Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-13 PZC MINUTES• • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 13, 1982 I. CALL TO ORDER. 5 c The Special Meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBrayer at 7:00 P.M. in Library Conference Room I. Members present: Stoel, Allen, Barbre, Carson, Gilchrist, McBrayer, Senti D. A. Romans, Acting Ex-officio Members absent: Becker, Tanguma Also present: Susan King, Senior Planner Assistant City Attorney Thomas V. Holland II. R-2-C ZONE DISTRICT Proposed Revisions by Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee CASE #14-82 Mr. McBrayer asked that the staff review this case before the Commission. Mrs. Romans stated that she and Susan King have been meeting with the mem- bers of the Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee since last October, and introduced Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Kelley and Mr. and Mrs. Ted Highland, who were present at the meeting. Mrs.Romans stated that Mr. and Mrs. Herb Mosbarger and a Mr. Holden have also been very active in these meetings . Mrs. Romans stated that Mr. Dennis Kelley will make the presentation to the Commission regarding the proposed suggestions for the R-2-C District. Mr. Kelley stated that the meetings initially involved 20 to 25 people, but the number has decreased to the six or seven that have remained actively involved. Mr. Kelley stated that the meetings came about because of con- cerns in the neighborhood regarding some of the variances that had been granted to developers; it was felt that the variances that had been granted were detrimental to the northwest Englewood area, and to the City as a whole. Mr. Kelley stated that in discussions, the Special Permit System was mentioned, and they decided to learn more about this system. Mr. Kelley discussed con- cerns that the neighborhood has with some of the new development that has gone in in the northwest Englewood area, and felt that this was not conducive to attracting families with children to settle in this area. Mrs. Becker entered the meeting and took her place with the Commission. Mr. Kelley discussed the process that the staff and the members of the North- west Englewood Citizens Committee had following in arriving at the proposal they are presenting this evening. Mr. Kelley stated that they feel the pro- posed R-2-C revisions they are suggesting wil l accomplish several things: flexibility will be built into the provisions which would allow some staff discretion in review of development plans, and could eliminate the need for some developers to go before the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, thus saving themselves about six weeks in time; a tightening of some of the regulations would make it easier to maintain control of such things as home occupations; and there is a point of give-and-take between the developer and the neighbor- hood whereby both parties could benefit. Mr. Kelley stated that they feel some of the primary advantages to using the system as they have proposed it -2- is that the development will reflect the neighborhood standards, it will • decrease the permit time for the developer, and there will be more flexibility allowed in the site design. Mr. Carson asked if this group was proposing the utilization of a Permit System only in northwest Englewood or for the entire city; he noted that several times Mr. Kelley has made reference to the "entire city". Mr. Kelley stated that their primary concern is in northwest Englewood, but did try to write the proposal so that it could be used in other areas of of the City as well. Mrs. Romans cited one particular block in northwest Englewood where variances were given to allow development of a parcel of land with units facing north and south, and also facing to the east. These variances resulted in a de- velopment that caused concern to some persons in the residential neighborhood. Mrs. Romans stated that in some instances, the proper lot area may be available, but the configuration of the lot makes it difficult to develop and meet the setbacks on front, rear and/or side yards. Discussion ensued. Mr. Kelley reiterated that this proposal would allow for flexibility, which could result in a better utilization of the land, and could be of benefit to the developer and to the neighbors. Ms. King pointed out that one of the reasons for some of the variances is the construction of the "single-family attached" units, which are then sold to individual owners; if the structure were built as a duplex there would be no problem, but when the units are built as single-family attached and sold, there is the problem of the "zero" side lot line, which is not allowed in the present ordinance. Mr. Gilchrist asked how many vacant building sites of the odd size found in northwest Englewood are there in the City. Mrs. Romans estimated there could be 60+ building sites if some of the streets were to be extended as has been proposed. Ms. King stated that another problem is the provision of off-street parking; single-family attached units require two off-street parking spaces per unit, but the required off-street parking may not be provided in the front yard or front 25 foot setback. Ms. King indicated on the drawing board how some developers are getting around this provision by moving the building further to the rear, and then providing the garages/parking area to the front of the structure, but back of the 25 foot setback. This results in a large black- topped area or concrete area in the front yard, and gives a very "stark" appearance to the development. Ms. King stated that the proposal Mr. Kelley is discussing would allow parking in the front setback, and indicated one or two .parking layout designs that had been considered. Ms. King stated that this would be worked out on a case-by-case basis. Ms. King stated that an attempt was made to gain more design amenities, such as landscaping, architectural design, etc. by being willing to compromise on such items as parking in the front yard. . Mr. Kelley stressed that they are not anti-development, but they are trying to work out a means to assure more attractive developments and ease the restrictions on the developers at the same time. Discussion on rights-of-way that are proposed to be extended ensued. Mrs. Romans stated that Adriatic, Baltic Place, Caspian Place and Hillside were streets that are projected for extension. • • • -3- Mr. Gilchrist stated that he felt Mr. Kelley had given a very able presenta- tion on the proposal; he stated that he would be interested in hearing com- ments from the builders, developers, and realtors who are on the Planning Commission regarding this proposal. Mr. Stoel stated that he has purchased property in northwest En glewood, which is an "inside" lot; he agreed that there is no place for the required off-street parking except in the front yard under the exis ting regulations. Mr. Stoel asked if the residents in the area were objecting to the "look" of some of the new development? Mrs. Highland stated that screening would help. Mr. Barbre inquired on the width of the right-of-way that is projected. Mrs. Romans stated that the street rights-of-way are projected to be 50 feet. Mr. Allen, in reference to a drawing indicating a division of property that was approved by the variance procedure, stated that considering the cost of land and the construction costs, it appeared that it was a pretty good use of the land. Mr. Kelley stated that it is a poor use of the land for this area; there is no open area for children to play on these small lots. Mr. Kelley stated that it is the feeling of the residents of this area that these units with small lots will not be attractive to families with children. Mrs. Highland stated that the development in question just does not fit into the neighborhood concept. Mr. Allen asked what the neighborhood concept is? Mrs. Highland stated that it is single-family. Mr. Kelley stated that they realized the area is zoned R-2-C, Medium Density; but with the variances that have been granted, the resulting development is not what they feel the R-2-C development was to be. Mr. Kelley stated that they feel if the proposal they have developed were to be used, it would give flexibility to the developers, and still result in attractive developments for the neighbor- hood. Mr. McBrayer stated that he understood the R-2-C Zoning was imposed in that area to attract families. Mrs. Romans stated that this was correct; it was an effort to keep the school open by attracting families with children. Mrs. Highland stated that the residents of the area felt they could live with the duplex or two-family developments that they anticipated with the R-2-C Zoning; however, the trend is now to the townhouse type of development, and the smaller lots do not attract families. Mr. McB.rayer stated that he felt it was a matter of economics that the area did not develop as R-1. Mr. Kelley stated that the area didn't really begin to develop under the R-2-C until a couple of years ago. Mrs. Romans stated that variances have been obtained to sell the units individually as town houses; she noted that the majority of the concern seems to be along South Tejon Street. Mr s. Becker stated that she would not want to see in this neighborhood what was developed further north in Denver along South Raritan Street . Mr. Gilchrist asked for Mr. Senti's opinion on this proposal. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he wo uld like to inquire of Mr . Kelley if there has been an in- crease or decrease in the value of the properties in the area since the new units have been constructed, and if the landscaping that has been installed was done voluntarily or was it required? Mr. Kelley stated that he believed -4- the installation of the landscaping was voluntary. Regarding property values, he stated that he did not feel there had been any increase more than would normally be expected. Mrs. Romans stated that she would like to point out that installation of landscaping is a requirement contained in the R-2-C Zone District regulations. Mr. Gilchrist asked then if the landscaping was installed before the R-2-C ordinance went into effect. Mr. Kelley indicated that most of it was probably planted prior to the R-2-C Zone District regula- tions. Discussion ensued. Mr. Holland .pointed out that the Board members consider the application for a variance, and make their decisions based on the information that is pre- sented to them; this may be by staff report, testimony, and/or viewing of the site. The variances that are granted must meet specific standards that are set forth in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. Discussion ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that if he understands the concerns of the people properly, they do not want smaller lots, and do not want the density to the point that has been allowed by the division of the parcels as done along Tejon Street. Mr. Stoel stated that the Commission is con- cerned about affordable housing, and has considered ways to allow develop- ment on smaller lots. Mr. McBrayer stated that if the area didn't develop with the R-1-C Zone classification, and didn't develop under the R-2-C classification without the granting of variances, he feels that what the people in this area would rather go back to is no development rather than proceed in the present di- rection. Mr. Kelley stated that the residents do want to see development, but want to see the development accomplished in a different manner than the granting of variances, and have the end results be a little more pleasing and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Kelley stated that he felt there is a need for more open space around the units, and the land- scaping and parking location needs to be addressed. Mr. Kelley emphasized that the residents who have worked on this committee feel that the R-2-C in- corporating features of the special permit system, would allow flexibility that would be encouraging to developers, and still give the residents better developments in the neighborhood. Mr. Allen stated that he could not see where the residents would be giving the builder anything by using this system; he asked just what the residents felt they would be giving the builders? Mr. Kelley stated that by building in the flexibility to negotiate some points with the staff, the need for a developer to appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a variance is eliminated in many cases; this would result in a savings of time, which is money, to the developer. Mr. Allen asked in whose opinion would a development necessarily "look better?" Mr. Kelley pointed out that the residents who live in the neighborhood are most concerned with the appearances of the developments. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer suggested that inasmuch as the property had not developed earlier, perhaps it is not feasible to develop unless it is developed to a higher density. Mr. Kelley stated that he would find that hard to believe. Discussion ensued. Mr. Senti pointed out that all city lots are not the same size; he felt this proposal presents an opportunity to work with the people to help both them a n d the developers. Mr. Gilchrist inquired whether it would be better to work on a case-by- case basis or an across-the-board provision. He also asked Mr. Kelley • • • -5- and Mr. Highland if either gentleman owned vacant land in this area? Mr. Kelley stated that he owned some vacant land; Mr. Highland stated that he did not. Mr. Kelley stated that he would like to see his property used for single-family development, and this is probably the way it will be developed at some time in the future. He indicated that he was in no hurry to have this portion of his property developed. The dimensions of the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kelley were discussed. Ms. Becker expressed concern that Mr. and Mrs. Kelley and Mr. and Mrs. Highland would leave the meeting with negative feelings regarding the reception of their proposal. Ms. Becker stated that she felt the Commission should consider more than just the northwest area of Englewood, and pointed out that this proposal may be a bargaining point for homeowners and builders. Mr. Holland stated that he had understood this was an application to change the R-2-C Zone District; is this correct? Mr. McBrayer stated that it is not a formal application for a change in the zone regulations at this point. Mr. Kelley again stated that he felt the permit system incorporated into the R-2-C District could be of benefit to both residents and builders; he emphasized that the property owners are not anti-development, and feels that this proposal could work. He stated that it has worked successfully in other areas, and feels it would be a step in the right direction for Englewood. Mr. Carson asked what areas Mr. Kelley was referring to that use the permit system? Ms. King stated that Breckenridge uses the Permit System; Ft. Collins has a form of the permit system that it uses, and other communities in Colorado and Wyoming make use of the permit system. Discussion ensued. Mrs. Becker stated that she feels the people present at the meeting tonight are not voicing opposition to the density permitted under the R-2-C, but are urging the city to come up with a "good plan". Ms. Becker stated that she has not heard these individuals say the density should be cut down; she has heard in the conversation a request for help to come up with good-looking housing, landscaping, etc. Mr. Gilchrist asked for a definition of "northwest Englewood". Mrs. Romans stated that this is considered as the residential area bounded by Tejon on the East, Vassar Avenue on the South, Zuni Street on the West, and the Evans- Adriatic alley on the North. Discussion ensued. The parking layout allowing parking in the front 25 feet was further discussed. Mrs. Romans stated that she has discussed with Public Works Director Waggoner the possibility of off-sets similar to those permitted in Denver which would accommodate part of the required off-street parking. Further discussion en- sued. Mr. Stoel acknowledged that there are problems in the northwest Englewood area regarding development. He stated that he personally likes the concept of the zero lot lines, and feels that the relatively low cost of the land would encourage development. He noted that building sites are $12,000 to $15,000 per lot. He stated that he felt this is a unique area, but did not really feel that the entire zone district should be modified. Ms. King pointed out that there is only one other area in the City which has the R-2-C designation; there are two vacant lots in this area. The -6- proposed modification of the district regulations could enable the property owners of these two vacant sites to build single-family attached units and sell the units which they cannot do now. Mrs. Romans stated that throughout the meeting with the Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee, there has been participation by Councilwoman Bradshaw, and Councilmen Fitzpatrick and Bilo, and that these people appear to feel comfortable with the process that has been developed. Mr. McBrayer thanked Mr. and Mrs. Kelley and Mr. and Mrs. Highland for their attendance and presentation; he stated that the Commission would review this suggestion, and will consider the matter further at a later date, of which they would be notified. III. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS CASE 118-82 Mr. McBrayer stated that the Commission has had preliminary discussions re- garding landscaping standards at one or two previous meetings, and agreed to have further discussion and staff presentation this evening. He asked Mrs. Romans to lead the discussion on this matter. Mrs. Romans stated that the Planning Commission asked the staff to prepare landscaping regulations, and this was one of the work goals of the Planning Commission for 1982. The primary responsibility for assignment to develop the landscaping requirements and standards was given to Tyrone Temple, a Planning Intern, who developed the proposed ordinance which was previously discussed. Mr. Temple modeled the regulations after the Lakewood Ordinance which Commission members had said they favored. He also worked closely with the City Forester, and obtained information from other municipalities in the course of his development of the proposed standards for Englewood. The docu- ment was presented for discussion in June, and it appeared that there was some concern that the proposed ordinance might be too stringent and regulatory. Mrs. Romans suggested that the staff and Commission need to determine "why" the landscaping ordinance is needed, and "for whom" the landscaping is to be required. She stated that the staff has posed several questions, and has indicated some answers that they have determined and asked the Commission for their input to these questions. The questions as posed by the staff were then outlined and discussed. I. Why are we considering landscaping regulations? Answers suggested by the Commission were: For posterity and to reduce ambiguity, also to reinforce the position of staff in negotiating for land- scaping on developments. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he feels the proposal is a mandatory, bureaucratic, and restrictive ordinance, and he is opposed to it. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he likes to build things and plant things, and that in fact, he raises trees; but he does not feel that his preferences should be fostered on others who may not have the same interests. He questioned why an industrial use should expend money for landscaping and experience the increased costs of the landscaping and reduction in dividends. Mr. Stoel cited the Englewood Industrial Park where there is some landscaping, and noted that this makes for an attractive area. He stated that he felt there is a need for some landscaping; also, if there is an ordinance setting • -7- forth the requirement of landscaping, this would give the staff some backing in discussions with developers regarding landscaping. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not want to see the ordinance too restrictive, and felt that the initial draft was, in fact, too restrictive. Mr. McBrayer agreed that the staff needs something in writing to back them up when negotiating landscaping with developers. Some cases in point were cited wherein a developer had indicated that he would be willing to landscape, but did not actually do so; the staff has no means to enforce the installation of landscaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt one good point about Englewood was that the government has had more consideration for the industrial and businessman than other communities, and has not been "over-regulated"; he noted that this is "eroding", however. Mr. Allen stated that he felt people are being regulated constantly, and that when you purchase a piece of land, you basically have no control over what you can do with it. Mr. Allen discussed his con- cerns with regulations imposed by government, noting that the cost of housing is increased by regulations that are not necessary. He noted that the require- m~nt for landscaping which is imposed in the high-density districts now only serves to increase the per unit rental rate to the tenants. Mr. Allen stated that he did not feel there should be an exception for single-family develop- ments if landscaping is to be required in medium and high-density zone dis- tricts. Mr. Allen asked members of the Commission and staff how many times they had failed to go into a place of business because of the lack of land- scaping and appearance of the place? Mrs. Becker stated that she would drive out of her way to go to Marina Square because it is such an attractive place to shop. Mr. Allen stated that he felt if the matter was left up to the initiative of the individual, there would be few people who are opposed to landscaping. He stated that he personally likes landscaping, but didn't feel regulations should be imposed on others just because of his personal likes. Mr. McBrayer asked Mr. Allen if he felt his office building would rent just as well if there were no landscaping to make it more attractive? Mr. Allen stated that he had not had anyone indicate they were renting in his building because of landscaping, and cited a development to the south of his building which has provided little to no landscaping, and this de- velopment is fully rented. Further discussion on the merits of landscaping ensued. Mr. Stoel stated that there were many things in the original draft proposal that he was not in favor of, but that he is in favor of some type of requirement. Mr. Senti stated that he felt an irrigation system or sprinkling system is very important in the maintenance of landscaping. He noted that he lives in the Kivas, which were developed by Mr. Allen, and that a sprinkling system was not part of the landscaping at this development. Mr. Senti stated that it would be easier to maintain the lawn if there were a sprinkler system installed. Mr. Allen discussed the fees for water taps, and the relation of those costs to the landscaping, and the ultimate cost of the units. Mrs. Becker stated that she understood when the Commis sion was discussing their work program for this year, that this was of major interest to the Commission, and that this is why it was placed on the list of goals and objectives. Discussion ensued. Mr. McBrayer asked for a show of hands of those who were interested in continuing with the proposed landscaping regula- tions? Five members indicated they were interested in pursuing this matter; three members indicated they were in opposition to the matter of landscaping regulations. -8- Further discussion ensued on Question No. I. Ms. Becker stated that she feels it is the responsibility of people who live and build in a counnunity to ensure there are pleasant amenities. Mr. Allen stated that he would agree it is a responsibility, but urged that it not be made a requirement. Question No. II was then considered, that question being: "For whom are we imposing the landscaping regulations?" Again, the Commission felt that landscaping should be required for "future generations" or posterity. Question No. III, "To whom should the regulations apply?" was considered. It was a suggestion that low-density residential areas should not be required to provide landscaping. Mr. Stoel stated that he did not feel this was a real problem in the single-family areas. Mr. Carson stated that he felt this provision should be left in the ordinance, and the public should have an opportunity to counnent on it. Mr. McBrayer noted that elimination of single-family areas from the landscaping requirements has twice been voted on by the Counnission. Ms. Becker stated that if the Commission is, in deed, beginning from "scratch" with this discussion, she would agree that this provision should be considered and commented on by the general public. Mr. Allen reiterated that he felt if the provisions were to apply to medium and high density residential, there should be no differentiation between the low, medium, and high-density residential districts. He also pointed out that land costs in the high-density zoned areas is priced higher than single- family land. Mr. Stoel pointed out that it is the investor who develops the medium and high-density developments, and if it is not feasible, he won't do it. Mr. Allen stated that this is just increasing rental costs for people who cannot afford to buy housing. He again voiced his opinion that the pro- visions should apply to everyone. Mr. Senti cited a development that Mr. McBrayer had done on South Acoma, and the selling price that this property brought with the landscaping installed. Mr. McBrayer pointed out that this development was done "to make money", and that if he were doing something on his personally-owned residence, it might be a different matter. Further dis- cussion ensued. Mr. Allen stated that he felt the present regulations, or lack thereof, is satisfactory; he would not be in favor of requiring land- scaping. Ms. King asked if cost estimates would be of help to the Commission. Mr. Barbre stated that he did not feel that this would be of help at this point. Mr. Barbre stated that he was in favor of a landscaping ordinance, but that it should not be overly restrictive. Mr. McBrayer asked how many members of the Counnission wanted to consider low-density residential in the landscaping provisions? Three members in- dicated they were in favor of inclusion of the low-density area. Four mem- bers indicated they were opposed to the inclusion of the R-1 areas in the landscaping requirements, and one member abstained. Advantages and disadvantages of landscaping was then discussed; trees and grass were the two items set forth by the staff for discussion. Disadvantages to trees mentioned by the Commission were maintenance and the fact that some of them attract and harbor insects. Mr. Stoel asked if there was any program which offered assistance to people with problems of insects in their trees; Mr. Stoel stated that he was re- ferring to persons who could not afford to hire spraying done and could not do it themselves. Mr. Holland stated that information and advice would be available from the City Forester; however the other types of service to which Mr. Stoel referred such as trinnning, and spraying, would not be done free of charge. -9- Question No. V. "Ways to get input from the c ommunity", was then considered. Mr. Stoel stated that he felt there is a need to get people involved at some point before the Public Hearing. Mr. McBrayer discussed the procedure followed in the development adoption of the Bicycle Trail System and the Sign Code. He suggested that possibly some members of the Commission would like to work on an ad hoc committee to determine public opinion on the question of land- scaping. Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist stated that he would be willing to serve on the committee provided it was understood that the compliance would be "voluntary". Discussion ensued. Mr. Gilchrist and Mr. Stoel were designated to work on this ad hoc committee. IV. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE. Mrs. Romans stated that the Parks and Recreatjon Department is organizing a golf tournament in conjunction with the opening and dedication of the club house, and that the Director of Parks and Recreation has asked for names of board and commission members who would be interested in participating in the tournament. Mr. Allen indicated that he was interested in the golf tournament. No other member of the Commission indicateQ they were interested. Mrs. Romans reported on the Promote Englewood committee that Mr. Tanguma is participating in. She stated that this ad hoc committee had its first meeting on July 12th, and it was determined that the committee feels it is very im- portant to publi~h a brochure about Englewood. Mr. Haviland has estimated that the brochure could cost approximately $20,000. The next meeting of this committee is scheduled for August 10th. Mrs. Romans reviewed the tentative agenda for the meeting of the Commission on July 20th; there are two public hearings scheduled on amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, and the public hearing on the Urban Renewal Plan was continued to that date. There is also a request for a waiver to the Subdivision Regulations that may be considered on this date. V. COMMISSION'S CHOICE. Mr. Carson stated that he had talked to three people on the Urban Renewal Authority and some of the downtown businessmen, and understands that there has been agreement on some of the points of difference between the two bodies. He stated that the Plan will no longer be called the "Urban Renewal Plan" but rather will be called the "Downtown Plan". He stated that he understood the Urban Renewal Authority and EDDA have a meeting scheduled for Thursday evening, the 15th of July. Mr. McBrayer stated that he had met with City Manager McCown, who explained the ramifications if the Urban Renewal Plan is not approved, and advised Mr. McBrayer of the meeting that occurred between the City Council and EDDA on the 12th of July. He stated that it was also his understanding that the Plan is to be called the "Englewood Downtown Development Plan." Mr. McBrayer stated that he is proud that the Planning Commission was in- strumental in getting this done. Mr. McBrayer stated that Mr. McCown in- dicated he felt there was a very good chance that the EDDA would present a letter to the Commission retracting the resolution that was presented at the Public Hearing on July 7th. It appears that everybody is working to- gether at this point, and that with minor changes, the Plan is acceptable. Mr. McBrayer estimated that he had received 20 phone calls since the meeting -10- of July 7th telling him how much they appreciated the response of the Com- mission to the concerns voiced at the meeting of July 7th, and that he has had three different Council people call him to tell him that. Mr. McBrayer stated that he thinks the Planning Commission did the right thing. Mr. Holland acknowledged that the Planning Commission was in a very awkward situation at the Hearing on July 7th; he did point out, however, that the objections raised were not to the issue before the Planning Commission, and quoted from the State Statute citing the responsibility of the Commission. Mr. Holland stated that Ms. Powers had pointed out to the Commission that the issue before this body is to determine whether the Urban Renewal Plan is in fact, in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Holland reiterated that the points raised during the course of the Hearing did not pertain to this issue. Mr. McBrayer stated that he felt some of the points raised regarding slum and blight are of concern to the Commission. Mr. Holland stated that the point made at the hearing was the EDDA did not have control, and were afraid of condemnation. These points did not apply to the issue before the Commission. He stressed that the concern of the Commission is the compatibility of the Plan with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stoel stated that there were problems that needed to be ironed out. Mr. Holland stated that at the Hearing scheduled for July 20th on the amend- ment of the Zoning Ordinance, he would withdraw as the attorney for the Com-~ mission, and would present some testimony on case law at that time. Discussion followed. Mr. Holland then reported on the court case involving the City and Rocky Mountain Acquisitions. He stated that the legal staff is attempting to quash the subpoenas of the Commission members, as well as the Hearing scheduled for July 26th. They are asking that a date be set for a hearing on the merits of the case the last part of August or the first part of September. He stated that members of the Commission would not have to appear in Court on July 26th. Mr. Gilchrist asked that Commission members give him and Mr. Stoel a written list of locations they would like to see trees planted in the City of Englewood. Mrs. Becker extended her apologies for missing the meeting of July 7th; she explained that there had been an illness in the family, necessitating her travel out of the country, and that ~hings had just not worked out ~o enable her to attend the meeting. Mrs. Becker stated that she had injured her ankle during the travel necessitated by the family illness, and discussed the problems one encounters when confined to a wheelchair. Mrs. Becker also asked if members of the Commission were still interested in a potluck dinner at her residence the afternoon of July 25th? The members indicated they are looking forward to the dinner. There was further discussion regarding the presentation by members of the Northwest Englewood Citizens Committee. Mr. McBrayer asked that this matter be placed on the agenda for a meeting some time in August if the agenda would accommodate such a discussion. Further discussion on the cost of constructing housing ensued. • The meeting adjourned at 10:15 P.M. rtrude G. Welty ecording Secre -11-