HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.aazp.20110726 Joint P &Z Meeting; July 26, 2011— Growth Management
City P &Z:
• Bert Myrin
• Stan Gibbs (Chair)
• U Erspamer
• Cliff Weiss
• Jim DiFrancia
County P &Z:
• Mirte Mallory
• John Howard
• Ben Genshaft
Staff:
• Ellen Sassano
• Chris Bendon
• Ben Gagnon
• Cindy Houben
Started at the Philosophy section of the Growth Chapter (1 Paragraph)
Howard identified an item from the previous meeting regarding votes. Howard
expressed that he felt all of the document was still up for further discussion and that
votes aren't necessarily final yet. Bendon addressed this and said that commissioners
should express uncertainty when the group is voting or moving on by giving a thumbs
down or saying so.
Gibbs said that finding a consensus was key for the process and that if the P &Z leaves
too many things for the end, that the P &Z's will never be done. Gibbs said that at the
end, the things that haven't been addressed should be a small list. Howard reaffirmed
what Bendon said in that the AACP isn't being approved piecemeal.
Myrin asked for an update on the all -day meeting which was intended to
comprehensively go through everything. Sassano said that she needed to hear back
from a few members to see where the meeting sits with them and that staff would need
to discuss the meeting and how it would be handled. Weiss addressed the gaps in the
process and how it makes the mindset cold when thinking about the AACP. Weiss said
he felt that they keep jumping in and out of the process and getting distracted.
Bendon said that the growth chapter is the one last chapter needing this level of review,
and then a new draft will be issued for a more holistic review of the document, while
still allowing for small edits when needed.
Erspamer asked if the P &Z could always meet in Sister Cities. Staff said they'd check to
see if that can be done.
Bendon introduced the topic and gave a brief introduction. Gagnon commented on the
differences between the Septermber 10 and March 11 drafts. Gagnon mentioned things
such as the tone of the document that was changed and strong wording that was
addressed. Bendon asked the P &Z's to address the review by paragraph.
Sept. 10 Para. 1 —
Howard had concerns about the middle paragraph and if it really hit the actual concern.
Howard said that it wasn't about infrastructure, but more about overall degradation of
the valley. Consensus agreed with Howard.
Weiss read a piece from ACRA about growth. Weiss said the philosophy needs to
address the economy, and that it's overshadowed in the philosophy. Weiss said that
growth of the economy and growth of the physical environment shouldn't be confused.
Erspamer questioned if this idea was already in the policy and why it can't be addressed
there. Weiss said that all sections of the chapter should address all aspects of economy.
P &Z had consensus on adding this kind of language.
March Draft —
Weiss commented on the three bullet points in the introductory statement and thought
they should be added. Howard likes the first paragraph in the March section as a lead in
into the entire section, then shift to the first amended paragraph from the Sept. draft.
P &Z discussed Howard's recommendations which were very specific.
Howard's sequencing would look:
- 1 para from march draft
- 1st para from sept striking middle sentence
- 2 " para from march draft with amendments to the end
- Skip bullets
- Remove first sentence from march draft next paragraph
Mallory thought the first sentence of the first paragraph of the March draft was
redundant. Mallory asked Howard where the flow would go from there and if it would
work to transition into the second paragraph. Group agreed with Mallory.
Sept. 10 Para 2 —
Myrin wanted to replace the "overshadowed and replaced" with "eclipsed and
surpassed." Gibbs asked for an example, and Bendon asked if the P &Z would like to see
an example of a common struggle the city sees in the philosophy section. Gibbs said the
"but" in the march draft was where he became confused. DiFrancia asked what the
basis of making statement that the visitor economy has been overshadowed. Bendon
responded with details from a previous report that was done. DiFrancia questioned the
validity of the statement. Gagnon said that more details could be given if anything.
DiFrancia said he is mainly looking for something that is more factual. Bendon
recommended having Gagnon doing more research and coming back to the whole P &Z.
Genshaft suggested not being so conclusory because it asks for those reading the
document to question those statements.
Mallory agreed with Gibbs suggestion to end with "modeling" and other specific
amendments. Bendon offered what that paragraph meant to him and offered a
scenario reflecting the HPC program. Howard agreed with the direction Mallory offered.
Howard talked about the meaning of an economy and how development and re-
development is not an economy, but an industry. Howard wanted to identify the
industries and address the economy as a whole.
Weiss thought the conversations should be elevated about just trends and data. Weiss
said that the industries feed off one another and that we should target the most
sustainable.
DiFrancia offered the focus here should be the land use tools that we already have in
place. DiFrancia said that we need to have the land use tools that address these diverse
interests. Houben warned that if all of Mallory's comments were accepted, the
document would lose some of the elements that Bendon mentioned for a successful
resort economy (HPC, open space, etc.). Mallory again gave a very specific sequencing
of how the language should be laid out.
Houben said that this document would be used frequently as a measuring tool as how
things are working, and she wished there was an additional sentence or kicker that
emphasized that.
Erspamer asked about the scenic views that the city has and how he feels that they
haven't been protected. Bendon said that we aren't confined the already established
seven views that the city has. Erspamer said that by only protecting seven specific
views, it shouldn't be called preservation as a whole. Weiss expressed how he felt
about the language and Erspamer was then okay.
Bendon asked if the changes so far would be the end of the introduction. Group said
no. Erspamer recommended changed to the word "controlled" to "managed." Group
also recommended changing the word people to "population."
Weiss said there needs to be a paragraph that addresses the needs of the permanent
residents before the document moved forward. Bendon addressed the "challenge of
•
our own success" i.e. a fur store outbidding a drugstore. P &Z recommended adding
some language to the second paragraph that addressed essential services and
commercial vitality.
Gibbs recommended "enhances" for an edit to the conclusion language. Gagnon asked
if the last sentence of the March draft could become the conclusion paragraph for this
revised version. Mallory liked the whole last paragraph. No group consensus.
Howard said that the language needs to get away from cycles, upturns and downturns.
Howard said keeping that language addressing a comeback from a recession and he
wasn't comfortable with that. DiFrancia agreed with the plan being applicable at any
given point, not just in certain cycles. Bendon asked if this should be stated. Group
agreed, and Gagnon recommended parking it in the Intro.
Erspamer brought up to the group the issue of bringing more density into to the city and
not knowing if the infrastructure there to support it. Erspamer asked: at what stage
will our carrying capacity become overwhelmed by density and development? Houben
addressed TDRs and clarified that County TDRs don't come into the city, just the UGB,
and Fox Crossing (which Erspamer had mentioned) was a unique scenario.
The P &Z began a discussion regarding TDRs. Weiss said that TDRs allow individuals to
build homes that aren't compatible with neighbors. Myrin said that what needs to be
changed is that there is some expectation from the code so that when someone invests
in a neighborhood that they understand what they're buying into.
- Erspamer left the meeting at 6:00 p.m. -
Bendon moved on from the Introduction and provided a couple options for the P &Z
(regarding sequencing of the review of the draft. Bendon agreed to move onto the
"What's New" section.
What's New in the 2011 AACP
1 Paragraph
Mallory thought that the first paragraph was heavy on Managing Growth and lacking on
Economy items. P &Z agreed and thought the first paragraph needed more background
on the inter - relatedness of the items. Mallory said that the inter - relatedness was better
said in the Philosophy section than here. Mallory would like to see something other
than "strong" used in the What's New section. Mallory recommended "greater."
Howard talked about industries and how Aspen should be looking at other non - tourism
industries and try to dove -tail them into the economy. Howard said this would help
with the down - cycles when they do happen. Howard said supporting a diverse economy
was more important than a diverse tourist based economy.
Weiss voiced his concern about buying into the idea of changing the economy or
introducing new industries to a resort community. Weiss said it's hard to not make a ski
town a ski town or a beach resort a beach resort. Weiss said he's concerned having
tourism compete with one more industry for the remaining floor area that's left.
DiFrancia stated that he thought Aspen was in fact a tourist -based economy and that it
drives the other industries. DiFrancia said we need to realistic on the industries that we
target here and keep our primary focus on the tourism.
Mallory asked why we can't make Aspen a home for corporate headquarters. DiFrancia
said that Aspen can and will always appeal to small companies but that it's extremely
hard to encourage companies to locate in a certain place, like Aspen. DiFrancia said that
the difficulty of general living (essential services, housing, costs) will likely dissuade
companies from locating here.
Mallory asked why the plan cannot state that we desire to bring more year -round
economies. and essential services. DiFrancia said that policies and land use strategies
are the route to go to stimulate that type of commercial growth. Bendon restated what
DiFrancia has said, in that the base needs a community typically haves, will never be our
base economy. Bendon said some creativity policy wise could target these uses to
bolster their prevalence.
Howard recommended stating a "demographically diverse tourist economy" instead of
just "diverse tourist economy."
2" Paragraph
Gagnon recommended addressing some language in the September draft with language
that has surfaced through reviewing the March Draft. This included removing
"moderate /economy lodging" with simple terms like "diverse lodging." Gagnon said he
was prepared to go with a 'punchier' more direct statement about what the plan was
about.
3 Paragraph
No comments.
4` Paragraph
Gagnon addressed this section and reviewed some of the language changes that took
place or were discussed, such as "fully mitigated" instead of "100% mitigation." Weiss
thought it was stated that "development would fully mitigate for its impacts." Howard
said that this warrants an update to the strategy in which impacts are calculated.
Howard said he'd like to see a policy item to address finding what the actual impacts are
and what all the contributing factors are.
Mallory thought that this section was were the plan was most backward thinking, and
that this needed to be more visionary. Mallory recommended taking what Howard
suggested and figuring out what the true impacts are. Weiss agreed to doing impact
studies, and to impacts truly determined. Weiss also asked that after you have figured
out the true impacts, would you recommend 100% mitigation. Gibbs said that instead
of what level of "mitigation" is appropriate; it should say what level of "development" is
appropriate. Gibbs said that the front end is where it should be decided what level of
development is okay for the development, based upon a very clear and precise system
of calculation impacts (employees).
Bendon offered a summary, and that where the P &Z was headed was a very informed
decision making process where information was available in the front end before
hashing it out during the review process. Gibbs asked where the fees go and who the
beneficiaries are.
Bendon offered that development should mitigate its real impact, but we first need to
know what the true impacts are. Sassano also offered language that could be used in
this new philosophy language (P &Z started to agree that the mitigation approach would
be best stated in the Philosophy section). Gibbs said that at the end of the sequence
where we can easily say and answer "who paid for this ?" Gibbs said that is should be
simple under this program to create a list easily displaying who paid for the impacts
(developer, home owner, etc.). Gibbs said that he supported a sliding scale system if
the public benefits were outlined well and reasonable.
Bendon compared what Gibbs had just said to the recent fee amendment process for
Community Development Fees. Bendon said that they first had to realize what staff was
doing throughout the year and who pays for the different types of services.
Mallory addressed Policy item "restore public confidence" and that doing this thorough
work would greatly benefit making this a valid policy item.
Gagnon spoke about tools that could make a real difference instead of caps that are not
enforceable and provide false confidence. Gagnon said that we need to explain
ourselves in the plan why there isn't a cap. Bendon addressed that it can't just be a
number or a percent, but it's more of a "you know it when you see it" element.
Howard offered stating the idea of carrying capacity and making that clear so that it can
then explain those things that impact the carrying the capacity. Weiss said that it has
already happened and still happening and that needs to be stated (quality of lift being
impacted).
DiFrancia said that population cannot be controlled, but what can be controlled are the
dimensional requirements of development (floor area, height, etc.). DiFrancia said that
if the only thing that was allowed was 5,000 sq. ft. homes, you might not just have 2
people living in one, but maybe 8. Gibbs stated that he thought a cap was meaningless
and it's not a useful tool. Gibbs asked what you do when you hit that number. Gibbs
said that you cannot just close the gate.
Genshaft said that quality of life is a relative standard and has many variables associated
with it. Many people have different opinions on what "quality of life" is. Genshaft
thought it dangerous to have a number and that the amount of variables is too high.
Gibbs said he thought the language only went on too long about the cap and that if we
don't think it's a useful tool, the document needs to just state that.
P &Z agreed to let Gagnon draft some language and review on Thursday.
Genshaft moved to continue the meeting to July 28`n