the chambers are available. She stated OTAK was an engineering firm that had been hired from Portland, Oregon to review Proposal H. Lamont commented on the Asset Management Plan the City Engineering Department is working on with the Waterplace Affordable Housing Project. She stated the Engineering Department would like to schedule a joint meeting with the City Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council to present three alternatives and narrow down the field before bringing forth a conceptual application. Lamont recommended sometime in December on the City Council schedule, but the time was left open. Lamont stated she was scheduling a joint Growth Hanagement Commission meeting on December 5, 1995. Lamont said anything that comes out of a cap or pool for affordable or free market units or for growth management now needs to be approved by the Growth Management Commission which is the City Planning & Zoning Commission and the County Planning & Zoning Commission. Lamont said the County P&Z meets the same evenings as the City P&Z, so she was trying to have the joint aspect of the meetings first and then go into regular sessions. The time of the meetings was determined to remain at 4:30 p.m. PUBLIC COP~ENTS Terry Paulson, City Council member, gave a presentation concerning blasting by CDOT on Independence Pass. Paulson presented some photographs of the blasting effects on stone walls of the Pass and commented, Independence Pass, as part of the east entrance to Aspen, had a charm and character to the past dating back to the 1950's. Paulson stated CDOT had destroyed 6 percent of the wall that overlooks the Grottos and 25-30 percent of the wall that 2 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 overlooks Lincoln Creek. Paulson said when he spoke with CDOT 2-3 weeks ago he was assured it was going to be a minimum project, with a cost of $500,000 to $600,000. Paulson said he questioned the "minimum" estimates and the blasting being done on the Pass. Paulson stated he was requesting from Planning & Zoning members and members of the public to call the forest service and CDOT to express concern regarding the blasting. He said the project was three forths done, but he felt there was something that could be done as far as reconstruction of the wall. Paulson stated it was a safety issue with CDOT that started the project; he questioned whether blasting needed to be done at all. The issue of higher speeds was addressed; if CDOT blasted and widened the road allowing speeds to go higher, therefore a stronger barrier was required. Paulson said he understood the rationale but he felt the speeds should be kept down. Paulson said the person that does the historic signoff, like Amy Amidon of the City, said CDOT did not get signoff for the project. He said CDOT tried to bypass Amidon by treating the blasting as a maintenance project, but there were still some things they needed to signoff on, especially when destroying the wall in their process. Garton suggested faxing a resolution from the Commission to CDOT. Paulson stated the Council and the Commissioners have put resolutions out asking CDOT to allow public input into the issue before proceeding. City Council asked CDOT to stop blasting entirely until there was a chance to look at the site and Paulson said the County Commissioners did not feel comfortable with that but wanted some input regarding restoration of the walls. Buettow stated he felt the City Planning & Zoning Commission should definitely put forth a resolution requesting to stop blasting and stop the project. Lamont stated she and Amy Amidon would work on the resolution stating the importance of the east entrance to Aspen and reflect the historical importance of the walls, and scenic character. Paulson stated in the 1970's the site was considered a scenic highway. Hunt stated he did not mind sending out such a resolution but said the Commission was not an authority and the resolution should be in the form of an opinion; a request, but not an order to stop any further action. Hunt felt the issue should come under the purview of the County P&Z if it had not already. Paulson stated he had 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 made a presentation previously to the County P&Z and the County P&Z was going to draft a resolution to CD©?. Lamont asked what the Conuuission's reconuuendation would be in the resolution. Lamont suggested stating to stop blasting until further public input, referencing historic restoration of the wall, and requiring proper signoff. Garton stated as a Planning Conuuissioner, she was distressed the planning procedure was not followed. Paulson mentioned the governor's Smart Growth Plan and said the governor is trying to get locals to cooperate with State officials. Paulson said CD©? was one of the groups that was not cooperating and this project was evidence of this. A1 Bloomquist, public, stated per the statutes the Conuuission had a responsibility to submit a resolution to CD©?. MOTION ?ygre moved to have staff draft a resolution incorporating the discussion we have had for forwarding to CD©?; Buettow seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. MINUTES MOTION Tygre moved to approve the minutes of October 17, 1995; Chaikovska seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. WYCKOFF CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT Mary Lackner represented staff. Garton requested the Proof of Notice. Glenn Rappaport, representing the applicant, responded he did not have the Proof of Notice but would submit it at a later date. Lackner stated submission of the affidavit at a later date was acceptable. Lackner stated the application was a request for a voluntary ADU to be located on top of a detached garage in the west end. The applicant received approvals through the Historic Preservation Conuuission for a historic residence, however, the garage on which 4 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 the ADU is located is not part of the historic plan. The unit is proposed as a 300 square foot unit which is the minimum unit size permitted. Lackner said there was some staff concern with the configuration because the bathroom is located on the first level of the garage and would be available to anyone using the garage, thus, it would not be private. Staff has asked that the project be redesigned as part of the conditions so that the bathroom would only be accessible to people using the unit. Lackner stated there is only one parking space shown on the site plan. Staff has concerns as the minimum number of parking spaces permitted is two and recommends a third space be provided for use by the ADU. Lackner concluded the above were the two concerns of staff and both were conditions of approval. Staff recommended approval of the proposal. Glenn Rappaport represented the applicant stating the proposal came before the Commission previously and had a site plan that showed three parking spaces in addition to the garage, located between the relocated shed and the ADU. Rappaport passed out copies of the site plan for the Commission to view and said he had no problem with the parking condition. Rappaport stated the minimal size of the dwelling unit did comply with the minimum size requirement. He said because it was desired to leave as much room as possible in the dwelling unit and it was problematic as far as storage space, the unit was designed with the bathroom downstairs to offer the owner the most flexibility. Rappaport said the bathroom was able to be locked off from the garage and was for use by the ADU only, but he said he could look at ways to revise the plans. Tygre asked Rappaport, if building a new garage, could it be made larger to make the ADU larger as well. Rappaport replied he could do a lot of things, but they were working on a budget and the size of the shed, and where it is, respects the 5 foot setback discussed previously. He realized it was a tight plan. Chaikovska referred to the staff recommendation stating, "the unit must be redesigned to provide the total privacy for access to the unit and the bathroom". She asked if there were any code requirements stating the applicant had to provide total privacy for 5 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 access to the unit or was it something that staff preferred to see. Lackner responded it is what the Housing Authority accepts as a unit and privacy. Staff has seen and the Housing Authority has expressed, if one allows just anyone on the first floor of a building to use the restroom built for use for the studio upstairs it is no longer private; someone else is using part of the unit. Lackner stated that is why staff required that it be redesigned so that people using the garage are not using the restroom facilities; it is not private. Garton stated the application would not be approved by the Housing Office. Rappaport asked if there was language that could be included in the lease with the Housing Office that the door of the garage would be locked or the door eliminated so there is no access to the restroom. He said it would be a much easier solution for the applicant. Lackner stated if the door between the garage and the unit could be eliminated, that would solve the problem. Chaikovska stated she had no problem with the bathroom being on the first level if the door was eliminated or locked. She felt if the project was redesigned with the bathroom upstairs it would make the unit unliveable due to the small size. Buettow referenced the floor plans and suggested next to the kitchen there were two four foot by 12 foot spaces that could be enlarged as an addition to the ADU. Buettow said the kitchen could be moved over and the bathroom placed on the upper level to make a nicer living space that perhaps would meet the approval of the Housing Office. Rappaport responded that at a previous HPC meeting, the reason the spaces were there was to reduce the overall mass and protect the viewplane of the neighbor to the west. Garton asked about the other side of the plan and did the plan require both cutouts. Rappaport said it was more easily resolved in the plan presented. Garton asked if the entire garage was heated, and what was being done to keep the bathroom pipes from freezing on the first floor. Rappaport replied he did not know; it was a building issue that he had not been involved in. Garton stated she agreed with the Housing Office. Garton said the Commission could ask for cash-in-lieu if it felt it was a marginal unit. Lamont responded it was a voluntary unit. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Chaikovska referred to staff's memorandum; engineering has recommended that the vegetation in the front yard be trimmed to provide for a pedestrian walking area along the public right of way; and section 7-f says a pedestrian walking area shall be provided along Hallam Street prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. The City Engineer shall review and approve the proposed design and location of the pedestrian walking area, prior to issuance of any building permits. Chaikovska stated she was very opposed to a sidewalk or walking area in the middle of the block. She said if there was to be sidewalks in the west end there should be sidewalks according to a plan. Lackner responded the Pedestrian Bikeway/Walkway Plan called for a pedestrian walkway, it did not call for a sidewalk. Lackner clarified a walkway is where there are no obstacles to a pedestrian walkway. Hunt stated he was a little relieved with the definition clarification of pedestrian walkway, but in the execution of such at 620 W. Hallam, and which he has informed the Parks Department about, two trees have been removed within 18 inches of the curb leaving only three other trees. It was all designed to interfere with a walking area Hunt said he had problems with the lack of a formal plan for each block and how the walking areas would be linked. With the proposed plan Hunt stated probably 10 small aspen trees would be eliminated. Hunt said his point was when requiring walkways it should be planned on a block by block basis. Garton stated staff and the City are concerned that public right of way is becoming part of lawn area. Hunt said he agreed with the concern of staff and the City but there was inconsistency, siting as an example 620 W. Hallam. Stan Clauson, Director, Community Development, thanked Hunt for the information on 620 W. Hallam as he was unaware of the situation. Clauson stated since the City engineers activities were under Community Development he has tried to regularize policies with respect to sidewalks and walking areas which are not sidewalks. The walking areas are provided for the opportunity for children to walk along a pathway. Wherever there is jurisdiction he has tried to make clear within the walkways, any growing of dense vegetation, the placement of objects in the public right of way which would prevent anyone from walking the walkways would not be permitted. It is a policy staff is trying to provide with more consistency. Clauson stated he agreed with Hunt that walkways should be planned on a block by block basis. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Chaikovska questioned when anyone does any developmental property, does the City have jurisdiction over the entire property to do a pedestrian walkway, even though it is just an ADU that is being approved? Clauson answered it was a condition of approval. Garton asked if some of the conditions were a part of HPC approvals. Lackner stated the conditions were separate from HPC approvals. Garton asked Rappaport if he had any problems with any of the conditions. Rappaport answered no, but was interested in the discussion regarding the pedestrian walkway and stated if the application was approved, part of the approval was having a discussion with the Parks Department on what was involved to meet the condition. Hunt asked what direction the Commission wanted to go; did the Commission want a pedestrian pathway through the overgrown area as it would require the removal of some trees; did the Commission want the walkway near the curb on the east end of the property where most of the aspen trees are located? Garton stated because of the way George Robinson of the Parks Department felt about trees she was willing to let the Parks Department work with the designer of the project. Chaikovska recommended that the Engineering Department work with the applicant also. Tygre stated the ADU was enabling a floor area bonus. She said if the ADU is above grade the applicant is entitled to an FAR bonus on the main structure of 150 feet. Tygre stated when she read the application she felt perhaps it was a way to get an extra 150 feet onto the main structure; why else would someone create such a marginal type ADU? She did not feel the configuration with a bathroom downstairs was good and felt the unit was so marginal that if it was a requirement type situation for a redevelopment she would prefer the house stay smaller and not have an ADU and have a cash-in-lieu situation. Tygre stated since the proposal was a voluntary ADU, the Commission did not have that same motivated factor. Tygre said she felt very distressed and the unit was made small because it obstructed the neighbor's view and perhaps meant the unit should not be there in the first place. Hunt commented because he is a neighbor, and even though the property is for sale, the plan was driven by family needs and the ADU was looked at as a room for a teenage son; Hunt had no problem with the unit from that point of view. PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Lamont stated the ADU Program was also an incentive program and it was put into the code to encourage people to build caretaker units and accessory dwelling units. She said the floor area bonus was put in the code so the units would be above grade. Garton reiterated the fact that the unit was voluntary and asked if it would be the residence of the applicant, Julie Wyckoff. Rappaport responded that was the plan for now and said the small scale was encouraged in the Aspen area and the unit was historically proportioned. Garton opened the public hearing. Fonda Paterson, Aspen resident, stated the site has always been one of her favorite alleys in Aspen because of the Fischer sisters' cultivation of the Hallam House. Paterson had concern for the hollyhocks which would be destroyed by car access and stated the hollyhocks were a historically significant plant in Aspen from the mining era. Hans Gramiger, public, stated he would not approve an application that today declares it is a liveable unit without the bathroom on the same floor as the living room. Gramiger said the vegetation could be removed to another location for the walkway. Rappaport asked for clarification of Condition 1. Hunt replied total privacy would be provided by elimination of the internal garage door to the unit. Chaikovska requested an insertion into the motion to clarify the pedestrian walkway did not mean sidewalk. MOTION Hunt moved to approve the conditional use of an accessory dwelling unit at 525 W. Hallam to be located within a detached garage residence, subject to Conditions 1-9 on Planning Office memorandum dated 7 November, 1995, with a modification of Condition 1. to add the language after bathroom, "by elimination of the internal garage access door to the unit" Hodification to Condition 7-f. by inserting the language after A pedestrian walking area "(not a PLANNING & ZONING COH~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 sidewalk)" and continue the first sentence. In the second sentence, after the words City Engineer add the language, "and Parks Department" and continue the sentence. Chaikovska seconded. Vote was 4 in favor, 2 opposed (Buettow and Tygre); motion carried. Discussion of Motion Buettow stated he would vote against the motion primarily because the unit was too small, there was specific housing disapproval of the unit because of the design, and he felt the design was poor. Hooney stated in strict speculation, he knew the applicant, and the only thing that made it a garage to him was the garage door. Hooney said he felt the garage door could be sheetrocked, carpeting could be put on the garage floor and the ADU would be balanced with a bedroom area downstairs next to the bathroom, and a living area and kitchen upstairs. Hooney felt the entire structure would be someone's unique ADU unit off the alley. Garton stated she was originally disturbed regarding the downstairs bathroom, but because it was a voluntary unit, and she was pleased to see more affordable housing, she would vote for the unit. SHADOW MOUNTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT PRE-ANNEXATION REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION PUD, REZONING, 8040 GREENLINE, GMQS EXEMPTION SPECIAL REVIEW, AND ORDINANCE 30 DESIGN STANDARDS Garton opened the public hearing. John Wheeler, with Charles Cunniffe Architects, represented the applicant. Garton asked for Proof of Notification and Wheeler responded he did not have the affidavit but would turn it in later to the Planning Office. Lackner represented staff and stated the applicant did not address the major issues; whether it was an acceptable site for an upzoning to A_~ and annexation into the City, redesign, size of units, location of the driveway, bedroom mix, and constrained environmental area. Lackner stated she did not get the substance in the application she wanted to see and did not want to see the Commission repeat some of the issues that were addressed in the previous meeting. She felt uncomfortable bringing the application forward with such lack of information and stated a zoning letter 10 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 had been sent out with 12 issues that have not been addressed. Lackner stated staff recommended that the application not be continued to another hearing, but that it be denied and rescheduled after obtaining acceptable information to carry it forward. Lackner stated she had no further information other than what was presented in the packets and if the applicant had new information at this time, it was new to staff. She reiterated her disappointment at the information received for review at the present meeting. Wheeler stated the applicant understood the major threshold issues on the project and was prepared to present those issues. He stated it was understood staff did not get sufficient information, but was prepared to give the Commission the present information and go through what the revisions were. Wheeler said the applicant had addressed the major issues which were the neighborhood design and the massing of the building, and had a model to present. He stated story poles had been put up on the site. Wheeler requested a chance to present the application with threshold issues addressed first and stated the applicant was willing to return to address any other issues. Garton stated if story poles had been put up, it would require a site visit and the Commission had not had time to review any of the new material. She said it was impossible to expect any kind of closure on the pending issues. Wheeler stated he did not expect any closure on the issues, but hoped for a tabling to look at further issues and obtain more input from the Commission. Tygre stated she was disappointed and distressed by the application. She said she preferred to look at material in advance of a meeting and felt it unfair to the Commission and the public that the applicant would bring issues to a meeting and expect discussion without any degree of depth. Tygre said there were different issues of particular concern to the Commission members but that did not mean that the Commission did not look at the whole packet. She did not feel it was right, on a project of this size and with its potential impact, to expect the Commission to suddenly go through the issues. Tygre felt all the people from the public in attendance would not have the benefit of viewing the issues beforehand and it was not fair to expect the public to suddenly absorb all the material the applicant wanted to present and come up with comments that represented their best interest on an issue. Tygre said she spoke as a member of the Commission who, at the initial meeting, was much inclined to work with the developer for the project. Tygre stated she was very unhappy and did not want to 11 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 see the issues thrown on the Commission and the public at the last minute. Hunt stated if the applicant did have new information, he thought the Commission should table any action and get the information to Community Development and into the public realm. Hunt said he did not see any point in looking at much information at this meeting as the Commission did not have anything from the applicant to consider at this time. Wheeler stated the applicant had three new drawings which included an underground parking scenerio. He said he was reluctant to go before an adversarial board, but he felt the presentation was a good avenue to discuss the items and obtain comments from the Commission and come back with solutions that would allow the project to go forward. Chaikovska said she was inclined to look at the application conceptually because it had been publicly noticed and would perhaps benefit many members of the public that were present. She stated the applicant would be able to get public response to the changed conceptual plans. Chaikovska said she agreed with staff that the application be denied and the applicant return with revised plans with serious submission for staff to review and give input to the Commission. Chaikovska stated she was not in favor of tabling the application. Garton stated she agreed with Chaikovska to hear from the applicant and the public conceptually, but she felt the procedure was just a stalling by the applicant and recommended the applicant renotice and resubmit. Lackner requested, for the record, action to try to obtain from the applicant a current contract for purchase. She said the previous contract for purchase expired last July and the city attorney's office has requested a current contract before anything further happens on the application. Lackner stated there has been discussion there may not be a valid purchase contract. Garton asked if staff was saying that the Commission should not be looking at what Wheeler wanted to present until it is known there is a contract to purchase the land. Lackner replied John Worcester, city attorney, stated the Commission could go forward with the meeting but the Commission could not approve any action. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Hooney stated he wished to make a motion to deny the application as it had to be presented to staff and then presented to the Commission with the facts. He did not wish to listen to a one- sided conversation that would not add up to anything. Hooney stated as far as he was concerned the application could not even be considered. Hans Gramiger, member of the public, stated he had no proof that the applicant had supplied public notification. Gramiger stated he had not been notified, but had been called by a neighbor to attend this meeting. A1Bloomquist, member of the public, stated it was difficult to get information from the applicant and he had visited the site. Bloomquist stated the Commission really did not know what was before it as an application and endorsed no action by the Commission. (Public) stated she was not notified. Garton stated she had trouble opening public hearings when the Commission had no proof of notification and felt the Commission should refuse to hear an applicant if there was no proof of notification. Garton requested staff inform applicants hereforth that proof of notification was required before a meeting. David Hoefer, assistant city attorney, stated unless the applicant could provide actual evidence of notice the Commission had no jurisdiction. Hoefer said he had previously provided staff with his comments. Fonda Paterson, member of the public, reminded the Commission the previous meeting was not an official meeting for the same reason; there was no notification, but yet the developer wanted feedback and wanted to proceed. She stated it was hard to give one's best thoughts to something seen at the last minute and encouraged the proposed action. (Public), a representative of the Shadow Hountain Corporation and adjoining neighbor stated he was a part-time resident and found it difficult not to be able to comment because he had not seen any presentation. Wheeler stated the applicant did send a packet to staff that was distributed and the applicant felt everything was done that was 13 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 asked. Wheeler implored the Commission to give the applicant time for a presentation and felt it unfair to dismiss the application. Wheeler stated he was told by his client that it had been publicly noticed. Garton replied the first requirement in a public hearing is to present proof of notification to the Commission and to the clerk. (Public), member of the project, and in favor of the project requested the Commission give the applicant a chance to present. (Public), stated she had received notification and felt the applicant should be given a chance to be heard. Suzanna Reed, member of the public, and resident at the end of West Hopkins stated she had not received notification. Garton closed the public hearing. MOTION Hooney moved to deny the Shadow Hountain Affordable Housing Project Pre-Annexation Review for Subdivision, PUD, Rezoning, 8040 Greenline, GMQS Exemption, Special Review, and Ordinance 30 Design Standards; Tygre seconded. Vote was Garton, yes; Tygre, yes; Hunt, yes; Mooney, yes; Chaikovska, yes; Buettow, yes. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Discussion of Motion Hunt stated there appeared to be a defect in the public notice that did not come to light in the previous application. Hunt said he supported the motion, but he would still tend to prefer the tabling route in order for the applicant to get everything to Community Development and keep the project going. Garton asked if Hunt preferred tabling the application if the applicant presented public notification verification. Hunt replied affirmative if the applicant presented public notification verification. SS~ALL LODGE CODE A~4END~ENTS Garton continued the public hearing. Garton clarified for the public that proof of notification for this application was a public 14 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 notice in a newspaper of record and the hearing was continued from October 3, 1995. Amy Amidon and Leslie Lamont shared presentation by staff. Amidon stated there have been ongoing discussions between the City and the small lodge owners since late 1994 and the discussions have been printed in the newspaper and City Council has had several discussions. She said staff had tried to present to the Commission staff's understanding of the small lodge owners' concerns and Amidon stated it was mainly small lodge preservation; some possible code amendments were presented and some of the small lodge owners had come to speak to the Commission. Lamont stated rather than presenting specific text amendments and specific language, staff has presented some policy issues and recommended text amendments. She spoke on solutions proposed by the Small Lodge Association. Lamont said with the first solution, staff initially talked about $250,000 in low interest loans. The small lodge owners have indicated $250,000 is not very extensive for some of the work that needs to be done. Lamont said the process would be modeled similar to the Historic Preservation Program where people who are historically landmarked obtain a grant and can get a loan from City Council. Lamont stated City Council would like staff to do a very specific enventory of the small lodges to get a better idea of what the amount of the loans would be; if some people need a small monetary amount, others a larger amount, and the ability to increase. Lamont said staff had been discussing for a long time allowing kitchens in a lodge unit. Lamont said currently in the LP Zone District if there are pre-existing kitchens in a lodge it is a permitted use, but people are not allowed to propose kitchens in additions or existing rooms of the lodges. Staff is talking about enabling kitchens to be provided and that helps the small lodge owners with a more competitive edge against particularly the condominium market. Lamont stated when staff allows kitchens that allows condominiumization. She stated she personally had a concern about losing the use as a lodge versus more of a condominiumized situation; a true housing unit versus a lodge unit. Lamont said, adding on to that argument and suggestion is the ability to allow the small lodges to long-term their units. Lamont said her concern was when kitchens are added condominiumization is allowed and then long-term situations are 15 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 allowed; she felt staff needed some level of security to prevent lose of small lodges to defacto conversion. Lamont stated the solution may be as simple as coming up with a better definition of lodge, lodge room and small lodge. The definition in the Land Use Code only says it is a room that is short-term, the building has guest amenities without kitchens. Lamont said the definition was not broad enough and needed to be more defined. Lamont said the ability was discussed for some of the small lodges to incorporate other uses for the lodges other than residential. Some of the small lodges on Hain Street that are surrounded by the Office Zone District want a percentage of the lodge coverted to office. There are other uses that may be accessory or consistent with guest amenities and lodge uses but could also function as a separate business. Lamont stated originally the small lodge owners proposed allowing 50 percent of the lodge to be converted but staff was uncomfortable with 50 percent because the primary use should still be a lodge. Lamont stated another discussion with the small lodge owners was the fact that some of the lodges are in very poor shape, and regardless of what grant was obtained from the City, the actual physical conditions of the buildings do not support the use of the buildings as a lodges. Lamont stated some kind of attrition should be considered of those lodges. Lamont said currently anyone could petition to have their zoning changed, but it has been a policy of the City not to approve zoning changes for the small lodges because the City wanted to maintain the enventory. The small lodge owners made a strong argument that the enventory needs to be reduced, and there needs to be some attrition in the enventory to allow for buildings that no longer can be maintained. Lamont said staff wanted to point out it is available in the code and would require no amendments to the code. Lamont said what is required is discussion of the policy the City has had in the past of not approving the rezoning of LP. Lamont stated the final point in the memorandum was condominiumization; currently in the code lodges can condominimize. Lamont said in the past there was a lengthy code section that stated although a lodge could condominiumize there were many requirements to make sure the condominiumization kept the rooms in the short-term lodging pool. Recently when staff had to eliminate condominiumization from the code that section of the code was also eliminated. Staff is recommending if considering long-term 16 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 situations, some conversions or kitchens in rooms or combining of rooms, it is needed to go back to look at the condominiumization section and put back into the code some level of review to insure that the condominimization does not cause the lose of short-term bed banks. Lamont concluded stating transfer of development rights had been discussed which would allow some of the lodges to completely close. If staff allowed small lodge owners to transfer their use or their number of rooms to an existing lodge in order to support and enhance that existing lodge and there was quarantee the existing lodge would remain, the other lodge would be allowed to be demolished and converted to residential multi-family or something similar. Staff has been discussing other growth management exemptions that could be given the small lodge community. Lamont stated there would be some lose of lodges from the enventory but the idea would be that the lodges in poor shape would not remain and the stronger lodges would be able to add on and become stronger without going through the arduous growth management process. Garton asked what staff needed from the Commission. Lamont responded staff was looking for direction from the Commission to enable staff to go forward and pursue code amendments. Gideon Kaufman, representing the small lodge owners, stated he would like to proceed by giving some background on the small lodges and there were small lodge owners present who wished to comment. Kaufman said the thing to keep in mind was the community made a decision in the 1970's to down zone the small lodges to make them non-conforming, to hopefully abate them and make them go away. They were not allowed to make improvements because the thought process in the 1970's was the appropriate place for lodges was the basic amount and the emphasis was on residential areas. This created a hardship for the lodges as they were not allowed to even make roof repairs and the lodges began to deteriorate. The small lodges formed together and came to the City and contemplated eliminating the non-conforming status to try and find a way to help small lodges. In the early 1980's the LP was designated; lodge preservation, which was a major step in allowing the lodges to upgrade and helped them expand. Kaufman stated what is realized now in the 1990's, is good intensions sometimes have unintended consequences. Kaufman said the lodges were locked into one use only because the only use allowed in the LP Zone was a lodge and people had no flexibility or viability of operating their property except as a small lodge. Kaufman said there is nothing like it in 17 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 zoning in Aspen; if zoned commercial there are options, if zoned office there are options, only in the LP were people locked in. Kaufman stated many of the lodge buildings are past their useful life, they are 30, 40, and 50 years old. The buildings are in need of major renovations and repairs and cannot be justified today. Kaufman stated there is now a strong lodge base which is in direct competition with the small lodge owners and a lot of the business has changed the small lodges and the off-seasons have come down. Kaufman said there are one or two lodges that find it more economical to operate three months out of the year and stay shut down for nine months than to operate year round. Kaufman stated the small lodge situation is a major problem and the small lodge owners have come together to find ways to try to come up with suggestions and ideas that might help the situation. This is not a situation where in the last year or two there is suddenly a demographic change; Kaufman said he was talking about major shifts that have occurred over the last 10 years that are continuing to be exacerbated. The small lodge owners have come up with a list with the help of staff and Kaufman said he wished to go through the list to give the lodge owners' perspective. Kaufman said the dilemma that the small lodge owners ran into regarding low interest loans was the magnitude of the amount of money that was needed to spend on some of the lodges. Kaufman said the amounts required far exceeded $250,000 and $500,000 which was thought to be helpful. The small lodge owners no longer feel the low interest loans are a real mechanism in terms of preserving the lodges. Kaufman stated a low interest loan might be helpful to somebody who is trying to fix a roof, but it is really not a mechanism which would enable the lodge owners to stay in business and be competitive. Kaufman said the second issue was kitchens and what the lodge owners were looking for in kitchens was to have some flexibility and edge. Kaufman mentioned the concern of staff regarding condominiumization and said one has to look at the lodges; we are talking about buildings that are 30, 40, 50 years old, that are 300-350 square feet, we are talking about small lodge rooms. Kaufman stated some of the lodges cannot put kitchens in because the rooms are too small; in addition, some of the units are so old the whole system would have to be upgraded to accommodate a kitchen. It is not a question of just putting in a kitchenette, it is upgrading the whole septic and sewer system and plumbing. 18 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Kaufman said it is an issue of additional flexibility and he did not feel it was appropriate to further restrict the numbers. Kaufman said another issue was long-term rentals to establish consistent cash-flow. Kaufman stated for the lodges to rent under the affordable housing guidelines did not give the lodge owners the flexibility they need. Kaufman continued stating the accessory uses/partical uses is something that the lodge owners came up with hoping for opportunities, but as they looked at many of the older units and the fact that many of them are in one building, it is not practical, unless one has two buildings, to take part of a building and convert to a commercial or office use and at the same time try to maintain a lodge. Kaufman stated the real issues that came up in terms of discussion were conversion of use and the transferable density rights. Kaufman said there needs to be a mechanism in which some of the older lodges that cannot justify the expenses necessary today, need the ability to go out of business in a logical system. Kaufman said it would strengthen the remaining lodges and pointed out that the Lodge Owners' Association did not propose that most people want to go out of business; many of the people want to stay, but many people are facing the realities after being 20,30 and 40 years in business, it is time for the next generation to come on. Kaufman said the lodge owners came up with a conversion with some kind of exemption and the transfer of density rights; a concept if one lodge decides it is willing to stay in business and another lodge wants to go out of business, it is required of the one lodge a commitment that they will stay a small lodge. Kaufman stated if the lodge acquired half a million or three quarters of a million dollars it would enable the lodge owner to repair the lodge, stay there, and have another lodge go to a commercial, residential, or whatever appropriate use. Kaufman said the community would get the guarantee of some of the lodges remaining. Kaufman concluded these were some of the ideas that the lodge owners came up with but felt the Commission had to understand status quo could not remain; the lodges were not going to stay and what was intended to help people has hindered them even more. Kaufman stated the community was at a point where some changes needed to be made and there was a good nucleus of lodge owners present to answer any questions. Kaufman stated there are very few lodges that have the ability to expand or add rooms, but if someone 19 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 was to come in such as L'Auberge, and had the square footage and availability, maybe the new lodge rooms could be added exempt from the growth management plan in exchange for a deed restriction that it remains a lodge for 20 to 30 years. A1 Bloomquist stated he was not a part of the Lodge Owners' Association but was a part of the group that obtained the LP zoning. When the list was published with the LP zone, and being an owner of a small lodge, he realized he was non-conforming on the RMF, but only as to the building configuration and the density, not as to use. Bloomquist said he looked at the LP Zone and it made all the units in his lodge non-conforming because all of the units had kitchens so he removed himself from the LP list. Bloomquist recommended that the first thing to be done is change the definition to allow kitchens in any lodge units in the LP Zone because it did not make a difference about a lodging fact. Bloomquist said lodge owners are not in the hotel business; lodge owners are in the vacation housing business which is different from the hotel business. Bloomquist stated the definition of lodge unit in the ordinance came from hotel unit definitions in zoning ordinances around the United States in error. Bloomquist suggested keeping the LP Zone but allow all the uses in a specific, adjacent zone; that way, the owner of a lodge preservation project would be free to have an alternative use. Radeen Downey, local broker, stated she had been involved in the sale of four local lodges in the last couple of years. She wanted the Commission to know the difficulties that come up for the small lodge owners. Some of the owners of the lodges would like to retire and new people coming into the community that would be willing to operate lodges cannot deal with the owners' restrictions. Downey said she would like to see more of the exemption from growth management addressed and by putting in the kitchens the small lodges could compete with the different types of lodgings that area available in the community. Downey stated the size of small lodge units were not created for condominiumization. Downey stated by looking at low interest loans it must be understood to expand some of the lodges or do some of the repairs, which is what one would like to accomplish, the cost of money and financing puts a cap on the economic feasibility. If one looks at removing the constriction and offering some bottom financing to make it more economical it would be opening up some of the free market availability to help solve the problem. 20 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Hans Curtis, small lodge owner, stated if the solutions could be progressed with, it would be a benefit to the rest of the industry. Curtis said it had been proven time and time again that one cannot rebuild a small lodge, so there has to be some mechanism to allow for a natural attrition to continue; it has happened before and it has to be allowed to happen again. Hooney stated the Commission had listened to all comments over and over again and the small lodge owners were preaching to the coverted; the Commission was on their side. Hooney said he thought there was a radical need for something to happen and did not know why the Commission was not capable of taking each issue, lodge by lodge, and letting each lodge owner decide what the best use was for each location to compliment the surrounding zoning. Garton stated her understanding from what Kaufman and the lodge owners have said was that it is too onerous and expensive for each lodge to do. Lodge owners need to have options available so they can come in just as we do conditional uses in a zoning district and know there are available conditional uses, options that would be available to each lodge in the LP District. Hooney said the options were available now and the small lodge owners should think of what they need. Garton asked what Hooney meant when he said these options were available to them. Hooney responded if the lodge owners knew it would work in their neighborhood location and they wanted to change their lodge to something else, they knew what they needed, lodge by lodge. Tygre commented the lodges are not all in the same location and the community plan mandate for the Commission is very site specific; what is appropriate for one lodge in a particular financial circumstance and in a particular neighborhood is not necessarily appropriate for another situation. Tygre said she did not think that a blanket approach was right. Garton stated because of the creation of the LP District there was reluctance to do anything but preserve the historic lodge. Garton said the way it is specified in the zoning a lodge can only be a lodge and it has to be written into the LP District the added solutions that are possible. Hooney stated he thought the solutions could be written in lodge by lodge. 21 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Chaikovska stated the reason the lodge owners were present and the reason for reviewing the issues was because the owners had all come together and each one had the same problems. Instead of the owners coming one by one all owners needed some of the solutions or they would not survive. Chaikovska stated the small lodge owners had gone past the point of being able to come one by one and said she viewed the issues as generic problems that all the lodges have and that is why the owners have formed an association. Chaikovska said to force them to come one by one would destroy the lodges. Tygre responded she felt there would be a different response from the people who are the neighbors of the lodges. Tygre felt the neighbors had a right to be heard as well. Tygre stated the issues would have an affect on surrounding properties and said she was sympathetic to the problems of the small lodges. She said she agreed the lodges did not have to stay small lodges and a certain amount of attrition was appropriate. Tygre said she did not want to get carried away and make blanket proposals without taking into consideration other factors in specific geographic locations. Tygre stated she felt the Commission had to be very careful. Lamont stated she did not feel staff had ever presumed when putting out the menu that everyone could pick and choose whatever solution they wanted. Lamont stated what staff was looking at first was creating more flexibility within the code. Garton stated it was her understanding with the discussion that some of the options could be automatic in the code but others would definitely be a conditional use. Hans Gramiger stated the lodges were being very diplomatic and were not explaining the real issue. Gramiger stated the real problem was, when he spoke with the city attorney years ago, that someone on Hain Street may have a vacant lot and someone next door may have a historic building that can be designated historic; why is it the historic building gets more rights than the empty lots? Gramiger stated let us apply this to the situation before us; a historically designated building has more rights under the zone than the lodge preservation property. Gramiger stated if the situation had to go to court it would not stand up due to equal protection of the law. The fairness issue or the issue one uses in an ordinance that hasn't been tested at the high court level could possibly be declared unconstitutional Gramiger said. 22 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Clauson stated we cannot know what a court of law would decide about our LP Zone; it is a zone that applies to certain properties universally in the City and was designated based on certain common characteristics of those properties. Clauson stated the real issue is that we want to do what the Aspen Area Community Plan tells us and that is to find ways to support the small lodges because the small lodges are important to the community. Clauson said he did not understand how staff could do anything for the small lodges apart from what the zoning district allows at the present time, so it seemed to him that some blanket modifications had to be made before certain things could be allowed. Clauson stated the Planning & Zoning Commission is simply not enabled under the present zoning to offer the small lodges much beyond what is being done at the present time. It is clear that some latitude would be useful and Clauson thought that latitude could come in the form of a conditional review process. Clauson said it comes down to the kinds of mitigation that is required and perhaps as we provide special incentives for historic buildings we need to rethink our mitigation requirements in some way for the small lodges. Clauson felt staff is ready to address the actual writing of some text and would like quidance from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Garton stated something she did not see from staff that she was hoping to see in the memorandum was some of the issues that were recommended that might be good as a use by right in the LP District and the others as conditional uses. Clauson replied there had been some internal debate on the subject, but in the end it was decided to get further quidance from the Planning & Zoning Commission. Chaikovska asked if there had been any staff discussion of having the LP designation be an underlying zone. Lamont answered that would be a way to talk about uses by right. Lamont stated the problem staff runs into is, for example, a lodge on Main Street; there are probably more uses that would be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than a lodge that is in the center of a residential neighborhood. What staff is saying is put it out and have people pick and have some kind of overlay that they can take advantage of. Garton stated Bloomquist had suggested kitchenettes by right and the other options would be by underlying zoning. Hooney asked what was thought if all of the options were restricted as conditional uses to somehow overlay; only a certain number of 23 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 the options could be used at a certain percentage. Hooney stated only 25 percent could be converted to commercial or 25 percent to long-term, and four different options are chosen because of the geographic location, size and surrounding neighborhood to advance the economic viability. Bloomquist stated he would have to tie it to site specific. Gramiger stated he did not think it was compatible to take a second story of a building and put downstairs other uses that are even long-term. Hooney stated it was not known what the unintended consequences are of having all the different options. Kaufman stated what was being discussed was dealing with the underlying zoning. If someone is wanting to convert a lodge he has to find someone who is willing to commit and who will keep his lodge, then one is entitled to deal with the underlying zoning permits. Kaufman said it was hard for him to believe that a neighbor would be upset if one is allowed to build on the underlying zoning; one is not exceeding the FAR, one is not exceeding the height, one is merely building what the zoning allows exempt from mitigation. Kaufman did not see that anyone would get anything outrageous because the zoning controls it all. Kaufman said the discussion was not talking about doubling density or about doubling height, discussion was just giving someone the right to do what everyone else on the same block has the right to do. Tygre stated what if Bloomquist decided he wanted to convert to a single-family home as the best particular use for his property and he wanted to transfer the rights for an uncertain amount of lodge rooms to someone else in order to do so, but he is already non- conforming in density. Kaufman answered that is not what he understood would happen. Bloomquist transfers his right to go out of the lodging business in exchange for someone commiting that their lodge would stay in the lodging business. Kaufman stated the point was there was going to be a loss of some rooms. Fonda Paterson, public, asked regarding the property on Hain Street, for instance, the Innsbrook, if the adjacent property owners who have duplexes and single-family homes on Hopkins have the same underlying zoning as the Innsbrook? Kaufman responded Main Street Office goes up to Main Street to the alley; the alley 24 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 distinquishes between the different zoning. Paterson stated that would be an example where neighbors would have to make an adjustment, and people who have acquired property and who are neighbors are going to see a radical shift in neighborhood zoning and she wanted to talk about sensitivity. Hooney stated that is why the transition is only a percentage of the difference uses, and he would like to see a balance instead of seeing one whole property send all its lodge rooms to the Highlands and then convert to office space on Hain Street and have a big office building. Lamont responded perhaps it should be thought of as providing incentives because of wanting to keep the lodge; the ability to convert some rooms for a different use or convert to long-term. Lamont said what we would want to preserve is that certain percentage of the building that remains a lodge; 55 or 60 percent, then 40 percent to pick and chose whatever one wants. Hooney stated it is all so site specific and how is the group to tell another lodge after they have worked there for 20 years, they know what they want to do with it. Kaufman stated the point was the lodge owners could not get to square one right now; there is an LP Zone that says, you have to be a lodge, end of conversation. The lodge owners cannot even talk to you because the zoning says, you cannot do anything on this property because it is LP. Mooney responded he was aware of what Kaufman was saying, and why there was the list and consideration of the list as conditional use. Hooney said he wanted to move the issues along and get at it all and was willing to throw all the solutions out on the table and say they are all conditional uses. Garton stated she wanted to take the solutions proposed by the Small Lodge Association, 1 through 7, and any other creative ideas, and place them all on the table. Hunt suggested the Commission immediately, for argument purposes, put forth the idea that solutions 2-Kitchens, 3-Long-term rentals, 4-Accessory uses/Partial conversion of use, and 8- Condominiumization become conditional uses. Hunt stated the reason he left out 5-Total Conversion of Use, 6-Transfer of development rights(TDR) is 5 and 6 tend to be inter-related and if a total conversion is done, and he was all in favor going to the underlying zone district, how did the Commission keep them together? Lamont stated at the present time with the new growth management if someone was to completely rezone and convert a lodge; take a 20 room lodge, tear it down and build back 6 townhouses, they would 25 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 have to come up with 6 allocations out of the growth management for free market. Hunt asked if there was an underlying zone district that would allow a lodge to do that. Lamont responded they would tear down down and build back 6. To do that, the lodge owner would have to get the development allocations; we have two free market allocations per unit under growth management and we have one exemption a unit under growth management. Lamont said for someone to build back 6 units they would have to be successful in capturing the exemption and go through growth management and would have to do that two years in a row. Lamont said the idea of a TDR, that someone could give to an existing lodge a certain amount of units in an underlying zone in support and eliminate their lodge, that would be exempt from growth management. Kaufman stated he was thinking the simplest way to deal with the TDR concept is to say if a lodge owner wants to expand his lodge, he can expand his lodge exempt from the growth management plan in exchange for a deed restriction that the lodge stays a lodge for a certain period of time. Kaufman said it seemed to him a TDR would not necessarily be to get extra lodge rooms, but would be the chip for the ability to go out of business as a lodge. Kaufman said there are very few lodges that can actually add rooms due to the infra structure and cost association. Garton stated she liked what Kaufman had suggested; along with the transfer goes the deed restriction to the accepting parcel that it remain a lodge for a certain number of years. Garton felt it important that with the transfer goes the deed restriction. Hooney again stated the Commission would have to deal with each specific lodge individually because each lodge determines what their needs are. Kaufman asked if some of the solutions could be a use by right, was the Commission comfortable with any of the items as a permitted use or do they all have to be special review? Kaufman stated he thought the Commission was going in the direction of wanting everything to be a conditional use. Garton stated she would like the kitchens be a use by right as long as the kitchens comply with the code and the other solutions be considered conditional. Chaikovska said she felt the Commission should give feedback by a point by point issue whether it should be a conditional use or a right. 26 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 Hunt said he could live with kitchens as a use by right provided the lodge stay as a lodge operation; he felt that issue to be important. Kaufman said the issues become not so much kitchens, long-term. If someone comes in and takes 12 units and suddenly has 1 unit, that is where the problem comes in. Kaufman stated he did not think there was problem with some of the small lodges adding a kitchen and renting long-term because it would be providing another source of community benefit which is housing for locals. Hunt stated he agreed with Kaufman there was some threshold event that changes it from a lodging operation with some long-term rentals and the possibility of it becoming a residential activity. Clauson stated staff had wrestled with the issue. Clauson said the court cases on condominiumization which have liberalized the ability to own property have left staff in a quandary. Clauson said staff could not control whether a person from New York owns one of the rooms or someone else from Los Angeles owns another one, but staff could control the operation. Lamont stated she did not see anything in the code that prevents a lodge from combining small rooms into a larger room, the only thing that prevents a lodge from converting from lodge to a residential is the kitchen. Lamont said she agreed with Hunt, the threshold event, at what point do we lose that space as a small lodge as a rental? Kaufman stated right now without a change under the law, I can condominiumize, put in a refrigerator, a sink, a microwave, with no control; it is the stove. Kaufman said he did not want to get into a situation where staff is taking away from the small lodge owners what they already had the right to do; the small lodge owners are looking for more flexibility. Chaikovska stated the issue of the kitchen had to stand alone whether it is by right or conditional use. She said Lamont's concern went on to say perhaps a percentage of the units should have kitchens or a definition of small lodge could be developed to protect at least a portion of the lodge for short-term rental. Chaikovska said that was taken care of in solution 3-Long-term rentals. Whether or not they have a kitchen or not is irrelevant, and Chaikovska stated she strongly believed to stay competitive the lodges should have the right to have a kitchen, period. The other issues of short-term, long-term, condominiumization are all dealt 27 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 with in other areas and are irrelevant to the kitchen point. She said she felt the other issues could be addressed in terms of definition of long-term, is it seasonal, is it a year, whatever the small lodge owners would like to do. Chaikovska said the Accessory uses/Partial conversion of use, it is a completely separate issue. Bloomquist interjected on the long-term, short-terms issues. He said the statutes on taxation define it, and if there was going to be any defining he suggested staying with the sales tax definition; 30 days or longer is long-term and under 30 days is short-term, at least that way we know what the law is. Garton suggested continuing the public hearing until the next regular meeting, November 21, 1995, complete the issues 1-7 and have Lodge Preservation first on the agenda. Clauson asked if the Commission wanted further development of the solutions or have the chart left as presented. The Commission requested to add neighboring zoning for each of the 20 lodges to the chart. Lamont stated it would be helpful to have a zoning map showing the LP zones for the Commission. Tygre stated any lodge has the right to come and apply for any of the solutions either by right or conditional use subject to underlying. Hooney asked the lodge owners to help him by telling him what they wanted to be, what they needed to be, how much of the solutions they needed because they knew their neighborhoods and what would work for them. Kaufman responded there was a problem with that as most of the lodge owners present had no thoughts of changing what they wanted to do. Kaufman said what was happening was the few people that were trying to sell their lodges were totally unable to sell and people started to think, when their future comes they would be locked into something that wasn't working. Kaufman stated he was not aware that anybody in the room had any plans of changing, it was if the process is not changed now, there would be no possibility in the future. Hooney stated what Kaufman was saying would give speculators more options to play with the property. Kaufman responded what we are saying to people is, you have a piece of property, and you don't have as your only option to go out of business. Right now the 28 PLANNING & ZONING COP~ISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1995 lodge owners have as their only options sell as a lodge or go out of business. Erma (Public) stated some people would like to sell their lodges but cannot sell at reasonable prices because the occupancy has dropped from 95 days in the 1970's and 1980's to 40 days. Public requested options so owners can become inventive with their lodges. Kaufman stated if someone does come and is willing to take the chance of buying a lodge, he knows if it doesn't work as a lodge maybe there is something else he can do; otherwise, knowing if he buys it as a lodge, it always has to be a lodge and someone doesn't want to get into that position. Gramiger commented years ago two lodges were offered to the Housing Authority and he represented one lodge. Gramiger said the lodges shied away because the comment was made under the LP Zoning they could not convert, forming a stigma on the property. Garton continued the public hearing until November 21, 1995 at 4:30 p.m. and adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 29