Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-04-17 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION April 17, 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Chairman Weber presiding. Present: Rempel, Mueller, Waggoner, Weber, Willis, Welker Krieger and Stockwell entered late Absent: Lath ram Also present: Senior Planner Langon Senior Planner Stitt Assistant City Attorney Reid II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 3, 2001 Chairman Weber stated that the Minutes of Apri l 3, 2001 were to be considered for ap- proval. Willis moved: Welker seconded: The Minutes of April 3, 2001 are approved as written. Mr. Weber asked if there were corrections or amendments to the Minutes. No corrections or amendments w ere suggested. Mr. Weber then called for the vote on the motion. Ms. Krieger entered the meeting and was seated with the Commission. AYES: NAYS: Rempel , Mueller, Waggoner, Willis, Krieger, Welker, Weber None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Stockwell , Lathram The motion carried. Ill. MONTCARO SUBDIVISION CASE #SUB 2001-02 Mr. Weber stated that the issue before the Commission is consideration of a preliminary plat for the Montcaro Subdivision. He asked for a motion to open the public hearing . Waggoner moved : Welker seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #SUB 2001-02 be opened. H '.GROU PIBOARDS \PLANCOMM IMinu1cs 1Mi nu1cs 2001 \PCM Q ~.:001 B doc • AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Mueller, Waggoner, Willis, Krieger, Rempel , Welker, Weber None None Stockwell, Lathram The motion carried. Mr. Weber asked that staff present the case. Tricia Langon, Senior Planner, was sworn in. Ms. Langon asked that the staff report and the preliminary plat be entered into the record of the Hearing. Ms. Langon also noted that the notice of public hearing was published in the Englewood Herald on April 6, 2001 , and that adjoining property owners were notified by certified mail of the date, time, and location of the public hearing; return receipts have been received from three of the four adjoining property owners. Ms. Langon testified that the application is to divide a . 76-acre parcel of unplatted land into four lots in an area bounded by West Baker Avenue on the north, West Harvard Avenue on the south, South Raritan Street on the east, and South Tejon Street on the west. This particular parcel is situated approximatel y 60 feet west of South Raritan Street, and extends from West Baker Avenue to West Harvard Avenue. The zoning of the area is 1-1 , Light Industrial. What is before the Commission this evening is a preliminary plat of the proposed Montcaro Subdivision . • Ms. Langon testified that the applicant has submitted everything required to accompany the preliminary plat as specified b y the Subdivision Ordinance. The Preliminary Pl at has been reviewed b y the City's Development Review Team , and Community Development staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat and authorize preparation of the Final Plat. • Ms . Langon stated that the Subdivision Regulations require that unplatted land be subdi- vided. The Planning Commission is required to conduct a public hearing to evaluate the preliminary plat. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission may ap- prove, approve with conditions, or disapprove the preliminary plat, and direct the applicant to incorporate changes when preparing the final plat. The Commission ma y then review the final plat and grant approval, approve with conditions, or disapprove the final plat. If the final plat is granted approval, or approval with conditions, it may then be referred to the City Council for final action. Ms. Langon reiterated that the site is less than one acre in area, and is zoned 1-1 , Light In- dustrial. This zone district does not set forth minimum lot area requirements. The i ntent of the proposed subdivision is to create four small parcels, three of which wi ll be available for industrial de ve lopment; the fourth lot presently has a small house o n it, w hich was built in 1948. The area was annexed to the City of Englewood in 195 7, and zoned to 1-1 in 1963 . This residential use is nonconforming in 1-1 . All streets abutting this property are in, so no right-of-wa y dedications are required . Ms. Langon noted that criteria cited for consideration of a preliminary plat have been met; she H· GRO UPIBOA RDS \PLANCOMM\Minutes \Mi nu tes 2001\PCM 04 ·2001 B doc • • • further noted that much of the criteria are applicable to larger parcels of land. Ms. Langon reiterated that the proposed Montcaro Subdivision does meet all development require- ments, and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Langon noted one correction that is needed -the address of the applicants and the holder of the deed of trust have been reversed on the preliminary plat. Mr. Welker asked if a drainage study was submitted. Ms. Langon replied that because of the small size of the parcels, a drainage report was not required. Mr. Waggoner noted that the concrete driveway for the residence addressed as 1831 West Harvard Avenue appears to encroach into the property to the west. Ms. Langon stated that the concrete driveway does encroach approximately 2.2 feet onto the adjoining property. Mr. Waggoner questioned where drainage easements were; he noted that utility easements were shown on the plat. He further questioned whether runoff from one lot should drain onto or across another lot. Discussion on drainage issues ensued. Ken Ross , Director of Public Works, w as sworn in . Mr. Ross testified that the lots are small , and the total site is less than one acre. The down-stream sites must conve y drainage onto City streets . Mr. Waggoner suggested that the utility easements shown on the plat be des- ignated and used as both utility and drainage easements. Mr. Welker noted the topogra- phy of the site, and agreed that drainage should not be allowed to impact adjoining lots . Discussion regarding drainage easements ensued . Ms. Langon stated that the easement on Lot 3 should be extended south to West Harvard A venue . Ms . Langon pointed out that there are no minimum setbacks required in the 1-1 Zone Dis- trict unless abutting or adjoining a residential zone district. Mr. Stockwell entered the meeting at approximately 7:30 p .m . Mr. Waggoner noted the east/w est easements betw een Lots 1 and 3 and Lots 2 and 4 do not indicate how much is on each lot. He pointed out that the utility line appears to be lo- cated on a "diagonal " rather than a straight line . Mr. Welker stated that when the easement is designated -5 feet on each lot, for example -care should be taken that however the easement is divided between the lots, the existing power line is within that easement. Mr. Waggoner agreed that it will be important for property owners to know how much of the easement is on their individual property. Mr. Waggoner noted that the fence shown on the plat appears to be fairl y straight; is this fence location sited from a pre v ious sur v ey, and to w hom does the fence belong. Ms . Lan- gon suggested that the applicant might clarify this . Mr. Weber asked for clarification -does the 10-foot setback from a residential "district" mean that there should be a 10-foot setback from the existing residence . Ms . Langon stated that the existing residence is non-conforming in the 1-1 Zone District. Ms. Langon H:IGRO UPIBOARD SIPL ANC OM ll<f\Minu1es 1Minu1es 2001 1PCM OJ -2001 B.doc • • addressed ways in which residential use of the property might be lost and the property would then have to be used in conformance with Light Industrial standards. Mr. Weber asked the applicant to address the Commission. Maurice Johnson was sworn in, and testified that he is representing the property owner and applicant. Lot 3 is developed with a residential structure, and is used for residential pur- poses. The property owner wants to subdivide the property and make the property more productive; the three lots may be leased to small industrial businesses, or may be sold for industrial development. Mr. Waggoner questioned location of the fencing. Mr. Johnson suggested that the location of the fencing became known when this survey was done. Mr. Waggoner asked if there had been any discussion with the property owner abutting the east line of Lots 2 and 4 . Monte Sanders, applicant and property owner, was sworn in. Mr. Sanders stated there has been discussion with the property owner to the east, and pointed out that the same person owns property abutting the proposed four lots on both the east and the west. Mr. Sanders stated that until they had the survey done, he didn't know where the property lines were located. The fence to the east of the east property line of Lots 2 and 4 belongs to the owner of that property. He stated that the fence has been in that location for approxi- mately 1 5 years . Mr. Welker and Mr. Waggoner agreed that they have no problem with the location of the fence if it does belong to the owner of the property on which it is sited. Mr. Rempel asked if the applicant was aware of any hazardous materials that may be in the site soil. Mr. Johnson stated that no soils testing has been done; there has been no need to do soils tests at this time . Mr. Sanders stated that he understood the area was developed with small residential units at one time. Mr. Waggoner asked if the lots in the proposed subdivision are for sale , or to have small industrial buildings constructed and leased. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be new construction on the three lots, but determination on whether the sites would be for sale or lease has not been made. Mr. Sanders stated that he wanted to attract small , industrial businesses. Mr. Waggoner inquired about the size of the proposed buildings. Mr. Johnson estimated the structures would be between 1,500 to 3,000 square feet, with parking and landscaping . Mr. Weber asked if there were questions of the applicant. Mr. Willis asked what type of development is to the east of Mr. Sanders' property. Mr. Sanders stated that it is used as a storage yard; there is residential development east of Lot • 4. H.\GRO UPI BOARDSIPLA NCOMMIMinu1esl Minu1es :!00 I IPC:vt 04-:!00 I B.doc • • • Mr. Waggoner asked if the site to the east of Mr. Sanders is platted. Mr. Johnson stated that did not know, but would guess that it is unplatted. Mr. Waggoner asked about the property to the west of Mr. Sanders ' property. Mr. Johnson stated he did not think it was platted, either; this site is used as an auto-body/salvage ope.ration. Mr. Waggoner asked if there is any reason this entire area could not be platted at one time . Mr. Johnson questioned whether the adjoining property owner would have any interest in platting his property; he reiterated that the same person owns property adjoining Mr. Sand- ers ' property on both the east and west sides. Mr. Weber asked if there were further questions by the Commission . No further questions were posed. Mr. Weber then asked for a motion to close the Hearing. Rempel moved: Waggoner seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #SUB 2001-02 be closed. AYES : NAYS : Stockwell, Waggoner, Willis, Krieger, Rempel, Mueller, Welker, Weber None ABSTAI N: None ABSE N T: Lathram The motion carried . Mr. Weber asked the pleasure of the Commission. Welker moved : Waggoner seconded: The Planning Commission approve the Preliminary Plat of Montcaro Subdivision, Case #SUB 2001-02 , with the followin g modifications : 1. The U tility Easement sho w n between Lots 1 and 2 shall be deline ated as 5 feet on each side of the common lot line; this easement is also to be designated as a "util- ity/dr ainage easement". 2. The Utility Easement on the east side of Lots 2 and 4 to be delineated as 10 feet, and designated as "utility and drainage easement". 3. The Utility Easement between Lots 3 and 4 shall be delineated to show 5 feet on each side of the common lot line; this easement is to be designated as a "utility and drainage easement". 4. The U tility Easement on the east side of Lot 3 shall be extended south to West Har- v ard Av enue ; to be sho w n as fi v e feet in w id th , an d desi gnate d as a "utility an d drainage easement." 5 . The east/w est easement between Lots 1 and 3, and betw een Lots 2 and 4, shall be delineated to show the division of the easement on the properties . 6. The address reversal for the property owner and deed of trust holder shall be cor- rected. H. IGROU P'BOA RDS \PLANCOMMI Minutcs lMi nutes 200 I IPC M 0 ~-~00 I B.doc • • • 7. All easements are to be designated as "utility and drainage " easements. Brief discussion ensued. The vote was called . AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Waggoner, Willis, Krieger, Rempel, Mueller, Stockwell, Welker, Weber None None Lathram The motion carried. Mr. Willis asked what the process is now that the preliminary plat is approved. Ms. Langon stated that the applicant will make the changes requested by the Commission at this Hear- ing, and prepare the Final Plat. The Final Plat can be brought back before the Commission prior to submission to City Council. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Weber stated that he did not think the Commission needs to review the Final Plat prior to submission to City Council if staff makes sure the modifications recommended this evening have been made. IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Mr. Stitt introduced himself to members of the Commission. Mr. Stitt stated that he had asked Public Works Director Ross and a member of the Carter-Burgess Compan y to attend the meeting to update Commission members on the Transportation Element of the Com- prehensive Plan. Mr. Stitt asked Mr. Ross to address the Commission. Mr. Ross stated that City Council approved contracting with Carter-Burgess to develop a transportation plan for the City of Englewood . This effort will include 39 public meetings, and will involve private citizens, the medical community, and the business/industrial com- munity. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Stitt is an active member of the City team providing input and direction to the consultants. Mr. Ross introduced Mr. David Woolfall from Carter- Burgess , as well as Mr. Ladd Vostry, Traffic Engineering A nal y st for the City of Englewood. Mr. Ross discussed various groups the consultants will be meeting with, as well as meetings in the si x identified neighborhoods over a period of the next se v eral months. Mr. Ross stated that Mr. Vostry has been providing information on traffic counts to Carter-Burgess. Mr. Woolfall addressed the Commission, and gave a "Power Point" visual presentation out- lining methodology and strategies that will be used during the course of the transportation plan development. Mr. Woolfall stated that comments contained in the recent Citizen 's Surve y have been taken into account in establishing methodology, strategies, and goals for the transportation plan. Questions were posed by Commission members throughout the presentation . Mr. Woolfall and /or Mr. Ross responded to the questions . W GRO lJ P'BOARDS \PLAN COMM\Minutes\Minutes ~00 1 \P CM 04-200 1 B doc • • • Traffic counts indicated on a map were briefly discussed. Mr. Woolfall noted that the counts indicated were one direction, for one da y . Mr. Woolfall estimated that an hourly count might approximate one-tenth of a 24-hour count. Bicycle and pedestrian routes were brought up for discussion. Mr. Welker asked if bicycle and pedestrian counts had been made. Mr. Woolfall stated that typicall y counts for bicycle and pedestrian movement is not taken except in the immediate area of a school. Members of the Commission indicated that bicycle/pedestrian routes are an important facet of the overall transportation planning for Englewood . Mr. Welker also stressed the importance of making it easier for cyclists and pedestrians to cross busy streets -such as Broadway, Dartmouth, Santa Fe, etc. to get from one sector of the city to another. Mr. Woolfall stated that Mr. Stitt did inform the team of the concerns of the Commission on bicy cle and pedes- trian travel through the City . Mr. Welker asked if the traffic counts w ere taken since the light rail line opened in Jul y. M r. Woolfall stated that the counts were probabl y not taken since that time. Mr. Woolfall reiterated that the City has been divided into six "neighborhoods", and that 39 meetings will be held throughout these six neighborhoods -with at least six meetin gs in each neighborhood, this should provide ample opportunity for citizen input. Mr. Welker pointed out that the medical community generates a great deal of traffic. The CityCenter will also generate considerable traffic when full y developed, and the General Iron Works site is to be redeveloped -another potential heavy traffic generator. Mr. Willis stated that he agreed with Mr. Welker that bicy cle and pedestrian traffic routes are ke y elements in the transportation plan. Mr. Woolfall discussed traffic calming procedures, efforts and budgets of other jurisdictions devoted to traffic calming. He stressed the need for Education , Enforcement, and Engineer- ing to ha v e a successful program. Mr. Woolfall then discussed engineering tools that might be used for traffic calming measures , such as medians, neckdowns, curv ilinear streets , traffic circles or roundabouts , etc. Mr. Stockwell ex pressed his opinion that roundabouts are completel y pedestrian unfriendly. Mr. Stockwell also stated that motorists don't like stop signs , and will change travel routes to streets with fewer stop signs. Speed limit changes, installation of medians and traffic islands, speed humps and stop sign installations were discussed. Mr. Weber stated that speed "dips" can also be a calming element for traffic. Mr. Ross agreed that stop signs ma y cause motorists to change travel routes , but for those who remain on a gi v en route , the overall v elocity of the traffi c does not go down -the y slow for the traffic sign , but then speed up to the next stop si gn to make up for time lost at the stop sign. Further discussion on stop signs ensued . Mr. Wool- fall noted that one school principal expressed the pre ference for other traffic calming issues rather than installation of stop signs around the school. H:IGRO UP\B OARDSIPLAN COM M\Minu tesl Mi nu tes 200 1\PCvt 04-2001 B doc • Mr. Woolfall asked for comments from the Commission. Mr. Welker stated the traffic pat- terns crossing U.S. 285 have been improved with the redevelopment of the Cinderella City site ; the through intersections are better spaced. Mr. Willis asked about the flashing lights on Dartmouth near Bishop School ; does this work to slow traffic. Mr. Ross stated that the flashing lights serve a worthwhile purpose in making motorists aware of the school in the vicinity. Mr. Vostry stated that speed studies near Bishop School were not done; the observations is that the flashing lights are effective, but they do not work by themselves -there must be enforcement, also. Mr. Willis asked if flashing lights might work in areas other than school zones. Mr. Woolfall suggested that use of flashing lights is best in school zones. Mr. Stockwell noted the flashing lights on South University Boulevard near St. Mary's Acad- em y -motorists do slow down when those lights are flashing. Mr. Welker pointed out that the speed limit is reduced when the lights are flashing, and South University Boule va rd is posted giving notice of the reduced speed limit. Mr. Welker inquired about installation of medians in bus y thoroughfares -this would pro- vide an area for pedestrians to stop until traffic clears sufficiently to allow them to complete crossing the street. Mr. Welker emphasized the need for a "refuge " for the elderly and youngsters trying to cross busy streets. • Mr. Woolfall stated that the public meetin gs will begin in May. The hope is for good atten- dance and lots of feed-back from the public. Ms. Krieger noted that the feedback ma y come only from those in attendance, which ma y or ma y not reflect the opinion of a major- ity of a neighborhood. Mr. Woolfall discussed methods of advertising the public meetings, including use of Channel 8, the Englewood Citizen, the Engle wood Herald, and the City's web page on the Internet. • Mr. Ross stated that direct mail will be used to give notice of the first meeting, and people in attendance will be asked to submit comments via e-mail or in writing. Mr. Stockwell stated that he understood there was to be a list of the dates, times , and loca- tions of the 39 public meetings . Mr. Stockwell also stated that in his opinion, someone from the Planning Commission should be at all of the meetings. When will this list of meet- ing dates, times, and locations be made available to the Commission. Mr. Waggoner asked if the list of meetings is on the web page . Mr. Ross stated that it is not on the web page at the present time, but will be ve ry shortly. Mr. Willis asked wh at impact improvements to 1-25 and Santa Fe Drive may have on the traffic patterns and volume for Englewood over the ne x t several years. He noted that Santa Fe Drive is already under construction. South Logan Street is already heavily used b y mo- torists. H:IGROUPl.BOARDS\PLA NCOMM\Minu 1cslMinu1cs "00 I IPC:-.1 04-200 I B.doc ·• Efforts to calm traffic on South Clarkson Street in Greenwood Village were discussed. • • Street realignment in Cherry Hills Village was also noted. This has discouraged through traf- fic on both South Clarkson Street and East Quincy Avenue . Pedestrian traffic should be en- couraged in Englewood, but use of neighborhood streets by through traffic should not be encouraged . Mr. Woolfall was thanked by the Commission for his presentation. V. PROPOSED NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION POLICY Mr. Stitt stated that Mr. Ross has proposed a "Noise Barrier Policy" to address the impact of vehicular noise on residents. He asked Mr. Ross to present this issue to the Commission. Mr. Ross stated that the City has received complaints from residents of Kent Village regard- ing the traffic noise from U.S. 285 . Mr. Ross stated that a draft of the proposed noise bar- rier attenuation policy was included in the packet to the Commission. Mr. Ross stated that the proposed policy is based on actions taken by several jurisdictions to reduce noise im- pacts on residential neighborhoods . Methods to reduce noise impact include construction of soundwalls or fences, and berms . Mr. Ross stated that the soundwalls ma y be con- structed with brick, stone, masonry, or concrete; all berms would have to be landscaped in compliance with landscaping provisions set forth in the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Ross stated that the issue of height for the soundwall must be addressed; in re sidential districts, the Zoning Ordinance limits fence heights to no more than six feet in the rear and side yards. However, to reduce the noise levels from traffic the soundwall ma y ha ve to be anywhere from eight to 12 feet in height. Discussion ensued. Mr. Welker stated that he did not wa nt to see the canyon or tunnel ef- fect -he doesn 't want to see a "walled v illage " effect. Mr. Waggoner asked whether there is an y place along the rights-of-way wide enough to al- low construction of a nice masonry wa ll . Mr. Ross indicated there ma y be some areas where the wall might be constructed on the sidewalk line, or maybe in COOT right-of-way. Mr. Stockwell pointed out that sidewalks along East Hampden (U.S. 285 ) are dirty, narrow, or non-existent in some areas, but other areas have been nicely fenced. Mr. Waggoner stated that Kent Village was to plant several rows of trees along the highway to serve as a noise buffer. Mr. Ross stated that trees were planted; however, the trees were planted under a power line, and the power compan y "topped" the trees , destroying the visual impact of the trees and impairing the function as noise barriers . Discussion ensued. Mr. Ross again referenced the restrictions placed on fence height by the Zoning Ordinance; would amendment of the Ordinance be in order, or should requests for soundwalls higher than the six feet best be served by the variance process . Mr. Stockwell stated that he did not want to see the Zoning Ordinance restrictions changed , but would rather have the variance process used for each case . H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLA NCOM M\Mi nu tes 1:-.l inuu:s 1001 \PC:vl 04-2001 B doc • • • Mr. Weber asked if noise levels would rise if a sound barrier is constructed on one side of a heavily trafficked street, but not on both sides. Mr. Ross stated that he was sure the noise level would rise for the side that does not have a sound barrier. Ms . Krieger suggested that landscaped berms would look better than concrete soundwalls. Ms . Mueller asked if a soundwall is set back a distance from a property line or right-of-wa y line, can this area between the property line or right-of-way line be required to be land- scaped . Mr. Ross stated that City Council has indicated that if soundwalls are used, they also want to see landscaping. Mr. Stockwell reiterated that the policy cannot be written to apply to all situations, and rather than change the ordinance requirements, he would prefer that a variance process for each case be followed . Mr. Waggoner commented that the highway was already developed when Kent Village was built. The development identified as Kent Village is on the north side of U.S. 285 at South Race Street. Mr. Welker stated that the height and location of a soundwall is something that can be ne- gotiated with a property owner or homeowner's association and the City . Mr. Waggoner advised that consideration be given to height of soundwalls constructed and the creation of ice problems during winter months . Mr. Ross agreed that this is an issue that must be considered on each application. Mr. Ross thanked the Commission for their comments and suggestions. VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Ms. Langon stated that at their meeting on April 16 th' City Council declared Mr. Rininger's position on the Commission vacant because of his lack of attendance, and appointed Ms . Patricia Mueller as a voting member of the Commission. Mr. Welker asked if there had been any response from Mr. Rininger to the letter that was sent to him. Ms. Langon stated there has been no response. Ms . Langon advised the Commission there will be at least three more major subdivisions coming forward in the near future. Senior Planner Graham will be at the meeting on May 5th to provide an update on the General Iron Works redevelopment project. Mr. Willis asked if the major subdivisions to be considered for industrial areas . Ms. Langon stated that two are industrial; one may be a commercial subdivision . H:IGRO UPIBOARDSIPLA NCOMM\Minu1csl Minu1cs 100 1\PCM 04-:00 t B doc 10 • VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE • • Ms. Reid noted that at the meeting of April 3'd , concern was expressed that there may be a conflict of interest for Carter-Burgess to be hired to do the transportation plan because of their work with RTD . Ms. Reid stated that there is no inherent conflict of interest, but just to keep the relationship with RTD in mind when considering their project. Ms . Reid stated that she had discussed with Recording Secretary Welty preparation of a let- ter to Mr. Rininger advising him of his removal from the Commission; this letter is to be for the signature of the chairman. Ms. Reid stated that City Council will be interviewing applicants for Alliance for Commerce in Englewood, (ACE-the organization to be appointed to replace the EDDA group ) in the very near future . She advised the Commission that if they were pleased with the "alternate member" to voting member appointment and wish to have another alternate member ap- pointed, that this desire should be quickly transmitted to the City Council . Ms . Krieger stated there had been brief discussion of a policy change to allow the alternate members to vote when another member was absent. Ms . Reid stated that this has not been pursued by the Council. Mr. Stockwell asked if Ms . Reid had reviewed the Roberts Rules of Order regarding the quorum vs. voting requirements. Ms. Reid stated she has done so , and does not agree with Mr. Stockwell's point of v iew. Ms. Reid emphasized that to change a policy, a quorum of the Commission must be present. In absence of a quorum, the Commission may not con- duct an y business. VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Nothing was raised for discussion. The meeting was declared adjourned . Gertrude G. Welty, ?Reco~ecatary H:\GRO UPIBOARDS \PLANCOMM\Minutesl Minu1es 100 I IPC.\-1 04 -200 I B.doc 11