The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Papp (excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Engineer; Jerry Fisher, City Attorney; Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant

Member Shroyer led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Paul reminded the Planning Commission that Wetland Consultant Tilton and Associates and Engineering Consultant Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May will be holding a seminar for the Planning Commission. She asked that this item be placed on the Agenda under Communication and Committee Reports.

Member Kocan asked that the following three issues be placed on the Agenda under Matters for Consideration:

1. BECK NORTH CORPORATE PARK: Discussion of Planning Commission representation at the City Council and/or ZBA regarding Beck North Corporate Park Appeals.

2. IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE: Discussion of Possible Assignments.

A. Dedication of preservation areas as part of the industrial park site plan approval process.

B. Cross-access requirement in industrial parks and commercial developments.

Chair Nagy added these items to be discussed:

C. Ordinance Section 1905.4.b.2: Language pertaining to refuse pick-up, off-street parking and areas used for vehicular repair, delivery, loading/unloading and transport.

D. Ordinance Section 2400.i.2: Language pertaining to off-street parking within the side and rear yards.

E. Ordinance Section 2400.m.1: Language pertaining to the minimum distance a building shall be set back from a residential district.

F. Agricultural Farming Ordinance

3. PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL JOINT MEETING: Discussion of the minutes from the August 6, 2003 joint meeting.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Kocan read a letter dated July 14, 2003 from Jean Bemish of 8800 Napier Road, Northville. She said the fire that destroyed the Maybury farm helped unite the communities of Northville, Novi, Plymouth, Canton, Southfield, Farmington, Livonia, South Lyon and Monroe Michigan toward a common goal. She thought that the original decision to keep the barn on the Island Lake property was made well before the fire destroyed the barn and therefore did not properly reflect the sense of the community felt in the area. She said that Novi’s Orchard Hills Elementary contributed $1,000 to the rebuild. Tonda Elementary in Canton also donated over $1,000. Silver Springs Elementary School raised over $1,500. Salem Elementary in South Lyon raised $1,300. Northville Downs donated $2,500. Maybury Trailriders and the Raisin River Riders raised $2,000. In all, nearly $15,000 has been raised for the cause. She suggested that the Planning Commission reconsider their position on the Toll Brothers Island Lake barn and join in on the community sensitivity.

Member Avdoulos indicated that he responded to Mrs. Bemish and represented his own views, explaining that the Planning Commission’s position on the Island Lake barn was that it was City Council’s decision on whether the removal of the barn constituted a major change to the RUD Agreement signed between Toll Brothers and the City of Novi. Chair Nagy acknowledged that she, too, wrote a letter to the paper wherein she stated that the Planning Commission’s decision had nothing to do with the tragedy; rather it explained that the decision on the barn’s removal did not lie within the Planning Commission’s jurisdiction. She applauded the efforts of all the groups that Mrs. Bemish listed in her letter.

Member Paul discussed the free seminar offered to the Planning Commission by Tilton and Associates and Ayres, Lewis, Norris and May. She suggested that the Stormwater Committee may also wish to attend because of the topics that will be discussed, These include:

The Stormwater Ordinance

Water quality management, e.g., the dredging of Meadowbrook Lake

Water quantity, e.g., filling in wetlands and flooding issues

Maintenance of detention basins

Impact of the Rouge Assembly

Wetlands’ usage for stormwater

Shawood Lake and Walled Lake runoff problems

Chair Nagy asked Mr. Fisher if holding the meeting is in violation of the Open Meetings Act. He responded that as long as the meeting is purely educational and the Planning Commission does not discuss any pending matters, it would be acceptable. Member Paul said that because certain approved Novi sites would be discussed and used as examples that the seminar should be held in an open forum. The Commission agreed on October 1, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. prior to the regularly scheduled meeting at 7:30 p.m.

There were no Presentations.

There was no Consent Agenda.

There were no Public Hearings.

Consideration of the request of Ken Albers of Diversified Land Development, LLC for approval of Woodland Permits, Storm Water Management Plan, and a recommendation to City Council for a Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 (Planned Development) Option, and Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 10, on the south side of 12 ½ Mile, west of Novi Road in the RM-1 (Low Density, Low Rise Multiple Family) District. The subject property is 4.633 acres. The developer is proposing residential condominium buildings.

The request of the Petitioner is to remove the two existing homes and outbuildings and construct a total of 27 units in 5 buildings. Two points of access are proposed along 12 ½ Mile, with a boulevard entrance proposed on the east side. The request is being reviewed under the PD-1 Option which requires a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the City Council for approval or denial. The buildings are proposed to be three stories and each unit would have an attached garage.

This Applicant last appeared before the Planning Commission in April of this year. He has modified the plans based on the comments presented by the Planning Commission at that meeting. The following modifications were made to reduce the total number of waivers and variances requested. The access drive was moved from the south side of Building 3 to the north side of Building 3 to move the driveway away from the wetland buffer. All driveways are now two-way driveways which meet the minimum width standards. The gated access has been eliminated, and the road configuration at the front entrance has been corrected, so these two Council waivers are no longer needed The front building, Building 2, has been moved back 25 feet and now complies with the frontyard building setback. The Applicant has provided a plan that demonstrates compliance with the Lighting Ordinance. The south building has been re-oriented and is now at a 45 degree angle to the property lines and no longer needs approval of a modification by the Planning Commission.

Although significant progress has been made on the latest submittal, the following deficiencies are noted for the Planning Commission’s consideration in its recommendation to City Council:

The Planning Review letter indicated that a Zoning Board of Appeals variance is needed for building setback based on excess building height for Building 1 (approximately 0.5 feet) and Building 3 (approximately 6 feet), or the plans could be modified to demonstrate compliance with the height and setback requirements of the Ordinance at the time of Final Site Plan Review. A Zoning Board of Appeals variance is necessary to address excess pavement in the easterly sideyard (30% allowed, 36.45% provided). Three Zoning Board of Appeals variances are necessary for two locations on the north side of Building 3 and on the south side of Building 4, for locating a driveway within 25 feet of a wall that contains windows or doors.

Ms. McBeth continued that the Applicant is requesting a deferral of the required Noise Analysis until the time of Final Site Plan Review. She also stated that the Ordinance does not allow the placement of parking spaces within a frontyard building setback. The Applicant has modified the location of Building 2 to meet the required 75 foot frontyard setback. This building, like the other buildings, has driveway approaches leading to the garages within the buildings and this driveway approach is located within the frontyard building setback. The Applicant indicated on the submitted floor plans that parking will be permitted in some driveways, but not other driveways. The plans indicate that this particular driveway is one that is specified for no parking. The Planning Commission may wish to make a determination whether the driveway approach may constitute parking spaces, even if indicated for no parking, or whether the matter should proceed to the ZBA for a variance for parking in the frontyard.

The Wetlands Review recommended approval, with comments to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. Dr. Don Tilton was present at the meeting to answer any questions the Commission may have regarding this request.

The Woodlands Review recommended approval of the woodlands permit with comments to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

The Landscaping Review indicated that a ZBA variance is needed for location of evergreens closer than 25 feet from a perimeter driveway.

The Traffic Review indicated that a City Council waiver of the Design and Construction Standards is required for the curved section of the proposed public sidewalk in the 12 1/2 Mile Right of Way near the water feature. Otherwise, the Applicant could straighten out the sidewalk.

The Engineering Review indicated only minor comments, which may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review, and recommended approval of the Storm Water Management Plan.

The Fire Marshal’s Review indicated that approval is recommended

The Façade Review indicated that the proposal meets Ordinance requirements, with the buildings being constructed primarily of brick, with smaller amounts of trim and cast stone proposed.

Ms. McBeth concluded by stating that the Applicant could answer any questions the Commission may have regarding the proposed development. The Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation to City Council on this request since it is being reviewed under the PD-1 Option.

Mr. Ken Albers addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of himself and his wife. He stated that in his response letter to the Planning Commission he explained that they have shifted Building 1 six inches so a variance would not be necessary. They also made changes to their evergreen plantings so that variance is not necessary either.

Mr. Albers stated that there is excess parking throughout the site, and that the parking shown in the frontyard setback will be eliminated and will be designated as non-parking through signage and enforceable through the condominium rules. He said that all the other comments in the Planning Review will be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Albers stated that his development is small in comparison to the surrounding 480 multiple-dwelling units. The net density of his site is lower than those developments as well. Charneth Fen has been designed with large setbacks, resulting in more open space than what has already been provided through the use of the PD-1 Option. This Option allows for 25% of the site to be built upon; this project uses only 13.65% for building coverage. The site plan provides for 27 units, far less than the number allowed in the PD-1 and RM-1 districts. Mr. Albers stated that this project has met the intent of the PD-1 Option and is in compliance with the City’s Master Plan. The project is feasible and compatible with its surroundings. Mr. Albers said that the project’s impact on the public utilities and roads is so minor that the Traffic Consultant did not request a Traffic Survey, although one was provided as required by the PD-1 Option.

Mr. Albers continued that his project is sensitive to the natural features and wildlife habitat found on the site; by building up, Mr. Albers has preserved a continuous habitat for wildlife traversing. He said that the land in front of Wetland A is currently exposed and by enhancing this area it will enhance the wildlife habitat. The additional setbacks provided by this plan also enhance the wildlife corridor. He stated that previous wetland concerns have been resolved with the exception of four items that will be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The loop road has been redesigned for two-way traffic and has been relocated out of the wetland buffer area. Only temporary disturbance will occur in the buffer area. Restoration of this area will include the removal of debris.

Mr. Albers said that a portion of the site has been designated as light woodlands. He will provide a bond for the replacement of any lost trees. He continued that this design incorporated as many of the trees as possible and provides a natural buffer between this development and its surrounding neighbors. He plans to replace one hundred trees and add another one hundred landscaping trees, resulting in a net gain of 120 trees.

Mr. Albers stated that this project will be an upscale community with brick elevations done in natural earth tones. There are water features and an extensive landscaping plan. The slope of the property and the 45-degree angles of the buildings make the development interesting and provide a sense of privacy. The curving of the sidewalk at the entrance provides for more landscaping and optimizes the appearance of the water feature. He went on record stating that he would agree to move the sidewalk if the road is ever widened in that area. If that is not acceptable he would redesign the plan with a straight walkway.

Mr. Albers stated that because of the layout of the property he will seek hardship variances for excess paving in the east sideyard setback, where his property abuts a maintenance building, dumpsters and a service road; he commented that with his extensive landscaping in that area, the road as currently mapped will not provide a disturbance. He noted that his design uses less paving than what is allowed.

Mr. Albers said that he was unsure whether the Planning Department has interpreted the Ordinance differently than he did, resulting in the need for a variance for the road being within 25 feet of a wall with openings. He noted that his plan does not have windows (within the 25 feet) on the first floor, except for the stairwell windows that are not considered "living area" windows. If indeed it is determined that the windows on the higher floors are also exempt from placement within 25 feet of a road, he will seek that variance as well. He noted that if this is the appropriate interpretation of the Ordinance, the adjacent project has 27 violations.

Mr. Albers said that they were somewhat confused in their calculations of the building height. The building in the rear is higher because a retaining wall was moved out of the wetland area and incorporated into the building. This allowed for the natural slope of the land to be maintained. He will seek a variance for this building.

Mr. Albers concluded that all remaining issues will be resolved prior to his returning for Final Site Plan approval.

Member Shroyer asked about 12 ½ Mile being designated as a scenic road. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn responded that Section 31-70 of the Ordinance allows for natural vegetation to remain along side of the road. He explained that his review left this issue unresolved so that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee would have an opportunity to weigh in with their ideas for the future plans for this road. Mr. Coburn said that the plan shows a future Right Of Way designation of 43 feet to meet the collector road standards, but the current road width is only 16 feet and standards call for twenty feet.

Member Shroyer stated that Mr. Albers had addressed the major issues from the previous reviews this site plan has had: the wetlands encroachment, the one-way road, the entrance and the gates. He approved of the sidewalk layout and thought that it looked better. He did not have a problem with the excessive paving. He also did not have a problem with the road’s location in light of there being no living area windows on the first floor in that area.

Member Shroyer confirmed that the Applicant was agreeable with the $38,350 tree replacement bond. Mr. Albers responded that most of the replacement trees will be replanted on the property, although some will be replaced through payment to the tree fund. Member Shroyer supported the site plan.

Member Avdoulos asked Ms. McBeth about the variance necessary for the front yard parking issue which he did not have a problem with the site design in that area. Ms. McBeth responded that the Ordinance language regarding that issue can be found in the Schedule of Regulations, Section 2400. Member Avdoulos liked the two-way loop road and felt that the Applicant was being very sensitive to the site’s natural features. He noted that the location of excess paving is offset by the resulting design which is much more maneuverable.

Member Avdoulos asked about Building 3’s excessive height of six feet and whether that was a design issue that would be corrected. Ms. McBeth responded that this would need to go to the ZBA unless the Applicant thinks he can modify the building to conform to the Ordinance. Member Avdoulos thought the extra height was not detrimental and did not have a problem with it. He thought it was acceptable that the noise analysis was deferred.

Member Avdoulos said that the entrance, water feature and the sidewalk curvature are fine details. He did not have a problem with the foundation wall being used as a retaining wall on Building 3. He thought that the Applicant selected fine materials for construction, and has put in a lot of work to address all the previously stated concerns about this site plan. He thought the plan now has a comfortable feel and a little bit of character has been added with the undulating lines on the curbs and drives. He supported the site plan.

Member Sprague asked Ms. McBeth if the variance necessary for Building 3’s height was a valid issue if in fact, the building’s design incorporating a retaining wall that doesn’t encroach the wetlands is a better plan. Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Department respected the fact that the Applicant was trying to stay out of the buffer by designing the retaining wall as part of the building; however, it resulted in a building that is seemingly taller than the Ordinance allows.

Member Sprague asked if it was feasible to re-design the site plan to remove the excess pavement that will require a variance. Ms. McBeth explained that the Applicant has done his best to provide as much green space as possible. Ms. McBeth stated that this was perhaps the best design, that it was better than trying to reconfigure the plan to reduce the pavement. She reminded the Planning Commission that previously the plan showed a one-way road, and that this plan has the more well-regarded two-way traffic design and subsequently it requires more pavement.

Member Sprague prefers the proposed sidewalk design unless it will need to be torn out in the near future for road widening. Mr. Coburn responded that the traffic consultant asked that the sidewalk be straightened because people generally have the expectation that a sidewalk will be straight. Mr. Coburn does not believe the road will ever be widened to the extent that it would affect the placement of the curved sidewalk.

Member Sprague thought that the frontyard parking area in question will have parked cars regardless of their owners being told that is a no parking area. He asked exactly what the role was that the Planning Commission needed to take in this matter. Ms. McBeth responded that it is their responsibility to make a recommendation to the ZBA regarding this driveway which at some point will likely have parked cars upon it.

Member Sprague asked whether there is or isn’t a problem with the roads’ proximity to the buildings in three locations. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Department was taking a very strict reading of the Ordinance and therefore the Applicant would need to go before the ZBA for a variance. She told Member Sprague that the Planning Commission could provide their recommendation to the ZBA in their motion, because the ZBA likes to have the input from the Planning Commission when they hear a case. Ms. McBeth said that three windows are in question, and said that the Applicant could provide a better rendering of the windows’ locations for the ZBA and for Final Site Plan review. Member Sprague asked whether a stipulation may be added to the motion that provided a minimum height from grade for the second-floor windows, and Ms. McBeth replied that the Planning Commission could do so if they wished. Member Sprague asked what the height the proposed windows are at. Matt Niles of Wah Yee Associates responded that the windows and their sills make them about 12’8" above grade.

Member Kocan said that Ordinance 2400.e.6 states, "No offstreet parking shall be located closer than 25 feet to any wall of a dwelling structure which contains openings involving living areas." Mr. Fisher said that this is the first opportunity he has had to consider this language and he was not in position to interpret the intent of that language. Member Kocan explained that she was trying to summarize the Planning Commission’s findings so that a motion could be formulated. She thought that what she heard the Planning Commission say was that they are interpreting this Ordinance as referring to the first floor. She would be willing to add those words to the motion’s language and make the statement more specific. When the plan returns for Final Site Plan review, Member Kocan said the Applicant would have to ensure that no living area windows are on the first floor in this area.

Mr. Evancoe clarified the Planning Department’s position on this issue for the Planning Commission. He said that it is conceivable for a parking lot to be at a higher elevation than the first floor. This is why the Planning Commission did not make the interpretation that the Ordinance was citing first floor windows only.

Member Kocan discussed the excess building height on Building 3. She asked if the actual building is taller than any other building in the development, or is it just the measure of the one side of the building. Ms. McBeth replied that it is just the south elevation of that building that is taller. The remainder of the building is in compliance. Member Kocan confirmed with Ms. McBeth that this building is no taller than the other buildings. Member Kocan felt that the Planning Commission could substantiate the approval of the proposed design because the slope can and should be taken into consideration.

Member Kocan said that the frontyard yard driveway will absolutely be used for parking. She said that those residents can’t just park in their neighbors’ drives and she didn’t notice any other common parking areas on the plan. She wondered if a berm could be designed to screen the parking.

Member Kocan was concerned about the health, safety and welfare of the residents regarding the ess-curve in the front of the project. She was comfortable with adding a stipulation to the motion regarding the developer’s relocating the sidewalk if and when the road is ever widened. Member Kocan did not have a problem with the deferral of the noise analysis.

Member Kocan said that she does like scenic roads, but she was concerned about this road being only 16 feet wide. The development in this area is going to bring significantly more traffic to the area. She understood that the City is not concerned about it and has no plans to widen the road to twenty feet. Mr. Coburn replied that this road has handled the traffic well in the past and while traffic is being added with these developments, the road still seems to be accommodating the load. Paving the road or even widening it has not been considered at this time.

Member Kocan asked the Applicant whether he would consider widening his road as part of his project. She said that the PD-1 is an "optional" plan, and before the Planning Commission approves this project they need to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the area. Mr. Albers replied that he has lived there for 27 years, and other than himself there are only two other single residences on the street. He said the road from Carlton Forest is going to be closed off once their construction is complete. He said that even the traffic engineer did not see where his development was going to add too much traffic to the area – the numbers are in the teens. He continued that the road has accommodated a lot of traffic over the last several years with the clearing of the Sandstone property. Mr. Albers does not think that his project will add enough traffic to the road to accommodate the request.

Member Kocan asked the Engineering Department if they were comfortable with the width of the road. Mr. Coburn replied said that they were comfortable with the road in its current state and the amount of traffic that this project would produce. One of the things that they will look at as additional developments come into the area is what impact they will have on the health and safety of the area. He also commented that during the closure of Novi and Twelve Mile, 12 ½ Mile functioned as an un-signed detour route and it accommodated that traffic rather well. The City reserves the right to revisit this issue in the future as more developments come on line, as they are aware that the standard would be a twenty-foot road. Mr. Albers also stated that in front of this development they would be widening the road to 24 feet.

Member Kocan said she understood that the berm for the west side of the property is feasible and that it would be similar to the berm already on the plan. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman stated that what the City will be looking for is berming within reason, taking into account that there is a protected woodland line along that side of the property. The City would be looking for a contoured berm that still complies with the parking area screening requirements.

Member Kocan said that the project would also require a Wetland Conservation Easement and she brought this information to the attention of Mr. Albers in case he was not aware of this particular Ordinance stipulation. He responded that it was not going to be a problem.

Member Kocan said she appreciated the work that Mr. Albers has done to this plan to make it more acceptable. She thought the new plan has received good reviews from both the wetland and woodland consultants. She said that although the road plan may need to be fine-tuned, the design was greatly improved with two-way traffic.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Markham:

In the matter of the request of Ken Albers of Diversified Land Development, LLC, SP02-15B [motion] to approve a Woodland Permit and recommend favorable consideration to City Council of the Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 (Planned Development) Option, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan, and recommend favorable consideration of the following based upon the finding that this site plan meets the Special Land Use requirements: 1) A positive recommendation for a Zoning Board of Appeals variance for building setback, based on excess building height for Building 3, as the building height is not technically excessive because the back side slopes considerably; 2) A positive recommendation for a Zoning Board of Appeals variance for excess pavement in the easterly sideyard, as there is no paving in the rear yard and there is considerable landscaping throughout the rest of the property to substantiate the 6% additional pavement; 3) The final site plan needs to ensure that no first floor doors or windows of living areas are within 25 feet of a drive; 4) The Planning Commission has determined that a driveway approach does constitute parking spaces (north of building 2) and therefore a Zoning Board of Appeals variance is required for parking in the frontyard for two parking spaces, as long as there is additional landscaping to buffer that parking area, referencing Ordinance Section 2505.4, "A driveway does constitute a parking space" and Ordinance Section 2502.2, "…off-street parking parking shall not be permitted within a frontyard setback…" (which is 75 feet in this case); 5) A positive recommendation for the City Council waiver of Design & Construction Standards for the curved section of public sidewalk, where it bends around a landscape feature with the condition that should the sidewalk need to be reconstructed when the road is widened the developer will be responsible for the reconstruction; 6) Additional calculations needed to review the Stormwater Management Plan is a requirement; 7) Deferral of the required Noise Analysis until the time of Final Site Plan review which would include the requisite report from a certified sound engineer; 8) A Wetland Conservation Easement would be required as part of the Final Site Plan; and 9) Any additional comments on the attached review letters to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review.

Member Kocan explained that a driveway constitutes a parking space per Ordinance Section 2504. Member Avdoulos asked where it states that no frontyard parking is allowed in RM-1. Mr. Evancoe responded that Section 2505.2 states, "Offstreet parking shall not be permitted within a frontyard, nor within a minimum sideyard setback unless otherwise provided for in this Ordinance. Member Avdoulos said that in the Schedule of Regulations it does not say that frontyard parking is not allowed. He specifically noted that it read, "There shall be no front yard parking for churches" but nothing is listed for a PD-1. He did not want to make a recommendation that can’t be substantiated.

Member Paul asked about Wetland A abutting Building 3. She has had discussions in the past with the wetland consultant and the Environmental Committee (on which she sits) regarding how oftentimes the natural feature setback and the buffer are completely disregarded. The building gets built, and the retaining wall goes up and sod is planted all the way up to the wetland. The natural features are gone. People don’t know what a wetland is. She asked the Applicant what his intentions were around the buffer areas. She asked if the landscape plan would include native species or was the Applicant leaving the grass and letting it grow tall?

Mr. Albers replied that there would only be a temporary disturbance to the wetland area during construction. He stated that the wetland consultant gave him a list of acceptable replacements and seedlings. His intent is to let the area grow naturally. It will not be sodded or maintained in that fashion. Member Paul asked if he would be using native species. He responded that he would, and that he would remove the abandoned junk in the area.

Member Paul asked if "The buffer will be enhanced by native species landscaping" could be made part of the motion. The response was that this information is part of the review letters and it is not necessary to list it specifically in the motion.

Member Paul thought the changes made to the plan were good. She thought that the façade was attractive. She did not think that the sidewalk curve was an issue; in fact, it enhanced the landscaped water feature. She did however, think that the driveway variance for the windows was a problem, because the reason for the Ordinance is not just protection from the light but also from noise. She then noted that the motion waives the Noise Analysis until the time of Final Site Plan approval. She thought that cars passing within 25 feet from a bedroom window was an infringement. She reiterated that the site plan is good but foregoing the 25 feet between the road and building does raise quality of life issues. Safety, health and welfare are Member Paul’s number one priority.

Member Markham supported the motion. She said that she had concerns about the plan after the previous meetings, but the Applicant has done an excellent job of reworking the plan. She said he took the spirit of the comments made at the last meeting and put them to work. Member Markham liked the connected habitat corridor and enhancements made to the site plan. She noted that the Applicant did remove one building and the gated entrance. She said he went a long way to comply and it was appreciated.

Chair Nagy also thought the changes were nice and approved of the wildlife habitat corridor. She thought the curved sidewalk was an enhancement. She supported the motion without the 25-feet first floor window issue because she thinks that traffic, light and noise are all a fact of life. She thought the windows in the stairwell did not constitute a problem because that is not living area. She noted that the windows on the second floor are more than twelve feet off the ground. She thought the Applicant has done a nice job preserving the natural features by building up and not out. Chair Nagy said that she would support the motion with an amendment to this issue. Chair Nagy thought that the Planning Commission had the discretion to do so.

Mr. Fisher asked to make a comment on the sidewalk issue. He recommended incorporating into the motion a requirement of a recordable instrument to be executed prior to the time of Final Site Plan review. This agreement would remain with the land (because it is unlikely that the street will be widened in the immediate future) and the language should be approved by the City Attorney. Chair Nagy clarified that Mr. Fisher wanted the agreement recorded with the Register of Deeds. This will ensure that the obligation is met. Chair Nagy said that is a very important inclusion for the motion, especially because she knows this is not a road widening project that will happen right away.

Mr. Fisher thought that the 25-foot road-to-wall issue was somewhat of a controversial issue because of the potential ambiguity in the Ordinance, but that ultimately it is within the purview of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission interprets it to allow the eight-foot distance only from the first floor without openings, a precedent is potentially being set for other developments as well. The alternative is to make it an issue to go to the ZBA, which wouldn’t create a precedent.

Chair Nagy asked whether this is the first instance in the City where this issue has been raised. Ms. McBeth cited Walton Woods as another PD Option plan that also took this stipulation of the Ordinance into consideration. She said that Walton Woods went to the ZBA but she was not sure if it was for this issue. Ms. McBeth could not respond to the Applicant’s assertion that there are numerous infractions of this stipulation at Carlton Forest. Chair Nagy thought this issue was within the Planning Commission’s purview, but she would agree to send it to the ZBA for them to make a determination, an action that would not set a precedent.

Member Kocan asked for a point of clarification. She said her motion is exactly what the Ordinance states. She added the words "first floor wall". No offstreet parking or related drives shall be located closer than 25 feet to any first floor wall of a dwelling structure which contains openings involving living areas nor closer than eight feet to any such first floor wall that does not contain openings. She was trying to understand what Chair Nagy was not agreeing to – was it that she didn’t like "first floor" as opposed to first, second, third floor, or was it that she thought the drives could be closer than the 25 feet or the eight feet? Member Kocan continued that she did not want to create another variance situation. She wanted the first floor living windows to be at least 25 feet from a driveway or a related parking area or at least eight feet away when no living area windows are present; this is her motion regardless of whether or not the Applicant will need to redesign his site. She did not have a problem with the second- or third story windows being closer than 25 feet - they would be in compliance. If this issue is sent to the ZBA for a variance, her concern is that they can come back and say that the Applicant’s living areas’ windows can be closer than 25 feet on any floor, which is not what she wanted to happen.

Chair Nagy asked if this was something that the Planning Commission could decide upon. Mr. Fisher responded that the Planning Commission can make the interpretation (which is mandated in this situation because they are proposing it and the Planning Commission has to react to it). He said the Planning Commission can go forward with this interpretation. The Planning Commission has to consider the purpose for this requirement and make the interpretation which has been done. If the Planning Commission makes this determination now, they would be making the interpretation of the Ordinance for the long term that the first floor, as long as it has no living area openings, can be within eight feet of the driveway. If the Planning Commission is concerned about sending it to the ZBA and opening up a pandora’s box, the motion could indicate that the approval is being made in an exact fashion subject to the approval of a ZBA variance for this purpose. He said that the motion could include a recommendation.

Member Kocan would be willing to change that portion of the motion to state, "…with a recommendation to the ZBA that the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the Ordinance 2400.e.6 is that it refers to the first floor doors and windows of a living structure." Chair Nagy confirmed that Member Kocan understood this language would still allow the Applicant to do what is on their plan. Member Kocan agreed, and said this still allows the windows on the second and third floors to remain as designed. She confirmed with Ms. McBeth that there are no first floor windows that are in violation of this Ordinance, because the one opening (a door) does not lead to a living area.

Member Kocan also said the because a request was made by Mr. Fisher with regard to the sidewalk language, she would like to add at the end of that stipulation, "…when the road is widened the developer will be responsible for the reconstruction as specified in a recordable written agreement approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the Register of Deeds."

Member Markham, the seconder of the motion was amenable to those changes.

Member Paul asked Ms. McBeth what the three measurements were that were within the 25-foot margin. Ms. McBeth responded that they were 8.9 feet, 12 feet and eight feet. Member Paul reminded the Planning Commission that it was not just a lighting issue but also a noise pollution issue (e.g., doors shutting). She said this plan called for vehicle traffic just eight feet away vertically from someone’s second-floor bedroom window. She encouraged the Commission to consider that this Ordinance violation if measured vertically is more than 15 feet.

Chair Nagy asked about Fox Run Village – she thought a similar finding was made for that plan. Mr. Evancoe responded that there was a situation in which a driveway was going down into a parking garage and so it was similar in that it was close to the building but it was also recessed and lower with a retaining wall partially blocking the drive. Mr. Schmitt said there were windows within twelve feet on the first floor, but the road was going down.

Member Paul tried to clarify whether the motion was stating that the lack of 25 feet required a variance, or was it stating that there was no variance necessary because there were no windows on the first floor. She reiterated that the drive was still going to be eight feet from the building. She asked again, was it okay to be eight feet from the structure? Member Kocan said yes, it is allowed by Ordinance, as long as there are no openings.

Member Paul asked if the Planning Commission clarification was that the Ordinance applied only to the first floor. Initially the Planning Department was interpreting the Ordinance that it applied to all floors. So, in essence, the Planning Commission is changing what the Planning Department has recommended. Chair Nagy explained they are making an interpretation that is different than the Planning Department. And then Member Kocan said that they asked for the ZBA to interpret that. If the Planning Commission is wrong, then the ZBA would deny the request.

Member Paul still did not want the driveway eight feet from the structure.

Member Sprague asked if the motion, as currently stated, was setting a precedent. Mr. Fisher said no. It’s basically referring the matter to the ZBA to make an interpretation or grant a variance. Granting a variance on a case-by-case basis does not create a precedent. Member Sprague asked if the Planning Commission was better off using the term first floor, or stating a minimum height? He could see that a motion that listed the height of the window must be a minimum of twelve feet above grade would set a precedent. This would also address the situation Mr. Evancoe described. It is a legitimate issue. He asked again if it didn’t matter if the Planning Commission was not setting a precedent. Mr. Fisher said it didn’t matter if the Planning Commission was not setting a precedent.

Chair Nagy supported the motion since it now incorporated the first floor language and sends the matter to the ZBA with a positive recommendation.

In the matter of the request of Ken Albers of Diversified Land Development, LLC, SP02-15B [motion] to approve a Woodland Permit and recommend favorable consideration to City Council of the Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 (Planned Development) Option, Wetland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan, and recommend favorable consideration of the following based upon the finding that this site plan meets the Special Land Use requirements: 1) A positive recommendation for a Zoning Board of Appeals variance for building setback, based on excess building height for Building 3, as the building height is not technically excessive because the back side slopes considerably; 2) A positive recommendation for a Zoning Board of Appeals variance for excess pavement in the easterly sideyard, as there is no paving in the rear yard and there is considerable landscaping throughout the rest of the property to substantiate the 6% additional pavement; 3) The final site plan needs to ensure that no first floor doors or windows of living areas are within 25 feet of a drive, with a recommendation to the ZBA that the Planning Commission’s interpretation of the Ordinance 2400.e.6 is that it refers to the first floor doors and windows of a living structure. 4) The Planning Commission has determined that a driveway approach does constitute parking spaces (north of building 2) and therefore a Zoning Board of Appeals variance is required for parking in the frontyard for two parking spaces, as long as there is additional landscaping to buffer that parking area, referencing Ordinance Section 2505.4, "A driveway does constitute a parking space" and Ordinance Section 2502.2, "…off-street parking parking shall not be permitted within a frontyard setback…" (which is 75 feet in this case); 5) A positive recommendation for the City Council waiver of Design & Construction Standards for the curved section of public sidewalk, where it bends around a landscape feature with the condition that should the sidewalk need to be reconstructed when the road is widened the developer will be responsible for the reconstruction as specified in a recordable written agreement approved by the City Attorney and recorded with the Register of Deeds"; 6) Additional calculations needed to review the Stormwater Management Plan is a requirement; 7) Deferral of the required Noise Analysis until the time of Final Site Plan review which would include the requisite report from a certified sound engineer; 8) A Wetland Conservation Easement would be required as part of the Final Site Plan; and 9) Any additional comments on the attached review letters to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review.

Motion carried 7-1 (Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague; No: Paul)

Chair Nagy called for a five-minute break.

Consideration of the request of DeSoto Investments, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and a Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 4 located in Beck North Corporate Park on the north side of West Road East of Beck Road, Lots 10 & 11 in the (I-1) Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing two speculative one-story light industrial buildings, To the west is Building A - 19,302 square feet, and to the east is Building B - 15,765 square feet. The subject property is 2.39 acres.

Planner Darcy Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and master planned for light industrial. All surrounding properties are also zoned I-1 and master planned for light industrial. To the south is Design Research, to the northeast is Coordinate Measurement Specialists, to the west a plan has been approved for SC Novi One. The remaining properties are vacant.

The proposed use is permitted in the light industrial zoning. The site proposes three access points. The primary access is off of Desoto Court, and two secondary access points are to the east and west. The Planning Review indicates that if the Master Deed is changed to reflect the joining of units 10 and 11, the site plan will meet Ordinance requirements. There are also minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

There are no regulated woodlands or wetlands on the site. The Landscape Review indicated that the plan will require either a variance for the lack of parking lot landscaping or a reduction of the number of parking spaces to meet the intent of the Ordinance. There are also minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review indicated that an Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver is necessary. The Engineering Review indicated that the site plan meets requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Fire Department Review indicated that that the plan meets Ordinance requirements, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Façade Review indicated that the plan is acceptable, with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Ms. Schmitt showed the proposed materials to the Planning Commission.

Sherman Freund, 720 Welch Road, Commerce Township, represented Desoto Investments, LLC at the meeting. He commented that his company sent a letter to the Planning Commission indicating that they would comply with the consultants’ and Planning Department’s recommendations. He stated that the only request that the Applicant has for the Planning Commission is the waiver for the driveway spacing. Six feet is proposed but the Ordinance requirement is 200 feet. Mr. Freund stated that it was his understanding that the traffic engineer found this request to be acceptable.

Member Paul asked Mr. Coburn if he was comfortable with the driveway issue. He responded that this request is somewhat typical of the requests received by Applicants planning to build in the City’s industrial parks, specifically on the cul-de-sacs. The reason for the spacing is to reduce the possibility of left-turn interlock. Because there will be very little traffic coming westbound and turning left, the Engineering Department is satisfied with the proposed design.

Member Paul asked Ms. Schmitt whether she was comfortable with the Applicant’s intent to comply with the reduction of parking spaces, even though a revised site plan has not been submitted. Ms. Schmitt responded yes.

Member Paul asked whether the landscaping plan is now acceptable with the reduction of parking spaces. Ms. Schmitt said that the site plan provides for up to 24 additional parking spaces, so the removal of some spaces to comply with the landscaping requirement is indeed acceptable.

Chair Nagy asked Mr. Shipman if he would like to add any comments. He responded that he assumes that the changes agreed to by the Applicant will bring the plan into compliance, but this cannot be substantiated until the revised plan is submitted. Ms. Schmitt clarified that the Applicant has an abundance of parking, and if it is necessary to reduce the parking to comply with the landscaping requirements, it can be done and has been agreed to by the Applicant. Member Paul asked how many parking spaces would be provided on the new plan; Ms. Schmitt responded that this has not yet been established. Member Paul said she was not comfortable with not knowing the exact number, and she thought that the excessive parking provided too much impervious surface. Mr. Freund responded that his landscape architect and the City’s landscape consultant have discussed the removal of one parking space at each building so that additional green space can be added. Mr. Freund also stated that the plan would accommodate reducing the parking area by two feet along the backside for a wider installation of the greenbelt. Member Paul said her concern was that the water runoff is much faster on impervious surfaces, and the heat index is much higher as well. These items become issues for wetlands and detention areas.

Member Paul asked Mr. Coburn about the Stormwater Management Plan. He responded that the industrial park was designed with an overall plan for the park, and this Applicant will just be connecting to the system that is already in place.

Member Kocan asked about Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo’s comment about the two unnecessary handicapped access aisles on the proposed plan, and noted his suggestion that these could be transformed into landscaped areas. Member Kocan was opposed to this suggestion because providing a first class handicapped area is not a negative feature. She preferred that the City and the Applicant not consider reducing this handicapped parking area.

Member Kocan wondered whether the Applicant considered landbanking the excess parking. She appreciated the Applicant’s comment about adding the greenbelt to the backside of the parking lot. Mr. Freund further clarified with Member Kocan that instead of the 19-foot depth it would be a 17-foot depth. He also responded to her regarding the landbanking. He said that he has built these projects in several communities and that parking is an extremely important amenity to potential clients. He also noted that there is no way to determine how many parking spaces are required by the first tenant, second tenant, etc., until the lease is signed and their plan is designed, therefore landbanking would be a difficult task. He conceded that the impervious surfaces do create more water runoff, but on the other hand, the "excessive" amount of parking is necessary to attract quality tenants. Mr. Freund stated that he has already built a 31,000 square-foot building with 73 parking spaces in Beck North in the Wixom side of the project. He thought that perhaps Novi’s Ordinance is a little short-sighted in their parking requirements. He said that industrial tenants are now putting sales offices in their buildings which in turn, creates a greater need for parking spaces. He confirmed with Member Kocan that all the parking is put in first, sometimes before the tenant is even known.

Member Kocan noted that the Applicant has provided two secondary access points for his property. She commented that this is very important for the circulation of traffic in an industrial park. Member Kocan confirmed with Mr. Shipman that the Applicant is aware that the landscaping must be extended down the east side of the east building and down the west side of the west building.

Member Shroyer also asked about the handicapped accesses in the rear of the building that aren’t anywhere near the handicapped spaces. Mr. Coburn clarified for the Planning Commission that this area is not for handicapped access. This is just a pedestrian access, and the traffic consultant’s handicapped parking comments were directed to the areas in the front of the building.

Member Shroyer then asked about the landscaping deficit of 330 square feet. Mr. Shipman responded that each parking space represents between 170-180 square feet and that the removal of only two would be required to satisfy the 330 square foot deficit. Mr. Shipman also clarified for the Applicant that his adding two more feet of greenbelt along the backside of the parking lot could not be included in the calculations for the interior landscape requirement, because that area is considered land reserved for "car overhang".

Member Shroyer asked what the requirements for dumpster landscaping were for this project. Mr. Shipman stated that the Ordinance currently requires screening of the dumpster area and is open to interpretation. Member Shroyer noted that the only landscaping in that area is to the rear of the dumpster. If the Applicant was to eliminate two parking spaces there, Member Shroyer suggested that additional landscaping could be provided in that area. Mr. Freund said that he would work with the City on the details of where the additional landscaping will be placed.

Moved by Member Markham, supported by Member Ruyle:

Chair Nagy supported the motion. She specifically mentioned the need for meeting the landscape requirements on the east and west sides of the buildings. She also suggested that the motion stipulate that Screening will be provided around the trash enclosure. Member Markham responded that the stipulation is unnecessary because that is an Ordinance requirement.

Consideration on the request of Schonsheck Incorporated for reconsideration of a Planning Commission condition of Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 12 between Haggerty Road and Cabot Drive and south of Thirteen Mile and north of Lewis Drive. The developer is proposing the Planning Commission reconsider the language in the motion referring to the access drive to the north.

In the matter of Millennium Technology Center, Site Plan 03-08, motion to amend the amended motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan subject to: 1) The comments of the attached review letters being addressed at Final Site Plan approval; 2) Reasons for the number of parking spaces are in accordance with 2505.14.d.2 due to the site being an office use and not warehouse and due to the fact that the Applicant is meeting all of our Landscape Architect’s requirements; 3) The access drive will be added to the site plan at Final Site Plan approval; 4) The 50 parking spaces will be land-banked at Final Site Plan approval; 5) Wetlands and Woodlands Permits have previously been granted and remain in effect; and 6) Applicant has agreed to put in the access with Ridgeview and has made attempts with the Applicant to the north. Motion carried 8-0.

Ms. Schmitt stated that the Applicant is requesting, under Section 2516.2.e, items 3 and 6 of the April 16, 2003 motion be rephrased or removed from the motion. According to the Applicant, the current wording prevents any negotiation in good faith for a cross-site access agreement with their neighbor to the north. This motion was made by Member Paul and seconded by Member Ruyle.

Millennium Technology is currently designed with two points of access – one on Cabot Drive and one on Haggerty Road. A third point of access is not required by the Ordinance. Therefore, it is the Planning Department’s opinion that items 3 and 6 of the aforementioned motion could be rephrased to state that Millennium Technology Center will show the location of a future driveway stub and cross-access easement with Ridgeview on their stamping sets. Should Ridgeview require this connection, the location of this driveway would be determined and the space for the connection reserved.

Mr. Tom Reder of Ledy Design Group represented the Applicant at the meeting. He apologized for not catching this in April when the motion was on the table. He stated that the motion as written is hindering the negotiation process with the cross-access agreement. He explained that the motion implies that the access has to be put in as a condition of site plan approval. Chair Nagy responded that his statement was correct – that was what the motion was stating.

Mr. Reder continued that the Applicant is willing to put the cross-access in; however, he would like to have the right to negotiate in good faith an access agreement. Currently, the Ridgeview owner is interpreting the motion as meaning he does not have to negotiate with Millennium Technology. He is now just expecting the placement of that stub. Chair Nagy asked Mr. Fisher to comment.

Mr. Fisher replied that he did not think that the motion takes into consideration the notion that the access easement would be with or without charge. It leaves the parties on their own to do negotiating or enter into easements. Mr. Fisher said that the last thing that the City wants to do is get in between two private property owners. He suggested it be stated that as a matter of intent, there is no intent by the City to get in the middle of these two property owners’ negotiations.

Mr. Reder again asked that the motion be restated. He said that currently this Applicant cannot move forward with site plan approval. Mr. Fisher replied that there was no intent on the part of the City to require a free or expensive agreement between the two parties, and that they wish to remain outside of their negotiations. He said that a language change is not necessary, that again, the Planning Commission has not expressed that the intent of the City is to get in the middle of the Applicant’s negotiations. This statement should satisfy Mr. Reder’s concerns.

Chair Nagy stated that in the review letters there was mention of the shared access between these two properties and mention of it in the motion was therefore reasonable. As part of the Planning Commission’s approval, they are requesting that the cross-access be done, but they would not be getting involved in the negotiation of this task. She did not think that changing the verbiage of the motion would change anything for the Applicant or alleviate that situation.

Mr. Reder said that the problem stems from the fact that in order to get Final Site Plan approval, this Applicant has to show the stub on the northern property line. An easement has to be written, and now this Applicant has lost all bargaining power to make sure that easement gets written. Mr. Reder then asked whether the City would require Ridgeview to present that easement in order for them to get their Final Site Plan approval. Mr. Reder said he is looking for a remedy that would ensure that the easement gets written.

Mr. Fisher responded again that the City is not going to get in the middle of this negotiation. Chair Nagy said that the ingress/egress agreement that was provided in the Planning Commission packet has nothing to do with the Planning Commission. Chair Nagy said that the Planning Commission cannot do anything regarding this, and that changing the language of the motion would not help. She recalled that the recommendation from the City’s traffic consultant on Ridgeview was that the cross access be placed on their southern property line.

Mr. Reder said that he understood the City’s position of not wanting to get into the middle of this negotiation. He said the question now is whether the City will approve either Applicant’s plan if the stub is shown, or will the City require the submittal of an easement agreement on one or both properties. He said that in essence, without the easement they are giving away land.

Chair Nagy said that the motion stated that the access drive would be added to the site plan at the time of Final Site Plan approval and in the minutes, it states that the Applicant agreed to do that. Mr. Evancoe commented that one of the issues at play in this situation is the number of access points required by this Applicant. Millennium Tech and Ridgeview are both required to have two points of access. Millennium Tech already has two points of access. Ridgeview only had one access coming off of 13 Mile. Therefore it was Ridgeview that had to come up with the second point of access. That is the issue that Mr. Reder has brought forward – this Applicant has already provided his two required drives. He now feels that the motion is requiring him to have a third point of access.

Chair Nagy repeated that motion wherein it states that the Applicant has agreed to put in the access with Ridgeview. That was an agreement at the time the Planning Commission approved their site plan. At the time that Ridgeview came before the Planning Commission, there was not a building proposed to the east of their property, so there was nothing else that the Planning Commission could do. Both site plans were approved contingent upon cross-access.

Mr. Reder said that in their discussion at the site plan meeting the question was put to him whether the Applicant would be willing to provide that access. His answer for his client was yes, but it was also stated that they have tried on multiple occasions to make contact with that owner to negotiate that easement and were as yet unable to make that contact. This is substantiated by the item #6 six listed in the motion. Chair Nagy asked if the Applicant has made contact yet with Ridgeview. Mr. Reder said they have been contact and have tried in good faith to negotiate a contract but have been unsuccessful.

Mr. Fisher said that the site plan was approved with certain conditions and if the Applicant didn’t like those conditions he could come back before the Planning Commission and ask for an amended site plan and show a change of circumstances as to why it should be changed.

Member Kocan read the minutes and she noted that Ridgeview was approved a month before Millennium. In the discussion the Planning Commission talked a lot about the northern access. One of the comments made by Member Sprague was how, when and who decides the future of the Ridgeview/Millennium access road. Mr. Coburn explained that the point of access was already determined on the Ridgeview plan, and the Engineering Department would work with the petitioner to line his plan up with Ridgeview. He suggested the Planning Commission make the stub street connection a condition of the approval and Attorney Tom Schultz also added that the motion should reflect that the Applicant has proposed and agreed to the shared drive. Member Kocan said the Planning Commission knew what they were approving – that’s what they wanted. This shared access is a win-win for both sites. In fact, she thought the Millennium employees would use that access moreso than the Ridgeview employees because they will be wanting the access to 13 Mile. She asked Mr. Reder to consider that in their negotiations. In light of the comments in the minutes and at this table, Member Kocan thought the original motion was appropriate.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Paul:

Motion to keep the motion of April 16, 2003 for the Millennium Technology Center project as was stated at that time.

Chair Nagy asked whether the motion should be restated as a denial of Millennium Technology’s request to amend the April 16, 2003 minutes. Member Kocan restated that motion to read, "Motion to deny the request of Schonsheck Incorporated for reconsideration of the Planning Commission condition of the Millennium Technology, SP03-08, preliminary site plan approval from April 16, 2003. Member Paul reseconded the motion.

Member Ruyle asked Mr. Fisher if a 2/3 majority would be required to amend the motion. Mr. Fisher stated that a simple majority would only be required. Member Ruyle supported the motion, stating that as the seconder of the original motion, he did not want to see it changed.

Member Paul said that she made the motion because she listened to the City Engineer and the Planning Department and she did not want to land lock anyone. If Millennium were to the north, Member Paul said they may feel differently if they were being asked to do the same thing. She still supported the original motion. When it was made, all the parties had agreed to it.

Mr. Coburn informed the Planning Commission that Ridgeview has already received Final Site Plan approval. In that plan they have shown an egress connection to the south, and shadowed into the east the plan says "Alternate egress connection". The plan also says that the southern egress connection will be constructed if an agreement can be reached with the adjacent property owner. If not, the access to the east will be required. Member Kocan asked if Ridgeview would be able to receive a final Certificate of Occupancy with a shadowed roadway to the east that led to nowhere, or is a requirement of their development a secondary access. Mr. Coburn said that a road leading nowhere has been approved in the past, in instances where there hasn’t been a place to put a point of connection. The assumption is that the parcel to the east will develop and will provide access to Ridgeview in the future if they are not able to get access to the south.

Member Shroyer explained that the Rules Committee met to review a possible change to the Planning Commission By-laws. The Committee determined that the Planning Commission should leave the rule in place with a modification to the language.

The language currently in effect:

Proposed language:

3.4(b) No Public Hearings shall be held within five (5) business days after a City-recognized holiday.

The change realized by the addition of the word "after" to the rule allows for Public Hearings to be held prior to a holiday. The current language actually creates a ten-day window in which Public Hearings cannot be held.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan asked Member Shroyer to continue with the explanation of why this change is necessary. Member Shroyer stated that the current language creates a problem for the Planning Commission and the City in putting together an Agenda with the necessary Public Hearings for the September 3, 2003 meeting. Member Shroyer also stated that this rule would be taken into consideration when future calendars are determined.

Motioned by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Kocan confirmed with Mr. Fisher that the Planning Commission was allowed to suspend the rule, as long as there was a two-thirds majority vote. Mr. Fisher said yes. Member Ruyle asked that the word "only" be added to the motion. Member Shroyer restated the motion to read, "Motion to suspend the rule 3.4(b) for the September 3, 2003 meeting only." Member Markham, the seconder of motion, agreed to the new language.

"Motion to suspend the rule 3.4(b) for the September 3, 2003 meeting only."

Member Kocan asked that the holiday be kept in mind when the September 3, 2003 Agenda is planned. Member Ruyle indicated that he would be on vacation for that meeting. Mr. Evancoe thanked the Planning Commission for making the change to the rule and he said that the Planning Commission calendar would be included in the next packet for the Planning Commission to review and discuss.

The Planning Commission turned in their corrections for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

There was no Consent Agenda.

Member Kocan said there was an inference that Beck North would potentially appeal within the City – at the City Council level and at the ZBA level. She said that within the Planning Commission Rules, a representative of the Planning Commission can be sent to those meetings. She asked the other Planning Commissioners if they thought they would like to have a representative attend those meetings. She assumed that the Planning Department would be there, but with the ZBA she did not think the Planning Commission could make a presentation, but they could be there for questions. She said the same of City Council.

Mr. Fisher responded that a similar issue was raised when Member Ruyle wanted to go to City Council. His response then, which he would echo here, is that unless the Planning Commission adopts formal action giving someone authority to take a particular position, the Planning Commissioner who attends can only express their personal view, rather than the view on behalf of the Planning Commission as a whole. That would apply here. That doesn’t stop the Planning Commission from giving someone the authority to take the position. Chair Nagy said that someone could be elected to represent the Planning Commission. She asked the Planning Commission if that is what they would like done.

Member Ruyle told Mr. Fisher that it was not a unanimous vote. Should the negative vote also go before the City Council and ZBA and give their reasoning as well? Mr. Fisher responded that the subject Planning Commissioner would have that prerogative. Chair Nagy said that eight members voted down the site plan; she stated the that the representative would be representing the majority of the Planning Commissioners. Mr. Fisher stated that Member Ruyle (the descending vote) could go to City Council and state his own view as long as he specified it was not that of the Planning Commission.

Member Kocan withdrew her request that the Planning Commission consider sending a representative. She would expect that the Planning Department and the City Attorney would be at the ZBA. Chair Nagy also asked that the complete minutes be read by City Council. Mr. Evancoe responded that there are three ways that communicate the Planning Commission’s vote to City Council. Each Council member receives a packet on the subject property that includes a motion sheet listing a brief history of the property, the Planning Commission’s position and their motion. The actual minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are also supplied in the back-up material. They are very much aware of what the Planning Commission has done and they take that into consideration when they deliberate.

The Planning Commission discussed different topics that the Implementation Committee might consider reviewing:

Member Kocan asked that the Implementation Committee have the opportunity to review the dedication of preservation areas as part of the industrial park site plan approval process. At the July 30, 2003 meeting the City Attorney commented that unless there is an Ordinance provision that states the Planning Commission may require dedication of these areas and insist on nondevelopment of these areas within industrial parks, with respect to roads and utilities, etc., he felt that the Planning Commission was somewhat limited. Chair Nagy thought it was a good idea and asked for a voice vote on sending the item to the Implementation Committee. A unanimous vote was cast.

Member Kocan said the second possible assignment for the Implementation Committee was a review of the cross-access requirement in industrial parks. Canton does have a requirement and there are probably other municipalities that do too. She would like the Implementation Committee to review the City’s Ordinance against other Ordinances.

Member Shroyer agreed, and would also like to have them to review adjacent businesses, shopping centers, etc. He did not think the review should be limited to just the industrial park zoning. Chair Nagy called for a voice vote and a unanimous vote was cast.

Chair Nagy asked the Planning Commission to consider sending the following Ordinance selections to the Implementation Committee for review. The bolded capital letters represent language that Chair Nagy would like considered for insertion into the Ordinance.

4. Where a permitted use abuts a residential district the following special conditions apply:

b. The following provisions shall apply to refuse pick-up, off-street parking and areas used for vehicular repair, delivery, loading/unloading and transport:

(2) All off-street parking and areas used for vehicular repair, delivery, loading/unloading and transport shall be not closer than one hundred (100) feet from the APPLICANT’S PROPERTY LINE OR THE boundary of a residential district (WHICHEVER IS FURTHER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES) and effectively screened from view from said residential district by landscaping, walls or berms pursuant to requirements of Section 1904.4.e. Notwithstanding the restriction of Section 2400, footnotes (h) and (i), the Planning Commission may permit front yard and side yard parking where necessary to maintain the separation required by this subsection.

Off-street parking shall be permitted within the side and rear yards. Provided, however, if a property abuts a residential district and is not separated therefrom by a major thoroughfare as designated in the City's Master Plan, or railroad right-of-way, each of the following conditions shall apply to side and rear yard parking:

(2) Off-street parking shall be setback no less than one hundred (100) feet from the APPLICANT’S PROPERTY LINE OR THE residential district (WHICHEVER IS FURTHER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES). Exterior side yards shall be subject to the front yard setback requirements of the district and all regulations applicable to a front yard shall apply.

(m) (1) Where a use abuts a residential district and is not separated therefrom by a thoroughfare as designated in the City's Master Plan for Land Use, or a railroad right-of-way, the minimum distance a building shall set back from THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY LINE OR a residential district shall be as follows:

OSC, RC, TC Districts, three (3) feet of horizontal setback for each foot of building height.

I-1 District, five (5) feet of horizontal setback for each foot of building height, or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is greater.

I-2 District, five (5) feet of horizontal setback for each foot of building height, or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is greater.

OS-2 and OST Districts, three (3) feet of horizontal setback for each foot of building height, with a minimum setback of one hundred (100) feet from residentially zoned property or properties unless: 1) the abutting or adjacent property is recommended in the Master Plan for uses other than residential; (2) the owner of the adjacent residential property waives the requirement for such setback in writing; or 3) the abutting residentially zoned property is being used for Industrial, Commercial or Office type use in which cases the required setback shall be established as provided in Article 24, Section 2400.

Except when a side or rear yard is separated from a residential district by a railroad right-of-way, the right-of-way may be included as part of the setback requirement.

Mr. Fisher indicated that this review has been directed to his office by City Council.

Member Kocan agreed that she would like to see the three Ordinance selections suggested by Chair Nagy go to the Implementation Committee as well. Chair Nagy asked for a voice vote and they were unanimously approved to go forward to the Implementation Committee.

Member Kocan asked that the Planning Commission also have the opportunity to review and comment on the minutes from the August 6, 2003 joint meeting between the Planning Commission and City Council.

There were no Special Reports

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Markham reminded the Master Plan and Zoning Committee that they will be meeting on August 27, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. and that Mr. Rod Arroyo will be attending to discuss the Thoroughfare Plan.

Member Kocan reminded the Implementation Committee that they will also be meeting on August 27, 2003 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Moved by Member Kocan:

Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at or about 10:45 p.m.

WED 8/20/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 8/25/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 9/03/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

MON 9/08/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, August 28, 2003 Signature on file

Date Appoved: September 3, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant