Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2005

Home

MID;RISE RESIDENTIA~. NIGH RISE RESIDENTIAL [OW,.Ri .~iE RE $1O E NTiA[: ~',- 'MID;RISE RESIDENTIAE" ~' 5 MII~-RISE RESIDENTIAE oper. Lennar Communities and staff coalesced~ ied~evel~p~ent ~mpany' Joico AIIg/ier, depu~ into a proiect of which all stakeholders are sad~ ~Pla~in~:dl~o~ ~r Aspen, confi~s his view, :~ :p~s~i~a~lahq~m, architects, tavern, and AS EN , ' d~[oper~who:~ke the planning depa~- - .... , .: L ~ [ _ . . Lying m one of the most beautiful valleys m. ~ :me~s/~b~ea~ier.~AIIgamt says the orgamza- the world Aspen, Colorado, has real estate prices to match ,ts mountains. Here, commu~ ~ : fe~uS ~ cU~t~me~se~ice. Like a professional nity development is a constant challenge fo~ sea!ce ~,"t~e~paAment bills hours and . planning department intent on maintainins% ' ' ' ~ ' ~' ' clients v~lue [hel~t~me, enhancing a fully pro- affordable place ~or the work ~orce in this ~ ~ ' feSslon~l re~tio,~hip. world-crass mountain resort town. t O~ei~pers and depaAment staffagree "~e relationship be~een the devetopef~, ~eCe is ~ g~at d~l ortmst be~aen the devel- the dN and the Convenience and Welfare of~ 0~nt~d~muhi~ and the communi~ devel- Public (COWOP) ~ask4orce team was energize~; 0p~ent~s~.~Ma~ers 0f concern are brought up · full of emhusiasm, and was ,un "says ~m ~ , openly ~nd:barl~ ~voiding surprises. Fair treat- Belinski, vice president of Obe~eyer t: me~t an~ 0~der~nding:involvemenl deliver satisfaction through the whole process, even when applicants do not get exactly what they want. It is acceptable to agree to disagree and maintain a positive relationship. The Process Illustrated ¢OWOR COWOP is a development review process for public projects determined by the city council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public. Such projects might be affordable housing, parks and recreation, public buildings, or transporta- tion projects. It also may include ioint public- pdvate endeavors ~vith a public benefit. Aspen, a home-rule municipality, is vested with the authority and ppwer to exempt certain types of development from its land-use code. Still, COWOP was necessary because certain city-ini- tialed applications created the situation where the city council was owner and/or financier, applicant, and final judge in the formal devel- opment review process. This presented legal and political problems. Commissioners for planning and zoning, historic preservation, and other affected interests felt these projects were "cooked" before receiving their review and expertise, and that recommendations were being overlooked in the process. Additionally, applicants were bounced back and forth to dif~ .ferent review boards, and plans were changed at different levels. The goals of the process are to involve interest groups early in the conceptual stage of the project and to make the review process shorter, more cost-effective,'and more efficient. It is not intended to mini- mize review or reduce standards, but rather to get key decision makers, advisory boards, and staff applicants into the process early enough in the evolution of a development proposal.to ensure that it meets broad city objectives. The COWOP process is a freeform devel- opment review process determined to be as complex as the development proposal demands. The primary functional structure involves five steps: t. 0etermination by ihe city council of COWOP status, advisory team'representa- tion, including members of all boards (among them the city council), and pre- ferred timeline. 2. Issue identification by an interdepartmen. tel development review committee. The applicant provides conceptual site plan ZONING PRACTIC£ 1.o5