Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-06 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mason at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall. Members present: Douglas, Dummer , Garrett , Homer , Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Weber , Mason Simpson, Ex-officio Members absent: None Also present: Neighborhood Community Coordinator Graham Planning Community Coordinator Stitt City Attorney Brotzman City Manager Clark II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. January 23, 1996 Chairman Mason called for consideration of the Minutes of January 23, 1996 . Tobin moved: Dummer seconded: The Minutes of January 23 , 1996 be approved as written. AYES: NAYS: Dummer, Homer , Shoop, Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Mason None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Garrett, Redpath None The motion carried. ID. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Chair Vice-Chair Mr. Mason called for nominations for the position of Chair for 1996 . Mr. Redpath nominated Robert Mason for Chairman. Ms. Tobin seconded the nomination. 1 Mr. Mason stated that he has enjoyed being Chairman for the past year , and has found it to be an educational experience. Mr. Mason asked if there were further nominations . No further nominations were received. Redpath moved: Horner seconded: Nominations be closed , and Mr. Mason be elected Chair for 1996. AYES: NAYS: Garrett , Homer , Redpath , Shoop , Tobin , Weber , Douglas , Dummer , Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Chairman Mason asked for nominations for the position of Vice-Ch air. Tobin moved: Horner seconded: Bill y Dou glas be nominated for the position of Vice-Chair. Mr. Mason asked if there were further nominations. No further nominations were received. Mason moved: Redpath seconded: Nominations be closed, and Billy Douglas be elected Vice-Chair. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Horner , Redpath , Shoop , Tobin, Weber , Douglas, Dummer , Garrett, Mason None None None The motion carried. IV. RESTRUCTURE OF AGENDA. Mr. Simpson asked the indulgence of the Commission to restructure the agenda. City Man- ager Clark would like to address the Commission, and Planning Coordinator Stitt has an item for brief discussion prior to continuation of the Publ ic Hearing. The Commi ssion agreed to re- order of the agenda. City Manager Clark addressed the Commission, noting that early in his career he was a plan- ner and community development director in a high-growth community, and is familiar with land use issues and other issues facing the Commission. Mr. Clark then spoke to the issues facing the City of Englewood in 1996, such as redevelopment of the Mall, ordinance revisions to eliminate weaknesses and provide stronger controls for new development and redevelop- ment, quality of life issues , and housing. Mr. Clark stated that the Commission will be very involved in reviewing the site plans for redevelopment of the mall , and in the community input 2 process. Staff hopes this process can begin in late Spring, 1996, or early Summer, 1996. The quality of life issues have received a high level of scrutiny in recent months, particularly along the Broadway corridor through Englewood. Neighborhood problems which have been attrib- uted to day-labor businesses, pawn shops, massage parlors, and other undesirable activities have been brought to the attention of City Council. Mr. Clark stated that the City Council held a public hearing on February 5 to address the issue of licensing day-labor/temporary labor businesses, and there was over two hours of testimony from "unscheduled visitors" alone. The decline of quality businesses along the Broadway corridor seems to have begun between three to five years ago. Staff efforts will be directed to long-term p lanning and zoning amendments in an effort to stop the deterioration and turn the character of the corridor around. Mr. Clark discussed the housing issues, noting that economic development is closely related to housing; investors in new businesses want to see the demographics of marketing areas. Project BUILD has been very successful, and efforts are underway to expand this program to address higher priced housing demands rather than just low-to moderate income homes. Mr. Clark stated that he hopes to stimulate the interest of the private sector to increase the construction of new higher priced homes in Englewood. Mr. Redpath asked the boundaries of the Broadway corridor. Mr. Clark stated that the corri- dor extends from Yale south to the Englewood/Littleton boundary; at this time, the focus will be on the Broadway business frontage. Later activities may address residential areas abutting this business sector. Mr. Clark emphasized the appearance of pawn shops, day labor, massage parlors, and increase in crime are all part of the deteriorating appearance of the corridor. Mr. Garrett asked if Denver handled day-labor outlets differently, and is this the reason there seems to be a proliferation of this business in Englewood. Mr. Clark stated that City Council was informed during the course of their Public Hearing , by someone involved with day-labor outlets, that this use locates in areas close to a bus stop, and where there are cheap real estate values. This business is usually a store-front operation, and has very low over-head expenses. Mr. Clark also stated that City Council was informed that 75 % of their clientele is from Englewood. Mr. Weber asked what job market these uses fill. Mr. Clark responded that those of concern cater to low-skilled workers; some of the outlets are open 24-hours per day, and some of the workers are involved in activities such as snow-removal, etc. The entire in- dustry of temporary employment is growing. There are also temporary employment agencies located in the City that place professional personnel. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Clark reiterated that there is a lot of concern from residential neighborhoods on the north end of the City, and there have also been concerns regarding ac- tivities in the King Soopers area. Mr. Redpath asked what Council was proposing. Mr. Clark stated that the Public Hearing was concerning a proposed ordinance to license temporary em- ployment agencies; this ordinance was tabled for further review at the close of the Hearing. Mr. Clark thanked the Commission for the opportunity to address them. Mr. Stitt addressed the Commission, and stated that members who have been on the Commis- sion for a few years will recall the presentation by DRCOG on Metro-Vision 2020. This pro- 3 gram is progressing, and the next step is to develop a regional growth strategy within the seven county membership area of DR COG. The proposal is to limit urbanization to no more than 700 square miles by the year 2020; the urbanized area now encompasses possibly 500 to 550 square miles. The framework of the proposal has been developed , and it is now the respon- sibility of local jurisdictions to determine growth patterns and growth possibilities between now and 2020. Mr. Stitt stated that the seven county area has been split into four "regions", those being mountain , north, west, and south. Englewood is in the "south region". Represen- tatives of each jurisdiction within these regions will meet to discuss the growth patterns and projections; the representatives are two staff members , two planning commissioners , two council members, and two "citizens". The south region has sc heduled a meeting on Saturday , February 24, at 9:30 A.M. at the Greenwood Village City Hall , 6060 South Quebec Street. The meeting is scheduled to last two hours. Mr. Stitt stated that he and Mr. Simpson will be attending from staff, and the Commission is being asked to select two members to attend this meeting also. Discussion ensued. Volunteers from the Commission included Mr. Redpath , Mr. Mason, Mr. Weber, and Mr. Shoop. Ms . Tobin asked what counties are involved, and how far the "mountain region" extended. Mr. Stitt stated the counties include Boulder, Gilpin, Clear Creek, Jefferson, Adams, Arapa- hoe, Douglas and Denver. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt asked that staff be notified who on the Commission will attend the February 24th session. He then excused himself from the meeting. v. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Planned Unit Development CASE OR96-02 Mr. Mason stated that the Public Hearing on Case OR96-02 was continued to this date, and asked for a motion to proceed. Horner moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission proceed with the continued Hearing on Case #OR96-02. AYES: NAYS: Weber, Douglas, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Redpath, Shoop, Tobin, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Mark Graham, Neighborhood Community Coordinator, addressed the Commission and discussed the modifications made to the proposed Planned Unit Development ordinance as a result of Commission input received on January 23, 1996. Mr. Graham stated that the criteria contained in the Englewood Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 3, sets forth standards for 4 zoning and rezoning; these same criteria will apply to standards for PUD, also. Mr. Graham enumerated the criteria, which are as follows: "§16-3-6 Standards for Zoning and Rezoning: A. To promote stability in zoning and appropriate development of property within the City, no application for rezoning of property shall be approved unless the applicant demonstrates: 1. That the proposed rezoning promotes the health , safety , or welfare of the in habitants of the City of Englewood and the purpose of this Ordinance; and 2. That the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and 3. That there has been a material change in the character of the neighborhood or in the City generally, such that the proposed rezoning would be in the public interest and consistent with the change; or 4. That the property to be rezoned was previously zoned in error; or 5. That the property cannot be developed under the existing zoning; or 6. Such other conditions as are expressly permitted by law. B. The requirements of subsection A shall not apply to the initial zoning of property an- nexed to the City or to rezoning which may occur incidental to a comprehensive City- initiated revision of the City's Official Zoning District Maps." Mr. Graham stated that any rezoning , whether PUD or other districts , require the Commission to make findings based on the above criteria. Mr. Graham stated that a PUD is a rezoning, with the proposed land uses specified as part of the application. This is in contrast to the existing PD, which is an overlay district, and does not specify or restrict land uses which will be developed under the PD guidelines. Under the PUD process, the Commission will have to determine what might off-set any impacts of the proposed development, and make sure the developer is asked to provide those mitigating fac- tors. If the Commission cannot find ways to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development, it probably is not a good proposal. Mr. Graham emphasized that it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission members, and of City Council, to "hold the line" and not approve PUD's they feel are inappropriate, or negatively impact neighborhoods. Mr. Redpath asked if all PUD's will be initiated by private sector applications , or whether the Planning Commission/City could initiate the process. Mr. Graham stated that the City can initiate rezoning. 5 Mr. Graham summarized the proposed process: a pre-application conference will be required between staff and the applicant. This should be of assistance to the applicant, and possibly a cost-savings to the applicant also, in that problems and concerns can be identified prior to any outlay of money by the applicant. If, after the pre-application conference, the applicant chooses to proceed with the PUD, a formal application and a District Plan will be required. The District Plan is reviewed by staff, by the Planning Commission at Public Hearing, and by City Council at Public Hearing. At the end of this process, if the City Council approves the District Plan, the rezoning to PUD is in place. A Site Plan which "fleshes out" the District Plan on the proposal is then required. The Site Plan can, at the option of the Commission and Council, be reviewed only by staff, or reviewed by staff, Commission and Council. After ap- proval of the Site Plan, the applicant may apply for a building permit and commence develop- ment of the proposal. Mr. Graham further addressed modifications made to the proposed ordinance as a result of Commission input: an appeals process has been added; a reversion clause of two years plus a one year extension has also been added. Waiver of submittal requirements has been clarified, allowing staff waiver of submittal requirements on site plans requiring administrative review, but requiring staff "recommendation" on waiver of submittal requirements on District Plans and Site Plans that must go before the Planning Commission and City Council. Design Review requirements are clarified, and a provision has been added that requires all contiguous property under one ownership to be included in a PUD application. The Commission will be required to make findings for approval of the District Plan and Site Plan. Mr. Horner asked what would prevent an applicant from requesting consideration under the PD regulations rather than going through the PUD process. There is nothing written in the proposal before the Commission to prohibit this. City Attorney Brotzman stated that the enact- ing ordinance itself will contain such language; what is before the Commission is what will appear in the Code as the PUD district. Mr. Simpson concurred with Mr. Brotzman's expla- nation. Mr. Horner suggested that on Page 1 of the proposed regulations, B-2.: "by" should be changed to "be". Mr. Dummer asked what provisions would apply to sites less than 1/2 acre in size; would de- velopment of these sites be by Conditional Use, and what about a change of land use. Mr. Simpson stated that sites less than 1/2 acre would not be eligible for PUD consideration. Mr. Graham stated that a proposed change of land use would have to be to one of the conventional zone districts. Mr. Horner asked about "off-site impacts". He cited the criteria for rezoning, and stated he would like to be assured that design guidelines adopted by other quasi-public bodies can also be referenced and used by the Commission in their deliberations. Mr. Simpson stated that this is an appropriate request, and pointed out that Englewood Downtown Development Authority is working on a downtown plan now. When this plan is completed, and approved by the 6 / J e Authority, it will be brought to the Planning Commission and City Council as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and become part of the City document. Mr. Horner then referenced the Reversion Clause on Page 4, H. Mr. Horner also referenced Page 7, J, and asked if this was redundant. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson commented that it appears "J" may not be needed. Renewal of building permits and abandonment of or inactive building permits was also discussed. Mr. Brotzman indicated that the issue of abandoned building permits would be "built into this". Phasing of developments and what constitutes "substantial progress" was then discussed. Would each phase of a "phased development" have a two-year period before the reversionary clause became applicable, or does progress on one segment of a multi-phased development apply to a total development. Mr. Horner asked if demolition of existing structures and cleaning the site would be termed "substantial progress." Mr. Mason commented that when the Commission approves the District Plan, they can cite issues that could be used to determine "significant progress". Discussion ensued. Mr. Redpath questioned the possibility of enu- merating issues which constitute "substantial progress". Mr. Simpson cautioned against such explicity, advocating flexibility for the Commission in consideration of PUDs. Mr. Simpson advised the Commission that the PUD regulations will provide a higher level of control than has been available to them, and higher than some other communities have. This increased control should provide improved developments throughout the City. Mr. Shoop inquired further about phased developments. Mr. Simpson stated that one must take into account the state of the market; from his standpoint if a developer brought in a phased project, the staff would work with performance standards to facilitate the development of the project if at all possible. Phased projects, such as Swedish Medical Center, were cited. Mr. Simpson stated that the Medical Center is a perfect example of how a PUD would work: the District Plan would set forth the boundaries, the proposed land use, design theme and other aspects applicable in a broad range; this would be brought before the Commission and Council for approval. The Site Plan would then address in specificity issues pertaining to the develop- ment of a particular phase, and would preclude the numerous "amendments" that the Swedish PD has been through. Mr. Simpson emphasized that the Commission will have the power to approve or disapprove a PUD, and if they are uncomfortable granting approval to a proposal, it should not be approved. Mr. Garrett asked if a site plan and a building permit is needed to meet the requirements and keep the reversion clause from applying. Mr. Garrett also asked what constitutes "substantial progress" versus "progress". Is this part.of the District Plan, or of the Site Plan. Discussion ensued. Mr. Douglas stated the Commission will have to define "substantial progress" right in the beginning of the process. Mr. Horner asked if the definition of substantial progress on new PUDs should be at the time of the District Plan consideration, or when the Site Plan is considered. Mr. Simpson stated the specific issues for "substantial progress" should be cited at the time the District Plan is considered. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Horner suggested that on a four-phase plan, for instance, where an existing building occupied a portion of all 7 four phases, the Commission could specify as part of the District Plan that substantial progress would constitute obtaining approval of a Site Plan, obtaining a building permit, and demolition of the existing structure. If the building permit is determined abandoned, the reversionary clause could apply. Mr. Garrett asked if everyone was supportive of the reversionary clause. Mr. Simpson stated that he, personally, does not support such a clause. Mr. Garrett commented that once the re- zoning is granted, it should require another rezoning to change it. Mr. Dummer inquired whether contractors would be required to be bonded to assure clearance of property for reuse, or other standards of performance. Mr. Brotzman pointed out that bonding of contractors demolishing structures is addressed in the ordinance governing demoli- tion of structures. Such bonding would be only for clearance of the site, not for new con- struction. Mr. Horner cited item I-j on page 5, and asked whether review of final irrigation plans , showing location of heads, lines, etc. is necessary. Mr. Graham responded that this degree of scrutiny is necessary. Mr. Horner cited Page 6, paragraph #3 regarding "minor deviations", and asked if this refers to changing boundaries of a PUD. Mr. Simpson stated it will not be possible to change the boundaries of a PUD because it is a rezoning, with the legal boundaries prescribed within the enacting ordinance. Any change of boundaries will have to be accomplished by ordinance. Mr. Garrett suggested that the wording be changed from " ... minor deviations from PUD Dis- trict Plans ... " to " ... minor deviations from PUD Site Plans ... ". Mr. Horner referenced the Development Review Team (DRT) review, and asked under what conditions is the decision made to have the site plan review done by the DRT or referred to Planning Commission. Mr. Graham stated that the DRT will review all site plans; the Plan- ning Commission "may" review site plans if they so stipulate at the time of District Plan con- sideration. Under this scenario, the site plan will also be reviewed by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Horner asked where in the proposed ordinance is it stated the Commission would have authority to require review of the site plans. Mr. Simpson referenced Page 1, §C-3; the Commission would have to include in their rec- ommendation for approval of the district plan a statement that the Commission wants to review the site plan. Mr. Garrett asked if the City Council could determine that staff should conduct the site review, and the Commission would be by-passed. Mr. Horner stated that presently, the Commission "has the right" to see final plans; under the proposed regulations, review of the final plans is no longer a "right". He agreed that City Council could determine that site plan review of a specific project would be done by staff, and the Commission would left out of the final review process. Discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson suggested that §C-3 be rewritten to state that "PUD Site Plans may, with Plan- ning Commission recommendation, with City Council approval, and through the District Plan 8 conformance, be approved by the City Development Review Team, or may otherwise be re- viewed by Planning Commission and approved for final action by City Council." Mr. Homer suggested possibly designating one member of the Commission to sit on the DRT. Ms. Tobin expressed her belief that the entire Commission should be involved in the site plan review process. Mr. Shoop asked who comprised the DRT. Mr. Simpson stated that the DRT will be comprised of staff representatives from Public Works, Utilities, Fire, Neighborhood & Business Development , public agencies , and utilities such as PSC and US West. Mr. Shoop suggested a "small window" of time to accommodate late changes to developer's plans. Mr. Homer commented that last minute changes have been occurring; however, is this what the Commission wants to deal with. Mr. Simpson stated that when a developer brings changes forward at the last minute, the Commission has the right to reject or delay considera- tion of the proposal because of inadequate review time. Mr. Shoop cited Page 3 , Pre-application review, and asked if a developer would have infor- mation setting forth the requirements they must meet to submit a proposal. Mr. Graham re- sponded that the staff will be responsible for preparation of a developer's packet which will contain all information required for any development. Mr. Mason cited Page 6, §I-3, which references 2 % deviations; how is this 2 % figured --on total site area, required landscaping or what. Mr. Simpson stated that the 2 % is based on the land area. City Attorney Brotzman noted that §G, Appeal Authority, needs to be reworded; the City Council does not operate as an appellate body. He recommended that the Planning Commis- sion be the final authority. Mr. Douglas asked what would be achieved by a PUD in an R-1 District. Mr. Graham stated that a PUD could provide alternatives to the traditional grid-pattern development, and could provide for cluster housing, open space, common facilities such as recreational areas, setbacks could be varied, and provision of innovations in design and appearance. The developer is given flexibility in design through the PUD process. Mr. Simpson discussed creative devel- opment possibilities on the General Iron site if the PUD process were to be used. Mr. Douglas expressed concern regarding application of PUDs to R-1 districts, citing rumors of a large "nursing home" proposed for an undeveloped area in the R-1-A district. Mr. Simp- son stated that the staff has been approached regarding a possible assisted living development; however, no formal application has been received. If and when such an application is re- ceived, a public hearing will be required before the Commission and before Council before the proposal can be approved. Mr. Douglas commented that, in his opinion , citizen input doesn't really impact the determinations reached by the Commission and Council. Mr. Douglas stated that if the Commission and Council were to eliminate PUD designation from any R-1 zone district, this would eliminate any possibility of variations on land use. Mr. Douglas stated that he could see no benefit to any R-1 district by allowing a possibility of commercial intrusion 9 into the residential area . Mr. Douglas expressed the fear that the PUD will "do more harm e than good"; in his opinion , it is designed to address the redevelopment of Cinderella City and to address the proposed nursing home. Mr. Simpson d isagreed with Mr. Douglas , stating that the PUD rev isions are not designed to address any single land use issue. The existing PD regulations do not provide a level of con- trol that the City needs to assure quality developments , and concerns have been expressed -- both by members of the Commission and by Council --on the quality of some recen t devel- opments. Mr. Douglas reiterated his opposition to applying the PUD regulations to R-1 Districts. Dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Simpson pointed out that the PUD is dealing with land use based on per- formance standards and mitigation of impacts ; this is not an unusual process , and will provide the City controls needed to assure quality development. Further discussion ensued. Ms. Tobin asked if the corrections and modifications noted by the Commission this evening will come back to the Commission before it goes to City Council. Mr. Simpson stated that staff wants to make sure members of the Commission are comfortable with the proposal, but that there is a need to get the proposed PUD district enacted soon. Mr. Mason suggested closure of the Public Hearing. He asked if the Commission wanted to approve the proposed amendment , with recommended modifications . Discussion ensued . Mr. Horner asked that members of the Commission be sent copies of the final draft of the PUD regulations. Mr. Douglas reiterated his concern regarding allowing PUDs in R-1 districts. Ms. Tobin stated that she also had concerns. Garrett moved: Shoop seconded: The Public Hearing on Case OR96-02 be closed . AYES: NAYS: Redpath , Shoop , Tobin, Weber , Douglas , Dummer, Garrett , Horner, Mason None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None The motion carried. Mr. Mason asked the pleasure of the Commission. Mason moved: Weber seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed PUD regulations, as amended with language changes cited this date, and refer said regulations to the City Council for approval. 10 Douglas moved: Tobin seconded: All R-1 Zone Districts shall be excluded from PUD applicability. Lengthy discussion ensued. Mr. Simpson emphasized that PUD rezoning is not "commercially oriented"; the PUD application will stipulate types of land use proposed in any development, and if the Commission and Council do not find a proposal to be appropriate, it should be re- jected. Mr. Douglas expressed his concern that the "PUD will be easier to slip by" than con- ventional rezoning. There are currently buffer zones to insulate the R-1 areas from commer- cial activities, but the commercial activities do creep in. Mr. Douglas stated that economics seem to be of greater concern than what is best for the community. He stated there is need to have nice residential areas that are close to downtown Denver , but people are moving south to Castle Rock because they can't find good residential areas closer in. The residential character of a community is what "defines" that community, while malls and other commercial develop- ments come and go. Further discussion followed. The vote on Mr. Douglas' motion was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Tobin , Douglas, Mason Weber, Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Redpath, Shoop None None Mr. Mason stated that the motion to exclude R-1 Districts from PUD applicability failed. The vote on the motion to approve, with amendments, was called: AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Shoop, Tobin, Weber, Douglas , Dummer, Garrett, Horner, Redpath, Mason None None None The motion carried. The proposed regulations will be revised to include the modifications made at this meeting, and copies mailed to members of the Commission. Staff thanked the Commission for their diligent consideration of this proposed amendment. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. No one was present to address the Commission. 11 \ VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mr. Simpson stated that staff is continuing work drafting the Site Plan review process and the Landscaping regulations revisions. Staff wants to assure clarity of the proposal before bring- ing the proposals to the Commission. Mr. Simpson alluded to his previous statement regarding the assisted living unit proposal. Staff has suggested that the applicant hold neighborhood meetings to explain the proposal to the surrounding neighbors; this will also provide an opportunity for the applicant and the City to gauge the opinion of the neighborhood. Mr. Simpson reiterated that no formal application has been filed as of this date; if such an application is filed, a Public Hearing will be scheduled before the Commission. Mr. Horner asked if this potential development would be accom- plished under the PUD guidelines. Mr. Simpson stated that the PUD ordinance is not now in effect; it will depend on the date such an application is received as to which regulations apply. Mr. Simpson discussed the South Broadway corridor issues which were earlier touched on by City Manager Clark. The day labor businesses have become very controversial, and residents on either side of the Broadway business frontage are very concerned about the impact such businesses have on their neighborhood. Staff will be working to develop an action plan to ad- dress issues of concern such as the day labor businesses, pawn shops , and other "undesirable" businesses. This action plan will address land use, economics, security , and other pertinent issues and develop strategies to deal with these issues. Staff continues working on a variety of issues which were cited in the Work Program given to the Commission in late 1995. Mr. Simpson encouraged and asked that any member of the Commission interested in attend- ing the Rocky Mountain Land Institute to please notify the staff as soon as possible. Mr. Horner asked what is on the agenda for the meeting on March 5. Mr. Simpson stated that staff has received an application for a subdivision which has been scheduled for Public Hearing on that date. It is possible that the first draft of the site plan and landscaping revision propos- als will be ready for discussion that evening. vm. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE. Ms. Tobin stated that she has checked regarding Mr. Mason's question on the Englewood Garden Club, and has been informed that such a Garden Club no longer exists. She has re- ceived suggestions that Councilman Alfred Vormittag might be a contact for citizens interested in restarting such a club, and noted that Councilman Vormittag has assumed the responsibility for care and planting of the flowers around City Hall. Mr. Mason and Mr. Horner both mentioned the "Hudson Gardens" development on South Santa Fe Drive, commenting on how nice this development will be at completion. 12 9 Mr. Garrett noted that a new coffee shop has recently opened on South Broadway, and the owner has been very complimentary to Mark Graham , stating that Mr. Graham has been very helpful to the owner in attempting to resolve some of their problems. Mr. Garrett commented that Englewood has had a poor reputation with small businesses wanting to move into town. Mr. Simpson stated that attempts are being made to develop a better attitude on the part of all departments working with the public. He commented that he had recently been involved in the interview process for the new Chief Building Official, and that there were two outstanding candidates. Mr. Mason announced that Commission members Redpath and Shoop will attend the Metro Vision 2020 meeting on February 24th. The meeting was declared adjourned. h : \group \boards\plancomm \pc m2-96a e 13