Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-09-01 PZC MINUTES• CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 1, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood City Hall, Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Members absent: Secretary 's note: Also present: Rininger, Tobin, Weber, Hayduk, Lathram, Douglas Simpson, Ex-officio Dummer, Welker One vacancy Gary Sears, City Manager Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner Marilee Utter, Owner's Representative Dan Brotzman, City Attorney Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 18 , 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of August 18 , 1998 were to be considered for approval. • Tobin moved : • Rininger seconded : The Minutes of August 18 , 1998 be approved as written . Mr. Hayduk noted an amendment on Page 1. Mr. Douglas asked that the first paragraph on Page 2 be clarified. The vote on approval of the Minutes, as amended on Pages I and 2, was called: AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Tobin, Weber, Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Douglas None None Welker, Dummer The motion carried. III. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Englewood Town Center CASE #PUD-98-02 Mr. Douglas stated that the Public Hearing on the proposed Planned Unit Development for the redevelopment of the Cinderella City Mall site is the issue before the Commission. He asked for a motion to open the Hearing. Tobin moved: Lathram seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-98-02 be opened. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Weber, Hayduk, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Douglas None None Welker, Dummer The motion carried. Harold Stitt, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Mr. Stitt presented the Chair with proof of publication of the Public No-• tice, and Certification of Posting of the property. Mr. Stitt stated that the Planning Commission is to consider re- zoning of the former Cinderella City property to Planned Unit Development. Mr. Stitt noted that the staff report indicates that the applicant is Skip Miller, Miller Weingarten Development; in reality, the applicant is the Englewood Environmental Foundation. The Foundation has control of the property, and Miller Weingarten does not at this time. Mr. Stitt also pointed out to the Commission that the "Gold Mine" restaurant is included on the map as part of the Planned Unit Development; the Foundation does not, at this time, control that property . Mr. Stitt stated that the Planned Unit rezoning will impose regulations , development plans and design guidelines on this site. The benefit of a PUD is to provide development abilities not otherwise available under conventional zon- ing. Once a PUD is approved and in place, all development must be consistent with the approved plan. The PUD will provide for unified development control, and will be applicable whether there is one developer or multiple de- velopers of the site. Mr. Stitt stated that the District Plan, a portion of which is before the Commission this evening, will establish the regulations governing the development. The Design Guidelines, which will be forthcoming for consideration at a future date , will provide the framework for the actual physical development, and the Site Plan , also forthcoming for consideration at a future meeting, will show specifics -footprints of buildings, and relation of development to other businesses and adjoining neighborhoods. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the PUD will be applicable for all development on the site unless the PUD is amended by action of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Stitt distributed to members of the Commission a list of goals established for the redevelopment of the Cinder- ella City Mall site, and a list of the goals, policies, and courses of action as cited in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan . Mr. Stitt noted the number of goals, policies and courses of action written in 1979 which are applicable to the rede- velopment proposed for the old mall site. • Mr. Stitt reviewed the responsibilities of the Planning Commission as set forth in the Planned Unit Development ordinance . These responsibilities include the requirement that the Commission make findings that: • The PUD District Plan is, or is not, in conformance with the District Plan requirements and the Comprehensive Plan; and • All required documents, drawings, referrals, recommendations, and approvals have been received; and • The PUD District Plan is consistent with adopted and generally accepted standards of development in the City of Englewood; and • The PUD District Plan is substantially consistent with the goals, objectives, design guidelines, policies and any other ordinance, law or requirement of the City; and • When the PUD District Plan is within the Englewood Downtown Development Authority (EDDA) area, the Plan is consistent with the EDDA approved designs, policies and plans. Mr. Stitt reiterated that the issue before the Commission is only a portion of the District Plan, and the District Plan is only one element of the total Planned Unit Development. The District Plan will provide the basic framework for the redevelopment. The nature of this redevelopment is such that there are elements which will be contained in the de- sign guidelines, and in the Site Plan . Mr. Stitt stated that the Englewood Environmental Foundation is taking a very measured approach on the redevelopment, and will go through the PUD process step-by-step. Mr. Stitt stated that staff suggests the Commission continue the Public Hearing to October 6, 1998. The Design Guidelines and com- plete District Plan will be available at that time . Mr. Stitt introduced Ms. Marilee Utter, owner's representative, and stated that he will further address the Commis- sion following comments from Ms . Utter. Ms. Marilee Utter was sworn in . Ms. Utter stated that she was appearing on behalf of the property owner and the developer, and appreciates the opportunity to speak about the project. She stated that this particular redevelopment 2 • - • • • project has been worked on for over four years. The redevelopment project is community driven , received consider- able community input, and contains many "community" elements, all of which will provide longer viability for the community. Ms. Utter emphasized that this has been a very collaborative effort -City personnel, consultants, the dev eloper, and the general public have all been very involved in developing the plans for the redevelopment. Ms. Utter stated that the proposal is not a typical PUD -this is for a site in excess of 50 acres, and there will be multiple developers. The various development entities must work out the details before the total package can be assembled. Ms. Utter stated that the proposed development is transit-oriented, and in a suburban setting. She noted that typi- ca lly, transit-oriented developments are smaller, more self-contained village type developments. The goal of this redevelopment is to create something in the short term which will provide long term infrastructure and economic viability -to make a good impact on the entire city. Ms . Utter referenced a schematic included as part of the staff report, and directed the attention of the Commission to the three "zones" indicated on that schematic . Zone 1 is the "transit-oriented zone", and encompasses the area 1/8 to V. mile from the RTD light-rail station. This would be the "village" type of development -quite dense in terms of activities and land use, including the residential develop- ment proposed on-site. Zone 2 is the "hybrid" zone -in the short-term it will include the infrastructure and eco- nomic generator, but over the long-term may further redevelop to the "village" concept. This Zone 2 will contain the "big box retail", and some smaller retail pad sites. Zone 3, along U.S. 285, is highway-oriented, auto relate d development. This will allow structures on a lower scale than the 100 foot structures allowed in Zones 1 and 2, and will not inhibit view of the interior development from passersby on U .S. 285. Ms. Utter stated that there is a budget "gap" that needs to be addressed, and finalization of the PUD documents is , to a degree, dependent on the ways the budget gap is closed. Ms . Utter stated that tenants are still being sought and talked to , but until the District Plan and Design Guidelines are approved, the tenants will not commit; until the ten- ants commit, and footprints of structures can be determined, the Site Plan cannot be developed. Ms. Utter stated that she and staff are very anxious for the Design Guidelines to be completed -they are so very important to the tenants and to marketing efforts for the redevelopment. Mr. Weber noted on the schematic that Zone 2 has a small protrusion into the Zone 3 area along U .S . 285 ; he asked why this small area was not made part of Zone 3 . Ms . Utter stated that it probably can be in Zone 3, but thinks it was placed in Zone 2 because it is an existing structure/use. Ms. Tobin inquired about the ratio of residential development to the commercial/retail development. Ms . Utter stated that she did not have that information with her, but estimated 350 residential units and that this might equate to approximately 50% of Zone # 1. Ms . Tobin noted that the number of residential units may have an impact on school attendance and taxes. Ms . Utter stated that the proposed housing is targeting young professionals and empty nesters; the housing units to be developed by Forest City will be up-scale rentals. ranging from $1 ,000 to $1 ,200 per month . The development will comprise a variety of unit sizes and types -studio, one, two, and three bedroom units. Ms. Lathram asked if the initial proposal to build for ownership has been scrapped. Ms. Utter stated that units that are built for sale would not come "on-line" at the same time as the rest of the redevelopment, but could be con- structed and opened over the course of a couple of years. The goal is to have the total redevelopment coming on- line in a closer time-line. Ms. Utter also pointed out that even though residential units may be built "for sale", peo- ple do purchase units , rent them out, and there is no central control. Forest City is a nationally-known residential developer, with a good track record throughout the country . They hold the residential units they build, and have management control over their units. Mr. Douglas asked if Ms. Utter didn't think that the quality and type of residences in this development will define the character of this entire project. Ms. Utter agreed that they are concerned with the quality of people who will be residing in the units, and reiterated the proposed rental range of $1 ,000 to $1,200 or above . Mr. Douglas stated that in his opinion , a for-sale residential development will be better for the overall redevelopment project than 350 rental units . Mr. Rininger asked how many rental units and how many condominium units there are in this area. Ms . Utter stated that she did not have that information available . Ms. Utter noted that the residential units are focused on a "life style" -prospective tenants may be able to afford to purchase a home, townhouse , or condominium, but choose not to do so. She also pointed out that when the Request for Proposals were sent out for the residential segment of the 3 proposed redevelopment, five responses were received -only one of those five respondents proposed a "for sale" development. Robert Simpson, Director of Neighborhood & Business Development, was sworn in . Mr. Simpson suggested the possibility of asking representatives of Forest City to attend a Commission meeting to address the issue of for-sale residential development versus rental. He suggested that this might be scheduled within the next couple of weeks . Mr. Hayduk asked how the proposed redevelopment relate to adjacent properties; have adjacent property owners been involved in the discussions. Ms. Utter stated that there have been discussions with the business owners on the south side of U.S . 285 , on South Broadway, the EDDA Board of Directors, and with the neighborhood to the north . Ms. Utter also noted that there have been discussions with RTD regarding a shuttle bus system to provide easy ac- cess for some outlying areas, such as the medical campus area, with the new development. Ms. Utter stated that every attempt is being made to mitigate traffic impacts on residential neighborhoods. Mr. Hayduk asked whether the proposed redevelopment will complement or compete with existing businesses . Ms . Utter stated that typically a different kind of tenant will be attracted to the new redevelopment than one who would choose to locate on South Broadway. There will , inevitably, be some degree of competition. Mr. Rininger asked about the impact the South Inca Street extension will have on Cushing Park and Dartmouth A venue . Ms. Utter stated that extension of South Inca Street and a bicycle path has been discussed . This will be a very important connection for traffic from south of U .S . 285 through the redevelopment area and through the north Englewood residential area to Dartmouth Avenue. Ms . Utter stated that the traffic consulting firm of Fehlsburg, Holt and Ullevig has been working with the City, developer and consulting team regarding traffic impacts. Ms. Ut- ter said the South Inca Street extension will use park land , and playground equipment will be relocated . - • Ms. Tobin asked for clarification on the location of the street, and the impact on Cushing Park . She also inquired whether the City/Parks Department will be reimbursed for the loss of this park land. Mr. Simpson stated that the street will extend along the west side of Cushing Park ; this roadway will be used by contractors during the course of construction of the redevelopment. The Park will still be under the ownership of the City, there will be sound walls • erected, and other steps taken to assure protection for park patrons . The City recently acquired the site of the Englewood Depot and the adjoining vacant property ; this vacant property will be developed as a park area, also . Mr. Simpson stated that the extension of South Inca Street will be the only through street from the redevelopment site to the north . The extension of South Inca Street could result in a traffic reduction on other neighborhood streets , particularly of truck traffic . Mr. Rininger asked if any residences will be affected by the extension of the street. Mr. Simpson stated that no resi- dences will be taken. Ms. Tobin stated that all residents who take their children to Cushing Park will be affected. She asked ifthe roller blade area will be removed or relocated . Mr. Simpson addressed the issue of the trails , noting that there will be a connection from The Plaza at Little Dry Creek trail system, extending along the northern part of the redevelopment to tie into South Inca Street extended, and then tie into the trail system at Dartmouth and Santa Fe. Gary Sears, Englewood City Manager, was sworn in. Mr. Sears provided additional information on the location of the South Inca Street extension and the impact on Cushing Park. The playground will be moved to allow for align- ment of the street and to provide for a stacking lane at the Dartmouth/Inca intersection. Mr. Sears also discussed the location of the trail system ; this will provide a vital connection to the existing trail systems. Mr. Sears stated that the City Engineer is working on the street and trail extension. Mr. Sears stated that the South Inca extension will proba- bly be 40 ft. to 50 ft. in width . Ms . Tobin asked how youngsters who live south of Dartmouth A venue will get across the street to take advantage of the new park area by the Englewood Depot. Mr. Sears stated that the park area north of Dartmouth A venue hasn 't been designed ; it may be more of a passive recreation area rather than an active playground area for kids. There is money set aside to accomplish the relocation of the playground in Cushing . Mr. Sears discussed plans to reinforce the integrity of the neighborhood just north of Flo yd A venue; the City does not want this area impacted by traffic 4 • -' • • • generated by the redevelopment, and that Cherokee Street and Inca Street will be the only two streets going through from Yale to south of U .S. 285 . Mr. Simpson noted that the extension of South Inca Street isn 't fully designed; there will be two lanes for vehicular traffic -one each direction -and sidewalks . Mr. Simpson speculated that the street will have 60 foot right-of-way with a 42 foot roadway. Mr. Hayduk asked Ms . Utter how it can be determined whether what is being done is "long-term" development. Ms. Utter stated that there are no guarantees, but we are trying to do the best we can . Big box retail product is very strong today -will it be strong in 15 years ? No one knows . However, the basic infrastructure will be in place, and a mixed use retail project probably will not fail at the same time. Mr. Hayduk asked if an estimate might be given - 10 years , 15 years, 20 years? Ms. Utter reiterated the redevelopment is trying to ensure the development of good infrastructure; buildings will be similar to those along Broadway -if one small retailer moves out, another small retailer can move in with minimal tenant modification. Mr. Rininger asked if there is a minimum amount of open space required for each zone area. Ms . Utter stated that the District Plan does not set forth a "minimum" for each zone. Mr. Simpson stated that while the schematic in the staff report does indicate "zones", open space and landscaping is being considered for the overall development and not each zone. Within the development there will be a defined public plaza area over one acre in size; there will also be a "boulevard" treatment along Englewood Parkway/Girard Avenue that can accommodate works of art, festivals , etc ., as well as landscaping provided within the residential developments , and along other travel routes in the devel- opment. Mr. Rininger noted that permitted height in zones 1 and 2 is 100 feet ; he asked how many floors this would allow. Ms . Utter stated that this will probably equate to 8 or 9 story buildings . Mr. Rininger asked how many floors are in the Bank One and Wells Fargo buildings . Mr. Stitt stated that these buildings are 10 stories in height. Mr. Hayduk asked why there is a short-term proposal and a long-term vision for zone 2 -economic generation ver- sus the longer-term village development. Ms . Utter discussed the need for the economic generator -the need for retail sales, taxes, and service to the market area. Ms . Tobin commented that if she were to pay $I ,000 per month for an apartment, she wouldn 't want to look out the window into a Wal-Mart. Ms. Tobin also stated that "we" live here and have to put up with the development, but the developers and consultants do whatever they do and go home . Mr. Stitt again addressed the Commission , and reviewed the Englewood Town Center PUD document. Section 1, General Provisions , sets forth the principles , intent, elements, and requirements for the transit-oriented development. Section 2 sets forth the Development Regulations , cites permitted uses in the three "zones", development densities , and he ight limitations . This section also establishes criteria specific to all three of the zones, such as prohibited uses , setbacks, landscape and sign standards, and determination of uses not mentioned. Mr. Stitt advised that while regulations for the three zones differ in character, the regulations will be coupled with the design guidelines and provide a cohesive redevelopment project. Mr. Stitt stated that a significant amount of the redevelopment project will be devoted to open space, but that an exact percentage cannot be cited at this time ; he noted that a lot of the landscaping requirements may be "quality" versus "quantity" -for instance , the minimum size of trees may be beefed up in lieu of overall number of trees required. Mr. Stitt stated that the permitted principal uses cited in the zone districts are those permitted in the typical B-1 Zone District; however, the regulations will be more narrowly applied than in the typical B-1 without PUD regulations. The B-I Zone District currently allows 100 foot height for development, and also allows multi-family residential de velopment. Zone 2 will allow "big box" development in addition to the small-format retail. The development regulations for Zone 2 are designed to address both the short- term economic generator concept and the longer-term evolution of this zone . The regulations will provide flexibility to address growth and change anticipated in this zone. Zone 3 , the transitional zone , or highway-oriented zone, will be developed with highway related uses and provide an "entrance" into the higher intensity development in zones 1 and 2. Development in zone 3 will be primarily the small-retail format , and height of structures will be limited to 42 feet. Mr. Stitt stated that the regulations governing zones 1, 2, and 3 will be driven by the Design Guidelines. Mr. Stitt cited uses which will be prohibited in zones 1, 2 , and 3 . The central corridor through the project east to west will be an extension of Englewood Parkway/Girard A venue -this will become one of the signature landscaped 5 streets of the total development. Signage standards will be go verned by the existing Sign Code, and will be required to be consistent with style, theme, and nature of the development. Mr. Stitt stated that landscaping requirements in zone 3 may be more intensive than in zones I and 2 . Mr. Stitt discussed the landscaping proposed along the north- ern boundary of the site -along Floyd A venue . This landscaped area will be designed to protect the residential neighborhood north of Floyd A venue from the visual impact of the redeveloped area as well as provide restrictions on through traffic. There will be provisions for pedestrian access from the north , but through vehicular traffic will be restricted to use of South Inca Street and/or South Cherokee street. Mr. Stitt stated that Section 3 of the PUD regulations pertains to Administration ; he summarized the provisions in this Section . Mr . Douglas asked if staff anticipated a complete District Plan by October 6th . Mr. Stitt stated that it is staffs intent that the full District Plan and Design Guidelines will be completed and before the Commission on that date. Mr. Douglas stated that the application isn 't really complete until all elements as set forth are in the possession of staff and the Commission . Mr. Stitt stated that in a typical PUD application , the developer would have to have every- thing prepared before presentation to the City and the Commission ; however, the typical PUD application is not fo- cused on redevelopment of a 50+ acre site. In this instance , the City staff is working with the Englewood Environ- mental Foundation, who controls the site, as well as working with the developer and his consultant assistants to try to pull all of the information together. Staff is bringing individual elements to the Commission for consideration at separate times. Mr. Simpson addressed the Commission , and acknowledged that the application is incomplete at this time. He em- phasized that the redevelopment of the mall area has been a very long , difficult process. There is still a budget gap to be addressed, which may have implications on some of the design elements. Staff had hoped that the entire proc- ess would be further along at this time. Mr . Simpson stated that there will be a complete application before the Commission on October 6 , 1998 . Mr . Rininger noted that zone 1 allows small format retail of less than 40,000 square feet ; he asked how the proposed theater will be accommodated. Mr. Stitt stated that the proposed theater is "entertainment" -not retail. Ms. Lathram suggested that there be consistency throu ghout the regulations. Mr. Weber referenced the "development density " provisions , and asked how the no less than 40% of total gross floor area for commercial/retail purposes can be achieved when other permitted uses and percentages are taken into consideration . Mr . Simpson stated that this will be considered further ; the intent is to assure a minimum level of revenue-producing businesses in each of the three zones . We need to have the revenue to provide for the services each zone will require . Consideration of "uses not mentioned" was discussed. Mr. Stitt stated that there are two ways this can be accom- plished : each request of "use not mentioned" can be brought before the Planning Commission, or it can be handled on an administrative level. Mr. Douglas pointed out that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance does not set out an y provision for administrative approval of a change of use , and asked why the ordinance provisions are being rewritten to allow this . Mr . Simpson stated that "use not mentioned" and "use determinations" section is not intended to be considered as a "change of use ". Ms. Tobin suggested that the determination of uses not mentioned should remain with the Planning Commission, and commented that citizens will not have the opportunity for comment if this func- tion is an administrative function . Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Simpson agreed that citizen input should not be restricted, and that the provision will be rewritten to require Planning Commission approval. Mr. Douglas asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission . Carol Rigdon , 3296 South Fox Street, asked for explanation on the South Inca Street extension. She stated that it appears the traffic will be "dumped" at Dartmouth and Santa Fe . She also asked what will be done to protect the res idents living north of Floyd from the traffic -will there be buffer zoning. Mr . Stitt responded there will be no direct through access from the redevelopment area on South Delaware , South Elati, South Fox, or South Galapago Street. There will be a landscaped "median" with no vehicular traffic breaks along this area, which will create a "frontage road" effect to provide circulation only to those residing north of Floyd A venue . Mr. Stitt outlined this proposal on a map for Ms . Rigdon . 6 \ • • • • • • Mr. Douglas stated that when the complete District Plan, Site Plan, and Design Guidelines are available it will be much clearer. Ms. Rigdon stated that "this is a dog and pony show"; she commented on the volume of traffic pres- ently experienced by this neighborhood, and the fact that RTD buses traveling on Floyd Avenue now make it very difficult to hear TV during the summer time when doors and windows are open . She does not want her property to be devalued and fears it will be with the increased traffic . She stated that the traffic has already increased along Floyd A venue -people just want to see the demolition of the old mall. Ms. Rigdon stated that she is concerned about strangers going through their neighborhood, and expressed concern about Cushing Park. Mr. Simpson assured Ms. Rigdon that Floyd A venue is being scrutinized very carefully -he emphasized that there will be no north/south through traffic except on South Inca Street and South Cherokee Street. There will not be concrete barriers, but a heavily landscaped median to buffer the frontage road from Floyd A venue. Mr. Simpson stated that residents who live on Floyd A venue need to be aware that Floyd A venue will serve as the primary access route for the buses serv- ing the RTD light rail station. Mr. Simpson stated that it is also important that, yes, the plan does affect Cushing Park, and that there will be additional park space developed on the north side of Dartmouth A venue, but in addition to that there will be one to two acres of open space within the development -the civic plaza will be developed and landscaped and is for use by the public. Ms. Tobin asked if this proposed redevelopment could stand alone if "RTD went down the drain". Mr. Simpson stated that the plan will be self-sufficient even if RTD were not part of it. RTD station is scheduled to be open for business in July , 2000. Ms. Reid noted that the Commission mentioned a meeting with representatives from Forest City ; she asked if the Commission wanted to take evidence from Forest City pertaining to this development, or does the Commiss ion want to receive background infonnation on the company in general. If evidence is desired, the Commission must con- tinue to a date certain, and ask that Forest City representatives be present to provide that evidence -not a "study session ." Mr. Douglas stated that the Commission needs to detennine if the project will be better off without residential if it means 350 units of rental units. Ms. Tobin asked if the meeting with Forest City could be prior to Se ptember 15th; she leaves for vacation that week. Mr. Douglas reiterated that the commission needs to detennine whether residen- tial development will be part of the redevelopment project. Mr. Simpson suggested that arranging for representa- tives from Forest City to attend a Commission meeting by September 15th might be a tight; he suggested they could probably be in attendance on September 22"d, and that any Commission member not in attendance at that date could listen to the tape of the meeting . Brief discussion ensued . Mr. Douglas asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No one so indicated. Mr. Douglas asked for a motion to continue the Public Hearing . Tobin moved: Rininger seconded : The Public Hearing on Case #PUD-98-02 be continued to September 22, 1998 at the hour of7 :00 P .M. AYES : NAYS: Hayduk, Lathram , Rininger, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Welker, Dummer The motion carried . IV. PUBLIC FORUM No one addressed the Commission under Public Forum. V. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Simpson stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . 7 VI. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms. Reid stated she had nothing to bring before the Commission. VII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Election of Vice-Chair Mr. Douglas discussed the need to elect a Vice-Chair; this position became vacant upon Mr. Homer's resignation from the Commission. Discussion ensued. Tobin moved: Lathram seconded: Nominations for Vice Chair be opened . The motion carried. Tobin nominated Mr. Rininger for Vice Chair. Hayduk seconded the nomination. Tobin moved: Lathram seconded: Nominations be closed, and Mr. Rininger be elected Vice Chair. AYES : NAYS: Hayduk, Lathram, Tobin, Weber, Douglas None ABSTAIN : Rininger ABSENT: Dummer, Welker The motion carried. Nothing further was brought before the Commission. The meeting adjourned . Gertrude G. Welty , Recording Secretary f:\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minutes 98\pcm 09-98a.doc 8 .... • • •