Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-21 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 21, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Cit y Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Room of Englewood City Hall , Chairman Welker presiding. Present: Absent: N ote: Staff: Willis , Lathram, Rininger, Sauter, Stockwell , Weber, Welker Douglas One Vacan cy Mark Graham, Senior Planner L auri Dannemiller, Planning An alyst Nanc y Reid, A ss istant City Attorney Als o present: Sus an Blansett , Blansett & Associ ates Jesse Sil verstein , Development Research P artners Other Staff: Arthur Scibelli , Business Development Coordinator Darren Hollingsworth , Business Development Speciali st II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M arch 7 , 2000 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of M arch 7 , 2000 are to be considered for appro va l. Ri ninger moved: Weber sec o nded : The Minutes of March 7 , 2000 be approved as written . AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Rininger, Sauter, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Welker None Lath ram Douglas The motion carried. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Hawthorn Suite s PUD-98-03 .Mr. Welker st ated that the Findings of Fact for the Hotel PUD , Case #PUD -98 -03 were to be considered for approval. H:IG ROUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM\Minu1.sllvt inu1<s 2000\PCM 03-20008 .J oc Weber moved: Rininger seconded: The Findings of Fact for Case #PUD-98-03 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Rininger, Sauter, Stockwell, Weber, Willis, Welker None Lathram Douglas The motion carried. IV. EVALUATIONMATRIX Economic Development Fiscal Impact Mr. Graham introduced Ms. Susan Blansett , Blansett & Associates ; and Mr. Jesse Silverstein , Development Research Partners. Ms . Blansett and her firm have been engaged to prepare a five- year strategic economic development plan and market analysis of the Santa Fe Corridor. Mr. Silverstein and his firm have been engaged to prepare a fiscal impact model that can be used not only for evaluating de velopment for the General Iron Works (GIW ) site, but for other scenarios. Mr. Graham stated that staff has reviewed the City Charter to determine fiscal responsibility of the Commission in making decisions ; the Commission must keep in mind the overall business health of the City , and try to maintain a balance of residential versus revenue producing projects. Mr. Graham asked that Ms. Blansett present her project. Susan Blansett stated that her contract with the City is to develop a five-year economic develop- ment plan for the City of Englewood. Ms . Blansett stated that she would present an overview of the work that has been done . Ms . Blansett demonstrated a "growth cycle" of a community, indi- cating points where redevelopment or "reinvention " is needed . Ms. Blansett stressed the need to maintain the vitality of a community , and to take these steps prior to reaching the point of "rein- vention". Ms . Blansett distributed a synopsis of her presentation. This synopsis addresses the task, the methodology , factors that will drive market dynamics in the Santa Fe corridor, real estate outlook for both industrial and office use , the Santa Fe "action plan'', the challenge of balancing residen- tial and commercial land uses , and the challenge of resolving conflicting needs and goals. Ms. Blansett stated that there is a lot working in Englewood's favor: the national, state and local economy is strong, and the prognosis is for continued good economic development health. Englewood has a strategic location relative to highways -Santa Fe Drive , South Broadway, U.S. 285 -all heavy traffic carriers. Englewood is also situated in close proximity to major employ- ment centers -downtown Denver, and the Denver Tech Center. Englewood will have the light rail station open in July , 2000 -much earlier than other employment centers in the metro area. A seven-year construction period is projected for the I-25 corridor; this may serve as a "disincen- tive" for new development along this corridor. Jefferson County has a lack of developable land for commercial purposes ; Interlocken in the northwest sector of the metro area is developed and H:IGRO UP\BOARDSIP LANCOMM l.'vt iuut.s\Mi nut<s 2000\PCM 03·20006 .Uo.: • • • • • • congested. There is a tight labor market, and residences/access for employees to their work place is at a premium. There is a growing trend among some classes of employees -young, sin- gle or couples , no children, or the empty nester -to chose the urban lifestyle -lofts, condos, town homes , etc. Ms. Blansett suggested that Englewood could provide affordable housing that will be attractive to prospective residents and/or employees of the area. Ms. Blansett noted that a majority of new industrial development is occurring in the Denver In- ternational Airport (DIA) area, or by Centennial Airport. The southwest sub-market area (south of Alameda, west of Broadway) has a vacancy rate of 4.2% in the industrial properties; the va- cancy rate metro-wide is 5 .5%. Leasing rates in Englewood are very reasonable , and business- men who have located here are not interested in relocating -only those who need to expand their business and cannot do so relocate. Industrial properties in Englewood are aging -some of the buildings are outdated, small, and generally unattractive to prospective tenants. Or a tenant may not be "choice", but in light of the low leasing rates , they don't relocate . Ms . Blansett stated that businessmen must have flexibility in use of their "space"; "flexible space " is very attractive in today 's market and , though the uses may be industrial in nature , the new buildings can be de- signed very attractivel y . Ms. Blansett stated that new buildings have good security systems built in , telecommunications systems are built in, advanced lighting needs are built in -in short, new construction provides a lot of "bells and whistles " that today 's businessman wants. Aging indus- trial construction does not provide that , and this is an issue Englewood needs to address. Mr. Welker asked if there is in ventory of industrial buildings and spaces that are available in the City. Ms . Blansett stated that she does not know of such an inventory. Mr. Graham suggested that we could get the Assessor's data to get the big picture , but this would not re veal how each site is being used. Mr. Graham noted the difficulty of keeping such an inventory up-to-date. Mr. Scibelli s tated th at the Business Development office has tried to maintain a current inventory of available properties; he estimated that there may be four or five "small" properties at any given time , but facilities of 30,000 sq. ft. to 40 ,000 sq. ft. are very rarely available in Englewood. Mr. Welker commented on the Santa Fe corridor review and the need to understand more about the businesses along this corridor; he is interested in determining what ma y be redeveloped , de- termining key "nodes " for development or rede velopment, and the option of moving more busi- nesses into the area. Mr. Graham stated that staff could work with Ms. Blansett to develop the strategies and get the information to the Commission. Mr. Welker suggested that the transit area also be viewed for the impact on economic trends. Mr. Silverstein stated that we are considering two separate issues -occupancy of a structure/site versus physical inventory to determine what development is on the site. Mr. Welker stated that he would like something before the Commission so they can see what is or isn't at a particular location. Mr. Scibelli referenced the former "Ragsdale site" on South Santa Fe Drive ; he suggested that if more tools had been in place , the City could have taken steps to acquire the property to be rede- veloped, or used for open space . H:IGROUPIBOARDSIPL ANCO MM \"1u1 ucos\"1i nu cos 2000\PC M 03-!0008.do< Ms. Blansett discussed the "office" outlook; again, the southwest sub-market vacancy rate is considerably lower than the metro-wide rate: the southwest sub-market vacancy rate is 6.97%; metro wide the vacancy rate is 9.3 %. Rental rates are, again, lower in the southwest market area. The low vacancy, low rental rates indicates outdated, unattractive office space -long-term ten- ants who prefer cheap rents for lower aes thetic and maintenance costs. Flexible lease terms, im- proved building features, and access to transit lines are strong selling points for Englewood. Ms. Blansett discussed the Santa Fe Corridor Action Plan, citing the following four objectives: 1) Promote the optimum mix of business, residential, institutional , cultural and recreational uses; 2) Redevelop underutilized/deteriorating properties , with emphasis on major intersections; 3) Capitalize on mass transit and commuter traffic through Englewood; 4) Capture recreational/aesthetic potential of the S . Platte River. Ms. Blansett cited five action steps for Commission consideration : 1) Create quality/aesthetic corridor standards and ensure local policies , incentives, zoning and regulations support the City 's goals for the corridor (e.g. mixed-use , transit-oriented development) 2) Establish a land bank 50 l-c-3 to facilitate corridor transformation, preservation of the employment base; 3) Analyze market to identify the optimum retail mix and work to obtain necessary in- gress/egress from Santa Fe ; 4) Host an event to draw attention to Englewood's plans for the corridor, and to solicit ad- • vice and support of experts in the real estate and development communities ; • 5) Establish a Santa Fe Corridor cooperative arrangement with other corridor communities. Ms . Blansett suggested that the Commission re-evaluate the policies for zoning, and make sure the zoning regulations are in sync with the overall vision for the corridor, and encourage high- quality construction on development and redevelopment projects. Ms. Blansett discussed investigation of creation of a 501-c-3 for land banking. This process will allow a community to acquire land that may be desirable for another use as it comes on the mar- ket; the community may also swap land owned in other sectors for land in the corridor. Mr. Sau- ter asked if the City could run a 501-c-3. Ms. Blansett stated that the 501-c-3 would have to be managed in conformance with the tax laws . She stated that this is a non-profit corporation that may accept donations of land or money. Ms . Blansett suggested the need to engage a "retail expert" to conduct the market analysis and determine optimum retail mix . The City must work to obtain and develop necessary in- gress/egress from Santa Fe. Ms. Blansett urged establishing a cooperative arrangement among the communities of Littleton, Sheridan , Englewood, and possibly Denver, to address improve- ments, development and redevelopment along the Santa Fe/South Platte River corridor. Engle- wood needs to work with Littleton and Sheridan to development an image of the corridor. Mr. Stockwell asked if the intra-city cooperative in conjunction with the 501-c-3 corporation would be possible . Brief discussion ensued. H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMM IMinu1os\"1inu1os ZOOOIPC M 03-20008 .<lo< • .. • • • Ms. Blansett suggested hosting events to direct attention to the Santa Fe corridor. If this is un- dertaken properly, "experts" in the field of retail development, office development and industrial development could be in attendance , and could "critique" whatever plans the City may have for the corridor; these "experts" could also be asked for advice or suggestions on what might work in the corridor. This would be a good public relations opportunity, not only for the corridor but the City as a whole. Mr. Welker asked if the RailVolution conference could be an opportunity to promote the corri- dor. Mr. Graham stated that the City will be very involved in this Conference , and staff mem- bers are designing "walking tours'', some of which will be in the Englewood area. Ms. Blansett suggested that events be kept fairly "intimate" -not large, public meetings; the City should be very candid with the attendees on the goals and proposals for the corridor. Ms . Blansett then addressed the challenges for balancing residential and commercial land uses; the City needs to ensure sufficient land for employment centers, and to keep pace with changing needs in the marketplace for both industrial, office space , and retail space. The City also needs to promote development of housing stock that will appeal to the entrepreneurial segment of the population: this will serve as an attractor to retail and to employers. There must also be a fertile environment for small/entrepreneurial b us iness growth. Mr. Sauter asked for further explanation of housing development Ms. Blan sett had referenced earlier. Ms. Blansett suggested construction of condos, patio homes , lofts above retail , co- housing developments . Many of the young people , and empty-nesters, would be interested in this type of housing. Mr. Sauter asked what the present ratio of residential to industrial devel- opment in the City is. Mr. Graham stated that the City is zoned for 60 % residential , 30% indus- trial and commercial development. Ms. Blansett commented that Englewood is in the favorable position of "importing" employees -there are approximately 1.6 jobs for every employable resi- dent in the City. Mr. Sauter asked where open space issues fit into this scenario. Ms. Blansett stated that open space is very important -it improves the quality of life for not only residents , but also employers and employees. Mr. Silverstein also noted the importance of open space is stressed at Smart Growth conferences he has attended. Discussion ensued. Ms. Blansett suggested the City might consider some incentives to encour- age new development or redevelopment. Mr. Welker stated that the redevelopment of the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor will have a greater impact on the community as a whole than will redevelopment of CityCenter. Discussion ensued. Determination of development the City wants versus what is not wanted was discussed. Ms . Blansett emphasized that the tum-around of this corridor will not be a short-term project - this will be at least a 20-year project to regenerate the corridor. She emphasized the need to set standards; determine what is acceptable and what is not acceptable -the standards will help de- termine what the City wants and what it doesn't want to see in this corridor. H:IGR OU PIBOARDSIPLANC OMM \Mu1ut<slMinut« 2000\PC:VI 03-20008.dcx: Mr. Sauter asked if there are other "models" the Commission can review. Mr. Graham stated that staff does have plans from Littleton and from Denver which can be made available to the • Commission. Mr. Graham pointed out that the Metro Vision 2020 and the evaluation matrix have both addressed the need for redevelopment along the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor. He stated that staff has a number of issues that will be brought forward to the Commission. Mr. Graham stated that it is important for members of the Commission to get the "big picture" information such as the economic development/fiscal impact information. Mr. Welker discussed the revision of the Comprehensive Plan, and the need to use the Compre- hensive Plan as a tool to address redevelopment along the Santa Fe/Platte River corridor. Mr. Graham stated that staff has been working toward development of an overlay zone district for the Corridor area; the standards and regulations of this District will be before the Commission in the near future; however, application of this zone district to the land and map is not scheduled at this time. Mr. Welker stated that he thought the Comprehensive Plan revisions would be to the Commis- sion by this time. Mr. Graham stated that work is progressing on several sections of the Plan - the Regional Plan, open space, housing , economic development to cite four. The transportation section will not be revised this year. Work is also progressing on the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance revisions; the format will be changed initiall y, and then standards and regulations will addressed. Mr. Sil verstein addressed the Commission , and pro vided a brief synopsis of his background. He is an economist by profession; has been in the commercial real estate arena for the last 10 years , • and is drawn to challenging development and redevelopment situations. Mr. Silverstein stated that he has been asked by the City to develop a tool to enable fiscal evaluation of new develop- ment and redevelopment. Mr. Silverstein stated that growth is occurring , and everything is in a s tate of change . It is very important to determine where land use of area is headed ; how do we make areas we want changed attractive to developers , and how do we ensure that the development/redevelopment is wh at is wanted in any given location. Englewood is "land-locked" -further growth and devel- opment must come about via redevelopment of existing sites , be it residential, commercial, of- fice , or industrial. Low vacancy , low rental rates are indicative of decaying properties. Mr. Silverstein stressed the necessity to maintain a viable commercial/industrial tax base; property taxes from residential uses do not pay for the cost per capita of public services rendered . Com- mercial and industrial properties are taxed at a different rate , and property tax revenues are con- siderably higher than those from residential use. Mr. Silverstein stated that studies have shown an average cost for public services of $660 per year per residence, contrasted to $200+ per year per employee. "Public services" include police, fire, snow plowing, street maintenance, etc. Mr. Silverstein suggested that typically when we talk about redevelopment, large market evalua- tions are done; he stressed the need to identify specific sites -not large areas. He commented that at Oxford and Santa Fe, for instance, there are lots of small sites that might be assembled and could be very attractive to a larger industrial business. Mr. Silverstein emphasized the need H:IGROUPIBO ARD SIPL ANCO MM \lvl u1 u1es\"1 inu 1es 2000\PC M 03 -2 0008 .J oc • , • • • to work with land inventories, consider the market, consider how the site could be developed, and consider ways tax revenues can be maximized. Mr. Silverstein stated that land should be looked at two different ways : 1) The building -occupied by a business; or occupied by an investor who is allowing the income to determine the best use of the property. 2) What is the highest and best use of the building/property for the City. Determine what is the highest and best use versus what can be attracted to a specific site. Mr. Silverstein offered the following "definitions": Economic Impact: how many times money turns over within the City from a particular use -i.e., a paycheck is distributed, cashed, purchases made, bills paid , etc. Fiscal Impact: how much is taken in versus how much is expended for the business or develop- ment. Mr. Silverstein stated that an economic benefit realized from a particular development is a very important measure for a community . Mr. Silverstein stated part of his project for the City is to take the economic and demographic information on Englewood, and develop a spreadsheet, which can then be manipulated to indicate economic and fiscal impact results in several scenar- ios. Mr. Sil verstein discussed the need to look at projected revenues in relation to costs incurred from any proposed development ; is the proposal a revenue generator -sales tax collected by other businesses from employees , or revenues directly from the business. The City needs to consider what portion of revenues will be coming back to offset an y investment (incentiv es ) that may have been advanced to the development project. He commented that most communities realize a 5 % return. Mr. Silverstein noted that per capita revenue s generated from sales ta x in Den ver are $6,400 ; per capita re venues from sales tax in Englewood are $8 ,800. This indicates a high amount o f money in Englewood that is spent on retail sales . Mr. Silverstein stated that economic analysis is based on best-guess information. Fiscal analysis is a tool to be used in e v aluating a de velopment. Nlr . Silverstein pointed out , for instance , that open space and parkland-if this is what is envisioned along the South Platte River-will not generate tax revenues. There maybe revenues from fees charged for park usage. The possible revenues , in this case , must be weighed against the importance of open space to the community . Mr. Sauter asked when Mr. Silverstein builds the fiscal "model " or the economics "model", will these be built conservatively? Mr. Silverstein stated that he tried to take an "average" approach -more "middle-of-the road", and tried to be objective. Mr. Graham stated that a lot of the in- formation use in building the models is based on numbers of emplo yees , cost per square foot of construction (from Building Magazine information ); good sources were used to support specific types of information needed to build the models. Mr. Silverstein noted that incentives the City might offer to entice new development include tax rebates, permit fee waivers , infrastructure, etc . H:IGR OUPIBOARDSIPLANCOMM \\1inu1os\\1i1 1u1<s 2000\PC ~ 03-20008 .Jo.: Mr. Sauter asked how we could determine how much revenue we receive from people who don't live in Englewood, or how much is lost by purchases outside of Englewood. Mr. Graham noted • that the City has a use tax that is collected on products, such as construction materials, purchased outside the City and used within the City. Discussion ensued . .tvlr. Silverstein discussed "trade areas" which may have a three mile radius, a five mile radius -or greater. Mr. Silverstein stated that on-site fiscal impacts are broken into three categories: 1) Property Tax Revenues 2) Sales Tax Revenues from business operations 3) Sales Tax Revenues from residential units Mr. Stockwell asked for an explanation of "on-site " versus "off-site". Mr. Silverstein stated that terminology references a specific site. Mr. Stockwell asked if Mr. Silverstein considered the GIW site, for instance, as one site , or as two because of the proposed split development. Discus- sion ensued. Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Silverstein is building the model so that changes can be made -can Wal-Mart projections be put in, or can other modifications be plugged into the model to reach different conclusions depending on the scenario . Mr. Silverstein stated that projections from Wal-Mart have not been plugged in; however, the model is designed to provide the flexibility to input new assumptions and projections. Mr. Welker asked if Mr. Silverstein is taking into ac- count the types and numbers of residential units that are proposed in the CityCenter develop- ment, as well as various commercial enterprises that may be developed. Mr. Silverstein stated that the model can address these concerns, and reiterated the flexibility that has been designed into the model. Discussion ensued. The population of Englewood, and the population that the CityCenter residential development can generate were discussed . Mr. Graham stated that the average household in Englewood is comprised of 2.1 people per unit. Mr. Silverstein stated that on high-density development, he assumes a per household population of 1.5/unit. There are fewer children in high-density devel- opments. High-density de velopments generate higher propert y taxes than single-family residen- tial developments , and there will be more households located on one site, all with tenants that will generate more revenue by shopping at local outlets . Mr. Silverstein noted that one needs to take into account the types of people who want to live near a transit site ; he suggested that resi- dential development can pay for itself in this particular type of transit-oriented development. Mr. Rininger asked if Mr. Silverstein made any differentiation between homeowners and renters in determining fiscal impact and economic impact. Mr. Silverstein stated that the iss ue of home- owner versus renter was ignored; he did use similar ass umptions on household income. Mr. Stockwell asked if there is a list of taxes paid based on the number of units on a site . Mr. Silverstein stated that he has not prepared such a list, and pointed out that property tax revenues comprise a very small part of the City 's overall revenues. Mr. Welker stated that property tax revenue is not the issue; the sales tax revenues will be greater if there are people living on the site who work and shop in Englewood. Per capita costs for fami- lies with children versus single , young couples, or empty nesters were discussed. Mr. Sil verstein H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMl.\1u1u1e s\Minu1e s 1000\PCM 03-20008.Joc • • .. • • • pointed out that the Englewood School District reaps approximately 60% of the property tax revenues paid by Englewood residents; the City of Englewood receives very little revenue from property taxes. Mr. Welker suggested that when considering "disposable income", there might be quite a bit of this that the C ity isn't capturing. Further discussion ensued on the fiscal and economic impact models. Mr. Graham suggested that if it is determined to be a useful tool, it should be kept up-to-date. Mr. Si lverstein noted that the most recent data is six months old, and a lot of the data is older than this. Mr. Welker stated that if we are serious about "planning", we need to have something to base the plans on. We do need to have some ability to forecast a possible future scenario -change in tax base, tax generator, whatever. This will be the only way to evaluate how the plan being pro- posed is affecting the City. The GIW site was briefly discussed. Ms. Blansett suggested that in evaluating any project, the evaluations should be on fiscal impact, economic impact, and qualitative impact. How will a project affect the quality of life for the neighborhood , the community, etc. Mr. Welker again asked if the fiscal/economic model will be flexible, and will this tool be avail- able to City Staff. Mr. Graham stated the model is flexible, and can be adjusted to reflect various scenarios. Mr. Silverstein stated that this economic/fiscal model has been developed through cooperative work by Mr. Graham, Darren Hollingsworth, and himself . Mr. Welker commented that it is necessary to have the economic/fiscal models available, noting that in the past when developers approached the City requesting catalyst funds or incentives, we were not able to understand the impact of that request. Mr. Silverstein further reviewed the handouts on the economic/fiscal impact model. Ms. Blan- sett noted that the City can impact the quality of housing that is developed by the standards that are developed; these standards , and the adherence to them, can drive the development or rede- velopment of residential, commercial, and industrial. Mr. Willis asked about the existing development, residential and industrial; will this result in an "oasis" appearing development. Mr. Graham discussed Mr. Willis' concerns, and noted that part of the answer is for new development to have sufficient critical mass so it will not take on the character of an existing or adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Silverstein noted that on the GIW site, for instance, development could be designed to take into account "view corridors" -both for those who might reside/office in the new development, and for the existing development abut- ting. Discussion ensued regarding requiring new developments to provide for telecommunication "built-ins". Mr. Graham noted that fiber optics were p laced in S anta Fe during the improve- ments along that corridor; he does not know whether the CityCenter developers have made ar- rangements to access this amenity or not. It may be a franchise issue, also. Mr. Graham sug- H:IGR OU PIBOARDSIPLANCOMM \Mi11u1<S\"1 inu«s 2000\PCM 03 -20008 .JO<: gested that standards be written into the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance requiring that all new developments include telecommunication amenities. Mr. Rininger suggested that the • market would drive inclusion of these amenities in new developments; if prospective clients or tenants want these amenities, the developer will provide them. Mr. Welker suggested the need to begin looking at development of these standards, and to get the fiber optic facilities in the central corridor. Mr. Willis asked what kind of retail space is proposed on the GIW site. Mr. Graham stated it would be supportive -convenience shops such as a barber, shoe repair, etc. The amount would be based on a ratio of the entire development. Mr. Graham stated that we don't want to bring additional traffic into the neighborhood, and the retail would be designed to serve only those who Ii ve in the immediate neighborhood. Discussion ensued regarding the mixed use and industrial on the GIW site. Mr. Graham stated this completed the presentation by Ms. Blansett and Mr. Silverstein. He stated that he appreciated the efforts and time they have devoted to these assignments, and ap- preciated their attendance at the Commission meeting. Members of the Commission also ex- pressed their appreciation to Ms. Blansett and Mr. Silverstein. V. PUBLIC FORU1VI No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Graham distributed a memorandum regarding meeting scheduling problems during the course of the administrative office relocation in June. He asked that members read this memo- randum prior to discussion. After members read the memorandum, and a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that, if at all possible , the regularly scheduled meetin~s of June 6th and June 20th would be cancelled ; a special meeting would be scheduled on June 27t . It was also pointed out that the regular meeting of July 5th is on a Wednesday evening, and recent his- tory has indicated extreme difficulty in getting a quorum of the Commission for a meeting on Wednesday evenings. Staff was also suggesting that the meeting on July 5th be cancelled. This scenario will still provide for one meeting in June, and one meeting in July. Mr. Graham referenced the tentative schedule for meetings, printed on the reverse of the agenda; he noted that Public Hearings to amend the Englewood Municipal Code, Title 16, Comprehen- sive Zoning Ordinance , have been scheduled for April 18th. One public hearing pertains to elimination of the prohibition of sidewalk sales; the second hearing pertains to regula- tion/location of tattoo establishments. A Public Hearing is scheduled for April 4th on designation of the Skerritt House as a Historic Site. Mr. Graham stated that he would be attending an Arapahoe County meeting on open space the evening of March 22. H:IGR OU PIB O ARDSIPLA NCOMM \/vfo1ut<s\Mi 11 utc s 2000\PCM 03-20008.Joc 10 • • • • • Mr. Graham stated that a tour of the new Ci vie Center building for board and commission mem- bers is being considered; it is not scheduled at this time, but members will be notified of the date and time. VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid had excused herself from the meeting earlier in the evening; no one was present from the Attorney's Office. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Stockwell stated that his schedule will not allow his attendance at the Real Estate Confer- ence in May. Discussion ensued. Mr. Rininger stated that he would be interested in attending if Mr. Willis, for whom a registration has been submitted, cannot attend. The meeting was declared adjourned. - Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secre H:IGROUP\BOARDSIPLANCOMMIMinutc s\M inu1es 2000\PC:-.I 03-20008.doc 11