Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19790717 _.,~~-~--.~--,~--_._-'--'- BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 17, 1979, City Council Chambers, 5:00PM The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a regular meeting on July 17, 1979, in the City Council Chambers, at 5:00 PM. Members present were Jaon Klar, Lee Pardee, Olof Hedstrom. Roger Hunt, and Welton Anderson. Staff reprpesentatives were City Attorney Ron Stock, H.J. Stalf, Karen Smith, Jolene Vrchota, Jim Reents, and ~ichard Gricea CHANGE IN AGENDA: Smith explained that the Rio Grande was located on the agenda under new business in which it should be in the old business. Smith stated that their action last time was to recommend the Plum Tree site for the transportation overlay a Parry Harvey enters the meeting. RIO GRANDE TRANSPORTATION OVERLAY: Stalf stated that their problem was street maintenance in the winter time. The streets are plowed at night at 2:00 AM. The situation last year is that the crews would be out at 2:00 AM and the&:3uld have to wait until Dillingham'.g would finish. Dillingham'sAwere slow because of the distance that they would have to travel. This was extremely cbstlyto the City and this prompted the City to .J;"rt bv# the~r own tow truck. Stalf stated that there are two ways that they tow; one is the nightly street maintenance downtown and throughout the town, the other is the basic meatballs~the 72 hour violaters in which this is a day time proceedure with the tow trucks. Stalf stated that what he would like to do is to have the meatballers towed out to the Plum Tree. At night, they really need the ~ickness of the Rio Grande because the overnight cars are almo~~aimed the next day. Stalf stated that what they see in those vehicles is someone for some reason has decided to leave their car overnight or tourists that did not know, or for those whom have gotten loaded. Stalf stated that they would like to have the option to ~the cars into the Rio Grande on an overnight :basis. Any cars that are not claimed within a certain period of time would be retowed into the Plum Tree lot. The Rio Grande would only serve as a short term basis. Pardee asked Stalf about the protection that would be provided for personal belongings in the vehicles. Stalf stated that at the Plum Tree, it would be a bermed fence with a gate. But at the Rio Grande, the vehicles would only be there overnight and if something happens, then it would be the city's responsibility. Stalf stated that at the beginning they have had problems with their tow truck drivers. For one, "tag1 ...>;;....0;;:; iu..:..][~e%ienaca uhieh some damage was the result of the drivers. Ann Holmbeck, Traffic Control Officer for the Aspen Police Department, stated that they have had problems with juveniles locating keys and stealing vehtcles.. Holmbeck stated that the longer that it takes to clear the streets, the many of thousands of dollars that the City is losing. Holmbeck also mentioned that they need some type of barrier in the Rio Grande lot mainly because cars were being retrieved without people paying for them, which also cost the City many thousands of dollars. Stalf stated that there will be a very slight berm which might possibly be a snow bank in the winter. This is mainly a winter time problem. Holmbeck stated that vandalism usually occurs after cars have been left for a long time. Stalf stated that the City got into the towing business without any planning in the middle of a very har h winter. (lA-P~i!<. Klar asked Stalf about the that they are expecting. stated that at the Plum Tree about 50 vehicles, and at the Rio approximately 20. Stalf Grande, '-' Stalf stated that the Rio Grande is basically utilized by the local employee. If they take away 20 spaces for towed vehicles, that would be taking away spaces from people who drive to work. In result, they would be taking away long term parking. Klar asked Stalf if their immediate plan is to tow when 2:00AM arrives. Stalf stated that there is usually a grace period until 3:00AM. About 12:00 noon, if people did not come by to claim their cars, then they would be retowed to the Plum Tree. Hedstrom opened the meeting to the public. Remo Lavagnino commented on this case. Lavagnino stated that although this is a temporary condition for holding cars, it is still a permanent condition for the Rio Grande property. It seemed to him that the City has always fought for a greenway system and this seems to degrade the area by putting in an impound lot. There is not that much space between the river and what is allowed for the greenway area. Best to Lavagnino's recollection, the Rio Grande property was purchased and implemented on the Voorhes Transportation Plan, and was a 7th penny tax resolution that was presented to the voters and was passed. In Resolution 19, Series of 1972, this was for parking, intercept points, for the transportation system. According to ex-City Attorney, Sandy Stuller, an impound lot was not an allowable use in that area. City Finance Director, Lois Butterbaugh, stated that this was re-financed to include the 6th penny tax, which has a wider span for open space and parks. Lavagnino f~lt that ~ putting in an impound lot in the Rio Grande is not onlYAgilowed, but it violates the spirit of both the use of the land and the reason for the taxes that bought that land. Stock stated that if the Rio Grande property was bought with the 7th penny tax, then it is a proper use. If it was bought with the 6th penny, then it is not a proper USe. Lavagnino stated that it was refinanced with the 6th penny in which he received this informa- tion from Butterbaugh. Stock replied that the 7th penny funds, with that there is transportation designation, may justifiably assist in transportation in the City which includes parKi~g,_ parking structures, and impound lots. Had it been done with the 6th penny only, you would have had the opposite result being 6th penny funds are for parks, recreation, and open space. This does not allow transportation use. Stock stated that the definition of the 7th penny occured as the result of a resolution of the Council and is not part of the 7th penny ordinance which was adopted by the public. But, the Council itself limited the use of the 7th penny funds further than what the ordinance did just prior to the election. They have eliminated certain uses, but they left in the term transportation. Stalf commented on the fact that it was a joint purchase and that there are joints functions that are needed in near-by downtown. Stalf stated that what they really look at is the need for services in the City. Hedstrom asked Stock if they are to assume that there are no restrictions on the funding of this property from 6th or 7th penny. Stock stated that with the use of the 6th or 7th penny funds, the property may be used for transportation purposes which would include an impound lot. Hedstrom closed the meeting to the public. Stalf stated that, tn...~"9"" if they need help, ~ they would be calling Dillingham's to help get the job done. Holmbeck stated that they could look at the Rio Grande as a short time solution. They are hoping for more tow trucks and more personnel. If they had more tow trucks, they could get the town cleared out faster and bring the vehicles out to the Plum Tree. ......, ,~ BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 17, 1979, Council Chambers, page 2 eol'>1m ;5:f'bn Smith suggested to the oe~m.itt~~, that considering that a public hearing was held to consider an amendment to the SPA Plan, in which the amendment would allow a police impound lot. The:way to do that is to change the designation from greenway to recreation, parking, and future building zone. The permitted uses within the parking, recreation, and future building zone, p~rmit.tranlSPO~tation and parking facilities. Smith (!ont""'5':'-/Ot;l-f'\~ .' . stated to the oGmm1llc~ ~~ t they should do at th1s meet1ng 1S to recommend a SPA amendment that would allow the police impound lot as a conditional use in the greenway zone. Stock stated that it would allow transportation and parking USeS in the SPA greenway as a conditional use hearing, at which point you could set up your time limitation. Hedstrom stated that the general feeling that they would permit this limited area impound lot, in the area proposed with a definite limitation on time. Smith stated that what they should an approach at their next meeting. & rnm 1;5Si 0,/ do is to bring back to the~g~- ity Hedstrom stated that without any formal action, they should have the Planning Office come up with a formal plan to accomplish their objectives, preferably by using areas that are adjacent and convenient that would accomplish all the purposes, but does not encroach on the greenway, but if necessary to encroach on the greenway, to do it in such a matter that it could be temporary and subject to review-cas conditions'change and develop. Hunt moved to table action on the Rio Grande Police Impound Lot pending review and a resubmittal by the Planning Department in detail plan. Anderson seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. ELECTION OF OFFICERS and AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS: Stock stated that the process that is contemplated in the charter and the ordinance, says that the P&Z Commission would elect it's own chairman along with vice-chairman. This would happen at its organizational meeting after new members are appointed to it. The charter sets up the 4 year terms of office for a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, such that their terms go from July-July, and that they remain in office until their sucessor is appointed by Council and is qualified. That in the second meeting' in July, the election of officers should take place. The officers will hold office for one year~ Stock stated that the problem was that they looked at their by-laws, they were not consistant with the charter and the ordinances, and as such stated that the elections would be held in June. Stock stated that they recommend that Section 1 be amended by them. In this way it would read, "that the commission would organize elect chairman and vice-chairman from the appointed members annually at the second regular meeting in the month of July" instead of June. Harvey moved to adopt amendment to the Article and Zoning Commission By-Laws as is written in memo dated 12, July 1979. Anderson seconded. carried . 1 Section 1 of the Planning the Planning Office's All in favor. Motion Klar nominated Olof Hedstrom as chairman. Harvey seconded. Pardee nominated Welton Anderson as chairman. Hunt moved to close the nominations Harvey seconded a All in favor. Motion carried. Hunt moved to reconsider the previous motion. Anderson seconded. Roll call vote was taken by the secretary. Anderson aye. Hunt aye. Harvey aye. Klar aye. Pardee aye. He~rom aye. Motion carried. Hedstrom asked the committee if there were any further nominations. Pardee nominated Welton Anderson. Hunt seconded. Hunt moved to close the nominations. Harvey seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. BAKER EMPLOYEE HOUSING SPECIAL REVIEW: The committee talliedl~~ wa s RO);; Anderson on a used paper ballots, Smith collected and the secretary results were Olof Hedstrom 4, Welton Anderson 2. Hedstrom the Planning and Zoning Chairman. Hedstrom complimented good race. Pardee nominated Welton Anderson for vice-chairman. Hunt seconded. Harvey nominated Joan Klar for vice-chairman. Hedstrom seconded. Hunt moved to close the nominations. Klar seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. The committee used paper ballots, Smith collected and the secretary tallied. The results were Anderson 4, Klar 2. sm~h introduced Reents as the Housing Administrator. Smith stated that Reents has been put in charge of the Housing Administration function. Reents stated that the applicant is requesting a third unit in which a duplex is allowed under the Growth Management Quota System in the RMF Zone. Reents stated that in his memo a correction should be made which should read Lots C-G as opposed to just Lot G. There is a total of 9000 square feet of lot area. The densities are permitted in the RMF, a.t however a duplex is exempted under the Growth Management system. Under Section 24-10.10, employee units are also exempted f~om the Growth Management System. The applicant proposes to build the third unit in one side of the duplex, which he could construct ~~right, and is willing to enter into agreement with the City that it be designated moderate income housing, deed restricted, and rental price restricted. Reents stated that the only action that they would have to take is to make a determination and recommendation to City Council as to in fact it does meet the requirements of being an employee unit. They should make a recommendation of either an approval or denial to the City Council. Pardee stated that he was in favor. But in the letter to the Planning Office, Mr. Baker indicated that there will be certain duties. What, might happen is that people would be paying moderate rent but, they would have to be a babysitter, cook, put shingles on the roof and whatever. Pardee asked if this question ever came up before, and if it had, what their position is on this. Mr. Baker commented on this note. Baker stated that it was a type of situation in which they trade some services that are really nominal services to reduce rent to below the guideline rent. It works out for both parties because in a place this size, it usually lacks on premise management. So in this case, the person could benefit from reduced rent, and still hold down a full time job. It works out for the owner and the employee. Pardee stated that he agreed completely. But, Pardee commented, in this town where housing is so limited, people would do anything to get housing. Hedstrom stated that it could happen on any of these cases. way that they could contro.l this thing. ~--oV--.a !!81i.&.-';ro~;~r. ;:r, .f.TI! ! j 1 i _.:u~. There is no .: Ii Z1i].~I1! Jeff Sachs, local attorney, was on hand for a couple of comments. He stated that in the separate ordinances where they would set the employee housing rates, why could they not amend that later and say that the rental charge not exceed so much per square foot. In this way, it would avoid the abuse that Pardee suggested. Hedstrom stated that he did not like stipulations or conditions. Harvey felt that it was important to deal with this problem. Baker stated that he did not object, but there is a deed restriction and language. The legal language can be determined. -- ......JI BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 17, 1979, Council Chambers, page 3 Hunt moved to recommend exemption from application of the Growth Management Plan and approval of one additional unit as employee housing making the project a triplex as described in the Baker application concerning Lots C-G, Block 61, Original Townsite, provided that this additional unit comes under the moderate price guidelines for employee housing and the property deed restricted, otherwise the impact on land use is within an existing code limits and the addition of an employee unit as a benefit to the community. Anderson seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Pardee stated that he would like Reents to come back to their next meeting, so that they could recommend to Council the price and rental guidelines for three different levels of employee housing to include the price per square foot. This way, they would never have to worry about this again. HILDUR ANDERSON SUBDIVISION: Vrchota stated that this application is for an exeption subdivision proceedures for 1.4 acres of land owned by Hildur Anderson. It is located on the east side of the Roaring Fork River and south of Cooper. The proposal is to split off one 6000 square foot lot for sale for a single family unit. She would retain the rest of the property which would give her the right to build a duplex. In this area, the property that is left open may be possibly sold to the City as a park. Basically she would like to have a more modern residence for her children so that they could visit her more comfortably. Vrchota stated that there are two considerations to this and those are 1, conceptual approval and 2, consideration of an exeption. Vrchota recommends that they do grant conceptual approval and recommend that to City Council, with several conditions. The City Engineer does not suspect any problems with the preliminary plat even though he did not examine it throughly yet. One of the conditions would be his approval of the plat plus the dedication of the 20 foot wide trail easement extending along the river edge of the property. Second condition of the approval would be the payment of the park dedication fee on the smaller lot. The third condition would be if there would be condominuimization, then there will be a park dedication fee on the new unit. Stock explained for new members that in Ordinance 3 and Ordinance 4 of 1978, City Council under the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a policy that there could be no subdivision unless they have plans for approval. That allowed for the division of a piece of property that had an existing structure into two lots. The second lot that is vacant would be restricted into a single family dwelling unless growth management approval was obtained. Stock stated that they have done this a number of times. With the lot that is there now, they have the right to destroy the existing building and build a duplex there. Stock stated that he would recommend that the park dedication fee be left'until the time of the building permit is required. The reason is that they do not know how many bedrooms it would have until the time that the plans are submitted. Jeff Sachs, Hildur Anderson's attorney, stated that he would appreciate it if they would pass it at this time subject to their review or subject to City Council's 'approval. Sachs felt that it was not fair for her to pay the park dedication fee. If she would knock down their building, which is a non-conforming use because it is located wibhin the flood plane and if she would build a single family residence then basically there will be no park dedication fee. If she would build a duplex, she would be increasing the density slightly and the park dedication fee would increase some also. But as a condition of that lot split, she would be giving the City a 20 foot easement for almost 400 feet long along the Roaring Fork River. This cuts off all that developable property along the river. There is a big value difference between condominuimization and giving it to the City. Vrchota stated that, there were several different considerations and conditions to present, 1. Anderson would like to have permission to keep the existing structure standing until such time that she would receive a certificate of occupancy for the new dwelling unit, 2. the Historical Society would like to examine the potential value of the house befo~e it would be destroyed. Vrchota suggested that they waive the requirement to go before the City Council for conceptual approval. Hunt moved to except from conceptual review before C~ty Council and the conceptual approval of the Hildur Anderson subdivision allowing the next planning step being the preliminary plat approval provided that 1, plat is approved by the City Engineer including approval of the dedication to the City of a 20 foot wide trail easement extending the length of the property, 2. park dedication fee to be determined at time of building permit, and 3. Historical Society be allowed to review the statis of the old structure, and)( further recommend allowance of occupanCY~O~15 permitted of the new A~d~rson residence, and otherwise there appears to be little impact on land use for detriment to the public. Pardee seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. GETZ SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION: Grice stated that Mr. Getz is requesting exemption from the condominuimi- zation of a duplex located on the east end of Hyman on the cul-de-sac. The units are not part of the low or moderate income market and have never been occupied by anyone other than the applicant or members of his family. The Engineering Department recommended approval without condition. Stock and the Planning Office recommend that they should approve the exemption subject to the 6 month minumal lease restrictions of Section 20-22. Hunt moved to recommend exempt~n of strict application of the subdivision regulations with ~ respect~ ~tz duplex located on Lots P&Q, Block 33, East Aspen Addition, provided that the property comes under the Aspen Municipal Code Section 20-2~ ~h is the 6 month minimum lease, otherwise there~no land use aR~~ ~or other detriments to the public good. Klar seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. SIC/II ZONE REWRITE: The tape for this discussion is defective. Richard Grice's memo from July 11, 1979 to the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will be inc~~;ra~) minutes. Hedstrom entertained a motion to ask the Planning Office for a resolution recommending the changes in the SIC/II Zone as is contained in the memorandum of July 2, 1979, and as amended in the discussion. Anderson 'So InDued me"';ea t..... ~dr'FE ll~is mGtienh Klar seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. \,.... ......, ,.., BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning and Zoning Commission, Regular Meeting, July 17, 1979, Council Chambers, page 4 RESOLUTIONS: Zoning Enforcement Officer Sm~h stated that this resolution was in the last meeting,"s packet. Hunt stated that he was essentially in favor of this resolution. But the problems are the vagueness with the respect to "staff". They should come up with some specifics in the area of how many and what is the cost. It is also vague as to what he administers, what he enforces, and how he fits in the chain of command. Smith explained that this was not the Planning and Zoning Commissions concern, it is the City Council' s concern~ All this resolution'1.is basically is to make a statement to Council stating that there is a need. Hedstrom felt that on the second page of the resolution, "staff to administer and enforce these requirements" and they could leave out the rest of the paragraph. Smith stated that this would be fine. Pardee felt that it was the most important part of the resolution, by being that these are the things that Aspen does that the other cities do not. HedstIlom felt that the farthest that they would have to go is "enforce these requirements II in the resolution. Anderson moved to adopt the Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen, number 79-9 a zoning enforcement officer within the City Almost all in favor with the vote being 5-1, Zoning of Midland Park Hunt moved to adopt Resolution Motion carried. which indic~s the need of of Aspen. ~ seconded. ~nay. Motion carried. 79-10. Pardee seconded. All in favor. Transportation OVerlay at Plum Tree Smith stated that it was just behind and just west of Plum Tree building. It recognizes some of the committees findings including the one where they wish to consider the Rio Grande Parking Lot use in conjunction with the Plum Tree. Hedstrom entertained a motion to adopt Resolution 79-11 as amended to read in paragraph 5 "that such parking shall be screened from public view by virtue of berming and natural screening~- Anderson me~~a L~J .:::uisp't ta.... Tn'"'ticm. Klar seconded. :50 fY1or'eGf Hunt asked what "by virtue" meant. Hunt stated that for the record, the amended paragraphoreads"whereas the commission finds that such parking shall be screened from public view by berming or natural screening in the area".V Klar seconded. , All,j.n favo}'.", Moti9n carried. ~::O() Cli'.('"'p+ed '-tIite /1...r't1t'JILLmJ2tc1 meeting . rned at 7:35 PM. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, July 17, 1979, Richard Grice's Memo, page 5. TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commis~\o\ Richard Grice, Planning Office ~ SjCjI Zone Rewrite July 11, 1979 Subsequent to the consideration of a Code Amendment regarding commercial bakery which came before the P and Z and Council last fall regarding a proposal to sell over the counter goods in the SjCjI district, the Council asked the Planning Office to prepare revisions to the SjCjI zone. These revisions were to be intended to clarify the intent and purpose of the zone district while more clearly defining the kinds of uses that would be permitted in the zone district. During the course of the discussions, the Council had noted that the SjCjI district had appeared to go beyond its original intent, that is, the housing of service commercial and industrial uses. Council went as far as to direct the administration to evaluate the existing uses there to see if any had been established illegally or had established increased retail aspects of the uses beyond the original building approval. The Growth Management Plan has as one of its goals balance between new businesses, population, housing, community facilities, and skiing. If, in the administrative process, we were to eliminate any major segment of our economy, then we would lose this vital balance. It is with balance in mind that the Planning Office submits the following comments with regard to revisions to the SjCjI zone. The Planning Office today feels very strongly about preserving the integrity of the SjCjI district as a haven for limited industrial and limited commercial uses. A quick look at the use list demonstrates that the uses permitted are allowed nowhere else in the City. Plumbing service, builders I supply, lumber yard, sporting goods manufacturer, to name just a few, are lower in volume, less traffic generating and consequently can only pay lower rents. From a land use standpoint, it makes sense to separate the high volume, tourist-oriented commercial from the lower volume service commercial that is the backbone of the community. It is essential to reserve places solely for such uses; otherwise in a highly competitive tourist economy these uses will outbid those uses straight out of town. We have permitted competitive high volume uses right next door to the SjCjI zone in the Trueman Center and thus the pressure is on for spillover of daily traffic generators from the neighborhood commercial zone. Today requests abound for new quasi-service commercial uses because it is apparent to many retailers that the lower Mill Street area will soon emerge as a high traffic area and therefore an attractive one to retail operations. Rents in the SjCjI zone are typically $4 to $5 less than in the adjacent neighborhood commercial zone, further increasing the deterioration. The Planning Office had historically supported holding the li~e because the alternative is to lose this special type -,. of district and the City will lose thrs type of uses. The only other similar district now in existence is the B-2 at the Airport Business Center. That too is becoming so competitive that many limited industrial type uses are now coming to us and asking us to create an industrial district somewhere in the County. We feel strongly that we should not foster that kind of pressure by permitting dilution of the City's SjCjI zone. Therefore, the Planning Office has consistently recommended against approval of businesses for the SjCjI zone which sold frequently or daily bought items. Those.:Uses."belo~g:.in:t.he neighborhood commercial zone. We feel that retail selling businesses allowed in the SjCjI zone should be limited to those businesses selling less frequently bought items so that service and manufacturing type businsses are not driven out. We feel that the key to preserving the zone is to prohibit high traffic generators. High volume businesses bring in high traffic which is a direct cause of rent increases. In order to facilitate the preservation of the SjCjI zone district and thos service and manufacture type businesses, the Planning Office recommends amendments to the Code in the followin~ areas: 1. The stated intention of the SjCjI zone needs to be amended to make clear the intentions of limiting it to businesses that generate less traffic. We suggest amending the intention of the SjCjI zone to read: "To allow for the use of land AND THE PRESERVATION OF limited commercial purposes and limited industrial purposes, with customary accessory and institutional uses, WHICH DO NOT REQUIRE OR GENERATE HIGH CUSTOMER TRAFFIC VOLUMES. In addition, residences for those employed in this district may be included in the service or commercial buildings or adjacent thereto as conditional uses." - Du'ey - 2. The permitted uses list in the Code contains a final phrase which describes what limited industrial means. That phrase reads as follows, "...provided that no permitted uses creates an unusual traffic hazard, noise, dust, fumes, odors, smoke, vapor, vibration, glare or industrial waste disposal problem." It would seem appropriate to add qualifi- cations for limited commercial uses to the end of this same phrase. We recommend that the last phrase in the permitted USe list be amended to read "provided that no,permitted uses._creates an unusual traffic "hazard, noise, dust, -fumes, odors, smoke, vapor, I vibration,__91are or industrial waste disposal problem; AND PROVIDED THAT NO PERMITTED USE::LWILL.SELL DAILY OR FREQUENTLY ,BOUGHT ITEMS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC." : (The phrase "to the General Public" was inserted so as to make it clear that uses will be allowed which serve the daily or frequent needs of'service industries, i.e., plumber's supply, auto parts store, builder's supply, etc.) 3. Several changes need to be made to the list of permitted uses for clarification. We suggest adding the word "Industrial" in front of the dry cleaning plant and laundry so as to indicate that we are not talking about coin operated laundromats or commercial laundries. Secondly, we recommend that FULL SERVICE GAS STATION be a conditional use in the Zone in order to -distinguish..it; from"a SQlf. s~rv:ice: gas station. We have discussed these proposed amendments with the building inspector and with his assistants who have charged with administration of the zone districts. Both the building inspector and the Planning Office feel that with these proposed amendments the zone could be more easily and correctly administered in such a way as to result in its preservation. In addition, Council asked us to consider an amendment to the definition of "commercial bakery", which now permits production and wholesale sale of baked goods, but excludes over-the- counter or retail dispensing of baked goods. It appears to us that the proposed restriction on frequently bought items is consistent with the definition of commercial bakery and its location in the S/C/I zone. We therefore recommend no change. ',,- ...."