(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

ABSENT: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Greg Capote, and Planning Aide Steven Cohen

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda? Member Bonaventura advised he would like to speak before the Commission since it is his last meeting as a member and asked to add, Comments as Item 2 under Matters for Discussion. Member Hodges asked if Member Bonaventura would like to do it first or second? Member Bonaventura replied he would speak second. Member Hoadley asked to add, Protocol in Regards to What is Received in the Packets, as Item 3. The Chair entertained a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Member Weddington so moved and Member Vrettas seconded.

PM-96-06-128 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas: CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated all those in favor of approving the agenda as amended signify by saying aye, those opposed say no. The motion passed unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-06-182 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Bob Shaw - Commissioner on the Parks and Recreation Commission and Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Community Clubs of Novi, reported the Parks and Recreation Commission held a special meeting June 25, 1996 to discuss the REC Ordinance. The best thing Mr. Shaw can say about their position is they support the concept of the REC Ordinance, but they do not like many of the terms in the current draft. Mr. Shaw explained they would not support it as it is currently written.

Mr. Shaw advised in terms of the Community Clubs of Novi standpoint, they submitted for the Commission’s information and consideration a letter and a draft compiled by their consultant. Mr. Shaw further advised they have many concerns about the proposed REC Ordinance such as the berm heights, facade requirements, lot size, setbacks, parking, and many other things. Mr. Shaw stated they can’t cover their position in three minutes, so they will listen to the concerns of the Commission and other citizens and come back before the Commission prior to the July 10, 1996 meeting with further recommendations.

In conclusion, Mr. Shaw stated when they initially put the City’s zoning ordinances together, an ice arena was considered to be a dirty building with metal siding which created a lot of noise. As a result, they made the ordinance very restrictive. Mr. Shaw explained what the proposed REC Ordinance has done is clean up the facade to a residential type quality and added a 15' berm so they cannot see the building. However, Mr. Shaw thinks this occupancy is closer to a business or commercial type occupancy rather than an industrial type because there is no truck activity. If the Commission looked at this ordinance in these terms, Mr. Shaw believed they would also look at some of the ordinance provisions differently.

Chuck Young - SWAN, advised they have requested a meeting with their organization and Mayor McLallen to review the plans for that section of the City. Mr. Young advised they have gathered some information and they would like to go over it as much as they can. Mr. Young further advised there are many other things SWAN would like to discuss, but he is not going to speak about them tonight.

Lynn Kocan - 23088 Ennishore Drive, stated since Glenn Bonaventura confirmed this is his last meeting, she wanted to take the opportunity to thank him personally and for many Novi residents for his dedicated service to the Planning Commission. Ms. Kocan further stated Member Bonaventura has always taken the concerns of the residents seriously and he has never backed down from controversial issues. Ms. Kocan further hopes the resident’s concerns continue to be a Commission priority.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, said she would like to say the same thing to Mr. Bonaventura although she cannot say it quite as eloquently as Lynn Kocan did. Ms. Gray knows he is going to stay active in the community and she will look for him in a better role to come.

Diane Chippewa - 48800 W. Nine Mile Road, stated she is sorry to hear that this will be Member Bonaventura’s last meeting because she feels he supports the residents. Ms. Chippewa advised she is speaking for herself and for her family, although she is a member of SWAN.

Ms. Chippewa has been very upset about the whole situation for several reasons. Her number one concern is she thinks they should be sticking to the Master Plan, because it is working well and she does not see any point to change it. Ms. Chippewa asked if a sports club wants to be in Novi, why can’t it be in an area already zoned for commercial instead of disturbing and changing their quadrant? Ms. Chippewa is worried because they are equating progress with development and she does not believe they go hand in hand. In fact, Ms. Chippewa thinks leaving an area alone can be progress.

Ms. Chippewa said it is disturbing to see an ordinance being pushed through that is clearly written for a particular piece of property. Ms. Chippewa also stated this is something that needs to be looked at in terms of future generations and not just for what the City or what a developer wants. Ms. Chippewa added those people who feel this ordinance does not affect their property should think about it more because if it can happen on Eight Mile Road, it can also happen on her property or anywhere else. Ms. Chippewa thinks because issues keep coming up for Novi’s south west quadrant, it will show whether the Commission and Council support the residents or the developers and believes they should stand behind the residents.

Ms. Chippewa applauded the Commission for trying to approach this issue in an intelligent manner instead of trying to hurry through it. Ms. Chippewa realized the Commission had an extreme amount of pressure placed on them to decide. However, Ms. Chippewa hopes they will keep doing what they are doing and decide in a slow, orderly way. Personally, Ms. Chippewa hopes it is kept the way it is because she likes it that way. Ms. Chippewa thinks their property is beautiful and unique, but once they make a careless decision, it cannot be changed.

Cindy Gronachan - 21668 Garfield, Northville, Garfield Homeowners Association, apologized because she did not do all of her homework on the sports arena, but she is extremely concerned at its hastiness. Ms. Gronachan stated Eight Mile Road is not wide enough to handle the traffic and asked if they start doing this to Eight Mile Road, will it cause the same problems that are currently at Ten Mile and Novi Road? Secondly, she stated Eight Mile at Garfield Road is currently country and those who would like to keep it that way are told they cannot fight City Hall. Ms. Gronachan explained by attending this meeting, she is letting the Commission know she is supporting them, but she would like to make it clear she would like it to stay the way it is as much as possible. She further stated Ms. Chippewa said it is beautiful there and asked those in doubt to take a drive and see the area before it is trashed or overpopulated. Ms. Gronachan further advised everyone knows the water problems at Nine Mile and Beck were caused by construction because the research was not properly completed. She further knows when things are done in haste in Novi, the residents are the people who suffer. Ms. Gronachan advised the project is going well because of the research and extensive work completed by the Wetlands Committee with the City Council and the State of Michigan and suggested this project also needs the same concentration and slow pace.

Loretta Szur - 51000 Nine Mile Road, stated they have lived in their home for approximately eight years and like the area. Ms. Szur is not opposed to a sports club or an ice arena, but asked why they need a specialized ordinance to accommodate such a venture? She further asked why it needs to go into an area zoned for residential development? Ms. Szur suggested they put the sports club and ice arena where they belong, in a commercial or light industrial zoned area.

Unidentified speaker - Northville resident, opposes the ice arena and advised she has horses and she will not be able to get to Mayberry on Eight Mile with all of the traffic. She further stated she currently cannot get down Beck Road right now at five o’clock, let alone get to Eight Mile Road. The speaker asked why the new ice arena isn’t constructed where the old arena was on Grand River? She also wondered if Eight Mile Road is even ready for such a project because half of it is in Oakland County and the other half is in Wayne County. The speaker advised during the winter months, they do not plow the snow on one side or the other and she doesn’t see this as a safe environment for traffic. She is also concerned about the affect the arena will have on the residents water because the facility will ultimately need septic and sewers.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else wanted to participate? Seeing no one, she closed the first Audience Participation and advised there will be a second after midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Weddington advised she has a letter from Michelle Bononi to Brandon Rogers and suggested it might better if it were addressed by Member Bononi during Discussion. Member Bononi asked Member Weddington to read it.

Member Weddington advised Member Bononi’s letter is dated June 4, 1996 regarding the proposed REC Ordinance. Member Bononi’s letter listed brainstorming thoughts which might provide a check list for ordinance vehicles and sees the following as alternatives for a REC Ordinance: (1) The ordinance as proposed. ; (2) Existing special land use per underlying single family zone. ; (3) A new ordinance draft with a much narrower focus that is a special ordinance which deals with public/private partnerships for the permit of recreation facilities. Currently the Novi Ordinance recognizes public facilities in residential districts and for profit in light industrial for example. ; (4) Straight zone change that is RA to I-1. ; and (5) A Special Development District where the underlying zone does not change, but the desired use zone is assumed along with any conditions and requirements that Council would impose. (sample ordinance attached). Member Bononi further wrote the legal view is very important in any ordinance composition.

Member Weddington advised they received correspondence from Lynn Kocan concerning the proposed Recreation Ordinance. Ms. Kocan listed the following comments and questions in her letter dated June 21, 1996: (1) Referenced Section 2302A, Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions and stated she would like City Council to have final approval of all special land uses. ; (2) Advised some uses in 2302A.5 are regulated in Section 1903 and are not permitted abutting residentially zoned districts or light industrial. Ms. Kocan advised this is a major change. ; (3) Section 1903.3.c.1 requires 500 feet from any residential district and the Recreation Ordinance proposes 150 feet, which Ms. Kocan finds inadequate. ; (4) Section 1905.4 addresses non residential abutment to residential property and believes they should require the same conditions for the REC District. ; (5) The berm requirement does not stipulate opacity. ; (6) Recommends revising Section 2519.10 (noise). ; (7) Believes the City needs to have greater sensitivity when proposing a rezoning of residential property to a use other than residential. ; and (8) Stated her concern about the placement of those areas which may be rezoned to the REC District.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised Mr. Cohen will provide a copy of Ms. Kocan’s letter to any audience member who would like to read it.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT

Discussion of alternative methods to provide for private and/or public recreational facilities under provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance.

Member Markham strongly favors more recreational facilities within the City and advised she was a part of the last Aquatic Facility Study Committee because she believes Novi needs community swimming facilities. Member Markham said it does not mean she favors any particular project at this time and believes every project needs to be evaluated on its own merits. She further stated those which are intensive, need to be evaluated in a Public Hearing setting so residents get a chance to voice their opinion.

Member Markham reported the concept for separating the Principal Permitted Uses and the Special Land Uses relative to recreational facilities defined by the City Attorney fits with her idea of the ordinance. Member Markham would like to see in Principal Permitted Uses, uses which are considered to be non-invasive, environmentally friendly, and kinds of things people would not mind having their yard back up to. Member Markham said that would mean if a piece of property is zoned under this ordinance and it was a Principal Permitted Use, then it could go onto that piece of property. Member Markham believes some recreational facilities, especially those which are less intensive, should be near residential because she would like her family to be able to ride their bikes or walk to picnic and playground areas.

Under Special Land Use, Member Markham looks for recreational uses which would be more intensive and the review and comment from the citizens should also be a part of the evaluation. Recreational activities which Member Markham would consider as more intensive are golf courses, boat liveries, uses requiring outdoor lighting and speakers or indoor facilities like the proposed ice arena and sports arena.

Member Weddington thinks they are confusing a number of sub-issues within this issue. One issue is the land use, the planning for the future, and what is typically seen in the Master Plan. Related to that is the specific zoning for individual existing parcels of land. Member Weddington explained the issue which is getting mixed in with this proposal is public vs. private ownership, funding, and operation of the facilities. Member Weddington advised there are differences in the way they structure the ordinances, but she thinks they’re getting woven in and need to be kept separate. In Member Weddington’s mind, it doesn’t make much of a difference if the City, a school district, or if a private enterprise has owned the facility because a swimming pool is a swimming pool and the impact on the community is the same.

Member Weddington said there is also the issue of site plans, building standards, and protections which need to be taken into account which are often part of the ordinance that specifically protects neighboring uses. Member Weddington would like to try to separate these different issues. (end of tape)

Member Weddington reported she is one of the few Commissioners left from the Trail System. She stated it was a wonderful idea to have a system of trails through the City serving as a passive recreational facility, but it had a lot of opposition because people did not want others walking by their house. Member Weddington explained even the most inoffensive and low impact uses in terms of recreation caused a great deal of concern and opposition. Member Weddington reminded the Commission they have to be considerate about the impacts the recreational uses may have on the residents. Member Weddington agrees with Member Markham’s position that some uses are better suited for residential areas, whereas the more intensive ones need to be separated. In addition, she stated they need to make sure when they put them in a residential community, they are not changing the character of it and creating a nuisance in terms of traffic, noise, refuse, lights, water, and other concerns people may have.

Member Weddington also said this is something which cannot be forced through. In terms of the current specific proposals, Member Weddington agreed the revision from Dennis Watson was an improvement on Mr. Rogers’ initial work. She also thinks they should treat the more intensive uses as a Special Land Use so they get specific attention and input in terms of the specific site and the impact on the neighbors.

Member Weddington also appreciated Mr. Rogers work to offer other alternatives, but she does have some concerns about some uses which she thinks they can talk about later. Member Weddington is specifically concerned when there is a more intensive use involved and she is less inclined to allow them as a permitted use because she believes they need extra protections attached to them in terms of site size, setbacks, hours of operation, lighting, noise, and traffic control.

Member Weddington advised this is her initial reaction to what is currently before them and she thinks they are getting to something they can work with. Member Weddington further recognized the City does need some facilities. However, it is a matter of how they approach it and she does not think it is appropriate to say they can put the facilities anywhere in a residential zone.

Member Bonaventura referred to the third draft on Page 3, under Principal Uses Permitted, Item 6 specifically regarding publicly owned buildings, public utility buildings, telephone exchange buildings, and electric transformer stations and asked what they have to do with recreation? Mr. Rogers replied it would be on his Page 2 of the third draft and Item 14. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and said Member Bonaventura is looking at Mr. Watson’s draft. Chairperson Lorenzo advised it is Mr. Watson’s first draft and then there is Mr. Rogers’ third draft. Mr. Rogers advised it reads the same. Member Bonaventura repeated his question and Mr. Rogers replied it is a use that is found in certain residential districts like a central services and Mr. Rogers would not have a problem deleting it.

Member Bonaventura read several different city ordinances and it seemed like Novi cloned Milford’s REC Ordinance. Member Bonaventura stated Milford also had Item 6 in their ordinance and asked if they included it in Novi’s because it was cloned? Mr. Rogers replied they adapt each ordinance to the individual community and copying it is dangerous. However, Mr. Rogers advised there were certain features in the Milford Charter Township Ordinance he wrote fifteen years ago which included major recreational resources such as Proud Lake, Highland Recreation, Kensington, and Camp Dearborn which is 29% of Milford Township. Mr. Rogers added Milford also has the Huron River, canoe liveries, nature trails, and ski trails. Mr. Rogers advised Milford was not anxious to see adventure golf, water slides, or real impact uses. Mr. Rogers reminded the Commission Milford is primarily a high type residential area and because the noise standards are very strict, he found certain parts of their ordinance appropriate. Mr. Rogers did not include the West Bloomfield Charter Township or the Ann Arbor Ordinances because he thought he had a good enough range of other communities for reference.

Member Bonaventura stated one of the principal uses permitted is miniature golf and he thinks this activity is a fine line between recreation and entertainment. Member Bonaventura thinks they are looking for recreation for the community and he sees miniature golf as entertainment.

Member Bonaventura asked if outdoor loudspeakers will be used for crowd control? Chairperson Lorenzo replied they would.

Member Bonaventura advised camp grounds were included under Subject to Special Conditions and he is cautious about them. Member Bonaventura advised there is a state park right across the street from this facility that cannot or doesn’t want to get into the camp grounds’ business.

Member Bonaventura asked if the City bought the land for the new recreational facility at Napier and Eight Mile Road? Mr. Rogers said that was correct. Member Bonaventura asked if the City had any problem building this facility under RA? Mr. Rogers replied they did not because it is a publicly owned recreational facility permitted in the residential district. He further stated it is conceivable for whatever recreation district they come up with, city parks, like the Novi Sports Park, could also be zoned REC. Mr. Rogers reminded the Commission they are not talking about land use, but they are talking about a district classification.

Member Bonaventura advised he is talking about land use and wondered how the City can buy property, turn it into a sports complex under RA zoning without a rezoning or a REC Ordinance in place. Mr. Rogers replied in the RA District, Section 301, Paragraph 3 it states "permitted forthwith publicly owned and operated parks, parkways, and recreational facilities." Member Bonaventura said it would then mean public parks do not need a REC District and what they are talking about now is a private facility.

Member Bonaventura asked if Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions also included water parks or wave pools? Mr. Rogers replied they could qualify, but asked Member Markham to elaborate on what the Aquatic Committee thoughts are because he has not yet defined it.

Member Bonaventura asked if Item 5 includes a Vic Tanny establishment because it states, "indoor recreational facilities including but not limited to health and fitness facilities." Mr. Rogers replied in the way it is currently written that it might.

Member Bonaventura said under Required Conditions it states "required yard setback area shall be landscaped pursuant to landscape planning standards." Member Bonaventura was under the impression they are currently changing that in Section 2509. Chairperson Lorenzo replied she is not sure whether they have actually discussed amending Section 2509, but she imagines they will. She further stated what they have been discussing is I-1 next to residential.

Mr. Rogers advised they are also talking about 80% / 90% opacity which has already been concurred with by the Implementation Committee for the OS-3 District and is in the Zoning Ordinance Update for Section 2509 with all new diagrams. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it would also include the height of the berm and the crest? Mr. Rogers replied there is a separate report from Linda Lemke addressing the 10' berm in Section 2509 and he probably concurs with it. Mr. Rogers further stated Linda Lemke felt a 15' berm with a 100' base is difficult to maintain, it would isolate any facility from surrounding property, and was not needed. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks they have answered Member Bonaventura’s question, which is they propose to amend to include what the Implementation Committee has recommended in terms of increasing the berm. Member Bonaventura added if the proposed ordinance referenced that and if they change it, then they satisfy him.

Member Bonaventura explained the big question is whether they should allow the Recreational District to abut residential and he would like to see some discussion about the merits of doing that. Member Bonaventura would even be interested in comments about the merits of this project as far as whether this is the only site.

Chairperson Lorenzo clarified that the Commission is going to focus on a proposed ordinance and perhaps Member Bonaventura’s question in terms of whether they should allow it next to residential is a correct one to ask. However, Chairperson Lorenzo added in terms of a specific project, the Commission is not here to discuss it.

Mr. Wahl clarified by stating they have tried to spend a considerable amount of time with Parks and Recreation representatives who are the experts because of their years of studies in terms of locations and types of facilities. Mr. Wahl advised some revisions to the uses and types of activities the Parks and Recreation Department felt were appropriate to the draft are included in the packet. Mr. Wahl stated it was the first chance they had to get a formal response and Mr. Davis’ letter was really a fourth draft, but rather than crank out another draft, they included in the packet with the recommendation the changes ought to be considered by the Commission. Mr. Wahl said in working with Parks and Recreation officials, they are responsible for planning, siting, and otherwise managing the City’s parks and recreation facilities and they have taken a position that the expense of these facilities is quite challenging. Mr. Wahl explained that is why the City Administration, headed by the Parks and Recreation Commission, have been looking at such alternatives as public and private partnerships. Mr. Wahl respectfully suggested their input be considered in the Commission’s deliberations because they are the ones who are planning these facilities and they are trying to implement and accomplish the objective of providing parks and recreation facilities for the community. Mr. Wahl also pointed out by putting recreational facilities in residential districts and then identify recreational areas by a special district, citizens can immediately see areas designated as recreational areas. Mr. Wahl reported this may alleviate similar types of problems which have occurred in the past with day care facilities and churches being found in residential districts.

Member Hoadley asked for the Commission’s indulgence about his comments because to tie them together, he has to be site specific because of the research he has done about whether the City needs a REC Ordinance or some other type of ordinance. Member Hoadley is specifically considering Member Bononi’s recommendation for allowing aquatics in a Special Development District and suggested they may not need a REC Ordinance because there may be better alternatives.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by suggesting it might be appropriate for Member Hoadley to talk about a site, but she would prefer not to discuss a project. Member Hoadley stated he has to because the City has made it part of the agenda. Chairperson Lorenzo explained the Commission is here tonight to discuss the recreation ordinance only.

Member Hoadley explained he can’t do one without the other and if Chairperson Lorenzo does not let him do it, he won’t have anything to say. Member Hoadley thinks by giving a history of how this came about is very important and he knows the facts. Chairperson Lorenzo is not sure the history is what the Commission is here to discuss and repeated they are here to discuss the pros and cons of the ordinance. Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Hoadley to allow her to finish. Member Hoadley advised her he has the floor. Chairperson Lorenzo explained the Chair is relinquishing the floor at this point.

Chairperson Lorenzo explained they called the Special Meeting to discuss the proposed recreation ordinance, its pros and cons, and perhaps to craft a better ordinance. Chairperson Lorenzo does not think they are interested in the history of how it got here because she believes everyone knows that. Member Hoadley does not think they do. Chairperson Lorenzo said they called the meeting for the Planning Commission to discuss the proposed recreation ordinance. Member Hoadley said he intends to do that. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they have already had one Audience Participation, there will be two more and she invited Member Hoadley to speak during those times. She again explained this is a Planning Commission work session and it is not a Public Hearing. Member Hoadley agreed and stated he is trying to get a point across. Chairperson Lorenzo repeated it is a work session regarding the ordinance and the Commission is not here to discuss the project. Member Hoadley argued he is going to get to the ordinance, but he can’t do it without providing background. Chairperson Lorenzo would prefer he not provide the history, but if he would like to critique the ordinance, that is what they are here for. Member Hoadley said he would like to critique this project in terms of how the ordinance would affect it and whether having a REC Ordinance is necessary at all or perhaps a SDD might be a better alternative. Chairperson Lorenzo said that is fine if the Commission does not discuss a project. Member Hoadley argued he cannot do one without doing the other. Chairperson Lorenzo said he can discuss a concept and he can discuss Item 5, which includes indoor recreational facilities, including but not limited to health and fitness facilities and clubs. However, she would appreciate it if he did not discuss a project. Member Hoadley advised he spent three hours today with representatives of the sports club and they do not want any of this and he would like to bring this out. Chairperson Lorenzo advised she will give Member Hoadley the floor, but would appreciate it if he did not discuss the project. Member Hoadley then relinquished the floor because he needs a little more latitude. Chairperson Lorenzo deferred to the Commission.

Member Bonaventura agrees with Member Hoadley. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Bonaventura to discuss the recreational zoning district because they are not here to discuss a possible project, but she will defer to the Commission. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded the Commission they are interested in constructive criticism of the ordinance, but they are not interested in its history. (end of tape)

Member Vrettas advised there is one group from a neighboring community who, due to linguistic and cultural differences, are unable to speak and he would like to speak for them, but would first he would like to relate a personal story. Member Vrettas said he was raised in a little town in Wyoming with a population of 2,000 and as a child he enjoyed going to Black Fork Creek in the morning to watch about 600 antelope watering. When Member Vrettas got married in 1976 and he took his wife home to show her this. Member Vrettas stated the population had grown to 12,000 and when he went down to the creek, there were no animals. Member Vrettas would like to speak for the people who are going to be literally sitting across the streets and they are the residents of Mayberry Park. Member Vrettas has a problem with putting any kind of facility next to a state park. Member Vrettas further stated although it is not in Novi, he knows if they increase the activity, it will negatively impact the animals. Member Vrettas moved they talk site specific and give Mr. Hoadley an opportunity to present his information. Member Bonaventura seconded the motion.

PM-96-06-129 TO DISCUSS SITE SPECIFIC AND GIVE MEMBER HOADLEY AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS INFORMATION

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Bonaventura, FAILED (5-4): To discuss site specific and give Member Hoadley an opportunity to present his information.

Member Capello asked the Commission to remember they called this meeting because the Commission had a problem with the language of the ordinance as it was proposed. The Commission then decided to have a work study session to work on the language of the ordinance before it went to Public Hearing. Member Capello stated the Commission should be discussing the language of the ordinance tonight and all of the other issues Members Hoadley and Vrettas want to talk about are issues they will discuss at the Public Hearing. Member Capello repeated the sole purpose for tonight is to put an ordinance together which they can present to the public so they can see what the Commission is going to discuss at the Special Meeting on July 10, 1996. Member Capello asked the Commission to work through the ordinance so they have something to present for a July 10, 1996 hearing.

Member Vrettas agreed with Member Capello to a point. He added when the Commission scheduled this, they were operating on the assumption since it was an ordinance and in the Planning Commission’s hands, the Planning Commission would move at its own speed. Shortly after the Commission decided to have this meeting, they were told by Council the Commission would have to do certain things in a certain way and this changed the game. Member Vrettas stated because it was changed, he does not know why they have to hold to the original plan and complete it in a timely fashion.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating she is becoming increasingly frustrated. She stated the Commission is having a Special Public Meeting tonight and they are wasting precious time. She further said the Commission should be critiquing the ordinance so perhaps they can prepare another draft to the public, the Commission, and the Council in preparation for a joint meeting. Chairperson Lorenzo said they can either waste the evening or get down to business so there is a document that the Planning Commission can give to the public and the Council on July 10, 1996.

Member Vrettas asked to bring the motion to vote because he feels they are progressing. Chairperson Lorenzo said the Commission was progressing up to the point when Member Hoadley wanted to give some history. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks Members Markham, Weddington, and Bonaventura’s comments were very concise and appropriate and were moving the discussion forward. Nevertheless, it stalled at Member Hoadley. Member Vrettas stated that is Chairperson Lorenzo’s opinion. Member Vrettas explained he will learn from what Member Hoadley has to say and perhaps Chairperson Lorenzo may learn as well. Chairperson Lorenzo repeated the Commission is not here to discuss the history and asked for further discussion on the motion.

Member Bononi stated in her planning experience, they never discuss sites when they discuss zoning ordinances. She believes if there is going to be a ruling by the Chair and the Commission is going to abide by that ruling, it has to be consistent for all of them which would also include the Planning Director and everyone else who has anything to say. Member Bononi thinks if they are going to have a close rein, it should include each of them which will be difficult to do under the circumstances. Member Bononi stated they either allow the discussion or don’t and there is no place in between.

Member Capello stated discussing whether or not the site across from Mayberry is a proper site is down the line. Member Capello advised once the ordinance is in place, they will then hold a public hearing on rezoning certain parcels of property and these discussions on site specific projects.

Member Vrettas does not disagree, but that isn’t how they have pushed this process on the Commission.

Member Hoadley advised he was not going to discuss where it was going to go. Member Hoadley wanted to tie it in because he thinks there is another ordinance they might be interested in sending for public hearing besides a REC Ordinance. Member Hoadley said that is what they are here to debate whether the Commission is going to modify the REC Ordinance, redesign a REC Ordinance, or offer one of the other alternatives. Member Hoadley said his comments were going to address the possibility of another alternative, but he had to give a little history to do that. Chairperson Lorenzo does not necessarily think he has to give history and when Member Bononi offered a Special Development District, it was not site specific. Member Hoadley said to have a project like what is on the table, there has to be a little bit of history to think about it and recommend it as an alternative to the REC Ordinance. Chairperson Lorenzo said they are willing to listen to any recommendation in terms of an alternative, but they do not want to get project or site specific.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll and the motion is to allow site specific and project specific discussion this evening.

VOTE ON PM-96-06-129 - MOTION FAILED

Yes: Bonaventura, Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

No: Bononi, Capello, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham

Chairperson Lorenzo would appreciate it if the Commission would focus on critiquing the ordinance or ordinances.

Member Hodges asked if the Commission is allowed to make changes to the draft? Chairperson Lorenzo replied they were.

Member Hodges asked if there is property available for development under a recreational ordinance? Mr. Rogers replied there is Lakeshore Park. Member Hodges advised it is already developed. Mr. Rogers advised it is partly developed, but part of it is in a natural state. Mr. Rogers further advised there is a beach area and the park backs into some sensitive lands. Mr. Rogers reported it also flows into the tree farm property and goes all the way to Twelve Mile Road.

As a point of information, Member Vrettas advised he is on the committee which has proposed a banquet hall and pavilion on the tip of Novi Road to City Council.

Member Hodges said the draft permits "private canoe liveries, boat launching, docking, or mooring subject to regulations in Article 4, Lake Front Protection, City Code of Ordinances" and asked if there is any available lake front property? Mr. Rogers said there is really only two named lakes in the City and they are Walled Lake and Shawood Lake, but there are also other bodies of water like the Levy property on Wixom and Ten Mile Roads. Mr. Rogers reported the lake is 180 acres, _ the size of Walled Lake and will possibly be developed in a mixed use development in the future. Mr. Rogers said there are some other lakes which are retention and storm water detention areas and added there is also a large lake at Twelve Oaks Mall which was created by the movement of the land.

Member Hodges’ concern is about whether they are going to be setting up canoe liveries and boat launchings at the man made lakes. Member Hodges said she thinks Mr. Wahl commented the Parks and Recreation Committee worked hard on the ordinance and further suggested when they look at it, they look specifically for recreation.

Member Hodges cannot imagine the Planning Commission can begin to think they are going to hitch up boats at Wixom Road and Ten Mile and still consider themselves as responsible. Member Hodges would rather the wording on Section 9 say something to protect the land, rather than allow the type of development which permits boat launching, docking, and mooring. Member Hodges explained they have been successful in preserving the last water front properties which were available for development at Walled Lake and she would like to see the wording in Section 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted of Mr. Rogers’ third draft of May 10, 1996 make provisions for protection, rather than for development. Mr. Rogers replied Mr. Davis slightly modified this section and advised Article 4, Lake Front Protection of the City Code is very strict and they also know its standards in the vernacular as the keyhole ordinance. Mr. Rogers stated they were not giving away the shop by limiting it under Article 4 and reminded the Commission if they recommend a Recreation District, the City Council will be the body which will recommend rezoning any property REC next to any body of water. Member Hodges said they already zoned the property at Ten Mile and Wixom as residential, but depending upon the type of provision and if the Commission agrees on a recreation ordinance, they can establish a recreation district around the lake. Member Hodges further stated not only can they develop the land as residential, but they can establish a recreation district around the lake within that residential area. Mr. Rogers said without a recreation district, developers could come in under Article 4 and with that much water frontage they could still have some type of boat dockage and a lake front park. Mr. Rogers added they do not need a recreation district for a large developer to do that. Member Hodges understands, but there is no sense in leaving the back door open.

Member Hodges referred to the same section, Item 12, Other Outdoor Recreation Uses and asked if an amusement park or if they would allow amusement rides? Mr. Rogers replied they would not allow them and concurs with Mr. Davis’ recommendation that all of Section 12 be deleted. Member Hodges asked what it would mean if they deleted it? Mr. Rogers said because it is a permissive ordinance, they permit only the permitted uses and any interpretation of a similar and like use would be made by the Building Department or by the ZBA. Member Hodges can accept this is a permissive ordinance. However, the trouble is when they don’t allow some firm foundation. Member Hodges thinks it should be kept and they should add horse race tracks to it because they do not want them. Member Hodges stated Mr. Wahl said they could identify the REC District on the plan, but it doesn’t mean if it’s not developed a developer can come in with a wave pool next to a $500,000 home.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges is recommending they strike Item 12? Member Hodges replied they should keep 12 and add horse race tracks to it. She also recommends adding language to indoor uses which would prohibit casinos and gambling establishments because they are considered as recreational.

Member Hodges reported they list the distance as 150' in Section 23a2 and in 2508.2.b, they list it as 500' and asked why does it need to be 150'? Member Hodges stated if the proposal should go through, she would recommend they go back to the 500' minimum for any plan abutting a residentially zoned district or area proposed for residential use in the City’s Master Plan for Land Use.

Member Hodges referred to Section 8, Loudspeakers or Public Address Systems . . . Member Vrettas interjected with a point of information and said a lot of what Member Hodges is saying sounds like something the Commission might want to do and asked if a motion is necessary? Member Hodges responded she will make a motion after she states all of her points because she is not done.

Member Hodges said loudspeakers or public address systems may be used only for control purposes, will not play music, and will be removed if the Planning Commission thinks such operation is a nuisance. Member Hodges advised the City’s own Park and Recreation Department is violating the same ordinance by having a drive-in movie next week and added they are going to install surround sound speakers. Member Hodges recommended they strike loudspeakers and public address systems 100%.

Member Hodges referred Mr. Watson’s draft and stated Section 2302A, Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions permits loudspeakers for things other than control. In addition, Member Hodges is not comfortable with archery ranges because she dislikes anything that can kill or maim.

Member Hodges agreed with Member Bonaventura in point 4 that swimming pools and other aquatic recreational facilities could also include wave pools and believes they would have a difficult time preventing a developer from coming in and putting a wave pool in under this.

Member Hodges also has a conflict with the language about "the accessory structures and uses customarily intent to the above permitted uses" and guesses a developer could justify having any type of structure on site despite whether or not it is considered recreational. She further thinks because it is vague, it should describe specific structures. Member Hodges does not have a problem with being specific and although she realizes sometimes "doors are left open," she is willing to take the risk.

Member Hodges repeated her recommendation that the setback of 150' to any residentially zoned district be increased to 500' in Section 2302A.

Member Hodges added she would like to see lake front activities in more restrictive language and not just say any lake front activities. Member Hodges realizes they reference and do not repeat, but thinks they should address the intent in Chapter 36.

In closing, Member Hodges stated she does not think anyone objects to a community park or being able to walk to the neighborhood swimming pool, but she repeated she does not want a wave pool. Member Hodges lives at Ten Mile and Beck Roads and she thinks it would be a perfect spot to have a wave pool under the REC Ordinance. Member Hodges advised there are a lot of things which are considered as community parks and are unobjectionable, but they do not need a REC Ordinance because they already provide the provisions in the Recreational Commercial District. Member Hodges remembered when they interviewed her for the Planning Commission there was a lot of opposition about the fact they were not going to have large commercial establishments on the west side of Novi and now they are allowing it under fun and games. Member Hodges asked who can afford it if it is publicly/privately owned? Member Hodges also said if they cannot support it, the City will have a white elephant on its hands. Member Hodges has no objection to these facilities, but thinks they should put them in the I-1 and commercial zones.

Member Hodges moved to amend as designated the changes noted in Brandon Rogers’ proposed draft dated May 10, 1996 and Mr. Watson’s proposed draft dated June 4, 1996.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated in terms of including those changes, she got some of Member Hodges points, but she does not believe she got all of them. Chairperson Lorenzo reported she noted to strike the language referring to outdoor loudspeakers or outdoor lighting in 2302A.1. Member Hodges said they should change it to be a use that is not permitted. Chairperson Lorenzo said it says "all uses permitted under Section 2401A above which also include." Member Hodges replied she would change it to say, "no outdoor loudspeakers or light." Member Vrettas interjected by asking if she wanted to be specific. Member Hodges replied she does.

Member Markham asked if she could make a suggestion because she thinks they are getting confused. Member Markham thinks Member Hodges has many points which need to be incorporated, but she thinks they should pick a format they’re going to work within and use either Mr. Watson’s or Mr. Rogers’ draft. She further stated if they pick Principal Permitted Uses in Mr. Watson’s draft and they all agree these are the ones they want to allow, they should then work the special conditions and then finally work out the details of that.

Member Hodges asked why doesn’t she start with Mr. Rogers’ draft since she had more comments on his than she did on Mr. Watson’s. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Hodges that they structured Mr. Rogers’ draft differently. She explained they did not include the Special Land Uses and they were all listed as permitted uses.

As a point of information, Member Vrettas asked if they are just sending one draft to the hearing or are they sending both drafts. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they are amending and should use Mr. Watson’s draft since it may be the most acceptable to everyone into breaking it down into permitted uses and special uses.

Member Hodges stated she has no objection to using Mr. Watson’s draft, but would then add her comment about beaches, canoes liveries and facilities for the launching, docking, and mooring of boats. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges thought they should remove it or should it be placed under Special Land Use? Member Hodges thinks it should be very restrictive because she doesn’t want areas like the property at Ten Mile Road and Wixom Road declared a money making recreation district. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she would like to strike it. Member Hodges replied yes, if it would be the easiest way.

Member Hodges suggested perhaps she should state as another condition not to develop recreational districts with commercial recreational districts within residential. Chairperson Lorenzo stated what Member Hodges is saying is what Member Bonaventura suggested and the question was whether the REC Ordinance should be abutting residential at all? Member Hodges advised that would be another discussion. Chairperson Lorenzo advised she is saying the same thing in so many words. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges is referring to the indoor recreational facilities? Member Hodges replied she is talking about a designated commercial recreational district (end of tape) that is not wholly public owned. Chairperson Lorenzo stated for example, unless a golf course was a public facility, they would not allow it next to residential. Member Hodges said it would have to be a special condition. Chairperson Lorenzo advised Member Hodges is suggesting things such as golf courses should be on the other side under Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions. Member Hodges said if they write this with golf courses or country clubs, including pitch and putt facilities and miniature golf establishments and unless the City wholly owns it with little or no fee charged as a public facility, it then becomes commercial recreation. Member Hodges further said it is commercial if it is for profit. Member Hodges advised she is not talking about maintenance because she knows a City would charge fees to use a swimming pool. Chairperson Lorenzo said Member Hodges is talking municipal vs. private. Member Hodges replied yes or as a partnership. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges would recommend they put municipal golf courses under Principal Uses Permitted, 2301.a 5? Member Hodges said yes, period. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she would then private golf courses under Principal Uses, Subject to Special Conditions? Member Hodges can only see what is public and what her tax dollars is paying for next to a residential district and she would then feel she would have some say in it.

Chairperson Lorenzo suggested they should just run down the things Member Hodges would like in her motion and then discuss the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo advised there can be amendments made to the main motion, but at least they can get something going.

As a point of order, Member Hoadley stated the Recreation Zoning District, Matters for Discussion, is a discussion of alternative methods to provide for private and/or public recreational facilities under provisions of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Member Hoadley asked if they are getting the cart before the horse since it is going to be hard to discuss other alternative methods to provide this. Member Hoadley reminded the Commission there are others they need to consider tonight as perhaps an entirely different recommendation for Public Hearing. For one, Member Hoadley opposes the Recreational Ordinance because he does not think they need it. Member Hoadley would like to discuss other alternatives before they make any motion. Chairperson Lorenzo stated they can do that, but anyone can make a motion and once they make the motion there will be discussion on the motion. Member Hoadley said even if they debate it and improved it, if it is not the right thing to do in the first place, then they would be forced to vote against it. Member Hoadley added he would first like to hear more from Member Bononi about the Special Development District. Chairperson Lorenzo advised a motion is just a starting point to get the discussion flowing.

Member Hodges said her intent as the maker of the motion is they do just that. Member Hodges further stated whether the outcome tonight is that they recommend no recreation ordinance or whether they recommend an ordinance, this is just her input on that "if."

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and stated there can also be two recommendations made. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they can make a recommendation for an amended ordinance and also make a recommendation on another option. Member Hoadley seconded the motion.

PM-96-06-130 TO AMEND AS DESIGNATED THE CHANGES NOTED IN BRANDON ROGERS’ PROPOSED DRAFT DATED MAY 10, 1996 AND MR. WATSON’S PROPOSED DRAFT DATED JUNE 4, 1996

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED (5-4): To amend as designated the changes noted in Brandon Rogers’ proposed draft dated May 10, 1996 and Mr. Watson’s proposed drafted dated June 4, 1996.

Member Hodges asked if they have the part about putting the money making part into Special Conditions. Chairperson Lorenzo stated right now what Member Hodges has recommended is under 2301.a , Principal Uses Permitted, 2, to strike beaches, canoe liveries, and facilities for the launching, docking, or mooring of boats.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised Member Hodges also recommended golf courses period under 5 which should read, municipal golf courses period and they should put private golf courses under 2302.A.9.

Member Markham asked if golf courses included pitch and putt, mini-golf, and driving ranges? Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they have eliminated those? Member Hodges replied she wants them all moved. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if private golf courses or country clubs, including pitch and putt should be added to Special Land Use? Member Hodges replied that was correct.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they should delete the whole paragraph under 2302.A.1 addressing lighting or is Member Hodges referring to all uses permitted under Section 2401? Member Hodges wanted to strike it because there was 99 acres of active developed open space in a city where she once lived and the City wanted to use their baseball field for regular baseball leagues. Member Hodges advised safety was a concern because the area was not lighted and they did not have a loudspeaker system. Member Hodges added their parking was inadequate and as homeowners, they did not want to pay the additional cost for insurance. Member Hodges stated before they set up homeowners’ associations thinking they can develop park land spaces on their property and begin charging fees to use the facilities, the residents are not aware they are going to have lighted fields out in the middle of their open space and she would like to just say they do not allow it.

Member Hodges would also like to see archery ranges stricken. Chairperson Lorenzo said so far under 2302.a they’re striking 1 and 2 in their entirety and asked if the language for 4, swimming pools, should be tightened up so it does not include wave pools? Member Hodges does not think they need aquatic recreational facilities of this type in a RA District. Member Hodges is looking at everything subject to special conditions as a private money making facility. Chairperson Lorenzo replied, not necessarily. Member Hodges said they do not need another ordinance to allow them to put swimming pools in the residential areas because the current ordinance allows for that, but it does not allow for a recreational facility which falls under the definition of a recreational commercial facility. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges would like to completely strike 4. Member Hodges said yes and added swimming pools under 2301.A.1 so it would read park, playfields, including soccer fields, playgrounds, and swimming pools. Member Hodges agreed and added in 5, indoor recreational facilities should be limited so they do not permit gambling. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the language should read, "indoor recreational facilities including fitness facilities and clubs, tennis and racquetball courts, roller skating facilities, ice skating facilities, and soccer facilities." Member Hodges does not know if it is still precise enough to keep out the undesirables. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Hodges Mr. Rogers is listening and knows what the intent is.

Member Hodges asked if bowling alleys are restricted to business? Mr. Rogers replied they restrict them to B-2 or B-3.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges wanted to increase the distance from 150' to 500' in 2303A.1? Member Hodges agreed. Member Hodges stated if there is going to be a REC Ordinance, they must also provide handicapped parking and adequate parking.

Member Hodges stated she had a problem with lighting and loudspeakers in 10. Chairperson Lorenzo advised it was already addressed under 2302A.1. Member Hodges said it is under 7 and 8 on Page 5. Chairperson Lorenzo replied lighting is always going to be provided and this just says if they provide lighting, they will shade and focus all such lighting away from any existing dwelling or existing residentially zoned districts. In her opinion, Member Hodges stated is impossible to do. Member Hodges thinks some restrictions need to be placed on that, even if they have time limits on the parks. Member Hodges agreed they cannot get away from lighting, if for no other reason than as a safety factor. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges wanted to strike 2303A.8 entirely? Member Hodges said yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo opened the floor for discussion on the motion.

Member Bonaventura asked if they are working off Mr. Watson’s draft? Chairperson Lorenzo repeated they were.

Mr. Rogers reported Page 8 of Mr. Watson’s draft goes into the dimensional standards and area standards which are part and parcel of the new district classification. Mr. Rogers asked if Member Hodges had any comments about the 30 acre minimum site size, the 200' frontage, or the setback requirements? Member Hodges replied she has considered that and she looked at a lot of parcels in the City which abut thoroughfares which could easily fall under the Recreation Ordinance, such as Bosco’s property and thinks the restrictions themselves will eliminate those types of large parcels that are available. Member Hodges added instead of worrying about whether it is 30 or 40 acres, they should not put a recreational facility next to a residential area in the first place.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised it is 9:20 p.m. and before they begin discussion on Member Hodges’ motion, asked if the Commission would like to break. The Commission’s consensus was to recess for ten minutes.

Chairperson Lorenzo called the meeting to order and opened the floor for Audience Participation.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Phil Jerome - 20601 Westview Drive, Northville, stated he is before the Commission tonight as a nearby property owner and advised he covered the Novi Planning Commission for The Novi News at one time. Mr. Jerome advised when he covered the Commission’s current zoning ordinance there was one decision made which put recreational uses into the light industrial zoning district. Mr. Jerome thought it was a good place for them then and it is a good place for them now.

Mr. Jerome is aware the Commission is under pressure from the City’s Administration and City Council to push through approval of a new zoning classification to help a private business owner obtain property at a low cost. Mr. Jerome stated this ordinance would help a private business owner acquire land currently used as residential agricultural and then construct a commercial operation on it. Mr. Jerome believes this situation raises several issues.

One issue is this Commission has done a good job of planning. Mr. Jerome enjoys driving down the Novi side of Eight Mile Road from Novi Road west of Haggerty to see the setbacks, berms, and landscaping required on the Novi side of the road and noted the buildings on the Northville Township side go right up to the road. Mr. Jerome said Novi achieved good planning through thoughtful consideration of relevant issues. Mr. Jerome also said when the Commission receives a directive to rush to approval, it sounds a warning signal loud and clear. Mr. Jerome applauded the Commission’s instincts to balk at the City’s directives and condemned the people who put those types of pressures on them. Mr. Jerome’s second point is about creating a new zoning classification for a specific use, by a specific user, and on a specific piece of property. Mr. Jerome said if it doesn’t send up another warning signal, he does not know what will. Mr. Jerome can understand special zoning classifications for a regional shopping center and even the Town Center area, but questioned a zoning classification for tennis courts, half of which they will contain in a tent does not make sense to him. Mr. Jerome advised the current zoning ordinance already provides a place for recreational uses and it is in the light industrial district and that is where it should remain.

Judy Elvy - 48120 W. Eight Mile Road, Northville, said Novi is not like the City of Detroit and is not set up so people can walk to recreational facilities. Ms. Elvy said if one child is allowed to cross Beck Road to get to a recreational facility on the west side from the east side, he ought to have his "butt spanked" because it is like a death row. Ms. Elvy said the same applies for Eight Mile Road and any parent who would allow their child to walk from one of the nearby subs to get to a swim or an ice arena ought to have their head examined. Ms. Elvy repeated the community is not set up for that kind of walking from homes to get to a recreational facility. Ms. Elvy advised there are very few schools where the parents don’t drive their children or they don’t take a bus and asked why would a child walk to a recreational facility? Ms. Elvy thinks it is a nebulous point.

Ms. Elvy believed there was a bond issue to buy land for an ice arena and asked where the property is for that? She further asked why the ice arena isn’t going there? Secondly, Ms. Elvy said only members of a private pool can use it and all of the public can use a municipal pool. Ms. Elvy stated if something should happen at a public and private joint facility, not only will the private corporation get sued, but so would the City. Ms. Elvy believes liability ought to be a big concern because this is a sue happy society.

The last issue Ms. Elvy raised is about the discussion of not having a REC Ordinance at all. Ms. Elvy believes if the REC Ordinance is not addressed and amended, chances are City Council will go ahead and say they don’t like the recommendation of no REC Ordinance and will go with the REC Ordinance as it is. Ms. Elvy stated that is what they are probably going to do anyway. Ms. Elvy also stated the Commission needs to amend the ordinance tonight and vote against recommending a REC Ordinance so if it does go through, at least they provide an amended ordinance.

Chuck Young - SWAN, said in consideration of the other people who live in the area, the Northville residents didn’t get any information other than what people in the local area handed out. Mr. Young advised they will be getting information from the newspaper, but when an ordinance like this is forced so fast, it gets to a point where it is easier to say no. Mr. Young said they can then ask the Administration what is there about no that confuses them and go back to the drawing board.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated for the record, the Northville Record and Novi News have printed articles regarding this subject.

Bob Shaw - Parks and Recreation Commission, said there have had some discussions which have been very site specific thus far and he would like to remind everyone that the Meyer Berry Farm is not the only site which can be considered as a possible site for a recreational location. Mr. Shaw advised they are also looking at the 50 acres they own at Eleven Mile and Wixom Roads, the nearly 600 acres at the tree farm site, the 50 plus acres at Rotary Park, the 70 acres at the Community Sports Park, and other sites they can get in the future. Mr. Shaw’s point is they should not just consider the Meyer Berry Farm.

Mr. Shaw’s second concern is the Commission is wrongly legislating what recreational facility’s Novi can and should provide and further believes that is a role of the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Mr. Shaw stated the Commission is also incorrectly legislating how those services are to be delivered. Mr. Shaw said it is nice to say the City would like a pool, but people will say they do not want to pay tax dollars for it. Mr. Shaw reported they are trying to find a way to deliver a swimming pool to people and they also know if they build an aquatic facility it will have to be supported with tax dollars. Mr. Shaw is not saying it would be a wave pool with thirty foot slides, but he is saying if it is an aquatic facility, it will break even.

Mr. Shaw asked the Commission to watch the language they delete because they may take away many opportunities for Novi to get recreational facilities. Mr. Shaw further asked how residents who don’t live on water can enjoy the water if there are no boat liveries available to them? Mr. Shaw advised there are paddle boat rentals on Shawood Lake, but the Commission is saying they are not available under a recreational ordinance. Mr. Shaw also suggested that a municipal golf course might work better as private so someone else could develop and operate the golf course for the City because often governments do not operate efficiently.

Mr. Shaw said a 500' setback means if they were to build a park, it would require them to purchase a quarter mile by quarter mile parcel, which does not exist and is not reasonable so a small recreational facility could be placed in the middle.

Mr. Shaw added it does not make sense if people can’t recreate after 10:00 p.m. when they are visiting an indoor facility because people often like to skate or play tennis later because of their work schedules. Mr. Shaw asked the Commission to think about recreational needs as they are deleting the language and suggested they divide the items separately before they vote on them.

Chairperson Lorenzo noted the municipal golf course was under Permitted Use and the private golf course was under Special Land Use, but it was there.

Ruth Hamilton - 1245 East Lake Drive, is concerned about the site specific motion that was voted on this evening. Ms. Hamilton brings it up per Members Hoadley and Vrettas comments because she watched the Council meeting where they instructed it to come back before the Commission for further discussion. Ms. Hamilton reported Mr. Kriewall specifically brought the site and the specific development to the Commission’s attention and asked the City to order the Commission to hold the Public Hearing on July 10, 1996. Ms. Hamilton said they developed the whole ordinance around this specific site and area and therefore, she is very disappointed with the Commission’s decision this evening.

Secondly, Ms. Hamilton advised Lynn Kocan proposed a light industrial rezoning to be amended on June 4, 1994 and this is now July 1996. Ms. Hamilton stated it takes time to read the ordinances, to get the information together, and to make an amendment for just changing an ordinance, let alone completely developing a new one. Ms. Hamilton stated this is a developer driven ordinance and they do not impress her with it.

Ms. Hamilton asked the Commission to note that the City controls the west and south sides of Shawood Lake. She further advised, in terms of boat mooring, launching, etc. that the residents have worked very hard to control the traffic. In fact, as of the last Council meeting, they sent a strong letter signed by Mayor McLallen to the State of Michigan saying they are not interested in an access and do not wish the State to pursue that avenue. Ms. Hamilton cannot believe this ordinance is on tonight’s table.

In conclusion, Ms. Hamilton said she specifically heard Mr. Wahl state during conversation that this body should be listening to the Parks and Recreation Department and to the Commission above all others. Ms. Hamilton takes Mr. Wahl’s statement as a personal insult because as resident and tax payer, she expects the Commission to listen to her.

Chairperson Lorenzo replied Ms. Hamilton can rest assured that they do. (end of tape)

Chris Klebba - 21141 E. Glen Haven Circle, Northville, reported his children attend Novi schools and they vote in Novi. Mr. Klebba stated he reads The Northville Record, but he may have skipped over this issue. He further advised if it wasn’t for Steve, he is certain he would not have known about this meeting. Mr. Klebba said the point is well taken that Northville residents do not know what exactly is going on. He further advised he is a health club developer and prefaced his comments by stating there are not any sour grapes about any unfair competition, but he is just learning about the situation and he does not want to make any premature innuendos. Mr. Klebba noted in terms of alternatives he would like to throw one out and he would also like to comment on Mr. Wahl’s statements.

Mr. Klebba said if the driver of this is, in essence, more recreation, they are very expensive and public and private partnerships are vague. As a developer, he suggested he would like to get into the game and look at options which would be less offensive and not require rezoning because there is already plenty of zoning available.

Diane Chippewa - 48800 West Nine Mile Road, addressed her first comment to Member Markham and advised if there are certain neighborhoods that have an interest in a sports club, etc., then it might be a good idea to try to find those particular areas. In addition, she is confused about why there has to be a recreational zoning district when there is already zoning available in light industrial and commercial areas. She also does not know why this property has to be considered, when other options are available. Ms. Chippewa is frustrated with Chairperson Lorenzo because if this is not supposed to be applied to any particular site, why is there such a rush?

In addition, Ms. Chippewa understood particular sites were not supposed to be discussed. Ms. Chippewa advised they did not permit Member Hoadley to discuss a specific site, but they permitted Member Hodges to discuss Ten Mile and Beck Roads and Ten Mile and Wixom Roads, although they are not addressing the potential site.

Ms. Chippewa asked if tonight’s two drafts are the only drafts that can be used or can the other draft still be an option without being revised? Ms. Chippewa also likes many of Member Hodges ideas, but she does not think discussing particular sites is fair.

Ms. Chippewa also thinks the 150' setback from residential is unfair and such zoning should not abut residential at all. Ms. Chippewa said they made comments about people needing to enjoy recreational activities, but she would ask these people whether or not they would want such a facility next to their house?

Chairperson Lorenzo believed Member Hodges was just throwing out sites, but she is not certain she was being site specific. Member Hodges advised she was only naming specific undeveloped locations in the City which she knew were a minimum of 30 acres and she was only using them as a point of reference.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, agreed with the comments they have made about not needing a REC Ordinance because the current ordinance books are so thick. Ms. Gray advised over the years, many people have complained RA is being used as a holding pattern and asked, why is there a RA ordinance? Ms. Gray further stated the Master Plan isn’t worth the paper they write it on because it changes at the whim of the Council and at the courts. Ms. Gray agreed it is a good idea, but the Commission is supposed to be planning and they even accused them of planning last week. Ms. Gray said the Commission has to send a strong message to City Council that this is spot zoning, it is site specific, and if the developer wants to build in the City of Novi, then he can buy anywhere in the City of Novi he wants to and follow the same process everybody else does.

Ms. Gray stated in terms of public vs. private she has no fear if the REC Ordinance passes, Lakeshore Park will be forced to remove its paddle boats from Shawood Lake and Walled Lake because of grandfathering (usage prior to when they passed the ordinance.) Ms. Gray said the Commission does not have an easy task and they should not allow themselves to be railroaded. Ms. Gray added the same people who are here tonight will be back at the Public Hearing and will be back until certain people in the City’s Administration get the message it is the residents who drive the future of the City and not the developers.

Tim Mitts - 22125 Garfield, reported the area they are not speaking about has no signs of sewers or water. He further stated the entire neighborhood lost wells and a lake dropped approximately 8 feet when they developed Nine Mile and Beck Road and dewatered. Mr. Mitts stated if they permit development in this area, they are going to have to bring in water and sewers. He further stated because it is a slow growth area that is the way it should be kept and he further does not think they should allow somebody to come and tell the residents they are now going to have sewers, water, paved streets, and lights. Mr. Mitts said the residents purchased their homes in that area for a reason and suggested areas for commercial use be kept where they are.

Andrew Mutch - 24541 Hampton Court, said some of tonight’s discussion is confusing because as he examined where they permit recreational uses in the ordinance he found they specifically identify them in the industrial districts. Mr. Mutch further said one of the principal permitted uses in the RA District is Public Recreational Facilities and how broad that definition is can be debated because there are obviously baseball and soccer facilities at the Eight Mile and Napier Sports Park. There are also the facilities at Powers Park and there will be facilities at Rotary Park and at the tree farm. During his research about recreational definitions, Mr. Mutch found in some court cases they were willing to accept a municipal airport was a park facility. Mr. Mutch thinks that is a very broad definition. However, on the other hand if the City wants to develop a public recreational facility, he asked would something like a swimming pool already be permitted and maybe an even larger facility already be allowed in the RA District Zoning Ordinance? Mr. Mutch advised R-1 through R-4 zoning can already have a private nonprofit sports club type facility. Mr. Mutch thinks the Commission may be debating the recreational question as if they do not permit it, when in fact, the ordinances already allow quite a bit in the residential districts as far as recreational facilities approaching what they are seeing here. Mr. Mutch knows they do not allow an ice arena in an R-1 through R-4, but it does allow a broad spectrum of recreational facilities. Mr. Mutch wondered if they need to focus not only on the proposed ordinance, but if they also need to reexamine the existing ordinance so everyone is working from the same page and they’re not working for the expectation that they only permit recreational facilities in industrial areas.

As a point of information, Member Vrettas stated the Commission has already had that conversation during the two hours Mr. Mutch was not present and they came to the conclusion that the difference between this ordinance and the others is the marriage between private and municipal.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated if there is no one else, she will close the second Audience Participation. She further advised there will be a third Audience Participation prior to adjournment and she then turned the matter back to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley will not be site specific, but he just wanted to bring some history into it and now would like to debate the ordinance before the Commission. Member Hoadley repeated he would like to ask Member Bononi to expound on the SDD because it might better address not only this type of project, but any type of project that has a great deal of merit for the community. Member Hoadley had no problem with the sports park because it is an excellent idea, but in his opinion, where and if they need a REC Ordinance is debatable.

One of the problems Member Hoadley had was that the facility had to be next to a thoroughfare. . . .As a point of order, Member Vrettas asked if the Commission is supposed to be discussing the motion?

Member Hoadley replied he is debating the REC Ordinance before them. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating Member Hoadley is referring to Mr. Watson’s draft, 2303A.2. Member Vrettas said he thought there was a specific motion that Member Hodges put before the Commission which they have not yet voted on with specific recommendations. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they are discussing it, but they can discuss this within the motion because Member Hoadley may want to amend the motion to include something else.

Member Hoadley advised 2303A.2 reads "uses shall abut a major thoroughfare" and he would suggest it to read "can" abut a major thoroughfare because he would like to envision that they make it like an industrial park in a 50-100 acre area where people proposing a sports park or other types of entities could purchase several lots and develop it and all of those facilities would be contained in an area. Member Hoadley said if it is mandatory that it abut a thoroughfare, it may cause traffic problems. Member Hoadley added it would also preclude some areas with a common entrance that may be back a quarter of a mile or 200-300 yards.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hoadley is suggesting they insert "may" abut a major thoroughfare and not "shall." Member Hoadley further stated points of ingress and egress "shall" be available only from such thoroughfares. Member Hoadley stated there would still have to be a thoroughfare to get there, but to make it mandatory is not a good idea to him.

Member Hodges asked if a secondary street off the major thoroughfare would still qualify as abutting a major thoroughfare? Mr. Rogers replied both drafts read "shall abut a major thoroughfare and points of ingress and egress shall be available only from such major thoroughfares." Mr. Rogers further stated there are two things in this ordinance, one requires 200' of frontage on a major thoroughfare and secondly, direct access would be required from the major thoroughfare to the facility site. Mr. Rogers explained the idea is to prevent traffic from going through a residential neighborhood on substandard streets or drives. Mr. Rogers advised it is common and there are many uses like day care which must front on a major thoroughfare for easy on and easy off access on a presumably well paved road. Mr. Rogers stated he believes there is somewhere in the ordinance where they consider a secondary access as having at least two points of ingress and egress.

Chairperson Lorenzo said if uses shall abut a major thoroughfare with 200' of required frontage and "shall" was changed to "may" then the 200' of frontage would be meaningless.

Mr. Rogers sees some value in having frontage and direct access to this facility. Chairperson Lorenzo stated if one were to be changed, then the other would have to be changed.

Member Hodges asked if the entry at the light for Powers Park would qualify as an ingress and egress to Ten Mile Road or does there have to be a drive way which would have direct access into the park? Member Hodges thinks that is what Member Hoadley wants, but if they change the verbiage the 200' will be lost. Chairperson Lorenzo replied Mr. Rogers has already indicated if they change it to "may," then the 200' also has to be changed because they go together.

Member Hodges asked Member Hoadley if he wanted a drive away from the thoroughfare? Member Hoadley replied he is thinking about the situation where there would be a buffering zone between a commercial zone that may be on a thoroughfare, but would allow a recreational zone behind it. Member Hoadley also suggested they take the light industrial zone and split it in half where the light industrial would be on the thoroughfare and this would be in the back and less intrusive. Member Hoadley advised they would be taking away some potential areas by making it "shall."

Member Hodges reported Mr. Rogers advised such a condition can exist under the existing. Member Hoadley did not hear that and he thought he said there would have to be 200' on a thoroughfare. Mr. Rogers said there could be a long drive coming into the facility if were back in the woods. Mr. Rogers thinks this type of facility has to have good access, visibility, and some identity. Member Hoadley said it would not need those things if it were in an industrial park where there are all kinds of industrial projects in it. He further stated if there is a 100 acre high-tech park with 3 acres lots and a developer puts 10 acres together for a large high-tech plan and another developer wants to put in a different type of business, this would be Member Hoadley’s way of envisioning having the recreational facilities in an area everybody knows about, is accessible, and is developed with more than one developer.

Mr. Rogers said this road might not be sufficient to handle the traffic and that is the purpose of having a direct access to the major thoroughfare. Member Hoadley clarified by saying points of ingress and egress "shall" be available only through such major thoroughfares. Member Hoadley is not saying they couldn’t continue to be done that way, but at least it wouldn’t preclude an ideal situation in some other area of the city that they could develop like an industrial park, but would be a recreational park with lots in it and more than one developer can use it.

For a point of clarification, Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers when he is saying "uses shall abut a major thoroughfare" is he talking about having access from the major thoroughfare or is he talking about actually putting the use along a major thoroughfare? Mr. Rogers replied the building does not have to be up front and it can be a quarter of a mile back, but the property on which it sits has this direct access and abutment to a major thoroughfare. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if access is from a road and not by the building? Mr. Rogers replied yes. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks Member Hoadley’s concern is the facility would have to abut the road. Mr. Rogers reiterated it could be a quarter of a mile back on a parcel of 80 acres and still abut that major thoroughfare. Member Hoadley said from a practical standpoint nobody is going to give up 200' on a major thoroughfare unless it is going to be developed and he is precluding perhaps a better situation for the REC Ordinance to go into, by making it mandatory. Member Hoadley is not saying they couldn’t do it, but under the current draft, if there is a better situation away from the thoroughfare, it cannot be recreational. Chairperson Lorenzo advised Mr. Rogers is not saying that. Member Hoadley said that is exactly what he heard him say.

Mr. Watson said they want some language to amend this to accomplish what Member Hoadley wants to accomplish. Mr. Watson said there are two considerations, the first consideration is Mr. Rogers’ concern that the reason for the major thoroughfare language is so it is not on residential streets, residential collector streets, side streets, and minor arterial for traffic considerations. Mr. Watson further stated Member Hoadley’s concern is that the major thoroughfare language could be limiting, because it would prevent somebody from developing a recreational park with a dedicated road. Mr. Watson advised the simple way to solve that is just to say, "uses shall abut a major thoroughfare or a right of way only serving a recreational area which intersects a major thoroughfare." Mr. Watson said the language should also include the ingress and egress shall be off those roads.

Mr. Rogers asked if the right of way would be exclusively dedicated to this use or would it be shared by other uses? Mr. Watson replied it would only be serving these types of uses. Mr. Rogers stated that is what he would recommend or there will be an industrial service road with trucks and limited access impeding the traffic going into the sports park. Mr. Rogers added if there is a properly designed right of way coming into the sports park, it might be an easement of access developed to the City’s Construction Standard and he could see it serving the same purpose.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Hoadley if he would like to amend the main motion to include that? Member Hoadley replied he would like to add whatever would satisfy that. Chairperson Lorenzo stated it would be the language subject to Mr. Watson’s comments and asked if there is a second to that?

As a point of order, Mr. Capello said he thinks what they are doing is discussing the motion, so a friendly amendment to the motion would be appropriate.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they should be official about it?

Mr. Watson replied they should be official about it and further suggested they let Member Hoadley go through all of his points and add them as motion amendment.

Member Hoadley advised he is offering some additional suggestions to what Member Hodges has already brought out.

Member Hodges stated she would like to add them all at once. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they can move onto the next.

Member Hoadley said his second point is many developers would not need 30 acres for their project and if 30 acres is mandatory, it is limiting other locations that might be better suited than the location the Commission is not going to discuss.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the point was to limit them? Mr. Rogers replied 500' setbacks cannot be done on 10 acres. Member Hoadley replied he is not sure he agrees with 500' setbacks. Chairperson Lorenzo asked what is the purpose of 30 acres? Mr. Rogers replied they want to insure there would be enough insulation of any recreation facility from an adjacent residential use and it wasn’t a fixed number. It could just as easily be 40 acres or 25 acres, but Mr. Rogers explained it was a reasonable size to accommodate a variety of recreation uses, parking, and still provide 150' setbacks and all of the other design standards. Member Hoadley asked what the purpose is if it is not going to be against a residential area to start with? Member Hoadley’s point is if they are going to use it, it should be user friendly so it is not limited to a specific area and made so a developer can come into a smaller area. To Member Hoadley, 30 acres limits options and he would like to see more options as to location for a recreational district.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that might be a good question, but she thinks Mr. Rogers and Mr. Watson are going to need to think about it more than they could tonight to come up with a more reasonable number. Member Hoadley said that is exactly why he did not want to be pushed into this in one meeting because this issue needs debate. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they will debate it at a Public Hearing as well and perhaps the information may be back by then. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested perhaps they could include the thought of reducing the number, but they should not be specific about it. Member Hoadley agreed.

Member Hoadley reiterated 500' is more than necessary and a developer would be forced to acquire large tracks of acreage which they only locate in residentially zoned areas. Chairperson Lorenzo said they could add something to say there could be particular conditions when it is abutting residential. Member Hoadley suggested perhaps they could make some kind of compromise in the footage, like proper site and sound barrier.

Member Hoadley also suggested they add a decibel ordinance to the recreation ordinance because of the considerable noise it will generate. Member Hoadley advised a developer he recently spoke with does not need or want loudspeakers and night lighting, and therefore, it should not be on the table.

Chairperson Lorenzo said she would prefer he not talk about a particular project (end of tape) because they are looking beyond one site and applicant because this could go anywhere in the City. Therefore, the Commission needs to plan for anywhere in the City.

Member Hoadley asked if they need 500' or is a message being sent if the City wants this type of facility they will be forced to look at RA Districts? Member Hoadley thinks this type of distance restriction will cause problems and there are other ways of accomplishing that without making it user unfriendly.

As a point of order, Member Vrettas asked if they can talk about these items one at a time and get all of the amendments on the table first. Member Hoadley said he is addressing 500'. Chairperson Lorenzo replied Member Hoadley is giving an opinion on what the motion already includes and right now, Member Hodges motion includes the 500' which Member Hoadley is opposed to.

Member Hoadley also thinks a decibel restriction should be added that is no more than what they would allow in a residential zoning if it is going to abut residential and Ms. Kocan’s information should also be considered.

Member Hoadley stated they should also include hours of operation. Chairperson Lorenzo appreciates Member Hoadley’s points, but she thinks he is bringing up points they would address under Special Land Use. Member Hoadley asked why can’t it be put it under Special Land Use? Chairperson Lorenzo thinks that is what they are talking about doing, but she doesn’t think they are being specific in terms of saying decibel levels at this point. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks what they are saying is, under a Special Land Use, they will evaluate noise and there is no need to be specific in terms of adding a decibel level at this point. Chairperson Lorenzo further stated if Member Hoadley is suggesting certain types of uses should be under Special Land Use that is something the Commission is considering at this point. Member Hoadley thinks noise should be a part of the ordinance and they should also include some way of controlling the hours of operation.

Member Markham stated the motion is getting to the point where she does not know if she can vote on it. Chairperson Lorenzo does not think they are motions and Member Hoadley is just adding points. Member Markham cannot vote in support of Member Hodges detailed motion because she may disagree with part of it. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested they separate each one. Member Markham suggested they should decide the direction they want to go and then discuss each item individually for a reasonable period. Member Markham is having a difficult time deciding which way to vote because she doesn’t really understand what the motion is and this is the most complicated motion she has ever seen.

To help Member Hoadley, Member Capello referred to Mr. Watson’s draft, Section 2302A on Principal Uses, Subject to Special Conditions and advised they are subject to Special Land Use conditions. Member Capello further advised Mr. Watson had said that was the intent of 2516C and it will cover all of the issues Member Hoadley is talking about. Member Capello is not certain Member Hoadley is reading it like that, but that is the intent of 2302A and it will perhaps help speed him along beyond that point.

Mr. Watson concurred, but he thinks Member Hoadley’s point is he would like to explicitly put within this, particular limitations and it is an appropriate method.

Since Member Hoadley still has the floor, he stated after the vote he would like to have Member Bononi explain the SDD because he believes it fits better because the SDD allows each project to be specifically designed and does not set any precedents

Member Bonaventura advised he would like to comment on the Parks and Recreation’s suggested for deleting camp grounds for Principal Uses Permitted . . . Chairperson Lorenzo advised camp grounds are included under Special Land Use in Mr. Watson’s draft. Member Bonaventura would like to strike camp grounds because he thinks Novi is urbanized and camp grounds do not constitute a good use for an urban environment.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if he is looking for a friendly amendment to the motion. Member Hodges interjected she has no problem with Member Bonaventura’s suggestion.

Member Bonaventura agreed with Member Hodges’ motion to put private under Special Land Use with the restriction it will not abut residential and the listed public uses would be under Principal Uses Permitted.

Member Bonaventura personally thinks the Commission is going in the right direction and agreed they should continue to go the way they are going and develop changes. Member Bonaventura also thinks they should delete what they don’t like and add what they do like. In addition, Member Bonaventura stated since this is just a study session, they can work on the ordinance more in the future. Member Bonaventura would move with approving the changes on the REC Ordinance, the Commission should also send a recommendation to Council that a Recreation Zoning District would not be necessary. Member Bonaventura reiterated he believes the Commission is moving in the right direction and that is the only change he would like to make.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised Member Hoadley during his absence Member Bonaventura suggested a friendly amendment in terms of striking camp grounds from the Special Land Use category and since he seconded Member Hodges’ motion, she asked if he will agree to this friendly amendment. Member Hoadley asked what the reason was? Member Hodges replied they did not want camp grounds popping up across the street. Member Hoadley agreed. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they have now proposed to strike camp grounds. Member Hoadley asked if archery ranges are stricken? Member Hodges replied they were.

Member Hodges stated in lieu of the comments she has heard about the 500' setback that she originally suggested, on 2303A, Required Conditions, Item 1 where it says "recreational facilities," she advised her intent was to amend it to read "recreational commercial facilities." Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it would be commercial or private? Member Hodges replied commercial and private, because she considers them the same. Member Hodges wants to underline the commercial aspect because Zoning Ordinance 2302 lists several commercial uses and they are required to have a 500' setback from any residentially zoned district. Member Hodges explained commercial is commercial and they should keep that continuity, but added recreational commercial for profit and private recreational facilities are also commercial and asked why can’t it keep with the intent of the original ordinance? Member Hodges further stated she is not talking about a community park like they list under Principal Uses Permitted. Chairperson Lorenzo said what Member Hodges is saying is the required conditions are for all of the REC District and asked if she is suggesting to distinguish it as private and municipal in 2303A.1? Chairperson Lorenzo also advised Member Hodges is suggesting public recreational facilities shall not be found closer than 150'. Member Hodges replied they could discuss distance at another time, but she wants the 500' attached to private recreational facilities. Member Hodges said her intent is if it is commercial, it is commercial. She asked why recreational commercial should deviate from other commercial that has to have a 500' setback from residential?

Mr. Watson thinks the distinction Member Hodges is making is not one that is a distinction between private ownership and public ownership, but it is the nature of the use. He added it sounds like Member Hodges wants to separate those which are more akin to commercial uses by 500' as opposed to those which are more akin to residential uses. Member Hodges concurred. Member Hodges advised the setbacks in other zoning districts would stand as they are.

Member Markham asked what if there were a similar facility which was either commercial or private, like a swimming pool and what is the difference between a city pool and a commercial private pool because both have the same types of activities? Member Markham sees the difference between a Vic Tanny and a playground, but she does not see the same kind of distinction in terms of pools. Member Hodges replied it would be difficult, but she still feels they have got to set the framework for commercial. Member Hodges further stated if it is going to be commercial, then it should stay more within the guidelines. If there is going to be a commercial pool, then they may not end up putting it next to a residential property because of the 500' setback. Member Hodges said it is not that a pool is a pool, but the fact it is private and commercial and there are commercial restrictions they should follow.

Member Vrettas referred to Section 2300A, Intent and stated he would like to insert "wildlife" after wetlands and watercourses in the following verbiage, "The district is also intended to encourage the preservation of natural features of property, such as woodlands, large trees, natural groves, wetlands and watercourses, ‘wildlife’ and . . . " Keeping that in mind, Member Vrettas would also like to insert, "With preservation in mind, no indoor recreational facilities may be located within one mile of any state and/or national park." before the last sentence in the same paragraph. Chairperson Lorenzo clarified by stating they could allow outdoor facilities.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Members Hodges and Hoadley if they are willing to accept the friendly amendments. Member Hodges concurred, but Member Hoadley said he cannot accept the one mile if it is only going to address the indoor and outdoor. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks they will just defer to handling each item individually.

Member Bononi stated she will not be voting in favor of the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo reiterated they will separate the motion into individual items. Member Bononi referred to the intent of ordinance 2300A and read, "including community sports clubs or parks, and also to encourage outdoor recreation uses that could not easily be provided in the already urbanized portions of the City." Member Bononi does not know if she would describe Novi as urbanized and if she is not certain they have shown her any proof there are other places the facilities could not be placed.

Member Bononi added she agrees there should be no camp grounds, because her second concern was about the burning of fires.

Member Bononi does not share the concern about Uses Not Permitted. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she meant included, but not limited to? Member Bononi replied no, but from the standpoint of saying they would have concerns about something like a race track, a casino, or any other things they might construe as objectionable in the community.

Member Bononi’s asked where the number of 30 acres came from? Mr. Rogers replied he debated and considered the size of a full service sports park, its setbacks, parking requirements, the insulation requirements, and concluded 30 acres was desirable. Mr. Rogers added he is not saying it is the only number, but 30 acres cannot be found in the urbanized parts of the City. Mr. Rogers reiterated it is not a fixed number and if Member Bononi has a better number they can discuss it. However, Mr. Rogers does not think 10 acres is sufficient. Member Bononi advised if they approve the ordinance as written, it is a fixed number. Mr. Rogers advised it is a minimum number and a developer could exceed that. Member Bononi realized that and asked if he has any explanation about the section of intent which she does not understand. Mr. Rogers replied there are not many areas in the central and eastern part of the City where there are 30 acres. Member Bononi’s concern is that it gives validity to a claim which may or may not be accurate because she does not consider Novi to be a classical urbanized setting and she does not know if they could not put such a facility somewhere else, therefore, she would like it stricken.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she wants it to read, "as well as to encourage outdoor recreation uses." Member Bononi agreed if that is what the intent is and unless there is some other information she doesn’t have which points that to be correct. Chairperson Lorenzo said Member Bononi is suggesting striking "could not easily be provided in the already urbanized portion of the City." Mr. Rogers added "those" would also have to be stricken and say "as well as to encourage outdoor recreation uses."

Member Hoadley asked again about the acreage restriction and made the point they may be driving a developer to look for large tracks in RA zoned land.

Member Hodges asked if she were a developer could she choose to develop her sports park in an I-1 District or would they restrict her because she is a sports club to stay in the REC District? Mr. Watson replied unless they make more changes to the ordinance draft, there is nothing which changes the light industrial use so anything that could currently be done in light industrial, could still be done. Mr. Watson said Member Hodges called it a sports club and he does not know whether they would allow in the light industrial or not, but right now it allows indoor tennis courts, roller and ice skating rinks. Mr. Watson thinks there is a provision which allows similar uses and thinks they’ve had many facilities akin to those, but they didn’t fall exactly into that specific language like the SoccerZone project and a baseball facility which all ended up being permitted in light industrial.

Member Hodges reiterated, if as a developer, would she have a choice to put her facility in a REC District or any other permitted zone and would she subject it to the conditions of that zone? Mr. Watson concurred. What Member Hodges is saying is just because there is a REC Ordinance, it would not restrict a developer from building in another allowed zone.

Member Hoadley suggested they also consider amending the I-1 Ordinance to accommodate all of this. Member Hodges said that is another meeting.

Member Capello thinks the whole idea of adopting a new recreational ordinance is to invite private development to provide the recreational needs of the City of Novi and many of the amendments done to this ordinance defeats that specific purpose. Member Capello said it does not make sense to invite private industry to provide these services and not expect them to make money doing that. In addition, Member Capello said it does not matter if a use is public or private when talking about a use next to a residential district and the effect that use has on the residential district. Member Capello stated the effect will be the same whether they ask the user to show identification to verify his residency or whether a dollar is collected. Member Capello reiterated the distinctions the Commission is making in changing the ordinance do not make any sense to him.

In terms of the language of the ordinance, Member Capello does not think archery ranges, campgrounds, zoos, beaches, canoe liveries, etc. should be struck. Instead, Member Capello suggested if the Commission is going to adopt the Special Land Use and Special Conditions Provisions they should include them all and at that point, they can decide when it comes back in front of the Commission for Special Land Use.

Chairperson Lorenzo suggested once they get through the motion (end of tape) perhaps Member Capello would want to make another motion. Member Capello replied he is just going to make comments and not make any additional motions. Chairperson Lorenzo said the Commission has the option of making several motions. Member Capello does not see any need to do all of that. Member Capello thinks all they need to do is prepare another draft for the Public Hearing, have a Public Hearing, and send the appropriate recommendations to Council.

Member Capello asked if they have deleted toboggan runs, sled runs, and ski hills?

Chairperson Lorenzo advised they deleted them in Mr. Watson’s draft. Member Capello said there was a zoo in one of the drafts and stated Potter Park Zoo in Lansing and the Traverse City Zoo are attractive, small community zoos. Member Capello further stated Kensington and Mayberry have attractive educational farms with many children’s programs. Chairperson Lorenzo advised those have not been eliminated so far and added Item 4 is still complete in Mr. Watson’s draft, and includes wildlife or nature preserves, fishing preserves, botanical gardens, bird sanctuaries, day camps, arboretums, historical monuments, and structures in similar educational facilities. Member Capello did not read that as being under similar educational facilities and if they included it, he would like to see it more specific. Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would think the farm in Mayberry would be a similar educational facility. Member Capello said he would like to see the language for day camps a little clearer because he does not know if they are talking about the type of day camp at the lake or if they are talking about baseball, soccer, or hockey types of day camps because hockey types of day camps require a different facility.

Member Capello referred to Section 5 of 2302A and advised the definition of recreational needs to be amended, limited, expanded, or a distinction made between passive and active should be considered, adding one of the drafts did accomplish that. Member Capello believed by doing this it might help Member Bonaventura to distinguish between whether it is entertainment or recreation. To Member Capello, putt-putt golf would be recreation as opposed to entertainment because it takes some physical skill and challenge and further stated he does not see any reason to make a distinction between a public and a private golf course. In other areas in the Special Land Use, Member Capello asked if the Commission wanted to keep those kinds of things which they only covered in the general catch all of indoor recreational facilities such as dance, gymnastics, batting cages, and sports clinics? Member Capello believed they only allow these types of facilities in industrial.

Member Capello liked the idea of putting exclusions in the ordinance because there was a semi-pro baseball park which was going to be constructed along Wixom Road and under the reading of the these ordinances, they would allow that type of facility because it is considered a play field. Member Capello suggested they could have an exclusion for any type of commercial ball park where they pay players a fee for playing.

Chairperson Lorenzo added soccer fields would also fall under that category. In Member Capello’s reading, where it says recreational, he can see a bowling alley being allowed as recreational and he would like to see those types of things specifically excluded.

Member Hodges asked how can they distinguish between a pay for play and a sports club paying fees? Member Capello said he wouldn’t, but it would be determined by use. Member Hodges stated Member Capello is saying paid players could not lease a regulation size ball field, but a ball club that pays the same amount in fees could lease the field. Member Hodges added there are ball clubs which pay fees to use facilities that don’t get paid, but there is a fee to belong to the ball club. Member Capello reminded Member Hodges there is a difference in charging fees and getting paid to play and that is why he is calling paid to play pro or a semi-pro. Member Hodges said her point is they are still playing baseball and asked how are they going to tell those that do get paid they cannot use the facility, but yet the same activity can use it? Member Capello is not looking at it in terms of who can use it or who cannot use it, but he is looking at it in terms of primary use of the facility that would house a semi-professional or professional ball team which gets paid to play the sport and they would not permit the facility there because it does not fit the zoning ordinance. Member Hodges stated the facility will be there, baseball will be played, and asked why can’t a traveling paid team play there. Member Capello said Member Hodges is adding a different factor. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and asked that they move on because she thinks Mr. Watson has the idea about what Member Capello is trying to allude to. Member Hodges said she does not understand it. Chairperson Lorenzo said they could debate it after the meeting. Member Hodges doesn’t understand what the differences are if they are discussing uses which they also raised in terms of swimming pools.

Member Capello also believes the required acreage is a problem and perhaps Mr. Rogers and Mr. Watson can address it. Member Capello also said a batting cage or a driving range may not need 30 acres, but they would still fit within the ordinance. Lastly, Member Capello stated he grew up in Royal Oak and he is still of the opinion that recreational facilities should be located where his child can ride his bike there and such facilities should be kept in residentially zoned neighborhoods.

Member Vrettas said this is not Royal Oak, this is Novi and if Member Capello wants to live in that kind of atmosphere he should move back to Royal Oak. Member Vrettas respectfully asked why should they turn Novi into another Royal Oak? Member Vrettas wants Novi to be unique and admits he drives his son, but he would drive his son anyway because he does not want his son out of his sight. Chairperson Lorenzo said Member Vrettas’ point is well taken, but she would like to move on.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Markham to repeat her points in terms of what she would like to see and where so they can begin voting on the motions.

Member Markham would like to strike boat liveries and facilities for launching, docking, and mooring from Principal Uses Permitted. Chairperson Lorenzo said that has already been stricken by Member Hodges. Member Markham added if there is going to be an outdoor pool facility, they need loudspeakers for safety reasons and therefore, she is not comfortable with taking out loudspeakers entirely. Member Hodges interjected by stating there are no loudspeakers at Lakeshore Park and the lifeguards use megaphones. Member Markham replied the noise level is higher in a pool facility because they construct it with concrete and there is a lot more ambient noise. Member Hodges said she would agree to them for emergency cases and safety purposes, but not for music. Member Markham advised that is what she is talking about.

Chairperson Lorenzo said instead of striking 2302A.1, they may want to amend it so they only allow loudspeakers during emergencies. Member Hodges asked if they have call them loudspeakers and asked if they can call them public address systems instead? Member Markham agreed.

Member Weddington asked if they would allow cross country skiing given the revised condition of the ordinance? Mr. Rogers replied it can be added and he has no objection to it. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if that would be 9 under Principal Uses Permitted? Member Weddington replied she threw it out as a question because golf courses are often used in the winter for cross country skiing and to her, it is a low impact use. Mr. Rogers believes many of these uses should be Principal Uses Permitted and if Member Weddington would like him to add it, he will. Chairperson Lorenzo said they should be more specific. She further stated some golf courses do allow this use, but she guesses it could be anywhere. Member Hodges advised she cross country skis behind Providence and added she doesn’t ask for permission or pay a fee. Mr. Rogers added people also cross country ski at the tree farm.

Member Weddington asked if they included basketball courts in the ballfields or playfields? Mr. Rogers replied they are permitted.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they should specify this as outdoor and added prior to the word parks? Member Weddington said it was one of her observations while listening to the debate about public vs. private and principal uses vs. special uses. Furthermore, Member Weddington advised as this is shaking out, except for swimming pools which could be indoor or outdoor, most of the principal uses they ended with are outdoor type uses. Member Weddington further advised most of the special conditions are considered as indoor. Member Weddington said this might be another way to look at it if it helps people to make a distinction because she views the outdoor uses differently. Member Weddington does not see outdoor as intensive because of the setbacks and the types of restrictions they have in comparison to indoor uses. Mr. Rogers has no objection to adding outdoor. Member Weddington added if they make that distinction, it does leave swimming pools up in the air. Chairperson Lorenzo said they could make indoor/outdoor swimming pools specific. Mr. Rogers asked if it would be under Special Land Use? Chairperson Lorenzo replied it would be under Principal Uses Permitted and would read, "outdoor parks, playfields, including soccer fields and playgrounds and indoor or outdoor swimming pools." Mr. Rogers said he would put it under Principal Uses Permitted. Chairperson Lorenzo agreed, because they had stricken swimming pools from Special Land Use.

Member Weddington asked if grandstands need to be considered in terms of accessory structures and uses customarily incident to the above permitted uses or is it a given for some uses? Mr. Rogers replied the language is common in many other districts and would defer it to Mr. Watson.

Member Weddington agreed with the suggestion to also incorporate hours of operation and noise controls, but she would also want to consider outdoor storage of equipment, refuse collection and storage. Member Weddington also agreed with some of the exclusions and would take it further by excluding the user possession of any weapons and race tracks (horse, car, etc.). Member Weddington would also want to look very carefully at the use of motorized vehicles like ski-mobiles, ATV’s, mopeds, and snowmobiles. Member Hoadley asked about non-motorized vehicles such as ice and snow sailing? Member Weddington did not think about those, but asked if they damage the environment? Member Hoadley replied they can do damage to human beings if they run into someone because they travel at 60-70 m.p.h.

Chairperson Lorenzo suggested separating Member Hodges motion into separate items.

As a point of order, Member Capello advised there is a motion on the floor. Chairperson Lorenzo said the motion is to include everything and she thinks the consensus was to break it down because there may be some individuals who would like to do one, but not all. Member Capello said that is probably a good idea, but it probably should be done after the Public Hearing when there is more definition to the issues.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the consensus is to vote on each item individually or collectively? Chairperson Lorenzo explained collectively would mean to vote on everything which has been added as amendments and she will try to list them all.

Member Hoadley said there are still a couple more things. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks they need to get to this motion and the Commission has done a good job in addressing these.

Member Hoadley stated under Intent, the fifth sentence on Page 2 reads, "the district is also intended to encourage" and would like to amend the word "encourage" to "require" and it further read, "require that preservation of natural features of the property such as woodlands and wetlands be governed under the current Wetlands/Woodlands Ordinance." In other words, Member Hoadley stated the current Wetlands / Woodlands Ordinance would govern this project. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the regulations would govern anyway? Mr. Watson concurred.

Member Hodges is concerned about what Member Bononi said about restriction clauses because there are items similar to 7, under Special Uses and other uses similar to the above uses which would leave the door open for some creativity they can appreciate and some they cannot. Member Hodges would like to add "cannot" and the reason is because race tracks should be excluded. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she is suggesting to strike Item 7. Member Hodges said they should keep it, but she wants the exclusions included. Member Hodges said Item 7 would come down further and the exclusions would be above it. Member Hodges added she definitely wants to exclude casinos and race tracks. Mr. Rogers stated a zoning ordinance that is both permissive and prohibitive has created many problems in other city’s because a shrewd developer can come in with a use is not prohibited. Member Hodges replied if that is the recommendation, then she would like to strike 7 entirely.

Chairperson Lorenzo listed the following changes for the REC Ordinance:

• 2300A - Intent, fourth sentence - should read " . . . as well as to encourage outdoor recreation uses. The district is also intended to encourage . . . " and strike " . . . that could not easily be provided in the already urbanized portions of the City."

• 2300A - Intent, last sentence, Page 2 - insert "wildlife" after "wetlands." Page 3, sentence 3 after " . . . of the City." insert " With preservation in mind, no indoor recreational facilities shall be located closer than 1 mile from any state or national park."

• 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted, Item 1 amend to read, "Outdoor parks, playfields, including soccer fields, playgrounds, and indoor/outdoor swimming pools."

• 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted, Item 2 strike entirely.

• 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted, Item 5 amend to read, "Public golf courses."

• 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted, Item 6 strike entirely.

• 2301A - Principal Uses Permitted, add cross country skiing.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, correct spelling of principle to principal in heading.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, Item 1 should refer to 2301A and not 2401A.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, Item 1 amended to read, " . . . public address systems for emergency situations." Strike outdoor lighting, other than off street parking.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, strike Item 2.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, strike Item 3.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, strike Item 4.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, Item 5 amended to read, "Indoor recreational facilities, including health and fitness facilities, etc. . . . "

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, strike Item 7.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, add to read, "Private golf courses, country clubs, etc. . . . "

Member Hodges would like to rethink the lighting because there are going to be some situations beyond their control and suggested a curfew would be more appropriate. Member Hodges said they could include the public address systems and the lighting for health, safety, and general welfare reasons.

• 2303A - Required Conditions, Item 1 should include a mechanism to increase the distance of private, commercial indoor recreational facilities abutting residential to 500'.

Mr. Rogers stated there is nothing in the schedule or in this paragraph as to the required setback if it abutted commercial or industrial and advised they should not build them right on zero lot lines. Mr. Rogers suggested they add something compatible. Mr. Rogers advised buildings in an I-1 District have a 20' setback from side and rear property lines and they do not need a berm or a fence. Mr. Rogers said it could be left as is and require conditions, but they should footnote it in the Schedule of Regulations.

Member Hodges asked if language could be added to say that the underlying zoning prevails? Mr. Watson replied no, because it is not going to be an overlay district and will be a district of its own.

Mr. Rogers thinks the 500' setback in Item 1 is too much and needs much work.

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, Item 2 amended to include Mr. Watson’s language or "uses shall abut a major thoroughfare or right of way, etc."

• 2302A - Principal Uses Subject to Special Conditions, Item 8 strike loudspeakers.

Member Hoadley asked if they addressed the acreage? Chairperson Lorenzo replied Mr. Watson and Mr. Rogers will look more closely at the 30 acre issue.

Member Capello asked if they addressed the berm? Mr. Rogers referred to Page 9, of Mr. Watson’s draft and believes the 15' high, 10' crown berm is excessive and suggested they discuss it right now. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they would prefer to make it a range? Chairperson Lorenzo advised the staff has recommended 6' and they could go 6' or 10-15'. Member Weddington asked if the ordinance required a 10-15' when industrial or commercial abuts residential? Mr. Rogers said they are currently discussing that and when I-1 abuts residential, it is 6' at the discretion of the Planning Commission. Chairperson Lorenzo said they are discussing changing it to 10'-15'. Mr. Rogers concurred. Member Weddington thinks the Commission should be consistent with that guideline. Chairperson Lorenzo stated the berm would be 10-15' instead of 15' and she would also like to see a 80% / 90% opacity.

Member Hoadley asked about parking and Chairperson Lorenzo replied for now, it will remain as is. Member Markham reported Mr. Davis has some parking suggestions in his draft for their consideration.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll for vote.

VOTE ON PM-96-06-130 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura

No: Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Markham

Member Bonaventura said he has too many concerns about this ordinance to mention and reiterated the Planning Commission can make as many recommendations as they want for Council to choose from. Member Bonaventura thinks the Commission did a good job and it was wise for them to make some changes and provide a finished ordinance. Member Bonaventura moved to recommend to City Council that the Planning Commission does not wish to pursue a new Recreation District classification at this time. The motion was seconded by Member Vrettas.

PM-96-06-131 TO RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES NOT WISH TO PURSUE A NEW RECREATION DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AT THIS TIME

Moved by Bonaventura, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (8-1): To recommend to City Council that the Planning Commission does not wish to pursue a new Recreation District classification at this time.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to send a recommendation to City Council not to pursue establishing a recreational zoning district at this time.

Member Capello does not think the motion is appropriate at this time and they should not decide until after they give public input at a Public Hearing.

Member Bonaventura replied a private businessman came before the Commission tonight who is in the business of developing private recreation areas and reported he wants to play. Member Bonaventura added it bothers him when deals are done behind closed doors and that is what this is about. Member Bonaventura would like to see this man play too, but he doesn’t necessarily think the specific area which they are not supposed to refer to is the only game in town.

Member Hoadley has mixed emotions about the motion, but will agree they do not need a recreational ordinance. Member Hoadley thinks the City needs a Special Development District Ordinance and would like to include it in a Public Hearing along with the Recreational Ordinance because it addresses everybody’s concerns and is also site specific on an individual basis. Member Hoadley moved that the Commission proposes to send a Special Development District to Public Hearing.

Member Vrettas agreed this motion sends the message to Council that the Commission is not ready to pursue a recreational ordinance at this time. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating Member Vrettas is way off the point. Member Vrettas replied that is the point because the Commission is being forced to do something that is not in the best interest of the community. Chairperson Lorenzo replied they have already been through that.

Member Bononi said the reason she did not support the motion is she does not think the motion supports good planning practices as she knows it. It is Member Bononi’s opinion that the zoning vehicles which are currently in place for private vs. public uses in terms of recreation, are classic zoning. Member Bononi has listened to people who disagree there is any difference between a municipal facility and a private profit motive facility and there is a great deal of difference. Member Bononi advised the standing, accountability, level of confidence that the citizens have in public vs. private for each one of those facilities is very different. Member Bononi said that is why they have the Special Land Use in single family and multi-family zones from the standpoint of municipal facilities and the reason why for profits are in other zones. Member Bononi added if they can come up with a vehicle which makes sense, will limit the growth, encourages quality, and does not open up a pandora’s box of having everyone who lives in the City worry about whether there is a 30 acre parcel nearby which could be rezoned into something that would be a nightmare is an appropriate planning decision to make. Member Bononi thinks there are alternatives and the application that anyone wants to come into Novi with should stand on its own merit and the quality of that application should be the only reason they look at it in a special way.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to send a recommendation to City Council not to pursue establishing a Recreational Zoning District.

VOTE ON PM-96-06-131 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi

No: Capello

Member Weddington said she thinks having different alternatives on the table for discussion at the Public Hearing on July 10 may be useful, 1996 and would like to know a little bit more about the Special Development District. Member Weddington was one of the people who originally asked for some alternatives and the SDD was one of the alternatives they did not explore. Member Weddington said providing another vehicle to look at recreation facilities based on the current zoning districts may be a better, quicker, more reasonable, and responsible way to deal with this issue. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she would like it on the July 10, 1996 agenda? Member Weddington is curious right now and would like to put them forth at the July 10 meeting, but to do that she would need more background information. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested perhaps between Member Bononi and Mr. Rogers, they can get something in the packets. Mr. Rogers advised there is already something in the packet and it is an ordinance which offers a different approach to the PD’s and special land uses. Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Watson if that would be applicable?

Member Hoadley would like a brief explanation from Member Bononi in terms of how a Special Development District could work for this and other things which would be of equal value to the City. Chairperson Lorenzo advised the hour is late.

Member Hoadley moved to recommend that Special Development District be included in the Public Hearing forum. Members Weddington and Vrettas seconded the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested they say "explore" Special Development.

Member Hoadley moved to add, Explore Special Development District under Matters for Discussion to the Planning Commission July 3, 1996 agenda. Members Vrettas and Weddington seconded the motion.

PM-96-06-132 TO ADD, EXPLORE THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT UNDER MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3, 1996 AGENDA

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To explore the Special Development District under Matters for Discussion at the Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 1996.

Chairperson Lorenzo said the motion is to discuss exploring Special Development Districts at the July 3, 1996 Planning Commission meeting and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-06-132 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello

No: None

3. PROTOCOL IN REGARDS TO WHAT IS RECEIVED IN THE PACKETS

Member Hoadley thinks the memorandum from Member Bononi to Mr. Rogers should have been included in the packet and suggested anything which pertains to any item of discussion should always be included in the packets. He further stated it should not be left up to any discretionary person in the Planning Department and he would also say items should also include any correspondence from residents. Member Hoadley said the Commission would have had more insight about Member Bononi’s ideas had it been included in the packet.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated in defense of the staff, she believes Member Bononi gave a copy to Mr. Rogers, but not to the staff. Mr. Rogers advised the letter was personally addressed to him after a meeting he had with Member Bononi. Mr. Rogers further advised he built in her ideas as he saw fit into his report. Mr. Rogers added he included the West Hartford Special Development District and discussed it in his cover letter. Mr. Rogers suggested any further correspondence from a Commissioner to a consultant or to a staff member should be copied to Steve Cohen for the packets. Chairperson Lorenzo said she gave the same recommendation to Member Bononi.

Mr. Rogers advised he provided copies to Steve at his request tonight. Mr. Wahl interjected by stating if the author does not copy it to the Commission or someone else, the Department cannot presume the person who is writing it wants it to go to other people and the author should indicate who it should go to.

Member Bononi said the presumption was on her part, but she did not consider her letter to be a personal letter.

2. COMMENTS

Member Bonaventura advised he has enjoyed the time he has spent on the Commission. Member Bonaventura further stated he enjoys trying to solve problems and working and debating topics such as tonight. There were a few meetings Member Bonaventura admits were not so easy and it became clear to him why judges sentence criminals to community service. Member Bonaventura would like to thank everybody for their help and he has enjoyed working with them. Member Bonaventura hopes the Commission will give him their ear as a citizen in the future.

Chairperson Lorenzo replied they fully expect Member Bonaventura to do that.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Chuck Young - SWAN, would like to thank Member Bonaventura for being concerned about the residents. Mr. Young advised the problem with the whole thing has been the process and it was not the intent of the Commission to rush something through. Mr. Young also thought they may have thought there would be legal implications. Basically, Mr. Young advised SWAN has written a letter to the Mayor and has gathered other letters from Northville residents which he will provide to anyone who wants to read them. Mr. Young said their letter begins by saying, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." Mr. Young’s point to anyone who is a resident of Novi and as an old timer, is they should vote the people in and not the developers and further reminded them that the officials serve the people and not the developers. Mr. Young said the people will have a very critical situation with the Ten Mile issues. Mr. Young also reminded the residents about the Interlock issue, but the residents prevailed and the people who live in Novi are the ones who should be considered. Mr. Young thanked the Commission for sending the message to the City that this was a flawed ordinance, it was not well written, and basically, the process was totally wrong.

Chairperson Lorenzo closed Audience Participation and entertained a motion to adjourn.