Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.aazp.20111011 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan 2 1 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 Stan Gibbs and Marcella Larsen opened the special meeting, Tuesday, October 11, 2011 at 4:30 in Library Meeting Room. City & County P &Z Commissioners present were John Howard, Ben Genshaft, Monty Thompson, Mirte Mallory, Michelle Bonflis Thibeault, Marcella Larsen, LJ Erspamer, Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, and Stan Gibbs. Staff in attendance: Ben Gagnon, Aspen Special Projects Planner; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. Marcella Larsen stated that there were quorums on both sides. Bert Myrin asked how the meetings with City Council were going. Ben Gagnon replied everything but West of Castle and Growth; these were purposefully left toward the end and they come back to Council on the 7 of November. Marcella Larsen asked if the revised document will come back to the Joint P &Z with what Council wants to do; it is a little awkward making the changes. Ben Gagnon stated there were different processes with the City and the County. Stan Gibbs said that he was having a little trouble with this process; he suggested adopting what we have and if Council and BOCC want to change this that is fine. Ben Gagnon said that the Council wanted to look at the 6 chapters that the Joint P &Zs were pretty much done with and on the 25 when P &Z meets again Council would not have met on those topics so to speak and so they would then make the changes they want to make to that and P &Z can be part of the public process. Ben Genshaft said they were supposed to make a final recommendation. Ben Gagnon said the City and County were different processes. Marcella Laresen said what if they end up with 2 different documents. Mirte Mallory said that having 2 documents is confusing for the commissioners and the public; whatever we can do to create consistency and clarity throughout the document. Mirte Malloy said it was important that we make that clear to the Council and BOCC that we need one document as the plan; maybe we should write a letter expressing that is what we intend. Ben Gagnon said that we would have to wait and see if both P &Zs have the same outcome. Mirte Mallory said it was the Joint P &Z goal to have one document. MOTION: Mirte Mallory said her motion would be for the chairs to write a letter to the BOCC and Council to adopt a final single document by City and County P &Zs, LJ Erspamer seconded. In favor 9, opposed 1. Discussion prior to the vote: Stan Gibbs said it should be firmer than that because the county P &Z will vote and the BOCC will do what they choose to do with the document, which is really the way the City works as well. Stan Gibbs said the document as we pass it, as we adopt it has to be exactly what the Council 2 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 wants because they will just morph it to whatever they want in code. Stan Gibbs said we as a group are going to pass a single document with a consensus from the two P &Zs. Cliff Weiss said that once we were done we would be included in the Council deliberations so they should at least get some back story as they went through the document. Ben Gagnon said so to schedule City Council when you are not meeting. John Howard said he was not concerned about little changes but he was concerned that BOCC or City Council was going to take this in some philosophical direction and diverge from where we want to go and he would like to see it before both P &Zs adopt that both BOCC and City Council have at least looked at this document. John Howard said we really need you to look at the Historic Preservation because you have a chapter that means nothing to him. Cliff Weiss said those were two different issues so far it is on the table to adopt. John Howard said that the P &Zs are going to adopt one document. Stan Gibbs noted the document is not regulatory and has no impact so it doesn't establish any prescient or requirements on anybody. Bert Myrin asked is everyone (the community) to show up on the 25 and find a full draft on the interne. Ben Gagnon replied yes. Marcella Larsen said that any comments that you have make them now; she would suggest starting with the Action Items. John Howard stated that he didn't like the changes to urban growth on page 27 on the contents page and wanted to delete that one. Stan Gibbs said the Appendix wasn't mentioned on the Contents page. John Howard asked if we wanted to address the implementations made back to the chapters. Marcella asked if there were any issues on the Introduction. Mirte said this Introduction worked more smoothly than the previous one but she found the Purpose of the Plan would be more effective before the Themes. Mirte said the flow would be Background, Purpose, Themes. Everyone agreed. Mirte said that which tense is going to be used in which section should be consistent throughout the document. John Howard said that the word modest on page 6 might have some language to define modest. Ben Gagnon said that you are back in time at this time. Thumbs 7- 3. LJ Erspamer said that backcountry to him meant the backside of Richman Ridge where I think that you are also referring to the agricultural areas and ranches. LJ 3 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 said that he thought backcountry should be separate and TDRs that come from Ruedi should go to Basalt and in reality you are talking about farms and ranches too. Cliff Weiss said that we have had this debate quite a bit and this is just a description of a program applied. Marcella Larsen said that they are not adding urban growth just bigger houses in the UGB. Bert Myrin changed some language with his handout for page 6. Bert said that he wanted traffic across the bridge changed. Ben Gagnon suggested average annual daily trips. Bert asked to delete Good Local Governance on page 10 but he believed in good local governance it is just an odd feeling. Stan said it seems like it would be part of a civics class and not really part of this document. Ben Genshaft said that maybe a general statement and not that detailed. John said he liked the idea of keeping the first 4 paragraphs because the whole section is titled Five decades of Citizen Planning so we are talking about Citizen Planning and Governance and how we are protecting all these policies. Bert Myrin mentioned that in the city plan there could be a gap in the plans unless they are adopted at the same time. Ben Gagnon responded that in subdivision you are adding criteria for Council to review neighborhood compatibility for mass and scale where subdivision does not have that right now and for residential design for substance and mass and scale. Mirte Mallory said that nowhere in this plan is there mention of accountability and how that would be delivered to the community; we talked about a yearly update more like a report card. Mirte asked who does it and where will it be published. Marcella said the City and County Managers should produce that report and provide it to the County Commissioners, City Council and the City and County Planning Commissions. Ben Gagnon said this should be produced on the same page as How to Use the Plan. Bert asked to delete the sentence under Policies: The policy categories are for • descriptive purposes only on page 13. John said on page 15 he would like to consider making the point that nor are they mandatory nor are they commitments. Ben Gagnon asked if they could just add to the last sentence they are not mandatory. LJ said both sides use the document and one could say we don't have to implement this so we aren't going to implement it. Ben Genshaft said after the second sentence comma those are not promises or guarantees or something like that. It is mandatory that we are going to do it, it is 4 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 just not guaranteeing. Ben Gagnon said the intent is there that it is a suggestion and a possibility but not the only way to get there. Thumbs up were 8 -1. Marcella said the next was Aspen Idea on page 16. Cliff said that action items needed to have participation by both P &Zs and wrap it up; he wants to wrap up Action Items. Marcella said Managing Growth was next and this was not the latest version on page 20. Marcella said that they made some significant changes to this section. LJ said the urban growth boundary seems to be conflicting with Commercial Core, we continue to support a UGB that concentrates on density to the Commercial Core and tapers off. Bert said could that say within the UGB but outside the Commercial Core. LJ asked to take out the Commercial Core. Ben Gagnon said even though it is dated September 15 this does reflect everything that is up to date. John said the on page 20 the last paragraph about developers should be developers have provided many aspects or substantial benefits in many areas. Marcella said development can play a positive role. Leave as critical mass. Bert wanted to replace the quality of life issue on page 21 with page 11 first paragraph from the 2000 AACP but it is not dependent on management of the population but management of growth. Thumbs up 5 -3. Bert said the definition of density is not what is community planning but in the plan density is mass and scale. Bert said it needs to define mass and scale under density. Cliff wanted a diverse lodging base year round reaching out to a broader base. John wanted to open the discussion again on fully offset mitigating impacts on page 23 and quantifying it. Mirte said that we have tried to define mitigation and the community can't define it and it may be time to assess what mitigation mean. Mirte said in the first paragraph we need to say we need to more fully understand what mitigation means and state it. John said we have to tie it back to what that metric really is; how about we add something about impacts determined by fair and equitable metric should be fully offset. Ben Gagnon said he understood what he meant but metric is worse than mitigation. MOTION: LJ Erspamer made a motion to remove the word "fully" seconded by John Howard. 3 votes in favor of removing "fully" and the rest against. 5 City and County Planning & Zoning Meeting — Minutes — October 11, 2011 Discussion of the motion made removing "fully" prior to the vote: Stan Gibbs said the words for mitigation were relief and alleviation. Ben Genshaft said for the general public "fully" offsets and removing fully doesn't exclude 100% mitigation but it also doesn't require it. Marcella said that most developments should pay their own way but there are some exceptions and we need to get a comprehensive look at this. Cliff if you want development to carry its own weight fine but he wasn't going to go more ambiguous than it already is. Michelle said we should set the standard high. Mirte proposed a language to get to the issue of the word we need to re- evaluate our methodology. Mirte said this plan calls for a comprehensive evaluation of mitigation: the impacts that development has on community infrastructure. We need to re- evaluate the methodology that mitigation is based and develop a clear and understanding of the wide range of impacts that a development can have on an area before we can make sound and fair decisions. Mirte said we need a new understanding. LJ said we need an approved method. Mirte said a revised methodology for mitigating impacts. LJ said on page 24 he wanted to add "unsold inventory". Ben Gagnon said that he didn't want to get that specific. Marcella said the only change that she wanted to make to this section instead of up zone and down zone use rezone. Marcella said on page 26 of the 2000 AACP did not actually set a number on growth and use the actual statement in the 2000 plan and delete the second to the last paragraph. Ben Gagnon said this plan does not recommend a maximum population. Marcella said there would be 2 more meetings and the next section was West of Buttermilk and Action Items. MOTION: Stan Gibbs and Marcella Larsen moved to continue the meeting to October 25` all in favor. Adjourned at 7:05 pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 6