Meeting called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairperson Churella.

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch (late arrival), Nagy, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Piccinini (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick

Chairperson Churella asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as submitted.

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

No: None

An ordinance to add article 10A to Ordinance No. 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance; to add the designation for the Exo "Exposition Overlay" District to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance; to amend footnote (h) to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance, relating to off-street parking; to amend subsection 2507.3 of said ordinance, relating to off-street loading and unloading; to amend subparts 2509.6a and 2509.8b of said ordinance, relating to berming and landscaping; and to amend subsection 2519 of said ordinance, relating to performance standards, for the purpose of creating the Exo "Exposition Overlay" Zoning District, which is intended to encourage the development of an exposition, conference, and convention center, and supporting uses, in an appropriate area of the city.

David Evancoe, Planning Director, directed the Commission’s attention to page 9 of the new ordinance. He noted the change in Part VI b.(1) regarding Interior Landscaped Islands. The last portion of the paragraph states "except in EXO Overlay District there shall one (1) square foot of interior landscaped island for each sixteen (16) square feet of parking space." He stated the previous standard was one (1) per ten (10). He stated this change would result in less landscaped islands space. He apologized for the changes not being more clearly indicated on the document.

Blair Bowman represented the Novi Expo Center. He apologized for the changes not being more clearly noted on the document. He indicated the desire to apply the setback to the principle Exposition facility only and not to the other uses. He added that this application would be only in the event of excess right-of-way in place. He noted discussion at the Implementation Committee regarding additional screening, which the commission may have as a reason for granting this. In obtaining the right-of-way from the rest area property, there would be an additional fifty (50) feet. He stated that the capacity is already setback double from the expressway. He indicated that in looking at the Expo Center facility itself, and its use only, the setback could be reduced to thirty (30) feet and still provide for the eighty (80) feet from the typical right-of-way line. Mr. Bowman indicated his attempt to follow the façade schedule. However, the current breakdown does not discriminate the different elevations, which could be put back in place. He explained that because Region 1 gives total percentages allowed, they have taken the maximum percentages on any given side and plugged them into the table. He stated there is not an increase and he was willing to have it noted by elevation and in a table.

Mr. Bowman indicated that the proposed changes to the previously presented ordinance are the same essential elements presented two (2) years ago when he announced the plan at a joint meeting be with the City Council and Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. At that time, he indicated the need for flexibility in areas such as façade, larger unobstructed parking areas, ingress/egress routes for the operation of the facility and signage. He stated that these elements were the key issues and are still being dealt with. He respectfully requested that the commission consider the partnership that exists historically between the community and his organization. He stated they are looking to improve this relationship. He felt that if the Ordinance was written for what the community wanted and did also provide for him the means to build their project the would be no end result. He felt that the building would be attractive. The project proposes perimeter landscaping and natural features that surround the larger parking areas. He stated these changes allow him to build on the asset that they have already become in the Novi Community with the existing facility. He noted the Tax Abatement was approve by the City Council last year. At that time, he recalled stressing the need for flexibility for the upcoming steps in the process. He felt that this program deserves special merit because projects, such as the Expo Center, are typically funded at the tax payers expense. He stated his appreciation for all that the community has done. He stated this would be a positive program and benefit the community. It would be a vast improvement over the current Expo Center. He noted that four (4) different zoning districts have been placed on this property. Mr. Bowman indicated that he was willing to make the investment needed to provide the stimulus for this area to provide the community with a planning tool to build on. He noted his corporation with the City with the infrastructure. He noted that they would be bringing with the project over five million dollars ($5,000,000) worth of funding with the State to improve Grand River Avenue and complete the three (3) mile stretch between Novi Road and Wixom Road.

Chairperson Churella opened the discussion to the Commission.

Member Kocan indicated that her understanding was to give the matter as much time as necessary. She stated that although her comments were general, she felt that the discussion should be handled section by section. She felt it was imperative that the commission discuss each section and come to a consensus. She compared the EXO Overlay and the current Expo Ordinance. She clarified that all the property in the area would not develop as an EXO District. She gave the scenario of a concert or museum and Anglin’s Storage Facility and other OST uses. The fact that there would not be one particular confined area for all Expo raised concern. Instead the area would be over a mile and not all the uses would conform to Expo types of facilities. Member Kocan indicated that each developer would go through the approval process and propose to change the OST to the EXO Overlay. Therefore, the area would be developed in pieces verses one project. She stated additional areas of her concern dealt with berms, setbacks and specific words stated.

Member Landry agreed with Member Kocan’s concerns. He stated he had less of a concern regarding the principal exposition center. He questioned if any OST District at any location in the City could apply for the EXO "bug".

Mr. Schultz answered, no. He referred to Section 1000A, which indicates where the use is intended to occur.

Member Landry believed the language was general and stated the intention to support an Exposition Facility.

Mr. Schultz stated that anyone could request a rezoning anywhere within the City. However, the Commission would reference the intent of the district and where it is intended to exist. He stated the Council as the legislative body would be able to do the rezoning in another location.

Member Landry referred to Grand River Avenue between Taft Road and Beck Road. He stated the northern area is zoned OST and the southern is zoned I-1. Therefore, he questioned if the property were sold on the northern side of Grand River (between Taft and Beck Road) one could apply for the "EXO Bug" and construct a sit-down restaurant (not fast-food).

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Landry was concerned with this use because the Expo Center appears to be a "classy" facility. He felt the development of restaurants along Grand River could draw the traffic from the Town Center area. He did not agree with the language of the ordinance allowing any property owner along this area to apply for a restaurant use.

Mr. Schultz indicated that property owners could also apply for a B-1 or B-2 zoning.

Member Landry questioned if that would be considered a request for a complete rezoning.

Mr. Schultz explained that the "EXO bug" would be a complete rezoning as it is a separate district with the same legislative process.

Member Landry stated that the applicant could make the argument that restaurants are listed in the language to support an Exposition facility and those that go to the Exposition facility would have to eat. He questioned if Mr. Schultz agreed with the possibility that an applicant could easily make this argument.

Mr. Schultz stated the argument could be seen more clearly.

Member Nagy referred to Mr. Bowman’s comment regarding if the community wants and desires the proposed ordinance. She noted in asking people what they wanted, she found that people were having a difficult time. She felt that there was no indication or statement of why the District is needed. Specifically if the District is a necessity for the City or if it is a necessity for the Expo Center to succeed. She understood the Expo Center to be self-contained with the Expo center itself, the hotel, food services and ATM. Therefore, she did not understand the need for the EXO Overlay District. Member Nagy noted her support of the Expo Center in the proposed location. She stated the area is already zoned as an OST District and the Commission should follow the zoning. She identified the problem(s) with the money, time and effort spent on the Master Plan and Zoning Maps and the Commission and Council not complying with them. She did not feel it was necessary to include the entire mile strip and the uses should be within the proposed Expo center itself. Member Nagy felt the hours of operation should be included and outdoor facilities should be more defined. She was not comfortable with the proposed setbacks. Although the applicant is attempting to save the natural features, she felt parking facility was expansive with little vegetation. Until the need is demonstrated, she indicated that she would not support the proposal.

Member Koneda referred to page 5 of the draft – The Approval Process, which places the burden of the petitioner to request the EXO Overlay District. He recalled discussion for the need for Conceptual or Preliminary Site Plan as part of this process, which was not included. He questioned if there was a reason to not include this.

Mr. Evancoe agreed having a conceptual plan accompanying an application was discussed after a suggestion from City Attorney Mr. Fisher. He noted a meeting with the City Manager and the applicant to discuss this possibility. The petitioner did not feel that this type of blueprint could be provided because of the lack of knowledge of the uses. Although the use would be one of those listed, they would not be able to determine how large the use would be or where within the site. In conclusion, it was determined that there was not a point in requiring the applicant to provide a plan that would not be their future blueprint.

Member Koneda explained the purpose of the Overlay District was to provide for a principle use, which is the Exposition Center and secondary usage. He questioned if there was any requirement in the Ordinance specifying the Exposition Center as the primary use and/or needed to be constructed first. Member Koneda clarified if the applicant could rezone the property to gain the overlay zoning and could construct a restaurant first.

Mr. Schultz indicated it could be the principle permitted uses.

Member Koneda recalled the discussion indicating the Exposition Center as the primary use.

Mr. Bowman understood the issue raised by Member Koneda. He was agreeable to including this modification to the Intent Section. He stated the other uses are intended to be in association with and to support an exposition facility.

Member Koneda agreed.

Mr. Bowman continued. He explained the difficulty with submitting a concept plan. He stated if the plan modifies slightly from the submitted concept plan, it could be turned down. He stated the EXO Overlay District would exist in a contained area and apply only to the property that is assembled and developed. He clarified that its intention was not to go on the entire mile stretch.

Member Koneda stated the burden falls upon the petitioner to request a rezoning. Therefore, the commission would not go beyond the bounds of what the petitioner asks for. For example, the petitioner would not ask for the overlay to be placed on a piece of property that he did not have control over.

Mr. Evancoe stated a rezoning petition would need to be initiated by a property owner or by the City itself.

Member Koneda questioned if the process is in fact a rezoning being called an overlay.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Koneda restated the petitioner could only request the overlay on the property he currently owns.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Ms. Wyrosdick recalled the Grand River Corridor Study where Expo Overlay was Expo at the time and Overlay District was discussed. In theory, a rezoning request would be based on the goals of the Grand River Corridor Study, which does not show the entire stretch between Beck Road and Taft Road as appropriate for the Overlay District.

Member Koneda recalled the indication(s) at previous meetings that the bounds of the EXO District could extend beyond what the petitioner’s request.

Ms. Wyrosdick believed the determination of the boundary was a logical extension of other smaller properties combined to have supporting facilities developed on them to support the Expo.

Mr. Bowman agreed with the procedure and protection issue identified, which any petitioner would be required to request the additional property be included in the Expo Overlay District.

Member Koneda questioned if a provision could be added to indicate that the primary use, the Expo center, would have to be identified on the Site Plan with the ancillary uses before the Site Plan could be approved. He stated there could not be construction until after the Site Plan Approval. Therefore, he questioned if the identification of the primary use as the Expo Center would be established. He noted his concern was the location of the Expo Center and not if it was built first.

Mr. Schultz stated once the rezoning is granted, providing it is not a Special Land Use or a P.U.D., then the Commission has only retained the right to ensure a permitted use, listed in the ordinance, is placed there. He added that theoretically it might never be a large Expo Center. If the Expo Center is the focus then the accessory uses or incidental uses should not be approved until the Expo Center is in place. The ordinance could be reworked to make the large Exposition use the only permitted use in the Overlay District and the other uses to come after. However this would be a structural change in the ordinance.

Mr. Bowman suggested minor language modifications to cover the issue(s), to indicate that the other uses are still principle permitted uses when there exists the identified use in 1002A. Therefore, the principle use of the Exposition Facility would have to be in existence or planned simultaneously with the other uses.

Mr. Schultz stated the addition of this qualification would make the "accessory uses" "sub uses".

Member Koneda felt the inclusion of this language was important because the OST District is not being rezoned with the provisions to allow for decreased landscaping, relief of parking, etc… He expressed the desire to make it possible to allow the Expo Center to relocate. He suggested the legal staff to make the addition to identify the principle use as the Expo Center.

Mr. Schultz stated this could be done structurally.

Member Koneda indicated the City Council support in relocating the Expo Center. He recalled identifying three (3) significant issues that needed to be addressed. Two (2) issues were related to Special Land Use. 1) Traffic Impact – He referred to Mr. Fisher’s letter indicating the wording related to vehicular access under Section 1003A was more general than the page three (3) of the applicant’s rewrite. He accepted the provision on page 3 of the applicant’s rewrite which states, "As a condition to granting approval, the City Council, following recommendation from the Planning Commission based upon the report of a licensed traffic engineer, shall find that all entrances to the site from a major thoroughfare, and any intersections adjacent thereto which are utilized by the Development for access shall function at acceptable levels…" He felt this was appropriate due to the concern(s) of traffic burden on the roads. He accepted the provision. 2) Noise Level – Although not intended to be adjacent to a residential district, it is next to an OST District. He noted the nighttime sound levels included in the rewrite. Nighttime sound levels are 70 db max and daytime sound levels at 75 db max. He believed the db levels adjacent to freeways to be greater than 75. He felt this was in keeping with the noise level. He accepted provision. 3) Façade Materials – He stated felt relief should be granted to provide additional materials due to the nature of the site, the size of the building and architectural appeal. He stated he was satisfied with this area.

Member Koneda referred to page 10, relief from interior landscaping for any site containing forty (40) acres or more. He read, the City may permit the use of existing natural features to satisfy 40% of the interior parking lot landscape requirements. He questioned if the Section 2509 8 (b) only applied to the Expo Center or could other areas also have landscaping relief.

Mr. Schultz stated the verbiage appears to apply to any of the districts listed on page 9 b.

Member Koneda clarified if it would be all of those listed.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Koneda indicated that he could accept the provision because it is not specific. He stated if an ordinance is tailored for a specific site with conditions related to the specific site, then it becomes a "designer ordinance". He stated if another developer proposed an Expo Center, they should also have the same right of review as the current petitioner.

Member Canup reminded the Commission that they were making a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that the commission could continue to make all the desired changes to the proposed text, however the City Council will be doing the same. Therefore, he felt the commission should allow the process to move forward. He felt confident that the submitted draft was a good start for the Council to work with. He asked if the applicant was in agreement.

Mr. Bowman answered correct.

Member Canup agreed with Member Koneda in that the language should be included to protect the City.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, FAILS (4-4): In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) to send a positive recommendation of the revised Expo Overlay District Revised Language prepared by the applicant dated August 23, 2001 to the City Council with the provision added under intent that the Expo Center will be the principle or primary use and City Attorney Gerald Fisher’s General Use Language will be included.

Member Canup clarified that he was not certain what the language would read. However, he did not want the language too restrictive as to not allow construction of a hotel with the Expo Center. However, the language should be restrictive enough that they would need to construct the Expo Center first.

Member Canup asked the applicant if the excess provision would create any problems.

Mr. Bowman stated that he understood the concern and would be attempting to address with the infrastructure being put in place. However, he indicated the problem with the subjective general language, which was not clear and could allow for anyone to find that it did not meet their expectation(s). Instead suggested a test would be sufficient if it performed well through a licensed Traffic Engineer with the generally accepted standards.

Member Canup stated that he could accept this. He explained that this matter would go before the City Council and be changed further. He felt that it would be a waste of time to "tear apart" the text again.

Member Mutch did not support the uses of recreational facilities. He did not feel that this was appropriate in the vision of an Exposition District or an OST District. He noted the applicant’s proposal in the draft to include the provision for a one hundred (100) foot building height. He was not in support of sending provision to City Council because it does not represent a direction the City has embrace in the past or should embrace in the future for this district. Regarding the natural features within the parking lot landscape requirements, he did not support approving these provisions without finding the impacts with other proposed projects. He stated this provision would apply to all projects within the prospective districts. He felt that this should be discussed further to find its outcome(s). He noted the lack of Special Land Use provisions. He understood Mr. Bowman’s presented need for the strict clear standards. However, the City’s version of the Ordinance should give the City the ability to address the unique and special impacts that come from an Expo Center. The burden to pay for improvements should not fall on the City, which should most directly be funded by the Expo Center. He did not support sending the language to the City Council without these provisions and the ability to place limits on hours and sound levels. However, he indicated with amendments he would support sending it on to the City Council.

Chairperson Churella he felt that those commissioners supporting the Expo Center to remain in Novi would vote yes and the others would vote no. He indicated his support of the Expo Center and its plan. He felt confident that Mr. Bowman would put the building in place first. Chairperson Churella called for the vote.

Member Kocan stated that there needed to be two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board prior to calling the vote. She referenced Roberts Rules and Order.

Moved by Kocan, MOTION DIES LACK OF SUPPORT: To request a vote to find if the Planning Commission would like to vote on the matter at this time.

Member Kocan clarified with the City Attorney that this motion would be appropriate.

Mr. Schultz stated it would traditionally lie on the Chairman to determine when the roll would be called.

Member Kocan indicated that the meeting is run under Roberts Rules.

Chairperson Churella recognized Member Kocan’s comments and noted that she could make her contest after the roll is called. Chairperson Churella again called for the roll.

Ms. Brock clarified if Mr. Fisher’s General Use comments were to be included in the motion.

Motion makers indicated that it was to be included.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Richards,

No: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy

Moved by Landry, seconded by Nagy, FAIL (4-4): In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) to send a negative recommendation to the City Council as it exists in the August 23, 2001 version with the understanding that the negative recommendation is not an indication that the Commission does not want the Expo Center in the City of Novi.

Member Koneda referenced Roberts Rules indicating that an informal discussion could be made prior to any motion with the purpose to gather information without limits of debate. In order to extend the debate, it would require a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote. He noted that his questions were intended to gather information and make sure that the correct items were included. He added that they were not part of the motion. Therefore, he stated that it may be possible that the Commission may have not acted in accordance to the guidelines. Member Koneda suggested opening the matter for debate.

Chairperson Churella indicated that there was currently a motion on the table with a second.

Member Kocan stated that she was prepared to make changes and be able to send a positive recommendation to the Council. She felt that the Commission was preventing her from doing this. She stated that her "no" vote was not indicating a lack of support for what is being proposed. Instead, her "no" vote is indicating her discomfort of sending the text to City Council without all of the comments. She felt that the Council deserved all commissioner comments regardless of how they might "pick apart" the amendment. She stated this would prevent the Council from having to start from scratch. Therefore, she indicated that she would vote for the negative recommendation due to the lack of discussion. However, if there could be discussion and a consensus on certain issues then she could send a positive recommendation to Council.

Member Koneda referenced materials from a previous handout, Parliamentary Procedures, which indicates that a motion could be made to limit the debate. The motion should be made prior to the beginning of the debate and would limit the number or length of speeches permitted or a time limit for debate. It also indicates that no member should be allowed to speak more than twice and no member shall speak the second time before all members who wish to speak have done so. Therefore, if there is to be debate, it should be done according to the rules.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Landry, Nagy

No: Canup, Koneda, Mutch, Richards,

Member Canup indicated his reasoning for voting no was due to his preference to send a positive recommendation if possible. He stated that he would support a reasonable motion could be derived in a short period of time.

Mr. Bowman noted the numerous Implementation Committee and Planning Commission meetings already attended. He stated if there was an Ordinance that could be found that the Planning Commission could send with positive recommendation to City Council but was not feasible to for him then nothing would have been accomplished. He added that he would not pursue to move forward to the City Council. He agreed with Member Canup in that despite a negative recommendation the amendment would continue to go through another process at Council. He stated that he was willing to go through the process. However, his main concern was to find a way to construct the facility in the City of Novi. Mr. Bowman stated that he would like to construct the facility in the City of Novi and would do everything that he could to make that happen.

Chairperson Churella explained that the process is to send the matter on to City Council. He stated that he has gotten the impression that some of the commissioners do not feel that the City Council would have the knowledge to make these improvements. He stated that the Commission needed to continue to discuss the matter to make a motion and move the matter forward.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Canup, FAILED (4-4): To open the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) for further discussion with a time limit of 8:00 p.m. at which time a motion would be made for a positive or negative recommendation to the City Council and the vote will be called.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Richards

No: Kocan, Landry, Nagy, Mutch

Member Nagy stated the despite her vote, she is in favor of the Expo Center. She felt that some of the issues should have been worked out at the Implementation Committee, specifically some of the items raised by Member Mutch such as operation hours and noise levels, etc… She did not find this to be the fault of the Commission. Secondly, she stated that regardless of the Planning Commission’s negative or positive recommendation to the City Council, the matter would still go before Council. She stated that because this event is a very important and vital the Planning Commission should have as much understanding and control as to what the City is "getting into".

Mr. Schultz commented that the Board is in a deadlock. He noted the option that a motion could be made with some changes to one (1) of the versions. He stated that the Commission should first determine one (1) of the two (2) versions. Another alternative would be to send it on to City Council with no recommendation. Having picked a version of the document to give Council something to work with. He noted that the Commission was not limited to these two (2) options and could adjourn without a vote. He stated that he was not suggesting any course, yet only laying out what options for the Commission.

Member Mutch indicated that he voted no on both motions because his intention was not to send a negative recommendation to the City Council on Expo. He disagreed with the Commissioners who voted in support of the motion because it provided zero information to the City Council. He added that their votes convey that they did not like the draft but it does not indicate the reason. He did not feel that this was the guidance that he was looking to provide the City Council. Instead he was looking to send a positive recommendation on one of the proposed drafts. He noted that he was comfortable using the applicant’s draft because he believed that it incorporated most of the language needed with revisions. However, there were still key issues that should be discussed. He indicated that the problem with the process is that the position that came from the Implementation Committee has not garnered the majority of the support of the commission. The Ordinance come before the Commission and if they do no like the revisions, it would return to the Implementation Committee. The issues that were being sent back were essentially the same provisions that the Implementation was not comfortable with.

Member Mutch suggested that the commission should have a series of motions to vote on these issues. These issues would include the height issue, the landscaping or one version verses another version. He noted that a number of issues were already outlined. At the end of this process, he stated that he would be comfortable supporting the outcome. He stated that it would be fine if the majority of the commission would like to have a eight (8) story one hundred (100) foot tall hotel in the Expo District and it voted on it. He stated that he would support an Ordinance that has this provision as long as there is a vote. Member Mutch stated that the problem is that there are too many singular issues that have not been resolved and that need to be resolved. However, he wanted to know the commissioners support for the issues.

Member Koneda felt there was enough discussion. He felt that the commission needed to reconsider the motion made earlier by Member Canup for a positive recommendation.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, OUT OF POINT OF ORDER: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) to reconsider the previous motion moved by Member Canup send a positive recommendation and his stated stipulations.

Mr. Schultz indicated that this was out of point of order. He stated that the motion to reconsider needed to be made by a commissioner who voted against Member Canup’s motion. He stated that he did not find it necessary to reconsider the motion. He anticipated that the motion would be to accept or reject the August 23, 2001 draft with additional or different conditions. He added that this would be a separate motion from Member Canup’s.

Member Nagy stated that she understood the items being debated. However, she noted that the packets included the commissioner’s comments that were made during the last Planning Commission meeting. She questioned why the Implementation Committee did not take these comments, (assumed to be extracted from the minutes) and gone through the Ordinance to make the changes required. She felt that the problem lied with the Implementation Committee because they did not make any of the changes that were reflected in the minutes regarding the commissioner’s comments. She noted that there was not an answer for the outdoor operations, time of operation, etc…

Member Koneda brought to the attention of Mr. Schultz that according to Robert’s Rules, the motion to reconsider must be made by a person who voted on the prevailing side. He questioned who would be prevailing when the vote is 4-4.

Mr. Schultz answered it would be one who did not vote on the prevailing side.

Member Koneda stated it would be yes it was passed and no if it failed. He indicated that the motion to reconsider could be brought back if it was passed. Therefore, he felt that his motion was in order. He stated that he would like to see the matter move forward in a constructive manner. He felt that the concerns of the commissioners were valid and could be discussed to find if the amendments could be accepted or not. He stated that this would go back to those that made the original motion and not himself or Member Richards. Therefore, he felt there should be a vote on the motion that he made. He clarified to the commission that he wanted to have the debate started to allow the concerns to be taken into consideration in an constructive manner to move the matter forward.

Mr. Schultz stated that there was no prevailing side on the motion. He stated that it would not be proper or necessary to have a reconsideration of that motion. If a commissioner would like to make another motion, he stated that it should be made a new motion.

Member Kocan stated that she did not feel that a motion could be made until the changes are decided upon.

Chairperson Churella clarified to the commission that a motion would need to be made to indicate that the changes are going to be made, make the change and then accept them or not. He restated Member Mutch’s comment to make a motion and then vote on each amendment that would be added to it.

Mr. Schultz clarified to the Commission that any motion is proper at this time. A motion to approve with conditions or send a negative recommendation, etc…

Member Landry questioned if there could be discussion without a motion on the floor. He stated that he liked Member Mutch’s suggestion. He directed the Commission to Part I, paragraph 9 the Approval Process of the August 23, 2001 version. He noted the many comments and his shared concern regarding the Ordinance lacking the Special Land Use language. He noted that he was interested to hear if Member Mutch had a particular language to suggest.

Member Mutch stated that the particular language would be the existing standard language regarding Special Land Use Approval conditions in the Section 2516. He reminded the commission that they were not looking for something unique for the district and instead it would be the standard provision. He understood the desire to move forward, however, he noted that it would be better to go through the ordinance in a "straight forward" progression. He felt that this would help prevent the situation of overlooking issues. Therefore, he suggested starting at the beginning with possibly a motion to start the process. He agreed with the direction Member Koneda was attempting to lead the Commission.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Landry: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) to send a positive recommendation to the City Council of the August 23, 2001 draft with the Mr. Fisher’s access provisions and the restrictions on intent with the intent to make additional amendments to the motion.

Member Mutch amended his motion to strike the provision to remove Section 1002A Overlay Uses Permitted Subject to Required Conditions f. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities.

Member Canup felt that this would be an unreasonable restriction because it would not permit activities such as the festival. He noted that the festival has a carnival and outdoor activities that would not be permitted with this exclusion. He gave further examples such as a motor show home outside, which would also be prohibited.

Member Koneda noted that Section 1002A Overlay Uses Permitted Subject to Required Conditions i. Outside exhibits, fairs, entertainment and festival would make the provision for those events.

Member Canup questioned what f. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities would include.

Member Mutch deferred to the City Council to make a determination. He was in support of the festival events. He indicated that he viewed the language as referring to a permanent indoor/outdoor recreational facility, such as batting cages, etc… He noted that there may not be language in the Ordinance and he recommended deferring to the Council for the difference between the two (2).

Mr. Schultz stated that f. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities indicates facilities/structures that are permanent or semi-permanent and would be distinguished from i. Outside exhibits, fairs, entertainment and festival, which would be the special uses referred to by Member Canup.

Member Richards referred to Section 2302 5 of the Zoning Ordinance allowing the use.

Member Canup suggested asking the petitioner if the elimination of f. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities would be an undo hardship.

Mr. Bowman thought that the use was currently an allowable use under the OST District and a use that was identified in the Expo District. He stated that there are permanent activities and other activities from a recreational standpoint. He gave the example of Dave and Busters (clearly stating that there are no pre-arrangements with his example), which is a corporate office facility function, outdoor recreation facilities, volleyball and related sporting activities. He recognized that there is a fine line between the two (2) and by enumerating it would not be unreasonable. He felt that the use is consistent with other exposition and convention facilities. He restated that it would be a flowing from they existing ordinances.

Member Landry suggested the use of the language of the last phrase in paragraph g, which would include the 50’s and Music Motor Festivals, etc… that would be part of an exposition. This would eliminate the batting cage. He questioned if this would satisfy Mr. Bowman intentions.

Mr. Bowman stated in looking at the normal procedures that are in place with the Site Plan Process, he was not aware what the uses might be. However, he indicated discussion that the district may viewed as an entertainment district. He stated that the flexibility of these uses would be important.

Member Canup suggested the amendment of f. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities of a permanent nature. This would alleviate any use of a permanent nature, however would still permit a temporary batting cage as part of a baseball exposition.

Mr. Bowman referred to Sandusky, OH, which offers an indoor waterpark, family entertainment environment and adjacent hotel. He stated that this use was not his intention, however it was an example of an indoor recreational activity. He noted that some uses of the Dave and Busters nature have approached the EDC Department. He felt that these uses would be a great fit if the center is allowed to be successfully developed.

Member Mutch understood Mr. Bowman’s concerns. However, he stated that these are primary uses. This would be a use that is primary an outdoor indoor recreational facility, where it is exclusively batting cages, go carts etc… He noted that the uses that Mr. Bowman referred to are ancillary uses, which could still be allowed but not as a primary use. Those uses would also not be covered by that specific provision.

Member Richards noted that the Ordinance permits public or private indoor recreational facilities such as a swimming pool in the OST District. These uses could also be a subset of a hotel. Therefore, he questioned if this decision would outlaw because it could not be "f" because there is a health/fitness club in the hotel that is an auxiliary use to the Expo Center.

Mr. Schultz stated that he did not feel that this would prevent these kinds of uses. He continued to explain that accessory uses are those that are customarily incidental and expected to be found along with the principle use. By removing this, it would not be preventing those as long as they are clearly incidental and customarily incidental to the principal use that is otherwise permitted.

Member Richards clarified that in the Expo use; a freestanding health and fitness club would not be permitted.

Mr. Schultz stated that it could be read arguably in this way.

Member Richards asked if the Expo Center did not go forward and the Expo Overlay is removed, could another applicant come in and construct a fitness center because it is no longer an Expo Overlay and instead an OST. Therefore, he explained that the uses allowed in the OST should also be the uses permitted in the Expo District.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct.

Member Richards commented that the commission is preparing to vote. He questioned if the use currently exists in the OST District according to Section 5.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Richards stated if the use exists in the OST District then it should also exist in the Expo District. He stated that "f" is not a new and different use, it currently exists in OST. He stated that he was in favor of leaving "f" included in the Ordinance because it currently exists in the OST District.

Member Kocan agreed with Member Richards. She suggested the addition to the section that City Council may require appropriate conditions and safeguards to minimize adverse effects of the character of the surrounding area. It would be allowed but there may be some additional requirements because it is allowed. She added that she would support these items if the City Council had the final approval.

Member Mutch noted that because there was no support for his amendment, he suggested moving on to the next issue.

Chairperson Churella noted that it would need to be struck.

Member Mutch stated that he rescinded his amendment.

Member Nagy did not feel that the applicant did not know what uses he would be placing in the Expo Center. Therefore, she felt that he was attempting to cover everything possible. She recalled requesting more specificity at the last meeting. Her concern did not lie with the uses being requested, yet she wanted the restrictions that the commission could impose on some of the items. For example, restricted uses in entertainment in terms of hours of operation. She commented that the many of the other uses are currently exist in the ordinance.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, MOTION RESCINDED: Amendment to the text to that City Council may require appropriate conditions and safeguards to minimize impacts on the character of the surrounding area.

Mr. Bowman stated that this is the Special Land Use provision and places him in the position where he would not have the knowledge of what is required to pursue the application of a Site Plan.

Mr. Schultz added that this problem with this type of discretionary aspect to a permitted use and not part of the conditions that are set forth and followed. He stated if f. indoor and outdoor recreational facilities were removed it would remain permitted uses in the OST. Therefore, if it were removed, they would be subject to the conditions in the OST.

Chairperson Churella asked the regarding Member Kocan’s comment.

Mr. Schultz did not anticipate that the addition of the discretionary language would not be enforceable in any event.

Chairperson Churella asked if there needed to be a vote on the motion.

Member Landry asked why this language could not be enforceable because it is included in the Expo Ordinance.

Mr. Schultz noted that he was aware that the language is included in the Expo Ordinance.

Member Landry clarified that Mr. Schultz was indicating that the addition of language to allow City Council to add specific limitations or restriction to minimize impacts of the allowed use would not be proper. He added that Mr. Bowman would have the knowledge prior to submitting.

Mr. Schultz noted the problem is there is not an exposition of what those restrictions might be. He added that it could be put in place, however it should be clear that it might not be effective in the future.

Member Kocan rescinded her motion and questioned if it would be appropriate for her to make her motion a Special Land Use to find if the commission would support a Special Land Use.

Chairperson Churella asked why she would suggest a Special Land Use. He noted if this were a Special Land Use, there would be no need for an Overlay District.

Member Kocan stated that there are certain specifications and special criteria that would ensure that there is not additional impact. The allowed uses would still be listed but the final decision would rest with findings that area made with the conditions and safeguards. She stated that she was attempting to find a consensus from the Board. She recalled at least five (5) people in the minutes from the previous meeting who wanted to have a Special Land Use attached.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Koneda, AMENDED: To amend Section 1002A to be Special Land Use with the additional language that City Council may require appropriate conditions.

Member Kocan added that it is her understanding that Mr. Schultz indicated that without designating it as a Special Land Use and there could be discretionary decisions made.

Mr. Evancoe asked Member Kocan which uses she was proposing to be Special Land Uses.

Member Kocan stated that it would include all of the uses, that are already in the Expo District. She added that she wanted the same language of the Expo District.

Member Mutch clarified that Member Kocan was not referring to Section 1001A Principle Uses Permitted, which would include everything in the underlying district. Instead, she was referring to only Section 1002A.

Member Kocan stated that she was referring to Section 1002A a-i, and that her amendment would add the text to 1002A.

Member Mutch stated that he would support this amendment.

Member Kocan stated the verbiage was from Section 1002 10, which may belong elsewhere. She referred to page 3206.1 Site Plan and Special Land Use determinations within the EXO District shall be by the City Council following review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. City Council may require appropriate conditions and safeguards to minimize adverse impacts on the character of the surrounding area.

Member Mutch clarified if the City Attorney was stating that if the commission chose the direction "Special Land Use" then the Special Land Use language from the Ordinance, Section 2516, would need to be used. He added that the City Attorney has indicated what is included in the current Expo District is unenforceable.

Mr. Schultz stated that the existing Expo Ordinance could have been better written. He explained that when discretionary authority is added to the Council’s authority, there needs to be a mechanism of a Special Land Use or Council might not have the authority to impose its will on the property. He clarified that he was not indicating that the Expo Ordinance was not enforceable; instead he was suggesting that it is vaguely written. The Courts standards of 2001 expect to see it written appropriately. He noted that his comments were referring to the Special Land Use.

Member Landry asked Member Kocan is she would amend her motion to add to Section 1002A the initial paragraph/phrase "and the provisions of Section 2516 parent to parancee, which is the Special Land Use."

Member Kocan accepted the amendment.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Koneda, FAILS (4-4): To amend Section 1002A with the addition of the 2516 provisions

Member Mutch asked Mr. Schultz if this amendment would cover the matter.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Koneda reminded the commission that the purpose of the Overlay District was to not have Special Land Use conditions. He referred to Section 1003A Supplemental Required Conditions to the Overlay Uses. He noted that traffic and noise issues were addressed with this section. Therefore, he felt that the supplementary conditions, that are truly Special Land Use Conditions, are covered in Section 1003A. He felt that the requests of this section in addition to further requests were too many. He stated that he did not support the motion. He agreed that there should be Special Land Use protection, however, he did not find it necessary to refer back to another section.

Ms. Wyrosdick explained that "they" are the reason the Expo Overlay District uses exist. She stated that if the commission does not want a use in a particular area then they should not rezone the property. In contrast, if there was a preference for the uses in a certain area, then they would rezone the property. The Planning Commission has more power to determine where the uses are appropriate by the City’s rezoning ability verse discretionary Special Land Use Approval. She restated that if they did not want the use, then do not rezone the site and there would not be a concern if the Special Land Use requirements were met.

Member Landry added that it was not possible for the Commission indicate preference that they do not want the use.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that if the Planning Commission could if they did not feel the location was appropriate for the use.

Member Landry stated that this was what the Special Land Use provision allows the Commission.

Ms. Wyrosdick explained that the rezoning process allows this step first.

Member Landry stated that the municipality is stuck for denying the use for the specified reasons. If the denial cannot be found in one of the reasons, the rezoning could not be denied.

Ms. Wyrosdick felt that the discussion was bordering a legal matter. She stated that the City’s decision to rezone is based on variables such as demonstrated need, the appropriateness of the location (referring to the corridor study), etc… She stated that or the planning process indicates the decision(s) that were thought about. She did not find it necessary to have an EXO Overlay District and Special Land Uses because it would be an extra unnecessary step.

Mr. Schultz agreed with Ms. Wyrosdick and Member Koneda. The idea is to have a short ordinance with permitted OST uses and a list of additional items that are Special Land Uses. In contrast there would be a list of permitted uses and a list of Overlay Uses with the restrictions. He clarified that he was not indicating one option was more correct.

Chairperson Churella called for the vote.

Yes: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy

No: Canup Churella, Koneda, Richards

Member Kocan stated that a summary of comments indicating the consideration of Special Land Use should be forwarded to City Council with the matter.

Chairperson Churella indicated that the minutes will be included in the Council packets. He felt that this would address the Member Kocan’s concern.

Mr. Schultz indicated that each of the sub-motions to amend Member Mutch’s main motion should be listed separately for the Council to identify.

Ms. Brock indicated that the motions would be listed in the minutes and a cover page would outline all motions made during the meeting.

Chairperson Churella asked the Commission if they preferred to proceed page by page or if they wanted to terminate the issue.

Member Nagy indicated that an Expo Ordinance currently exists in the City Ordinance. She questioned why this matter was before the commission and the necessity of the proposed because one already exists.

Mr. Schultz stated if the options or alternatives were to address a request for rezoning to the existing Expo District verses putting the proposed in place to govern the use, then the proposed is better. He stated in comparison to the existing Expo Ordinance, the proposed is a better Ordinance for the City.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Schultz to clarify the reason(s) the proposed would be better for the City.

Mr. Schultz indicated for the additional regulations propose in Section 1003A.

Member Nagy clarified that the proposed is similar to an adjunct to the present Ordinance but more restrictive and would be more beneficial to the City.

Mr. Schultz stated that it is a separate Ordinance and a district similar to the existing Expo and has additional regulations that are favorable to the City. However the Commission would need to determine if they were favorable enough for their vote.

Member Nagy asked if the commission sent a positive recommendation to the City Council, and in Council’s review, etc… if the ordinance would superimpose the Ordinance in the book.

Mr. Schultz answered, no. He indicated that he district would remain.

Member Nagy clarified if there would be an Ordinance for the existing Expo Center property and the proposed Ordinance would be for the proposed Expo Center.

Mr. Schultz added it would be for whatever is ultimately rezoned by the Council to this EXO District.

Member Nagy asked why it would be necessary to have it called an Overlay District. She recalled City Attorney Mr. Fisher indicating any area would be the whole corridor because it is an overlay. She questioned why the Ordinance could not be for the Expo Center only and that area without the remainder of the corridor.

Mr. Schultz stated that they could do this.

Member Nagy stated that there is a current existing Ordinance for the existing Expo Center. Therefore, she felt the proposed should be an Ordinance only for the property.

Mr. Bowman indicated their efforts to accomplish a better Ordinance. He stated that there were concerns with modifying the current Expo Ordinance. Working with the OST District presented opportunities. He noted that the long term goal is to service for business, educational session, etc…

Member Nagy clarified if this would be within his property.

Mr. Bowman answered, yes. He noted that this was where the City would be presented with the opportunity. He stated that he was aware that the upcoming steps would include coming before the Commission with a rezoning request and the Site Plan Process, etc…

Member Nagy explained a hypothetical situation of an applicant desiring to build a theater half a mile down the road to support the Expo Center. The applicant would then request a zoning change. She questioned what reason(s) the Planning Commission could have for turning down this applicant.

Mr. Schultz indicated that he could not answer Member Nagy’s question in the form it was presented. However, he would give her a general response for guidance. At this point, the commission is recommending text/change to the ordinance. Next there would be an applicant requesting a rezoning.

Member Nagy stated that she understood the process. She stated that her question was referring to after the process and construction has begun. She explained that hypothetically the applicant would be requesting to have the Overlay District apply to his or her property to approve a multiplex theater. At this point, what would occur if the Planning Commission did not feel that this use should be approved for the location.

Mr. Schultz stated that Planning Commission would refer to the Master Plan to find if the propose complies. If the proposed is permitted or contemplated under the Master Plan and the Commission denies the project an issue could arise. However, if the property owned by the hypothetical applicant is zoned for another use, then the City could defend the decision to deny a rezoning. The City could defend its denial of the rezoning in court by indicating that the use permitted is reasonable and that the commission has the legislative discretionary authority to have it remain the district as currently zoned.

Member Nagy stated that the District is zoned OST. However, the hypothetical applicant has the right to come in and benefit from the created Overlay District

Mr. Evancoe added that the key would be the Master Plan and in this case, the Corridor Plan. If the hypothetical site is not Master Planned for the use being proposed, then the City could rightfully deny the rezoning petition.

Chairperson Churella indicated that Member Mutch’s motion was to go through the items section by section.

Member Mutch clarified that his motion was referring to the specific issues.

Chairperson Churella asked Member Mutch how many issues he would like to address.

Member Mutch expressed his disappointment because he felt that the commission would be able to come to a consensus to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. He thought the Commission was in support of the Special Land Use. He stated that the Industrial Ordinance does what the commission discusses, the placing of Special Land Use provisions with additional restrictions in the ordinance. He felt that this was the only way to give the City the ability to require additional improvements that would be required by the center. Otherwise, more specific provisions would need to be added to the ordinance to avoid large loop holes to prevent future problems. He stated that he wanted to address more issues, however he was not certain that the commission would be able to reach a consensus.

Chairperson Churella questioned if the motion was seconded.

Member Landry stated that he seconded Member Mutch’s the motion. He indicated that Member Kocan added the special use language.

Ms. Brock stated that there was a vote on Member Kocan’s motion, which failed.

Chairperson Churella questioned if Member Mutch wanted to continue to with his items.

Member Mutch indicated that he wanted to cover a few more items. He stated if there was another four to four vote, then he would not find a need to continue. He raised the building height issue.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (5-3): To amend Section 1003A striking the last sentence of paragraph 4 for Section 1003A "for the uses contained in 1002A b. the building shall not exceed eight stories or 100 feet."

Chairperson Churella asked for clarification of the motion.

Member Mutch stated that the intent would be to only allow a five (5) story building in the within the Overlay District and not allow anything above five (5) stories, sixty-five (65) feet, which would is consistent with the OST Ordinance.

Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Richards,

No: Canup, Churella, Landry

Member Mutch indicated that Section 1003A 7 - Building Design relates to façade. However, he stated that there is a current Façade Ordinance with a Section Nine Facade Waiver provision. Therefore, he did not feel comfortable placing the percentages specifically for the EXPO District because the Ordinance provides the Commission with the ability to grant a waiver if there is an architectural need demonstrated.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Nagy, FAILS (4-4): Amend Section 1003A 7 – Building Design striking the text and table after the wording "…shall be controlled by Section 2520…"

Chairperson Churella indicated that the commission has battled over the granting of Section Nine Facade Waivers. He noted the many comments of commissioners who have requested to have the percentages "spelled out". He pointed out to the commission that the percentage are "spelled out" and there is a motion to return to the waivers. He stated that he would not support the motion because of the numerous votes against the Section Nine Facade Waivers in the past.

Member Nagy questioned if the matter could return to the Implementation Committee to add some of the items to the Façade Ordinance.

Commission disagrees.

Yes: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy,

No: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Richards

Member Mutch referred to the top of page 10, subsection 5 dealing with Interior Parking Landscape Requirements. He stated that he was not wholeheartedly objecting to the concept. However, the fact that is applies to every listed district at the page of 9, he did not know the impact of the provision. Therefore, he felt that more studying needed to be conducted. He suggested a general ordinance update in the future after evaluating the impacts. He stated that the proposed is in reality the writing of a provision which specifically applies to the Expo Center without the understanding of the impacts of other developments. He stated that it may work and may be a great concept, however, it could also be a loop hole that the commission would regret in the future.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (5-3): Amendment with the striking of Subsection 5 a, b and c.

Yes: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards,

No: Canup, Churella, Koneda

Member Mutch indicated that Member Kocan raised an issue at the beginning of the discussion that she may want to include as an amendment.

Member Kocan requested additions to the draft. She referred to section 1003A Vehicular Access noting her understanding to use the City Attorney language. She read from the text "as a condition to grant approval the City Council following recommendation from the Planning Commission." She felt that this could be taken literally and the applicant may interpret the text to indicate that a Planning Commission "yes" would also indicate a City Council "yes". Therefore, she suggested the addition of the verbiage review and recommendation. The text would then read "…as a condition to granting approval the City Council, following review and recommendation from the Planning Commission".

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (7-1): Amendment to Section 1003A under vehicular access to replace "following" with the language "after review and recommendation of the Planning Commission" in all areas.

Member Koneda disagreed. He indicated that the text reads "the City Council, following a recommendation from the Planning Commission based upon the report of a licensed engineer." He stated that the comma indicates a second thought. He stated that it does not stated that the City Council is required to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Member Kocan stated that she was interpreting the text literally.

Mr. Evancoe suggested the use of the word "after" instead of the word "following".

Member Kocan stated the need to be consistent. She noted the use of the verbiage "following the review and recommendation" in the Ordinance. She indicated her preference of the verbiage "after formal review and recommendation."

Chairperson Churella questioned if Member Kocan’s motioned to have the verbiage consistent.

Member Kocan stated that there are additional areas of the ordinance referring to "following review and recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Churella questioned if she was motioning to change all of the areas.

Member Kocan answered, yes.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: Canup

Member Kocan referred to the applicant’s verbiage on page 4 regarding Minimum Setbacks indicating the verbiage of "or". She compared it to the City Attorney Version with the verbiage "and", which indicates that all three (3) conditions would need to be met. She pointed out that there is less verbiage in the City Attorney’s recommendation. The City Attorney’s recommendation has additional landscaping. The applicant version includes verbiage for if there is right-of-way area in excess of normal in a particular intersection. She did not feel that this would be necessary and preferred the City Attorney language.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (6-2): Amendment to use the City Attorney language for the Section pertaining to Minimum Setbacks and screening

Yes: Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: Churella, Canup

Member Kocan noted previous discussions related to the addition of language that was not included in the draft provided by the applicant. She recalled discussion of a conceptual plan and the reinforcement of the language of the first sentence of page 5 of applicant’s version. She suggested it to read "…prior to the submission of a Conceptual and or Site Plan…" She indicated that there was discussion of a Conceptual Plan as opposed to a Site Plan. She stated that she was attempting to find where to put this language in the text. She asked the commission for suggestions.

Member Mutch stated that it was intended to accompany the rezoning.

Member Kocan agreed. She stated that the discussion included the idea that the Conceptual Plan would accompany the rezoning.

Member Mutch suggested within the second part of the sentence to include the Concept Plan, "…the applicant must first obtain the approval of a rezoning…"

Member Kocan clarified if he was suggesting, "…prior to the submission of a Site Plan the applicant must first obtain…"

Member Mutch questioned if she wanted it tied into the rezoning.

Member Kocan answered, yes. She indicated that if there was support of a Conceptual Plan, it needed to be included in the language.

Mr. Evancoe raised the concern that the Ordinance does not define that should be included in a Conceptual Plan. He stated that there was concern with the calling for a Conceptual Plan and not having the criteria.

Member Canup stated that a Conceptual Plan would not be required to define what exactly would be done. Instead, it would include the idea of what the applicant thinks he or she may want to do.

Member Kocan clarified if he was indicating that it might not be in the interest of the commission.

Chairperson Churella agreed.

Member Richards added it could be changed.

Member Koneda stated that he previously supported the idea of a Concept Plan as part of the submittal. However, he felt that this would not be appropriate because rezonings are not Site Plan specific. Therefore, there is not guarantee that it would be done.

Member Kocan stated that she withdrew the request for the Conceptual Plan.

Member Kocan noted the additional wording "for a development permitted" that was not added to the text. She noted that the language should read "…prior to the submission of a Site Plan for a development permitted within the EXO District…"

Member Canup felt that it would not be necessary to include this text.

Member Kocan indicated that the City Attorney recommended that verbiage at the last meeting.

Member Canup asked her to clarify the wording again.

Member Kocan stated that the text currently reads "…prior to the submission of a Site Plan in the EXO District…" She explained that if it is not an EXO District until it is rezoned, then there should be the addition of the verbiage "…for a development permitted…" She restated that it would not be an EXO District until it is rezoned.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Richards, Amendment to add the language "…for a development permitted…" to the Approval Process regarding the submission of a Site Plan.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Landry, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO OVERLAY DISTRICT) to send a positive recommendation to the City Council of the August 23, 2001 draft with the inclusions of City Attorney Gerald Fisher’s provisions for vehicular access and with restrictions on the intent specifying that the Expo is a principle use with amendments to strike the last sentence of paragraph 4 under Section 1003A; amendment to strike Subsection 5 a, b and c; amendment to Section 1003A regarding vehicular access to replace the existing language with Gerald Fisher’s comments; amendment to add Gerald Fisher’s comments regarding the Review Process; amendment to use the City Attorney language for the section pertaining to Minimum Setbacks and Screening; amendment to add language "for a development permitted" to the approval process regarding the submission of a Site Plan; amendment to Section 1003A under vehicular access to replace "following" with the language "after review and recommendation from the Planning Commission" in all areas.

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

No: Landry, Nagy

Moved by Richards, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:15 p.m.

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

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

August 31, 2001

Date Approved: November 7, 2001