The meeting began at or about 9:00 p.m.

Present: Members Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Michael Meyer, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: John Avdoulos (excused), Michael Lynch, Mark Pehrson (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Jason Myers, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Chair Cassis suggested that three topics be listed as the starting point for this discussion: Procedures, Ordinance Comments, and Professional Personal Development

There was no audience.

Procedures:

Member Lipski suggested that Planning Commission members should always speak up when their concern could possibly affect the outcome of a consideration. However, felt that it was acceptable if there was silence as well – that it wasn’t necessary for Planning Commission members to speak if they weren’t adding anything to the discussion. He said silence was also an important part of the meeting. He was a fan of expediting the process. Member Wrobel agreed.

Member Kocan said it was important if a Planning Commission member was going to vote against something that they speak out and let the Applicant know why.

Member Meyer appreciated the level of input he has received since joining the Planning Commission. He suggested that in the future the Planning Commission members can arrive fifteen minutes early so that they can receive "booster shots" from the various consultants regarding wetlands, woodlands, etc. This would make the Ordinance more understandable. He thought that Planning Commission members should somehow reach "certification" to increase their level of confidence. He encouraged the mentoring of the Planning Commission members.

Chair Cassis liked the mentoring system. He also suggested to City Council a procedure with which they could choose future Planning Commission members. He thought that publication of the open positions should occur three months in advance. As citizens apply, they should be given a pamphlet on what a Planning Commission is and what Planning Commission members tackle. They should be encouraged to watch or attend a few Planning Commission meetings. Then, when the citizen comes for the interview, City Council can have a more meaningful dialogue with him/her. Once selected, the new Planning Commission member should meet with the different disciplines and learn more about the process.

Member Meyer said that sometimes a Planning Commission member can’t comment on the Master Plan for Land Use if they don’t know what the Master Plan is. It is difficult to determine if a request meets the intent of the Ordinance if the Planning Commission member doesn’t know what the Ordinance is, or what the intent of the Ordinance was in the first place. A lay person comes forward to volunteer for the City, and they could benefit from learning from the professionals. The City Attorney is also available to correct misperceptions that may transpire.

Member Kocan said that according to their by-laws, the orientation material should be available within a month’s time after appointment to the Planning Commission. Sometimes training is more meaningful after a person has had the opportunity to serve a while, because they already have begun to absorb the process. Member Kocan encouraged the packets to remain small. The format of the Planning Review makes it very clear where a plan meets or does not meet the specific Ordinance; this has greatly aided in learning each Ordinance in its entirety. If the provided paperwork outlines where a request does not meet the Ordinance, the Planning Commission member is relieved from having to know the Ordinance in its entirety. The Planning Commission member learns his role incrementally. She agreed that before a person is appointed to the Planning Commission, they should have observed some meetings.

Member Meyer gave the example of the term "stamping set." He regularly heard the term, and he specifically had to ask what one was, because this is not his realm of expertise and he did not readily know what a stamping set was. This can make one feel intimidated.

Member Meyer said he was not comfortable with using the term "meets the intent of the Ordinance," and would not be until he felt he really understood what the intent of the Ordinance was. Member Lipski suggested that the phrase is really meant to acknowledge that a request meets the spirit of the Ordinance. Member Kocan added that the Intent intent of each Ordinance is specifically stated at the beginning of each Ordinance..

Member Kocan suggested that each meeting Agenda could include fifteen minutes of reports from all of the disciplines. She felt that the audience would like to hear the same thing.

Chair Cassis asked if everyone was satisfied with the order of the agendas. Member Gutman said that he liked it, and said streamlining it is the best option, especially if one’s attention span is only eight minutes.

Chair Cassis said that the City is blessed with a great staff. The plans have been examined to the nth degree. He said he would not question items that have been approved by their reviewing discipline. Their experience supersedes his knowledge and ability to question a design. City Attorney Tom Schultz explained this City performs at a high level of service, but there is nothing wrong with the Planning Commission members asking questions for clarification.

Member Kocan said that the response letter from the Applicant is wonderful. It may even be lengthening the discussions because all of the little problems have come to the forefront and are no longer being glossed over. Chair Cassis asked whether the Planning Commission is in the right to tell an Applicant that he is not ready yet. Member Kocan said that in the case of Normandy Hills, a much better plan was developed. She said it was a shame that the Applicant went to City Council to complain about the length of the process. She did not know if the Applicant went first to the Director of Planning. There were obviously problems with his plan. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth responded that she had talked to the Applicant, and in the end it was noted that some of the delays in his review were partially his own fault.

Member Meyer thought that the City Council member who was approached should have directed this Applicant to follow the appropriate chain of command. From his perspective, he felt that the situation proved that Novi was living up to its reputation of making people jump hurdle after hurdle.

Member Kocan said that previous Planning Commission chairs routinely removed items from the Agenda that they did not think were ready. Chair Cassis felt that the plan preparation had improved over time. Additionally he speaks with Ms. McBeth prior to the Agenda being posted to determine that all cases therein are well-enough prepared for Planning Commission. Member Kocan said that some Applicants want to go before the Planning Commission quickly so that they can hear their comments and react to them. Planner Tim Schmitt said that they can not always stop a plan from going forward; they must allow due process.

Planner Mark Spencer said that there is a set of standards that the Applicant is given to follow, and sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Oftentimes the response letter states that the Applicant has noted a comment; but their subsequent plans do not address the comment. The Applicants also make changes that can have a domino effect on the plan.

Chair Cassis said that some architects and engineers are familiar with Novi and they understand what the City is seeking. Mr. Schmitt gave the example of Northern Equities learning the process, and now half of their planning process could be skipped, because this developer now knows what is expected and performs to that level. Mr. Schmitt said when he first interviewed with the City he was told that Novi wanted to address their reputation of being hard to work with. Now, he said, many of these developers have reformed their ways and are submitting acceptable plans and projects.

Ordinance Comments:

Chair Cassis said that items like gated communities need to be thrashed out. He thought this would be a good opportunity for the Planning Commission members to vent on these issues.

Member Gutman agreed that the Planning Commission members need to remove their personal preferences from the discussions. That is a very valid point. Previously, gated communities were discussed at length. The Planning Commission needs to understand what their options are. There are Ordinances that guide the City; the Planning Commission should be following them. He said the Planning Commission should eliminate discussion of whether they "like" something.

Chair Cassis shared with the Planning Commission that Livonia is considering an industrial district. Livonia is an older community. They have found out that things are not working. They have shut down schools. They are confronted with critical issues. They need more taxes. Ferndale revamped their zoning laws to spur construction. Chair Cassis submitted that Novi needs to look twenty years into the future. As the City plans, it needs to consider what it will look like in twenty years, and how the taxes can be maximized so that Novi does not become Ferndale or Livonia. Right now the City is in the best condition it can be. It is very lucky. How will the City be left for its future residents? This is what should be considered when reviewing the Ordinances.

Member Meyer agreed that the Planning Commission must follow the Ordinance. Whoever is on the Ordinance Committee must review the Ordinance, do his homework, and determine which of the Ordinances needs to be updated or refined.

Chair Cassis suggested that the City reconsider their building height limitations. What is wrong with taller buildings near the freeway? This could be discussed. It could bring in more taxes.

Member Gutman said that taller buildings at the freeway could be preferable – it could have an impact on noise.

Chair Cassis asked if four or five story buildings are allowed north of the expressway and south of Twelve Mile. Ms. McBeth said that OST allows for a greater height in that area. Mr. Schmitt said that Summit Point and the Sheraton are the two tallest buildings in Novi – both in the Eight Mile and Haggerty area.

Mr. Schmitt said that a problem with raising the building height is that more height will require more parking spaces. It doesn’t necessarily add flatly to the tax base. If building height is increased, then setbacks and landscape must be reduced to accommodate the size. Ultimately, about 10,000 industrial square feet per acre and 8,000 commercial square feet per acre can be realized. Not many people exceed that number. These are hard and fast numbers that are rules of thumb. Finding the additional height is certainly possible. Mr. Schmitt said that the Main Street development is going to ask for another story. The Planning Commission will be asked to weigh in. Mr. Spencer said that perhaps it needs to be tied in to underground parking.

Mr. Schmitt said that in the suburbs, one must consider whether the land is expensive enough to justify a parking deck. At Main Street, it clearly was in the beginning, and it probably is now still. However, what is the incentive for a developer who owns two hundred acres to put a parking deck in?

Member Lipski said that anyone who wants more stories will obviously recognize that more parking will be needed. He felt the question before the Planning Commission was whether the City should allow taller buildings. Planner Jason Myers said that Mr. Schmitt’s point was that developers aren’t going to build up because they are constrained by the fact that the land is not valuable enough to stack parking. They will just buy more land and spread out more in order to get extra space.

Member Lipski asked what that had to do with whether the City should allow a greater height. Because there is a chance that the developer won’t want it? Or should the City offer this option? Mr. Schmitt said that was the key. It must be framed as, "Does the City want taller buildings?"

Chair Cassis said that Novi is critically located in the Detroit suburbs. Three freeways surround Novi. This lends itself for certain companies to locate here. Some like the access to Lansing. Some to the airport. Farmington Hills does not have any land left.

Member Kocan said that a previous City Council stated that it did not want to become another Southfield. So what now? Meadowbrook allows three story buildings, but everyone is building two stories. Member Kocan said she was a number cruncher, and if the land was cheap, she felt the developers would just buy land and spread out.

Member Lipski disagreed. If land is cheap, the developer is going to swallow it up and build it up with the thought of generating even more revenue.

Mr. Schmitt said that the market was changing. He gave the example of Millennium Tech changing from a one-story design to a two-story design, and finally to a three-story design. There is a good chance that the Novi market is switching to wanting taller buildings. If Novi’s developers seem to think this, then it is probably time to talk about this issue.

Member Meyer wished to add that it was a previous City Council that did not want to become Southfield. He remembered those conversations well. They also didn’t want any signs. His son used to joke with him that the ZBA wouldn’t grant signage variances, so no one knew where anything was located in Novi. He agreed that the Planning Commission needs to consider the next twenty years. Is this Planning Commission going to play a role in anticipating these future needs?

Mr. Spencer said that there was a build-out analysis in the Master Plan. The City should consider whether the growth rate of the last ten years is good enough to maintain the tax base. Maybe a steady growth rate is better than a big bubble of growth that drains the City of its resources to grow further. This is something to think about.

Chair Cassis said that the City must consider whether the State will continue giving back to the municipalities. Or, will the State tell cities that they are on their own now?

Member Kocan said that Wixom is considering the loss of the Ford plant as an opportunity. That land can be redeveloped at four times the tax base. This is why she has asked about the old Expo Center. Is this an area to do residential? She knew that City Council thought that was nuts, but she said she was just throwing it out there because the City is hearing that the Town Center area needs people to live there. That is what has been said about the Eleven Mile area and the movie theater area. If there is really going to be a walkable downtown, the City needs to determine if this is really where the trend is going. It seems to be. Is that something Novi wants to be a part of? Where does the City do that? Isn’t the Town Center area a good place to put it? There are expressways leading to it. She was not a fan of increasing density but maybe there are locations that can be looked at, and if the City truly wants there to be a walkable area, is the City doing the right thing?

Member Lipski thought that the old Expo grounds would be great for tight residential. Brownstone to brownstone. It isn’t so hot for commercial – there is one little nook and cranny for entry. It could be perfect for residential.

Chair Cassis gave the example of the Silverdome too. He said that developers have been assembling a package for that property for years. Yesterday they pulled out. It does not pay. The Wixom plant probably has remediation to perform. They will have to demolish. Chair Cassis said that demolishing the old Expo will make the ground so expensive.

Member Gutman said that the issue of height continues to be brought up by the Planning Commission. He asked what the proper forum was to review this. What is the end goal? He loved the conversations, but ultimately, the Planning Commission should be asking what the strategy is to move forward.

Chair Cassis asked what other similar communities are doing. Mr. Schmitt responded that they are considering mass transit. Ms. McBeth said that in the case of height, the Planning Department was going to gather information from other communities, some nearby, to show what the trend is, if any. She said that ultimately the City will probably find that many different things are going on, and this is really a policy decision.

Chair Cassis said that communities are stealing from each other. He cited the people interested in the Expo Center have now gone to Plymouth. They received a better offer from them. Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that on March 6, 2006, Maureen Krauss from Oakland County Economic Development will be speaking at the City Council meeting.

Member Kocan asked if there was a joint meeting date with City Council yet. Ms. McBeth said she has not heard back from them yet.

Member Kocan said that increased building heights is a policy decision that must first be made by City Council. The Planning Commission should not expend their energies until they have received the blessing from City Council. Member Kocan thought it would be great if there was a way to meet with City Council before the TC-1 issue came before Planning Commission. Mr. Schmitt said that it is a straight forward text amendment change – it is a strikethrough on a number. If the Planning Commission reached a consensus and wanted to hold a Public Hearing to increase the height, that is within their purview. It can be sent forward to City Council. They might say that the Planning Commission showed great initiative. They might say, "Let’s talk about it."

Member Wrobel said that was the point of the joint meeting. It allowed the Planning Commission to ask, "Should we consider gated communities? Should we consider building height?" It would be nice to have the answers to these questions resolved: "Yes, Planning Commission, go ahead and do this." Or, "No, Planning Commission, forget about it. We’re not going to approve it. It is a waste of time."

Member Kocan was concerned whenever she heard comments like City Council members stating that they didn’t care about the heights. The City Attorney is hopefully sitting there thinking that it is a big deal. The City must be consistent. If variances are granted to one developer, they must be granted to other developers. There must be a rationale. With gated communities, she knew what the Ordinance said, but as she listens to what else is being said, she thought that there might be some developments with more land where the gate is not right on top of the first house. There is a long entry. Maybe there is something that could be addressed that would allow the Planning Commission to give a positive recommendation for a gate, if the Fire Marshal approves of the plan and certain conditions have been met. She was concerned that when a gated community was approved for Eight Mile near Garfield, a problem was created when the developer for the next community came forward and asked for one, and the Planning Commission said no. She did hear at that meeting that there was a safety issue in that case, so the Planning Commission did have rationale. But that is important.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that the Ordinance prohibits gates on public streets. Until City Council allowed the development, through an amended RUD to have private streets, the gate was not allowed. Then, City Council basically asked the developer to return to the Planning Commission to work out the details. At that point, it wasn’t in the Planning Commission’s purview to talk about the concept, rather as a site plan review. If someone comes directly to the Planning Commission and asks for gates, the answer is no, or at least it could be recommendable subject to variances. But the latter is never how this Planning Commission has operated, so he assumed their answer would be no. The Planning Commission can discuss all day long whether they like gated communities. But, it is not until City Council comes along and says yes to a gate that the issue becomes the Planning Commission’s issue.

Chair Cassis asked whether Ms. McBeth could go before the City Council and ask them for guidance on whether the Planning Commission should tackle any of these issues. Ms. McBeth said a memo was sent to City Council in an off-week packet, but she never received a response.

Chair Cassis said his people were worried about how to handle the next development. Member Kocan said it would wind up in front of City Council after its recommendation from the Planning Commission. Ms. McBeth concurred. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission has, in the past, said it is their preference not to have gates. Over time it has been made clear that it is important for the Planning Commission to point this out.

Both Chair Cassis and Member Kocan said they were referring to the height issue. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Commission would not likely get comments from City Council prior to the Public Hearing, which was scheduled for March 8, 2006.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission’s role in the review of the Main Street request will be to determine whether the request fits in with the scheme of this area of the City. Chair Cassis said that perhaps it would be a good challenge for the Planning Commission to tackle this issue and send their result to City Council. Perhaps their input to City Council is what is needed. Chair Cassis asked what the others thought. Member Gutman thought it was an excellent idea. Member Kocan said that was the process in place. To her though, she felt it was a Master Plan issue, an Ordinance Review issue, and also a Planning Commission issue to think about. She liked working in little increments. Maybe TC-1 is the place to start. She was not looking to raise the height in all of Novi. Only Providence and a hotel near the Expo Center is over 65 feet height right now. Main Street is going to ask for 78 feet.

Chair Cassis asked if this height was for their medical office building. Mr. Schmitt said no, their medical office would not be that tall. Their request is more related to their five- or six-story building with a first floor, airy, wide open plan. This would accommodate an office or retail first floor user. A taller first floor would be more interesting. Their medical office building is pretty short, comparatively. The request is for a mixed-use building with residential above. The intent is to amend the Ordinance to allow for the aforementioned first floor design. There is some flexibility.

Chair Cassis asked what the height was for Singh’s mixed use project. Mr. Schmitt responded that it was 70+/- feet. Ms. McBeth explained that the measurement must be considered from the average height, which was about 47 feet.

Mr. Myers was curious to hear from the Planning Commission members what it was about density that concerned them. Is it the height? Bulk? Number of people? Parking? To him, to say one is concerned about density doesn’t mean anything. There must be something attached to the density equation that is the concern. When the City looks at the proposal, what should it be looking for?

Member Kocan said that she was initially intimidated by long-service commissioners, but has listened to intimidating people over time, and what she has learned over time is that density correlates to a drain on City services. An increase in density ends up costing the City. If the City wants their density cap at 72,000, and now it might go to 80,000, what does that do? Her thought was the City shouldn’t do that because someone has already crunched the numbers, and the City works with 72,000 people. She didn’t know if she was personally against, "Shut up and take urban sprawl." She said that the City provides services to its citizens. On the other hand, the City has to be able to afford it. That is her concern. Can the City afford it? The developers say that the City can get more tax revenue now by building this. Is the City, in the end, hurting itself, becoming a Livonia and ending up with more residential than necessary and not enough industry? She didn’t think that Novi would ever have that problem, but that is where she thought it could lead. She was also worried about infrastructure.

Mr. Myers said that what he heard her say was that the number of people in the City is an issue. What he wondered was, does it make a difference where those people are located? He thought it did. If there are a lot of people in the Town Center, that is different from increasing density around the City. He said the costs associated with this are probably very different too. Member Kocan said that was important information to have. Chair Cassis said that was a good comment.

Member Meyer said those comments were right on the money.

Chair Cassis said that a developer putting up a four- or five-story building will pay more taxes, which goes into paying for the infrastructure. Mr. Schultz said that is true, but that one shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that this is a real live city, and it is going to get harder and harder to keep R-A and R-1 as everyone else builds around Novi. So, if density is increased in the Town Center, with the idea to keep the density elsewhere at R-A and R-1, that will be a hard sell to an Oakland County Circuit Court judge. It makes perfect planning sense, but it’s going to be harder and harder as the years go by, to make that actually happen.

Chair Cassis said that peoples’ tastes are changing. He recently heard about a new residential concept that will not be larger than 2,200 square feet. The Builder’s Association said that lots will not exceed a quarter-acre. People are compressing their living instead of sprawling.

Member Kocan said her concern with density was that her child will never be able to live in Novi because of the affordability issue. It is unfortunate. When the Wizinsky property was zoned for R-T, she thought that would provide for affordable homes, but the price point on those duplexes begin at $600,000. The City hasn’t done a service for the young people. Could the downtown area be the place? She suspected they would begin at the $400,000 level.

Member Meyer said that a previous mayor told him that young people could look at the trailer park at Thirteen Mile and Meadowbrook. That is the affordable housing in Novi. If they want it, it’s right there.

Member Meyer said it would be sad if the Planning Commission didn’t move forward on these issues after this discussion.

Mr. Spencer suggested that the Planning Commission create a short list of items to take to the joint meeting with City Council. So far, the Planning Commission members have mentioned: Height, gated communities, density, incentives to attract businesses, housing affordability.

Chair Cassis asked if there were any other issues. Mr. Schmitt said two of those items will be part of the policy discussion. He asked the Planning Commission members to keep an open mind about the density issue. He promised an interesting discussion about that item. He thought that the Planning Commission may be pleasantly surprised.

Member Kocan said that nothing more has been said about the transfer of development rights. She asked if staff was able to work on that to determine where there might be an area where this concept is applicable. When she first saw the concept she wasn’t thinking in terms of one location. She was thinking about a number of developers transferring development rights.

Mr. Schmitt responded that this would have to be a policy discussion. Setting up a TDR program is intensive. Member Kocan said the City has to know if it’s even feasible in Novi. There might be a park that could transfer its rights. That is what the City needs to answer before it moves on. Mr. Schultz said that one of the things that got lost in the quickness of the previous joint meeting was the fact that when City Council member Mutch brought the issue up through that amendment of the Planned Unit Development Statute, the City Attorney was asked to talk about a TDR. The reality is that without creating a massive TDR concept and passing it through Ordinance and Master Plan reviews, creating a receiving district and a sending district, what that little statutory amendment accomplished was, if a developer happens to have two parcels, he wants to promise not to develop the one parcel in exchange for further density on the other parcel, all the City has to do is make sure that the Ordinance doesn’t prevent him from doing so. In a couple of the City’s Ordinance sections, it is prevented. Those are the obvious potential changes that should come forward, to take advantage of that statute. Without doing anything else and spending any massive amount of Planning Commission time, that’s probably the reality of how effectively one can transfer development rights here in Novi. Rather than creating this big process, it’s more likely that the City will say at the time of pre-application, "If you want that much density, find the City something you can trade us for that, next to the Community Sports Park or something, or somewhere where the City wants it." The City needs to think about that. Mr. Schultz thought it would be helpful if there were standards in the Ordinance as to when this might be used. But, nothing more than that is needed – just a little bit of guidance for the Planning Commission and Planning Department and everybody else. This could be done pretty quickly with an Ordinance change. Mr. Schultz continued that the expressed limitations should be removed. It could be made more clear in the PRO Ordinance.

Mr. Schultz said that when Secrest Wardle became the City Attorney, they were amazed at how regulatory the Ordinance was. It is actually hard to read. The developers just don’t figure it out until the Planning Department helps them two or three times. It’s a tough Ordinance. The options are so varied that they get lost. It is easier to spell out the districts, then the PRO and PUD, and that is a more workable solution. If the Planning Commission gets authorized to get deep into the Zoning Ordinance, then Mr. Schultz suggested they try making it easier for developers and for the City. The options should be incentivized.

Professional Personal Development:

Chair Cassis said he had already touched on this subject. Member Lipski said that they have spoken about the initial education course, the understanding of the intent, getting more than the initial package, etc.

Member Meyer said that the material is important, and he recommended that new members come to the City for a walk-through of the process.

Ms. McBeth said that it is tough because sometimes the new Planning Commission member is appointed on a Monday, and they sit at the table on Wednesday. In this two-day window, they have been given a box of material to review, plus the packet of materials for that agenda. Previously, a comment was made that perhaps a new member could come to the first meeting as an observer. Also, watching a Planning Commission meeting could be a condition of being considered for the appointment.

Member Kocan said when she was appointed the Chair took her out for coffee and told her what she could and couldn’t say. She was somewhat taken aback by that. She said her manner was to sit back and let people bring their expertise to the table. She said a one-on-one could be helpful. Her method in reviewing a site plan might be completely different from someone else’s. She didn’t really want to be in a position of telling someone how to do something.

Chair Cassis said that a new Rotary member has to attend three meetings and meet with a veteran. They are given booklets and handouts. The Committee sits with them over a lunch and tells them about the Rotary. They can ask questions. This makes a stronger member. The new members don’t quit the next day.

Mr. Spencer suggested that something be put in their by-laws, that the procedure should include a delay in the appointment to provide time for the prospective member to acclimate him/herself. Mr. Schmitt cautioned that the by-laws are owned by the Planning Commission, and unfortunately they do not govern the actions of others, such as the City Council. Member Kocan noted that if the City Council would follow the process, choosing people in the middle of June and appointing them by the end of June, then there would be adequate time for a new Planning Commission member to get acclimated. There should be a two-week window. Member Kocan said that is why the by-laws had to be written to say, "…generally occur…"

Mr. Spencer reminded the Planning Commission about the Citizen Planner Program. There is a certificate for this program. Member Kocan said the money was in the budget for Planning Commission members to attend. Ms. McBeth said that Member Gutman was registered for the March 25, 2006 Planning Basics seminar.

Ms. McBeth asked when the Planning Commission would like to schedule the meeting at the City Attorney’s office. Member Lipski and Member Wrobel voted for a weeknight. Mr. Schultz said that it was better to do it on a Saturday because the Planning Commission members would be fresh. Member Gutman preferred Saturday.

Chair Cassis thanked everyone for attending the Study Session.

No members of the audience were present.

The meeting adjourned at or about 10:30 p.m.

MON 03/06/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 03/07/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 03/08/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 03/20/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/22/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 04/03/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/04/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 04/05/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

FRI 04/14/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 04/17/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/26/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 05/02/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 05/08/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/10/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 14, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: March 22, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date