SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE NOVI CITY COUNCIL
AND NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 1996 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Mayor McLallen
NOVI CITY COUNCIL:
Mayor McLallen, Mayor Pro-Tem Crawford, Council Members Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION:
Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges (Absent/Excused), Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Senior Staff Planner Greg Capote, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mayor McLallen announced the reason for the Special Joint Meeting was for the Public Hearing for the Proposed Recreation Zoning District. She asked if there were any further additions or corrections to the Agenda as presented? Seeing none she entertained a motion for approval.
PM-96-07-136 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED
Moved by Clark, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.
Commissioner Hoadley asked to add discussion of the consideration of the Special Development District (SDD) after the Recreation Zoning District. Mayor McLallen asked if this was part of the entire discussion? Commissioner Hoadley answered there has already been a hearing on SDD however he will have a motion after a formal hearing for the REC Ordinance. Mayor McLallen stated there is no formal hearing for the REC Ordinance, there is a Recreation Zoning District discussion of which the SDD may be a part of.
Commissioner Vrettas asked to add a brief statement of Chairperson Lorenzo to the Agenda. Mayor McLallen answered, yes, and added it to the Agenda as Item 1A.
Mayor McLallen asked if there were any further corrections or additions to the Agenda as
presented and stated that it has been moved and seconded. Seeing none she asked all those in favor of the Agenda please signify by saying "aye", those opposed say "no". The Agenda stands as amended.
VOTE ON PM-96-07-136 CARRRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: McLallen, Crawford, Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
Mayor McLallen asked Commissioner Capello if there was any correspondence? Commissioner Capello answered, yes, there is a considerable amount, however, he has not had the chance to review every letter in total.
The first letter was from Dave Murphy of Southlake Drive. Through the ongoing debate for placement of a private fitness health club and pool facility a small group of activists are insisting that the facility be placed in an industrial district or have such unreasonable restrictions that the facility may not be located within the City of Novi. Mr. Murphy stated this type of facility should be undertaken by a private operator, however, the Planning Commission and City Council should understand that with each restriction means more cost that may make this development unfeasible.
John and Joyce Stohl of Westview Drive in Northville had strong objections to the development on the corner of Eight Mile Road and Beck Road. These objections included the readjusting an already zoned Residential Agricultural area to suit the developers, increased traffic and noise and a decline in property value. Overall the letter stated they were not in favor of the project.
Barb and Dave Lucas of Westview Drive in Northville were against the project at Eight Mile Road and Beck Road. They were hopeful that Northville would soon build their own swimming and ice rink facilities, but until then they feel there are a number of families with children in the area who are very much against the development of this project in their neighborhood.
Lynn Kocan of Ennishore Drive does not believe that the City needs a Special REC Ordinance for the reasons of 1) Sports arenas and other recreational facilities are allowed in other zones, 2) Residents purchased properties based on current zonings in the Master Plan, 3) Whenever there is a mandate to look at one option, research is compromised. Unless performance standards are stated within an Ordinance, there are no assurances that a Special Land Use consideration would require stricter standards.
Sharon and Stan Ream of Novi wrote in support of the sports facility. They felt that no upscale community is complete without a health facility.
Patricia Roux of West Ten Mile Road expressed her support for passage of the proposed Recreation District Ordinance.
Jim Boudreau of Edgewood expressed support for the health facility proposed at Eight Mile Road and Beck Road.
Patricia Depa of North Rockledge was in support of the proposed sports facility. A healthy environment helps create healthy people and helps keep children out of trouble.
Jeanette Spitler of Algonquin Drive has been a member of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield for five years. She would whole-heartedly welcome a facility like this in the Community.
Craig Cornfield of Novi is a member of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield, he believes the sports facility would enhance the Community.
Robert Shaw of Village Oaks has written a letter with a three page commentary on the REC Ordinance. Commissioner Capello stated that Mr. Shaw is expected to speak later on during the meeting so he will leave it up him to paraphrase his own letter and stated there is no further Correspondence.
1A. MAYOR MCLALLEN ANNOUNCED THAT COMMISSIONER VRETTAS WILL SPEAK TO THE TWO BODIES FOR A BRIEF MOMENT.
Commissioner Vrettas stated it was his sincere belief that service to those to whom you have the greatest respect requires honesty. Commissioner Vrettas stated two weeks ago during the Planning Commission meeting regarding the proposed REC Ordinance he made a comment that needed revisiting. He publicly offered his sincere and deeply-felt apology to the citizens of Novi, the City Government, the Commissioners and the City Council. He stated in his momentary frustration, he used poor judgement in his choice of words and hoped with his apology, the two bodies would be able to move forward. Commissioner Vrettas then thanked Chairperson Lorenzo and Mayor McLallen for the opportunity to make his public apology.
PLANNING COMMISSION - PUBLIC HEARING
1. ORDINANCE NO. 96-18 (RECREATION ZONING DISTRICT)
Before the public addressed the Public Hearing, Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any comments from the staff.
Greg Capote, Senior Staff Planner called attention to the Correspondence provided in the packets by Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development which highlighted areas of concern and recommendations on the proposed Recreation Ordinance, in addition to Mr. Watson’s letter which also included the proposed Recreation District. Mr. Capote referred to Jim Wahl’s Memorandum dated July 3, 1996. 1) Recreation Zoning District - He stated there has been some confusion and many questions have been asked by residents as to what areas of land will be rezoned. He stated it may help to be more specific. 2) Special Development District - Mr. Capote believed that Commissioner Hoadley was going to make a recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend the matter to the Implementation Committee for further study by the City Attorney and consultants. 3) Special Land Uses - It is a general feeling of the staff that this not be a Special Land Use provision. Proper protections can be done through the required conditions in the Ordinance for any adjacent property owners. 4) 500' Setback Adjacent to a Residential District - Mr. Capote felt that this distance needed to be further researched. He concurred with Linda Lemke’s recommendations for opacity requirements as well as the berm height. Lastly, Mr. Capote commented on page 5, paragraph 7, under Required Conditions of the Ordinance. He added, "as not to illuminate any residentially zoned property that abuts this district." to the end of the paragraph. He referred to page 4, paragraph 1, and raised the question, if said uses have lighting do they then become a Special Land Use requirement?
Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant agreed with Mr. Capote in regard to proper standards and criteria being included in a REC District. He stated there is no need for a Special Land Use process, however, it is at the determination of the City Council. Mr. Rogers stated that he did not agree to the 500' setback. He believed if the acreage was reduced from 30 to 20 acres, a 500' buffer could not be provided along with the quality of recreation uses. Mr. Rogers also disagreed with the standard of the set-off of any indoor recreation facility one mile from a state or national park. He agreed that there needs to be a District but it needs to be identified. It was Mr. Rogers opinion that spot zoning is based upon location, not size.
Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated the Commission was presented with another draft of the Ordinance and changes have been made in accordance with the Planning Commissions’ Discussion at the last meeting. Mr. Watson pointed out a couple of items of significance. The first was the issue of public address systems, during the Commission Discussion there was a preference to only allow the use of public address systems for emergencies. He stated it seemed that it could almost cause more emergencies in that the public system cannot be used as a means of preventative measures. Secondly, the Commission listed types of Indoor Recreation facilities and preferenced it with language "including but not limited to", to indicate that other types of recreation facilities could be permitted. There was also another section that allowed similar uses. The Commission asked that both of these be taken out, Mr. Watson stated that language like this has caused some problems. Thirdly, there is the question of Special Land Uses and do they provide for approval by the Planning Commission or a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Council? Mr. Watson had no opinion on how great the setback distance should be, he did suggest that the distance should be a setback requirement within the Schedule of Regulations.
Chairperson Lorenzo revisited some basic guidelines and then opened the floor to the public.
Ray Miras, 21801 Garfield would like to see the neighborhood remain in its’ rural state. He stated if a sports facility is allowed to be built, what is to say that a bar, restaurant, or another strip mall would not be allowed? He again stated he would like to see it remain as is.
Sue Soborowski, 1407 East Lake Drive stated as a member of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield, it would be great to see a facility like this in Novi, however, as a Novi resident, she is very opposed to any rezoning. Even though she would like to see a facility like this in the area, she did not feel it was the proper place. There are other areas where the facility can be built, she again stated she was very opposed to the rezoning.
Judy Elvy, 48120 West Eight Mile Road asked to decline coming to the microphone at this time and would like to at a later time. (end of tape)
Bob Shaw, 40612 Village Oaks, Representative for the Community Clubs of Novi, referred to the information provided in the packets. In looking at Draft 3 of the REC Ordinance as revised by Mr. Watson on July 3, 1996, Mr. Shaw summarized his comments on the provisions. In Section 2302A, he stated that indoor recreation facilities have been placed in a very bad light and he is concerned as to why. Indoor facilities create no more noise, require no more parking nor generate any more traffic than the uses listed in 2301A. Secondly, outdoor recreational facilities can have controlled lighting to protect adjacent residential therefore they could also be placed in 2301A without the Special Land Use provisions. Thirdly, Mr. Shaw concurred with the provisions in 2303A regarding the 500' setback, stating that it is unreasonable. Mr. Shaw stated there needs to be some clarification as to the meaning of facility and building. He referred to page 2, paragraph 2, it notes that the access provisions need to be clarified so a REC District can be created. Section 2520.2 is proposing a residential type facade which Mr. Shaw felt to be unreasonable for the type and size of structures being proposed, he stated a B-2 or I-1 facade would be more reasonable. He proposed the REC District be brought to reason.
Anna Sylvester, 20145 Beck Road in Northville commented that Mayberry State Park is not just a State park it is also a place for peace and quiet. She strongly believed that the area being considered for recreational development might be better served in an industrial area therefore helping to maintain the State park as a quite natural area.
Barbara Lucas, 20390 Westview Drive in Northville referred to an article from the New York Times dated June 20, 1996 stating that nationwide, one million acres of farmland gives way to development each year. She stated that efforts to conserve open space are not necessarily anti-development and hoped that creative solutions were being looked at in putting the recreation development in the most appropriate place.
Mark Carlson, 23986 Elizabeth Lane stated he lives in the Addington Park subdivision and he chose this area because of the availability of close services. He supported the idea of the health facility being located close to his home versus being tucked away in an industrial park.
Stacy Fischer, 20145 Beck in Northville, was concerned about allowing this facility to be built and that it would open the door for other developments. She stated that it is a residential district and if the zoning district is changed, what says that other commercial ventures will not be allowed. She encouraged the Commission not to allow commercial developments in this part of the city and asked them to also be aware of their neighboring cities.
Phil Jerome, 20601 Westview in Northville, agreed with Mr. Rogers in that this zoning classification is not needed due to the fact that these types of uses are already permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated if the Recreational Zoning District is allowed to be established in the area, it will be hard to stop the spread of commercial uses.
Cindy Gronachan, 21668 Garfield in Northville selected to live here because of the beauty and serenity. She did not understand why the City would want to place a commercial entertainment center in the middle of a residential section and draw the population away from the Novi business section. She understood the need for a sports complex, however, perhaps building it in a business district would help to support the business of the City.
Inge Zayti, 48000 Eight Mile Road in Northville did not understand why the development of commercial property was being requested at the Meyer Berry Farm. She was opposed to the recreation district rezoning due to the fact that she wanted to see the wildlife preserved.
Dave Sheeran, 45531 Emerald Forest represented the Aquatics Facility Study Committee who was appointed by the City Council to study an Aquatic Facility in Novi. He referred to his presentation given to the Council on March 18, 1996 and stated that there were two Public Hearings where clear support was given to the aquatic facility. The support was given to one centrally located site. (end of tape)
Judy Elvy, 48120 West Eight Mile Road addressed alternatives to the REC Ordinance.
She expressed concern if a Special Development District was provided as opposed to a Recreational District, what is to say that in the future we wouldn’t end up facing a Recreational District again. She felt that the same consideration given to recommend the SDD to the Implementation Committee should be given to the Recreation Ordinance. She stated she would be personally effected if the Recreation Ordinance or the SDD is approved. She is the only resident within a quarter of a mile and if the developments are approved to be built around her, she will be landlocked in the regard that she will be the only residential property along Eight Mile Road.
Charles Young, 50910 West Nine Mile Road spoke about some history of Novi. The developer Ramco Gercheson developed commercial property on the corner of Ten Mile Road and Haggerty Road as a result of a 4-3 vote. Mr. Young asked Mr. Watson if it was true that a 5-2 vote was needed if there was a change in the zoning? Mr. Watson answered there is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance that states this and it is not a requirement for every rezoning, however, there is a provision in the State Enabling Act that requires 5 out of 7 votes. Mr. Young stated that residents move to Novi because they like the rural atmosphere, he also stated that any time a project is proposed, consideration should be given to working with the residents of that area.
John Avdoulos, 48980 West Nine Mile Road, spokesperson for the Southwest Association of Novi felt if this project was not proposed, there wouldn’t be a discussion on the Ordinance since there are already areas where this type of use is currently allowed. He stated that a lot of the residents are not opposed to a recreational area, they are however opposed to the location.
Diane Chippewa, 48800 West Nine Mile expressed concerns of some of the residents of the southwest quadrant of Novi as to how special zoning may specifically affect the area.
There were concerns regarding the long term impact of a special zoning, the area is rural residential, and residents would like it to remain as such. There were questions as to how this type of project would fit into the Master Plan and where is the zoning leading to in the future. Ms. Chippewa extended an invitation to Mayor McLallen to attend the next SWAN meeting which will be held on Monday, July 29, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. The residents are concerned about the long range plans for the southwest quadrant and would like to know more about its’ future.
Bill Szur, 51000 Nine Mile Road expressed confusion as to why the City is requesting a REC Zoning District when there has not been a need for one in the past. He also asked who the Recreation district will really serve? Will it serve the decision makers or the citizens who have to bear the results of those decisions that are made for them?
Loretta Szur, 51000 Nine Mile Road asked if the Recreation Ordinance wasn’t really just another word to describe commercial or light industrial zoning? She also asked where does this fit into the Master Plan and is the city changing the rules to accommodate the few and not the many. Ms. Szur felt no need for the Recreation District classification as the City is already set up to accommodate such developments.
Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin stated she does not have a problem with tennis courts, swimming pool, etc. in a residential neighborhood however, an ice arena in the middle of town means accessibility to the bulk of the residents and Eight Mile Road nor Beck Road can handle the traffic. She suggested putting the facility where it can be handled and stated something should be proposed that shows the parts of the city where the parcels are large enough for the REC Ordinance.
Diana Stopinski, 233 Bernstadt did not understand the changing of the REC Ordinance. She stated if the REC Ordinance is changed, it gives the City free rein to do whatever it wants in all of the parks and recreation. She stated there is already a problem trying to enforce the existing Ordinances. She stated she does not want to see the REC Ordinance changed, she would rather see the existing Ordinances enforced and kept under control.
Ruth Hamilton, 1245 East Lake Drive expressed concern that Lynn Kocan had been working for two years to amend an Ordinance, and then all of a sudden the REC Ordinance is being pushed. It is not just an amending, but an entire Ordinance that effects the whole City. She stated she would like to see the Implementation Committee look at this Ordinance very seriously and would like the public to be very well informed. (end of tape)
Phil Allen, 21355 Beck felt that the Ordinance needs to be looked at very closely when it directly affects residents such as himself. He stated that there are a number of cars and semi trucks that use his driveway off of Beck Road to turn around. He felt if there was going to be a rezoning, the whole southwest corner from Beck Road through to Garfield Road should be rezoned because the residential properties will loose their value. He thought more consideration should be given to the residents that currently live in the area.
Rob David, 1048 Portsmore Court in Northville represented the Abbey Knoll Homeowners Association. He stated that Northville residents in the area as well as Novi residents all purchased homes with the knowledge and understanding that the surrounding area was zoned for residential use. He hoped that the City of Novi would look out for its’ residents in a way that would not have a negative impact on its’ citizens nor its’ neighbors. The residents of Northville do not want increased traffic or noise and are concerned about having other non-residential uses in the area.
Ellen Klebba, 21141 East Glenhaven Circle in Northville had just moved into the area. She reminded the residents that have lived in the area for several years how awful it is outside of the city. She stated she moved to Novi from Troy where traffic was terrible, she stated if residential zoning is changed, Novi would end up with the same type of problem.
Rex Shaffner, 49680 West Eight Mile Road believed that most residents with children would want the REC Ordinance, however, they don’t want it in their backyards. He believed that the recreational facility should be centrally located in the new Novi area.
Chris Klebba, 21141 East Glenhaven Circle stated he was a health club developer. He stated he was confused as to why the REC Ordinance was being developed and asked where the demand was?
Donna Bavarskas, 45391 Yorkshire Drive stated she served on the Aquatic Facility Committee and the residents of Novi supported the idea of a community pool. She was concerned that the pool was being linked up with a much greater facility. The proposal was for a larger facility which the residents did not want. She stated concern that the residents are still not being heard. Secondly, residents want a pool in the community, not next to industrial buildings, or a business where semi trucks are driving in and out. She did not feel that it should be placed in an industrial area or a large commercial area, instead in a non-invasive area among homes. She believes it can be done within a residential area without a rezoning.
Tim Mitts, 22125 Garfield was concerned if the Ordinance was developer driven. He stated he would like to see the sports facility go into an area that is already zoned for it.
Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated involvement cannot always be negative, it also needs to be positive and proactive, he would like to see the residents move forward in a pro-active way, looking at ways to preserve the rural atmosphere. He felt there were other uses within the Recreational Zoning District that are structured to preserve the environmental features of the land.
Bob Pheiffer, 41492 Fawn Trail stated the concern of the Parks & Recreation Commission was that there are no funds to pursue a lot of issues. The City Council has directed the
Parks and Recreation Department to come up with other ways of funding recreational activities. He felt the sports facility seemed like a good proposal however whenever a piece of property is being pursued the first reaction of the residents are negative. He felt no matter where the facility were to be built, it would result in the same response. He stated this appears to be an opportunity for the city to service the community with recreation needs at a minimum cost.
Joyce Stowell, 20505 Westview in Northville was not opposed to the development of a sports facility, however, she felt it should be built in a small industrialized, business zone where it is more appropriate.
George Zervos, 21951 Garfield felt the Master Plan should be followed, there are areas that are suitable for this facility. He felt if this rezoning was approved, it would happen again and again.
Karen Garby, 20516 Westview in Northville felt that there was only a small amount of land dedicated to residential property. She stated families that move into the area would more than likely seek out the services needed and hoped that some thought would be given to the other residents who will move into the area.
Chairperson Lorenzo announced that the membership will take a five minute recess.
Chairperson Lorenzo called the meeting to order and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.
Commissioner Capello stated based on remarks from the public, he did not feel that they were fully aware of the purpose of the Public Hearing. He stated it initially came to the Planning Commission from City Council because of a specific property, but the Public Hearing is to determine whether or not a REC Ordinance is needed in general. He stated that the majority of the comments heard at tonights meeting should be made at the time rezoning request. The purpose of the REC Ordinance is to entice private developments to come into the City and provide the recreational uses that the residents are looking for.
Commissioner Weddington stated it remains a question to her whether or not the REC Ordinance is needed. She stated that there are various alternatives available for recreation facilities throughout the city within existing zoning districts. She stated she is apprehensive about entering into the partnership because it may open up the west side of Novi to commercial development where it has not been planned for. There are some recreational uses that are permitted in residential areas that can be accommodated without the new Ordinance. She stated wherever the project is to be built, care needs to be taken so as not to destroy the residential character of the neighborhood, she was hopeful that the comments of the public will be considered as it moves forward.
Commissioner Vrettas spoke about the Master Plan stating that it had balance. The idea of the Master Plan was that the western end would have one acre lots that would attract the upper to middle class residents. He stated it was not smart to cut them down in size and turn them into commercial zonings. His advise was to slow down for the sake of the community.
Commissioner Bononi feels that a Recreation Ordinance is needed due to the fact that the nature of the recreation industry is changing, and community pools are not as common as in the past. She expressed interest in finding the Ordinance that would recognize the needs defined by the administration, population and planning officials. It was her opinion that the Ordinance is not ready for this type of development because it is too broad and allows too many areas to be compromised. She believes the purpose of composing a zoning district is to encourage orderly development use that is compatible with the Master Plan. She does not feel that an Ordinance has been written to meet the requirement.
Commissioner Markham stated she is in support of recreational facilities in the community and believes that recreation belongs in the residential neighborhoods. She stated it was very unwise to write a new Ordinance in the short period of time given because it can affect the entire City. She stated there may be a need for a recreational ordinance, however, she voted against it at the last meeting because she does not feel it is a good Ordinance at this point in time. Commissioner Markham is not in favor of supporting the Ordinance as it currently exists.
Commissioner Churella stated the Ordinance seemed to state very clearly what was intended and he would vote for it. He thinks the City needs it and it is something that can be used without being detrimental to the area.
Commissioner Hoadley would like to see the Ordinance sent to the Implementation Committee for further study. He stated there are a lot of issues within the Ordinance that he is opposed to, on the other hand he welcomes the indoor recreation facility. Commissioner Hoadley asked the Parks & Recreation Commission if a thorough study was completed on all of the light industrial zoned land as to the feasibility and location since they were not in support of the Ordinance? Bob Shaw answered he was not in support of the Ordinance as it is currently drafted because it puts restrictions upon how to provide facilities and the way they were going to build, wasn’t affordable in Novi. Commissioner Hoadley expressed concern with location for all of the citizens of Novi. He clarified that he is not opposed to a REC Ordinance, he is opposed to some of the guidelines within it.
PM-96-07-137 MOTION TO SEND A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR BRANDON ROGERS AND DENNIS WATSON’S DRAFT OF THE RECREATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Markham, CARRIED (5-3): To send a negative recommendation to City Council for Brandon Rogers and Dennis Watson’s draft of the Recreation District Ordinance and to refer the matter to the Implementation Committee for further study.
Chairperson Lorenzo announced that it has been moved and seconded to send a negative (end of tape) recommendation to City Council on the specific ordinance presented by Brandon Rogers and the revised draft of the Recreation Zoning District Ordinance and to refer the matter to the Implementation Committee for further study. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was any Discussion on the motion?
Commissioner Capello was confused with the motion as to whether there was a positive or negative recommendation to Council. Part of the motion states a negative recommendation to Council yet it is being sent to the Implementation Committee.
Dennis Watson stated he did not feel it was contradictory, he stated it is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Hoadley’s motion makes this recommendation as well as indicates that irrespective of what Council does, he would like the Implementation Committee to discuss and study the issue further.
Commissioner Vrettas stated he is going to vote against the motion because he would like to vote on them separately. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if he would like to make an amendment to the motion to do this? Commissioner Vrettas stated he would like to make a motion to amend that the two be voted on separately. Motion died for lack of support.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was any further Discussion on the motion. Seeing none she asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role.
VOTE ON PM-96-07-137 MOTION CARRIED
Yes: Bononi, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington
No: Capello, Churella, Vrettas
Chairperson Lorenzo turned the matter over to Mayor McLallen and the City Council.
Mayor McLallen stated the negative recommendation from the Commission on both Ordinances as presented. The Discussion indicated that there is interest in pursuing something to deal with recreation but the Commission would like it to be done within the Implementation Committee. Mayor McLallen advised the Council that they need to either agree with the Planning Commissions’ direction, take another direction, keep the matter open or put the matter to rest.
Councilman Mitzel had concerns for recreation activities in that although the Ordinance currently provides for it, it is only on a temporary basis in light industrial zones. He felt that these types of activities would be needed on a permanent basis in the community. He stated that the REC Ordinance is combining commercial recreational provisions with the public recreational provisions. He thought it was best that work on the REC Ordinance ceased leaving the public recreation ordinances in place and concentrate on updating the provisions for commercial recreational uses within the Commercial, Industrial and Office Districts. Councilman Mitzel made a motion to accept the Planning Commissions recommendation for a negative recommendation on the REC Zone and asked that the Planning Commission and City Administration cease work on the REC Zone leaving public recreation provisions and Zoning Ordinances as they are, and that they initiate an update of commercial recreational uses within the Commercial, Industrial and Office Districts within the Zoning Ordinance
PM-96-07-138 MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MOTION FOR A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND TO FURTHER DIRECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CEASE ALL WORK ON THE RECREATIONAL ORDINANCE RATHER TO DIRECT THEIR INITIATIVES TO STUDYING THE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE ORDINANCE FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECREATIONAL EVENTS WITHIN THOSE ORDINANCES AND LEAVE PUBLIC RECREATION PROVISIONS AS IS.
Moved by Mitzel, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED (6-1): To accept the motion for a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission and to further direct the Planning Commission to cease all work on the Recreational Ordinance rather to direct their initiatives to studying the Commercial, Industrial and Office Ordinance for opportunities for recreational events within those Ordinances and leave public recreation provisions as is.
Councilman Schmid supported Councilman Mitzels’ comments but thought site should be recognized. He stated he was against the Ordinance due to the commercial aspect of the site and stated the whole Ordinance should be forgotten. He questioned whether or not a private/public Ordinance was needed and if so, it should include site specifics that should not be in residential areas. Councilman Schmid asked Councilman Mitzel if he would include implementing an Ordinance that would also look at public/private site in his motion?
Councilman Mitzel answered he was not sure and maybe the city attorney could answer if such an Ordinance would be necessary because it may fall under the regular Ordinance which governs the private sector.
Councilman Schmid asked for a clarification of Councilman Mitzel’s answer.
Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney explained that the Zoning Ordinance does not have specific provisions for public/private facilities, however an examination of where commercial recreation facilities are permitted, what they are and the restrictions inherently considers where private facilities are allowed.
Councilwoman Mutch expressed concern regarding the way the Ordinance currently reads, "Recreational facilities in an Industrial zoned area is to be viewed as a holding pattern situation". The problem then becomes, what to do with the temporary recreational facilities which are built in Industrial zoned areas after the industrial land is developed? It was Councilwoman Mutch’s opinion that a specific site could not be looked at, and a responsible decision be made based on the volume of letters from residents. She stated that it should be considered but needs to be looked beyond. She stated she will support the motion, however, she thinks the concept of how recreational services are dealt with needs to be addressed beyond what was proposed.
Councilwoman Cassis did not feel that a recreational facility being proposed as an allowable use in Residential zoning was a permissible use at this time. She stated there appears to be three ways to provide recreation within the city. 1) Through the public park system, 2) Private enterprise, to buy property where it is properly zoned, 3) Combination public/private approach. She stated that she is in support of the motion.
Councilman Clark agreed with the comments of the Planning Commission and the Council. (end of tape) He stated that the Council may want to look into revising some of the Ordinances. He supported the motion.
Mayor McLallen stated unfortunately she is not in support of the motion. She stated there is a high demand for recreation in the City, there needs to be a way to find this service in a timely fashion. She expressed concern with leaving 80% of land unavailable to recreational opportunities, we would be short sighting ourselves with all of the opportunities available, and this is essentially why she is not in support of the zoning.
Mayor McLallen restated the motion to accept a negative recommendation from the Planning Commission and to further direct the Planning Commission to cease all work on the Recreational Ordinance rather to direct their initiatives to studying the Commercial, Industrial and Office Ordinance for opportunities for recreational events within those Ordinances and leave public recreation provisions as they are. She asked all those in favor of the motion as presented, please signify by saying aye, those opposed say no. Motion passes 6-1.
VOTE ON PM-96-07-138 MOTION CARRIED
Yes: Crawford, Cassis, Clark, Mitzel, Mutch, Schmid
Mayor McLallen thanked everyone and opened the floor to Audience Participation.
Mr. Young stated that the Community respects what is being done for them. This is a residential rural community and it is very gratifying to see that this is recognized. One issue of concern was that the residents were not involved and there is talk of executive sessions. He asked if this is a legal matter? Mr. Watson answered, the acquisition of property by the City is a matter that is appropriate for discussion in an executive session and in most instances where the City acquires property, this takes place by the Council prior to making the offer. Mr. Young stated it was his understanding that the land was being purchased by a private individual partnership. Mr. Fried stated he would be happy to meet with Mr. Young to discuss executive sessions.
Mayor McLallen asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Council, seeing none she closed Audience Participation.
Mayor McLallen asked the Planning Commission to arrange within the next 60 days, to plan for a joint informal committee of both bodies. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss some of the initiatives in prioritizing, and how both bodies can act together as a team on issues. She asked if there were any other Matters before Council, seeing none she adjourned the Special Joint Meeting of the Novi City Council and the Novi Planning Commission at 11:00 p.m.
Steven Cohen - Staff Planner
Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr
July 29, 1996
Date Approved: August 12, 1996