Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.aazp.20110714 County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 14, 2011 LJ Erspamer opened the special meeting of the Joint Planning & Zoning Commissions Thursday, July 14, 2011 4:35 in Council Chambers. Commissioners present were: Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, LJ Erspamer, Stan Gibbs, Marcella Larsen, John Howard and Jay Murphy. Staff in attendance: Chris Bendon, City Community Development; Ellen Sassano and Cindy Houben, County Community Development; Ben Gagnon; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Aspen Area Community Plan LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing with the County & City Joint Commission for the Aspen Area Community Plan. Chris Bendon said the commissions want to go through the action items and can factor that in. Cindy Houben said that they were hoping that the next 2 meetings were on Growth, Growth, Introduction and Action Items then a final draft. Cindy said there was value meeting with the County Commissioners again before you adopt the plan. Cliff Weiss asked if they were done with this chapter they would start working with a new draft and he was hoping there would be another 6 hour meeting rather than 3 days and hold action item by then. Cliff asked what you meant by Action Items in a separate meeting. Cindy Houben replied that the commissioners asked for that last time. Ben Gagnon said they would flag the action items that had been changed during the revision process of the last 6 to 8 months. LJ Erspamer liked Cliff's idea of a 6 hour meeting because there was something in the final draft before we approve it. Cindy said once you get that document it will just be clean up. John Howard said that when they go through the Action Items his expectation is not only are we going to look at the ones that changed because we revise philosophy or policy but there still needs to be some broader discussion on a lot of those items as we go through with more discussion on action items. Chris Bendon said that we will need to be more flexible. Cliff asked to have a week with the draft prior to the 6 hour meeting. Bert Myrin said that rather than just conversation you write the text that you suggest so we can have thumbs up or down. Public, Institutional and Non Profit Sectors Chris Bendon stated they were working off the September draft on the upper portion of the screen. Ben Gagnon said there were no substantial changes from the March and September drafts in this section. Bert Myrin said the March version explains the Aspen Idea and is it before or after. Ben Gagnon replied before. John Howard stated he liked the September version and questioned why we needed that 3 sentence in there and it doesn't add anything to it. Cliff Weiss said it says they are an integral part of the community and integral to our character but it is much more than that and it sounds 1 County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 14, 2011 like it's about Arts and Entertainment and not about the Airport. Cliff said it doesn't say where we are going from here; it doesn't mention economics. Chris replied that your second point mentions economic health and your first that it should speak to the infrastructure quality or necessary logistics. Cliff said there was nothing about the economy. Cindy Houben said there is in the September draft. Ellen Sassano said on the upper screen it refers to economic health. Marcella Larsen added the location and extent review which are only standards now if in the UGB; if we take seriously the land use code and steep slopes matter, wildlife matters and those sorts of things they should be applicable to public projects and since this is our only area that we can assert standards she suggested public uses should comply with the land use code to the greatest extent possible. Chris summarized the commissioners' comments to have a little bit more about the logistics of the community and how it functions; drop the last sentence (thumbs up); government when it engages in development should set an example and follow the highest standards and set an example for private development (thumbs up); preservation of the non - profits not allowing them to convert; airport; healthy governments; logistics of civic infrastructure (thumbs up). Cindy Houben stated that John Ely wants to restate the comments on public development. Tim Malloy, public, said that the Airport is working on a Master Plan, Terminal Air Study and will be bringing that forward late this year or early next year so they will be in the land use process. Tim said they are comfortable with the language they have crafted tonight and need some County Attorney opinion on that or it is included in the final. Tim spoke about other Master Plans and how the County deals with them and changes. Cindy Houben said she has had numerous discussions with the County Attorney and this was the way the state law reads and therefore through the law we have the ability to readopt 1041 regulations. Cindy said that some of the concerns that Marcella has about steep slopes but what has happened with the new location and the extent the law has gutted their ability to look at something through a site plan review so if the County readopts elements of 1041. Jay Murphy assumed there was some channel of communication between the County and the State; does an action item need to be put in since State Law is conflicting with the community's desires and does't our representative have an obligation to speak to the State representatives about this and don't you begin working on changing that law. Cindy Houben replied there is a whole new perspective on it and why should a community that is doing community work creating community projects have to go through barriers that might cost them more 2 County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 14, 2011 to make that project work. Cindy likened it to the school district that hasn't had to come through any barriers. Jay Murphy said that was just a part of the time that it was accepted. Chris Bendon said it could be something for the commission to consider if you want to include this as an action item in the plan for the county to address this issue with state. John Howard stated an example would be a Fire Station and the County says no you can't put it there but we need a Fire Station in that District. Chris Bendon said the next section was Mitigation. Ben Gagnon said the decision to go to the 100% rate and provide a rational for that approach at that time. LJ Erspamer stated that he was happy with September, it was short and concise. Marcella Larsen said she like the general nature of the section how we may want to consider a sliding scale for uses that we may want to encourage and she would take out what Ben wrote and put it in Housing. John Howard said part of this goes beyond a philosophical statement reevaluating strengthening our strategy to discourage types of development that provide minimal public benefit; what's the public benefit of a large residential building, we should be discouraging it. John said that he wasn't opposed to mitigation but from a philosophical standpoint is to make sure that we develop some sort of metric that includes all the impacts (positive and negative) and weigh in by a sliding scale of public benefit in there. Ben Gagnon asked John what he meant by metric. John replied that when we look at things like fiscal impact studies that go into that and it is a broad brush; we are going to have impacts on transportation; we are going to have impacts on affordable housing but it is also going to have an impact on our tax base and impact on our sales tax revenue so there are lots of bits and pieces that have to go into this in order to determine what the true impact to the community is. John said to Marcella's point about government subsidy for some differential in there has to be a community decision; are there overriding community benefits that we want to absorb the cost of this or no we shouldn't be absorbing the costs of this and it should fall to the people that are developing it. John said the studies that we have looked at for impact fees on residential development that stop at 5,000 square feet and we have asked to get those updated because the impacts from a 15,000 square foot house are much greater and the metrics do not support that, they stop at a 5,000 square foot house. Chris Bendon said the use that the community should support is that the subsidy comes out of the housing fund so there is a discussion of how shall we pay for that; should the housing department suffer or should it come out of the general fund. Cliff Weiss was concerned with parts of each draft and it wasn't just a sliding scale it was where policies and action items can cover the specifics. Cliff said a lot of 3 County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 14, 2011 the push back we got was from the average local having to pay a lot to do something; he agreed with John that there was more too this than the way it was approached; whether it was new or redevelopment mitigation is going to go up. Cliff said there were new mitigations and there were some from the environmental section but the other were not added. Bert Myrin asked where the idea came from for reevaluating the new certificate program. Ben Gagnon replied it is to revalue the whole menu of residential affordable housing mitigation for residential development; we have about 4 or 5 options for people to mitigate for residential development when we added in the affordable housing certificate program to that menu it has a lot of implications if we want it to succeed. Marcella Larsen said there were many issues just not affordable housing mitigation. Cliff Weiss said that he was looking for a sliding scale that was not just tied to use and if you are within your zone he was making sure this wasn't a threat so it was tied to FAR and you could be vague. Cliff said he just wanted to make sure this language isn't perceived by the public and by BOCC and Council when they start making code recommendations as exemptions. John said those items were better addressed in policy statements and should say that development should mitigate appropriately for its impacts and shall not require public subsidy unless it achieves certain community goals. LJ Erspamer asked for a list of community benefits; he wanted to include neighborhood in that. Jay Murphy said we need to clarify community benefit and the community benefit that we can most directly affect is the preservation of natural capital, natural environment. Marcella asked to use the word public subsidy. Ben Gagnon said a community benefit in growth management we assign different mitigation for specific community benefits; historic preservation get "x ", affordable housing "y ", public projects are left for the Council to decide so in 8 years it is hard to decide. Cliff said it was a case by case basis. Marcella said a case by case basis is unfair in terms of government of having a predictable way of dealing with impacts and being able to figure out what the financial implications are based on what the regulations say; she does not support the case by case. Chris summarized we support a reduced full mitigation for moderate lodging (thumbs 4 up 2 down). John stated development should mitigate fully for its impacts and generally not require public subsidy; exemptions from some or all mitigation requirements may be allowed for those projects that help further community goals or that have minimal impact (thumbs 5 up 1 down). LJ said it doesn't define it. 4 County & City Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — July 14, 2011 Tim Malloy asked if this document will be specific enough that the airport will need to do mitigation pursuant compliance with the Master Plan. Marcella said that we should talk about exemption in a list; do we think all public projects should be exempt from affordable housing mitigation. Tim said they are contemplating the expansion of commercial use at the airport. Dave Corbin, public, said it is better a guiding document and what ultimately needs to be appropriate mitigated in what manner or to what end and may change over time. Bert Myrin said that Equity and Community Value from the March Draft (thumbs all up). Chris said the next topic was Maintaining our Tourist Based Economy and the differences. Ben Gagnon replied one sentence versus four paragraphs. The Commission began with the March. John Howard said that they got rid of all of the explaining why, the history, addressed from an access paragraph and either draft says how important it is to us; what are we committing to do; what is our vision; and that is not in there. Marcella Larsen said it was the tourist economy that we support here and that concept is not in here and add small town character. Ben reiterated the changes as: the 1 sentence our long term that end with future generations; get rid of the 70% and go to literally start the next paragraph with as resorts are important we ask ourselves how will Aspen continue to be relevant in the next 10 to 20 years and skip down to Aspen has a history of innovation and reinvention and that creative spirit shall serve us well in the future. Chris said that we have a little more context around what our philosophy is. Cliff spoke about the two drafts. Marcella spoke of the limit of growth and there is a limit to the number of people we can accommodate and still maintain our quality of life. MOTION: John Howard moved that Pitkin County continue the hearing to July 21 seconded by Marcella Larsen. Cliff Weiss moved to continue the City P &Z to July 21 seconded by Bert Myrin. All in favor Approved. Adjourned at 7pm. v ranscribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5