Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-18 PZC MINUTES• , • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 18, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7 :05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Welker presiding. Present: Lathram, Rininger, Sauter, Stockwell , Willis, Welker Absent: Weber (wi th previous notice) Note: Two (2) vacancies Also present: Mark Graham, Senior Planner Tricia Langon , Planner Nancy Reid , Assistant City Attorney Chairman Welker declared a quorum present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 4, 2000 Chairman Welker stated that the Minutes of April 4, 2000 were to be considered for approval. Rininger moved: Willis seco nded : The Minutes of April 4, 2000 be approved as written . AYES : NAYS: Rininger, Stockwell , Willis , Welker None ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Sauter, Lathram Weber The motion canied. III. FINDINGS OF FACT Skenitt House HD-2000-01 Chairman Welker stated that the Findings of Fact on the Historic Designation of the Skenitt House , 3560 South Bannock Street , are to be considered for approval. Willis moved: Rininger seconded: The Findings of Fact for Historic Designation of the Skerritt House, Case #HD-2000-01 , be approved as written . 1 AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Willis, Rininger, Stockwell, Welker None Lathram, Sauter Weber The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Sidewalk Sales : §16-10-1 B-1 §16-4-12 B-2 §16-4-19 Sign Code § 16-8-1 Definitions CASE #ORD-2000-01 Mr. Welker stated that the issue before the Commission is a Public Hearing on proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He asked for a motion to open the Hear- ing, and that staff present the case. Stockwell moved: Rininger seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #Ord 2000-01 be opened. AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Sauter, Stockwell , Willis , Lathram, Rininger , Welker None None Weber The motion carried. Tricia Langon, Planner, was sworn in . Ms. Langon stated that proof of publication of the Public Notice was previously placed at the Chairman 's place on the dais . Ms . Langon stated that the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance , Title 16 of the Englewood Mu- nicipal Code , address the issue of sidewalk sales. Sidewalk sales are addressed in three Titles of the Englewood Municipal Code (EMC ), Title 7, Public Safety; Title 11 , Public Ways and Prop- erty; and Title 16 , Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance . Englewood merchants have requested permission to hold sidewalk sales during the year, and these requests have been denied based on the prohibition of sidewalk sales in all three cited Titles. The merchants did , earlier this year, address the City Council regarding sidewalk sales , and City Council supports allowing a re- stricted number of sidewalk sales during the year, provided those sales are conducted in accor- dance with City pol icies governing sidewalk sales . City Council directed staff to prepare ordi- nance amendments to Title 7 , Title 11, and Title 16 to permit sidewalk sales pursuant to City pol- icy to be established. The proposed amendment to the cited Titles of the EMC will permit sidewalk sales when author- ized by the City of Englewood . Policies governing conduct of sidewalk sales will be adopted annually by Resolution of the City Council. Ms . Langon pointed out that the Planning Comrnis- sion' s area of responsibility is considering the amendment to Title 16 of the EMC. Ms . Langon • • • then reviewed the proposed amendments to Title 16 , noting that a new definition of "PUBLIC • 2 • • • SIDEWALK SALE" is proposed in Section 8 of Title 16 : "COMMUNITY EVENTS OR CELEBRATIONS ALLOWING THE USE OF PUBLIC SIDEWALKS BY ENGLEWOOD .MERCHANTS IN FRONT OF THEIR BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED EACH YEAR BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION AFrER CONSULT A TI ON WITH THE BUSINESS COM- MUNITY." Section 16-4-10-E-4, B-1 Business District, would be amended to state: ''The outdoor display, storage or sale of clothing or household appliances, furniture or other items commonly used in a home, whether on private or public property, EXCEPT SALES PURSUANT TO A PUBLIC SIDEWALK SALE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN E.M.C. 16-8-1." Section 16-4-12-F-3, B-2 Business Distric t, would be amended to state: ''The outdoor display , storage or sale of household appliances , furniture , or other items commonly used in a home, whether on private or public property, EXCEPT SALES PURSUANT TO A PUBLIC SIDE- WALK SALE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN E .M.C. 16-8-1. Section 16-4-19-7-G would be amended to state: "SIGNS REFERRING TO outdoor display of merchandise on publ ic right-of-way EXCEPT FOR SIGNS FOR SIDEWALK SALES PURSU- ANT TO A PUBLIC SIDEWALK SALE AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN E.M.C. 16-8-1." Ms . Langon pointed out that the proposed amendment to §16-4-19 , Sign Code, is to the currently existing code, and not to the Creative Sign Code , which was recently before the Commission. The proposed amendments will not affect anything contained in the proposed Creative Sign Code . Ms. Langon reiterated that the proposed amendments continue prohibition of sidewalk sales EXCEPT when conducted in accordance with policies to be adopted by the City. Mr. Sauter asked if there would be guidelines on signage for the sidewalk sales, or could they put out any type of sign they want. Ms. Langon stated that allowable signage would be determined in the policies to be adopted by City Council. No sign permits would be involved; these would be temporary signs only. The location and type of signage , location of sale booths -all of this will be addressed in the policies, which can be adjusted from year-to-year by resolution of the City Council. Mr. Welker asked if there has been discussion to limit sidewalk sales to Broadway frontage only. Ms . Langon pointed out that the proposed amendments are applicable to all areas zoned either B- l or B-2. Mr. Welker stated that his concern is width of streets and sidewalks on streets other than South Broadway ; Hampden Avenue, for instance, is much narrower than Broadway , and carries a lot of traffic to and from the Swedish/Craig medical campus. He suggested that width of the street and public sidewalk area are issues that must be considered. He also asked if, by limiting sidewalk sales to B-1 and B-2 zone districts , it precludes sidewalk sales in CityCenter Englewood when development is complete. Ms. Langon stated that sidewalk sales in CityCenter Englewood will be precluded; the zoning of CityCenter Englewood is Planned Unit Develop- ment , and rights-of-way and sidewalks in this development is private property -not public. The private property is under the ownership of the Englewood Environmental Foundation (EEF). Mr. Welker expressed the opinion that sidewalk sales should be permitted in CityCenter Engle- wood . 3 Ms. Reid stated that if the proposed amendment were written to apply to include PUDs, it would be applicable to all PUDs -not just CityCenter Englewood. • Mr. Welker asked if the proposed amendments would be applicable should the City choose to close the street for some reason -parade or something similar. Ms. Langon referenced the defi- nition: " ... Community events or celebrations allowing the use of public sidewalks ... ". Ms. Langon stated that she understands City Council's intent is to choose two dates for this year to allow sidewalk sales and see how these events turn out. Ms. Reid stated that a "pilot project" is being considered -probably before the amendments are approved -to see how the proposal will work. She stated that "Council is still feeling their way ." Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker asked what would prohibit someone from moving cars onto the street or sidewalk and trying to sell as part of the "sidewalk sales". Ms . Langon stated that prohibition on sale of some types of merchandise will be imposed: vehicles , guns , alcohol -all will be prohibited from sale at a sidewalk sale. Mr. Welker suggested that there are businesses in town now that place their merchandise out in front of their place of business -bicycles , lawn mowers, antique stores, flea markets, etc. Mr. Sauter asked for clarification on initiation of the proposal: the business community brought the issue before City Council; are they looking for sidewalk sales two times per year, or wanted to have the sidewalk sales on their own whenever they wanted. Ms. Langon stated that there are some business people who want to do the sidewalk sales every weekend, but because use of pub- lic sidewalks is under the control of the Public Works Department that department and Safety Services are concerned on traffic and safety issues. Ms. Langon discussed the procedure fol-• lowed in development of the proposed amendments , noting that there have been several revisions to the proposal. City Council made the determination to try two sidewalk sales per year, requir- ing no special permit , to see how it will work. There may be further changes forthcoming after the sales have been held. No one else was present to address the Commission on sidewalk sales. Rininger moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #ORD 2000-01 be closed. AYES: NAYS: Stockwell , Willis , Lathram, Rininger, Sauter, Welker None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Weber The motion carried. Mr. Welker asked the pleasure of the Commission. Stockwell moved : Rininger seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of pro- posed amendments to Title 16 , EMC , as set forth in Case #ORD-2000-01. • 4 • • Mr. Welker asked if there was discussion on the motion. Hearing none , he called for the vote . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Willis , Lathram, Rininger, Sauter, Stockwell, Welker None None Weber The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Graham stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . VU. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid discussed her research regarding constitution of a quorum for the Commission. She distributed a memorandum dated April 18 , 2000 detailing her determination on "quorum of the Commission". Ms. Reid stated that her research went as far back as the last approved Commis- sioner's Handbook circa late 1970 's or early 1980 's. In that edition of the Handbook, a quorum is cited as five members . Transitioning to current date/time, there are nine seats on the Commis- sion ; there are currentl y two vacancies on the Commission , leaving an active membership of se ven members . Five members constitute a quorum , and a simple majority of the quorum re- quired to pass an issue is three affirmative votes. Ms . Reid pointed out that if the Commission wanted to change the voting requirement, a 2/3 ma- jority of votes cast would be required to implement the change. Mr. Welker stated that the issue of quorum and Commission vacancies has an impact on the business of the Commission . He pointed out that with two vacancies, if one or two member are out of town on business or have another commitment, and if another member may be ill -the Commission has no quorum and cannot conduct business. The issue of basing a quorum on the "seated" or active members was discussed. It was stated that if a definition of "quorum" was changed to a majorit y of the number seated, the quorum could drop dangerously low very quickly. If two more vacancies occurred now , a quorum of five would be three , two votes would c a rry. The quorum needs to remain at a majority of the "seats ", not the "seated". The issue of voting via phone was also discussed. Ms. Reid stated that she would have to do more research on whether absentee voting would be permissible. Council has set policy for themselves regard- ing voting and attendance , and the Commission may want to discuss this with Council. Mr . Sauter asked the procedure for getting new members to fill the two vacancies. Mr . Welker stated that City Council currently has a policy of interviewing for new board/commission mem- • bers only twice per year -late June , and late January -appointments are then effective in July 5 and February. Mr. Welker stated that the Planning Commission meets two times per month, and vacancies for a several month period inhibit the work program of the Commission. He stated • that he would like to see a "pool" of applicants that have already been interviewed that could be tapped when vacancies on a board or commission occur so that progress of a board or commis- sion is not compromised. Ms. Reid noted that City Council is traditionally short of applicants to fill the vacancies, let alone develop a "pool" of potential board/commission members. Mr. Welker stated that he felt City Council must be alerted to the concerns the Commission has regarding the filling of vacancies. He noted that this issue has arisen before, and will arise again. He suggested he would be willing to write a letter to City Council setting forth the concerns of the Commission and emphasizing the need for a full membership on the Commission. Mr. Welker stated that he would suggest options for the consideration of City Council on ways that the vacancy issue might be addressed, including the development of a "pool" of applicants , or designation of "alternate" members who can participate and vote on issues when designated members may be absent. Mr. Willis suggested that possibly City Council needs to interview for board/commission posi- tions on a quarterly basis, and not semi-annually. Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Welker reiterated his thoughts to be included in the letter to Coun- cil, and stated that he would copy all members of the Commission. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Willis asked if confirmation had been received on a Conference he wanted to attend in early May. Secretary Welty stated that she would call on this issue. Mr. Willis stated that he had received in his packet, notification of a Planning Commissioner 's Workshop sponsored by DRCOG, which is Saturday ,. May 6 1h. He expressed interest in attend- ing this conference, also. Mr. Welker also expressed interest in attending. Mr. Sauter stated he would like to check his calendar to determine his availability. Secretary Welty was asked to check with Commissioner Weber to see if he would be interested. The regular meeting adjourned at 8 :00 p.m. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Commission reconvened in the community room for a study/work session on Metro Vision 2020. Mr. Graham stated that issues to be discussed during this study session include the Multimodal Transportation System, Urban Centers, and Environmental Quality. Mr. Graham emphasized the need for the Commission to keep in mind to view these issues on a "regional" basis, and then to consider the applicability of the regional plan to the local (Englewood) plan. Mr. Graham stated that he has cited the "concepts" and set forth the "objectives" on each of the three cited issues. It is not difficult , when reading the "concept", to support the concepts. Mr. Graham stated that re- garding the multimodal transportation system , the Commission should be aware that all federal 6 • • • • • transportation funds are filtered to local communities through the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Mr. Sauter stated that he read the information mailed to him regarding Metro Vision 2020, and found it to be straightforward and a common sense document. He stated that he could not come up with any "down side" to adopting the regional plan. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that the Englewood Comprehensive Plan rewrite may be based on "concepts" and "objectives", and action steps may not be included in the rewrit- ten document, but in an accompanying policy document. Mr. Graham stated that staff will be asking for "buy-in" to the regional concepts and objectives; implementation steps will be developed. Ms. Reid asked if, once the big picture is adopted, is the objective to mesh the topical plans from DRCOG into the local ordinances and plan. Mr. Graham stated no , the Clean Water Plan, Blue- print for Clean Air and Open Space Topical Plans will not be "meshed". The regional concepts and objectives will need to be applied at the local level. The DRCOG topical plans are much too specific and local adaptation is required. Some of the regional plan concepts/objectives won't impact the City of Englewood very much . Mr. Welker agreed that we may not want to become too specific in the Comprehensive Plan , and action plans should be adopted as implementation documents . He commented that it may be important for Englewood to write our plans. Mr. Gra- ham pointed out the need to have the Regional Plan connection in order to bring funding back to Englewood inasmuch as all funds are passed through DRCOG . Mr. Willis discussed the higher density and light rail development; he urged the need to have major arterial streets to funnel the traffic to the light rail station. Higher density residential de- velopment will occur inevitably, in his opinion. Mr. Graham discussed the southeast corridor for light rail -serving the Denver Tech Center. This area has the highest concentration of jobs in the entire metro area. Mr. Graham stated that Englewood is building two light rail stations, and possibly a third. The need for light rail lines crossing from the southeast corridor to the southwest corridor was discussed. Mr. Willis stated that we need to consider how Englewood can benefit from development of ad- ditional lines, further development of the Little Dry Creek trail system for pedestrian and bicycle traffic -all of these are means to channel additional users to and from the light rail station and CityCenter. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham stated that there are developers who have expressed interest in redeveloping sites south of U.S. 285 for office use because of the proximity to the light rail station; there will be a need to develop improved pedestrian access across U.S. 285 for those employees who may use the light rail as transportation to and from their employment. Mr. Welker stated that Englewood has problems staring us in the face -development of the Gen- eral Iron Works (GIW) site, CityCenter, light rail. Mr. Willis stated that light rail will change the 7 dynamics of the City, both north and south of U.S. 285. There needs to be improved pedestrian and bicycle routes to light rail stations -at CityCenter and at Oxford. Mr. Welker stated he is • very interested in how people will choose to get to the light rail station -by car, by bicycle, by bus, or by walking. Mr. Stockwell discussed the need to approach RTD to request additional local circulator buses to serve Englewood and transport light rail riders to the station . Mr. Graham stated that funds for RTD projects must also go through DRCOG. He further advised the Commission that Lauri Dannemiller, Planning Analyst , is working on development of a shuttle bus system within Englewood. Ms. Dannemiller is scheduled to provide a brief update on the shuttle service on May 16 1 h. Mr. Graham stated that the shuttle service will need to determine concentrations of potential riders. Mr. Welker asked if the City could ask RTD about changes in bus routes serving Englewood. Bus routings to the light rail station were discussed. Mr. Welker stated that the shuttle service needs to cross Broadw a y; he noted that there are two high-rise buildings for elderly citizens , many of whom no longer drive. Many of these senior citizens may want to ride light rail to Denver, or to Littleton , but need to provided a safe means to get to the light rail station. Mr. Willis agreed the City needs to consider more means of trans- portation than just a car; he asked if there will be a place for storage of bicycles at the light rail station. Mr. Graham stated there will be bike lockers at the light rail station for bicyclists. Bicycle routes , existing and proposed, were discussed. Mr. Welker stated that he would like an opportunity to meet with RTD representatives . The City needs to determine ways to get access from the light rail stations across Broadway , across U.S. 285 , across Oxford, Dartmouth , and Santa Fe . Ms. Lathram stated that she is in favor of adopting the concepts and objectives of the Metro Vi- sion 2020 Plan , and build in more detail applicable to Englewood later. The need for transportation links along Oxford to the light rail station was further discussed . The width of Oxford A venue right-of-way was also discussed. Mr. Graham stated that one of the responsibilities of the Planning Commission set forth in the City Charter is consideration and recommendation of a Capital Improvement Plan. Many of the improvements -access improvements , bicycle trail development , extension , or modification , ac- quisition of open space , and similar activities, can be recommended for funding through the City 's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. Graham di scussed the open space committee formed by Arapahoe County , and their proposal to impose a tax to finance acquisition of open space . Mr. Graham stated that Englewood City Council is supportive of open space , but does want to have an Englewood representative on the Arapahoe County Open Space Committee. Mr. Graham stated that as he understands the proposal , the County open space program would not allow construction of "facilities" with funds that revert to municipalities -the funds would be • used to acquire land. Mr. Graham estimated that the funds Englewood might realize from the • 8 • • • County funding at 1/6th of a cent might come to $300,000 per year. These funds could be used to acquire property adjacent to existing parks for expansion purposes, but could not be used to con- struct any type of new facility within the parks. Mr. Willis asked how much of the taxes accrued from this proposed tax increase might be attributed to Englewood. Mr. Graham estimated ac- crual attributable to Englewood might come to $1,000,000 per year, and questioned that voters would approve an open space tax. Mr. Willis wondered if it would be better for Englewood to go in with Arapahoe County on the open space tax issue, or try to float a tax increase on our own. The issue of voter approval of a special tax for open space purposes was discussed. Mr. Graham noted that South Suburban Parks & Recreation District is going to the voters of Arapahoe County , and jurisdictions served by SSPRD , requesting a tax increase in May, 2000; whether Arapahoe County voters will approve two tax increases in one year is debatable . The change in Englewood demographics was brought up for discussion; Mr. Graham noted that the latest demographics indicates a rise in the number of young single people, and young married couples. It was pointed out that, traditionally, the younger people are not as likely to participate in the vot- ing process as older individuals. Mr. Graham noted that to pre vent air pollution , the cost estimate is $10 per year per household. The open space tax is estimated to cost the average Englewood household $28 per year. Further brief discussion ensued on the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Graham stated that budget calendars have not yet been posted, but typically between now and August the budget process kicks in. We should know shortly what the budget schedule is. Mr. Graham noted that Parks & Recreation Director Jerrell Black is scheduled to be before the Commission on May 2 to discuss the expansion of Centennial Park, and possibly he could also discuss capital improve- ment projects for his department at that time . Urban Centers concept and objectives were then discussed. Mr. Graham stated that DRCOG is looking to Englewood to serve as a "model" for description of an urb an center. Staff has , in turn , looked at other municipalities -not necessarily in Colorado --to determine what makes them an "urban center". The prevalent attitude has seemed to be that "everything will happen when the train opens." Mr. Welker stated that whatever it takes to become an urban center won't happen at once , but will evolve over a period of years. Mr. Graham stated that Susan Blansett, who made a presentation to the Commission at the last meeting, made some good points when she cited the "low vacancy/low rent equals low quality" for industrial and office tenants. Mr. Gra- h am discussed the need to look for ways to attract high quality industrial tenants and office ten- ants . Ms . Lathram expressed the opinion that the demographics of Englewood will be changing, and that the quality of housing stock will change. Mr. Welker stated that he is of the opinion that Englewood attracts people who want to live in smaller homes , close to their places of employ- ment. The marketing impact on all facets of development and redevelopment were discussed. Mr. Stockwell asked if there is a way to require any business/industry changing ownership or type of operation to comply with a type of higher quality business or industrial use . Discussion ensued . Ms. Reid stated that this could result in a "taking" of property , and could be very costly to the 9 City. Mr. Welker stated that a lot of areas will be changing in the next 10 to 20 years, and ques- tioned the use of a "transitional" zoning process. Mr. Stockwell expressed the opinion that things are being done backward; the shuttle system and bus service should be in place before the light rail station opens. Mr. Graham cautioned members to keep in mind that whatever the City does, it impacts not only the residents but people who work in Englewood. He again cited Susan Blansett's presentation when she stated that Englewood is in a unique position of "importing" employees. Discussion ensued. Mr. Willis spoke to the need to educate the citizenry of Englewood. He stressed the need to get people to think about other modes of transportation than the private vehicle. He stated that an urban center is getting all the facts of the plan to work together smoothly -transportation, devel- opment of new housing, business, and industrial uses, development of open space, air and water quality, etc. The Capital Improvement Program was briefly discussed. The need to get "buy-in" by City Council and other Departments on improvement projects -such as a safe way for pedestrians to cross Oxford Avenue -is necessary. Funding of projects was briefly mentioned; use of funds other than General Fund monies was also briefly mentioned . Mr. Welker stated that if the Com- mission can support a proposal from another department or commission, or if another department or commission can support a proposal of the Planning Commission, this will provide a better support base for Council consideration. Mr. Welker discussed the broader scope of discussions before the Commission now than in past years ; he acknowledged that the Department funds had been severely reduced because of budgetary constraints and was under-staffed for several years. Mr. Willis stated that he understood the Commission was encouraged to be "visionary" in devel- oping the Capital Improvement Projects. Mr. Graham suggested that the Commission might want to keep in mind whether a proposed project implements the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gra- ham recalled that when Denver Mayor Federico Pena was in office , Denver departments did not submit projects for capital funding unless it supported the Denver Master Plan. Mr. Welker stated that the "visionary" approach for the Commission is very important -the Commission is looking ahead 10 to 20 years and "planning". Mr. Willis stated that he realized people do not react well to "change", but change will happen; the Commission cannot control the change , but can provide guidelines for this change. Use of moratoriums was discussed. Mr. Graham cited the moratorium that was imposed on the north Englewood area when inquiries were made regarding use of the GIW site by a chemical mixing use, and a "car-parting" operation. Englewood's zoning code still allows uses that have been disallowed by other communities. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stockwell again asked whether property could be rezoned, and property owners told that the use must be changed to a specific type of use. Ms. Reid reiterated that this will be a "taking", and would have financial ramifications for the City. Mr. Graham stated that land costs drive re- development. Discussion ensued. Mr. Graham discussed recent inquiries staff has received for several sites in close proximity to the light rail station -both at City Center and at Oxford. Mr . 10 • • • • • Graham noted that CityCenter will have 450 units of high-end residential rental units, plus new retail establishments. A recent inquiry in the Oxford station area was for a high-tech industrial proposal. He stated that he finds it intriguing to have the number and variety of prospective de- velopers interested in locating along the light rail line. Mr. Graham noted that the investments made along Santa Fe Drive have spurred the interest in development. Land prices will continue to increase, and Englewood needs to have quality of life protections in place to attract new resi- dential, business, and industrial development. Environmental Quality concepts were discussed. Environmental quality addresses both water quality and air quality. Mr. Graham noted that the Denver Metro area had improved on the air pollution issue, but EPA enacted new standards in 1997, and we are once again close to violating federal standards. Mr. Graham stated that the Clean Water report is quite technical in nature . The objectives were briefly cited and discussed. Mr. Graham noted that storm sewer systems impact water quality in the Platte River. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Welker raised the issue regarding "temporary carports", and noted that Littleton is presently looking at zoning standards to govern such structures. He noted that several of these temporary structures have been erected in Englewood, many of them in "front yard setbacks", and are not attractive. Ms. Reid suggested we need to look at the definition of "structure" . The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. , J ALdv j ~4,,,- Gertructe G. Welty , Recording Secre ry 11