Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19840904 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1984 Chairman Perry Harvey called the meeting to order at 5: 05 p.m. with commissioners Jasmine Tygre, Pat Fallin, Lee Pardee , David White, and Roger Hunt present. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS No comments. MINUTES July 17, 1984: Roger Hunt moved to approve the minutes of July 17 , 1984, with the following corrections: 1 . Page one, reverse the last two paragraphs for the sake of clarity. 2. Page three , paragraph four, lines two and three, add "3,240 square feet might be allowed per lot for a total square footage of 19,440 square feet. " 3 . Page fourteen, paragraph three, line three, change the word "so" to "said" : "purpose served by said ordinance. . . " 4. Page eighteen, correct the spelling of "Shapery. " The motion is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. All in favor ; motion carried. SPA CODE AMENDMENTS, CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING Harvey opened the continued public hearing. Harvey requested the changes in the resolution be highlighted. Alan Richman, planning office, outlined the changes. Page three, there are minor word changes to (c) and (e) : variations being allowed and variations being opposed. Page six, in the "be it finally resolved" there are substantive changes. Little Nell is removed from the list of lots that are to be removed from the SPA. He included the first note which speaks to the intent of Castle Ridge. Castle Ridge is clearly not being upzoned. Harvey asked if this note goes anywhere else but here . Richman said it is the intent to carry this forward to a City Council ordi- nance. The Commission is recommending this to City Council and Council will sponsor a class action rezoning with these comments back to the Commission. Harvey asked when the land is rezoned will there be an asterick and footnote on the zoning map . Richman replied there could be a footnote. There are parcels with that exact designation. New maps have notes . The notes say 1 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 see ordinance "y" as to the parcel ' s intent . This was done in the rezoning of the lots at the base of the mountain. There was a concern the owner was receiving upzoning. But a FAR limitation was imposed with a note on the rezoning ordinance map. Hunt asked if the footnote shows up on the title search. That is where it should show up. What mechanism is there to get that accomplished? Richman did not know what is entailed in the search by the title company and how that shows up. Gideon Kaufman remarked title companies can only look something up if it is on a deed or document record. If it is not recorded the title companies will not search it out. Hunt said this needs to be done . Kaufman suggested require the resolution be put in the record. Then the title companies can pick up a documented record. Thev do not pick up zoning maps. Hunt is worried about the Castle Ridge property. If that property turns over how is the new owner made aware of that restriction. The adjacent property owner who may want to be zoned R/MF will pick up the note on the zoning map. How is the restriction indicated to a future buyer? Harvey said if the note is located on the zoning map then anyone checking the zoning map will see the note and will have to refer to the ordinance. Kaufman said the zoning map is the public record. When the note does not appear on the map then there is a problem. Richman noted that zoning maps are reviewed annually. Harvey asked if there should be a reference in the resolution that the Commission wants the note of intent put on the zoning map. This will help trace the note. Hunt directed his question to Kaufman. What happens when a new purchaser of Castle Ridge is not aware that the property is buildout to the maximum? Kaufman said if this information is on the zoning map then there is not a problem. when there is a problem, like the Shapery situation, the zoning map shows nothing. The city' s response is an owner should have known that was the city' s intent. That is a real problem. There is no such thing as "you should have known. " If the information is on a zoning map or on some public record that someone can easily fine then there is no problem. The deletion creates the problem. (Pardee arrives in the Chambers. ) Richman said on page six, the paragraph preceding the statement of intent for the institute , "two remaining sites" should be changed to "three. remaining sites ; " and there should be the addition of "the Institute , Little Nell , and Rio Grande. . . " The only changes made to the institute language is the liberal addition of the word "residential. " Harvey also noted the inclusion of "uses on or contemplated for. " Joe Wells, representative for Commerce Savings, agreed with this language . 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1984 Hunt remarked that restaurant is referred to as a whole entity. Historically the restaurant has been an accessory use to the lodging accommodations even though everyone uses the restaurant. Harvey responded the restaurant is advertised in the newspaper for the public. Richman said the restaurant in the Fireside Lodge is an accessory use. That is not the case with the Meadows. Hunt reiterated the restaurant is in the administration building for the lodge. Is a free standing restaurant being considered there? Harvey reminded the Commission that this is only a statement of what has occurred on the property; it is a record of facts. It indicates that no zone covers all the uses. What is the difference if the restaurant is free standing or incorporated in another building? That particular restaurant has worked. White asked what the academic nature includes . What is the opportunity for more academic use? Remember Paepcke wanted to build a university. Does the academic designation preclude an allowed size? Richman said the Commission is not developing the property. The Commission is establishing parameters within which to plan. The Commission is not programming the property. White asked if the Commission can participate in the planning of the SPA parcels. The city does not manage its property well . Richman said it is one thing to address public property and another to address private developments. The Commission can identify the appropriate uses for a private development, that is the purpose of zoning. But the Commission cannot plan the property. Harvey said a purpose of the SPA designation is to let the city work with the developer at the time a plan is submitted. The SPA provides more latitude for the city. White said Council does not work with a developer in the same breadth as the Commission does. The Council can close off opportunities. Richman noted the Little Nell paragraph is all new. Harvey said the intent indicates it is a critical piece of land because of the skier access and the orientation of the mountain to the town . Include in the historic section the importance of the view. There is a unique feel created by that area coming right into town. The viewplane from the town is great and important. White asked about lift 1-A. Richman said lift 1-A is not in the same kind of single ownership pattern as Little Nell. Lift 1-A is certainly not under total ski company ownership. Peter Forsch, director of housing and transportation for the Aspen Ski Company, said the land below the bottom of the lift and from the turn around up is either owned or leased by the ski company. The reason the lift does not go further down the mountain is the hodgepodge character of the ownership. Harvey noted residential is included as a use or as a contemplated use. The other uses fall within commercial core designation, the residential use does not. Is there incongruity with the statement 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1984 on commercial core and with the statement on residential? The statement "uses on the property or contemplated for the property" is a qualifier. Richman said residential use is a principal use for the SPA. Residential may be a viable use of the property that does not fit into any zone which makes sense in the area. Harvey asked if there is still L-1 and L-2 zone designation. He thought the two zones were merged. Richman explained the work was done for the merge but Council never passed it. Kaufman noted that Richman did a good job identifying the reasons behind a SPA designation. The flexibility of the SPA is men- tioned as necessary. Include in the statement that it is not inappropriate to extend the SPA to some definitive point. The Commission discussed this at the last meeting. Remember the Commission identified the problem with designating the entire parcel SPA. The boundaries were not clear. The Commission was in agreement that there might be some area, part of the flat conser- vation area for example, where it might be appropriate to extend the SPA. The language might reflect that it may be appropriate at the time the ski company comes forward with a plan to designate other parts of that parcel SPA. Richman did not express problems with that. Harvey suggested language in the statement of intent that the critical nature of this piece of property may well require at some point the extension of the SPA designation over other pieces of the property. Hunt suggested the words "the adjustment of the present limitations. " Tygre asked why not extend SPA when the Commission is approached with that request. Bil Dunaway, publisher for the Aspen Times, said the extension should be given on its own merits. Why put that language in? Kaufman reasoned the language is good discussion mechanism. Pardee did not think that language was necessary. There is another portion that indicates that all adjoining owners have to participate . It is implied that SPA can be expanded at any time. Harvey corrected Pardee. The reference is to all the owners within the SPA designation not the owners adjacent to the SPA designation. Harvey said the extension will only occur on the commercial core. A precedent may be set. When Little Nell is considered a SPA designation may be considered desirable on more than just the cc portion of the property, for example, on the L-1 or on the flat portion of the conservation zone. Flexibility may be needed to create a plan that works. Kaufman did not ask for a recommendation. Just leave the door open. He does not want this to be used against the Aspen Ski Company but for the ski company. Harvey said there is nothing implicitly negative in the language about extending the SPA. Now the ski company is on neutral ground. Kaufman said the concern is the opposition from neighbors. This will be controversial. He wants 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 language indicating that nothing is intended to preclude the extension of the SPA. Fallin argued if that language is included then all those neighbors will be back in here . The purpose of amending the SPA would be defeated. Leave the language as is. Tygre agreed with Fallin. Hunt suggested including the language "the adjustment of lines of existing sites" in the procedures for designation of sites. Pardee asked if a landowner or a group of 1-andowners can come in and ask for special treatment on a parcel that is sensitive, historical, etc. The parcel may warrant special treatment and the most special treatment the city can give is SPA. Hunt said spell this out. Kaufman agreed with Hunt. The Commission agreed with Richman ' s wording in the procedure for designation : "parcels of land may be designated or the boundaries of an adopted SPA may be adjusted. " Kaufman agreed. Fie also commented that Little dell is therefore not being targeted. Kaufman commented on 24-7 .3 (e) , page three : "however any such applications shall not be permitted to obtain variations from the use requirements of the underlying zone district unless the site shall also be designated with an SPA overlay. " He does not understand that statement. Richman explained if a parcel is designated SPA on the map, then the parcels are allowed to have their uses and density varied . For parcels in the public, academic, or park zone, the area and bulk requirements chart says the area and bulk is set by SPA plan. The uses cannot be varied without a SPA overlay. Kaufman said Richman' s explanation clarified the statement. Wells stated that neither Doremus nor he read that overtone. Dunaway said it is clear to him that there needs to be a SPA overlay desig- nation to change the use. Richman agreed. Kaufman said section 24-7 .3 is called variations permitted within a SPA overlay. Why would one even apply to vary uses if one did not have a SPA? Kaufman suggested the language that area and bulk requirements be set specifically by SPA for those three zones (public, park , academic) . List those three zones. Richman asked what happens in the future if more parcels are designated with a SPA. Harvey asked if Richman wants one to think that academic zone without the SPA overlay can have its uses varied as the area and bulk is determined through the SPA process. One does not have the right to vary the uses under the SPA process if there is no SPA desig- nation attached to academic. tells said it is clearly referenced in the chart that area and bulk are established by the SPA plan. Harvey reiterated that the phrase "SPA boundaries can be adjusted" will be located in Section 24-7 .2 (a) . The discussion returns to item "e. " Hunt suggested clarifying the last sentence : "however , any such application shall not be 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4, 1984 permitted to obtain variation, :;:Ll the use :_ `ii of tyre underlying zone district unless the SPA designation so allows. " It is within the SPA designation that allows the variation of use. It is not simply allowed in public zone. Richman emphasized there has to be a SPA overlay. Public zone alone has no overlay. Park zone alone has no overlay. Harvey said it is already clear that use cannot be changed without a SPA overlay. Richman noted that SPA is identified on the bottom of page five: "SPA specially planned area overlay. " That is how it is identified on the zoning district map. There is always a zone under the SPA. That is required in an earlier portion by definition, for example, in 24- 7 .2 (b) , "site shall be designated with a SPA overlay and with an underlying zone. " Hunt said it is still confusing. Kaufman suggested language "for which the area and bulk requirements are required. " Richman said he wrote the statement before, but it was struck down . Richman added again "for which the area and bulk requirements are required to be set by adoption, " 24- 7 .3 (e) . Harvey said he does not see a problem. It states for those zone districts that are listed in that section. The area and bulk requirements are to be set by adoption of a plan. Those applications have to follow the procedures. It also states that those applications will not be permitted to obtain variances for the use requirements of the underlying zone unless the site has a SPA overlay. Wells said the confusion is created because the section refers to a section in the code. Reference to a section in the code creates confusion. Harvey asked if the commissioners have any problems. Hunt suggested eliminate the word SPA before the word overlay. Richman argued there are far too many overlay designations, transportation, PUD, drainage , etc. white said he wants to fight until the section is completely understood. Someone else will not understand the statement. Harvey reasoned if someone refers to that section in the code they will. Harvey suggested naming the three zones : "applications for development in the three zones , public , academic , and park , or any other zone district listed. " That covers future zones that might be listed in the chart. Kaufman addressed section 24-7 . 5 (d) : density reduction for slope. Why is the statement in there? The code only allows that for a mandatory PUD. One of the parcels may not be a mandatory PUD. Richman explained to have a PUD is redundant with a SPA overlay. That is the only requirement of PUD that is maintained. Pardee questioned (d) . SPA is so infrequently imposed as an overlay that it makes no sense to restrict the SPA with one thing. The process determines the restriction. Richman said this statement provides a base line to start from. The statement does not preclude a FAR above that. The intent is that the underlying zone is technically reduced by "y" but with the SPA it can be varied. Kaufman agreed with Pardee. Harvey said 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and zoning Commission September 4. 1984 this is a requirement for submission. Pardee argued if the density is designated as "x" in instead of "2x" to start with then the parcel is not given the most open review that SPA requires . There is always the chance to look at steepness. Harvey said if the slope degree is not determined then it will be up to the Commission to figure from a topo map the slope. Pardee agreed the slope degree should be identified, but not the density. The applicant should not be required to start with a reduction based on the slope degree. Do not start the process with a limited density or limited anything. The starting point is the submission' s identification of the slope degree. Do not conclude from that there is reduced density. The Commission wants the information available. Flake it clear that it may be calculated for discussion purposes, but that calculation is not the starting density. Richman suggested change "reduced" to "calculated. " Harvey commented on item "c" . The zone district is specified: regulations which are to apply to the parcel by designating the appropriate underlying zone (s) for the development and specifying any variation requested from the standards of the district (s ) . That will also be required for slope density. Pardee protested the phrase "shall have their density reduced. " Use the language "this would be the calculated density to take into account. " Use the language similar to "c". Vlells reasoned it is inconsistent to discuss variations and flexibility then also say shall have their density reduced. Tygre disagreed. If this is an area that is not under a SPA then that reduction should be considered. Pardee said only if there is a mandatory PUD, which is only one-tenth of the land. Take the slopes in excess of 20o into account but do not reduce the density. That is not done with any zone except with mandatory PUD. Pardee emphasized that FAR is only reduced because of slope under a mandatory PUD. Richman cited Section 24-0. Pardee asked why treat all of SPA similar to 1/100th of the land. Harvey said this may only apply to the institute land. The land goes down to the river. Pardee said this should only be an item of information given to the Commission in developing the precise plan. Richman said this section is the information section and Pardee does have a good point . It should read "underlying density calculated according to the provisions in that section. " The underlying density is being identified for informational purposes. The Commission decides the final density. Kaufman commented on 24-7 . 6 : criteria for review of precise development plan. Item "a" reads "in their review of the precise development plan, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider, but not be limited to the following evaluations . . . " The concern is what happens if one comes in with a plan and the plan addresses one through six under item "a", but then someone comes up with another consideration that is not even listed for a reason for denial. Harvey said that is the way SPA works. SPA 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 gives potential benefits, but there are risks. Richman said that happens in rezoning also. Richman noted other changes in the intent for the Rio Grande parcel. He included the history of the sixth and seventh penny. Hunt recommended include after sixth penny open space funds "to allow interim use of a playing field. " The reason for the reappropriation was to allow interim use of the playing field on the Rio Grande property. Harvey asked when the property for the performing arts center reverts back to the county. Richman replied 1992. White said the Rio Grande is owned by the city. And the city is not planning for the property. Does the Commission want to indicate in the resolution anything about what might be done for the property? Richman said this resolution is not the appropriate place for that kind of action. This action is within the Commis- sion' s prerogative but this is not the place. White said it is a mess. Fallin agreed but do not take action in the resolution. Roger moved to adopt resolution #84-9 as amended and to direct the chairman to sign the resolution; seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. Pardee suggested that as part of the motion that if Council does vote against the resolution that the Commission ask for an immediate joint meeting. Richman said the resolution is scheduled for the September 24th Council meeting. Hunt suggested a meeting on the 22nd before Council reviews the resolution . Richman said the problem is that Council is in budget. White agreed with Pardee. May be this is a good time for Council while it is reviewing budget to look at the city' s property and plan- ning. Richman suggested if Council at first reading hesitates then go into work session. Roger Hunt amended his motion: "Moved to adopt resolution #84-9 as amended and to direct the chairman to sign the resolution. If the City Council appears to have problems with the resolution at first or second reading that the City Council be so kind as to set up a joint meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission. " The amendment is seconded by Jasmine Tygre. Discussion. Kaufman said very often Council will approve the first reading quickly because it is late. He strongly recommended that a group of people from the Commission show up. It may appear that Council does not have a problem because it is only a first reading. But it could be defeated at the second reading. The entire process would have to start all over again. Harvey called for a vote. All in favor ; motion carried. 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 TREE REMOVAL Harvey read section 13-76 (b) : " any person wishing to obtain a permit to remove. . . " Does this apply to the city? Richman said yes. If Jim Holland wants to cut down a tree he is the person wishing to apply. Harvey asked how many times would Holland be denied since he grants the approvals. Richman reminded him that there is a planting program for removal and replacement. The tree which raised these issues was in the city right-of-way and was cut down by the city and will be replaced. The replacement is on the program. Harvey said the program indicates replacement within one or two years. There is no way that tree will be replaced with a comparable size tree. Harvey said this section specifically deals with the private sector. If there is a city street tree replanting program then that is great . On the otherhand , Council during its review budget may eliminate this program. There is no real requirement in this section dealing with the city or dealing with public right-of-way tree replanting. The section talks about a person required to get a permit. Item "e" states the building inspector may require the owner to relocate or replace a tree. But it does not address the city. The city does not own that land. But it has a public easement. Does the city own the land upon which the right-of-way sits? Richman said yes. Richman said in that case the city is the applicant and the person. Harvey does not think it is clear in the code. Legally can the city be held liable? The city attorney may argue that this section addresses private individuals . Harvey directed Richman to take this to the city attorney for his opinion. White understood that the county wants to put more parks under the city' s control. There is also a move to put pieces of property, like Marolt, under a separate management for public property. There is going to be a split between the parks and building department. Another entity may be created. May be the tree issue can be under the jurisdiction of this other entity and not the parks department. Fallin asked if the Commission prefers to see the building inspector handle the trees. Richman explained the building inspector looks at his one source of expertise, the parks director. Harvey said when the city received a permit to remove the tree, the replacement was put in the tree planning program. Does a private individual who removes a tree also have the option to replace the tree in one or two years as part of his program of tree planting? Or does the individual have to replace the tree immediately? There is a double standard. He does not know if the city replaced the tree as part of its tree planting program which directs the city to replace the tree or whether the building inspector ordered the 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 city to plant a tree. Does the building inspector have the right to direct the city to do that? Richman said this issue will come up with a development approval. In this particular case, the city was not asking for anything . The city removed a diseased tree. The tree was in the city' s right-of-way. And the tree replacement program instructed the city to replace the tree. Richman cited the golf course. The city comes in for the develop- ment at the golf course. Trees are felled in order to put up a pro shop. The city qualifies as a person. The city would have to replace the tree if the building inspector chose to apply the section. Harvey asked the Commission if there is a problem with this if the city attorney determines that the city falls under this section. Pardee never had a problem to begin with. Richman said the section seems to be working. The people who are working with this do not believe there should be a "shall. " A tree should not always have to be replaced. The relocation might be the better solution. Harvey directed Richman to ask Taddune if the city is excluded from the section or if the city qualifies as a person. Fallin reminded the Commission that the ordinance came about because of the city manager' s action. Why would it be written for individuals and the city? RESOLUTION ASPEN AREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Richman scheduled a public hearing in two weeks. He summarized the changes: 1 . Page two, the first objective. This deals with the concept of ultimate carrying capacity. First look at it. Then when it is understood what it means to be fully built then the plan may be adjusted. The zone may be downzoned. The capacities may be increased. 2. Page two, goal two . There is some revised language about travel not only between Aspen and Snowmass but also about mass transit in Aspen. 3 . Page two , goal three first objective. Air and water quality issues are added. 4 . Page three , goal three , fifth objective. Energy conservation is added. 5. Page three, goal three, sixth objective. This objective 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting_ Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 was completely rewritten. The earlier language was ambiguous. It was agreed to measure the ski quality by a couple of specifics: lift lines, variety of terrain. 6. Page three , goal three , seventh objective. The ski expansion from the growth management policy update is included. 7 . Page three , goal four, first objective. He included summer visitation be made destination oriented. 8. Page three, goal five, third objective. The educational language reflects that the the educational opportunity would provide new kinds of jobs. 9. Page four, goal six, first objective. The bottleneck to the entrance to town is addressed. Harvey asked if Council has addressed the traffic light at Cemetery Lane. Council was claiming the biggest reason for the bottleneck was the traffic light. Fallin said the light blinks from 3 : 30 to 4: 00 p.m. White said it is a priority of the traffic committee to do something there. Fallin noted an officer has been there to redirect traffic. White noted that Council may have budgeted that in the police department ' s budget to deal with this issue. Richman continued. Page four , goal six, fourth objective is addressed. The language links the interregional bus to Amtrak. Hunt said the language is confusing. Richman said the intent is to provide a link from the existing service to Amtrak so someone can get from Glenwood to Aspen. Richman recommended language "provide a bus link between Aspen and the recently inaugurated Amtrak train service in Glenwood. " Harvey said the resolution talks about maintaining the rural quality of life. One of Council ' s objections to four-laning Highway 82 is that will create more people coming to Aspen. Council appears -&,i ,- lat four-laning the highway will open the floodgates. --i.cil is c'a v.:i:ing that the difference between a three hour ride and a three and a quarter hour ride will be so great that that will encourage more people to drive to Aspen . Perhaps the resolution should include in the passages which talk about upgrading the airport and talk about the transportation that the reason the Commission wants this is to make it easier for the residents and visitors to circulate . He wants to soften the Council ' s alarm that the Commission is allowing lots of people into town. Richman read "upgrade the effectiveness of the service and air transportation systems. " There is no language about providing for growth capabilities . Perhaps spell out the intent is to upgrade the effectiveness, convenience , and safety without necessarily increasing capacities. Harvey said the capacity would 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 be increased to a certain extent but for the purpose of being able to handle the capacity that is in the town now. The intent is not to open the floodgates. Fallin said another Council concern with expansion is the pressure to develop along the highway. There is a fear that there will be pressure to locate for example a CONOCO station. Richman commented there is a concern on the west side of the airport. Fallin said there is the concern that once the road is in then the land can be developed. White reasoned the people who use the highway are those who work in town. Those employees are forced to live downvalley. The tourist only drives the highway once or twice. The locals drive the highway everyday. It is the locals who suffer. Add the words "convenience and safety" to the resolution. Hunt commented that a problem with the existing system is that there is a steady stream of slow traffic down Main Street and no way for the cross traffic to pass. That traffic has to be blocked to maintain the small town character. Groups of traffic have to be moved to allow for the easy movement of cross traffic. That is an impact on the local resident also. The existing situation does not maintain the small town character . That needs to be indicated to the Council . Pardee said that gets into the transportation sketch plan. The intent now is to give Council objectives. He encouraged a statement that the transportation system is not just for the tourists but for those who use the system the most, the downvalley and local residents. Tygre said the school of thought that improved roads will bring in droves of people who would never come here otherwise has been around for a long time. Harvey reasoned if one leaves Denver for Aspen that driver does not know if he is going to get caught in a traffic jam. Richman said a real concern is that the person who is here for a one week vacation discovers that half of his days are spent in thirty minute lines. His next vacation will be spent in Vail. Richman commented that the eighth objective of goal six is brand new (maintain rail transit as a viable transportation option) . The other change is goal seven, second objective. This addresses the concern that growth pays its own way. There can be a fiscal contribution. Richman advised the commissioners to take time over the next two weeks to evaluate the changes. White asked where will the statement "education brings job" be inserted. Richman said it will be located in goal five , third 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting Planning and Zoning Commission September 4. 1984 objective. Goal five addresses the social aspects of the community and goal four addresses the economic aspects. One element that helps to stabilize and to make a community socially better is the offer of challenging jobs. The operation of a university provides challenging jobs. The university could bring intellectuals to the community. Jasmine Tygre moved to adjourn the meeting at 6 : 35 p.m. ; seconded by Lee Pardee. All in favor; motion carried. Barbara Norris, Deputy City Clerk 13