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

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle (excused early), Shroyer, Sprague

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, City Engineer; John Martin, City Attorney

Member Markham led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Ruyle asked that the Matters for Consideration items be switched in order. Because one of the Petitioners was not present in full force, it was determined that the order of the Agenda would remain the same.

Member Markham noted that the next Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting is on October 8, 2003. She told the Planning Commission that the first Master Plan and Zoning Committee Master Plan Citizen input meeting will be held on September 29, 2003 at 7:00 p.m.

Member Kocan said that the Implementation Committee will meet on October 9, 2003.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

Chair Nagy opened the floor to any one who wished to address the Planning Commission.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road: Thanked the Planning Commission for their supporting the residents of Bristol Corners during the Beck North site plan review. He questioned the continuing policy of allowing smaller, cookie cutter developments that increase traffic, among other things, in the City. He supports the idea of maintaining a sufficient number of large-lot homes in Novi.

Chair Nagy closed the first Audience Participation.

There was no Correspondence to report.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports at this meeting.

David Evancoe, Director of Planning, introduced John Martin, who was representing the City Attorney’s office at the meeting.

Mr. Evancoe announced that Fall for Novi would be held on Saturday, September 20, 2003 from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at the Civic Center. This is a family fun event.

Mr. Evancoe discussed the Planning Commission Summary and told the Commissioners that he would answer any specific questions about site plans that may arise from their review of this document.

The Planning Commission discussed the 2004 Planning Commission calendar – the number of meetings during the summer months, the December 22, 2004 meeting date and conflicting City Council dates.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Ruyle:

Consideration of the request of Raymond Galper for a one-year final site plan and Special Land Use extension. The subject property is located in Section 24, west of Haggerty Road and north of Grand River Avenue. The developer proposed a 17,451 square foot building in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.97 acres.

Member Ruyle said this was the second request of this Applicant for an extension.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes, LLC for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium, Storm Water Management Plan, and Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 22, on the east side of Taft Road between Ten and Eleven Mile roads in R-4 (Single Family Residential). The subject property is 9.68 acres. The developer is proposing a 22-unit residential site condominium.

City Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is across from Novi Meadows Elementary School and is zoned R-4, and master planned Single Family Residential. The north, south and east are zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential at densities consistent with the R-4 zoning. Novi Meadows, Novi Woods, Park Elementary and the Spirit of 76 Park are zoned R-A and master planned for public use.

Mr. Schmitt showed the proposed 22 units that run along Taft Knolls Drive and Munro Drive. The Planning Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Schmitt noted that the Applicant has provided an alternative plan that shows a cul-de-sac rather than a t-design; the Planning Department reviewed the t-design because they found it to be a superior plan that provides for future access to the north and south abutting properties. The required waiver for the excessive length of the road is substantiated by the fact that the design provides for better access to the surrounding properties that are anticipated to be developed in similar manner, and would reduce curb cuts on Taft Road.

The Wetlands Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The impacts involve the filling of a non-essential wetland and temporary buffer disturbance of 2,820 square feet for the construction of the sedimentation basin and a fill of 104 cubic yards for the sedimentation basin. There are no regulated woodlands on the site. The Landscape Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Mr. Schmitt noted that this plan comes into the City under the new Landscape Ordinance, so some items on this plan must be changed to accommodate the new language; he emphasized that the City will work closely with Applicants whose plans have been caught in this transition. The Engineering Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Traffic Review and Fire Department Review both indicated that a Design and Construction Waiver is necessary to address the length of the road.

Member Kocan confirmed that the maximum length for the cul-de-sac is 800 feet. Chair Nagy confirmed with Mr. Evancoe that the new Landscape Ordinance is now in effect, and if a Preliminary Site Plan has not yet been approved it will have to comply.

Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes addressed the Planning Commission. This is the third project for this Applicant in Novi. He noted that the plan meets the intent of the Ordinance except the excessive road length and the new landscaping language but he ensured the Planning Commission that their Final Landscaping Plan would comply.

Mr. Fellows concurred with Mr. Schmitt’s comments that the t-design is a better design than the cul-de-sac design. He said the alternate design was submitted at the request of Fire Marshal Michael Evans, because the excessive length of the t-design may adversely affect a number of homes in the event of a road blockage at the throat of the street. Both plans yield 22 homes so Mr. Fellows concluded that the t-design is not inherently less safe than the cul-de-sac design.

Member Kocan read the correspondence into the record:

Jean Gattrell, 44775 West Eleven Mile: Asked whether this project would affect neighboring wells, and asked where the water would go, as it takes years for a wetland to form. She is concerned that the buildings will not be stabilized.

Jane Tierney, 25339 Sullivan Lane: Requested that the tree buffer be left intact between Taft Knolls and Cedar Springs Estates (it was noted that this is not a requirement of the Ordinance, to buffer two residential properties from each other).

Rasa Poorman, 25529 Keenan Ct: Against urban sprawl, wants to preserve woodlands and stop increasing traffic. She also asked that the notices be sent sooner than four days prior to a meeting (it was noted that the notices were sent out within the legal timeframe).

John Benson, 25651 Sullivan Lane: Objected since he did not receive a copy of the site plan (it was noted that the City and the library both have site plans available for review).

Chair Nagy asked the audience whether anyone wished to comment:

Rich Bartlett, 25507 Sullivan Lane: Asked whether a Taft Knolls woodland plan was available for review (Chair Nagy said there were no regulated woodlands on the site). He then asked Mr. Fellows what his intentions were. He responded that most of the clearing of this property has already taken place. The rearyard storm systems and rearyard underground electrical may affect the perimeter, but the site is pretty well cleared already. The eastern end of the property that abuts Cedar Springs Estates is a wetland that will not be disturbed except for the construction of the sedimentation basin. He estimated that this area was at least 230 feet wide. Mr. Bartlett said that the design is not consistent with the area’s homes and that it will deter from the harmony that is established in the area.

Patrick Grimes, 25531 Sullivan Lane: Concerned that the design looks like row housing, and if the neighboring parcels develop in similar manner it is going to be ugly. The design does not complement Cedar Springs, Jamestown or the property east of Cedar Springs. Chair Nagy responded that the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to confirming that the site meets the City’s Ordinance.

Terry Kazakos, 25411 Sullivan Lane: Cited three primary objections: 1) The added traffic on Taft Road. He noted that in a ¾ mile radius there are three public schools and an administration building that already create quite a bit of traffic. This plan threatens the road safety of an area where the citizens transport their children, and sets a precedent for the surrounding parcels to develop in similar manner; 2) The design threatens the property value of the neighboring homes, especially those who paid premiums to be near the wetlands; and 3) He asked if the City has exercised due diligence in its zoning, property designations and Master Plan, and he questioned why the City needs to honor this site plan request. If it is for the betterment of the Community and of benefit to the existing taxpayers, that would make this honoring this request reasonable; but if it is simply to reward a property owner at the expense, economically or otherwise, of current residents then it seems irresponsible. He acknowledged that the property is zoned R-4 but this plan will negatively impact several residents and will only benefit one individual; he asked that the Planning Commission consider that balance whiler reviewing this plan. He said that approval of this plan ignores the needs of the current residents, causes many of them economic adversity and sends a message to the community that entrepreneurial benefits are paramount to the impact on residents. He said the Master Plan has little bearing on how the City is developed.

Gilbert VanSickle, 25650 Taft: Owns the property north of this development, and his mother owns the property to the south. The proposed property was once part of their family farm that was established in 1874. He does not wish to have such an influx of neighbors and he would like to erect a fence between this property and his. He asked whether there is a barrier that will prohibit people from accessing the neighboring properties at the t-designed road, because his family has run a saw mill operation since 1933 and there are dangerous log piles and the like on his property. He said that the subject property was sold off by his cousin, and his mother’s property will someday be his sister’s. Chair Nagy assured the speaker that the Planning Commission will ask the Applicant pertinent questions relating to the buffering between his land and the subject property.

Bill Spagnoli, 25150 Taft Road: Visited the Planning Department to review the site plan and spoke with City Engineer Ben Croy. He said that the project is narrow and deep and the developer has satisfactorily done what he could with a site plan for the property. He was concerned that the Applicant plans on tapping into the sewer system at the school rather than in a location that would provide tapping ability for the more southern parcels. If the sewer was brought up from the south, through the City-owned land (purchased to address some storm water issues) more residents in the Community would be served. A pumping station for the sanitary sewer could be designed to accommodate everyone in the area (#10 of the Engineering Review). He recommended that the pumping station be upgraded in size to accomplish this, and stated that he understood that he would be responsible for the costs associated with his tapping into the system. He said that the Applicant plans to access water through the school property as well, which does not help the residents to the south of the subject property. He questioned whether either of these designs was consistent with the Master Plan. He supported the project with the exception of the Applicant’s tapping into utilities through the school property.

Devender Etikala, 25459 Sullivan: Asked whether any effort is being made to preserve the natural features of the land. Chair Nagy responded that they have submitted a design that respects the preservation of the wetlands, and there are no regulated woodlands on the site. Mr. Etikala asked if the proposed site plan sets a precedent for the adjoining properties to be developed in like manner. Chair Nagy responded that she can’t answer that, but she reiterated that this site plan has been submitted within the guidelines of what is permitted in this zoning district.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Ruyle asked the Applicant if he would put in a firm tree line such as evergreens along the northern property to screen between the subject property and Mr. Van Sickle’s property. Mr. Fellows preferred a tree screen to a fence as well, and he offered to meet with Mr. Van Sickle to further discuss this issue. He commented that he would not be the property owner of those eight parcels, and that anything placed there could be removed by the purchaser of the lot.

Mr. Fellows also told Member Ruyle that vehicles will not be able to drive beyond the subject property’s street stubs.

Member Ruyle asked how many different elevations would be offered in this development. Mr. Fellows responded that the choices are limitless, because they try to accommodate whatever request the prospect has. At his Brookhaven project they are offering five plans and each of those plans have four elevations from which to choose. He also said that Weston Estates has a similar character to what the Applicant is proposing for Taft Knolls. He plans to keep the price under $400,000 in Taft Knolls, and the square footage ranges from 2,600 to 4,267 square feet.

Member Shroyer said that the Master Plan for bikeways does not currently show a plan for the east-side Taft Road corridor between Ten and Eleven Mile. Mr. Croy responded that the Master Plan does indicate an eight-foot path on the west side of Taft Road. Member Shroyer cited Section 2520.4.a regarding façade drawings and 2520.4.b regarding floor plans and asked whether the City had received any of this information from the Applicant. Mr. Schmitt said that this information is required at the time that each individual lot is permitted.

Member Shroyer said that the City encourages creativity and he is concerned about the straight-in road from Taft Road. This, he said, limits the Applicant’s creativity and innovation. Member Shroyer did appreciate the t-design over the cul-de-sac design. He also approved of the Applicant’s leaving the wetland intact, especially because it adds a buffer between this property and the neighboring subdivision.

Member Markham agreed that this plan is not very creative, and she is concerned that over time this area will develop into an uninteresting subdivision-like area of homes. She preferred the t-design over the cul-de-sac. Member Markham said that in the previous evening’s Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting they discussed the importance of providing residential collector roads throughout the City. These roads keep routine traffic congestion from taking over the other roads like Ten Mile. Member Markham would prefer to see these stubs being placed more in the center of the parcel’s depth. She acknowledged that there is a lot of traffic on Taft Road and she does not want future development in this area resulting in a half-dozen cul-de-sacs dumping out on Taft Road.

Member Markham said that the Applicant’s Brookhaven project differs from Taft Knolls in that its surroundings were developed and this project is surrounded by vacant land. She would prefer more creativity, variation in lot sizes, and greater sensitivity to the topography of the entire area when locating the subdivision collector road. She cautioned the Applicant that poor placement of the road could adversely affect future traffic, including construction traffic relating to future development in the area.

Member Paul did not think the property was zoned properly. She said that the new Landscape Ordinance and additional creativity on the part of the Applicant will help in shaping this project. She suggested that the Applicant use more rural facades in his selection of homes – stone fronts, front porches – to maintain the area’s character. Member Paul had reservations about the use of collector roads, stating that they can produce non-pedestrian friendly traffic. She agreed that moving the t-design road to the center would be better, and it would impact the wetlands less as well. She asked the Applicant to consider planting evergreens on the properties that abut the wetland, which would also improve the opacity of the area and benefit the neighboring properties. She would also like to see some screening between this property and the Van Sickle properties. She asked the Applicant if he would look at that suggestion, and Mr. Fellows responded that he likes the trees too, as do his customers. Mr. Fellows also noted that near the wetland there is a fair collection of thick brush and shrubs that provides opacity even in the winter. He said he would supplement the area with more evergreens.

Member Paul asked Mr. Croy about the utilities; he responded that the water tap-in will come from the school’s water system (straight west under Taft road) and the sanitary would be pumped up to the City’s sanitary system north along Taft Road which is also part of the school system. She asked if residents are allowed to tap into the system, and Mr. Croy responded that the ideal situation is for the local residents to be able to make use of the utilities once they’re placed, and it may be a requirement if the hook-up is feasible. She asked which department at the City is responsible for contacting the residents to inform them of this service.

Member Paul asked for whose sewer service was the tree clearing at the north end of Glenda Drive performed. Mr. Croy explained that the Applicant needs to receive Preliminary Site Plan approval before he will invest in a fully detailed plan on the utilities for the property. Subsequent submittals will better determine from which direction the connections will ultimately come. He said that it is possible that connecting to the Glenda Drive system may not be feasible but again, this would be determined once the Preliminary Site Plan has been approved. She supported the project because it is in compliance with the zoning but she asked the Applicant to apply creativity in façade placement and evergreen plantings.

Member Sprague appreciated the site plan, and thought the Applicant’s request for the waiver was reasonable and that the t-design site plan would not create additional adverse effects. He said that the property should not have been zoned R-4 if the City’s intent was to maintain the rural nature of the area. He felt the t-design stub barriers are necessary and he supported the use of an evergreen line along the northern edge of the property.

Member Sprague asked the Applicant about the wetland buffer disturbance in the detention pond area. Mr. Fellows stated for the record that he would be enhancing the landscaping in that area.

Member Sprague said the placement of the t-design is an important decision because of the anticipated tie-ins to the other properties on which other protected wetland and woodland areas exist. Mr. Schmitt’s initial analysis of the area’s topography lends credence to the currently proposed t-design location. The southern wetlands along the east property line begin to meander to the west; there is also a wetland right in the center of the south property. If the t-design is moved to the center of this parcel it runs the risk of running into that southern property’s wetland – requiring the filling of the wetland or a sharp road angle to avoid it. Mr. Schmitt thought the more eastern placement of the t-design provides the most possibilities for future tie-ins.

Member Avdoulos said it is difficult to meander a road through a tight property such as this. He noted that the subdivision to the east has seventeen lots in a row before there is a curve in the road and the property to the south of Novi Woods has eleven lots in a straight row, and the west property also has several houses in a straight row. These parcels are similar in size to each other and Member Avdoulos thought this project maintains consistency in this area. He said that the traditional urban street design is patterned like a grid, which facilitates the traffic. He said that the homes on lots 11 and 12 may get a lot of glare from entering traffic, but that is probably the most appropriate location for the road.

Member Avdoulos hoped the Applicant would meet with the neighbor to work on a landscaping solution as suggested at the meeting. Member Avdoulos supported the project.

Member Papp thought that there were a lot of trees on this parcel and he asked how one goes about putting trees on the Woodlands Protection Map. Mr. Evancoe said that if the Natural Features Study line item of the budget would have been approved by City Council, if would have funded the updating of the Woodland and Wetland Maps. These maps are updated at the mandate of the City, and should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine their accuracy. Member Papp said that he is surprised that the subject property was missed on the Woodland Map.

Member Papp said that the Expo Center will someday be at the end of Taft Road, and that more traffic is sure to follow. He said that the City should anticipate the necessary widening of this road in the future. Member Papp thought there wasn’t much that could be done with this property; he did not like the cookie cutter look or stub roads that go nowhere (the neighboring properties say they have no intention of selling), although a series of cul-de-sacs perpendicular to Taft Road isn’t good planning either. He acknowledged that the plan meets code, but he would have preferred a design that left trees between the homes.

Member Kocan asked if the Applicant would consider re-examining the density of the property. Mr. Fellows said that the R-4 density is 3.3, which is greater than what he has designed. He said the minimum lot width is eighty feet and he has designed lots with 85-plus feet. Chair Nagy said that the Applicant has reduced his density by eleven. Mr. Fellows said that he is not likely to reduce it any further.

Member Kocan asked what the lot width is in neighboring Cedar Springs, and Mr. Evancoe responded that those lots are eighty feet in width. Member Kocan said that the entranceway berm is now required to be four feet tall, and she asked if there was room to make a four-foot berm. Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect, said that in general there appears to be enough width for a taller berm.

Member Kocan asked about the Ordinance requirements on road design. Mr. Ben Croy, City Engineer, said that he relies on the recommendation of the Fire Marshal, and that requirement is strictly to assist emergency vehicles in their ability to turn their vehicles around. The Ordinance requires stubs on roads greater than 150 feet, and if the Fire Marshal sees that the site design would not cause a problem for vehicles backing up, he would follow his recommendation for the road configuration. Member Kocan asked if lots 14 and 9 would have to be reduced in size with a t-design. Mr. Croy responded that the t-width is sixty feet wide which is the same width as the right of way. It would not reduce the lot size of 9, 10, 13 or 14; it would only affect the sidewalks and some temporary features.

Member Markham stated that, as a point of clarification, if this design is meant to develop into a collector road over time, a width greater than sixty feet would be necessary. She suggested that the Planning Commission should consider a wider design that would facilitate vehicles turning around and a future collector road. Mr. Croy said that Member Markham had made a valid point but that he did not know how far the City could go in requiring it, because the road as designed meets Ordinance requirements. Member Kocan responded that a letter in the packet said that there is no t-turnaround and it has to be provided. Mr. Croy thought that perhaps the Fire Marshal felt that the design provided would allow for acceptable vehicular access.

Mr. Evancoe addressed the collector road issue and said that there is no designated collector road on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan in this location, and that is usually the basis for requiring additional right-of-ways, if the Thoroughfare Plan has identified a particular location. He acknowledged that the Thoroughfare Plan is being updated and perhaps this is a location that should be reviewed. He agreed that it may be difficult to require more than what is currently showing on the Thoroughfare Plan.

Mr. Evancoe said that the turnarounds are important and necessary because otherwise people would use the abutting driveways to turn around in. Heavy vehicles would break the concrete because driveways are not made to the same standards as a road. A large emergency vehicle would not be able to turn around if there are cars parked in those driveways. He said that it is important for a dedicated t-turnaround in each of the locations.

Member Kocan said that the t-turnaround is required by the City, or the possible widening of the road between now and the time of Final Site Plan submittal, in order to accommodate the requirement of the City.

Member Kocan asked about sizing up the pump station and she said that she would really like Mr. Fellows and the City discuss this issue. She said that the minimum is just adequate to serve this area now but the design should plan for the future.

Chair Nagy noted that the sitting Planning Commission did not rezone this area, which includes Cedar Springs, Jamestown, etc. Had she been on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee years ago she would not have zoned the property R-4. She said that the City never places the infrastructure before the development; subsequently the traffic is building up on Ten Mile, Beck Road and Taft Road. Chair Nagy said that the subject property is similar to its surrounding subdivisions.

Chair Nagy thought that the Wetlands Review seemed somewhat incomplete. She thought that the Applicant should agree to the Wetland enhancement. Chair Nagy reminded the Applicant that the berm would have to be four-foot high. She appreciated that he said he would plant a northern row of evergreens and thought he should do it all over the property.

Chair Nagy asked if the regional detention basin at Cedar Springs would be able to handle the run-off from this site. Mr. Croy responded said that the wetland consultant would rule on whether the wetland could handle the additional run-off. The Engineering Department is satisfied with allowing detention to take place in the wetland. Mr. Schmitt said that he spoke with Dr. Tilton regarding this issue; if a project won’t adversely impact the wetland (which this one won’t because there is adequate sedimentation) and because this is an adequate stormwater management technique, the plan can use the wetland. If either the wetland consultant or the Engineering Department has concerns, then alternative plans are considered. Dr. Tilton said that the additional volume of water will not have a negative impact on the system.

Chair Nagy asked about the twenty-foot easement for the water main. She cited Design and Construction Standard 11-68.a.1, and asked what will happen to the water pressure at the school and in general, should there be a fire. Mr. Croy said that there is concern over the water pressure and it was mentioned in the Engineering Review. The stub as it is designed would be much longer than the Ordinance allows for a dead-end water main stub without a loop. The main reason for that relates to the fire safety, and is basically for a flow rate required for an emergency situation. Depending on the different pressure districts in the City, there are some that meet it with a longer dead-end main and there are others that may not be sufficient. That is a calculation that Mr. Croy has asked for, but this level of detail has not yet been provided. He would have a better answer once more detail is submitted.

Chair Nagy said that this plan may meet the Ordinance requirements, but she is looking at it from the standpoint of public safety. If the water pressure question can’t be answered right now she doesn’t know whether it is acceptable to make a decision on this plan at this time. Mr. Croy agreed that the pressure needs to be there and said that the Applicant may consider hooking to a southern main that would almost guarantee that the Applicant could achieve sufficient water pressure.

Chair Nagy asked Mr. Fellows about his comment that a project of 22 units should not be expected to support the installation of a water main to the property along Taft Road. Mr. Fellows said that there may be up to three ways to get adequately pressured water to his project and that he will succeed even if it means putting in three loops. He said that the length of the water main may make the project economically unviable. He reiterated that it is too early in the planning stage to know all these details.

Chair Nagy said the barriers on the stub streets must be put in. She appreciated Mr. Van Sickle’s request for continued privacy on his property. She restated that the Applicant has acknowledged his willingness to add more natural buffering between his project and the surrounding properties. Chair Nagy said that the rural character of the area is in stark contrast with the R-4 zoning, but since the Applicant has provided an adequate plan and has agreed to several of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission, she supported the plan.

Member Paul asked if the road would be asphalt or concrete. Mr. Fellows did not know. Member Paul said that she wants to make sure that there is a good base under whatever is used. Mr. Croy said that he requested soil borings to ensure the soundness of the development.

Mr. Fellows said that the capacity of the proposed sanitary sewer pumping station will handle more than the 22 proposed lots. Member Paul had asked a question about the back-up battery, and Mr. Fellows thought that it was a requirement for all new sanitary sewer pump stations. He said he would comply with the Ordinance.

Member Avdoulos told Member Paul that the auxiliary power is provided with a mobile generator, so there would be switches and a receptacle so that something can get plugged in. There are alarms in place. Member Paul was concerned that if there is a power outage the City doesn’t have generators to back this system up. She thought that the provision of a generator should be listed in the motion.

Member Shroyer said that Applicant is building some outstanding developments in the community but he felt the need to postpone the Planning Commission review of this project for the Applicant’s benefit.

Motioned by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Papp:

Motion failed 5-3 (Yes: Markham, Nagy, Papp, Shroyer; No: Kocan, Paul, Ruyle, Sprague, Avdoulos).

Motioned by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Ruyle:

In Member Kocan’s motion, she noted that there were also comments made regarding the addition of screening between the homes but there was no feedback from the Developer on that issue. She also had concerns regarding lots 10 and 13 along the sides of those homes, as it is not their back yards but the side yards and the landscaping should not take too much of their yard. The Developer did say he would work with what would be feasible.

Mr. Shipman also asked to clarify that there has been a willingness on the part of the Applicant to look into providing additional screening along the north property line, and potentially at the rear of the property line. He said that there is a utility easement that runs along the rear of the property line so that must be taken into consideration when looking at the potential of placing plantings along that rear property boundary. Along the rear property line there is a 25-foot wetland buffer that encompasses the wetland which may also restrict some of the placement of material back there, particularly there would be restrictions behind lots 10 and 11. Also, along lots 213 and 212 of the adjacent subdivision there is another wetland buffer there. He wanted to make it clear that there are some limitations that do come into play when providing screening.

Member Kocan responded that her motion was for the properties along the north and the south, which includes lots 1 through 9, 14 through 22. Chair Nagy questioned whether the Planning Commission was seeking the enhancement of the wetland boundary. Mr. Shipman said that lots 22 through 14 have a ten-foot easement for public utilities adjacent to the property line in addition to a twenty-foot wide drainage easement. Member Kocan said that the City requires 35 feet, so technically, these future homeowners will not be able to put decks on their homes. Mr. Schmitt said that it boils down to where the home is placed within the building envelope. Most of the homes will be placed on the front setback line in order to provide a deck to the rear.

Member Kocan said she was going to add language to the motion regarding the wetland enhancement, but the utility and drainage easements create a problem. She was unsure whether to forget it or review the area to see if there is any feasibility. Chair Nagy said it should be looked at for feasibility. Chair Nagy said that by wetland enhancement the Planning Commission is not necessarily referring to gigantic trees. It could be wildflowers and things like that. Mr. Shipman agreed, that in terms of wetland enhancement, that could be done. He said there was talk of providing some screening at the rear of the property. Chair Nagy said the motion is for the north and south property lines, not the east. She said that Member Kocan could also include her wetland enhancement language too.

Member Kocan then said she would add to her motion, "Explore the feasibility of a [Wetland] evergreen screen." Member Ruyle accepted the change to the motion.

Member Sprague said that he did not hear the Applicant commit to evergreen screens along the north and south. He committed to having a discussion but Member Sprague did not hear him say that in fact, he would put up an evergreen screen from units 14 through 22 and 1 through 9. Chair Nagy asked Mr. Fellows to clarify his position. Mr. Fellows said that he will put them on both the north and south property lines.

Member Paul asked whether the Planning Commission should review the Final Site Plan so as to review the sewage pumping station and the water main. She said these are issues mentioned by the Planning Commission. Her main concern is the generator at the pumping station. Member Kocan agreed to add to the motion, "This site plan should return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval." There was no support from the seconder.

Motioned by Member Paul, but there was no support:

Member Kocan asked if this was something that the Planning Commission could require. Mr. Martin said that the Planning Commission can require the generator if it is an Ordinance requirement. Mr. Croy said that he does not believe that it is an Ordinance requirement. Member Kocan did not want to require something that is not a requirement. She said that she is hopeful with the Ordinances and the oversight by the Engineering Department, this project will be compatible with all the other developments that have been approved before this. If the generator issue is something that is a problem it hasn’t come before the Implementation Committee.

Member Paul said that on page 3345 of the Zoning Book, it says that the project has to be particularly designed to protect natural resources, the health, safety and welfare as well the socio-economic well-being of those who will use the land use or activity under consideration, residents and landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity and the community as a whole. This is a broad statement and Member Paul thought that the Planning Commission could make the case that the City has problems – it does not own generators, and this issue just came to light after the recent power outage. Sewage lines are now being brought to this site, which has some adjacent properties that would not want sewage overflow into their area. Would it go into Cedar Springs wetland? The City does not know this answer. For health and safety reasons, the Planning Commission can say it is approved with the present conditions. Member Paul said that the pumping station must have the generator, and this Applicant has been amenable thus far to all the suggestions that the Planning Commission has made. She said that they should look at the actual safety of this sewer system if this project is built on this site. She will not support the motion without the generator providing safety for the site.

Chair Nagy said that the issue raised is legitimate because no one knows the exact answer. She would rather be safe than sorry. Member Avdoulos put his trust in the City Engineering Staff and the Developer to provide a system that is not going to be detrimental to the people spending $400,000 on homes. Most of these homes would have back-flow preventers and gate valves to prevent sewage backups. He said that the area serviced by lift stations along Nine Mile worked fine during the power outage. Member Avdoulos said the pumping station is on the southwest corner of lot 1 and he doesn’t support putting a diesel powered generator along side of it. He said he supports reviewing the Final Site Plan to see how the situation has been resolved.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Paul:

Member Kocan said that she already made the offer to add that to the motion but did not get the support from Member Ruyle. Member Ruyle said he would agree to that language but not to requiring the Applicant to supply a generator.

Chair Nagy asked the maker of the main motion whether she was amenable to including the language, "Request for Final Site Plan approval by the Planning Commission" to her motion. Member Kocan agreed and Member Ruyle also agreed to the change.

Mr. Martin said that he thought that procedures had been followed correctly and the addition of the language to the motion was permissible.

Motion carried 6-3 (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Sprague; No: Markham, Papp, Shroyer).

Chair Nagy called for a ten-minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Northern Equities, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, and Woodlands Permits. The subject property is located in Section 12 on Cabot Drive between Twelve Mile and Lewis Drive in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The Applicant is proposing a two-story brick, 51,526 square-foot speculative office building.

Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. Currently vacant, it is zoned OST and master planned for office, as are the surrounding properties. There are some B-2 and B-3 properties at the corner of Twelve Mile and Haggerty. To the north and east are detention basins, to the south is the anticipated Haggerty Corporate Office Building V (this project was Public Noticed for their Public Hearing this evening as well; it will be re-noticed when it comes forward) and to the west is the M-5 Connector.

Mr. Schmitt showed where the building would be placed on the property, and said that parking would be on either side of the building and to the north as well. The Planning Review indicated that prior to Final Stamping Set submittal the parcel will need to be created by the Assessing Department. The Wetland Review indicated that this is an administrative permit, and will be issued upon receipt of the appropriate information. The Woodland Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Landscape Review noted that this project falls under the new Ordinance and there are several items that will need to be revised. The Traffic Review and Engineering Review noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Facade Review requested a minor modification to the dumpster enclosure that would make it complement the building better. The building is identical to Buildings I, II and III in design and provides continuity. The Fire Department Review indicated no issues at this time.

Mr. Schmitt said that the rectangular section of the map is the property owned by Detroit Edison for the transmission lines that run at least to Thirteen Mile. The parking lots for Buildings IV and V are connected.

Mr. Matt Sosin represented Northern Equities Group. He said that this building, like the others and the Building V, is a two-story brick and glass building. The five buildings create a campus-like feel and can be seen from the bridge at M-5 and Twelve Mile. Some refinements have been made to the interior of this building. He asked for Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Chair Nagy asked whether anyone from the audience wished to speak during this portion of the Public Hearing:

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Said that the handicapped parking is not compliant on the proposed plan – some of them are only eight feet wide while other parking spots are nine feet wide. He said that because there is additional parking proposed, he would like to see a van-accessible handicapped space on the east side of the building – either by changing one or adding one.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Shroyer confirmed with Mr. Evancoe that each parcel of this or any planned development comes forward on its own and must adhere to the Ordinance requirements in effect at that time.

Member Shroyer asked about the pedestrian walkways. Mr. Sosin said that, to the extent of the Ordinance, they are required to be striped across Cabot Drive. Member Shroyer asked whether the sidewalks would be safer if they were perpendicular instead of angled. Mr. Croy responded that while it may shorten up the walkway, the change would be insignificant with regard for safety; it may also affect their island layout. Mr. Sosin said that he does not believe there is any pedestrian crossing signage in the park and that it is not a requirement of the Ordinance. Member Shroyer encouraged the Applicant to consider pedestrian signage. He thought the layout was beautiful and he supported the project.

Member Ruyle asked whether the Planning Commission could make the Applicant enlarge the handicapped parking spaces. Mr. Martin said that they could, only to the extent that the Ordinance language supports the stipulation. Otherwise, it can only be a request. Mr. Sosin said that they would review the plan and perhaps convert an existing handicapped space into a van-accessible handicapped space.

Motioned by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Paul asked about the August 12, 2003 letter from Jason Sutton commented that there are barrier-free parking spaces and an additional van-accessible space will be added to the east side of the building. Mr. Sosin responded that they will look at the nine-foot versus eight-foot parking space sizes and additional spaces to determine if they are feasible, especially in light of the new Landscape Ordinance. Mr. Schmitt said that the current design meets the ADA requirements and that he is unsure whether they can be enlarged.

Consideration of the request of Mark Morris of Cingular Wireless for recommendation to City Council for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is located in Section 1, west of the M-5 Freeway at 40800 West 13 Mile Road. The Developer proposes a 130' cellular stealth antenna tower and an accompanying 12 x 12 shelter. The 102.46 acre site is zoned R-A.

Member Ruyle asked the Planning Commission to recuse him as he is a parishioner of Brightmoor Church and he is the initiator of this cell tower request.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Ruyle also asked to be excused from hearing the last item on the Agenda. Chair Nagy excused him.

Ms. McBeth said that this site plan came before the Planning Commission last summer for consideration, and it was postponed in order for the City and Applicant to research the questions raised at that meeting. The Applicant has returned with the same plans reviewed previously, and the review letters included in the packets reflect the same concerns cited previously. The City Attorney has provided the Planning Commission with a letter addressing some of the concerns raised at the meeting last year.

Ms. McBeth showed the property on an aerial map. The site is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as is the land immediately around the proposed lease area to the north, west and south. Further to the west, the land is zoned RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family, and is under construction with the Erickson, Fox Run development. To the east, across the M-5 freeway, the land is zoned OST, Office Service Technology.

The subject area is currently undeveloped land. Immediately to the north and south of the lease area the land is also undeveloped. To the west of the lease site, the property is developed with the Brightmoor Church and school. To the east and across the M-5 freeway the property is undeveloped.

The request of the Petitioner is to erect a 130-foot tall cellular tower monopole in the form of a cross as shown in the submitted pictures, and an associated equipment shelter is also proposed and will have a brick face on all four sides.

The proposed lease site will have a driveway access to it from the north side of the Brightmoor parking lot. A six- foot high chain link fence is proposed around the proposed equipment shelter and monopole. One parking space with a turn-around area is provided for the occasional service vehicle.

Ms. McBeth reviewed the items brought to the Planning Commission’s attention as a result of the Staff’s and Consultants’ review of the plans last summer. The Planning Review indicated that approval of the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan cannot be recommended. The Applicant does not provide all required information specified in the Zoning Ordinance for Special Land Use approval. The City’s Wireless Communications Analysis and Recommendations Final Report and the City’s Zoning Ordinance requires co-location on existing structures. The Detroit Edison corridor east of M-5 is identified in the report as a preferred co-location. According to the Applicant’s attorney, the Detroit Edison co-location is not an option due to indemnification issues. However, other competitors have been able to co-locate on the Edison Towers in this same corridor. The Planning Consultant recommends that the City’s Attorney review this information to determine whether this issue should be sufficient to preclude them from co-location on the Detroit Edison towers when other competitors in the same industry have located on these towers. The Planning Department has provided a short memo identifying five locations where different cellular phone companies have applied for co-location on the Detroit Edison towers for the Planning Commission’s information.

A second point from the Planning Review is that the Applicant has failed to address whether a combination of co-location alternatives could be used to cover gaps in the radio frequency coverage. The Planning Consultant suggested the Applicant consider looking at a combination of co-locations on structures in the area, such as the existing church and adjacent Fox Run Village buildings.

A third point of the Planning Review is that there are limitations of the proposed stealth design of this tower, which permits only one additional co-location opportunity. If this facility is approved with limited co-location availability, the Planning Consultant questions whether it could increase the potential for another structure in the same area for other carriers.

Fourth, if a new tower structure is ultimately determined to be warranted by the City to meet federal law, the issue of location in the adjacent OST District – which the Applicant has said is feasible – vs. a Residential District (as proposed) should be addressed by the City.

The Planning Consultant has cited the section of the Ordinance that states that the City Council must determine, after a recommendation from the Planning Commission, that the location, size and character of the proposed facility will be compatible with the zoning district in which it is located.

The Consultant has also cited the Ordinance, stating that, the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, must determine that co-location on an existing facility is not feasible. Review of the request must also consider whether denial of a request will have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

The Wetlands Review revealed minor comments to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. The Woodland Review indicated that a woodland affidavit must be submitted indicating there will be no impact to woodlands. The Landscaping and Engineering Reviews revealed that minor comments need to be addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal. The Traffic, Façade and Fire Reviews all indicated that the plan met Ordinance requirements.

Ms. McBeth said the Applicant is asking for a positive recommendation to City Council for the Special Land Use Permit and Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Steve Wells, counsel for Cingular Wireless, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that this project has been on the table for over three years. He asked that the original application and exhibits of October 23, 2001 be incorporated into this submittal, and the correspondence of July 8, 2002 from the Applicant’s engineering group that responded to many of the planner’s questions.

Mr. Wells said that at the Planning Commission meeting wherein this project was postponed, Mr. Monaghan of his office pressed for a decision on this matter. Mr. Wells said that he will do the same – a recommendation for an approval or denial, but not a postponement again. The site plan has been revised four separate times, either at the request of the City, the Planner or the outside agencies. They have worked diligently with Brightmoor Christian Church on placing the antenna on their property. The cross-looking stealth design is expensive and he noted that they are allowed in other communities and he pointed to the northwest corner of Eight Mile and I-275 as an example. Originally they proposed a monopole and now they are proposing a cross.

As suggested by the Planning Commission and the Staff, the Applicant went higher with the cross design. He said that they can now co-locate two additional carriers onto the design (tape ends). Chair Nagy asked when the Applicant made the City aware of this information. David Torma of Professional Engineering Associates responded that the site plan has not changed for 18 months. The height was at 130 feet at the last Planning Commission meeting.

Chair Nagy explained that originally the Applicant said that they would not co-locate, which is a requirement of the Ordinance. Mr. Wells said that this design would allow for two co-locations. The original application called for a one hundred-foot cross tower; now it is proposed at 130 feet and will accommodate the co-location request. He also addressed the July 2, 2002 letter from Birchler Arroyo, and said that Detroit Edison and Cingular Wireless do not have a Master Lease Agreement for wireless facilities. Other wireless communication services do. It is difficult to enter into these agreements because of the indemnification requirements, and this issue has been discussed between the two parties for over five years. This design provides for co-locations. The cross is four times as expensive as a monopole tower. The Applicant is looking for a creative solution in order to fill a gap in their cellular coverage. The Church location is an example of their efforts. This plan was postponed before to provide the Applicant the opportunity to look at other locations. They considered the fire house and the elementary school; they will not put up multiple towers when one tower in stealth form would suffice.

Member Markham is unsympathetic to Mr. Well’s assertion that Cingular cannot come to terms with Detroit Edison, and now the Applicant wants to erect an unpleasing pole at the gateway to the Community. She sees towers in every community, and the City’s Ordinance requires co-location. She said that a residentially-owned parcel is not the place for a tower, and there are office lots on the other side of M-5 that could be considered. She said the Applicant did not even try to comply with the Ordinance, and they are here to push for a denial so that the request can be pushed through.

Moved by Member Markham, seconded by Member Papp:

Member Kocan said that the information presented by the Applicant was not included in the Planning Commission’s packet, and she said that the Planning Commission specifically asked for additional information when the plan was postponed last year. She cited Ordinance 2508.1.b.2 and 2516.2.c.4 (which states that the use is not compatible with residential zoning). She said that the OST district across the street was suggested last year as a location that would provide Cingular with the coverage they are seeking.

Member Kocan said that the Applicant did not provide a letter stating that they researched the fire station and the schools, which did not allow the Planning Commission to be prepared for this meeting. She did not see any effort on the part of the Applicant and she supported the motion. She said the Ordinance is very specific and the use would be acceptable in an OST area.

Mr. Wells said that it was incorrect to say that the issues haven’t been addressed. He said that the original application dated October 23, 2001, page 2 discusses the alternative locations examined by Cingular and they made a list of the fire station, elementary school, the city-owned park and an office park west. Chair Nagy appreciated his comments but said the information was not in their packet.

Chair Nagy said that she read the minutes from the previous meeting and said that the OST district located across M-5 was something that was agreed to. She stated that the application does not provide the required information specified in the Ordinance for Special Land Use approval. She said if the Applicant was allowed the ability to locate by itself they would be setting a precedent. The City cannot bear this burden or the burden that Cingular cannot come to an agreement with Detroit Edison.

Member Shroyer is not that opposed to a cellular tower along M-5. He thought there were better locations than this, however. He was opposed to the shape of the proposed tower because it does constitute a sign. Ultimately this would have to go to the ZBA for approval. Member Shroyer said that under the Ordinance, a sign means a name, identification, description, display, device, illustration, design, logo or trademark, which is affixed to, painted on, or otherwise represented directly or indirectly upon a building, structure or parcel of land, and which directs attention to a service, product, activity, person, institution, organization or business. Member Shroyer said that a cross would signify that this area is the location of a religious organization. That alone would require the request to go forward to the ZBA. He supported the motion.

Ms. McBeth explained that the motion was regarding the Special Land Use and asked whether the Planning Commission would like to make a motion on the Preliminary Site Plan.

Moved by Member Markham, supported by Member Paul:

Prior to the vote, Member Papp confirmed with Mr. Martin that the motion was acceptable because it cited the Applicant’s failure to meet the requirements of Section 2508.

Consideration of the request of Titus & Associates for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 15 on the southwest corner of Lanny's Road and Grand River Avenue in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The Applicant is proposing to replace lost parking and driveway access due to Grand River Avenue construction.

Ms. McBeth located the property on an aerial map. The site is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the surrounding properties to the west, north, southeast and south. To the northeast, across Grand River Avenue, the properties are zoned I-2, General Industrial. The site is master planned for light industrial uses as are the surrounding sites. To the northeast, diagonally across Grand River Avenue, the properties are master planned for heavy industrial uses.

The Planning Review indicated that there are minor items which may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Landscaping review recommended approval of the plan, with modifications to the location of some of the proposed plantings in the northeast corner.

The Engineering and Fire Marshal Reviews both indicated that the proposed plan meets requirements and recommended approval.

Chris Titus represented Titus and Associates at the meeting. The reason for this plan coming before the Planning Commission is directly related to the Grand River improvement, and the changes are necessary to allow the tenant to continue his operation. The costs associated with these changes are substantial for a project that was never intended on being done. He asked for the Planning Commission’s approval.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the dots on the design along the west edge were parking lot bollards. Mr. Titus said those identified where the curb starts and ends. Member Avdoulos said that he understood the impact that the Grand River improvements have had on the area businesses. He felt that the hardship was placed upon the Applicant by the City and the Applicant is doing his best to comply. Member Avdoulos asked about the landscaping that was designated for the ROW area. Mr. Shipman replied that it is a County ROW and the Applicant would have to seek permission from them as well; The City recommended that the plantings be pulled back to avoid that situation. Mr. Shipman assumed that the County is also reviewing the design.

Mr. Titus said that the Oakland County Road Commission is ready to issue a permit for the driveway approach. He said that the County did not have any problems with the sight distance shown on the plan.

Member Shroyer asked the City Attorney what the level of control was that the Planning Commission has with their review of this plan. Mr. Martin said that the Planning Commission has the same amount of control as with any plan, and he said that it should be kept in mind that the changes are necessary due to the improvements of Grand River. Mr. Martin noted that the Traffic, Engineering and Fire Department reviews were all positive.

Member Shroyer thought that that traffic using the two-way entrance from Lanny’s Road won’t flow if the parking spaces are full as it is a one-way entrance from Grand River. Mr. Croy responded that it is not an ideal situation and acknowledged there could be congestion problems. The one-way direction of the Grand River entrance removes the need for a driveway spacing waiver.

Ms. McBeth said that the City was going to work with the Applicant regarding the parallel parking space that seems to obstruct the main door to the business. Member Shroyer confirmed that the storage area is between the cars and Lanny’s Road, and that there is no curbing between the concrete (eastern portion) and the gravel (western portion).

Member Shroyer said that the buffering is only half-way along the fencing, so the storage will still be seen. Mr. Titus said that originally the landscaping went the whole distance, but because of drainage problems the plants wouldn’t grow. Part of this project will help correct the drainage problem. Mr. Titus anticipates rescreening the area if indeed the drainage problems are solved.

Member Shroyer asked why there are no bumper blocks on the southwest portion of the parking area. Mr. Titus said that it was designed like this in case a vehicle needs a little more space for maneuvering through a full parking lot. He said that is the current flow of parking. Mr. Titus assumed that the dumpster was behind the building and Member Shroyer stated his concern for how accessible it was in that location. Ms. McBeth said that part of the challenge of reviewing this plan is focusing on the changes necessitated by the Grand River improvements.

Member Shroyer asked whether there was an option to use landscaping rather than painting the concrete. Mr. Croy responded that all additional space is really necessary for maneuverability. Member Shroyer said he had concerns but would accept the recommendations made by the various reviewers.

Member Kocan said that the Lanny’s Road area is a mixture of industrial and residential and that this is a non-conforming use. She said that there is no outdoor storage allowed in industrial and asked if the Applicant has a variance from the ZBA. Ms. McBeth responded that she could not find any records, but asked that the assumption be made that the site has been a non-conforming use for some time and the use was possibly in place prior to the Ordinance. Mr. Titus confirmed that the rental company has been at this location since 1976 and prior to that the property housed a tractor dealer.

Member Kocan would really like to see additional landscaping along Lanny’s Road and she hopes that the Applicant works toward that goal. She suggested that the Applicant consider other alternatives such as slats in the fencing to help shield the storage area from public view which will provide a more aesthetically-pleasing look.

Member Kocan said that the engineers want perpendicular parking as opposed to the curved section. She did not want to belabor this site plan design, but asked that the Applicant work with the City to determine that this is the most functional layout for the property.

Member Kocan said that the handicapped parking space doesn’t appear to meet the ADA requirements. She asked that the Staff and Applicant make sure that there is handicapped accessibility.

Member Kocan commented that the parking could have been ten feet from Lanny’s Road. The storage could have been completely relocated to the back. The driveway could have been moved up 43 feet.

Mr. Titus responded that a change to the three parking spaces would be difficult because the vehicles need to exit onto Lanny’s Road. He said the Item 19 in the Birchler Arroyo letter explains that the eleven-foot handicapped space next to a five-foot access aisle is considered a "universal" parking space and a "van-accessible" sign is not required.

Member Markham thought the plan is an overall improvement to the site. She confirmed that the building sign will remain in place. Mr. Titus also noted that the side door will become more like the front door with the sidewalk addition.

Chair Nagy acknowledged the difficulty that the Grand River businesses have been up against. She was concerned about the Oakland County ROW because she did not see anything in writing. She encouraged the Applicant to push the landscaping back to avoid any problems. She supported the plan and encouraged the Applicant to add landscaping to the Lanny’s Road side.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Markham:

Mr. Shipman said that there would be a ROW issue along Lanny’s Road as it relates to additional screening. Their fence line is on the ROW line. Additional landscaping would be problematic. Member Kocan suggested that slats or vines or some other creative solution could be considered.

Mr. Evancoe said that the first/third and the second/fourth Wednesday meeting schedules yield the same number of conflicts with the City Council schedule. In either case, there will be conflicts three months in a row. Chair Nagy asked whether the Planning Commission would like to remove the December 22, 2004 meeting.

Moved by Member Markham, supported by Member Papp:

There was no Consent Agenda.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Special Reports.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Motioned by Member Markham, seconded by Member Papp:

Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:28 p.m.

MON 09/22/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 09/24/03 MASTER PLAN COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

WED 10/01/03 PC TRAINING SEMINAR 6:00 PM

WED 10/01/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

TUE 10/07/03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/19/03 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING 6:15 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, October 1, 2003 Signature on File

Approved: October 15, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant