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

Present:  Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch (7:56 PM), Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent:  Member David Lipski (excused), Michael Meyer (excused)

Also Present:  Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Doug Necci, Façade Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

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

Member Avdoulos asked that "Election of Officers" be added to Matters for Consideration.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

Member Avdoulos said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has been meeting twice monthly to discuss the Master Plan update. He felt they were progressing at a good clip. The information provided by Staff has been very well received and allows for the Committee to review the material more thoroughly. They have regularly scheduled meetings for the remainder of the year. They will provide the Planning Commission with a report when there is available information to share. He complimented Planner Mark Spencer for his hard work and use of new technology.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth reported that at the July 2, 2007 City Council meeting, the first reading of the Expo Center text amendment was approved and the second reading will likely be at the next meeting. The City Council referred the second amendment of the Hummer Special Development Option Agreement to the Planning Commission for comment. This amendment will allow the sale of non-Hummer used vehicles under certain circumstances and in certain locations. This will be a Public Hearing that can be held in August.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Damas Grand River, LLC, for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval.  The subject property is located in Section 15, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Taft Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District.  The subject property is 2.023 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build a 20,724 square foot speculative two-story general office building.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. The site is zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. Proposed is a mostly brick building. It is situated between the CSX railroad tracks to the east and Taft Road to the west. To the west is property master planned for Light Industrial – that site houses a two-story structure with occupied residential on the top floor and vacant office on the first floor. Further west is a residential site and then an industrial building. To the east the vacant property is master planned for Light Industrial. To the north the property is master planned for Light Industrial – these sites include Polynorm Automotive and Spartan Concrete. All of these properties are zoned accordingly. To the south the property is zoned Light Industrial but master planned for Single Family Residential. There is a regional detention basin in that area, and it actually encroaches the subject property.

There are wetlands on the site, and they are associated with the basin easement. There are no regulated woodlands. There are no critical natural habitat areas. There is a change in elevation from Grand River to the south property line – about eight-to-ten feet. There is a high spot in the center of the site. There are some grade considerations that had to occur with review of this plan. The Applicant has worked well with the City on this issue.

The main entrance to the building is on the southwest corner. This site generally meets all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. It is adjacent to residential zoning (regional detention basin owned by the City) so it requires a ten-foot tall landscaped berm. The Ordinance would allow for the Planning Commission to waive this requirement in light of the woodlands that already provide screening. Due to the grades, the trees and the actual distance to residential homes, Staff feels that screening and noise attenuation can be met without the berm.

Only one residential home is within 300 feet of this site. There are other homes in the area that look at the basin. This Applicant is providing additional screening. There is a retaining wall that is required to address the grade change.

There is a berm requirement adjacent to the road right-of-way. There is a sight triangle issue and the area is so small, the City’s Landscape Architect recommends a waiver for that requirement. Grand River is governed by Oakland County, and therefore the street trees will not likely be approved so the Staff feels is it not prudent for the City to ask for them in this case.

The Staff supports the driveway spacing waiver requests because of the geometry of this narrow site. There isn’t much that can be done for the placement of the drive. The proposed location appears to be reasonable. The Applicant will have to seek a permit from Oakland County for their drive. The Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver would reduce the spacing requirement from 275 feet to ninety feet. The Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver would reduce the spacing requirement from 150 feet to 129 feet.

Constantine Pappas addressed the Planning Commission. He is the architect on the project. He introduced owner Bill Damas and civil engineer Bill Donnan. He said this is a difficult property to design. He thanked the City for all of their assistance. This is the fourth property that Mr. Damas has developed in Novi.

Chair Cassis asked Member Pehrson to read the correspondence into the record:

• Maria Hilliard, Novi: Objected to the plan and wished she would have received the Public Hearing notice required for those properties within 300 feet. The elevation is high on the subject site and she is afraid of the lighting. She wanted to know if the grade on this site would be changed, whether the trees would be cut down, would more trees be required, would the lights be on all night long and why she wasn’t notified even though she is farther away than 300 feet.
• Judith Whittum Hudson, 44550 Thornton Lane: Objected because she didn’t want changes to the wetland. She didn’t want a loss of green space. A two-story structure will be a detriment to this fragile area.
• Bill and Jean Pasquale, Novi: Neither approves or objects but would like to discuss the project and how it might affect the Farm Bureau Building.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos noted that all remaining parcels in the City are likely to have wetland, woodland or geometry issues. He was glad to hear that the Applicant has worked well with the City. Grand River is touchy because it does back up to Eleven Mile. However, Member Avdoulos felt comfortable that the City wetland provides buffer. He isn’t always a proponent of ten-foot berms, because they take up such a large swath. There is natural vegetation and the Applicant will provide a retaining wall and landscape to enhance the area. Landscape Architect

David Beschke explained that the Applicant is staying out of the vegetated wetland and the regulated woodlands. There is quite a bit of scrub growth. The Applicant is adding sixty canopy trees. They are planting along the wall. They have done a great job. There is 740 feet between this building and the residences. He thought it was adequately buffered.

Member Avdoulos liked that the building was pulled forward to Grand River. He felt this concept enhances the corridor. He also liked how trees line the driveway into the site. It creates a nice entry. The parking lot is tucked into the back. The landscaping addresses any issues about which the residents were concerned. The delineation of the simple building will end up providing a nice addition to Grand River. There is a main field color of brick with an accent brick. The glazing gives definition. There’s an anodized piece of metal that tucks into the design to provide additional relief. The end result is a nice crisp building.

Member Avdoulos asked about the roof appurtenances. Mr. Pappas said most would be ground mounted. There is a one-foot parapet wall that will shield the condensing units. The roof will slope inward so that all units are hidden.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Member Wrobel asked about operation hours and lighting. Mr. Pappas said that the office building would likely have 8 AM – 5 PM hours. They will meet the requirements of the Ordinance regarding the photometrics. Member Wrobel asked the Applicant to be sensitive with regard to the neighbors.

Member Burke agreed that this is a difficult property and he commended the Staff for working with the Applicant to create an acceptable plan.

Chair Cassis thanked Member Avdoulos for his comments. He felt the plan was sensitive as it applied to the neighbors who expressed concern. Mr. Pappas offered to meet with the residents so that they can see the plan and feel more assured about the new construction. He asked that City engineering and landscaping representatives attend the meeting because they lend credence to the plan.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Burke:

Consideration of the request of Group 3, Inc., for Final Site Plan and Section Nine Façade Waiver approval.  The subject property is located in Section 16, south of Grand River Avenue, east of Beck Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District.  The subject property is 10.73 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build four multi-story medical/general office buildings.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski reminded the Planning Commission of their previous review of this four-building office complex. There will be about 90,000 square feet of office space. It is zoned I-1 and master planned for Office. It is bordered by Tony Angelo’s Cement to the north (zoned OST and master planned for Office), Planet Neon to the east (zoned I-1 and master planned for Office), Aladdin Heating and Cooling to the west (zoned I-1 and master planned for Office), and Central Park Estates (zoned RM-1and master planned for Multiple Family Residential) and Remax (zoned OS-1 and master planned for Office).

There are wetlands in the southwest portion of the site. City and MDEQ Wetland Permits are both required. The Planning Commission has approved the Wetland Permit on January 10, 2007. There are regulated woodlands, and the Planning Commission approved that permit also on January 10, 2007.

This project’s Public Hearing was held on September 13, 2006. It was postponed so that further study of the plan could take place. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan and the two permits on January 10, 2007 subject to the plan returning to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan approval. On May 9, 2007 the Planning Commission again postponed the consideration of the plan to provide the Applicant time to address the façade concerns, i.e., the need for variation. The Planning Commission requested a colored elevation showing all four buildings in a row. The Applicant has done so. There are two options from which the Planning Commission can choose. The Façade Consultant recommends Option B, which shows a variation of all four buildings. Option A shows a bookend design with the same building on either end. A Section Nine Façade Waiver is no longer required.

All disciplines recommend approval of the plan with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant appears to be proposing a phased development; should this be the case, additional review of the phasing elements would be required. Staff continues to work with the Applicant to sort out this issue.

The Applicant said they met with the Façade Consultant. They like their design. They offered two designs and they prefer the bookend concept. This would help define the buildings as one complex. The most expensive of the four designs was used to bookend the one option.

Member Pehrson thanked the Applicant. He said this is ultimately what the Planning Commission needed to see. The Applicant responded that they have provided better façades with variation and better materials. The facades will need to be adjusted to meet the actual footprint of the buildings. Member Pehrson liked Option B.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Wrobel asked which building would be built first. The Applicant said that the entrance would be built and then pointed to his rendering to indicate the order of building. The underground would go in after the entrance. The Applicant hoped to have the entire site built within two to three years, depending on the economy. Their track record is to build quickly. It is a condominium and he said that one building is nearly sold already. Member Wrobel liked both options but preferred Option B.

Member Avdoulos asked Façade Consultant Doug Necci to comment. Member Avdoulos liked Option B. Mr. Necci said that Wah Yee gets all of the credit for their excellent designs. He said the design strikes a balance between uniformity and interest and differentiation. He thanked the Applicant for working with the City.

Member Avdoulos asked that, "The footprint of the buildings match the elevations proposed" be added to the motion. The maker and seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the phasing could be approved administratively. Ms. Kapelanski said this issue just revealed itself and she was still working on the outcome. She said they may have to come back. Member Avdoulos said he had no issues with the phasing. He supported the project.

Member Lynch arrived at 7:56 PM.

Member Lynch supported the project.

Member Burke asked whether the gables are still considered a problem due to their design. He was not in support of their providing a stage-set appearance. The Applicant asked the Planning Commission to look at the side appearance.

Mr. Necci said this is a false façade. Its main effect is when it is viewed straight on. He suggested that the design be used to shield the roof top appurtenances – it could be more like a mansard roof. Mr. Necci apologized that this comment was not discussed with the Applicant earlier; it was an observation made about the buildings after the meeting.

The Applicant said this may not be an issue for a three-story building.

Member Burke confirmed with the Applicant that the gables were about four feet wide. He didn’t care for the stage-set design.

Chair Cassis asked what could be done to satisfy the Façade Consultant. Mr. Necci said this was not a deal breaker item. The comment grew as much out of concern for rooftop equipment as it did about the stage-front effect. Changing it would provide another unifying element throughout the buildings. It does not rise to the level of critical.

Mr. Necci said that rooftop units would have to be screened, and it would make sense for the Applicant to make use of his gable design to accomplish that.

Chair Cassis concluded that the site has been through a tremendous review and he thanked the Applicants for their patience throughout the process. This is a lovely site with nice buildings. It will blend into its location well. The Applicant will easily find tenants interested in the site.

2. LORD & TAYLOR, ZCM07-0032                       

Consideration of the request of LT PROPCO, LLC, for a Section 9 Façade Waiver approval.  The subject property is located in Section 14, east of Novi Road, north of I-96, in the RC, Regional Center District.  The subject property is 8.9 acres.  The Applicant is proposing to paint the existing brick on the Lord and Taylor stor

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said this is somewhat of an unusual request. The Applicant wants to paint the existing brick façade. Everyone at Twelve Oaks is hoping to provide a new fresh look with the renovation. Staff could not approve this request because painted brick is not one of the materials provided for in the Ordinance. Brick is permitted, but painted brick is not listed. A sample of the paint was provided for the Planning Commission to consider. Another portion of Section 2520 states that colors of all façade and roof materials shall be established by the Applicant as an integral part of the building design and shall exhibit evidence of coordination and selection with respect to the overall visual effect of the building. The color of each façade material shall be harmonious of the other façade materials used on the same building, as well as the color of the façade materials used on the adjacent buildings.

Façade Consultant Doug Necci said the Ordinance prohibits the painting of brick as an initial approach to a building. In this case, the building is dark brown with a wire cut texture jumbo brick. It is in fine shape. The Applicant is just trying to change the color. The building is located adjacent to the new mall entrance. Farther away is the new Nordstrom store. Those two new elements are magnificent designs, using cast stone, marble, granite, stainless steel doors. It is very serious and high quality material. The brown brick does not go too well, so the color change is really a good idea. His objection is from a technical point of view. Painting brick defeats the purpose of having brick. A low maintenance item becomes a high maintenance item. The initial effect will look good but it will need to be repainted in five to seven years. Another store at the mall painted their brick without approval. It now is deteriorating. This durability problem is what concerns him. The color is a great match for the mall, however. With the maintenance of the paint under control, Mr. Necci would be willing to support this request.

Chair Cassis asked about the yellow façade at the mall. Mr. Necci said that is the backer board for EIFS. It will be covered up. There is a stone screen wall near Lord and Taylor. It uses marble and split-faced stone. The base is rose-colored granite. Mr. Necci assumed that whatever covers the yellow backer board will blend with the elements found on that screen wall.

Mr. Necci said that changing the color of the brick could be accomplished by replacing the existing brick, which would be exponentially more expensive. It would be a permanent product. There wouldn’t be any maintenance issues. It is a very tall order.

Phil Kaminsky, Director of Construction for Lord and Taylor, addressed the Planning Commission. He said they wish to paint their building in order to capitalize on the renovation. They are renovating the interior. They are improving the customer service. He provided the Planning Commission with pictures of other Lord and Taylor stores with the new façade color – Boston, Manhasset, Queens and Rockaway. The painting will not go unchecked; they are a high-end retailer. Mr. Kaminsky brought representatives from Sherwin Williams, the architect, the general contractor and a field engineer. Mr. Kaminsky has been successful with this painting on other stores, and was looking forward to painting this store.

Member Wrobel asked if Twelve Oaks approved of the request. Mr. Kaminsky said that Lord and Taylor owns its own building, and he would provide a Twelve Oaks approval letter if necessary.

Member Wrobel thought the brown brick needed updating. He didn’t like the idea of paint, but re-bricking didn’t seem like an appropriate answer. He asked about the two-year warranty. If something needed repainting, would the Applicant paint the building completely over or would they just touch up? Mr. Kaminsky said he would maintain it properly. If that requires a full façade repainting, it will be done. He is in the business of attracting people into his store.

Mr. Steve Edgar from Sherwin Williams said that the paint should last for ten years with maintenance. It will be applied only as a coating for color. Member Wrobel could support the project but he wanted assurances that the maintenance will be upheld. He would like something to that effect in the motion.

Mr. Kaminsky offered to provide a letter. He said he figured the City would alert him by notice if it felt his building was in disrepair.

City Attorney Kristin Kolb stated that there is no mechanism in the Façade Ordinance that requires the Applicant to provide anything. A maintenance agreement could be drawn up if the Applicant is willing to sign it. This could require the Applicant to submit a bond to the City that could address any issue that needed to be addressed. Mr. Kaminsky said they want to freshen their building, so if the City wanted to send this language to his architect, he would make sure that the information made it to the Lord and Taylor management. He didn’t see it as a problem. Lord and Taylor has been here since 1978 and they are not leaving.

Member Gutman thought this was a tremendous improvement and he thanked the Applicant for working with the City on a Maintenance Agreement.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Lynch said that the brick and mortar is porous and he was afraid that the Applicant was being optimistic that the paint would last longer than two years in Michigan weather. He didn’t think that the technology existed for painting brick such that the paint would last a long time. He didn’t see any durability testing data provided by the Applicant. Member Lynch was drawing on his experience with painting problems in the auto industry.

Mr. Kaminsky said that Lord and Taylor at Lakeside was painted in 2001; the paint is still in good shape after six years. The two stores are identical in materials.

Member Lynch was still skeptical and he wanted Novi to understand what this project represents. The probability of having to repaint in two years was pretty high, according to Member Lynch.

Mr. Necci was impressed that the Applicant has brought Sherwin Williams along to talk about the paint and the application system. He said that because of the track record of the painted Lakeside Lord and Taylor, the process does have some measure of success for the City to consider. He said it was pretty convincing to him. Surface preparation is important, and he assumed that Sherwin Williams has briefed Lord and Taylor on what is expected from them. Mr. Edgar responded that GSA wrote the specifications out for wall preparation and he was very pleased to see that it met the standards set forth by Sherwin Williams.

Member Lynch said he would support the project because it would be an improvement to the area. He hoped that no one has been misled that this paint will last forever. He didn’t want this to set a painting precedent for the City. Ms. Kolb said that there are three stipulations in Section 9 and perhaps the maker of the motion could acknowledge those standards in the motion in an effort to distinguish this case from others. The three standards are that granting the waiver would provide for a façade in keeping with the intent and purpose of the section; the façade colors and materials and material combinations will be consistent with and will enhance the building design concept; and the materials and/or colors properly relate to the buildings in the surrounding area. Additionally, the Applicant has indicated his willingness to enter into a maintenance agreement. The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed to add this language to the motion.

Member Avdoulos asked whether any of the buildings in the pictures were painted brick. The Applicant responded that some were indeed painted. The pictures were meant to show the imaging Lord and Taylor is hoping to achieve. Member Avdoulos was more comfortable with the painting than some of the others. The brick will be cleaned and then primed. The paint would come next. Specifications for the job have been laid out. Lord and Taylor is high-profile and he didn’t think that the Applicant would have moved forward on this request without the approval of Twelve Oaks. He thought that the condition of the brick was great. The design is a bit old but not offensive. He thought it was great that the Applicant wanted to spruce up his façade. They are looking at a top-notch system. He reminded them not to cover up the weeps in the wall. Paint can peel off of any surface. He thought that the pictures helped sell the request. It will make the store logo pop. Member Avdoulos wanted to keep the maintenance agreement simple – if something goes wrong it will be attended to. He thought this was something that Code Enforcement would handle. Lord and Taylor is taking the risk of revamping the façade. He didn’t want the City involved in something super complicated. He felt that Sherwin Williams was backing their product.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that Code Enforcement would contact Lord and Taylor if their façade fell into a state of disrepair.

Member Avdoulos said Twelve Oaks is a Class A mall and in order to maintain the mall as a first class regional draw, he had no doubt that Lord and Taylor will do the right thing. He hoped that the agreement wouldn’t require fifteen attorneys and 85 pages of language.

Ms. Kolb said that requiring the bond gives the agreement some teeth in that the City has definite assurance that if concerns are raised, Lord and Taylor is notified and they have the opportunity to fix it. If it doesn’t, the City knows it has the money to make the repair. This bond wouldn’t be for a great some of money.

Mr. Kaminsky asked if the City wanted a deposit or a performance bond. He suggested that because the City has control, it has ways of making Lord and Taylor’s life less comfortable if there becomes a problem. He said he could sell the concept of a deposit of, perhaps $10,000, to his management. He offered to oversee this legal negotiation. As soon as this is resolved, the painting of the building can begin.

Chair Cassis said that he trusted Lord and Taylor’s stature as a world-class outfit. They have done a good job with their store and their relationship with the City. He did believe the old brick was outdated. It was to their credit that they are improving the building; they could have just left it. He thought the store was going in the right direction. He wished them well. This is a world-class mall.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Avdoulos stated that this is the first meeting in July, when the elections are typically held. He asked the Planning Commission to consider leaving the positions status quo.

Member Gutman said that because this election was not originally on the Agenda, he felt that it wouldn’t be appropriate to vote on Officers in the absence of Member Meyer. He may wish to run for a position or at least be a part of the election process. Member Meyer has continued to grow and take on new opportunities; Member Gutman would not want Member Meyer to miss out.

Member Avdoulos said that was a point well taken.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that the Planning Commission can choose their committees also. Chair Cassis asked Ms. McBeth to include the Committee matrix in the next packet.

Member Wrobel told the Planning Commission that the chair of the ZBA, Tim Shroyer, wrote the Planning Commission a letter and told them he thought the Planning Commission liaison to the ZBA should be one of the officers of the Planning Commission. Member Wrobel had no problem relinquishing his position on the ZBA; he felt it was important to make known Mr. Shroyer’s request.

Member Avdoulos said it might make sense, so that the Planning Commission member who is elected into a certain position is aware that the ZBA is also his duty. If this person were to move out of the City, the newly elected officer would just assume the ZBA liaison position. However, Member Avdoulos thought that this Planning Commission should leave their ZBA Liaison choice as is – choosing a member who has voiced an interest in participating. Sometimes workloads and personal loads change, so it would make it easier to make an adjustment.

Chair Cassis agreed. There are always variables. He said this is a great group of people on this Planning Commission, and he was very pleased. He encouraged the members to balance their plates and asked them not to overwhelm themselves with tough Committee choices.

Member Wrobel said that some Committees are not active. He asked if the Planning Commission should really name people to committees that never meet. Ms. McBeth said that she thought this would be a Planning Commission call; if they don’t want to name someone to an apparently defunct Committee, that would be up to them. Perhaps the Administrative Liaison Committee could meet and discuss this and come back to the full Planning Commission with a recommendation. She said she’d have to review the Committees to determine whether there were external issues that also have to be considered.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth gave a brief a summary of the FY2007-08 Planning Commission budget. She recommended that the Planning Commission visit the City’s website if they would like to see the budget in its entirety.

The Memberships and Dues line pays for the Planning Commission members to be a member of the American Planning Association. The Conferences and Workshops line can be used by the members. The Michigan conference is in October this year. The national conference is in Las Vegas. The Citizen Planner courses are still available – classroom or internet style.

Ms. McBeth also provided the information on the CIP program, since there were so many Planning Commission members who worked on it.

Member Pehrson asked about the Printing and Publishing line. Ms. McBeth said that line is used for reprints of documents like the Master Plan. It is not used for the publishing of the Planning Commission packets. Member Pehrson then understood, because his first impression was that the Planning Commission asked for laptops in order to be more green and less paper-dependant; if this line were for packet printing, he thought that an approved $10,000 purchase here, versus a stricken $8,000 purchase of computers, made no sense. Ms. McBeth said that City Council’s laptop program would be reviewed for effectiveness before the Planning Commission would be given that same opportunity. The City wishes to review the results of the City Council laptop use first.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Wrobel:

The meeting adjourned at or about 9:00 PM.

MON 07/23/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 07/24/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 07/25/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 08/07/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 08/07/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

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

MON 08/13/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 08/21/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 08/22/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 08/27/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/03/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 09/04/07 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/05/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 09/10/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/11/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

Transcribed by: Jane L. Schimpf, July 18, 2007 Signature on FIle

Date Approved: July 25, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date