HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19890801
~~/
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 1. 1989
Chairman Welton Anderson called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call
Herron, Mari Peyton,
and Welton Anderson.
were Graeme Means, Bruce Kerr, Michael
Roger Hunt, Jasmine Tygre, Richard Compton
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
Mari: I was just noticing those townhouses up on Galena Street
that were represented to us to have copper roofs. Galena Place.
They were represented to us in the application to have copper
roofs. They don't have copper roofs. They have green metal
roofs. To me that is just something that is represented and
approved and then changed.
Jasmine: I don't remember copper roofs particularly.
Michael: It seems to me that when we sit down and have a stream
Margin Review, especially since we are now starting to see them
on a consent calendar that basically we are wasting an
applicant's time, the Planning Office's time and our time. I
don't remember having a contested condition on a stream Margin
Review. And I was wondering we couldn't provide that the
Planning Office impose a condition in stream Margin Review that
would be acceptable to the applicant that the Planning Office
couldn't then approve it. Then it would come to us only if there
are conditions that are contested. That would save one step for
everybody.
Alan: As long as we would have the ability to come to you in
case of a dispute. It is just a matter of how far you want to go
with delegation of authority.
Jasmine: This is about conditional use approvals. Last week
when we approved the Rebecca's Bakery and Cafe, although I would
have liked to see an employee audit included as one of the things
that we review in a year, I think that the one year approach to
conditional use made a lot of sense in that application.
It seems to me it makes a lot of sense in a lot of other
applications that come before us with conditional use. And I was
wondering why conditional uses are ever given on a sort of
permanent basis. And then once a person comes in and gets the
condi tional use, we have seen instances in which the reasons
given for the conditional use are not upheld. But we have no
mechanism for dealing with that.
It seems to me that if we granted these conditional uses on a
PZM8.l.89
basis of a one year trial period and then subject to periodic
review that we would avoid a lot of those problems.
Alan: The County code has very identical provision to what you
are describing. The County deals with uses by special review.
The City has conditional use. The town has a one year
enforcement provision in there and administratively it has been
possible for us to deal with just staff-wise. Activity-wise it
is not something we have been able to keep up with. The idea is
a good one. It is very time consuming of your time and of
staff's time.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
ASPEN MEADOWS CONCEPTUAL PUD.
REZONING AND GMOS EXEMPTION
CONTINUED
Welton re-opened the pUblic hearing.
Alan Richman, Planning Dept:
record.
Made presentation as attached in
Bill Kane: First of all we fully support Alan's approach here.
We think that we have been at this long and hard now for about a
year and a half. We have had l5 alternative plans. We came
before you in April. There was a proposal for a pure single-
family housing program. No one was comfortable with that plan.
There was a lot of criticism focused at the plan mainly because
of residences located in riparian zones along Castle Creed and
the Roaring Fork River.
We have substantially reduced the development program. We have
moved buildings from sites deemed environmentally sensitive and
we are now where it is important for the consortium to receive a
response from P&Z and hopefully from City Council about whether
we are on the right track on the most basic kind of conceptual
level.
Kane then went over the goals and policies for this development.
(attached in record)
2
PZM8.1. 89
In summary there is an opportunity here. We have the five
entities that are involved in agreement that this is a sensible
plan. It works for the campus and it is a way to fundamentally
return land to the institution that we know are going to be here
for a long time. Put the lodging, food and beverage service over
there on a long-term sound economic operating basis and truly
make this a public institutional land as opposed to private land
which is essentially the case right now. But doing it through the
mechanism that is a private development scenario.
Planning & Zoning Commission, Alan Richman of the Planning
Department and members of the Consortium then discussed all of
the goals and policies for this development plus the changes in
the conceptual planning so far.
Kane: I would like to, on behalf of the Consortium, acknowledge
the difficulty of the kind of decision we have put before you.
It is not easy. The community is concerned about these growth
and development issues and trying to solve the problem with this
plan.
Comments of the Commission represented very thoughtful comments.
The highlights to those are that there is a very significant
concern about the single-family scheme. Another, certainly the
concept of the size and design controls to be applied to them.
There will be definitive limitations. There are many months and
years that we would be ahead in this process with many detailed
steps in terms of final platting that would provide more than
enough opportunity to insure that these guarantees take place.
The land that is shown for open space will be guaranteed open
space to the satisfaction of the City.
The rehearsal facility is ahead of us in terms of discussion.
But the houses and their size, their darkness, lack of a
contribution to the community is something that we are sensitive
to and aware of. I think we would like to acknowledge how
difficult this decision is and acknowledge the efforts of the
Planning Commission.
We are going to City council on the 7th.
consensus here.
We have a rousing
The comments that were made here were almost the same comments
that had been made internally between the 5 members. There were
no concerns that were raised here tonight that have not been
raised by one of these institute groups. It is a community
problem. I hope that, process-wise what we can do is, with
Alan's good work here is try to summarize what has been said
here, get before city Council and try to get a political reading
as to whether this is generally the right track or not.
3
PZM8.1. 89
It would be absolutely pointless and senseless and a waste of
your time and everyone's money to address the technical concerns
unless we feel that we have a community consensus behind what we
are doing.
Alan: We are going to have to do 2 things. I did not hear a lot
or any of the policies that you are suggesting being knocked
down. What I heard was a number of new areas that we expected to
be addressed and pOlicies amplified upon. So I would hope to
build from that.
Welton: I don't think there are, except for a couple of small
comments, any great differences between the Commission and what
you elaborated on as policy questions. We are more issues
sensitive.
Graeme: I think the project is going in a good direction and I
have some concerns. I am not saying that right now I would vote
for it but I don't want to be negative on this.
-''''"',....
Mari: I have to say I am conceptually against 233 bedrooms. But
I don't believe that that number is going to stay there during
the conceptual phase.
Richard: I am not conceptually against the redevelopment of the
area, the lodging and the facilities. The conceptual problem I
have is that I think the City opted out of it to begin with and
the developer went ahead and initiated the process with the non-
profit organization and now is coming back to the city.
Alan: I don't hear the members telling me that the plan is going
in the wrong direction. There are some serious technical
concerns about the way the single family homes are being proposed
and the amount of development. That will have to be worked out
in the conceptual process.
Welton then continued the pUblic hearing to date certain of
August 29, 1989.
Meeting was adjourned.
4