Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740808 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM 10 c. F. HOECKE~ B. B. III l. co. Public Hearing Aspen planning and Zoning August 8, 1974 The meeting was opened at 4:07 p.m. by Bryan Johnson with members Janet Landry Jack Jenkins and Robert Barnard present. Also in attendance were John Stanford, Yank Mojo and Sandra Stuller. Ordinance 9 revision City Attorney Sandra Stuller explained that this was an amendment to 24-l2C of the code providing for a positive recommendation before the interim effect would begin. There was no public comment. Proposed Rezoning The following is a verbatim of speaker's comments: NICHOLAS VELASCA My name is Nick Velasca and I reside at 130 W. Main in an area that's being considered for rezoning. It seems to me that the zoning along Main Street which had always been AR-l is now going through some discriiminatory phase of zoning. I understand that the idea is to keep everything the the way it exists right at this moment. On the other hand, there is going to be some tremendous changes in value of the land that exists along there because of the rezoning. Now basically all I have to say is that I really think that it is quite unfair and discriminatory. I'm speaking of the land right in the vicinity of Fourth and Main St. On one side we have the Mesa Bakery which sells donuts and things. Next door we have Bill Comcowich who sells teeth. Across the street you have two blocks worth of lodges and in the same intersection you are taking three lots and saying well this is residential. Well, its kind of incredible just to consider those three lots as residential with the surrounding uses now in existence. And I just feel that this is quite unjust to the owner of this particular place. It happens to be my mother-in-law but this is a piece of land that has been in the family 26 years. Now we're not particularly exploiters or developers or anything of this sort and I expect it will probably remain the house it is for some time to come. But in principle I am objecting to the fact that you are requiring ... that you are just picking this out and saying well this now must be residential just because we haven't exploited it in the past. And I think that's about the extent of the statement that I have to say but I feel that it is quite an unfair situation. MOLLY MAURIN My name is Molly Maurin and I live on 1006 E. Cooper and Lot Land 10 feet of M and we also are owners of lots B, C and D, block 34, east Aspen. We are now zoned for recreational and accomodations, we object to being zoned R-6 it is too much of a difference, there are big buildings south of us, east of us and a lot of big buildings west and north of us, with this downzoning, it will devalue our property, we have owned this property over thirty-five years, when we were zoned recreation and accomodation our taxes were raised considerably, just recently two houses were moved across the street. I understand there will be mobile families. I just don't think it is fair to downzone us that much. MARGARET PEARCE My name is Margaret Pearce and I live at 216 E. Main and I just wanted to have this for the record. On the map that appeared in the Aspen Times some time ago with the legal description, lot 13 which is at the end of Mill St. between the City property and public property, we found that this lot 13 was missing, is listed as City property. I contacted the City Engineer, he felt that an error was made, the map up here shows that perhaps that change had been made but I don't know about the legal description whether it has been changed, therefore, I would just like to make certain that this does not appear as City property on the Capitol Hill, lot 13. SLATER/ARMSTRONG/BEYER We have a few minor questions but we can address them to the Planning Office and th~ reason for putting our names on was in case something came up and we would have a right to speak. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORMIII C.F.HOECKELB.B.1l L. co. Public Hearing Aspen Planning and Zoning August 8, 1974 JOSEPH EDWARDS Ladies and gentlemen of the P & Z, I will read to you a letter of a portion of a resolution which was passed at the last meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County on August 5th, 1974. There was a motion that was passed at that meeting which was to the following effect. That a letter be sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen to be read into the record of the Public Hearing on August 8, 1974 stating that 1) Pitkin County has recently enacted a rezoning resolution for the County; 2) The commissioners have recently reviewed the City of Aspen's Revised District Map and Zoning Code, and find the proposed rezoning in the City to be compatible with and directed to the same goals and objectives as the County rezoning and the two codes appear to be complimentary. 3) The Board of Commissioners whole- heartedly endorse and urge that said Revised District Map and Zoning Code be adopted by the City Planning and Zoning Commission for the mutual benefit of the residents of both the City of Aspen and pitkin County. And I would tender into the record the letter which states what I have just read. JANE BRUGGEMAN I'm Jane Bruggeman and I'm representing the League of Women Voters. The members of the Aspen-Pitkin County League of Women Voters feel strongly that we must have planning for growth, planning for use of land, and planning for the preservation of our natural assets. This spring, our members discussed their priorities for this valley. I will quote parts of two of the items which were agreed upon. "Long range planning: we support the establishment of a long range, comprehen- sive land use plan for Pitkin County which will reate a balance between the economic, cultural, social and environmental needs of the people. Growth:" We support land use policies which come to grips with the practical issues involved in growth management. As a result of these two statements, the LWV supports today's proposal in general as an important step forward in planning for this area, realizing that some details may need modification now. We feel sure that modification will become necessary in the future also, because planning is one of those things that is never finished but that does not mean that we should not come to some agreements now. ROBERT GRUETER The first statement I would like to make is on behalf of the Aspen One Corpora- tion. I think that everybody is aware of the fact that Aspen One has entered into a contract, sort of contract, with the City that is coming up for a referendum this fall in a trade of that ground to the Post Office Department and to the City. It has now been designated as R-6 under your new zoning proposa: and that comes down from C-2 to R-6 which is a density. Forgetting for a moment the trade that is under contract, of the report cut 29 unit down to 7 units per acre which I think is fairly drastic. 1 don't know if that is really the intent. It's the only piece of AR-2 or C-2 ground that took that drastic of a cut that appears it was singled out. But secondly, I don't think that it should be rezoned at this time until the contract with the City for the Post Office exchange is taken care of. Secondly, I would like to address another piece of property, well let me first say thatthis is the first time I have been able to get a look at this and I just ran through here at random with some of my clients to see what has happened to their ground under this. The next one that struck me immediately was Dr. Oden, who owns a piece of C-2 ground right behind the 1st National Bank. I think you are familiar with that piece of property too which is being changed to a category of thoughtless multi-family that was being changed from the C-2 zoning that was on it. Maybe I'm not understanding the tabulation but it appears to me that there are some things that could be done with that ground such as professional offices or a bakery shop and there are no conditional uses and it seems to be restrictive to me the way that this is set forth. I would like to have a little more time, I hope that this public hearing will be continued over so that we have a chance to read over this thing to really understand what we are talking about. -2- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 10 C.F.HOECKELB.B.4 L. CO. Public Hearing Aspen planning and Zoning August 8, 1974 RICHARD SCHOTTLAND I would not like to disagree with our esteemed County Commissioners but I have some questions. In reference to the five acres in front of villa International House Care on the west side of Mill Street--it is being proposed that the zone fOI among other uses, a lumber yard. My question is, does it make sense to put a lumber yard in the middle of Aspen at this point in time? I think the other uses were plumbing shops, electrical shops, these types of uses. It is my understanding that the Airport Business Center was specifically built for that purpose and the City has now purchased eleven acres directly across the street and they are planning on putting a Civic Center and possibly a cultural center there. This group can zone the property to anything they desire, however, by doing that, it means that if you rezone it to these types of light industrial uses, the economics that we run on the property, theses people would have to pay $5.00 a square foot at least and therefore if it is a center they are paying substantially less than that and there is a question as to whether it is econom- ically feasible for anybody to use that land based on your downzoning. That's the first thing, the other item is: are those proper uses visually? CURTIS SLAVENS curtis Slavens. I live at block 35 on the east end of town on Cooper and Cleveland Streets. I hear that that's going to be down zoned from tourist to something else and that property, if its downzoned, will be worth maybe one- third what it's worth today before its downzoned. I've lived there for forty years and I sure don't like to see that thing downzoned. I got six lots up there and I don't think its fair. You can add that to it. PAT MADDALONE My name is Pat Maddalone, I've lived in Aspen for a long time, I have property on the east end of town, I also live in a house in the City. The things that strike me as being particulary important are general items and we could go through the ordinance and pick different things that I think maybe misprints or oversights but I'll keep my comments to be general. In looking through the new zoning map and the new zoning ordinance, I find that the densities range from a bonus 120 per cent in certain areas to the greatest discrepancy that I have found a down zoning in density let alone use of 98.27 per cent. So that in the area you are really losing a lot of use in density on land. It seemed to me for a long time, that one of the important things in land use regulation was to provide people with the assurance that their investment and their way of life in a given area was secure, and recognizing the planning process is continuing, I wonder if what we are really doing is really continuing a planning process or whether we are involved in a chaos, because I understood that the Aspen Land Use Plan which was presented last July was in effect an amended master plan and then subsequently there were amendments to that which included greenbelts and trail systems and urban run off drainage and dew corridors and in examining the Aspen Land Use Plan and comparing it with the proposed zoning map there are serious discrepancies and I wonder what the process is now - do we amend the master plan and then zone for some other use and then amend the master plan again to conform with the zoning? And when we are zoning the way this map looks now, are we zoning according to ordinary planning principles of considering neighborhoods and their use and size and geography or are we really zoning moratoriums because I observe in your zoning map as many as five different zoning classifications a block. I really would hope that in the introduction where we are informed that planning is a process which involves people, that this process could continu so that different neighborhoods could be heard on a more informal basis. The Planning Office and Planning and Zoning did this in our neighborhood in the east end of town from Original over to the river - I don't think that you had time to do this with the rest of community. I think that more of these study sessions might really be fruitful. -3- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMS(} C.F.HOECKELB.B.llL.CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning and zoning August 8, 1974 FRITZ BENEDICT I would like to speak specifically about a parcel that we own here. It's approximately two acres and it was zoned for higher density uses including offices for 18 years and we built an office building there last year and now its been zoned in this proposal for rural-residential and its the only area in the City that has that designation - that would allow one unit per two acres which is the 90 per cent reduction that Pat (Maddalone) mentioned. But the worst thing about this is that our present use is non-conforming. We built a 300,000 dollar office building in the last year and we are faced with that being non-conforming. In addition to that I would like to support the idea of duplexes being allowed in R-15 for the reasons generally stated in the Aspen Times editorial last week. BILL BATES I'm a landscape architect and a land planner and I work for Fritz. I would just like to further the discussion that Fritz brought up about our office building being a non-conforming use. It has been said early in this game that new zoning would zone things to their present use. That building is less than six months old and it is a sizable investment and has been zoned as a non-conforming use and I suppose that everyone in the valley is over reacting to the term non- conforming use because of the abatement situation that is going on in the county I still think that's a sizable investment and there is little justification if any for making that non-conforming use on a two acre parcel. It makes no sense at all. I would like to add something that Pat (Maddalone) mentioned about study sessions held with the neighborhood. I did attend one and I was quite encouraged. Yank and John were both there and I was quite encouraged when I came out of the meeting but I was terribly discouraged when the map came out and it appeared that none of the imput had been reflected on the map. This may have been a judgement of situation that what was said had no bearing on the situation but frankly very glad to see a lot of the neighbors that are still there after the meeting. I sincerely felt that you had taken their comments to heart but the maps don't reflect it. I think that there is good interchange to be had there and I think that it's a situation that we need to explore. MARY JOHNSTON Representing Gene Frey, owner of the Klip 'n Kurl. Wished to go on record as opposed to the downzoning as a violation of her property rights by the termin- ology of the Constitution of the State of Colorado. HANS R. GRAMIGER For myself I have no statement to make at this time but I reserve the time for later but I forgot to put down that I also represent a client so I will talk of that. This refers to Sunny Park North subdivision, which is on the present zoning map here. Mr. Tony Beruman, who is now deceased, started the subdivision with the purpose of providing employee housing. Right in these chambers he fought for zoning for employee housing and he finally got it. Now it has changed hands because of his passing away and Mr. Arthur Hyde of Congressional Corporation owns the property whom I represent. I feel that it is within seven or eight walking distance to the center of town and it has nice view and a lot of sun and if you are going to deprive future employees of Aspen this geographic location for thei few little housing then I don't know what you are standing for JIM MORAN My name is Jim Moran and I followed the activity of the Planning Commission fairly regularly in the last year and I think that you wrestled with some of the problems quite effectively, at least you've understood the depth of which the problems go. I hope that in reviewing the proposal you will not be alarmed or -4- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM5i C.F.HOECKELB.B.IlL.CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning August 8,1974 Jim Moran, Cont'd swayed by the fact that this zoning proposal was, in my opinion, very shortsight' edly iniated by the City Council and sent to you. In my opinion, that's the least informed body about what's contained in the map and the code that exists in the City. I hope you realize, as I think I'm right, that that was the swan song of Mr. Bartel who realizing the planning and Zoning Commission deeply into this subject matter was beginning to question rather than to just take and authorize what came out of the Planning Office, that unfortunately he chose to run your end and go to the City Council. I hope you won't allow that fact to impede your deliberations today. I've got a couple of things to say about procedure. It's been mentioned that the zoning code itself will probably be amended and be subject to change. Might I suggest that somehow you ask whoever is responsible for those changes to date code the pages or use some other way of signifying which are the current pages because in the County Zoning proposals, it was very difficult to be sure that you had the latest copy of the proposal that was in front of the Commission or the Council. I really suggest that as amendments come out they somehow be coded, a date code is a very easy way to check. Secondly, I suggest that you take a look at what has been a recent subject of a lot of talk before this Commission--that's the floor area ratio provisions. I don't think the definition of floor area ratio as contained in the present code is completely intelligible. That is, I'm asking whether or not if it relates to the area of floor space to the area of ground space. If it does, it doesn't say that but it seems to me that in the commerical core that's what you mean or does it refer to the area of a given use within the total area of the building. For instance, commerical core floor area ration is two to one. I don't think that makes sense unless you are talking about two square feet of floor area to one square foot of land area. On the other hand, you're employee housing FAR is .25 to one and if you are really interested in employee housing, what that means is that you can only put one fourth of a square foot of building area to every four square feet of land. You are going to have a hell of a time finding land where you can put employee housing at that park-like density. So I think that what that must mean is an internal ratio of one fourth of the building area, that is, for everyone foot of building floor space you must have one fourth of a foot devoted to employee housing, if that's what it means then the definition has to be straightened out a little. You recall that at a former meeting Planning Department came to you and asked for a recommendation which later went to the City Council that two thousand dollars in the contingency budget of the Planning Department be authorized to be spent for a legal justification for the proposed zoning code that is before you and that as I understood it at that time, Joe Edwards was going to do that work. I would like to ask whether or not that's been done and if so is that available to members of the public to study? Is that part of the file? (Yes.) The money has been spent and the opinion has been obtained. (Yes.) Finally I would like to talk about the overall philosophy of this plan. Not being a planner, nevertheless, it seems to me that there's got to be something fundamentally wrong when the result of four years and hundreds of thousands of dollars of planning is not a plan but basically an overlay of the City as it now exists with certain modifications. Now that certainly could have been done as an interim measure if you wanted to stop things while you plan. But I really wonder if its planning philosophically to say that where an apartment building exists those two lots are apartments, if next door to it is a single family residence.we may not be able to zone it as a single family residence. If we can't zone it single family residence, we'll zone it lodge or something close to what it is. I really think that that should be investigated and really thought out. The representative from the League of Women Voters said planning is never finished. In my opinion, the plan that you have before you, the fact is that it has never been started because after four years you're saying or the proposal is you're not saying it but the proposal before you says let's zone everything the way it grew up without the sophisticated planning that we have had for the last four years. -5- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMS(} C.F.HOECKELB.B.8L.CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning August 8, 1974 Jim Moran, Cont'd Think of the results of that type of activity. What it does is create values or preserve values for those who have done the very things that you say you don't want to happen again. And on the other hand, those people who have kept their land out of development, in the land bank for future developments so to speak, are now being told it's too late. The door is snapped shut and while the City allowed a three story building to go up next you you or on both sides of you, you are not going to be allowed the same privilege. The fact of the matter is I think that you can control the quality of what happens and you can, I think, hold down the density but to say that you want a beautiful city, a fine city for everyone to live in. But you want it paid for only by those who have not taken their economic return as yet, that is the people who are still waiting. That's the result of a plan like this which is why I say it is no plan at all. Finally, again on an economic basis, you'll see that a great area of the town between Wagner Park and the mountain is zoned lodge. In some instances as few as three or two lots which are now perhaps single family or something lik, that or vacant are zoned lodge. I think that before you approve such a plan that some economic truths ought to be investigated and one of those is, at least as far as clients of our who have been in the lodge business is, that I'm sorry you cannot make it with less than 100-150 units in a lodge at current land prices unless you wanted to eevote the rest of your life to making toast in beds and washing linen. I think that if you take a look at that problem you'll find that zoning a small parcel lodge is giving the lodge owner a ticket to bankruptcy and in the zoning code before you lodge is a single classification. There is nothing else that can be done with that land. Now you have variations of that you have commercial lodge and you have lodge with the restaurant as a permitted use but I think that you would be very ill-advised to restrict the I, I land-owner to that single activity. Finally, I'm sure that the public is aware but I'm very disturbedabout Article 10 of the Zoning Code which is the reserva- tion of land for public acquisition. Basically, what that chapter does is allow the City Council by ordinance to indicate that some time within the next five years, that being the maximum period on the first go-round, it may wish to acquire a piece of private land for public purposes. It then goes on to say that, of course, nothing in such a reservation would prevent the Planning commission or the Building Inspector from issuing a permit for development thati is not inconsistent with the purpose for the future acquisition. Let meask you this, if the City Council by ordinance designated your property as reserved for future public acquisition as a park, what kind of development can be authorized that is not inconsistent with park purposes. What this does is attempt to give the City a unilateral option to put land in cold storage because it might want to acquire it. Now I have serious legal problems with that but I don't, I won't bore you with those. But think for a minute. Is that really what you want to do or what you want to recommend? At a very miniumum couldn't you recommend to the County Assessor that the taxes on that piece of ground go somewhere next to zero? What is the value of a piece of ground that the City has said we might want to acquire sometime within the next five years for park purposes? You mean to tell me that land owner is going to sit there and pay special district taxes, real estate taxes based on the former value and not be able to do any thing with it for five years? Might be a very convenient way for the City to accomplish what it wants but is it fair to that part of the City that is the citizen who owns that land? These are just some thoughts, I haven't had a chanc. to go all the way through the code and the maps. I expect that I will return after I have had that chance. GEN LEININGER My name is Gen Leininger. I have a duplex at 312 W. Hyman I built twenty years ago. My parents have been living there since that time. My father recently passes away so my mother will not live here anymore. When I built the house,,~ , twenty years ago, I knew it was in the tourist zone. I was very unhappy to'the Brown Ice Palace go up and replace Jones' stable and his open land. I saw the -6- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM" C.F.tlOECKELB.B.ll L. co. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning August 8, 1974 Gen Leininger, Cont'd Ajax apartments go up. The Kitzbuhel Lodge went up next door, the St. Moritz Lodge and the single family dwelling next door to me has become a large part of , the St. Moritz Lodge. In all the time that this was happening, I knew and I sa1d to my parents who were upset and to my other friends 'this is a tourist zone an~ I knew it when I bought it and though I don't particularly like it, I would l1ke to see Aspen stay the way it was twenty years ago. This is what I bought and this is the way is is.' Now for several years I have been thinking that I might wish to put an addition onto the back of my house, another unit. I probably won't do it but I just learned when I came here this year again that that I might not be able to. I object to this because I want the privelege to do that as everyone around me has. I called when I came back here this summer and I,am going to rent. My downstairs is rented and I am going to rent the upsta1rs. I called the real estate agent and asked him what the rentals were in Aspen and needless to say I was appalled and I said I can't do that; I can't charge that much because I want to rent long term and I want decent tenants. I rented for $100.00 less than what he recommended because I don't think it is fair to take advantage of people. If I do build on the back, it will be for long term rentals. I am not here to gouge people, I am not a developer and I am just as interested as anybody else is in keeping Aspen the way I think most of us would like to see it. I fully agree with all of the people who have stood up an~ said that they have a vacant lot and they have not taken advantage of certa1n developments and have seen developers come in and build these, I'm sorry I call t~em monstrosities allover the place. I think that all the people who have kept 1t sould be allowed to protect their investments and realize whatever they might without taking advantage of the situation. JOHN STANFORD I would like to explain to you the justification for the rezoning...the processeE in considering. As you know, last year the City adopted Ordinance 19 along with the land use plan and map which in effect is an interim land use plan map which would allow the City one year in order to restudy the 1966 land use plan and come up with a recommendation for a new land use plan. During that time, for the last year, this effect was done to avert moratorium which would prevent any building for a period of time. And it was a result of the various problems the City was experiencing with growth. For instance, the population has doubled every ten years since 1950. Last year the growth rate has been 18 per cent per year. And with this growth rate, the economic well being of the town, we felt, as a tourist resort was being threatened. A number of the problems would be air pollution, water pollution and the historic character of the town is being changed and one of the assets of Aspen as a tourist commodity is its small town character and its victorian character. Recreation, quality of recreation itself was being threatened from the stand-point of a very large capacity-- nine thousand compared to the three thousand three hundred ski hill capacity. Open space and natural scenic views were being threatened by both commercial and residential developments in the City and natural areas were being threatened including public access to the area and adjacent areas of natural vegetation. So in the last year, the Planning Department has been working with the Planning and Zoning Commission in the update and refinement of the land use plan and we have the land use plan for the City on which the zoning maps have been based. I would like to give you the various policies which we incorporated into the plan and into the plan for the rezoning. 1. Locate tourist accomodations near tourist activities and transit. Intent is to eliminate the need for automobiles thereby reducing congestion and air pollution. 2. To limit the additional tourist accomodations and short-term condominium rentals. -7- ",~",._.-..,.~--"",,,,-,...~,-_..~-_.- -. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORMIO C.F.HOECKELB.B.& L. CO. Public Hearing Aspen planning & Zoning August 8, 1974 John Stanford, Cont'd The intent is to limit the increase in tourist accomodation--the same balance between tourist accomodations and ski hill capacity. And also the burden on the transportation facilities of carrying people to Snowmass and the other ski areas. 3. Create a density transition from high to medium to low in the central core, core fringe and outlying areas respectively. 4. Prevent additional developments which generate traffic along Main Street and other major thoroughfare. This would be in order to maintain the integrity of Main Street as a major thoroughfare and to avoid additonal congestion and potential traffic hazards that could result thereby allowing high density uses which would generate traffic on Main Street from coming and going from those uses that would front on Main Street. 5. Retain the present mix of primarily residential uses in the areas south of Bleeker Street and west of the commerc~al core. The intent here was to maintain that current density and mix of uses which we feel provides a quieter alternative to the tourist who wants to stay there which is less congested and less intense use than in the lodge area. 6. Link Aspen Mountain with the Roaring Fork River by way of parks, open space and green belt for the pedestrians. Intent was eliminate the need for the automobile, improve the visual appearance of the town and aid in implementing the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan, the Urban Runoff Managment and the Regional Transportation Plan which have been presented to the City. 7. Zone public lands in order to set precedents for open space. 8. Restrict high density development at the base of the ski hill. This would be in order to allow adequate circulation on the streets and to protect the quality of skiing. 9. Relate future development to the City's special service district and public utilities ability to provide public services in a sound fiscal manner. 10. Preserve the existing remaining qualities and characteristics of Aspen that express an uncrowded peaceful, quiet and friendly town. A mountain ski town closely tied in with the natural environment. Those are our primary justifications on the plan and the downzoning which we are experiencing today. The Planning Department will be working with the Planning and Zoning commisssion in making refinements in additions to the code and the maps in the near future in August and these will be public meetings which you are invited to attend if you like. We do also in the future hope to have more communication with neighborhood groups and in order to get more public imput from the public because we feel that public hearings in themselves are not sufficient. Conclusion Johnson concluded with a thank you to the public for expressing their feelings and said that he would make no promises to anyone except to consider everything that had been said. He stated that since many had not had the chance to study the first draft of the proposed rezoning the meeting would be continued until -8- RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves August J, 1974 FORM 50 C.F.HOECKEL8.B.& l. CO. Public Hearing Aspen Planning & Zoning Thursday, August 15 at 4:00 p.m. so that anyone wishing to could address them- selves to it next time. Barnard moved to adjourn, Jenkins seconded. All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05. ~v ~q~ Recording SeQ~etary MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence addressed to the Planning and Zoning Commission was received from Temple W. Allen and Ken & Molly Maurin, who opposed the proposed zoning changes and from Evan and Flournoy Gull who supported it.