Legacy Lodge

Every complex problem has a solution which is simple,
direct, plausible—and wrong.
– H.L. Mencken

As you know, there has been much in the news and on social media recently about the Legacy Lodge, on which the county commission has now taken three votes. The procedural situation is rather complex, due to the convoluted history of the parcel, so I want to explain each vote:

1. The first vote on May 3 approved a proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Rafter J. 

The key question: are residential apartments conceivably an appropriate use at the Legacy Lodge facility? This proposal to amend our land use regulations to allow residential apartments as a conditional use at Legacy Lodge passed unanimously. Several neighbors have sued the county to reverse this decision.

2. The second vote on May 10 denied a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the proposed residential use of the building.

The key question: does the CUP proposal comply with the county’s regulations for the use of residential apartments at this site?  I voted against the CUP, which failed on a 2-2 vote. The specific proposal before the commission had several shortcomings which I discuss below.  In short, we can do better than the proposal to use the building entirely for seasonal employees.

3. I instigated the third vote on May 23 with a motion to reconsider the CUP.

I made a motion to “have the application come back before the Board on September 20, 2022, with the understanding that the Applicant will use this time to make an effort to resolve issues with the neighbors and to further mitigate the impacts of the CUP.”  I made this motion because we have a housing crisis and a large empty building.  My goal is to catalyze the landowner, neighbors, and housing advocates to develop a more acceptable proposal for use for the Legacy Lodge building ASAP, so that we can best meet our severe need for housing for diverse members of our community and mitigate impacts on the neighborhood.

I voted to support this measure, which passed 3-1.

What's next?

I hope that the applicant and other interested parties will seriously address this opportunity before September 20, when this item is back before the commission.

I hope to see a more balanced and appropriate use of the building with:

  • Inclusion of one-year leases for long-term residents rather than all short-term (e.g. six month) leases for seasonal employees.

  • Deed restricting some apartments for affordability – rather than entirely rented in blocks to businesses and then subleased to seasonal employees at the highest going rate — coupled with commitments to offer some apartments for critical service providers (e.g. school and hospital employees).

  • Conversion of some of the smallest (e.g. studio) apartments into one or two-bedroom apartments to reduce the overall occupancy of the building and to provide housing that is more suitable for long-term leases and for a parking constrained facility.

  • Specific and phased commitments to invest in mitigating parking problems, ensuring public transportation (perhaps through gap funding until START service arrives), and supporting analysis of the already unsafe intersection of Big Trails Road and Highway 89.

  • An expedited process for resolving disputes and ensuring compliance.

My effort to encourage a collaborative solution is a gamble that requires give and take from both the landowner and neighbors; however, a collaborative approach to the future use of this building is worth the time and effort.

I am pleased to see that the Rafter J Homeowners Association has reached out to the landowner proposing to engage a facilitator.  I hope that these discussions produce a win-win alternative.  Otherwise, in September the county commission may approve or deny the CUP application as proposed or may impose additional conditions.

I believe a win for all is possible.

Many thanks,
Luther

Luther Propst