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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Landry (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Wetland Consultant David Mifsud, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber

Chairperson Piccinini announced that the Public Hearing Item #1 – Proposed Gas Station SP 00-52A was removed from the agenda and postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting. She asked if there were any further additions or changes to the Agenda?

Member Kocan added Committee Assignments to Matters for Consideration to discuss the impact on committees with newly assigned officers. Discussion to clarify the membership and meeting requirements.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that typically matters are placed under Matters for Discussion first and then under Matters for Consideration on the next agenda. She added that Matters for Consideration allow for an official vote. Therefore, she clarified if Member Kocan’s preference was for a discussion or a vote.

Member Kocan stated that she would like to propose an item to be sent to a committee.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated matters first brought to the table are placed under Matters for Discussion and no motions are made. The matter would then proceed to Matters for Consideration on the next agenda. She noted that she would waive placing the matter under Matters for Discussion if the Commission was agreeable.

Commission agreed.

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

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Blair Bowman, 43700 Expo Center Drive spoke in consideration of the Grand River Area Plan. He noted the amount of work placed into the study. He questioned how "set in stone" the plan would become as part of the Master Plan. He expressed his concern with the office designation for the balance of the property along the Grand River Corridor to the west of his proposed site. He felt that it seemed limited and restricted as compared to some of the more creative opportunities that might exist.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Bowman to clarify the area along Grand River that he was speaking to.

Mr. Bowman stated the area plan indicates the area to the west of the proposed Expo Site as a general category of an office designation.

Chairperson Piccinini requested Mr. Arroyo to address Mr. Bowman’s concern when the matter is discussed under Matters for Consideration.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any other further participants for Audience Participation. Seeing none, she closed Audience Participation.

None

Chairperson Piccinini announced there were no items on the Consent Agenda.

This project is located in Section 16, located on the East Side of Beck Road and south of Grand River Avenue. The 2.55 acre site is zoned Office Service District (OS-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland Permit approval and Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Blair Bowman represented the applicant Nobe Property Group. The parking areas and building layout has been adjusted to accommodate the Woodland and the Wetlands on the site. He requested a wavier for the berming requirements when adjacent to residential. He believed a recommendation was made to approve the waiver due to the screening around the south and eastern edge of the site. A ZBA variance is needed for the loading area, (an entry door for receiving limited amounts of shipping), which is not located in the rear as required due to the sensitive area of the wetland boundary.

Rod Arroyo, Planning/Traffic Consultant, indicated that he was not able to recommend approval of the Site Plan due to the ZBA Variance required for the loading location. If the ZBA Variance were granted then he would recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, subject to minor items being addressed at Final. Minor details include lighting and parking issues.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated July 27, 2001. Two (2) points of access are proposed for the site. One of the points of access is a gated secondary access, which would satisfy City requirements with some minor changes.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan in her letter dated July 20, 2001. A 4’ 6" tall berm is required where adjacent to residential zoning on the north, east and south property lines. Woodland and wetland vegetation is present adjacent to these areas. A waiver from the Planning Commission for preservation of existing vegetation may be granted. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the waiver with additional plantings of trees; both evergreen and deciduous, subcanopy and shrubs. She noted a number of items in her letter that would be required at Final.

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke recommended approval in her letter dated July 19, 2001, subject to the correction of the Woodland Boundary on the Site Plan, items listed in her review letter being addressed and a recommendation that the remaining woodlands on the northeast corner and wooded wetland area to the south be placed in a preservation easement due to the Wildlife Habitat designation. There are 0.13-acres of regulated woodlands on the site located at the northeast corner. There are vegetated wetlands constituting the east property line along to the south. There are not designated Historic or Specimen Trees present on the Site and no potential Historic or Specimen Trees. The eastern woodlands edge and wetlands are listed as Type B Habitat on the City’s Wildlife Habitat Map.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated July 23, 2001. Public utilities are available to service the site. Detention is proposed on the site. Comments in the review letter could be addressed at Final. An easement is required for the off-site grading and detention, which would need to be provided prior to Final Site Plan Approval.

David Mifsud, Wetland Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated June 29, 2001. Due to the nature of the proposed impacts, the project falls under the minor use permit category of the ordinance and requires administrative approval for the Wetland Permit. With the exception of a single impact resulting from the boardwalk placement, the applicant is staying out the majority of the wetland buffer. Areas of temporary disturbance will be re-vegetated with wetland buffer plants.

In regard to the façade, Ms. Weber referred to the review letter dated July 23, 2001. The drawings dated June 19, 2001 for Vision Spa Salon are consistent with the drawings for which a positive recommendation for a Façade Waiver was made in the letter dated April 30, 2001.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated July 2, 2001, from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting 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 items being corrected on the next plan submittal. 1) 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. 2) 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. 3) 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 Churella announced that he has received one (1) correspondence on the matter.

Joseph Pfiester Jr., 26870 Beck Road, wrote "This letter is for the purpose of bringing to you attention the development of the site south of our property. Behind Wards property there is a pond. In the springtime and during heavy rains, there appears to be an artesian well that erupts and overflows southward to our property and on to the property located south of us. Last year (2000) this water flowed constantly throughout the winter and spring. It stopped in late June. However, during heavy rains in summer the flow starts again for approximately 3 weeks. This water will eventually go out to Beck Road and down to the Novi drainage ditch. I believe that the proposed development of this property shall not take place until the is water problem is solved."

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

Joseph Pfiester Jr., 26870 Beck Road, explained the water situation he spoke of in his submitted letter. The water starts at Grand River Avenue near Wards Gas Station and flows southward through his property and onto the developers property. He stated that the water flows a quarter mile down and eventually onto Beck Road. There is a ditch on Beck Road to take the flows another quarter mile to Novi’s drainage ditch. The land was farmland forty (40) years ago. He noted that at that time there was not a water problem. Previously the water would flow down Beck Road to the Novi drainage ditch. However, now the Novi drainage ditch is cluttered with muck. He stated when he has requested the City of Novi to clean out the drain; he was only referred to Oakland County Drain Commission. The Oakland County Drain Commission states that it is the responsibility of the City of Novi. Consequently, there are tree stumps and other material clogging the drain. Last October, the water began to flow like a stream and did not stop for nine (9) months. He called the City of Novi to the location on several occasions. The City of Novi indicated that they would read their maps to find the flow of the water. However, he never heard a response. He suggested placing an 8" pipe to have the water flow out.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated this concern could be addressed during the commissions’ discussion.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any other 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 expressed his concern with the issue raised by Mr. Pfiester. He asked Mr. Bowman if he has addressed or was aware of the water issue.

Mr. Bowman stated that he was not aware of the exact concern the Mr. Pfiester raised. However, he was aware of the regulated wetlands on the property. This is a natural feature of the site he had been working with the City and the State to protect and preserve. It appeared that Mr. Pfiester was speaking of the functions that occur in these types of areas. Certain times of the year are wetter. He indicated that his site is completely outside of these areas from a developer and engineer perspective. The construction process would provide for storm water detention and similar provisions in the planning and developing process.

Member Canup asked if the storm water from his site would flow south to the drain.

Mr. Bowman stated that it would be detained on site in a pond situation with a restricted outlet to the ditch. The water would then flow to the ditch. He stated this would not effect anything off-site or back anything up. He believed the area flowing through the regulated wetland was the area that Mr. Pfiester was referring to. He agreed with the Mr. Pfiester concern, however he believed this was an area being preserved.

Ms. Weber stated that she did not recall receiving phone calls regarding drainage problems in the area. If there is drainage coming from the north into the site, then the drainage can not be blocked. The Final Engineering Plans will be reviewed to ensure any drainage courses are picked up and conveyed through. It is an ordinance violation to backing water onto another property. She recommended the appropriate agency be contacted to address and maintain the drain.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the Novi/Lyon drain is the responsibility of the City.

Ms. Weber believed it was a County drain.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the City could do anything to maintain the drain.

Ms. Weber indicated the Department of Public Services might be able to notify the County of the maintenance needed.

Chairperson Piccinini asked that this be done.

Member Koneda questioned if there were provisions for periodic site drain inspections to ensure they are functioning as they are supposed to. He was aware of the drains becoming clogged. He noted the yearly Rouge River clean up.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if he was referring to a maintenance schedule.

Member Koneda answered, yes.

Ms. Weber believed that this was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. She suggested checking with the department to find if there is a schedule set up for maintenance.

Member Koenda requested that Mr. Evancoe explore the matter. He recalled the issue being raised previously. He did not feel that the commission should be making decisions based on surprises.

Mr. Evancoe agreed to check into the matter.

Member Koneda suggested establishing a process to allow the Commission to give appropriate direction to have the concern addressed.

Member Koneda noted three (3) issues with the Vision Spa and Salon Site Plan. 1) The required ZBA Variance for the side yard loading instead of the rear yard. He assumed the location of the loading area was due to the intent to not intrude into the wetlands.

Mr. Mifsud answered, correct.

Member Koneda noted the justification for the requested variance is that it is required to minimize the impact on the Wetlands. He asked Mr. Arroyo if it would be possible to shift the building and provide rear yard loading without impacting the wetland.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that this might be possible if the building was made smaller. Shifting the building would enter parking area and impact the number of parking spaces.

Member Koneda clarified that it would not be possible to compromise parking without compromising the building in addition.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Member Koneda stated the traffic meets the driveway spacing ordinance and secondary access requirement with a gated entranceway is acceptable. Two (2) Planning Commission Waivers are required. 1) Planning Commission Waiver for the 4’6" berm along the property lines. He clarified if Ms. Lemke support for the waiver is based on the preservation of the existing vegetation.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated the additional plantings are required as a condition of the waiver.

Member Koneda noted the required Section Nine Façade Waiver.

PM-01-08-215 IN THE MATTER OF VISION SPA AND SALON SP 01-23A TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WOODLAND PERMIT APPROVAL, PLANNING COMMISSION WAIVER OF THE 4’6" BERM ON THE NORTH, EAST AND SOUTH PROPERTY LINE TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING VEGETATION WITH THE APPLICANT PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS PER WOODLAND CONSULTANT TO MEET THE OPACITY REQUIREMENTS, SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER TO ALLOW THE USE OF COLORED CONCRETE BLOCK ON THE EXTERIORS NOT VISIBLE TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, CONDITIONAL UPON THE GRANTING OF THE ZBA VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE YARD LOADING AREA AND CONDITIONAL UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (5-3): In the matter of Vision Spa and Salon SP 01-23A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval, Planning Commission Waiver of the 4’6" berm on the north, east and south property line to preserve the existing vegetation with the applicant providing the additional plantings per Woodland Consultant to meet the opacity requirements, Section Nine Facade Waiver to allow the use of colored concrete block on the exteriors not visible to the surrounding properties, conditional upon the granting of the ZBA Variance for the side yard loading area and conditional upon the recommendations and conditions of the consultants.

Member Kocan indicated that she would not support the motion due to the required ZBA Variance and Planning Commission Waiver. She calculated a 4’6" berm maximized out at 3 feet up each side, (one for three foot), the minimum distance the parking should be away from the residential is twenty-seven (27) feet strictly for the berm. Therefore, she would not approve a twenty (20) foot setback for parking. She did not support having a loading area next to the residential. She suggested relocating the loading area to the other side by the detention basin, which is a considerable distance from residential. She referred to the dumpster location comments indicating that trucks would need to back up one hundred twenty (120) feet after picking up the dumping. She noted the discussion regarding one (1) foot of possible water storage in the parking lot. She asked Ms. Weber how this could be acceptable.

Ms. Weber stated that one (1) foot maximum of parking lot detention is allowed under the ordinance. Typically, parking lot detention is discouraged. However, the proposed property has an outlet at a specific elevation that limits the amount of storage that could be placed in the based. These issues are based on topography. The ditch along Beck Road does not have a lot of grade and there is not a lot of difference with the outlet at the ditch relative to the site. It is only possible to create a detention basin to store a certain amount and the remainder would have to go into the parking areas. She noted this would be reviewed further at Final to ensure the allowable one (1) foot is not exceeded.

Member Kocan questioned if there was a way to determine how much of the parking lot would be detaining the one (1) foot of water.

Ms. Weber stated it would be the entire parking area.

Member Kocan found this to be unacceptable.

Member Nagy referred to Item 12 on page 3 of the Traffic Report. The south end of the main parking lot has been redesigned in response to concerns expressed in our previous letter. Although the proposed layout is not quite what we suggested, it is acceptable. She asked Mr. Arroyo what suggestion the letter was referring to.

Mr. Arroyo recalled suggesting potentially a slight shift in the drive to align differently. However, the alternative the applicant has created meets the standards and provides for appropriate ingress/egress.

Member Nagy stated her concern of the Façade Ordinance. The Façade Ordinance allows zero percent (0%) of concrete block. The applicant is requesting seventy-one (71%), seventy-one (71%) and ninety (90%). She did not support the motion because it is in violation of the City Ordinance. She expressed her concern with the consultant comment regarding proposed impacts to the Wetlands. Temporary disturbance of wetland for construction of a boardwalk. Please note that a temporary and permanent wetland buffer disturbance is proposed in an unknown amount for construction of a storm water outlet pipe, etc… She questioned the where the ordinance supports this comment.

Mr. Mifsud stated the wetland disturbance is temporary in nature. It would be for setting the footing for the base of the boardwalk.

Member Nagy stated the comment indicates an unknown amount.

Mr. Mifsud explained that the exact calculations were not available at the time the site plan was submitted. The locations are known for the buffer disturbance. There is a small portion for the buffer in the rear of the parcel where there will be permanent wetland disturbance. Other areas along the detention basin will have temporary disturbance from grading, which will be re-seeded with native vegetation.

Member Nagy agreed Member Kocan’s concerns. She noted the façade does not meet the ordinance requirements. For these reasons, she indicated that she would not be supporting the motion.

Member Mutch stated his concern with the façade issue. He referred to Mr. Necci’s letter, which indicates that Section Nine Facade Waivers were granted for similar situations with Concrete Block that is intended to look like brick. Member Mutch recalled those situations dealing with buildings of a different scale and location. He did not feel that this was a "big box" building with an attempt to replicate a brick look. Instead it is an office building, located on a prominent position on Beck Road. It is located across from Providence Park, which has a fairly high standard of materials used in their development. He found there to be an issue of cost, assuming the cost of concrete block is less than brick or possibly easier to install. He did not agree with setting precedence with the proposed building scale. He felt that other situations might have made sense being that they were located in industrial parks. However, the proposed project did not demonstrate a reason that brick could not be used. Although the façade ordinance provides the Section Nine Facade Waiver to allow for alternative materials, he did not find a compelling case for the proposed material. He stated he could support the other portions of the motion but would not support a motion with the inclusion of a Section Nine Facade Waiver.

Member Koneda referred to Mr. Necci’s review letter, which indicates proposed brick for the front façade and the portions of the sides that would be visible from Beck Road. The concrete block is proposed for the rear façade and portions of the sides that would be substantially screened from view. It would have to be a similar color, similar texture and resemble brick. Therefore, he felt this was a case in which waivers were granted previously for similar reasons. He agreed with Member Mutch’s comments regarding the scale of the building. He noted Mr. Necci support of the waiver and could not find any reason(s), based on Mr. Necci’s specifications, to not also support it.

Member Mutch noted the visibility issue. The new apartment complex will be constructed across the wetland area and there will be visibility on the rear of the building. Therefore, the visibility issue has not been completely addressed. He felt this would set precedence that only the front of the building needed to look good. He noted the vigorous requests made to have brick and similar materials where required. He restated that the location is not an industrial park. He felt that the area would become a more prominent location in the community as the interchange opens. He did not feel that this would be an appropriate direction.

Mr. Bowman noted his extensive work on the plan. The building is an extremely attractive building. He stated there were many issues other than cost for their decisions. There are hundreds of feet between the proposed property and the back of the apartment buildings, which is his development. The proposed material is replicating brick. The material will look like brick in every aspect. It will be placed on the rear of the building and will be visible from a point behind the building in the wetlands. He strongly felt that the difference would not be noticeable. He added the project met high standards in every other aspect.

Member Mutch suggested exploring the idea of revising the Façade Ordinance to include concrete block. If the argument will be accepted that the material looks like brick then he did not find the reasoning for not including it in the ordinance.

Mr. Bowman indicated that his proposed material is made of concrete block but it is not concrete block. Instead the proposed material is created like brick.

Chairperson Piccinini requested that Mr. Bowman show his material sample to the Commission. She asked if the sample was an actual size.

Mr. Bowman answered, yes. The material is significantly smaller than a typical concrete block. It is more expensive to install than typical concrete block due to the additional layers and labor involved.

Member Mutch questioned why the material was not being used on all four (4) sides.

Mr. Bowman stated that reason being that it is not allowed by ordinance.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that there are two (2) sizes of larger brick used more commonly on larger scale buildings.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Mutch, Nagy

This project is located in Section 3, located between South Lake Drive and Elm Court in Walled Lake Shores subdivision. The six platted lots are zoned Single Family Residential District (R-4). The applicant is seeking approval of a Wetland Permit.

Chris Kunkle of Brooks Williamson & Associates represented the Schulist Building project. He notified the Commission that the wrong plan was sent out with the Public Notice.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if the applicant stated that the wrong plan was included on the Public Notices.

David Evancoe asked the applicant to elaborate on his comment.

Mr. Kunkle indicated the older plan with the greater impact was included.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the City Attorney to address the legality of this matter.

Mr. Fisher stated if the public notice reflected more impact, creating a worse situation to the public eye, then the Commission would be within its discretion to move forward.

Mr. Kunkle noted the plan submitted to the City was approved by the DEQ. The new plan has an impact area of 0.19-acres wetland fill proposed. The difference in area from the original plan and the new plan will be preserved wetlands. The DEQ required a split rail fence along the edge to prevent intrusion into the preserved wetland. The house has been moved further away from the lagoon and the driveway placed on the other side to address the resident’s concerns. The house has been reduced in size. He referred the review letter dated June 19, 2001 from JCK Wetland Consultant Debbie Thor. He noted that because the entire lot is wetlands, there would be impact in any developing of the land. There are not buffer setbacks. The City requires an enhancement of the wetland due it being under 0.25-acres of impact. Debbie Thor reviewed the Enhancement Plan he submitted to the City and gave her approval with conditions that could be handled at Final. He felt confident that the plan could meet City requirements with a few revisions.

Mr. Mifsud indicated that the proposed project falls under the Residential Use Permit category and requires Planning Commission approval. The new total of fill is for 0.19-acres seven hundred (700) cubic yards for the construction of the home, driveway and fifteen (15) foot building envelope yard area around the perimeter. There is no basement proposed for the project. The applicant has gone through a number of revisions both through the State and correspondence with the JCK office to reduce the impacts, which are outline on page 2 of the review letter. The remainder of 0.3-acres of wetland will be placed under a Conservation Easement. A split rail fence will be placed at the fifteen (15) foot perimeter of the site to ensure that no impacts occur beyond that point. Mr. Mifsud recommended approval.

Chairperson Churella announced he has received one (1) correspondence.

Robert and Judy Thompson, 327 South Lake Drive wrote, "We approve and welcome assets to South Lake Drive."

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

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin considered the proposed plan as wonderful when compared to the original proposal. She noted the applicant has made the changes to address the concerns of the residents. She stated that the project was an asset to the City and one of the few properties in the area to comply with the Code. She pointed out the potential if potential of additional water to the southeast. However, she felt confident that the applicant would address the issue if it arose. She expressed her confidence in a good neighbor.

James Korte, Shawood Lake stated that the City did not have representation at the DEQ meeting. He did not comprehend why it was difficult to have the correct information sent to the residents. He stated that originally he was prepared to come to the Public Hearing to speak out against the plan. He stated that although he and Sarah Gray are not included in the notification radius, he felt that it would have been appropriate to give a courtesy notification since they were the only people who showed an interest. He stated the applicant has given assurance that if the water travels in the southeast direction, a minor berm, a swale or other resolution would be provided. He did not find any reason for denying the project. A pie shaped piece on the corner has overrun with water and raising the garage side would push the waters back into the Shawood Canal. Therefore, the construction will aid the area in making less of a "soggy mess" to the east. Mr. Korte notified the applicant that the bridge is being pulled out and the elevation is changing, because the City did not informed them. He felt that the City had the potential of making the area more and less of a wetland, depending upon what occurs when the bridge is out and the elevation redone.

Mr. Pembroke withdrew his green card request to comment on the matter.

Amol Kasmar noted that he has recently acquired the property to the east of the proposed project. He questioned the impact the project might have on the two (2) lots to the east on South Lake Drive.

Mr. Mifsud stated the direct impacts should not have any bearing to any parcel to the east. The impact is restricted to 0.19-acres of fill in the area. He questioned if Mr. Kasmar’s property was located on the opposite side. He stated that it should have no bearing from a wetland standpoint. He stated if proper flow is still occurring, then the difference in hydrology (occurring from the fill) should continue into the lagoon.

Sarah Gray notified the commission that the property (vacant pie shape) was purchased on the curve. She noted the location on the map. There is usually standing water on the vacant pie shape. Typically the fill would raise the level and the concern would be more runoff to the east. The grade will change when South Lake Drive is re-paved. She was aware of the drainage issues that would rise and be addressed at that time.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the gentleman would have to pick up his own runoff according to the ordinance. Therefore, the gentleman should not have to worry because changes would be required prior to the Final Engineering sign off.

Ms. Weber answered, correct.

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

Member Canup noted the consensus of approval between the project and the residents in the area.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (7-1): In the matter of Schulist Builders SP 01-37 to grant the Wetland Permit as requested.

Member Mutch noted that wetland fill is typically not allowed for the purpose of allowing residential construction. Platting lots into a wetland is not permitted. He noted the condition has existed for a period of time. He questioned if there was a legal reason preventing the preclusion of development or if some filling of the property would need to be permitted to allow the use of the land. He stated that the builder had the knowledge of the regulated wetlands prior to entering into the situation.

Mr. Fisher did not feel that the commission would always have to permit development. It would depend upon the facts and circumstances. It would go back to the test for determining whether or not a taking has occurred. One key factor in this situation is the reasonable investment backed expectations by the purchaser of the property. If the property were purchased for five hundred dollars ($500), you may be able to draw the conclusion that the site was not purchased as a building site. There are circumstances that you could say that there was no anticipation that it was purchased for a building site. Where it has been treated as a building site, there are six (6) lots that have been assembled for this development. If they have been assembled with the intention and the bonafide payment for a building site, then there are implications for takings.

Member Mutch clarified if the applicant has gone into the situation with the knowledge of the regulated wetland restrictions and purchases the property, should the commission take this into consideration.

Mr. Fisher stated this could be taken into consideration. If "push came to shove" in this situation, there would be a battle of expert witnesses to determine if the reasonable purchaser would have expected an approval to be given under the circumstances. There would also be a determination of whether or not the six (6) lots would create a reasonable expectation of allowing a building site.

Member Mutch stated that he would not support an approval for the Wetland Permit. There has been a clear policy to not allow wetland fill for the purpose of creating building sites. He recognized that the pre-existing lots create a different situation than an acreage parcel. However, the wetland regulations have been written for years. It is not possible for a developer to go into a situation that clearly has wetlands without the knowledge that its restrictions and ability to preclude the development of the property. He was concerned of setting precedence of applicants seeking to fill the wetlands (where there should not be an expectation to fill them) to avoid a legal issue. He recognized that the plan is an improvement from the original proposal. He felt strongly that one should not purchase wetland property and expect to build on it.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch. He noted that typically building sites are not permitted to occupy wetland areas. However, if the property were an open space with subdivision platting before the commission, the wetlands would be excluded from the platting. He noted the subdivision was established for at least 25-years. The residential lots were platted as residential lots, therefore, he was not certain if the same criteria applied. These lots were platted with the intent of building on them.

Mr. Fisher felt that the analysis needed to go back to the time when the Wetland Act was put in place. In other words, was the property bought before the Wetlands Act was in place at fair market value and anticipation of having a building site. If the property were purchased after the Wetlands Act at fair market value, then one would have to assume there was knowledge of wetlands. The analysis would have to be given to the purchase prior to the act and how it was treated prior to the act. He stated it is relevant and should be taken into consideration.

Member Koneda questioned if the proposed site had buildings at any time.

Mr. Kunkle stated that there was a cottage on the site that was torn down in the sixties. He informed the commission of his photograph of the cottage and the Mr. Shulist’s contact with the owner.

Member Koneda asked the approximate location of the cottage.

Mr. Kunkle stated it was in the center. There is not any rubble.

Member Koneda felt that the applicant has demonstrated a serious effort to minimize intrusion into the wetlands. He noted his support for the motion.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: Mutch

Chairperson Piccinini read the Section 2.1(b) - the election of officers should occur at the Commission’s first meeting in July following City Council appointments and re-appointments. The proposed amended text would state: the election of officers shall occur at the Commission’s first meeting in July.

Chairperson Piccinini noted the issues at the Administrative Committee with the Open Meetings Act. She asked Mr. Fisher to address Member Landry’s letter.

Mr. Fisher indicated Member Landry prepared a letter to the Commission dated August 6, 2001. He did not feel that the letter "in and of itself" was a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Technically it is a one way communication and does not represent a deliberation toward policy by a public body. He assumed that Member Landry sent the letter in "good faith" assuming that he would not be at the meeting and did not have the intention of any "wrong doing". In the earlier Committee Meeting, he suggested the policy to send these types of communications to the staff and distributed the evening of the meeting. The concern is the communications between the commissioners prior to the meeting. Once there is a quorum of commissioners exchanging communications (reacting verbally or in writing) not in a meeting, then there is the potential of a violation of the Open Meetings Act. He restated that Member Landry’s communication was not a violation.

Chairperson Piccinini informed Mr. Fisher of Member Kocan’s letter in response to Member Landry’s letter and three (3) commissioners who have spoken on the issue as a result of the letter. She expressed the discomfort of discussing an issue that has reached the point of Open Meetings Act. However, she agreed to find the outcome of a discussion.

David Evancoe referred to a memorandum addressed to the Planning Commission from the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee has sited the following reasons for amending Section 2.1(b), which pertains to the selection of officers. 1) The section interferes with the operations of the Planning Commission. 2) The section is in conflict with other sections of the Planning Commission Bylaws. 3) The section effects Planning Commission Committee appointments and work.

Member Kocan referred to Member Landry’s letter dated August 6, 2001. She noted that Member Landry placed the same verbiage on the table and discussed at the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. She clarified if this was the proper procedure.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Member Kocan understood that the second letter might have generated the discussion between the commission members. However, she noted that the commissioners are allowed to talk providing there is not a quorum. Therefore, she did not find how the situation was different from the receiving and discussion of a site plan. She agreed with the verbiage of Member Landry’s letter. She expressed the importance of sending items to the Rules Committee, being specific in the Bylaws to direct the Commission to make the meetings more efficient to avoid redundancy each year. Member Landry’s letter gave flexibility and the ability to allow for the election of officers.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that discussion at a meeting is appropriate. The matter in question is the sending of the letter to all the Commissioners. She stated that because she was not present at the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting she was not aware of the extent of the discussion.

Member Kocan clarified further that the letter was sent the Staff and not to the Commissioners’ homes.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the letter was notified to the Commissioners and not to the Staff.

Member Kocan was not aware of any violation of the Open Meetings Act with regard to the amendment in discussion.

Member Nagy referred to Member Landry’s verbiage from the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. She agreed with the verbiage to read: The election of all officers shall occur at the commission’s first meeting in July or the first meeting following City Council appointments or re-appointments.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, FAILS (2-6): In the matter of Bylaw Amendment to Section 2.1 (b) to accept the proposed verbiage - The election of all officers shall occur at the commission’s first meeting in July or the first meeting following City Council appointments or re-appointments.

Mr. Fisher clarified if the word "or" is defined to mean that the Planning Commission would make the determination of "when".

Member Nagy noted that this was Member Landry’s point.

Mr. Fisher suggested the addition of a comma and the verbiage as determined by the Planning Commission.

Member Nagy clarified if the language would read – The election of all officers shall occur at the commission’s first meeting in July or the first meeting following City Council appointments or re-appointments, as determined by the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He explained otherwise there is not an indication of how the "or" would be resolved.

Member Nagy and Member Kocan accepted the amendment to the motion.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, FAILS (2-6): In the matter of Bylaw Amendment to Section 2.1 (b) to accept the proposed verbiage - The election of all officers shall occur at the commission’s first meeting in July or the first meeting following City Council appointments or re-appointments, as determined by the Planning Commission.

Member Richards stated there should either be an election at the first meeting in July or an election after the approval of the City Council’s recommendation for new Planning Commissioners. He stated the determination should be made the first meeting in July and not in August or September.

Chairperson Piccinini did not feel this was "straight forward". She felt that a determination by the Planning Commission could allow it to be "dragged out". She asked Mr. Fisher.

Member Richards explained the commission could vote to have the election at the first meeting in July or not.

Mr. Fisher noted that it would be within the commission’s control.

Member Nagy added that the language would place the discretion in the control of the commission.

Member Richards added that the Commission could chose to wait until the new commissioners are appointed.

Member Churella did not agree with the ambiguous language. He stated an election in July would allow the proper people to be placed on the proper committee, with the exception of the new commissioners. Those that are on the commission should be assigned to the proper committees. He suggested that the commission follow the current verbiage and not be in violation of the Bylaws. He stated that he would not support the motion.

Member Canup requested to have the procedure clearly defined without any decisions. He reminded the commission of the politics involved in making these decisions. He stated that he would not be supporting the motion.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Richards and Member Canup. He did not find Member Landry’s re-write to be better than the current verbiage. He felt that they are both ambiguous. He noted that based on last year and current events, there might not be a City Council decision for new members for many more months. He stated if they waited for City Council appointments, it could place the commission in a position that they could not function. He stated the current verbiage places the discretion with the commission. Member Koneda did not support the motion.

Chairperson Piccinini did not support the motion as worded.

Yes: Kocan, Nagy

No: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Bylaw Amendment to Section 2.1(b) to amend to state – The election of all officers shall occur at the Commission’s the first meeting in July.

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

No: Kocan, Nagy

Chairperson Piccinini announced the amendment to 2.3(a) to state – To set a reasonable agenda in consultation with Community and Planning Director or his designee the Chairperson shall have final decision on the agenda.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, FAILED (4-4): In the matter of Bylaw Amendment to Section 2.3(a) to amend it to state – To set at reasonable agenda in consultation with the Planning and Community Director or his/her designee. The Chairperson shall have the final decision on the agenda.

Member Nagy question the need for the amendment.

Chairperson Piccinini stated it was due to of instances in which items were pulled off the agenda before the meeting after an agreement had been reached.

Member Nagy stated that she was not familiar with any City giving the Chair the final say. She suggested the Planning Director and Chair working this situation out amongst themselves verses making changes to the Bylaws.

Member Mutch noted his support for the change. The Commission is organized under the State Law and empowered by the City to make decisions on planning and zoning issues. In his past experiences, the Chair in any organization, under Robert’s Rules of Orders, sets the agenda. The Planning Department Staff should be involved with the discussion, however their function is to work for the Planning Commission. Therefore, the Planning Commission is the body to set the agenda and the decision made through the authority of the Chair. He stated the Bylaw amendment makes this authority clear and did not feel it should be confrontational.

Member Koneda stated that items, which include a Public Hearing due to notification, would not be pulled. He noted the amendment was truly referring to the discretionary items under Matters for Consideration or Matters for Discussion. He noted the many discussions to end the meeting at a reasonable time. He agreed that the Planning Commission does not work for the City Staff and instead work for and are appointed by the City Council. He felt that it was appropriate to include the clarification that the Director could assign the responsibility to another in his/her department to act on his behalf. He stated any Committees/Commission he has served on in the City has had an agenda that was mutually worked on by the Chairperson and the Director of the Department. This amendment is essentially the same.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Fisher for his legal opinion.

Mr. Fisher raised his finding(s) that Member Landry’s letter was sent to the Planning Department and not individual commissioners. This demonstrates that Member Landry was attempting to be correct in his actions.

Mr. Fisher indicated that the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council and makes decisions on its own, making it a final decision making body. Therefore, he cautioned the commission that background activities (coordinated by Staff) must occur to make a proper decision. If the Staff determines a matter is not ready to come before the Commission…

Chairperson Piccinini interjected Mr. Fisher. She clarified to him that a legal opinion was being requested. She felt that Mr. Fisher was giving a personal opinion and redirected his comments.

Mr. Fisher continued that the Staff would be in the best position to have the knowledge of whether a matter is ready to come before the commission or not. He did not feel it would be the preference of the commission to have improper action taken on a matter that was not ready to come before the commission. He added that a situation of this nature could result in serious implications.

Member Kocan expressed her desire to work in the spirit of cooperation and negotiation. She suggested that the City Attorney have the "final say". She did presume to be more knowledgeable than the Planning Department. She viewed the Planning Department as working with the Commission verses for the body. She felt there should be a third party if a mutual decision could not be made between the Planning Department and the Chairperson. For this reason, she would not support the motion.

Member Koneda offered a compromise. The real issue is to ensure that the approval of the agenda by the Chairperson prior to its distribution. Therefore, he suggested changing the wording final decision" to the "final approval".

Chairperson Piccinini asked Member Canup if he was agreeable to amend his motion.

Member Canup did not accept the amendment.

Yes: Canup, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Nagy

Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Bylaw Amendment to Section 2.3(a) to amend it to state – To set at reasonable agenda in consultation with the Planning and Community Director or his/her designee. The Chairperson shall have the final approval on the agenda.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Fisher to define the wording of "final approval". She questioned if this gave the Chairperson the ability to pull an item if she/he chose.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes.

Member Nagy asked if this would place the commission in the same situation that he referred to in his previous comment(s).

Mr. Fisher indicated that there are legal implications to this action.

Member Mutch stated there were legal implications whether the Commission or the Planning Department is making the decision of an item going forward. He recognized that the Staff may have more information leading to the perception of a more informed decision. There are additional issues that could be removed from the agenda without the proposed change, which deal with the business of the commission and discussion matters. These matters may have no legal implications however, without the amendment, the Chair and the Commission would not have the ability to put into the agenda. This could create a situation of delaying the business of the Commission. He was aware of similar instances in the past. He agreed that there should be a spirit of cooperation, however, the amendment would clarify authority. He did not find any reason to delay for issues without legal implication or the business of the commission.

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

No: Kocan, Nagy

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Churella as Chair of the Planning Commission

Member Churella accepted the nomination.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Canup as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission

Member Canup accepted the nomination.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Richards as Secretary of the Planning Commission

Member Richards accepted the nomination.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send to the Rules Committee the review of committee appointments specifically the mandatory seating of officers and to determine when committees should meet.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Piccinini resigned her position on the Rules Committee, Implementation Committee and Administrative Liaison Committee.

Mr. Fisher suggested voting on the resignation of Member Piccinini.

Chairperson Churella asked if there should be a vote for the resignation from each committee or one (1) vote for all three (3) committees.

Mr. Fisher felt that they could vote on all three (3) easily.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To accept the resignation of Member Piccinini from the Rules Committee, Implementation Committee and Administrative Liaison Committee.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Moved by Piccinini, REDIRECTION BY LEGAL COUNCIL: To nominate Member Richards to fill the position on the Rules Committee, Implementation Committee and Administrative Liaison Committee until the Rules Committee decides a time.

Member Richards accepted the position.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Piccinini asked if Member Kocan needed clarification from Rules Committee if subcommittees could call their own because it was not included in her previous motion.

Member Kocan stated that it was included in her original motion. However it was not read back in the motion that was voted on.

Chairperson Churella indicated that this was included in the motion that was voted on.

This engineering and research facility is located in Section 9, on Desoto Court, north of West Road and east of Beck Road in the Beck North Corporate Industrial Park. The 2.2 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Special Land Use Permit and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Steve Farsakian of Ronnisch Construction Group introduced Matt Niles of Wah Yee Associates to give the presentation.

Matt Niles of Wah Yee Associates recapped the issues and findings from the July 18, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. He was aware of the confusion caused at the last meeting by their attempt to present a plan to the commission (addressing the consultant comments) without having submitted it to the consultants. He apologized for the misinterpreted intent. He expressed their intent to submit a compliant plan. He assured that the commission’s plans and the consultant’s plans are consistent. He felt that the submitted plan is compliant with the Ordinance. He noted the changes in the new plan. The building setback from the East property line was revised. The building height requirement is a twenty-five (25) foot maximum for one (1) foot of building height per five (5) foot of setback. The previous plan had a one hundred (100) foot setback. The current plan has the building set back one hundred twenty-three (123) feet from the east residential property line, which is in compliance with the ordinance. The building height is also in compliance with the Ordinance. The removal of the parking and placement of landscaping placed the site in violation of the Fire Department because fifty percent (50%) of the exterior needed to be accessible for a fire truck. In working with the Fire Department, an eighteen (18) foot wide drive was placed in the back of the building. He pointed out the area to the south where parking was placed to make up for where it was removed with the changes. The shifting of the parking changed the configuration of the building and a few required spaces were lost. The dumpster location was changed to provide more parking spaces. He noted the placement of a sidewalk across the front of the building for public accessibility.

Mr. Arroyo reminded the commission that the proposed use is adjacent to residential and therefore requires Special Land Use Approval and adherence with the seven (7) Special Land Use criteria listed in Section 2516 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated August 10, 2001. The applicant has made the appropriate modifications to the Site Plan to address the building setback issues. The roof top appurtenances have been set back the appropriate distance from the façade of the building to provide for height that meets the ordinance. He noted additional detailed information included in the review letter that would need to be provided at Final.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated August 10, 2001 subject to minor issues being addressed at Final. Some of these issues include circulation with the easterly parking area; and alternative treatments (such as stop signs attached to the building with the use of convex mirrors) to address the blind corner at the southwest corner of the building. He indicated the Site Plan meets the Ordinance requirements in terms of appropriate spacing of the driveways and the requirement of having two (2) points of access.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Review with the items of her review letter dated August 1, 2001 being addressed at Final.

Ms. Lemke noted there are not Woodlands on the site.

Ms. Weber continued to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments of the review letter dated August 9, 2001 being addressed at Final.

In regard to façade, Ms. Weber referred to the review letter dated August 15, 2001. The letter indicates the drawings dated July 27, 2001 were review and are consistent with the drawings for which a Section Nine Facade Waiver was recommended in the review letter dated June 4, 2001.

Chairperson Churella announced he has received a letter dated August 2, 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 items being corrected on the next plan submittal. 1) Relocating the Fire Department connection close to the front doors so it is not obstructed by shrubs and trees. 2) Provide a hydrant south side of the building, east of the transformer pad. 3) The 6" fire protection water main control valve shall be located in a well.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, In the matter of Design Research Engineering SP 01-35A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Section Nine Facade Waiver, Special Land Use Permit as the proposed would not cause a detrimental impact on the capabilities of Public Services and facilities, the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses of land and it the use is consistent with the Master Plan, contingent upon the applicant providing appropriate sound attenuating screen devices for HVAC equipment and all consultant’s conditions and conditions.

Member Kocan commented on the stop signs located at the southeast corner. She recommended that it be a double sided stop sign on a traffic island and a stop sign on the back building with the convex mirror. This would address the traffic coming around the corner quickly. She agreed with the location of the dumpster.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

An Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance; footnote (u), subparagraph (1), of the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said Ordinance, relating to height requirements in an OST District; and to amend subpart 2509.6(g), relating to berms, in order to clarify the requirements of the OST District when adjacent to residential districts.

Member Canup clarified if the motion needed to be a recommendation to the City Council.

Chairperson Churella answered, correct.

Mr. Fisher indicated that because the motion failed on a 4-4 tie at the last meeting it needed to first be preceded by a motion for reconsideration. The motion would need to be made by a commissioner from the prevailing side at the last meeting.

Member Piccinini questioned who were the four (4) votes.

Member Kocan identified the four (4) commissioners as Canup, Kocan, Nagy and Richards.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 01-18.170.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Moved by Canup, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 01-18.170 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council.

Member Mutch indicated his support of the motion. He clarified that he did not agree with the position that the petitioner brought forward a Zoning Text Amendment to Implementation Committee to be sent along to City Council. The Planning Commission is the body to initiate zoning changes under the State Law and would discern if items should be sent to the Council. He agreed that the matter should go forward to the City Council, however, he stressed that it is not for the reason(s) as stated by the applicant. He restated that there is not obligation to send the matter to the Council because of the applicant’s request.

Member Kocan clarified the matter. The height would be increased next to RM District from sixty-five (65) feet. She questioned the maximum height in the RM-1 District.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that RM-1 is two (2) stories and thirty-five (35) feet.

Member Kocan questioned if three (3) stories would be forty-six (46) feet.

Mr. Arroyo explained that this would be the OST District. The height is three (3) stories or forty-six (46) feet unless eligible for additional height.

Member Kocan continued to ask if sixty-five (65) feet could possibly be a five (5) story building.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Kocan did not want the OST District to be higher than the abutting Multiple District. If the Multiple District is three (3) stories than the permitted height should also be three (3) stories. If the Multiple District if five (5) stories then it could be five (5) stories. She noted her efforts to be conservative.

Mr. Arroyo indicated an option to apply the amendment when adjacent to RM-2 and not RM-1. RM-2 has the sixty-five (65) feet currently in effect in the adjacent Residential District. He suggested an amendment to read that it would only apply if adjacent to a RM-2 District.

Member Kocan asked if it is limited to north of the expressway.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He indicated the limited area north of Grand River Avenue, south of Twelve Mile Road, zoned OST and not adjacent to residential to receive the sixty-five (65) feet.

Member Kocan clarified further the zoning of the properties located between Meadowbrook Road and the Twelve Oaks Mall.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the properties fronting on Meadowbrook Road are currently zoned OST north of the freeway.

Member Kocan questioned the zoning of the properties abutting the Ring Road in the Twelve Oaks Mall.

Mr. Arroyo explained that there is RM-1 with the PD-1 Option permitting the sixty-five (65) feet. Sixty-five (65) feet would be permitted with the RM-2 zoning or RM-1 with the PD-1 Option. He added that this area also has RC zoning.

Member Kocan indicated that her main concern was to include verbiage to state that it could not be higher than the abutting multiple. She stated this increase her level of comfort.

Member Mutch understood her concern. He noted the problem(s) with being too specific in the language than what is already written. The height in the district is a limit. Therefore there could arise a situation with a developer who could decide to not construct a high rise building. He gave three (3) areas of focus for making their determination. 1) The limitation already contained in the OST District of what properties could be effected. 2) Being cognizant of what is currently existing. 3) The inequity that the current Zoning Ordinance creates with the properties in question. A RM property would be negatively effected the OST in its current position because they do not have the ability to go any higher than forty-six (46) feet. In addition the surrounding properties could go up to sixty-five (65) feet. Without the changes, their property would be negatively impacted when compared to the other properties. This is an issue of equity and recognizing that it is already severely limited by the existing zoning and the language in the current ordinance. Although a sliding scale could be created, he was not confident that it would accomplish involving anyone in the benefit.

Chairperson Churella stated that the matter would be forwarded to the Council, who would have the final approval.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini,

No: Kocan, Richards

A proposed amendment to the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use. The amendment was prepared to identify improvements and possible land use recommendations for the Novi Road Corridor. Corridor planning is a tool that permits the City to closely examine an area that is in need of a more intense planning focus.

David Evancoe re-introduced the Commission to the plan. He noted that much of the document pertained to existing conditions. He directed the Commission’s attention to page 29, which identified the recommendations for the Plan.

Member Nagy question if the Planning Commission action would be a recommendation or an approval.

Mr. Arroyo explained that it would be an amendment to the Master Plan for Land Use and an action made by the Planning Commission. He added that it required six (6) affirmative votes to amend the Master Plan.

Member Nagy stated that the plan was very well done. However, she questioned if the infrastructure or finances were available to implement the plan. She felt that the plan was premature.

Member Mutch noted the changes in the plan indicate reductions in impact. One major change was the recommendation for the Land Use on the East Side of Novi Road to change from Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial. Likewise, the area along Main Street (the Singh Project with adjacency of Heavy Industrial) is recommended to become Light Industrial to reduce impacts. The integration of access roads into the re-development will help address some of the impacts on the surrounding roads. A Master Plan is a long-term land use recommendation, which the implementation of some of the elements, (such as the design elements proposed by Ms. Lemke) would not occur tomorrow. Although the financing would need to be addressed, a vision needs to be put in place. He gave the example of the Novi Main Street area, which has taken twenty (20) years to this point and has a long way to go. However, the area has a vision to help guide the decisions being made for that area. He noted that the plan is not a new vision for the area. Some of the changes may occur soon, some long-term and some possibly never.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Novi Road Corridor Plan to approve the amendment to the City of Novi Master Plan.

Member Koneda recalled the comments from the Novi Ten Development at the last Public Hearing regarding the property located east of Novi Road and south of Ten Mile Road. The last Master Plan update adopted a couple of years ago had a recommendation of rezoning the land to a commercial usage. At that time there was a lot of discussion, Arena Drive was put in place and developments occurred. The Community Credit Union requested to construct a bank on the corner of Arena and Novi Road and there was discussion of a road connection to the development. He noted that the Credit Union development was approved and due to difficulties the road connection did not occur. As a result of those actions, the Master Plan and Review Committee began to question the utilization of the corner lot. In the updated plan, the area is designated as a special planning area. The reasoning is because it has not been determined if the area should continue to belong as commercial and would need to be further explored. The area did not develop in the manner that they had once anticipated and therefore, it may not be an appropriate zoning for the area. He clarified that there is not a recommended zoning change for this area. Instead it would be reviewed more closely.

In reference to Member Nagy’s comment regarding the finances and the pre-maturity of the plan, Member Koneda stated that the Master Plan is the vision of the future. He felt that the Master Plan was a pro-active action that the Planning Commission in the step of being visionaries. He felt that it would be appropriate for the commission to adopt the change at this time.

Member Kocan spoke in regard to the Special Planning Project Area. She noted its designation of SP. She did not feel comfortable moving the document forward with the SP documentation included. She suggested removing the SP and changing it to commercial.

Mr. Arroyo explained that the SP referred to Special Planning and does not mean commercial. He stated that the SP indicates Special Planning Area.

Member Kocan noted this as her point. If there is not a proposed zoning change due to further review, then she did not feel it was appropriate to include the SP. Instead, it should remain commercial or its current zoning.

Member Mutch stated that the property is not zoned commercial.

Member Kocan stated that she was referring to the Master Plan zoning.

Member Mutch restated that there is no commercial Master Planned for that area. He referred to the zoning document pointing out that the area remains zoned as it was under the old Master Plan. Therefore, they are not taking away zoning.

Member Kocan noted the additional information other than zoning recommendations. She noted the Land Use recommendations. She questioned if these would be concrete with the approval of the plan. She pointed out the addition of three (3) lights on Novi Road, the addition of entryway signs, Access Management plan, which may or may not be feasible. She questioned if the document in its entirety went with the Master Plan.

Mr. Evancoe stated that all the contents in the Plan would be adopted. Therefore, the Access Management would also be adopted.

Member Kocan agreed with the Land Use. However, she did not agree with several of the peripheral items, such as an entry sign at every intersection of the City. She felt that four (4) or six (6) locations should be determined on the outskirts of the City that are the actual entries. She did not agree with the addition three (3) light on Novi Road between Grand River and Ten Mile Road. Although the City Park is a good idea, she questioned who would be able to utilize it. She questioned if it would tap into Churchill Crossings. She added that she is not a visionary and therefore, has a lot of questions. She did not agree with the recommendation of five (5) lanes south of Ten Mile Road because it is ninety percent (90%) residential.

Member Nagy questioned if there were capital improvement funds.

Member Mutch stated that "we" do not have any funds.

Member Nagy questioned if there was a specific amount of money that should be designated for Capital Improvements.

Mr. Fisher was not aware of any actual Capital Improvement Plan with a schedule. He was aware of the Road Bond for Capital Improvements in terms of road infrastructure.

Member Nagy did not believe there was a Capital Improvements Fund.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the Planning Commission does have a Capital Improvements Program prepared by the Planning Commission annually. This is a recommendation and there is not an appropriation of money. The program is a prioritization of Capital Funds, which the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council on an annual basis. Generally this is a six (6) year term. Therefore, items that may be needed to implement a plan such as the proposed may not be in the Capital Improvements Program because it may be beyond the six (6) year horizon. However, next year a plan and recommendation, the Commission may consider incorporating some of the items that they feel may fall within that six (6) year horizon.

Member Nagy acknowledged the amount of work that has gone into the proposed plan. However, she did not feel that every intersection was in need of identification. She agreed with the water well but she did not feel it was affordable. She stated that she would not be supporting the motion.

Chairperson Churella noted his participation with the Committee. He felt that the plan should be passed because if the funds available then the plan and changes could move forward. He noted his support of the plan. He commended the Planning Department and the Consultants for their excellent work.

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

No: Kocan, Nagy

A proposed amendment to the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use. The amendment was prepared to identify improvements and possible land use recommendations for a geographic area of Grand River Avenue, from Beck Road to Taft Road. Area planning is a tool that permits the City to closely examine an area that is in need of a more intense planning focus.

Mr. Evancoe noted that he did not have any further introductory remarks as they were given at the previous meeting.

Chairperson Churella noted the suggestion raised by Blair Bowman to look at the western end of the Expo Site. He deferred to Mr. Arroyo to address the concern.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that the Master Planning and Zoning Committee members relay the discussion held at their meeting. He referred to the discussion of whether or not the OSC zoning might be appropriate ultimately as an implementation tool to potentially add some commercial to the area. The Committee agreed that this would not be appropriate and their preference was to remain pure office or high tech designation.

Chairperson Churella asked those Committee members to comment or a motion to be made.

Member Piccinini note that the topic was discussed at length at several meetings. She stated the different uses were discussed. She stated the Committee determined the proposed was the best zoning for the area. If people wanted to request changes, they could come before the Commission to do so.

Member Mutch recalled the Committee deciding to limit the commercial that Expo and peripheral uses in discussion. He stated the Committee was not looking for an entire strip of commercial development. Therefore, he thought the Planning Recommendations should reflect this.

Member Piccinini indicated that this change was supposed to be made to reflect this.

Member Mutch stated the Map with the bubbles did, however, the planning recommendation (on a separate page) with the overlay on the aerials continues to discuss the commercial development. He stated that he was not comfortable with this.

Member Piccinini stated that this was supposed to be change.

Mr. Arroyo suggested a motion to have the map amended to strike the reference to limit commercial.

Member Mutch stated that more concrete plans in the future would constitute a further review. He pointed out the OSC Zoning development on Eight Mile and Haggerty Road.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of the Grand River Area Plan to approve the amendment to the City’s Master Plan with the striking of the words limiting commercial from the office designation on the north and south side of Grand River Avenue west of Taft Road.

Member Nagy did not agree with the inclusion of the words "Expo Overlay District" on page 15, when there has not been an approval of the Overlay District. She stated that she would not support the motion.

Chairperson Churella asked Mr. Fisher to comment on the matter.

Mr. Fisher stated that it could be considered as prejudging or it could be considered as having no prejudice by having it included. Therefore, it would be at the discretion of the Commission.

Chairperson Churella clarified that either way would be fine.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct.

Member Kocan recalled the support from her commissioners at the last meeting when she requested additional information for the areas east and west of the development. She stated that the focus is so narrow and tells her nothing about the area east or west. She noted the amount of conflicting discussion from the residents and business owners regarding the marketing of the different zonings. She questioned if there was criteria researched to support the rezonings to substantiate the changes the Commission is recommending. Member Kocan questioned how many of the brick corner signs are needed. She recognized the amount of work that has gone into developing the plan, however she was not comfortable supporting the plan without being able to see how it would all tie in together.

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

No: Kocan, Nagy

Mr. Evancoe noted that the commissioners were sent the information for the upcoming Annual Planning Conference in Mackinac Island. There is $4150.00 in the conference fund for the fiscal year. The approximate cost is $670.00 per commissioner to attend the conference. He added that the estimate did not include the cost of transportation.

Ms. Brock added that the calculation is based on an early registration fee. Therefore, conference registration information would need to be submitted by next Tuesday.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Commission of the upcoming APA conference in Chicago April 2002.

Chairperson Churella asked if the APA Conference in Chicago would be on the next budget.

Mr. Evancoe answered, no. The fiscal year is July to June.

Member Richards asked for the approximate cost for the conference in Chicago.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the Chicago Conference would be approximately $2000-$2500 per registration. He stated from an educational point of view, the Michigan Conference would be more useful than the National Conference.

Member Nagy suggested on voting on which commissioners should be able to attend due to the fund availability.

Chairperson Churella stated that he was not planning on attending. He asked the commission who would like to attend.

Mr. Evancoe added if all nine (9) commission members attended the conference then the cost for each commission, to cover personally, would be $214. He added that this would also delete the fund.

Member Nagy stated that she would not be attending the conference.

Member Kocan noted that there was a strong possibility that she would not be attending.

Chairperson Churella recalled Member Landry expressing an interest in attending.

Member Koneda requested to attend.

Member Canup requested to attend.

Member Richards requested to attend.

Member Mutch requested to attend.

Member Kocan suggested the completion of an anticipated budget.

Member Canup stressed the importance of the new members attending for the training purposes.

Chairperson Churella advised the commissioners to submit their applications and determine after who would go and who would not.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Commission that the information would need to be submitted by next Wednesday due to the time frame needed to have the expenditure approved.

Chairperson Churella suggested making phone calls to the commissioners.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the matter was raised by Member Nagy at the last meeting.

Member Nagy interjected and withdrew her request for discussion on the matter.

None

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:28 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

October 15, 2001

Date Approved: November 7, 2001