HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.199907131.3
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
Special Meeting
Plaza One Meeting Room, Courthouse Annex
Aspen, Colorado
INDIVIDUALS PRESENT:
Pitkin County Commissioners
Peter Martin (Chair)
Charlie Tarver
Peter Thomas
Doug Unfug
Staff
Cindy Houben
Stephanie Millar
Audience:
Glen Horn
Lisa McManigal
Toni Kronberg
Phil Holstein
Brent Gardner -Smith
John Colson
I. CALL TO ORDER
Peter Martin called the meeting to order and discussed the process for the
meeting.
II. COMMENTS
Commissioners:
Commissioner Training: Charlie made a request of the planning staff to find and hire a
professional person skilled in,the art of logical decision making to teach the commission
the necessary skills to improve their decision making abilities and processes. He stated
that this would also be beneficial for the City Council, the BOCC and other volunteer
boards. Stephanie -pointed out that the American Planning Association does have
Planning and Zoning Commissioner training available. There was discussion amongst
the members present regarding the benefits of this type of training with a note by Peter
that this board in particular brings a personal perspective to the table that these
professional wouldn't have.
Planning- Staff
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
Schedule: Stephanie stated that there would not be a meeting on July 20".
Public
There were no public comments.
III. MINUTES
A. June 29,1999
Notations, changes and comments:
• Doug stated that Nina Dunn isn't a member of the Basalt Staff.
• Charlie noted this statement is not meant to change the minutes. Regarding the
discussion on the peak vs. average population, Charlie thought it noteworthy to point
out that this is a very important assumption and he'd like to know how all P&Z
members feel about this. Stephanie responded that at the last meeting at least Sheri
and Charlie had agreed that the average population was around 20,000 and that that
was reasonable to assume as an existing base. They had also agreed that a reasonable
build out was about 28,000.
• Page 15, second paragraph, Peter noted that he didn't remember his exact words but
he had said something to the effect of a slow incremental response wouldn't solve the
problem and that ten years out we will not have improved the situation.
Motion: Commissioner Charlie Tarver moved to approve the June 29, 1999 County
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes with corrections as noted; seconded by
Commissioner Peter Martin. Commissioners Tarver and Martin voted in favor of the
motion.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Aspen Area Community Plan
I. Fundamental Issues & Concerns; economic sustainability
II. Internal Conflicts; less regulation vs. more code amendments; open space
vs. housing needs
Opening the discussion, Cindy stated that at the last meeting, they had asked the
commissioners to prepare some written material regarding mitigation for businesses and
residences.
Commissioner Comments:
Charlie stated that although he doesn't have any written material prepared, he- has
thought about these issues considerably and has tried to come up with the best manner to
present this. Charlie stated that there are limited resources available. Job growth and
employee generation affects all these resources such as housing, transportation,
recreation, arts, etc... He stated that there isn't one section in the AACP that isn't
strongly affected by job growth and that employers have a responsibility to look at and be
accountable for the overall cost to society for employee generation. Charlie pointed out
that it is extremely important to make sure that these resources are utilized in the best
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
possible manner. Additionally Charlie pointed out that there are good and bad uses of
these resources, noting people and businesses that squander away our limited valuable
resources in useless ways such as clear cutting or strip mining. He stated that we tax
these people in negative ways and try to make them accountable. Charlie believes that
they must approach and look at employees and job production in Pitkin County in the
same manner. ,
Peter stated that he understood Charlie's use of the term resource in this case to mean
major growth and employees that generate large housing needs. Charlie responded no,
that it wasn't just housing and that it doesn't matter who is generating the employee
growth but that that growth is utilizing a resource, such as transit dollars, air pollution,
space etc... Charlie stated thaVeverybody that utilizes our resources should be on an even
playing field and responsible for the use of those resources.
Cindy stated that she and Stephanie thought there may be some confusion as to what
the AACP update draft says and they wanted to make sure that everyone is clear on what
it says in terms of growth management. At the last meeting the discussion revolved
around how they're dealing with job growth and there was discussion that maybe there
were different methods of capturing that. People are so supportive of a growth
management system that they feel it needs to capture these other areas of growth. This
plan isn't specific to the point of how to deal with growth, but that growth definitely
should be dealt with. In terms of mitigation vs. limitation, Cindy stated that they want to
capture the growth that we haven't been in terms of job growth so that we can then have
mitigation for that but that on the other hand the plan states that we may also want to
limit growth. The plan discusses some options, such as coming up with some sort of a
lottery system for different types of development. Rather than having the GMQS as we
know it today for competition, there might be a limitation set for x number of units or
building permits in a given year and this might be done on a lottery basis.
Cindy asked Charlie if he disagrees with the direction of the plan. She stated that
although she appreciates Charlie's "big picture/philosophical thinking" approach tonight
they would like to try to focus on this plan and where it is going and think about what
changes he'd like to see made within the plan.
Charlie responded that he doesn't have a conflict with the direction of the plan, he just
doesn't think it's specific enough with direction. He noted that despite the high
accomplishment rate of 70% of the action items from the 1993 plan, there are still 30% of
those that have not been accomplished.
Cindy responded that maybe they should look at their organization and what is the
most important concept in this plan. She thinks they are hearing that it's GMQS changes
but that the commissioners need to be really specific about priorities.
Peter stated that there are 54 action items in the Growth Section alone and wanted to
know if these were specifically addressed anyway within the plan.
Stephanie responded that changes to the GMQS are recommended in numerous
section of the document.
A member of the audience asked if what Charlie was proposing was to create
disincentives to local job generation.
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
Charlie responded no. He stated that he didn't intend for disincentives to be given but
that employers should pay the cost to the community based upon the expansion and
growth of his/her business.
Peter stated that pages 16 & 17 had to do with managing growth and they had talked
about a high rate of job generation.
Cindy stated that page 19 really gets into the implementation of a true rate of growth
that counts all growth and it lists the specific things that Peter was asking about.
Charlie stated that he knows these specific items are there, and he wants to make sure
that we do something with it.
Stephanie stated that maybe what they could do is something similar to the last plan
in which there was a column of prioritization.
Charlie responded agreeable to this notion.
Peter stated that no 13, does address Charlie's specific issues and it was an
amendment by either the oversight committee or by staff, and so it's in there as a study
item for the future.
Doug stated that in terms of job growth, what he would like to see is when an
employer adds ten people for example, he doesn't want to see the employer exporting
down valley but to see creative ways to bring people to live into the area they work.
Doug thought that what Charlie is getting at actually penalizes that person for just simply
adding an employee.
Charlie responded that the community plan says that you don't want everyone living
here. He stated that the important thing is that you want to capture all growth not just the
new projects that come in, which, is why they wanted to include things that they kept
missing such as remodeling. He stated that where they house them comes later.
Stephanie pointed out that action item 14 of the Growth Section also calls for
studying the possibility of requiring 100% mitigation, so Charlie's issue is addressed as a
study item.
Charlie supported the idea of 100% mitigation.
In regards to having 100% of the employees housed in Pitkin County, she noted that
this plan is about the Aspen area. She pointed out that a fundamental piece of this plan is
to have growth within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary.
Peter stated that he questioned the second part of question 13, which, states to
continue the work of the Aspen Institute group. Peter agreed with Charlie's comments
that the City and County P&Z's are more qualified to study this than the Aspen Institute
Group. He noted that there are reports coming in from several different committees and
while it `s their job to reconcile this there is an incoherence that is there. He stated that
they demonstrated a big effort to housing authorities when they did the down valley
housing plan and he thinks that they identify the sites as they were supposed to in phase
2. He does have a reservation about this clause.
Stephanie pointed out that the intention is not to continue the existence of this group
but to build upon the work that they have already started.
4
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
Phil Holstein stated that he has been a member of a variety of these groups and
it's been very interesting how this controversy about employee generation vs. job growth,
what's the problem and how you get your hands around it. He stated that there are some
very strong opinions about this in the community. However, there is a kernel of truth in
all of it and the AACP as he sees it pretty much gets its hand around it. He stated that it's
one thing to be very philosophical about that we are growing too fast and quite another
thing to do something about it in the framework of the country that we live in, under our
set of laws and our district. It's difficult to tell business people that in effect they can't
hire new employees by virtue of making it expensive to hire new employees. He stated
that you have to be very careful about this because you are dealing with people's lively
hoods. He started that you must start by trying to encourage, mitigation rather than
mandating it.
Charlie responded that this is in effect the same process you would use to keep
pollution out of the air.
Toni Kronberg stated that she has worked on several different committees.
Within the transportation committee, she stated that they tried to address was growth in
the area. She stated that they tried to determine where the growth was coming from. She
stated that they realized that a lot of the employees were going into Pitkin County, noting
different areas. She stated that she like the idea of the metro area. So far as to where the
employees are being generated, the people in the commercial core in town are having a
very difficult times finding employees. She stated most of our growth is coming from
Pitkin County noting the traffic that's coming into town. She stated that our town can
only handle so many cars and there are only so many jobs in this town. She noted that
the Aspen Ski Co is actively recruiting new employees. She stated that little restaurants
in this town have a shortage of employees. She also noted the abundance of jobs on Red
Mountain, also. She, stated that this plan is going in the right direction, but, as to telling
people that they have to limit the amount of employees they have a lot of little businesses
won't be able to survive if there is going to be a mandate. She stated that she likes the
approach that there is going to be different kinds of mitigation for the employees in' Pitkin
County. She stated that you have to tackle this growth in separate ways, what the resort
town needs to make it work and what the community needs to make it work. She also
noted the second homeowners. She stated that each one of the three groups has a
different set of problems associated with it. She stated that many people don't want to
live here and are happy with the community and that's where the transportation comes
into play. She stated that Pitkin County has apparently doubled the amount of re-
modeling permits within the last year or last two years, where the city has almost stayed
average.
Peter asked if it was her point that growth manifests itself in transportation area
mainly.
Tony responded that it was in transportation and in housing needs.
Peter stated that they recognize the need for more employees and would like to get
mitigation for them. He noted that Rachel Richards had made a point in one of the
meetings that she was sick and tired of people having to work two and three jobs and
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
never being able to take a day off because they can't find a substitute. Peter said what's
the point of living in Aspen if you can't take time off to enjoy it.
AACP Plan Direction: Cindy stated that some of these issues probably can't be
answered and they just need to be fleshed out. She would like discuss whether or not this
board is comfortable with what the AACP is proposing. Cindy clarified that the proposal
is to look at capturing all of the growth that we can and look at mitigation for it as well as
limiting it.
Charlie stated that his system is ultimately free market, that you pay your own
way and quit putting your burdens on the rest of society. He stated his theory is 100%
mitigation.
Cindy asked Charlie if he agreed that there should also be limitations.
Charlie responded that there are two fundamental problems, the number of people
that live here and how many people come into town to make it feel over -crowded. He
stated that limiting building permits, limitation as to growth management as well as
capturing what has fallen through the cracks are all great ideas.
Peter Thomas stated that he isn't for 100% mitigation, but that he generally agrees
with growth action plan.
Peter Martin stated that he could agree that 100% mitigation is no problem.
Doug stated that he does agree with 100% mitigation. However, he believes that
some employees are more equal than others in that if you have construction traffic
coming from down valley and leaving down valley, that's not the same quality worker as
the person that tries to live and work here. He stated that while we argue about what kind
of employees we generate and what kind we discourage, he is really concerned about this
town. He sees is his creative friends leaving because they can't stand the rules and the
people that get around the rules by being in a different jurisdiction. Item 23, page 21 says
develop intergovernmental agreements and he stated he would make this a priority that
the guy that has his construction down valley is in the same boat as the Ski Company
who is making a effort get people up here.
Toni Kronberg, a member of the audience, stated that one thing that might help in
terms of the mitigation factor is that employers have a van that would people down valley
and bring them up here. She stated that the people that are really contributing to the
growth aren't the little restaurants in town, but the people that axe doing all of the re-
models and construction.
Charlie stated that he is very much against a tax on the number of employees.
Additional Commissioner Discussion: Stephanie stated that at the meeting on June 151i',
she had done an overview of the plan as it was at that time. She has asked the
commissioners to identify their key issues. She stated that there were basically four areas
that the commissioners had identified as needing more discussion at tonight's meeting.
She stated that they had tackled the supply and demand issue very well. Other significant
areas of discussion were:
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
• Impacts of growth on other areas, all sections of the plan involve some level of
growth except the growth section which is trying to stop all growth and how do we
address this discrepancy.
Discussion: Peter asked how do you have housing and no growth. Charlie responded that
you don't because the growth section does allow for housing, in fact, it allows for
expedited housing up to 1,000 units. He further stated that by going from peak of 27,000
to the average of 27,000 you've made room for it.
• Less regulation, however, the plan yields more code amendments.
Discussion: Peter stated that he wasn't prepared to address this issue that he has been
focused on affordable housing up to this point and that he would prepare a written
statement addresses the specific action items.
• Open space vs. housing, open space always has the upper hand because they can just
buy the land and don't also have to come up with the money to build. No one objects
to open space near his or her home. How can we alter the plan to help level that
playing field?
Discussion: Doug asked if there was a way for the land use map to predicate purchasing
open spaces. He stated that we are making a major leap here with the green-frastructure
concept.
Cindy responded that theoretically an open space board wouldn't purchase open
space that a community doesn't want.
Stephanie stated that Rock Creek Studios is doing an open spaces map for the
Roaring Crystal Alliance that characterizes open space in terms ' of the open space value to
wildlife, view sheds and so on. This will help when making purchasing decision. We
can base the decision of what parcels to buy on something somewhat more concrete and
objective. She stated that this is not a city -funded study but they do hope to be able to
use it.
Charlie stated that we are buying private land. Addressing Bass Park, Charlie
stated that Open Space wants this property for open space, Housing wants the property
for housing, and he asked how do you decide how it's used..
Phil Holstein stated that there is and always will be a controversy between open
space and housing. He stated there are people within the community that will sacrifice
open space to housing and then there are people that wouldn't support utilizing open
space. He asked if it wasn't the proper role of the public to argue the benefits of one over
the other. He stated that in his opinion, the AACP was supposed to be a very broad
guideline and then there would be more specific legislation to back it up. He stated that
it's a good document with the exception of the wishy-washiness due to the controversy.
Referring to page 45 of the policies where it refers to the vote, Peter asked if it
was limited strictly to open space and trails.
Stephanie stated that one of the things the Parks, Open Space and Environment
group wanted to get at was that the County doesn't have the same restrictions as the city
does.
11711,ri rr�
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13, 1999
Referring to the Snyder project, which was about 2/3 open space money and 1/3
housing money, Doug stated that Open space got two acres and housing got one acre.
Doug stated that at that time they complained about this because of the under utilization
of the entire site. Does the parks and open space committee or the staff feel like this is a
template for an alternate route for this sort of constant battle going on between open
space and housing..
Stephanie stated that the conversations she heard at the Parks, Open Space and
Environment Committee meetings she would guess that they would be very much in
favor of that kind of resolution. It would be on a site by site basis.
Referring to page 45, 2nd policy, Charlie read the statement about clustering
housing close to roads to allow the best open space values to be preserved. Charlie stated
that in some cases placing the housing farthest away from roads would be best. We
shouldn't be tying ourselves like that.
Stephanie stated that maybe they should say cluster housing and plan property to
allow for best open space values. Cindy stated that they should just remove the statement
"close to roads".
Peter asked how many additional affordable housing units were being
recommended.
Stephanie responded 800-1300 additional units.
Conversation occurred concerning a study that was completed a few years ago by
the Commissioner Michael Kingsley. In this study, Mr. Kingsley had concluded that
Pitkin County needed an additional 1500 affordable housing units. Some Commissioners
wanted to know if the 800 to 1300 units meant we would still have a short fall.
Cindy responded by saying that that study was probably based on the assumption
that we were going to house 60% of our workforce in the metro area. That has since been
dropped.
Commissioners wanted to know if we know how many employees we have.
Stephanie responded that the data being prepared for the Glenwood to Aspen
Corridor Investment Study has some estimates for employees. It is based upon 1990
census data, updated and adjusted for 97. She has an estimate for Pitkin County minus
Snowmass Village for winter and summer 1997. The numbers are winter/16,000,
summer/13,740. Adding in Snowmass Village the totals are winter/ IS, 596 and
summer/ 15,983.
The commissioners asked to get a copy of the numbers cited.
Additional Discussion: Stephanie stated that the next meeting is on July 27th and what is
planned for that meeting is a discussion on the issues raised on the reality of
implementation and individual action items. She stated that they would need the
commissioners concerns about implementation. This may include prioritizing, and also
any action items in particular that they have an issue with and how they would change
them.
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, July 13,1999
Doug noted that all of the corridors we have any trail is rapidly becoming covered
with noxious weeds. There is very little in the Parks and Open Spaces plan to deal with
this.
Stephanie stated that they could bring that forward at the next meeting and that if
Commissioners wanted to propose additional Action Items they should provide those to
her prior to the next meeting. .
a
Another member of the public stated that the growth section of this document the
first three goals are representing a fairly dramatic policy shift from the last plan. Limiting
the ultimate population, critical mass, residence and revising the growth management
section. He wanted to point out to the chair that those three key goals in this plan are
supported by the P&Z.
Glen suggested that staff prepare for the commission a list of all of the plans that
are still in affect and which ones this document supercedes.
A member of the public suggested that a glossary of terms would be extremely
helpful. It was noted that that is included.
There was discussion amongst several member of the public regarding the
evolution of the community and the real need as opposed to desire to develop affordable
housing because employees that work here need to be encouraged to live here.
Motion: Commissioner Charlie Tarver moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by
Commissioner Doug Unfujz Members Martin, Unfug, Tarver and Thomas voted
unanimously in favor of the motion.
V. ADJOURN
A
07 13.doc