Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790418 /-" BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission April 18, 1979 Chairman Chick Collins called the special meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. with members Joan Klar, John Schuhmacher, Olaf Hedstrom, Welton Anderson, Perry Harvey, and Nancy McDonnell present. This special meeting follows a joint study session with the Aspen City Council discussing the application of the Aspen Institute. Collins reiterated that it has been recommended by the City Attorney that the P & Z take action on the planned unit development and the subdivision parts of the application, inasmuch as the Code requires that P & Z respond to the application within 30 days fOllowing closure of the public hearing. Collins said he would like to entertain a motion to reconsider the action of the last P & Z meeting, which was to table indefinitely the application of the Aspen Institute and to continue the meeting to 5:00 p.m. April 19, 1979. This will give the Board members time to look at a motion to respond to the application, and to have some drafting of language for the continued meeting. Hedstrom moved to reconsider the motion to table indefinitely; seconded by Anderson. All in favor, motion carried. City Attorney Stock recommended to the Commission a motion to deny approval of the preliminary subdivision plat, and to deny approval of the PUD plan. Stock recommended this on the technical reason that the plat and plan as submitted are technically deficient and do not meet the requirements of the Code as pointed out in the memo of the city engineer, Dave Ellis. Collins asked if the P & Z ever received a preliminary plat. Stock said a document was submitted and was reviewe as though it were a plat. Ellis's memorandum identifies deficiencies between that document and what the Code requires as the elements of a preliminary plat. Collins said the second part of the motion would be on SPA. Stock recommended to the Commission to establish one or more meetings to dicuss the SPA amoung the Board establishing the various deficiencies they see in the SPA plan as submitted Stock recommended that actions on the PUD and preliminary subdivision and on the SPA be taken by resolution, and in the resolution the P & Z identify those con- cerns they have with the SPA plan which leads to denial. These might include the points P & Z pointed out when the plan came to them on conceptual, as well as the points the Council asked the Aspen Institute to address when conceptual approval was given. The P & Z may include other items of concern. Stock said he would try to prepare a resolution for the continued meeting. Stock recommende the resolution be restricted to the technical items and to make a part of the resolution the memorandum from Dave Ellis. Don Ensign, representing the Aspen Institute, stated he understood the rationale for basis of denial for subdivision and PUD but did not understand the assump- tion of denial for SPA. Stock said he had listened to the P & Z on April 3 discussing a rough draft of a zoning ordinance and had the impression they would recommend to deny, feeling it was unresponsive and that information was not provided. Stock recommended the P & Z identify within the resolution the parti- cular items which they feel the applicant has been unresponsive to and/or the items they are concerned with. Ensign stated he felt the Code was sufficienty vague as to criteria for SPA that the first task of P & Z is to establish the criteria that they are judging the SPA on, and then decide if the application is inade~~tE Stock pointed out the criteria was established by the P & Z and by the City Council in their action on the conceptual plan. Basically, under SPA, they are looking at four items; (1) proper zoning, (2) density, (3) whether or not, based on the zoning and the density request, whether or not that density should be exempt from the growth management plan, and (4) technical matters. The P & Z may, however, reserve technical matters to PUD and subdivision review; these are bulk, footprint, access, utility easements, etc. The P & Z will be responding to the use, density and GMP. Hedstrom said personally, there are areas in which the plan submission does meet SPA and there are areas with questions and reservations, and he would like to see a resolution recommending approval of the SPA with certain conditions to be met. Stock said the Commission might recommend approval to allow a certain type of zoning, to allow a certain number of density. The Commission might also Special Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission -2- April 18, 1979 recommend the density be either exempt or within the growth management plan and the reasons for that. Stock said if they recommended this way to Council, that subject to the conditions that bulk, height, access, utility easements, etc. are reserved for PUD and subdivision consideration and are not part of the SPA approval, and that the SPA approval, and the zoning is conditioned upon the applicant going through full PUD and subdivision approval process. Stock said the zoning and density and growth management have to addressed; the remainder could be reserved, and condition the approval of the first three upon the applicant going through and obtaining approval under the Code nor PUD and subdivision. Stock pointed out that PUD, subdivision and SPA, parts of all overlap each other. The parts that do not overlap are zoning and density. Ms. Klar asked if Stock felt the net effect would be the same if there were resolutions to deny or a resolution on SPA with conditions. Stock said if the P & Z recommended approval subject to conditions, they are going to guide the Council somewhat in the areas the P & Z would want to see further information in the PUD process and subdivision. The P & Z is likely by giving a recommendation of approval subject to conditions to be restricting what the Council will look at. If the P & Z recommends denial, the Council can look at other items. The P & Z will be giving better guidance to Council in recommending approval with conditions. Hedstrom said he felt that was the function and responsibility of the P & Z. Collins said the P & Z should be careful to act with the proper language, and he had asked for time until tomorrow to get the resolution correctly worded so that it will go into the record with the correct phraseology. Nick McGrath, on behalf of a client, stated he regarded the Mayor's ruling prohibiting the general public from participating, but allowing the applicant to, to be a prejudice of his rights. McGrath said based on this process, by implication the staff and P & Z have, in fact, been unfairly maligned. McGrath said the conditions that are part of the SPA have been set forth since June 1978, and to the extent that they have been blamed for some delay is in inaccurate. Bill Martin said he felt McGrath's first statement should be stricken from the record. Collins stated the chair rules the statement made for the record stands. Anderson moved to continue the meeting to 5:00 p.m., Thursday, April 19, 1979; seconded by Ms. Klar, at 7:25 p.m. All in favor, motion carried. ~~,~y~ '-' .---