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

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Members Nagy (excused), Paul (excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Tom Schultz, Attorney

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

Member Shroyer asked that Committee Membership be added under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Papp, seconded by Member Kocan:

Chair Markham congratulated Members Nagy and Paul on being elected to City Council on November 4, 2003. They are not present at this meeting under the advice of the City Attorney, who suggested that because they will be reviewing issues from this Agenda at the City Council level in the near future, they should instead prepare for that review. The Officer positions will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in two weeks.

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Requested that the Developer of the Meadowbrook Office Building relocate a south-side handicapped space to the west side where the main entrance off Twelve Mile is located. He offered to assist the Developer with designing the bathroom stalls in an ADA-compliant manner.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports to share.

Mr. Evancoe indicated he would be sharing some reports during the Special Reports portion of the meeting.

Consideration of the request of Gillett Associates, for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 4, on the north side of West Road, east of Beck Road in the Beck North Corporate Park. The developer is proposing a 31,640 square foot single story office and research development facility in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.39 acres.

Motion by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Shroyer:

There were no Public Hearings on this Agenda.

Consideration of the request of HEFCO Properties for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 14 on the southwest corner of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook Road in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The developer is proposing a two-story office building. The subject property is 4.68 acres. This case was postponed by the Planning Commission on 1/15/03.

Planner Barb McBeth located the property on an aerial photo. It is located in Section 14 on the southwest corner of Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook Road. This matter last appeared before the Planning Commission in January of this year. A number of concerns were expressed about the proposed plan by the Planning Commission at that time. The matter was tabled to allow the Petitioner to continue working on the proposed development plans to resolve those issues. The Applicant has met and discussed the site plan with the Plan Review Center on several occasions since that meeting in January and a number of the concerns expressed at the Commission have been resolved. There are three items still remaining for possible waiver or variance. Among the issues resolved are the elimination of the Planning Commission waiver for inadequate parking lot setback along the south side of the property and the relocation of the proposed loading area.

Ms. McBeth said that the subject property is currently developed with one single family home. The property to the south is developed with single family homes fronting on Meadowbrook Road. To the east and west is vacant land. These properties are zoned OST, Office Service Technology, and master planned for office uses. To the north, across Twelve Mile Road, is the Michigan State University Tollgate Education Center. It is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, and the Master Plan describes the property as a Quasi-public use, designating the land use as the MSU Tollgate Education Center.

The proposed site plan shows a two-story office building containing a total of 46,659 square feet. The plan that was presented to the Planning Commission in January of this year contained 46,595 gross leasable square feet, approximately 64 square feet less than the proposed office building now under review. The one change made to the building is a modification of the front of the building with different material, and has technically expanded the size of the building by the 64 square feet. Two driveways are proposed, one from Twelve Mile and the other from Meadowbrook Road. The west part of the site contains a wetland area which continues off-site. The stormwater detention area is proposed to be located at the southwest corner of the property.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Review indicates that a City Council waiver of the required eight-foot wide safety path along Twelve Mile will be required for the area west of the proposed driveway on Twelve Mile. The elevation naturally drops away in this area because of a large wetland system that exists on this site and further to the west.

Previously there was considerable discussion regarding the screening and location of the proposed loading area. The proposed loading area has been moved from the area just south of the main entrance on the south side of the building to an area further away from the main door and out of the drive aisle (just south of one of the traffic control islands). The Planning Commission may wish to make a determination whether the intent of the OST Ordinance has been met for screening of the proposed loading area. The OST Ordinance encourages the screening of truck service areas by either a courtyard building design or an ornamental wall or berm. The proposed plan does provide landscaping along the north side of the loading area, and along the east, west and south sides of the property.

The Wetlands Review indicated that a Minor Use Permit is needed for temporary disturbance of approximately 600 square feet of the wetland buffer in order to construct a retaining wall. Restoration of the wetland buffer will take place following construction of the retaining wall. Administrative approval of the permit is possible and will be granted following approval of the site plan. There are no Regulated Woodlands on the site.

The Landscaping Review indicated that two ZBA variances will be needed. The first variance is for the lack of the required berm or wall along the Twelve Mile frontage and part of the Meadowbrook Road frontage and is necessary since the plan is being reviewed under the previous Landscape Ordinance. These areas are adjacent to the building and where the wetland exists on the west side of the property. The second variance is for the required interior parking lot landscaping; the submitted plans are deficient by approximately 1,554 square feet.

The Traffic Review indicated items that may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Engineering Review contained a number of items that may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Façade Review recommended approval of the plan subject to two items being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. Ms. McBeth showed the Planning Commission the façade board. The proposed building will be constructed primarily of brick with cast stone. Spandrel glass is also proposed. The Fire Marshal’s Review indicated items that need to be addressed on the next submittal of plans. The Applicant provided a letter addressing the waivers and variances discussed in the review letters and in this presentation.

Howard Friedlander, 5138 Village Commons Drive, West Bloomfield, represented the Applicant at the meeting. He acknowledged that stone material was added to an area that was previously submitted in brick. This change resulted in a larger building footprint, as the window and wall connection had to be redesigned to alleviate a potential problem of standing water.

Mr. Friedlander said the loading area was moved and alleviated the concerns that the entrance or handicapped spaces may get blocked. He had confirmed with the Planning Department that the screening he provided on this OST site plan would have been sufficient in the other Office Districts. This screening requirement contemplates a more intense use than what is proposed – an office building with professionals and no shop area.

Mr. Friedlander said that the safety path near the Twelve Mile entrance could be installed as a bridge-like structure on stilts and would dead-end in mid-air. It seems more appropriate to construct this path when a plan is presented for the adjacent property. He would agree to this as a future obligation, as long as the cost is reasonable under the circumstances.

Mr. Friedlander said that the eight-foot safety path along Meadowbrook Road was designed in accordance with the City’s request to observe the future ROW rather than the existing ROW. Civil Engineers Brian Coburn and Ben Croy have agreed that having the safety path within the future ROW would not violate anything in the Ordinance and is therefore not an issue.

Mr. Friedlander said that the berm has been removed from around the building. The area between the building and public streets is exposed. The Ordinance says the screening is meant to obscure parking areas and provide an aesthetically pleasing view from the road. He said that there is no parking in that area; they felt it was a better design to put the building at the setback on such a prominent corner. The berm would detract from the landscaping. He acknowledged that this is a judgment call and that a berm could be added if requested.

Mr. Friedlander said that the interior parking landscaping was previously reviewed and agreed to by Mike McGinnis, even with its deficiencies. He was not sure how Landscape Architect Lance Shipman’s number is different, but Mr. Friedlander admitted there is a shortage of landscaping. If this plan was redesigned to the existing ROW that shortage would disappear. Again, this Ordinance could be satisfied but it would slide the parking area further to the east and would only be removed when Meadowbrook Road is widened. The landscaping that is being left out there for the road widening could be relocated to the parking area, a sketch of which was provided to the Planning Commission as Exhibit B. This plan would create a new landscaped island and remove thirteen feet of greenbelt that would result in a twelve-foot wide strip of grass. While that could be done, Mr. Friedlander did not think it was the better way to go forward.

Mr. Friedlander asked for the Planning Commission’s approval and favorable recommendations for the City Council and ZBA issues. He said he is willing to change the plans if his suggestions are not found to be acceptable.

Member Sprague confirmed that the additional 64 square feet is the result of an additional 2’x32’ area. He did not think that the safety path that led to nowhere was necessary at this time; he confirmed with City Attorney Tom Schultz that the Planning Commission only needs to forward their recommendation to City Council regarding this plan’s failure to meet the City’s Design and Construction Standards. Mr. Schultz said that a financial mechanism can ensure that this work will ultimately be done, and would be created with input from the Engineering, Finance and Treasury departments. The need for the mechanism will be set forth in City Council’s motion if the plan is approved. The Planning Commission’s motion should include the language similar to, "subject to the waiver by the City Council of that Design and Construction Standard." Member Sprague was concerned that it would not be taken care of to the extent that the Planning Commission desired. Mr. Schultz said their recommendation could include their opinion on how they would like the waiver to proceed. He said that he would not expect the Planning Department to recommend that the waiver remove the standard altogether; the issue is determining what the mechanism will be that guarantees the work will ultimately be completed.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Evancoe what the Planning Department’s recommendation would be. He responded that they will recommend that the sidewalk be constructed at the appropriate time with an escrow or bond attached to the stipulation to assure that the developer maintains the financial responsibility for the completion of the work. He explained that the amount that would be escrowed or bonded would be determined at today’s dollars plus a percentage increase to reflect the future construction of the path. A cash escrow would also gain interest over the years.

Member Sprague asked whether there is any additional information regarding the property located to the west. Ms. McBeth responded that the City did not have any additional information on that parcel. She said that it could not be estimated when that parcel would be developed.

Member Sprague was inclined to agree with the request to waive the berm from an aesthetic point of view. He asked how the Planning Commission defends their granting of waivers when it is their charge to ensure that Applicants comply with the Ordinance standards. Mr. Shipman thought one of the considerations must be the effect or intent of the proposed landscaping – would it be affective by some other means, and still be within the spirit of the Ordinance? Aside from that, he said he was unsure how this would be handled on a broader basis for other sites.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Shipman if it was his opinion that the site was more aesthetically pleasing without the berm. He responded that the question was rather subjective; he did believe the Applicant has proposed a reasonable amount of landscaping. Whether their plan serves a better purpose than the berm or rolling landscape is subjective and Mr. Shipman asked that the Planning Commission make the determination based on their own opinion, with acknowledgement of the other projects where the berm has been required. Member Sprague concluded that he may agree to waive the berm and he certainly did not want a wall in its place.

Member Sprague thought the relocation of the loading area was an improvement. He felt the Applicant’s parking lot landscaping plan made sense and he would support their request for a waiver. He asked the Applicant about putting handicapped parking spaces along the west side of the building. Mr. Friedlander responded that the problem with that request is the intent of the plan is to have a field of parking and a main entrance. There are two side entrances but they are not intended to be used as often. Depending on how this building is used or who the tenants will be, it may not be practical to have handicapped spaces on the west side because that entrance may not have access to all of the tenants. It will ultimately depend on the final interior design. By keeping the handicapped parking by the main entrance, patrons of the building will enter where they have access to all tenants (both first and second floors), the rest rooms, etc. Mr. Friedlander also commented that this same consideration applied to their reasoning for not shifting the loading area to a location that did not adequately serve the entire building. He concluded that while he is not adverse to moving the parking places, he does not consider it wise until the interior buildout has been determined.

Member Papp agreed that it did not make any sense for the City to require the path and subsequently maintain it when it isn’t going to be functional until the next parcel is developed. He supported the idea of requesting a financial guarantee.

Member Papp asked whether the loading and unloading would occur through the front entrance and whether the moving trucks would be blocking entry into the building. Mr. Friedlander responded that the moving trucks would park where it is most convenient, on a temporary basis. He previously discussed this with the Planning Department and was told that moving trucks are an occasional event and a necessary short term inconvenience. He felt enough area was provided for maneuvering around a moving truck. Mr. Friedlander said there was no freight elevator.

Member Papp confirmed with Mr. Friedlander that the side entrances would be available for emergency building evacuation, for all tenants.

Member Papp thought the building was attractive and that a berm would detract from its appearance. He felt the landscaping proposed on the plan looked good.

Member Shroyer liked the building and felt that it would look good on the proposed corner. He was also in favor of waiving the berm requirement because the building is attractive and the landscaping is sufficient. He felt that the Planning Commission had come to terms with the path issue.

Member Shroyer was not convinced that the loading area meets the intent of the Ordinance. He asked if the use of the building changes would the City have any recourse regarding the loading area. Mr. Schultz responded that the short answer is no; the Planning Commission is determining this evening whether the proposed building layout and plan meets the Ordinance requirements. A change of tenant would not typically require a change to a site plan. If a new tenant needs a different kind of physical layout, then the Planning Commission may well have the site plan back before them at some point in the future. Member Shroyer agreed that the new loading location was better but he was not convinced of new plan’s worthiness.

Member Shroyer’s biggest concern was that there were two issues that the Staff gave negative recommendations on. He said the plan was postponed the first time so that the Applicant could reduce the size of the building, thereby reducing the parking lot allowing more space for a better loading location and interior lot landscaping. He said the Applicant has had nine months to reduce the size of the building and instead, he returns with a larger one. The other issue – the parking spaces and increased landscaping – may have been discussed but they weren’t adequately addressed. At this time Member Shroyer was not in favor of the plan.

Member Avdoulos was also concerned for the same reasons. He said that at the last meeting the Planning Commission determined there were landscaping deficiencies, loading area issues, and building issues. He was uncomfortable with the loading area being shown as four crossed out parking places. He felt the loading area should be safe and not be a hindrance to any other traffic in the parking area or to any pedestrians. Member Avdoulos felt that the UPS and Fedex drivers will likely park in front of the building and run in and out with their deliveries. He would be more comfortable with the loading area being placed where it would not be an interference.

Member Avdoulos felt that the lobby area would be used for transporting up and down in the building. This ties into how the parking lot circulation is going to be. With the large footprint of the building, the parking is being adversely affected and is causing landscaping issues. He felt that something has to give.

Member Avdoulos was also concerned about the HVAC screening because of the proximity of the building to the street. Mr. Friedlander responded that the super frame stone material runs all the way to the back of the building and the mechanical equipment will be located where it is hidden from view.

Mr. Friedlander also stated that both Mr. Evancoe and the Traffic Consultant had looked at the loading area and they found that it was safe and harmonious. Member Avdoulos was considering the issue based on the intent of the Ordinance. He felt the proposed location is not providing the access that the Ordinance was looking to provide.

Member Avdoulos did not have an issue with the berm or path requests. He was concerned about the loading area not being in close proximity to the building and not meeting the Ordinance’s intent and the deficiencies in the landscaping issues in the middle of the site. He assumed that the new Landscaping Ordinance did not apply because of the timing of this plan’s submittal.

Member Avdoulos asked what ROW is on record with the City. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that the intent is to plan for the future – the sixty-foot half ROW. That’s what the City has asked the Applicant to do. He did not think they were offering to dedicate the land to the City at this time.

Member Avdoulos asked if the actual square footage of the building has been determined since there seemed to be some confusion. Ms. McBeth said she agreed that the number must be clarified and that can be done at the time of Final Site Plan review.

Member Ruyle said that when this plan came before the Planning Commission in January he did not have a problem with it. He has no problem with the additional 64 square feet because the aesthetics are better and it alleviates a potential maintenance problem. He had a problem with the loading area. He sells office furniture for a living and he knows how lazy his people are – they would go right to the front door. He suggested that the Applicant have a traffic cop/building manager at the building to request that trucks park in the loading area. He said that ultimately it is the Applicant’s responsibility to manage this problem.

Member Kocan agreed with many comments made thus far. She was most disappointed with the fact that the downsizing of the building was not even addressed, which was the biggest issue of the January review. She noted that it was a beautiful building. She said that although this plan does not fall under the new Landscape Ordinance, the Planning Commission does have the discretion of looking at aesthetics as one of the determining factors for a berm, and because the intent of the new Ordinance takes this into consideration, she felt comfortable making a positive recommendation to the ZBA to grant this variance.

Member Kocan was trying to determine whether there was a deficiency in green space, landscaping or parking islands. She determined from Staff that it is not the island; she asked if the Applicant was taking the thirteen feet that they are providing between the potential new Meadowbrook setback and the current Meadowbrook setback and using it to their advantage in calculating. Mr. Shipman responded that if the developer were to develop to the current ROW situation that would afford them the opportunity to push their parking lot out further and actually add an island space between bays of parking, down the center of two head-in parking spaces. It would provide them an opportunity to provide more interior landscape space. It is their contention that since they’re bringing the parking back thirteen feet to stay out of a proposed ROW, they have lost their ability to provide that landscaped space. What they are deficient in is the square footage of landscaped space that would typically be required. He confirmed that thirteen feet of greenbelt is being used as part of the landscaping calculation, although it typically would not be used.

Mr. Schultz said that in Novi setbacks are measured from the existing ROW, not from the future ROW. The Applicant could build to the existing ROW and everything would be interior to his site, but he pulled everything back at the request of the City. This is throwing off the calculations. The Applicant has to go to the ZBA for a variance; the issue at hand is whether the Planning Commission accepts this proposal such that they could forward a positive recommendation.

Member Kocan noted that this configuration will ensure that when the road is widened, this parking lot is not abutting the road. Mr. Shipman responded that building to a future ROW removes the potential for a scenario like Novi Road Big Boy where the parking lot is up against the road.

Member Kocan understands that the Planning Department has recommended the waiver of the Design and Construction Standards; she thought that historically the Planning Commission has asked for an escrow or, as the City Attorney suggested, the establishment of a covenant to be recorded for the possible future conception of a bike path, with an obligation that would be deemed appropriate and reasonable by the City and the Developer at that time. She is more comfortable with a covenant or a bond than she would be to recommend a waiver, because she doesn’t want this path to fall by the wayside and never be completed. She commented that the City has to have a lot of bike paths that lead to nowhere - all of which will eventually connect. She felt that the City needs to be consistent in this matter. Member Kocan wished the building were smaller and that there were fewer parking spaces.

Chair Markham was happy to see the Applicant back. She liked the building the first time they came before the Planning Commission. The question of the new vs. the old ROW is answered by the fact that the Applicant is only required to work with the old ROW. By working with the new ROW they are actually doing the City a favor – preventing future problems. Good planning outweighs the desire to have the landscaping internal to the parking lot. It is conceded that they could meet the intent of the Ordinance if they design to the old ROW, but that doesn’t make long term sense.

Chair Markham thought the Applicant should be financially obligated to build the bike path. How this is ultimately phrased is of no consequence to her, but the path is definitely needed. Eventually all the paths will be connected throughout the Community.

Chair Markham agreed that the Twelve Mile berm should be waived. The intent of the Ordinance was to screen parking, and this is being accomplished by the building. It defeats the purpose of the building as it has been designed.

Chair Markham does not see a good solution to the loading problem. She felt the Applicant made an attempt to solve the problem but it is not optimal. She also thought that it wasn’t such an issue that it couldn’t be worked out with the tenants. She said that the design meets the intent of the Ordinance, but in a very minimal way.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Chair Markham called for a ten minute break; the meeting reconvened at 8:51 p.m.

Consideration of the request of Singh Development for possible recommendation to City Council to rezone the subject property located in Section 30 south of Ten Mile and east of Napier Road, from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-1 (One Family Residential). The subject property is approximately 324.95 acres.

Chair Markham said that this request came before the Planning Commission and a Public Hearing was held on October 1, 2003. The Commission sent the proposal to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for review. This review has been completed and the request is now back before the Planning Commission.

The property to the north is being developed with Island Lake of Novi. To the south the land is mostly vacant with some homes scattered along Nine Mile. The City of Novi’s Fire Station Number 4 and some additional land owned by the City are to the east. To the west are single family homes that front on Napier Road. On the west side of Napier Road, in Lyon Township, the land is vacant.

Ms. McBeth said that the subject property currently has a zoning classification of R-A, Residential Acreage. All of the surrounding land in Novi, to the north, west, east and south, is also zoned R-A, Residential Acreage. In Lyon Township, on the west side of Napier Road, the zoning is R-1.0, Residential Agricultural.

The Master Plan for Land Use reflects the Links of Novi Golf Course use for the part of the property and recommends residential uses for the remainder of the subject property. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends single family residential uses for all of the surrounding properties. In Lyon Township, the Master Plan for that community recommends rural residential uses. The residential density patterns map recommends 0.8 dwelling units to the acre as a maximum for the subject property and all of the surrounding properties on the west side of Novi.

Ms. McBeth said that the Wetlands map indicates areas of regulated wetlands on the west, east and south sides of the site. The Woodlands map indicates the site contains extensive areas of light, medium and heavy woodland areas.

This matter last appeared before the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing on October 1, 2003. At that time, the Commission forwarded the request to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to study the matter and provide further review and comment. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee has met and discussed this matter on three occasions since the October 1^st Public Hearing. Additional information was provided by the Applicant, and additional information was prepared by the Staff, as requested by the Committee and a dialogue was opened to further discuss the merits of the rezoning request. A recommendation has been forwarded from that Committee, which states that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee recommends that the subject parcels be rezoned from R-A to R-1, with the recommendation that the rezoning be accompanied by a Development Agreement, including a number of provisions that were discussed and agreed upon by the Applicant. Some of the provisions the Committee hopes will be included in a Development Agreement include:

Limiting the number of homes from 368 to 428 homes

Providing lot sizes consistent with the RUD Ordinance

Maintaining and dedicating open space for use by the public

Maintaining viewsheds along Ten Mile

Developer providing a fair share of infrastructure improvements for roads, water and sewer

The City and Developer, along with any interested Citizen Groups, such as the Friends of Novi Parks, should form a partnership to seek foundation or public grant funds to improve the donated park land with a trail system

Singh has provided the City with a description of how this site might be developed if the rezoning request is approved. The Applicant has indicated that the unconfirmed wetland acreage on the 324 acres (which will be reviewed by the City consultant at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review) is 67 acres; the property would yield 206 homes if it remains R-A, and 425 homes if zoned R-1.

The Master Plan and Zoning Committee considered whether there was a logical basis for increasing the density for the subject property using the adjacent city-owned park parcels, based on the fact that there would be no additional impact from this park land on the roads or infrastructure. Since so much of the adjacent parcels already owned by the City are covered with wetlands, (approximately eighty percent), the total of 121 acres nets approximately 19 homes if zoned R-A, and 39 homes if zoned R-1.

The Planning Department prepared density calculations on this proposal. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee recommended to the Planning Commission that a range of homes from 368 to 428 be considered in a possible Development Agreement; this density calculation, for just the subject property, equates to approximately 1.42 to 1.66 units to the net site acre (excluding wetlands) which is in the upper range of the density permitted in the R-1 district (1.65 units to the acre). Calculating the density with the inclusion of the adjacent City-owned land, the overall density of the range suggested by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee would equate to approximately 1.30 to 1.52 units to the acre (excluding wetlands), which is in the middle to upper range of the density permitted in the R-1 district of 1.65 units to the acre.

The City’s Consulting Traffic Engineer, Rod Arroyo, has prepared a second review letter based on additional information the Applicant has provided to the City. Also, Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer, provided a memo that concludes that the water main and sanitary sewer facilities (that were designed, master planned and constructed as a part of the Island Lake Development) are capable of servicing the proposed density shown in the rezoning application, with some modifications to the existing booster pump station and sanitary pump station. Therefore, the Commission is asked to consider the new information and the recommendation of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, and forward a recommendation to City Council on the proposed rezoning request.

Khanh Pham of Singh Development, 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield, MI, addressed the Planning Commission. He thanked them for acting on the rezoning request so quickly. He said that Singh is committed to this project, and through a public-private partnership they plan to provide more than what a single subdivision or entity could do. He said that their development, Quail Hollow, could provide benefit to more than just this subdivision.

Member Kocan favored the decision to send this request to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for review. She was pleased that everyone worked so expediently to provide a more thorough understanding of the proposal in just four weeks’ time. She said there are positives to the plan, such as developing park land and traffic amenities (although she does not endorse a traffic light every one-third mile). She hoped to maintain the rural character of the area. She said that the impact of this property on Lyon Township must be considered. Traffic is a key element – and there is already traffic on Ten Mile. She wondered if doubling the density on this parcel did not set a precedent for the entire west side of Novi. She said there are possibly offsetting conditions, but as a Planning Commissioner she did not feel she was able to judge how the value of these improvements equated to density credits; she felt that City Council was the more appropriate body to make those decisions.

Member Kocan would require substantial commitments from Singh to approve their rezoning request. She acknowledged that when Island Lake donated land for the school system the developer received density credits accordingly. She did not agree with their receiving density credits for the lake. Overall, their density is 0.97. Member Kocan would not want Quail Hollow to exceed 0.97. She believed that their proposal is somewhere around 1.65. Island Lake provided a City-wide benefit with their school property donation. The park lands developed in Quail Hollow would have to be accessible to everyone – it can’t be a clubhouse strictly for those residents. There would have to be park amenities and park maintenance. Member Kocan thought that the Developer should provide more information on what they could provide that would be of benefit to the City.

Mr. Pham responded that the City has 78 acres on the east side of Quail Hollow. The City also has 57 landlocked acres south of the subject property. Singh is proposing to donate 65 acres that would connect these two park lands and make a contiguous 200-acre park – second in size to North Novi Park. Singh would like to partner with the City to make the park more active – a system that would be available to the whole City.

Member Shroyer said he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and has reviewed this request. He said that the Links of Novi is gone, and now the City needs to look at the property and figure out a win-win situation for the City, the developer and the residents. He said that they looked at RUDs, Development Agreements, Open Space and the PRO Ordinance. They heard from South Lyon School District and Lyon Township. He noted that somewhere between 700-775 units would be added to the Ten Mile corridor just inside the Lyon Township border. Those residents will travel east into Novi to take Wixom Road north to I-96 or Beck Road south to M-14. Member Shroyer continued that the Committee considered the public comments. They reviewed the infrastructure capabilities. He thought the recommendation brought forth to the Planning Commission shows that the rezoning request could be the win-win situation he’d hoped for. He did have concerns, namely the traffic. He said that Wixom Road traffic is problematic and Beck Road will continue to be problematic until it’s widened. Member Shroyer said he is in favor of the proposal as long as the proposal is a win-win and the number of units is limited to something that the City’s infrastructure and the Community can handle.

Member Papp had concerns about the traffic as well. He noted that Ten Mile is already rated "F" in the area, but it would be the City’s fault if they added 428 units and made Ten Mile rate a "G." He said that Oak Pointe Church’s parking lot would accommodate 2,800 people as well. Member Papp asked what the least amount of sites Singh would consider building on the property – which has been asked before but no answer is ever given. Mr. Pham said that he couldn’t pinpoint that number without the written RUD and determination of the infrastructure amenities; he confirmed that 428 is the maximum.

Member Avdoulos thought the Master Plan and Zoning Committee did a great job in reviewing this proposal. He noted that back in 1999 the Novi 2020 Master Plan showed this area with a density of 0.4 units, which has been increased to 0.8 units per acre. He said this area of Novi is a unique rural area that is getting bounded by developments. Ultimately it will push beyond Nine Mile and on to Eight Mile. He said that this entire area’s density will be doubled if this rezoning request starts a precedent. He said that if the City’s density is highest at its center and wanes as it travels out, and the surrounding areas are developed similarly, a nice rhythm is provided. He liked the current density, which is 0.8, and this proposal seeks to nearly double that. He did not have a problem with this 324-acre property being developed with 259 homes on varying lot sizes to accommodate the natural features.

Member Avdoulos suggested that the connection of the park land (City-east, City-south and Singh) chokes off any southern subdivisions from connecting to Quail Hollow to the north. He would prefer to see some coordination between the developers to provide collector streets. He said that he would like to see at least one or two of these areas remain R-A and if any concessions are given, a density of 0.97 (similar to Island Lake) might be acceptable. He said he would not support a recommendation for anything other than what is already zoned in the area.

Member Sprague originally thought that increasing the density on this parcel was wrong, but upon further review he thought there may be an opportunity for everyone to benefit from this proposal. He said that partnerships are built on trust and a good set of rules, and the Planning Commission is not in position to draw those rules up. He said that resolving the traffic issues was important to him, and he thought that Singh’s doubling the density in the area would exacerbate them. He thought the addition to the park land was great, but he didn’t just want to see park land come off of the tax rolls and the City being stuck with a big development bill. Singh’s partnering with the City to bring the park land into a usable state would be good. He agreed with Member Kocan’s suggestion that a 0.97 density be used as a benchmark, and he agreed with Member Avdoulos that 0.97 would likely be as dense as he would be willing to accept. He said that a win-win situation must be a big win for the City. Member Sprague said that he leaned toward a negative recommendation because he didn’t want to see the density increased.

Member Ruyle said he, too, served on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Member Ruyle said that thus far no mention has been made of Quail Hollow’s exit onto Napier Road. He said he would like a Development Agreement to include the Developer’s paving of Napier Road to Ten Mile. This would benefit both Novi and Lyon Township. He said that one to three traffic devices would be placed between Wixom and Napier roads. The church’s light would be an activated light that would be functional only while they are in session. This Developer has proposed widening Ten Mile with turning lanes. A traffic light at Napier and Ten Mile will be added by an as yet undetermined entity. Member Ruyle said this Developer has been asked to bend over backwards for Quail Hollow, and while Member Ruyle does not always agree with this Developer’s projects, he does support this proposal. He said that 428 homes would provide a miniscule impact on traffic.

Member Ruyle said that Singh was amenable to putting the trails in the 200-acre park while their construction equipment was onsite. He thought this was a win-win situation, and the City must cooperate with Singh in order for Singh to cooperate with the City. He did not have a problem with R-1 zoning and limiting the proposal to 428 homes – a blanket R-1 would allow over 600 homes. He did not think that the request for 428 was an overabundance. He supports the request with a limitation of homes from 368 to 428. He said that the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation and that City Council can take it from there.

Chair Markham said that the density on the west side of Novi is very important to her. A request for increased density affects all aspects of the quality of life in the area. The infrastructure is affected – traffic, water, sewer, open space, etc. She said that the City has been working with Lyon Township to keep Ten Mile open and rural, recognizing that the area is going to have growth. She acknowledged that the 1999 Master Plan doubled the density for this area, from approximately 0.4 to 0.8 units per acre.

Chair Markham said that a lot of numbers had been kicked around at this meeting. She asked to clarify Island Lake’s density of 0.97 units per acre; Ms. McBeth responded that their density came from the RUD, the use of the lake’s acreage, and the fact that not all of their property was zoned R-A to begin with – some was zoned R-1. Their 1,000 +/- acres yields 970 homes. Planner Darcy Schmitt further clarified that the wetland buffer was used in the calculations, and that Toll Brothers is also required to provide pathways and boardwalks as an amenity to the project. Chair Markham also noted that the preservation of the barn was also part of Island Lake’s Agreement. She concluded that the density of 0.97 did include some density credits.

Chair Markham said that a subdivision called The Preserves is being planned to the southwest of Quail Hollow. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee looked at their preliminary proposal and they have designed a road that is planned to connect with one of the main roads of this development for the purpose of providing a connector road between the main Mile roads. She was pleased to see that these two developers had discussed this and worked together on developing a connecting road.

Chair Markham said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee had discussed how the traffic lights need to be coordinated between Quail Hollow, Island Lake, Lyon Township and Oak Pointe Church. She also does not want to see three traffic lights so closely placed.

Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that Ten Mile is under the jurisdiction of the Oakland County Road Commission. They ultimately have the say of where the lights will be placed. Mr. Coburn said that the County will take all the various road issues into consideration when determining whether Napier Road needs to be signalized. The allocation of costs will be determined by Oakland County, and is influenced in part by who is pushing to have the signal installed.

Chair Markham said that Singh’s intent was to include the acreage of all five parcels in their determination of density for this project. They have said they will donate 65 acres of park land to the City. From a housing standpoint, the land they are giving is probably unbuildable because of its high quality natural features. It has little value to the City because it is landlocked. In order to remove this land from the tax rolls, it needs to be accessible and improved to benefit all of the citizens of Novi. Chair Markham was reiterating this information from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings for the benefit of the other Planning Commissioners and the viewing audience.

Chair Markham said that if the City land is added to the 65-acre donation, the total contiguous wetlands is about 200 acres, which is located within the core habitat reserve. It contains some of the best quality woodlands in the City that are undisturbed. The City of Novi has talked about the preservation of this area for at least ten years. That question became a part of this discussion along the way. Singh’s proposal is to put 428 home on the remaining land; current R-A zoning with an RUD assumption would allow about 260 homes. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee came back with the recommendation of 368-428 homes, based on several conditions.

Chair Markham said that Singh Development would create a City Park by creating a trail system through the total 200 acres of park land. The park would be public for the whole City. Potentially, this park could be developed from the fire station at Wixom and Ten Mile all the way to Community Sports Park at Eight Mile and Napier (the project would include easement procurement and the need for funding as well). Singh’s partnership opens the door for federal grants and creating a west side park.

Chair Markham said that Singh would help the City permanently preserve the core preservation area. For this reason, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee considered the appropriateness of using the City’s park land acreage in their density calculation. With R-A/RUD zoning, the density becomes 368. This number wouldn’t add any more density than what the Master Plan outlines. Singh has proposed a maximum number of 428. The final number should be arrived at after it is determined what Singh’s final contribution to this park would be. R-A/RUD with all of the acreage and 428 homes equals a density of 0.93. However, R-1 must be considered because the density can not exceed the zoning in an RUD Agreement. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee reluctantly agreed to recommend R-1, and they would only do so if the density number is far below what an R-1 would actually yield. A Development Agreement would have to accompany the R-1, and would include the provisions of the park creation, road water and infrastructure improvements.

Chair Markham said that other issues need to be discussed at the City Council level. The Planning Commission is not in a position to create these details, but they include Singh’s participation in a larger trail system (potentially all the way to Community Sports Park), how the park is designed and constructed, how the grant process fits in to all of this, and formation of an endowment for future park maintenance. Chair Markham said this is an exciting concept to preserve the woodlands and wetlands with the inclusion of some active recreation in a section that is nearby the subdivisions planned in the area. This park land is more than twice the size of the Sandstone park trade and half the size of the Novi North Park. The right development now will serve the Community for decades to come. A City park can be developed economically under this plan. It can potentially be connected to the bigger regional trail system that spreads through five counties. A development of this size (about one-third the size of Island Lake) requires a partnership; the request for increased density has to be balanced against a benefit for the greater good. Chair Markham said that preserving 200 acres of the core preservation area in the form of a City park is a great benefit.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Shroyer:

Member Kocan was concerned that approving the motion with the attachment of a Development Agreement is walking a fine line. She asked whether the motion should say, instead of "conditional upon," it said. ""only if" the Developer were to itemize those benefits to the City as a whole which would offset any adverse impact either through a public-private partnership or Development Agreement," (which would include the things listed by Member Ruyle). She personally did not want to recommend the R-1, but she could give a positive recommendation for the consideration of increased density over the R-A "if."

Mr. Schultz said that his understanding is that the Planning Commission’s intention is that more density might be appropriate if there is a mechanism that can be put in place to address that issue. The reason for allowing the increased density is that there are benefits to the Community; the near-unanimous Planning Commission discussion reflects this but the concern is whether this mechanism can be put into effect and be enforced. The term "Development Agreement" has been used often but is not being used as a term of art. He understood Member Kocan to be asking whether there was a more careful way to phrase the intent of the motion, which is that the Planning Commission would approve of this plan if the Developer’s plans can indeed be guaranteed and put into place. He thought that was a good comment for discussion.

Member Kocan was also concerned about the range of 368 to 428 units. She was not comfortable with the 428 number, and would be more comfortable with the language, "to a maximum of 368, or some other number arrived at after detailed discussion and analysis with respect to Singh’s commitments and the City’s acceptance." She is more comfortable with 368 because she thinks the number can be substantiated.

Member Kocan also thought the motion, in order for her to support it, would have to include language that addresses the dedication, development and maintenance of the parkland - which would include the City’s contiguous parkland, ensuring accessibility and permanent preservation. She reiterated Chair Markham’s comments that the increased density of 368 can be rationalized by the use of park land acreage.

Member Kocan talked about the contiguous trail system, and said that although Chair Markham mentioned it she did not hear the Developer agree to its development. She would look favorably upon that amenity.

Member Kocan asked whether Member Ruyle would consider improving the motion’s language with any of these issues. He responded that Mr. Kahm has agreed to these issues, and it is in written form. He does not have a problem with adjusting the motion, except for the limitation of 368; he would prefer to keep the 368-428 language and let the Developer battle it out with City Council. He said he would be glad to listen to Member Kocan’s suggestions for the motion. Member Kocan said that she will respond after the completion of the discussion.

Member Sprague confirmed that the 428 number was determined by Singh’s proposed site plan. Member Sprague then asked Mr. Schultz to explain why this recommendation for a rezoning could include stipulations. He responded that the actual rezoning of a property does not come with a motion attaching conditions. What the City has done with this Development Agreement mechanism is really just do two things at the same time: Make the rezoning motion and approve the Development Agreement. It’s not a conditional rezoning, if that’s the better phrase to use, but it is a rezoning that has a broader context with a Development Agreement. In that context, the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council of the R-1 density, if in the broader context, the City Council finds a way to make this development look the way it’s supposed to look through the use of a Development Agreement or some other mechanism; what the Planning Commission thinks should go along with the recommendation are the stipulations outlined in the motion.

Member Sprague asked whether Member Ruyle would change his motion to use the more conservative language suggested by Member Kocan. Member Ruyle said that he would be willing to make that change, although he does have a problem with limiting the number to 368. Member Sprague thanked Chair Markham for explaining the rationale in arriving at the 368 number, which made him feel more comfortable in his consideration of the motion.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the Island Lake property was rezoned to R-1 from R-A, or was their density arrived at from a combination of R-A and R-1. Chair Markham said the RUD was written for that development and she couldn’t remember whether the R-1 piece was always R-1. Member Avdoulos thanked Chair Markham for all of her comments, and then went on to say that if the boundaries were expanded to include the park area a reasonable density could be arrived at. Member Avdoulos said he was comfortable with the 368 number, because if he had property with unbuildable wetlands, he too would like to use its acreage in his density calculations. He agreed with providing City Council with a density number and a rationale for it. He asked whether the Planning Commission wants to keep the number as close as possible to R-A or keep the density at R-A and include the park land to arrive at the density. Changing the density to R-1 is why all the stipulations are necessary. From Member Avdoulos’ perspective, the 0.8 density should be maintained as best as it can be. He thought that the calculations for the various numbers discussed are a good starting point.

Member Shroyer supported the motion, but he did prefer Member Kocan’s introductory language. He was comfortable with a density similar to Island Lake (0.97 density). Singh will obviously want the higher number that would be specified in a range. Ultimately City Council will make the decision. He thought a percentage number could be recommended to maintain the consistency of this property to Island Lake. This would give City Council flexibility and reflects a lot of the Planning Commission’s discussions. He asked that this idea be considered for the motion. Ms. McBeth responded that his comments were interesting, since density is often discussed as the number of units per acre. There’s been discussion whether the Planning Commission would consider counting wetland acreage. Typically wetlands are not used in the calculations; however, if that is requested by the Planning Commission, a number could be extrapolated using this method. Ms. McBeth said that an estimate of 80% of the City park land is wetland. The numbers provided in the report are lower because much of that land is considered unbuildable.

Member Shroyer said that the consideration of using the City land in determining density is based on the concept of Singh’s commitment to developing the trail system in the area. He asked what the number would be if all of the land was given the Island Lake density of 0.97, making the calculation (325(Singh) + 121 (City)) * 0.97 (Island Lake Density) = X.

Mr. Schultz said he was concerned about the concept of density credits for City property. He thought that Chair Markham’s comments on how to arrive at a general (not a specific) number were well documented. He was concerned that trying to be too specific with a number at the Planning Commission level is encroaching on City Council’s authority. He was concerned that such a positive conversation may break down because of semantics. He said that no one would ever want to grant Singh a number greater than their proposed 428, so he felt that using the number in the motion was entirely appropriate. He did not think that it was necessary for the Planning Commission to be any more specific, because obviously City Council will have discussion on the number at greater length, upon their review of the other improvements.

Member Sprague asked whether the Planning Commission should state that they approve of the number 368, with the understanding that City Council may go as high as 428. Chair Markham responded that the number 368 was based on total acreage, including the park land that would be preserved. She said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee was only trying to provide a range for discussion purposes.

Member Ruyle agreed to smooth out the introductory language as presented by Member Kocan, and asked whether his seconder would also agree.

The Planning Commission wanted to hear the restated motion, and Member Kocan respoke her request for the record. Her language was, "The Planning Commission could give this positive recommendation for increased density if the developer would itemize those benefits to the City as a whole which would offset any adverse impact, either through a public-private partnership or Development Agreement, which would include the following… (the language provide in the Master Plan and Zoning Committee motion as stated by Member Ruyle). She also asked for the inclusion of, "The dedicating, developing and maintaining the park land, ensuring accessibility and permanent preservation, and a state of the art trail system through Singh’s 65-acre area as well as the contiguous City park land." Member Ruyle accepted that language as well.

Mr. Schultz said that the unit comment should be restated because there was discussion about the number and what the intention was about the outside figure or the 368 number. Member Kocan asked whether the language should be, "…368 with a maximum of 428 or some other number arrived at after detailed discussion and analysis with respect to Singh’s commitment and the City’s acceptance, not to exceed 428."

Member Ruyle had a problem with the statement because he wanted to give Singh 428. He said that the developer and City Council could fight it out. Member Kocan asked about using the language, "The Planning Commission recommends 368 but not to exceed 428." Member Ruyle did not have a problem with that language, because the Agreement will come from City Council and this is only a recommendation. Member Ruyle clarified that the recommendation of R-1 is in the motion.

Member Shroyer thought that the language of the motion did not reference an R-1. Member Kocan said that her intent was to give a negative recommendation to the R-1; however, she thought the Planning Commission could give a positive recommendation for increased density. She said the Planning Commission Members have to be comfortable with the motion. She thought the recommendation to R-1 with the word "if" might suffice.

Mr. Evancoe spoke regarding the Napier Road paving. He said that Member Ruyle added the paving of Napier Road to the motion, as the developer indicated at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting that they would be willing to pave from Ten Mile to their entrance. He suggested that it might be advantageous for that paving to extend to their southern property line, so that it covers their entire frontage. The reasoning behind this suggestion is that if the City has the ability in the future to require an adjacent developer to do the same thing, typically this kind of requirement refers to the frontage of the developing property, not the frontage of the developing property and 100 feet of the adjacent property. Someone will have to fill in this gap. Logically the responsibility should fall on the developer with the frontage. Mr. Evancoe said that if the Planning Commission thought that it was wise to suggest this they could put the language into the motion. Member Ruyle agreed with that comment and he said he knew what the developer agreed to in the meeting. Again he reiterated that this is only a recommendation. Member Ruyle changed his motion to include, "The developer pave Napier Road from the extent of their southern border to Ten Mile." Member Shroyer agreed to the change.

Ms. McBeth read the motion.

The Planning Commissioners offered their various changes for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Shroyer, supported by Member Ruyle:

Member Ruyle confirmed that the October 15^th absent Planning Commission Members could vote on the approval of these minutes.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Sprague:

There was no Consent Agenda.

Chair Markham thanked Members Sprague and Avdoulos for their effort thus far. Member Sprague said that they met and laid out the process for the 2004-2005 Budget. The Committee reviewed a memo and explained the three major steps:

Goal Setting: This will assist the Budget Committee in their consideration of fund allocation. Previously they had a memo that outlined the Planning Commission’s goals from the previous budget process. The Budget Committee would like the Committee Chairs to review this information with their Committees and determine what their goals for the coming year are. Mr. Evancoe will consolidate this information for review by the Budget Committee and the Planning Commission in order to reach a consensus.

Operating Expense Budget: The Operating Expense Budget will be designed to accommodate these goals – this includes education, seminars, planning studies and routine expenses.

Capital Improvements Program: There is a committee for this review that includes members from the Planning Commission and City Council. The CIP-Planning Commission members have not had any input from the Planning Commission in the past. None of the members really understood how the information was prepared or decided upon. Member Sprague explained that the Administrative Staff develops the first draft of the CIP and then a general education session will be held for the Planning Commission, City Council, Parks and Rec members to attend and learn the background of how the various projects were chosen and funds were allocated. Member Sprague said that this year the Budget Committee allocated the CIP projects to the corresponding Committee for review – most went to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. The recommendations will come back to the Planning Commission for review and then the two CIP-Planning Commission members will be prepared to make recommendations and provide input when their meetings take place.

Member Avdoulos said that the goal setting responses should be forwarded to Mr. Evancoe by December 10^th. No specific dollars need to be attributed to the goals, this will be researched and the Director will determine what costs, if any, are associated with each goal. He noted that some programs have already been completed and may not need more money allocated. The various Committees should meet during the next month to compile their goals.

Member Sprague also suggested that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee should review the CIP projects and if they are uncomfortable with making recommendations for any of those items they might wish to defer that review to some other Committee. Member Sprague also thanked Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy for her efforts.

Chair Markham said that there are openings on the Committees in light of Members Nagy and Paul moving on to City Council. Some openings should be filled right away.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Chair Markham suggested that the Planning Commission officer positions and Committee vacancies be voted upon at the next Planning Commission meeting. Member Ruyle asked Mr. Schultz whether a shortened term counts as one year relative to the rule about a two-consecutive-year maximum for holding an officer’s position; Mr. Schultz said that their rules are not clear and it would be their decision as to whether to count a shortened year in the calculation.

Member Shroyer recommended that Mr. Evancoe pass out material regarding Committee assignments. The Members were encouraged to fill out the forms indicating their interest in joining another committee and return the form to the Planning Department by November 13, 2003. Copies of the forms and a collation of the information will be in the next Planning Commission packet. Currently there are openings on the Environmental, Implementation and Budget Committees; Chair Markham suggested that the Members should fill out the forms even if their interest is for a Committee other than those three.

Mr. Evancoe said that Member Shroyer suggested to him that access to the plans be available in the lobby prior to each Planning Commission meeting. The Public Notices will be updated to indicate that the plans will also be available at the meeting.

Member Kocan confirmed that the Implementation Meeting will be held Thursday, November 13, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. The Rules Committee will meet on November 19, 2003 at 6:15 p.m. Mr. Schultz asked that the Rules Committee’s Agenda be forwarded to his attention because there may be changes that the Committee would like to consider that should be addressed by the City Attorney. Mr. Evancoe asked that the Rules Committee consider adding "Department Report" to the Agenda to reduce the confusion on when it is appropriate for members of the Planning Department to offer comment. This would be similar to how the City Council Agenda is designed.

Wayne Hogan, Novi: Wished to thank Members Paul and Nagy for their commitment to improving the quality of life for persons with disabilities, especially with regard to mobility issues. He invited everyone to visit the City Library to observe the new handicapped parking area. Mr. Hogan commented that there have been changes made to the Powers Park handicapped parking, and additional handicapped parking has been added to the lot closest to City Hall so that patrons will not have to cross two roadways, at least from the four spaces that are located in this area.

Mr. Hogan asked the Planning Commission to consider the term "enhancing" rather than "restricting" when discussing improvements that could go beyond the scope of the ADA requirements.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Sprague:

Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:11 p.m.

WED 11/05/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

THR 11/06/03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 11/10/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

TUE 11/11/03 CITY OFFICES CLOSED, VETERANS DAY

WED 11/12/03 MASTER PLAN & ZONING COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

THR 11/13/03 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7:30 PM

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

WED 11/19/03 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 11/24/03 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 12/02/03 PLANNING STUDIES & BUDGET COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, November 13, 2003 Signature on File

Date Approved: November 19, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant