Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-04 PZC MINUTES• • • .. . I. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION March 4, 2008 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m . in the City Counci l Chambers of the Englewood Civic Center, Chair Roth presiding. Present: Absent: Staff: Brick, Krieger, Knoth, Roth , Bleile, Calonder, King, Fish Welker (Excused), Myers (Exc used ) Alan White, Director, Community Development Tricia Langon , Senior Planner Dan Brotzman, City Attorney 11 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 23 , 2008 Mr. Knoth moved: Mr. Bleile seconded: TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 23, 2008 M INUTES AS WR ITIE N. AYES: NAYS: ABSTA IN : ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth, Krieger, Fish None Bleile, Calonder, King Welker Motion carried. 111. PUBLIC HEARING Case #ZON2008-01 Denver Seminary Pl anned Unit Development Amendment 2 Chair Roth stated the issue before the Commission is Case #ZON2008-01 , Denver Seminary Pl anned Unit Development Amendment 2. Chair Roth asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Ms. Krieger moved: Mr. Bleile seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING 0 CASE #ZON2008-01 BE OPENED . AYES : NAYS: ABSTA IN : ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth , King, Krieger, Fish , Bleile, Calonder None None Welker 1 . . • Motion carried. • Ms. Langon, Senior Planner stated the issue before the Commission is Case #ZON2008-01, Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 2, which was a rezoning that was approved in 2004 by Ordinance Number 52, Series of 2004. The applicant is Continuum Partners LLC. Ms. Langon stated she already submitted for the record proof of the certification of postings that four signs were posted on the property, that the notice was published in the Englewood Herald on February 22, 2008 and the Staff Report and attachments . This was done in accordance with Section 16-2:3G of the Englewood Municipal Code. Ms. Langon stated the Denver Seminary Planned Unit Development Amendment 2 is before the Commission because the PUD District Plan requires that amendments to the District Plan or to the Site Plan may only be reviewed under the same process as the original Planned Unit Development. She asked to make several comments prior to the presentation . First, there is an error on the Staff Report. On page 10 the date of the Arapahoe County letter is incorrect on the attachment. On page 4 of the PUD the lower bulk plane height in Envelope 3 should read 5432 , not 5532. Both will be corrected by the time this goes to Council. The original PUD rezoned the site to permit the proposed development of retail and residential uses, a mixed-use development. The original PUD and Amendment 1 remain in effect unless modified by this Amendment 2. The request to amend is only for the specific items that are requested to be amended. Any arrangements with outside groups from previous amendments or the original are still civil issues and not part of this Amendment 2. Any requirements from outside agencies or jurisdictions other than the City of Englewood are not part of this Amendment 2 either. The comments submitted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) pertain to the preliminary submittal. They have not submitted final comments based on the updated traffic analysis that was provided to them . The purpose of this hearing is to consider the PUD modifications under Amendment 2, to take public testimony, to make Findin gs of Fact based on the established criteria that are found on pages 9 and 10 of the Staff Report and to make a recommendation to City Council. The recommendation from the Community Development Department is for the Planning Commission to make the following conditions of approval: 1. All approved conditions and requirements established under th e Denver Seminary PUD and Denver Seminary PUD -Amendment 1 shall apply unless amended by Amendment 2. 2. Amendment 2 acknowledges the need for flexible development options by establishing three (3) development envelopes . Technical site plan review of development within said envelopes shall be by the Development Review Team for compliance with PUD • and City development standards. 2 • • • 3. That Envelope 2 shall be limited to uses permitted in the "household living" category of the PUD's Table of Allowed Uses. 4. That hotel use shall be limited as follows: a. Hotel use shall be located in envelopes 1 and 3. b. Hotel use shall not be a separate, stand-alone use. c. The maximum number of hotel rooms shall be 150. d. If hotel use is approved, the following guest accommodation allowance approved in the original PUD shall be amended to: "3. The number of residential units does not include proposed guest accommodations for guests of residents of the project. Such spaces shall not exceed 900 S.F. and no more than two such spaces per residential condominium tower building (12 total ) shall be provided." The applicant is proposing a site plan amendment to address development issues resulting in changing market conditions. They are proposing changing from a building footprint method of development to an envelope concept. The envelope concept establishes the area and the bulk plane in which structural development can occur. It does not mean that ' the envelope will be filled completely, only that development can occur within the envelope areas. The original PUD and Amendment 1 designated footprints for each individual structure. The applicant is proposing these larger envelopes so there is flexibility to move the location and orientation of the buildings. It is also being proposed as a larger envelope so that each time the applicant suggests moving a building or the orientation changes it does not require the PUD process as outlined in the original PUD. The PUD process takes about five months. The applicant can speak to the issue of being able to have a more timely method to address possible changes. Ms. Langon referenced a drawing of the proposed development on the projection screen. Envelope 1 is located in the southeastern portion of the site and contains two sections, Envelope 1 A and Envelope 1 B. Envelope 1 A was the area on the original PUD that was noted as retail in the southeast corner. In the original PUD the maximum height in the commercial area was 42 feet. Under the proposed Amendment 2 it would be raised to 45 feet. Envelope 1 B is the area identified in the original PUD and in Amendment 1 as containing condominium towers 1 and 2 and the height of those buildings were 121 and 150 feet. Those heights are unchanged in Amendment 2. Envelope 2 is located along the western border and contains areas identified in the original PUD and in Amendment 1 as a residential area for townhomes, rowhouses and the internal roadway. Under Amendment 2 the envelope has been widened and is now a total of 240 feet deep as measured from the western boundary into the site . Envelope 3 is the remaining section along the northeastern portion of the site and contains the area identified in the original PUD and in Amendment 1 for development of condominium towers 3 and 4 with maximum heights of 165 and 179 feet respectively . 3 • • • Because of the widening of Envelope 2, Envelope 3 is now narrower and pushed more to the east. Proposed height in the entire envelope is 1 79 feet. The result of this envelope system establishes areas in which development may occur. It does not mean the entire envelope will be completely filled. It merely outlines the area where development may occur. It removes the rigid , local requirements of the building footprints and removes the requirement for future amendments for every site plan change, which takes approximately five months. It provides development opportunity, creativity and flexibility. It allows development to adjust more quickly to changing market conditions. The envelopes are similar to other zone districts in the City; they function in the same basic standard in that they identify where development can occur. They also are the areas that are identified within the PUD that correspond to the District Plan and where particular zoning regulations, bulk plane or height requirements may apply. The PUD's overall controlling document is the District Plan and that controls and monitors the bulk plane height, set backs and uses. The envelopes details the development and Staff is proposing that future reviews would be under the Development Review Team, which consists of seven City departments that review permits. There are two permitted uses being added to the Table of Allowed Uses in Amendment 2. They are: • One-unit detached dwelling and two-unit dwelling on the residential side. That provides additional flexibility for the possibility of an individual home rather than a townhome, rowhome or some type of attached housing. • Hotel: Addition of hotel use allows the option for guest accommodations on site. The following amendments are proposed for existing allowed uses: • Increase in the maximum commercial floor area (retail and office space) from 51,500 to 75,000 square feet. • The residential unit count is being proposed to be dropped from 350 units to 300 units. • Modification to the number of parking spaces associated with the change in uses. Ms . Langon wanted to be clear that any use that is proposed in Amendment 2 that is allowed in the PUD may locate within any envelope within the PUD as long as they meet the District standard requirements for height, bulk plane, setbacks and uses. In the original PUD and in Amendment 1 the western portion of the development was designated for lower density residential use. This area is proposed as Envelope 2 . Because this area was designated and approved for residences with lower height and bulk standards , hotel use may not be an appropriate use in this envelope. Therefore, Community Development Department recommends that Envelope 2 be limited to allowed uses permitted in the "household living " category of the PU D's Table of Allowed Uses. 4 • • • Since hotel use is not included in the calculation of total commercial space, there would be 75,000 square feet of commercial space plus the hotel use that Staff is recommending to be within the tower buildings. The hotel counts towards the total residential units; it doesn 't count towards commercial space. The applicant is proposing one hotel room will equal one-half of a residential unit. At this ratio, there could be up to 600 hotel rooms if no for- sale residential units were constructed. Since this could dramaticall y change the already approved PUD the Community Deve lopment Department recommends the following: • Hotel use be limited to just envelopes 1 and 2 • Hotel use shall not be a separate, stand-alone use • The maximum number of hotel rooms shall be 150 • If hotel use is approved, the following guest accommodation allowance approved in the original PUD shall be amended to: 3. The number of residential units does not include proposed guest accommodation for guests of residents of the project. Such spaces shall not exceed 900 S.F. and no more than two such spaces per residential condominium tower building (12 total) shall be provided . Ms. Langon referenced the setbacks chart included in the meeting packet. Ms. Langon asked the Commissioners if they would like her to review the chart at this time . They did not. In the original PUD and in Amendment 1, the number of parking spaces was specified as actual numbers. Amendment 2 is proposing going totally to a ratio. Because the buildings are not set and square footage is not set other than by maximum, the exact number of parking spaces needed cannot be determined at this time. The building heights in Amendment 2, unless specified, are inclusive and all portions of buildings and the ir projections have to be within the bulk planes. That is unchanged from previous. The maximum building height at any given point is a function of bulk plane standards. Bulk plane creates "stepped" height increments whereby the upper floors of buildings are set further from property line than the lower floors. This reduces a structures overall bulk, allows access to sunlight within the development and reduces shadows on adjacent properties. Bulk plane "steps" are shown on PUD 3 and cross sections illustrating height and bulk plane of the proposed envelopes are shown on sheet PUD 4. Ms. Langon reviewed the chart included in the Staff Report on bulk plane and height in each envelope. Ms. Langon stated she would leave the discussion of shadows to the applicant. The City Traffic Engineer and COOT have review ed preliminary reports and a secondary report has been sent to both groups. Fox Higgins Transportation Group prepared an analysis and concluded that "the proposed change in land use results in a negligible net effect on site traffic impacts. The findings and recommendations of the original traffic are still valid for this project." 5 • • • Ms. Langon asked at the end of the hearing the Commission make Findings of Fact based on the criteria on page 9 of the Staff Report and consider the recommendations with conditions as proposed by Community Development. That concluded Ms. Langon's presentation. She offered to answer any questions the Commission might ha v e. Mr. King asked how m any total residential units there could be if a hotel was included in the project. She stated there could be 225 residential units plus 150 hotel rooms. Mr. King wanted confirmation current parking requirements are 2 parking spaces per residential unit. She stated that was correct. He asked about the proposed .5 space per hotel room. He asked if Staff had a recommendation on that number. She said because of the type of hotel the applicant is proposing Staff felt the .5 space would be adequate and more than likely the hotel use would be more evening use which could utilize the daytime retail parking space. Mr. King asked if the hotel units would be forever designated as hotel units or could they be converted into for-sale units at some point in time. Ms. Langon stated that would be a question for the applicant. Mr. Fish asked if the envelopes were accurately represented on the drawing or do they overlap. Ms. Langon stated that they are an actual representation and do not overlap at any point. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Langon to clarify what the Development Review Team is. She stated it is made up of seven City departments (Building, Fire , Utilities, Wastewater, Engineering, Traffic and Community Development). It is a technical review group that provides review for development within the City . When a building footprint is established within one of the envelopes it would go the Development Review Team for review of all the technical data that would be required for development. Ms . Langon noted there is no revised street layout in the envelope system and the entryways have already been set. Mr. Fish asked if under the envelope scenario the applicant could build to the maximum as long as they meet all requirements. Ms. Langon stated that was correct. In addition to what has already been discussed the floor area comes into play. Not every envelope could be built out to the maximum because there is only 75 ,000 total square feet for commercial. They could not possibly meet the maximum height in every envelope and stay under the maximum floor area. Mr. Fish asked if there was a maximum square footage for the residential. She stated only unit wise, which is 300 (up to 685 ,000 total square feet). Mr. Bleile asked how the extra 50% increase in the commercial floor area was established. Ms . Langon stated it could be multiple floors or uses in other buildings . Ms. Fish noted a discrepancy in traffic volume in the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation traffic letter (Exhibit F) and the traffic study. Ms. Langon said the COOT comments were preliminary. They have been provided additional information and have not provided comments back. She said the applicant's transportation representative will speak to that. 6 • • • Ms. Krieger said that since not everyone has access to the Staff Report, please review the setbacks for everyone present. Ms. Langon provided the current setbacks and proposed setbacks for Envelopes 1, 2 and 3. Chair Roth asked if there were any further comments or questions . There were none. Mr. Kevin Foltz, Continuum Partners , was sworn in. He thanked the Commission for allowing Continuum Partners to present another amendment to the PUD. He introduced his team and/or consultants that were in attendance: David Center, MB Consulting Justine Willman, Continuum Partners Jeremy Bieker, Tryba Architects Steve Tuttle, Fox Higgins Transportation Group Scott Halpin, Tryba Architects He stated due to the sluggishness of the residential market it is necessary to come back to the Commission with slight modifications to the PUD. What we don 't want to be doing is doing this every time something changes even ever so slightly. Continuum, as the developer, is committed to the site, to the development character of the site and nothing in that is changing through this modification to the PUD. He presented a slide show on the project and changes proposed in Amendment 2. Included were slides showing the original site plan, the current site plan after Amendment 1, conceptual site plan , what is proposed under Amendment 2, and shadow study. Mr. Foltz offered to answer any questions the Commission might have . Mr. Bleile asked about the northeast corner of the property in regards to green space and if that area would ever be developed. Mr. Foltz said they have an obligation to provide landscaped open space under the existing PUD. Under the current concept that is where the green space would go . There also would be outdoor space by the pool and by the clusters of homes along the western edge of the property. Mr. Bleile asked about the addition of yard space to the residential area. Mr. Foltz said the previous design was somewhat more of an urban design that had vertical three-story townhomes. Those are not as appealing in the marketplace at this time; people are looking for more outdoor space . Mr. Bleile asked what percentage has been sold. Mr. Foltz said they have been up and down, but is fairly flat. That's why Continuum wants to do something that is a driver and can initiate development on site. We are focused on getting activity started. Mr. Bleile asked what brought the big push for the hotel to light. Mr. Foltz said it is a driver than can help generate development, it's a catalyst that can help in a sluggish residential market to diversify a tower, and it's a very compatible use with the luxury residential product we are offering. There is definitel y nothing sa y ing that is what we are putting on the site, it is just something that we certainl y see as a compatible use within the development. Mr. Brick asked what the community can expect to see built by July 1, 2009 with the assumption you receive approval on Amendment 2. Mr. Foltz said they would immediately 7 • • • proceed on the development of Envelope 1, which would include the retail and based on residential sales over the next few months a potential tower. There probably would be some infrastructure improvement and possibly some development of the cluster homes along the west side. Mr. Foltz addressed parking for the residents, hotel and retail. He stated all residential parking will be at grade. Depending on demand, parking for the towers could go several levels underg round. Commercial parking is diagonal in front of the shops. Mr. Calonder asked when Continuum will know for sure what they are going to build on each envelope. Mr. Foltz said they should know shortly after City Council approval. He stated it is a large investment to continue to design and lease and go forward without the knowledge of knowing Amendment 2 is going to be approved. A tower is market and pre- sale driven. It is not something that we can start construction on without a clear sign of a residential rebound. Ms. Krieger asked where Continuum foresees the hotel customers coming from. Mr. Foltz said DU, the hospitals and Cherry Hills Country Club. The location draws in four directions. Mr. King asked about financing. Mr. Foltz said financing is contingent upon many factors, presales being one of them , absorption, market, dynamics and credit rates. Mr. Bleile asked what kind of hotel partners Continuum has talked to. Mr. Foltz said they foresee the hotel as unbranded and operated by a professional operator that ties into the reservation systems , but would not be a national type chain. Room rates would be expected to be in the $150 a night range . Mr. Fish expressed his concerns regarding increased traffic in the area. He stated he travels the intersection of Hampden and University every morning and even at this time it is already congested . Mr. Foltz said the .5 parking ratio for the hotel is achievable, especially on a shared parking basis . This is not a stand-alone hotel location. All of the other commercial locations are allocated at 4 per 1,000 square feet. He said they know if people cannot find parking in the development they will not come back. For the commercial to survive parking has to be accurate. They will be working with parking consultants and the hotel operator to insure the parking counts are met. Ms . Krieger said she felt raising the townhouses to 55 feet seemed pretty extreme. What was your rationale? Mr. Foltz said it was derived from the old site plan where there were the large three-story townhomes along the interior. He said until the grading is figured out we are capped at a ceiling that is no longer based exactly off the grade but on the USGS elevations. We did not see an impact in shadow study or in height so long as we kept the step backs consistent with the original PUD. Mr. Fish noted originally the townhomes were prices at $500,000 to $1.5 million. Now there are condos from $1 to $4.5 million and townhomes from $2 to $2.5 million. Has that whole area been upgraded to a higher end? Mr. Foltz said it is in direct response to buyer feedback .... larger units, outdoor space and 3 car garages. That concluded Mr. Foltz's presentation. Chair Roth thanked him for his testimony. 8 • • Mr. Steven Tuttle of Fox Higgins Transportation Group was sworn in. He stated any time there is a change in land use involving an access permit from the original proposal COOT requires there be a restudy. That is what drove this recent analysis. He provided a quick overview of the effect of the land use change from the original PUO. The original traffic study assumed 60,000 square feet of retail plus 5,000 square feet of office . That number is now 75 ,000 square feet of commercial. Office use may be up to 27,000 square feet of that number. As you get into higher office ratios we get into less traffic generated . Retail uses is one of the highest generators per square foot, whereas office is a much less intense traffic generator. The end result of the change versus the numbers in the original traffic study, depending upon what percentage of office you use, is from an 8% decrease in overall daily traffic to a 4% increase with the latest land use plan . Those numbers were sent to COOT for them to address their concerns with respect to access permits . He said they have also been working with the City to readdress the traffic queuing and congestion issues in regard to the Hampden/University intersection and the site access intersection. The findings of those analysis were that those changes were negligible in terms of storage lengths required for turn lanes and traffic ques. He offered to answer any questions the Commission may have . Mr. Fish asked if they, the developer, still ant1opate converting the left turn lane on University heading south to a double turn lane or lengthening the existing lane. Mr. Tuttle said that lane will be lengthened to maximize storage. He said they are still working with COOT with regards to improvement to the southbound right turn lane on University. There also will be a signal at the Kent Place access point off University that will be coordinated with the signal south on Hampden . There were no further questions for Mr. Tuttle. Chair Roth thanked Mr. Tuttle for his testimony. Mr. Foltz asked if there were any other questions for the development team. There were none. Testimony was received from : Melanie Nelson: Expressed concerns regarding the shadowing by the Kent place towers and the fact some homes, hers included, will be in shadow for several hours a day, especially in winter. lim Nelson: Has lived in Englewood for 3 7 years . He expressed concerns regarding shadowing on Floyd Place and Floyd Avenue. Mr. Brick stated under Amendment 1, which has already been approved, buildings ha v e been approved up to 1 79 feet. In Amendment 2 the height of those buildings remain at 1 79 feet; there is no change in height. Are you asking us at this point to reverse the hei ghts • that are stated in the first Amendment? Mr. Nelson said that is correct. Mr. Fish asked Mr. Nelson to point out his home on the map of the area. Mr. Nelson did so. 9 • • Mary Secor: Attended in support of her neighbors who are being overcome with shadows. Had questions in regards to the developers wanting flexibility and not having to wait the five months to move things around on the different envelopes and fears that with a large development on the former Seminary property that it may turn what has been a very stable family oriented neighborhood into more of a rental property area because of lack of sunshine and increased traffic. Mr. Fish asked Ms. Secor to point out her home on the map. She did so. Craig Cahen : Mr. Cahen stated he is an architect and President of Cahen Architectural Group. His firm has been engaged by the Kent Village Homeowners Association from da y one of this project. He said he is here to speak on their behalf and their behalf alone and does not represent any other neighborhood associations. He said the project has gone from a final development plan, in our opinion, to a preliminary development plan , which is not unheard of. He stated he has met with Mr. Foltz and Continuum on the matter and he understands their position. He said he is not here to say Kent Village is in opposition of the development. They fully believe as a team the project will be a Class A development, it's on a Class A site . The concern they have is in regards to Amendment 2 and certain conditions that they want cleared up and brought to the Commission's attention. 1 . 2 . 3. Clarifying the approval process on the document. Language and graphic indication and solution to a mutually accepted level regarding dormer design in Envelope 2. Confirmation that bed and breakfast is not included in the Household Living Section for Envelope 2. He said as far as Kent Village is concerned th ere is enough language in the Amendment that they feel the development can move forward given the above criteria. Mr. Brick asked Mr. Cahen to explain what a dormer is. He did so. Mr. Fish asked Mr. Cahen if he could elaborate on the bulk plane steps and how they relate to Kent Village. Mr. Cahen stated that the bulk planes that were established in the first go round have been maintained. The only difference is the Amendment increases the height from 46 to 55 feet. Where they have done that is far enough away from the Kent Village property line that it is not a concern and they understand the reasons for the change. Mr. Brick asked for clarification as to what they want regarding the approval process . Mr. Cahen said his statement is to simply put on record that going before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council is being done away with. Final approval through the Development Review Team is acceptable. Mr. Bleile asked who the dormer language discussion is between. Mr. Cahen stated it is • between his company and the developer. 10 • • • lonah Staller: Mr. Staller pointed out his home on the map for the Commissioners. He stated he thinks Englewood 's method of providing notice for public hearings is unusual. He stated concerns regarding the envelope concept, the removal of the townhomes on the northeast portion of the development, the increase in commercial space and traffic. Kenneth Cobb: He expressed concern regarding the mix of residential , hotel and commercia l, the placement of the tower on the north sid e and feels this is not a community centered Amendment. Mr. Calonder asked the developer to discuss the issue of shadowing further. Mr. Jeremy Bieker was sworn in. He stated the shadow study is from a computer generated satellite program and is quite accurate. Mr. Calonder asked how long a shadow will impact one person's home. Mr. Fish asked if the study was a worst case scenario shadow based on the highest bulk plane point. Mr. Bieker stated that was correct. He reviewed the shadowing slides of the power point presentation taken at thre e different times of the year at three different points during the day. Mr. Foltz stated one of the reasons Envelope 3 was shifted to the east is because of an 80 to 90 foot right-of-way. That in addition to the 20 foot setback and another 25 feet of step back seemed a logical place to put a previously approved building envelope. He noted the 30 day review process through the Development Review Team has not changed throughout any of the PUD 's. The dormer clarification is something that has been discussed and would agree that we can come to a very simple clarification. The potential 4 % increase in traffic depends on how much office will be built; at this time we do not know how much of the allowable commercial square footage will be commercial versus retail space. Mr. Brick asked Mr. Foltz if Continuum has any plans to sell the property. Mr. Foltz stated they did not; they are totally committed to developing the property. Michael Acts : He expressed concern there is nothing concrete to look at. H e would like to see what Continuum has in mind to develop on the site. Mr. Bleile moved: Mr. Fish seconded: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE #ZON2008-01 BE CLOSED. AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth, Roth , Krieger, King, Bleile, Calonder, Fish None None Welker Motion carried . At this time the Commission took a 10 minute break . Let the record show the meeting reconvened at 10:00 p.m. and all Commissioner's previously present were present after the break. 11 • • • Mr. Bleile moved: Mr. Calonder seconded: THE DISCUSSION ON CASE #ZON2008-01 , DENVER SEMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT 2 BE CONTINUED TO THE MARCH 18, 2008 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AYES: NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Brick, Knoth , Roth , Krieger, King , Bleile, Calonder, Fish None None Welker Motion carried . IV. PUBLIC FORUM There was no one present to address the Commission. V. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Mr. Brick moved : Ms. Krieger seconded: TO ELECT MR. BRIAN BLEILE AS CHAIR AND MR. CHAD KNOTH AS VICE CHAIR AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Brick, Knoth , Roth , Krieger, King, Bleile, Calonder, Fish None None Welker Motion carried . VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Director White had nothing for the Commission . VII. STAFF'S CHOICE Ms . Langon stated the next meeting will be March 18, 2008. It will be a continuation of Case ZON200 8-0 1, and Public H earings for Cases 2008-02, Publication of Public Notices on the Web and 200 7-05 , Minimum Lot Fronta ge . If the Public Hearings are completed at the March 18 th meeting, the April 8 th meeting will be a discussion on the Small Area Plan. If the hearings are continued, the Small Area Plan will be moved to the following meeting. In the future there will be a discussion on proposed UDC housekeeping amendments. VIII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Mr. Brotzman had nothin g for the Commission. 12 • • • IX . COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE Mr. Fi sh welcomed Mr. King to the Commission. Mr. Bleile thanked the Commission fo r the nomination. Chair Roth congratulated Mr. Bleile on his appo in tment and welcomed Mr. King . The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m . Barbara Krecklow, R cording Secretary 13