Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-07 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COJMMISSION OCTOBER 7, 1997 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p .m., Chairman Douglas presiding. Present: Homer, Styes, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Absent: None Staff Present: Denning, Planning Assistant/Intern Langon, Neighborhood & Environmental Technician Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. September 16, 1997 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of September 16, 1997 were to be considered for approval. Dummer moved: Garrett seconded: The Minutes of September 16, 1997 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Welker, Cottle , Dummer, Garrett , Douglas None Styes, Tobin, Weber, Homer None The motion carried. III. BROOKRIDGE SHOPPING CENTER Planned Unit Development Amendment CASE #PUD-97-01 Mr. Douglas stated that the issue before the Commission is a proposed amendment to the Brookridge Shopping Center Planned Unit Development. He asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved: • Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-97-01 be opened. 1 AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Styes, Douglas None None None The motion carried. Ms. Tricia Langon was sworn in. Ms. Langon submitted to the Chair proof of publication of the Notice of Public Hearing, and Certification of Posting for signs placed on-site giving notice of the Public Hearing. Ms. Langon stated that the Planned Unit Development was considered by the Planning Commission one year ago, and ultimately approved by the City Council. The City Council, during the course of their deliberations, established requirements on the Planned Unit Development that were not considered by the Planning Commission; one of these re- quirements was the installation of a double-sided, eight-foot wooden fence along the eastern boundary of the shopping center from East Belleview A venue to East Centennial A venue. The applicant is requesting two modifications to the approved Planned Unit Development. Mr. Spriggs, the applicant, is requesting approval of a change in roofing materials for buildings #1, #2, and #8 from standing seam metal roofing to dimensional asphalt shingles. Mr. Spriggs is proposing the change to the roofing materials to provide a cohesive appearance of the business development, and to more closely resemble the roof coverings of the adjacent residential de- velopment. Staff determines there will be no negative impact as a result of the requested change in roofing materials. Mr. Spriggs is also requesting a modification of the fencing requirement to allow a single- faced, six foot wooden fence along the eastern boundary of the property. Several of the adja- cent residential neighbors have six foot privacy fences along the rear property line; there are two or three properties with chain-link fencing and shrubbery to screen the activities in the shopping center. Ms. Langon noted that there is a utility easement along the east side of the shopping center site, and structures may not be placed within this easement; therefore, the fence must be placed on the common property line. Construction of a double-sided fence re- quires space to facilitate the construction and maintenance of such fence; this would not be possible were the fence to be placed on the common property line. Nor, could the fence be moved into the easement to provide such construction/maintenance space. Therefore, Mr. Spriggs is asking that he be allowed to construct a single-sided fence on the common property line, and that the height of this fence be six feet rather than eight feet as required by City Council. Ms. Langon noted that the residents who have privacy fences along the rear of their property would see their six foot fence, and then the fence erected by Mr. Spriggs would be two feet above that. Ms. Langon further pointed out that the eight foot height required by the City Council is not in keeping with the scale of fences required in residential neighborhoods where the maximum height is six feet. Ms. Langon stated that it is the opinion of staff that the six foot fence will provide a uniform appearance, and that construction of a single-sided fence will facilitate construction and maintenance of the fence and will not negatively impact the ad- jacent residential properties. 2 .. • • • • • • Mr. Welker inquired about the width of the easement. Ms. Langon stated that the easement is 10 feet in width. Mr. Welker asked how many properties abut the shopping center on the east side. Ms. Langon responded that there are 12 properties abutting on the east side of the Cen- ter . Mr. Homer asked if the fence was required for the entire length of the eastern boundary. Ms. Langon responded affirmatively: from East Belleview Avenue south to East Centennial Ave- nue. Mr. Homer inquired if the finished side of the fence would face the shopping center or the adjacent residential development. Ms. Langon stated that the finished side would be to the shopping center, and again cited the difficulty of constructing a fence on the common property line so that the finished side face the residential development. Mr. Welker inquired about the height of the buildings along the eastern property line. Ms. Langon stated that the height is eight feet to the roof line, and then the pitch of the roof is above that height. Mr. Homer asked the intent of the City Council regarding metal roofing on the storage build- ings. Ms. Langon stated that the choice of roofing material (metal) was the owner/developer's choice. However, residents who attended the public meetings hosted by the applicant indicated a preference for the dimensional asphalt shingles because of the compatibility with the residen- tial area. Mr. Michael Spriggs was sworn in, and testified that he is owner of the Brookridge Shopping Center . Mr. Spriggs stated that staff has summarized the nature of his request very well. Mr. Spriggs did display a sample of a dimensional asphalt shingle for the consideration of the Commission. He stated that he "had no one to blame but himself' for the initial choice of the metal roofing, and emphasized that the asphalt shingles will be much more compatible with the adjacent residential district, and will bring a cohesiveness to his development by using one roof style/material. Mr. Spriggs emphasized that the fencing issue was not required by the Planning Commission, but required by the City Council after the public hearing was closed. Mr. Spriggs estimated that at least 503 of the adjacent property owners to the east have their own six foot privacy fences. Mr. Spriggs related the difficulty of constructing and maintaining a double-sided pri- vacy fence on a common property line, which in this case would be right next to the existing privacy fences. Mr. Spriggs also discussed the aesthetics of the eight foot fence requirement in relation to the typical six-foot fences allowed in the residential districts. Mr. Spriggs ques- tioned whether the Englewood codes will allow construction of an eight-foot fence in this dis- trict. Mr. Spriggs stated that he had spoken with the residents abutting the shopping center on the east prior to the initial PUD hearing in 1996, and that no one had suggested an eight-foot fence. Mr. Spriggs reiterated that a single-side six foot fence will be much easier to construct and maintain, as well as being less expensive to construct. Mr. Garrett noted that Mr. Spriggs had suggested that some of the residents had a three foot high chain-link fence. Mr. Spriggs stated this correct; it also appears to him that this fencing 3 was installed by a previous owner of the shopping center. Mr. Garrett asked what these resi- dents have said in regard to a proposed six foot privacy fence. Mr. Spriggs stated that he did • not feel any of the residents would have a problem, so long as existing shrubbery is not re- moved or harmed. Mr. Spriggs noted that the existing privacy fences have the unfinished side facing toward the shopping center. Mr. Homer asked what type of roofing is on the existing structures in the shopping center. Mr. Spriggs stated that roof are typically shingles on a gable roof. The two story building has a flat roof; however, the retail shops do have metal roofing. Mr. Weber discussed landscaping of the site; he recalled that the Commission had required ad- ditional interior landscaping which is not indicated on the plan before the Commission this evening. Mr. Spriggs stated that the landscaping that was requested by City Council has been installed. He noted that interior landscaping has been placed around buildings. Mr. Spriggs stated that he now owns the former gas station site on the comer of Belleview and Broadway, and when that site is developed, that comer will be better landscaped. Mr. Spriggs reiterated that City Council did not require placement of trees in the interior of the site along parking aisles or in front of the stores. Ms. Styes asked whether Mr . Spriggs had spoken directly to the three property owners who have the chain-link fence along the rear of their property. Are they aware of the proposal to have a privacy fence along the rear of the shopping center property. Mr . Spriggs stated that he had spoken to all the property owners in 1996 prior to initial consideration of the PUD; if any • of these residents have attended the neighborhood meetings or the public hearings held by the City they would be aware of it. He suggested they might be "shocked" were an eight foot fence to be required. Ms. Tobin commented that the appearance of the shopping center is very nice; it is clean, no trash is blowing, and the general appearance is inviting. Mr. Spriggs thanked Ms. Tobin for her comments. Ms. Babette Sangster was sworn in. Ms. Sangster stated that she resides at 5200 South Grant Street, which is not in Englewood; however, Centennial A venue serves as the main entrance into the residential neighborhood. Ms. Sangster acknowledged that she "led the charge against" the initial PUD application. Ms. Sangster stated that the use of dimensional asbestos shingles will be a great improvement, and she is in favor of this modification. Ms. Sangster stated that a six foot fence would be of help to separate the commercial and residential uses. Ms. Sangster stated that she supported both amendments proposed by Mr. Spriggs. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to speak regarding the proposed amendments. No one else indicated a desire to speak. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD 97-01 be closed. 4 • • • • AYES: NAYS: Weber, Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Styes, Tobin, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission. Garrett moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council approval of the proposed modifications to the Brookridge Shopping Center Planned Unit Development to allow dimensional asphalt shingles in lieu of the standing seam metal roofing, and to permit a six foot single-side fence on the eastern property line of the Center in lieu of an eight foot double-sided fence. Mr. Douglas called for discussion of the motion. Mr. Homer expressed a concern regarding the fence on the eastern perimeter of the site; the six foot height is sufficient, but he is of the opinion that the finished side of the fence should face the residential development. He stated that if he were a homeowner abutting the shopping center, he would not want to stare into the unfinished side of a fence. Mr. Homer also noted that the fence can be constructed "panel-by-panel" and then put in place. Mr. Welker noted that traditionally when one constructs a fence the finished side is placed to face the neighbor. Ms. Tobin commented that by placing the finished side to face your neighbor, this could alle- viate the possibility of kids climbing on the supports the pickets are fastened to. Discussion ensued. Homer moved: Welker seconded: The motion be amended to stipulate that the finished side of the fence shall face to the residential development. The motion to amend was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Homer, Sty es, Welker Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None None The motion failed. The motion to recommend to City Council was called: AYES: Welker, Cottle, Dummer, Garrett, Homer, Styes, Tobin, Weber, Douglas 5 NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Fences, Walls and Visual Barriers Study Session Item CASE #OR-97-03 Mr. Denning addressed the Commission, noting that there have been modifications to the pro- posed Fences, Walls , and Visual Barriers amendment following the meeting with the Commis- sion on September 16th. Mr. Denning stated that, while the proposed amendments to the Fence Ordinance is one step in implementation of the South Broadway Action Plan, the provisions of the Fence Ordinance are applicable city-wide. Mr. Denning noted the need for clarification of fencing requirements to provide Code Enforcement consistency, as well as to address safety issues. Mr. Denning. noted that the "sight triangle " restrictions have been modified, and com- pliance with the sight triangle area shall be determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Mr. Denning noted that on Page 2 , Paragraph #2 should be "Electric Fence ". On Page 4 , under Additional Requirements/Comments , both paragraphs pertaining to the Front Yard Setback for B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts should be eliminated. Mr. Denning asked if there were questions from the Commission of him. Ms. Cottle asked for a definition of "woven wire ", and whether a six foot woven wire fence could be erected in a residential district. Typical "woven wire " fencing was discussed, as was "chicken wire " fencing . Mr. Welker asked where the point of measurement will be from regarding height of fences. Mr. Welker suggested a situation wherein a six foot privacy fence could be placed atop a three foot retaining wall -thus providing a nine foot high "fence" for one property , but a six foot fence for the other property . Discussion ensued. Mr. Denning suggested measurement from the unaltered finished grade. Mr. Simpson suggested measurement from the lowest finished grade. Mr. Dummer stated that in his opinion, measurement should be from the finished grade of the fence applicant 's property , and that a property owner should have the right to place a fence atop a retaining wall. Further discussion followed . Mr. Simpson stated that staff needs to consider the effect of retaining walls and fences further . Mr. Dummer suggested that rather than a "cut-and-dried " approach , individual evaluation of properties w ith retaining walls and fence applications might be required. Ms. Tobin suggested that the ordinance amendments should be written so that the average citizens applying for fence permits won't have to go through red-tape and another board in order to erect the fence . Mr. Douglas noted that the paragraph on "vision triangle " in this Draft IT does not describe what the "vision triangle " is , or where it is on a site. He questioned that compliance should be determined by the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Douglas further suggested that the graphic of vision triangle area for street intersections should be re-inserted in the proposed amendment. Mr. 6 • • • • • • Simpson stated that, in response to previous concerns of the Commission, staff eliminated pro- visions and regulations of the Model Traffic Code from the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. The regulations and provisions of the Model Traffic Code are reviewed and enforced by .the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Dummer suggested that the Model Traffic Code be "referenced" so that applicants can research the provisions, but that the provisions need not be included as part of the CZO. Mr. Douglas asked if it is permissible to have an electric fence. Mr. Denning stated that elec- tric fences are not permitted in residential districts; they may be located in the industrial dis- tricts above a given height. Mr. Garrett inquired whether the electrified fencing that is used to contain dogs within yards is acceptable; the dog wears a special collar and is "shocked" when it nears the fence. Humans and animals not equipped with the special collar are not affected. Mr. Denning stated that this type of electrification is not addressed by the ordinance amendments. Mr. Douglas noted that on Page 3, Corner Lots, a Class 5 fence is apparently not permitted. In his opinion, this type of fence should be allowed on Corner Lots. The issue of woven wire and chicken wire was again discussed. Ms. Cottle stated that a six foot woven-wire fence has been installed across the alley from her home, and is quite unattrac- tive. Ms. Cottle suggested that woven wire fencing should not be allowed in residential areas, and that better construction and materials be mandated in the proposed amendments. Ms. Cot- tle urged that only the chain-link variety of "woven wire" be allowed in residential areas. Mr. Simpson stated that this is a difficult issue to address; he personally does not like to see woven wire or used-board fencing along Broadway. Mr. Denning noted that some woven wire is coated with plastic and can be quite attractive. Ms. Tobin commented that "used board" fencing can be quite expensive. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson commented that there ap- pears to be a consensus to eliminate "woven wire" as a permitted fence material. Ms. Reid commented that an applicant wanting to install a woven wire fence would have the right to ap- peal to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Welker clarified that the prohibition of "woven wire" fencing would apply to "property line" fencing, but that a dog run on the interior of a yard could be enclosed with woven wire. It was agreed that woven wire would be acceptable to separate a dog run or garden area from the remainder of the yard, but that such fencing may not be on a yard perimeter. Mr. Simpson suggested that "woven wire" could be made a separate fence material classifica- tion permitted only in the industrial districts. Mr. Welker asked whether there should be a classification for "temporary fencing". Mr . Simpson suggested there is no need for a "classification", but that the proposed amendments may need to address when temporary fencing is permitted or required. Mr. Welker pointed out that fencing surrounding construction/demolition sites is "temporary fencing". Mr. Simp- 7 son agreed that temporary fencing probably does need to be briefly addressed . Further modifi-• cation of the proposed amendments will be made and included in the next draft. ********** Mr. Douglas declared a short recess of the Commission. The meeting reconvened at 8 :30 p .m.; all members of the Commission were present. v. ********** COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Low-Power Telecommunications Facilities Study Session Item CASE #OR-97-04 Mr. Denning stated that Draft I of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Or- dinance addressing Low-power Telecommunications Facilities was included in the packet for this meeting. Mr. Garrett stated that he will refrain from participating in discussion or voting on this issue because of a conflict of interest. He is employed by TCI. Mr. Horner commented that this is a study issue , and questioned why Mr. Garrett could not • participate. Ms. Reid stated that she had spoken with Mr. Garrett , and both felt it would be best if he did not participate ; something might come up in preliminary discussion that could impact an impartial public hearing. Ms. Cottle questioned whether she should also refrain from participation , inasmuch as the company she works for does site designs for telecommunication clients. She personally does not work in that division , but the company does engage in that type of work. Ms. Reid stated that she would like to explore Ms. Cattle 's company further before determining an actual "conflict of interest ", but did suggest that perhaps Ms . Cottle should just listen to the discus- sion this evening. Ms. Reid stated that she will talk to Ms. Cottle further prior to the Public Hearing regarding the conflict of interest issue. Ms. Reid also noted that there are members of telecommunications businesses in the audience ; it is up to the Commission whether they want to hear from these representatives at this time. Mr. Dummer asked why it would be appropriate to hear from the representatives at this time inasmuch as this is not a public hearing, and only a study session. He suggested that all mem- bers of the telecommunications businesses should be contacted and given an equal opportunity to address the Commission. Ms. Reid stated that the Commission may want to vote on whether to grant the right to address the Commission at this time ; she noted that one company has submitted written comments regarding the proposed ordinance. Ms. Reid noted that this is a public meeting , and people do have the right to attend the meeting . • 8 • Mr. Simpson stated that staff has made the commitment to work with representatives of the telecommunications industry to develop standards for telecommunication operations in Engle- wood. Mr. Horner stated that the proposed ordinance will regulate private businesses, and he is of the opinion that the representatives in attendance do have the right to speak. Horner moved: Weber seconded: The representatives of the telecommunications industry in attendance at this study session shall be heard should they wish to address the Com- mission. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner, Tobin, Weber, Welker, Douglas Dummer , Styes Garrett, Cottle None The motion carried. Mr. Denning summarized the intent of the proposed Ordinance. Mr. Denning stated that the main focus of this discussion is to determine whether staff is proceeding in the proper direction on the standards and regulations of the telecommunications industry. Mr. Denning noted that • the verbiage is very scientific in nature, and difficult to understand. • Mr. Horner stated he was in full support of regulatory standards for the telecommunications industry; however, he felt the proposal is confusing noting that the title indicates it pertains to "low-power" but in the body of the ordinance reference is made to radio, television and other high-power users of air-waves. He asked if the intent is to regulate television "towers" or re- lay stations for cellular telephones. Mr. Horner also inquired whether transmission facilities for cellular telephones should be prohibited in residential districts, noting that many of the re- lay antennae are very unobtrusive and unnoticed by the average passer-by. Mr. Horner stated that use of the word "tower" is erroneous; he also noted that a 100 foot "tower" is not some- thing that is wanted in the downtown business district. Mr. Homer stated that he would like staff to revisit the proposed ordinance, and bring back to the Commission exactly what is to be considered: both radio/television transmission towers and cellular telephone relay antennae, or one or the other. Mr. Homer noted that the telecommunications industry pays a considerable amount of money to lease sites for their relay antennae. Mr. Homer suggested that the ap- proach might -be to provide "disincentives" to construct "towers", and incentives to attach re- lay antennae to existing buildings. Mr. Denning referenced Purpose #7: Recommend that antennae be located on existing towers or structures with available space before new sites are established. When not technically pos- sible, the technical problems must be demonstrated before consideration of new sites. Mr. Denning noted that research he has done indicates that in other communities a majority of the relay antennae are placed on existing buildings; for instance, Bethesda, Maryland has approxi- 9 mately 90% of their relay stations located on existing buildings. Mr. Denning pointed out that topographical features of a community must be taken into consideration in location of the relay • antennae. He stated that Mr. Homer 's comments are the direction staff is seeking . Ms . Tobin stated that she has been informed that if one were to enter into a lease agreement with a telecommunications business to locate a relay antennae on your property , that telecom- munications business has "automatic access " to your property , and that as a property owner you cannot deny that access . Ms. Tobin inquired if these relay antennae could be attached to existing telephone or power poles. Mr. Denning stated that he did not know whether the cel- lular phone antennae could be attached to telephone and power poles , or whether there would be interference in transmission and reception of signals. Ms. Tobin asked if the City is spelling out points of access for the communications stations that may be located on City property. Assistant City Attorney Reid stated that each location on city-owned property would require a negotiated agreement. Mr. Weber noted the many antennae located on the roof of Swedish Medical Center ; would this proposed ordinance allow other sites to have such a proliferation of antennae. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker suggested that some of the antennae on SMC may be affiliated with two- way radio transmission between the hospital and ambulances, or between the hospital and the emergency air services. Further discussion followed. Mr. Welker asked about location of the transmission facilities for the Police/Fire center. Mr. Denning stated that he understood they are relocating those transmission towers to a site on South Zuni Street . Location of transmission facilities on existing buildings was further discussed. Mr. Denning noted that if the transmission facilities are located on existing structures , they are less invasive and visually unobtrusive. Mr. Denning stated that staff wants to make location on existing structures the focus, and reiterated the willingness of staff to work with members of the tele- communications industry . Mr. Douglas asked for definition of "collocation ". Mr. Denning stated that this is an instance wherein two telecommunication businesses locate relay antennae on the same structure. Mr. Weber questioned whether it could be a mistake to not allow location of the relay antennae in the residential districts. Mr. Denning suggested that staff was looking at location of the an- tennae along the major thoroughfares: South Broadway , South Santa Fe Drive, and Hampden Avenue and Belleview Avenue . Mr. Denning noted that there is some R-3 , High Density resi- dence which abuts the Hampden/U .S . 285 corridor. Mr. Denning suggested that the radius of the signals must also be taken into consideration in determining location of the antennae. Mr. Homer stated that the antennae can be "overloaded " very quickly , and that with more • residents acquiring cellular telephones , there will be a greater need for the transmission anten-• nae . He suggested that logical routes for location of antennae may also be along either Dart- 10 • • • mouth A venue or Floyd A venue, and other major routes through the City. Mr. Homer reem- phasized the need for staff to clarify the intent of the proposed ordinance: transmission "towers" for high frequency users, or low-power antennae for cellular telephones. Mr. Simpson stated that it appears the Commission would prefer to have separation of the low- power telecommunications facilities from the high-frequency users. Jill Jelinek, of Sprint PCS, addressed the Commission. Her company is located at 4700 South Syracuse, Suite 600, Denver 60237. Ms. Jelinek stated that she is speaking on behalf of the Wireless Telecommunications Task Force. Members of this Task Force have been working with metro area jurisdictions regarding development of standards and regulations for the wire- less telecommunications industry. Ms. Jelinek stated that she would appreciate the opportunity to go through the proposed ordinance line-by-line , and will do so with staff at a later date. Ms. Jelinek acknowledged that the wireless communications industry is a very complicated is- sue -low-powered versus high-powered, and the different needs to support both aspects of the industry. Ms. Jelinek noted that one of the Commission's questions had been whether anten- nae for the cellular phones could be located on telephone poles, and the answer is "no", they cannot be so located; nor can they be located on PSC poles. Ms . Jelinek emphasized that a "tower" is not the same as an "antenna", and that a "tower" is not typically preferred to ac- commodate the base transmitter equipment and antenna for cellular phones. The low-power facility includes both the base transmitter equipment and antenna . Mr. Douglas asked if the base transmitter equipment and antenna can be hidden so it is not visually intrusive. Ms. Jelinek stated that this cannot be accomplished in all instances. She described "stealth" structures which allow the signals to "see" through the structure such as trees, chimneys, high parapets. Ms. Jelinek discussed satellite technology and changes that may occur both in the near future, and 20 years from now. Mr. Homer asked the location of cellular stations in Englewood. Ms. Jelinek stated that she has not worked in locating antenna in Englewood, so she cannot address the locations. Mr. Simpson stated that staff will try to schedule a meeting with the members of the Task Force, and make revisions for Commission consideration at a subsequent meeting. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson stated that City Council has offered the position of City Manager to Mr. Gary Sears, currently City Manager of Glendale. Mr. Sears has accepted the position, and will be- gin employment as Englewood City Manager on November 3 . 11 Mr. Simpson stated that the Clean, Green and Proud Commission will be cooperating with Littleton as sponsor of the annual Tire and Leaf Drop Off; dates are October 18, October 25, • November 1, November 8, and November 15 . Mr. Simpson advised all members of the Commission to be very aware of their personal safety when leaving evening meetings at City Hall; there was a recent physical assault on a female in the near vicinity of City Hall, and extra caution is urged for everyone. Mr. Simpson stated that the next meeting of the Planning Commission will be October 21. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Mr. Horner stated that staff has brought forth issues on fences and the telecommunications in- dustry; he inquired when the Commission would receive information on a revised landscape ordinance. Mr. Simpson stated that staff had considered addressing the landscape provisions during the course of the revision of the CZO; however, it appears that we may need to put that particular section of the CZO in a higher profile and address it sooner. Mr. Simpson acknowl- edged that revision of the total CZO has been delayed with activities on Cinderella City and the General Iron Site, but that he hoped to get this revision back on schedule. Ms. Tobin inquired about progress on Cinderella City. Mr. Simpson updated members on progress on the redevelopment. The lease with Wards will be terminated and they will vacate the premises no later than December 31, 1997; Renzios will also vacate the premises no later • than December 3!51 • Environmental remediation will begin early in January; 120 days has been allocated for completion, with demolition to follow. Mr. Simpson reviewed the work being done by the Compass/CRNA group to help evaluate redevelopment and projected uses on the site; the work of this volunteer group is to be completed by October 2200 • New con- struction is anticipated to begin late 1998 or early 1999. Discussion ensued. There was nothing further brought before the Commission; the meeting was declared ad- journed. \nbd\grouplboards\plancommlminutes 97\pcm J0-97a.doc 12 •