The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present:  Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, David Greco, Andrew Gutman, Brain Larson, Michael Lynch (7:35 PM), Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Lindon Ivezaj, Civil Engineer; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

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

Chair Cassis welcomed Brian Larson to the Planning Commission.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

ELECTION OF OFFICERS (tabled until after the site plan considerations)

COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTMENTS (tabled until after the site plan considerations)

The members set aside the election and committee assignments until later in the meeting.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development, informed the Planning Commission that the City Council recently approved the second reading of the text amendment relating to the extended length of ZBA approvals. City Council also approved the first reading of the text amendment relating to the Light Industrial District storage of recreational vehicles.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance in order to modify the standards for administrative review of revised site plans and time limit of site plan approvals.

Planner Mark Spencer said this text amendment is another example of the City’s ongoing efforts to streamline the development process and improve customer service. The two areas proposed for text amendments come from Section 2516. These changes will reduce the processing time for the applicants of building additions, but will still protect the interests of the citizens of Novi. Since minor additions to an existing building seldom yield substantial issues, these changes will not have a negative effect on the process, and may encourage existing landowners to reinvest in their properties.

This text amendment proposes that additions up to 10% of the existing building size, not to exceed 10,000 square feet, can be administratively approved. Currently plans greater than 1,000 square feet come before the Planning Commission for approval. This new language applies to non-residential buildings located more than 500 feet away from residential districts. The residential component was included to ensure that business additions near residential areas will not diminish the quality of life in the area. Many community ordinances are similar to Novi’s existing language. Northville, Canton, Meridian Township, Southfield, East Lansing and Rochester are communities that have also expanded the scope of their administrative review.

Additionally, Mr. Spencer said the site plan approvals are now proposed to remain valid for two years rather than one. In the past fiscal year, there were 22 extensions brought forward to the Planning Commission for approval; 12 were requests for their first extensions. The two-year window is not an unusual amount of time to use; a time period is used in the first place to provide the City with a safety measure in the event there is an Ordinance change that might need to be addressed. The City felt that the two-year threshold was a valid timeframe and would address the number of extensions that are being sought.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Gutman thought the amendment stands as a testament to the City’s efforts to improve the process.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Pehrson asked whether the declining inventory of parcels were considered. Mr. Spencer provided the example of a current Final Site Plan approval being valid for one year, with the opportunity for the Applicant to seek three one-year extensions; this will now change in that this four-year window becomes five. Mr. Spencer did not think any Ordinance would change so much that this timeframe was out of line. He also said the state’s economic condition makes this a very reasonable amendment to offer. Member Pehrson applauded the City for this action.

Member Wrobel supported the amendment. He hoped it sent the message that the City is becoming more user-friendly.

Chair Cassis sympathized with Member Pehrson’s concern. He questioned whether changes on the state level to, for instance, BOCA, could affect this local Ordinance. City Attorney Kristin Kolb responded that the state provides a very general power to cities and Planning Commissions to determine how they want to process site plans. Basically they are asked to create their own processes and identify the standards necessary. This City has already fulfilled this obligation. She didn’t anticipate this becoming a problem.

Chair Cassis was concerned about changes that might affect the health and safety of the community. Ms. Kolb responded that the state has mandated that each community must adapt the International Building Code, which the City of Novi has done. That is different from the site plan review process. They are enforced in separate fashion as well. Mr. Spencer added that building permits are based upon the BOCA Code of a certain year, which is the application date. The Applicant is guaranteed that the rules won’t change in the middle of a submittal. He said that MDEQ rules could change. A site plan approval date ensures the Applicant of the rules that will be in place for their project.

Chair Cassis asked whether the 500-foot notification area was still in place. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that this is another stipulation that the Planning Commission could review, and examples of other communities’ ordinances could be provided. She said that an analysis of the number of homes notified within the various distances could be provided as well.

Member Greco commented that the extension is the first approval, and that doesn’t mean that the Planning Commission rubber stamps additional extensions over time. These plans can be revisited upon future extension requests. He felt that this increase to the initial extension, based upon what he has witnessed thus far, makes sense. He supported the text amendment.

1. MACKENZIE NORTH TECHNOLOGY CENTRE, SP08-25

Consideration of the request of Northern Equities Group for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 1, at the northwest corner of MacKenzie Drive and Haggerty Road, north of Thirteen Mile, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 6.09 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a speculative 55,187 square foot one-story general office building.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project. This speculative building will be bordered by vacant land to the north, west and south – all land within the Haggerty Corporate Corridor Park, Phase 2. McKenzie South will be located on the southwest corner of MacKenzie and Haggerty. The site and its surrounds are zoned OST. Across Haggerty in Farmington Hills is the RP-2, Planned Residential District. The Future Land Use Map indicates Office uses for this and the surrounding sites. There are no existing regulated woodlands on the site. The reviews all noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The plan is in substantial compliance with the Ordinance.

Joe Drolshagen represented the Applicant. He mentioned the activity occurring within this industrial park. Harman Becker has just announced their relocation into the LaSalle South building. The new Cabot Drive is completed. He offered to answer any questions.

Member Pehrson thought the reviews noted all the positives of the design.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

Chair Cassis confirmed that the parking count inconsistency is not a lingering issue. Ms. Kapelanski said the problem is more of a typographical nature than a parking problem.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

In the matter of Mackenzie North Technology Centre, SP08-25, motion to approve the Stormwater Management Plan subject to the conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan, for the reasons that the plan is otherwise in compliance with Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Motion carried 8-0.

Consideration of the request of City Center Plaza, L.P., for revised Phasing Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 22, at the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Flint Street, in the TC-1, Town Center District. The Applicant is proposing to revise a Phasing Plan in order to construct a 10,400 square foot general office building at the southwest corner of Flint Street and Grand River Avenue and a 3,640 square foot retail building at the western edge of the existing City Center Plaza development. The retail building is referred to as Phase 4 and the office building as Phase 5.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the request, which is an alteration to the previously approved phasing plan. The property is zoned TC and master planned for Town Center Commercial. The previous approval of these phases was granted on October 25, 2006. Final Site Plan approval was granted administratively on November 15, 2007. Stamping Set approval was granted on December 13, 2007.

Recently the Applicant approached the City and said that due to economic constraints Phase 5 could not be constructed at this time. Ms. Kapelanski identified each of the phases on an illustration for the Planning Commission. She described the new phasing plan, which breaks the uncompleted work into three sections. Phase 4 includes the retail building, its parking and landscaping. Phase 5A includes the detention basin on the south end of the site. Both of these phases are under construction. It is the portion of the plan known as "5B" that is being delayed, which is the office building, its parking and landscaping. All reviews recommend approval of this request.

Ron Nuechterlein addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He said that Phase 4 is ready for its roof. Phase 3, Phase 4 and Phase 5A must be completed together in order for Phase 3 to receive its Certificate of Occupancy due to FEMA and MDEQ issues. Phases 3 and 4 included fills, so the compensating cut must be provided now. Phase 5B is not being staged at this time, though Mr. Nuechterlein said they are currently working with a client for this building.

Member Lynch arrived at 7:35 PM.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded Member Wrobel:

3. DAP INVESTMENTS, SP08-26

Consideration of the request of DAP Investments for Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 15, north of Fonda Drive and west of Novi Road, in the TC, Town Center District. The subject property is approximately 1.29 acres and the Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Big Boy restaurant and construct a 10,000 square foot building consisting of two retail spaces and one restaurant space.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the project, which is bordered by the Melting Pot to the north, Novi Road to east, Fonda Drive to the south and Expo Drive and the vacant Expo Center to the west. The site is zoned TC, Town Center, and is bordered by the same district to the north, east, west and south, and the EXPO, Exposition District, further west. The Future Land Use Map indicates Town Center Commercial for this property and those to the north and south. The Office designation is recommended for the properties to the west.

This area was recently reviewed in the 2008 Master Plan Update. Recommendations stemming from that effort include the installation of canopy trees along Novi Road, siting buildings close to the road, increased building heights at the intersection of Novi Road and Fonda Drive, and providing public plazas at road intersections. The proposed building does accomplish some of these objectives, such as siting the building closer to the road, providing a public plaza at the corner of Fonda and Novi roads, and providing canopy trees.

There are no regulated woodlands or wetlands on the site. The Planning Review indicates some Planning Commission Waivers and one ZBA Variance are necessary. The building setbacks on the north, east and south sides of the building are deficient. In the TC District the Planning Commission can reduce the setbacks provided the three conditions noted in the Plan Review Chart are met. The loading zone Variance will be sought. The Applicant indicated in his response letter that other minor deficiencies on the plan will be corrected.

The Landscape Review recommends approval of the plan and the Applicant seeks one Landscape Waiver from the Planning Commission. The Applicant has proposed decorative fencing with brick piers in lieu of a solid brick wall. This is permitted with a Planning Commission Waiver and Staff supports this request. The Applicant will work with Staff to meet the landscape foundation requirements.

The Façade Review indicated that a Section 9 Waiver was required, but the Applicant responded that he will instead bring the façade into compliance with the Ordinance.

The Traffic Review, Engineering Review, and Fire Department Review all noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Ms. Kapelanski stated that the property has recently been named Mercantile Marketplace.

Ryan Dembs represented the Applicant. Mr. Dembs has worked with three tenants for this site and the result is the site plan design before the Planning Commission for approval. This center is of the highest quality. Illustrations of the plan were shown to the Planning Commission. The anticipated tenants are Chipotle, The Vitamin Shop and Casual Male. Mr. Dembs felt this design was a good fit for the Town Center District.

Chair Cassis noted that the now-standing Big Boy was built on this site in 1976.

Member Wrobel asked whether Casual Male was leaving the center across the street; Mr. Dembs replied yes. Member Wrobel was sad to see Big Boy leave; Mr. Dembs said that they are relocating elsewhere in Novi.

Member Wrobel liked the building placement closer to the road, with the parking in the rear. This design will yield a more formal look. Member Wrobel supported the plan.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Chair Cassis asked whether there were any boulder walls with this design. Ms. Kapelanski responded that there is a small boulder retaining wall on the north side of the building. It is near the outdoor seating area. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that it is a small wall near the north end of the building. She did not know whether a different type of brick wall could be used in this instance, and there is nothing in the Ordinance prohibiting the use of a boulder wall.

Chair Cassis said he would not vote for the boulder wall. He then asked for more information regarding the decorative fence. Landscape Architect David Beschke explained that a wall is required where parking is adjacent to the road. The option exists for the Applicant to use a brick pier and decorative fencing design. Mr. Beschke was hoping to match this fence to the other fence that will be built in the immediate area. He thought the decorative design was less monotonous than a solid brick wall.

Chair Cassis asked the Applicant why he was using the boulder wall. Mr. Dembs said it is a practical measure, but he offered to listen to any recommendations. The boulder wall is only 18 inches tall. Chair Cassis said that downtown Novi is not the country. There is another location in the downtown with boulders that Chair Cassis did not think fit aesthetically within the area. Mr. Dembs was happy to look at other options. Chair Cassis asked him to provide something tasteful. Mr. Dembs said he will work with the City to get this design feature taken care of.

Chair Cassis described using a concrete pre-fab design that would look nice. Mr. Dembs said he would take care of the design.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

In the matter of DAP Investments for Mercantile Marketplace, SP08-26, motion to approve the Stormwater Management Plan subject to the conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan, for the reasons that the plan is otherwise in compliance with Chapter 11 of the Code of Ordinances and all other applicable provisions of the Ordinance. Motion carried 9-0.

Consideration of the request of Triangle Development, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for revised Preliminary Site Plan and revised Phasing Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Novi Road, in the TC-1, Town Center District. The subject property is approximately twenty acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use development on the vacant land to the north and south of the existing Main Street.

Chair Cassis asked to be recused from the consideration of the Main Street requests [due to his relationship as a neighboring landowner of the Main Street development].

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Planner Kristen Reinowski described the project. The site is zoned TC-1, Town Center, and master planned for Town Center Commercial. The Preliminary Site Plan was recommended to City Council by the Planning Commission on September 27, 2007; City Council approved it on November 13, 2007. A number of ZBA variances have also been granted. The phasing plan was recommended for approval to City Council on October 10, 2007 and was approved by City Council on October 22, 2007. The Applicant has received Final Site Plan approval for Phase 1.

Ms. Kapelanski stated that the retail building shown in green on an illustration has been shifted to the west. The five-story retail-office building #500 has been removed. Building #400 has been changed from a one-story to a two-story building and the use has changed from retail to a nightclub, as shown in red on the plan.

The Planning Review noted that the buildings must be separated by a minimum of ten feet; the plan indicates only one foot between the existing building and Building #400. City Council can reduce the setbacks provided certain conditions are met. Ms. Kapelanski provided the Planning Commission with language to address this matter for incorporation into their motion, if they so choose to use it.

Ms. Kapelanski said the Planning Review and Traffic Review both noted concerns relating to shared parking. The Traffic Consultant was available to answer questions.

The Engineering Review and Fire Department Review both recommended approval of the plan. All previous variances carry over and remain valid should the Planning Commission and City Council approve the plan with a motion similar to the proposal provided by Ms. Kapelanski.

Ms. Kapelanski said that the Final Site Plan reviews for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are being done concurrently with this review. The Planning Commission is now asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding this revised Preliminary Site Plan and the revised phasing plan.

Courtney Petrowski-Miller addressed the Planning Commission. She introduced the owner, Mr. Dave Nona.

Member Meyer said that the Planning Commission received correspondence from Mr. Victor Cassis regarding this request. His letter wished the Applicant success with the development of their property, but he wondered if this plan offered variations from the already-approved plan that will affect his property, "Flower Alley." He wondered about the vacation of Paul Bunyan, the status of the drive access to Flower Alley off of Paul Bunyan, and the shared parking arrangements affirmed by the City Council in their last motion. He also asked whether the Applicant was proposing to barricade Paul Bunyan and close it off from traffic at the east side of the Flower Alley property; he wished to confirm that this design element was explored and wondered whether Main Street was using the road as a huge parking lot.

Member Meyer acknowledged the Applicant’s response letter and asked whether #18 was being addressed in the future. Also, he wondered what happened to the traffic circles. Mr. Nona said the circles were removed at the suggestion of the Traffic Consultant; there was a difference of opinion regarding the design. Mr. Nona said that he is not submitting plans for Building #500, which housed underground parking. When the time comes to design that building, he said he would make sure there is enough parking for the size of the building its proposed uses on the site.

Member Meyer was curious whether economics played a role in these changes being proposed. Mr. Nona said that they did play a role.

Mr. Nona said that he is not making changes to the Paul Bunyan area on the site plan. Member Pehrson asked whether there would still be access to the Flower Alley from Paul Bunyan. Mr. Nona said yes. Mr. Nona told Member Pehrson that there is not an attempt to barricade Paul Bunyan.

Member Pehrson asked Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth to answer the remaining question relating to whether this Paul Bunyan area design is the same as what had previously been approved. Ms. McBeth said she would compare the two plans.

Member Meyer thanked the Applicant for his willingness to work with the City. He supported the project.

Member Burke has a business in the Main Street area, and he is very anxious for the Applicant to move forward with his development. He speaks with people daily about the synergy expected once the Main Street development is complete. The City as a whole is excited about the progress. He thanked the Applicant for working closely with the Staff to make this project work.

Member Burke asked about the park phasing. Ms. Kapelanski responded that City Council asked that the park, originally Phase 5, come back before them for Final Site Plan approval. Now it is Phase 3, and it will go before City Council for approval.

Member Burke asked if the parking deck has now lost all of its feasibility. When the economy turns around, the big asphalt footprint will still be there. He asked whether a building with a parking deck will re-find its opportunity. Mr. Nona said that realistically, in that particular area, the chance is gone. He said there may be room for a parking deck in another location within the complex. Economic conditions have to justify its existence.

Member Burke supported the plan.

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Larson:

Member Wrobel wanted to see the Main Street development completed. He thought the previous plans looked more like a downtown. Now this revised plan gives a downtown on one side of the street and the other side of the street it will be a parking lot like anywhere else. He understood that there are economic conditions. What happens though, if the Applicant returns a year down the road and revises the plan even more? This downtown development could change into something completely different before it is complete.

Member Wrobel did not like the surface parking. It does not look like a downtown area. Based upon that fact alone, Member Wrobel had trouble supporting the plan.

Member Pehrson asked the Traffic Consultant to make comments about the parking availability. Mr. Steve Dearing of OHM did not have parking availability concerns with second phase of the project, which will have more than adequate amounts of parking. He was concerned that the full development may fall short in parking requirements, once the south side has been fully developed.

Mr. Dearing and the Applicant’s traffic consultant are having a professional disagreement regarding whether the end product has appropriate parking. Together, they are working to determine whether the future phases, when integrated, will provide a viable downtown area with enough parking to support the uses. It is the broader picture, not this phase, that is in contention. One issue they are discussing is how the Applicant can deal with reserved parking for resident-only versus the open parking that would support resident overflow versus the retail and commercial uses. Mr. Dearing wished to ensure that there is a comprehensive parking study that encompasses the entire development instead of smaller-scoped parking studies that are being presented individually by phase. The smaller studies make it more difficult to get a full picture of the entire development.

Member Pehrson agreed. The review should encompass the whole rather than the parts. He asked how the Applicant can respond to this question. Mr. Dearing responded said the strongest measure with which to address this issue is to complete an "existing condition study" with the future phases. The parking calculations offered today are based on estimates based on hypothetical uses. The medical building and night club on the north side of the street would demand about 1,300 spaces, or whatever is stated in the review, and the reality is that peak period usage could result in an overage or an underage. Trip generation and parking generation are estimates based on studies of other locations and other times. This is the best "crystal ball" that Mr. Dearing has. However, in the future, an "existing condition study" will shed light on how accurate the original estimated numbers really were.

Member Pehrson said that overestimates could result in perhaps additional parkland; he asked what the corrective measure would be if the numbers were underestimated. Mr. Dearing recommended that this phase could be built because there will be sufficient parking. Before substantial work occurs on the south side of Main Street however, the current traffic study should be reviewed against real-life traffic and parking demands. If there is a substantial difference, the density of the future south side development will have to be changed, unless a mechanism is used to address the parking shortfall.

Member Pehrson noted the language in the motion and asked City Attorney Kristin Kolb whether it sufficiently covers Mr. Dearing’s comments and concerns. Ms. Kolb thought so; she said the motion clarifies for the developer that if there are changes affecting the parking, he will have to address them before he can move forward.

Mr. Nona responded that Michael Cool of Midwest Consulting performed the subject Main Street traffic study. This study was designed to hopefully address each of Mr. Dearing’s concerns. A follow-up response dated July 8, 2008 further addresses the issue of whether there will be a shortage of perhaps sixty parking spaces when the entire development is completed. Mr. Nona’s traffic consultant’s analysis suggests that there won’t be a deficiency because with the factor of .9 in the shared parking study for the retail and restaurant use, which has been applied to this development all along, those sixty parking spaces appear. Mr. Dearing has not taken this analysis into consideration. Mr. Nona has always maintained that with every phase he will make sure that he has adequate parking, and that each design will provide shared parking with every phase already built. Mr. Nona said that if it gets to the point that there is a shortage of parking, he is prepared to reduce the sizes of the building or limit the uses of the building, or he may provide some below-grade parking. At this time, he is satisfied by a good traffic analysis that he has adequate shared parking for the entire project. He is prepared to continue to work with the City for every phase.

Member Pehrson appreciated that comment, that Mr. Nona understands more work may have to be completed before the Main Street development is done.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth thanked Mr. Nona for making those comments part of the public record. He has previously made these commitments at meetings which made the Staff comfortable enough to bring this plan forward. Knowing that the south side of the street will remain the same until the exact uses of the buildings can be known provides for the City to revisit the shared parking with the future phases.

Member Pehrson asked Ms. McBeth whether there were any errors in Mr. Cassis’ translation of previous decisions made about this development. Ms. McBeth responded that the question seemed to be whether the plan submitted at this time is consistent with the plan that was previously approved. Ms. McBeth stated that Ms. Kapelanski researched this issue earlier in the day and found that the plan was fairly consistent.

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Gutman:

Consideration of the request of Triangle Development, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the proposed Building 400. The subject property is located in Section 23, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Novi Road, in the TC-1, Town Center District. The subject property is approximately 0.25 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct a mixed-use development on the vacant land to the north and south of the existing Main Street.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the request for the Planning Commission. The two-story nightclub that is part of Phase 2 is being reviewed concurrently with the revised Preliminary Site Plan SP06-38c. The design of the building now requires a Section 9 Façade Waiver for the overage of cast stone on the south and west façades and the underage of brick on the west façade. The Façade Consultant recommends approval of this Waiver. There was an earlier concern regarding the color of the proposed metal roof, and the Applicant has since indicated that the roof will be in compliance with the Ordinance and a Waiver for that element is no longer needed.

Ms. Kapelanski said the Town Center Ordinance requires that a metal roofing must be made of copper or be of a copper-colored tone. The Applicant has provided a sample of what the roof color will be, which is clearly a copper tone.

The Planning Commission should consider the language found in Section 1602.9 of the Zoning Ordinance and make a recommendation to City Council regarding this request.

Member Burke asked whether there was any opportunity for this building, which will be one foot from the existing building, to piggyback on the underground parking that is part of the Atrium building. He wondered if that could alleviate concerns regarding future parking needs. Dave Nona of Triangle Development said that he had not planned for such a design. This is a fairly small building with a footprint of about 7,000 square feet. It would yield about 15 parking spaces according to his calculations. The logistics of this design has not been considered.

Moved by Member Burke, supported by Member Gutman:

Mr. Nona stated that he wanted to start construction in the fall.

At this point in the meeting the officers and committee choices were put back on the table.

Chair Cassis returned to the table and continued to chair the meeting.

Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Gutman thanked Chair Cassis for his three years of excellent chairmanship of the Planning Commission. Chair Cassis appreciated the kind words. He congratulated the new officers.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that six of the members already provided their choices. The Planning Commission worked together as a group to determine the following committee placements:

Member Meyer wished to abstain from voting in light of absence from the meeting.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Burke:

The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM.

MON 07/28/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/30/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

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

TUE 08/12/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 08/13/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 08/25/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/27/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/01/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, July 21, 2008 Signature on File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

Date Approved: July 30, 2008