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

Present: Members, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Michael Meyer (8:37 p.m.), Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members John Avdoulos (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney; Alex Rucinski, Traffic Consultant

The meeting attendees recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson,

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Chair Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Chair Kocan,

Moved by Chair Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Cassis asked Chair Kocan to continue as Chair for the evening, as she was better prepared to do so.

Consideration on the request of Vistal Land and Home Development for revised Final Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 35, west of Meadowbrook Road and north of Eight Mile in the R-1, One-family Residential District. The subject property is 7.983 acres. The Applicant is requesting a Planning Commission waiver to continue a previously approved wall in lieu of the right-of-way berm along Meadowbrook Road.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to amend Section 2505 of the Novi Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to modify parking standards for shopping centers larger than 1,000,000 square feet.

Planner Tim Schmitt stated that the Taubman Company planned to expand Twelve Oaks Mall to include additional Marshall Field’s square footage, Nordstrom’s and an additional wing to the mall. This totals several hundred thousand square feet.

The current parking space standards for a center of this nature are tiered, based on the square footage. Different standards exist for 300,000-600,000 square feet, 600,000-1,000,000 square feet, and over 1,000,000 square feet, which currently requires 5.2 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Twelve Oaks is parked right now at about 6.2 parking spaces per 1,000 sf GLA. This mall was designed in the 1970’s under a different set of ideas about parking. Over the years, as more regional malls were built, research has been done to determine what the optimum standard for parking is. Much of the literature on this concept is modeled after a study done by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) in conjunction with the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).

Mr. Schmitt said that this study indicates that the available parking meets the needs for the "every day" use of a regional mall. However, there are nineteen hours per year that require more parking. In fact, many centers that took part in the survey indicated that most of the time their parking lots were only 50% full. The concept of the "19^th hour" standard is that the mall should be parked based on the GLA and the mix of tenant use and at a lower level – the level represented by all other hours aside from those nineteen hours. The standard for centers greater than 600,000, as recommended by the ULI, is 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf of GLA. If there is more than 20% restaurant and entertainment use, there is a concept of shared parking, but the 4.5 number is still recommended as the general standard. The Taubman Company is requesting that the City modify its parking standards from the current standard of 5.2 to 4.5. It is expected that in their expansion, the Taubman Company will be able to meet the current parking requirements.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission was provided with information regarding current Ordinance Standards and the 19^th Hour concept. There is information from the Walker Parking Consultants, who were contracted by the Taubman Company to review this issue. Looking at surrounding communities, there are a variety of different ways of determining parking standards. Great Lakes Crossing is one extreme, and the Ann Arbor Ordinance provides minimum and maximum standards. The 4.5 standard is not entirely different from what is found in the marketplace today. Staff supports this modification to the City’s standard. Should a smaller user request this similar modification, the City will need to look at the scale. The Taubman Company has done its homework on this issue, and their request seems appropriate.

Mr. Bruce Heckman, Vice President of Development for the Taubman Company, addressed the Planning Commission. He is also a professional urban planner. He is a charter member of the American Planning Association (APA) and past president of the Chicago Metro APA, Illinois Chapter APA, Missouri Chapter APA and the recipient of a distinguished planner award from the Michigan Chapter of the APA. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and is registered in four states.

Mr. Heckman said that this request will bring Twelve Oaks up to contemporary standards as it relates to parking. Their expansion has necessitated this request. As Twelve Oaks was originally planned, it was always planned for expansion. The valet parking area was designed to accommodate a future parking store. That is the way Mr. Taubman designs his malls – anticipating a desirable new store coming into the market.

Mr. Heckman said that Twelve Oaks update began about fifteen years ago, about the time Somerset Mall opened. At that time over 1,000 parking spaces were added in the southeast quadrant, which he located on a picture for the Planning Commission. He located the "Y" node that was designed for expansion. The original mall was designed with just short of 6,000 parking spaces. Another 1,000 spaces were added in anticipated of finding another upscale anchor. Now the new tenant has been located and they are ready to move forward. He showed the Planning Commission where the Nordstrom’s would be located, where additional mall area would be added, and the expansion area for Marshall Field’s. There is a rezoning request for this land that will be heard later in the evening. The ring road will also be expanded to accommodate this new parking area.

Mr. Heckman said that everyone is seriously concerned about having adequate parking. Shopping is a discretionary activity, so everyone at Twelve Oaks has a vested interest in making the mall a desirable destination. Through the years they have monitored their mall activity, specifically their parking needs. They have learned that there is a significant difference between parking needs for small and large centers. Not all retail is the same. Simply put, larger centers over one million square feet require less parking per square foot than smaller centers. This is due to the length and character of the associated shopping trip. For example, a combined visit to a department store, shoe store and a dress shop lasts longer and results in a higher volume of retail sales than a quick trip to a 7-Eleven, McDonald’s or a drug store. This difference is magnified when the stores are more upscale in nature. There isn’t the same turnover or demand. That same trip results in a higher sales volume and therefore not as many customers are necessary. As a result of reviewing this information, the Taubman Company has been implementing the 4.5 standard to their parking throughout their portfolio.

Mary Smith of Walker Consultants was available at the meeting to discuss this issue. She is the principal author of the parking standards for the ULI, the ICSC and the National Parking Association. Ms. Smith said that mall parking is the most studied parking use in the country. There is more data on this subject with the transportation engineers. In 1999 the ULI and ICSC collected data from 169 centers on the same day and time of the year. There are people who question the "20^th Highest Hour;" those people think that malls should meet the highest hour. There is a strong movement in the planning community to lower the parking standard. Some think that the 20^th highest hour is too high. The researchers of a new shared parking study that is about to go to press were actually pressured to use even a lower standard. A new book from the APA entitled, "The High Cost of Free Parking" argues that the design standard should reflect the average hour. This is a smart growth approach; when there are such high standards, the result is a sea of asphalt parking. A little more density is better. Ms. Smith believed that the reducing the standard from 5 to 4.5 was a good step in the right direction. The rationale for this includes the separation out of entertainment uses, which is a higher demand per square foot, and in its stead a process for a more accurate number was used. One of the real achievements of the new studies is that developments and anchor stores have supported the information and are now implementing the findings. She encouraged the City of Novi to incorporate this new standard of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 sf GLA.

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis appreciated the information provided. The statistics represented a more authentic and up-to-date review of parking needs. As a shopper and as a business man, he has already noticed that shopping habits have changed. People don’t have as much time on their hands. They probably spend less time shopping, so the hours they do shop are more productive. There are others places to shop in Novi besides Twelve Oaks. When Twelve Oaks first opened, everyone converged there, and at times the employees parked off-site and were bussed in. This hasn’t been necessary today.

Member Cassis said that Nordstrom’s is welcome here and is an excellent choice. They are top notch and higher end. The City would like to do what it can to bring them here. They are the right store. Member Cassis commended Twelve Oaks for running a clean, pleasant, safe mall. They have been conscientious about updating it and keeping it protected. They monitor the shopper to garner their approval ratings. Member Cassis was not aware of any problems associated with this mall. For these reasons and in light of the informative presentation, he supported this request.

Member Pehrson confirmed that the 300,000 square foot expansion would bring the mall’s GLA to just over 1.5 million sf GLA. Member Pehrson asked if a maximum number should be placed in the Ordinance – since the parking at the mall will continue to grow with the expansion. Member Pehrson did not want to see the Ordinance be changed to 4.0 and then 3.5, etc. City Attorney David Gillam said the Planning Commission could recommend language to City Council, though he felt it was more of a planning question than a legal question. Member Pehrson suggested if the language in the Ordinance is updated, and the mall is now at about 1.6 million square feet, which could have the 4.5 spaces, that anything above that might have to come back once again for approval or denial by the Planning Commission and City Council.

Ms. Smith responded that the 4.5 need is stabilized at malls over 600,000 square feet. She did not recommend any other number. She said the one caveat that the City might wish to consider is that the City limit the restaurant and other entertainment uses to 20%.

Member Pehrson said that the City wants to see the mall grow, but his concern was the traffic. He did not want more strain on Novi Road or Twelve Mile. Mr. Heckman replied that the addition of entertainment would be significant, but they are not proposing that. He said that "mega-malls" are forced into the entertainment realm because there are only so many stores in the world. The largest Taubman Mall is Illinois’ Woodfield Mall at about 2.2 million square feet. Their parking ratio is 4.0. There are no movie theaters there. There is a higher ratio of parking at Great Lakes Crossing, but there is a significant amount of entertainment there.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Lipski asked if a standard for malls greater than 1.5 million square feet with a 4.5 parking ratio would better serve the mall. Mr. Heckman said they are asking for 4.5 and they had no objection to increasing this ratio if the entertainment component was increased. The language was pulled from the letter submitted by Walker Consulting and capped entertainment uses at 20%.

Mr. Schmitt said that Staff’s perspective on the one million versus 1.5 million number is not as relevant as whether the entire standard in 2505.14.c is high. There is literature out there suggesting that even malls with 300,000 square feet should have their parking requirements reduced to a smaller number. The only other site that would be affected by the proposed change would be Fountain Walk, but functionally this is probably an unrealistic possibility.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said it was interesting to consider whether the number should be one million or 1.5 million. The Taubman Company would not have reason to request the change if they weren’t proposing additional space for the mall. If the Planning Commission prefers the 1.5 million number, that number could be used; but that wasn’t the request of the Applicant and it wouldn’t make sense that they would request that unless they were proposing additional space.

Member Lipski supported the motion.

Member Pehrson asked if Twelve Oaks would be required to add vegetation to the existing parking lot. Mr. Schmitt responded that he expected that all other Ordinances are still in place for the new construction. Ms. McBeth said some of those issues will be part of the site plan review.

Chair Kocan appreciated Ms. Smith’s letter, which stated for entertainment uses over 10%, the standard could reflect a .03 increase for every 1,000 square feet. If the area exceeds 20%, then a shared parking study should be undertaken to determine the appropriate parking demand ratio. Ms. Smith said that the shared parking study that she recently completed, if a mall is more than 10% restaurant alone, the ratio should be increased. If it is a mix of entertainment equaling between 10-20% percent, the ratio is okay. At a minimum she supported the 20% figure but would also support the 10% number. It becomes complicated to put the number from the book into the Ordinance. Certainly, over 20% the number needs to be adjusted. Between 10-20% it has to do with the mix. Restaurants are four to five times as dense as compared to retail. Cinemas are two to three times as dense, but there is more shared use with cinemas. Chair Kocan supported the language of the motion.

Chair Kocan asked that the language state, "…where the combined restaurant, entertainment and/or cinema space exceeds 20% of the shopping center’s gross leasable area, a shared parking study shall be undertaken to determine the appropriate parking demand ratio." She was hoping to be proactive with the language, but wondered if the language was too general anyway. Mr. Schmitt responded that his understanding of the original motion was that a cap of 20% was placed on the entertainment uses. Additionally, Twelve Oaks is not very close to the 10% mark at this time (120,000 square feet of restaurant). The expansion of the retail space is about 100,000 square feet, and even if were to be developed as all restaurant, the total would still just be reaching 10%. Mr. Schmitt said that the motion puts a cap on entertainment uses at 20% and Mr. Schmitt recommended that the language Chair Kocan read from the Walker Consulting letter may better serve the intention of the motion – to readdress the parking needs if entertainment uses are increased. If Nordstrom’s didn’t materialize and Mr. Taubman came back with an 18-screen multiplex, then the parking would be reviewed, and based on Ms. Smith’s comments, Mr. Schmitt expected the Taubman Company to support fully the request for a shared parking study. Chair Kocan asked Member Pehrson if he would add this language to the motion. Member Pehrson agreed as did Member Gutman.

Mr. Schmitt said this would become a footnote to section one: "Where the combined restaurant, entertainment and/or cinema space exceeds 20% of the shopping center’s gross leasable area, a shared parking study shall be undertaken to determine the appropriate parking demand ratio."

Chair Kocan asked if the intended square footage of the outlot site would be added to the mall’s square footage numbers for parking calculation. Mr. Heckman did not know how that would unfold, as there are no plans at this time. If the land remains in their ownership, then they would consider the square footage as part of the mall. If the parcels are sold off, then the new owner would have to meet the parking requirements. Chair Kocan had a problem with that, because the outlots could all be developed as restaurants. If there are higher standards for just restaurants, those customers will not be able to park near the restaurant and they will have to walk across the ring road. Mr. Heckman said that they do not want restaurant parking occurring in the mall parking area. If the parcel is sold off, they will have to provide the full parking requirement for their building.

Mr. Schmitt said that those outlots are typically sold off. The Taubman Company will not want people crossing the ring road. People won’t want to cross the ring road. Given the assumption that there will be a restaurant on the south side of the road, the restaurant will need to provide its own parking. There will likely be splits because the trend in the industry is that businesses want to own their own land. Those lots should be considered stand alone sites. Chair Kocan asked if it would be problem in the future if the plan comes forward and the Applicant is requesting that it be considered part of the mall. Mr. Heckman said that there is ample precedent around the mall regarding outlots and parking. He cited McDonald’s as an example as a stand alone property. Chair Kocan said that Mr. Heckman was backtracking, because earlier he had said that he would want them parked at 4.5. Mr. Heckman responded that there are uses integral to the mall that could possibly make use of the 4.5 parking standard. It was not their intention to "slip something by" the City.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam if anything more needed to be added to the language. Mr. Schmitt responded that as a matter of precedent, Fountainwalk required a separate ratio for their two outlots. The outlots at the mall required their own parking. From Staff’s perspective, the City would not likely consider the 4.5 parking ratio for those outlots. Mr. Heckman said that the ownership of the land is a key factor. If a restaurant buys a pad site, it would be difficult for the Taubman Company to claim that property as part of its own.

Chair Kocan disagreed. She saw the ring road as the dividing line. If the City Attorney, Staff and Applicant were comfortable, she cautioned them that this was not clear cut. She heard two different things. She wanted to ensure that there was enough parking.

Chair Kocan went to Somerset at Christmastime and had to go home because after an hour she could not find a parking space. She asked if the Taubman Company would entertain off-site employee parking. Mr. Heckman said that they will and they have. They would choose a site that was within a reasonable proximity. Chair Kocan said she did not want to micro-manage their site, but she said she has also been stuck on I-96 from the Twelve Oaks traffic. She saw a problem happening between Thanksgiving and Christmas. She asked whether this discussion regarding off-site employee parking was good enough to enforce their doing so, if in fact the new Twelve Oaks was very popular, as Chair Kocan predicted. She said that there are residents in the area who need to get home, so everyone has a vested interest in what will happen at the mall. Mr. Gillam said that any comments made will reflect the intent behind the change in the Ordinance. At the same time, statements regarding intent are not binding. Mr. Heckman’s statements carry weight, although how much remains to be seen. Mr. Heckman said that they have been part of this community for a very long time and they have a close relationship with the Police Department around holiday time. They co-plan for the traffic at holiday time.

Member Wrobel supported the motion. He asked about the small parking area by the proposed Nordstrom’s. He said that area was going to be a madhouse. He asked that the Applicant look at the area prior to the actual site plan submittal.

Member Cassis thought the discussion was informative and necessary. He confirmed that future outlot restaurants would have to be reviewed by the City and by the Planning Commission when they come forward. Mr. Schmitt also stated that Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that the Ordinance language was for "buildings over one million square feet." This 4.5 parking standard would not apply to a free standing restaurant smaller than one million square feet.

Member Cassis said that society is trying to stop sprawl and excessive pavement. Member Cassis questioned the validity of requiring massive asphalt for a year-round operation, if there are only five days of the year where parking is a problem. There is a certain logic that must be applied, one that is good for society, the City and humanity. He was comfortable with this Ordinance language. He noted that in the beginning, Mr. Taubman voluntarily bussed his employees in during the peak periods.

Member Meyer arrived at the meeting at 8:47 p.m.

Member Meyer was aware of the request on the table.

Ms. McBeth explained that the language was actually for "developments" of one million square feet or larger. The definition of development is the construction of a building on a zoning lot. There might be some possibility that this could be open for interpretation. She reminded the Planning Commission that when the actual site plan comes forward they should review the site for health, safety and welfare issues.

Mr. Gillam said that the proposed text amendment cites a "planned commercial or shopping center." There is no definition for this in the Ordinance. The specific language of the text states that it is for a development of one million square feet of GLA and larger. The definition of development is the construction of a new building or other structure on a zoning lot, the relocation of an existing building on another zoning lot, or the use of open land for a new use. Without giving this a lot of study, Mr. Gillam said that the language does support Mr. Schmitt’s statement that if a restaurant did come in on an outlot, it would not be considered part of the commercial development. It would be a development in and of itself. The ownership of the property would be very significant. Separate ownership would be an indication that it is a separate use. Mr. Gillam was satisfied that separate outlots would have to stand on their own merits.

Mr. Gillam asked that the record reflect the issue of what was publicly noticed and what has been discussed. The Notice was for the parking standards for developments of one million square feet or larger. There are obviously changes that are now making the language more restrictive. He did not see this as a problem requiring a new Public Hearing.

In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.199, motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council, with the intent to include the language, "…provided the combined restaurant, entertainment and/or cinema space does not exceed 20% of the shopping center’s gross leasable area;" and "…where the combined restaurant, entertainment and/or cinema space exceeds 20% of the shopping center’s gross leasable area, a shared parking study shall be undertaken to determine the appropriate parking demand ratio."

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of John S. Eggert of Twelve Oaks Mall, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 14, north of I-96, east of Novi Road, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to R-C, Regional Center District. The subject property is approximately 24.070 acres.

Planner Mark Spencer stated that this rezoning request from Twelve Oaks Mall, LLC is for the property located just south of Twelve Oaks Mall Drive. The acres are requested to be rezoned from zoned Residential Acreage (R-A) to Regional Center (RC). The Applicant has submitted a pre-application site plan to expand the Twelve Oaks Mall that includes developing a small portion of the parcel in the petition for additional parking. They have also indicated that they may desire to develop some retail or restaurant uses on the site sometime in the future.

The 1993 Master Plan for Land Use showed this area as Center Commercial and the 2020 Master Plan for Land Use (1999) and The Master Plan for Land Use 2004 shows this area as Regional Commercial. The petitioner’s request to rezone their property to Regional Center (RC) is consistent with the Master Plan.

The property in the petition is zoned Residential Acreage (R-A). To the north is property zoned Regional Center (RC). To the east is Low Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-1). To the south is Residential Acreage (R-A). To the west is the I-96 right-of-way.

The City’s Regulated Woodlands Map shows low and medium density woodlands occupying approximately 25 percent of the parcels in the petition. Woodland impacts will be reviewed when a preliminary site plan is submitted for the property.

The City’s Regulated Wetland and Watercourse Map depicts several potential wetlands and watercourses on the petitioned property. In addition, regulated flood plain may exist on the site. A thorough review of any wetland, watercourse and floodplain impacts will be conducted when a preliminary site plan is submitted.

The City’s Natural Features Map does not show any ranked habitat areas on the parcels in the petition.

Adequate public water and sanitary sewer are available on the neighboring parcels. Engineering does not have any concerns with these items.

Access to the property is from the private four lane Twelve Oaks Mall Drive loop road. The Applicant submitted a traffic review. The City’s Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the rezoning but determined that additional studies and reviews would be needed at the time of site plan review. The nearest pedestrian safety path or pathway is located about one-third of a mile north along the east side of Novi Road.

The Planning Commission has the following options in its recommendation to City Council:

Recommend rezoning of the property in the petition to Regional Center (RC) as requested, consistent with the Future Land Use Map adopted in 2004 (Applicant request and Staff recommendation).

Recommend rezoning of property in the petition to General Business (B-3) which is also consistent with the Future Land use Map adopted in 2004, but it is not consistent with the Applicant’s request.

Recommend denial of the rezoning petition to allow the property to remain Residential Acreage (R-A).

Recommend rezoning of the parcel to any other designation that the Planning Commission determines is appropriate. This would require a new Public Hearing.

The Planning Commission should consider the compatibility of the proposed district with the surrounding planned use, zoning and current uses. The property north of the parcels in the petition is zoned RC and designated for Regional Commercial uses on the Future Land Use Map. Since this property is in the same Zoning District as requested by the petitioner, and it is developed as a super regional mall, there should be no compatibility issues.

The development of the petitioned property with commercial uses as permitted in the RC District will not conflict with the State of Michigan owned freeway ramp and right-of-way property to the west.

The property south of the subject property is in the R-A District and designated for Regional Commercial on the Future Land Use Map approved in 2004. The property contains electric transmission lines and a transformer substation. The development of the parcels in the petition in a manner consistent with the uses permitted in the RC District will not conflict with the current use or planned future uses.

The property to the east of the subject property was developed under the PD-1 option as mid-rise residential condominiums. It is located in the Low Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-1) Zoning District and the property is designated for Residential Planned Development (PD-1) on the Future Land Use Map. Commercial uses should be compatible with the mid-rise residential development although the development of the property in the petition could increase traffic on the private roads providing service to the condominiums.

Approximately 112 feet of the west boundary and 60 feet of the east boundary also borders parcels zoned RC and in the Master Plan for Regional Commercial.

The current Residential Acreage (R-A) District is intended to provide areas within the community for a particular living environment characterized by large lot, low density, single-family dwellings. Permitted uses include One family dwellings; farms, greenhouses, public parks; cemeteries, schools; Home occupations; Uses permitted subject to special conditions include Raising of nursery plants; dairies, dairy farm; keeping and raising of livestock; bed and breakfasts, churches, day care centers, recreation centers, golf course, colleges, and mortuaries.

The proposed Regional Center (RC) District is intended to permit major planned commercial centers that will, by virtue of their size, serve not only the local community, but the surrounding market area as well. Uses permitted include regional and community shopping centers; hotel/motels; transit stations; parks and recreational facilities; public utility offices; amusement and entertainment uses; offices; medical offices and clinics; hospitals; sanitariums; convalescent homes; hospice care and assisted living facilities; financial institutions; personal services; off-street parking lots; and churches. Uses permitted subject to special conditions include Gasoline station; open air business uses, amusement park; restaurants; mortuaries; public buildings; public utility offices; day Care Centers; indoor recreation; retail stores; personal services; dry cleaning; and instructional centers.

The alternative General Business (B-3) District is intended to provide sites for more diversified business types which would often be incompatible with the pedestrian movement in the Local Business District or the Community Business District. The B-3 district permits similar uses with additional uses permitted subject to special conditions including auto sales and nurseries.

Staff recommends approval of the petition from Residential Acreage (R-A) to Regional Center (RC) because the petition is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use approved in 2004. The impact upon the neighboring residential and commercial properties should be minimal. The property is a logical extension of the adjacent Regional Center District.

Mr. Bruce Heckman, Vice President of Development for the Taubman Company, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the Planning Department has done a comprehensive evaluation of the rezoning request. These 27 acres were purchased eight to ten years ago from MDOT. There has been no hurry to develop this land, as it has sensitive environmental features and is it the front door for the mall and the community in general. The Taubman Company is now moving forward with the Nordstrom’s expansion, so they are considering that portion of the subject property that is not encumbered on the natural features. They would put any development on this site where it is appropriate, and he noted that decision would be dependent on the wetland and woodland reviews. At least 25% of the site contains natural features, scattered throughout the site. It is not their intent to flip this property for a fast buck.

Mr. Heckman said that they are working with The Enclave to ensure that this design is sensitive to their needs. The area nearest them is woodland, and will remain as a buffer. They are looking for an alternative access for The Enclave so that they have another exit for their use.

Mr. Heckman said that the Taubman Company sees this request as consistent with the Master Plan. He asked for the Planning Commission’s thoughtful consideration.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Heckman to describe their proposed improvements to the traffic flow. He felt that the La-z boy letter described the need for parking between JC Penney’s and Marshall Field’s. This southeasterly area is precisely where the additional parking is proposed. The ring road will also be realigned to allow for more stacking.

Member Cassis asked about the environmental features on the site. Mr. Heckman said that when the expansion plans come forward, more definition of the area will have taken place. Future plans for the balance of vacant land will come before the Planning Commission when there is a plan.

Member Cassis asked for examples of how The Taubman Company would have to move forward with any design proposed for the environmentally sensitive areas. Mr. Spencer responded that woodland removal would require a woodland permit. Filling regulated wetlands would require a wetland permit. They are the rules City wide.

Member Cassis said that although he was making site plan issue comments, he felt they were valid in light of La-z Boy’s concerns. He was comfortable that the comments made by Mr. Heckman would be a positive improvement to the area, especially for La-z Boy.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Wrobel supported the motion. He wondered if the future use of the land for parking put the parking in the appropriate area. Mr. Heckman said that they are physically limited in their choices. They do not want to encroach upon the Enclave property. They do own property closer to them, but they did not think this was appropriate. Nordstrom’s has reviewed this plan, and they are satisfied with the proposed concept. There will be a north and south entrances as well as an easterly entrance. People generally seek the area between Marshall Field’s and JC Penney to park, so for that reason as well, it is a good location for additional parking.

Member Wrobel asked whether there has been any consideration made regarding traffic. Mr. Spencer said that this is a site plan issue that would be further studied at the time of site plan submittal.

Member Pehrson asked if the intent was to keep a buffer between the mall and the Enclave. Mr. Heckman said that they felt the natural buffer was the woodlands. That is a bit east of the DTE road. If another road is designed for the Enclave, it would probably be located where there is currently a dirt path/road. This wouldn’t affect more trees as the path is already there. The Taubman Company is working with the Enclave to maintain the woodlands between the two properties.

Member Pehrson asked whether the changes shown in the traffic review was the worse case scenario. Traffic Consultant Alex Rucinski said it all depends on the size of the building that is put on the site. 25% of the 27 acres is not developable and a 50,000 square foot development is smaller than what could be expected. That is why the Traffic Consultant requested a full Traffic Impact Study be performed when a development for that area comes forward.

Chair Kocan said that the setback would have to be 135 feet, since a foot of setback must be added for each foot of building height. Without the woodlands, a six to eight foot berm would have been necessary. Chair Kocan asked if the request for a traffic study is a given or over and above what is required. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that it is more than what would typically be asked for. Mr. Heckman said it would be their intent to provide the study.

Chair Kocan said she knew that the Enclave was concerned about traffic, but that is a site plan issue. She asked how a restaurant or retail was considered a Special Land Use. Ms. McBeth said that if a restaurant is a freestanding building buildings, it is considered a Special Land Use. The commercial uses are permitted. Mr. Heckman reiterated that they are working side by side with the Enclave.

Member Meyer said he appreciated the image that the Taubman Company conveys at a gateway entrance into the City. He hoped that they would continue in this manner.

Chair Kocan called for a short break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Ryan Dembs of Amson-Dembs Development for a recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile, east of West Park Drive, from I-2, General Industrial, to I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is approximately 4.5 acres.

Planner Mark Spencer stated that Amson Dembs Development Company was requesting the rezoning of approximately 2.3 acres, a portion of a 4.5 acre parcel in Section Nine of the City of Novi. The parcel is part of a larger parcel within the area covered by the Novi Corporate Parkway road and utilities plan approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2004. The property in the petition is located in both the Light Industrial (I-1) District and the General Industrial (I-2) District. The Applicant has provided a Preliminary Site Plan which shows the development of a 49,972 sq. ft. speculative light industrial/warehouse building on the 4.5 acre parcel. The request is to rezone a portion of the parcel from I-2 to I-1 to allow the entire proposed development parcel to be zoned I-1, Light industrial. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee considered this request on July 26, 2005 and recommended positive consideration to the Planning Commission.

The 1993 Master Plan for Land Use shows this area as Heavy Industrial. And the 1999and 2004 Plan designates this area as Light Industrial. The Applicant’s request to rezone the subject property to the Light Industrial District (I-1) is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use designation for Light Industrial uses. To the east, south and north, the future land use designation is Light Industrial and the property to the west is General Industrial. Further to the south the property is master planned for Office uses.

The site is zoned General Industrial (I-2) and Light industrial (I-1). The zoning to the north, east and west is I-2, General Industrial. To the south the land is Light Industrial and Office Service Technology. The request to rezone to Light Industrial is compatible with these neighboring zoning districts.

The Regulated Woodlands map shows medium cover on a portion of the property in the petition. This will be addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan submittal. The City’s Wetlands Map does not show any potential wetlands on the property, but the site plan submitted for Novi Corporate Parkway indicates that a small amount of wetland exists along the east boundary of the property. The Natural Features Map does not show any critical wildlife habitat on the property in the petition.

Public water is available at Twelve Mile and West Park Drive. The Novi Corporate Parkway site plan included provisions to extend the sanitary sewer for possible sewer lead or main extension and to build a storm water system to service this parcel.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Edwin Bozian, 3775 Terrybrook, West Bloomfield: Approved of the request.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan confirmed with Mr. Spencer that the split from the parent parcel did not have to be accomplished prior to this rezoning request being heard.

Consideration of the request of the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions for an Unlisted Use Determination under Section 2523. The Applicant is requesting a determination on the appropriateness of a building with multiple residences, a chapel, and offices in the R-1 Zoning District.

Planner Tim Schmitt reminded the Planning Commission that within the past year the Unlisted Use Determination issue was reviewed by the Implementation Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. It first came to light with the doggie daycare, which didn’t quite fit any description in the Ordinance. Steps were taken to amend the Ordinance to address all uses that aren’t specifically listed in the Ordinance. The new language now allows for the Planning Commission to consider a use or the appropriateness of a use, and make a recommendation to City Council on allowing the use. The language allows the use to be considered in a district or districts as a Special Land Use. The Planning Commission will review every Unlisted Use and things like location, bulk, height and area dimensional requirements will come into play. At this time, the Planning Commission is asked to consider which zoning districts are appropriate for the proposed use.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions (PIME) is seeking approval of a facility with eight permanent priest residences, eight transient priest residences, an office and chapel component. The scale of this use is not typically found in church. The chapel is small, the office component is larger and there are more residences than what is found with a church.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant is seeking to change his zoning on the subject property from R-3 to R-1, and that the Unlisted Use, if considered appropriate, should apply to all residential districts equally. The important thing to consider is the scale of the various uses within the building. The Planning Commission was provided with a copy of the floor plan. The square footages of each use were noted, although there are areas that would lend themselves to more than one use. The building is essentially three wings. Staff recommends that this use be treated like a church facility, which makes it a Special Land Use, subject to six specific conditions:

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that letters of support were received by Providence Hospital and Paul Bosco. Member Wrobel was asked to read another letter into the record:

Allen and Helen Burton, neighbors: Currently had no objections to the plan, but did have concerns about drainage control, night lighting and headlight traffic, and they requested a high berm with dense evergreens for light and noise attenuation.

John Burns, attorney for PIME, addressed the Planning Commission. PIME is a Roman Catholic missionary group with missions in third world countries. This would be the North American headquarters. It is currently in Detroit but they are looking to relocate. The chapel would be for 60-70 persons. There are church meeting rooms, residential quarters for the priests and other required rooms. It would not have a regular weekly congregation. The impact on the roads would be a lot less than a typical church. Daily, there would be religious services attended by the priests and the workers. Occasionally there would be special services – celebrations, weddings, baptisms, funerals, etc. Monthly, there is a 20-25 person prayer group.

The building would be located location on the southerly twenty acres. The northerly acres would not be developed. To the west is a high electric utility line. To the east the property is mostly adjacent to the Providence campus. The Burton house does abut the property on the east as well.

Mr. Burns did not think that the issue raised at the meeting were a problem, and he said that PIME would be able to address all of them.

Chair Kocan said this motion would be a recommendation to City Council. This project would become a Special Land Use. The plan would still have to go through that entire process.

Member Pehrson struggled with the Unlisted Use Determination, because he said there would be some type of regular assembly on the site. Priests will live on site and could give services at any time. He was more likely to feel that this falls under the definition of a church. He felt that the conundrum was that there were offices on site.

Member Meyer said that the definition of a church is canonical, i.e., a church’s definition of a church. This is not a church in that it will house once-per-week congregations or weekly meetings, this is an offshoot of "the church" known as the Roman Catholic Church. This church would not be recognized canonically from a diocesan viewpoint, particularly because it is a pontifical one and it is the North American branch of PIME. Mr. Burns agreed, but said that this PIME cannot exist without the Cardinal’s permission.

Mr. Burns said that there were six priests, and all of them were young. They would either say mass at PIME or travel to other churches that need priests. Mr. Burns said that PIME met the civil law definition of a church.

Member Meyer’s point was that this use might actually be an Unlisted Use, since it doesn’t meet the canonical definition of church.

Member Cassis said this was an epistemological discussion, meaning that it is based on the definition of terms, almost semantic. Episcopal means based on church terms.

Member Cassis said that 58.9% of the building is residential. The chapel is 17.5%. Office is 23.6%. Every church has offices. Member Cassis looked at the amount of space used for the primary function. He said it was ecumenical and the world needs more of these uses.

Member Cassis said that the process of elimination could also be used. Could it be considered an office building? Could it be considered commercial? Could it be considered industrial? The remaining choice is the zoning that the Applicant is seeking. He was impressed by the letter from Providence stating that this would be a vital and important use that would complement the hospital. It would help in giving comfort, spiritual counseling and ministry. He felt that the natural resources were also being considered. Member Cassis said that the Implementation Committee had already discussed this use and they felt this use belonged in residential zoning.

Member Cassis asked about the parking. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant will be submitting his plan with a PRO. Mr. Schmitt did not expect major problems with their parking.

Chair Kocan asked why the Applicant would use a PRO. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant was expected to ask for a rezoning to R-1 from R-3. These districts are regulated generally the same. He thought their concern was what would happen if the site plan were denied but the rezoning was approved.

Chair Kocan asked whether the six standards listed by Mr. Schmitt were applicable to all districts. Mr. Schmitt said that it is from 402.1 and pertains to all residential districts R-1 through R-4.

Member Wrobel read Mr. Casselou’s letter wherein it states that the priests would be involved in the ministry at the hospital. He asked whether this was a contractual situation. Mr. Burns said this would be worked out. When the hospital develops a hospice, PIME would work something out with the hospital that families could come to PIME for spiritual counseling. There is no firm plan.

Member Wrobel asked about the northerly ten acres. He said that it would be landlocked. PIME would like to work it out with Providence that they buy that land. PIME does not want that land. Providence would be more comfortable, they think, if they own the land. Mr. Burns said PIME would, if necessary, keep the property’s ownership and leave the land in its natural state. Mr. Schmitt said that the ten acres would be an item for discussion in the PRO process.

Chair Kocan said she was confused about the PRO. The fact that this use would be a Special Land Use, the Planning Commission would be looking at this plan’s impact on the neighboring residential area. Could this use be considered like a church? Mr. Schmitt said that in some regards density is an issue, because the residential component is different than a typical church. Chair Kocan said it is sixteen rooms on ten acres, but she wasn’t as concerned about the rooms. She thought about the offices, but she said fifteen of these buildings could fit into Brightmoor, which is in a residential district. She was comforted by the fact that it has to go through the Special Land Use process. She said that the City didn’t want Providence cutting out into Eleven Mile. There are concerns regarding the site plan. This is just a recommendation on the Unlisted Use; the Special Land Use review would come later. There are lighting concerns. There are traffic concerns. The Planning Commission will have to make findings. Chair Kocan could support this because she found the use to be similar to a church.

Chair Kocan asked about the homeless shelter held annually at the Holy Family Church, and whether it required a special permit from the Building Department. Mr. Schmitt said he had no knowledge of this issue. Mr. Burns said that PIME has no intention of having a homeless shelter. Chair Kocan said that Holy Family has no overnight stays. Mr. Burns said that PIME posts a sign that they do not provide overnight aid. Chair Kocan just wondered because churches don’t typically have overnight stays. Other communities cannot have shelters because they are in areas where overnight stays are not allowed.

Mr. Burns said that eight bedrooms are apartments for residents. The other eight are for meetings, when other priests visit.

Mr. Schmitt said that the recommended should be framed such that positive recommendation is made to City Council that the proposed PIME facility be treated similar to a church, as indicated in Section 402.1.

Chair Kocan wanted to add, "for R-1," but Mr. Schmitt suggested, "...similar to the standards in Section 402.1." Chair Kocan wanted the approval strictly for R-1. Mr. Schmitt said that was the Planning Commission’s discretion. R-1 through R-4 are lumped together, there is the presumption that any four of the districts would be appropriate. Member Pehrson was prepared to use Mr. Schmitt’s language in the motion, but he wanted it to be solely R-1.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Meyer hoped that the Applicant takes the lighting issue presented by the neighbors into consideration when they design the actual site.

Chair Kocan suggested that the Consent Agenda be handled at this time so that the Applicant did not have to wait for the administrative issue of Committee Member Appointments.

Consideration on the request of Vistal Land and Home Development for revised Final Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 35, west of Meadowbrook Road and north of Eight Mile in the R-1, One-family Residential District. The subject property is 7.983 acres. The Applicant is requesting a Planning Commission waiver to continue a previously approved wall in lieu of the right-of-way berm along Meadowbrook Road.

Chair Kocan pulled this item because she noted in the March 20, 2002 minutes stated that the wall was thirty inches tall. Now the Applicant is proposing a 5.5 foot wall. She understood that there were areas for a wall and areas for berms. She did not want a wall this tall.

Planner Tim Schmitt said that this submittal was considered a revised Final Site Plan. They are also modifying the right-of-way. There is no mention of why there were three treatments originally. Ultimately, the concern was more focused on the wall near the creek for its protection. There was a disconnect. When construction began, they realized there were three different treatments. This revision was meant to address that lack of uniformity.

Paul Bauman, 44723 Ford Way, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. The reasons for the higher wall are for sound attenuation and privacy. It is an attractive wall. The future owners of the three lots already sold favor the new wall design. All of their prospective clients prefer the wall.

Member Cassis asked to see an enlarged rendering of the wall. The materials would be brick and limestone. They may incorporate lights at the entrances or flower pots. Member Cassis thought the design was decorative and tasteful. Mr. Bauman said this site looked chopped up with the berm-wall-fencing design. There are wetlands so a berm could not be placed all the way across.

Member Cassis said the property was not very big. It will only have ten lots, a basin and a creek. Member Cassis said that a chopped up berm would not do this site justice. The scale and the appeal of the site would be more harmonious with a wall.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman thought that the original plan came down to dollars. Walls are more expensive. The partial wall was necessary because of the creek. This full wall could be considered an upgrade. Height-wise, there are other five foot walls in the community – on major thoroughfares and roads like Taft Road and Ten Mile. The old Ordinance gave thirty inches as the minimum height. It did not provide a maximum height. The Planning Commission gives permission for a wall, and therefore can also make the determination on the height. Aesthetically, this wall can be designed well. It can be as nice as a berm. It is the Planning Commission’s discretion, as to what their desire is for Meadowbrook Road. Would this enhance or detract from the road?

Member Cassis asked about the wall across the street from this plan. Mr. Shipman responded that it was a smaller sign wall – an entrance feature. Member Cassis said that the Applicant should be held to using brick and limestone. The design should be complemented with shrubbery or plants. Mr. Shipman said the Ordinance requires masonry. The Applicant has stated for the record it would be brick and limestone. Mr. Shipman agreed to continue to work with their landscape architect on the plant material.

Member Cassis supported the Applicant’s request. It was more pleasing and more consistent. It would be more elegant than a berm.

Member Wrobel agreed it was personal preference. He liked walls. He thought, however, that everything else along that road had a berm. From an aesthetic point of view, the wall would stick out like a sore thumb. He wanted to hear from the other Planning Commission members.

Member Pehrson was concerned about the wall’s height. He thought some other examples of brick walls stick out like a sore thumb. He did not think that one five-foot brick wall along Meadowbrook would fit the area. If it were only thirty inches that functioned to break up the area as opposed to a berm which wouldn’t fit, then that would be fine. One wall along Meadowbrook would not fit the area.

Chair Kocan asked if the Planning Commission had discretion in their approval of the wall. City Attorney David Gillam responded that their discretion could be for any height over the minimum stated in the Ordinance. Chair Kocan did not think it was compatible with the area. 2.5 feet may not be tall enough, but 3.5-4 feet could be okay. Chair Kocan wanted to be able to see the landscaping. She said that the City has a lot of brick and while it’s nice, the landscaping around them is important. She would support a 3.5-4.0 foot wall for consistency.

Moved by Member Lipski, seconded by Member Gutman:

Mr. Shipman suggested that the motion state that the Applicant will continue to work with the City to ensure the intent of their landscaping design is met. The maker and the seconder agreed.

Mr. Bauman said that there is no berm along Meadowbrook Road at all. A 3.5-4.0 foot wall would not be visible with the planned landscaping. It wouldn’t make sense to spend the money on a wall that was not visible. People who are planning to live here would prefer to have the wall. He actually wanted a five-foot wall, but it was placed in the plans at 5’8". Churchill Crossing’s walls step down because that is less expensive. He was willing to spend the money. With landscaping and a sidewalk, the area would be enhanced.

Member Lipski indicated that he could no longer support the four-foot. Member Gutman asked to withdraw his friendly amendment and Member Lipski asked that the motion remain as originally stated – granting the Applicant’s petition as requested. Member Lipski then said that he would limit it to five feet. Member Gutman agreed. This also included Mr. Shipman’s requested language.

Member Cassis said that Mr. Bauman offered a logical explanation for a taller wall. It would be more aesthetically pleasing and correct. The bushes may be nearly as high as the wall. Further, he thought five foot was more desirable because their design include changes to the height or more decorative features. If the Applicant continues to work with the City, the end result will be a better and more functional design.

Mr. Shipman asked for clarification of where the five feet would be measured at – the wall or the pier section? The southerly portion of the wall abuts the sidewalk, so there is no opportunity for landscaping. The wall could perhaps be stepped down in that area, since it is in front of the detention basin, not a home.

Member Meyer said that the wall will be a major difference along Meadowbrook Road. He did not see this plan as appropriate for the road.

Mr. Bauman said that the wall would not be taller than five feet, but the piers would be taller – by about six or so inches. He did not have a problem with stepping down the wall height near the basin but he didn’t think it would look as good. It would look like someone was trying to cut corners.

Moved by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Meyer:

Mr. Shipman said that the old site plan was a thirty inch wall from the creek crossing heading south. There was a fence section that bridged the creek. From that location there is a thirty inch earth berm heading north. The landscaping was approved according to the Ordinance. With the motion of denial, the Applicant is required to build according to the original plan. Chair Kocan confirmed that the Applicant could appeal to the ZBA.

The Applicant asked if the Planning Commission would approve the five foot wall if the height stepped down near the creek.

The Planning Commission discussed their preferences for Committee assignments. Chair Kocan suggested that Member Cassis petition City Council to appoint a ninth Commissioner. Immediately below is the outcome of their discussion, and all motions were unanimously passed.

Administrative Liaison: Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan, Wayne Wrobel

Planning Studies and Budget: Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Mark Pehrson

CIP: Andrew Gutman, Mark Pehrson, Lynn Kocan (Alternate)

Environmental: David Lipski, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Communication and Community Liaison: David Lipski, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Implementation: John Avdoulos, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, Mark Pehrson

Master Plan and Zoning: John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Wayne Wrobel

Rules: John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan

Main Street: David Lipski, Wayne Wrobel

Chair Kocan said that Planning Studies and Budget go hand in hand. The time commitment is from November to March. Environmental, Community Liaison, Rules and Main Street committees do not have the same time commitments as the Implementation Committee and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Implementation Committee: Requires four members, and six had indicated interest. Member Cassis withdrew his name. Member Meyer withdrew his name.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Master Plan and Zoning Committee: Requires four members. Member Wrobel was asked to join the Committee.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Planning Studies and Budget and CIP: Four members are required for Budget and two for CIP.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Environmental: Three members are required. This Committee is working on the Greenway and Pathway plan and currently the plan is to solicit information from the public via a survey placed in the Parks and Recreation Department brochure. The Committee will become more active in late fall.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Communication and Community Liaison: Three members are required.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Rules Committee: Three members are required.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Motion to elect John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Lynn Kocan to the Rules Committee.

Main Street Committee: Two members are required.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

This item was moved forward in the meeting.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth stated that a copy of the approved Planning Commission budget was included in the Planning Commission packet.

Magazines and Periodicals $400

Memberships and Dues 900

Planning Commission Briefing/Education 900

Greenways and Trails Plan 8,000

Printing and Publishing (Master Plan) 10,000

Conferences and Workshops 5,200

Total $25,400

Ms. McBeth stated that some conference information was also in their packet. She noted that the conference line item also includes the Planning Commission meeting refreshments. She discussed the conferences at Mackinac Island and in Texas, and reminded the Planning Commission about the Citizen Planner Program. The Mackinac Island conference would cost about $1,500 per attendee. The Education line might include items such as a seminar led by the City Attorney’s office. Chair Kocan encouraged any Planning Commission member who was interested in attending the Mackinac conference or the workshop to let the Planning Department know.

The Planning Commission thanked Chair Kocan for her chairmanship over the past year.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson,

The meeting adjourned at 11:23 p.m.

MON 08/15/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 08/22/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/24/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/05/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 09/12/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/13/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/14/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/26/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/28/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, August 17, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: August 24, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date