WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 1998 AT 7:30 P.M.


(248) 347-0475


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


PRESENT: Members Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Members Hoadley, Watza


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








Chairperson Weddington announced there were a few additions to the Agenda. She stated there would be a Communications from Brandon Rogers. Under Matters for Consideration, Council has asked that the Woodland Permit be considered for Society Hill. Under Matters for Discussion, she stated Dave Bluhm would report on the Wetlands and Woodlands Map updates. She asked if there were any other additions or corrections to the Agenda?


Under Matters for Consideration, Member Capello added scheduling of a Public Hearing on the rezoning of the OST properties.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Weisberger for an explanation of the Society Hill issue.


Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated Council has directed the Planning Commission to add to their Agenda, the Woodlands Permit issue. He stated this would require a motion to add it to the Agenda, a second to the motion and a majority vote. He explained that the petitioner has taken action on the concerns of the Consultants and Commissioners, therefore, there would be a motion to amend tonights Agenda to add it.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the Agenda to add the Woodland Permit for Society Hill under Matters for Consideration.


Mr. Weisberger pointed out that one of the Public Hearings scheduled for this evening, Mansfield Cabinets has a Wetlands Permit issue on it, this is why it appears as a Public Hearing. Pursuant to Ms. Tepatti’s letter, she states that it is a minor wetlands use issue, therefore it would be done Administratively not before the Planning Commission. Mr. Weisberger stated if this is true, the action should be put into Matters for Consideration, not under a Public Hearing.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the only impact to the wetland which is at the rear of the property and is part of the regional detention basin is an outfall that the applicant had in the buffer area. He stated the applicant has agreed to pull the outfall back as far as necessary to remove it from the buffer so there will be no intrusion into the buffer or the wetland. This would bring it to an Administrative issue not a Public Hearing issue.


Chairperson Weddington stated Mansfield Cabinets would be moved from Public Hearings to Matters for Consideration.





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Chairperson Weddington stated there were also other changes to the Agenda. She stated Mansfield Cabinets would be moved from Public Hearings to Matters for Consideration, rezoning OST properties would be moved from Public Hearings to Matters for Consideration, Wetlands and Woodlands Map Update would be added as a Matter for Discussion, and Communication from Brandon Rogers would also be added as a Matter for Discussion. She asked if there were any other additions or corrections to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda.





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





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None















Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any changes or corrections to the February 18, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes?





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the February 18, 1998 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.





Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None








Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant announced he was resigning from the City of Novi. He indicated to City Council that he would have a transition period until June 30, 1998 and any loose ends after that time, he would be available. He stated he has greatly valued the opportunity to work with Michigan’s fastest growing City. Mr. Rogers stated the time has come where he wants to spend more time with his family. Mr. Rogers stated he intends to continue his professional practice staying in touch with the City and the Planning Commission.


Chairperson Weddington stated she was very sorry to see Mr. Rogers leave as it was a surprise to her. She respected his decision and highly recommended it, as family is very important. She stated he has made tremendous contributions to the City and it was greatly appreciated. Chairperson Weddington personally appreciated Mr. Rogers’ generous time and information that he provided to her as a Commissioner, since she has served on the Commission, she wished him well in his endeavors.








Presentation by Michelle Orzech, University of Michigan - Flint, Regional Groundwater Center.


Michelle Orzech, Project Administrator and Outreach Coordinator for the Regional Groundwater Center at the University of Michigan in Flint thanked the Commission for inviting her to address them. She referred to the brochure and fact sheets that she passed out. She gave some background on the Regional Groundwater Center and stated it is a research and outreach program of the Earth and Resource Science Department at the University of Michigan, Flint. They work with Communities throughout a seven county region in east central Michigan on drinking water, ground water and service water protection issues. The Center was established in 1990 as part of the Kellogg Foundations Groundwater Education in Michigan Program. She stated it was developed to bring attention to the issues of groundwater and groundwater protection throughout the state of Michigan.


Ms. Orzech explained that surface water was the water that can be seen wherever you go, lakes, rivers, streams, the water that is on the surface of the earth. Groundwater is located below the surface, it is held in formations that are called aquifers which can be thought of as large underground sponges. She explained that they are deposits of sand, clay and gravel that can hold water in a large enough quantity to supply a well. When a well is sunken to provide drinking water, it is being tapped into groundwater resources. She stated groundwater is 25 times more abundant than all of the lakes, reservoirs and rivers of the world combined, there is an abundance of groundwater in Michigan. Unfortunately, because of the abundance, it is relied upon very heavily and because of the abundance, it is sometimes taken for granted. More than 800,000 new water wells are drilled in the U.S. every year and 43% of Michigan’s residents depend on groundwater. In the rural areas, 95% of single family homes rely exclusively on groundwater for drinking water. Since water dissolves more things than any other substance, it is very susceptible to contamination. This means that it must be protected because it is relied upon so heavily. Two major problems with groundwater are overdraft and contamination. Overdraft is the withdrawal of groundwater at a greater rate than it can be recharged by natural processes. There are many potential sources for contamination of groundwater, improperly constructed floor drains that do not connect to a sewer system, leaking underground storage tanks, malfunctioning septic systems, household hazardous waste, and abandoned wells which are a major issue in Michigan because they provide a direct conduit for contamination to reach drinking water supplies because they are not kept or sealed properly.

Ms. Orzech stated there were two levels at which action to impact this issue can take place, individual or a collection of individuals. She reviewed programs that help protect resources; Wellhead Protection Plan, Computerized Groundwater Inventory, Groundwater Volunerability Assessments, Customized Projects and Education and Dissemination Projects. Ms. Orzech explained that the organization is non-profit, they are grant funded and they work closely with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and other state agencies.







Property located on the south side of Grand River Avenue, westerly of Taft Road, seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Wetlands Permit approval.


Member Capello announced he had an interest in the property, therefore he did not think he should vote on the project and stated he would be abstaining from the voting.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the Commission was in agreement that Member Capello should abstain from the Matter? She called for an oral vote which CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.


Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None


Clif Seiber represented Langan Farms Office Center. He pointed out that the site is located on the south side of Grand River, just west of Taft Road. He proposed a single office, light industrial building with two phases. He stated the first phase was the northerly portion, about 1/3 of the building which is comprised of 3,910 feet, the second phase is 8,700 feet which totals a 12,600 square foot building. He proposed a boulevard entrance, small island for landscaping purposes as well as decorative entry walls, which transitions into a single lane with a single lane of parking along the side of the building as well as additional parking to the rear of the building. Mr. Seiber stated there were some regulated wetlands located at the very southerly end of the site and are not being impacted. Storm water management is provided by the use of an existing storm water detention basin to the east which will also be utilized for future buildings which will ultimately be developed on the site. In keeping with the farming theme, Mr. Seiber stated there were structures on the building which appear to resemble a silo, also some peaks, gable fronts along the sides and ends of the building. He stated he was slightly short on brick coverage at the rear of the building, however, by moving the brick cover to a point between the two windows, he was able to achieve the required brick coverage without the necessity of a Section 4 Waiver, therefore, he did not intend to request a Section 4 Waiver for the brick facade.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated all application data was provided, the proposed building complies with the I-1 District setback standards. The front yard setback is to be measured from the future R.O.W. of Grand River or 60' from centerline within which a 5' sidewalk is proposed which will require a cross easement. In regard to parking, 48 spaces are required and 47 spaces are provided including the 2 required handicapped spaces. The design of the parking lot is suitable and complies with the new design standards for parking bay spacing. Loading and unloading is properly shown.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there were three minor items that needed to be addressed at the time of Final. The required 4' minimum green space immediately adjacent to the building on all four sides has not been met because of the existing condition of parking and vehicle use areas, she recommended that the applicant seek a variance. In summary, Ms. Lemke recommended the Conceptual Landscape Plan with the conditions to be addressed at Final.


In regard to building facades, Mr. Rogers stated the building height is in compliance. He stated the phasing plan would work if the applicant develops the project in the sequence indicated. He recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval and Phasing Plan approval subject to the waiver that Ms. Lemke asked be addressed on the landscaping.



David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant proposed a single boulevard off of Grand River Avenue to service the site. Water and sewer exist along Grand River Avenue and will also be extended into the site. A hydrant will be added and domestic service will be brought into the building. There is an existing home on the site which will be demolished and removed for the building to be constructed. The applicant proposes paved parking area, curbing in the pavement, a proposed storm sewer will outlet south of the parking area and will continue to take the flow south and east across a long swale to the existing constructed basin at the southeast corner of the site. The applicant has provided some preliminary calculations to show that there is enough additional detention stormwater in the basin area which currently services the Gatsby’s development to the east. The applicant shows an existing plastic pipe which outlets just east of the basin which may need to be replaced and up sized slightly to handle the additional flows. Mr. Bluhm stated the flows are then directed further south and east around the Andes Hills Condominium development and ultimately east to the existing Levinworth Regional Basin. The applicant is detaining on site because there are no sufficient easements to get to the Regional Basin at this time, however, he would like the applicant to construct the basin as a temporary basin, ultimately outletting into the Levinworth Basin. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated one point of access is being proposed to Grand River Avenue. He indicated that there were some spacing standards that were not met due to the location of a number of existing driveways in the general vicinity and the limited frontage available for the property. Given the fact that there is only one point of access to the project and there are different peaking characteristics between this project, Gatsby’s and the fairly low volume coming out of the Fairlane Hotel, Mr. Arroyo recommended that a spacing waiver be granted by the Planning Commission. He noted that a passing lane would be required as a part of Phase II of the development and it should be shown on the Final Site Plan. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the Item #3 in his letter being addressed through the Final Site Plan.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


Doug Necci of JCK stated the original review showed a 5% discrepancy in the percentage of wood siding, therefore, it was recommended that the applicant either revise the plan or apply for a waiver. The applicant stated he would make the revision which was very simple and probably could be handled Administratively if the Commission approves the plan contingent upon the revision.


Mr. Bluhm stated the office has also reviewed the wetland submittal, there is a wetland that exists east of the site. The buffer area is proposed to be impacted by the parking area on the south end of the building. Ms. Tepatti indicated that the buffer area is of very low quality and does not meet the criteria that are required for preservation and she had no objection to the filling of the buffer area. The existing basin that serves the Gatsby’s development is a constructed basin and she does not feel that it is a regulated wetland area. Ms. Tepatti felt that a Wetland Permit would be required and would like to see the applicant take some control to make sure that the storm water entering the wetland is pretreated properly. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval.


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


Robert E. Taylor, 23730 Newell Circle East was the owner of the property from Taft Road to behind the Gatsby’s and Langan property. He stated between 15 and 18 years ago, there was a problem when the area was being filled with soil, he stated it created a big wetland on his property. In January, Mr. Taylor stated he went out and saw water pouring down which was creating an ice skating rink on his property. He called the City and they came out and agreed that there was a lot of water in the area, they dug a trench which did not hold the water, especially in the spring. He expressed concern with trying to sell it when it is being ruined with all of the water. He also expressed concern with putting in more hard surface when the proper drainage is not there to begin with.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else wished to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.





Member Csordas asked Ms. Lemke for a clarification on the existing parking which causes the applicant not to have a 4' landscape buffer around the building?


Ms. Lemke explained it was on the west side of the building where the parking comes right up to the building. She stated approximately 90% of the south end is loading and a portion along the western area has no 4' planted area adjacent to the building which is now required in the Ordinance.


Member Bononi asked Ms. Lemke what she meant when she referred to existing?


Ms. Lemke excused herself as she thought the Public Hearing was for Mansfield Cabinets, she apologized and read her report for Langan Farms.


Ms. Lemke stated Langan Farms has a number of items that need to be done at the time of Final, she recommended approval conceptually. She pointed out three specific items: 1) she would like to see additional canopy trees along Grand River Avenue; 2) she would like to see additional trees adjacent to the parking lot along the eastern edge; 3) it does not appear that the corner clearance is met due to the sign location, further information will need to be provided. Ms. Lemke stated the applicant did not need a variance and she recommended approval.


Member Bononi asked the applicant’s engineer to comment on the abutting property owners perception of the drainage situation.


Mr. Seiber stated he was not familiar with the history in the area.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Taylor who is the abutting property owner, when was the area filled?


Mr. Taylor thought it was done about fifteen years ago.


Mr. Seiber stated there were four buildings and immediately behind the buildings is a wetland area that continues and extends across the southerly half of the Andes Hills property. He proposed that the storm water generated from the site would be swaled and directed into the basin and then restricted to half of the agricultural run off rate which is 0.2 cubic feet per second, per acre of developed area. By ensuring that all of the water is directed into the pond and held in the area, and then released through the restricted pipe, the impact is reducing the flow rate. However, he stated it would increase the amount of water that will be sent into the wetland adjacent to Andes Hills and through the large wetland complex to Taft Road. He stated the flow of the rate of water at which it will leave the site will be reduced.


Member Bononi did not know how much comfort this would be to someone who feels that they are already impacted by what is going on in the site. From the standpoint of the development, Member Bononi stated it was the responsibility of the applicant to see that they hold the water on site so as not to adversely affect anyone else. She asked Mr. Bluhm if he knew anything additional about the situation that seems to be affecting Mr. Taylor and also for the record, if the history of the filling in that wetland area was a permitted activity?


Mr. Bluhm stated it could be researched, but he did not have any knowledge off of the top of his head in regard to permits that were authorized to do the work.



Member Bononi explained she asked that question because if it was a permitted activity, then there could be plans somewhere that would show how the grading was approved and clarify the situation. She stated it did not seem that we could come away from this situation feeling that Mr. Taylor would not be even more adversely affected despite the fact of what the applicant’s engineer says. She stated if there was additional information or a proposal that could be made in order to protect the situation from increasing, she would be very willing to hear it.


Mr. Seiber stated other than what is being proposed, to reduce the existing rate of flow onto the Andes Hills property which then enters Mr. Taylor’s property, he did not know what else he could offer.


Member Bononi asked if that was a proposal that he would be willing to follow?


Mr. Seiber answered yes, in fact that was what he was currently proposing in compliance with City standards.


Member Bononi believed that earlier in Mr. Seiber’s comments he suggested that the parcel would be further developed, she asked what would be the recourse then?


Mr. Seiber stated when additional buildings are proposed on the site, the detention basin will be enlarged in order to accommodate the additional storage volumes.


Member Bononi asked if there was a plan to develop the property to any given degree?


Mr. Seiber answered, not at this point. He did not have any plans for any additional buildings, nothing has been finalized.


Member Bononi referred to Ms. Tepatti’s memorandum dated March 11, 1998 which refers to the storm water and the basin that overflows to Levinworth Creek, she also made reference to a swale that will be reviewed to ensure that it is vegetated or otherwise stabilized to act as a sediment filter prior to water entering the pond. If the swale is not adequate to meet these needs, then a temporary sedimentation basin or forebay would be required, Member Bononi stated she would like to have more information than whether it is going to be satisfactory or not.


Mr. Bluhm stated the swale is very long and it is felt that it would provide a great amount of qualitative benefit to the storm water. However, the applicant is proposing the long swale for water quality purposes as well as an oil and gas separator. Mr. Bluhm did not feel that a forebay or sedimentation basin would be necessary.


Member Bononi asked what specific use was intended for the industrial and/or research building?


Mr. Seiber stated the first phase was intended for law offices, the rest of the building has no tenants proposed at this time, it is zoned light industrial. He stated there were no overhead doors, however, there were double doors along the rear of the building which would allow some loading adjacent to the proposed loading area. He did not see it being used as an intensive light industrial use, he thought it would be some warehousing and storage.


Member Bononi asked if the project would be phased because in the report it is referred to as "will be" and "may be".


Mr. Seiber stated at this point they were proposing the phasing. He showed two phases primarily because if he did not indicate phases the entire building would have to be completed before the Building Department would allow occupancy. By showing two phases he could occupy the first phase of the building before the remainder is completed.


Member Bononi asked what the time frame was for Phase II?


Mr. Seiber answered he was not sure, it depended upon if tenants were lined up. He was hopeful that tenants could be lined up during construction of the shell of the building. He stated it could be one year or it could be along with Phase I.


Member Bononi asked Mr. Arroyo to comment about the passing lane situation that he mentioned in his report.


Mr. Arroyo stated in looking at the first Phase alone, it does not warrant a passing lane, but the combination of the traffic from both phases meets the warrant that the City has for a passing lane. This is why he indicated that with the second phase, it would have to be constructed.


Member Vrettas stated he had no problem with the project, he asked the Commission to follow the recommendation that it come back for Final Site Plan approval. As a part of the Final approval, he asked for a history of the property relationship to Mr. Taylor’s land and the drainage and what efforts will be taken to make sure the water does not affect Mr. Taylor’s property. Member Vrettas stated he believed in the concept of good neighbors and before he could approve anything of this sort, he wanted to feel that they were good neighbors to one another.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Bononi, FAILED (3-4): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Langan Farms Office Building, SP98-01 subject to all of the Consultants conditions and to return the plan for Final Site Plan approval to the Commission with a report from Mr. Bluhm regarding the drainage issue and what will be done to mitigate the problem as part of the plan.





Member Csordas stated he would not be supporting the motion because he felt it would force the petitioner to go through another process and extend the time frame of development of the property. He stated he had confidence in the City Council and the Consultants to move the project forward and did not see a reason for it to come back before the Planning Commission.


Member Watza agreed with Member Csordas


Member Vrettas explained the reason for requiring that it come back for Final was because he wanted Mr. Taylor to be treated fairly, and he did not feel that Mr. Taylor has been taken seriously. Member Vrettas did not feel that Mr. Taylor should have to go to court and sue a neighbor because the Planning Commission would not do its job.


Member Canup referred to the topo map and stated the development of the land that is shown will have no effect on the run off that is apparently causing a problem for the neighbor. It appeared that the area that may be bleeding water onto Mr. Taylor’s property is the southwest corner and it appeared that the areas to the north were all being intercepted by a high ridge and should be running into the pond.


Mr. Seiber pointed out that the drainage area or wetland area is a part of the Levinworth Creek. The creek drains an area that almost extends all the way to Beck Road and south of Eleven Mile Road. He stated the amount of area tributary to Mr. Taylor’s property from the site is only a small area as compared to the overall drainage area. He stated he did not mind meeting with Mr. Taylor and exploring the area and some of the other activities that have occurred in the drainage basin.


Member Canup stated it looked like Mr. Taylor’s problem was created by a number of things other than the Langan property in particular. He stated it looked like any water that could possibly have gotten out of there would go into the pond. He did not see a reason for it to actually come back to the Planning Commission and stated he would not be able to support the motion.


Member Bononi thought it was an unfortunate turn of events from the standpoint of her review of the plan. She stated she was prepared to support the plan, she thought it was a good plan, she had great reservations about the planning that is proposed for the future and how much actual surface area the site can tolerate. Member Bononi believed a process could be streamlined without excluding others from the process. She did not think that it was unreasonable to ask for answers to the abutting property owners question. As the applicant’s engineer said, it could very well be that what he is saying justifies the application that he has put forward, Member Bononi stated she was not convinced at this point and she did not think it was an unreasonable expectation to ask that information be solidified and brought forward both by the applicants engineer and confirmed by the City’s engineer. Member Bononi stated she would not be supporting Member Vrettas’ motion from the standpoint of supporting the project as a whole. She stated she would vote no on the project unless all of the rights of all those concerned are addressed.


Member Watza reiterated that there had to be some confidence put into the Consultants. He stated the project is not that big and did not think it required the Planning Commission to review it again.


Member Vrettas stated it was the responsibility of the Planning Commission not the Consultants. He thought the Commission was passing off the responsibility by not requiring the applicant to come back for Final.





Yes: Bononi, Vrettas, Weddington

No: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Watza





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (5-2): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval and Westland Permit approval to Langan Farms Office Building, SP98-01 subject to all of the Consultants recommendations including the driveway spacing waiver.


Member Canup stated he would be in support of the motion and stated he did not support the last one because he thought what is being planned would have no effect on the drainage. He thought the proper place to address it would be at the next phase of the project and at that time he thought it should be addressed and cleaned up.


Member Vrettas asked if within the next two to three years, the applicant would be working and developing the lower section and could resolve the problem for Mr. Taylor?


Mr. Seiber believed the next phases would probably be developed within two years.


Member Vrettas asked Mr. Taylor how another two year postponement would effect him?



Mr. Taylor stated the damage has been done. He stated he was upset about the wetlands and he would like to see progress.


Member Vrettas stated he would be voting against the motion because the Commission had an opportunity.





Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Watza, Weddington

No: Bononi, Vrettas


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm to make sure to pay special attention to the drainage issues. She stated she has received some information from a citizen regarding some recent earth moving activities in that area that may be contributing to the water issue.







Property located on the south side of Grand River Avenue between Novi Road and Taft Road seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Chairperson Weddington stated there was a misunderstanding about the facade, therefore, she asked the applicant and the Consultants to address the minor changes.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated the project came in and went through some stumbling blocks with the facade issues. In the end, the applicant has come up with two different facade plans that will work. The facade plans that are in the packets are different than the facade letters of approval in that a mix up took place. He explained that a set of plans dated December 22 were approved by all of the Consultants and recommended for approval including Mr. Necci on the facade. Sometime between the time the applicant was asked to submit plans and the time that they were delivered, there was some confusion brought on by the entire process. Mr. Rumple stated he was not aware that the applicant modified his plans and they were distributed in the packets. He thought it was a combination of the applicant trying to meet the City’s standards and going through a lengthy process to get onto the Agenda. He suggested the easiest way to handle the matter would be to go back to the plans that were dated December 22 because they correspond to all of the Consultants letters in the packets. The applicant has agreed to go ahead and seek Preliminary Site Plan approval based on the previous application of the plans dated December 22 with the understanding that down the road he has the option to revise his facade plan. He thought the easiest way to handle the process was to let the Consultants go through their review letters and then have the applicant give a summary of the December 22 facade plan and have Mr. Necci summarize the differences between the two plans and then have the applicant summarize the two plans.

John Stewart, Architect proposed to put an 8,400 square foot light industrial building to the south side of an existing industrial building occupied by Mansfield Cabinets. The usage is similar to what currently exists, he stated he was enlarging the parking lot to meet the standards of Novi. Storm water was to be discharged into the Levinworth Basin. Mr. Stewart asked for the Commission’s approval so that he could start building as soon as possible.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated his report dated January 20, 1998 referred to plans that were dated December 22. He stated the site was zoned I-1 and all surrounding property was zoned I-1. All application data are provided, setback standards are complied with, adequate parking meets the standards of the Ordinance, and loading and unloading doors are on the north facade facing the existing building.



Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval with one minor item. She stated the applicant needed to obtain a ZBA variance on the south and west side.


In regard to the facade, Mr. Rogers stated the building height was well within the 40' height limitation of an I-1 District. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the concurrence of Mr. Necci regarding the appropriateness of the facade plan.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant was proposing a new addition at the rear of the property. Water and sewer currently service the site. The applicant is proposing storm sewer improvements which may require them to reconstruct part of the parking areas to intercept the storm water. The applicant will be providing catch basins with deep sumps to handle sediment control during the construction process. Oil and gas separator for post construction water quality control and storm sewers proposed to the rear of the project where it outlets to the regional detention basin. Mr. Bluhm stated he had some minor items that could be addressed at the time of Final, he felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant indicated that a passing lane should be provided for the driveway. He stated the project is very close to the threshold, the applicant has indicated that the warrants would be met for a passing lane. During meetings, Mr. Arroyo suggested the way to resolve it would be for the applicant to retain someone to address it on their behalf and submit it for review, he believed they were in the process of doing so. Mr. Arroyo indicated as a part of his recommendation that either; 1) the Final Site Plan show the passing lane or 2) a separate study be submitted for review that would adequately document that they will not meet he warrants for a passing lane. In regard to the circulation, he found that internal circulation was acceptable and he recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the one issue being resolved.


Mr. Bluhm stated the applicant has originally proposed an outfall for the wetlands at the rear of the site. He stated the applicant intends to pull the outfall further to the north and out of the wetlands buffer area entirely. It was his determination, in consulting with the City Attorney, that it did not need a Wetland Permit from the Planning Commission and that it could be done Administratively.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


Doug Necci of JCK stated there were two facades, both of which have been approved. One is an arrangement which is about 50% metal siding and 50% decoratively scored intricately colored masonry units. The other is a recent submittal that is more consistent with the existing building. He stated the sighting of the building is such that from Grand River Avenue it will look like an addition to the building rather than a stand alone building. Mr. Necci thought this was a better arrangement than to construct a building that does not match the existing building.





Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Mansfield Cabinets SP97-39B subject to all Consultants conditions.





Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm whether or not there was any kind of pretreatment of the storm water proposed at the outflow?



Mr. Bluhm answered the applicant would be providing oil and gas separators. The regional detention basin has a pretreatment basin built into it just beyond the outfall point that was designed and constructed as a part of the regional basin. He stated this could be considered as an additional pre-treatment area prior to the release to the main regional basin and the wetland area.


Member Bononi asked how many feet would the stabilized outlet be drawn away from the buffer?


Mr. Bluhm answered, the applicant would probably have to put it back 25 to 30 feet.


Member Bononi stated according to her MDEQ/DNR Manual the stabilized outlet should be designed by a registered professional engineer. She asked if Mr. Bluhm was satisfied that the submitted drawing meets that qualification?


Mr. Bluhm answered that would become an issue at the time of the Final Site Plan. He stated the plans at this stage are very general in nature and it was not necessary, however, at the Final Site Plan, he would be looking to have the applicant address that issue.


Member Bononi asked the applicant how the new building was to be used?


Daniel Mansfield answered it would be used for a warehouse and some small offices.


Member Bononi asked what types of offices?


Mr. Mansfield stated he was looking for tenants such as an electrician or a plumber, but he was not sure at this point. He stated he did not have anyone signed up for a lease but it was his intention to use the offices for contractor type uses.


Member Bononi asked Ms. Lemke to clarify her statement of an existing situation. She asked if it meant an existing situation because bituminous surface already exists?


Ms. Lemke answered yes, and because the building already exists.


Member Bononi clarified that they were not talking about any landscaping that is not being proposed because a small portion of bituminous could be removed and landscaping could be....


Ms. Lemke answered, no.





Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup

No: None





Chairperson Weddington referred to a motion that was made at the City Council Meeting of Monday, March 16, 1998 which was to approve Preliminary Site Plan SP95-44E, PD-1 Option Phasing Plan and Wetland Permit approval and direct the Planning Commission to act on the Woodland Permit at the March 18, 1998 meeting. To include Linda Lemke’s four (4) recommendations with the addition of an animal culvert and to reduce four (4) units on Building 11 to accommodate the second tennis court with acknowledgment that the buffering requirements be resolved to the south.



Joe Galvin stated asked the Planning Commission to approve the Woodland Permit. He asked for approval because they currently hold a Woodlands Permit and the plan that was presented was a better one with a lesser impact on the woodlands. Mr. Galvin stated since he last appeared before the Commission, he took the comments of the Commission and made almost all of the changes. Specifically he stated the curb cut has been moved north the maximum amount it could be moved in order to remove it from Ms. Bundoff’s property. He stated the stacking space has been added, the property has been rearranged in order to redesign the plan to allow two perpendicular tennis courts, Building 11 was moved to the north and some buildings to the north were combined and four units have been removed, all as indicated by the City Council and the Planning Commission. Mr. Galvin agreed that he would show the animal culvert on the plan. He stated of the items that were requested by the Commission, he addressed all of the items that he was able to address. In regard to the motion, Mr. Galvin stated it was within the 45 days to respond to those items that the Commission wanted him to deal with. He stated he has not done everything that every Commissioner asked, however, he as responded on the plan and made changes which will incorporate the substance of all that he could do. On that basis and on the fact that the City Council unanimously approved the plan, he respectfully requested that the Commission unanimously approve the Woodlands Permit.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the plan that was presented to the Commission the last time was a better plan than the one that was previously presented. She explained because it involved less mass grading and there was greater opportunity to save individual trees. She stated it still has an enormous impact on the woodlands on the site. Ms. Lemke stated she received a revised plan from Mr. Sasoon just before the meeting and she briefly reviewed. She stated it addressed some of the things that he agreed to do for the Council, overall the plan looks good, but in looking at it she had two reservations; 1) the optional maintenance garage that is now located in the northern section and 2) the optional community compactor. She stated she would like to see them moved further south on the site where the woodlands are more open. Ms. Lemke stated the plan seems to address the comments that were a part of her letter at the City Council meeting on Monday night.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was an alternative plan that was less intrusive.


Ms. Lemke answered there was, by dropping units, by dropping buildings and manipulating parking as discussed in her last letter.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello CARRIED (5-3): To grant Woodland Permit to Society Hill, SP95-45E subject to the conditions expressed by the Consultants, specifically being the movement of the maintenance garage and community compactor to the south.





Member Churella noted the packet included approval of the Woodlands and Wetlands. He thought the wetlands should be included in the motion.


Chairperson Weddington stated the wetlands had already been approved.


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner explained that the only item up for approval was the Woodlands Permit. The City Council approved everything else. He stated the issue came to him with such short notice that he gathered all of the information he had in the file, he clarified that the applicant was only before the Commission for a Woodlands Permit.


Member Capello was confused in regard to the conditions, he saw five conditions in Ms. Lemke’s letter.


Chairperson Weddington explained that on page two of Ms. Lemke’s letter there were design conditions as well as her standard conditions.


Ms. Lemke stated number five in her letter was in regard to review of Final Engineering plans per items indicated by the dot above and there were four items on Page 2 that primarily involved retaining walls, on Page 3 there were additional items that include the wildlife culvert.


Chairperson Weddington stated the motion would include all of the Consultants conditions.


Member Vrettas apologized and clarified that his intent was to include all of them, his concern was that the two additional items that were presented orally be included.


Member Bononi stated she would not be in support of an affirmative vote because she did not feel that the first plan was very good and she did not feel that the second plan was very good. She thought the applicant had the opportunity to take the advice of ...(end of tape). Member Bononi did not think Ms. Lemke’s advice was not heeded, she did not think the City was served and she did not think a rationale sustainable use of the land is being served. Member Bononi pointed out her support for Ms. Lemke’s position and the manner in which she presented the information and the alternatives. She wished the applicant would fortune in his venture but she though he could have done better, she stated she would not be in support.


Member Capello asked for a specific clarification of the motion because he was still unsure of the number of conditions.


Member Vrettas clarified his motion to grant approval subject to all the conditions and recommendations of the Consultants and the two given orally by Ms. Lemke.


Chairperson Weddington stated she interpreted it to mean all of the written conditions in Ms. Lemke’s letter as well as the two additional ones that were stated this evening that are not documented anywhere else.


Member Capello stated if all of the comments and conditions were to be considered he would prefer to have the conditions spelled out so he knows what he is voting on.


Chairperson Weddington stated that was the problem of sending something back without adequate time. The Commission is voting on a plan that they did not even see and the Commission is being directed to approve it tonight and they don’t know what they are voting on. For this reason, Chairperson Weddington stated she could not support the motion until all of the items are clarified and everyone knows what is being voted on.


Member Canup did not have a problem with approving the project, however, he had a problem approving something that he has not even seen. He thought the item should be tabled to give the applicant an opportunity to get the information to the Commission in the form and time frame that any other applicant would. This would give the Commission the opportunity to look at it, digest it and vote on it.





Moved by Canup, seconded by Bononi, FAILED (3-5): To postpone the Matter of Society Hill Woodlands Ordinance to the next meeting.





Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Canup

No: Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Watza, Capello





Yes: Csordas, Vrettas, Watza, Capello, Churella

No: Weddington, Bononi, Canup


Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a five minute recess.





Debbie Bundoff commended Mr. Taylor for hanging around for 18 years and complaining about water coming from wherever it comes from. She stated if it does come from when parts of the parcel adjacent to him were filled, she could only say how much complaining to the City gets taken care of very slowly. Although some people may think that it can be taken care of in another phase two or three years down the road, unfortunately, when water starts to flood you, two or three years can be a lifetime. She knew this for a fact because she watched over four acres come onto a map as a wetland that was never there and was intentionally put there because someone did excavating, reduced a pipe for drainage, down to a 4" pipe. She admired Mr. Taylor for putting up with it for 18 years and hoped maybe some day it would be taken care of for him. Secondly, Ms. Bundoff commented on Mr. Sasoon’s project. She stated it was a shame that the Commission did not have the plans in front of them today because she would have liked to been able to see them as well since it was going to directly affect her. She noted that Mr. Rogers said that it takes 27' to put in the proper standardized berm. In some instances, she stated there were only 20' or 10' between development and the property line. She was hopeful that the drainage from the development does not further flood her, she stated drains do not always work the way engineers think they do. She stated she would have liked to have seen the plans because there was a lot that did not get resolved.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing none she closed the Audience Participation.





Member Capello stated there were great pains taken to get an OST Ordinance adopted, it has been a period of time since the Ordinance has been on the books and there has only been one parcel of property in the City that has been rezoned OST. He stated there were recommendations from the Department to rezone or look at rezoning some particular properties and he thought it was about time to go ahead and schedule a Public Hearing to have those properties rezoned. He specifically addressed the areas. Member Capello proposed to direct the Department to schedule a Public Hearing for a City initiated rezoning of Section 1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 on the map.





Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (6-2): To direct the Planning Department to initiate Public Notice to schedule a Public Hearing for the purpose of rezoning Sections 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 on the map to OST.





Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Wahl if there was a property owner who has already petitioned for a rezoning?



Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development answered, that was correct. He thought Section 2A, St. Joseph Mercy had a petition in front of the Department for the next meeting, therefore, that section would be excluded from the motion.


Rod Arroyo stated the petition includes the northern portion of Section 2A, he stated there is a southerly portion that is not in that petition.


Member Capello amended his motion for the Section of 2A that has not been applied for a rezoning by the property owner.


Mr. Wahl stated there were some existing parcels on Fourteen and Twelve Mile Roads that are zoned OS-1 and B-3, and in the report it was not recommended that they be changed to OST.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated there is a vacant OS-1 property westerly of and adjacent to Cooker’s restaurant at Twelve Mile Road and Haggerty Road, he recommended including it in the OST rezoning. He also suggested everything between Twelve Mile Road and Fourteen Mile Road, Haggerty and M-5 should be included for consistency, except for the two corners that are zoned B-3.


Member Capello clarified that the trailer park was not included in Section 1. He agreed to delete the other three parcels mentioned by Mr. Rogers.


Chairperson Weddington clarified that there were parcels being excluded, a gas station at Fourteen Mile Road and Haggerty Road, one at Twelve Mile Road and Haggerty Road and the Cooker’s Restaurant on Twelve Mile Road.


Member Canup stated he serves on the Study Committee that looked into the OST and he did not recall the Committee recommending anything other than that area along Haggerty Road at this point, he asked if he missed something?


Chairperson Weddington answered, no. She stated it was another directive from the City Council.


Member Canup asked why he has wasted his time going to the meetings. He stated he resigns from that Committee as of right now, he stated he was not going to waste his time going to Committee meetings, doing research, looking into it and then have it run over.


Member Bononi referred to this as a dog and pony show. She stated if the Commission was just going to abandon every planning principle and abandon the mandate that the State gives the Commission to do its planning job, then so be it. She stated the Commission was not going to think about things, they were just going to respond to stimulus, whatever it is. She stated she cared very much about her Community or she would not be here wasting her time in Committee work. She thought there were a lot of important questions in addition to a rezoning request. She stated the members of that Committee worked very hard and were treated with utter disrespect, she was sorry to have to say that and stated she did not want to serve on the Committee any longer either. Member Bononi stated if support is given to a City initiated rezoning, the bill is being given to the tax payers. She stated it was out of line and she would not support such a motion under any circumstances.


Member Vrettas stated this was what the whole issue was about two weeks ago when he resigned from the Committee. He stated the problem rests with the Council and he blamed every one of them who has not spoken up. He stated in the history of the Planning Commission, every single Commissioner who has ever challenged, asked a question or had a concern, when their time came, they were replaced. He stated Council has to come out and say that they want a Commission like a rubber stamp or a Commission that thinks independently. Member Vrettas stated he was scared of what was happening in Novi and stated it was becoming a dictatorship.

Mr. Wahl clarified that when the Committee considered the OST, it concentrated on the issue of where it is not currently Master Planned. This is where the recommendation came to have a Public Hearing on April 1, 1998 and that Matter was brought forward. The question of zoning has not been taken up by the Committee because the issue of City initiated rezonings is a policy matter that has not been considered by the Planning Commission as of this date. He stated there was nothing irregular about an applicant report an application, take no action or propose a City initiated rezoning, it was his understanding that any one of those approaches was acceptable. He stated it was a matter of opinion as to whether it is an appropriate initiative of the City to move forward. He stated the Committee could still have meetings to consider the Commission’s position on City initiated rezonings prior to any Public Hearing. He stated it was still possible to consider that particular policy issue. He offered this as information related to the Matter that has been brought forward.


Chairperson Weddington asked if Council has appropriated money for City initiated rezoning effort?


Mr. Wahl believed that the Council put aside approximately $8,000 to conduct the technical work for those areas 1 through 4. He reported that he has been receiving invoices, therefore, JCK has been working on it.


Member Churella thought it needed to be explained that when the City initiates a rezoning of this type, it also increases the value of the property and the tax value of the property. He did not understand why everyone was so upset over it because they knew it was coming. He stated most everyone agrees that it is something that is good for the City. Member Churella stated he would be in support of the motion.


Member Capello stated as far as Sections 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 were concerned, those are already Master Planned for an OST type of use. The planning is already in effect, the rezoning is merely following through with the long term planning of the City as already adopted. He stated a year and a half ago when he was on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee they were discussing if the OST Ordinance were adopted, what would be a good place for it, they came back and recommended Section 1. He stated that was consistent with the Master Plan. Member Capello stated City initiated rezonings are not unique to Novi, they are doing what is good for the Community. He stated they have taken the time to adopt a new Ordinance because there is a need for that type of use in the Community, and the next step is to put pieces of property in place so the Ordinance can be put into effect. Member Capello could not understand some of the concerns that were brought up because they are very unfounded both in fact and in theory.


Member Vrettas stated the Master Planning and the OST are good ideas but there comes a point in time where the City stops paying out and says, now it is the developers turn. He stated this was not happening, he stated any developer who comes into Novi and wants something, they get everything they want. He stated this was wrong, he wanted the City developed right. He did not think the Commission was being responsible and responsive to the residents.


Mr. Wahl clarified the term "Section". He wanted to make sure that no one was confusing it with the official designation of sections.


Member Bononi stated her objection to the manner in which this item was brought forward on the Agenda. She stated it seemed obvious that some of the Commissioners have the information and some have the proposal and the other just get to hear it after the fact. She did not think this was the way that most Planning Commissions do business and thought it was an important issue and it deserved the respect of being an Agenda Item that the Commission could all think about.


Chairperson Weddington stated she would not be in support of the motion because of her philosophical opposition to City initiated rezoning efforts. She used to be in favor of them but has changed her mind over the last five years.






Yes: Vrettas, Watza, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas

No: Weddington, Bononi








Report from Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant reported that he and Rod Arroyo have taken the comments of the last Planning Commission meeting and built those suggestions into the questionnaire. He stated the questionnaire has been reviewed for content and organization by Yee Minard Associates, the marketing survey company that will conduct the survey. Mr. Rogers asked for the concurrence of the Commission that he should proceed to establish the questionnaire as one that can be sent out to 3,000 randomly sampled people so the results can be gathered before the end of the year.


Member Canup noted there were some things on the survey that were politically exciting in Novi, ie. Ten Mile Road, the golf course, etc. He asked if these were put on the questionnaire with that in mind?


Mr. Rogers answered they were on the questionnaire from the very beginning as being possible questions that would be of interest to the Planning Commission and the City Council. He stated they were relevant to issues that have been in the talks for the last couple of years and they were not meant to be argumentative. He stated the scope of the survey is limited as they want to keep it to two pages when it is formatted. Mr. Rogers recommended that the questions remain on the questionnaire.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated one of the things that was discussed at the Committee level about the questionnaire was the degree of specificity that you get into. His general philosophy was to not be as specific as some of the questions are because you are looking for a general attitude. He stated there can be some benefits to specific questions if you are trying to get a feel from the Community about a particular issue. He thought it was a good question for the Planning Commission to take up if they think it is appropriate to ask those questions.


Chairperson Weddington added that the Master Plan encompasses the overall transportation plan as well as the recreation plan for the City. She stated the Committee as a whole felt that these questions would provide usable information to Council because they have been issues that have been of interest to a great many people in the Community.


Member Canup stated there were a few questions he would like to see removed from the list, one being the golf course and the other being the Ten Mile Road widening.


Member Churella stated the Ten Mile Road widening question was his idea because it was the biggest bottleneck in the City and he felt it should be widened. He wanted to find out if it was just the people who live on Ten Mile Road that do not want it widened or if it was a random sampling.


Member Canup agreed with Member Churella and he thought when it was decided, it was a major mistake in the City to not make it a larger road. He did not know that there would be a change but he was hopeful that it does become a five lane road.


Member Bononi concurred with Member Canup. She did not think the survey should be turned into a defacto referendum which it could very easily be turned into. She thought the survey had nine pending development questions that could be answered by answering some of the other questions. She thought it was much too specific, she stated there were so many categories that were eliminated that could be a very pertinent part of the questions that are asked. Member Bononi suggested instead of repeatedly asking which areas of town they do want developed, ask if they want anything not to be developed, she stated this was a planning tool. Also, rather than asking if the City should have its own municipal golf course, which she thought was entirely inappropriate, she suggested asking how familiar the residents are with the Master Plan for Recreation. She also suggested asking about how the City does business and how the citizens, business people and applicants perceive how the City does business. Member Bononi thought there were a lot of very pertinent questions being asked but she thought they were much to weighted toward development proposals. She stated there were a lot of other things that the residents were interested in besides development. She stated she would like to see at least half of the questions related to pending development proposals removed and look at other categories of information to make the survey more broad based. She thought the format of the survey was fine and expressed concern regarding the amount of response with such a small sampling area.


Member Vrettas thought the sampling should be increased as he did not believe 3,000 would be enough, he thought it should be increased to 6,000. He expressed concern regarding the woodlands and wetlands and how the City feels about them. He suggested adding another page to add some of the questions suggested by Member Bononi and keep the questions added by Member Churella.


Member Churella stated they spoke to some experts and 3,000 is a percentage of the total population of the Community. The experts say that a 30% reply would be given.


Mr. Rogers stated 2,000 was a good firm number and Member Hoadley wanted to bump it up to 3,000 which would raise the cost. He stated obtaining responses from 2,000 residents would be sufficient if 25% to 30% were returned, and 3,000 would be even better and he thought it would be adequate.


Member Vrettas thought to receive 30% response was very unusual, the normal was 10%. He stated if Yee Minard could guarantee a 30% return on 3,000 residents that would be good, but most research that he has seen has been 10%. He expressed that this was his concern to move the number up to 6,000.


Chairperson Weddington asked the Commission to go through the survey and make whatever changes needed to be made.


Member Canup stated it should first be decided whether 3,000 surveys or 6,000 surveys were going to be sent out.


Mr. Wahl stated 3,000 surveys were budgeted for, therefore, if the Commission wishes to send out more they need to obtain more money.


Member Canup asked what the cost was for each of the 3,000 pieces for the service?


Mr. Rogers answered, $1.85 per piece.


Member Canup asked what the cost was for processing the returns?


Mr. Arroyo answered the cost is the total cost for the postage, printing and handling. The total cost for the 3,000 was approximately $5,500. Mr. Arroyo stated this figure reflects the cost of it being done by an outside firm, if some of it is done internally within the City, the number would drop.


Member Canup stated if 3,000 was not going to give good information, then the whole thing would be a waste.


Mr. Arroyo stated the marketing experts that are involved in the questionnaire have indicated that they feel with 3,000 there would be a return that is statistically significant and they could draw a conclusion.


Mr. Rogers read Yee Minard’s letter on reliability.





Moved by Watza, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (7-1): To send out the Community Attitude Survey as presented to 3,000 registered voters.





Member Vrettas stated he would be voting against the motion because he could not justify spending the money to get the 8% to 10% return that he has seen as a normal return.





Yes: Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas

No: Vrettas





Report from David Bluhm of JCK on wetlands and woodlands map updates.


David Bluhm of JCK stated he had been asked to put back on the table, the proposal to do the woodlands and wetlands map using digitizing on Auto CAD. He stated there has been some communications with the Planning Department and DPS and the lady that headed up the department for the GIS has left as of about one month ago. They have indicated no time frames in completing that map using the GIS System. He stated they were kind of back at square one with that Department preparing it. He stated it was determined that it be brought back up as a consideration for adding and completing the project by the end of the fiscal year.


Chairperson Weddington stated the Commission could use its Emerging Issue budget to speed it along to get the maps updated. She stated the project is way overdue and it is jeopardizing the enforcementability.





Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To authorize the use of the Emerging Issues Budget to pay for the update of the woodland and wetland maps.


Mr. Bluhm clarified that it would take all of the field data that was collected and allow them to digitize it in an Auto CAD format. He stated they would continue to provide the maps on the Auto CAD base system through his office until such time that the Department is able to accept that information or to prepare it themselves. Once the Department is ready to do that, there is a simple conversion program that can be implemented to transfer it from Auto CAD to GIS.


Member Bononi asked for a date certain when the product would be delivered.


Mr. Bluhm stated it could be done by May 30, 1998.






Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Watza

No: None





Report by Steve Rumple, Staff Planner - Master Plan & Zoning, Environmental and Implementation Committee


Steve Rumple, Staff Planner stated the Environmental Committee met this evening and he had scheduled a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow, however, he thought the Committee was lacking in members and stated it would be canceled until further notice. He stated the Implementation Committee would meet on April 1, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.


Mr. Rumple announced he had some updated Project Maps for anybody that did not receive them.





Debbie Bundoff stated although $8,000 for the City to spend to change some properties into zoned properties versus just Master Planned may seem like a good price to pay, what about the people who do not want their property rezoned. She stated it may be something that they do not need, want and do not deserve to have done to them. She stated the City can and will receive increases in revenues, but by whom? She stated those people who have no use for that zoning are told that they can sell their land at a better price, but maybe they don’t want to sell their land, maybe it is their home or the site of their future home. Ms. Bundoff stated an acre of RA property that was assessed at $32,000 an acre, jumped to approximately $75,000 an acre with the signing of a pen. She stated the tax was risen at the property owners expense and it was not fair. She hoped the Commission would be very careful if they rezone property.




Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:00 p.m.



Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None



Steve Rumple - Staff Planner


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

April 03, 1998

Date Approved: April 15, 1998