Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Member Piccinini

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Capello, Koneda, and Watza

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Beth Brock

Member Piccinini asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Moved by Canup, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To approve the Agenda as presented.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

Member Churella stated that there was three-(3) correspondence. One is very long and will be read by Lynn Kocan, who wrote it.

There were two (2) that were regarding the Venture Drive Spec Building. The first letter is by Louis Demintoff, 23007 Gilbar, stating that he objects to the above project. He has no idea who is going to be using the building and what the purposes of the building is going to be. He believes that instead of increasing property values it will decrease property values.

There is another letter regarding Venture Drive Spec Building by J.W. Clements, 23018 Balcombe. He stated that as long as the current restrictions are adhered to, and any further tenant meets them with strict reinforcements he approves it.

Charles Smith, 23233 Balcombe, stated that his property abuts the Venture properties and the Harada plant. He has found that in the landscaping plan is that they said that they would not only plant but also replace any of the trees that had died. Well, they took some out and have not replaced them. Some that had died, all that they did was set them down on the ground. He hopes that the Commissioners would not allow that to happen on these two (2) projects if they are approved.

Member Piccinini announced there was one (1) item on the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of November 3, 1999 as amended.

Member Mutch stated that on page eight (8) of the minutes, on the bottom where he talks there are two (2) minor corrections. On the third sentence, it says, "accepted parcels" and should read "excepted parcels." On the next sentence, "they are vacant or have an existing house on it that a childcare provided" and should be "provider."

Yes: Canup, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

1. VENTURE DRIVE SPEC BUILDING A SP 99-52

This project is located on 1.6 acres in Section 26, on Venture Drive, north of Nine Mile Road between Meadowbrook and Novi Roads. The proposed development is in a Light Industrial District (I-1). The site is located adjacent to an R-4 Residential District and is considered a Special Land Use. Building A shares an access easement to the site with Venture Drive Spec Building B. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.

 

2. VENTURE DRIVE SPEC BUILDING B SP 99-53

This project is located on 1.6 acres in Section 26, on Venture Drive, north of Nine Mile Road between Meadowbrook and Novi Roads. The proposed development is in a Light Industrial District (I-1). The site is located adjacent to an R-4 Residential District and is considered a Special Land Use. Building B shares an access easement to the site with Venture Spec Building A. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.

Bennett Donaldson, Builder/Developer for JB Donaldson Company, stated that he would like to give a brief history. He has owned the park for about eleven and half (11 ½) years. In that eleven and a half (11 ½) years three (3) buildings have been constructed on that parcel in addition to the fourth which is under construction right now, Quicksend Delivery. Over the past three-(3) years he has intensified his efforts to develop the property. Some of the issues that have come up have created the design that the Commissioners see today. It is a unique design in which the truck wells are in the front of the building, gray level doors in front of the building and the offices are in the back of the building. There are a couple of the reasons of why the building is designed the way it is. 1) The sound decibel Ordinance in 1997 stated that "sound decibels levels went from 75 decibels during the day to 65 during the day." It went from 65 during the night to 55 during the night which has caused him to get the truck wells as far away from the residential properties as possible in order to buffer the noise that the traffic of the light would create. 2) The Ordinance states that "there shall only be rear yard loading or the loading shall be commenced in the rear one third (1/3) of the building." The residential Ordinance states that there shall be no rear yard loading. He could load on the rear one third (1/3) of the building and comply with both but he could not meet the decibel Ordinance if he was in the rear one third (1/3) of the building. He has moved the truck wells to the front of the building and used the building as an additional buffer for any noise that would be generated by trucks. He has several other designs of buildings that he tried and has discussed with Mr. Arroyo. He has incorporated the joint driveway, which is something that is desirable when you develop a commercial park. In addition to some of the issues that have prevented him from developing was the increase of the rear yard setback from sixty (60) feet to one hundred (100) feet. Also, there is the additional height requirement of the berm being increased from six (6) feet to eleven (11) feet. He feels that he has come up with a design that is conducive to everyone. He spoke with the residents in August and they were aware of the plan. His understanding was that if they had to accept something then this was better than anything else that they had seen in the past. It has been pretty painful developing this park, he has had several clients come and leave because they have had difficulties with the Special Land Use requirements. He has really tried to come up with the best design that he possibly could and he thinks that this is it. He does not know of too many other options that he can use to make the project work. He is asking for Preliminary Site Plan approval for Spec Buildings A and B.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated that he had an overall view of the two (2) properties and explained that they are two (2) separate site plans, A and B. They will require separate motions on both the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan approval. The two (2) parcels are located at the end of Venture Drive. There is adjacent residential and there is a berm located along the property line. He began with the letter from Building A, the planning review. He has reviewed the plan and offers the following comments. He is recommending approval of Venture Drive Spec A Building subject to a number of issues being resolved on the plan. The first finding that he has is the loading area. The applicant explained the situation with the Ordinance provisions, the loading area, and where it has to be. The applicant has put it in a location where it makes the most sense in terms of minimizing the impact on adjacent residential. The only issue that is still outstanding is that it needs to be screened from Venture Drive. This means that there has to be landscaping in place to screen the area as if there were a wall there or a wall has to be constructed. It is his understanding that the applicant is going to be making changes in the landscape plan and he will defer to Ms. Lemke to address that in more detail. That outstanding item needs to be addressed on any final site plan. The applicant has indicated that there is shared access for this property. He has provided a number of final site plan issues that are important and need to be addressed. Particularly when he is talking about a use adjacent to a residential, in the final site plan he will be looking at the lighting fixtures to make sure that they have cut off reflector lenses.

Regarding the traffic review dated November 18 letter he provided the traffic impacts of this development. This is an access to an existing cul-de-sac road that goes to Nine Mile Road. Truck traffic is restricted to the east on Nine Mile, therefore truck traffic is directed to the west to go towards Novi Road. As Ms. Kocan had indicated in her letter, there is an application that the city has made for a grant to try to improve Nine Mile Road from Venture Drive to Novi Road by widening it to three (3) lanes. The trip generation is probably the most possible case scenario that you could see in the estimate, eight hundred twenty four (824) trips per day. He thinks that it would be substantially less than that. If you look at it as a pure light industrial user he would estimate about two hundred thirty five (235) trips for the two (2) buildings on an average weekday. This number was generated using warehousing with a high activity warehouse with trucks coming in all the time. He does not think that this is they type of user that you see here. That is something that can be addressed and monitored as part of the Special Land Use approval. There are some other issues that he will need to see addressed on the final site plan such as cross access, easements, and some minor modifications in the parking lot design.

The comments to Building B are really pretty much identical to Building A because the buildings are very similar.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated that she had letters dated November 12 and 18 for Buildings A and B. She is recommending approval for both buildings and she had a few minor comments that she feels can be addressed at the time of final site plan. There is going to be a shared access drive and an ingress/egress easement will be required prior to final site plan approval.

She would also like to cover Mr. Necci’s letters regarding façade review dated November 15 and 22 for Buildings A and B. Mr. Necci has recommended that the application complies with the façade Ordinance and that a Section Four waiver is not required.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated that she would be referring to her November 12 and 16 letters. She is recommending approval of both of them with four (4) conditions. Three (3) are in her letter and she will highlight a fourth condition. As it abuts residential a ten (10) to fifteen-(15) foot berm is required along the eastern property line. Her first condition is that the berm height needs to be increased at the center of the berm. It is by lot seventeen (17) and eighteen (18) in that area. Also, the additional shrubs need to be added. The berm on the northern portion connects to the Harada berm and needs to connect at the same height as the Harada berm while avoiding an existing fire hydrant. That also needs to have additional evergreen trees added to screen in that area. The berm basically has to come back down on the northern end and go around the hydrant as is designed at final. The second condition is to increase the screening adjacent to the loading area on the west side of the berm by spacing evergreen trees at ten (10) feet on center and adding additional evergreen shrubs where the drainage pipe occurs. She has had a request for additional evergreen trees being used instead of deciduous trees and that is something that she will be looking at closely at final. She would be happy to hear from other residents for their own preferences. When the Harada berm was done her office was out there and they were positioned so that the residents enjoyed maximum screening at that time. She would anticipate the same procedure would happen on the installation of the plant materials for this berm. The third condition is to add a required thirty-(30) inch high berm adjacent to Venture Drive. There are utility locations so some adjustment would have to occur to allow the berm to be at least adjacent to the loading area along Venture Drive. The fourth condition pertains to the existing vegetation on site. There are some regulated woodlands on site and there are some non-regulated woodlands on the site. Some of the trees have declined in the area due to the existing drainage. Upon looking at the site today, the berm could potentially impact more trees than she initially thought. Therefore, her fourth condition would be that the developer replace all trees adjacent to that western property line that are eight (8) inch d.b.h. and greater. He needs to remove and save all the trees that he can in that area to save while still providing the screening that is necessary in the term of a berm rather than a natural area. Also, that there be minimal impact on the trees immediately adjacent to the existing fence. All of these are final review items that she can look at in conjunction with the engineers at final site plan review. She is recommending approval of both site plans.

Member Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plans have been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items to be corrected on the next plan submittal. One, a hydrant shall be added at the west edge of the center parking island. Two, show the locations of the Fire Department Connections. The FDC’s shall be located on the building fronts, east of the loading docks, so that they are not blocked by parked vehicles or landscape materials. Three, all weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. Four, all water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. Five, the building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. This shall be noted on the plans.

Member Piccinini announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Lynn Kocan, 23088 Ennishore Drive, stated that her property in Meadowbrook Lakes subdivision does not abut the development but she has been watching the development over the past eight-(8) years so she has been involved. These comments are general comments and there will be specific residents who have issues that directly impact their own property. Bennett Donaldson did meet with some residents and at that time, it was the residents further south of this particular development. At that time, the residents did say that the type of proposal that he did have would be much more amenable to them. The one main concern is that this is a Special Land Use and a Preliminary Site Plan approval. She questions how a Special Land Use can be approved when there is no occupant at this time. There is no why for the Commission to justify whether all the requirements of the Ordinance regarding noise and odor can be complied with. It has always been her understanding and she would like confirmation of when a business does propose to occupy a building there will be another Public Hearing for approval of the Special Land Use. Second issue with regard to the truck wells at the front of the building, to have the truck wells as far away from the residents as possible is a very good thing for the neighbors. She would request that the Planning Commission not change the location of the truck wells. There may be some other noise issues that some other neighbors are going to talk about. She would support the wall for the screening purposes and try to have the truck well as far away from the residents as possible. The ten-(10) foot berm is addressed but she does not see it specifically on the blueprints. She asked if the berm takes into consideration the site line and the slope of the backyard to the residents? As Ms. Lemke mentioned the berm would have to be higher on lot seventeen (17) and eighteen (18). She was also told that sixteen (16) has considerable recessing of their property from the back of their house down to the fence. The other issue was in Ms. Lemke’s letter that stated that there were no designated woodlands. At the time, that Hickory Corporate Park was originally plotted and developed there were some woodlands. That is why the berm did stop, start and split at lots seventeen (17) and eighteen (18). She is a little concerned when Ms. Lemke states that the berm may end up going around the trees. She asked if you have to have additional height because the land goes down and now you are moving farther toward the development, how much of the berm is going to end up in the parking lot of the developer? Although trees are much more aesthetic, they do not abate the noise from a development. From a noise perspective, a wall of dirt is much more noise abatement. She had a question about the fire hydrant and how she thought that you could just jack the fire hydrants up. There was no discussion about the air-conditioning equipment. She asked if it could be on the ground as opposed to being on top of the building? Lighting is a concern for the residents and understood that it would be addressed during final. It is imperative that there be no spotlighting or floodlighting. The plan does indicate windows on the east side of the building and as Mr. Donaldson stated the office space is proposed to be up next to the residents as opposed to the warehouse. She asked if the windows would be open? Her discussion on Nine Mile Road being widened to three (3) lanes from Venture Drive to Novi Road is a good idea and could work. Right now there is just a sign that states "truck traffic - turn right." There is no Ordinance, no mandate, there is just a recommendation in encouraging the trucks to make a right hand turn. There are at least fifty (50) to eighty (80) foot trucks making left hand turns out of there. It is her understanding that final site plan approval will come before the Planning Commission as opposed to being handled administratively. It is not her intent to not have anything built along the development. She asked the Commissioners to take their time and consider all of the variables before approving the development and she appreciates Mr. Donaldson talking to the residents.

A nameless resident stated that it is a novel and innovative idea to go ahead and build Spec Buildings but he thinks that it is the way to satisfy all of the requirements. It leaves a difficult task for the Commissioners and the city. The building requirements need to be scrutinized and to look at the process for the use. He is not comfortable with the fact that the acceptance and procedure would cover Special Land Use requirements. The basic concerns from the homeowner’s perspective are noise, climate control, parking, dumpster location, and lighting. He thinks that the building proposals are consistent with those previously approved for use on Venture Drive. With regards to final site plan, he would like to request that the plan is brought before the Commissioners again and that the subdivision be notified.

Seeing no one else she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Canup stated that he shares some of the concerns about the Special Land Use since he does not really know what it is going to be used for.

Mr. Donaldson stated that he does not really know what it is going to be used for either. However, since the user will have to go back in front of the Commissioners everyone will have the ability to approve who the user is.

Member Canup stated that he could see it ending up at the ZBA with someone claiming hardship.

Mr. Arroyo stated that Special Land Use decisions can not be appealed to the ZBA. If there is a user coming before the Commissioners that they feel does not meet the intent of the Ordinance and the Commissioners were to deny the Special Land Use then they cannot appeal that decision to the ZBA.

Member Canup asked if they have to come before the Commissioners before they can move into the building?

Mr. Arroyo stated that is correct.

Mr. Weisberger stated that when the tenant comes through they would have to come before the Commissioners for Special Land Use for that specific use. Mr. Arroyo is correct on the appeal process, it would have to go to Circuit Court.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the city Ordinance was amended about a year or two ago and there was a series of changes to the site plan review procedures. Special Land Use is no longer a mandatory final site plan review by the Planning Commission, it is optional. If the Commissioners want to have this project come back for final then that should be put in the motion that they are bringing it back. There are two (2) options in bringing it back if the Commissioners choose to do it. They can bring it back for a specific issue such as landscaping or a berm. In addition, it can be brought back in general to look at the entire plan. This should be clear in the motion of whether it is being brought back for a specific item or just in general.

Member Canup asked if a Special Land Use would be issued tonight?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he would defer to Mr. Weisberger in terms of how he believes that it should be addressed with the motion.

Member Canup asked if the applicant would have to have a Special Land Use in order to build the buildings?

Mr. Weisberger stated that they could build the building and occupy it for any principally permitted use.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it is just office.

Mr. Weisberger stated that they would be limited to office use.

Member Canup asked if the Commissioners granted the Special Land Use at this time?

Mr. Weisberger stated that he would phrase the motion as based upon assumptions on trip generation. In essence, it is showing that the Planning Commission is willing to think about or contemplate Special Land Use in this building.

Member Canup asked if there are two (2) Special Land Uses?

Mr. Weisberger stated that is correct.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella

Mr. Donaldson asked if he is saying that he would want the project to come back for final site plan approval?

Member Canup stated that is correct.

Mr. Donaldson stated that this project would go in front of the Planning Commission and the ZBA for the front truck well variance. In addition, it will go in front of City Council for driveway variance. He is trying to avoid going to a fourth meeting for the same building that is agreed that is approved.

Member Richards stated that right now the two-(2) buildings look like they are warehouses. He asked if in that zoning could that be Light Industrial too?

Mr. Donaldson stated that it is Light Industrial zoned.

Member Richards stated that some manufacturing could be done. He recalls something happening in that area and it should be looked over very clearly. He doesn’t want someone to come back, say that it is a hardship because the building is there and there is a use that wants to be put in there that they think by the Commission’s standards should fit in.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he is absolutely correct.

Member Richards stated that just because you put a person in there, if it doesn’t fit the Special Land Usage then the city will go to court.

Mr. Donaldson stated that he understands that. If he has a user that comes in and meets the requirements of a Light Industrial Special Land Use requirement then he should be able to go in.

Member Canup stated that his understanding is that he would have to come back to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Donaldson stated that is, his understanding as well. He stated that it seems unnecessary for him to come back to the Planning Commission for final after visiting two (2) other public meetings.

Member Churella asked Member Canup if the applicant is going to follow all of the consultant’s agreements then why should he have to come back to them? He wants to make the applicant come back to the Commissioners on that but on who is going to use it.

Member Canup stated that the different meetings can run very closely to each other and this is a very delicate situation for the residents of the area. He thinks that the project needs all of the possible attention that it can be given.

Mr. Donaldson stated that the project that he did for Quicksend Delivery went through the exact same process with the exception of going through final site plan review again by the Planning Commission.

Member Canup stated that Quicksend Delivery was a determined use. It was very cut and dry of what was going to be there.

Mr. Donaldson stated that he has no problem with coming back as far as the user is concerned. He is trying to get out of going back for final site plan approval for the building. He wants to know why it is necessary?

Member Mutch asked how the front truck well is going to be screened?

Ms. Lemke stated that she would be looking at two (2) things. She wants to see the thirty-(30) inch high berm put in there amongst the utilities. She would like to see evergreen trees be placed adjacent to the truck well.

Member Mutch stated that she referred to possibly extending the building, correct?

Ms. Lemke stated that was not in her letter.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he mentioned it as an option. Either they have to put in a wall, extend the building out to screen it, or they have to have landscape that accomplishes the same type of screening.

Member Mutch asked if the front yard would require a ZBA variance?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not think so. Because of the way that it is oriented, if it is screened appropriately so that it has the effect of blocking the view of it then the Ordinance allows you to put the loading at a ninety (90) degree angle to the residential towards the front of the building. The only issue that is in question is the provision that states that the loading should be towards the rear of the building but this is when you are not adjacent to residential. He thinks that they may not have to go to the ZBA because he thinks that the residential situation takes precedence over the regular loading requirements. As long as they can meet all of the screening requirements then he does not think that it will necessarily require a variance.

Member Mutch asked if there would be berms or plantings along the truck wall?

(No microphone)

Member Mutch asked if the dumpster is in the best location in terms of addressing the noise situation? The residents had mentioned possibly reorienting that without putting it in the front yard.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the problem is that the Accessory Structure Ordinance specifies that the accessory structure shall be located in the rear yard. These are located in the rear yard and if they are moved to the west, they are no longer in the rear yard. He thinks that it would become an Ordinance issue. Yes, they could be farther away from the residential. However, it is a matter of what the Commissioners think is reasonable. There is the berm, then screening around the dumpster, and then the wall around the dumpster to provide for that protection. In terms of other locations, there is really no other location other than taking it all the way over to the west side of the parking area, practically in the front yard. That would require ZBA action to do that.

Member Mutch asked what Mr. Arroyo’s viewpoint is?

Mr. Arroyo stated that their noise study has indicated that they can meet the noise standards in the Ordinance. He thinks that it is more of a question of the nuisance factor of the noise such as the sound of the dumpster being picked up. One of the things that may be worth taking into consideration when you are looking at the individual Special Land Use questions is the type of user, whether or not they generate a high level of trash and if they will have more pickups. If you have a user that has a high trash generation it may be appropriate at some future point to consider moving the dumpster if it needed to be moved to meet the Ordinance standards. If it is a fairly low intensity trash generator and doesn’t appear to be a problem then maybe it can stay where it is.

Member Mutch asked if the berm is going to be ten (10) feet to the property line or ten (10) feet to the existing houses? He stated that while looking at the elevations they have met the ten-(10) feet to the houses and not the property line.

Ms. Lemke stated that is correct, except for in the middle area where it needs to be increased.

Member Mutch asked if the question about the existing woodlands would significantly impact the location of the berm?

Ms. Lemke stated that you could not really tell until you go out there. She stated that there is a lot that has already died, some that are there, and there are a lot that are in really poor quality right now. The area that she would really like to save is right adjacent to the fence.

Member Mutch asked if it could be saved?

Ms. Lemke stated that she is still looking at it, it depends on the grading. She agrees with Ms. Kocan and the residents that prefer to have the berm in the larger vegetated area there than to save the existing plant materials for two (2) reasons. One, because of the quality existing now. Two, because of the quality that would be existing if it was drained into that area. She does not think that the trees would survive in that area.

Member Mutch asked if there is even quality there worth making the effort to try and save?

Ms. Lemke stated that immediately adjacent to the fence line, yes. There are some small evergreens that can easily be transplanted and she will be looking at this too.

Member Mutch stated that there was a question regarding the air-conditioning units. He asked where on the rooftop are they going to be located?

Mr. Donaldson stated that on the engineer’s noise analysis it shows how much noise they will be generating. Two, they will not be on the roof because it is a pre-engineered roof with a slope. It does not have the capacity to hold these units. There are only fifteen (15) to two thousand (2,000) feet square feet of office space. There will be a small furnace on the inside and a small condenser outside for the air conditioning.

Member Mutch asked where the unit is located?

Mr. Donaldson stated that he does not know yet.

Member Mutch asked if something like this would be screened?

Mr. Donaldson stated that it will be outside the building but he does not have the location yet.

Member Mutch stated that while looking at parcel one (1) it seems to extend into the lot that was part of Harada. He asked if this is extending into the area that was part of the site plan?

Mr. Donaldson stated that it is a new lot that was created. Harada originally sat on lots eleven (11) and twelve (12) but they did not use the southern end of eleven (11) and twelve (12). On the other side of the street, there is going to be the same effect.

Member Mutch asked how the lots were created?

Mr. Donaldson stated that Hickory owns all of the lots including Harada’s lot.

Member Mutch asked if the lots have been split?

Mr. Donaldson stated that the whole subdivision has been platted and he is going through a lot split to make this right.

Member Mutch asked if this would have any impact on Harada’s site plan?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not believe so. Typically, the Assessor’s office is going to be reviewing when the lot-split applications go through. He is taking a number of lots that were platted originally and then combining portions of them to make new lots. All of this has to go through the Assessing Department for review and approval. Sometimes the department asks for his opinion on certain issues and he might research that for them.

Member Mutch asked that since the lot is being split does it create a flag situation with the Harada property?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not know without studying it, it is something that the Assessor looks at when the lot splits are approved.

Member Mutch asked if it is something that typically should be a condition of the site plan approval?

Mr. Arroyo stated that it should absolutely be.

Member Mutch asked if that could be incorporated into the motion?

Mr. Arroyo stated that it would just be subject to the lot-split approval.

Member Canup stated that he would be willing to amend the motion to reflect all contingents on lot split approval.

Member Churella stated that he could not support the motion because he cannot see making the applicant come back.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, PASSES (4-1): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Venture Drive A SP 99-52 subject to the plan coming back for Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Commission. Special Land Use approval is granted conditioned upon all future users coming before the Planning Commission for additional Special Land Use and subject to all consultant’s letter. Also, that Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals subject to approval of lot splits.

Yes: Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, and Canup

No: Churella

Moved by Churella, seconded by Richards, PASSES (4-1): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Venture Drive B SP 99-53 subject to the plan coming back for Final Site Plan approval from the Planning Commission. Special Land Use approval is granted conditioned upon all future users coming before the Planning Commission for additional Special Land Use and subject to all consultant’s letter. Also, that Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals subject to approval of lot splits.

Yes: Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, and Canup

No: Churella

1. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

Member Piccinini stated that at one of the July meetings she was placed on the Environmental Committee.

Beth Brock, Planning Assistant suggested that since there are three (3) Commissioners absent the appointments should be held off.

1. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING PROGRAM

Mr. Arroyo stated that tonight he is going to re-institute the Planning Commission training program that was done for awhile. He thinks that it would be good to get it started again and he is going to pass out handouts regarding bylaws. As he has done in the past, he tries to go over a different topic at the end of every Planning Commission meeting for two or three minutes. Bylaws are the rules and guidelines that regulate the way that the Planning Commissioners conduct business. The state law specifies that they adopt bylaws and he is going to go over some of the things that the bylaws have to include. First, the authority, which is the State Planning Act, gives the authority to operate as a Planning Commission. The duties of the Planning Commission, which are established by State Law, are typically included in the bylaws. The officers that are elected on a regular basis have roles and responsibilities. Things that are specified are when regular meetings are held, public hearing procedures, what constitutes a quorum, Open Meetings Act, Freedom of Information Act, how the agenda is structured, minutes, amending the bylaws, defining roles as Planning Commissioners, and to ensure that there is consistency from meeting to meeting.

1. PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FY 1999-2000 AND 2000-2001

Jim Wahl stated that the Commissioners have two (2) regular meetings to develop, review and approve a Work Program for the next fiscal year. It needs to be turned into the Administration by after the first meeting in January. He would point out that he scheduled the Planning Studies Committee to meet prior to the next meeting. It is their job to do the legwork.

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:38 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

________________________________

Beth Brock - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Sarah Marchioni

December 8, 1999

Date Approved: December 15, 1999