Parker chamber brings special treat to hospital

In celebration of National Hospital Week, the Parker of Chamber of Commerce Foundation sponsored a special “therapy session” for doctorss, nurses and sta at Parker Adventist Hospital.

On May 10, nearly 200 hospital professionals spent time with canine ambassadors from Paws4Productivity.

revised plan could come back to the commissioners for a vote at some point.

‘Not meant to be a fossil’

An area with “planned development” zoning can feature a mix of property types — including residential, commercial, recreational and others — in a way that standard zoning districts can’t, Koster said.

Planned developments are also intended “to encourage innovative and creative design,” Douglas County’s zoning policy says.

Planned developments can be small or spread over a large area: Highlands Ranch is a planned development, for example.

Over time, planned developments can change, or be “amended,” if the county gives the OK. At issue during the April 17 county Planning Commission meeting was a proposal to edit the criteria that would allow for those changes.

Among several approval criteria, the sta held up two for edits. ey included:

• A change from the wording

“Whether the amendment is consistent with the development standards, commitments, and overall intent of the planned development” to “Whether the amendment is consistent with the overall intent of the planned development”; and

• A change from the wording “Whether the amendment is consistent with the intent, e cient development and preservation of the entire planned development” to “Whether the amendment is consistent with the e cient development of the entire planned development.” e proposed removal of some words — particularly “preservation” — raised some residents’ eyebrows.

But in a report to the county Planning Commission, county sta wrote that “planned developments are intended to be documents that may be amended from time to time.”

“ e word ‘preservation’ could be confusing and could be construed as keeping the planned development in (its current) state,” Matt Jakubowski, a chief planner on county sta , said during the April meeting.

But “by the very fact” that a developer ever proposes to amend a planned development, that inherently implies change, he said.

“ ey’re meant to be exible — they’re not meant to be a fossil,” Jakubowski said.

Asked whether the proposed language edits would lead to more new, high-density multifamily buildings in longtime single-family neighborhoods, Koster had told

Colorado Community Media: “I don’t think it changes the probabilities around that happening, no.” e concept of “preservation” is mentioned elsewhere in Douglas County’s zoning rules regarding planned developments, such as in saying: “Development within this district should be designed to … ensure that environmentally and visually sensitive areas are preserved.”

“ ere are more than just those two approval criteria,” Koster said.

Extreme changes to a planned development wouldn’t depend on the language that county sta are proposing editing.

“ ere does come a point where the changes somebody wants to make are too fundamental,” and then “we would say that the proper (process) is a full rezoning” rather than mere tweaks based on the planned development rules, Koster told CCM.

‘Back to the drawing board’

After the county heard concerns in April, county sta contemplated revisions to the proposed edits that were to come to the county commissioners.

“I think we did hear very loudly and clearly from those we serve about the consternation and maybe confusion about what was presented,” Laydon said at the May 9 meeting.

Jakubowski told the commission - ers the edits were aimed at simplifying the development application process.

“From sta ’s perspective, the proposed changes were to provide some clari cation, making it easier for sta and (developers) to interpret the approval criteria,” Jakubowski said.

At a work-session meeting on May 1, the county commissioners discussed with sta the concerns raised by the public and the planning commission regarding the proposed edits, according to the county’s website. In response, sta was preparing revisions to the proposed edits for consideration by the planning commission and the county commissioners.

Sta had recommended that the county commissioners return the matter to the planning commission for a public-hearing meeting on June 5. Sta also recommended that the county commissioners postpone their vote on the edits to a public-hearing meeting on June 27. But when the matter might come back up for a decision is now uncertain.

“By tabling, it allows them to go back to the drawing board, not being under some arti cial calendar deadline by the board,” Teal said. ough omas was reluctant, the county commissioners voted unanimously on May 9, allowing sta to spend more time on the potential edits.