Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-10-02 PZC MINUTESPage 1594 Mr. Lentsch commented that the streets had been left in poor condition following the installa- tion of the storm drainage system. Mr. Brown stated that he felt this wou~d be taken care of very shortly. Mr. Brown stated that City Council had passed an ordinance which will restrict the showing of movies, sale and display of books and other materials which are pornographic. Mr. Jorgenson was excused from the meeting at 9:15 P.M. Mr. Martin stated that he had looked into the matter of storm drainage as requested by Chairman Lentsch. Mr. Martin stated that in 1970, an engineering consulting firm was hired to update the storm drainage plan for the City; a 1 % sales tax was instituted to finance the storm drainage program. Mr. Martin stated that in 1970, $100,000 was budgeted for storm drainage; in 1971, $700,000 was budgeted; in 1972, $1,500,000; in 1973, slightly less than $2,000,000; and in 1974, it is proposed that slightly more than $1,000,000 be budgeted for storm drainage improvements. Mr. Martin stated that recommendations made to the City of Englewood by the engineering firm include: 1. The storm drainage system must be integrated within the entire master plan of the City; 2. Natural waste-ways must not be restricted; 3. Water should not be transferred from one area to another area; 4. No up-stream developer should be allowed to make improvements which would cause land to be used for a basin or collecting area for drainage water. Mr. Martin stated that the Northwest Englewood drainage parkway is nearing completion; he stated that he felt it will be a real "boon" to the northwest area. In Northeast Englewood, Mr. Martin said that Mr. Waggoner, Director of Public Works, has indicated that the Larwin Corporation will have two sunken areas on the site for water collection; these areas will be gated for release into the drainage system. Mr. Martin stated that there are other areas in the City where houses are to be purchase~ by the City and the right-of-way developed as a drainage /parkway; specifically, an area bounded by Santa Fe on the west, Oxford on the north; Huron on the east, Tufts on the south; also, an area bounded by Quincy on the north; Broadway on the east, Belleview on the south, and Huron on the west. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown stated that he felt it was a very good report. He pointed out that the 1 % sales tax will not pay for all of the storm drainage system; the City ha~, in the past, been able to receive Federal aid to help in the construction of the system. Mr. Brown pointed out that the City spends approximately $25,000 per year to pump Frog Hollow; he hopes that this problem will be alleviated with the new system. Mr. Weist stated that several months ago, several high school students had contacted him and discussed one of the more controversial subjects considered by the Commission with him; they chose this particular matter for their Student Government Council meeting. Mr. Weist stated that he felt it was very important for these students to get involved in governmental matters on that level. Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Weist if the school board has ever considered opening the buildings to the public --such as the libraries, etc. Mr. Weist noted that the media centers are open at the present time. Mr. Brown stated that he understood there were some students who lived in the Cherry Creek School District who have been given the option of attending either Cherry Creek High School or Englewood High School. Mr. Weist stated that there are some students who have been given that option who are in Junior High School. Mr. Weist stated that the Englewood School system has picked up about 50 students at the present time; he stated he felt this was a good start. Mr. Martin asked if the Littleton School System was involved in this program? Mr. Weist stated that the school systems are trading back and forth on teachers, but not on students at this time. Mr. Brown stated that Larwin Cimpany has been asked to give the land to the City for park purposes as discussed at the time the Larwin project was approved; he stated that the City is now looking at plans for the park development. Mr. Brown stated that he felt the City would have a very beautiful park for the people of Englewood. The meeting adjourned at 9 :30 P.M. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "'* CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 2, 1973 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 8:00 P. M. by Chairman Lentsch. Members present: Lentsch; Brown; Henning; Jorgenson; Martin; Stanley; Tanguma; Smith .Supinger, Ex-officio Members absent: Weist Also present: D. A. Romans, Assistant Director for Planning; W. F. Brokate, Assistant Director for Code Enforcement; Ed White, Captain, Fire Department; Sign Code Committee members Brelsford, Chandler and Tromly; Board of Adjustment member Martin. I I I I I I Page 159 5 II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman Lentsch stated that the Minutes of September 5, 1973, were to be considered for approval. Martin moved: Jorgenson seconded: The Minutes of September 5, 1973, be approved as written. Ayes: Brown, Henning, Jorgenson, Lentsch, Martin, Smith, Stanley, Tanguma Nays: None Absent: Weist The motion carried. III. AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE §22.5 --Sign Code Henning moved: Brown seconded: The Public Hearing be opened. AYES: Henning, Jorgenson, Lentsch, Martin, Smith, Stanley, Tanguma, Brown NAYS: None ABSENT: Weist The motion carried. CASE #33-73 Mr. Lentsch asked Mr. Supinger to give the background of the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Supinger stated that notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Herald Sentinel on September 13, 1973. Mr. Supinger stated that in April, 1972, the City Planning Commission met to discuss the revision of the existing Sign Code. It was determined at that meeting to ask for citizen input on the revision of the Code; letters were sent to several organizations and businesses in the City inviting them to provide representation on the committee. Groups such as the Association of Colorado Roads, American Association of Landscape Architects, Sierra Club, etc. were also contacted and asked for representation; however, these groups indicated they did not wish to participate in the drafting of the ordinance; they would, however, participate in public hearings. The Sign Code Committee first met on July 19, 1972; they have met almost weekly since that time except for the holiday season. Mr. Weist entered and took his place with the Commission. Mr. Supinger stated that he wished to express appreciation to staff members who devoted many hours of work to the revision of the Code. Mr. Supinger stated that copies o f the proposed Sign Code have been sent to members of the Sign Code Committee, Board of Adjust- ment, Sign companies and all City Departments. Mr. Supinger stated that the Planning Com- mission, Board of Adjustment and Sign Code Committee had met on August 14th and on August 21st; changes were made to the proposed Code, and were included in the latest printing, which is before the Commission at this time. The proposed Sign Code for Englewood is based on the Denver Regional Council of Governments Model Sign Code, with some adaptations from the Denver Sign Code and others written specifically for Englewood. Mr. Supinger stated that the proposed Code has 12 sections, and gave a brief synopsis of each section. It was noted that, inasmuch as the Sign Code is to be an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the penalty clause has not been duplicated in the proposed amendment. Mr. Lentsch noted that there were extra copies of the Sign Code available if members of the audience wished to have a copy. Mr. Lentsch then asked if there were any questions by the Commission of Mr. Supinger. There were no questions. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Commission would now hear the members of the audience who were present in favor of the proposed Sign Code; he asked that all .those speaking give their name and address for the record. Mrs. Virginia Kaechele 7576 S. Franklin Way -read the following statement: "Statement to the Englewood City Planning and Zoning Commission concerning the proposed Sign Code October 2, 1973. "On behalf of the Arapahoe County League of Women Voters, we welcome this opportunity to speak before this Commission. "We support pas;sage of the proposed Sign Code for the City of Englewood. We recommend that at such time as the legality of amortization shall become established, that the Code be amended to provide for a reasonable and proper amortization schedule of existing non-conforming signs. "We further recommend that strict enforcement of the Code be carried out, with adequate staff provided to perform the necessary duties in connection with enforce- ment." No one else indicated a desire to speak in favor of the Code. Mr. Lentsch then asked for those in opposition to the Code to speak. Tom Magee Roadposter -stated that his firm has 10 outdoor advertising posters in the City of Englewood in three different locations. He stated that he felt outdoor advertising served a very important function of the community and "helps the entire community." Mr. Magee protested the prohibition of new bill- board/poster board installations in the City of Englewood. Page 1596 Mr. Woody Curtis Eller Outdoor Advertising 755 Wazee, Denver -stated that the attorney for their firm could not be at the Hearing, and stated that he wished to review a letter written to the Commission by the Attorney and submit said letter for the record. The letter reads as follows: "October 2, 1973 Englewood Planning and Zoning Commission 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado Dear Sirs: Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. of Colorado, the largest outdoor adverti~ing sign owner in the city of Englewood, has asked me, as its attorney, to comment on the Proposed Sign Code for Englewood, Colorado. First, please accept my apologies for not being present a t tonight's meeting in person. A previous commitment is preventing me from being able to attend. It should be noted that Eller Outdoor Advertising Co. of Colorado is in sympathy with the city's basic attempt to provide some form of regulation for signs and to limit uncontrolled proliferation which .can occur if there is no regulation whatsoever. In this connection, early this year when Eller was requested by the Sign Code Committee fQr Eller's comment~ concerning possible regulation of outdoor advertising devices, it did submit a strictly limited proposal which would, however, have allowed Eller to remain in business in Englewood. This suggestion was sent to the Englewood Sign Code Committee on March 6 of this year. Unfortunately, Englewood has chosen to take the approach of totally pro- hibiting the erection of any new billboards within its city boundaries. The principal reason that this is "unfortunate" is that such a position is probably unconstitutional in Colorado, anq therefore, will simply put off the effective date of valid and meaningful regulatory provisions for another two or three years while the constitutionality of the pro- posed sign code is litigated in the courts. If Englewood were to adopt a valid regulation of billboards at this time, it would simply be that much farther ahead of the game. I do not, at this time, wish to get into an extended discussion of the legal problems raised by a city-wide prohibition of a legitimate business such as outdoor advertising, but I would be remiss if I did not call to your attention a Colorado Supreme Court case arising out of Arapahoe County which makes it virtually certain that the Proposed Sign Code would be held invalid. In the early 1950's, the Arapahoe County commissioners adopted a zoning resolution which provided for commercial districts in which it allowed "signs when approved by the combined action of the Arapahoe County Board of Adjustment and the Board of County Commissioners from Arapahoe County." The General Outdoor Advertising Company applied for a permit which was denied and thereafter challenged the constitutionality of that zoning provision. The Supreme Court found that the resolution was invalid in the case of General Outdoor Adv. v. Goodman, 128 Colo. 344 (1953). The Colorado Supreme Court, in language which cannot be reconciled with the Proposed Sign Code, stated that the provisions of the Colorado statutes which allowed the County Commissioners to "regulate" the size of buildings or structures and uses of land for trade, industry and other purposes, is a clear grant of power to regulate such matters within reasonable limitations, but certainly does not include any power, expressed or inherent, to prohibit. This decision was not unusual in Colorado because many years before the Colorado courts had stated The power delegated to a municipality to regulate and license a legitimate and useful occupation does not include the power to prohibit absolutely. [Krier v. Walsenburg, 26 Colo. App. 150, 153, 141 Pac, 505 (1914)] Furthermore, in reviewing the law relating to exclusionary billboard zoning throughout the United States, it is notable that such ordinances have been held unconstitutional in California, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Iowa. The only cases which have upheld such ordinances have involved totally residential communities with populations of less than 10,000 people. In each of those few cases, the courts have emphasized the totally residential nature of the community in finding the regulations valid. These cases would be of little assistance in a city with the size and diverse nature of Englewood. Therefore, Eller Outdoor believes that it is truly in Englewood's best interest to remove the totally prohibitory provisions of the Proposed Sign Code and to avoid · the great likelihood that such a Code would be held unconstitutional. I I I I I I Page 1597 Eller would be very pleased to meet with the Sign Code Committee, the City Council, o~ anyone else in an effort to work out an acceptable regulatory code which would both protect the legitimate interest of the citizens of Englewood and avoid the likelihood of unconstitutionality. Eller believes that its proposal of March 6 is much more likely to be able to withstand constitutional attack, shoulc such be made, and pro- vides the protection and regulation which Englewood deserves and should expect. In the meantime, we do want to make it clear that Eller strongly opposes the present attempt to totally prohibit it from carrying on its business and would strongly urge this committee to reconsider any such drastic legislation. RPH;kg" Respectfully submitted, /s / Richard P. Holme Richard P. Holme for DAVIS, GRAHAM & STUBBS Mr. Curtis stated that he assumed most members of the Commission were businessmen; "you have done damage to a legitimate business." Mr. Curtis reiterated that it is the opinion of Eller Outdoor Advertising that the proposed Sign Code will not be up-held by the Courts. He noted that the Denver Sign Code is in court at the present time. There was no one else who wished to speak in opp0sition to the proposed Sign Code. Mrs. Henning asked Assistant City Attorney Lee if he was familiar with the cases cited by Mr. Holme? Mr. Lee stated that he did recall the Goodman case; he was unfamiliar with the other case. Mrs. Henning asked how many cases had been brought in "home rule cities?" Mr. Lee stated that as far as he knew, Denver was the first Home Rule City to have a case in Colorado. Henning moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing be closed. AYES: NAYS: Jorgenson, Lentsch, Martin, Smith, Stanley, Tanguma, Weist, Brown, Henning None The motion carried. Henning moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the amendment of· the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new §22.5, entitled Sign Code, which amendment is attached hereto. All subsequent sections of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will ·have to be renumbered consecutively. Mr. Weist asked the staff position on the question of billboard identification? Mr. Supinger stated that the Department of Community Development agrees with the recommendation of the Sign Code Committee. He stated that he personally feels that billboards are parasitic -- they thrive only because of public expenditures on streets and highways. He stated that he feels the matter of third-party advertising should be a matter of choice through such media as newspapers, magazines, radio or TV, and not forced on the ' private citizen through bill- boards. Mr. Supinger stated that he agreed businesses have the right to advertise on their own premises and in various media. Mr. Supinger pointed out that the proposed Sign Code does not abolish the billboards that are in existence --they may continue in the present location until such time as they are damaged more than 50% of their value. Mr. Weist then asked Mr. Lee if he felt that attitudes had changed since the decision of the two cases cited by Mr. Holme? Mr. Lee stated that he felt there had been changes in thought since that time, and cited the ecology issue and the public interest in ecology. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there should be some provision for signs for garage sales, yard sales, etc. He suggested that this provision could possibly be included under Signs Not Subject to Permit. Discussion followed. Mrs. Henning asked if a garage sale was a permitted use in a residential area at the present time? Mr. Lee stated that he knew of nothing that would prohibit a person from selling a piece of personal property; however, as far as erecting a sign is concerned, it would be illegal. Discussion followed. Further discussion on the entire sign code ensued. The matter of billboards were further considered. Mr. Martin noted that he did not feel the Sign Code is prohibitive; he noted there is no amortization clause, nor is the City saying the third-party signs presently installed must be removed. He stated that he does not think the Code is unreasonably harsh on the outdoor advertisers. Mr. Magee stated that he felt the proposed sign code was a "tragedy", and would force him out of business in the City; he stated that his roadposters must be moved from one location to another; they could not remain where they were at the present time and serve the purpose for which they were designed. Mr. Magee stated that Englewood was a "very dynamic city", and he hated to see businesses forced out to the detriment of the City. Mr. Martin stated that he agreed that the City is "dynamic", but that "it seems to me that a lot of the bill- boards are reminescent of ads .many years ago; if we update and continue our dynamic way, we should improve the way of advertising." Mr. Magee stated that Eller Outdoor Advertising has come up with a new structural design that he felt was quite attractive. Discussion followed. Mr. Magee stated that "it is not my intention to make the posters look pretty", but he is working to communicate an idea, that may be realized at a "quick visual glance." Mr. Magee stated that he felt the persons affiliated with outdoor advertising ''have difficulty with literate people --these people don't realize that billboards are a great community asset." Mr. Magee stated that most of the persons serving on the Sign Code Committee "are planners and very literate people; they Page 1598 have gone to school all their lives, read books and work with T-squares and straight edges; they do not have any common sense and practical experience." Mr. Brown asked Mr. Magee "if this ordinance is passed, will it hurt your business?" Mr. Magee stated "it will eliminate it here." Mr. Brown stated that he could see where the passage of the proposed Sign Code \\'.Ould "limit"' the business, but would not "eliminate" it, inasmuch as Mr. Magee has posters installed now, and the proposed Code does not require their removal. Mr. Magee pointed out that he "must have new locations, or the business cannot continue." Mr. Curtis stated that he did have a picture of the new structure designed by Eller Outdoor Advertising, and circulated the picture through ·the Commission. Mr. Curtis noted that they currently have a roof sign on a structure on South Acoma Stree~; the structure is old, and at such time as the structure is repaired or removed, their sign will have to be removed; and Eller will not be allowed to install a new billboard. Mr. Curtis pointed out that "eventually, there will be no signs of Eller's in Englewood." Mr. Curtis stated that Eller currently has 30 structures in Englewood, and they are making every effort to improve the image of the bil°lboard industry. Mr. Lentsch stated that he was a Broadway businessman; he stated that he felt the proposed Sign Code would be a help to the City, even though it might hurt him to a degree. Mr. Curtis further discussed the new design by Eller; he stated that the lights are concealed; the platform is concealed also. He stated that they are trying to show the public that "bili- boards can be beautiful." Mr. Supinger stated that the City is in the middle of the Core Area Study; he feels that the City can expect recommendations from the consultant relative to signs and other develop- ment in the Core Area, which will, most likely, include a design review procedure and much more stringent standards for development than exist now. Mr. Supinger stated that he felt this could be considered as the first step in up-grading the community, and he hoped that it might encourage some surrounding communities in their attempts to up-grade. Mr. Curtis asked "why do you have to eliminate a particular type of sign to up-grade?" Mr. Supj.nger stated that he had previously expressed his personal opinion;, third-party signs are related only to public expenditures for public streets and highways. The cost of the sign to the advertiser depends on the traffic carried by that particular street. Mr. Supinger states that this is "unfair, inappropriate use of public expenditures", and eliminates the freedom of the individual to choose to view or not to view an advertisement. Mr. Curtis stated that the charge for a billboard is determined by the number of "showings" in the metro area, and that traffic counts do not relate to the fee charged. Mr. Magee stated that his customers paid the same no matter where the sign is located. Discussion followed. Mr. Brown noted that the Sign Code Committee had spent many months in the dr~fting of the revision; he asked the gentlemen representing Eller and Roadposter if they had any input to the Committee? Mr. Magee stated that he had been invited to one meeting, which was canceled; he attended a second meeting at which meeting "there were maybe three outside people in attendance, the rest wer~ staff." He stated "there was very little discussion of out-door advertising." Mr. Magee stated that he +elt this stemmed from the fact that "the staff isn't interested in outdoor advertising." Mr. Brown stated that he was disappointed to hear there was no more input from these businesses. Mr. Curtis stated that Eller had "heard through City contacts" of the first organizational meeting of the Committee; they attended a meeting and presented a slide show, and followed this presentation up with written communications. Mr. Aubrey Brelsford, Chairman of the Sign Code Committee, st~ted that the Committee had discussed third-party signs at "great length on many occasions"; both Eller and Mr. Magee were invited to make presentations and written communications on the type of Code they would like to see drafted; these recommendations were reviewed by the Committee in depth. Mr. Brelsford stated that one of Eller's recommendations was that a 900 sq .. ft. billboard be permitted. This size is "much greater than the owner of the property .would be permitted to have." Mr. Brelsford stated that "if you drive down Santa Fe or Broadway, you will find billboards 40 or 50 feet in the air; the individual property owner is permitted a maximum height of 32 ft. for a free-standing sign." Mr. Brelsford stated that the Committee did, in fact, prepare an ordinance permitting billboards; however, it was determined .that bill- boards should be prohibited and this proposed .Code ~as drafted. Mr. Brelsford stated that "third-party signs have no relatio~ whatever to what is going on on the property", and questioned the fairness of allowing billboard advertising vs. the advertising allowed other businessmen of the City. Discussion followed. Mr. Brelsford stated that he felt the Com- mittee did have some very dedicated individuals serving; there were also some that served for a time who were concerned only with protecting their own signs. Mr. Supinger stated that the Code under CC?nsid~ration "is not a staff code. It is a Code that the Sign Code Committee came up with through a lot of hours of work and with advice of the staff and other people." Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it was very unfair criticism of the staff to say that it _is a "staff code." Mr. James Chandler, member of the Sign Code Committee, stated that he had served on the Committee from its beginning. Mr. Chandler stated that he felt it was easy to understand why some people had been unable to continue their service; he pointed out that the Committee met three or four times a month, and each meeting required at .leas~ 2-1 /2 hours; some persons just did not have the time to take from their business to serve. Mr. Chandler stated that he felt the Committee had devoted "more time and speci,al attention to outdoor advertising than to any other part of the code." Further discussion followed. The vote was called. AYES: NAYS: Lentsch; Martin; Smith; Sta11:ley; _Tanguma; Weist; . Brown;. Henning; Jorgenson None The motion carried unanimously. I I I I I I Page 1599 Mr. Lentsch thanked the audience for their interest in the proposed Code, and expressed the appreciation of the Commission to those members of the Sign Code Committee for their work. IV. CONDITIONAL USE Nursery School 800 West Oxford CASE #32-73 Mr. Supinger stated that Mrs. Barbara Tankevich has made application for approval of the Planning Commission of a proposed nursery school at 800 West Oxford Avenue. Mrs. Tankevich proposes to care for 20 pre-school-age children, with the aid of one additional teacher. A nursery school is a Conditional Use under the R-1-C Zone District regulations, requiring approval of the Planning Commission before the proposed use can begin. Mr. Lentsch stated that the Planning Commission has just approved a similar request at the last meeting; he asked how many nursery schools should be approved? Mr. Supinger stated that a recommendation can be made on the need of these facilities if so desired. Mr. Supinger pointed out that on the Larwin site, a day-care center was proposed in the family sections .of that development. Mr. Brown asked of Mrs. Tankevich what experience shd had, and why she wanted to start this type of business? Mrs. Tankevich stated that she had no children of her own; she has been a day-care mother caring for infants, and she likes children. Mrs. Tankevich stated that she will hire one additional teacher; the state requires two years of child development care for all personnel working with day care centers. Mrs. Tankevich stated that the person she will be hiring will soon have four years of education in this field. Mrs. Henning asked Mrs. Tankevich if they could meet the requirements of the Code Enforce- ment Division to get the house in proper condition? Mrs. Tankevich stated that they need to get approval of the Planning Commission prior to trying to get a loan from the bank for improvement of the house. Mr. Tankevich stated that they did want to bring the house up to code. Mr. Martin questioned the difference between the Code Enforcement inspection, which indicates that a Fire Alarm system is needed, and the Fire Prevention inspection, which indicates that fire protection .is adequate. Discussion ensued. Henning moved : Brown seconded: . The Planning Commission approve the application of Mrs. Barbara Tankevich for a nursery school at 800 West Oxford Avenue, provided the following conditions are met: 1. All the recommendations made by Mrs. Jeane Heckles of the Tri- County Health Department must be acted upon and approved on re- inspection before the child care center opens on January 1 , 1974. These recommendations are listed below: a. one-half (1/2) pint cartons of milk used for lunches. b. Paper towel dispensers in kitchen and bathroom. c. Domestic dishwasher -final rinse shall be 170 ° -180 °. d. Thermometer in refrigerator to register between 40 ° -50 °. e . Bathroom floor retiled. f. Window screens repaired. g. Back screen door repaired. h. Plastic liners in wastebaskets. i. Tight fitting lids for trash barrels and adequate trash disposal. j . Physical and TB test for family and teachers. k. More foot storage space. 1. More freezer space. m. Installation of another toilet and lavatory required. n. Cats must have registered shots and be kept out of the kitchen. 2. An inspection of the home by the Code Enforcement Division finds the following work to be done to bring the house into conformance with the Building Code. a. Electrical rewiring throughout the house. b. New service entry. c. One-hour fire resistant interior walls. d. Hand-rails on all stairways. e. Anti-syphon ball cocks in all water closets. f. Fire alarm system. 3. Parking space for three cars. Two spaces for a single-family use, and one space for a non-resident teacher. Space for leaving and picking up children from the center must be safe and well-marked. Page 1600 4. The above improvements shall be certified by the Code Enforcement Division prior to starting operation of the nursery school. AYES: NAYS: Martin; Smith; Stanley; Tanguma; Weist; Brown; Henning; Jorgenson; Lentsch None The motion carried unanimously. V. SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER Tour of Facilities Mr. Supinger stated that discussion of a tour of the Swedish Medical Center and an up-dating of their plans has ensued on several occasions. Alternate dates of October 10th, October 12th or October 13th have been tentatively scheduled; the Commission is to decide upon one date this evening. Discussion followed. It was determined that the Commission would meet at Swedish Medical Center at noon, October 12th, for lunch followed by a tour of the facilities. Those who stated they would attend the luncheon and tour were: Mrs. Henning, Mrs. Stanley, Mr. Weist, Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Tanguma, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lentsch. VI. STUDY SESSION Northwest Englewood Mr. Supinger stated that he felt it might be well for the Planning Commission to have a neighborhood study session in the Northwest Englewood area; there have been several rumors and inquiries about possibly changing .the zoning in the residential area. He felt it would be well to hold the study session, invite the residents to the meeting and discuss develop- ment matters with the residents. The Planning Commission could then review the discussion and determine whether or not to initiate rezoning procedures. Discussion followed. It was determined the meeting should be scheduled for November 13; the Planning Commission would meet at City Hall at 7:00 P.M. for a short synopsis of previous discussions and action in regard to the Northwest Englewood area .. At 8:00 P.M., the Planning Commission would meet at Scenic View School for the study session. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Supinger stated that he would like to direct the Commission's attention to an article in Time Magazine, entitled "Land Boom". He stated that it was a very good article, and recommended that the Commission read it. Mr. Supinger stated that there would be two meetings of the Core Area Citizens' Committee on October 24th and October 25th. It was felt the two meetings would be needed to properly review the materials from the consultant. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Lentsch asked that Mr. Weist give a report on the program of the School Board at a future meeting; that Mr. Tanguma report on the Parks & Recreation program, and that Mr. Brown give a report on the Library Board program. The meeting adjourned. Gertrude G. Welty Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DATE: October 2, 1973 SUBJECT: Amendment of Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new §22.5 entitled Sign Code, and renumbering all subsequent sections consecutively. RECOMMENDATION: Henning moved: Martin seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council the amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new §22.5, entitled Sign Code which amendment is attached hereto. All subsequent sections of the ' Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will have to be renumbered consecutively. Respectfully submitted, By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Gertrude G. Welty, Recording Secretary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I I I