Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-09-16 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 16, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order in the Englewood City Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Dummer, Garrett, Welker, Cottle, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: Horner, Styes, Tobin, Weber Staff present: Assistant City Attorney Reid Neighborhood/Environmental Technician Langon Planning Assistant/Intern Denning II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 19, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of August 19, 1997 were to be considered for ap- proval. Dummer moved: Welker seconded: The Minutes of August 19, 1997 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Garrett, Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Douglas None None Horner, Styes, Tobin, Weber The motion carried. ill. REGIONAL AIR QUALITY CONTROL. Blueprint for Clean Air Ms. Langon, Neighborhood & Environmental Technician, stated that breathing is necessary to sustain life, and that we all take the air we breathe for granted. However, the expanding population base, development sprawl, and increased vehicular traffic all contribute to dimin- ishment of the quality of air we breathe. Regional Air Quality Control (RAQC) has developed 1 a "Blueprint for Clean Air ". Ms. Langon introduced Ms. Meg Franko from RAQC, who pre- ~~~-• Ms. Franko gave a visual presentation of the proposed goals of the Blueprint for Clean Air . This presentation proposed several means by which the goals of the Blueprint for Clean Air might be attained; she cited priority measures which included "pricing measures ", "land use measures", "supply measures " and "support measures". These facets were further broken down to address issues such as parking pricing , fuel tax increase , VMT/emissions fees , toll roads/congestion pricing, pay-at-the-pump insurance , accessible community design , regional growth management , parking supply restrictions , provision of transit , provision of alternative modes and alternatives to travel , voluntary site-based programs , and coordinated education campaign. Ms. Franko also noted that, while the Denver Metro area has addressed the clean air issue , and has achieved compliance standards regarding levels for carbon monoxide , ozone , and particu- late matter, we still must deal with the visibility issue -the "Brown Cloud ", which exceeds the State visibility standard over 100 days each year. Contributors to the Brown Cloud include sulfur dioxide, PM 10, and PM 2.5 . In the next 20 years, the population is projected to in- crease by 31 % , but the vehicle miles traveled (VMT ) is expected to increase by 63 3. Even if the Metro Vision 2020 Plan is enacted , the VMT is projected to increase by 53 3. Ms . Franko stated that the RAQC is looking at all sources of pollutants: industrial sources , vehicular maintenance, dry cleaners , restaurants -all of whom contribute to the air quality problem. Ms . Franko stated that RAQC has been working on the Blueprint for Clean Air program for almost two years. They are now in Phase II of a three phase program. Phase II entails further research and analysis on costs , benefits , and feasibility of the possible strategies. RAQC will continue to work to raise awareness of air quality issues by distribution of information , pre- senting the plan to all involved jurisdictions , and work to gain support of the jurisdictions, business community , and residents. Phase III will occur in 1998 , during which time RAQC will identify options for improved air quality for further review by the public , the state , and local policy makers , as well as public and private sector interest groups. Ms . Franko invited questions from the members of the Commission. Ms . Cottle inquired whether "event parking " would be subject to the parking pricing proposal, or whether this would apply primarily to commuters. Ms. Franko stated that the Plan , as pres- ently formed , is focused on commuters and not on special events. Ms . Franko suggested that the parking issue and urban design issue are pertinent to the City of Englewood in light of the up-coming redevelopment on the mall site, and other development in the area. Ms . Franko posed the following questions for the Commission to consider: 1) ·. How does Englewood feel about the effort to shift transportation costs from the tax- payer to the user? 2 • • • • • 2) Under what circumstances would Englewood support measures to better manage our parking supply? 3) To what extent do we rely on urban design measures to reduce VMT and related emis- sions? Mr. Garrett inquired of staff how many commuters come to Englewood as their point of desti- nation. Mr. Simpson stated that the City does have a vibrant industrial community, and may attract commuters from outside the immediate area. Mr. Simpson estimated possibly 50% to 60% of the day-time work force may be commuters. Ms. Franko suggested that consideration might be given to "shared parking", which could eliminate the need for so much parking area, and give an opportunity for additional landscap- ing, or developments in closer proximity to existing parking . Mr. Simpson stated that one important issue for the Planning Commission to consider is the fact that, while we are bringing air quality issues forward for discussion on what can be done in and by the City on future development, Englewood is highly affected by other communities. He pointed out that commuters travel through Englewood from points east, west, south, and north to wherever their place of employment might be -whether it's the Tech Center, down- town Denver, or other employment centers. South Broadway, South Logan, South Santa Fe Drive, South University Boulevard, South Federal Boulevard, U.S. 285, Belleview Avenue - all carry a heavy volume of traffic, and all of the commuters who "pass through" impact the air quality for residents in Englewood. Mr. Garrett noted that there are "shared" parking lots in the downtown business area of Englewood, and that a great number of people use bus service to the industrial businesses. Ms. Franko suggested that with the redevelopment of the mall, perhaps the City would want to consider priced parking for commuters. Mr. Welker pointed out that there will be a light rail station incorporated in the mall redevelopment, with a parking area for the park and ride com- muters; he asked if this will be priced parking, or free to the light rail riders. Ms. Cottle noted that if light rail riders are charged for parking at the light rail station, and charged to use the light rail, this removes incentives to use light rail. Mr. Garrett suggested that one of the goals is to relieve congestion in downtown Denver. Mr. Garrett stated that he works in the Tech Center, and he can drive to work in 20 minutes, but if he used the RTD bus system, it would take at least 45 minutes to get to work. He stated that he used to bicycle to work; however, this is dangerous, particularly at the Belleview/1-25 intersection. Bicycle paths are, so far, de- signed for pleasure and not to accommodate the bicycle-commuter. Mr. Welker noted that redevelopment of the mall is being viewed as a "transit-oriented devel- opment". Mr. Welker stated that there are many factors which must be considered in the Blueprint for Clean Air program, and Englewood is only a very small part of the program. He questioned whether the mall redevelopment would be large enough to have impact on the air 3 quality . Mr. Welker agreed that the commuters going through Englewood have a great impact on the air quality. Mr. Douglas asked if Ms. Franko was suggesting that parking spaces be limited. This is one of the proposals; this would mean that rather than requiring a "minimum" amount of parking for a development, a "maximum" number of spaces would be imposed. This will have to be addressed by each local governmental jurisdiction -amendment of ordinances, etc. Ms. Franko reiterated that the number of parking spaces is overbuilt, and limits the ability to de- velop to a greater density. Discussion ensued. Ms. Cottle asked for more information on the Pay-at-the-Pump Insurance. Ms. Franko stated that this proposal would entail paying for car insurance when you purchase gasoline for the vehicle; the additional money charged for the gasoline would be placed in an insurance "pool". The theory is that the more charged for gasoline, the less driving will be done. The less driv- ing that is done, the lower your car insurance will be. Ms. Franko stated that this proposal isn't "popular" with insurance companies and lawyers . Mr. Douglas stated that a lot of the development/redevelopment in Englewood is "infill", and we are keeping development close to the core of the city. Mr. Douglas expressed the opinion that the "sprawl " will reach a point that it will not be further tolerated, and that further devel- opment will be at a higher density. Mr . Welker pointed out that development is occurring on five and ten acre sites, and people are commuting 40 and 50 miles to their place of employ- ment. Mr. Douglas asked if there were further questions of Ms. Franko. No further questions were posed. Mr. Douglas thanked Ms. Franko for her presentation. IV. TRANSIT '97 GUIDE THE RIDE. Mr. Denning, Planning Assistant/Intern, addressed the Commission. Mr. Denning stated that on August 4, 1997, Mayor Burns signed a resolution on the Guide the Ride initiative. Transit '97 is a broad-based coalition of business and community leaders, neighborhood associations, local elected officials and environmental groups working toward the passage of a proposed tax initiative supporting transit. Mr . Denning introduced Mr. Ira Schriver, an advocate of public transportation. • • Mr. Schriver addressed the Commission and stated that the Guide the Ride initiative is dedi- cated to promote construction of light rail and other improvements. Mr. Schriver that the metro area population is estimated to increase by 343 within the next 20 years, roads will carry more traffic, and increased road improvements will be required to handle the traffic in- crease. Mr. Schriver pointed out that one light rail car carries as many people as a five lane highway; there are no emissions from the trains to add to the pollution problem, and the trains run on time. Mr. Schriver noted that there was a brief down-time in August when the down- town Denver area was hit by a bad hailstorm, and street plows had to be used to clear the streets and rail lines. It is also estimated that High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes will in-• 4 • crease transit ridership by 50%. The Guide the Ride initiative, if approved, will finance the expansion of 19 current park-and-ride stations, and the construction of 41 new park-and-ride stations. Mr. Schriver announced, in response to a question posed in the earlier discussion, that park-and-ride will have free parking for those using light rail. Mr. Schriver stated that the Denver Union station will serve as the terminal for the transportation system, and the focus will be in downtown Denver. Mr. Schriver displayed several graphics indicating location of the new and expanded park-and-ride stations, the additional light rail lines which will be con- structed, HOV lanes. Mr. Schriver stated that the Transit '97 plan will address the transit problems, and provide alternatives to the single-passenger car mode of transportation. It will improve traffic into and through the suburbs. He emphasized that this is not just a light rail program, and does include small circulator buses. It is basically a re-deployment of existing bus system, and there will be an intensive criss-cross network of bus routes. Mr. Schriver emphasized that this is not a "quick-cure" system, and that no federal or state funds are incor- porated into the proposal. The initiative is to urge approval of the Guide the Ride, which will impose a tax of 4¢ per each $10 purchase. Any funds received from federal, state, or private sources would be used to reduce the need for bonds. When the bonds are repaid, 0.2 % of the tax will "sunset", while the remaining 0.2 % will remain in place to finance maintenance of the system. Mr. Douglas inquired about the State surplus funds that Governor Romer has discussed, and the tax issue that is no longer needed. Mr. Schriver stated that this was a gas tax; the state economy is quite good now, and it was determined that this tax could not be justified. • Ms. Cottle asked for clarification on whether expansion of park-and-ride stations would be only for the size of the existing stations, or whether it will entail construction of new stations. Mr. Schriver stated that the expansion program will address both issues: new construction in addition to increase of size for existing stations. Use of the existing park-and-ride stations at Broadway and at Alameda was discussed. Mr. Schriver pointed out that Englewood residents who currently drive to either the Broadway or Alameda station will only have to drive to the Englewood station to catch the light rail. When the mall is redeveloped, it will be a great "draw" for light rail ridership. • Mr. Welker stated it appeared on the one graphic displayed that downtown Denver is the "hub", with "spokes" to serve suburban areas. Mr. Schriver agreed, and stated that ideally, the "rim" tying the spokes together would be developed. He pointed out, however, that a por- tion of the "rim" will be in Douglas County, which is not part of the RTD District. Mr. Welker discussed the arguments that were prevalent for or against the construction of C- 470; the instant impact of C-470 once it was constructed is that it is as badly congested as I-25. Discussion ensued. Mr. Schriver stated that a trip "downtown" could take up to 51 minutes in the next few years. Mr. Schriver commented that the southwest corridor (Santa Fe line) will be used as a "test" for construction of future lines. Ms. Cottle noted that while there may be no emissions from light rail; however, the trains are dependent on electricity and there are pollutants from power plants. Mr. Schriver agreed that 5 there are pollutants from the power plants. Mr. Schriver discussed the "sub-stations" that are located along the light rail lines, noting that these substations have been camouflaged so they • do not intrude visually. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Schriver thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address them. Mr. Douglas ex- pressed the appreciation of the Commission for his presentation. V. FENCE ORDINANCE CASE #OR-97-03 Mr. Denning stated that this issue is a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance, §16-4-17, and is one of the steps suggested to implement the South Broadway Action Plan adopted earlier this year. Even though the proposed amendments are a result of the South Broadway Action Plan, it has a broader base, and will apply to the residential community, business community, and industrial community. Mr. Denning addressed points of modifica- tion, and the steps the staff has taken to publicize the proposed amendment , including distribu- tion to City Departments such as Building & Safety, Public Works (Traffic Division), the City Attorney, and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Denning reported that he and Mr. Simpson also attended an Governmental Affairs Committee meeting (Englewood Chamber) at which meeting the proposed amendments were discussed . Mr. Denning commented that the feed- back which staff has received has been fairly positive regarding the amendments. Issues that staff has looked at include the sight-triangle, the height of fences, maintenance of fences, etc. Mr. Denning asked if the Commission has reviewed the proposed amendments, and if there were any questions. Mr. Douglas questioned the sight-triangle designation, and the limitation of anything in excess of three feet in height in this triangle. He questioned how this will impact properties with ele- vations from curb line , and also questioned why the measurement is from curb line. Mr. Douglas stated that it appears the imposition of the sight-triangle will impact the building en- velope, and that structures on many properties will extend into the sight triangle. If the pro- posed amendment is enacted, as written, a number of properties will be non-conforming. Mr. Simpson stated that one of the issues that must be considered in addressing the height of fences and the sight-triangle is that of safety. Existing structures will not have to be demol- ished or remodeled to comply with new provisions ; the focus will be on applications for new construction to assure no encroachment into the sight-triangle. Mr. Douglas asked whether there are any existing guidelines or restrictions imposed on alley intersections with streets. He stated that he could find nothing in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance applicable to alleys. Mr . Simpson noted that two people from Public Works are present, Mr. Rick Kahm and Mr. Ladd Vostry, who might want to address the issue of sight triangles. Mr. Simpson noted that one of the things staff is trying to address in the revision of the Zoning Ordinance is to cite standards that are felt appropriate. Mr. Douglas stated that he cannot understand why we would want to make so many properties non-conforming, suggest- ing that every corner property would have some degree of non-conformity . 6 • • • • • Mr. Kahm and Mr . Vostry addressed the Commission. Mr . Kahm stated that in the Model Traffic Code, alleys are defined as streets , and the sight-triangle restrictions apply to street in- tersections, alley/street intersections, and driveway/street intersections. Code Enforcement personnel can require homeowners to remove shrubbery or trees that inhibit visibility at inter- sections , and height and location of fences are reviewed to assure that visibility is not inhib- ited . Mr. Douglas commented that at first glance, the proposed amendments "look like its a fence ordinance " , but it encompasses much more than just height and location of fences. This pro- posed ordinance addresses visual barriers . He stated that he doesn 't understand where this is coming from , and it doesn 't make sense to him; further the alley sight-triangle "really bugs " him. Mr. Douglas reiterated his belief that enactment of this proposed amendment will create many non-conforming structures. He questioned that the alley sight-triangle really had to be 25' x 25'. Mr. Vostry stated that the sight-triangle sizes are determined , in part, by speed of abutting streets. Solid fences constructed right to property lines on corner lots impact the visibility of motorists entering the street from the alley . A motorist cannot even see what is on the side- walk, let alone what is in the line of traffic, and must pull out of the alley into the line of traf- fic to get any visibility ; this creates a hazardous situation. The 25 ' x 25' sight-triangle does provide visibility , and also provides a driver time to react to a pedestrian or motorist before pulling into the intersection . Ms. Cottle asked how the sight-triangle issue came about; is there a problem with enforcement. Mr . Vostry stated the sight-triangle is to address visual obstruction problems at intersections. Mr. Douglas cited his property, noting there is about a three foot difference in elevation from curb line to the house. The sight-triangle restriction would restrict the "building envelope" on his property. Mr. Vostry stated that eye-level for motorists is approximately 42 inches above ground, and that the motorist must be able to see both ways at street intersections for 300 feet. Mr . Douglas reiterated his concern that approval of this proposed amendment will make many properties non-conforming. Point of measurement was discussed . Mr. Welker asked how the sight-triangle is measured at alleys where there may not be curb. Mr. Vostry stated that measurements would be from the travel lane, which is typically middle of the alley. Mr. Vostry stated that the figures cited for the sight-triangle are very conservative , and when staff views intersections upon application for fence construction or building construction, they must take into consideration ex isting build- ings, or plantings that may inhibit visibility. Mr. Kahm and Mr. Vostry both stated that dis- tances cited for the sight-triangles is standard , and that whatever is placed in this sight-triangle is subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Welker suggested the definition for vision-triangle area should be revised. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Welker suggested that the City may need to take stronger steps to control tr affic . Mr. Vostry stated that the 300 feet cited in the sight-triangle on street intersections is a safe 7 stopping distance. Mr. Welker pointed out another issue that must be considered on sight- triangles , which is placement of signs. He commented that trees must be trimmed back to • eliminate visual inhibition , but some signs allowed are in that sight-triangle. Mr. Simpson agreed that this needs to be looked at. Mr. Dummer asked if there isn 't an unwritten law that requires a motorist to stop when exiting from an alley into the street. Mr. Vostry stated that this is correct . Mr. Douglas commented that he might measure a 25 foot triangle off of his property to see what actual impact of the proposal is; he again stated that he felt every corner property will have some degree of non-conformance if the alley sight-triangle is imposed. Mr. Kahm stated that a typical residential street is 60 foot of right-of-way, with a 32 foot roadway; commercial and industrial streets have a 40 foot roadway . Measurements are from curb line on streets. On-street parking can impact the sight-triangle , also . Vehicles may not be parked closer than 30 feet to the intersection on a major street , and must be parked five feet from alley intersections . Streets carrying a heavy volume of traffic that allow parking on-street , such as South Logan, were briefly discussed. Mr. Vostry reiterated that the sight-triangle issue is not new; it is in the Model Traffic Code, and has been enforced. It is now being placed in the regulations for fences. Mr. Vostry stated that the concern is structures erected or planted in the sight-triangle that a motorist may not see through. Mr. Douglas asked where in the Municipal Code the 25 foot visibility triangle for alley intersections is addressed. Mr. Vostry acknowledged that this provision is not in the Englewood Municipal Code , it is in the Model Traffic Code , written by the National Traffic Institute. Mr . Douglas reiterated his opinion that this provision is not needed in the residential areas of Englewood. Mr. Vostry again stated that anything placed within this sight-triangle is subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer . They try to meet with the homeowner to discuss the need for the visibil- ity clearance , and people comply once they understand that this is required for safety reasons. Mr. Douglas noted that there is construction at Dartmouth and South Grant , it appears that a portion of this addition will be within the sight-triangle. Mr. Vostry stated that this will be checked. Mr. Kahm cited a wrought iron fence installed at Dartmouth and South Lipan; this property was impacted by the improvements to South Santa Fe Drive, and an existing fence was re- moved , and the wrought iron fence was reinstalled with the permission of the State Highway Department; however , the wrought iron poles can present a solid visual barrier. Staff has been working to get this corrected for over two years . Mr. Kahm noted that in certain instances, both wrought iron and chain link fences can appear "solid ". 8 • • • • • Ms. Cottle asked what the comments from the business community have been on the proposed ordinance amendments; she also asked about placement of power poles which could be a visual barrier. Mr. Denning stated that the majority of comments from the business community have been good. There was some concern expressed that the sight-triangle provisions would result in a property use loss, but the need to keep clear view in this area has been explained to the businessmen who attended the Chamber meeting. The placement of utility poles is included in "exceptions" which may be granted by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Simpson expanded on the concern voiced by business people about loss of use of property; the new fencing provisions will not mean the property cannot be used, just that the business cannot create a visual barrier by the use of that sight-triangle. The need to provide a clear, unobstructed visual area will apply to fences and landscaping. Mr. Denning addressed Mr . Douglas's concern regarding creation of non-conforming proper- ties if the proposed amendment is approved. The existing structures (garages/fences) could be "grandfathered" in, but no formal decision has been made. Mr. Welker commented that it is not uncommon to have restrictions applicable to corner lots that would not apply to interior lots. Mr . Douglas reiterated his opinion that imposition of the street and alley sight-triangles would restrict building envelopes for corner properties. Mr. Welker pointed out that when some of the older sections of Englewood were developed many years ago, we did not have the traffic volumes and the need for sight-triangles . It is many of these properties that may be made non-conforming if the proposed amendment is approved . Mr. Simpson commented that staff is looking at ways to increase the building envelope; set- backs may be reduced to allow larger homes. Mr. Douglas stated that we can't have things both ways -an increased building envelope by reducing setbacks and the imposition of sight- triangles which decrease the building envelope . Mr. Simpson suggested that staff do further work on the proposed amendment regarding the sight-triangles and clarification of definitions, and bring the proposal back to the Commission for further review prior to Public Hearing . Mr. Welker commented that he did not think the proposal will reduce the building envelope as much as Mr. Douglas fears . Mr . Douglas reiterated his opinion that if the proposal was only a fence ordinance, it's OK; however , it appears to him that this is a "visual obstruction ordi- nance". He also pointed out that "saplings" are permitted to be planted in this area; however, the sapling becomes a tree which can be a visual obstruction. Mr. Denning stated that the sap- ling can be trimmed to the proper height and as it matures the leaf canopy would be high enough to eliminate the visual problems . Ms. Cottle suggested that if the proposed amendment is an implementation step for the South Broadway Action Plan should be strengthened for the SBAP area. Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas stated that it was stated the proposed amendment is an implementation tool for the South Broadway Action Plan; however, the SBAP has nothing to do with his property, and this 9 proposed ordinance addresses all properties. Mr . Simpson agreed, pointing out that fencing restrictions apply to the entire City of Englewood. • Mr. Kahm again addressed the Commission, reiterating that the sight-triangle addresses trees, shrubs, fences or other structures, and that an "alley" is a "street", and that a "driveway" is also considered the same way. The sight-triangle restrictions have been applied for a number of years . Further discussion of definition of alley, street, and driveway ensued. Ms. Reid cited the defi- nitions of alley and street as contained in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, commenting that while the street definition indicates a "principal means of access", and the alley definition does not , both are "public ways". Ms. Reid further pointed out that there is a Traffic Code in the Municipal Code, but there may be conflicting definitions between the Zoning Ordinance and Traffic Code. Mr. Vostry again pointed out that these are minimum standards which the City follows. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Garrett inquired about the traffic counter at Quincy and Logan. Mr. Vostry stated that City does periodic traffic counts throughout the City. Mr. Kahm noted that a comment was made earlier in the meeting regarding C-470 and the high volume of traffic using it when it opened; he noted that traffic volumes from other highly trav- eled thoroughfares did not decrease when C-470 opened . Mr. Kahm stated that the Park-and-Ride station proposed in conjunction with the mall redevel- opment will accommodate 660 vehicles, with a potential expansion area to accommodate an additional 500 + spaces. Mr . Kahm stated that the issue of shared parking is being considered, and that Mr. Simpson is working on this topic diligently. Mr. Douglas thanked Mr. Kahm and Mr. Vos try for their attendance and participation in the discussion. V. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson stated that the Planning Commission received a nice commendation from Little- ton Council Representative Kronenberg regarding the Cornerstone Park Public Hearing. Mr. Simpson updated the Planning Commission on the mall redevelopment; a transfer of prop- erty agreement has been approved, and we will be closing on this transfer during the week of October 6th. 10 • • • • • The CRNA/Compass group discussions are progressing very satisfactorily, and the group is getting very good input from the community representatives . This effort will conclude by Oc- tober 22°d, and a report forthcoming very shortly after that date. The CRNA/Compass group is composed of professionals from the fields of Planning, Banking and Finance, and Develop- ers who are interested on focusing on a transit-oriented development. There are three sites in the Denver metro area this group is addressing, but the other sites are several years from rede- velopment, and the group is interested in more immediate results . Mr. Simpson reported on the General Iron/North Englewood Small Area Plan efforts. Two additional meetings are planned on October 8 and October 30; these two meetings will be at Bishop Elementary School in the All Purpose Room. Civitas is assisting staff on this project, and discussions are going well. Issues discussed include a variety of ways to redevelop the General Iron site. City Council placed a moratorium on development of industrial properties in the area between Dartmouth, Yale, Broadway and South Santa Fe, and this moratorium will expire in February, 1998. Staff will bring to the Commission the Small Area Plan and imple- mentation steps , which could include zoning changes. There have been discussions with sev- eral developers, and an agreement was approved on September 16th with Cohen Brothers, Inc. Mr. David Cohen will participate in the discussions to determine a market-based development that will be consistent with City goals, and be compatible with the neighborhood . Mr . Simp- son stated that one of the possibilities for the redevelopment of the area will encompass a vari- ety of "developments" -including housing, job generation opportunities, and will also focus on transit-oriented developments. Mr. Simpson noted that while both the mall site redevelop- ment, and the redevelopment of the General lron/N orth Englewood area will be focused on transit-oriented developments, the mall redevelopment area will definitely be more commer- cially focused , and the General Iron/North Englewood redevelopment will have a more resi- dential/ employment focus. Mr. Simpson reminded members of the Commission that the Clean, Green and Proud Commis- sion will hold the final Household Hazardous Waste drop-off for 1997 on September 20th at 2800 South Platte River Drive. Hours from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. Mr. Simpson stated that staff is working on other ordinance revisions, specifically citing tele- communication towers provisions. Mr. Simpson reported that the search for a new City Manager has been narrowed to two can- didates; interviews are scheduled for September 29. Mr. Simpson reported on an up-coming Colorado Community Revitalization Association meeting which will be in Longmont on October 24th and 25th. If any member is desirous of attending, the City will pay registration and meals . This meeting will be focusing on redevel- opment of old shopping centers; one of the key-note speakers will be DURA Executive Direc- tor Susan Powers. She will discuss redevelopment of the University Hills Mall. Mr. Simpson asked that Commission mark their calendars for the Holiday Dinner on Decem- ber 18th . 11 VIII. COMMISSONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Douglas distributed a paper on "Conflict of Interest" which he obtained at a recent DRCOG workshop. He suggested that it be reviewed, and might be included in the Planning Commissioner's Handbook. Ms. Reid stated that she has reviewed the document, and it is a synopsis of State Statutes. Ms. Reid agreed that it is good for information purposes, but may be more than the Commission wants to put into the Handbook. Mr. Simpson stated that staff will also review the document, and may incorporate it into the Handbook. Mr. Douglas inquired about restrictions/regulations on satellite dishes. He asked if an 18 inch dish would be subject to restrictions. Mr. Simpson stated that he was unsure, but would look into this and report back to the Commission. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secre lnbd\grouplboards\plancommlminutes 97\pcm 09-97a.doc 12 .. • • •