(248) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington.

PRESENT: Members, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Chairperson Weddington

ABSENT: Members Canup, Koneda

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, David Wickens Environmental Specialist, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda? She stated she has received a report regarding Tax Base from Rod Arroyo and would like to discuss under Matters for Discussion it if time allows. Seeing no other changes or additions she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.

PM-98-09-171 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Watza, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

CORRESPONDENCE

Paul and Yvonne Balconi wrote regarding the rezoning at Eight Mile and Beck Road. They did not understand all of the hubbub about it since it has always been commercial. It seems more appropriate to the area to have a full size grocery store versus a trucking business.

Jack and Nancy Riggs wrote regarding the feasibility of rezoning the corner of Beck Road and Eight Mile Road. An up to date shopping area would benefit everyone in the area because there is not a shopping area close to the area and it would be beneficial to area residents.

Mr. & Mrs. Gene Messenger wrote regarding Eight Mile Road and Beck Road rezoning. Mr. Frankel stated that his "rural country village" was needed to service the community. It was obvious from the public reaction at the meeting that the affected public does not feel the added convenience is worth the concomitant degradation in the quality of life.

Beth and Bob Souri wrote in regard to the rezoning of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road. They asked the Commission to stick to the Master Plan for Residential Acreage and do not rezone for Commercial. More traffic is not needed at Eight Mile Road and Beck Road.

David and Tamara Murphy wrote in regard to Bristol Corners. The residents on South Lake Drive will not be able to get in or out of their driveways or cross the street to go to the lake. They felt that the road could not handle any more traffic.

Mark Kemper wrote regarding Bristol Corners. Since 1992, the traffic count has more than doubled. In addition, it seems very evident along with the increase in traffic is an increase in speed, danger and garbage on South Lake Drive. According to the information in the Taft Road determination, the maximum amount of cars traveling down South Lake Drive will be 3,500 per day. According to Rod Arroyo, Bristol Corners will place 2,200 cars per day on South Lake Drive.

Gary Zach wrote regarding Bristol Corners. South Lake Drive was designated as a residential collector. According to the Master Plan it was meant to funnel vehicles to the main road from the area along the lakefront and the subdivisions off of South Lake Drive. Any further development must include a plan to address the traffic on South Lake Drive. Some possible options include, 1) Cul-de-sac South Lake Drive at the east end of Bristol Corners; 2) Return South Lake Drive to its original pre 1985 location; 3) Connect South Lake Drive to the Bristol Corners street layout in such a manner that it is not a thru street and such traffic will be forced to filter through the subdivision streets.

Matt Whitbrat wrote to inform the Commission why he has made a recent decision to sell his residence on South Lake Drive. He stated the traffic has increased over the years, he has lived there to a point that is now unbearable. At a recent family gathering one of his siblings came very close to being hit by an automobile traveling at a very high speed.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1998.

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve.

PM-98-09-172 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1998 AS PRESENTED

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 19, 1998 as presented.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-172 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.578

Proposed rezoning of a 0.85 acre property located in Section 15, at the northwest corner of Novi and Grand River Roads from Town Center (TC) to Town Center District (TC-1), or any other appropriate zoning district.

Brad Byarski, Vice President of Rem Tech Environmental Services, Inc. stated the staff felt that a site that fronted along Novi and Grand River Roads would be more desirable than something pushed to the back of the site. He stated under the TC zoning, he would be forced to put a building along the back of the site. Mr. Byarski stated he has met with surrounding owners in an effort to try to coordinate the entire corner. He thought if the property was rezoned to TC-1 it would leave some potential to put together a co-development. He stated he could provide access to the back of Roman Plaza as well a tie in to Crescent Boulevard and developments to the west.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the applicant has been before the Town Center Steering Committee and there were some concerns with tying it into the adjacent properties. The recommendation from the Committee was not favorable. He stated when the TC-1 zoning district was first established, it was thought that TC-1 zoning would primarily be south of Grand River, however, there was nothing official. This application is to extend the zoning to the north. Mr. Arroyo believed it had merit for a number of reasons. He stated the site was located at the intersection of Grand River and Novi Road. He believed that providing some type of significant feature at the intersection made sense because of the prominence of the intersection. He pointed out that the current TC-1 zoning would have an impact on Wonderland Plaza as it would obstruct visibility, it would also restrict truck access around the shopping center. Mr. Arroyo stated the land uses permitted in both the TC and TC-1 districts are basically the same, therefore, from a use perspective there isn’t really much of a difference, it is really more of a design concept. He did not anticipate an additional demand for utilities or traffic associated with the rezoning because the uses are essentially the same. Mr. Arroyo recommended that the Commission send a positive recommendation to City Council to rezone the parcel. He provided a few alternatives that could be considered; a) to recommend a positive recommendation of the rezoning; b) to deny or postpone the request until more land can be included and a larger TC-1 district could be created; c) to deny the request and not encourage TC-1 north of Grand River.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello stated the Matter was in front of the Town Center Steering Committee several times before it came to the Commission. Initially the plan was under the TC district and looked more like a small strip center. He stated when the petitioner initially came before the Committee, they had another building located closer to the road which caused them to need several variances. It was suggested that the applicant should consider rezoning to TC-1 since they needed so many variances. Some of the opposition to the rezoning was that in the TC-1 district, they were able to build a building with a few 100 feet more and there was concern with the site being over built. One of the major properties that affects the corner is Knight’s Auto. Member Capello explained the reason that the recommendation was negative was because the petitioner was asked to go back to Mr. Knight and ask if there was some way to work out a plan where they could incorporate his property into the development and develop that section down to the new furniture store. Member Capello personally did not feel that anything would be worked out with Mr. Knight in the near future. He stated if the rezoning was not granted, the property would not be developed under the TC zoning because they cannot get a big enough building on the property and make it work financially. Member Capello stated he would rather see a TC-1 building as opposed to a TC building which would end up looking like a strip center.

Khanh Pham, Staff Planner explained when the applicant came forward about one year ago, they presented two proposals, TC and TC-1. When the alternatives were looked at, staff encouraged the applicant to pursue the rezoning to TC-1.

Member Csordas agreed with the comments of Member Capello.

PM-98-09-173 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.578 TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM TC TO TC-1

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council of Zoning Map Amendment 18.578 to rezone the subject property from TC to TC-1.

DISCUSSION

In regard to R.O.W. along Grand River and Novi Road, Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo if there was currently sufficient R.O.W. there for Master Planned R.O.W.’s?

Mr. Arroyo did not know the exact dimensions of the R.O.W. He recalled that he applicant would indicate some additional R.O.W. setback from Grand River. He stated the Master Plan R.O.W. was 120' on both roads.

Member Mutch asked the petitioner if he could build a successful development without any requests for variances? He asked what types of variances are anticipated if they are needed?

Mr. Byarski stated under the TC-1, the only variance anticipated would be a front yard setback along Novi Road.

Member Mutch stated from the conceptual plans and Mr. Arroyo’s comments, he felt TC-1 was the best vehicle for the district, therefore, he was in support of the motion.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-173 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Weddington encouraged the petitioner to continue to work something out with all of the adjacent property owners.

2. BRISTOL CORNERS SP97-15Q

This project is located in Sections 3 and 4, on the east and west side of West Road and on the north and south sides of South Lake Drive, in the Office Service Technology (OST) District. Applicant is seeking Tentative Preliminary Plat and Final Preliminary Plat approvals, and Woodland and Wetland Permit approvals.

Arnold Serlin represented the Novi Group. He stated there are originally four (4) subdivisions. He proposed changes in the second subdivision, into two subdivisions which consist of 68 and 38 lots. He stated his plat approvals had expired and asked for them to be renewed.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the project has already gone through the platting process and Final Plat approval has already been given to Bristol Corners West I. Mr. Arroyo stated there were some discrepancies in the number of acres going from sheet to sheet and he would like to see them corrected. He stated there was a footnote that referenced certain lots not being able to have access to West Road, they are referenced incorrectly and need to be changed. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of a positive recommendation on the Tentative Preliminary Plat and the Final Preliminary Plat subject to the comments in his letter.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated in regard to the water main, a second source connection is not yet available, therefore, the water system will be unlooped. This will probably change in the Spring, the 24" water main will be extended down West Road as part of the Taft Road extension. Drainage has been taken into consideration, there are about five (5) detention basins on site. Ms. Weber recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval as well as any extension of the Woodlands Permit.

Mr. Arroyo referred to his letter dated August 05, 1998 regarding the traffic review of the proposed development. He stated a traffic impact study was prepared and submitted and approved. A project of this size is expected to generate approximately 2,200 to 2,300 trips per day, 229 trips during the afternoon peak hour. The project is proposing a number of road improvements to West Road, including the construction of a center left turn lane and appropriate deceleration lanes. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Tentative and Final Preliminary Plats.

David Wickens, Environmental Specialist recommended approval of the plan. He stated the wetland permit was originally issued for Bristol Corners West and he had no objection to transferring the permit activities, conditions and limitations of the original permit to the re-phased areas of Bristol Corners West II and III. He recommended approval.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

Chairperson Weddington corrected the caption on the application. She stated the property is currently zoned Residential Acreage (RA), not OST.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Mark Kemper, 357 South Lake Drive stated since he has lived in the area, the traffic has more than doubled on South Lake Drive. He did not see any relief in site with the new subdivision going in. He expressed concern with the amount of traffic, speeding cars and the quality of life.

Karen Pisha, 351 South Lake Drive stated the traffic has continued to worsen, she felt it represented a hazard to cross the street and stated it was difficult to get in and out of her driveway. She thought the proposed additional 2,200 cars per day would affect the property values as well as the safety of the residents. She stated she would like to see the proposal disapproved.

Gary Zack, 359 South Lake Drive spoke in regard to the effect on South Lake Drive. In 1985, the City moved South Lake Drive from its original routing around the lakefront and connected it to West Road without voter approval and without regard to the impact on the area. Since that time, the traffic has steadily increased from 3,800 cars per day in 1986 to 7,400 cars per day in 1994 to the present 9,200 cars per day. The situation is becoming extremely hazardous. He quoted a letter from the Novi Chief of Police dated April 1998, "both South Lake Drive and East Lake Drive have been the focus of intense police activity for the last several years. More citations have been written on these two streets than any other in Novi." This situation is a result of South Lake Drive being used as a through street. No amount of enforcement can bring the traffic under control. He saw three acceptable alternatives; 1) cul-de-sac South Lake Drive at the east end of Bristol Corners and give the existing R.O.W. to the developer for additional lots; 2) connect South Lake Drive to the east side of the subdivision street plan without a thru route and post all entrances from West Road to Bristol Corners with "No Thru Traffic" signs; 3) return South Lake Drive to its original location on the lakefront connecting to South Lake Court with no connection to Bristol Corners or West Road. Mr. Zack hoped the Commission would consider the possible changes.

Diana Stopinski, 233 Bernstadt expressed concern for safety and the increased traffic on South Lake Drive. She stated the proposed development cannot be adequately handled by South Lake Drive. She expected the Commission to consider the residents who have been living in the area for the past 10 to 40 years.

Tom Beller, 1235 South Lake stated he is located 1/8 of a mile from the stop sign and traffic is always stopped in front of his house. He stated it was an investment that he was sorry to have made. He was hopeful that the Commission would consider the comments of the residents and do something about the traffic situation.

John Bolt, President of LARA asked the Commission to listen to the residents. He asked that with the extension of Taft Road, that there is someway to put in a cul-de-sac or a breakaway barrier because if the problems are not handled, residents will continue to leave the area. He asked the Commission to please listen.

Dana Howe, 46050 West Road, her property directly abuts Bristol Corners. She agreed with the residents and stated the traffic in front of her house has increased with the improvements that are being made to Beck Road currently. She stated she has lived in Novi for 9 years and one reason she came here was because of the strong woodland and wetland laws which she thought appeared to be deteriorating since she has lived here. She thought the City has overdeveloped the area and has not been conscientious about what the developers are allowed to do. She asked if Bristol Corners has lived up to the agreement they made for Wetlands.

Steve Loit, 1507 West Lake Drive referred to the preservation areas on the lake, he wanted to make sure that they were not an issue tonight. He asked if he was correct in assuming that there were no changes being made to the preservation areas? He understood there to be a tree preservation policy in Novi and asked if there were any changes to that policy as there were a lot of trees that were bulldozed.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Csordas asked Mr. Arroyo what types of traffic controls, if any, were planned along South Lake Drive?

Mr. Arroyo stated the most significant proposal is the construction of the Taft Road extension. He stated West Road will be extended south down to Twelve Mile Road. One of the principal reasons for the extension is to help relieve the traffic on South Lake Drive. He explained that the Taft Road extension will provide an opportunity for people to get to the intersection of Novi Road and Twelve Mile Road in a faster time frame than if they were to travel South Lake Drive down to Novi Road. Mr. Arroyo also stated the Beck Road Interchange would greatly benefit the area and would likely be under construction within the next two years. With the Taft Road extension, it then makes it possible for the City to implement other traffic control measures to reduce volumes on South Lake Drive if necessary.

Member Csordas asked when the Taft Road extension would begin construction?

Mr. Arroyo answered, it is currently under construction.

Member Csordas asked how many lanes were proposed?

Mr. Arroyo answered, it is to be a two to three lane section.

Member Csordas asked Ms. Lemke if the developer has complied with the preservation requirements?

Ms. Lemke stated she did not know, she was just taking over monitoring of the construction. She stated the majority of areas to be preserved were in the rear of the property on the western edges. There were a lot of trees on the site that were approved to be taken down and most of them were hedgerows that ran throughout the site.

Member Csordas asked if any mitigation was required?

Ms. Lemke answered not for the hedgerows because they were not regulated. She stated the areas adjacent to the major woodlands along the western side will be required to be replaced.

Mr. Serlin stated he has placed a letter of credit with the City in the amount of $227,000 for replacement of trees. He stated it would be increased by some $100,000 once the final count is done. He stated there were approximately 1,000 trees that he was obligated to replace subject to the completed development and any trees that may be taken out as a result of house construction. The trees will be replaced on the site if possible, if not, then in other places that are approved by the City Forester or a letter of credit would be submitted and the City would get the replacement money for the trees. His hope was to plant as many of the trees on his site as possible.

Member Csordas stated a member of the audience lives directly next to the project and stated he did not receive notification, he asked Mr. Pham to address the matter.

Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated the Department notifies residents around the affected property within 500', however, the accuracy of the notices are directly proportional to the accuracy of Oakland County’s records.

Member Churella thought if three stop lights were installed on South Lake Drive, the problems would be alleviated, he asked Mr. Arroyo if it could be done.

Mr. Arroyo stated it would not be approved by the City. He stated it would not meet the standards of the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Traffic signals are only placed in locations where volumes meet specific warrants, they are not used for speed control or volume control.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission could not require off site traffic improvements of the applicant.

Member Mutch asked the applicant for a general time line in regard to the different subdivisions and their start dates.

Mr. Serlin answered, the first subdivision has been platted, the second subdivision is in the plating process. He stated it is a function of the market, he was hopeful that by this time next year the lots on the west side of the street will be completed. The north and south subdivisions were at least two years away. He speculated that the earliest for the balance of the west side would be next year.

Member Mutch asked what the plans were for the excluded parcel on South Lake Drive, in the northern subdivision.

Mr. Serlin answered, there were no plans for it.

In regard to the north subdivision, Member Mutch asked if the applicant would be required by Ordinance to install sidewalks in the portion along South Lake Court?

Mr. Arroyo did not believe they would because the sidewalk provisions indicate that sidewalks should be located within the boundaries of subdivision plats and along all major thoroughfares. South Lake Court does not constitute a major thoroughfare and it is not within the subdivision plat.

In regard to the south subdivision, Member Mutch stated according to the Subdivision Ordinance, all lots are that have rear lot frontage on a major road are required to have 150' depth minimum. He stated it does not look like Lot 6 meets that requirement, he asked if it has been addressed?

Mr. Arroyo did not believe that it was an issue when it originally came through the process. Through the Preservation Option the size of lots can be reduced and he was not sure if it was addressed at that time?

Member Mutch thought it should be addressed.

Mr. Arroyo stated he could look into it.

Member Mutch asked if the boardwalk was addressed as part of the Wetland Permit?

Mr. Wickens answered he was not sure. He stated he could check some additional files and get back to the Commission.

Mr. Serlin answered the Preservation agreement he entered into with the City permits him to do passive activities in those areas that are sensitive.

Member Mutch stated the installation of the boardwalk could involve activities within the wetlands, he stated it would be a disruption of a preservation area. He thought the Wetland Permit needed to address the impact of the boardwalk and its construction. Member Mutch asked if the total amount of mitigation has been established?

Mr. Wickens answered, yes it has. Unfortunately, he did not have the Wetland Permit in front of him. He stated there is an Open Space Preservation Easement Agreement and within the agreement there was extended the right to install paths and walkways. He stated a permit was issued for a boardwalk and a gazebo area under the Wetlands Permit and the impacts were very minimal.

Kelly Schuler, Planning Assistant added that the gazebo and boardwalk are under a separate site plan proposal that Mr. Serlin proposed for Bristol Corners North and it was proposed earlier this summer and has already gone through.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Wickens to indicate where the wetland mitigation was to take place.

In regard to the north subdivision, lots 17-20, Member Mutch asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the size of the lots to create a small open space. He thought it would be an attractive feature, however, the Commission could not require it.

Mr. Serlin explained if berming is on a lot, it seems to be maintained better than if it were open space. He stated there is a rear yard drain required beyond the berm, therefore it is already taking away from the lot from 30' and another 20' for the storm easement. There is also a requirement to put Edison in the rear yard which takes up another 10'. Mr. Serlin stated he was looking at the possibility of building up a berm on the street side which will reduce the size of the footprint of the berm in order to plant trees on top of the berm. He stated all of the issues were being addressed. He thought he may have a problem selling the lots, he stated he would put in the required barrier and more if possible.

Member Mutch commended the applicant on doing the street R.O.W. plantings, he stated the applicant was being progressive in taking that step forward. In general, Member Mutch stated this was one of the better subdivisions in terms of woodlands and wetlands preservation.

Mr. Arroyo stated Lot 6 in the south subdivision is 143' deep and the Subdivision Ordinance requires a minimum depth of 140', therefore it meets the requirement.

PM-98-09-174 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AS WELL AS WETLAND PERMIT APPROVAL AND ALSO TO GRANT A WOODLAND PERMIT TO BRISTOL CORNERS SP97-15Q

Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas

DISCUSSION

Member Watza expressed concern with the impact on South Lake Drive. He asked Mr. Arroyo if there was something that could be done regarding the safety concerns before the applicant starts the development?

Mr. Arroyo answered he did not think there was anything in particular that the applicant could do. He thought the City needed to continue to monitor the situation and do whatever it could through the DPW Department to address problems that may arise along the roadway. He did not know of anything else that the applicant could as a part of his plat.

Member Watza understood. However, he stated the Commission is being asked to approve the development, which will assuredly increase the traffic on South Lake Drive, and he thought there must be a way to offer the residents something more.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that the Commission consider a separate motion to ask that the DPW and the Police Department look into the issue and evaluate it to determine if something can be done to alleviate the problems.

Member Watza asked the maker of the motion if he would be willing to amend the motion to add the notes of Mr. Arroyo that the matter be referred to the DPS for the purpose of specifically installing some specific devices to prevent any tragedies as spoken of by the residents.

Chairperson Weddington asked for clarification of the appropriate department whether it be DPW or DPS?

Mr. Arroyo stated the DPS would be the appropriate department and the DPW falls under that department.

Moved by Watza, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat and Final Preliminary Plat approval as well as Wetland Permit approval and also to grant a Woodland Permit to Bristol Corners SP97-15Q and to add the notes of Mr. Arroyo that the Matter be referred to the DPS and the Police Department to evaluate the impact of the development on South Lake Drive for traffic control and to take appropriate action thereafter as necessary.

Mr. Serlin stated he did not want the amendment to muddy the waters for his approval, he asked if it could be made a separate motion because he did not want it to be misconstrued that the approval will be held up until the City determines what might be able to be done with South Lake Drive, he thought it would be inappropriate.

Member Watza preferred it to be a part of one motion, otherwise he could not support the motion.

Mr. Weisberger clarified that the language contained within the motion is a suggestion to take a look at it. It is no way contingent upon the project.

Member Mutch commented that he would support the motion, however, he addressed the residents and stated it was not the authority or duty of the Planning Commission to take actions in terms of changes in the road or traffic control. He stated it is under the authority of City Council and the various City Departments.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-175 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Capello

No: None

Located in Section 13, on the west side of Haggerty Road, between Twelve Mile and I-96 in the Office Service Technology District (OST). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, and Woodland and Wetlands Permit approvals.

Member Capello announced that he represents Trio Management who has a $22,000 contract to do the demolition work for Talon Development. He did not think it would affect his judgement in any way, however, he addressed the Commission with the situation and asked for their opinion.

There were no objections to Member Capello’s voting on the Matter.

Harry Kokkinakis, Vice President of the Talon Development Group, Inc. introduced Susan Aceoli, Director of Leasing, and Steve Gabries, Project Manager. He also introduced his consultants Tom Phillips the Architect, Mark Young the Civil Engineer, Mike Dul the Landscape Architect and Brooks Williamson the Wetlands Expert. He concurred with comments from the Administration and the City Consultants. He stated the project has two entrances off of Haggerty Road. The project will be completed in two phases, the first phase is to the east and the second to the west, each building is approximately 87,000 square feet. The perimeter of the project will be a very upgraded facade, it will be predominantly brick. The interior court areas will be where all of the service is located, this was done because it eliminates any view from the public R.O.W. and the adjacent properties. Mr. Kokkinakis stated the Section 4 Waiver that is being requested involves integrally colored split faced block as an accent. There is a band at the top of the windows, another band at the bottom of the windows and a couple of accent points at each column. The facade is at the perimeter and wraps around 30' into the court for the service area. The waiver also asks for the same type of block to be used in the interior courtyard area. He stated all of the ceiling heights are 10' high since a lot of engineering type uses are expected.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated there are two identical buildings proposed. The site fronts onto Haggerty Road, two points of access are proposed. Ordinance requirements in terms of setbacks, height and bulk and density are all met. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to a few minor issues in his letter being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated water service will be brought to the site by extending a 12" water main along Haggerty Road from the north and it will be stubbed to the northwest corner of the site for future extension. Sanitary sewer will be available by off site extension, there is an existing sanitary sewer that runs north/south which is located to the west of the project. Storm water run off will be collected in an on site storm sewer and routed to two detention basins. The basins will have temporary sedimentation and permanent water quality controls and the flows will be outletted at a restricted rate to the Haggerty Road ditch. Ms. Weber requested that a letter be send to the City of Farmington Hills to advise them of the work being proposed due to the close proximity of the storm water release. Ms. Weber recommended approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated a trip generation estimate has been provided, including approximately 1,600 trips during an average weekday and just over 200 trips during the morning and afternoon peak hour. There will be right turn deceleration taper improvements required at the development access points. The proposed driveway spacing meets the spacing standards. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan. She stated the developer is short about 60 trees which can be put in along the northern and southern property lines to meet the parking area requirements. There were three minor items that would be reviewed at the time of Final. In regard to the woodlands, she stated they continue off the site to the west and off the site to the north. It is a scattered wetland/woodland habitat that is very open. The applicant is removing a very small area of wetlands at the fringe, there is a small quality pocket and area of nice woodlands with a potential historic 42" Oak specimen tree. The sanitary sewer will be moved further out into the wetlands buffer which will preserve the larger trees on the side. The applicant is adding replacement plantings to connect the wooded wetland areas and in the more open areas adjacent to the storm water detention basin. She stated the protective snow fencing should be moved closer to the proposed storm water detention basin and that protective fencing be put off site along the sanitary sewer. With those conditions and her normal five (5) conditions contained in the letter, she recommended approval of a Woodlands Permit.

David Wickens, Environmental Specialist stated seven wetland pockets are contained on site, two are considered regulated. The applicant is impacting a portion of the regulated wetland. Currently the site is a nursery operation, there are no proposed impacts to the wetland, however, there is an impact to the 25' setback. The wetland setback has been used historically for horses. To compensate for the regulated wetland impact, the applicant is proposing to mitigate. There are two wetland impacts contained off site. They propose to cross it with a sanitary line at the narrowest point which will be a temporary impact. Mr. Wickens recommended approval of the Wetland Permit with three conditions; 1) they remove the proposed mitigation outside of the Detroit Edison easement and locate it within the easement; 2) the mitigation area be placed into a conservation easement; 3) a DEQ Permit or letter of no jurisdiction be obtained prior to City permit issuance.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the applicant is requesting a Section 4 Waiver for two issues; 1) the use of the decorative CMU for the accent band; 2) the use of decorative CMU in the service courtyard area. Mr. Necci recommended approval of the waivers.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) the proposed fire line water main shall be controlled with either a post indicator valve or a gate valve and well.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Frank Pelligata owner of the property to the north of the property in question expressed concern with the water. He stated since the Cooker Restaurant was put in, there are small ponds of water that have accumulated within the last 4 to 6 years. He stated the property to the north of him used to be dry land. He stated the water was the only concern to him, he felt that a lot of valuable land has been lost.

Steve Pelligata stated some of the water problems might have started to exist once the Amoco Gas Station was put in. He stated at one time it was all wetlands and Amoco was allowed to build on the site, it wasn’t until that point in time when the water started to change. Once Cooker’s Restaurant was built, it started to change the whole outlay of the land behind the north part of his property which is flooded and has progressed and is taking over all of the existing highlands.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

In regard to the woodland and wetland protection plan, Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke if the trees along the proposed R.O.W. are to remain or to be removed?

Ms. Lemke answered, they are all to be removed.

Member Mutch asked about the quality of those trees?

Ms. Lemke answered it was poor.

Member Mutch stated the stub on the north property line for future water main extension was being shown westerly of the tree line, he asked if it would create a problem of woodlands impact if the water line were extended through that section? He asked Ms. Weber if the stub could be shifted to the east out of the woodlands area?

Ms. Lemke answered it could be looked at during the Final.

Member Mutch recommended that it be shifted easterly if possible.

In regard to the driveway separation on the Farmington Hills side, Member Mutch asked if there was sufficient separation?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes, it meets the City’s separation standards.

Member Mutch expressed concern with a new driveway that was not shown on the plan. He asked if it could be addressed before Final. He commented that there have been problems in the past where storm water run off crosses City borders. He did not think a letter to Farmington Hills was sufficient, he stated he would like to obtain a letter of approval from them, permitting that activity.

Member Capello did not think that the Wetland Ordinance requires the Commission to require mitigation. He did not see any sense in making the developer mitigate. He asked the motion maker to consider whether a Wetland Permit could be permitted without requiring the 0.18 acres of wetland mitigation and allow them to fill the areas they wish and not build additional swamp somewhere else.

Member Watza asked why it was a one story project?

Mr. Kokkinakis answered, he thought the product that Novi had not been attracting was the single story product as the Zoning Ordinance, prior to the OST, did not allow for this type of product. He stated it was a product that a lot of automotive suppliers wish to have. For this site, he thought it was the highest and best use for the property.

PM-98-09-176 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WOODLAND AND WETLAND PERMIT APPROVAL, PHASING PLAN APPROVAL AND SECTION 4 WAIVER FOR NOVI RESEARCH PARK SP98-33A SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED IN THEIR REVIEW LETTERS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MITIGATION OF WETLAND AREA A

Moved by Watza, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland and Wetland Permit approval, Phasing Plan approval and Section 4 Waiver for Novi Research Park SP98-33A subject to all of the Consultants recommendations as stated in their review letters with the exception of mitigation of wetland area A.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch asked what the potential impact was for the property owner in terms of additional water as half of the wetland was being filled?

Mr. Wickens stated in terms of drainage, he believed it drained to the south. With regard to the northern portion, he stated it was already being greatly impacted.

Ms. Weber stated any drainage will be accounted for within the development. She stated there may be some water that will flow along the property line east/west, but the majority of it will be picked up in the parking areas.

Member Mutch asked if it would result in the drainage of the remainder of the wetland?

Ms. Weber answered, not that she was aware of.

Member Mutch expressed concern with filling half of the wetland. He stated the remainder of the water will probably go somewhere and may create a greater problem on the adjacent northern property.

Mr. Wickens believed the water flowed south. He stated it was difficult to say how the wetlands originated. He did not believe the property to the north would be flooded, he believed it would still flow south.

Ms. Weber stated the water would not flow back into the area because the Ordinance requires that any drainage that is created on a site must be contained on that site. She stated the water will flow south. She explained that the portion that is being filled, the grade is being partially raised and the majority of the water will be picked up within the parking areas.

Member Churella thought the property would flow east and then south.

Member Mutch asked what the neighboring property owner could expect from the development in terms of the impact on his property from the filling of the wetland?

Mark Young of Seiber Keast and Associates stated the proposed grades of structures are very close to the existing grades. He anticipated that the amount of fill in the area would be quite small. He stated the existing drainage route of the wetland proceeds east/southeast toward Haggerty Road. When the area is filled, the route of discharge would be interrupted. He stated there were a couple of ways it could be addressed. He stated it was possible to install a culvert through the fill in the greenbelt in the northern boundary of the site that would connect the wetland to the storm system and thereby control the level of water in the remaining wetland. Another possibility is to run a separate storm sewer or culvert due east out to Haggerty Road.

Member Mutch stated although he supports the project, he would not support a motion that sets a precedent of waiving wetland mitigation when it has not been the practice of the City. He stated the Commission needs to be consistent.

Mr. Pham asked Mr. Wickens if on site wetland mitigation was required from the Wetlands Ordinance and can it be waived?

Chairperson Weddington stated the City’s objective and stated goal in its Wetland Ordinance is that there be no net loss of wetlands.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated the provision it is normally enforced under is where the Commission can oppose reasonable conditions upon the granting of a wetland permit. That section deals with one of the possible conditions as wetland mitigation. If it is under two acres in size, the DEQ does not have any regulation over it unless it is connected to a two acre stream or waterway.

Member Mutch asked the applicant if he had any opposition to doing the wetland mitigation on site?

Mr. Kokkinakis answered, he would prefer not to, however, if it is a condition of approval, he would do it. He also commented on the drainage into Farmington Hills. He stated he was discharging at agricultural rates and it was suggested that he notify Farmington Hills. He stated he was not going to discharge any more water into the culvert than is being discharged today. He stated he did not want to be held hostage in being able to discharge into the drain as it has been done up until now.

Ms. Weber explained the reason she requested sending a letter to Farmington Hills, is that it makes them aware of what is being done and if they have any comments or concerns, they can respond. She stated the applicant will be discharging at an agricultural rate which is what the Ordinance requires.

Member Capello did not think notification or approval from Farmington Hills was part of the motion, he clarified it was merely a recommendation. He did not believe that the motion was waiving any requirement of mitigation, he did not believe there was a requirement for mitigation, therefore, the motion was not waiving any requirement of mitigation.

Chairperson Weddington agreed with Member Mutch that the Commission is setting a dangerous precedent by exempting and making exceptions for the mitigation. She requested that it be dropped as the applicant was willing to do it. She thought the Commission needed to be consistent in the approval of plans.

Member Watza stated giving that the applicant was willing to do the mitigation he amended his motion to delete the reference to not being required to mitigate.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-176 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Capello, Churella

No: None

Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a brief recess.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

4. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.143

An Ordinance to amend Subsection 200.9 of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to provide that parcels of land and zoning districts shall be considered to be abutting or adjacent to one another irrespective of whether they are separated by a railroad right-of-way.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the amendment has been forwarded by the Implementation Committee. The issue came up when the Committee was discussing the OST height issue. There were a number of discussions about requirements when there are non-residential uses adjacent to residential uses. One concern was inconsistency in terms of the requirements on a property that is adjacent to residential that is separated by a railroad. Mr. Arroyo stated except where the context of the Ordinance clearly indicates otherwise, neighboring uses, parcels of land and Zoning Districts shall not be considered to be abutting or adjacent to one another if they are separated by a railroad right-of-way, street, road, highway or freeway.

Chairperson Weddington thought that the railroad right-of-way should be moved to the end of the list of streets, roads, highways or freeways since streets and roads are the main items.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

PM-98-09-177 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.143 AS AMENDED

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Text Amendment 18.143 as amended.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-177 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Churella, Csordas

No: None

5. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.144

An Ordinance to amend the OST Planned Office Service Technology District designation within the schedule limiting height, bulk, density and area contained within Section 2400 of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, and to add footnote (u) to Section 2400 of said Ordinance, to allow an increase in the maximum heights and stories of structures located within the OST District provided certain criteria are met.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the amendment comes from the Implementation Committee. The Committee discussed the issue of height limitations within the OST District. They explored a number of alternatives including possibly amending one of the PD Options to allow for a higher building height within OST. After looking at the various alternatives, they chose to retain the maximum height of 42', however, a footnote is added to the Schedule of Regulations that would allow an applicant to go up to 65' and five (5) stories within an OST District if the following conditions are met; 1) the site shall not be adjacent to a residential zoned district; 2) for every 1' of building height in excess of 42', the setback of the building is increased by an additional foot.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch stated he would be willing to strike the portion regarding adjacency to residential zoning district because under OST, where it abuts residential, there is a 3 to 1 requirement with a minimum of 100' setback. If there was a situation where OST abutted residential, there are strict standards already in place. Member Mutch advocated getting rid of number 1 in footnote (u) which would allow a 5 story building next to residential because he thought the setbacks in letter (m) would provide the necessary protection. He asked if letter (I) could be included in the side and rear yard setbacks?

Chairperson Weddington did not think the Commission could go that far to make other changes.

Mr. Arroyo stated if there was a situation where there was an OST development located next to a residentially zoned property that was Master Planned for something other than residential, the additional setback would not be required, whereas, if there were some type of additional separation, it would be required.

Member Capello thought that Subsection I was kept in because the 23' setback would be beneficial to the residential property owner next door to the development.

PM-98-09-178 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.144 AS WRITTEN WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT IS TO 65' OR FIVE (5) STORIES

Moved by Watza, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council to adopt Zoning Map Amendment 18.144 as written with the exception that the increase in height is to 65' or five (5) stories.

Member Capello amended Subsection (u) to say 65' "or" five (5) stories, instead of "and".

VOTE ON PM-98-09-178 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch

No: None

6. ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.145

An Ordinance to amend Subsections 2516.1 and 2516.4 of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to permit or require administrative approval of certain site plans.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the affect of the amendment is to address the Administrative approval process for Site Plans. Mr. Arroyo stated if the site already has a previously approved site plan and the applicant wishes to add an accessory use of not more than 1,000 square feet, it cannot require a Woodlands or Wetlands Permit and then it could be reviewed Administratively. If an addition that is 100 square feet or less is being added to a building and a Woodland or Wetland Permit is not needed it would also be able to go through the Administrative Site Plan approval.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated the amendment allows an applicant to make a modification to a sole item, as named in B 1 through 4, to make it come into conformity with the Ordinances without having to bring the entire site into conformance.

Mr. Arroyo stated a Preliminary Site Plan can be called back for two purposes; 1) a specific reason; according to the amendment, when it comes back to the Commission for Final, they would only be able to address that issue and the rest of the items would be approved Administratively; 2) a general reason; the Commission would be able to address any item that is of concern as a part of Final Site Plan approval.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

PM-98-09-179 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THE ADOPTION OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.145

Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for the adoption of Zoning Text Amendment 18.145.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-179 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Watza, Weddington, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini

No: None

PM-98-09-180 TO RECONSIDER ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.144 FOR BRIEF DISCUSSION

Moved by Capello, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider Zoning Text Amendment 18.144 for brief discussion.

YES: Watza, Weddington, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini NO: None

Member Capello suggested that perhaps the language should read, "...may be increased up to 5 stories but not to exceed 65' in height subject to the following:..."

PM-98-09-181 TO RECONSIDER ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.144 AND TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 18.144 TO READ WITH FOOTNOTE (u) THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF STORIES PERMITTED IN THE OST DISTRICTS MAY BE INCREASED UP TO 5 STORIES, BUT NOT TO EXCEED 65 FEET IN HEIGHT

Moved by Capello, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Text Amendment 18.144 to adopt footnote (u) stating the maximum height and number of stories permitted in the OST District may be increased up to 5 stories but not to exceed a maximum height of 65 feet, subject to the same two following conditions.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-181 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza

No: None

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Located at 26100 Novi Road in the Town Center District (TC). The applicant is seeking revised facade approval.

Jay Noonan of Design Resources introduced the owners Maurice Malcom and Ben Wright. He stated currently there is a glass atrium located on the front facade which he would like to remove as it is outdated and unsightly, he stated it does not serve a functional purpose in regard to the operation of the car wash. He stated the owners are interested in improving the facade to be somewhat comparable with the newer developments in the Town Center area.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the project proposes to leave the building predominantly fluted block. The existing building does not have any brick or stone. To apply brick to the building at this point would represent somewhat of a technical problem, furthermore, to put brick or stone on the upper portion of the building would be almost impossible. He stated there was practical difficulty with achieving the 50% brick and stone portion of the Ordinance. The use of extensive red color on the building is not consistent with the intent of the Ordinance, he stated it is used to raise the predominance of the building in the same manner that a sign would be and he stated it was not consistent with good architecture. He suggested that copper would be a more subtle color and would also be consistent with the theme that is established in the area. He added that several other projects in the area have shown flexibility in not using their corporate colors. Mr. Necci recommended that a waiver based on the use of the copper product and some of the other contingencies as stated in his letter. He would not recommend a waiver if the applicant were to continue with the proposed red color.

Chairperson Weddington turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello did not think that the corporate color really had any draw. He was against the project because of the red color. He expressed concern with the glass blocks in the front with the mammoth flag. He also expressed concern with the color of the garage doors. The rendering appeared to show it in white, the print did not indicate any color. He asked if they would match the building?

Mr. Noonan answered they would be white.

Mr. Necci stated the intensity could be controlled by the illumination level. The Ordinance lists glass block as allowable up to a certain percentage of which the applicant is below. It does not address the internal illumination aspect of it. He felt if it were a subdued level of non-colored light, it probably would not be objectionable.

PM-98-09-182 TO GRANT REVISED FACADE APPROVAL AND SECTION 4 FACADE WAIVER ON NOVI SOFT CLOTH AUTO WASH, SP98-36 SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDING THE REVISED COLOR BOARD THAT SHOWS COPPER COLORED ROOF INSTEAD OF RED, WHITE GARAGE DOORS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING AND NON-COLORED ILLUMINATION OF GLASS BLOCK WITH FOOT CANDLE POWER AND ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANT FOR FINAL APPROVAL

Moved by Capello, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Revised Facade Approval and Section 4 Facade Waiver on Novi Soft Cloth Auto Wash, SP98-36 subject to the Consultants recommendations including the revised color board that shows copper colored roof instead of red, white garage doors to be consistent with the building and non-colored illumination of glass block with foot candle power and all of these issues are to be submitted to the Architectural Consultant for Final approval.

DISCUSSION

Member Watza recalled the Big Boy project and how they wanted to use their corporate red and white check on the building, he stated it was not permitted. For the Commission to grant this applicant the ability to use their red color, he felt other businesses would come back to the Commission and raise that issue. For uniformity and fairness, he felt what is good for one is good for all.

Mr. Noonan stated he would like to make a big improvement to the building and he is cutting out a lot of the red. One of the major problems with the identity is the competition with the other car washes.

Member Churella did not think the color of the building would change the number of people who would drive through to get their cars washed.

Member Mutch thought consistency should be followed. In terms of location and visibility, he did not think there were many other businesses on Novi Road that was as visible or prominent as this building, with or without the red color. He stated there has been a standard established for Town Center and he thought it needed to be followed.

VOTE ON PM 98-09-182 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant introduced the Tax Base Report. He stated he has been working on the report for quite some time, he initially did a report for the Planning Department in 1995 which compared how Novi’s tax base compared with other Communities within Oakland County. He stated it has recently been updated and a formal presentation would be given at an upcoming meeting.

Chairperson Weddington reminded the Commission about the Economic Summit Meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Activities Room. She explained that the people on the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber were interested in hearing about the OST Ordinance adoption and usage and since the Commission had a large part of it, it would be nice if the Commission were represented.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

PM-98-09-183 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 11:30 P.M.

Moved by Watza, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:30 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-98-09-183 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

_____________________________________

Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

September 29, 1998

Date Approved: October 07, 1998