CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Member Lynn Kocan (excused), David Lipski (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney; Alex Rucinski, Traffic Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant

Member Wrobel led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the Audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Chair Avdoulos stated that Planner Darcy Schmitt accepted a position closer to home. During her tenure at Novi, she was instrumental in the completion of the City of Novi Master Plan update. He thanked Ms. Schmitt for all of her efforts and cited her as an excellent example of the Staff that has been assembled and has become the Plan Review Center. The Planning Commission presented Ms. Schmitt with an autographed Master Plan for Land Use, and they wished her the best.

Director Barbara McBeth reported that at the most recent City Council meeting, the helistop for Providence was approved and the Adco Rezoning request was approved, which allows for the Planning Commission’s review of the Brooktown proposal that is before the Planning Commission at this meeting.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of the Adco Group for a recommendation to City Council of a proposed Concept Plan being considered as a Special Development Option in the GE, Gateway East District. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue and west of Meadowbrook Road. The subject property is 27.73 acres.

Member Cassis asked to be recused from the consideration of Brooktown because he had a financial interest in it.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Planner Darcy Schmitt presented the request to the Planning Commission. She said that the Adco Group was seeking a Planning Commission recommendation to City Council for a Special Development Option Concept Plan under the Gateway East section of the Zoning Ordinance.

The Applicant is proposing the development of a 27.73 acre site, located in Section 23 on the south side of Grand River Avenue, west of Meadowbrook Road. The plan proposes 225 multiple family units. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing 24,771 square feet of retail use, 4,965 square feet of restaurant use, and 40,692 square feet of office use.

Gateway Village is located north of the site across Grand River Avenue. Marty Feldman Chevrolet and Fountain Park Apartments are located to the west of the site. Meadowbrook Glens is located to the south of the site. To the east are vacant land and two small businesses along Grand River Avenue.

The site received approval for a rezoning from Non-Center Commercial to Gateway East on Monday of this week. The properties to the north are zoned Non-Center Commercial and General Business, the properties to the south are zoned Residential Acreage, the properties to the east and west are zoned Non-Center Commercial.

The property is master planned for Gateway East, as are the properties to the north and east. The property to the west is master planned for Multiple Family and the property to the south is master planned for Single Family.

The wetland map shows a small wetland at the southeast corner of the site. The woodland map shows medium density woodlands along the southwest portion of the site and light density woodlands on the southeast corner of the site.

The plan proposes three-story buildings for retail, office and restaurant use; they are located along the front of the property with parking proposed in the front, side and rear of the buildings. Three-story live/work units transition the retail/office uses in the front of the property to the two-story multiple family residential units at the rear of the property.

Two primary access drives off Grand River Avenue line up with access drives across Grand River Avenue in the Gateway Village development. A secondary access drive stub is proposed to connect to the property to the east at the midpoint of the property.

The project proposes a community building with a swimming pool and pocket parks in the retail/office areas. This is part of the Applicant’s open space plan. The Applicant has provided some connectivity with sidewalks through the site, and at the rear near the woodland that is proposed to remain.

The granting of the Special Development Option shall require review and recommendation from the Planning Commission and approval by City Council. The intent of the Special Development Option is to permit quality residential development and facilitate mixed-use developments, including multiple-family residential, office, and limited size commercial. It encourages a mixture of uses in accordance with character and adaptability of the land. It conserves natural resources and natural features and encourages innovation in land use planning. It provides enhanced housing, employment, shopping, traffic circulation and open space opportunities for the people of this City. It brings about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties and the downtown districts of Novi. It makes provision for unique "entry" developments at the intersection of Grand River and Meadowbrook, as specified in subsection 904C.1.b

As part of the application and review for the Concept Plan approval, the Planning Commission must determine if the Applicant has demonstrated that the project will result in a recognizable and substantial benefit to the ultimate users of the project and to the community, where such benefit would otherwise be unfeasible or unlikely to be achieved by a traditional development. Further, in relation to a development otherwise permissible as a Principal Permitted Use under Section 902A, the proposed type and density of development shall not result in an unreasonable increase in the use of public services, facilities and utilities, and shall not place an unreasonable burden upon the subject and/or surrounding land and/or property owners and occupants and/or the natural environment. Ms. Schmitt said that based upon proposed uses, layout and design of the overall project, the proposed building façade treatment, the proposed landscaping treatment and the proposed signage, the Special Development Option project will result in a material enhancement to the area of the City in which it is situated. Additionally, the proposed development shall not have a materially adverse impact upon the Master Plan for Land Use of the City, and shall be consistent with the intent and spirit of this Section.

The Planning Commission must also determine that the public services and facilities affected by a proposed land use or activity will be capable of accommodating increased services and facility loads caused by the land use or activity. The Special Development Option should protect the natural environment and conserve natural resources and energy. It should ensure compatibility with adjacent uses of land. It should promote the use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner. The conditions imposed shall be designed to protect natural resources and the public health, safety and welfare of individuals in the property and those immediately adjacent, and the community as a whole, shall be reasonably related to the proposed effect by the planned Gateway development, and shall be necessary to meet the intent and purpose of this Ordinance, and be related to the objective of ensuring compliance with the standards of this Ordinance. All conditions imposed shall be made a part of the record of the approved planned Gateway development.

Ms. Schmitt said that the Planning Review indicates that the plan does not meet the intent of the Ordinance in the following ways:

The plan proposes front yard parking along Grand River Avenue which is not allowed and would therefore require a Waiver from City Council. It also does not meet the intent of creating a Gateway by having the buildings separated from Grand River Avenue by an ornamental wall and front yard parking.

Due to the proposed front yard parking along Grand River Avenue, the plan cannot meet the requirement for the maximum building setback of ninety feet from the centerline of Grand River Avenue, a design also requiring a City Council Waiver. The buildings appear to be setback approximately 110 feet from the centerline, and the Ordinance allows a maximum of 90 feet.

Together, the granting of these variances would create more separation for pedestrian orientation by placing a wall between the sidewalk along Grand River and the commercial buildings in order to screen the front yard parking and by placing an additional distance with the front yard parking and access aisle in front of the buildings.

The plan does not demonstrate innovative land use planning. The items listed below should be addressed by the Applicant, and may require modifications to the plan at the time of Preliminary Site Plan Review.

1. There are only two loading zones to service 29,736 square feet of retail and restaurant space. The restaurant is 450 feet away from the closest loading zone.

2. There are no barrier free accessible parking spaces at the rear of buildings 1 and 2, none in front of the Live/Work Units, and none at the Community Building.

3. There are only two trash receptacles for over 70,528 square feet of retail, restaurant, and office space. The live/work units and the residential units appear to have no provisions for trash pick up. The rear side of the live/work building would require the trash to be picked up within the 24-foot access aisle. The front of the building would require the trash to be picked up in front of the main boulevard on the pedestrian entranceway. Neither front nor back trash receptacles could be adequately screened as proposed. The Applicant is asked to address these concerns at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review.

4. There is a significant deficiency in proposed parking for the project. The City encourages shared parking where it can be determined to be appropriate for the use. The Applicant has indicated that they would be requesting this consideration, but to date has not submitted a Shared Parking Study. Under the Ordinance, the City’s Traffic Consultant will review the plan and make the appropriate recommendation. The significant deficiency of parking (approx. 25%) along with the deficiency of loading zones, accessible parking spaces, and trash receptacles, should be considered carefully by the Planning Commission and the City Council, in the absence of the Shared Parking Study.

5. Pedestrian circulation is inconsistent. There is only one pedestrian crosswalk at the boulevard entrance drive. Some of the residential units have sidewalks at the rear of the building but no sidewalks in front of the building. There are several areas where parked vehicles in driveways will impede pedestrian traffic. There are no proposed links to the surrounding properties.

6. The amenities proposed, e.g., plazas, pocket parks and other features, are intended to be inviting to pedestrians have been included in the plan but will need to be further clarified.

The proposed building façade elevations do not meet the requirements for the GE District or Region 1 as required. A Section 9 Waiver would need to be granted by City Council or the materials would need to be changed to meet the requirements. The Applicant is proposing a substantial amount of siding and faux stone/faux brick for office, retail and residential buildings, none of these materials are allowed in the GE District or in Region 1. The intent of the GE District SDO is to allow the developer flexibility to improve the quality of the development. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the use of siding and faux stone/faux brick would meet the intent of the GE District SDO.

The intent to encourage use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability; conserving natural resources and natural features as stated in 904A is not being met. There is little or no consideration for the wetlands and their associated 25-foot setback on the site. Wetland and wetland buffers are all being infringed upon. As proposed there is no indication of mitigation on site.

The Engineering Review indicates that the plan meets the intent of the Ordinance.

The Landscape Review indicates that the plan does not meet the intent of the Ordinance in the following ways: A City Council Waiver would be required for the reduced setback along Grand River Avenue – twenty feet is required but ten feet is proposed. A City Council Waiver for a 2’9" masonry wall along Grand River Avenue (in lieu of the required three-foot berm) would be required. A City Council Waiver would be required to permit evergreen and ornamental trees to count as parking lot canopy trees -110 canopies are required but only 48 are currently proposed. The Applicant has also proposed 49 evergreens and twelve ornamentals. A City Council Waiver would be required to eliminate a six-foot tall landscaped berm along the southern property line adjacent to the existing single-family residential. The City Council would have to make the determination that adequate noise reduction and visual screening provisions have been applied along the southern property line, adjacent to the existing single-family residential. A City Council Waiver would be required for the lack of street trees throughout the development - 172 street trees are required but only 88 are proposed. The City Council would also have to make the determination to allow the condo trees to be spread throughout the development rather than adjacent to the units. The City Council would also have to make the determination that the frontage treatment provides "exceptional aesthetic quality" and meets intent of Gateway East District.

The Woodland Review indicates that the plan does not meet the intent of the Ordinance because it appears that the Applicant may not have explored more environmentally sensitive alternatives.

The Façade Review indicates that the plan does not meet the intent of the Ordinance because the proposed building façades do not meet Ordinance requirements and will require a Section 9 Waiver from City Council.

Ms. Schmitt showed renderings of the façade treatment. The first was along Grand River and Ms. Schmitt said that it depicted a three-story building with office and retail on the second and third floors. She showed a rendering of the live/work units, where Ms. Schmitt said the garage was on the first floor and there were living and office spaces. Another live/work rendering was shown.

Matthew Quinn represented the Applicant. He said that this is the first true Gateway project, as the Gateway Village across the street was developed under consent judgment using a draft of the Gateway Ordinance. Hummer was also developed under the Gateway Ordinance, and special amendments were made to the Ordinance to allow that dealership.

Mr. Quinn said that this project is a mixed-use project being brought forward under the Special Development Option. The proposal includes 225 condominiums, 41,000 square feet of office, and 28,000 square feet of retail and restaurant uses.

Mr. Quinn referred to a rendering that captured the view from the west to the east and showed the main entranceway. The three-story buildings in the front have first floor retail and two floors of office. This draws on the "Downtown Novi" flavor of the Main Street and Market Street developments. The use of brick and stone materials, the streetscape and the roof components all lend themselves to this effort.

Mr. Quinn showed another rendering depicting the main street of the Brooktown development. This elevation showed the live/work stations on either side of the road, areas for parking, and sidewalk areas for pedestrian activity. The buildings’ brick, stone and hardy board, along with the landscaping, creates the focal point right down the main street.

Mr. Quinn explained that the live/work condos allow for each occupant’s livelihood to be on the first floor while his living area is located above. He noted that their architect has designed some live/work condos located at Maple Road west of Pontiac Trail, and they are selling very nicely.

Mr. Quinn said that this design is the "next generation" of what Gateway Village accomplished on the north side of Grand River Avenue. That design had two bays of upfront parking – one along the road and one along the retail shops. He said that the Brooktown design was similar to the Grand River Corridor Plan’s depictions of parking along Grand River. He showed the Corridor Plan’s various renderings of parking, and stated that to his knowledge, the Grand River Corridor Plan was adopted as part of the City’s Master Plan.

Mr. Quinn said that the Gateway Ordinance is also a takeoff of the Downtown Ordinance, where front yard parking and parking on the public streets are both allowed. Along Grand River however, parking is not allowed, so the only way that Brooktown’s businesses can compete with what is across the street and in other parts of the town is to allow that front yard parking. This design does set the buildings back twenty feet further than what the Ordinance states the setback should be. Mr. Quinn suggested that on a parcel of 27 acres with buildings three stories tall, this additional twenty feet will not even be acknowledged. He said this is not a 25-mph zone; it is 45-mph in this area. At this speed, it is important to have this amount of setback.

Mr. Quinn agreed that pedestrian orientation is key to Gateway projects. He showed another rendering of the sidewalk plan, shown with improvements as suggested by the Consultants. The first design showed only the pedestrian activity coming in through the two parking areas. Now, in each of the pedestrian seating nodes, the walkway has been opened to allow egress into the project. This created six pedestrian access points from Grand River into Brooktown. The sidewalk meanders from the restaurant to the rear and to the existing sidewalk. There is an east-west linkage at the south end of the live/work buildings. Pedestrians will be able to walk the entire Brooktown, around the outside and through the middle. They believe the pedestrian orientation has now been met. This sidewalk design will be described in further detail on the Preliminary Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Quinn then reminded the Planning Commission that this is not a Preliminary Site Plan review; it is a Concept Plan, from which a Preliminary Site Plan will be based. He said that everyone has reviewed these plans as if they were the Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Quinn said that the total number of parking spaces will be addressed with the Shared Parking Study on which they are working. It is not yet complete. The figures given to the Planning Commission were based upon the Urban Land Institute’s numbers. The City Ordinance requires 405 parking spaces. However, this number is derived by taking each individual use. With shared parking, the requirement will be reduced to close to what the Brooktown plan proposes, which is somewhere in the area of 320. Once the Study is complete, Mr. Quinn is sure that the number of spaces proposed will be justified.

Mr. Quinn said that the handicapped parking spaces will be further defined on the Preliminary Site Plan submittal. This really wasn’t shown on the Concept Plan. Also, the trash receptacles and loading areas were not shown on the Concept Plan. These items will be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal. Mr. Quinn said that the trash pick-up for the condos will be curbside, just like a regular subdivision. The Applicant is already arranging to meet with a trash removal company to work on a trash removal system for the homeowners and the commercial and office buildings.

Mr. Quinn agreed that there is a lot of landscaping that will go into this plan. The plan already provides a significant amount, much of it located on the south side adjacent to Meadowbrook Glens. The Concept Plan shows the existing trees that were located during the tree survey; these trees will be supplements with the replacement trees, and there will be additional evergreens so the opacity requirements will be met. The final plan will meet the opacity requirements between this project and the single family subdivision. As far as the locations of the protected trees, the Applicant has tried first to protect the densest areas of trees in the southwest corner. On the Preliminary Site Plan, the tree replacement program will be documented. Mr. Quinn acknowledged that this is indeed very important, and will be done.

Mr. Quinn said that one of the goals of this plan is to replace as many trees along the periphery of the project to buffer it from its surrounding areas. He said that when trying to create a downtown street, it becomes somewhat difficult to place street trees in the condominium areas. On the Concept Plan, the pocket parks have been landscaped very nicely. There is landscaping down the main boulevard. There is landscaping around each of the condominium units. There will be additional landscaping as required by the City, along the Grand River Avenue frontage. The Applicant will hold follow up meetings with the Consultants to discuss their reviews and the Planning Commission comments. Mr. Quinn said that their intent is to fold this information into a revised Concept Plan for City Council approval.

Mr. Quinn said it was important to note that the Applicant is proposing less than one-half of the density that is allowed under the Ordinance: 425 units would be allowed, but only 225 are proposed. The open space requirement of 25% has been exceeded.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant believes he has met the intent of the Gateway criteria. He said this was a beautiful project that will liven up the south side of Grand River Avenue, which has basically sat vacant since before Novi became a city. This land was zoned NCC long before Mr. Quinn became involved with the City, which made it a "holding zone" because they knew it couldn’t be developed under that district. Now, thirty years later, the City has made it possible for this land to be developed. The plan will offer very nice condominiums of about 1,400 square feet that will sell for about $200,000. The retail along Grand River will move very quickly with the front yard parking. This will be a commercial handicap if there is not front yard parking. The office space along Grand River should go very nicely. People will like this project. It is walkable. It looks beautiful from Grand River. Once inside, the view is striking. The people who live in Brooktown will have easy access to the community building and the swimming pool and the other activities. If they want to take a walk, they have 27 acres to encircle.

Mr. Quinn said that the engineering requirements have been met. The Applicant seeks a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission, subject to the variance waivers necessary from City Council. Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant’s entire staff and design team was available to field any questions.

Chair Avdoulos opened the floor for public comment:

Becky Staab, 41887 Cherry Hill: Lived on the south side of Cherry Hill. She stated that their subdivision went through setback issues with Fountain Park Apartments and has learned from experience to remain active in the design process of adjacent projects. She said that the adjacent homes abut something similar to a retention ditch, and their concern is from where the setback for this project is measured. She said Buildings 10 and 13 appear to be closest. The subdivision likes the existing trees and they are concerned about the Applicant’s request for a waiver of the six-foot berm requirement. She said that the plans show two-story condos even though the Ordinance would allow three, and four with a special waiver. She wanted to ensure that the two-story buildings remain. She said that the subdivision was concerned about the noise and visual screening, the water and sewer, the traffic that will be put on Grand River. With the senior citizens at the end of Cherry Hill, the original plan was for those residents to exit onto Meadowbrook, but the senior citizens prefer to turn onto Cherry Hill and leave the area in that manner. She wanted to ensure that the traffic of Brooktown does not somehow end up going through their subdivision. She said that the homeowners of their subdivision who have been there 20-30 years bought their homes knowing that the subject land was zoned residential-acreage, not zoned for multiple family. Now the residents are looking at trees but they may someday be looking at buildings taller than their neighbors’ homes.

Member Sprague read the Public Hearing correspondence into the record:

Bill Panos, 25541 Dogwood: Approved of the project and thought it was overdue. He thought it would be a boost to the Main Street project.

Ted Minasian, 41800 West Eleven Mile: Approved of the project and found it to be beautiful and exciting.

Jean Grant, 41824 Cherry Hill: Abuts this property. She supported the development, and was happy that a fellow Novi citizen was developing the land. She considered it to be an enhancement to the area. She thought it would be a first class development.

Jon and Judy Dostal, 41875 Cherry Hill: Objected to the building height and proximity to their subdivision. They purchased their home for the view of the woods.

Chair Avdoulos closed the Public Hearing. He reminded the Planning Commission that they were discussing a Concept Plan. He appreciated the work of the Staff and Consultants. He said that the Planning Commission was charged with sending a recommendation to the City Council.

Member Wrobel thought Brooktown was a nice concept that would be a good addition to the area. He was concerned that there wasn’t enough parking for the residential area. He urged the Applicant to add more accessible parking to the south end of the development.

Member Wrobel was also concerned that at least one building might be too close to the residential subdivision south of this development. He asked the Applicant to look at repositioning the building to sit further away.

Member Wrobel asked if the work/live units were ownership or rental units. Mr. Quinn said that the live/work stations were owner-occupied units.

Member Sprague thought this was an exciting project too. He agreed that this is the first real application of the Gateway East Ordinance to a project. He said it was important, then, to do a good job with it. He said that because of the way the Ordinance is written, this is the only time that the Planning Commission has a chance to comment on the plan, as the Preliminary Site Plan is approved by City Council. He was concerned that there wasn’t enough information from which the Planning Commission could glean a true understanding of the project, and subsequently provide the City Council with an informed recommendation. He said this Concept Plan requires one finding, three determinations and eight waivers. It doesn’t meet five of the six functional requirements. He said that he would assume that there is a lot more to the engineering than what is provided in a Concept Plan.

Member Sprague said that the Applicant was supposed to provide a response letter. The letter received by the Planning Commission basically states that the Applicant will do a Shared Parking Study. They want the façade waiver. They are working on the wetland comments. They will address the woodland comments. The phasing will be reconfigured. They will respond to the landscaping issues. Member Sprague said this means that there a lot of questions without a lot of answers. At this moment, Member Sprague was torn between giving feedback and requesting a plan to which he could respond. He did not feel like he had a plan to which he could respond. He didn’t know whether he wanted to spend so much time on a plan that still has a lot of work to be done. Because this is the first true Gateway project, Member Sprague wondered if this was the way that the review should be handled. He reiterated that this is their only shot; once the Planning Commission gives their recommendation this plan goes to City Council. Before Member Sprague spent so much time giving feedback, he wished to hear from the other Planning Commission members. He thought more work should be done on the plan so that the Planning Commission had something to which they could respond. He would be happy to give his feedback, but he didn’t want to if it ended up not being accurate. He said that perhaps this was a question for Director of Planning Barbara McBeth. What is the process? How does the Planning Commission protect the process? Do the Planning Commission members want to provide a lot of feedback or do they want to postpone this hearing?

Ms. McBeth responded said that the Ordinance carefully outlined and detailed the process. It explains what is necessary for a Concept Plan; it allows for a sketchy, lightly-detailed plan, but is also lists 22 things that must be included. These items include the requirement for all parking to be shown on the plan, and the flexibility of shared parking must be accompanied by a Study.

Ms. McBeth agreed that this is the one opportunity for the Planning Commission to comment on this plan. She felt that the Planning Department and Consultants have provided as much feedback as they could. There is a lot of detail already and this is a complex plan. If the Planning Commission wishes to have more information, the Consultants for the City and the Applicant are all present at the meeting.

Member Sprague asked if the specific items necessary for a Concept Plan have been completed at a satisfactory level. Ms. McBeth said that they were not all completed. Specifically, the Shared Parking Study was missing. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Department and Consultants thought that some information could have been provided more clearly. The question now is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable in making a recommendation based on this plan.

Member Sprague said that he didn’t want to postpone the plan, because he did understand that the Planning Commission’s role in this was to get the plan to City Council. He was not trying to usurp that or be a hindrance. He wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission was doing its job.

Member Sprague asked if the Planning Department’s expectation was that the plan will be materially different once the items in the comments have been addressed. Ms. McBeth said that if certain modifications were made, the plans could very well be different. Depending on which of the considerations City Council would like to allow, the Preliminary Site Plan may be similar, or perhaps they might ask for something like additional buffering along the south property line. They may ask for more wetland or woodland consideration.

Member Pehrson also wondered what the Planning Commission’s role was in this review. He did not doubt that this will be one of the most exciting projects in Novi. It is the right project for the corner. He thought the plan demonstrated exactly what the area needs, both from a residential and retail perspective. Member Pehrson did not think there was enough information provided on which the Planning Commission could make a recommendation.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission is used to receiving a response letter that addresses the concerns, point by point. They do not typically get such vague responses. He said the very things that the Planning Commission took notes on are the problems that this type of development will bring to the area. Mainly, the Cherry Hill residents are the interested party; they want to know about the buffering relative to the noise, relative to the visual screening. That is the primary drive of the Planning Commission when a commercial project abuts residential – to ensure that as much buffer and screening as possible is put between the two projects. Member Pehrson has not seen this on this plan. Without this information, and given the fact that this information may change, the Planning Commission could be providing a "false positive" to City Council in recommending this project.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission doesn’t want to hinder the project but they don’t have the facts in front of them. He said that the Parking Study is certainly one of the items of which he took note. The pedestrian circulation is another – will pedestrians have to meander around parked cars to walk through this property?

Member Pehrson said that one of the criteria in the Ordinance is consistency with the Master Plan. This plan certainly meets that requirement. The Ordinance requires innovation and design excellence and these have, without question, been met. There is a relationship to the adjacent uses. Member Pehrson was a fan of front yard parking; he had no problem with that request. He said providing front yard parking would be the only way to have an attractive and viable retail space. There are benefits to the community. Member Pehrson did question the pedestrian safety, given the fact that the Concept Plan is different from what Mr. Quinn presented. Member Pehrson said there was no question of the aesthetic beauty of the structures. The provisions for users of the projects are there, although Member Pehrson thought that the plan fell short on a couple. The preservation of the wetlands and woodlands were his examples. He said that although the area is not a core habitat area, one of the Consultants stated that they did not believe enough thought was put into the plan to conserve any of the woodland area. That, Member Pehrson said, brings up doubt. Because this is the only time the Planning Commission can look at this plan, he felt that they deserve to see more information. He would like to see a Concept Plan that replicates what the City Council will vote upon.

Member Gutman agreed with much of what has been said. He said that in all reality, the project will be spectacular once it is finalized. For many of the reasons stated, he felt more information was necessary. He supported the idea of postponing the consideration of this project.

Chair Avdoulos did not know which way he was leaning. He understood the concerns of the other Planning Commission members. The Concept Plan gives the Applicant’s idea for an innovative and unique development for the City. The concern lies in the fact that this is the plan that the Applicant says will be used to address the outstanding issues before it goes to City Council. When the Planning Commission reviewed a previous Concept Plan and gave their recommendation, that plan became entirely different once it was approved by City Council. In Chair Avdoulos’ opinion, that approved plan is inferior to what was presented originally and what the Planning Commission recommended to City Council.

Chair Avdoulos was not as concerned about this particular project. He appreciated and understood the design that has been presented. He was familiar with the architect and the people behind this plan. What he was looking for was "community orientation," per the language of the Gateway East. He thought there should be significant pedestrian orientation. At times, he finds that concept hard to swallow in a suburb where people drive to every one of their destinations. No one really walks. This development has the opportunity to capture the spirit of the Gateway East project. This project abuts an already established subdivision. There is also a senior living development to the south. Across the street there is another subdivision. This is the first time that Chair Avdoulos has seen a project like this, which has been labeled as a unique and innovative project and has a chance to start blending in with the fabric. He could picture people walking from Meadowbrook and Ten Mile, up Meadowbrook Road, meandering through the area to reach this development, to participate with the businesses along the frontage of Grand River, on both the north and south sides of the road. This project is starting to do what the Gateway Ordinance was intended to do.

Chair Avdoulos said that the reason the buildings were expected to be up against the road was to create the Gateway. He too, was torn between what Grand River is and what it will remain. He did not see this as a street that would go from 45-mph to 25-mph, and then back to 45 mph. He had to be a realist. He’d have to agree that parking along the front may not be as big of an issue because each project has to be looked at specifically and uniquely.

Chair Avdoulos said that the Special Development Option provides the Applicant with greater flexibility for greater building heights and reduced setbacks. Again, as one of the citizens has already pointed out, the Planning Commission wants to ensure that what is being presented is basically adhered to when the plan is approved at the City Council level.

Chair Avdoulos asked what makes this development so unique – why is it any different from the development across the street? Why is it different from the development at Six Mile and Haggerty? How is it different from the Crooks and Maple development? He looked at the layout and he liked the idea of the buildings along Grand River and how they were set up and the type of uses that will be in those buildings. He thought the unique aspect of this development is the pull of the live/work area into the area of where people live. It’s moving closer to the neighborhood, but it isn’t encroaching on it. It is a bit of a unique space. He wished to have these issues presented when this plan goes to City Council, so the City Council understands what is so special about this project. Chair Avdoulos noted the 12:12 pitches, the brick, the siding and the stone, but the overall concept, and how everything has been put together, is what makes this project unique to the City. The location and other factors that have been mentioned throughout the reviews need to be incorporated into the consideration of this project. As Mr. Quinn has indicated, this is the first big project to challenge this Ordinance. He thought this was an excellent place from which to work, but the Planning Commission wants to have something of which everyone is going to be proud. He thought that the right team has been assembled.

Chair Avdoulos said that another line that caught his eye was, "…encourage innovative land use planning. Conserve natural resource and features." Chair Avdoulos said that the Applicant should demonstrate design excellence. There is a requirement for open space – 25% usable space – and there are areas of plazas and parks within the confines of the development, but he would like to see something along the Grand River sidewalk, so that people not only have access to the retail, but they have little parks off the side of Grand River that can be enjoyed as part of this development.

Chair Avdoulos said that the Woodland Review noted the existence of trillium on the site, which is uncommon in suburban southeast Michigan forests. Chair Avdoulos told the Applicant to take advantage of this and make this part of the site’s design. Create an environmentally sensitive layout. It was even recommended to use retaining walls to maximize some woodland preservation. Chair Avdoulos said that there has to be an intertwining of what exists and what is required to create adequate screening and viewshed with the berming next to the residential. He did not think a wall was the answer. He noted that some of the neighbors were concerned about the height of these buildings, but if they are placed correctly and skewed so as not to provide a two-story wall, this would be beneficial to the existing residents.

Chair Avdoulos said that there are many issues with the landscaping. He understood that the Applicant said he would work on the plan, but the Planning Commission is concerned with at least seeing what the proposal is going to look like. The Planning Commission wants to see the berming and how it will be tied into the design. They don’t plan on being nitpicky like the plan is at the Preliminary Site Plan stage, but at least overall they can see what is proposed. There was a comment made, and the Planning Commission would like to see the answer, so when this plan ultimately goes to City Council, they are assured that these issues have already been addressed. As Member Sprague said, the Planning Commission is not going to take over what is City Council’s purview. They just want to enhance it and allow themselves to participate in it.

Chair Avdoulos said that the traffic is being looked at. The issues with dumpsters and parked vehicles impeding on sidewalks are concerns. He figured that the Engineering Review just looked at the plan to see if the services were available to the area. The densities were considered.

Chair Avdoulos thought that the buildings against Grand River should be required to comply with the entire Façade Ordinance, and then maybe the other buildings could be looked at by the Applicant. There is a funeral home adjacent to this site, and he said that the utmost respect must be paid to that location.

Chair Avdoulos said those were his comments. He read the entire Ordinance to make sure that everything was covered by his review. He said he could recommend this project along with a laundry list for City Council, but he understood where the other Planning Commission members were coming from. They want to encourage the Applicant to design these issues into the plan so that it turns into something palatable that at least meets the direct spirit of the Ordinance. There are many things that can be addressed because the City Council will look at this plan and a Preliminary Site Plan. Final Site Plan will also go through.

Member Pehrson agreed with Chair Avdoulos. He said that this was a lesson, that the Planning Commission can do this right the first time. The Planning Commission won’t have to get into philosophical problems or issues down the road. Member Pehrson hoped there had been enough dialogue that the Applicant understands what they are asking for him to submit.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Sprague would like to see the plan come back as soon as possible. He did not want the project to get stuck at the Planning Commission. He wanted the process done right and thought that the City needed to be careful with it. He did not find many comments in the reviews with which he disagreed. He was looking forward to seeing what comes out of those reviews.

Member Sprague’s issues included the wetlands along the back. He knew they were not the greatest, but making use of those with the buffering of the neighborhood was important to him. He thought this was discussed briefly at the rezoning. He wanted to see a more creative use of this feature.

Member Sprague said that pedestrian circulation was a big issue. He would also look at parking. He was interested in the setbacks from the current residents. He thought there were two points that were very close and he thought they were too close, or he would want a better discussion on why the buildings are that close.

Member Sprague looked at the Community Impact Statement and found a number of issues that would be brought out a little more. It stated that there are no annual fire or police responses expected. That can’t really be the case, according to Member Sprague. If that were the case, the City would only allow residential developments and they wouldn’t have a fire or police department.

Member Sprague said that the tax revenue is listed as generating $293,000. He was looking for more information; did this amount include the money that goes to the schools, or was it just the taxes for the City? Member Sprague said that when the Planning Commission looks at projects and their densities, they look at how that project is going to impact the City’s finances because that is important. Specifically with the Community Impact Statement, one of the key features is what the financial impact is going to be. The statement that the City is going to get $293,000 but they aren’t going to have to spend anything on services doesn’t pass the smell test. The Planning Commission is looking for a reasonable estimate so that they can make a decision.

Member Sprague said that Mr. Quinn commented that 423 would be allowed on this site. He did not know where that number came from, and he didn’t ask the Staff, but some explanation of that number would be something he was looking at reviewing. When he first looked at the plan, it looked crowded. The setbacks, parking deficiencies, loading zone shortfalls and no receptacles are the issues brought forward and maybe they are not there because they haven’t been flushed out. Member Sprague said that maybe since they look at Preliminary Site Plans all the time, they are used to seeing this information and it screams out to them that there is too much on the site. He is not saying that this is the case with Brooktown, but he thought it would be important to flush this out.

Member Sprague said that it was important to note the resident’s comment about a previous zoning of R-A, and how the City got from there to 246 units plus retail, restaurant, etc. It is good for the Planning Commission to have a sense of these things when they are looking at the impact statement.

Chair Avdoulos said that the idea is, without having to read through too much, the Planning Commission wants to hit and target what makes this a unique and innovative site. He thought Mr. Quinn did a good job of presenting the plan. He said that the Applicant should focus on what makes this more than a geometric configuration of buildings that is within setbacks. One of the Staff’s comments was that this plan does not demonstrate innovative land use planning. The Landscape Architect is going to be looking for exceptional aesthetic quality, not likely to be achieved except based upon this authorization. This particular layout, design and plan are going to make everything else look better than if it were in a typical subdivision or development. Those are the things that were picked out, and those are the things that people aren’t witnessing yet. That is what Chair Avdoulos thought that the Planning Commission is going to be looking for at the next go-around.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Quinn how similar the Fifteen Mile project would be to this project. Mr. Quinn said that it was the same architect (Alexander Bogaerts) but he wasn’t sure if the plan was in some ways identical. Member Pehrson’s point was that if it was identical, then photographical evidence could be shown to address the Planning Commission’s concerns. This could be shown to the Planning Commission to educate them on how this design could work.

Mark Abernatha, Vice President of Alexander Bogaerts Architects, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the only reason they referenced that project was for the discussion on the live/work stations. There has been a lot of interest in that aspect and whether or not it works. That project happens to be an example of a live/work station that really works. Whether that project relates identically to this plan, Mr. Abernatha would say no. It is similar in that there are residential living units above office and retail spaces, but how this project comes together, with the whole mixed-use aspect of it, he wouldn’t use the Fifteen Mile project for the focus of this project. From the standpoint of the success of the live/work stations, he said it would be fine, but loading, unloading and pedestrian circulation should be separated. Member Pehrson said that any visual evidence would be a plus.

Consideration of the request of Marathon Ashland for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 4, at the southwest corner of Pontiac Trail and Beck Road in the B-3, General Business District. The subject property is approximately 1.960 acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt informed the Planning Commission that Marathon Ashland was seeking approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan. The proposed project is located in Section 4 at the southwest corner of Pontiac Trail and Beck Road. Commerce Township is located to the north and the City of Wixom to the west. The property to the south is vacant and the property to the east is the CVS Pharmacy. The Applicant is proposing to rebuild an existing gas station to include a 3,830 square-foot one-story building for a combination convenience store, gas station, and fast food restaurant with take-out food only.

The site is zoned General Business as are the properties to the south and east. Commerce Township is located to the north and the City of Wixom is located to the west.

The site is master planned for Community Commercial as are the properties to the south and east.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site.

The project proposes to eliminate two access drives, one from Pontiac Trail and one from Beck Road. This would limit the site to two access points. A Planning Commission Waiver for a reduction in parking lot landscaping of 770.2 square feet; 1,290.2 square feet is required and 520 square feet is proposed. The Landscape Review is based on the new Ordinance, but the existing project was designed from the old Ordinance. The rebuild has some landscape issues, but the Applicant has been working with the Landscape Architect to eliminate as many of the minor issues as possible.

The Planning Review indicates that the plan meets Ordinance requirements with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ms. Schmitt said that other landscape issues include the wall along Pontiac Trail, which is located partially in the clear zone. The Applicant has indicated that the wall will be removed to be out of the clear zone. A ZBA Variance of the minimum four feet of building perimeter landscaping is needed. A Planning Commission Waiver is necessary for five perimeter canopy trees on the south side of the site on the condition that a hedgerow is installed on the south side of the site along the parking area. This would eliminate headlight beams traveling around the curve of Beck Road. A Planning Commission Waiver of the berm requirement along the west side of the property is necessary, along with a Planning Commission finding that the existing berming and additional plantings meet the intent of section 2509.3.a of the Ordinance. Along the west side of the property there are multiple family residential units in Wixom. There is an existing berm with fair-sized trees used for screening.

The Façade, Fire, and Engineering reviews indicate that the plans meet Ordinance requirements with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ms. Schmitt said that the Applicant has worked closely with the Planning Department and Consultants to retrofit this property with the new product. This is a much better design. Ms. Schmitt passed the façade board around for the Planning Commission members to review.

Brian Lance of L&R Construction Services represented the Applicant. He said the fast food that will be onsite is the roller grill for hot dogs. There will also be prepared sandwiches available in the walk-in or reach-in coolers. The waivers that they are requesting include one for parking lot landscaping. It is difficult to have landscaped islands at a gas station facility. There are pumps and islands and cars must be able to maneuver about. The Landscape Architect said he would support the waiver request.

Mr. Lance said the ZBA Variance was an omission, and they intend to add that landscaping. They will continue to work with the Landscape Architect on that design. The hedge request is necessary because the location of the water and sanitary sewer preclude the addition of trees in that area. They are suggesting the hedgerow to reduce the headlights glaring on the adjacent property.

Mr. Lance said that the westerly berm is already in place and they are adding a substantial amount of landscaping to that area to limit the impact on the apartment buildings in Wixom. This is a big improvement to the corner. They have been working closely with the Planning Department and the Consultants. They have incorporated many of their requests to make this design meet the intent of the Ordinance.

Member Pehrson asked about the OHM Traffic Review and their comment about lining up the driveway. Consultant Alex Rucinsky was at the meeting; he said that there was an existing Michigan Bell easement to consider and the Applicant would lose a parking space with the suggested alignment. Those would be the hardships in re-aligning the entry way.

Mr. Lance said that there is an easement in place to accommodate a fairly substantial telephone box and a utility pole. There would be a substantial amount of utility work to re-align the driveway as suggested by OHM. Mr. Lance said that the pole and the box are both shown on the utility plan.

Member Pehrson said that according to OHM’s drawing the box and pole would be cleared. Mr. Lance said that was the first time he had seen the OHM design. He did not know if the proposed guy wires, or the decel lane would impact the design. Mr. Lance located the guy wires on the existing pole and the telecom box on the overhead plan, and said that the decel lane would be very close to the box. The proposed approach lane is roughly in the same spot as where it is now, and the second approach is being eliminated. Member Pehrson liked the idea of eliminating the second approach.

Member Pehrson asked if this design was similar to one of the Ten Mile and Novi Speedways. Mr. Lance said it was similar, but not the same. It is the same general look, but this building is bigger. Member Pehrson would rather have the loss of the one space and the alignment of the road than the traffic problems associated with the offset alignment of the parking spaces. Mr. Lance said that they would also have to consider the tanker traffic; would the gas truck be able to make the turn, and then make a second turn? When he looks at the plan, he sees where this might be an issue. The necessary radius for the delivery trucks is always reviewed on their plans because it is imperative that the trucks can fit on the site. He sees this as a problem on the sketch being reviewed, and the alternative would be to move the building back, which can’t be done because of the easement.

Member Pehrson asked the Applicant to continue working with OHM to determine what can be managed. If there is a radius problem, then there is a problem.

Member Pehrson wondered if there was a lighting issue. He asked if there was a plan reviewed, as it relates to the neighbors in Wixom. Mr. Lance did not think that a photometric plan was turned in on the Novi Plans. Because Wixom Road is under the jurisdiction of Wixom, it was turned in to them, and it was designed per the Novi Ordinance. Member Pehrson said okay, and asked if there were problems with the plan. Mr. Lance said no. Member Pehrson asked if there were lights on the west side of the building. Mr. Lance said there would be one emergency light on the back side. Member Pehrson asked if the light would be shielded or cast down. Mr. Lance said it could be.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that Ms. Schmitt had reviewed a photometric plan. It did not meet the Ordinance requirements, but they frequently do not meet the Ordinance requirements on the first submittal. The City would like to continue working with the Applicant to ensure that the plan meets the Ordinance standards.

Member Pehrson asked about the Fire Department’s comment that the water supply must be a minimum of eight inches. Member Pehrson asked if that was a different standard than what was in effect when the building was originally designed, and did the Applicant have to meet that standard if this was a rebuild and not a green space. Civil Engineer Ben Croy said that he was not sure how to relate past requirements to this plan, but if the Fire Marshal is asking for eight inches, it is for the fire hydrant flow rate capacity, and it is a safety issue. He would imagine that the Applicant would have to comply with the request. Member Pehrson did not want to put any undue burden on the Applicant, if the request wasn’t necessary. As long as the request is a given, then Member Pehrson would agree with it.

Member Sprague asked the Landscape Architect to comment on the many landscaping issues. Lance Shipman responded that the City has not been able to confirm any comments in the response letter because they have not seen any plan to know if their comments can be done or have been done. He said that it certainly seems that the Applicant has intentions based on their letter. Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant will shorten the length of the wall to remove it from the clear zone. That is a straightforward modification. The waiver for the four-foot perimeter landscaping is a common request for a gas station or any high-intensity vehicular site. There is not a whole lot that can be done with a fueling station.

Member Sprague asked if the additional landscaping on the south side of the building was sufficient to offset the lack of perimeter landscaping. Mr. Shipman responded that the south side requirement is for canopy trees. The Applicant has proposed utility line placement in that area. Mr. Shipman asked for them to review a different place for the utility lines so that the trees could be placed there. If that is not feasible, the City would at least look for the hedgerow. Mr. Shipman said it was unique, in that Beck Road swings out in that area, and with no development directly to the south, the headlights would essentially be pointing head on to the traffic. The hedgerow would at least eliminate this possibility. Mr. Lance said that this was acceptable; it would be difficult to relocate the water and sewer because of the product tanks and underground retention. They are limited on where they can bring those pipes through.

Member Sprague asked about the parking lot landscaping waiver, and whether that was the nature of a gas station. Mr. Shipman answered affirmatively. He explained that with the fueling station the dispensers prevent the opportunity to put landscaping anywhere in the central portion of the paved area. The Applicant always has a tough time fitting in parking spaces on a fueling station site because they are relatively small. With a canopy, there is no opportunity to put landscaping on the front side of the building. The Applicant runs out of real estate. He did not have any major issues with the request, in light of the type of use that it is. Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant has done a pretty good job of landscaping the perimeter of the site to alleviate some of the problem.

Member Sprague asked about the berm issue. Mr. Shipman responded that the Planning Commission needs to make a finding that the existing berm on the Wixom parcel is acceptable, even though it is slightly lower than Novi’s standards. It is also not fully planted. The proposed plan has filled in the gaps with evergreen trees. There is a relationship with this plan’s trees and the existing trees – the plan fills in the holes. Plant material-wise, the Applicant has met the intent. It would have been nice to see some shrubs to provide a variety. The berm is shorter, so he would ask that the Planning Commission makes the finding that the existing berm meets the intent of the Ordinance. The City is not going to ask for the neighbor’s berm to be raised; a Planning Commission finding would be enough to allow the use of this berm to satisfy the requirement.

Member Sprague asked if the driveway can’t be lined up, did the Applicant put it in the next best place? Mr. Rucinsky said that the proposed placement is the next best place. Member Sprague said he would like to match it up if possible. If it is a trade off, he would be in favor of losing a parking space.

Member Cassis asked if the Applicant had addressed the telecom box with anyone. Mr. Lance said that this was the first that he knew of the OHM proposal to move it. Mr. Lance said that as he continued to look at the plan, he was more and more concerned of the traffic pattern and the transport truck. Member Cassis encouraged Mr. Lance to research that issue because fuel trucks are very big. Member Cassis even suggested that the telecom company may even choose to move the box at their expense to avoid an accident with the box.

Member Cassis asked if shrubbery could be used to prevent the headlight issue on Beck Road. Mr. Shipman said that a three-to-four foot solution would be necessary. Evergreens could fix a majority of the problem. The Lighting Ordinance would control the site lighting.

Mr. Shipman said that a waiver is also required for the land adjacent to the right-of-way along Pontiac Trail for the screenwall. Mr. Shipman said it actually reflects the existing condition pretty closely, in terms of where the pavement lies. However, it doesn’t meet the City’s current setback and berming requirements on Pontiac Trail. He said that was something to look at as well.

Chair Avdoulos asked about a statement in the Planning Review about the curb at the southwest parking space being extended to measure sixteen feet from the face of curb of the parking space. The Applicant responded that relocating the curb would make it difficult to access. They proposed delineating the southwest parking place with pavement marking as opposed to curb and gutter. Chair Avdoulos asked if this was okay with the Planning Department. Ms. Schmitt responded they are used to safeguard a car better but they are not part of the Ordinance requirement. Chair Avdoulos was confident that the Applicant has done enough work around gas stations that he would provide an acceptable design.

Chair Avdoulos thought that most comments had been addressed. He said it was always nice to see an upgrade. This will add to the aesthetics of the corner. Some driveway cuts have been removed. The corner has been cleaned up considerably. With regard to the telephone and guy wire, Chair Avdoulos told the Applicant not to make goofy decisions that people will look at later on and question. He told the Applicant not to design so that the wire is in the way. Chair Avdoulos supported the project.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Chair Avdoulos asked Mr. Shipman to comment on another waiver. Mr. Shipman asked that the motion include, "A Planning Commission Waiver for the parking setback and berming requirements along Pontiac Trail in the area proposed for the screenwall. This waiver approves the screenwall as well. Both Member Pehrson and Member Sprague agreed to the language.

Member Sprague asked if the ZBA Variance was still necessary. The Applicant said they would add landscaping to the plan. Member Sprague asked if that was adequate, if the landscaping isn’t shown on the plan before them. City Attorney David Gillam said it would be appropriate to add that as a condition of the approval, "The plan being modified to eliminate the need for the ZBA Variance for the minimum four-foot building perimeter landscape." Member Sprague asked if the same applied to the wall; Mr. Gillam answered affirmatively. Therefore, the language, "The Applicant modifying the wall in order to avoid the clear zone or seek a ZBA variance for the lack of an adequate clear zone at the Pontiac Trail access" was also added to the motion. Mr. Shipman then asked that the record be made clear, because the perimeter landscaping variance is necessary for the east side. The language will include, "though the Applicant will seek a ZBA variance for this requirement for the east side of the building." Member Pehrson and Member Sprague agreed to the language.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

In the matter of the request of Curtis Smith from Marathon Ashland for the Speedway Rebuild, SP04-67a, motion to grant approval of the Stormwater Management Plan subject to The comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Final Site Plan Review, for the reason that the plan is otherwise in compliance with the Ordinance. Motion carried 6-0.

Member Kocan’s comments were already incorporated into the minutes.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Kocan’s comments were already incorporated into the minutes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Kocan’s were already incorporated into the minutes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the next Tax Base Alternatives Roundtable would be held on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson:

The meeting adjourned at or about 9:47 p.m.

MON 05/30/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

SAT 06/04/05 GREENWAYS/ PATHWAYS INPUT MEETING 11:00 AM

MON 06/06/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/07/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/08/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 06/13/05 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

WED 6/15/05 PLANNING COMMISSION ROUNDTABLE 7:00 PM

MON 06/20/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 06/22/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, May 31, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: June 8, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date