Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20110524JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 P&Z LJ Erspamer Cliff Weiss Marcella Larsen Jay Murphy Mirte Mallory John Howard Joe Krabacher Staff Jessica Garrow Cindy Houben Chris Bendon Ellen Sassano Public Scott Writer Richie Cohen Tom McCabe Barbara Owen Stan Clausen Steve Seyfert Tim Malloy David Corbin Krabacher called the meeting to order and discussed how the meeting would be handled, given the lack of a City P&Z quorum. Krabacher asked for commissioner comments. Mallory asked what role P&Z will have in the airport master planning process. Houben said that the involvement is being discussed with the county attorney. Houben said that it is up to the BOCC to decide actual level of involvement. Larsen asked what parts make up the process of the master plan process. County staff said that the project doesn't have to go through master planning process due to the location and extent of the project. Howard mentioned that the P&Z should keep an open mind for the public comment that's still being received. Mallory suggested that in the future a possibility of an all day Saturday retreat to make up for attrition and lack of a quorum at meetings. Larsen supported the idea. Krabacher asked if that meant that other meetings would be lost. Mallory said that hopefully the JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 Thursday meeting would be lost. Weiss said that the Thursday meeting was planned for AACP review because of existing Tuesday meetings. Weiss supported the motion. Erspamer supported but had concerns. Howard did not agree with the Saturday meeting. Howard mentioned an all day Saturday meeting would be hard to coordinate with the public. Erspamer mentioned Saturday being a Sabbath as well. Murphy was supportive of the Saturday meeting. Larsen said that potentially a full day on Sat. would get more public to attend. Four were in favor (majority) of the Saturday meeting. Staff agreed to ask the remainder of the group that wasn't in attendance on the 24tn (Planning staff comments) Garrow noted the lack of City quorum. Garrow asked if the P&Z wanted to move forward with the lack of quorum. Houben recommended opening up the public hearing for the county portion and then opening up the chapter later with a full quorum. Sassano offered another solution with the meeting opened up just for public comment and continuing the full discussion to a later date. Larsen said she was concerned with having the discussion tonight, and then having it again. Erspamer agreed with Garrow. Weiss said that he thought public comment was better when the public was engaged in the discussion. Weiss said he preferred this over just having the public give their statements. P&Zs agreed to hear public comment and then discuss the chapter without any substantial decisions. This discussion would be postponed until a full quorum was present. (Public Comment) Cohen said he was concerned about what was being proposed for the airport. Cohen said that it didn't sound like there was much opportunity to be involved in the process. Houben address the process of the airport and said that there would be a public process period, but again mentioned the Location and Extent language in the County Land Use Code and how this is a unique process — based on state law and recent code changes. Houben said that County staff was trying to figure out a best process to influence the most public involvement. Cohen asked if there were any teeth in the process. Cohen stated that the airport plan now reflects a lack of listening to the public comment that has been given thus far. Cohen asked if the BOCC has the power to make the application change. Houben clarified that they did and asked if there was anything Cohen would like to see in this AACP chapter. Cohen said that when the comp. plan addresses something like an airport, that it is not very specific and that more specificity would be welcome (mentioned fuel stations, services areas, etc. that make noise). Houben recommended 2 JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 that Cohen stay involved and when it comes back to the BOCC that there will be an opportunity for public comment. Howard clarified to Cohen that the BOCC can do what they want at the airport, but the P&Z can still make recommendations. Cohen asked how in the AACP which comment would be "law" and which would be "theory." Houben clarified that the West of Castle Creek Corridor would be a separate plan than the airport master plan. Cohen said that the same thing will happen at the Inn at Aspen. Krabacher said that the Inn at Aspen is not owned by the County, so it would be different. Larsen mentioned that the plan now says very little about the airport and recommended to Cohen that he share any ideas he has about the airport. Larsen also said that the government should play by the same rules that a private applicant has to. Sassano clarified that an Inn at Aspen application would not qualify for a Location and Extent application. Cohen said that he thought a 10 year plan should not be regulatory at all because of the way things change. Krabacher said that we'll likely end up with a plan that is- not regulatory, but the City code says that there "needs to be consistency with the master plan." Krabacher said that it is something that is still being figured out. Sassano said that in the County the AACP is an advisory document; however there are some sections in the County code that require compliance with the AACP. P&Z then discussed this, regulatory/non-regulatory standing. Clausen commented on the Inn at Aspen and that he hoped the P&Zs would continue adding language to the draft that would encourage the redevelopment of the base of buttermilk. Clausen commented about the potential annexation and that the only reason he could see for that was that the city has a lodging zone district, while the county doesn't. Clausen said that the SkiCo was wrong and that the Inn at Aspen is interested in redeveloping. Clausen stated that the property was private property and would have to go through city or county review process, not like what the airport is doing. Clausen said that other provisions in the plan work again redevelopment of something like the Inn at Aspen and that the 100% AH requirement was one of the main factors. Clausen also said that the language of "modest" also mitigates against this type of development. Clausen spoke about the airport master plan committee (member) and commented on the extensive planning process that they've gone through. Clausen cautioned that this process should not be cast aside and should be something that is accepted. Clausen hoped for acknowledge in the AACP chapter identifying the ongoing airport master planning process. 3 JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 Clausen commented on the pedestrian bridge at the ABC and Highway 82. Clausen said that the planning process that is ongoing now (airport master plan) should be involved in the planning of the pedestrian bridge. Weiss read action item "LIT' regarding the Inn at Aspen. Weiss said that the AACP draft is really not as innocuous as some think and that it isn't against the redevelopment of the Inn at Aspen. Weiss said he agreed with the comments regarding the pedestrian bridge, but thought that it could almost be too specific for the document. Clausen said that the statement Weiss sited was self evident, but that "maintain and allow for" would be more appropriate for that action item. Mallory asked Clausen what else was missing from the policies, or recommendations for more language. Clausen said that encouragement for the redevelopment of the area should be added. Erspamer asked if that has to fit in with other items along the corridor Houben said that action item l . La essentially explains what the chapter does is set up very broad parameters for the west of castle creek area, and allows for specific land use plans to follow then cited the action item. Larsen asked Houben the corridor and the Ski/Rec zone and if it allows lodging, and confirmed that what Houben has said was that the AACP would be followed by more specific land use plans. Sassano cited a statement in the philosophy section on page 35 that says "the base of buttermilk should continue to function as a vital recreational and lodging component of the aspen resort community." Sassano says that the statement could be used to influence development. Steve Seyfert said he used to be the manager of the Inn at Aspen. Seyfert said that the room size (approx. 350 sq. ft.) currently is very challenging for a family friendly lodge. Seyfert said that small units are contradictory to family oriented lodge. Seyfert recommended open mindedness to not target the bass of Buttermilk as a place for small and cozy units. Seyfert said he'd like to see more encouragement of more appropriate sized units. Howard asked Seyfert if he was under the opinion that if redevelopment happened if they'd have to mitigate for 100% of employees that have been there historically (old building versus new). Seyfert said he was more looking for direction on the employee housing that has already been provided is accounted for. Howard said that the Land Use Code now talks about differential. Howard said that the draft AACP only addresses new employees. Seyfert questioned how the word "economy" can continuously be in the document and whether lodging was appropriate in this chapter or not. Larsen mentioned an affordable housing mitigation sliding scale to Seyfert and explained its potential methodology. Erspamer asked Seyfert what words he was against. Seyfert 0 JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 said "economy" and that there is some support for "moderate" but there is some support for that word. Mallory said that in the Lodging chapter had in its Recommendations four different items that would be related to the Inn at Aspen, and these are located on appendix page 8. Writer said that "economy" and "moderate" should be kept as a vision and goal, but wouldn't mandate it. Writer mentioned the lack of mention of the Stapleton property in the corridor. Houben cited action number 3.1.i, on page 15 and 16 of the appendix that referenced the Stapleton property. Mallory clarified that Writer was jumping between two different chapters. Mallory asked Writer if 3.1.g should also include the Stapleton property. The history of the Stapleton property was discussed by the room. Weiss said to Writer that there is also a Transportation section of the draft AACP. Weiss said that the property is not mention in this chapter, because it's more related to Transportation. Houben said that transportation is reference in West of Castle. Mallory said that the lack of the Stapleton property in the "what's changed" section might have been purposeful. Writer mentioned Policy 2.1. Writer said that the language sounded great, but literal interpretation is that any new development has to stay within the existing three-dimensional box. Erspamer said that everything is linked out there and how it's hard to cover each individual spot: Erspamer said that the decision was to keep the language general so the scope could be examined. Erspamer asked what percentage of existing lodging was economy. Erspamer said that the intent was not to build Motel 6's, but to build where there is demand. Weiss addressed the intent of Policy 2.1 and said that development should be sensitive to the environment, but the draft does not discourage thinking creatively and out of the box. Writer agreed with Weiss, but said that whatever was in the language needed to be clear. Seyfert commented on the Chapter's transportation section, and action item 3. Le. Seyfert wasn't sure what the intent was of this statement. Seyfert mentioned that hotels running shuttles for guests is already mitigating for traffic impacts. Seyfert said that a transportation district in that area would be a double -dip or triple -dip given the SkiCo's existing commitments. Mallory said that the rewrite no longer conveys the importance of transportation in this chapter's area. Mallory said they'd be addressing this when they examine the content of this latest draft. Mallory addressed a Seyfert comment about the Burlingame bus and said that it doesn't do a loop to the airport and ABC. Sassano addressed Writers comment on page 37 of the draft text and how that may preclude a parking facility. Sassano said that on page 34 on philosophy that the first paragraph speaks stronger for nodes and maintaining open space between. 5 JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 Cohen recommended that the plan have more general statements to preclude the plan from not allowing anything to take place. Garrow entered the 11 emails from Writer to the commission into the public record. Malloy updated the P&Zs on the status of the airport master plan process and where the team has been and where they are going. Malloy said the primary purpose of the master plan process was the conserve space. Malloy stated that no decisions have been made thus far in regards to the terminal, design, etc. Erspamer agreed with Malloy, and how the plan could be interpreted in many different ways. Owen commented on the next meeting regarding Transportation, and told the P&Z that the city did another study on the entrance to aspen and that information should be in this chapter. Owen just recommended that the information be analyzed. Garrow said she would talk to the transportation department and make sure if there is any data that the P&Z would have it on Thursday. Corbin said that the chapter was very strong on its emphasis on it gateway approach. Corbin said that the plan could use some attention on the unique uses in this corridor be addressed as well. Corbin recommended added some language to the introduction, or in policy statements, that commented on these unique uses. Clausen commented on Council's decision to not do another economic report. Clausen said that he thought the existing study used in the AACP was severely flawed. Clausen recommended that the P&Z make a motion to get updated economic studies immediately. Erspamer supported what Clausen had said, but recommended a pro forma to show the costs of the indirect costs of lodging and commercial. Erspamer said he has been looking for the data on economy lodges and what percentage of the lodging base to they make up now. Larsen said there would be value in a much broader study, especially for the city. The study would examine all uses, their impact, and their cost. Weiss addressed staff and requested that the overall population segment piece (that staff had previously included) be put back into the draft. Weiss was concerned how much the draft would change with new reports. Mallory said that this plan cannot be all and everything to all entities. Mallory said that this process does not preclude any group for continuing studies, like an economic white paper, or transportation survey. JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION — AACP: WEST OF CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR MINUTES OF MAY 24, 2011 Garrow commented on Weiss population chart comment. Garrow said that this chart was available on the website. Weiss asked to be emailed the chart again for his new draft notebook. Erspamer continued the meeting. h