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

Present: Members John Avdoulos (Acting Chair), Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Richard Gaul, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Lowell Sprague

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

The Consent Agenda was changed to a discussion item.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission about issues that were brought up at the recent City Council meeting. The ACLU has put the City on notice for their political sign standards. City Attorney Tom Schultz suggested that changes could be made to the existing Sign Ordinance. Those changes, along with the multi-tenant signage language that the Implementation Committee has been working on, will likely come back to the City Council in January. They will also come to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing.

Ms. McBeth said that the Budget Committee will have to meet soon. The Committee includes members Gutman, Lipski, Pehrson and Sprague.

Ms. McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that the Master Plan discussion will be continued on December 1, 2004. That will be the only Agenda item.

This item was placed later in the Agenda for discussion.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of McShane Construction for approval of Preliminary Site Plan, Storm Water Management Plan, Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 24 on the southeast corner of Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile roads, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Applicant proposes a 120,000 sq. ft., two-story building for medical use on 12.59 acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. This property, and its surroundings, are all zoned light industrial. It is also master planned for light industrial.

Ms. Schmitt said there are woodlands along Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile. These are connectors to a larger woodland. There are a small amount of wetlands in the northeast corner.

Ms. Schmitt said that the project has two points of access – one along Eleven Mile and one along Meadowbrook Road. The woodlands form a border, which makes it difficult to see into the sight. It makes a nice naturalized corner. The Applicant has worked diligently at conserving the woodlands, and will continue to work with Staff to implement additional measures to protect the woodlands.

The Planning Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements due to the need for a ZBA variance for the following requirements not met in Section 2400h. The front yard parking along Meadowbrook occupies more than 50% of the area between the minimum front yard setback and the building façade setback line. Also, the parking area is not screened along Meadowbrook Road and Eleven Mile by an ornamental brick on brick wall or landscaped berm that is 2.5 feet high measured from the parking lot surface.

The Wetland Review indicates that the plan meets Ordinance requirements, with a few additional items to be addressed at the time Final Site Plan submittal.

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

The Landscape Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements due to the need for a Planning Commission Waiver for the landscape and berming requirements adjacent to the right of way on Meadowbrook Road and Eleven Mile. The Applicant desires to preserve the existing vegetation. A Planning Commission Waiver is needed of 71 parking lot trees, 180 are required, and 109 are proposed. The Applicant would put funds into the tree fund.

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

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

The Façade Review indicates that the plan does not meet Ordinance requirements without a Section Nine Waiver or an approval of the façade materials.

The Fire Department review indicates that the plan meets requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant submitted a façade board. The Planning Commission reviewed the board.

Matthew Quinn represented McShane Construction. He said that the building was beautiful. It will house doctors principally from Botsford. There is some association with Providence Hospital. The medical center will have 80,000 square feet of medical space. There will be a surgery center, laboratory center, diagnostic center, x-ray center.

Mr. Quinn pointed to an area on the plan that was colored green and said that was an expansion area that would be proposed at a later date. There was another green area that would be proposed for parking at a later date. This site is an old concrete plant that is an eyesore in the community. It is difficult to see because it is up on a hill. There is a height difference of fifteen feet between Meadowbrook Road and the parking lot. The request for the Waiver on the landscaping is primarily to save the existing vegetation.

Mr. Quinn said that the plan would be shifted three feet to save more trees. The Applicant may also move the greenbelt and parking lot back three feet to save additional plans.

Mr. Quinn said that this ZBA request is brought about in part by the fact that this is a corner parcel, which means there are two front yards. Therefore, there is more than 50% parking in a front yard. The functionality of this building allows for access from 360 degrees. This is meant to ensure close parking for the patients. The Applicant can not plant all replacement trees on site so he will be contributing to the tree fund.

Mr. Quinn said that the Applicant is not requesting a façade Waiver. The brick will be taken further up of the columns and will bring the building into compliance.

Mr. Quinn said this design is similar to Providence. The Applicant is seeking approval of their request. Mr. Quinn said that they meet the Ordinance. They are no longer seeking a Section Nine Façade Waiver. They are seeking a landscape waiver for the berming. The will have to seek the ZBA variance for the front yard parking.

Several employees from McShane Construction were at the meeting.

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

Member Pehrson thanked the Applicant for designing something beautiful to go on this corner. He supported most of the requests. Member Pehrson asked whether the parking spaces were removed from the greenbelt near the corner. Mr. Quinn said that they were.

Member Pehrson said that only 588 spaces are required. 604 have been proposed – this number does not include the removed spaces. Ms. Schmitt said that because this is a medical building, if the spaces aren’t leased inside, the Applicant has some flexibility. Otherwise, if there is rehabilitation service in the medical center, 20% of the entire parking lot would have to be handicapped accessible. At this time Mr. Quinn said that there are no rehab services planned.

Member Pehrson asked whether ADA spaces should be along the Eleven Mile side. Mr. Quinn said that the ADA spaces could be spread around the entire building.

Member Pehrson thought that the woodland issue was handled properly. Member Pehrson asked about the dead trees being left in the woodland. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat explained that the deadfall provides habitat and should not be moved unless it presents a certain danger.

Member Pehrson asked whether there was concern regarding snow plow runoff into the woodlands. Mr. Quinn said that they were going to comply with the woodland review request to move the site.

Member Wrobel liked the site and was glad that the natural berm was being kept. He asked if there would be urgent care facilities. Mr. Quinn said that at this time there are no leases signed for urgent care. Member Wrobel thought that the proposed access for urgent care as shown on the plan, was in the worst place on the building. He thought most traffic would come from Meadowbrook, not Eleven Mile.

Member Wrobel asked what the future addition might include. Mr. Quinn said that more medical offices are expected to be in the addition.

Member Cassis asked about the trees. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman explained that there is a parking lot calculation that determines how many parking lot trees are required. The Applicant has proposed many trees on this site, but they have run out of room. They have offered to fund the tree fund. It is not really a woodland tree count, but a parking lot landscaping count. Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant is proposing to supplement the areas that are less dense, mostly on the west side. The north side will be retained as it is very dense. What the Applicant is proposing is appropriate. They continue to make steps toward preserving more features. The Planning Commission can make waivers or require a screen wall. If the wall is proposed, it should help preserve, not hinder, the surrounding trees. In this case the Applicant has proposed the best scenario for the west side. The Applicant continues to work with the City in determining what is best for the north side.

Member Cassis asked about the banked parking. Mr. Quinn said that the land would remain in its natural state until such time that it is necessary to put the lot in.

Member Cassis is very familiar with the site. He was pleased that this clean-up effort was moving forward. The previous use was an eyesore. This Applicant has been sensitive to the natural features. Member Cassis saw no problem with considering the natural vegetation as the buffer. Member Cassis agreed with the full circle parking design for a medical facility. Overall, he liked the project.

Member Gutman commended the Applicant on the project. He supported the project.

Chair Avdoulos said that there was a mobile treatment unit shown on the plan. The Applicant’s architect, Dennis Kulak, KLLM Architects, told Chair Avdoulos said that the unit is for a portable MRI. There is a good chance that the unit will never be there, but it was shown on the plan in case those plans change. The access would be from the northerly access. Whatever doctors that may use the unit will be situated on that side of the building.

Chair Avdoulos said that the elevation at the entry is 884.6. The finished floor is 902. That is an 18-foot difference. He wanted to ensure that the slopes are all in accordance with the Ordinance. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that the numbers appear to be appropriate on the Preliminary Site Plan, but they will be confirmed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Avdoulos said that the Traffic Review recommends a light at Eleven Mile and Meadowbrook. He asked if that would be made part of this project. Mr. Coburn said that was an off-site improvement that would likely be a City project. There has been talk in the past about a light in that area. Now the area warrants a light. Chair Avdoulos asked that the timing be reviewed at the corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook – it is a very short light going north/south. If more traffic is being generated along Meadowbrook, the lights should be reviewed.

Chair Avdoulos appreciated the efforts put forth by the Applicant. A 60,000 square foot footprint is big. He appreciated the Applicant cleaning up the elevations so a waiver wouldn’t be necessary. Chair Avdoulos said that the building is basically flat-top, and he hoped that the mechanical units on top are adequately screened. This area, including Hummer just down the street, is really turning this area of Meadowbrook around. He said that the woodlands and landscaping mesh to form a good project.

Member Pehrson asked about the length of the parking stalls. Mr. Shipman said that the Meadowbrook fronting stalls may be reduced to 17 feet. This was recommended by the Woodland Consultant. The difference is the "hangover" area, and the 17-foot length reduces the impervious surface.

Member Pehrson asked about the tree contribution fund. Mr. DeBrincat said that the contribution is $325.00. The Applicant has been asked to provide a realistic number of replacement trees. It does cost about $425.00 to $450.00 per tree to replace at the caliper-size that the City asks for. Vilican Leman has asked the City to consider this dollar amount for future replacements.

Mr. Shipman said that the parking lot trees would be "replaced" at the cost of $400.00. Member Pehrson asked if the Applicant would abide by the higher cost. Mr. Quinn responded that the Applicant understands that the parking lot trees are replaced at $400.00 and they would abide by that.

Member Pehrson asked about the evergreens on the north side of the property. Mr. Quinn said that the suggestion made in the review was fine.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

The Planning Commission took a five minute break.

Consideration on the request of Mike Anderson of Ivanhoe-Huntley for recommendation to City Council for approval of Planned Rezoning Overlay, in conjunction with rezoning request 18.633. The subject property is located within Section 11, on the north side of Twelve Mile, between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road. The property is zoned OS-1, Office Service, for the front 2.9 acres and the remainder of the property to the north is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage. The Applicant is proposing 64 units in eight buildings. The subject property is approximately 9.72 acres. The Planning Commission first considered this matter on September 22, 2004.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the map on an aerial photo. He said that the property was formerly part of Oakland Hills Memorial Gardens on the west. To the south is Twelve Mile and to the east is the MSU Tollgate facility. The property is currently split zoned, R-A to the north, and OS-1 along the Twelve Mile frontage. To the east is R-A zoning, and R-4 is to the west and north. The Master Plan calls for office uses on the south property where it is zoned OS-1, and cemetery uses to the north, consistent with the historic use. To the south is R-C, regional commercial, and to the east is the MSU facility, which had its own designation on the Master Plan.

The woodland map indicates there are woodlands along the easterly property line, adjacent to the contiguous stand of trees on the Michigan State property. There are no wetlands.

This project has come before the Planning Commission twice before. Initially it came forward as a rezoning request and the Planning Commission sent forward a negative recommendation to City Council. After that meeting, the Applicant asked to put the application on hold in order to work under the PRO Ordinance. The PRO application was submitted, and it was reviewed and postponed by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2004, subject to clarification from the City Attorney’s office regarding the cemetery issue. That issue was resolved, and a letter from the City Attorney’s office was provided to the Planning Commission. There is no cemetery issue pending on this property.

The plans have not changed since the last meeting. The Planning Department still does not recommend approval, given that the plans do not appear to meet the intent of the PRO Ordinance, which requires the Applicant to provide a substantial public interest. The reviews have identified where variances would be required from the strict interpretation of the Ordinance. These items would be included in a PRO Agreement which would be negotiated with City Council. The Planning Commission should indicate their approval in the motion, and specific conditions that they also may wish to impose on this property. The Planning Commission may indicate their recommendation for denial, in terms of the Applicant burden under Section 3402.d.2, which discusses the public interest in utilizing the PRO overlay.

Mr. Schmitt said that there is a minimal amount of woodlands on the site. There is room to modify the plans to preserve some of the woodlands. This can be looked at when the Preliminary Site Plan is submitted. The cul-de-sac exceeds 800 feet in length. If the boulevard is extended, that could resolve this issue, but would be a decision made by City Council.

Paul Knuth of Ivanhoe-Huntley, and Ken Kalusek of Dykema Gossett represented the Applicant. Mr. Knuth said that Mr. Eldridge has confirmed with surveyors that this land is not part of the cemetery, and he is taking steps to create the parcel at this time.

Mr. Knuth said that they have been working on modifications to the plan, but they were called last week and told that this plan was placed on this Agenda. They have reduced their density from the original 122 to 94 and now they are at 64 units.

Member Cassis asked for the City Attorney’s explanation of the cemetery issue. David Gillam responded that the City Attorney’s opinion is that the review may continue. He said that the difference between this property and the corner of Twelve Mile and Novi Road is that the corner property was indeed part of the platted cemetery property. This property was not. This has been confirmed. The surveyors sent an affidavit fax to the City Attorney’s office. The split does have to occur, and Mr. Kalusek said that it is in the works. The City Attorney’s office suggested that the motion should state that the split must be approved before the PRO Agreement is signed, if the Planning Commission sends a positive recommendation.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Schmitt to provide examples of "public benefit" stipulations. Mr. Schmitt responded that there are two subsections of the Ordinance. Subsection A refers to the enhancement of the project area compared to the underlying zoning. In other words, what does the plan offer above the requirements of the underlying zoning. Subsection B refers to whether there is a public interest benefit, and whether its benefit outweighs any foreseeable detriments. Does the plan protect natural features? Does it provide parkland? Does it impact the traffic to a lesser degree? The Planning Department does not see a tangible benefit associated with this plan. In Novi, this benefit is likely the preservation of environmental features. There is flexibility in this Ordinance language.

Member Cassis asked the Applicant to comment on the public benefit. Mr. Knuth responded that the plan’s open space and natural feature preservation is a public benefit. The site as it is now is zoned office in the front and residential in the back. The trees could not be saved under this zoning. Under the proposal, he has made the effort to preserve those trees. The proposed design preserves the existing viewshed of the site, particularly along Twelve Mile. The open space provides usable passive recreation space. The open space would be preserved in perpetuity through the PRO Agreement and condominium documents. Mr. Knuth said that traffic effect will be less of an impact with this design as compared to an office development and single family design.

Mr. Knuth said that they have redesigned the site that adds a longer boulevard, thereby bringing the cul-de-sac length below 800 feet. This design has not yet been reviewed by the Planning Department. Mr. Knuth said that the new design provides the road entering the site at a different angle. The boulevard has been extended. The road meanders a little bit more. They cannot meet the 45-degree angle requirement because of the narrowness of the site, they have turned them as much as they could. The Applicant will have to ask for a variance for the westerly setback of 75 feet so that the trees can be saved.

Mr. Knuth said that the units have been reduced from 94 units to a design with a different product with architectural features (ranches on the end of buildings, 1.5 stories next, then the Carlisle in the middle). All units will be two-bedroom units. The homes are bigger and the price point has risen.

Member Cassis asked the Applicant what he would like to see accomplished at the meeting. Mr. Knuth asked that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the PRO so that these changes can be made to the site plan.

Member Cassis asked Civil Engineer Brian Coburn if he had seen the revised plan; he had not. Member Cassis asked Mr. Schmitt what he thought of the redesign. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant will have to seek the variance for west to accommodate the black locust stand of trees on the east side. The boulevard has been enlarged so they will seek the City Council’s approval for that road design. The Engineering Department has yet to weigh in on that change.

Member Cassis asked whether the Planning Commission has to consider the rezoning. Mr. Schmitt replied that this is just a review of the PRO Plan this evening. He said that the RM-1 district will become the underlying zoning and the PRO will float on top of it – similar to the EXO district.

Member Cassis said there was cause to take up the PRO in this case. He said the preliminary findings indicate that natural features are being saved, a benefit to the City. Also, the Applicant has reduced his unit count down to 64. That is commendable. Overall, the traffic situation will be improved. There are two or three ingredients that do persuade Member Cassis to consider this plan as a conducive plan for the City.

Member Cassis said that other issues that need to be addressed will be reviewed at a later date, by both the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. He said that the City cannot ask for anything more than good developments that are occupied, aesthetically pleasing, and the taxes are paid. Member Cassis said he understood that people think that OS-1 is better for the City, but he argued that there are so many office buildings all along the freeway that are unoccupied; this development seems to be a better fit with better results – it will help keep the MSU property zoned residential.

Member Pehrson agreed with much of Member Cassis’ statements. He asked if the Applicant could address the secondary access point – a health and safety issue. Mr. Knuth said that this has not yet been resolved. There are options for a loop road or some other redesign that will accomplish that item. If the Planning Commission and City Council move this plan forward, then the site plan will be redesigned and resubmitted.

Member Pehrson said this plan could be an opportunity to approve something nice. This request for an overlay does bring the two pieces of this property together. But he was not sure that this plan meets the intent of both subsections 1 and 2.

Member Pehrson noted that the Woodland Consultant had suggested straightening the road and pull the homes away from the trees. Mr. Knuth agrees that the project could move to the west as the impact to the cemetery would be far less.

Member Pehrson said that Ivanhoe-Huntley’s reputation ensures that this would be a fine development. This proposal can invoke both strong support and opposition. The Planning Commission is just trying to sort through the information.

Member Wrobel appreciated the Applicant’s efforts to save the trees. He was not totally convinced that he should support the proposal.

Chair Avdoulos reviewed the Planning Commission minutes and the City Council’s minutes of October 4, 2004. He asked about the Applicant’s comment that they were not interested in seeking a PRO. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the comment pertained to the corner property.

Chair Avdoulos thought that the Planning Commission postponed this review to learn more about this property. He then said that the Planning Commission has now received information from both City Council and the City Attorney that this review can move forward. Ms. McBeth agreed. Chair Avdoulos thought that the Planning Commission was supposed to develop a "pseudo-agreement" with the items they would like to see as part of the PRO Agreement.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Department was not aware that the Applicant would make these modifications to the plans. She said if the Planning Commission would feel more comfortable postponing the matter again so the modifications can be reviewed that could be done. Mr. Knuth said that the Applicant would like to move forward and solve these problems at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review. They would like the plan to go to the City Council.

Chair Avdoulos said he was on the fence. He thought a residential development would create an island of two office buildings, which would be out of character for that side of the street. The proposal can act as a buffer, but a transition to what? The advantage to the area is that Twelve Oaks is depressed and not overwhelming and there is a boulevard that separates the properties. Chair Avdoulos did not lean toward approving this development. He did not think that it fit in. It would not blend into the area. He was concerned about the existing offices. He was concerned about the length of the cul-de-sac. He was concerned with secondary entrances and exits. He was concerned about the cemetery entrance that will be associated with this property. He thought that would be confusing. The issues make Chair Avdoulos uncomfortable.

Chair Avdoulos did not think there was enough to the plan to recommend it. If there was further information that the other Planning Commission members would like to see, it should come forward. Chair Avdoulos did not think that the Planning Commission has thought through their recommendations enough to recommend approval. Ms. McBeth said that the plan would return as a Preliminary Site Plan if the City Council approved the plan and signed the Agreement. If the plan was not approved the Applicant could resubmit another plan at their leisure.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission could look at the chart on page four of the Planning Review for items that could be requested by the Planning Commission. One item is requested owner-occupied units. The density issue is a practical site planning issue. The other four are variances associated with the design. The parcel needs to be created. There are other items in the Planning Review that could also be added. He said that Deeridge Condos (Lenox Park) was one of the last large development agreement signed with the City. That agreement has density restrictions, product allowance, preservation of x number of trees, façade considerations, etc. The Planning Commission has some flexibility.

Chair Avdoulos said this is a ten-acre parcel that is long and narrow. He likened the project to another parcel on Eleven Mile that was reviewed earlier in the year. He said he envisioned something on this parcel that could fill the office pocket and then the transitional use would be to the east.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The grammatical changes were handed in for incorporation in the minutes. Member Lynn Kocan had submitted changes as well. On page six, paragraph three, the statement about room for a development should be attributed to the Applicant not a Planning Commission member. On page nine, paragraph one, lines five and six, the regulated woodlands should be regulated wetlands. On page 17, paragraph two, the minutes should reference that Member Kocan read from the Grand River Corridor Plan that stated that the area had been deemed a Special Planning Area because the City wanted to determine whether there was a need for commercial on this property in light of what has happened elsewhere in the City.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Consideration on the request of Joseph Drolshagen of Northern Equities Group for approval of Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 12 on Cabot Drive, north of Twelve Mile, south of Lewis Drive in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology, District. The project site is 6.26 acres with a proposed 60,000 sq. ft., one-story building for speculative OST use. This matter was first considered by the Planning Commission on July 28, 2004.

This item was placed later on the Agenda at the request of Member Cassis. Member Cassis asked for the details behind the City Attorney’s letter. He asked if the Applicant cut down trees. He asked if the City was setting a precedent. City Attorney David Gillam said that the City disagreed with the Applicant regarding the protected status of some trees that were removed from the site. The question was whether there were trees removed from a protected woodland without the necessary approvals. The Staff and the Applicant have met and discussed the woodland boundary. The City believes protected trees were removed; the Applicant maintains that only diseased and damaged woodland trees were removed. There was no violation of a City Ordinance. The City said there was.

Ultimately the City and Applicant compromised on the number of trees to be replaced. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that in the future Northern Equities has been instructed to contact the City first to determine the actual woodland boundary line on any of their remaining properties. All companies are encouraged to do so.

Member Cassis said he pulled this item because in general, most developers know better than to cut down trees. He wished to send a message to all developers that everyone must abide by the rules and laws of this City. There should be some kind of retribution for breaking those laws. He was not happy about these events.

Chair Avdoulos agreed. He said that the Planning Commission is continually learning about woodlands and that it is too important on too many levels to allow trees to be cut down without regard.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Mr. Gillam asked that the motion still be subject to the satisfaction of the comments that are contained in the review letters at time of Final Site Plan submittal. Members Pehrson and Gutman agreed.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

There were no Supplemental Issues. Chair Avdoulos noted that Member Wrobel and Member Pehrson have successfully completed their Citizen Planner training.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.

MON 11/08/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 11/09/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/10/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

THU 11/11/04 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/15/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 11/22/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

THU-FRI 11/25-11/26 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 12/01/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 12/06/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 12/07/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, December 22, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: January 12, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date