Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-08 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION June 8, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 c The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P.M. Members present: Stoel, Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Tanguma, Allen, Senti Also present: Senior Planner Susan King Planning Intern Tyrone Temple Economic Development Planner Wm. Richard Hinson Urban Renewal Authority members Minnick and McClung II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Chairman McBrayer stated that the Minutes of May 18, 1982, were to be con- sidered for approval. Carson moved: Stoel seconded: The Minutes of May 18, 1982, be approved as written. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt a statement attributed to him on Page 8 of the Minutes should be reworded to reflect more positively on the City. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist suggested that the sentence be reworded to state: " ...•• he found that Englewood was much further ahead in many areas than he had previously thought." Mr. Gilchrist asked for an explanation of the term "housing stock" which is used in the Minutes. Mrs. Romans stated that this is a term used to reflect the number of dwelling units, single-family, multi-family, etc. The vote on the motion to approve the Minutes, as amended, was called: AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Tanguma, Allen, Senti The motion carried. UL URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CASE /110-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that copies of the Urban Renewal Plan have been sub- mitted to the Planning Conunission for their review, along with a staff re- port addressing the question of whether the proposed Urban Renewal Plan meets the policy statements contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the staff if they wished to discuss this matter with the Commission. Mrs. Romans introduced Mr. Hinson, Economic Development Planner in the Department of Community Development. Mr. Hinson works with the Urban Renewal Authority, and would make the presentation regarding the Urban Renewal Plan. -2- Mr. Hinson stated that he would like to introduce two members of the Urban Renewal Authority, Mr. Melvin Minnick, and Mr. R. P. McClung. Mr. Hinson stated that the Urban Renewal Plan was received by the City Council at their meeting on June 7, 1982, at which time the City Council directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Hinson stated that the staff report which was submitted to the Planning Commission addresses the 23 objectives and policies as adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council, and as stated in the Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The staff re- port addresses each of these policies and objectives individually, and indicates the compliance of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan with the stated objectives and policies. Mr. Hinson quoted part of the State Statute per- taining to review of the proposed Urban Renewal Plan by the Planning Com- mission, which states that the Planning Commission shall submit its written recommendations regarding the Urban Renewal Plan to the governing body within thirty days after receipt of the plan for review. Mr. Gilchrist asked if the thirty-day period began as of this date when the Commission received the directive and referral from the City Council? Mr. Hinson stated that the thirty-day period would commence as of this date. He stated that the earliest date a Public Hearing on this matter could be held by the Commission would be July 7th. At that time, the staff and Urban Renewal Authority would make a full presentation on the proposed Plan. The Commission would be required to make a determination following the Public Hearing as to whether or not the proposed Urban Renewal Plan is in compliance with the policies and objectives set forth in the Compre- hensive Plan. This determination would have to be in the form of a resolution, which resolution would then be received by City Council at a special meeting . ' on July 12th. The City Council Public Hearing on the proposed Urban Renewal Plan would be scheduled in early August. Mr. Hinson stated that the .dis- cussion by the Commission this evening would be centered on the 23 policy statements, and whether the Urban Renewal Plan is in compliance with those policies and objectives. Mr. McBrayer asked how much square footage of office and retail use in the downtown ar~a would be demolished before the redevelopment could take place? He stated that he felt the figure of 1,740,400 square feet was rather misleading if this was gross addition, and not figured on the net square footage. Mr. Hinson stated that information regarding the square footage that would be lost is available in the office; it is not contained in the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt it was important to know the square footage that will be demolished in the redevelopment process; he felt that there was more loss of existing retail square footage than most people realize. Mr. Gilchrist requested clarification of the objective and policy state- ment that " ••..• Downtown should be a location for work, shopping, living and 'playing' with aesthetically pleasing areas for rest and relaxation." Mr. Hinson .discussed the development of open areas and lakes in conjunction with the improvement of the Little Dry Creek flood plain. Mr. Hinson pointed out that the recreational and relaxation amenities are designed • to be enjoyed by people employed in the area as well as by the people who • will be residing in the condominium units which are proposed in the rede- velopment plan. Mr. Gilchrist asked the status of the hotel? Mr. Hinson stated that he understood the negotiations with Key Savings were going well. The need for commitments from the developer was discussed, and Mr. • -3- Hinson stated that commitments from the developer must be in hand before any bonds may be issued. Discussion ensued. The property that will have to be acquired for the Little Dry Creek im- provements was briefly discussed. Mr. Minnick pointed out that there would be minimal property loss except along the flood plain right-of-way . Mr. Minnick pointed out that Alternatives #3 and #4 for Little Dry Creek required the same right-of-way width; the design of the channel improve- ments do vary. Mr. Minnick stated that the Urban Renewal Authority recom- mended that Alternative #3 be approved for the Little Dry Creek flood con- trol project. Mr. Hinson stated that the City Council has scheduled a public hearing on the improvements to Little Dry Creek on June 28th, 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers; this Hearing will offer an· opportunity for comments from the public on the improvement of the Creek. Mrs. Becker asked if the square footage figures cited in #1 included the square footage on all floors of the proposed redevelopment? Mr. Hinson stated that this is the gross square footage projected in the redevelop- ment plans. Mrs. Becker stated that she felt there would be a significant increase in the square footage even taking into account what might be lost in the redevelopment program. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt it is im- portant to have the gross square footage vs. the net square footage figures. He stated that he felt 10% to 20% of this 1,740,400 figure might be de- molished to allow for the redevelopment. Mr. Hinson stated that he did not feel there would be more than approximately 70,000 sq. ft. of retail area that would have to be demolished. Mr. Carson asked how many private homes would be affected by this improve- ment? Mr. Hinson stated that he had contacted all of the property owners on the west side of Little Dry Creek, or the east side of South Bannock Street in the 3400 block; there are two owner/occupants in that block. Mr. McBrayer discussed Policy #5, and stated that he feels there is a lack of interest in doing something on South Broadway. He asked if a "theme" for the redevelopment has been developed, and if any progress has been made toward helping the property owners and merchants on South Broadway as far as financial assistance on improvements etc. Mr. Hinson discussed what steps have been considered as a means of assistance to property owners along South Broadway, including exploring the possibility of 502 and 503 loan programs, and also a grant program. Mr. Hinson stated that it is not a lack of "interest" as expressed by Mr. McBrayer, but rather trying to work through the process and determining what role each group will have in the over-all redevelopment. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was aware that there are people on Broadway who want to make improvements now, but there has been no "theme" developed to guide them in making improvements. Mr. Hinson stated that design standards do have to be deve l oped, which would be of assistance to property owners making improvements. Further discussion on the need to develop a "theme" ensued. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt Policies #8 and #9 tie in wi th Policy #5. He also discussed what he felt was a contradiction in these policies and what is stated in the Plan, specifically that the Broadway area has not done well because of the advent of Cinderella City. Mr. Hinson stated -4- that the purpose of the project is to revitalize the Broadway commercial • area, and to make the area between South Broadway and Cinderella City aesthetically pleasing to people. Mr. McBrayer stated that he was con- cerned that efforts would be made to improve the Little Dry Creek and the mall would be developed to make that area more attractive, and yet Broadway would be left with the appearance it has today. He stated that the lack of a redevelopment "theme" is of great concern to him. Mr. Minnick pointed out that the Sign Code revisions were considered, and this is a tool to improve the appearance of Broadway. Mr. Minnick noted that it is difficult to determine ways to make financing available to the property owners and businessmen who want to make improvements. Mr. McBrayer stated he appreciated the difficulty of the problem, but pointed out that financing ways are being made available to do the "fun" things such as beautification of Little Dry Creek and the mall, but it appears that nothing is being done on South Broadway. Mr. Hinson stated that South Broadway is not being ignored. Mr. Stoel asked for an up-date on the RTD Transit Center. Mr. Hinson stated that the construction of the Transit Center is in the second or third phase of the redevelopment program. The staff is in contact with the RTD staff, and RTD does have funds budgeted for the Englewood RTD Transit Center. Mr. Hinson pointed out that the Transit Center would not be constructed right on the Mall, but would be off the Mall approxi- mately 50 yards. Mr. Gilchrist asked the amount of the commitment from RTD on the Transit Center? Mr. Hinson stated that he did not have the dollar amount of the RTD commitment available, but that funds are in the RTD budget for the construction of the,Transit Center. Mr. Hinson discussed that there will be quite a number of parking facilities within the area; this would not necessitate people to do too much walking unless it were their choice. Mr. Hinson stated that there will be some parking which will be below-grade, but there would also be some surface parking or two-level parking with both at-grade and below-grade facilities. Mr. Stoel questioned how it would be possible to maintain the "scale" of the buildings and still permit high-rise development in the area? Mr. Hinson stated that the buildings constructed right on the Mall would not be higher than three stories. The high-rise structures would be set back from the Mall. Mr. McBrayer reminded the Commission members that the purpose of the con- sideration this evening is to determine if the proposed Urban Renewal Plan does address all of the policy statements and objectives set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion of high-rise development ensued. Mr. Barbre questioned the actual height of the "high-rise" structures which are proposed? Mr. Hinson stated that the actual design of the buildings has not yet been done, but that he understood the highest would be approximately eight stories.. Mrs. Becker inquired as to what means would be used to encourage use of solar energy; would tax cuts or other special benefits be made available to the developers? Mr. Hinson stated that this has not been determined. • -5- Mr. Gilchrist asked about the methods to finance the redevelopment? Mr . Hinson discussed the tax increment financing method which is proposed to be used in the redevelopment. Mr. Hinson stated that it is proposed in this project that the property tax increments be used for the entire area, but that the sales tax increments would exclude the Cinderella City shopping center; the sales tax increments from Cinderella City would still go i nto the general fund of the City. Mr. Gilchrist asked how the tax increment financing related to the bonds for the sewer project, for instance? Mr. Hinson discussed the means of repaying the bonds financed by the tax in- crement ~ethod; he stated that the tax increment financing applied to the Urban Renewal Area alone. He stated that the staff has discussed with bond counsel the possibility of getting the tax increment bonds insured. Mr. Hinson stated that there would be no obligation by the City as a whole to repay the bonds issued .in the Urban Renewal District; these bonds would be repaid by the tax increases within this area, and by other means as outlined in the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. McBrayer discussed the development of a marketing package to promote the redevelopment; he noted that the Planning Commission has initiated a promotional campaign to entice new businesses and development to the down- town area. Mr. Hinson discussed the fact that members of the Englewood Business Association, the Chamber of Conunerce, and the Downtown Development Authority will be involved in the development of the marketing package. Mr~. Romans stated that she felt this policy and objective addressed some- thing beyond the .promotional efforts that the Planning Commission has dis- cussed. Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Downtown Development Authority is the proper body to handle the marketing efforts for the redevelopment. Further discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker asked whether the Conunission should take any action or make any further comments on the proposed Urban Renewal Plan at this meeting? Mr. Hinson stated that nothing is required at this time; the Public Hearing is scheduled for July 7th, and that following the Hearing, it would be appropriate for the Conunission to determine whether the Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City, Mr. McBrayer asked that the specific square footage figures on the retail area that will be demolished in the redevelopment package be available for the next meeting. IV. LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE CASE #8-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Conunission had been presented with ordinances pertaining to landscaping requirements from other municipalities several weeks ago, and that the Commission had asked the staff to prepare a .Hraft ordinance on landscaping requirements for the consideration of the Com- mission. Mrs. Romans introduced Ms. Colleen Stowell, City Forester, and Mr. Tyrone Temple, Planning Intern, who have worked on the development of the proposed Landscaping Ordinance. Mrs. Romans stated that Ms. King has some slides of landscaping in the metro area and outside the metro area which she would show the Commission. Ms. King then presented the slide show and commentary, indicating what some establishments have done with landscaping . -6- Mrs. Romans stated that in the drafting of the proposed ordinance, the requirements were aimed to provide landscaping for the benefit of the • passer-by; however, the slides, particularly of landscaped areas in Toronto, give a different point of view that perhaps landscaping should be provided primarily for those who reside or work within a complex. The proposed landscape ordinance was reviewed by Ms. King. Mr. McBrayer asked why the staff had proposed landscaping requirements for the R-1, Single-family res~dence areas. Ms. King stated that the staff was of the opinion that the R-1 Districts should be included if other residential areas were to be required to provide landscaping. Ms. King acknowledged that provision of landscaping in the R-1 areas does not appear to be a problem in Englewood. Ms. King further summarized the requirements pro- posed in the draft ordinance. Ms. King pointed out that a "street tree", as addressed in the ordinance, is one tree per every 40 foot of frontage which would be required to be planted along the front property line. Ms. King pointed out that the majority of the residential lots in Englewood are 50 foot frontage; this would give at least one tree per lot, and would allow space for the tree to mature. Discussion ensued. Ms. Stowell stated that 40 feet is the approximate space required for large shade trees. Mr. Stoel stated that he understood that one of the goals of the Com- mission is to make it possible for development of smaller lots than the conventional 50 foot frontage; however, he felt this requirement of one tree for each 40 feet of frontage would be a contradiction of that goal. Ms. King pointed out that most of the land in Englewood has been sub- divided and the ownerships are 50 foot frontage; she stated that the staff was giving more consideration to the number of trees required in this ordinance than to the size of lots. Mr. Gilchrist inquired what size tree would be required? Ms. King stated that the minimum size for deciduous trees would be 2" to 2-1/2" caliper. Ms. King stated that consideration must be given to requirements for land- scaping when the building line is on the lot line. Ms. King stated that the staff has proposed an amendment to Statement of Intent and Applica~ility of Ordinance Standards, regarding the creation of a City Landscape and Fine Art Fund, and re9uiring property owners to contribute 1% of the value of the development into such Fund when it is physically impossible to meet the landscaping requirements on a particular site. Mr. McBrayer asked if a property owner/developer can comply with only a part of the landscaping requirements, would they be required to contribute some fraction of a per- cent toward this Fund? Discussion ensued. Ms. Romans stated that this procedure for financing public projects has been used in other metropolitan areas; she pointed out that most of the structures along South Broadway are at zero lot line, but if such a fund were in existence the medians could be landscaped, and the building could still be constructed. Mr. Gilchrist stated that some of the slides in Ms. King's presentation were of establishments in Englewood that have done a very good job of landscaping; he asked if they would be given credit for this landscaping? Ms. King stated that this proposed ordinance and requirements would not be made retroactive; the ordinance is geared toward requirements for new construction ·. Ms. King acknowledged that the staff has considered re- quiring landscaping on properties that have changed ownership, or where extensive remodeling is done, but that basically, it is for new develop- ment. • -7- Mr. Gilchrist asked if the staff felt that the establishments who have installed landscaping would have done so without it being required? Mrs. Romans pointed out that the majority of those establishments have done so without requirements. Ms. King discussed the landscape standards which apply in the Denver Tech Center; there is design criteria which developers must meet, and there is an architectural review committee which also goes over the plans that are submitted. Ms. King discussed the landscaping that has been installed at the Burger King restaurant on U.S. 285; she stated that she was quite im- pressed with the landscaping that has been done at this site. Mr. Gilchrist asked if there have been suggestions by staff to incorporate landscaping into new developments that have not been followed? Ms. King cited one instance wherein the developer of a car wash had promised to in- stall landscaping, but following construction of the facility refused to do so. Ms. Becker expressed concern over the percentage of landscaping required in the front yards in residential areas; she asked who the landscaping is being required for --those driving by on the street, or the residents? Ms. Becker posed another question concerning the way a house is situated on the lot: suppose the house was to face the south, and the street tree is required; what affect would this have on the solar access? Ms. Stowell pointed oµt that the street trees required would be deciduous trees which would give shade in the summer, and would drop the leaves in the fall, thus providing no barrier to the winter sun. Ms. Stowell pointed out that only specific types of trees would be recommended for planting, also. Mr. Gilchrist stated that it appeared to him if people were to construct their own home, and could only afford to plant one tree, this ordinance would dictate that this tree be planted in the front yard. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt the proposed ordinance is in error in addressing the R-1 zoning; he did not feel that the City should get in- volved in what people do in their own homes, and that the original intent of the Commission was to regulate and establish minimum standards for multi- family residential, business and industrial zone districts. Discussion en- sued on the rationale for including the R-1 Zone Districts in the proposed regulations. Mrs. Romans stated that she did not understand the concern of the Commission, and pointed out that landscaping requirements are already set forth in the R-2 and R-3 Districts; it was felt that to be effective, the ordinance should apply to all properties in the City. Mr. McBrayer stated that he could see no need for the regulations in the R-1 Zone Dis- tricts, and that most people landscape their single-family homes anyway. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not agree with the premise the staff has advocated that the regulations must consistently apply to all zone dis- tricts; he pointed out that in the R-2 and R-3 Zone Districts, investors are involved and they are "a more sophisticated people than the ordinary home owner". Mr. Stoel pointed out that there are very few vacant lots in Englewood for development of single-family homes. Mrs. Becker stated that she did not feel it was unreasonable to require people living in single-family areas to provide landscaping; she discussed a recent purchase she was aware of in Ft. Collins, wherein the sod and a tree were part of the purchase package. Further discussion ensued on the inclusion of the R-1 Zone Districts in the proposed landscape ordinance. -8- McBrayer moved: Carson seconded: The R-1-A, R-1-B, and R-1-C Zone Districts be excluded from the proposed Landscaping Ordinance. Mr. McBrayer stated that there is a different economical situation facing the single-family homeowner than is facing the investor, and he did not feel it was right for the City to impose landscaping regulations on the R-1 Zone Districts. Discussion ensued. Ms. Becker stated that she would like a little more consideration on this matter. Mrs. Romans pointed out that probably 90% of the units constructed in the R-2 and R-3 districts are single-family homes; does this mean that the Com- mission would require landscaping on single-family homes that are constructed in an R-2 or R-3 District, but not require landscaping for a single-family home constructed in an R-1-A, R-1-B, or R-1-C Zone District? Mrs. Romans expressed the opinion that if a single-family home were built, but were not landscaped for four or five years, more complaints would be registered regarding that particular property than would be received if a building in a commercial or industrial district were not landscaped. Mrs. Romans stated that the staff feels there must be some control in all zone dis- tricts. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist expressed the opinion that neighbors in a neighborhood would assist in putting in a lawn if a prop- erty were not landscaped in a reasonable time. Mrs. Becker asked how much vacant land there is in the R-1-A, R-1-B and R-1-C Districts? Ms. King stated that there is very little vacant land in those zone districts. \ Mr. McBrayer asked if he would have to put in landscaping if he remodeled his residence or place · of business? Ms. King stated that under the pro- posed ordinance, the installation of landscaping would be required. Mr. Temple inquired if the time factor was of concern in the R-1 land- scaping requirements; if the Commission would be more receptive of the proposed restrictions if the landscaping were required to be done within one year or 18 mpnths, as an example? Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt this requirement is more bureaucracy and would only be creating more work. He asked that the vote be called on the motion to eliminate the R-1 Zone Districts from the landscaping ordinance. AYES: Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: Becker ABSENT: Allen, Senti, Tanguma The motion carried. Mrs. Romans again posed the question of whether or not landscaping is to be required on single-family homes in the R-2 and R-3 Districts? Mr. Stoel stated that he would be opposed to requiring landscaping on single-family homes in the R-2 District; he pointed out that he did not feel than an R-1 development in an R-2 Zone District would be the highest and best use of the property~ Further discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that the proposed ordinance be further reviewed at the next regular meeting of the Commission on June 22nd; he asked that the Commission note their comments for discussion at that time. • • -9- Mrs. Becker stated that she would like to see an opinion from the legal staff whether or not requiring landscaping on the R-2 development but not on a single-family home in an R-2 Zone District, is discriminatory. Mrs. Becker expressed the opinion that just because a piece of property is zoned R-2, the highest and best use of the property should not be determined on a financial basis. Mr. McBrayer asked what the parking requirements for a single-family home are in the R-2 District? Mrs. Romans stated that the parking re- quirements are the same for a single-family home no matter what zone district it is located in. Ms. King asked for a brief discussion on the review process as proposed in the draft ordinance. Ms. King stated that it is proposed that the land- scaping plans be shown on the site plan of the proposed development, and that the Parks Department would be added to the list of departments to re- view ancl sign off on the permit. Ms. King estimated that this would add no more than five days to the total review time of the building permit ap- plication. Ms. Stowell pointed out that in the majority of cases, it would require about one-half hour to review the plans. Discussion ensued. Mem- bers of the Commission expressed concern that this would add to the time required for approval of the Permits. Ms. King suggested that possibly wording could be added to state that if approval is not received within a given period, it would be assumed that the plans were approved by the Parks Department. The possibility of allowing variances from the requirements was discussed. Ms. King stated that it is presently proposed that a variance of 20% or less could be allowed by the Director of Community Development; any variance of 20% or more would have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Ms. King stated that the variance permission by the Director of Community De- velopment was included in an effort to be flexible. Ms. Becker asked how landscaping which might be done on roofs and in plazas fit into the proposed ordinance? Mrs. Romans stated that she felt the Com- mission must make the determination of whether the landscaping would be re- quired for appearances sake from the street, or for the comfort and enjoy- ment o~ the people using the property. Ms. Stowell asked if the Commission had any specific questions about the type of landscaping proposed to be required or allowed. Ms. Becker asked if there was a City Planting Guide in existence? Ms. Stowell and Ms. King indicated that such a Planting Guide is under discussion and will be developed in the near future. Mr. Barbre noted that in some of the slides, trees and plantings were depicted as being flush against a wall with a small planting area left open in the concrete walk; he asked if this procedure is actually practical, and how well do these plants survive? Ms. Stowell stated that an under- ground root irrigation system would have to be installed to properly main- tain such plantings, and that it would be hard to do in areas that are already developed. Mrs. Romans asked if there were any comments on the Maintenance section of the proposed ordinance? Ms. Becker asked how much additional enforce- ment this would require? Mr. McBrayer asked if this section would apply to all landscaped properties? Mrs. Romans stated that this section would only apply to those properties with approved landscaping plans. -10- Further discussion ensued. The matter will again be considered at the meeting of June 22nd. V. SIGN CODE VARIANCE. CASE #9-82 Mrs. Romans stated that the legal staff has indicated they would like to do further research on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance which would be used by the Board of Adjustment in considering requests for variances to the Sign Code. Brief discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Commission that this matter should be scheduled for Public Hearing on July 20th. VI. RESOURCE DATA COLLECTION. Mr. McBrayer stated that the staff has collected some information on the City of Englewood which is presently available, or has been available in the recent past. Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Mike Haviland, Executive Director of the Englewood Downtown Development Authority, and Mr. Richard Harrison, Executive Vice President of the Centennial Chamber of Commerce, have been invited to attend the special meeting of the Planning Commission on June 15th to bring the Commission up-to-date on the information these two organizations have available. Mr. McBrayer discussed the special meeting which has been called for June 15th. Mrs. Romans stated that City Attorney DeWitt has indicated he will be present at that meeting to discuss a possible amendment to the . \ Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Becker noted that she would not be able to attend that meeting of the Commission. VII. GOALS OF PLANNING COMMISSION. Mr. McBrayer reviewed the goals of the Commission which had been indicated for consideration in June; he noted that the Landscape Ordinance is under- way, and that the Data Resource Collection goal is also well underway. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had drafted a letter to the City Council stating that the Planning Commission will support the City Council in the improvement of the South Santa Fe Drive corridor and the Hampden/ Ithaca couplet. Discussion ensued. Some modification of the letter was suggested, and accepted by Mr. McBrayer. Becker moved: Carson seconded: The Planning Commission accept the letter from Chairman Ed McBrayer to the Englewood City Council as amended, and that said letter be sent to the City Council. AYES: Barbre, Becker, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Stoel NAYS: None ABSENT: Senti, Tanguma, Allen The motion carried. • > • • -11- VIII. PUBLIC FORUM. There was no one present to address the Commission. IX. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that Ms. Powers was attending another meeting out of City Hall, and could not be at the Commission meeting this evening. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to commend Tyrone Temple for his work on the proposed Landscape Ordinance. She noted that Mr. Temple is also working on the sign survey. Mrs. Romans further discussed the special meeting called for June 15th at which time City Attorney DeWitt will discuss the proposed amendment of the Zoning Ordinance relative to public facilities. Mr. Haviland of the EDDA and Mr. Harrison of the Chamber of Commerce are also scheduled to be in attendapce to discuss the promotional activities of those two bodies. At the meeting of June 22nd, the Landscape Ordinance will again be dis- cussed, and the Capital Improvement Program will also be considered by the Commission. The City Council has called a Public Hearing on the Little Dry Creek improvement alternatives for June 28th, 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. Mrs. Romans stated that the first meeting of the Commission in July will be on Wednesday, July 7th, at which time there will be a Public Hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan. X. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mrs. Becker asked if there was any further information available on the law suit against the City by the Adult Center? Mrs. Romans stated that she has heard nothing further on this law suit. She reported briefly on a recent trip to Boston to attend an ALI/ABA Conference, wherein adult uses such as the Adult Center were a topic of discussion. She reported that this is a nation-wide business. Mrs. Romans reported that the matter of sign regulation was also a topic of discussion at this conference. Mr. McBrayer asked if additional information on the law suit could be available at the next meeting? Mrs. Becker discussed the possibility of a summer picnic for the Commission members and their families and the staff and their families. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she would be happy to have the picnic at her home, and the date of July 25th at appr oximately 4:00 P .M. was tentatively scheduled • The meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M.