HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19920331
~
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
MARCH 31. 1992
Chairlady Jasmine Tygre called meeting to order at 4:30pm.
Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Richard Compton,
Roger Hunt, Bruce Kerr and Jasmine Tygre. Tim Mooney was absent.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
David Brown: Would you ask Bill Drueding to look at the lights
around Sandy's Office Supply. I have a feeling they are not in
conformance with code. These are in the window.
Sara: Are all of you aware that the Aspen Theatre Co has changed
it's name to Theatre in the Park? I wrote them a note whether they
thought it was appropriate since they are a conditional use there.
Jasmine: I don't think we have the right to regulate that. They
can call themselves whatever they want.
Richard: There are already signs up on the Forrest Service land
giving directions to East village!
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
WHIPPLE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
Jasmine opened the public portion of the hearing.
Leslie presented certificate of
property. (attached in record)
attached in record.
mailing and proof of posting on
She then made presentation as
There was no discussion.
Roger asked the applicant if they had any problem with the
conditions of approval.
There were no problems.
MOTION
Roger: I move approve conditional use for an attached
dwelling unit at 825 Roaring Fork Road with the
conditions prior to issuance of any building permit.
accessory
following
They are
PZM3 . 31. 92
conditions #1 through #7 on the Planning Office memo dated March
31, 1992. (attached in record)
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Jasmine closed the public portion of the hearing.
OLD LIBRARY TEXT AMENDMENT
Jasmine opened the public portion of the hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
Sunny Vann: The majority of the amendments basically clarify prior
staff policy and provide additional flexibility with respect to
parking requirements in the 0 Office zone. That flexibility is at
the discretion of the P&Z.
Bruce: What are the objective standards for us to make that
determination?
Vann: We used the same standards that were in effect in 1988.
Bruce: So that is codified already.
Vann: Yes. And it is being expanded slightly as part of this code
amendment.
Roger: Getting down to the nitty gritty of it--I think there are
a couple of places that use of the term existing structure but it
tends to be mute in the existing code or the actual amendment. What
you do talk about is change in use. You can't have a change in use
without a structure so the structure is implied there but nowhere
specifically stated and it would be a good idea that in order to
kick in this type of thing it is the desirability of utilizing an
existing structure as part of the criteria.
Vann: Limit it to a change in use but go forward saying one of the
criteria is the fact that the existing structure is to be retained,
or remodeled or adapted for use or whatever.
Roger: Exactly.
Leslie: Actually the code reads "Any change in use of an existing
structure" and it is not in here.
Jasmine: I think that should be included.
Are there any comments about the specific language in the amendment
that are not clear or need to be added to?
2
PZM3.3l.92
Roger: On page 3 paragraph 2 sub l--where the additions were--
"The applicant shall demonstrate the parking needs of the
residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been
met taking into account the potential uses of the parcel".
Here is where I am interested in adding "The projected traffic
generation of the project, it's proximity to mass transit routes
and the downtown area". I think what we are missing here is the
projected parking impacts of the neighborhood should be considered
as well--on street parking impacts.
Vann: "The impact of the reduction on existing on-street parking
in the area". That is what you are really looking at.
Roger: I have one which is not specifically to this change. I
have mentioned this to Leslie before. I always see these fixed
dollar amounts in our codes and what happens is when this was
established in 1988 or so I think when we indicate a dollar amount
for parking spaces--$15,OOO after a few years might be real cheap.
And so I would like to see when we work dollar amounts into codes
that we set it to a year dollar price.
There was no one from the public present and therefore no public
comment.
MOTION
Jasmine:
proposed
meeting.
I will entertain a motion to recommend approval of the
text amendment as contained herein and as amended at this
Roger:
I so move.
David seconded the motion with all in favor.
Meeting was adjourned. Time
3