WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 1997 AT 7:30 P.M.


(810) 347-0475


Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo


PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley,

Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington


ABSENT: Member Churella


ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Water Resources Specialist Susan Tepatti, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen








Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda? Based on the discussion at the Implementation Committee meeting, Member Markham made a motion.





Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi


Member Hoadley objected because he would not be present at the next meeting and he would like to have some discussion.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission needs to postpone it to a certain date or can they postpone it to a future meeting?


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney answered it can be postponed either way.








Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone Item 2 under Matters for Consideration to a future meeting.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other changes or additions to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.





Moved by Weddington, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None






Frank Brennan, 23876 Heartwood commented on the proposed rezoning of Ten Mile Road and Beck Road from Residential to Commercial. He stated about three years ago, a developer sought local residential support for rezoning and a possible grocery store of which he had no success. He thanked the Commission for listening, supporting the Master Plan, considering residential use and requiring data from the developer.



Dave Hadley, 24265 Warrington Court addressed the issue of Ten Mile Road and Beck Road. He stated after the Planning Commission of January 8, 1997, his subdivision met on behalf of what took place at the meeting. He explained that the subdivision wanted to express their thanks to the Commission for its’ support on the issue and because of the Commission’s support, it has the support of the subdivision.



Glenn Healy, 1320 Indian Mound Trail, President of the Sports Club of West Bloomfield gave some background on his project and made a request. He stated he recently entered an agreement to purchase 8-10 acres from Novi Ten Associates at Novi Road and Ten Mile Road. He explained the Sports Club plans to build a multi-functional sports complex similar to the one in West Bloomfield. He stated he knows the City of Novi is considering changes to its’ Zoning Ordinance and he has respectfully submitted an additional change for consideration. The provision was included in the draft Recreational Zoning Ordinance that was considered last year and it relates to the use of air structures. He explained that he uses air structures because it allows outdoor recreational facilities without permanently committing the facility to just a three month season. He stated a three month season is not economical considering the high cost of industrial land. The air structures would be located behind larger buildings. He thanked the Commission for their consideration of his proposal.


Chuck Young, stated within the next 60 days, the Levy property will be coming before the Commission. He stated hopefully, after the meeting with the Mayor, City Manager and the newspaper, the people of Novi will have open communication in regard to what RUD’s and PUD’s are where no hidden agenda will be involved. As a taxpayer and a citizen, he expressed concern.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one else she closed the Audience Participation announcing that there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.





Andrew and Molly Wozniak stated it has come to their attention that a commercial development, including a supermarket will possibly be constructed in western Novi in the near future. Mr. Wozniak supported rezoning the Providence property to allow such a development at the northwest corner of Beck Road and Grand River Roads. He stated it appears to be the ideal location for such a facility as it is not in close proximity to any residential communities and located adjacent to a major thoroughfare. He did not support the proposed shopping center at Ten Mile and Beck Roads.


Tim and Debbi Bostwick wrote in regard to Bentley Estates Subdivision. They are located ½ mile north of Nine Mile Road on the west side of Beck Road, adjacent to the proposed subdivision. It has been brought to their attention that the entrance boulevard is slated to lie directly north of their property line. They have three young daughters and were extremely concerned for their safety and well being. Because they are exposed to extensive road traffic on Beck Road, their property value has declined, adding further road frontage will surely hurt their property value even more. It was their understanding that it is possible to have the three lots placed directly north of their property with the boulevard north of those lots. This seems to make the most planning sense as they are also aware of a planned subdivision north of Bentley Estates which could make use of the road if it were more centrally located.


Lynn Kocan wrote in regard to Zoning Ordinance Rewrite, Section 1900, I-1 Districts. She has reviewed the Brandon Rogers January 21st letter. She was unaware that parks and parkways were a permitted use within the Residential district, however, she believed that qualifying recreational facilities as "outside" recreational facilities is very important. This distinction should be made in all sections of the ordinance which contain this use. She was still concerned about placing public and commercial recreational facilities next to residential even though there is the Special Land Use provision. At the Recreation Ordinance hearing, there was a recommendation of a setback of at least 500 feet, what about minimum berms? Why are the recreational uses allowed in the I-1 District, abutting residential but not allowed in a B-1 or B-2 District? She applauded Mr. Rogers’ recommendation to shift certain manufacturing uses from Section 1902 to 1903. The purpose of specific tiers is to provide compatibility between uses. Manufacturing and residential are not compatible. In regard to the berm heights and opacity requirements in Section 1905.4, she understood from the Implementation Committee meetings that a 10-15 foot berm would replace the current 6-10 foot berm when light industrial abuts residential without any qualifier, why was this changed? For noise, visual and aesthetic reasons, berm heights should be consistent. She did not see the provision for final site plan review of Special Land Uses to be reviewed by the Planning Commission, she thought this was to be included in Section 2516.4 and possibly 1905.4.


Matt Quinn, of Cooper, Shifman, Gabe, Quinn and Seymour specifically referenced the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment to the previous identified Section 1903.7. Retail Sales in Industrial Districts. The new proposed is Section 1903.6 and the proposal is to increase the limit for retail sales from five hundred square feet to two thousand square feet. He did not believe that it was necessary to modify the existing ordinance as it pertains to light industrial buildings that are contained within an industrial park. There is a practical problem in allowing retail use within an industrial park based upon legitimate traffic concerns. However, it does make sense to amend the ordinance to apply to light industrial buildings which front on a major thoroughfare. In that circumstance, he recommended an increase percentage limit from the existing 10% to 15% and he would delete any reference to any specific square foot limitation. An example of how this would work would be the new raised electric and lighting building on Meadowbrook Road, north of Grand River, they have a 20,000 square foot building and have previously requested to have retail sales activities in the front of the building. With the 15% limitation, they would be allowed 3,000 square foot of retail sales. The 15% limitation makes sense and has a specific relation to the size of the building. The 15% limitation is a requirement with the majority of affected businesses can tolerate.


David J. Page wrote in regard to the proposed Dunnabeck Estates Subdivision. He stated the notice he received made no mention of the wetlands area on the property to be developed. A very large portion of the property is a wetland area and should be preserved. He felt it was important to all homeowners in the area that the newest project be of similar size (Barclay Estates, Beckingham, Bradford of Novi, Royal Crown Estates and Autumn Park). He has made a substantial investment in the community and hope the City will work with him to preserve the investment. As for the safety of his children, he believed under no circumstances, should the interest to the proposed community be off of Stratford Lane. This is already a very heavily traveled street. He cannot support more traffic. While he is not opposed to all development, as he understands the current proposal, he cannot help but feel this is wrong for this community.


Kathy Strelecki states it is her understanding that the possible alternative to Dunnabeck Estates is either 60 apartment units or small condos. In her opinion, it will make a substantial difference in the favor of all concerned to implement the present plan at hand. Obviously most would prefer to leave the woods, but with the demand of the area, the property will at some time be developed. It is most important for resale purposes to have single family housing near the same.


Lee Mamola wrote in regard to the proposed Site Plan Manual. He recently had the opportunity to review portions of the proposed Site Plan Manual and offered the following comments: 1) Page 1, restate the 20 working day time period statement to offer some degree of flexibility to accommodate both very simple projects and very complex projects. 2) References made at various locations to have certain documents "sealed" by a licensed professional. State statute further requires these professionals be licensed in the State of Michigan. The manual implies such but perhaps should clarify this item to prevent any misunderstanding by applicant or city official.


Lee Mamola wrote in regard to Proposed Zoning Text Amendments in regard to Facade Ordinance. He offered the following consideration for changes: A) Facade Chart: 1) Reflective glass should remain and Spandrel glass should remain, these are two different type of glasses. 2) Display glass should not be limited by percentages. 3) Roof shingles should be expanded to include materials such as tile, slate and standing seem metal. B) Footnotes to Chart: 1) Footnote H: While plain faced CMU may not be viewed as a decorative material by the Commission, the other materials clearly are decorative materials, and they should be a permitted use within the structure of the ordinance.

2) Footnote K: Reference to the term "brightly colored" should be deleted. C) Subparagraph 3: The ordinance should not reference a specific scale, but rather make reference terms such as "adequate" or "sufficient" scale. Additionally the term "minimum" is ambiguous.











Property located south of Nine Mile Road, east of Beck Road for possible Tentative Preliminary Plat recommendation to City Council.


Pat Keast of Seiber, Keast & Associates stated the site for Dunnabeck Estates is located on the east side of Beck Road, just north of Stratford Lane which is the entry into Barclay Estates. To the east is Barclay, to the south is the existing Randolf drain, to the north is an existing multiple use of small apartments, to the west is vacant land which is zoned R-A. There is an existing home on the site and a wetland which is approximately ½ of an acre. The total fill in the wetland for sidewalks is 0.03 acres. The current zoning for the site is RM-1, however, the owner has decided to pursue the single family plan. Mr. Keast explained that the petitioner has tried to develop the plan in lots according to the R-4 zoning, which requires an 80 foot wide lot with a 10,000 square foot area. The proposed density equals 2.1 lots per acre. The existing utilities are available at the site to sanitary and water, the storm sewer drainage is directed to a sedimentation pond before it discharges into the wetland, overflowing into the existing culvert underneath Stratford Lane and eventually into the Randolf drain. Mr. Keast stated he has met on the site with the consultants, addressed their concerns and respectfully requested a positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat approval.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant reviewed the proposed subdivision for 15 lots on the 7.27 acre site. He stated they all comply with the R-4 District standards which are eligible in an RM-1 District. They are all at least 10,000 square feet in area and 80 feet in width. The density is 2.06 lots per acre which is below the 3.3 lots per acre cap. Dunnabeck Court is a R.O.W. about 629 feet long which is under the cap of 800 feet. A 60 foot dedication from the Beck Road centerline is proposed. The lots that abut Beck Road are indicated as not having any vehicular access. A 5 foot concrete sidewalk is proposed along Beck Road, they are also adding a sidewalk along Stratford Lane to connect with the sidewalk in Barclay Estates Subdivision No. 1. On October 28, 1996, the Street Naming Committee approved the name of the subdivision and the name of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rogers recommended Tentative Preliminary Plat approval.


Dave Bluhm of JCK stated the site is serviced by 28 foot wide public roads with a cul-de-sac at the north end and a connection to Stratford Lane at the south end. Water mains will be extended from the water main in Stratford Lane, extended down the proposed roadway to service the development. A class three well will have to be provided and this will be required to be approved by the Michigan Department of Public Health. He would like the applicant to evaluate a secondary source of connection between lots 9 and 10, back to the water main in Beck Road, in order to provide a redundant source of supply and ensure the safety of the domestic source. The applicant is proposing a sanitary sewer extension to service the site. The site falls from the north to the south, ultimately outletting into the park area at the south end. Enclosed storm sewers will pick up the storm drainage, direct it into two small sedimentation basins on either side of the wetland. The water will then be directed into the park area where it is temporarily detained. The storage elevation is about 0.09 of a foot and should last for a six hour duration. The storm water is then directed across Stratford Lane into the Randolf drain, flowing to the east from there. Mr. Bluhm stated there were a few other minor comments with the plans of which most can be addressed at the time of final site plan. He recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the subdivision proposed to be 15 lots with one point of access. The access comes off of Stratford Road. A subdivision of this size is forecast to generate approximately 200 trips per day, peak hour trips are forecast to be approximately 15-20 trips during the highest hours of the day. Due to the size of the development, there are no improvements needed for Stratford Lane. In addition, the intersection of Stratford and Beck Road currently has appropriate deceleration and passing lanes in place. The proposed cul-de-sac length is within the standards, furthermore, the intersection of Nine Mile Road and Beck Road is on the Road Bond Program for signalization which will make a significant improvement on the congestion on Beck Road. Mr. Arroyo recommended Tentative Preliminary Plat approval.


Sue Tepatti, Water Resources Specialist stated she met on the site with the Department of Environmental Quality a few months ago to review the wetland boundaries. The wetland is in the southwest corner of the site and is relatively small, about ½ of an acre. It outlets south under Stratford Lane through a culvert and continues down through the Randolf drain. There is about 0.003 of an acre of fill proposed for the construction of a sidewalk. The storm water will be entering some sedimentation basins prior to flowing through the wetland and then continuing on through the Randolf drain. Ms. Tepatti stated she has reviewed the proposed impacts and does not have any objections to the plan. The applicant will be required to obtain a Department of Environmental Quality permit prior to her approval. She stated she will be reviewing details of the sedimentation basins and sidewalk construction during the subdivision drawing review and future submittals.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following: All roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. This must be noted on the plans.


Chris Pargoff, City Forester explained he has been asked to make sure that areas along major thoroughfares have adequate planting space to plant trees that will not be impacted by the Detroit Edison Trim Program. He stated the subdivision does have the capability with the berm along Beck Road and it does have a 20 foot berm in the area. It will be required to have a 20 foot green belt easement at the time of final plat. There is going to be substantial landscape disturbance in Barclay Estates which will have to be restored when the roadway comes out to the side street.


Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated the Department has received several telephone calls regarding the Public Hearing Notice. Residents were concerned that they were not properly notified or did not know what was going on. Mr. Cohen stated that all requirements were met per Section 3006 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cohen reviewed the requirements.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to clarify if it is also published in the Northville Record?


Mr. Cohen believed it was only published in the Novi News.


Chairperson Lorenzo suggested changing the policy to alter the notice between the two papers. It was her recollection that it used to be published in both newspapers.


Mr. Cohen stated he did not know if it was published in the Northville Record, he did not believe it was a requirement. He believed it was the general circulation of the paper in the city where it was happening.


Chairperson Lorenzo clarified, many people live in "Noville". She stated many of the subdivisions receive the Northville Record as opposed to the Novi News because their children attend Northville schools.


Mr. Cohen stated when the city abuts other municipalities, notices are sent to those cities. Obviously the notices do not get to them on time, however they are still sent out.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked for clarification from the newspaper in terms of whether they print it in both newspapers or just one.


Mr. Cohen answered, sure, it makes sense.


Member Hoadley stated there was a snow day when the paper was to be delivered, therefore he did not receive his newspaper until the following day which was a Friday.


Chairperson Lorenzo opened the Matter to the Public.


Robert Russell, 47281 Stratford Lane stated he lives on Lot 1 in Barclay Estates. He addressed the Commission with several questions: 1) Will there be any increase in the volume that is in the Randolf drain because it runs along the side of his house. 2) Is there going to be any policy to retain the trees that are on the east side of the subdivision. 3) What are the sizes of the dwellings and the amenities to the dwellings. Mr. Russell stated he would much rather see it be a subdivision of single family homes and he agreed with the proposal to change it. However, he would like to see the dwellings have many of the same amenities and sizes as Barclay Estates and the surrounding subdivisions. If the size of the dwellings are not in the same ball park it could negatively detract from Barclay Estates. In closing Mr. Russell approved of the plan to put in single family dwellings versus multiple dwellings.


Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated several years ago, the city initiated rezoning of the property and other such properties that do not comply with the Master Plan. At the time, the property owner convinced City Council that he only intended to retain the existing small condominium development to the north. Mr. Mutch suggested looking at Lot 1 and reduce it down to the R-4 minimum and retain the frontage along Stratford Lane as an open space. He commented on the green belt along Beck Road, he stated it is necessary, however, the buffer areas along major arterials have not been addressed. Currently the Ordinance requires a 20 foot green belt which can intrude into the rear or side yard setbacks. Mr. Mutch stated during the discussion regarding the Zoning Ordinance, he would like to revisit the possibility of increasing the green belt width and measure the setback from the interior green belt line so homes are not right up on the R.O.W. line of major arterials.


Bruce Butske, 48100 Nine Mile Road was struck by the essential awkwardness of the meeting. He found it to be very disturbing to look at the backs of the presentation boards, he also stated the people who aren’t present as a part of their job, are really left out. He stated the Commission should think about the audience when someone speaks, and their name plate is not visible, the audience does not necessarily know their function and the Commission should consider this and try to make the audience feel more welcome.


William Peeze, 21899 Barclay Drive lives in Barclay Estates, Lot 47. He expressed some of the same concerns that Mr. Russell spoke about. He stated most of the homes have three car garages and he did not feel the lots were sufficiently wide to support a house like that. He asked what the proposed value of the homes that are expected to be put on a lot that size. He also expressed concern regarding the quality of what the development may be. He asked if there has been consideration given to the trees, whether they will be replanted or will there be some that will be saved?


Joe Dunnabeck, 21900 Beck Road was the property owner along with his father. He stated he has been in the area since the 1950's. He stated he could not build on the land until the sewers came in, this is why it has not been developed in so long. As far as the wetlands are concerned, he explained that originally the area was an open apple orchard. Over the years, it started gathering water and today is considered a wetland area. Mr. Dunnabeck was not in favor of destroying the property as he did not want to overload the property.


Ginger Barrons, 39809 Grand River of Red Carpet Keim stated the owners of the property tried to market the property a while ago. She stated it is a property that can be used for apartments and did not want that be forgotten. There were many efforts made to make sure this did not happen. The owners have paid an architect to draw the plans for the project, just so the property would not be developed as apartments because they wanted a buffer between the main road and Barclay Estates. Ms. Barrons stated that $400,000 homes fronting Beck Road probably would not sell. She stated it is a really good project and hoped the Commission would keep it in mind.


Adelia Eckelmeyer, 47221 Stratford Lane asked if the applicant could develop a different entryway, thus leaving Stratford Lane alone. She expressed concern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood. She also agreed with the residents of Barclay Estates as far as preserving the wetlands and the tree lines. She felt if houses are going to be constructed in the area, they should be comparable to the homes in Barclay Estates.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the issue. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to Mr. Keast or anyone who would like to respond to the questions the residents have asked.


Mr. Keast stated in the development, typically the square footage of the homes are 2,200 to 2,800 consisting mostly of colonials. The costs of the homes would range from $230,000 to $280,000.

Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Chairperson Lorenzo stated there is an affidavit in the packet from Eric Olson, stating that the proposed subdivision does not contain regulated woodlands per the official woodlands map.


Mr. Pargoff concurred.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated in Ms. Tepatti’s letter, she stated in terms of around the wetland, there is an upland portion fringe area that contains large black willows and an outer fringe of shrubs and young trees. Chairperson Lorenzo assumed this to be regulated under the wetland. However, there are no regulated woodlands on the property.


Ms. Tepatti agreed.


Member Vrettas asked the applicant if he has planned to work around the trees on the property or were they going to be removed?


Mr. Keast stated along the boundary between Barclay and the project, there is a row of trees. Typically the subdivision ordinance requires the utilities to be placed in the rear yard, this applies to the lots that abut Beck Road and the lots that back up to the north. However, the lots that back up to Barclay, the utilities are proposed to be moved to the front to preserve the area in the rear. At the time of final engineering and grading, catch basins will be placed in the rear in such a manner not to disturb the trees.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if the developer wished to develop under RM-1, what could he put in and how much?


Mr. Rogers answered there are 7.27 acres, so it would come out to 50 to 56 dwelling units.


Member Hoadley asked how much traffic would it generate?


Mr. Arroyo answered, in the neighborhood of about 320 trips per day.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if there was any discussion in regard to entering off of Beck Road rather than Stratford?



Mr. Rogers answered no. Both plans showed the entrance off of Stratford. It seemed in order to reduce the number of curb cuts on Beck Road, it was good planning to enter off of Stratford. Mr. Rogers did not see the curb cut happening on Lot 1. He explained the lot has 200 feet of frontage on Dunnabeck Court and the engineer could prohibit any vehicular access from Lot 1 onto Stratford Lane.


Member Hoadley asked the petitioner if he had any thoughts on making the front of the lot on Stratford, a green belt area and have the driveway come off of the interior road?


Mr. Keast did not think it was a problem to have the driveway come off of the interior road, he stated the house would have to face Stratford to comply with setbacks but it would not be a problem to bring the driveway off the side.


Member Hoadley expressed concern with large houses on small lots, stating that they become very intrusive and overcrowd the lots. He asked if there was any way to increase all of the lot sizes along the side to make it less dense looking?


Mr. Keast stated those lots are 82 feet wide and thought it would be of some merit.


Member Hoadley asked if the utilities could be placed on the side lots, in between the houses rather than in the front? He stated that utilities in the front are not very attractive and asked if they could somehow be placed on the side or if they could be screened?


Mr. Keast was sure that landscaping or screening could be done to decrease the visibility of the utilities. He stated the houses were pretty close to the road and to bring the utilities to the side yard would put them real close to the driveways.


Member Hoadley asked if the utilities could be receded into the ground with a water tight box around them?


Mr. Keast answered, not that he was aware of. He stated the utilities companies design their own facilities.


Member Hoadley asked Ms. Tepatti if she had considered the stow pipe type of drainage so that the level of water could be controlled not to overflow onto the land but it could go underneath?


Ms. Tepatti stated there are a number of designs for sedimentation basins that are available. She explained when the sedimentation basin is constructed, there is a stow pipe that would extend above the water. When the water reaches a certain height, it filters through a stone filter and flow underground through a small pipe and outlet into the wetland or further down whatever the site allows. She stated this is an alternate to having a spillway for the basin. Ms. Tepatti stated this will be something she will consider and look into for the site.


Member Hoadley stated he has seen it in Livingston County and they are very attractive. He believed it would, and appreciated some thought toward it. Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if the road accessing the subdivision was best off of Stratford rather than Beck Road?


Mr. Rogers answered, in his opinion, yes.


Member Markham asked Mr. Bluhm if there was a reason that the property was not shown on the Zoning Map as being zoned RM-1?


Mr. Bluhm believed when the Zoning Map was prepared last year, the area should have been included and was not. He believed with the recent corrections to the map, it has now been included.


Member Markham asked Mr. Watson if it was advisable for the Commission to approve the development or send a positive recommendation that the Commission think about recommending a zoning change from RM-1 to something more appropriate for single family?


Mr. Watson stated as a practical matter he did not think it was necessary because assuming the subdivision is approved and receives final plat approval, it will be developed and recorded with a Register of Deeds in that form of development. He stated if the Master Plan was being redone on a more general or broad scale, it might make sense, but to set up a special city initiated rezoning just to rezone the property, probably is not worth the effort.


Member Markham asked the developer if he would be willing to consider Mr. Mutch’s suggestion to reduce the size of Lot 1 and put some open space adjacent to Stratford Lane and bring the driveway for Lot 1 out onto the cul-de-sac?


Mr. Keast answered yes. He thought it could be accomplished, however, he did not know that open space could be put on Stratford as something separate from the lot, thus calling it the front because then that would create the front along Dunnabeck Court and it would not meet the setbacks in the rear. Mr. Keast thought the same thing could be accomplished by increasing the setback on the lot and create a landscape easement along it.


Member Markham thought that Mr. Mutch’s point about the preference not to have a driveway onto Stratford was a good point and asked the developer to do whatever he could to address it.





Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Dunnabeck Estates, SP96-39A.





Member Vrettas commended the owner of the property for not putting more apartments on it. He stated a lot of Commissioners have come to the conclusion that Novi has reached its’ maximum on the number of apartments they want in the community. He also commended the owner on what he felt was a genuine feeling to do what was in the best interest of the community, following the concept of being a good neighbor and thanked him.


Member Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm if a type three well was a community well?


Mr. Bluhm answered yes. It is a single well that services anywhere between 212 homes.


Member Weddington asked if there will be separate wells for each of the lots?


Mr. Bluhm answered, not with a class three system.


Member Weddington asked if there was any estimate on when the moratorium might be listed?


Mr. Bluhm stated he has been receiving indications based on some additional equipment that needs to be added to the mains to the east, that it will be delayed until the early summer. He added that these are all rumors that he has heard from the health department and other people but none of them are confirmed.


Member Weddington asked Mr. Rogers if he could address the Similar/Dissimilar Ordinance and how it might come into play in this case. She asked how it might help to maintain the quality of the overall neighborhood, so as to not adversely affect the adjacent subdivision?


Mr. Rogers stated it will help in the subdivision where the homes will have to have a variety of architectural style, however, he did not see where they are related because Barclay Estates was to the east on another street. Mr. Rogers was not certain if the Similar/Dissimilar Ordinance came into play in this case.


It was Mr. Bluhm’s belief that the adjacent subdivisions are looked at to a certain distance from the development.


Mr. Watson stated it consists of two separate provisions, one which tries to preclude excessive similarity and the other tries to prevent dissimilar. He stated there is a provision in order to get a building permit the house must be within 75% of the average square footage of houses in the surrounding area. The problem in this case is that "surrounding area" is defined within the ordinance to include the subdivision itself, not subdivision to subdivision.


Member Weddington asked if there would be reference made to the houses on lots 42 through 49?


Mr. Watson did not think so.


Member Weddington agreed with Mr. Mutch’s suggestion that the building on Lot 1 should be oriented to face Dunnabeck Court. She also preferred to see the parcel developed as single family rather than multiple and agreed with the access off of Stratford Lane rather than another major access for another subdivision directly to Beck Road. She was glad to see that the wetland was being preserved and hoped the existing vegetation could be protected and preserved as much as possible. Member Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm if there will be any impact on the Randolf drain?


Mr. Bluhm answered no, the primary goal with the detention is to bring the flows down to those which would exit the site prior to its’ development. He stated the detention is dealt with on site.


Member Weddington stated she will be supporting the motion.


Member Hoadley asked if the maker of the motion would be willing to accept a friendly amendment to take into consideration all of the consultants comments and also to include the fact that the developer has made a statement that he would be willing to access Lot 1 off of Dunnabeck Court rather than Stratford.


Member Markham accepted as the maker of the motion.


Member Bononi accepted as the seconder of the motion.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced the motion has been amended to say subject to the consultants comments with a recommendation that access to Lot 1 be restricted to Dunnabeck Court not Stratford.


Member Capello stated Mr. Mutch had a good point, however, he thought the developer wanted to put the front of the house on Lot 1, facing Stratford as opposed to Dunnabeck, he asked if this was the initial idea?


Mr. Keast answered it would create such a narrow depth if the house were placed facing Dunnabeck the setback would not be able to be achieved leaving a shallow building envelope. He stated the front of the house will face Stratford, the back would face north and the driveway would be off of Dunnabeck.


Member Capello asked if it was in compliance with how it was amended?


Mr. Watson answered yes.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked Ms. Tepatti if the sedimentation basins were to be temporary and the water quality benefits were to be permanent?


Ms. Tepatti answered yes.


Chairperson Lorenzo clarified there will be a temporary sedimentation basin which will be converted to a permanent water quality basin utilizing the DEQ’s Best Management Practices.


Ms. Tepatti answered yes and stated she will be reviewing it in a lot more detail.


Chairperson Lorenzo was very pleased that the existing wetland hydrology was to be maintained, however, she expressed concern with utilizing the wetland at the detention basin. Chairperson Lorenzo believed even though the wetland was smaller in size, it still had a lot of value since it is both open water and has a fringe of an upland wooded area. She expressed concern with the large black willows and the outer fringe of shrubs and young trees in conjunction with the water levels from both 10 year and 100 year storms. She wanted to know how this would be affected and wanted to make sure that any adjacent property owners would not be affected in allowing it to be detained.


Mr. Bluhm stated from the perspective of a 10 year and a 100 year overflow, the overflows beyond a 10 year storm are surface overflows. The overflow locations are into Stratford Lane and then ultimately to the other side of Stratford Lane, directly into the Randolf drain. Mr. Bluhm stated there is no impact to any of the existing homes to the east in Barclay Estates or any of the homes proposed to the north.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked during a 100 year storm, will the wetland pass the 100 year storm and convey the water downstream?


Mr. Bluhm answered yes, directly to the south, into the street areas very close to Beck Road.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there will be detention in the wetland for a 100 year storm?


Mr. Bluhm answered no, there will be no detention in the wetland beyond a 10 year. He rephrased that, stating there is a one foot free board requirement on the basin, the water in the basin will head up another foot in a 100 year storm and then spill over into the street areas. Mr. Bluhm stated there will be about 1.4 feet in a 100 year storm, unless the engineer can provide some larger culvert system that would be set at the 10 year mark.


Chairperson Lorenzo again expressed concern regarding the fringed wooded area of the wetland and the adjacent upstream property owners. She asked the Commission to consider amending the motion with a condition that a determination of modified water levels in the wetlands will not cause the wetland fringe vegetation to die off or increase pounding of water conditions on any adjacent property on or off the development site.


Member Markham accepted the amendment.


Member Bononi seconded the amendment.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





Property located west of Beck Road, between Ten Mile Road and Nine Mile Road for possible Tentative Preliminary Plat recommendation to City Council and Woodland Permit approval.


George Norberg of Seiber, Keast and Associates introduced Ken Nanda, the owner, developer, builder and current resident at the proposed Lot 9 of the subdivision. Mr. Norberg stated the site is zoned R-1, the lots meet the minimum requirements for R-1, minimum 120 feet wide and 21,780 square feet. The plan is called Bentley Estates and was submitted as such, but has since changed to Cheltenham Estates, for purposes of the meeting he stated he would continue to refer to the project as Bentley Estates.


The sanitary sewer connection is being made. The stub will be carried throughout the subdivision and extended at the stub street and brought down nearly to Beck Road. There is a stub for water left by Beckinham that will be continued throughout the subdivision. There will also be stubs provided for future extensions. Mr. Norberg stated there are two wells on site, most likely the development will use individual wells, he stated he has no intention of going with a type three well. He was hopeful that the moratorium would be lifted before the wells are required. The site has a ridge line through the center, part of it flows to the west, the other part flows to the east. The portion that flows to the east will be detained in a separate detention basin directly adjacent to the wetland area and outlet into the road ditch on Beck Road which eventually leads to the Thornton Creek regional detention basin. The detention basin on the west side of the property outlets to the existing wetland area, it eventually ends up in the Novi/Lyon drain. Both systems will have storm water detention basins for a 10 year design, they both act as sediment basins and water quality basins after the project is completed. Mr. Norberg stated there are three wetlands on site, a portion of the wetlands located on the property for Somerset Park is approximately 7.7 acres. The only disturbance to wetlands will be in the buffer area for the outlet pipe from the detention basin. The Amhurst Park wetland located on the property is approximately 0.25 acres. There is a 0.43 acre wetland that was created when a berm was constructed, he explained that cattle used to be watered in that area.


Mr. Norberg stated 3 percent of the woodlands on the overall site are being disturbed. He stated the road was realigned during the preliminary investigation and brought further to the north to enable the houses to be brought further away from the woodland area. The lots are approximately 220 to 230 feet deep. Ms. Lemke wrote a letter asking that all the trees on lots 5-11 be bonded. Mr. Norberg was hopeful that when the woodland plans and permits are issued, considering the depth of the lots, the bonding would not be necessary.


The roads were designed for future extension to the north. At the suggestion of Mr. Arroyo, Mr. Nanda spoke with Mrs. Davidson about the possibility of providing a secondary access along her parcel, she was not interested in allowing it. He stated he also spoke with Mr. Lokey who was interested in developing on the property to further the continuation of access through a section of his site. The roadway has been placed so the lots are on the north side allowing for a park as a buffer for the existing home.


Mr. Norberg stated Jeff King from King Environmental met with Ms. Tepatti and found that the wetland was worth saving, that’s when the roadway was brought in. Mr. Norberg requested a positive recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Preliminary Plat, provided the waiver for the excessive cul-de-sac length and the lack of a secondary access, is granted. He also requested approval for the woodland plan.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated there are 30 lots on a 30 acre site. The 2,190 foot cul-de-sac exceeds the 800' maximum length. No secondary access is provided. All lots comply with the R-1 District area and width standards. Density is 1.01 dwelling units per acre. There is an existing house on Lot 9 that will remain and complies with R-1 District setback standards. Three parks have been referenced, sidewalks along internal roads and an 8 foot wide concrete walk along Beck Road. No vehicular access is permitted to Beck Road for Lot 30. On January 14, 1997, the Street Naming Committee approved the new name for the subdivision, Cheltenham Estates and the drives will be Cheltenham Drive, Shilo Drive, Shilo Court, Aberdeen Drive and Sarina Drive.


In regard to the secondary access and the length of the cul-de-sac, Mr. Rogers suggested that the applicant work with the adjacent property owner to provide a comprehensive road network. The applicant has shown a stub road in Hummingbird Estates to the north, presumably it was put in and intended to be a future road extension, however, it has not been approved. If it were extended south, it would provide excellent north/south access through the area, however, it is not essential. Mr. Rogers had great difficulty recommending Tentative Preliminary Plat approval with such a long dead end cul-de-sac. He thought other alternatives should be looked at. Mr. Rogers did not recommend Tentative Preliminary Plat approval.


Dave Bluhm of JCK stated public water and sewer are provided, pubic water is being provided by individual wells in lieu of a class three system. 28 feet wide public roads are provided throughout the streets. From a storm water point of view, the drainage area is fairly split. Half of the area drains into a detention basin to the east, near Beck Road, the other half goes to the west into a detention area along the western edge, to the north of the cul-de-sac. The park area to the west is a flood plain with an undefined elevation and is regulated by FIMA. Mr. Bluhm stated some hydrology has been done with the Storm Water Master Plan that has given some basic elevations. The elevations are lower than the lots that are adjacent to it, therefore, he did not anticipate the need to consider easements over the back of the lots. Mr. Bluhm stated there were minor comments in his letter that could be addressed at the subdivision construction drawing level and commented that the detention basin that is adjacent to Beck Road, ultimately drains to Beck Road and across into the Thornton regional basin which exists. It appears that there may be the ability to provide detention for the developments on the east side, into the Thornton basin, however, he would like to see the applicant provide the sediment water quality control basin. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant provided an average of 340 average trips per day and 35 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The secondary access, cul-de-sac length are the key issues. He stated he requested the applicant to meet with the property owner to the west of Beckinham Estates for some type of secondary access, however, the land owner was not willing to permit this to occur. The property to the north makes the most sense in terms of providing a connection for the stub streets so that secondary access can be provided and the cul-de-sac issue can be resolved. It appears that since the property owner to the north is in the process of beginning to plan for the development of that property, it would make sense for both to come through the process at the same time. Mr. Arroyo stated the plat is acceptable with the exception of the cul-de-sac and secondary access issues. He stated it either must be resolved through the connection to the property to the north or a City Council waiver would be necessary to address the deficiencies.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect reviewed her letter regarding woodlands preservation. She recommended approval of the woodlands plan because of the minimal amount of intrusion into the woodlands areas. She believed the plan could be made better by slight modifications through the process of submittal. The woodlands are primarily to the west and south of the parcel and are a part of Beckinham Estates. They are part of the western core reserve area for the city. A large portion of it is open and this is where the proposed subdivision will be located. There are no potential or nominated historic or specimen trees on the site, the significant hedgerow connects north/south from lot 11 and 21. The quality of the woodlands on the site is high and a majority of the species are Oak Hickory and some Beech Maple. The woodlands to the west are wet woodlands and have trees and understory vegetation that are used to a great deal of water. It was her belief that there would be no adverse impact from the drainage into the wetland due to the two breakage points of drainage on the site. The correct number of replacement trees has been furnished and they are shown at the rear of lots 11 through 14. The applicant has furnished all of the requirements per the ordinance. There are a series of 13 conditions that Ms. Lemke covered in her letter. In summary she recommended 1) approval with payment of performance bond to be determined at final site plan reviews; 2) all trees on lots 5 through 11 and 15 through 16 to be bonded at the time of development; 3) no construction including clearing and grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved and an Environmental Pre-Construction meeting is held; 4) the remaining regulated woodlands which are not platted are placed into a Preservation Easement; 5) preservation signage is erected as directed by the City Forester; 6) review of final engineering plans for woodlands impact are reviewed; 7) Lots 5 through 16 have a "No Backyard" classification; 8) re-check tree survey on Lot 11; 9) additional tree protective measures to be reviewed at final engineering; 10) building envelopes be more realistic and include potential side entry garages; 11) removal of trees #4296, #4297, #4298, #4268 as they are too close to construction; 12) additional protective fencing will be required on Lot 9; 13) replacement tree count will be reviewed at final engineering and there may be a few additional replacement trees required.


Chris Pargoff, City Forester concurred with Ms. Lemke’s review. He stated the number of species in the replacement trees should be increased to five different kinds rather than the two that are proposed. All of the trees on the lots where there are regulated woodlands will be bonded, accommodating the requirements of the ordinance.


Sue Tepatti of JCK stated the wetlands on the site have been flagged in the field and surveyed and have been confirmed by JCK and the DEQ through a joint field meeting with the DEQ and the applicant’s wetland consultant. There are three wetland areas on the site totaling 7.7 acres overall. The wetland to the west is extensive and continues to the south and to the north. The project has minimal impact to the wetland and falls under the minor category in the ordinance. A wetland permit is required for the single storm water outlet at the western end of the site. Ms. Tepatti stated JCK will be reviewing the sedimentation basin as well as the one on the eastern portion of the site for water quality benefits and further details, as they are developed. The project will be requiring a DEQ permit for the wetland storm water discharge to the wetland buffer area, the City permit will not be issuing until it is obtained. In summary, Ms. Tepatti expected to recommend approval of the wetland permit based on further review of the engineering plans.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan is not recommended for approval. A secondary access road is required when a dwelling unit is over 800 feet of street distance from the nearest point of external access. Show the location of the hydrants on the print. Maximum hydrant spacing is 500 feet between hydrants. All roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. Item #2 of the fire department notes is unacceptable.


Chairperson Lorenzo announced it is a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the public.


Bruce Butske, 48100 Nine Mile Road assured the Commission that he has not had enough time to fully speak to the project. He is the property owner of the first west facing flag. He has a nine acre rectangle and a strip ¼ mile long, 30 feet wide that comprises one acre. Mr. Butske stated that he was told repeatedly by various people in the City of Novi that it was against ordinance to drain water off of one property into another. He did not believe this was true and expressed concern about the water because the Scarlet Maple swamp goes south past the property line which is the north end of his property. He stated due to the unusual siting of his house at the south end of the property, when the snow melts or it rains, he pumps 6,800 gallons of water per hour. He pumps the water from behind his house, north to another part of his property. He stated the more water that is put into the basin, the more flooding he has on his property. He stated he would be more than willing to meet with anyone on the Commission who would like to visit his site to see what he is speaking about. Mr. Butske again expressed concern with flooding and other properties draining their water into the basin making his property unuseful, less valuable and causing him to do more pumping.


Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court had several concerns regarding the site and felt it would be premature for the Commission to give its’ approval to the subdivision and a woodland permit. He did not feel that all of the options have been explored. He did not see anything that showed the exploration of utilizing the Preservation Option. There are regulated woodlands on the site which are an extension of the core reserve, so there are qualifying habitat areas. He explained with the Preservation Option the lot sizes could be reduced from 120 feet in width and 21,000 square feet to 110 feet in width and 18,000 square feet. This would bring the lot lines forward for the lots along the south side of the street. In addition, the lots on the other side could be reduced to 18,000 square feet and the entire plat could be shifted over 75 feet to the north, thus creating a buffer area along the southern border. He believed it was important to examine how the woodlands could best be preserved.


George Hartman, 6905 Telegraph represented William Lokey, the property owner to the north. He stated he met with Mr. Norberg and Mr. Nanda on Friday. It was his first knowledge that development was taking place on the site to the south. He stated mutual development options were discussed and at this point, there is not a firm plan for his site. He did not have any problem with the proposed development, however, he expressed concern with how the roads effect his development. He stated he would be willing to work with Mr. Nanda.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the issue. Seeing no one else, she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission.





Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Watson if the Commission has the option to postpone if they chose to do so, and does the petitioner have to agree to it in order to pursue that option?


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated the ordinance calls upon the Commission to make a recommendation to City Council within 45 days. The ordinance does not contain a consequence for failing to meet it, it is not as though it is automatically approved if the Commission does not act within that time, however, under the ordinance, that recommendation is supposed to be made within that time period. He suggested the recommendation could be that the Council postpone any final action until certain issues are resolved.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, FAILED (2-6)


Member Vrettas thought it would be a good idea to look at what Mr. Mutch has suggested because it might help to alleviate some of the flooding. He stated the flooding will be a big concern when the petitioner comes back for final.


Member Capello asked Member Vrettas if he meant to send a negative recommendation or to agree with Chairperson Lorenzo and ask for postponement to give the petitioner a chance to discuss it.


Member Vrettas stated if it could be done, he would like to let the petitioner discuss it.


Mr. Watson suggested making a recommendation to City Council that they postpone the matter until the issues can be addressed.


Member Vrettas stated this is the way he would like it done.



Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion has been clarified to send a recommendation to City Council to postpone any action on Bentley Estates Subdivision, SP96-40A until the petitioner can address all of the concerns in the consultants letters and raised by the public.


Member Bononi stated from the status of the application, it is a wise decision. She agreed with Mr. Rogers that the long cul-de-sac street without additional access is a reason to not recommend the subdivision. She expressed concerns with the effects that the proposed regional detention basin might have on situations as they exist now in Somerset Park. The existing woodlands in Somerset Park and the immediate effect of the storm water that will be filtered into the wetland was also a concern. She also expressed concerns with the abutting property owner to the south and whether or not it can be verified that his situation would be affected or is now affected by the property and the storm water that it would generate. She thought the application pushes the envelope from considering the project an Administrative approval for a wetland permit because there is an area that is draining into an existing designated wetland/woodland and there is also disturbance of the buffer at Bentley Park. Member Bononi was in support of the motion.


Member Weddington shared the concerns that were expressed in regard to the cul-de-sac and stated public safety must be the paramount concern. She was also sympathetic to the drainage issues to the neighboring properties and would like to see something done to better preserve and protect the woodlands and habitat. Member Weddington feared if the Commission sent it on to Council, they would act without having the benefit of a more thorough discussion of these issues. She thought it needed more work, especially with the neighboring property owner to the north, to see if the issue of secondary access could be resolved. She asked the petitioner if he would like to postpone?


Mr. Norberg stated the biggest issue seemed to be the long cul-de-sac. He was not certain that it had been discussed. From the standpoint of the secondary access, he stated the property is a long narrow parcel that directly abuts Beckenham Estates. Beckenham Estates left two cul-de-sacs which prohibited a secondary access in that direction. Mr. Norberg stated this property has been purchased and there is a certain amount of carrying charges as well as other things that are going on with the property. It is important for Mr. Nanda to proceed with the property. Mr. Norberg stated at the moment, he would like to continue and accepted the motion.


Member Weddington stated she would prefer to send a negative recommendation for the reasons that the proposal does not comply with the ordinance, she also felt a better job could be done with the protection of the woodlands to the south. She thought the drainage issue needed further explanation. She stated she would support the motion, but she would prefer to send a negative recommendation.


Member Hoadley was not in support of the motion. He felt it would be better to postpone it back to the Commission to give the applicant a chance to address the concerns of Mr. Lokey. He stated the outlet off of Inverness is a dedicated outlet and asked Mr. Bluhm if this was correct?


Mr. Bluhm answered yes, it is platted and accessible for access.


Member Hoadley stated there is an alignment problem with Sarnia Drive. He felt strongly that the Preservation Option should be explored and felt Mr. Mutch made a good point. He did not approve of the 2,190 foot cul-de-sac and stated it was a health and safety issue with no way to access it if there were to be any kind of blockage. Member Hoadley was in favor of all of the subdivisions having some kind of continuous access to one another. He stated he would be voting against the motion because he thought the motion should be made that it be postponed back to the Commission to give the application a chance to work with the property owner to the north, to look at preservation, to look at the water management concerns rather than sending it off to Council. He felt it was the job of the Commission to look at these issues and come up with positive or negative recommendations.


Member Csordas agreed with the comments of Member Hoadley. He disagreed with the length of the cul-de-sac.


Member Bononi added she was disappointed that the applicant is not taking advantage of the idea to postpone because she believed some very positive work could be done during that time. As a result of the decision not to look into and support the delay, she would not be supporting the motion. She agreed with Member Weddington and Member Hoadley.


Member Capello stated Edinborough Subdivision is the only one that there is going to be additional access to, but in all fairness to that subdivision, there is no indication to the residents without checking the plat map, that outlot A is going to access to the next subdivision. He was sure that the residents would come forward and object to any type of access through their subdivision. He stated there would be a problem with the subdivision and suggested a breakaway gate that is not visible. He asked if there was a temporary easement that could be used for access until things get underway?


Mr. Norberg answered, no, he has not gotten this far yet. He stated because the designs are preliminary at this stage, there is no set pattern for the roadways through their subdivision.

Member Capello stated the road would not go though, it goes through Phase III which will not have access to Beck Road in that location, it is temporary until it is built. The only cost would be laying down gravel.


Mr. Norberg stated he would pursue it and be willing to do that.


Member Markham agreed with Member Weddington that it makes more sense to send a negative recommendation to City Council based on the things she has heard. She was not in support of the motion.


Chairperson Lorenzo shared the concerns of the Commissioners and would not be in support of the motion for those reasons.





Yes: Capello, Vrettas

No: Bononi, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington


Chairperson Lorenzo entertained another motion.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone for no less than 45 days, come back to the Commission, giving the applicant a chance to address all of the concerns that were expressed and the information given by Mr. Lokey be made a part of the minutes.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hoadley meant to say no more than 45 days?


Member Hoadley answered no, not less than 45 days. There is a 45 day grace period.


Mr. Watson stated the 45 days runs from the time of submission by the applicant. It does not run from the time it gets to the table.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen how many days it was from the original submission?

Mr. Cohen recalled the second submittal to come in early January or late December.


Mr. Watson stated it could be postponed until the first meeting in February and the Commission could still make the recommendation within the time period.


Mr. Cohen stated this was not going to work because the plan needs to review the plan and it takes a month to review it.


Mr. Norberg stated he preferred the second meeting in February.


Member Hoadley stated the second meeting in February would be fine.


Member Vrettas stated that the applicant should understand that the Commission wants to see movement when it comes back, otherwise he believed the applicant would see a negative recommendation.





Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: None


Chairperson Lorenzo announced the Commission will take a ten minute break.







Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated this item was postponed at the last meeting to allow for further review by the Commissioners. He stated the first package deals with proposed amendments from conversations with several Commissioners as well as staff. The second package deals with questions that were asked by several Commissioners, and they were answered by consultants and staff. He stated there may be a few questions that were left out, perhaps this is the forum to ask those questions. He was hopeful that the first packet was easy to follow and if it was satisfactory, he would like to pass it on to City Council for approval.


Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission and asked that when an issue is raised, the Commissioners make all of their comments on that particular issue before moving on.

Member Bononi referred to the first page, number 6, "...Preliminary Site Plan may be granted permission to appear before the Planning Commission with negative letters," she asked Mr. Watson does the applicant follow-up with Commission to do this in a legal sense?


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated in a legal sense, this is a provision of the ordinance that gives the applicant that right.



Chairperson Lorenzo stated it reads, "may be granted permission" and asked if this means the applicant has to ask permission?


Mr. Watson answered yes, however, they must come before the Commission to seek it, it would not be a two step process.


Member Capello asked for a point of clarification, if the applicant does not have all of applicable data, do they come before the Commission and ask to be heard?


Mr. Watson answered, no, only when they have negative review letters.


Mr. Cohen explained that usually the applicant will write a letter to the Chair stating they would like to move forward.


Member Markham stated there have been many times where proposals have come before the Commission where they had negative recommendation letters and did not meet the requirements but they were still allowed to come before the Commission. She was looking for something that stated if the applicant was going to do this it was because the ordinance allowed it.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated when the Commission asked Mr. Watson in the past, he said the applicant was allowed to do it and it should be allowed anyway because it has been a point of contention sometimes. She strongly encouraged that it not be done, however, when the Commissioners have asked, Mr. Watson has replied that the applicant has the right to come before the Commission, even with negative letters. Chairperson Lorenzo found it to be unfortunate that it does have to be allowed because she felt it was a waste of time for the Commission as well as the applicant.


Mr. Watson stated the reason is because the applicant may contend that the Consultants are calling it wrong by giving a negative application, and the Commission is the body that ultimately has to make the decision whether it complies or not.

Member Capello asked why it starts off with such strong language in stating that the Preliminary Site Plan shall not be reviewed by the Planning Commission until there is some other... (end of tape)


Chairperson Lorenzo’s interpretation was that number one and number two are slightly different. The first paragraph says that the application data has to be provided. If the application comes to negative letters, there could be other reasons. The application data could have been provided but they still may not meet the ordinance requirements.


Member Capello stated there is nothing that says just because the applicant has negative letters of recommendation that they cannot come in front of the Commission. It only says that they shall not come before the Commission if they do not have all of the applicable data.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated that is correct and that is exactly what is being said. If the applicant has negative letters, but, all of the application data has been provided, they can come before the Commission.


Mr. Watson did not believe the ordinance states what the Commission intended it to. His understanding was normally, the applicant should not come before the Commission unless they have all positive recommendations and they also provide all applicable data. It seems that the Commission wants an exception for both of those.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated if the first paragraph said, "unless all application data are provided and there are positive letters from the consultants."


Member Capello stated the first paragraph says, "the applicant shall not come before the Commission unless they have application data provided," and as the Commission discussed adding, "provided there is sufficient application data for the consultants to make a recommendation. Member Capello asked who will be left with the prerogative to determine whether there is sufficient application data to allow the Commission to make a decision?


Mr. Watson stated in that case, it is the prerogative of the Commission to deny it until there is a complete plan.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated in other words, "except when recommended with conditions" could be removed. She read the ordinance to say, "the Preliminary Site Plan shall not be reviewed by the Planning Commission unless all application data are provided. Notwithstanding the above Preliminary Site Plan may appear before the Planning Commission before negative letters."


Member Capello stated the last sentence is not needed because the Commission is not saying that the applicant cannot come before it if they have negative recommendation letters.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought Member Markham wanted make reference to it.


Member Markham stated previously the Commission said it shall not be considered unless it meets all of the required conditions of the ordinance. She was looking for a set of statements that stated what the Commission currently does.


Member Bononi stated in the first line of the second paragraph, if the words "be granted permission to" were omitted, then it would be alright.


Chairperson Lorenzo agreed and asked for the consensus of the Commission regarding the first paragraph. She asked if the Commission wanted to omit, "except when recommended with conditions of approval", so the period would fall after the word provided.


Member Capello again stated there is nowhere in the second paragraph that states the applicant cannot come before the Commission if they have negative letters so why does it have to say notwithstanding, if they have negative letters and can come before the Commission?


Chairperson Lorenzo answered, for clarification.


Member Capello stated there is no clarification because there is nothing that says the applicant cannot come before the Commission if they have a negative recommendation. He stated maybe what should be said is, "notwithstanding the above, if all application data are not provided, a motion can still be made to appear before the Commission."


Chairperson Lorenzo stated it does not have to deal with application data, it has to deal with meeting ordinance requirements or other conditions that the consultants have placed on it.


Mr. Watson thought the second paragraph should be worded the way Member Bononi had suggested. The following words should be added to the first paragraph, "and the plan has received positive recommendations from necessary staff and consultants." And then add a second sentence to that to indicate that it can appear absent to applicable data where it has a recommendation with condition of approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked the Commission if they would accept reviewing applications if all the application data is not present and the consultants state it can wait until final to be provided?


Member Hoadley asked if it would be better to leave the Preliminary Site Plan unless all data is provided. He stated it would clean it up and put the burden on the applicant to get it right the first time rather than have to come back to the consultants. He also thought it would save the applicant money.


Member Bononi expressed concern with the sentence that Mr. Watson added to paragraph one. She stated it might give the applicant the impression that they are getting a "foot in the door".





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To put a period after the word "provided" in the first paragraph and omit "be granted permission to" in the second paragraph.


Member Hoadley stated if the first paragraph is modified as Member Bononi has recommended, then the second paragraph is totally irrelevant because the applicant cannot come in without all the application data, but they can come in with negative recommendations because there isn’t anything that states that they can’t.


Member Bononi disagreed stating irregardless of what the letters say, Mr. Watson made the point that someone might come in and say it was misinterpreted, and they feel the Commission is wrong. Member Bononi suggested that the second paragraph stay in tact with the exception of omitting, "be granted permission".


Member Capello thought the second paragraph would make more sense after the first paragraph if it said, "notwithstanding the above of Preliminary Site Plan may appear before the Planning Commission without all application data if it is accompanied by positive letters of recommendation with or without conditions." He stated the second paragraph does not make sense. He asked if there was anything that says the applicant cannot be heard merely because the consultants do not agree with the plan?


Mr. Watson answered, no, it is saying just the opposite.


Member Capello asked why is it saying that the applicant can appear with negative letters if they can appear anyway?


Chairperson Lorenzo stated it is being clarified.


Mr. Watson stated the previous provision said unless all required conditions of 2516 were met. The only way to know that all of the conditions are met is by receiving all positive letters from consultants.


Chairperson Lorenzo restated the motion. To amend the language for number six under Scheduling for Planning Commission Minutes to read: The Preliminary Site Plan shall not be reviewed by the Planning Commission unless all application data are provided. The second paragraph should read: A Preliminary Site Plan may appear before the Planning Commission with negative letters from one or more city staff member and/or consultant, provided a written request is submitted by petitioner.


Member Markham suggested turning the second paragraph into the second sentence instead of another paragraph.


Member Capello stated in the second portion, the last phrase, "provided a written request is submitted by petitioner", is this any different than the request that is submitted to have their application data reviewed initially or is it a special written request?


Mr. Watson answered, it is a separate letter. He read the ordinance to say, "The Preliminary Site Plan shall not be reviewed by the Planning Commission unless all applicable data are provided. A Preliminary Site Plan may be reviewed by the Planning Commission with negative letters from one or more city/staff member and or consultant, provided a written request is submitted by petitioner.





Yes: Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Csordas

No: None


Member Hoadley stated on Page 8, Number 2, it looks as though the ability to have the plan come back before the Commission for Final Site Plan approval has been taken away. He stated the first paragraph takes the right away because it says it can be done Administratively, the second, third and fourth does not say anything about giving the Commission back the right.

Chairperson Lorenzo believed, in Item 2, unless the Planning Commission directs such, Final Site Plan approval will be secured from the Planning Commission.


Member Hoadley asked where it states that the Commission has the right to have it come back for Final Site Plan approval.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated it appears that the language in paragraph 2 needs to be placed in the first paragraph, last sentence.


Member Hoadley agreed.





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add to the first paragraph under Preliminary Site Plan approval with Final Site Plan approval to be granted administratively.


Member Hoadley added, unless the Planning Commission directs it to come back for final.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated, then the heading does not make sense.


Mr. Cohen thought it was explaining what happens when it is approved Administratively. He stated the next paragraph says, "Preliminary Site Plan approval and Final Site Plan approval being granted by the Planning Commission." He explained the point is not to try to get everything in, it was to show where it was and to show what was deleted.





Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley

No: None


Member Bononi stated on Page 3, as she understood the omissions from Item A, she did not agree that the requirements to clear and grub should be granted prior to final site plan approval. However, approval to commence with the above procedures based on the discretionary authority of the Building Official, per the Novi Code of Ordinances and all of the protections that were previously had, and not getting rid of, Member Bononi thought it was going the wrong way. She stated it was providing more assurance than what is current and she was not impressed with it. Some of her concerns were that the situation presumes approval at the Preliminary Site Plan approval and some concerns were, what if the Site Plan application is amended, new data comes to change the Planning Commission’s course, the property is sold or the developer goes bankrupt, she stated there is a disturbed site with a lot of environmental potential for damage. She thought it was going the wrong way.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (7-0): To delete approval to commence with the above procedure as based on the discretionary authority of the Building Official per the Novi Code of Ordinances and the language that has been deleted should be maintained.


Mr. Cohen stated he worked with the Building Official, and the paragraph that has been added, comes straight out of the Zoning Ordinance. It says much of the same things as the little boxes.


Mr. Watson clarified it is right out of Section 2516.4 b & c.


Member Bononi stated if there was a citation to that effect, she would not have wasted everyone’s time.


Mr. Cohen explained right above it says, "Requirements are mandatory as regulated by the Ordinance Section 2516.4 b & c."


Member Capello asked prior to obtaining permits, does the applicant have to post bonds?


Mr. Watson stated the applicant has to post bonds as a part of getting the permits.


Mr. Cohen stated the ordinance states approval to commence with the above procedure is not in the zoning ordinance and asked if the Chair was still comfortable with it? He stated the Building Official is the person who grants the authority.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated if he has the authority and it is being clarified, she does not have a problem with it.

Member Bononi stated if all the criteria has to be addressed, it does not sound like it is totally discretionary.





Moved by Weddington, seconded by Bononi





Yes: Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley

No: None

Abstained: Markham


Chairperson Lorenzo referred to Page 8, Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, Number C-3, Storm Water Collection and Disposal Sedimentation Control. She asked the Commission to consider language that would say, "shall base the preliminary calculations to determine engineering feasibility for basin requirements and calculations to show any modifications to the water level quantity that may cause adverse impacts to regulated wetlands and the water shed.





Moved by Lorenzo, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (7-0): To add to show modifications in water level quantity that may cause adverse impacts to regulated wetlands and water sheds if they are going to have any conveyance or detention/retention.


Member Hoadley did not understand the comment.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated she was adding, "to show modifications in water level quantity that may cause adverse impacts to regulated wetlands and water sheds if they are going to have any conveyance or detention/retention."







Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo

No: None

Abstained: Markham


Member Bononi backtracked to a comment she had made in the discussions with Member Markham and Mr. Cohen. She did not see that an item she felt was rather important had been addressed. She referred to Page 18 of the actual draft document. The third bullet from the top, "Design standards for all improvements shall be as established by ordinance or by resolution of City Council...," she thought the sentence should end here because it sounds like it is saying that city engineers and other public agencies have jurisdiction and interpret as they see fit, she was not in agreement with it.





Moved by Bononi, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add a period after "City Council" in the line that says, "Design Standards for all improvements shall be established by ordinance or by resolution of the City Council."


Member Vrettas asked what happens to the rest of it?


Member Bononi answered from the standpoint of the public agencies, would it refer to such entities as the DEQ? She explained she is looking for the design standards to apply to the ordinance requirements.


Mr. Cohen stated it was taken right out of the subdivision ordinance.


Mr. Bluhm thought what was being said was there are other agencies of jurisdiction that have design standards that need to be followed in their permitting processes, therefore, by referencing other public agencies, they are saying that their design standards and permit processes must be met.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought it should be stated and the words, "if there are other public agencies’ design standards that need to be met" should be added.


Mr. Bluhm stated it may be reworded so it is clearer that it is the Cities’ design standards, the Council standards and other public agencies’ design standards that must be met.


Member Bononi agreed.


Chairperson Lorenzo restated the motion to amend the third bullet on page 18 to read, "Design Standards for all improvements shall be as established by ordinance or by resolution of the City Council."


Member Weddington stated there are some other requirements that come into play. Road Commission has standards, public health has standards for wells, there are other things.


Mr. Watson thought it should say, "as well as the applicable requirements of all other public agencies."


Chairperson Lorenzo restated the motion. "Design Standards for all improvements shall be established by ordinance or by resolution of the City Council as well as all requirements of other public agencies having jurisdiction."





Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas

No: None


Member Capello stated on Page 4, the center of the page, remove the word discretionary.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To remove the word "discretionary" from the center of page four under Approval to Commence with the above procedure.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Member Hoadley shared a concern with Mr. Cohen in regard to having an interim/interim site plan approval, and it has not been addressed. He explained that in the full document, it states the applicant can come back for an amended site plan rather than go from first to final. It seemed to Member Hoadley that it was requiring the developer to go an extra step for no good purpose.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hoadley was referring to the question in the memorandum dated Friday, January 17, 1997 where it states, "Member Hoadley asked, why not combine subdivision engineer drawing approval and final plat approval?"


Member Hoadley answered, yes.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought the answer was given earlier by Mr. Bluhm.


Mr. Bluhm stated the final plat document must have a form that is in accordance with the State Plat Act, Plat Act 288. And it must specifically meet the requirements, this is why the final plat document is always in the form that it is and it does not include the other documents. The subdivision engineering drawings are separate because the state will not accept it.


Member Weddington addressed minor editorials such as consistency of terminology and typos. She asked if it should be put on the record?


Mr. Watson stated she should provide them to Mr. Cohen.





Moved by Markham, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To suspend the rules of the Planning Commission to conduct an oral vote instead of conducting a role call vote for each item, for purposes of reviewing the document.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Ordinance No. 97-18 Site Plan Manual Revision subject to all of the proposed Amendments made at this meeting and previously by Mr. Cohen in conjunction with planning commissioners input.


Mr. Watson stated normally there is a cover ordinance that is attached, he did not see it in the materials of the packet and assumed the motion included it. He stated in order to adopt it, the cover ordinance must be a part of it.


Member Hoadley amended the motion to include the cover ordinance.


Member Csordas seconded it.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Lorenzo stated there were some proposals by Mr. Mamola. She did not know if the Commissioners have had time to digest them.


Mr. Cohen stated they are two simple proposals and the Commission might want to discuss the first one.


Chairperson Lorenzo did not know how simple it was to reduce the amount of time for review.


Mr. Cohen stated usually if there is a project that is obviously ready to go, it is moved forward. However, the 20 day period is needed to make sure everything is done correctly.

Chairperson Lorenzo’s personal opinion was to maintain what is currently in place. She asked if the Commission was willing to consider it?


Member Hoadley wanted to consider the document at a subsequent date.



Mr. Watson explained if it is to be sent to the City Council, another Site Plan Manual would need to be prepared to make the one change.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated the option of the Commission is to consider amending or taking no action on Mr. Mamola’s proposal.


Mr. Watson stated the other thing that Mr. Mamola suggested, was to make it clear that the document is sealed by a professional, means, an architect or engineer who is licensed in Michigan.





Moved by Markham, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct Mr. Watson to amend the Site Plan Manual to include Mr. Mamola’s comment about professional engineers and architects be licensed in Michigan.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None





Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated as noted in the cover memorandum, he would like to forward the 1997-98 Planning Commission Work Program Budget to the Finance Department so they can put into the format for consideration by the City Manager and Administration, with the Commission’s recommendations. Mr. Wahl stated the figure is $174,661.00 with the accompanying work, services and studies. As requested, there should be representation of the Planning Commission to meet with the Administration because typically the Finance Department and the City Manager will make recommended cuts before it goes to Council. He stated it has some substantial authority, because they are working with the bottom line number for the whole City. In order to make any changes after the fact, more money will need to be found or take something away from another department. In regard to the question from the Chair regarding the consultant retainer, special studies that were performed, Mr. Wahl stated there is a report provided as well as some other explanation. The Committee spent three meetings going through the Work Program and made a number of changes. He pointed out that it is based on a five year projection of work that would result in the Master Plan being updated by the year 2000. As noted in the summary report, several of the studies recommended for this year are actually a part of the Master Plan. He pointed this out, because in the past, he did not know that it was clear to the City Council as they suggested cutting out things that were a part of the Master Plan. Mr. Wahl deferred to Commissioners Weddington and Hoadley of the Planning Studies and Budget Committee to explain anything further.


Member Weddington requested the support of the Commission and agreed with Mr. Wahl, stating it needs to move forward rather quickly.





Moved by Weddington, seconded by Hoadley.


Member Hoadley stated the budget has been increased on the Design Build-Out Year 2020 Phase II. He stated he had the privilege of reviewing the work that Ms. Lemke has done to date and commented there is no way she can complete, in the detail that she has done to date, the balance of the He asked Ms. Lemke to speak in regard to the increase.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the increase was due to the fact that the materials were more expensive and the time to put it together was more expensive than anticipated. For the remaining of the study, she will come up with a developers build-out plan, maximizing a portion of the city and come up with an idealistic plan that would be looked for in 2020.


Member Hoadley wondered if the Commission has undercut itself on the Conferences and Workshops of $1,500.00. He stated he did not know what they cost but maybe some consideration should be given to increasing it.


Member Bononi asked for clarification regarding Mr. Wahl’s letter dated Friday, January 17, 1997, second paragraph, last sentence which states, "Work Program Draft III does not include any environmental planning studies since these items have not been reviewed sufficiently to have a complete study outline including final budget estimates at this time." She asked if zero dollars were proposed for environmental?


Member Weddington stated there has been nothing sufficiently developed in terms of a proposal to take any action on. The time is here to ask for money and the Commission needs to define what the money will be spent on.


Member Bononi felt very strongly about the idea. She was disturbed about what she thought was a "low priority" attitude about the environment. She was very dissatisfied that 1) there has not been any time allocated to bring environmental issues into the balance of the budget; 2) it does not seem like there is much urgency, sometimes it does not seem like there is much interest; 3) she felt the Commission lacked balance. She expressed concern that the Commission could step up its interest, she believed the interest was out in the community and hoped the Commission would think about it. She suggested that the Commission look at the matter, particularly with regard to the environment with a better allocation of resources. She asked if it was too late to propose uses for some of the budget money for environmental issues? She understood from the minutes, that JCK had brought forward some ideas but did not have the time to present them properly. She suggested that JCK have the opportunity to present those proposals to the full Planning Commission, in addition, she suggested a complete update of the wetlands regulations per Federal and State alignment. She also suggested that an impervious study that JCK was interested in, and a study concerning water quality implications of development was needed.


Mr. Wahl stated the Design and Build-Out Program this year and next year will be heavily oriented to environmental planning issues although he was not sure it was going to be quite in the same vein at what Member Bononi spoke about. Mr. Wahl thought last year there were several significant environmental items on the Agenda that were a part of the program, indicating that it is a priority to the Planning Commission and has been. He thought the community is well respected in the state as being in the forefront of a number of environmental planning and regulating initiatives. He stated while specific items may not be addressed at this point, overall, the Commission has been on top of it and have had a commitment to it and spent thousands of dollars on environmental planning as was part of the report regarding history of the planning program over the past ten years. Mr. Wahl stated the document from JCK is a laundry list of subject matter that are ordinance initiatives, some of which could be addressed this year. He agreed that the report from JCK is a good starting point, he stated some of the subjects were looked at about a year ago and it was not a priority at that time. There were other items of concern causing it to never really develop. He stated there was a five year program that was being looked at last year and a lot of the items were not on it.


Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and stated as a member of the Environmental Committee, she has been somewhat disappointed and concerned and explained the reason the Committee has not addressed those issues is because it has not met on a regular basis due to the staff not scheduling meetings. She did not think it was because of the non-interest from the Environmental Committee, but she thought it should be conveyed to the staff that more meeting need to be scheduled and on a regular more timely basis. She did not want to give the Commission or the public the impression that the Environmental Committee is not interested or has not been trying to address these issues.


Mr. Wahl stated, in the meetings that were held, there were no assignments or directions to develop the ideas or to develop a program of additional Planning Studies. Therefore, the Department could only assume that what was had was some discussion that did not result in any recommendations for them to do anything.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would not be in support of the motion because she was concerned that the issues were given to the Commission at the eleventh hour, she stated the Environmental Committee has not met, there was information that was just presented and she has not had the chance to review it. She stated she was not prepared to vote on the matter. She felt the Commission was not given the information that was requested in a timely fashion.


Member Hoadley withdrew his second to the motion.


Member Vrettas was not in support of the motion because of the environmental studies. He pointed out to the staff, if they are putting together a budget, and a report is missing, then a meeting should have been called.


Mr. Wahl stated the staff had no recommendation from the Committee to do or look at any studies.


Member Vrettas stated they should have been called and asked, they should have been talked to. He stated if he was preparing a final report and a certain subject area is to be covered, he checks each of the areas out. He agreed with the comments of Member Bononi and thought the issue needed to be revisited.


Mr. Wahl stated he did not want to suggest that he was not interested, he thought the ideas mentioned as well as the laundry list is a good starting point for an Agenda of items that will take some time to review. He stated he was happy to staff the Committee just like all of the other Committees. It was not the understanding of the staff throughout the period of a year or even prior, that items for discussion were to be a part of the Work Program.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone action on the proposed 1997-98 budget.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated she very much appreciated the work of the Planning Studies and Budget Committee. In the future, she stated she would appreciate from the staff, if the Planning Commission could be brought into the discussion much earlier on so there is more time.


Chairperson Lorenzo also announced the Environmental Committee is scheduled to meet one week from this date at 6:00 p.m.





Yes: Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi

No: None


Member Hoadley stated there is money in the current budget to do exactly what has been discussed. He stated in the discretionary fund there is about $15,000.00 that could be used this year to accomplish the goals.


Chairperson Lorenzo appreciated this information and stated the Commission must move forward with the next item.





Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission wished to address this issue or postpone it to a future Agenda giving the lateness of the hour?


Member Capello stated he would like to postpone the document so the time can be taken to go over it. He stated Todd Smith had mentioned that he sent in some recommended changes and asked if they have been incorporated yet?


Mr. Cohen answered, no.


Member Capello asked if the Commission could have those changes in front of them next time?


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant answered, yes and stated the Recreation District and the Facade change for the Sports Bar.


Mr. Cohen also included Ms. Kocan’s concerns.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated there were a number of outstanding issues.


Mr. Rogers stated last fall the Commission forwarded to Council, the big book of certain items that have been withdrawn. He stated a decision will have to be made tomorrow whether it will be put onto the Council Agenda for Monday. There has been a critique that he requested from Rob Mitzel, he stated he reviewed it and passed it out to the staff. He could not say whether 90% of the big book was going before Council or not.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought the Commission agreed to send it on previously and only specific issues were being held back that were yet to be addressed.


Mr. Rogers stated, that is correct.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone document.





Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: None





Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated he attended the Council Meeting when the Deka proposal was presented. His feeling was if he was going to recommend amending the Master Plan for Non-Center Business, it would include not just for the Deka parcel, but another 20 acres beyond it. Mr. Rogers believed he could do a joint study with Rod Arroyo and make a recommendation to the Commission on the Master Plan Amendment which will support a rezoning.


Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission was being requested to fund a study to legitimize Deka’s request or are they being asked to fund a study to look at the whole issue on a land use basis? She believed the Deka matter asked the Commission for an amendment which was not addressed. She stated there were issues concerning consistency with the Master Plan and there were no stated reasons that it could not be developed under what is currently zoned, there were also a lot of traffic implications. She was concerned that if the study was going to try to legitimize what Deka is doing, she stated she would not be in support of it. She asked Mr. Rogers to clarify it for the Commission.


Mr. Rogers stated it is a land use study for a much larger area than what Deka proposed.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated the language Mr. Rogers has been using is contrary to his statements made at the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 1996 where he did not recommend the RC District because there was no finding that the property could not be developed for what it is currently master planned. These were her personal concerns and she wanted the Commission to know one way or the other, what it is looking at doing.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated his impression was to take a look at land use and master planning separate from the specific proposal, particularly with the new ordinance and how the whole thing might be master planned.


Mr. Rogers stated the study would be extended to Beck Road because it is zoned R-A and at one point, it was recommended that it be rezoned to OS-2. He stated the railroad is a dividing point, however, he thought a more comprehensive approach could be done to take the whole distance over to the interchange.


Member Bononi expressed concern with extending the study beyond Dixon Road. She stated this was discussed at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting and when the time is taken into consideration, she was not in favor of extending the study to Beck Road.



Member Hoadley stated the minutes from City Council direct the Commission to conduct a study up to the CSX Railroad.


Member Bononi stated she was confused about the boundaries, that is why she mentioned it. She thought it should be verified.


Mr. Wahl stated the Department would be happy to look at the Council directive. His impression was that there was a discretion, if the Planning Commission felt there were some other things it wanted to look at, as long as it addresses what Council was concerned about, the Commission could then make some of its’ own determinations.


Chairperson Lorenzo stated if the Commission was in favor of the study and perhaps the study boundaries could be confirmed by the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.


Mr. Wahl thought it would require more discussion than just one meeting.


Member Bononi asked if the Committee must have the agreement of the whole Commission in order to designate its’ charge for its’ work assignment.


Chairperson Lorenzo suggested giving discretion to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee to establish the boundaries for the study.


Member Capello stated a Public Hearing must be scheduled shortly and asked if the Master Plan and Zoning Committee could direct the Department to schedule the Public Hearing?


Chairperson Lorenzo thought this was an action that was being looked at during the meeting. To schedule a Public Hearing for February 2, 1997 and also to approve the proposal to study the area.


Member Capello stated that Mr. Watson said if the Public Hearing is to be scheduled, they should actually delineate the area to be rezoned.


Mr. Watson stated it is not a rezoning, it is a proposed amendment to the Master Plan. He stated before any adoption of the plan or amendment, extension or addition, the Commission shall hold at least one public hearing and notice of the time and place shall be given not less than 15 days prior to the hearing by one publication in a newspaper of general circulation of the city.


Mr. Rogers stated the notice has to indicate recommending a change. This means he has a week to ten days to come up with the map.


Mr. Cohen clarified, he only has until Tuesday to come up with the map, this is why the issue is before the Commission today. His understanding was that the City Council was giving the Commission until the end of March to get a report back to them so a Public Hearing could be held. He stated the Council wanted to be able to make a decision in March this is why the zoning amendment notice is very important as well as the master plan notice.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated when there are Master Plan Amendments, quite often the city publishes a map of a small area showing it. However, it was his understanding that there is not statutory requirement to do it. He suggested maybe a notice could be put into the paper that does not include a map, since there would not be time to do it.


Mr. Watson stated the statute does not specifically say "a map", there are some cases where an entire master plan is being done. He thought when considering a portion of the master plan, the whole idea is to give notice of the hearing and what the subject is going to be.


Mr. Arroyo asked by defining a geographical area, could those people be put on notice that the area is subject to change and they need to be aware that there could be something happening there?


Mr. Watson asked if there was any idea as to what the possible revisions were, that were being considered?


Mr. Arroyo thought there were some alternate possibilities that could be listed.


Mr. Watson suggested meeting to go over the possibilities and then craft a notice.


Member Capello asked if the Public Hearing would be both for an amendment to the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance at the same time or separately?


Chairperson Lorenzo stated, based upon the study, the Commission does not even know whether there will be any recommendations to change anything.


Member Capello stated, however, if Council wants to take the action and they want to have it ready to take by the end of March, will the Commission have to have the Public Hearing on the Zoning Ordinance at the same time?


Mr. Arroyo thought the action on the Deka site was postponed.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED (6-2): To schedule a Public Hearing for February 19, 1997 regarding possible Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments. Discretion be given to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to delineate the boundaries for the Public Hearing and to approve the funding of a study, boundaries and potential future land uses to be designated by the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.


Member Weddington asked if the funding for the studies would come out of the Emerging Issues budget?


Mr. Wahl answered, yes it could.


Chairperson Lorenzo added that it is not to exceed the limit specified in the proposal.


Member Hoadley offered a friendly amendment. He stated the Council was very clear in regard to studying at least up to where Dixon Road comes down into the property, not less than that.


Chairperson Lorenzo thought the Committee would be able to distinguish it.


Mr. Wahl asked if the Commission would like the staff to schedule an interim report on the next Commission Agenda?


Chairperson Lorenzo answered, yes, if it is possible, she believed it would be beneficial.


Member Markham stated she would be voting against the motion because she believed the Commission dealt with the issue a few months ago, the Planning Commission stated its’ feelings and her opinion has not changed.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Weddington

No: Markham, Vrettas







Chairperson Lorenzo announced there is $1,500 in the budget and two planning commissioners wish to attend the planning convention.



Member Capello asked Mr. Wahl if there was any place in the budget where there are additional monies to fund Member Hoadley and Member Churella to go to the convention?


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the majority of the Planning Commission line items are grouped in a category. The Commission can go over or under in any category. In other words, if the Commission has underspent in another line item, and overspent for Conferences and Workshops, there will not be an accounting problem, as far as the city budget is concerned. On the other side of the coin, the Commission is committing itself to not spend all of the money someplace else.


Member Capello asked if there were funds available somewhere?


Mr. Wahl stated the only line item that technically is not spoken for is Studies on Emerging Issues. He stated there is approximately $12,000 or $13,000 in that line item.


Member Capello asked Ms. Lemke how much is needed for the second phase?


Ms. Lemke answered about $6,000 additional for next year.


Member Capello stated in the past when Commissioners have come back from conferences, they have come back with some marvelous ideas. He thought it would be wise for the Commission to at least send one person to find out what is happening throughout the country.


Mr. Wahl stated the Commission could agree to shift money from another line item, it does not require a budget amendment, Council does not have to sign off on it, it would be an Administrative action.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, FAILED (4-4): To shift funds from the Emerging Issues Fund to the Conference Fund to allow Members Hoadley and Churella to attend the APA Conference in San Diego, CA.


Member Bononi stated as a planner, she has attended APA conferences on a national scene. She stated they are very productive, however, it is a lot of money for items that are not budgeted for. She was not in support of the motion due to the fact that these are non-budgeted items. She feels it is too important an amount of money to be shifting back and forth, if it is important enough to send Commissioners to the APA Conferences at considerable expenses, then it should be budgeted for.


Chairperson Lorenzo clarified $151.00 is the current line item for Conferences and Workshops. She recollected the reason the Commission decided to only place $1,500.00 as the budget is because instead of Commissioners going out of state, they should attend more conferences within the state and have seminars come to them.


Member Hoadley asked what the cost of the APA Conference is?


Mr. Cohen answered he envisions about $1,000 to $1,200, if not more. This includes airfare, hotel, registration fee, etc.


Member Weddington believed the registration to be over $300.00, the least expensive hotel was $125 per night, plus airfare.


Chairperson Lorenzo appreciated the interest of Members Hoadley and Churella in attending the APA Conference, however, she concurred with Member Bononi that the Commission needs to live within its’ means. If the Commission decides to increase the funds for Conferences and Workshops for the next year, it would be at the Commissions pleasure. Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would be voting against the motion because she felt the Commission must live within its’ means and budget accordingly.





Yes: Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas

No: Bononi, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington





Debbie Bundoff, noted that the Commission missed the second Audience Participation.


Chairperson Lorenzo excused herself and explained that she did not realize there was still an audience. She appreciated Ms. Bundoff’s observation and apologized.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:10 p.m.





Yes: Bononi, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None






Steven Cohen - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

February 11, 1997

Date Approved: February 19, 1997