Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19951219 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Chairperson Sara Garton called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. Present were: Sara Garton, Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Tim Mooney, Robert Blaich, and Steve Buettow. Excused was Marta Chaikovska. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Hunt commented on the Cleveland Street Park project tabled by City Council December 18, 1995. Hunt requested the Planning Office write an advisory resolution to state the Planning & Zoning Commission did not support a park in that area. Garton asked if Hunt would like a resolution to support staff' s recommendation for denial of the park at Cleveland and Highway 82. Hunt replied if that language would work it would be fine with him. Tygre stated she would abstain from voting or commenting on the Cleveland Park project because the applicant was a client of the company Tygre worked for; she felt the issue was a conflict of interest. MOTION Hunt moved for a recommendation in resolution form by the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission to support staff in its recommendation for denial of a park at Cleveland and Highway 82; Buettow seconded. Vote was 5 in favor, 1 abstention (Tygre), motion carried. Garton commented she had noticed an addition on the home at 4th & Smuggler and asked if the project had gone through HPC review. Donnelley Erdman of HPC responded just prior to getting approval for the application for the addition, which required some variances, the application was withdrawn. Erdman stated he had not checked with the Building Department whether a permit was granted because the plans were reduced in scope as not to require variances, but nothing had been approved by HPC. Dave Michaelson, staff, stated he would check into the matter and report back to the Commission Garton requested information on the RO units the Planning & Zoning Commission approved on E. Cooper. Garton asked how the RO units were being tracked. Michaelson responded the units were tracked by the required records provided to the Housing Office and title transfers at the County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Garton stated it had been drafted the Commission would like titles checked with all RO units. Garton stated there was a catering business going on at the Marolt in the cafeteria kitchen and asked if it was a change in use and if the business had gone through proper procedures. Michaelson stated he would check into the matter. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Garton asked regarding the ADU questionnaire sent to all homes with ADU units. Michaelson responded the questionnaires had been sent out but he had not seen the responses. STAFF COMMENTS Michaelson commented staff had not gotten as far as they had hoped in the text language for the small lodge text amendments. Michaelson apologized for the delay and stated Community Development was short-staffed, but staff would attempt to present to the Commission some code language by mid-January, 1996. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES MOTION Hunt moved to adopt minutes of the Growth Managaement Commission of 5 December, 1995 and the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission of 5 December, 1995; Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. HERNAND EZ HALLAM LAKE ESA RE I/IE I4~ APPEAL OF ORDINANCE 30 REI/IEI4" Michaelson, staff, represented stating the project was two applications; the Hernandez Hallam Lake ESA Review and an interpretation of Ordinance 30. The property is located on 200 W. Gillespie, zoned R-6, and the owners are Noel and Cecil Hernandez, represented by Martin Mata. Michaelson stated the applicants were requesting ESA approval from the Hallam Lake ESA Overlay for a main and guest house, as well as an interpretation of Ordinance 30. Staff included the ESA application and landscape plans on blueline in Commission packets and Michaelson stated storey poles had been in place three or four days. Michaelson stated at the time the memorandum was written he did not have comments from ACES, Tom Cardamone, or the Parks Department. In terms of the ACES comments, Michaelson said he had talked to Cardamone on the telephone and provided him with a landscape plan. Cardamone looked at the landscape plan and his comments will be a condition of approval. In terms of staff comments on the Hallam Lake Overlay, Michaelson said he had included all the standards that are required to be met. There is no development proposed below the top of the slope and the main and guest houses are consistent with the 15 foot setback requirement from the top of the slope. Michaelson stated there was an encroachment of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 an at-grade patio which was allowed under the code; staff suggested an explicit condition of approval be included in reference to the patios. There was a requirement that everything outside of the 15 foot setback from the top of the slope, shall not exceed a height delineated by a 45 degree angle drawn from the ground level of the top of that slope. There was a cross-section of the main and guest houses and their relationship to a 45 degree angle included in the packets, and based on the representations, the location and height of both structures were consistent with the standard. Michaelson stated a landscape plan was submitted with the application. Criteria 4. required that at least 50 percent of the development, as viewed from the rear slope of the parcel, be obscured by natural vegetation. There was a photograpph which defined the property lines and the applicant indicated there was 80 percent coverage on the photograph. Michaelson said staff made a site visit on December 14, 1995 and concurred with the applicant's findings. Criteria 5. required no exterior lighting be directed towards ACES and the applicant indicated a commitment to limit the exterior lighting and no lighting would be located down the slope. Michaelson continued stating there was no proposed disturbance below the face of the slope and staff suggested a drainage plan be a condition of approval. The last requirement within the ESA Review dealt with a landscape plan and the landscape plan submitted was consistent with standard. In terms of the Design Review Appeal Committee, Michaelson said the Planning and Zoning Commission could interpret portions of Ordinance 30. Michaelson stated this application was different from a classic variance; Ordinance 30 was written to deal with a traditional grided street pattern and it was difficult to apply two specific standards of Ordinance 30 in a situation where there is no grid, and in the application there was no grid. Staff met with the applicant and included the requirements that all portions of the garage parallel to the street be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of 10 feet, and an orientation of the principal mass of the building be parallel to the streets they face. The project is set back from the intersection of Gillespie and Lake Avenue, with the front entrance oriented toward Lake Street. With this configuration, the garage is set back 10 feet. The problem staff had was Ordinance 30 does not deal with traditional rear and front setbacks, it deals with viewplanes from the street. The viewplane from the property is not just Lake Street, it is also Gillespie. Clauson, Community Development Director, wanted the issue brought to the Commission instead of a staff interpretation. Michaelson stated staff supported the applicant's contention it met the intentions of Ordinance 30, primarily because of the landscaping screened in front of the garage. In conclusion, Michaelson stated staff recommended approval of the ESA Review with 8 conditions. Condition 6. required the landscape plan, including the rear yard, and sketches be submitted to ACES prior to issuance of any building permits. Condition 7. required that all sources of exterior light shall not be visible from ACES and the structure shall not PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 be uplighted or washed with exterior lighting. Condition 8 required the applicant be aware when a building permit was issued that the patio had to be at-grade. Buettow asked regarding page 17 of the drawings, the site section; the corner of the building was within the 15 foot setback, and there was also a projection. Michaelson responded the facade was not flat and the corner of the building was not within the 15 foot setback. Buettow stated, technically, the drawing was incorrect and it did not show the dimensions properly. Buettow stated at the 45 degree angle, the roof shake came down and met the wall exactly; there was no overhang shown. Buettow said, typically, there is an overhang of at least 6 inches and questioned the drawing which was in contradiction with the site plan. Martin Mata and Michael Lipkin, Lipkin-Warner Design Partnership, represented the applicant. Lipkin responded to Buettow's concern of the drawing and stated the drawing was not clear but the site plan was correct. Lipkin stated instead of a presentation, perhaps to answer any questions the Commission might have would be the best way to proceed. Mata stated the applicant had worked with staff since August, 1995, as well as with Tom Cardamone, and had tried to orient the buildings in ways they felt were in the spirit of Ordinance 30 and the grid they were directed to address. Mata stated the applicant mitigated the impacts of garage doors and the entrance as it presented itself to the street; the two key aspects of the project. Garton asked the Commission if there were any problems with the ESA review and if the Commission felt the project met the requirements. Hunt asked if the applicant agreed to the conditions. Lipkin responded the applicant did agree to the conditions. MOTION Hunt moved to approve the ESA Special Review for the Hernandez property, Lots A and B, with the conditions 1 through 8 on Planning Office memorandum dated 19 December, 1995, finding that they do meet the criteria set in Section 7-506; Blaich seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. Buettow stated he had viewed the applicant's drawings carefully and it seemed to him that the intent of Ordinance 30 was to separate the garage from the main mass of the house, and redirect the entrances to the garage so the garage doors could not be seen from the streets. Buettow said both of the aspects came into play; the mass was one aspect and the garage doors could be seen from the streets, and the deciduous trees shown on the drawings were not primarily ground cover vegetations and would not cover the garage doors. Buettow stated he would focus attention to those two items. Blaich stated he had looked at the property carefully and looking at the site plans he felt the garage would almost be invisible from the street; the view of the garage doors was PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 blocked by an extension from another house on one angle and radius of the other street obscured the view on the other angle. Blaich said the whole intention of Ordinance 30 was to deal with the grid plan and the site lines of the project did not comply. Blaich stated he would argue for the plan. Hunt stated he viewed what appeared to be two plotted lots under one ownership and that led him to suspect some time in the future either the project would be condominiumized or one of the units would be sold off. Hunt asked if that was the case, what provision had been made for an easement for the guest house lot for access? Lipkin responded the lots were two legally platted, separate lots in which a minor lot line adjustment was being requested and it was the intent that there would be easement for access. Michaelson added the project at one time was subject to a lot split and there was a legally described plat which could be shown. Hunt did not feel it necessary to present the plat and stated, otherwise, he supported the favorable interpretation of Ordinance 30. Mooney asked the definition of a guest house versus a main house. Michaelson replied it was more semantics on the part of the applicant; staff would deal with the houses as two separate structures on two separate legal parcels. Mooney asked why the guest house was not providing for Ordinance 1. Michaelson responded the guest house would provide for Ordinance 1.; there would be two ADU units, one for each unit, that would come before the Commission at a later hearing. Mooney stated he would like to see the elevations of the main and guest houses and felt it important to know what the garage looked like and whether the mass and scale was on a grid. Michaelson replied from staff' s perspective the interpretation was dealing with two very specific elements and he had not felt it necessary to show the elevations. Mata stated he had drawings of the elevations and Blaich requested to view them. The Commission viewed the set of drawings showing elevations. Garton acknowledged that Donnelly Erdman, HPC member and neighbor, was present and asked if he had any comments. Erdman stated he was not familar with the application but regarding the garage mass in terms of its relationship to the mass in the entire structure, the intent of Ordinance 30 was to break up masses regardless of whether they are in front of the street or not. Michaelson stated Erdman's interpretation was correct, under ideal circumstances the mass is separated, but Ordinance 30 also incorporated language where in some lots it does not work; the element was introduced to recess either 10 feet behind or the garage is oriented away from the front facade. Lipkin commented if the project were a corner lot, it would comply with Ordinance 30. Garton stated she felt the applicant had tried to comply with the intent of Ordinance 3 0 and felt the landscape plan and adding buffers to be very important. Garton asked if the Commission could require a landscape plan to be included in the properties. Michaelson responded through the ESA and the conditions of approval it was required. Hunt asked if the application was going to be presented at City Council. Michaelson replied, no. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to grant favorable interpretation of Ordinance 3 0 regarding the orientation of the structure as shown on the submitted plans for the Hernandez property, Lots A and B; Blaich seconded. Vote was 5 in favor, 1 opposed (Buettow), motion carried. DISCUSSION OF IGLEHART LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton asked assistant city attorney, David Hoefer, when the Commission should address the confidential letter regarding the Iglehart Landmark Designation. Hoefer stated it was his understanding that Amy Amidon, staff, made a decision to go directly to City Council from HPC, so the Planning & Zoning Commission would not have to deal with the issue at this meeting. Garton asked if City Council would decide on any enforcement remedies or penalites. Amidon stated HPC had a close vote and decided not to pursue taking away the landmark designation, but instead to ask City Council to look into the situation and possibly take legal action. Amidon stated with that in mind there was no need for the Commission to vote. Garton asked what the violation was. Amidon responded it was the opinion of HPC more of the building was demolished than the developers had permission to take down. Blaich asked what that meant, other than taking away the designation? Blaich asked if someone takes a building that is designated historic and demolishes it beyond what is approved, what was the penalty? Amidon responded there was a penalty in the code but there was a five year moritorium on the property and it was not what was being pursued at this meeting. Amidon stated HPC was looking at the monetary advantages, and the setback variances. Hoefer stated as a result of the historic designation for that property the developer received a number of special benefits that he would not have received otherwise. Hoefer said what HPC was suggesting to City Council was that those benefits be removed; the benefits were largely financial and with a structure of that nature the benefits were insignificant. It is HPC's hope to send a message to the community, if one does not follow the conditions, legal action will be taken. Hunt said it was his concern that there were setback variances given through the HPC process, so the community was going to end up with a house that should not have had those setbacks. Hoefer said in a worse case scenario for the developer, the City could require him to restructure the house to bring it into compliance with the setbacks, but Hoefer doubted that would happen. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Hunt stated this had happened before where the height limitation was broken through and the developers were required to bring the structure into compliance. Hunt stated if all the City was going to do was give "nasty words" that was not much of an incentive for someone else to not do the same thing. Hunt said if there were substantial words about moving a particular wall in the setback into compliance maybe people would take notice. Hunt encouraged the City to at least approach the subject very heavily and go in this direction. Blaich stated he could go a step further and someone had "pulled the wool over somebody's eyes" and it had happened before. Blaich stated when City Council backs down the signal that is sent out is these things can always be worked out later and not to worry about it. Blaich stated since it was an HPC subject and not a P&Z subject, all the commissioners could do was comment on it, but said he would be very disappointed, personally, if there is no real action taken on it. Blaich stated to take the project off the historical designation would require legal counsel and if the developer could be held to it, then perhaps a stronger signal could be sent to the community. Hoefer stated there was a $10,000 bond posted in this case because the original house was moved off the property and the developers were supposed to move it back into the internal structuring. Hoefer said the bond is still in place, however, in terms of actually doing anything with the actual historic structures, it was his understanding there was very little of the actual structure left. Mooney stated only a window was kept and said what was being dealt with was a $1.9 to $2.3 million house that agreed to play by the rules, but did not play by the rules. Mooney asked if the City was going to make a statement to the community that it was asking for $2,000, and another $2,033 back, and would keep a $10,000 bond, when the developer could take the plans and do what he wanted to do in the neighborhood in the amount of over $2 million dollars. Mooney stated that was no message, it was the opposite message. Mooney stated he came to the Commission to vote on ordinances and regulations and things that work with the amendments and the code, and said there was not a meeting that went by that there was not an exemption or variance request. Mooney stated the Commission was always bending the rules for people and he had not seen anyone come in and play by the rules since he had been on the Commission. Mooney stated he felt the Commission needed a resolution to the City Council and HPC to say the Commission wanted the house moved and in compliance or the developer would not obtain a certificate of occupancy; the house could sit as a monument for the Commission showing up and voting the way they do. Buettow stated in reference to houses becoming historic landmarks, if over 50 percent of the building is demolished it is no longer a historic structure, and the project was 95 percent demolished. Amidon responded the developer had represented to HPC 40 percent demolition. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Blaich asked to hear more from Amidon as to what really happened. Amidon responded, in retrospect, it was not the best preservation project HPC ever approved. Amidon stated HPC approved a plan which they should have spent more time on; part of the issue was the representative was to retain a portion of the building and he demolished that portion. When asked about the demolition, the answer was the portion was almost completely concealed with the new construction. HPC made a mistake, but there are other portions of the building that were clearly to remain that are now gone, Amidon stated. Mooney asked ifHPC varied the parking. Amidon stated the representative did receive a parking variance; Amidon thought one parking space was waived. Garton asked why Amidon had withdrawn the issue from the P&Z agenda. Amidon stated HPC did not want to take the landmark designation away, but she felt the building, with new construction, should not be called a historic landmark. Garton stated it was the concern of the Commission that something not approved was going to get built. Hoefer stated the Commission could feel free to send comments to City Council, but the issue was not on the evening's agenda so he was not sure a resolution was appropriate. Garton asked the legality of the resolution under Commissioners Comments regarding supporting staff on the Cleveland Street Park. Hoefer responded, technically, it should be a recommendation, but it was not a significant problem. Hoefer stated he would draft the language appropriately. Hunt stated if the structure stayed as presently built; either it gets corrected or it ends up being a non-conforming structure. Hunt stated if City Council was so inclined to let the issue "slide", at the very least it should be designated a non-conforming structure and the developer made to live with it. Mooney stated anyone who buys a non-conforming structure, in order to do any work on it, it would have to be brought up to code and the setback variances deleted. Mooney asked if the project had been given a certificate of occupancy. Amidon responded the project had not been given a certificate of occupancy. Mooney stated someone could build anything they wanted, but to use it in the community was a different thing. Michaelson stated to define the project as a non-conforming structure the landmark status had to be taken away. Hoefer stated HPC had voted 3-3 on whether the historic landmark designation should be rescinded or not. Hoefer encouraged the Commission to comment and also attend the City Council meeting. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Hunt asked if staff was willing to draft a resolution or memorandum from the Commission to City Council. Blaich stated he felt it should be a strong resolution within the legal boudaries, and recommendations should not be soft statements. Tygre stated the Commission members felt the monetary penalties were an insufficient way of expressing the displeasure at what had happened. Tygre said the Commission would like the City Council to consider denying the certificate of occupancy until the building was brought into compliance. The Commission felt a message should be sent that this kind of thing is not to be encouraged. Hoefer stated the Commission had asked what some of the options were; there were many options and, technically, any violation of the Municipal Code could be a criminal violation also. There were a lot of ways City Council could proceed. Buettow said it was his understanding the first step was to get the historic landmark designation taken away from the project because as it is now, with that designation, it was in compliance. Hoefer responded that was one rationale. Blaich wanted to make sure the Commission did not proceed and find out later it was the wrong action; he was not clear on the matter and wished a strong legal position before voting on it. Hoefer stated he and staff would confer and give the Commission a clearer idea of the options. Mooney stated the issue was very important to him. Garton stated the issue was very important to her because why even have HPC or P&Z; she sits on the Commission and these things happen and the community asks why even have review. Garton stated the City could not just let this matter go by. Michaelson stated staff and the Commission were in agreement. ZELE ESPRESSO CART GMOS EXEMPTION Garton stated staff requested direction from the Commission on reinstating the provision for the Community Development Director to approve exemptions for commercial office expansion of less than 250 net leaseable square feet as was previously approved by Ordinance 13, and inadvertently it was left out in the redrafting of the code. Suzanne Wolff represented staff stating the owners of Zele requested authorization to put an espresso cart in the Ute City Banque Building in the atrium area. The application was received for the Community Development Director to sign off on and it was realized by staff that the Director could no longer sign off on it; that is why it was before the Commission. Wolff stated the request complied with the criteria listed in the code, the project was a part-time operation, 3 hours a day, in the winter only. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Garton asked if vending carts needed a separate license. Wolff responded the applicant would have to get approval through the Environmental Health Department for operation of the cart, but she did not know what license would be required. Garton asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions of approval. Wolff responded the applicant was not present but had seen the conditions and had not commented otherwise. MOTION Blaich moved to approve the GMQS Exemption to allow 30 square feet of new net leaseable area for an espresso cart in the Ute City Banque Building, subject to the four conditions listed in the Planning Office memorandum dated December 19, 1995; Hunt seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. 610 W. HALLAM RESCIND LANDMARK DESIGNATION Garton opened the public hearing. MOTION Hunt moved to table 610 W. Hallam Rescind Landmark Designation and continue the public hearing to 2 January, 1996 as requested by staff; Tygre seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. SMALL LODGE TEXT AMENDMENTS Amy Amidon represented staff and apologized to the Commission for not having the code amendments and stated what was before the Commission was a summary of what direction the Commission wanted to go after the last meeting. Amidon said the summary was brought forth for further discussion. The issue of low interest loans would not be forwarded to Council at this time. Amidon said kitchens was the number one issue and staff was determining how to allow kitchens in the lodge lunits. Amidon stated in the definition section, the definition of lodge is the same as hotel and hotel says no kitchens; staff decided to redefine lodge and allow kitchenettes, but there are different zone districts, commercial lodge, LTR that allow lodge use. Staff is going to take the lodge use out of those zones and only allow hotel, so the only zone district that will have a lodge is lodge preservation and that definition will say kitchens are allowed. Amidon stated she did not know if anyone on the Commission had discomfort with the fact that the commercial lodge zone district does not allow lodges, but will allow hotels. Michaelson stated staff was trying to determine what the actual code implications would be on any changes and felt staff nor the Commission was in a position to have any level of comfort at this time. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Mooney asked if all the definitions could be tied to the restructuring of interpreting. Mooney said one of the things about the kitchens he always stressed was where was the line going to be drawn, and when is it a single-family residence, and when is it a lodge, and what are the impacts? Garton suggested no longer calling it commercial lodge, but commercial hotel. Mooney stated commercial hotel zone; the lodge definition only applied to structures in the LP Zone as of a certain date. Tygre suggested a specific application to those lodges that applied for LP as a preservation measure would put those lodges in slightly different standing from other lodges, regardless of where they are located within the metropolitan area. Hunt suggested in the definition of the lodge, have it the same as the hotel, but in that definition, lodges in the LP Zone are allowed kitchens, because he felt it would confuse people to pull the word lodge out of the present zoning. Amidon suggested to allow kitchens and short-term or long-term rental. Garton stated that was still getting an interpretation of long-term based on condominiumization. Mooney stated there was a break-down at the tax point who one pays rent on a 6 month basis versus on a weekly basis, so it still would have to be operated as a lodge and the revenues taxable on a short-term basis, even if tenants stay. Michaelson stated the issue could be dealt with in two ways; through condominiumization or through zoning regulations. Amidon brought forward the issue of dwelling unit and its definition includes a provision for a kitchen. Amidon stated each one of the lodge units with a kitchen could be called a dwelling unit which staff did not want to have happen, so staff suggested adding a clarification that adding a kitchen to a lodge unit does not constitute a development right for the purposes of density. Amidon stated the next issue was whether or not a lodge is a free market unit. Initially, it was proposed only a certain percentage of the lodge units could be rented long-term, but the Commission did not want things in the code that could not be monitored, did not want it restricted, and whatever was wanted to be rented long-term was alright. Amidon said without any restriction it would be turned into a long-term, free market apartment building. Staff discussed the idea of requiring an RO restriction on the units so at least a tenant would have to be a resident of the county who would rent the apartments. Mooney stated the RO restriction helped him by keeping it out of the general free market pool of dwelling units and he did not feel there was any back-door protection on when it is converted into something substantially different. Mooney said if it did have some kind of RO on it, it helped him to know there was someone making a commitment to the community. 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Garton commented it was written in the memorandum the Commission had voted to allow by right exemption from change in use on long-term rentals. Garton stated it was her understanding the Commission was waiting to hear from City Council. Amidon responded in the following section of the memorandum staff was waiting on final legal opinion. Michaelson stated GMQS said converting something that created one residential unit but did not talk about short-term, long-term, kitchens, dwelling units, or free market; just one unit triggers GMQS and suddently one has to compete for that, and it comes out of the pool. Michaelson said that issue became much bigger than just the intent of dealing with the economic viability of the small lodge, it triggers the whole growth management issue and staff is trying to figure out what is the best way to work it without compromising other long-term goals that are in the best interest of the City. Garton asked if long-term rental could be tied into it. Michaleson replied one would still be creating units, independent of GMQS, and the issue becomes, is the 20 percent number not going to push everyone over the edge in terms of growth management. Garton stated to support Kaufman, who represented the small lodge owners, staff had to allow the small lodge owners something. Michaelson said the issue staff was quandering with was, did it come out of the pool, and could one make a good reason why it shouldn't come out of the pool. Hunt stated regarding long-term there were certain lodges who wanted to long-term 100 percent of the lodge for a portion of the year. Hunt used as example the Mountain Chalet; in the summer it long-termed for the music students and that is what some of the smaller lodges could do and it was beneficial for the community. Hunt did not want to prevent the lodges from being able to long-term for a portion of the year, and they would probably short-term during the high seasons. Hunt stated if the long-term exceeded 20 percent and also exceeded a period of time, then perhaps the Commission should think of the RO approach or something on that order. Hunt suggested staff set up criteria under which the lodges could operate and not be subject to RO consideration. Bob Tobias, public, stated at the last meeting the Commission discussed the accessory use of a partial conversion proposal. He was not sure if it was heard by the Commission that that particular avenue of relief was not as meaningful as most of the other issues proposed. Tobias said the difficulty was, from a pragmatic sense, that a mixed use in a building, as a lodge use combined with an office use, would not be very workable. Most of the small lodges were not interested in pursuing that option and in the absence of Kaufman, perhaps the time might be better spent discussing some of the other issues. Garton responded the issue was of importance to the Commission because of the number of units counted in the growth management plan. Tobias stated if the issue was passed in any form there would not be too many lodges that would take advantage of that particular avenue. Hunt stated he did not think the Commission was thinking of the long-term as an accessory use. Tobias stated in regard to long-term, that issue was one most small lodges were interested in and at the last meeting the main issue was total conversion of use. 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Michaelson stated staff was looking for guidance from the Commission but realized it had much work internally to do to get through the GMQS issue. Michaelson stated staff would feel comfortable on January 16, 1996 coming to the Commission with an overall package. Garton stated she liked what was discussed and had suggested at the last meeting approval for the issue of total conversion. Mooney asked if the Commission allowed someone to convert to hotel would there be anything to cause trouble with telling Hines it wouldn't go the other way. Michaelson said he did not have an answer to Mooney' s question, but it was a concern of staff. Hunt stated he hoped the Commission was clear on long-term but there was still a question when did long-term become a conversion? Hunt stated the Commission had to define or produce some action necessary to identify that conversion; the lodges draw back down to the lodge activity or go through the conversion process. Garton stated the Commission should suggest to the Housing Authority if total conversion happened, the Housing Authority needed to have some input. Hunt stated what was needed from the lodging community was what would the maximum number of weeks in the year they would think of long-terming 100 percent of a facility and did it matter if the lodges long-term 20 percent of the units or less more than a year. Amidon stated it was important to consider how staff would address monitoring. Mooney stated concern of a lodge being filled with just long-term people and becoming a slum; the impacts and cleaning up the situation. Tobias stated Mooney had put a finger on the crux of the issue and the point was when some of the lodges were able to get out of the lodging business, the remaining lodges would be healthier and would not have to take that intermediary step of a long-term rental. Tobias stated the long-term rental was being looked at by a number of the lodge owners simply as a means to slow the harmful process. The lodge owners would like to be doing short-term rental because it is more lucrative, but they cannot fill the rooms. Garton stated the Commission had to look for loopholes in the long-term rentals; how it was going to be handled and tracked, and the impacts considered. Tygre stated her concern was the various neighborhoods were so different and on her mixed street, what used to be the North Star Lodge is now being used for employee housing for the Jerome Hotel. Tygre stated there were cars with stacked parking in front of the building and there was no problem and it did not impact the rest of the neighborhood. Tygre stated in her neighborhood it worked fine but it might not work on the west side of Aspen, and as far as the community was concerned she did not feel one could separate a particular lodge situation from the neighborhood it is in. She felt strongly regarding certain kinds of blanket approvals not being appropriate and the necessity of neighborhood input. 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 Mooney stated his consideration was he was not going to be dealing with this generation of lodge owners after giving relief for them to get out; if he was, and it was the present generation personalities and commitment to the community, their involvement in the community he was trying to perpetuate, it would be a different thing. Mooney felt the Commission was giving the lodge owners something more to sell and would be dealing with the next generation of owners who would look at it as what they could develop. Mooney stated the language had to be futuristic and still be of assistance today. Garton stated the Commission would continue the public hearing to January 16, 1995. MOTION Hunt moved to table the historic preservation of small lodge discussions and continue the public hearing to 16 January, 1996; Blaich seconded. Unanimous in favor, motion carried. DISCUSSION Blaich stated the lighting and the climate control in the Sister Cities Meeting Room needed work. The clerk brought the complaint to the Engineering Department and hopefully the lighting and heating/cooling system will be repaired. Garton adjourned the meeting at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk 14