(248) 347-0475

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

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Chairperson Weddington

ABSENT: Members Capello (excused), Churella (excused), Vrettas (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Traffic and Planning Consultant, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Heidi Hannan

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions to the Agenda? She stated the Department has asked that Item 5, Sign Ordinance under Matters for Consideration and Item 2, discussion and clarification of TC-1 Text Amendment under Matters for Discussion be postponed as they need more work. She added General Filters as Item 5 under Matters for Discussion. Chairperson Weddington stated the Mayor has asked that the Commission add alternatives for the ZBA Variance OST issue under Matters for Discussion, she added it as Item 2. She added under Matters for Discussion, to reschedule the meeting of July 22, 1998 as there is a conflict with the use of the Council Chambers.

Member Bononi requested that the correspondence under Mayor McLallen’s signature with regard to OST/ZBA be read into the record.

PM-98-06-108 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-108 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

CORRESPONDENCE

Bernard and Theresa Ponkey, 45640 White Pines Drive, wrote in opposition of any further encroachment into the woodlands and wetlands. In particular for the Westmont Village Subdivision II.

William Miller Jr. and Christine Miller, 45700 White Pines Drive wrote in opposition to any efforts to adversely impact the wetlands and woodlands behind their home regarding Westmont Village Subdivision II. They purchased their house with the understanding that the wetlands and woodlands were protected, they believed that one benefit to Novi was the preservation of wetlands and woodlands. They did not understand why the elected officials continue to pursue development of the wetlands and woodlands thereby destroying them and adversely impacting property values.

Donald Wareham, Lot 83, Addington Park Subdivision, wrote in opposition to the permit for expanding the Westmont Village Subdivision into the woodlands. He believed that enough woodlands have been destroyed for the benefit of the developer for the present time. He did not believe it was fair to the existing residents of Westmont Village Subdivision who have purchased lots on the southern border on the assumption that they would have privacy, this proposal would violate that assumption when they purchased their lots, mostly likely at a premium price. He did not believe it was ethically proper to add more to the subdivision when the square mile is already populated so densely thereby driving out the wildlife.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Weddington announced there was one item for approval. She asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 1998?

Member Bononi referred to Page 5, last paragraph, last sentence should read, "...the applicant did not have to go to the ZBA because she questioned Mr. Rogers referral to this situation as a "legal non-conformity". She referred to Page 8, third paragraph, add "from JCK and some do not." to the end of the paragraph. She referred to the fifth paragraph and added, "She gave as an example, a nearby recently developed site that had on many occasions nearly non-existent erosion control." to the end.

PM-98-06-109 TO APPROVE THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 20, 1998 AS AMENDED

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 1998 as amended.

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. WESTMONT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO 2 & 3 SP97-05C

Located north of Nine Mile Road, east of Venture Drive, zoned Residential (R-1). Applicant is seeking Tentative Preliminary Plat and Woodland Permit.

Chairperson Weddington announced there was an error on the Agenda, the property is located south of Ten Mile Road between Beck Road and Taft Road. She clarified that the legal notices were correct.

Richard Lewiston requested Tentative Plat approval for Westmont Village Subdivision II, 3.2 acres containing 8 lots and Westmont Village Subdivision III, 1.4 acres containing 3 lots. He stated the plan is the same one that was favorably commented on by many of the residents in Westmont Village I at the last meeting. The plan indicates approximately 4.6 acres will be used for Westmont Village Subdivisions II and III and the remaining 29.6 acres will be left in a natural state and subjected to a conservation easement and donated to a conservancy active in Oakland County or dedicated to the City of Novi. He stated it was determined by the Engineering department of the City that there are no wetlands involved on either of the two subdivisions and both represented a much lesser intrusion into the regulated woodland area south of Westmont Village I than the earlier version of the plat. 24 regulated trees will be removed and 34 replacement trees will be planted.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed Mr. Rogers letter of April 1, 1998. He stated the plan is a resubmittal of a new Tentative Preliminary Plat that includes two separate subdivisions. He stated the lot sizes meet the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Subdivision II is roughly 3.16 acres and subdivision III is roughly 1.39 acres with a grand total of 11 lots. The cul-de-sacs are in compliance with the design and construction standards and the Tentative Preliminary Plat indicates the provision applied for sidewalks within the public R.O.W.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there are a total of 24 trees to be removed by this plan. She stated it totally eliminates intrusion into the central woodlands and is a much better proposal than was previously submitted. She stated there were a few items that needed to be submitted at Final Engineering; 1) the 34 replacement trees to be shown on the Landscape Plan upon submittal for Final Engineering; 2) replacement numbers and costs; 3) information on changes in water level; 4) locations of preservation signage; 5) the type of replacement trees. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodland Permit with five (5) conditions; 1) payment of a Replacement and Fence Maintenance Financial Guarantee and payment of Woodland Inspection Fees; 2) Remaining Regulated Woodlands which are not platted are placed into a Preservation Easement - Ms. Lemke stated this was not, nor could it be a condition of approval because of the way that the subdivisions are platted. However, Mr. Lewiston is volunteering to put the 29 acres to the south, in a Preservation Easement; 3) No construction could begin until the protective fencing has been approved by the office and an Environmental Pre-Construction Meeting is held; 4) Review of Final Engineering Plans per her comments.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the short cul-de-sac extensions the subdivisions will be serviced by extensions to public utilities, the short storm sewer extensions will be provided in the rear yard areas to pick up rear yard drainage. The existing street structures will handle storm water run off from the new pavement areas. The applicant is proposing no storm water detention, the storm water run off flows into the existing sewers and is treated off site in a regional storm water basin. There were a number of minor comments, he stated the applicant will most likely be providing construction access through the existing Westmont Drive from Ten Mile Road as it is the only feasible location for construction of the two subdivisions. Mr. Bluhm stated there is no wetlands intrusion on the site, therefore there is no Wetland Permit required. There are proposed buffer areas on lot 65 in subdivision II and lot 71 in subdivision III and he requested the developer to not work in those areas leaving them undisturbed. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated Engineering Feasibility and recommended approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated access is from an existing subdivision. A project of this size can be anticipated to generate approximately 135 trips during an average day and 15 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The cul-de-sac meets the standards in the Ordinance. A condition of approval is that the Tentative Preliminary Plat be sealed by a registered land surveyor which is required through amendments to the State Land Division Act, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to that.

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

Chairperson Weddington opened the Public Hearing to the Public.

Steve Wegryn, 24045 Westmont Drive expressed concerns about what was to be done with the property in Subdivision II between lots 65 and 66. He explained the concern was due to the fact that recently at the end of cul-de-sac’s there were a couple of subdivisions that have been opened up to through streets. Additionally he mentioned lot 72 and lot 29 in Subdivision III. He stated Mr. Lewiston assured him that the property will either be donated to the City or donated to a conservancy. Mr. Wegryn suggested the property be donated to a nature preserve.

Lynne Paul, 45761 Willingham Drive spoke in regard to the drainage issues that would possibly impact the wetlands. Most of the lots are larger than the R-3 zone and she was hopeful that the R-3 zoning could be upheld. In regard to drainage, some of the other subdivisions, (e.g. Briarwood) have problems with drainage into the wetland. She stated there will be run off from the homes into the wetlands and she did not want to see it destroyed. She thanked Mr. Lewiston for having the consideration of doing a cul-de-sac plan and appreciated his consideration to the homeowners. She stated the property was prime for the residents and wanted to keep the woodlands as fresh and nice as possible. Ms. Paul stated the minimum requirement of an R-3 zoned property is 12,000 square feet, some of the homes are of a longer fashion and she asked if the Planning Department and City Council would look at it to allow a different contour to the land versus a straight line.

Brenda Crofoot, 45523 Addington Lane lives directly behind the proposed plan. Ms. Crofoot was not aware of the road that was proposed to be cut through behind her, she asked the Commission to keep the woodlands behind her.

Steve Blazo, 24013 Westmont Drive asked if the applicant was willing to donate to Novi, what purpose would it be used for and what were the options that it was open to?

Chairperson Weddington explained, normally when land is put into a Preservation Easement or set aside in a conservancy, it is protected in its natural state and there would be no use put to it.

Mr. Blazo asked if the City had a preference whether it be given to a private organization to the City?

Mr. Arroyo stated based upon past discussions that he has heard from Dan Davis, Parks and Recreation Director, he has not expressed interest in the City from a recreation, park or open space preservation for the City to take title to plans such as this. He found it to be very unlikely that his recommendation would be that the City accept it, he thought the most likely situation would be for a group conservation foundation to take it over.

David Winner, 24024 Westmont Drive expressed concern with what was happening with the property today, to when the development starts. He stated before June 04, 1998, it represented a dump site. The owner of the property was served a notice and it was cleaned up. He stated as of today, the builder has once again used the property as a dumping ground. He stated he does not like to look at it, his concern was for the safety of the children of Westmont Village and anyone else that goes onto that property.

Chairperson Weddington asked the Department to follow up on the complaints of Mr. Winner.

Jean Lang, 45523 Addington Lane stated her property immediately backs up the "Westmont Mountain". She stated when she moved in 2 years ago, it was a small berm that turned into mountain. She stated she has been working with the Building Department for two years to try to get rid of it. She stated it was ruining her back yard because she could not landscape it until the soil was removed, all of the mud washes into her backyard.

Marilyn Gretch, 45847 Willingham Drive stated she was the last house before the proposed subdivision III. She expressed concern about the areas that are to be left open on both proposed subdivisions. She asked that those areas that are to be left open could be donated to the subdivision for their own preservation area. Ms. Gretch also expressed concern about the lot sizes of the three lots in subdivision III and that they be kept to a minimum so as not to encroach upon the woodlands. She stated she was very pleased with the two proposed subdivisions and thought they could be a very good asset to the subdivision as long as the lot sizes are kept to a minimum and the open areas are not violated.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley commended the developer and the residents who appeared before the Commission, he stated it goes to show that the process does work when people get involved. Member Hoadley asked the developer if he was willing to give a Preservation Easement on the entire remaining property including around the cul-de-sacs?

Mr. Lewiston answered, absolutely.

Member Hoadley stated he was sure the Commission would make it a condition of approval. He also asked Mr. Lewiston what he would do to relieve the situation for the residents on Addington Lane?

Mr. Lewiston stated over the years there has been consistent effort to clean up behind the builders and the reason it falls upon him is because he owns the property, not because he made the mess. He stated it is an ongoing problem and the only thing that will solve it is once the houses are built, signs be placed warning of the dangers of dumping in the conservation area.

Member Hoadley stated he would like to see the Planning Department send a letter to the Building Department alerting them to the situation to get them out and police the situation.

PM-98-06-110 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR TENTATIVE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WESTMONT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION II & III SP97-05C SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CONSULTANTS AND INCLUDING THE DEVELOPERS VOLUNTARY PLACEMENT OF ALL UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY INTO A PRESERVATION EASEMENT TO MAINTAIN IT IN ITS NATURAL STATE

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat for Westmont Village Subdivision II & III SP97-05C subject to all of the conditions and comments of the Consultants and including the developers voluntary placement of all undeveloped property into a preservation easement to maintain it in its natural state.

Member Bononi referred to the JCK letter dated April 14, 1998 and the statement, "it should be noted that if private utilities are proposed in front yard areas, a variance will be required from the City of Novi." she asked Mr. Bluhm to explain what that meant. She asked if this meant cable TV, etc.

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes, they are typically required in the rear yard areas and a variance would need to be secured to allow them to be placed in the front yard.

Member Bononi understood that the City was not interested in taking title to the property and asked if that was correct?

Mr. Arroyo stated based upon past discussions of a similar nature, it was his understanding that there has not been an interest expressed.

Member Bononi referred to the notation that says that a conservation easement could be placed and conveyed to a nature conservancy designated by the City of Novi , she asked if the City of Novi was interested in doing that?

Mr. Arroyo stated to his knowledge, the City has never designated a conservancy for a specific purpose but it is something that could be researched.

Member Bononi referred to Section 401 Principle Uses in Single Family Zones and stated she did not know if it would fit within a conservancy’s plan of action. She thought the conservation easement was a good idea as long as it was known what the conservation easement consisted of, what all of the limitations imposed upon it would be, who would be taking care of it and the terms under which the conservation easement would be accepted. She thought it was premature to say that the City of Novi was going to designate it. Member Bononi asked the applicant why the cul-de-sac areas have been left open?

Mr. Lewiston stated those two areas were both wetland areas.

Member Bononi stated from the standpoint of looking at what is going on in the plan and the possibilities of adjacency activities, as a planner, she stated it was not good enough. In regard to the conservation area, she asked what would happen if it falls through?

Mr. Lewiston answered, he continues to own it subject to a conservation easement to terms of which were negotiated with the City of Novi using the State Conservation Easement form which prohibits all use of the land.

Member Bononi asked Mr. Weisberger if he would explain the manner in which it would be finalized.

Mr. Weisberger stated he has not drafted one, therefore, he could not speak to it. However, it would be the same manner in which they have been done in the past. He pointed out that the balance of the land is a voluntary easement, any condition placed on the balance of the land is only a voluntary condition of the applicant.

Mr. Lewiston stated he never intended that it be dedicated against the City’s will, if he is advised that the City does not wish to have it because the situation will arise again, he will impress it with a conservation easement to the broadest extent possible.

Member Bononi asked why there needed to be two accesses to the site?

Mr. Lewiston answered, he was asked to bring back the plan from 1992 and that land was what was left. He stated they are not accesses.

Member Bononi asked if the applicant was saying that each of those areas could not be used as access to the site?

Mr. Lewiston answered that it was his understanding that the areas that are left natural are not the subject of summer camps, etc. and the City of Novi will not use it for any purpose. If it is impressed with a conservation easement then it would not be used for any purpose.

Member Bononi asked if there was any circumstance under which the easement would not be accepted by the City?

Mr. Weisberger answered, it was voluntary. He stated it sounded like the terms of the easement were that there would be nothing on the land and he did not see why the City would not accept the easement in the public interest.

Member Bononi asked if the approval of the document would be concurrent with the approval of the subdivision at the Council level or could it be made contingent upon the document being in place?

Mr. Weisberger stated if the applicant was willing to voluntarily allow the condition to be a part of the process, then yes, however, the Commission could not require it.

Mr. Lewiston stated he was so willing.

Member Hoadley clarified that this situation appeared before the Commission a couple of years ago and the developer voluntarily put a preservation easement on about 80 acres. He stated it can never be developed, it must be left in its natural state, he stated this is the same situation and did not see a problem with it.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-110 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

NOTE: The Woodland Permit for Westmont Village was voted on after Matters for Consideration Item #1

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. ASH GEAR, SP97-13D

Located north of Nine Mile Road, between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road, zoned light industrial (I-1). The applicant is proposing to build a warehouse facility with an office in front. Applicant is seeking Final Site Plan approval.

Chris Enright represented Jerry’s Properties. He explained the proposed 30,000 square foot warehouse facility with a 5,000 square foot office building on the front that faces Nine Mile Road. The facility is used as a warehouse facility distribution facility for small parts for the process and sale to the makers of machine gears. He explained that it will be a single story building, 22' high in the warehouse and 15' high in the front, the entire operation would be exclusively used for Ash Gear.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogers letter dated May 13, 1998. He stated the Final Site Plan conforms with what was presented as part of the Preliminary Site Plan and Mr. Rogers recommends approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the landscape concerns have been approved and she recommended approval.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated there were some concerns with the drainage. At the extreme southwest corner, there is a culvert underneath the CSX tracks. The applicant had to include a drainage ditch across his property to accommodate the drainage and this has been done to Mr. Bluhm’s satisfaction. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated the plan conforms with what was approved. He stated there would be a passing lane and a deceleration lane in place for access. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Final Site Plan.

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

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK regarding the Facade Ordinance Review which states that the drawings are consistent with the previous review and all facades are in full compliance with the Facade Chart. It is therefore recommended that the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 Waiver is not required.

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

DISCUSSION

PM-98-06-111 TO RECOMMENDATION FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR ASH GEAR, SP97-13D BASED ON ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Final Site Plan approval to Ash Gear, SP97-13D subject to all of the Consultants conditions and comments.

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi congratulated the applicant for not paving over and building over every square inch of the parcel. She stated it was not something that is seen very often and thought a very positive statement was being made from the standpoint of how the building would look, how storm water would be treated, in addition to addressing the comments of the Engineering Consultant.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-111 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi

No: None

Chairperson Weddington apologized that she overlooked the Woodland Permit for Westmont Village, she did not believe that the motion included that action.

PM-98-06-112 TO GRANT A WOODLAND PERMIT TO WESTMONT VILLAGE SUBDIVISION II AND III, SP97-05C SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS CONDITIONS

Moved by Canup, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant a Woodland Permit to Westmont Village Subdivision II and III, SP97-05C subject to all of the Consultants conditions.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-112 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup

No: None

2. WOODLAND GLEN, SP98-14

Located at 20969 Woodland Glen Drive. The applicant is proposing to build an addition for gathering space on the 30.32 acre site, zoned Multiple Family (RM-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Michael Miller represented Woodland Glen Apartments. He stated it is zoned RM-1 and currently there are 304 apartments in 19 separate buildings. The property is 30.32 acres. He explained that the applicant would like to build a 360 square foot addition, the purpose is for a conference room and a leasing center. The exterior materials are to match the existing horizontal siding, it will be a single story and the goal is to have it blend with he existing structure. There will be a separate heating system for the space. The area is currently a concrete patio, it will have an access to the pool.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogers letter dated May 11, 1998. He stated it was an addition to an existing accessory building within a multiple family development that exists within the Woodland Glen Apartment complex. The addition is roughly 365 square feet. There are no modifications proposed to any of the parking, the addition does not impact the existing parking and no additional parking is proposed. Mr. Arroyo thought the applicant should respond to how often and if the building is leased for events and parties and where the parking takes place. He stated it appeared that there was a roadway that runs adjacent to it where parking could be provided during special events. He thought that was an issue that should be discussed further to clarify how the building is going to be used.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the proposed addition provides enough landscaping to meet the section requirements that call for four feet around the building. She stated no other sections of the Ordinance are applicable to the addition. She suggested that protective fencing be used around the plant materials within 50' of the proposed construction. Due to the small amount of plant materials, no inspection fee is being required.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated he recommended approval.

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

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states that all four sides will have wood facades at 100%, although the percentage of wood exceeds the Ordinance maximum, this does not represent a violation as this is a continuation of the design of the adjoining existing building. It is therefore recommended that the application is in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 Waiver is not required.

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

DISCUSSION

PM-98-06-113 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WOODLAND GLEN APARTMENTS, SP98-14

Moved by Canup, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Woodland Glen Apartments, SP98-14.

Member Hoadley expressed concern with the parking and the fact that there was no colored rendering supplied. He reminded the Planning Department that the requirement is for the applicant to submit a full colored rendering. Member Hoadley asked how many of the ten parking spaces were handicapped spaces?

Mr. Miller believed there to be two (2) handicapped spaces.

Member Hoadley thought at least two spaces should be added and stated he would like to see it made a condition of approval. He did not think ten spaces for the building was adequate.

Chairperson Weddington asked if the number of employees was being increased?

Mr. Miller answered, no.

Member Hoadley asked if there has ever been a lack of parking?

Liza Latwinski of Woodland Glen answered, no.

Member Csordas asked who the property management company was?

Ms. Latwinski answered, PM Diversified.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-113 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Csordas

No: None

3. NOVI TECHNOLOGY CENTER PHASE IV, SP97-52C

Located on the north side of Grand River, west of Haggerty Road. The applicant is proposing to build a single story office building on a 2.475 acre site, zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Final Site Plan approval.

Mark Young of Seiber Keast & Associates filled in for George Norberg.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant understood the project to come back before the Commission for purposes of providing colored renderings and an improved landscape plan. He reviewed Brandon Rogers letter of May 04, 1998. The project is a 17,689 square foot, single story building which has been reviewed for conformance with the Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan information, and it conforms with City standards.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval of the Final Landscape Plan because there were three items of information that were missing. She stated the landscape plan has greatly improved, the applicant has provided a variety of canopy, sub-canopy trees and shrubs which greatly improve the plan. There are three items as called out in her letter; 1) A cost estimate which she has since received, in the amount of $13,049; 2) additional details on dumpster screening, which Mr. Norberg can very easily provide; 3) a disparancy between the Landscape Plan and the Site Plan, which can be reviewed when the plans come in for stamping. Ms. Lemke stated the plans all need to be in conformance in order to be stamped. With these three comments, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Final Landscape Plan.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated he has reviewed the plan and recommended approval.

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

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states he has reviewed the plans and finds that it is in compliance and there is no need for a Facade Waiver, he recommended approval.

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

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi asked Mr. Young if he had any problems meeting the requirements of the City’s Landscape Consultant with regard to outstanding landscaping items?

Mr. Young answered, not at all. It was his understanding that most of the items have already been addressed and are currently in the process.

PM-98-06-114 TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 97-52C SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Watza, CARRIED (5-1): To grant Final Site Plan approval to Novi Technology Center Phase IV, SP97-52C subject to all of the Consultants conditions.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley stated he would be in support of the motion, however, he did not consider the applicant’s rendering an adequate colored rendering. Again, he asked the Planning Department to be sure the applicants are providing the required colored renderings.

Member Csordas stated on the north end of the property, it looks like the stub streets go over the retention basin, he asked what the intention of the stub streets was?

Mr. Young stated Mr. Galper nor Mr. Norberg have informed him as to what they subsequently had in mind for those areas.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-114 CARRIED

Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley

No: Watza

4. CHILDREN’S WORLD, SP97-55A

Located on the north side of Ten Mile between Taft Road and Beck Road. The applicant is proposing a single story day care facility on a 2.279 acre site, zoned Residential (R-4). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

John Finnemore of Children’s World stated upon applying for a Building Permit, the architect discovered that the building was undersized by 512 square feet. In the design process, the front of the building was moved closer to the parking lot and this brought him back before the Commission. He requested re-approval of the previous plan.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reviewed Brandon Rogers letter dated April 29, 1998. He stated there is a slight increase in the size of the building, however, the number of children that will be accommodated by the project has not changed since the original application. Access to the site is through an internal road that is proposed as part of the Homestead Site Condominiums.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there now is a proposal for a 6' high tubular metal fencing along Ten Mile Road and a 4' high green vinyl chain link fence around the play areas. Ms. Lemke stated she met with the applicant and the neighbors to the east regarding the design of the plantings along the brick wall. Ms. Lemke stated additional shrubs needed to be added in certain areas for screening and made this one of her conditions. She still required information on the type of surface and equipment proposed for the B/A and Pre-School playground and infant and toddler playground. A note needs to be added to the plans that the trees shall be guaranteed for two (2) years and the northern berm needs to show the slope. The applicant also needs to submit an itemized cost list per plant species for all plant materials. Ms. Lemke would like to see the three trees on Ten Mile Road be changed to Sugar Maples to match the existing trees. The applicant is proposing a 6' high brick wall, therefore the Planning Commission would need to give approval for the wall instead of a berm. Ms. Lemke stated the applicant has met all of the requirements for the plantings adjacent to the R.O.W., they have met all of the requirements for the interior building landscaping, they need to submit a Woodlands Affidavit as they do not fall under the Woodlands Protection Ordinance. The applicant needs to add a note that all lawn trees are to have a 4' diameter circle of mulch 3" away from the trunk. Ms. Lemke still required additional details on dumpster screening. With the above comments, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the revised Conceptual Landscape Plan and stated Mr. Rogers recommended approval of the Revised Preliminary Site Plan with comments that the facades comply with standards of Section 2520.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated there were no significant changes to the engineering components. In regard to the 6' high brick wall, he expressed concern with the proximity to the existing sanitary sewer that runs parallel to the wall. He stated the easement indicates that a wall is allowed in the easement. The storm sewer at the front of the site is to pick up the drainage in the playground area. He noted that the applicant has shown the drainage structures to be outside of the play area which provides a certain measure of safety to the children. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated the access plan has not changed since the review at the time the Special Land Use approval was addressed. He recommended approval.

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

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states he has reviewed the plan and all facades are in full compliance with the Facade Chart, it is therefore recommended that a Section 4 Waiver is not required.

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

Member Hoadley stated the approval was conditioned based on their approval of the treatment separating the two properties, either a berm or a wall. Member Hoadley asked Ms. Lemke if she could assure that the property owners have given their agreement to the plan?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She stated they want the wall and have exceeded the minimum plant materials.

Member Hoadley asked if the green chain link fence was visible from the road?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She explained that it was perpendicular to the front metal fence and there would be plantings along the front metal fence. She stated it would be visible, however, it would not be predominant.

Member Hoadley stated a condition of approval was that the green chain link fence could not be seen from the road. He stated if the chain link fence was visible from the road, he could not agree to approving the plan. Member Hoadley asked if there would be adequate parking for the square footage of the building if the use were to be changed sometime down the road?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Hoadley stated he would not support a positive recommendation on the project unless he could be assured that the condition that was originally put on it could be met.

Member Csordas stated there was a chain link fence on Ten Mile Road that goes from the back property, directly east and will probably butt up to the fence that is proposed to be built.

Member Canup understood clearly from the last meeting that there was to be no chain link fence. He stated he would not support it. He explained that it was the intent of the Commission to have the development look as residentially acceptable as possible and did not think a chain link fence added to it.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Hoadley, WITHDRAWN

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi agreed that the fence was a very grave concern to her, both from the standpoint of the existing single family zone and the compatibility of uses and making this use fit in with the neighborhood. She stated she was not willing to approve a cyclone fence. She asked the applicant whether or not he still intended to rent evening space in the building?

Mr. Finnemore stated they provide ancillary services when needed. It is something that happens very rarely on an occasional as needed basis.

Member Bononi asked if the applicant intended to rent to anyone else other than the parents of the children?

Mr. Finnemore answered, no.

Member Bononi expressed concern with the events being for the children in the program, not for outside groups or the group of a parent, etc. Considering it was a Special Use Permit in a Single Family zone, she stated she would not support it, she did not feel that it was suitable for a Single Family zone. If the fence issue was resolved, she would give her vote.

PM-98-06-116 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CHILDREN’S WORLD SP97-55A SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS CONDITIONS AS WELL AS THE REPLACEMENT OF CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH EITHER BRICK WALL OR 4' OR 6' TUBULAR METAL FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE BROCHURE AND WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE FACILITY NOT BE LEASED OUT TO OTHERS FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Moved by Canup, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Children’s World SP97-55A subject to all of the Consultants conditions as well as the replacement of chain link fence with either brick wall or 4' or 6' tubular metal fencing as shown on the brochure and with the further condition that the facility not be leased out to others.

Ms. Lemke clarified that there was one other area of green vinyl fence parallel to the building toward the eastern wall, on the south side of the building.

Member Canup understood that the vinyl fence was 4' high. And amended his motion that all fencing on the property be either a brick wall or 4' or 6' tubular as shown in the brochures presented before the Commission.

Member Hoadley asked if the motion included Member Bononi’s concern regarding leasing the building out?

Member Canup amended his motion to restrict that the property not be leased out to others.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-116 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza

No: None

Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a 5 minute break.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

5. GENERAL FILTERS

Paul Weisberger stated there was a presumption that the variance granted by the Council for the parking lot resurfacing carried a condition that once the design of Expo Drive was completed, they were to implement Phase II. He stated review of the minutes after the fact, realized that there was no such condition. Therefore, he recommended that the motion to approve the Phasing Plan be rescinded and if the Commission wished to impose that condition, they do so with a new motion.

Chairperson Weddington thought the more prudent alternative would be to make it an Agenda Item for the next Council meeting and notify the applicant if he wishes to speak about it since the applicant was not notified for this meeting.

Member Bononi distinctly remembered asking the question whether or not there were gates specified for this phase and the applicant did not commit to any other phase.

Mr. Weisberger believed that the variance granted by Council stated that the applicant had to do the parking lot improvements once Expo Drive was completed. He stated City Council overlooked it despite JCK’s interoffice recommendation that it be made a condition of a variance.

Chairperson Weddington stated she would feel more comfortable scheduling it and notifying the applicant so that they have an opportunity to be at the meeting.

PM-98-06-117 THAT THE MATTER OF GENERAL FILTERS PHASING BE SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE 24, 1998 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Hoadley.

Ms. Hannan stated General Filters would be eligible for a Public Hearing at that time, however, it was not a Public Hearing.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley asked how the issue could be put on the Agenda without the applicant being notified?

Mr. Weisberger stated a letter was issued to the Planning Commission members stating that it needed to be an Agenda item, this is why it falls under Matters for Discussion. He clarified, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, there could have been a vote tonight, however, the Chair thought it would be more prudent to schedule it for the next meeting.

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule the General Filters Phasing Plan as a Matter for Consideration at the meeting of June 24, 1998 and to direct the Department to send notice to General Filters.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-118 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

Member Canup would like to address the Consultants on the Children’s World issue as it slipped his mind. He stated the sign was almost 10' tall and he wanted to make sure the Consultants were aware of it.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Commission was not approving any signs, that would be the responsibility of the ZBA. He stated he would clarify it as part of the Final Site Plan review.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. ADULT CARE FACILITY

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Castle and Associates. She explained that it is a company that provides day activities for individuals who have suffered traumatic brain injuries and need activities post rehabilitation. She stated it is a Commercial venture and the proposal is to obtain a farm situation and be allowed to have a number of participants come in during the day to work on the farm and engage in activities. Chairperson Weddington explained that nowhere in the Ordinance is such activity allowed. She stated Mr. Weisberger has drafted an Ordinance which makes it a principle use subject to special conditions.

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development added that the applicant has a similar facility in Farmington Hills and they received an interpretation from their ZBA that it fell under the heading of a day care. He stated Novi was not able to do that so the applicant is searching for the proper method to move forward with the project.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated he did not have the background material on the facility, he was made aware that there is a video and he wanted to review it and obtain some more information before making any recommendations.

Member Csordas asked if the entity has purchased property in Novi?

Chairperson Weddington answered, no, however, they are looking for property and hoping to come to Novi.

Member Hoadley thought it would be a very big mistake if it were made a principle use. He stated it could be controversial and recommended that the Planning Commission make it a condition of a Special Land Use condition.

Mr. Weisberger stated the language does not include the phrase Special Land Use. It is principle use subject to special conditions, so it would be subject to Commission review and whatever conditions are imposed.

Member Watza asked if the City had a requirement to accommodate facilities such as this, in senior housing developments?

Chairperson Weddington answered, no.

Member Watza expressed concern with the development being built in an RA district, he did not know that it belonged in such a district. He expressed concern with the hours of operation as they seemed to be lengthy.

Member Canup stated he would like to visit a facility that was somewhat similar to what was being proposed to do some research before he could act on it. He thought the location would have a major impact on the Community. He thought it was an issue that required a tremendous amount of research, he did not have a problem with it as long as it were put into a place where it would fit in.

Member Bononi had very strong reservations about the matter. From the standpoint of what the text amendment to the Ordinance states, she thought it was entirely unsatisfactory because it does not address critical matters and specifically matters of adjacency that deal with maximum building coverage, side and rear yard requirements, no maximum building size, and no limit on number of persons. She stated there were too many unknowns, furthermore, she did not think the text amendment was sufficient for what was trying to be accomplished. At a minimum, she thought it would be something that could be worked out with overlay zonings. She thought the next step would be to instigate a separate zoning classification, she thought it would be good land use zoning. Secondly, she expressed concern about the manner in which the matter has come before the Commission. She thought the applicant should be proposing how they wish to use a site, they should also be proposing a zone change, and they should be paying the freight.

In terms of creating a new Zoning District, Member Watza thought this kind of development already existed in the schools. He did not believe that it was unique, he thought it was admirable to make these kinds of facilities a part of the Community, however, there are special provisions for schools and this should be treated similarly.

Chairperson Weddington stated schools, day care facilities and churches are all Special Land Uses within a Residential District and this was one idea that could be considered. She stated other special districts is another alternative, as well as overlay zoning.

Mr. Wahl commented on how the Matter got to the Commission. He a number of meetings were held and a determination was made that it was a good thing for the Community at the concept level. He stated he has been directed to be more pro-active in terms of bringing good planning ideas forward. He stated it was at the initiation of the Administration that the Matter be brought forward. The Matter was discussed with the Chair to put it into a format for a general consensus.

Chairperson Weddington specifically requested that Mr. Arroyo be given an opportunity to look at it and apparently he has not had that opportunity. She thought the first step would be to refer the matter to the Planning Consultants for preliminary investigation and then come back with some alternatives.

Member Bononi asked if the Commission was still following its traditional Committee route to refer the Matters to the appropriate Committees? She stated there were two vehicles at the disposal of the Commission, the Implementation Committee and the Ordinance Review Committee, she believed that was where the Matters should lie.

PM-98-06-119 TO REFER THE MATTER OF ADULT FACILITY ZONING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE FOR STUDY AND REVIEW

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer the Matter of Adult Facility Zoning to the Implementation Committee for study and review.

DISCUSSION

Member Watza asked if the company operated for a profit?

Chairperson Weddington believed it did operated for a profit.

Member Watza asked if it was affiliated with any of the major health care facilities?

Chairperson Weddington answered, no.

Mr. Weisberger stated it receives the majority of its funding from insurance companies.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-119 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi

No: None

2. APPOINTMENT VOLUNTEER FOR ANOTHER PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO THE AD-HOC GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR COMMITTEE TO ADVISE ON THE FEASIBILITY OF THE GRAND RIVER CORRIDOR STUDY

Chairperson Weddington announced there was a Joint Meeting with Council and the Grand River Corridor Study was presented by the Consulting Firm. The Council established a Committee to further study the issue and different alternatives for implementation and members of Council, the Commission, the business community and residents at large were appointed. She stated Member Capello volunteered to work on it and she would like to have at least one other Commissioner.

Member Csordas volunteered.

Member Hoadley stated he was asked specifically by the Planning Department to volunteer and he said he would. He stated it would only be for a 45 day period.

Chairperson Weddington stated anyone can participate in the meetings, therefore Member Csordas can be the second member and Member Hoadley can join if he so wishes.

3. RESCHEDULE JULY 22, 1998 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Chairperson Weddington announced she has been informed of a conflict with the location of the July 22, 1998 meeting. The Council Chambers will be in use by another group and their meeting cannot be changed. Therefore, the meeting of July 22, 1998 needs to be moved either back to July 15, 1998 or July 29, 1998. She asked the Commission if they wished to move the meeting back to the originally scheduled date of July 15, 1998?

PM-98-06-120 TO RESCHEDULE THE SECOND MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN JULY BACK TO JULY 15, 1998

Moved by Canup, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reschedule the second meeting of the Planning Commission in July back to July 15, 1998.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-120 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup

No: None

4. ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ZBA VARIANCE OST ISSUE

Chairperson Weddington announced Mayor McLallen has sent a letter to the Commission asking that a Committee be set up to consider the issue of OST height limits and also to address the question of when issues should be sent to the ZBA and streamlined in the process. She stated there was a proposed Ordinance amendment that would have allowed applicants to go directly to the ZBA for variances prior to submission of site plans or reviews by the Commission. The Commission sent a negative recommendation to Council, the Mayor agreed and dropped the Matter from Council’s Agenda and asked the Commission to consider the alternatives.

Member Canup stated one alternative would be to give the applicant an opportunity to come before the Commission and ask permission to go to the ZBA before he prepares a Final Site Plan or makes a major investment in engineering.

Member Hoadley stated there have been applicants who have come to the Commission under Matters for Discussion, and present a project to gather the input of the Commission. Many times the input has been for the applicant to obtain a variance.

Chairperson Weddington stated this used to be done more frequently, however, it has not been done lately. She stated the Mayor is asking the Commission to focus on the issue of OST Zoning Ordinance height limitation which is currently 42'. The Mayor is asking if the height limitation could be reconsidered to increase it to 65', making it consistent with the OSC District.

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Watza, CARRIED (4-2): To direct the Planning Consultant and Council to draft an Ordinance Amendment for the OST District height limitation, increasing it to 65' and return it to the Commission for review and scheduling a Public Hearing.

Member Hoadley suggested referring the Matter to Rod Arroyo to make the necessary draft and bring it back to the Commission. He supported the idea and felt that the two zonings were compatible and OSC allows a higher height restriction.

Member Bononi stated she served on the Implementation Committee at the time the final draft of the OST was presented to the Commission. She stated the 42' height limitation was considered long and hard. It was specifically for those adjacency issues with regard to single family zones. She stated if there was some background information about why it was being done, it would be understandable. She stated if the heights are changed just because someone wants a 65' high building, then the Commission is not planning, they are just responding to pressure. Member Bononi stated if the Ordinance were being amended because across the board, there was good reason to do so, then she would be in favor of it. She stated she would absolutely like to see any of the Ordinances amended for the better, however, this is a very critical one.

Chairperson Weddington read the letter addressed to the Novi Planning Commission and herself regarding the ZBA Variance and OST Amendment.

Dear Chairperson Weddington and Commissioners, listening to the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals, comments by Mr. Antosiak and the letter from Mr. Harrington and the unanimous negative recommendation by the Planning Commission in regards to the Zoning Text Amendment 18.139; granting of ZBA variances prior to submittal of Preliminary Site Plans, I have concluded that this amendment would not be in the best interest of the planning process. Considering the agreement among the bodies in regards to this variance, it is obvious that there has to be alternatives to streamlining the process without compromising the role of the ZBA or the Planning Commission. As a result, Zoning Text Amendment 18.139 will not be considered on future City Council agendas. One a separate but related issues, it has been brought to my attention in conversations with Chairperson Eda Weddington and staff, the OT Zoning Ordinance height limitation is restrictive to the principle uses of the district. Currently, the OST height limit is 42'. I believe the height maximum of the district should be raised from 42' to 65'. This amendment would make the OST District height maximum consistent with the OSC District which is 65'. This change is also necessary to fine tune the OST Zoning District as an attraction for high-tech and research operations, that due to the nature of their operations, require more flexible restrictions. Understandably, the height amendment would have controlling mechanisms to limit the negative impact on adjacent properties; therefore, I am requesting that Khanh Pham coordinate the necessary work with the Consultants to effectuate these changes while still protecting adjacent residential properties. In summary, I am requesting that this matter be placed on your next Agenda as a Matter of Discussion.

Chairperson Weddington asked the Consultants and legal counsel to make sure adequate protections are added for adjacent residential neighbors.

Member Hoadley stated OSC is allowed next to Residential with restrictions. He did not see a lot of difference between the two Ordinances other than the OST is slightly more restrictive in regards to what can be put in. He asked why couldn’t the two be made similar as far as restrictions are concerned?

Mr. Arroyo stated if this was the wish of the Planning Commission, he would be happy to at both.

Member Canup expressed concern with the 65' height limitation. He suggested sending it to ZBA and there could be some language or a meeting between the Council, Commission and the ZBA to establish some basic ground rules.

Member Watza concurred with the suggestions of Member Hoadley.

Chairperson Weddington asked the Consultants to take another look at it and come back to the Commission with a recommendation.

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: Bononi, Canup

SPECIAL REPORT

1. WOODLANDS AND WETLANDS INVENTORY MAPS

Presentation by David Bluhm of JCK & Associates

Dave Bluhm referred to the second draft of the Woodlands and Wetlands Maps. He stated he was considering them as interim maps to be used by the City in anticipation of the maps being included into the GIS System. He briefly described the Wetland Map.

Linda Lemke described the Woodlands Map. She stated there were three changes made to the map. There were four (4) classifications; sparse, light, medium and dense. The sparse was not regulated, the other three were regulated. It has now been changed to light, medium and dense. The sparse areas have been evaluated and those that were thought appropriate were raised to light and the remainder were removed. There are acreages that will be added on the final map. Hedgerows have been added. The areas that have been removed in reality from the developed areas, have been removed from the map. Ms. Lemke stated the maps still have to go through a Public Hearing and Staff is researching the mechanisms to do so.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated it has been researched and both maps should go through a Public Hearing. In regard to the Wetland Inventory Map, a notice has to be sent individually to every single tax payer in the City. This is dictated by State Law. He stated it might be a logical step to have them both set for a public hearing on the same night.

Member Canup suggested sending out one notice that covered both maps to every tax payer.

Mr. Bluhm appreciated any critiquing of the maps.

Ms. Lemke stated the last Public Hearings resulted in a full house and thought it would be the same this time.

Chairperson Weddington asked Ms. Lemke if she thought the maps should be handled as a separate special meeting?

Ms. Lemke thought that would be a good idea.

Chairperson Weddington suggested doing so in order to give adequate time for everybody to be heard.

Member Bononi thanked everybody who was responsible. She stated there has been a very high degree of interest in it for a long time and it is something that a lot of Communities put off and ignore. She thought it served the Commission very well to have the maps ready for adoption. She thought it was one job the Commission has done that was well worth the effort. She disagreed with having a Public Hearing with both of the maps together, she thought each deserved the important designation of a separate Public Hearing. She agreed that there were a lot of overlaps of interest, as well as physically, however, she believed that they should be heard separately. With regard to the comment about looking for input on the maps, she thought it would be good if at the Public Hearing a transparency overlay was provided to show how the previous map relates to the current map.

Member Hoadley agreed with the comments of Member Bononi.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

PM-98-06-122 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 10:50 P.M.

Moved by Watza, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:50 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-98-06-122 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

_____________________________________

Heidi Hannan - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

June 24, 1998

Date Approved: July 08, 1998