(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello, Churella, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Hoadley, Vrettas, Weddington

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda? Member Bononi added the status of Rezoning Application Amendments as Item 1 under Matters for Discussion.

Chairperson Lorenzo added possible referrals to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for further study and recommendation to the Planning Commission: 1) Removal of the remaining PD-1 designation in Section 10 from the Master Plan. 2) City initiated rezoning or Special Land Use provision for the area of Twelve Mile Road and Wixom Road to Commercial, to plan for and allow for a shopping center/grocery store in western Novi as Item 3 under Matters for Consideration. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other changes, seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.

PM-96-09-204 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To

approve the Agenda as amended.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-204 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court, commented on the zoning update. He endorsed the change in the parking setback distance from 10 feet to 20 feet. He felt the 10 foot distance was inadequate. He suggested some type of berming within the 20 foot setback. Mr. Mutch also suggested the Commissioners examine the requirement of developers not only placing street trees on their side of the right-of-way, but also on the street side. This will allow for a double line of street trees to reduce the impact from the road as pointed out in the Ann Arbor study. Mr. Mutch suggested if the PD-1 Option is to remain, the following discrepancy needs to be addressed, currently when the PD-1 density is computed, it is assumed that it meets the RM-2 standards. In reality, if the percentages are used in the RM-1 District when computing PD-1, the actuality is about 30 units per acre. He also stated the Open Space and the RUD need to be re-examined. They need to be updated as far as more required standards

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one, she closed the Audience Participation announcing there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

None

1. REVIEW OF ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE REPORT - FINAL DRAFT

Review of final draft report submitted by Planning Consultant and Traffic Consultant related to Planning Commission’s FY 1994-95 and FY 1995-96 Work Program item.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated there have been updates made to certain segments of Draft V. Mr. Rogers explained the issue was in response to a program assignment, which is listed on the document. He explained the intent was to modernize and update the Zoning Ordinance which regulates all land use within the City. It provides an implementation mechanism to implement the Master Plan and other development policies of the City. Mr. Rogers stated the assignment to the Consultants and all of the advisors of the City is to uphold the Ordinance. He stated at times they may appear to be negative in recommending the denial of a project, however, the plans are resubmitted and most of the objections are answered. It is the job of the Consultants to abide by the

Ordinances that the City Council adopts. It was Mr. Rogers’ opinion that the Ordinances dealt with the use of land, whether public or private entities.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated he and Mr. Rogers discussed the Zoning Ordinance at an earlier time and felt that a lot of time could be spent reviewing major items, however, he stated this has been done at other meetings, he felt it was a good time to open it for discussion, and for the Commission to comment and ask questions.

Chairperson Lorenzo turned the matter over to the Commission for comments, questions, proposed amendments, etc.

Member Churella referred to Page 50, Item C, in regard to surety bonds being deleted. He stated the surety bond for an individual does not tie up cash as in the case of a Letter of Credit. This makes it difficult for some developers where a surety bond can be less expensive. He asked if there was a reason for taking the surety bonds out?

Mr. Rogers stated it has been the policy for six to eight years.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated it was not a change recommended by the Consultants but rather a policy that is practiced by the City.

Member Churella stated it makes it easier for the individual where it won’t tie up his cash. He again stated it would be easier on the developer to present a surety bond rather than to come up with the cash.

Mr. Rogers stated cash or a Letter of Credit is also a requirement of JCK for engineering, infrastructure, paving and all other site improvements. So it may be a combination of landscaping as well as other site improvements. As performance is done, the bond, cash, or letter of credit is worked down based upon the percent completion of the improvements. Typically, Linda or Eric Olson would go out 6-10 times working down the amount that is being held in the letter of credit or cash amount until it is zero.

Member Churella stated that the individual would not tie up the original money. If they could put up an indemnified bond. It would be much cheaper for the individual to put it up that way. As a business man, Member Churella has personally used the surety bond method over cash because it does not tie up his cash. The Commission is trying to make it as secure as possible for the City and as easy as possible for the developers who are developing within the City. Maybe the Commission, stated Member Churella, is looking at changing the entire procedure.

Linda Lemke restated woodland reviews used for a performance or surety bond. Now the Department of Public Services does not use those bonds. Because it was difficult to track the bond, Linda Lemke stated the reason why the Department of Public Services has moved away from bonds and prefer a letter of credit or cash. Linda Lemke thinks that it was a record keeping problem and the preference of the department that steered away from the usage of bonds.

Member Churella stated it is as easy to track surety bond as a letter of credit because each year the agency that issued the bond has to come back to see whether the City is going to continue in order to pick up another fee.

Dennis Watson stated one of the reasons tying up the developers cash or credit by means of a letter of credit is as an incentive for the developers to complete their work in a timely fashion.

Member Markham questioned was on page 48, the changing of the definition of the planting period, the establishment period, and the replacement period. She asked is this change equivalent, more aggressive, or more lenient than what the City had in the past?

Linda Lemke answered that the replacement period is the appropriate planning period after notification by the City of Novi. Sometime that takes five years or more depending on how fast the project moves along. If all inspectors have signed on the landscaping, the company is still responsible for maintaining the approved landscaping plan.

Member Markham questioned whether the time frame applies to City planted street trees?

Linda Lemke replied, City planted trees are under the subdivision ordinance. Most of the City is planting the street trees at the expense of the developers. That is the way it is written in the subdivision ordinances.

Mr. Rogers further concurred that it is an incentive to get the money to get end financing. The people who provided the trees or landscaping does not get paid in full until the final sign off is done. Very few cities have this kind of inspection policy. Holding of cash or a letter of credit is an example of the quality of landscaping that the City of Novi is trying to achieve. All landscape plans that are approved as part of the final site plan establish an agreement to maintain the landscaping plans.

Member Markham’s question referred to page 50, item 10, regarding irrigation system plan for watering and draining landscape areas and for maintenance installation and irrigation. The item states that an outlet located within 300 feet within all planted materials to be maintained. Member Markham inquired whether there is a required irrigation system for commercial developments.

Linda Lemke stated that she does not mind requiring all projects with the requirement and if they have a hardship, then they can get a variance.

PM-96-09-205 TO AMEND SECTION 2509.4B TO REQUIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS AS A PART OF ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To require irrigation systems as a part of all landscape plans.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-205 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Member Markham commented on replacement trees to be too small, and the quantities required too low. It seems there is something the Commission can do about it.

PM-96-09-206 TO REFER THE MATTER OF TREE SIZE AND DENSITY FOR REPLACEMENT TO CITY FORESTER AND LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer to tree size and density to the City Forester and Landscape Consultant.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-206 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Member Markham pointed out an error on page 52, under section 5A, supplement 1, the word "installed" is one word.

Member Bononi stated that she is really happy about the positive progress to the ordinances. In particular to page 50A about the tree planting detail, there are so many trees that are not in good condition. Also, Member Bononi inquired about the striking of the title of the planning consultant. The term "City" now replaces that title. This change causes confusion to the citizens and applicants. She wants a more specific wording of the title. On page 53, Member Bononi is against the deletion of the horticulture names. On page 57, Member Bononi has a problem with the added language of "...the earth berm or wall may be placed on the adjacent residential property in order to provide continuity within or adjoining berm or wall providing the same is agreeable to the effective property owners." Is it required or is it not required?

Dennis Watson replied that the language is to provide continuity between berms that separate developments.

Member Bononi stated from additional information the berm heights should be revisited and referred to the Implementation Committee.

PM-96-09-207 TO INCORPORATE THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS INTO THE BODY OF SECTION 2509.6 AND 2509.7. RAISING I-1 BERMS FROM 10'-15' IN HEIGHT WITH A 10' CREST AND WITH 80% OPACITY IN THE WINTER AND 90% OPACITY IN THE SUMMER. IN A I-2 DISTRICT, BERM’S HEIGHT ARE RAISED TO 15'

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To incorporate the Implementation Committee’s finding into the body of section 2509.6 and 2509.7. Raising I-1 berms from 10'-15' in height with a 10' crest with 80% opacity in the winter and 90% in the summer. In an I-2 districts, berm’s height are raised to 15'.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-207 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Member Bononi stated on page 59, item F, "walls should be designed to resist the pressure of the retained material." The commission should consult with JCK on the requirement of a seal of a professional engineer. On page 60, there is a reference under G3 to a chain link fence, is this referring to chain link fence under a construction phase then removed?

PM-96-09-208 TO AMEND SECTION 2509.7G3 TO PROVIDE A CHAIN LINK FENCE IN A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION

Moved by Bononi, seconded Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend section 2509.7G3 to provide a chain link fence in a temporary construction.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-208 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Member Bononi stated that she was concerned with the total number of trees required for the parking area. Referring to page 63, sub 3, Member Bononi was not comfortable with the language of the ordinance and the equation to derive the required number of trees per parking space.

Member Capello stated on page 57, section 2509.6 about earth berms is more appropriate than 2509.6b. Why put the burden of erecting earth berms on one developer and not on the other.

Dennis Watson, stated that the industrial/commercial would impose on the residential. Berms are more than a distinction of zoning, but also of the different types of usage.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she had a question on page 57. The word "freeway" on 6a, would a boulevard be qualified as a freeway like Twelve Mile Boulevard? Her reasoning was to point out that a boulevard should qualify as a freeway under the berm requirement to avoid any undue intrusion by commercial/industrial.

Rod Arroyo, commented that it would almost be impossible to enact this type of screening between boulevards and freeways. A clarification is necessary and a recommendation to have a definition of a freeway and a boulevard.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that on page 59, section 2509.c, there is a need for an addition of noise attenuation.

PM-96-09-209 TO AMEND SECTION 2509.7C TO INSERT "OF NOISE ATTENUATION OF THE WALL" AFTER THE WORD "EFFECTIVE"

Moved by Bononi, seconded Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend section 2509.7C to insert "of noise attenuation of the wall" after the word "effective".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-209 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out that on page 60, letter G, the Planning Commission may waive the requirement for earth berms adjacent to a residential district when the proposed development includes the retention of regulated and non-regulated woodlands area. She stated from the experts from the implementation Committee that 75' or 100' dense woodland is required for proper noise attenuation.

PM-96-09-210 TO AMEND SECTION 2509.7G TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM 75' DEPTH IN REGARD TO REGULATED AND NON-REGULATED WOODLAND AREA

Moved by Bononi, seconded Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend section 2509.7G to provide a minimum 75' depth in regard to regulated and non-regulated woodland area.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-210 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Member Capello stated if the ordinance could, if the property adjoining the property of the residential property and is owned by the applicant, grant an easement over 75' of the owner’s property. Member Capello further stated that this issue should be reviewed by the Implementation Committee.

PM-96-09-211 TO REFER SPLIT LOT ZONING ALONG GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR TO BE REFERRED TO THE MASTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO SEND THE ISSUE OF THE USE OF RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS FOR

SCREENING PURPOSES TO THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Moved by Capello, seconded Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer split lot zoning along Grand River corridor to be referred to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee for further study and recommendation to the Planning Commission and to send the issue the use of residential portions for screening purposes to the Implementation Committee for further study and recommendation to the Planning Commission.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-211 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out on page 56, subsection 9, a higher ratio of opacity should be changed to be consistent. A consideration is not just about aesthetic, but of noise attenuation.

PM-96-09-212 TO AMEND 2509.5A9 TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OPACITY OF 80% IN THE WINTER AND 90% IN THE SUMMER

Moved by Capello, seconded Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend 2509.5A9 to maintain a minimum opacity of 80% in the winter and 90% in the summer.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-212 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

PM-96-09-213 TO ADJOURN MEETING AT 10:30.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella, FAILED (2-3): To adjourn meeting at 10:30 P.M.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-213 FAILED

Yes: Capello, Churella

No: Bononi, Lorenzo, Markham

Member Bononi referred to page 80, under gasoline, oil and minor accessories. A more generic language than the current specific commissary wording because most of the stores carry more than the current language. Member Bononi also pointed out the 1000 sq. feet requirement for the sale and display area. The last two convenient stores have been larger. Member Bononi was confused about the wording.

Mr. Rogers answered that the requirement is just for the sale and display area not the total gross area. Mr. Rogers will further satisfy Member Bononi’s concern and research the last six convenience stores gross area.

Member Bononi stated she would like Mr. Rogers to refine and define the language according to his findings on the last six convenience stores.

PM-96-09-214 TO AMEND ARTICLE 19, I-1 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SECTION 1903.77, TO ALLOW 2,000 SQ. FEET OR LESS RATHER THAN THE 1,000 SQ. FEET

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend article 19, I-1 industrial district, section 1903.77, to allow 2,000 sq. feet or less rather than the 1,000 sq.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-214 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

PM-96-09-215 TO AMEND 1402.33 TO CHANGE "COMMISSARY" TO "FOOD AND BEVERAGE CONVENIENCE ITEMS"

Moved by Markham, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend 1402.33 to change "commissary" to "food and beverage convenience items".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-215 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Section 5, pages 9-24, Member Capello stated that he did not see any provision for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to City Council or the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Watson replied, on a preliminary site plan, an appeal can be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it is a special land use decision, then there is no appeal, except for going to court.

Member Capello stated on item 13, page 84, there is a typo, "...protected vehicle" should be, "...at the end of the parking".

Page 41, item 15, Member Capello asked whether a motel/hotel is differentiated by its restaurant or other services?

Mr. Arroyo stated parking is a standard computation based upon one for each occupancy and worker.

Mr. Rogers commented that a good example would be Extended Stay America. They filed only for occupancy and workers because they did not have any other services.

Page 29, application review A1, Member Bononi did not understand the wording. On page 30, 4A, the phrase "shall find at least" is unclear and Member Bononi suggests replacing it with "at minimum". Also, page 29, 3A.1, the term "substantially" is ambiguous and unclear.

PM-96-09-216 TO AMEND ARTICLE 2406.3A.4A, TO REPLACE "SHALL FIND AT LEAST" WITH "AT MINIMUM"

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend section 2406.3A.4A, to replace "shall find at least" with "at minimum".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-216 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 29, 3A.1, Member Bononi suggested replacing "substantially to "primary" because primary implies more than half.

PM-96-09-217 TO AMEND SECTION 2406.3A.1, CHANGE "SUBSTANTIALLY" TO "PRIMARILY"

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend section 2406.3A1, change "substantially" to "primarily".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-217 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 32, work element 8, Member Bononi wants to change "not possible" to "difficult". Also, insert a sentence stating that if a property has two or more usage, then the parking requirement shall be a composite of the requirement of the various usage. Member Bononi’s reasoning was to be informative to the applicants and not deter them.

Mr. Rogers commented that a lot of new projects are high tech buildings with offices and high tech services.

Mr. Arroyo stated that additional language can be added to Member Bononi’s request; therefore, does not require a motion.

Page 1, Member Markham wants to reword the sentence about restaurant, fast food drive- thru. She wants to make it two or three sentences for easier reading.

PM-96-09-218 TO FURTHER DEFINE "RESTAURANT, FAST FOOD DRIVE-THRU; SO THAT IT WOULD BE MORE EASILY UNDERSTOOD

Moved by Markham, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To further define "restaurant, fast food drive-thru"; so that it would be more easily understood.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-218 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 45, Member Markham asked for an example of the "restaurant, fast food drive-thru only", and how it effects the 15 stacking?

Mr. Arroyo replied that a Rally’s would be an example of Member Markham’s question.

Page 73, under 2516.C6, Member Markham stated the three sentences, "...whether relative to other feasible usage of the site, the proposed usage shall promote the use of the land in a socially and economically desirable manner for one.......three for the city of Novi as a whole", can really be applicable for everybody to agree that special land use can

be economically and socially desirable. She thinks this paragraph can create conflict and recommends to delete it.

Member Markham stated that whenever industrial abuts residential, a group of residents always protest. Requiring all three groups to agree that it is economically and socially desirable is not going to happen in some cases.

Member Capello agrees with Member Markham about the confusion. He stated a remedy for that would be to finish the sentence after "manner" instead of continuing with the three requirements.

PM-96-09-219 TO AMEND SECTION 2516C.6, DELETE THE THREE

REQUIREMENTS

Moved by Capello, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: TO amend section 2516c.6, delete the three requirements..

VOTE ON PM-96-09-219 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 10, Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out that section 2401 of Preservation Options under intent, a change of "upon review and recommendation" should be changed to "upon review and approval".

PM-96-09-220 TO AMEND SECTION 2401, UNDER INTENT, THE LANGUAGE SHOULD BE CHANGED FROM "UPON REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION" TO "UPON REVIEW AND APPROVAL."

Moved by Capello, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: T amend section 2401, under intent, the language should be changed from "upon review and recommendation" to "upon review and approval’.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-220 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 17, section 6, Chairperson Lorenzo questioned Mr. Rogers on the clarification of the density and qualification for options. Her understanding is the total common area is at least 4 acres. Then the allowance is for 1 acre as a wetland area for this language? Chairperson Lorenzo stated the section should be removed. Remove the section that states "when such land comprises more than 25% of the common area" and under the exceptions include " in quality wetlands less than two acres regulated by ordinances."

PM-96-09-221 TO REMOVE SECTION 6, PAGE 17, STATING "WHEN SUCH LAND COMPRISES MORE THAN 25% OF THE COMMON AREA", AND INCLUDE UNDER EXCEPTIONS "IN QUALITY WETLANDS LESS THAN TWO ACRES"

Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To remove section 6, page 17, stating "when such land comprises more than 25% of the common area’, and include under exceptions "in quality wetlands less than two acres".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-221 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Section 7, page 17, Chairperson Lorenzo questioned why the entire area may be located in a flood plain? In particular when the City is requiring at least two acres to be capable of being used for active recreational purposes.

PM-96-09-222 TO STRIKE SENTENCE, SECTION 7D, PAGE 17, "THE ENTIRE COMMON AREA MAYBE LOCATED IN A FLOOD PLAIN"

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To strike sentence, section 7D, page 17, "The entire common area maybe located in a flood plain."

VOTE ON PM-96-09-222 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Page 26, section 2403.1b4, Chairperson Lorenzo stated that wetlands and woodlands qualify for the cluster option. Also, wetlands had been excluded from the density calculations, but have not excluded from the qualifying.

Mr. Rogers remarked that Arrowon Pines is an example of this. There are some wetlands and woodlands. There were 60% regulated wetlands and woodlands. Arrowon Pines had to protect over 50% of the gross area of the site as wetlands and woodlands. Arrowon Pines may have intruded along mitigated 10% of the area, but they had to come in with 50% and end up with 50%.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated if wetlands are not buildable, then why is the City crediting developers with 50% of the calculations?

Mr. Rogers replied that there are very few sites that are coming in with clustering options. It is very difficult to find a site that 50% wetlands and woodlands.

Mr. Watson stated that the whole point is to encourage them to preserve the 50%. It is the whole motivation.

Chairperson Lorenzo understands if it was woodlands, but she does not understand if it was wetlands. Because the City require the preservation of wetlands, especially if it is more than 5 acres which is a DNR jurisdiction. If any wetlands beyond two acres, the City normally preserves them anyway with the existing ordinance.

Mr. Rogers stated for the first time deleting the clustering option any city and state wetlands. That is going to have a real impact on how many units are on a site.

Chairperson Lorenzo does not want to mis-quote former Member Bonaventura, but when he brought up the matter for discussion, the density and the credit was being looked at. To make it consistent under the heading with the credits, we have been eliminating "wetlands other than quality wetlands less than 2 acres" consistently under all of the option.

Mr. Rogers stated that it would reduce the number of units.

Page 28, 2406.A4, Chairperson stated for the record that she disagrees with the proposed changes. When looking at a PD option it is a major; therefore, she would prefer it was carried in detail to comply with Preliminary Site Plan and not with a concept plan.

Mr. Rogers stated the language came straight of the preservation option.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated in the preservation option it is reducing lots. PD options results in a zoning. The change is too major of change to be a concept plan.

PM-96-09-223 TO AMEND 2406.2A4 TO INCLUDE THE REQUIREMENT OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Moved by Bononi, seconded Markham by, CARRIED (4-1): To amend 2406.2a4 to include the requirement of a preliminary site plan.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-223 CARRIED

Yes: Bononi, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: Capello

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she wanted to include the recommendation of the Implementation Committee for amending Section 1904.

Mr. Rogers asked if it was the noise amendment?

Chairperson Lorenzo replied that it was the other two items that had already been voted on. On December 6, 1995 and February 7, 1996, the Planning Commission recommended 100 foot setback from the adjacent residential property. Also, there was a waiver for a practical hardship and allowing for front yard parking to comply with the standard of 100 feet. From the recommendation, the building and parking setback will be 100' from the residential parking line.

Mr. Rogers stated with a 15 feet berm, the person has to have a 100 feet for the berm.

From the Implementation minutes, section 19, the statement of intent to promote research office and light industrial development which is free from the danger of fire. Chairperson Lorenzo stated to strike the word "free" and incorporate word "minimize". Under 1900 the intent of light industrial, Chairperson Lorenzo stated the phrase "free from fire" was an impractical expectation.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the other provisions from the Implementation Committee to add a provision for final site plans to all permitted usage subject to special conditions i.e. special land use, to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Anything that is a special land use needs to come back to Planning Commission for review.

PM-96-09-224 TO ADD PROVISION FOR FINAL SITE PLANS FOR PERMITTED USAGE SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED (3-2): To strike sentence, section 7D, page 17, "The entire common area maybe located in a flood plain."

VOTE ON PM-96-09-224 CARRIED

Yes: Bononi, Lorenzo, Markham

No: Capello, Churella

On page 75, paragraph 4, Mr. Rogers stated provides the necessary language for the conceptual facade plans on item 4 and also clarifies section 4 processes. Mr. Rogers then stated that currently in the Site Plan Manual and the fee determination, the City has a greater involvement at both the preliminary and final site submissions. Mr. Necci of JCK, does the section 4 waiver reports. Now Mr. Necci reviews all preliminary site plan for conception facades. Mr. Rogers stated Mr. Cohen is aware of the need to add this to the Site Plan Manual. Mr. Rogers further stated the question about beauty and design is critical and is similar to landscaping improvements. Also, in the schedule and regulations of required materials percentages, it is going to improve the quality control.

Mr. Arroyo commented that there are a lot of changes that are important to implement as soon as possible. Furthermore, after discussing this with Mr. Rogers, setting a public hearing on the changes to move forward with these changes.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen if the scheduling of a public hearing is on next week’s Agenda.

Mr. Cohen replied that it would not be a problem.

2. SITE PLAN EXTENSIONS

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

Chairperson Lorenzo asked the Planning Commission whether they would want to wait for the full Commission?

Member Bononi stated that it is fine.

PM-96-09-225 TO POSTPONE ITEM 2, SITE PLAN EXTENSIONS, TO A FUTURE AGENDA.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone item 2, site plan extensions, to a future agenda.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-225 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

3. REFER TWO MATTERS TO THE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING FOR FURTHER STUDY

Chairperson Lorenzo stated from her suggestions to refer two matters to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for further study and recommendations. The first is considering the removal of the remaining PD-1 designation in section 10 from the Master Plan. The second is a City initiated rezoning or special land use provision in the 12 Mile and Wixom area to allow for commercial/grocery center.

PM-96-09-226 TO REFER TO THE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE THE REMOVAL OF THE PD-1 OPTION AND THE INVESTIGATION OF THE REZONING TO ALLOW A GROCERY STORE OR SIMILAR PROJECT TO BE ALLOWED ON 12 MILE ROAD

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee the removal of the PD-1 option I and the investigation of the rezoning to allow a grocery store or similar project to be allowed on 12 Mile Road.

Member Bononi stated that she has been waiting for the moment when the Planning Commission would begin to plan. This is planning and is a constructive action. Also, Member Bononi stated that it is a proactive move and is an excellent idea.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-226 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

Member Bononi stated that she was interested that items be followed up because it is an important work.

Mr. Cohen stated rezoning additions to the site plan manual draft are being reviewed by Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo and are almost completed hopefully before the end of the year.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen if there is a specific date?

None

PM-96-09-227 TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 10:35 P.M.

Moved by all Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:35 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-227 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

_____________________________________

Steven Cohen - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Khanh Pham

October 4, 1996