Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20081021ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 MINUTES 2 COMMENTS 2 DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 2 1022 EAST HYMAN -STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 2 ZG MASTER PLAN 6 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Bert Myrin and Dina Bloom were present. Brian Speck was excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Errin Evans, Jennifer Phelan, Jason Lasser, Ben Gagnon, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Trish Aragon, Engineering; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES LJ Erspamer made corrections to page 5 & 6. Stan Gibbs made a correction to page 6. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes of September 23, 2008; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed updates for the land use code. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin received a notice for the ZG Master Plan so he will recuse himself from that portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 1022 EAST HYMAN -STREAM MARGIN REVIEW LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 1022 East Hyman Avenue, Stream Margin Review. Jim True was provided with public notice and it was in order. Errin Evans stated that John McCormick was doing some renovations and would like to construct a deck on the second floor of the existing duplex; the duplex is located less than 100 feet from the high water mark; it falls under stream margin review. Evans said the proposed deck located on the second floor under the existing deck that is on the third floor; the proposed deck is small but does not meet one of the stream margin review standards. Evan said that standard number 9 has 2 requirements; no development takes place on a horizontal plane from the top of slope within 15 feet and progressive height plane that goes 45 degrees from the top of bank. Evans said the entire deck falls into both areas; there are criteria to apply for a variance but this application was not qualified for those criteria for special review. The Planning & Zoning Commission has the authority to approve, to approve with conditions, or deny this application. Staff recommends that the 2 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Commission deny the application based on code requirements. No drainage permit was required, which is part of the requirements for stream margin review. Cliff Weiss asked when the setback was established at 15 feet.. Evans replied the City had a separate stream margin review study; it was a top of bank study. Jennifer Phelan said the code changes over time; even though something might have been permitted at a certain time, if it was legally established it's allowed to continue and if added onto or changed the building as the code changes, the building needs to meet the code. Evans said the new changes should decrease the non-conformity and not increase the non-conformity. Weiss said that it was obvious that this building has been there a long time. John McCormick stated that it was moved there in the mid 70s from Durant Street. Weiss stated that he was trying to get a timeline of what happened when along the way. Evans said the renovations that they are doing inside are permitted. Jim DeFrancia asked if the purpose of the ordinance was to alleviate negative impacts on the river, have you determined that this will cause negative impacts on the river. Evans responded that there was no drainage plan to see if there was an increase in impervious surface; the city engineer was present. Phelan said that with the progressive height plane you are looking at something that was established to create less visual impacts from the river. Trish Aragon stated that you were looking at negative impacts to the river environmentally by adding a deck it could have a negative impact on the river and they haven't shown how they will do that or how that will be accomplished. Stan Gibbs asked the difference between the two code sections and what their intents were. Evans replied that one was a use and one is a structure. Phelan responded that typically the non-conforming use is something that was legally established and the zoning changed over time so the use was allowed to continue and non-conforming structures were seen typically with older houses there might not have been setbacks and now there were setbacks from property lines. Gibbs asked if the use was within the zone district. Phelan said it was a permitted use. Bert Myrin asked if this was in the environmental sensitive area. Evans replied yes. Myrin asked if under 26.575.150(d)(a) this required an outdoor lighting plan; he asked if one was submitted. Evans responded that there was no lighting proposed. Myrin asked if the. applicant was asking for a variance. Evans responded the applicant was basically looking to override the code. Phelan said that there were certain developments that can meet .certain standards that do not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; if you cannot meet those 3 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 standards then it triggers Stream Margin Review, which comes under P&Z with a set of standards. Phelan said the applicant was requesting a variance from one of those criteria; there were two review criteria to consider. Jim DeFrancia asked staff if they were recommending denial because they haven't complied. Phelan responded that staff was saying that the applicant was requesting a variance from one of the stream margin review standards and the request does not meet the variance standards. John McCormick, applicant, stated that this property was his sole asset. McCormick applied to do this remodel and asked for the decks off of his living room and kitchen and he voluntarily went in and took out the decks but the doors remain. McCormick distributed several maps and letters to the commission; he said that his lot was complicated with the top of slope. McCormick said that in fact the river was quite a ways away from his house between the river and his house was a small island and a tributary, which sometimes flows and sometimes not. McCormick said that he was prepared to put up an orange fence and a plastic fence so the potential dust and settlement doesn't go into the river; he was sensitive to living on the river and wants to protect it. McCormick said that he was proposing a deck of 177 square feet; he said that below this proposed deck was a patio and above it was an existing deck that was larger than the proposed deck. McCormick said that he would replace the wooden banister and replace it with glass and the same on the proposed deck. McCormick said that he had a hardship because if it was a different kind of lot there wouldn't be an issue with the decks. McCormick proposed a cantilevered deck without pillars. McCormick said that the engineering was dealt with in the construction management plan. Jeffrey Halferty, representative for the applicant, said that the questions on process were taken in well and John's point of the edge of the river being one side and the tributary and the top of bank was shown in the one drawing. Halferty said that this was the only place the deck could be built and the decks were as modest as they can be; there was an existing dry well on the property for drainage but the surface area was less than what was required. Cliff Weiss asked the distance from the corner of Unit 1 patio to a mark that is called edge of creek; the closest part. McCormick replied about 10 feet. Bert Myrin asked if there was a difference between the 2 decks being proposed and to the area being impacted. McCormick said that the ones below would be slightly 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 less. Myrin asked if one of the proposed decks was closer to high water. McCormick replied deck 4 is closer to the high water line. Halferty said it was about 6 feet. Stan Gibbs said that the criteria were also the issue. Jennifer Phelan replied that non-conformity was allowed to be maintained, allowed to be decreased but it is not allowed to be expanded; the deck would be an expansion. Gibbs asked if the non- conformity would be the setback from the high water. LJ Erspamer asked if there was any input from the neighbors. Evan replied there was not regarding the deck itself; there was concern about the construction materials being stored outside for the renovation and when the construction mitigation officer went everything was in order. Public Comments: Dee Malone, public, said that the purpose of the riparian guideline was to protect the river by preventing destabilization to the banks and to maintain riparian vegetation, which is an essential to bank stability. Malone said that the bank above would not increase destabilization but would suggest increasing the runoff from the deck into the back yard but the increase in the deck doesn't impact riparian vegetation. DeFrancia said it was very clear that this improvement however modest is going to occur in an area where no new development is permitted. DeFrancia said that he did not find any hardship but where the house is situated doesn't seem like the addition of the desk will cause any egregious circumstance that already exists and Dee's comments helped the applicant. Weiss said that if the third floor deck were removed it can't be rebuilt because it was non-conforming; his real concern was the precedence setting because this was one of many structures along the river that are non-conforming. Weiss suggested a compromise in renovating the third floor deck. Myrin said the non-conformity was clear in the code that non-conformities could not be expanded or enlarged. Jim True said that it was P&Z's desecration to determine if there was an expansion to the non-conformity, it can't be allowed. True said that if you determine that it is not an expansion of anon-conformity then you can approve it but if you decide it is an expansion of anon-conformity then you really don't have the choice to allow it. 5 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Mike Wampler said that all of his issues were spoken about. Weiss asked if there was a deck on the second floor originally. McCormick replied no. Weiss said so this is an expansion. Dina Bloom agreed that there was not a hardship without a deck. Bloom said that she was concerned with the doors being placed prior to the decks being built. McCormick responded the doors were in the building permit. Gibbs said that he disagreed with Cliff on setting precedence because every application was different. Gibbs said the non-conformity was the distance from the high water line and he said that the vertical line wasn't any closer; it seemed to qualify for an exemption from having stream margin review. Gibbs said that he did not think that this increased the non-conformity significantly. Erspamer asked where the expansion was going to be located. Evan replied it was the 10' 6" was what was noted on their plans and she over-noted where the 15 foot was located. Erspamer said that you cannot add precedence by adding another non-conformity to anon-conformity under the code. MOTION.• Bert Myrin moved to deny the application for a Stream Margin Review at 1022 E Hyman based upon the expansion ofnon-conformity; seconded by Cliff Weiss. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Gibbs, no; DeFrancia, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes; Approved to deny 6-1. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ZG MASTER PLAN LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Erspamer said that if the public had a long comment something in writing should be submitted. Ben Gagnon said that on September 2°d they went through parts 1 and 2 of the application to the ZG Master Plan. Gagnon said that traffic information was provided. Gagnon said that if there were a limited amount of office on the first floor of Zupancis and employee housing on the second and third floors the vehicle trips would drop considerably. Gagnon said that this traffic study was about which uses generate a lot of traffic and which uses generate less traffic painting an overall picture of the mitigation necessary. Gagnon said this was a master plan painting a picture of a puzzle with an idea to plan the larger picture with the understanding that each piece still needs to come forward in a land use review process before the P&Z, before the Council and most likely before the citywide electorate in terms of elections in the future. 6 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Stan Gibbs asked if the county offices were the purple buildings. Gagnon replied correct and that includes the existing county plaza building in a new configuration. Gibbs asked how much of the 15,000 square foot office in alternative 2 was there. Gagnon replied that was pretty much the whole first floor the entire Zupancis parcel, not the county plaza building, which would remain in the county's ownership retained for some level of county operation. Mike Wampler said that he knew what he wanted to say. LJ Erspamer asked about increasing pedestrian movement in the central core and making it less crowded and try to create more activity here in the ZG Master Plan area. Erspamer asked what are you going to do to mitigate the pedestrian movement crossing. Gagnon responded there would possibly be a stamped crosswalk and a median. Erspamer asked if there was a minority opinion in the Civic Master Plan. Gagnon replied that it was done by consensus; the city used that thumb exercise and the discussion would be massaged until everyone had their thumbs up on the group. Erspamer asked what the Art Sector Facility Analysis was. Gagnon replied that document was produced by Michael Strong hired by the Wheeler to take a look all the arts facilities in town and offer his opinion on the demand or need for additional facilities; the quote that was taken from that and put into the Civic Master Plan was the most relevant to the Civic Master Plan that talked about an additional performing arts facility that needed to be utilized. Gagnon said that there was talk of a shared arts facility at this ZG site which it no longer does because Theatre Aspen and Filmfest were no longer interested in a performing arts facility so the concept was a shared arts facility but not performing arts. Erspamer said that ACRA was very constrained and asked how long the Stay Aspen lease was. Gagnon replied that their lease goes through the end of next year. Erik Klanderud replied that Stay Aspen had approximately 3 years left on the 5 year lease. Gagnon said that they have been talking with Bill Tomsich about this and by the time this piece, phase and unfolds that Stay Aspen Snowmass needs to be elsewhere; they are not on this site. Stan Gibbs asked if there was any attempt to find out the reverse traffic if the county offices were moved to the AABC. Gagnon replied that was not part of the scope of this work; there was no plan in place to say which services would remain in the county plaza building and which would be moved out to the AABC. Jason Lasser utilized power point for the visualization of the properties. 7 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Erspamer asked what was meant by a modest edge as opposed to a hard edge in regards to sidewalks. Gagnon replied.that was in the Civic Master Plan, which is the redesign of the North Mill Street corridor that was not in the ZG Master Plan. Gagnon said at the walkway that goes North/South at the West edge of Wagner Park would be a modest edge as opposed to a harder edge which would be a building. Public Comments: Junee Kirk, public, said P&Z approved the Civic Master Plan with conditions in December of 2006 and those conditions and existing uses ofnon-profits be given priority for the former Youth Center Site when any development takes place. Kirk quoted from the Civic Master Plan on conditions of approval with Ordinance 46, series 2006; the 2 conditions are like uses should be located near uses whenever possible and enhancement of existing use should be permitted. Kirk said the Aspen Art Museum would be for the Art Museum and would not do for non-profits that need their own space and schedules; nothing dictates that the Art Museum needs to be located on this particular site where the Youth Center is, it could be located on the Zupancis property on Main Street. Kirk said the ZG Master Plan does not meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan because in the Aspen Area Community Plan it talks about sustainability. Kirk said that it was wasteful and non sensitive to the environment to scrape the Youth Center and this building could be remodeled for other non-profit uses. Kirk said the 48,000 square foot county offices could easily be built out by the Airport Business Center so that should be looked at especially since 60% of the county employees live beyond the roundabout. Kirk said that she would consider a redesign for the ZG Master Plan. Marilyn Marks, public, asked about the financial feasibility and asked how much was being spent. in 2008 and budgeted for 2009 on the process; the architect, design fees, software and resources. Gagnon said that the consultants costs were in the application; the budget for the ZG Conceptual Plan was established by the Council in 2007 and they have kept within since then it was $30,000.00 for the City and the other partners have kicked in for certain project and there was no additional budget for 2008 or 2009 for it. Kent Reed, public, said that he concurred with what Junee Kirk said that the original use was a performing. Gagnon replied that the Civic Master Plan talks about a shared use performing arts facility and Theatre Aspen and Filmfest dropped out of that. Reed said the local performing arts and arts were 8 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 disenfranchised from the whole thing. Reed said resurfacing the roof of the parking garage should include thoughts on landscaping and asked where that stands. Gagnon said that the landscape design of the roof replacement will come before Planning & Zoning Commission and. Council as an SPA Amendment so the public will get a chance to look at what that landscape design will look like. Marc Friedberg, public, said that in addition to Filmfest and Theatre Aspen there was Dance Aspen who showed no interest in moving their location from the High School. Bill Wiener, public, said it was difficult to make comments that he has been trying to make for a couple of years and the process was just awful. Wiener said the parking lot in front of the bank has to be kept for open space and support for events in the park, the Jazz Festival, Food and Wine, the Ducks, Athletic Events, Pancakes, Registration for other things all happen there. Wiener said the process was that votes were taken before the public had comments and sometimes the public tried to make a comment and they were ruled out of order. Wiener this has been a railroad and an attempt to inhibit the public from making necessary comments. Gilbert Sanchez, public, stated that the last time he spoke of the ZG Master Plan he used the word framework for the future projects that would come before P&Z. Sanchez said that each project will come before P&Z and each project will be able to be scrutinized and identified. Toni Kronberg, public, provided testimony on behalf of Les Holst which said that P&Z should not recommend approval of the ZG Master Plan because it was too broad in scope and feels that each individual development should come forward on its own. Kronberg quoting Holst said that the ZG Master Plan was only guiding in nature whereas the Civic Master Plan is a regulatory document. Kronberg stated on behalf of Holst that each part will require a public vote; those being the open space in the Library Park Plaza the voters have to approve the change in use of an open space parcel; the Library Park Plaza was mitigation for the Library, the Jail, the former Youth Center, the parking garage and all of the development that surrounds the Library Park Plaza. Kronberg said that Les said each piece should come forward. DeFrancia and Erspamer noted that was Toni's 3 minutes. Kronberg said that was Les Holt's 3 minutes. Kronberg said that in the event that a person could not be 9 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 here they are allowed to have another person speak on their behalf. Kronberg said that last week she asked if this was quasi judicial or legislative and it clearly states in the master plan that project require approval. DeFrancia called a point of order that Ms. Kronberg was not speaking to the ZG Master Plan. Toni Kronberg said that if you have read the Civic Master Plan a regulatory document and if you read the resolution you are missing some of the components that you are going to bring to Aspen City Council. Kronberg said one it says that you are going to have all the footprints, heights, mass; that you are going to have text that refers and something for us, the public, to follow. Kronberg said it talks about the components; none of the components have been addressed. Kronberg said lastly the future land use review, the project, what you are granting them right now is to go before the next stage and eliminate, you are asking for a planned unit development and they are also asking for growth management review and that's in section 4 future land use. Kronberg said that what you are allowing them to do is to skip step 1 and step 2; they are going right into final approval for step 3 and step 4; that's not right for the public. Kronberg said the other thing is the voting; how can you approve a master plan if you don't know if you have the public support; this should be brought to the public for their approval. Heidi Zuckerman Jacobson, Director and Chief Curator of the Aspen Art Museum, called attention to the appendix included in the packet which was the list of collaborators. Jacobson said that they have participated in the ZG Master Plan and attend to show their commitment to the community in what they can offer and provide. LJ Erspamer closed the public portion of the hearing. Erspamer stated that the Commission needs to determine if the application for the ZG Master Plari meets the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. There were a lot of elements to this. Cliff Weiss stated that he has been listening to the public and understands the frustration. Weiss said the Library has a certain amount of expansion ability and doesn't have a problem with it. Weiss agreed that ACRA needs new facilities but the location on the plan is not proper for them. Weiss said the City needs more space within ZG and that was okay. Weiss asked which more of a sense of community affordable housing of county office building; his vote goes with affordable housing and there were only a few places left to build affordable 10 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 housing, which should be in the ZG Plan. Weiss voiced concern for affordable housing, parking and pedestrians in the ZG Plan; he said that he did not feel that he had all the fact to approve this conceptually. Weiss said that he understands why the Art Museum wants to be where there is foot traffic; he wanted to know what happened to the old museum and to use the old museum along with the new one more New York, and one more Aspen. Weiss said that he can't get behind moving the Museum without having something truly exciting happening with the old museum. Weiss said that overall he feels the ZG Plan is a hodgepodge and doesn't like the location of the meeting space, the affordable housing and ACRA being at the corner of Rio Grande and Mill. Weiss wanted to know more about the mitigation of foot traffic and this whole plan has nothing about cost and how anything will be built except the museum and library because they have their separate funds. Weiss said that town is sick of all of the construction. Weiss said that affordable housing should be the main focus. Jim DeFrancia agreed with the majority of Cliff s observations but offered a note of caution on relocating the county offices because as much as affordable housing is needed and this would be an appropriate place for some it is important that we maintain viable daytime business activity in the downtown area. DeFrancia said that if you move all of the working force out of town then the town gets to be a dead zone; the City offices would remain; he didn't think that all the county offices needed to be in town; the courts and sheriff should stay. DeFrancia said that he would favor affordable housing but to be careful not to move all the county offices out of Aspen. DeFrancia said the Museum location was appropriate and they have been responsible in addressing their needs; there were several ideas for the other site and he did not think that it was a prerequisite that should be decided in advance. DeFrancia noted this would probably not be built immediately but that doesn't mean that it can't be planned and get it in place and further advance the project. DeFrancia said the process has been very public and open; there were public meetings going back to a year ago August that were widely advertized, widely noted; if you look at that you will notice the attendance increased every meeting; there's got to be more people. DeFrancia said that if you have strong feelings about an issue you should write about it and submitting written commentary is appropriate; no one can expect these meetings to go on indefinitely and everybody get up and give a 3 hour presentation on what they think is a good idea. Michael Wampler said that he did not copy Cliff's notes and he thought Community Development did go along the lines of the plan and for that he 11 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 applauded them. Wampler said that was '06 with a completely different administration and things have changed from who is on Council and P&Z and the economic climate. Wampler said that each of the components should be voted on their own and the good ones will win the community vote and the bad ones won't. Wampler said that he hasn't heard the future of technology with what's happening on a day by day basis; we don't know what's going to happen in the next 2, 4, or 6 years for that matter we might all be working out of our houses at that point; he asked do we really need the square footage that's been proposed. Wampler said to get the Aspen Art Museum to a vote and the local artists in the other location, which would be the perfect spot and possibly other ventures to be determined but that should be under the Art Museum's umbrella. Wampler stated ACRA should take over that entire space as soon as possible and that should be the number one priority for ACRA. Wampler said that he was okay with the library and they will have to prove to the public when they are ready to expand. Wampler said the county needed to go out to the AABC but to keep the essential services and the Zupancis property was a good place for multiuse city building and employee housing. Wampler said the housing down by the bank should be placed on Zupancis and leave that corner open down by the Community -Bank. Wampler appreciated Ben and Jason and Community Development with a great job and he was sure they were following what they were told to do but times were changing. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to extend the public hearing to 7: 30pm; seconded by Mike Wampler. All in favor, APPROVED. LJ Erspamer agreed with the other commissioners; he said that he wanted the whole plan and to do something in stages and not have to vote about the Museum. Erspamer said the Library was okay but the new building next to it created a canyon. Erspamer said that he was not for putting the buildings to the edge and if the county went out to the airport there were combinations and combine the people from the courthouse to the first floor. Erspamer agreed with the lack of parking and transportation plans; the pedestrian plan for crossing the streets was not good. Erspamer liked the view and openness from the park. Erspamer stated that they needed to help the Chamber and the City Offices. Erspamer said the commission needed to look at the core principles in the Civic Master Plan to follow those 8 core principles; Civic and Arts/Cultural uses, Mixed use buildings and mixed uses areas, Focus on Creating people places, Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial Spaces, the need for parking while not introducing additional traffic; partnerships among and between the public and 12 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 private sectors, pedestrian orientation creates connections between neighborhoods, Arts and Culture is an intrinsic asset. Erspamer said that he could not support the Master Plan as it is now yet something needs to go forward that were agreed on; city offices and employee housing. Jim True said that it was his understanding that the requirement of the commission was to make a determination as to whether it's consistent with the findings or recommendations of the Civic Master Plan; he was not sure how that relates to the core principles but he wanted to make the statement that there were probably distinctions between those core principles that were being referred to and the findings and recommendations. Ben Gagnon said that you can find it in the Civic Master Plan and in the Ordinance that Council passed, it states that you need to show consistency with Civic Master Plans findings and recommendations and if you are not able to show consistency with the findings and recommendations then you fall back to the core principles, which are more general and show consistency with the core principles. Erspamer said however it said that P&Z may make changes to the ZG Master Plan prior to making a recommendation to City Council. Gagnon said absolutely those are two separate issues; the Civic Master Plan doesn't say certain type of use should go on a certain site; it says for example look at the Zupancis site and look at the Civic building and if a civic building is not planned for that site then it ought to be this other thing. Gagnon said these are pieces of a puzzle and it is up to the Planning & Zoning Commission if one of the pieces of the puzzle needs to be altered, if one of the uses is changed; that is under the P&Z purview; overall once P&Z is done it should show some consistency with the Civic Master Plan. Gagnon said the Civic Master Plan is flexible and the ZG Master Plan is more specific; you can still change the ZG Master Plan according to what the commission would like to see and still be consistent with the Civic Master Plan. Stan Gibbs said in Section 7 Resolution 38B there shall be a determination whether the document shall be used as guiding or regulatory. Gagnon replied that was correct. Gibbs said that he didn't remember seeing the conclusion of that. Gagnon said that in the Resolution that initiated this planning process and in the resolution before you tonight for recommending approval of the ZG Master Plan in section 5 that describes it as guiding; the first paragraph states the requirement; the second paragraph identifies the AACP as a guiding document used in the drafting of the Civic Master Plan. Gagnon said the Civic Master Plan was a regulatory document used in the review of the ZG Master Plan. Gibbs said people tend to take the concept of a master plan and turn it into a development plan and we need to step 13 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 back and realize that this is a very general, even though it has a lot of detail, it has more detail than the Civic Master Plan and that's the intent of Council when they started this process that staff would develop some kind of a general plan that has a fair amount of specificity as to uses and site and open space that would be consistent with the Civic Master Plan. Gibbs said that staff did a great job; everything was in the ZG Master Plan that was called out as a possibility in the Civic Master Plan. Gibbs said it was a possibility, this doesn't give anybody a right to do anything and it is not going to define any project in great specificity as it will be required to come back to P&Z in any case and to Council to be reviewed.. Gibbs said the whole reason to do a master plan is to prevent ad hoc development; the whole point of a master plan is just to develop a consistent vision and in this case consistent with the Civic Master Plan and staff has done a good job with that requirement, which is what P&Z is supposed to be judging not whether or not a particular use is liked or the placement of a building. Gibbs agreed with the comments that the county buildings probably don't belong in this plan because they will add a lot of traffic and use to this site that the Civic Master Plan was clear that one of the core principles was not to increase a lot of traffic. Gibbs said the traffic study shows a lot of traffic. Gibbs said at the Mill Street and Rio Grande corner 2 big buildings is probably too much; he would like to see neighborhood commercial in a one story maybe a two story building that's very sensitive. Gibbs said if the county is not in the Zupancis site that would be was a great place for employee housing since it was city property. Gibbs said the ZG Master Plan was a good start and the right way to proceed. LJ Erspamer said that if they agreed with this Master Plan we would be agreeing with the buildings where they are. Gagnon replied that roughly, approximately yes, but you're not committing yourself to anything; everything will come back to P&Z. Dina Bloom said that she came to some of the same conclusions as Stan; it was only a Master Plan and there will be a lot of time in the future to review it and get public input. Bloom said that it is important that it is planned because it will give it a better chance to vital. Bloom stated the current Chamber building does not represent what Aspen wants to represent; it is impractical and un-functional. Bloom liked the placement on the corner because it will be easier to access. Bloom said that a new Art Museum is needed and she said that another use could be found for that current building very easily. Bloom said that she was undecided on the county building issues. Bloom said that adding more employee housing. Bloom said that the Library was okay. 14 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Weiss said that he agreed that there were shared departments that could be on site. Weiss said this community generally fights mass and scale and a master plan is just that all the components being reviewed; all the traffic impacts; how transportation will be dealt with in the area. Weiss said that the commission agreed that the Puppy Smith and SCI area should be master planned. Weiss said you don't want ad hoc and want to look at the big picture; yes this is just a conceptual approval but he was not ready to give a conceptual approval because there were adjustments that need to be made. Weiss said many of the components can make improvements to this so he could feel better about approving as a master plan regardless of whether or not it could get changed in 5 or 10 years. Weiss said that a recommendation of a previous Planning & Zoning Commission as part of its recommendation to City Council said that like uses be clustered with like uses whenever possible; he said that this P&Z doesn't have to buy into that but he did not like the concept of the retail at Mill and Rio Grande but would much prefer to see it over by Obermeyer. DeFrancia said that he also thought that 2 buildings was too much at the corner of Rio Grande and Mill and the present parking area being used as a staging area is true and so having 2 buildings there you lose that potential; having 1 building there apart from opening that area up would leave a staging area for Rio Grande Park events. DeFrancia said that he appreciated that all master plans get modified over time and this will be implemented over an extended period of time and not something that's going to happen in the next 12 months. DeFrancia said he did not read that P&Z had a consensus agreement on this particular plan. Gagnon said that he was reading Planning & Zoning Commission's version of this master plan, which is what we are looking for; they were not looking for the commission to say yes or no to the plan that was in front of P&Z. Gagnon said what he was reading a plan that moves the county rather than the county on the Zuipancis property making that either affordable housing or some mixture of affordable housing and commercial. Gagnon said and he was reading from P&Z 1 building on that parking lot at a maximum of 2 stories; with those amendments, with those changes that seems to be in line with P&Z to move to approve this with those following changes. Cliff Weiss and Jim DeFrancia stated that this should be continued. Weiss said there were still other elements that were not brought up and it was not as simple as adding more affordable housing; he had concerns about ACRA and more debate was needed if they belong on Mill Street or whether they should be some place on Main Street. Weiss said that ACRA needs bathrooms and it doesn't really 15 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 adequately deal with our guests. Weiss reiterated that he doesn't have a problem with the Museum being somewhere within ZG Master and doesn't mind that location but was worried about the mass and scale. MOTION: Michael Wampler moved to continue the public hearing on the ZG Master Plan to November I1, 2008; seconded by Jim DeFrancia. All in favor, APPROVED. Adjourned at 7:35pm. ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 16