Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-09 PZC MINUTESI • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLA NNING AND ZON I NG COMMISSION Septemb e r 9 , 1981 I. CALL TO ORDER. The regular mee ting o f the Ci ty P lanning and Zoning Connnission was calle d to order a t 7:00 P.M . b y Ch airman Judith B. Pierson. Members pr esent: Pi e rson , Ba rbre, Car son, Draper, McBrayer, Senti Members absent: Also present: Audience: Powers, Ex -officio Becker , Tanguma, All e n Associa t e Pl anne r Susan T. King Mr. a nd Mrs. Robert Bolton Mr . Biggi Mr. Jerry Ra y Mrs. Donald L. R. Smith II. APP ROVAL OF MINUTES . Chairman Pi erson stated that the Minut e s of J uly 21, 1981, were to be cons ide red for approval. Carson moved: Barbre seconded: The Minutes of the July 21, 19 81 , meeting be approved as written. AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Se nti, Barbre NAYS: None ABSEN T: Becker, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. III. COTTONWOOD VILLAGE SUBDIVISION Final Plat CA SE #7-91 Ms. Susan King , Associate Planner, gave the staff r eport. Ms . King introduced Mr. and Mrs. Robert Bolton, own ers of the sub ject site, and Mr . Biggi , engineer for the Bolt ons . The proposal is to divide the property into three building sites, with the existing structure at 825 West Quincy Av e nue remaining on the one building site; the other two sites would b e approxi- mate ly 1/3 and 1/4 acre in size. The property is zoned R-1-A, Sing le-family residence , and the proposal will facil itate the cons truction of two single-family homes . Access to t he two in- ter ior lots would b e b y a privately maintained cul -de-sac ex- tending north from West Quincy Avenue. Ms. King s tat ed that co nditions whi ch we re placed on the approval of the Preliminary Pl a t h ave been met by the applican t s on this, the final plat -2- of the proposed subdivision, those conditions being as follows: • 1. A 20-foot wide easement for the six-inch water main has been extended to the center of the cul-de-sac. 2. A specification sheet of all water and sewer lines has .been submitted and approved by the Utilities Department. 3. Th~ radius of the cul-de-sac has remained at the size in- dicated on the preliminary plat . . ." . 4 .' Grading of the property has been approved as minimizing erosion of the City Ditch. 5. Plans for the private road have been approved by the Engineering Department. Mrs. Becker and Mr. Tanguma entered the meeting at 7:05 P.M. and took their places with the Commission. Ms. King stated that no negative comments regarding the final plat of the proposed subdivision have been received from other property owners, or from various utilities departments to whom it has been referred. Mr. McBrayer asked what work had been done on the site? Mr. Bolton stated that they have removed some old foundations, and were able to obtain some clean fill dirt, which they have brought onto the property. Mr. Biggi stated that they have tried to smooth the grade of the property so that the water will flow across the property. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt Mr. and Mrs. Bolton should be aware that the Building Department and those in control of the City Ditch are attempting to prevent water from going into the Ditch; the City Ditch is not to serve as a "drainage" canal for runoff water. Mr. Bolton stated that the front half of the property would drain to Quincy Avenue, and they would not be draining the entire site to the Ditch. Mrs. Pierson asked if there were further comments or questions pertaining to the final plat of the Cottonwood Village Sub- division? She stated that she would entertain a motion to ap- prove the Final Plat and recomrnend it to City Council. Barbre moved: Tanguma seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Final Plat of the Cottonwood Village Subdivision, and refer said Plat to the City Council for their approval. • AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None • ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. • • • -3- Mr. McBrayer noted that there were not too many areas in the City where new single-family homes could be constructed, and that it was nice to see efforts made to develop these areas. IV. SIGN CODE REVISION CASE {/9-81 Ms. Powers stated that members of the Commission were sent copies of the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Powers stated that the intent of the staff is to give an over-view of the proposed changes at this meeting, and present a proposed schedule of meetings for the Commission's consideration. Ms. Powers stated that it is proposed to handle the consideration of the Sign Code in much the same way as the Bicycle Trail System was handled --a series of public meetings spearheaded by a member of the Commi ssion prior to the Public Hearing and recommenda- tion to Cit y Council. Ms. Powers stated that she would hope the members of the Planning Commission would attend as many of these public meetings as possible. Public meetings on the Sign Code are proposed at this time for September 22nd and on October 6th, with a Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for October 20th. Ms. Powers reviewed the reasons for the revision of the Sign Code, noting that staff had kept a list of complaints and problems experienced in working with the existing Code. Sign Codes from other cities were also reviewed. The present Sign Code was drafted in the early 1970's, and is based on the DRCOG Model Sign Code. Other cities which adopted the DRCOG Model Sign Code have made major revisions in their codes in the past 10 years. No revisions have been made in the Englewood Sign Code since it was adopted, and it does not necessarily reflect the values and goals of the community as they exist today. Ms. Powers stated that she had asked the City Attorney's office for an opinion regarding termination of signs that would become non- conforming with the adoption of the new Sign Code. Tom Holland, Assistant City Attorney, indicated in a written opinion that termination can be required, but that it must be "reasonable." Ms. Powers discussed some of the more pertinent changes, these being that the enforcement of the Sign Code will be the responsi- bility of the Planning Division rather than of the Code Enforce- ment Division . The Sign Code is a part of the Comprehensiv~ Zoning Ordinance, and it seems appropriate that the Planning Division have the enforcement responsibility. Mr. Harold Stitt, Planning Assistant, will be assigned the enforcement of the Sign Code. Ms. Powers stated that another impetus for the revision of the exist ing Sign Code is the need for redevelopment and improve- ment along South Broadway in the downtown area. Improved signing would be a form of improvement, and could have an impact on the entire downtown area. The proposed Sign Code is being reviewed by Design Workshop, Inc., the Planning Consulting firm for the downtown project to determine if there are any inconsistencies. Since the staff has worked so closely with Design Workshop, Inc. throughout the planning process, it is doubtful that there will be any conflicts. -4- Ms. Powers stated that if the proposed Sign Code is adopted, the existing Sign Code would be repealed . Sunnn ary sheets con - trasting what is permitted in the proposed Sign Code and what is permitted in the existing Code were discussed. Ms. Powers stated that in the existing Sign Code each zone district was addressed separate ly, which led to a lot of repetition. Under the proposed Sign Code, signs permitted in all the residential zone di~tricts are considered as one category, and signs per- mitted in .all the business and industrial zone districts are considered in a second category. ·· ·Tue major changes are in the business and industrial zone dis- tricts, and include the following: Height of signs permitted has been lowered from the existing 32 feet to the propos ed 20 foot limitation . The total number of signs allowed per business has also been changed; a business is presently allowed a maximum of five signs --no matter the size of the lot on whi ch the business is located; the proposed Sign Code would relate the maximum number of signs allowed to the street frontage of the individual business. The maximum area of signs is another area of change: the maximum area of signs will again depend on the street frontage of the business. Mr. Tanguma asked about the car dealers with cars parked along the frontage of their lot with advertising on each car; how would this be figured, and how would the signs be classified? Discussion ensued . Mrs. Becker suggested that perhaps these signs on the individual vehicles would be "temporary"? Ms. Powers stated that this would be considered further and would report back to the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that under the proposed Sign Code, both faces of a sign would be counted toward the maximum sign area; the existing Sign Code states that just one face of a sign is counted . She pointed out that this will have considerable impact on the commercial strip areas. Ms. Powers noted that on Page 7 of the proposed Code, §22.7-5, Signs Prohibited in All Zone Districts, includes sub-section "m", which states: "Strings of light bulbs used in connection with commercial premises for commercial purposes, other than traditional holiday decorations." She stated that there are questions that the strings of bulbs are a "sign", and the City Attorney's office has been requested to research this. Ms. Becker noted that at a couple of restaurants in Little ton, the trees have tiny light bulbs strung through them, and while they are not a "sign", she felt they were very attractive. Discussion ensued. Ms. Pierson stated that perhaps some restriction on the wattage of the bulbs used could be included in the Code. The prohibition of third-party signs or billboards will also have an impact on the City. Ms. Powers cautioned that bill- boards are considered differently from typical signs; the city may be able to eliminate the erection of new billboards, but questioned that existing billboards would have to be removed. This is another issue that the City Attorney's office has been requested to research. • • • • • • -5- Mr. Tanguma asked about hand-lettered signs advertising garage sales which are tacked to utility poles --whether this would be prohibited under the Sign Code? Ms. Powers stated that this is prohib ited under the Litter section of the Weed and Litter Ordinance which is presently being considered by the City Council. Discussion of third-party signs ensued. Mr. Tanguma stated that he felt this could be too restrictive, and did not see anything wrong with permitting third-party signs; this re- striction could deprive individuals of a means of income. Mrs. Becker asked whether multi-colored buildings, which serve as an advertisement, would be permitted? Ms. Powers stated that the staff had avoided the prohibition of wall graphics since they can be quite attractive. In checking with other communiti es, it was determined that Aspen is the one community which deals with wall graphics, and that they are encouraged in Aspen. This will be examined in more detail. Mr. Draper asked how the Sign Code would be enforced. Ms. Powers stated that it would depend on the specific Ordinance that is approved. Ms. Powers stated that the intent is that a member of the Planning Division staff will be charged with the enforcement of the Sign Code. The staff would work closely with the businesses affected by the ordinance to encourage compliance . Mr. Draper asked if the individual businesses were responsible for obtaining the proper permits, or whether the Sign Companies are responsible? Ms. Powers stated that the Sign Companies are pretty good now about obtaining the proper permits. She did note that there are a lot of signs along Broadway that were installed without permits simply because the property owner/businessman and/or sign company may not have been aware at the time of in- stallation that permits were required. Signs that would not require permits were reviewed. Ms. Powers pointed out that the Crime Watch Area signs were requested by member s of the Police Department and the Traffic Engineering Division . Ms. Becker commented that she did not feel that Home Occupation. signs should be permitted on ground signs; she stated that she did not object to a 100-square inch sign affixed to the house, but that she would object to a ground sign posted in the yard which advertised a home occupation. Mr . Tanguma inquired whether the "Helping Hand" which fs posted in windows for children would be considered toward sign area, and whether it would require a permit? Ms. Powers stated that this would be checked into further by the staff. Mr. Tanguma also inquired about religious signs which may be posted on a house; would these require a permit, and would they count toward the maximum sign area permitted? Ms. Powers stated that the staff would also look into this. -6- Ms. P ower s stated that the proposed Sign Code also contains ~ restrictions on the location and placement of sign s. The pro- posed Sign Code defines the "signable area" on a structure, and restricts the percentage of that signable area which may be devoted to signage. Ms. Powers explained what the term "signable area" refers to. Window signs may not cover more than 25% .of the window area, and may not be permitt ed in windows above the first f loor. Wall signs may not cover more than 40% of the wall area. Mr. Tanguma asked if the staff had considered the economic im- ·pa'ct this proposed Sign Code would have on the busine ssmen in ·the City? He stated that he felt the implementation of this proposed Sign Code would cause an increase in the prices because the businessmen have to make a profit, and this sign code would be costly to comply with. Mr. Tanguma stated that the more governmental regulations that are placed on businessmen, the more money it costs. Discussion ensued. Mr. Draper noted that even though the new signs permitted in the proposed Sign Code are smaller than those which are permitted under the existing Sign Code, they could cost more to replace because of inflation. He asked Ms. Powers what she envisioned as a result of the implementation of the proposed Sign Code. Ms. Powers stated that there would be less "clutter" in the signage; she noted that there is only so much information that • can be absorbed by the motorist driving at any given speed. The proposed Code would relate the size of the sign to the size of the building; therefore, the signs would be in scale with the structures. Discussion ensued. Mr. Tanguma noted that any redevelopment that takes place in the downtown area will probably be the larger office buildings, and they would not have the number or size of signs that a retail outlet would require. He stated that he felt competition would take care of the need to improve appearance and signage. Mr. Tanguma stated that while he felt there should be some sign control, he did not want to see a code so strict that businessmen are forced out of the area. Ms. Powers stated that it is not the goal to lose business; the goal is to try to improve the appearance of the connnunity, and thereby attract new businesses into the community. Ms. Powers then discussed the Non-conforming Sign section. If a sign that is legal under the existing Code would become non- conforming under the proposed Sign Code , the property owner- businessman would have three years to bring that sign into con- formance. If any of the following five reasons occur, the sign must be brought into conformance earlier than the three-year limitation: 1. Whenever the sign is damaged more than 50% of its total value, or destroyed, from any cause whatsoever, or becomes obsolete or substandard under any applicable ordinance of the municipality, to the extent that the sign becomes a hazard or a danger. • I • ' -7- 2. Wh e never the ownership of the property chang es on which t h e Non-conforming Sign is located. 3. Whe never there is a change in the leas ee, owner ship of the business or use to which the sign pertain s. 4. Whe never there is a request made f o r a p e rm i t t o change the s ign. 5 . When ever there is a request for a permit t o make improve- me nts to the exterior of the principal building. Ms . Powers noted that under the existing regul a tions, t he only mean s of eliminating a non-conforming sign is if it was deter- mined to be "abandoned". This was quite an invo lve d process, and it was difficult to prove "abandonment." The s i gn s that are prohibited in all zone dis t ric ts and are ill egal must be removed within 60 days of the effective date of t h e ordinance. In the event the property owner /businessman doe s n o t comply within the 60-day period, the City may cause the removal of the sign and bill the owner for the cost to re- move t he sign, plus a penalty fee. Ms . Powe rs stated that signs that are determined t o be hazardous and ab andoned must be removed within 30 days f ol lowing such declaration by the Department of Connnunity Development . If the p roperty owner/businessman does not remove such h azardous or ab andoned sign within that time period, the City ma y cause s uch removal and may bill the property owner/busines s man for the cost of removal plus a penalty fee. There is an appeal proc edure written into the proposed Code, whereby s u c h a property owne r /businessman may appeal to the City Manager. The matter of a fee schedule was discussed. It was n o t ed that there is no fee schedule set forth in the proposed Sign Code. I t was suggested that charges made by other communiti es be checked. Mr. Tanguma asked if there was a possibilit y t hat tho se individuals who have signs that are illegal or prohibited und er the proposed Sign Code could be given a 60-day gr ace period to obtain a permit without fee if they would bri n g the s i gn into conformance? It was determined that this -·woul d be further investigated by the staff . Ms . Powers stated that the next meeting scheduled for di s cu ssion o f the proposed Sign Code is September 22, 1981. She s t a t e d that Co nnnissioner McBrayer was willing to assist with the se meetings on the Sign Code much as he did on the Bicycle Trai ls pro j ect. The staff has proposed that the meeting of September 2 2, 1 981, be devoted to presenting the proposed sign code to memb e r s of the Downtown Dev elopment Authority, the DBA, the Chamb e r of Co nnnerce, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, and former Sign Co de Connnittee members. Th e meeting on October 6, 1981, would then be open to t he general public for a presentation of the proposed Sign Code, and a public hearing is tentatively scheduled for October 20th. -8- Ms. Powers stated that she would like to receive connnents on the proposed Sign Code back from the Connnission members as soon as possible. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had some connnents on the proposed Code, and noted that reference is made to "direct electrical wiring" in several places. He noted that there is a new type of sign that is coming out that is totally solar-powered. He suggest~d that this sign should be considered in the proposed Sign Code.: Discussion on the solar-powered sign vs. the electrically- wired sign ensued. -Mr. McBrayer noted that on Page 18 of the proposed Sign Code, reference is made to illumination that shall not exceed 25 watts per bulb; he noted that it does not restrict the number of bulbs that may be used, thereby not restricting the total amount of illumination. He suggested that perhaps "candlepower" restrictions should be written into this section. On Page 21 (2) of the proposed Sign Code, requiring termination of a Non-conforming Sign prior to the three year limitation "whenever the ownership of the property changes on which the Non-conforming Sign is located" --he asked how the staff would know when such property changed ownership? He suggested that the staff should have documents recorded on properties with non-conforming signs which would put new property owners on I notice that they must bring the sign into conformance with the • Sign Code upon purchase of the property. Mr. McBrayer questioned the definitions for arcade, plaza and mall signs. He noted that Cinderella City is an interior mall, and that there should not be different standards for plaza signs than there are for arcade and mall signs. For the public meetings on September 22 and October 6th, he suggested that the staff have slides of examples of each type of sign; examples of good signs and bad signs; of signs which would conform to the proposed Code, and signs which would not conform. He also suggested that there be overlays explaining the changes in the proposed Code from the existing Code. He also suggested that a list of "hard reasons" for the revision of the Sign Code be devised before these meetings, noting that it is difficult to justify aesthetics as a reason for the re- vision. Ms. Powers stated that about four months ago, Mayor Otis re- ceived a letter from a Broadway businessman complaining about the signs on South Broadway. The DBA supported the complaint; the staff followed up on the complaint, finding that there are a lot of violations in the downtown area on signs. Ms. Powers noted that Mr. Gordon Close, chairman of the DBA, is very sup- portive of the changes the staff has proposed. He is very con- cerned about "cleaning up" the connnercial/busines s area, and I feels that this is one step in that direction. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt one of the big problems with the proposed revisions will be a termination date for non-conforming signs. I • ' -9- Ms. Powers asked members of the Commission for their impression of the propos ed Sign Code? Ms. Pierson stated that she likes the proposed Sign Code and would support the changes. Mrs. Becker stated that she also would support the changes as sug- gested in the proposed Sign Code. Mr. Senti stated that he felt this was about 10-years over-due, and would support it. Mr. Carson stated that he would like to consider the ramifications of the proposed revisions further. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the Commission and staff should realize that the proposed Sign Code, as written, is the "ultimate", and that compromises will have to be made. He stated that it is a good point to start from. V. HEARING PROCEDURE RULES CASE #10-81 Ms. Powers stated that the proposed Bill for Ordinance on rules of procedure governing Hearings before the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Liquor Licensing Board and City Council, was submitted by City Attorney Rick DeWitt. Ms. Powers stated that the staff has gone over the proposed Bill for Ordinance, and has submitted some suggestions to Mr. DeWitt, including that hearings on "Conditional Uses" before the Planning Commission be added on Page 3. Also, in §1-7-4, that the time limitation be set at 35 days rather than 30 days. The staff also asked that "Findings of Fact" be used in reference to the written reasons required. Ms. Powers pointed out that this proposed Bill for Ordinance is up-dating the procedures that are now in effect. Mr. Draper stated that there has been some question about whether the oath should be administered at some of the Hearings before the Commission. Ms. Powers stated that if it is a quasi-judicial hearing, the oath is administered; if it is an administrative hearing, the oath need not be administered. There were no further comments from the Commission regarding the proposed Bill for Ordinance. VI. PUBLIC FORUM. No member of the audience indicated a desire to address the Commiss ion. VII. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Ms. Powers referred to a map indicating areas where adult en- tertainment uses could locate in the City based on the 500-foot rule enacted by the City Council. The Bookstore on South Santa Fe Drive would not be in violation of the ordinance; the Adult Center on South Broadway is in violation of the ordinance be- caus e it is within 500 feet of a residential district. The Adul t Center on South Broadway was given notice that they are non-conforming, and must terminate their business at that lo- cation by November 30, 1981. -10- Ms. Powers stated that the Colorado Springs litigation upheld I the distance limitations imposed on the adult entertainment uses; it did not, however, uphold the termination of such uses within 120 days. She pointed out that the Englewood Ordinance requires termination of such non-conforming uses within 180 days, and does give the right of appeal to the Planning Commission for an extension of time up to two years. Ms. Powers .stated that Prowswood is moving ahead with the con- struction of the marketing building on this site. A representa- tive of Prowswood had talked to Mrs. Romans in the past week to ·determine if the accessory commercial uses they had proposed could be located in a · separate structure rather than within the high-rises. This is permitted in the R-3 Zone District. They are preparing a model to be used for marketing purposes. She noted that they will be bringing in plans for discussion. Mr. McBrayer noted that the name of the development has been changed from "The Lakes" to "Waterford." He commented that he felt the construction on this site was "going slow on pur- pose." Ms. Powers reported on the proposed hotel in Cherry Hills Village. The developers of this hotel have asked for sewer service from the City of Englewood. They are proposing, in addition to the hotel, about 200 luxury condominium units. Ms. Powers stated that she understood the proposal was presented to Cherry Hills • Village officials, and that the reaction was favorable. Ms. Powers reported on the Downtown Plan. The members of EDDA would like to make a presentation of the Plan to the Planning Commission at a special meeting on September 15th, at 7:00 P.M. This would be to bring the Commission up-to-date on progress since the presentation on July 21st. A Public Hearing on the proposed plan before the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled for October 13th. Mike Haviland, Executive Director of the EDDA, has scheduled public hearings on September 16th and 17th which are open to the general public; members of the Commission were urged to attend one of these meetings, if possi- ble. Ms. Powers stated that the consultant and staff are in the process of working on a zone district for the downtown area, which would be different than the existing B-1 and B-2 Zone Districts which the City has. It is hoped that it would be completed shortly so that the Commission can consider it. Ms. Powers stated that the Commission will be asked to consider amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to include the downtown plan at the Public Hearing tentatively scheduled for October 13th; there will be a set of policies that would be presented to the Commission for their consideration before the Hearing. Ms. Powers stated that Mr. Haviland is attempting to get every-I one who would be affected by the implementation of the proposed plan involved in the public hearings the EDDA is holding on September 16th and 17th. The EDDA Board will act on the Plan before it is presented to the Commission for their consideration. • • • -11- Ms. Powers stated that further consideration of the Special Permit System has been put off for a while because of time constraints of the staff in working on the Sign Code, Zoning Ordinance revision, and the Downtown Plan. The proposed follow- up seminar for members of the Corrrrnission, Board of Adjustment and Housing Authority who could not attend the session on July 10th has been tentatively rescheduled for November 10th. The staff has done nothing further on the Permit System than con- sidering a possible area, and crystalizing the goals and standards. Ms. Powers stated that it would not become a part of the Compre- hensive Zoning Ordinance at this time, and there must be a number of meetings and Public Hearings before this would become a part of the Ordinance. Ms. Powers stated that the staff has completed work on the "use variance" section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and are now working on revision of the administrative section of the Ordinance. A problem that has arisen is that when the Building Code was revised and adopted last year, the section pertaining to the Board of Appeals was eliminated. This issue has to be resolved before the administration section of the Ordinance can be brought to the Planning and Zoning Connnission. The staff is working with the City Attorney's office to rewrite the ap- propriate sections . Ms. Powers stated that there is a conference on the Urban Pedestrian, which will be held in Boulder October 12 and 13; if any member of the Connnission is interested, please let the staff know. Ms. Powers also noted that there is a conference on the Colorado Front Range on September 11th, and asked if there was any member of the Connnission interested in attending. Ms. Powers presented Mrs. Pierson with a five-year award for her service on the Connnission. VIII. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Pierson suggested that the Connnission .should write a letter of appreciation to Ms. Barbara Young, who recently retired from the Department of Corrrrnunity ·Development. She stated that she would draft such a letter. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had recently started building his own home in Englewood, and discussed some of the problems and expenses that he has encountered in this endeavor. He noted that the building permit for the house, estimated to cost $65,000+, cost him in excess of $1,300. The City also collects a Use Tax, which is estimated at 3% of half of the valuation of the structure; this is collected at the time the building permit is obtained. He also found out that his property is in the Southeast Englewood Sanitation District, and that to tap onto this line which runs down the centerline of South Huron Street directly in front of his property, would cost $1,400, -12- plus a $700 application fee to the Board of the Southeast Engle- wood Sanitation District. The Attorney for the Sanitation Dis- trict, Mr. Walter Irwin, demanded $20 cash to even fill out the permit. Mr. McBrayer noted that just to tap onto the sewer line will cost him over $2,100. The sewer line is only 6'2" deep in the street; he will have to install a $1,900 pumping system in the .basement to pump the sewage from the basement level up to the le~el of the line. Mr. McBrayer stated that the Collililission has, in the past, discussed means of encouraging rehabilitation of homes,' and construction of new homes. He stated that in light o~ his recent experiences, he felt the fees charged should be ·reviewed to see if there is some way to reduce the cost of building ·a house in Englewood. Mr. Draper stated that the company installing Cable TV in back of his property had dislodged the electric service to his prop- erty, and that they had to have it repaired. He noted that they will attempt to get the Cable TV Company to reimburse them, but that citizens should be aware that some of the equipment the Company uses can cause this problem. Mr. Tanguma submitted a letter to Mayor Otis and members of the City Council explaining his delay in submitting a written re- port of his trip to Boston. He asked that this letter be for- warded to the Mayor and City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M. • • ' I I I MEMORANDUM TO THE ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ACTION OR RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DATE: September 9, 1981 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: Barbre moved: Tanguma seconded: Cottonwood Village Subdivision The Planning Conunission approve the Final Plat of the Cottonwood Village Subdivision, and refer said Plat to the City Council for their approval. AYES: Carson, Draper, McBrayer, Pierson, Senti, Tanguma, Barbre, Becker NAYS: None ABSENT: Allen The motion carried. By Order of the City Planning and Zoning Conunission. G trude G. Welty R cording Secreta