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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Churella, Koneda, Landry, Nagy

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Tom Schultz

Chairperson Piccinini announced that Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A was placed as a Public Hearing by error because the Public Hearing was closed at the February 2001 Planning Commission meeting. She noted it would be rescheduled to the next Planning Commission Agenda under Matters for Consideration. She asked if there were any additional changes or additions to the Agenda?

Member Canup requested moving of Matters for Consideration items 3) Legal Briefing and 4) By Laws to the next Planning Commission Agenda. He added under Matters for Consideration 3) To set a public hearing for the Master Plan Amendment for Novi Corridor and Grand River area planned for June 20, 2001, 4) Set a date for a Special Planning Commission meeting and 5) Planners Training in October 2001.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Dave Downey 24748 Davenport, stated that the Novi News recently printed a Novi News Editorial with his name. He notified the Novi News of their error and the situation is being corrected. He stated that he wanted to voice to the Planning Commission that the printed thoughts and concerns were not his. He informed the commission that he is the Executive Director of the Michigan Society of Planning.

None

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

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2001. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Member Mutch made a spelling correction on page 19. He clarified the topic of discussion at the point, which the audio tape ended on page 20. He stated that his comments were in reference to the Budget and Member Kocan’s comments were related to Public Notifications.

Member Kocan clarified further the items she added to the agenda on page 1 and the order of those items under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 4, 2001 as amended.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

1. COMERICA WELL 2-29 SP 00-58

This drilling and operation of an oil and gas well is located in Section 29, on the south side of Ten Mile Road just east of Wixom Road. The site is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and recommendation to City Council for Special Land Use Permit and Drilling Permit.

Gary Gottschalk, Vice President of Southern Michigan Oil Company for Sumoco Inc., introduced their legal counsel William Horn and Drilling and Operations Manager Tim Baker. In 1987 the City of Novi issued a permit to Sumoco to drill the Delta Trucking 1-17 well, located in Section 17. He stated the production facility was set up on the heavy industrial zoned property. He noted the success of this well. He explained that all of the production activity for the oil and gas occur on the site. The tanker trucks pick up the crude oil produced and transport it to the Marathon Refinery in Detroit Michigan. In 1992, Sumoco was approved by the City of Novi for a drilling permit to drill an additional oil reservoir located in the City of Novi called Comerica Bank 1-29, which has been in production approximately nine (9) years. He noted the property was residentially zoned and they had received the proper variances from the City to use the property for drilling purposes. He stated one of the caveats of requirements to use the parcel was for the production from the well to be pipelined up to heavy industrial property, which would be the site for the production operations to take place. He noted that only a well head and a pumpjack exist on the Comerica Bank property. Mr. Gottschalk requested permission to drill an additional well in the Comerica Bank Reservoir. He stated the engineering studies depicted that they would leave approximately four hundred thousand (400,000) barrels of reserves not recovered. He noted the location of the 1-29 well, directionally drilled to a depth of approximately four thousand (4000) feet. He estimated the current production to date to be two hundred seventy-seven thousand (277,000). He stated the reservoir does not have enough "gas drive", meaning there is not enough natural gas drive mixed in with the oil to push the oil toward the well bore. He estimated the total recovery with a single well in the reservoir to be $399,000. He noted the drawings in the handout indicate the amount of area that would remain untouched if the second well was not drilled. He proposed a well bore twelve (12) feet away from the current well head. Therefore, they would be use the same two hundred by one hundred sixty (200x160) fenced in area for both drilling and the additional well head. He stated all production would go into the current existing pipeline and shipped north to the heavy industrial property for production. He referred to the site plan, which indicated the same area to be used to directional drill a second well into the reservoir. Mr. Gottschalk indicated this would increase the production of the reserves and produce the quantity of oil in the reservoir sooner allowing the wells to be plugged and abandoned. He stated that because the approximately 88-acre property is primarily wetlands they have proposed to drill the well twelve (12) feet from the existing well. He explained it was common in Michigan to directional drill the well bores or a one surface location for several directional drillings. He stated the 2-29 well had been permitted and approved by the Michigan DEQ. Sumoco has three (3) wells currently producing in Kensington Metropolitan Park hidden near the toboggan hill. He stated the three (3) well heads are located within eight (8) feet of each other, directionally drilled approximately one mile into the separate well and gas reservoirs underlying the park. Only the well heads exist on the property and the production is piped to the Milford Sand and Gravel Pit (a mining area east of the park). He restated that the production activity, tanks, compressors, truck traffic and all activity takes place in the gravel pit. A rig will be moved into the Kensington Metropolitan Park to drill an additional well, already approved by the park. He noted the common situation of oil and gas and the drilling of wellheads close in Michigan.

Mr. Gottschalk stated the royalty owners of the Comerica Bank Reservoir have received approximately one million dollars in income. He estimated the full life of the well would bring another three million dollars in income. He stated there are two hundred twenty-one (221) acres communitized. He explained that the mineral owners who overly the reservoir are communitized, with each party being paid royalty based upon the number of acres in the unit. He explained further that those who may be disturbed remotely with the ten (10) day drilling process or the production would be those within the 221-acres would be under contract. He stated six (6) months ago a procedure was done that met the ordinance requirements. It took approximately ten (10) days to place a horizontal well bore was in the Comerica Bank 1-29. He did not recall any complaints from the community. The placement of a second well bore follow the same procedure. He estimated ten to twelve (12) days for the placement of the pump jack on the new well head and production would take place on industrial property. Upon completion, he stated the fence would be replaced on the site. He noted an agreement of changes to the site plan between his company and the City to include the paving of the roadway coming into the well heads and a bike path to border the roadway. In regard to traffic, he stated a pickup truck, pumping engineer, would visit the site twice a day, to inspect the monitor security systems and the pipeline to the production facility.

William Horn asked the commission for a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission for the ZBA Variance to drill on the residential property and a positive recommendation for the City Council Waiver for the location of the well heads being close to each other.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval in his letter dated November 18, 2001 due to the variance and waiver issues. However, if the waiver and variance are successfully obtained, he would be able to recommend approval subject to a few items being addressed at final. He noted Comerica Well 2-29 is a Special Land Use and preliminary site plan application needing a permit from the City Council for permission to drill the well. He reminded the commission that the issue being addressed is the recommendation to the City Council. The site is located in a residential district. The ordinance states that the location of any well must be within a nonresidential zone. He stated this and their previous application did not meet this standard. The previous application was successful in obtaining a permit from Council. Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Fisher agreed that it would be a required action to go before the ZBA for the issue of a location in a nonresidential zone. Chapter 23 of the zoning ordinance requires the separation of one well from another by 660 feet apart. The applicant has proposed twelve (12) feet of separation, therefore, a City Council Waiver would be required. He stated the applicant has agreed to provide an eight (8) foot required bike path along Ten Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo indicated that a noise analysis was not submitted, which is required for a Special Land Use. He added that any changes in the fencing, other than what is currently there would need to be provided.

Mr. Arroyo stated the General Special Land Use standard required by the ordinance, needed to be used in the commission’s review. He briefly outlined Code of Ordinances Chapter 23, related to oil and gas drilling. Setback from the property line (unless site is communitized with adjoining property) is required at 330 feet. He stated the applicant appeared to indicated that they have reached an agreement with the surrounding property owners, who would be the recipient of royalties. Therefore, he stated it appeared that this standard has been met. Separation from another well is required at 660 feet. He noted this standard is not being met. Setback requirements form street, alley, Railway, right-of-way is required at 550 feet. Separation from existing buildings is required at 500 feet. Separation from existing residential structures is required at 750 feet. He indicated the applicant has met these requirements. (Sec.23-6(b)) No tanks or other facility for storage of gas, petroleum or hydrocarbons produced from a well shall be permitted within an I-2, General Industrial zone. No tanks or storage facilities are proposed on the subject site. Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant is meeting this requirement by piping everything to the City’s I-2 District for processing and storage. (Sec. 23-9) Upon discontinuation of the drilling operations or the production of any oil or gas from the well, the well shall be abandoned and plugged under the supervision of the supervisor of wells of the state. The application indicates that upon discontinuation of drilling and production, the Applicant will comply with all standards of Section 23-9. In addition, prior to issuance of a drilling permit, an escrow account (as required by Section 23-9(e)) will be established by the Applicant to ensure the proper plugging of the well. He stated this would need to be specified. He stated there were a number of standards that would need to be considered by the Planning Commission in review of the application. He noted that they differ from the typical Special Land Use Standards. He explained that Special Land Use for places of worship or childcare offer more flexibility for the location of the uses in the community. However, the proposed type of use does not have the same amount of flexibility due to the resource being tapped is only found in specific locations. Therefore, the resource location needs to be taken into consideration in terms of the overall review of goals and standards.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated November 15, 2001. He indicated the facility to be a low traffic generator. He noted that most of the traffic would take place during the period of drilling activity. He recalled the applicant stating it would be less than a two week duration. The ordinance requires the paving of the access drive into the site, which the applicant has proposed to meet. He stated the details of this could be addressed at final.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated November 8, 2001. He indicated the proposed improvement of paving the existing 22" wide gravel drive from Ten Mile Road to the site. He stated there is not a storm sewer proposed and they would sheet flow the pavement area into the wooded area and to the wetlands. He stated this was standard for this type of operation. He added the construction of a storm sewer would be intrusive for the area. He noted there were no public utilities to service the area. However, a well would be provided for non potable water, which the applicant indicated to be only for the well drilling operations. He identified a flood plain and wetlands that surround the site, which would not be impacted. Mr. Bluhm noted their proposed the State mandate containment for this type of operation to includes a dyke for the primary containment. He explained that during well drilling operation, this would be available to contain any spills, storm water from rain or from the operations trucked off the site. He stated when they are not drilling, it would be bled off at a restricted rate. He noted a secondary containment is indicated on the plan. Mr. Bluhm stated there were a number of minor comments to be addressed at final.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated November 16, 2001 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 with the following: 1) The "T" turnaround shall be paved. 2) A waiver is required for Section 23-5(b) of the Code of Ordinances that prohibits a well within 660 feet of another well. 3) A waiver is required for Section 23-5(d) of the Code of Ordinances that restricts drilling to a non-residential zoned district. The proposed drilling site is zoned R-A. This submittal appears to be in compliance with all other requirements.

Dan and Andrea Lindsey, 48855 W. Ten Mile Road, wrote of their opposition of another well because they were told that another well would not be necessary and it is all year round. They felt that energy checks were getting smaller with the prices increasing. They questioned who is responsible for monitoring the well companies. They questioned why an additional well is needed and if the City owned the property. They asked when a reduction would be in their taxes.

George Bernard, 48755 Ten Mile Road, wrote of his support of the approval of the Special Land Use and Oil Drilling Permit. He wrote that his residence is near the oil/gas well and he has not experienced any difficulties and is unaware of its existence. He felt it would be in the best interest of everyone to utilize natural resources verses relying on imports.

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

Frank Brennan, 23876 Heartwood, stated that he is the President of the Echo Valley Homeowner Association. He felt it was important to clarify some of the statements made. 1) In 1997 the Board turned down the well due to issues of safety, etc… He indicated that many of the homeowners have the leases that were signed after the Drilling Permit was issued from the City. He wanted the Commission to understand that the residents signed after the "battle was lost" and that it was not an enjoyable event. He recalled Council Member Tim Pulp stating that this was the worst decision that he had made because it was a litigation shotgun to the City of Novi’s head. Mr. Brennan recalled the threat to sue the City if the permit was not granted. He agreed that they have been drilling for 9-years. He stated it is the City of Novi’s Fire Department responsibility to monitor the activity, therefore, they should be able to answer if there have been any difficulties. He questioned if information was submitted to the commission on the water testing to be done four (4) times a year as agreed by the applicant. He stated the smell is a large issue. He stated the procedure for dealing with the smell is to contact the Fire Department. The Fire Department is to come out and investigate the smell. He explained it would be typical for the winds to bring a smell for 5 to 10 minutes and the Fire Department not arriving in time. He requested that the City Attorney review the records, which Sumoco stated this would be their only well. He stated obtaining the well was expensive, painful and the city required extra safety engineering. He recalled the applicant, Mr. Gottschalk, stating if they were able to obtain the one well, they would not be back. He stated the residents have lived with the risks of this industrial oil well, which include the risk of fire, explosions, water contamination, etc… He felt they were fortunate to not have had these events in nine (9) years. He suggested having them cap the well and leave. He felt they have received the money they were interested in and this proposal is only about more money. Mr. Brennan stated the applicant is proposing to run deeper under the subdivision because their pool is running dry. He stated the area has grown more residential since the first well was proposed. He noted Echo Valley, Island Lake and Greenwood Oaks. He questioned how the commission could potentially agree to place an oil well across the street from Island Lake, a subdivision of million dollar homes. He felt this was ludicrous. He stated Sumoco only pays a filing fee to the City and does not pay taxes to the City. He noted he receives a twenty dollar ($20) dollar check every quarter. He did not feel that there was a need for high risk industrial development on residential property.

Tim Madanski, 23910 Woodham Drive, spoke on behalf of his mother, Bea Lindoerfer, stating they have been residents of Echo Valley for 41-years. He stated that he worked in the oil industry in Texas for twenty (20) years. Therefore, he indicated that his comments were from experience and knowledge, not of ignorance or speculation. He stated the applicant would like to expedite the oil from the ground. He explained that something would need to replace the void that is created when the oil is removed from the ground. He was not aware of any problem with the first well. He indicated the residents use well water and septic tanks in Echo Valley. He felt it was a possibility that their well water (drinking water) might be the filler to this void or it could be the slow settling of the earth underneath, as he witnessed in Texas. He stated this could cause the breaking of the foundation or the breaking of the pipes to the septic tanks. He was aware that these are the problems that the residents would have to deal with, not the City. He asked the commission if they would want someone to drill out the mineral out from underneath their homes. He stated the risk outweighs the rewards. He asked the commission to vote no. He appreciated he efforts of the company helping to solve the country energy problem, however the risk outweighed the rewards. He felt it would be a shame if the City of Novi granted this approval a second time against the will of the residents.

John Kuenzel, 23819 Heartwood, stated he resides on the West Side of Echo Valley subdivision closest to the well site. He stated that he opposed the first well also. He recalled the stories told by Sumoco such as the oil center being under the center of Echo Valley. However, when there was difficulty obtaining the permits, he recalled the claim of the oil being located to the side of Echo Valley. Originally, he stated Sumoco claimed millions of barrels of oil and today the claim is 600,000 barrels if they could drill a second well. He recalled hearing that this would be the only well drilled. He reminded the Commission of the ordinance of the distance requirement between the wells. He explained if they were forced to comply with the ordinance, the well would be drilled on the other side of Ten Mile Road. He felt those twelve (12) feet were a large variance from the ordinance. He felt Sumoco was telling stories again, which he did not feel held credibility. He felt there only goad was to make money. He recalled the lawsuit threatened to the City Council with the first well. He asked the commission to deny the request. Mr. Kuenzel stated receives checks, only because he would have not received anything once the permit was issued if he did not sign on the lease. He did not feel it was worth it to him, his family or the association to have another well drill. He preferred that they finish up with the existing well, cap it and leave. He stated the drilling of the well would involve risk that he did not want for his family.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Canup stated that his recollection was very close to Mr. Brennan’s. He stated that he was on the ZBA, who actually made the well drilling possible. He explained that he was the member who made the motion to approve the well drilling. He stated that he made the motion with a "twisted arm" based on the threatened litigation. He stated it could have been of a similar magnitude of the current $54 million lawsuit. He also recalled the promises that were made. He stated that he would have a difficult time supporting a second well. He recalled the applicants statements that there would be one well and then they would be gone. He suspected that if there was oil left, the one well could be directionally bored the other direction. He thought they could possibly still recover the oil, only not as quickly.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards: In the matter of Comerica Well 2-29 SP 00-58 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council for the Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Drilling Permit.

Gerald Fisher advised the commission to state the reasons for the negative recommendation.

Member Richards stated he was in support of the negative recommendation due to the ordinance stating that a well could not be drilled in RA zoning. Additionally, he stated that the proposed use is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan for Land Use and the zoning.

Chairperson Piccinini noted the negative recommendation for the Special Land Use was due to the lack of a noise analysis and lack of compliance to the Special Land Use Standard "Whether relative or feasible uses of the site, the proposed use is listed among the provision of uses requiring special land use review …and is in harmony with the purposes and conforms with the applicable site design regulations of the zoning district in which it is located".

Member Canup added that it is not in compliance with the commitments made by the applicant at the previous variances granted in 1987.

Member Kocan noted the detrimental impact upon adjacent neighboring parcels by reason of odors. She added the risk of danger to the health, safety and welfare would be doubled. She was relieved that there had not been any accidents.

Member Mutch asked if the motion included the issue of non compliance with the well separation.

Chairperson Piccinini noted no, these would all be friendly amendments added to the motion. She asked Member Canup and Member Richards if they accepted these amendments to their motion.

Member Canup answered, yes.

Member Richards answered, yes.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Comerica Well 2-29 SP 00-58 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council for the Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Drilling Permit due to the lack of noise analysis, failure to meet the separation of the wells, the use is not permitted in RA zoning, issues regarding the safety and welfare of the neighboring areas, the detrimental impact to the surround areas, the use does not meet the harmony and conformance with the regulations, the proposed use is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Plan for Land Use and the zoning.

Member Mutch clarified if the Planning Commission was approving the Preliminary Site Plan or if it was done at City Council.

Chairperson Piccinini answered it would be done at the City Council.

Member Mutch recognized that there is the existing use at the site that was previously granted. He did not feel that the Planning Commission was required to expand an industrial use in a residential area. He felt it was important to be aware that the Delta Trucking facility, where the oil is being trucked out to, is property that is adjacent to a City Park and an Elementary School. Therefore, he felt that an increased production at that site would negatively impact this other site. He stated an approval could expand a negative use at both sites. He explained the reasoning for the distance requirement between the wells. He stated it was to prevent a field of oil drilling operation going on in the City. He agreed with the resident’s comment that this is a major urban area and city of 50,000 people as opposed to the country. Therefore, he stated there could be negative impacts. He did not feel that the Michigan Department of Environmental Qualities’ monitored the operations throughout the state. Therefore, he did not feel their signing off held much value. He also felt that the city should do a better job monitoring the existing site. He noted the surrounding property was purchased and is now City-owned for the fire station development.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if there would be a public notification for the Council meeting.

Gerald Fisher stated that the public hearing is at the Planning Commission and not at the Council.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that no further notices would be sent, but it would be on the City Council Agenda in the near future as permits.

Gerald Fisher answered, correct.

This industrial project is located in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile Road and west of West Park Drive in the Beck West Corporate Park. The 4.767 acres site is zoned General Industrial (I-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Brad Clintworth represented Magellan Two Investment Group. He requested preliminary site plan approval for a forty-five thousand (45,000) foot speculative industrial building located in the Beck West Corporate Park. He stated that they have met with the consultants to address several of the comments of the review letters. He noted the outstanding items, such as a berm and screening from West Park Road. He stated their attempts and finding that West Park would be difficult to screen due to it being sixteen (16) feet higher than the proposed property. He stated the property abuts the road directly. He referred to Mr. Arroyo’s comments regarding easements that should but do not exist on the property. He stated there was no record of their existence upon the purchase of the property. He stated they are access easements down the center of the lots to combine and build on the one parcel. He explained that an access easement has been created that would be granted to the property owner to the rear.

Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval of the preliminary site plan in his review letter dated April 23, 2001 due to the screening issue. He indicated that because the property is not adjacent to the residential the lighting plan could be submitted at final. Section 2002.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that loading shall be effectively screened to not be visible from any road, street or residential district. This notation also appears on the approved final site plan for the Beck West Site Condominium development. He stated there were many concerns of how this could be accomplished. He explained that West Park Drive is uphill with a bridge over the railroad tracks. His concern was that the loading in the back would be very visible with the elevated roadway, which is not permitted per the ordinance or the project’s approved final site plan. He stated he has discussed alternatives with the applicant. These included exploring different types of screening that could accomplish the ordinance standard, which Ms. Lemke would address. He suggested the option of the orientation of the building. He gave the example of a U-shaped building with the loading taking place in a courtyard situation. He felt if the screening or landscaping could not bring the site into compliance then it might need to be a building orientation change. He commented another option would be to have the ZBA address the issue, which he did not recommend unless there was no other alternative and a practical difficulty. However, in this case, Mr. Arroyo felt there were additional possibilities that could be explored.

In regard to traffic, he did not recommend approval in the letter dated April 26, 2001. Two (2) driveways are proposed onto Humboldt with the easterly drive if close to the intersection. He indicated that there may be times the driveway would be blocked during the PM Peak hours, when the park builds-out and the traffic is attempting to exit onto West Park Drive. He felt he westerly drive access would be important during these peak times, which would be the only ingress and egress to the site for some motorists. He noted the applicant has shown the location of the Weingartz Drive. He indicated it appears to line up on the site plan however, he would need to further confirm the information. Mr. Arroyo stated his concern of the access easements. He stated the approved final site plan for the Beck West Industrial Site Condominium shows easements. He noted one easement runs through the site and the other along the common property line. He stated during the review process, the intent was that there would be shared access to these drives. These would minimize the curb cuts and improve the ability of trucks to circulate within the site. He stated the applicant has shown a stub to the property to the north, however, there is not one shown for the property to the west. He added that there exists more than one parcel to the west. He explained that depending upon how the property develops and where the access takes place, the connection from the proposed property could be important. He stated this might be an issue that Mr. Fisher may need to address. He restated that the final site plan shows easements for the property however, they do not appear to have been recorded. Mr. Arroyo was looking for the solution to be able to share access and minimize the number of access points onto the road system in accordance with the approved site plan for the overall park. He understood this is a speculative building. However, he questioned how the ten (10) foot wide loading zone would function. He questioned if the trucks would be lining up parallel toward the back or if they would be backing up lining up toward the back of the wall. He stated this becomes an issue when the site is being reviewed for visibility and the potential for use. He added because it is a speculative building, the frequency of truck, truck maneuvering and length of time the truck would be on the site could not be determined. He felt these could be addressed with the provision with more information.

Member Canup felt that the stage was very preliminary and there were several items wrong with the site plan submitted. He felt that they would most likely be turned down if they continued, due to the number of problems. He suggested tabling to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with the consultants to address the issues.

PM-01-05-114 TO TABLE MAGELLAN TWO SP 01-19 TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CONSULTANTS AND ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE PLAN.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To table Magellan Two SP 01-19 to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with the consultants and address the problems with the site plan.

Member Kocan stated her support to table.

Member Canup restated that he did not feel the applicant did their "homework" to address the many issues.

Chairperson Piccinini suggested that the applicant to meet with the consultants in attempt to meet the ordinances. She indicated the applicant could chose to continue to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for an approval or denial of their site plan.

Brad Clintworth stated that he was looking for the difficulty with West Park Road. He stated that he has addressed all of items on the consultant’s letters with the exception of the easement that do not exist on the property and are unrecorded. He stated they area not on the preliminary checklist.

Chairperson Piccinini suggested that the applicant meet with Mr. Arroyo to discuss the alternatives for his direction.

Member Kocan asked if there would be a detention basin in front of the building if there was a sedimentation basin. She stated that there was not anything dividing the detention basin from the parking lot. She felt there should be a fence or landscaping. She agreed that there could not be a discussion about the site plan if it was not clear where the driveways were located.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

2. SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR OVERLAY DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT (EXPO CENTER)

 

Chairperson Piccinini stated the suggested date was June 20, 2001.

 

Member Kocan clarified if there was currently a meeting scheduled for that date.

 

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

 

PM-01-05-115 TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE NOVI EXPO CENTER OVERLAY DISTRICT TEXT AMENDMENT TO JUNE 20, 2001.

 

 

Moved by Canup, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To set a Public Hearing date for the Novi Expo Center Overlay District Text Amendment to June 20, 2001.

 

VOTE ON PM-01-05-115 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

 

3. MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR NOVI CORRIDOR AND GRAND RIVER AREA

Set a Public Hearing for the Master Plan Amendment planned for June 20, 2001.

 

Chairperson Piccinini stated the suggested date was June 20, 2001.

 

PM-01-05-116 TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT FOR NOVI CORRIDOR PLAN AND GRAND RIVER AREA PLAN TO JUNE 20, 2001.

 

 

Moved by Canup, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To set a Public Hearing date for the Master Plan Amendment for Novi Corridor Plan and Grand River Area Plan to June 20, 2001.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Mutch stated that he was under the impression that the Master Planning and Zoning Committee would see the two plans prior to them coming to the Planning Commission. He asked if there was a meeting set for the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

 

Chairperson Piccinini stated they would be meeting on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 at 5:30 p.m.

 

VOTE ON PM-01-05-116 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

 

4. SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Discussion on setting a date for a Special Planning Commission Meeting

Chairperson Piccinini announced the Special Planning Commission meeting is tentatively set for June 13, 2001, but would need to be verified by the chair.

Member Mutch asked what is purpose of the meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini stated there is a backlog of agenda items. The Special Planning Commission Meeting would be to alleviate having eight (8) or nine (9) items on the June meetings. She indicated that if June 13^th was not agreeable, the chair has the authority to set another date.

Member Mutch asked if it would be at 7:30 p.m.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Member Mutch suggested possibly starting earlier.

Chairperson Piccinini agreed that the meeting could start at 6:30 p.m. However, many of the commissioners have work hours and Implementation meetings at 6:30 p.m.

Member Mutch asked if there would be Public Hearings at the Special Meeting Agenda.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Member Kocan suggested the June 27, 2001.

Chairperson Piccinini announced that she was not available on June 27, 2001.

Member Canup announced he was not available on June 27, 2001.

Member Kocan stated there are two (2) consecutive meetings in July and now they would have three (3) consecutive meetings in June. She felt it was important to speak to the commissioners who are not present at the meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini agreed. She explained that the meeting would be tentatively set for June 13, 2001 with the final decision by the chair.

Member Kocan agreed that it was better to have more meetings as opposed to having audience participants wait until midnight to be heard.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To set the Special Planning Commission date tentatively for the June 13, 2001 with the final date to be set by the chair.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Canup asked if there was money in the budget to participate in the upcoming Planning Conference in October 24^th –27^th.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that the budget had not been approved by the City Council at this time.

Member Canup asked Mr. Arroyo if there was a registration deadline that they should be aware of.

Mr. Arroyo anticipated receiving registration information in July. He stated the early registration deadline is typically a month prior to the conference.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To place the Planning Training Conference in October 2001 on the agenda for discussion on the August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Kocan asked if there was a limit on the number planning commissioners that could attend last year. She recalled the conference being offered to the ZBA to attend.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes. She added that there are a limited amount of funds that are approved.

None

None

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:00 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

June 7, 2001

Date Approved: June 12, 2001