HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.joint.19990817 MINUTES
· of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
Joint Meeting/Aspen Area Community Plan
Sister Cities Room, City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
Approved: January 18, 2000
INDIVIDUALS PRESENT: --
Board of County Commissioner~
Mick Ireland
Dorothea Farris
Leslie Lamont
Shellie Roy-Harper
City Council Members
Rachel Richards (Mayor)
Terry Paulson
Jim Markalunas
%, Tom McCabe
Roger Haneman
County P&Z Commissioners
Peter Martin
Sheri Sanzone
Doug Unfug
Charlie Tarver
Steve Whipple
Peter Thomas
City P&Z Commissioners
Tim Semrau
Steve Buettow
Bob Blaich
Tim Mooney
Jasmine Tygre
Ron Erickson
Roger Hunt
Staff
Julie Ann Woods
Stephanie Millar
Cindy Houben
Louise S. mart (Consultant -facilitator)
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
2. CALL TO ORDER
Julie Ann Woods called the meeting to order introducing the boards and councils
present at the meeting as well as the meeting facilitator, Louise Smart, and the
representatives of the Oversight Committee, Julie Ann turned the meeting over to Cindy
Houben :'-
II. AACP DISCUSSION
Cindy Houben gave a brief background on the AACP and the meetings that have been
held. She introduced Louise Smart as the facilitator and stated that Louise would be
chairing the meeting tonight.
Plan Overview:
Stephanie Millar gave a brief overview of the plan stating that this was an update
of the 1993 plan, which was a unique cfiaracter based plan that focused not only on the
quantity of growth, but also the quality of growth. When they initiated the'update process
in May of last year, citizens came out and identified the key issues that needed to be
addressed. They created focus area committee's that met for about a year and talked
about the issues that came up and made some recommendations. There xvere over a
hnndr~d people that participated on those Committees. The document was then forwarded
to the Oversight Committee, which was composed of twvo members each, the City
Council, the BOCC, the City and the County P&Z and a representative from each of the
focus area committees. The role of this group was to try and bring the different pieces of
the document together and massage the differences between the focus area committees.
The Oversight Committee met until the end of May this year. At that point, the County
P&Z stated that they had some issues they would like to work on and spent the summer
talking about those issues.
County P&Z Presentation:
Sheri Sanzone stated that the P&Z first met to look at the plan in June and since
then they've had five to seven meetings to review the plan. She stated that it was a very
rigorous process. Sheri stated that the first meeting was on June 15t~' and at that meeting
they talked generally about the plan, identifying the issues or areas of concern. At that
point they really felt they lacked support for the plan. Sheri referenced the areas that the
P&Z had focused on and felt needed more attention.
· A better tmderstanding of the build out population. There was an analysis that got
them to 27,000, though, there were some questions about what 27,000 really
contained. Did it contain day tourists and commuters or everyone?
· Fundamental conflicts between focus areas.
· The implementation of the plan wasn't really addressed; they weren't sure who would
take responsibility for the action items and bring them forward.
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
· The plan might preclude affordable housing opportunities. It didn't really provide
actions that would correct the affordable housing versus open space debate that has
been going on for so iong.
· The process by which the plan was developed was very heavy and strong on the
community side, but didn't have professional input as a check and balance as the plan
moved forward. · -
· The plan really needed to be simplified and clhrified into something that would be
used and something that anyone could take forward and use as a guiding tool.
Having identified these issues, they spent the next three meetings reviewing the goals
and action items and looking at the plan in much detail. She stated that they met again on
August l0th and refined the issues.
· The analysis was explained to them a couple of times and there was general
agreement on how they had come to the 27,000 build out number, the question about
whether it contained commuters and day visitors still hadn't been addressed.
· The future land use plan was a priority and would be a tool that would identify further
conflicts between growth, housing and open space.
· They viewed the action items from the different groups as a wish list, however there
hadn't been a rigor applied to the list to identify when it could be coordinated and
brought forward as first priority items.
At this point, the County P&Z are recommending that they postpone the plan
adoption and that staff is directed to complete the first priority action items. The first
priority action items would be:
1. A future land use plan, which is really taking the elements of transportation, open
space and putting these elements together and determining where there is
conflicting deSires for the same parcel of land and also applying urban growth
boundaries.
2. To look at the population estimates and answer the question on the 27,000
number.
3. Take another look at the growth management quota system and evaluate where
the loopholes are and see if they can be captured.
4.Consider the idea of not having a cap for affordable housing.
When staff is able to complete these action items they should also be able to look
at and coordinate and prioritize all of the other remaining action items. Staff should
recommend a plan on how the AACP draft can be modified to address this new
information and how they think the plan should be brought forward.
Sheri stated that the P&Z Commission members would now give their individual
comments on the plan.
P& Z Commissioner, Peter Martin stated that they believe that this is a key
planning document and should be a synthesis of everything they need and know how to
3
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
provide good planning by. He stated that they are very conscious of their statutory role
and although they are receptive to the plan they do have a statutory duty to review and
approve this document. In order to do this they must honestly say that they understand it
and how it's going to be used. He recognized that there are many good ideas in the plan
but stated that they aren't quite at a point of understanding. There are too many goals and
some of them are inconsistent ~vith the GMQS. Peter s~ated ~at he a, dmired the amount
of work the citizens committees had put into this plan. However, with a couple of
exceptions, the P&Z Commission are not professional planners and it is apparent to them
that they really need the input of professional planners,
P&Z Commissioner, Steve Whipple stated that he has heard the xvords "revise,
consider, explore, study, identify and develop" throughout this document. As he was
going through the document he wondered who would be doing that and stated that he
really felt that was part of their obligation. He stated that they were looking to take the
information that the citizen groups had provided, digest it and pull it into land planning
issues. He stated that at every meeting he had attended he had stumbled over the material
he had and tried to rework it and had realized that what he was trying to do was land
planning. He stated that it was really important to talk about base line numbers and how
they are achieved. The action items need to be at a point where they lead people to the
conclusion rather than creating more conflict and unresolved issues.
P&Z Commissioner, Peter Thomas stated that he thought it was unfair to focus on
the construction and developers who are creating these job growth opportunities. He
stated that they risk alienating a lot &people if they focus 100% employee mitigation on
them. Then again if they distribute employee mitigation to everybody that creates a job
within the City of Aspen, what will happen is that tree burden of mitigati0n will fall upon
the small business owner. He stated that he thought that was fundamentally at odds with
economic sustainability. He suggested that it would drive small business down valley,
P&Z Commissioner, Charlie Tarver recognized that a lot of work has gone into
this document by the citizen groups. He added that the P&Z Commission has also spent
a lot of time working on this document. He noted that there are many conflicts within the
plan and gave a couple of examples of how this would affect the land use planning
process. Approving this document is not the right thing to do, regardless of the amount
of work that's gone into it. He stated that this isn't a document that will provide
guidance. He suggested that there was a fundamental fla~v in the process. An.analysis
should have been done that told what the goals/action items meant to the rest of the plan
and the community and what the ramifications are. He added that this plan is used
throughout the valley so often that it is a fundamentally important document if it's done
right. Chartie emphasized that the easy ~vay out would be to approve the plan as is. He
does not believe that the plan is right yet.
Facilitated Group Discussion:
Louise Smart called for questions from the other boards and councils.
County Commissioner, Dorothea Fan'is stated that she was under the impression
that this isn't a final document, and that it is out for public consideration review at this
4
MINUTES
of the Pitkin CountY Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
time. She asked if that was where they are and again stated that she didn't believe they
were seeking approval without question at this time.
Peter Martin responded that they felt that the plan needed to be taken and
reviewed by professional planners and staff.
Mick Ireland asked what affordable housing opportunities were being precluded
and ~vhat the affordable housing/open space inequity is and then specifically ,vhat the
fundamental conflicts bet~veen the focus areas are:
Shed responded that affordable housing opportunities are being precluded
because the plan isn't providing guidance. Regarding affordable housing/open space, she
stated that if an open space sight provided has equal value as an affordable housing site
that it should be considered for affordable housing. She stated that this hasn't come
through on any of the action items.
Mick asked what specific sites they thought should have been considered for
affordable housing and what open space sites should be eligible for conversion to
affordable housing.
Sheri responded that she didn't have the answer to that, which is why they would
like to see a future land use plan. Shed stated that as an example, thtring the Oversight
Committee Meetings, there was some discussion about the Moore Open Space and was it
better used as affordable housing. She stated that she was sure there were others.
Charlie stated that one of the problems he saw was that if you take all the growth
for no growth policies and you put them together there is an issue. In the strictest reading
of the growth section we are full, so, ,vhy even have a housing section if we are full.
Peter Martin stated that they are very willing to identify sites, but they are
reluctant to do so lfthat means they are excluding other sites. He noted their concern
about the development of Aspen Mass and Burlingame.
There was discussion regarding the oversight boundaries.
Mayor Rachel Richards asked if there were specific items that could be changed
in order to get this adopted.
Shed stated that when they went through the plan they had made a lot of changes.
What they are left with are questions that they can't answer.
There was discussion among those present at the meeting regarding the future
land use plan and future land use map.
County Commissioner Leslie Lamont stated that she didn't disagree with what the
P&Z was saying. She asked if they took the suggestions that they have made and came
up with better priority and guidance wouldn't the adoption of the plan then dictate the
drawing of a map.
Peter Thomas responded stating that Leslie had a good point but he doesn't think
that resolves the issue before them.
Shed clarified that in saying "plan" they were actually talking about the "map".
They have discussed that there is a benefit to adopting the first section of the plan.
Louise clarified that County P&Z is concerned about adopting something when
it's not clear what it is that they are really adopting because there is not sufficient
concrete and detail there. At the same time if there is to be the development of that detail
5
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
it needs to be driven by some kind of an agreed to concept. She stated that an alternative
that has been suggested is to go to the public with part of the document and then go to the
second stage.
Peter responded that their first preference Was to postpone. He stated that they
really needed to resolve these issues and that they needed the map.
Charlie added that it's more than just the map. He asked where the GMQS was
going and stated that the direction it goes has a huge affect on 'w~at ~ets buil~.
A member of the City P&Z stated that he had a problem calling this a plan. He
suggested that once you determine the who, what and when priorities, then you have a
plan. He added that they've been asking for the map for a long time and that they have to
have it.
Tom (?) agreed that this isn't a plan, it's more of a wish list and has a long way to
go before it's a useful tool. He would agree to postpone it. He noted that it was
important to determine how full is full.
Rachel stated that she could go whatever way the group ends up going as long as
they don't loose the momentum. She stated that a lot of very good and worthwhile goals
were expressed in this document. Noting the 1993 plan she stated that it didn't have
incredible specifics in it and that it wasn't necessary to have that level of specificity to
guide the council. She stated that the plan is an overall plan and the elected boards are
going to pick the priorities that are implemented in it. She stated that if they waited too
long, they'd have a different BOCC, a different City Council and she'd hate to see this
process take another 9 months. Again noting the 1993 plan, she stated that it had given
general direction and not the type of detail she's hearing a desire for now. She noted
Leslie's suggestion about describing the pictures, policy and goals accurately and asked if
that didn't by default define your number. Rachel stated that maybe it's not so important
to pin down a specific number. She stated that she has a tendency to move forward with
that suggestion.
Shetlie (?) stated that she thought it was important to move forward with the
public hearing portion of the process so that they continue working on the plan and also
have the valuable input of the public. She stated that they've sat through two meeting
already, discussing numbers and she's doesn't know that that will ever be clarified.
Peter Martin stated that he realized that the governing bodies are going to set the
priorities and the implementation. He re-iterated that the P&Z would still like to have the
professional staff write the resolution and make recommendations. The governing bodies
could then prioritize. Regarding the numbers, Peter stated that everyone has been arguing
about those. He stated that it would be helpful to at least be able to agree on the
methodologies.
Charlie emphasized that there are very important missing pieces in this plan,
specifically the airport isn't even mentioned in it. He also noted discrepancies between
this plan and other plans. He stated that these are fundamental flaws.
Louise stated that regardless of how they decide to move forward ~vith the plan, it
might be helpful to get to a plan that they consider a useful guidance document. Also, it
6
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
might be useful to decide what it really needs to have in it, where and when they should
stop and when the professional planners and public should be involved.
Mick stated that he thinks the census data would be the worst data they could use
not only because of second homeowners, but also because of the growing number of
people living here that have a vested interest in not being counted. He stated that he
wasn't sure how they could account for that. He stated ~hat the plan must come to grips
with what the nature of the economy is and what they need it to bi.
Louise asked everyone in the room to share what their thoughts on what was On a
good way to proceed.
Mick stated that he would like to see specific details on what this plan has failed
to accomplish and what is missing in it along with recommendations.
Jim Markalunas stated that the limits are already there, this town is maxed out.
He stated that they need to reconcile their differences define the limits and move on with
the plan.
Leslie stated that she doesn't think they should move forward to the public
hearing process. She stated that they should create an implementation section based upon
the existing action items then prioritize those items that they can take on first. She
included that they should create a map that reflects the plan as it drawn up today and
eliminate the numbers and the cap.
Dorothea Fan'is stated that this is supposed to be a'guiding document and that
P&Z wants to look at something that's a little more specific. She stated that there are
already several guiding documents that they need to use more often. She stated that
perhaps the professionals on staff need to look at each and every one of the action items
and determine which can and can't be implemented.
Another member stated that he agreed with P&Z that there are a lot of fatal flaws
in this system. He stated that he didn't mind postponing it, but wanted a deadline for
that.
Julie Ann stated that they haven't made any time frame commitments because
they don't know where the council and commissions are headed.
Cindy stated that they thought they could have the map completed by November
1st. That doesn't include the public process of reviewing the map. She stated they she
didn't think that they would ever be able to agree on a number.
Tom (?) stated that it takes awhile to reach a plan that works. He stated that he
thought they should shoot for six months.
Roger Haneman asked what the purpose of the plan is Supposed to be. Is it
supposed to be used as a vision statement for the community or as a land use code. He
added that he'd wanted it to be more like a land use code.
Another member stated that he thought the County P&Z has done a very good job
at looking at the plan, finding the fatal flaws and looking at the realities of the plan and
applying it. He stated that he also supported the land use map and urban growth rings as
a necessary item to be included in the plan. He thought these things needed to be
completed before taking it to the public.
7
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17. 1999
Tim stated that he feels the same level of frustration with the plan as do the
County P&Z. He added that maybe there should be two plans. A plan that gives them
direction and a plan that gives them a community v~sion. He added that he's always
thought that the Community Development Dept. should be master planning and looking
at affordable housing sites and how it fits with the master plan.
Roger Haneman stated that he doesn't have a problem with identifying numbers
to work towards, however when you set caps, that results in skewed planning. He stated
that we need a plan, not necessarily a land use code, but more of a master plan. He added
that the land use code should be developed in order to make the map happen.
Another member stated that the AACP is a combination of a consensus of feel
good generalities and a bunch of specifics in different directions. He stated they needed
to make a commitment to go in one of two different directions. They can commit to a
time frame to make the plan become very sound and specific so that everyone can live
~vith and work with it or they come to consensus on a community vision statement rather
quickly and adopt that. At the same time allowing the professionals to work on the
specifics to back up that statement.
Jasmine Tygre stated that she thought she'd heard the County P&Z talking about
the "what ifs" that haven't been answered. She stated that in order to resolve the conflicts
and differences, there are a lot of"what ifs" that still have to be answered. She stated that
she doesn't feel that they really are ready to proceed. She stated that they could probably
manage with the last plan. She thought this should postponed until some of the basics are
figured out and what would happen if some of the plans do get implemented.
Another member stated that he also agreed with the P&Z. He stated that these
issues are ones that they've been dealing with for a long period of time and they've
created a lot of controversy. He thought that the separation of vision and plan is
something they could deal with. There could be an Aspen Area Community Vision,
whidh gives direction. The other part would be the Aspen Area Community Plan, which
would tell them how to get there.. He didn't think it had to take nine more months or a
year. They needed to take the information they have, sit down and make the commitment
to battle through it. First they'd have to agree on the objectives. He also likes the idea of
outside professional critique as opposed to staff. Then they'd need to right the action
plan and set priorities and implement them. He stated that some of these objectives could
be done quickly and others might take a little longer. He stated that they need to consider
whether or not the objectives can be used and whether they can be defended.
Ron Erickson stated that when he'd read the plan he considered it to be a
philosophical document. He stated that he would encourage public comment at the
earliest possible moment.
Rachel stated that she thought that they are as a group mixing up vision, plan and
code. She stated that they couldn't go through the plan and identify how many housing
units should be on each site. She noted how lengthy determining details are in a process
using the RO, paid parking and GMQS for example. She added that they are kidding
themselves if they really believe that they'll be able to work this plan until the conflicts
do not exist. She stated that economic sustainability, small businesses and mitigation are
8
MINUTES
of the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
going to be a constant plague and it will be up to a board judging the circumstances of the
time to make some determinations, She added that she agrees with Ron that the public
needs to be involved in this.
Shellie stated that she thought they needed to get this passed in no more than two
months and then each of them should give staff what they need in order to make it real.
She stated that the P&Z have already done a lot of the v~ork and theymight b.e a lot closer
than they realize. Shellie stated that she'd like an economic.atia}ysis~ the work from the
P&Z and figure out what the contradictions are and handle those.
Sheri stated that they were very cognizant of the time that it would take to get this
done. She stated that was why they recommended the four critical things that needed to
be addressed. She thought that staff'would be the best professionals to review this
· because they are already familiar with it.
Peter stated that it's very important to distinguish that there is a big difference
betweeri a master plan and code. He added that they aren't proposing to get into code.
Cindy Houben stated she and Julie Ann thought they could get the draft to the '
members in a couple of months. She stated that a lot of this depends upon the timeframe
and commitments of the boards and councils. She asked if they would be meeting as
joint P&Z or separately. She recommended that it be done together.
Julie Ann added that they could come forward to them with staff's best
professional opinion, but they aren't the decision makers and that once this is brought
back to them they are going to have to make some decisions. She stated that she is very
concerned about the specificity issue. She stated that this is a community plan and it
should be used as a guidance document. It should not be so detailed that irties their
hands on every land use application that comes in.
Sheri stated that the County P&Z are committed to meeting at extra meetings and
coming to a decision quickly.
Louise clarified that the staff is proposing that they don't immediately go to
public hearing.
Cindy stated that it would take at least six weeks to get the information they are
requesting.
Public Comments:
Wilk Wilkinson introduced himself and stated that it had been very interesting to
listen to the complicated issues and comments tonight. He stated that his predecessors
had been responsible for building this community and bringing in railroads and mining
the silver. He stated that the land that he owns on Smuggler Mountain is one of the last
remnants of their financial empire and it stands for the freedom in this country ora man
being able to go out and locate a piece of land and create (?) from this ground. He cited
the 1872 mining act as well as others. Wilk ask them to consider the balance of
Smuggler Mountain for development. 'The Aspen Metro Boundary includes all of his
property. He stated that the new plan does not include his property. He stated that he
was on the Growth Management Committee this year and at a couple of the housing
meetings.' He was very discouraged that the dialogue in those meeting didn't include the
9
MINUTES
of the P~tkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
Tuesday, August 17, 1999
possibility of developing Smuggler Mountain. He referenced this property on the map
and noted that it is probably the biggest last land holding adjacent to the City o£Aspen.
He added that he is not opposed to maintaining some of this property for open space. He
noted several reasons for the consideration of this property including eliminating the need
for Highway 82 corridor transportation by housing employees there, also underground
water rights and access as well as capability for underground sh~!~¢r and sto~age. Wilk
stated that he'd also like them to consider protecting private p~mpert~ rights as they
develop the plan because if they do that they will not have to defend them in court. He
stated that they haven't addressed any of the property owners in terms of bringing them in
to review this master plan2 He stated that another flaw in the planning was breaking up
into small groups instead of bringing it to a full table. He stated that they should address
one issue at a time with everyone involved.
Steve stated that he agreed with what the P&Z stated in redoing the hours and
hours that was spent on this already. He stated that there really was no consensus and
what they had ended up with was a plan that reflected the few things they could agree on,
which didn't really include any details. He stated that this plan is confusing and
conflicting. He stated that it was his opinion that they could meet for another six months
or a year and still not have a consensus. He stated that it was important to go back to the
public but thought they'd had a reasonable public representation in their committee. He
stated that it had to be up to the elected officials to make the appropriate decisions that
will link the various projects. He stated that to some extent as citizen committees they
have probably wasted a lot of time.
Toni (?) commended everyone in the room for postponing the adoption of the plan
because there are still some things that need to be worked out. She stated that she
thought it was really good for the citizens groups to get together because that's what the
town is all about but what was missing was that them wasn't an outside professional that
reviewed this. She thought it was very prudent to take another six to eight weeks on this.
III. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
10