Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790419 ,"-... BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 1979 Chairman Chick Collins called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with members Perry Harvey, Olaf Hedstrom, John Schuhmacher, Welton Anderson, Joan Klar, and Nancy McDonnell present. The meeting was held in the City Manager's office to discuss the Aspen Institute, and was continued from a special meeting held April IB, 1979. Chairman Collins stated this is a continued meeting from last evening to discuss the Aspen Institute application. There was discussion regarding separating the prelinlinary subdivision and PUD portions of the application for separate action and either approval, denial or approval with conditions, and also to continue with the SPA plan portion of the application. The Commission asked the City Attorney to draw up language, which he has done. This essentially indicates that the P & Z would disapprove preliminary subdivision plan and preliminary PUD plat. The reason for this action at this time is to attempt to satisfy the conditions of the Code which indicate that action must be made on the applicaticn within 30 days following the public hearing. Collins said the Commission has been handed, prior to the meeting, a consent notice from the applicant in which the Institute consents to an extension of one week. Collins asked the attorney for the applicant to explain this. Andy Hecht, representing the Institute, said he was not sure how the City Attorney would want to posture this extension. Hecht said they are willing and would request to ask the Commission to waive the 30 day requirement in which to make the decision on preliminary subdivision and extend it to April 26 so that they can discuss with their client whether withdrawal would be appropriate. At that time, the Commission can act on it. Stock said he had recommended to Collins changes in the wording ofi the second paragraph. Rather than 'consents to an extension" it be "waive ~onsideration of the preliminary subdivision plat and pre- liminary PUD plan within the 30 day requirement of the Code to allow for the extension of consideration to and including April 26, 1979, to allow full con- sideration by the applicant regarding the possibility of withdrawing said sub- mission." Hecht said they would stipulate to that. Collins stated the language has been altered to change the original consent document to the language indica- ted by the City Attorney. Hecht restated they would so stipulate to the change. Collins asked if Hecht did waive the 30 day requirement according to that language. Hecht said at least to the 26th of April; at that time they will have a decision. Stock asked that a revised copy of the consent be submitted so that a written waiver is in the file. Nick McGrath pointed out the possibility exists that on the 26th, th~}nstitute will come in and want a consideration and there will be no time left~~3Grath suggested the Commission should know a few days before the 26th what the decision of the Institute is. Collins agreed the request for extension should be enough time to let the attorneys contact the client and come back and to give the Planning Comraission enough time to have an opportunity to consider. Collins suggested giving the applicant until the 26th of April, and the P & Z will consider this at the May 1 meeting. This will given the planning office an opportunity to have materials in the packet by Friday April 27th. Andy Hecht said they will decide whether to withdraw by April 26 or will request a decision and the Commission will have until May 1st. Harvey asked if the applicant was waiving until May 1st. Hecht answered yes, they will either withdraw by April 26 or ask the Commission to decide May 1st. Hecht said this is just on the pre- liminary PUD and subdivision, not on the SPA, on the SPA they want to proceed. Anderson moved to accept the request of waiver of the 30 day requirement for subdivision and PUD approvals requested by the applicant for the Aspen Institute and to extend until P & Z's next regular meeting the 1st of May 1979 that time limit in which a decision shall be made based on a decision by the applicant to be presented no later than April 26, 1979, as to whether they will withdraw their application or once again bring it before this board; seconded by Hedstrom. All in favor, motion carried. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission April 19, 1979 City Attorney Stock asked the Commission for guidance as to when they would want to be presented with a resolution to conditionally approve the SPA to include only the zoning, the density, and the questions of growth management and reserve the other elements that could be considered in SPA to the PUD and subdivision portions, which would be conditioned upon the applicant actually going through and obtaining approval of subdivision and PUD. Stock said he could have a rough draft early next week. Collins noted that up to this point, the Commission has been looking at this as though the process were simultaneous. Collins said he still feels this is the way it should be done with the PUD and subdivision and SPA would constitute the precise plan the Code calls for. There are some major technical items to be addressed; this is reflected in the city engineer's memo which recommends all three should be processed together. Stock answered unfortunately they have already, simply by act of law, been separated. The SPA matter will be considered by Council on May 14. At the work session, P & Z was asked if ~ wanted to reconsider and advise the Council. The P & Z can make recommendations subject to conditions. Stock is recommending to P & Z that they take some action for guidance to Council. Harvey asked if Council could consider this without a recon~endation from P & Z. Stock said no they can't, but the time clock is running on P & Z. Any law says someone has the right to due process of the law and they have the right to an answer within a reasonable time, and it was clearly the intention of the Mayor that this be advertised for Council on May 14th. Hedstrom said he would like to have the information as soon as possible so that it can be studied and come before the Comraission at the earliest possible date. Hedstrom said if they post- pone beginning to consider this, it puts pressure on the Commission to meet dead- lines. The sooner the P & Z gets started, the more careful attention they can give it. Ms. Klar agreed, and pointed out as they try and put this together there will be problems and misunderstandings and the Commission will have to go seek the answers. Harvey said it is his feeling there are big gaps in the information. Harvey said if they are to make a list of conditions for items to be satisfied, the Commission should make sure all the items are there. The Commission should be formulating questions and what items they need information on parallel to Stock's resolution so that this information can be gotten back to P & Z. The Commission will need a lot of raw material to make a decision. Collins pointed out the items addressed in the SPA process are rather significant themselves. Collins said he felt this is turning the cart before the horse because originally the application came forward all together: now it is indicated the SPA will be separated. Collins asked when this separation took place in the application, who divided the application into 3 parts. Stock answered the City ordinances did that. Stock said if the P & Z abides by the recommendations of the staff, they cannot in conscience approve the preliminary subdivision and preliminary PUD. Since those cannot be approved, there has to be a new plat submitted that meets the technical requirements before the substanitive require- ments are met. This leaves the choice of the applicant withdrawing the applica- tion or the P & Z disapproving it. The ordinances of the zoning code create an entirely different track for SPA, whether it is approved or denied, it does not go back for reformulation. The applicant is not interested in pulling back the SPA and resubmitting it. Since he doesn't make that choice, the ordinance has established a process no matter what action the P & Z takes. Once the P & Z has acted, the application moves up to Council for their consideration. The effect of P & Z's action on PUD and subdivision severs this part of the applica- tion. If the P & Z had the opportunity at this point to approve the PUD and subdivision, they could proceed with the SPA. There is no way to leave them together without the applicant's assistance, and they are not about to give that. Hedstrom suggested a study session next Tuesday on the SPA submission. Collins asked if the P & Z did not approve the PUD and subdivision, then the whole application would go to Council. Stock said he was not prepared to give an opinion that P & Z is only an advisory and recommending body in the subdivision and PUD. Stock pointed out the Code says only way a final plan can go to Council is in conformity with the approved preliminary plat. If this is denied, Stock said he knew of no way this denial can be taken to Council. Stock noted the applicant could withdraw the SPA as well until he is ready to come in with the preliminary plats and bring the whole application in together. The City ordinances themselves are responsible for the separation of the application. Collins said in essence the P & Z is responding to the requirements of the Code. Stock said the P & Z could keep the application together by approving the PUD and subdivision, but th~cannot do that. - """" .......'.... BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Continued Meeting Aspen planning & Zoning Commission -3- April 19, 1979 Collins agreed to a study session for Tuesday. Stock said he would have a resolution approving certain elements of the SPA, clearly stating it does not approve other items and saying it is conditioned upon the applicant going through and obtaining full approval on subdivision and PUD and and referring to an ordinance that has been drafted which would become part of that resolu- tion. The resolution would recommend Council adopt the ordinance; there will be elements on use but not have sections on density but would address the question of growth management. There will be a section which would reserve the remaining items not covered in that ordinance to consideration in the process of subdivision and PUD and state in the ordinance that no development may occur pursuant to this approved SPA plan without full consideration and approval of a subdivision plat and PUD plan. McGrath asked if Stock thought it was appropriate that the P & Z address itself to the 16 questions listed by the City Council. Stock said it is, but he was not considering putting it in the ordinance but considering that sort of section list in the resolution. Basically Council established that as criteria review under SPA. To do an adequate job of reviewing the SPA, the P & Z will have to look at the IS criteria to identify whether they have been met or not. Collins scheduled a study session Tuesday, April 24, at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Klar moved to adjourn at 5:35 p.m.; seconded by Harvey. All in favor, motion carried. ~c1;~