JOURNAL 02/05/06

I was busy not making money on the Super Bowl last Sunday, and thus didn't
make it to our regularly-scheduled meeting and therefore have no report on
anything from it. My back-up reporter, Vikki, was busy making sure all the
Super Bowl money went to her relatives (darn low-scoring game!), so she
wasn't there either.

But I did attend two meetings last week that I can report on.

First was the city council work session on large-format retail design
standards. The audience consisted of several GVCA members, two planning
commission members, and BJ Johnson of the master plan steering committee,
who sat through most of the design standard processes.

Council member Ken Medina's intent was clear: "everyone" he talks to and who
comes into his store wants to know one thing: when are we getting Super
Wal-Mart? He's also very enthused by the city of Delta's 19.7 percent sales
tax increase for 2005, its first full year with a Super Wal-Mart.

City manager Ken Coleman responded, "Delta reflects a healthy mix of local
and chain retail."

Ken M. did note that Wal-Mart's entry into Gunnison is up to the
corporation, and that Delta, with a quick half-hour highway run to either
Montrose or Grand Junction, may have stemmed considerable leakage.

Rick Miller was fairly quiet throughout the meeting, although he did take
Steve Westbay to task for belittling the need for such a meeting. The
council's job is policy, he said, and if a council member has a question
about a policy, then it's the council and staff's obligation to
examine/review that policy.

He did say he had some questions about the physical possibility of some of
the items in the standards, but said he would address them one-on-one with
staff or planning commission.

Ken M. was wanting an industry developer to review the standards, and it was
noted that Wal-Mart has made absolutely no response to repeated overtures.
He was not aware that the city paid somewhere around $4,000 to get a second
opinion on the design standards (for which the city paid Richard Grice
somewhere around $10,000 to develop) from Leslie Bethel, a planner with both
public and private experience.

Ken M. was wanting an opinion from outside the planning realm, however, in
what could easily have been taken as a slight by the planning commisioners
sitting near me -- folks who got paid a heck of a lot less than $4,000 to
sit through interminable meetings developing this ordinance.

There was a discussion of having the Urban Land Institute review the
ordinance.  No one at the city is a member of ULI, which ups the price,
although Wendy Hanson said if the review was in the $2,000-5,000 range,
there's money budgeted for professional development. More than that, and the
funds would likely have to come out of the money earmarked for economic
development.

Bill Nesbitt seemed a bit baffled by the need for further investigation,
because he hasn't heard much oppostition to the design standards. "I feel
awkward telling staff to pull off of other things if there's no outcry," he
said.  He also noted that the city has spent over $39,000 (including the
fiscal impact study conducted by Civic Economics) on this so far. "If we
didn't get good service, that's the previous council's problem -- we just
inherited it," he said.

Butch and Richard explained the concept of local premium that CE's work
addressed, both here and elsewhere. If the owner of a business lives
locally, more money stays local. Butch did suggest that council might want
to look at applying our design standards to other potentially-large
projects, such as office complexes, or warehouses. Or, as Nesbitt noted,
detention centers.

As it was left, staff was going to make a phone call to ULI to get some
price info on review possibilities, and the design standards are not likely
to be addressed as their own component, but as part of the Land Development
Code that has yet to undergo revision.
***

On Wednesday, planning commission resumed its look into the master plan
revision. Kim Antonnucci has taken over as the city's point person on this
project, since Steve Westbay has plenty of other projects to occupy his
time.

And -- this is very good news -- she has reactivated her e-mail list to keep
the public apprised of the progress as well as notifying them about
meetings. If you would like to be on her list, give her a call at the
Community Development office or drop her an e-mail: kim@ci.gunnison.co.us.

The audience for Wednesday night's meeting consisted of Richard, me and Dick
Bratton. It's good to see Dick participating in the process, since during
the design standards we witnessed several people uwilling to attend meetings
but all too willing to complain about the work after the fact.

The planning commission reviewed the transportation policy options proposed
by Four Corners Planning, the consultants putting together the draft of the
master plan.

Here's Kim's e-mail message to the folks of Gunnison (certainly including
those in the urban-growth boundary, those in the three-mile area, and anyone
else who thinks they might like to develop annexable property, or wants a
sewer tap north of Gunnison):

"Let me know if you have questions, concerns, comments.  Now is the time is
to get what you want Š More pedestrian walkability? Taller buildings? Higher
density?  Lower density?  Design standards? No design standards?

"Let me know ­ my door is always open.  Stop by, call, or email."

This week's planning commission meetings includes two public hearings, so
master plan discussion will be relegated to the end of the evening.

The master plan steering committee is also regularly meeting, but those are
morning meetings, so we'll have to get input from a source other than me.
Those are open to the public, however. The next one is tomorrow in council
chambers, 8 a.m. I believe Gail Davidson promised hot chocolate to anyone
who would like to attend. Or maybe that was just for me, and even when Ken
C. upped the ante with yogurt, it wasn't enough. It never is, with some
people.

Council's work session tonight includes a discussion on reconstruction of
the rodeo grandstand, emergency communications, and a water line dedication
to the city. Fun stuff!

Oh, which reminds me: Gail did say that the city is budgeting --
unfortunately, not until 2007 -- money to upgrade and improve the
audio-visual capabilities of council chambers. Maybe then we could actually
at least hear, if not see clearly, council and planning commission meetings
on TV.

I'm pretty sure I've managed to forget one or several things, but you're
probably just as glad that I did, for now you can stop reading this and move
on with your day. Make it a good one!

TL

Sparse additions from a not very good secretary (D. McLeod)

There were 9 of us misanthropic unamerican football non-watchers at the meeting!
(To my dismay Margaret actually watched the last half... to be able to talk to
the avid football watcher little old ladies at her exercise classes I suppose.)

  Jaclyn's report on the school board: We are on the agenda (for comments?) for
the Feb. 13 Board meeting, some of us should attend. There are promises about
better "community involvement" such as putting agendas in the newspaper, making
the web site up to date, publishing minutes etc.; Jaclyn thought the barrier
wasn't secretiveness, more a matter of being overwhelmed by a lot of issues.
Perhaps they should "engage" GVCA for mutual benefit.

   TL reported above on the CIty Council meeting, some feel the meeting was wasted
time. We discussed Kim Antonucci's appointment to be in charge of the Master Plan,
this was applauded but there was concern about the short time scale for her work.
Maybe we can help her with proofreading etc.; the materials from the consultants
are very "buggy"!

   Detention Facility parking downtown would almost certainly be non-compliant
with city regulations, either at the courthouse or the Masons' property!  Just
the jail alone would account for 25 spaces using parking/building area ratios.
Probbaly the front lawn of the courthouse would have to be paved over and the
trees cut down.  Let's hear the uproar at that!

   I have a page of incoherent notes on the Feb. 3 Planning Commission from Rich's
report.  I'll gladly include any of his additions or corrections. New subdivision
applications definitely violate the guidelines in that they are outside the city,
inside the 3 mile limit but are high density i.e. 1/4 acre lots.  The Thornton
Meadows plans are likely to end up in court; the neighboring Thornton Meadows
residents (including Rich) are very unhappy about the high density, water and
traffic issues. The water is proposed to be supplied by a good 900 ft. well and a
cistern, but these aren't allowed by present regulations.  The developers argue
that 48 dwellings in quadruplexes were already approved hence the current plans
should be approved.  Shady Island may also be an the road to approval for many
small lots despite obvious traffic problems. At least this may help the "affordable
housing" problem.  Rich thinks everything between Ohio Creek road & the creek up
to Rte. 8 is likely to be very urbanized, in violation of the Master Plan.
  
    There is much controversy in Crested Butte about the Whetstone development,
closer to CB than the present Industrial Park. Rather than "industrial" much of
it is "commercial" which could compete with existing CB businesses; however
much of it is proposed to be building supplies etc. which won't compete?
However this would still not appear in CB's tax base, unless some sharing is
set up.

    I'm sure I've omitted a lot, please offer corrections and additions!

Don McLeod