Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-01-17 PZC MINUTESCITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION January 17, 1984 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P. M. by Chairman Marjorie L. Becker. Members present: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma Powers, Ex-officio Members absent: Venard Also present: Susan King, Acting Assistant Director for Planning II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 6, 1983 December 13, 1983 Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of December 6, 1983 were to be considered for approval. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of December 6, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Allen NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel, Tanguma ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Chairman Becker stated that the Minutes of December 13, 1983 were to be considered for approval. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Minutes of December 13, 1983 be approved as written. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Stoel ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. III. SUBDIVISION PLAT 4755 South Santa Fe Drive CASE 111-84 Chairman Becker stated that the matter before the Commission is a Public Hearing on a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for property at 4755 South Santa Fe Drive. Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. -2- Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-84 be opened. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that the staff report regarding the preliminary subdivision plat is before the Commission, and asked lf there were any questions of the staff. Mrs. Becker asked the staff if there were additional comments to be made. Ms. Susan King was sworn in, and presented for the record copies of letters sent to adjoining property owners by certified mail, which letters were notification of the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing on the pro- posed Subdivision Plat. Ms. King then addressed a concern of the Engineering Services Department, and stated that staff members are of the opinion that there is fill occurring on the subject site, and that this fill may be in the floodway of Big Dry Creek. The Engineering Services staff indicated that if this is the case, the fill dirt may have to be relocated. The Engineering Services Department is requesting an engineer's report on this site, which will identify the area of the floodway and identify the area where the fill is being done. Ms. King suggested that the submission of an engineer's report ~ should be an additional requirement listed on Page three and four of the staff report. Ms. King defined the floodway as being the course the water would take during a flood. The flood plain was defined as being that area that would be inundated temporarily by the flood waters. Ms. King stated that the Utilities Department has expressed concern on some of the angles indicated for the utility easements; they feel these angles are too sharp to properly handle sewage flow, and that the easements and angles should be redefined. Ms. King stated that it is being suggested that the engineer for the property owner get in touch with the Utility Depart- ment to resolve the matter of angles on the easements. Mrs. Becker asked if there were questions from the Commission members for Ms. King. Mr. Allen asked if the location of the proposed fire hydrant conformed with the Fire Code. Ms. King stated that the issue of the fire hydrant would be resolved at the time the building permits are issued. The matter before the Commission at this time is the division of the property into two sites: Lot 1 and Lot 2. Mr. McBrayer stated that in his opinion, the access to South Santa Fe Drive "must" be coordinated with the State Highway Departments. He stated that he hoped the Highway Department would take into account the plans for the corridor when approving ingress and egress to developments along South Santa Fe. Ms. King stated that she was not sure that property on the west side of South Santa Fe Drive would be acquired; she acknowledged that access to and from South Santa Fe Drive would be limited. -3- Mrs. Becker asked if the applicant, Mr. Donald Cameron, was present and if he wished to address the Commission. Mr. Dasel Hallmark was sworn in, and testified that he is the civil engineer and developed the plat for Mr. Cameron. Mr. Hallmark stated that this land has been used as a golf course for the last few years, which use is not the best use for the land, and they have been attempting to intensify the land use for some time. Mr Hallmark stated that Lot 1 is scheduled for development with mini-warehousing in the near future. Mr. Hallmark stated that he and the owner, Mr. Cameron, have met with the Fire Department, the staff of the Engineering Services Department, and with the State Highway Department. Mr. Hallmark stressed that they will coordinate points of access with the State Highway Department. They have also been in contact with Mr. Siddle and Publ!c Service Company regarding the easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are trying to assure there is no conflict with the development as proposed and the high tension lines that cross the sites. Mr. Hallmark stated that they are working with the Engineering Services Depart- ment regarding the fill and floodway; he stated that they are aware there are restrictions on building in the flood plain. Mr. Hallmark then discussed the matter of the water and sewer easements, and the need to redefine the angles of these easements. Mr. Hallmark stated that he would like to receive copies of replies the property owners had submitted to the staff regarding the pro- posed subdivision; they would like to work through any problems the surrounding property owners may have. Mrs. Becker asked if there were questions of Mr. Hallmark from the Commission. Mr. Carson asked if the applicant would install the fire hyndrant. Mr. Hallmark stated that they would. The applicant is responsible for the complete water and sanitary system. Mr. Hallmark stated that the applicant is aware that an engineering report will have to be submitted; this is a necessity to obtain financing for any project. Ms. King pointed out that the letters she submitted for the record were what the staff mailed to the adjoining property owners regarding the date, time, and place of the Public Hearing; no responses from the adjoining property owners have been received. Mr. Hallmark introduced Mr. Cameron, who had entered the meeting during Mr. Hallmark's presentation. Mrs. Becker asked Mr. Cameron if he wished to add to Mr. Hallmark's statement. Mr. Cameron stated that he had nothing to add. Allen moved: Carson seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #1-84 be closed. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission on the Preliminary Plat. Allen moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the preliminary subdivision plat submitted by Mr. Donald Cameron, with the following -4- conditions: 1. Enlarge the utility easement from 25 feet to 30 feet and provide a legal description for the easement. 2. The developer is to bear the cost of moving the water meter used by the Fire training facility, if necessary. 3. Access to South Santa Fe Drive is to be limited to right-tum only. 4. An engineers report identifying. the floodway lines shall be provided by the property owner. Mr. Tanguma stated that there seems to be a lot of loose ends regarding this plat, and questioned what happens on the rezoning. Ms. King pointed out that the question before the Commission is not on rezoning, but on the division of the land. Ms. King agreed that there are loose ends, but pointed out that this is a preliminary plat, and that the applicant will incorporate the recommendations into the final plat before it is presented to the Commission for their review and recommendation to City Council. The vote was called: AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE R-2-C SPS Medium Density Special Permit System Residence District. Ms. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Barbre and CASE 112-84 McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case 112-84 be opened. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker noted that the proposed R-2-C SPS Zone District regulations were contained in the packet the Commission received several days ago. She asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commission regarding the proposed zone district. It was noted that public notice of this public hearing was published in the official City newspaper, the Englewood Sentinel, on December 28, 1983. Mr. Tanguma questioned the wording on Page 13 of the R-2-C regulations, fill, and asked if the wording should not be" ... design which complements adjacent -5- buildings ••• " rather than "similar" to adjacent buildings. Discussion en- sued. Mr. Allen questioned that the Commission should require new construction that is either similar or compatible with the adjacent buildings. After fur- ther discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that #11 should state that: "A project is ENCOURAGED to incorporate design which is compatible with adjacent buildings ••• ". Ms. Becker asked if there were further comments or suggestions. further comments, and noting that there was no audience present proposed zone district, Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to close Hearing. Carson moved: McBrayer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #2-84 be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Alle~ moved: Hearing no to discuss the the Public McBrayer seconded: The Planning Commission approve the R-2-C SPS Zone District regulations, as amended, and recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance be amended to incorporate this Zone District as §22.4-7. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. IV. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #3-84 Amendment to R-3, High Density Residence Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-84 be opened. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that Public Notice was given in the Englewood Sentinel on Decemher 28, 1983 identifying the time and place of this Public Hearing. Mrs. Becker asked if the Commission had any questions of the staff regarding the proposed amendments to this zone district, which has been reviewed in depth with the Commission on previous occasions. There were no questions from the Commission. -6- Mrs. Becker noted there was no one present in the audience to address the Commission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #3-84 be closed. AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker asked the pleasure of the Commission regarding this matter. Stoel moved: Barbre seconded: The Planning Commission approve the proposed amendments to the R-3 Zone District regulations, and recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-8, be amended by incorporating the proposed changes in text. AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. V. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE CASE #4-84 R-4, Residential-Professional District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-84 be opened. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that Public Notice was given in the Englewood Sentinel on December 28, 1983, identifying the time and place of this Public Hearing. Mrs. Becker asked if Commission members had any questions regarding the proposed amendments. Mr.McBrayer staed that on Page 7, N(2) lists Group Homes as a Conditional Use. He stated that he understood that group homes were to be allowed in any residential district according to State Law. Ms. King explained that the State Law regarding group homes deals with group homes for the developmentally disabled; there are other group homes that are not covered by the State definition of developmental disability and cited other groups which have requested housing for run-away children, etc. -7- Mr. McBrayer suggested that a statement be added at the end of the sentence to the effect: " ••• except for those which are required to be accepted by State Law." He stated that the way this statement is written now, it ap- pears that the City would be attempting to place group homes allowed by State Law under the provisions of a Conditional Use. Ms. King stated that following discussions with City Council members, it is her belief that the Council is concerned about group homes clustering in any one area. Ms. King cited the 3200 block South Sherman Street as an example, where a group home is in existence, and the organization running this home is buying additional property within the same block for another group home. The neighbors have expressed deep concern on the number of group homes that could develop in any one block, or in a given neighborhood. The staff is investigating ·the possibility of placing restrictions on the number of group homes that can develop in a block, citing distances between group homes, or so many in a given block area. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker suggested that the staff incorporate proper language to clarify the intent of this provision. Ms. Powers asked if the Commission was interested in considering standards to limit distances between group homes. Ms. King stated that the staff is considering regulations to require 800 feet between two group homes, and that no more than three group homes may be within a four block distance. Ms. King stated that group homes affiliated with correctional institutions would not be allowed. Ms. King pointed out that foster homes that take in more than four children would also be in the group home classification, and would have to be ap- proved by Conditional Use. Mr. McBrayer asked why an all-encompassing statement could not be included to state that "it is the intent to alleviate the clustering of group homes in this Zone District", and not include specific standards. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it would be better to have specific standards to follow rather than such a general statement. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers stated that the City Council did discuss distance limitations on group homes for the R-1 and R-2 Districts that they are considering. Mr. Stoel suggested that perhaps this should be checked out with the City Attorney. Mr. Stoel asked for clarification on the reason foster families would be considered a "group home". Ms. Powers stated that if more than four children are cared for in the home, it would have to be considered as a group home. Once classified as a group home by the State Law, families wanting to care for foster children must have the home inspected by the Fire Marshal. Ms. Powers stated that City Council does understand the concerns of the School District, which wants to encourage some group homes caring for foster Children, but is also concerned about the impact on neighborhoods that group homes can have. Discussion ensued on the licensing of group homes by the State, and the placing of restrictions on the location of group homes. Mrs. Becker stated that it is the consensus of the Commission that the staff he requested to amend this §N(2) on Page 7 by further describing the group homes to be considered as a Conditional Use. Mrs. Becker stated that the staff is also requested to include distance requirements between group homes as has been discussed this evening. -8- Ms. Powers pointed out that distance limitations would have to be incorporated in all residential zone districts to cover all the group homes, Mrs. Becker noted that there was no one in the audience to address the Com- mission on this matter. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #4-84 bQ closed, AYES: Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-9, be amended by in- corporating the proposed amendments in the text of the ordinance. The proposed amendments are to be enlarged to include the dis- cussion on distance restrictions on group homes, and further clarification on which group homes are subject to approval by Conditional Use. AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: ·None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VI. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-1 Business District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tanguma moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-84 be opened. CASE #5-84 AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that Public Notice giving notice of the date, time, and place of this Public Hearing was published in the Englewood Sentinel on December 28, 1983. Mrs. Becker stated that members of the Commission have received the proposed amendments to the B-1 Zone District, and asked if there were questions or comments from the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that on Page 8, d(3), the staff wants to know if the Com- mission would consider expanding this statement to include outdoor storage of materials, supplies, and equipment on PRIVATE or public property. Ms. Powers cited several instances wherein merchandise is displayed outdoors, -9- but is not on the public right-of-way. Discussion ensued. Ms. Powers pointed out that this could not be made retroactive, and the provision would not apply to the B-2 Zone District. Mrs. Becker stated that there is no one in the audience to address the Com- mission on this matter. Carson moved: Tanguma seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #5-84 be closed. AYES: Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. McBrayer moved: Stoel seconded: The Planning Counnission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-10, be amended by in- corporating the proposed amendments into the text. Section d(3) on Page 8 of the proposed amendments is to be expanded by adding "PRIVATE" and public property .•• " AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. VII. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE B-2 Business District Mrs. Becker asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Barbre moved: Carson seconded: the Public Hearing on Case #6-84 be opened. CASE #6-84 AYES: Becker, Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. It was noted that the Public Notice giving the date, time and place of this Public Hearing was published in the Englewood ~entinel on December 28, 1983. Mrs. Becker asked if the members of the Commission had any questions or com- ments on the B-2 section following their review of the proposed amendments. Mrs. Becker then noted that there was no one present in the audience to ad- dress the Commission. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #6-84 be closed. -10- AYES: Carson, McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Tanguma moved: Allen seconded: The Planning Commission recommend to City Council that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, §22.4-11, be amended by incorporating the proposed amendments into the text. AYES: McBrayer, Stoel, Tanguma, Allen, Barbre, Becker, Carson NAYS: None ABSENT: Venard The motion carried. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt it is important to note that there was no audience to address the Commission on any of the amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers asked Council/Planning out that this is Conference Room. that Commission members mark their calendar Commission dinner meeting on May 31, 1984. on a Thursday evening, and the meeting will for a joint City Ms. Powers pointed be in the Library Ms. Powers stated that the next meeting of the Planning Commission will be on February 7, 1984, at which time the request of Safeway Stores for approval of an off-street parking layout will be considered, along with request for vacation of rights-of-way. Ms. Powers stated that a Planned Development on the Pasternak property will be coming in in the near future. Ms. Powers gave an update on the downtown redevelopment, and discussed the plans for the new King Soopers to be constructed on the City Parking Lot. ~his would be a 56,000 sq. ft. King Soopers store. Brady Development Corpora- tion has purchased a majority of the west side of the 3300 block of South Broadway; King Soopers hopes to break ground in May, and to have the building ready for occupancy by late fall. Most of the buildings on the west side of the 3300 block South Broadway will be demolished; new structures will be built, but there will be open spaces between the buildings to provide visability to the development to the west. A parking structure of one level will be con- structed in conjunction with the development. Interviews have been conducted ~ with engineering firms on the designing of the Boulevard, and that Muller Engineering Firm has been selected as the design firm. A contract is being negotiated at the present time. Mr. McBrayer asked what is planned for the present King Soopers building. . . -11- Ms. Powers stated that they will have to get out of the lease with KRAVCO. There is a possibility this building could be used for tenants that are being relocated from other areas on a temporary basis. Mrs. Becker asked if the facade of the proposed King Soopers will be like all the other King Sooper stores. Mr. Allen stated that the new King Soopers downtown does not look like all the other Kings stores. Ms. Powers stated that the proposed store will be like the one that was built on Speer, and will have the same square footage. Mrs. Becker stated that she hoped the facade of the proposed store would be more compatible with the new develop- ment than the traditional Kings' facade. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt both the King ·Soopers and Safeway stores would be excellent temporary relocation spots for tenants that are being displaced. Ms. Powers stated that the timing on the Safeway development is not good for that. Ms. Powers stated that the Urban Renewal Authority is beginning to acquire properties acquired for the flood control project in the downtown area. Agreement to purchase the Chamber of Commerce property at 180 West Girard Avenue was reached at the last Urban Renewal Authority meeting, and appraisals on other properties along South Bannock Street are to be submitted by the last of January. Mr. Allen stated that the Chamber of Commerce members are not aware that the property has been purchased. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he felt the Planning Commission should recommend to City Council support of the new Englewood Chamber of Commerce, which is being formed. Mr. Allen stated that a group. of people are in the process of forming a new Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Allen discussed negotiations with the Centennial Chamber of Commerce, and noted that the Centennial Chamber "is trying to deny us the use of the words 'Englewood Chamber of Commerce'." Mr. Allen stressed that this group is in the process of forming a new Chamber of Commerce, and that EDDA did go on record in support of this new Chamber. Mr. McBrayer stated that as an individual, he believes there is a need for a Chamber of Commerce in Englewood, but until it is a fact, he doesn't think that the Planning Commission should be on record in support of something that doesn't exist. • Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt support of the ~ew Chamber of Commerce is important, and that he has not been satisfied with the performance of the Centennial Chamber of Commerce for Englewood. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt it was important for both individuals and the Commission as a body to support the Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Allen stated that he saw no reason to wait to give the support, that the issue would be to support the formation of a new Englewood Chamber of Commerce. Mrs. Becker questioned that this is the function of the Planning Commission, and would expect some kind of advice from the City Council on the responsi- -12- bility of the Commission to support such a group; she noted that the Chamber is not a governmental agency. Mr. Allen stated that he considered the Chamber to be a quasi-governmental agency. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Chamber is a private, non-profit agency. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that there has been no objection registered on the forma- tion of the new Chamber, and it has the support of Council. Ms. Becker likened the Chamber to private agencies such as Lions Club, Rotary Club, etc., which are also private service-oriented groups, but the City does not go on record in support of them. Mr. McBrayer stated that he does not believe the Centennial Chamber of Com- merce has demonstrated any regard for the City of Englewood as far as trying to promote Englewood, and that he personally is in favor of the formation of a new Chamber. But, before the Commission as a body goes on record, he would want more information on the proposed Chamber. Mr. McBrayer stated that he strongly believes it is a little premature for the Planning Commission to actively recommend support of the new Chamber and asked (1) is it in our realm of responsibility; and (2) he wants to see what it is all about. Mr. Allen discussed the efforts to form the new Chamber, and noted that for the Planning Commission to recommend in support or not will not make a lot of difference. Mr. Allen stated that the use of the old logo "Progress Country USA" would be the logo for the new Chamber. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt there should be a formal motion on the floor, and that the Commission should determine by vote whether or not to recommend support. Mr. McBrayer asked if City Council has made any kind of general determination on the new Chamber. Mr. Allen stated that Mayor Otis is trying to get it promoted, and is a member of the group that is meeting on the formation. Tanguma moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission direct the staff to write a letter to the City Council from the Commission stating that the Planning Commission is in full support of the new Chamber of Commerce, and recommending support of the Council as well. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt very uncomfortable having to vote on this motion; while a person may be in favor of the formation of the new Chamber personally, they may also question whether the Commission should be on record at this point in time in support of the new Chamber. If a vote is cast against the motion, it appears one is voting against the new Chamber which may not be the case. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not think the Planning Commission should take this position now, and that if one feels that strongly about it, they should get involved on an individual basis. Mrs. Becker stated that she would have to vote no on the motion. She agreed that Englewood does need a Chamber of Commerce, but questioned that it is the responsibility of the Commsision to say yes or no on this situation right now. Mr. Tanguma pointed out that when the Commission "hears an issue, we don't wait until after the fact to decide whether we like what is happening, we decide before the fact"; he stated that he feels this Chamber of Commerce should be formed whether the Commission says yes or no as individuals. .. . . -13- Mr. Stoel and Mr. McBrayer both questioned what form the support of the City Council might take. Mr. Allen stated that the Council would probably approve membership and pay annual dues. Mrs. Becker reiterated her opinion that at this point in time, it is a City Council charge, and is not a responsibility of the City Planning and Zoning Commission. Mrs. Becker called for the vote: AYES: Tanguma, Allen, Carson NAYS: Barbre, Becker, McBrayer, Stoel ABSENT: Venard Mrs. Becker ruled that the motion did not carry. She pointed out that this vote means only that the Planning Commission will not make a public statement of support at this time. Mr. McBrayer stated that he would welcome a presentation from the group trying to form the new Chamber, and would hope to hear from them what they are trying to do, and what they hope to achieve with the new Chamber. Maybe after that, he could support a motion in support of the new Chamber. Mr. Allen extended an invitation to members to attend the meetings which are held at 7:30 A. M. in the Library Conference Room. Mr. Tanguma discussed a Planning Commissioner's workshop which he attended on January 13th; this was sponsored by the Denver Regional Council of Govern- ments and dealt mainly with cities that have a lot of land available for development. Mr. Tanguma stated that he had hoped the discussion would center more on "in-fill", but this was touched on very briefly. Ms. Powers suggested that members should receive notification of the meetings sponsored liy the Colorado Chapter of the APA; some of these programs are very good, and announcements of these meetings will be sent to the members. Mr. McBrayer briefly discussed a recent visit he made to areas in Florida Ft. Lauderdale, Key West, and Boca Raton ---and the methods they use in their Planning in that area of the country. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 P. M. Welty ecording Secretar •