WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 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, Churella, Csordas, Vrettas, Watza (arrived 8:22 p.m.), Chairperson Weddington


ABSENT: Members Capello, Hoadley


ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Heidi Hannan








Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions to the Agenda?


Member Churella added the discussion of rescheduling the June 3, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting to June 10, 1998 due to the Motorsports Hall of Fame Dinner as a number of Commissioners would like to attend that function.


Chairperson Weddington added it as Item 3 under Matters for Discussion.


Member Bononi added a status report with regard to the woodlands and wetlands map updates which were to be delivered on May 01, 1998 as Item 4 under Matters for Discussion.


Chairperson Weddington added discussion regarding Main Street as Item 5 under Matters for Discussion.


Chairperson Weddington announced that Fidelity Communications Corporation has withdrawn their application, therefore if anyone was present regarding that matter, it has been removed from the Agenda and will not be discussed.





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





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

No: None










Heidi Hannan, Planning Assistant announced she has received a couple of letters.


David and Mary Hutka, 40563 Paisley Circle purchased their house on June 13, 1997 in the Haverhill Subdivision. Prior to their decision to move, they researched the zoning of the surrounding areas, at that time, everything around them was zoned RA and that was a key positive factor to their decision to move to Novi. They were aware of the areas proposed to be rezoned to OST and believed that the quality of life in the northeastern corner of Novi would decline as a result. They did not believe that high technology was clean, they stated that offices and service related businesses would draw more automobiles, further snarling traffic despite the completion of M-5. The decision means pollution, noise and aggravation for residents.


There was a letter received by Richard Stanbridge of Fidelity Management dated May 20, 1998 which stated the letter shall serve as notice of Fidelity Management to cancel their hearing scheduled for tonight. They have been forced to re-evaluate the project on its merits and timing with their company expansion.


Ms. Hannan announced she has received a letter from Lynn Kocan in regard to Fidelity. Ms. Kocan indicated that the letter did not need to be read during the meeting since the Hearing was canceled. Ms. Hannan stated the letter was included in the packets if the Commissioners would like to refer to it.


David M. Ware of the Taubman Company wrote regarding Twelve Oaks and Ethan Allen dated May 20, 1998. Regretfully unable to attend the meeting in support of the subject approval request, he wrote to advise the Commission that the Taubman Company has reviewed and approved the plans. He believed the design of the building and the land use was very much in keeping with the image Taubman has worked hard to establish.




Chairperson Weddington announced there was one item for approval, the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 06, 1998. She asked if there were any corrections?


Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney referred to Page 7, paragraph 5 should read, "Mr. Weisberger stated any expansion or enlargement of the non-conforming use would have to comply with OST requirements...".


Chairperson Weddington referred to the motion on Page 19, the words, "To amend the" should be stricken, and the word "something" should be replaced with "alternatives". She referred to the first paragraph under Discussion and the words, "by discouraging development." should be added after the word "consequences". She referred to Page 20, third paragraph should read, "...The sub-committee was made up of three members of Councilís Consultant Review Committee and three members of the Planning Commissionís Administrative Liaison Committee. She stated the sub-committee met on April 23, 1998 and reviewed the responses. The criteria that were considered included the professional credentials and background, the education and experience of the people that would be supporting the City...". Also "Carlyle" should be spelled "Carlisle". Lastly, she referred to Page 21 and added the words, "professional services" after the second paragraph.





Moved by Csordas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Wednesday, May 06, 1998 as corrected.





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

No: None














This project is located on the north side of Grand River Avenue between Novi Road and CSX railroad. Applicant is seeking Final Site Plan approval for Phase 1.


Bob Redner, President of General Filters introduced Frank Klaetke the architect. He proposed a 15,000 square foot addition in Phase I. The project has been complicated by the proposed Crescent Boulevard and the industrial spur which will be located on two sides of his property as well as go through part of his property. He requested site plan approval on Phase I of IV. He stated Phase I is a 15,000 square foot addition onto an existing 40 year old building, Phase II is a site landscaping plan which includes parking, landscaping which is scheduled to coordinate with Crescent Boulevard and the industrial spur. Phase III is a 19,000 square foot addition to the same building and Phase IV is an 8,000 square foot addition.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated Phase I is a 15,200 square foot addition at the rear north side of the building. The existing building is approximately 59,000 square feet on an 8Ĺ acre I-1 site that abuts TC zoning on the east and north. Mr. Rogers stated the Final Site Plan complies with the approved Preliminary Site Plan. He stated Phase II would involve the site improvements around the building addition, there is no improvement, expansion, redesign, restriping of the parking lot for Phase I. Mr. Rogers stated Phase II could not be started until the elevation and alignment of Crescent Boulevard is established. Phases III and IV involve further building expansion. Mr. Rogers stated there was sufficient unimproved existing parking for Phase I. Parking greenspaces as shown on the plan for Phase II reflect a 20' setback where 40' is required, the Planning Commission waived the reduction at the time of Preliminary Site Plan approval. In the 20' strip along Crescent Boulevard and the proposed public roadway, there would be a need for berming, landscaping, irrigation and various things that are required in the Ordinance. Mr. Rogers stated there was indication of non-conforming open storage in the rear yard which is not permitted in an I-1 District. The applicantís plan proposed to reduce the open storage by half and he thought it could be approved.


In regard to Landscaping requirements, the proposed pad mounted transformer along the west side of the property should have landscaping surrounding it. Mr. Rogers also stated when the Phase II Landscaping Plans are submitted, the landscaping should be proposed around all four sides of the proposed building.


The building facade plan reflects painted block, non-insulated metal siding, fiberglass siding and painted accent strips which conforms to the existing building facades. Mr. Rogers recommended Final Site Plan approval subject to the details on the Landscape Plan and he recommended approval on the Phasing Plan.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the industrial spur road, Crescent Boulevard and the improvements to the Grand River bridge are all necessary to the applicant properly designing his paving and storm sewer detention. There were several discussions at the time that the Preliminary Site Plan was approved and it was determined that as the Design and Construction Standards requires the paving of the parking area as a part of the initial phase, due to the impacts of the proposed improvements, it was Mr. Watsonís opinion that the applicant would need to seek a variance at City Council. The variance was applied for last November and he was sure that it was granted for the waiver for the work. He stated there was a condition imposed on the variance, that the applicant complete the design and construction of the Phase II improvements within a certain time period after the Final design for Crescent Boulevard road improvements. Mr. Bluhm recommended Final Site Plan approval for Phase I.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the access points would remain the same for Phase I. He recommended approval of 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.


Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK regarding the facade review which states that he has reviewed the drawings for compliance with the Facade Ordinance Section 2520. The percentages of materials proposed are shown on a matrix and he indicated that the percentage of concrete block on the east, west and north facades exceeds the maximum percentages allowed by the Ordinance. All other facades are in compliance with the Ordinance. Although the percentage of concrete exceeds the Ordinance maximum, it does not represent a violation as it is a continuation of the design of the adjoining existing building. Mr. Necci recommended that the application was in compliance with the Facade Ordinance and a Section 4 Waiver was not required.


Chairperson Weddington turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.








Moved by Canup, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (6-1): To grant Final Site Plan approval and Phase I approval for General Filters, SP96-43C subject to all of the Consultants conditions.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the entire Phasing Plan needed to be approved or just Phase I?


Member Canup stated the Agenda states that the applicant is seeking Final Site Plan approval for Phase I and that was what he based his motion on.


Chairperson Weddington asked if the applicant needed to come back or how are the other Phases handled?


Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated if there has not been a Phasing Plan that has been approved prior to this plan, then they have no Phasing Plan in effect.


Chairperson Weddington stated the drawings that the Commission received had four Phases and asked what the procedure was?


Mr. Weisberger thought the Commission should be looking at and approving the four phase Phasing Plan that was included in the packets. He stated this is where the Commission should address the things that need to be done in Phase II. He stated there is also a variance that is needed for Phase III which will have to be obtained by the applicant and the City will be requesting it.


Member Canup stated he did not have a problem with amending his motion if it was not creating a legal issue.


Chairperson Weddington clarified, assuming that the Commission approves the four phase Phasing Plan, Phases II, III and IV would have to come back for Final Site Plan approval.


Mr. Weisberger thought the best way to handle it would be to have a motion that would address both the first Phase of the Site Plan and the Phasing Plan.



Member Bononi objected to the fact that the Agenda does not speak to any other Phase other than Phase I. She believed that people who might otherwise be interested were deprived of the information to know that there are other Phases being considered. She stated she would not be in support of the motion including other Phases because the matter on the Agenda does not speak to any other Phase other than Phase I.


Member Bononi asked the applicant to define the use of the warehouse space in regard to what would be stored there?


Mr. Redner answered they manufacture humidifiers, high efficiency air cleaners and oil filters, that is what the space would be used for.


In regard to the truck well shown on the plan, Member Bononi asked the architect if it was existing or proposed?


Mr. Klaetke clarified that the truck well is existing. The siding would be upgraded to tie in with the design of the rest of the building.


Member Bononi asked if there was a treatment structure involved with the storm drain since it leads from the truck well?


Mr. Klaetke deferred to Mr. Redner.


Mr. Redner stated it would be addressed in Phase II. Currently the truck well drain runs into a sump and then overflows into the wetlands area to the north.


Member Bononi asked if the applicant would agree to provide treatment to the water as it comes out of the truck well?


Mr. Redner answered, yes, with Phase II because that is when the area will be dug up. He explained that with Phase I that area is not disturbed yet.


With regard to phasing, Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm if all of the pertinent structures were required to stand alone and be included in the Phase that is being considered?


Mr. Bluhm stated with the proposed paving improvements, all of the structures would have to be put into place which is a Phase II improvement.


Member Bononi stated if Phase II were never to be constructed then there would be a truck well that is possibly draining untreated into a river.


Mr. Bluhm stated it outlets to a storm sewer and then ultimately to the river.


Member Bononi stated as far as she was concerned, the structure does not meet the requirement.


Mr. Bluhm stated the truck well is old and whether or not it could be fitted with an oil and gas separator would be only a possibility. He considered the oil and gas separator to be a Phase II improvement. He stated the applicant is not doing any work in the truck well area, they are not intending to change anything.


Member Bononi stated if there was some guarantee that Phase II were going to be considered, then she would agree with Mr. Bluhm, however, from the standpoint of good planning practice, a site plan revision is opportunity to bring the site up to standard, she did not think it was up to standard. In regard to the legal interpretation that was provided with regard to the legal non-conformity of outdoor storage, she asked why Mr. Rogers thought the applicant did not have to go to the ZBA because she questioned Mr. Rogers referral to this situation as a "legal non-conformity".


Mr. Rogers stated the outdoor storage has existed for quite some time and in his opinion, it was grandfathered in. He stated the applicant is proposing to modify the plan to extensively reduce the open storage to more a conforming type use by upwards of 50%.


Member Bononi stated she was looking into the planning aspect of the land use decision. She did not agree that the non-conformity could go on indefinitely when a site plan approval has been requested. She expressed concern with consistency in blessing every existing non-conforming use and saying that it is grandfathered, she did not believe it to be the case. She asked Mr. Wahl if he saw it as a potential negative with regard to upgrading existing industrial facilities in the future.


Mr. Wahl believed there were other industrial projects in the past that have come in with items that did not meet current standards. Typically, the grandfathering part of the submittal has not been challenged or been a problem for the Commission or the Planning Consultant. With respect to this project, it has been part of their business, he presumed that it was an important part of how they function, the facility has been very successful in its location. He stated it was a relatively tight site and arrangements are being worked out to make it work for the City and to allow General Filters to continue a successful business. As a part of the business retention efforts, he thought it was important to keep them in their location to keep them in the City of Novi. He did not see any alternatives at this point.


Member Bononi thought there were reasonable and prudent alternatives. The fact that the applicant wishes to reduce the outdoor storage area is commendable, however, she believed it was time for leadership in making land use decisions and giving consistency to all of the applicants. She did not believe it was such a great hardship to have the applicant appear before the ZBA and have the matter declared a hardship. She added it as a condition if the Commission would agree, if not, she stated she would not be in support. She thought it was an important stand to make from the standpoint of land use decisions and that the decisions should be consistent.


Member Vrettas asked, upon the completion of all four phases, would the outside storage be taken care of as well?


Mr. Redner stated the outside storage was a very necessary part of the business. The product is packaged on pallets which need to be stored outside for fire reasons. He stated he was directed by the Fire Marshal that it cannot be stored inside. He proposed a reduction of approximately 70% of the outside storage and stated it would be difficult. He stated the outside storage needs to be continued as long as they are on the site.





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

No: Bononi





Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED: To approve the Phasing Plan for General Filters SP96-43C





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

No: Bononi





This project is located on Lots 9, 10 & 11 of Twelve Oaks No. 1 Subdivision. Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and PD-3 Option approval.


Lonnie Zimmerman of Siegal-Tuomaala Associates Architects stated the lot is on the north side of Twelve Oaks located between McDonalds and Cellular One. He stated the building is to be two stories high which would permit the area to provide the required parking while maintaining good site circulation.


Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant the property is zoned RC District and has the PD-3 Option on the Master Plan. A two story 19,000 square foot store is proposed on a 1.6 acre site. The plan complies with the Design Standards and the Special Land Use criteria. He stated no adverse impacts on thoroughfares is expected, all utilities are at the site, there are no woodlands or wetlands to be impacted. It was Mr. Rogers opinion that the development was in scale with adjacent uses and types of adjacent uses. The project would add tax and job base to the City and offer new retail services to the public. A Community Impact Statement and a Traffic Study have been submitted. Proposed and existing R.O.W.ís are shown, the applicant will need an exception for the size of the building because the Ordinance requires the store to be a 50,000 square foot minimum size. Mr. Rogers recommended PD-3 approval.


In regard to the Preliminary Site Plan, all data has been submitted except for soil types and characteristics, Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, Minimum of two ties to established Section corners or Quarter Corners using the Michigan State Plane Coordinate System. The setbacks are in compliance, off-street parking has been provided, off-street loading is located at the rear of the building. In regard to landscaping, Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan with the screening of transformers, detail on the dumpster screening and replacement of certain plant materials being addressed at the time of Final. Mr. Rogers stated an easement of access will be required from the owner for the 8' asphalt bikeway proposed along 12 Mile Road. The building facades comply with Section 2520 of the Zoning Ordinance, roof mechanics are to be screened on all sides. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval and PD-3 approval subject to the Council granting an exception for the building size and subject to the Council concurrently approving the Preliminary Site Plan and the PD-3 Option.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated all utilities service the site. Storm sewers exist along the 12 Mile ring road. There is no requirement for detention, the 12 Oaks Lake, east of the Mall, is a regional basin and the storm water is directed to that lake. There is a significant amount of topography from 12 Mile Road down to the site which continues to fall to the ring road. A retaining wall along the north side will be upwards of 18' to 22' in height, it will be a structural wall requiring detailed calculations and sealed engineering drawings at the time of Final. The retaining walls will need to extend around to the east and west sides but will not need to be as high due to the elevations that the adjacent buildings have provided.


Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated access is from one point on the 12 Oaks Mall ring road, therefore, no external access to the public road system is proposed. In regard to trip generation, furniture stores are fairly low trip generators. A development of this size is anticipated to generate just under 100 trips during an average day and approximately 10 trips during the p.m. peak hour. The internal circulation is acceptable and Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary 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 the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) Show all usable hydrants on the utility plans, if there arenít any, provide a hydrant within 175' of the building at the main entrance drive and additional hydrants every 300' around the building; 2) Provide a control valve for the 6" fire line water main, a post indicator valve or a valve in well is acceptable; 3) Show the location of the fire department connection and provide a hydrant within 100' of it. The Fire Department connection shall be located on the front address side of the building; 4) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation noted on the plans; 5) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and in service prior to construction above the foundation noted on the plans; 6) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction, the address is to be at least 3" high on a contrasting background noted on the plans.


Chairperson Weddington turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.








Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and PD-3 Option Approval for Ethan Allen SP98-06A subject to all of the conditions of the Consultants.





Member Bononi asked Mr. Bluhm what determines whether or not the applications have erosion and sedimentation letters from JCK & some do not.


Mr. Bluhm believed it was based on size of the site, he did not know what the minimum criteria was for having a soil erosion control letter.


Member Bononi commented on the severe topography and she believed that the approval should be given with the condition that special consideration be given to erosion and sedimentation control and hoped that the motion could be amended to include it. She gave as an example, a nearby recently developed site that had on many occasions nearly non-existent erosion control.


Member Vrettas accepted the amendment as the maker of the motion.


Member Csordas accepted the amendment as the seconder of the motion.


Chairperson Weddington stated it appeared that the facades that will be seen from the east and west on 12 Mile Road are rather plain. She asked if anything could be done to dress up the facades and make them more attractive.


Mr. Zimmerman stated he has spoken to Ethan Allen to see what could be done to improve the appearance. He suggested incorporating the same awnings over the windows as in the front of the building.


Chairperson Weddington stated she would be supporting the motion, however, she hoped that something could be done and the Commissionerís comments would be reviewed by Council.


Mr. Zimmerman asked if they come up with a resolution for modifying the building, how would they handle the technical matter prior to the Council?



Mr. Rogers thought it could be reflected in the recommendation from the Commission. He stated it could be made a contingency on the Final Site Plan.


Chairperson Weddington asked if any land banking for parking was required for this type of use?


Mr. Arroyo answered, in this case there is no need to because the applicant is providing the full parking for retail use and land banking is an option.


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was adequate circulation room for large delivery trucks?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He explained that the applicant has provided large radii around the corners and the internal parking area which will greatly improve circulation within. He stated it would be confirmed upon the Final approval.


Member Churella asked if the applicant has considered putting in large display windows as opposed to the proposed windows.


Mr. Zimmerman stated on the projected floor plans, the windows fall in the design studios and office areas, therefore, it does not fall into a furniture display area. He stated they could improve upon what was proposed and was willing to do so.


Member Watza stated he would like to see the applicant come back for Final with a dressed up plan.


Member Bononi stated she would much rather see the applicant leave the building as it is than do a lot of add- ons that are not form following functions. She expressed concern with the addition of canopies because of the northern exposure and design professionals who will be using the offices and rely upon light to make color decisions. She did not see how awnings over the windows would be functional, she did not see any point in making them match. Member Bononi stated she would much rather see the applicant eliminate the windows or leave them as they are.


Member Canup suggested that the applicant come back to the Commission for Final Review. He suggested that they address the issue and come back with something better.


Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated when there is a Site Plan along with a PD-3 Option, the Ordinance states that it is a recommendation to Council and it is up to the Council whether or not they want it to come back, go back to the Planning Commission or be done Administratively. He stated it can be made a part of the motion, but ultimately it is up to the Council.





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

No: None








Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated the City Council took action on the budget for fiscal Ď98-99 at the May 04, 1998 City Council and adopted a budget for the Planning Commission in the amount of $61,016. The budget was reduced by $13,900 from the original submittal with Special Planning, Zoning and Engineering Research and Emerging Issues having been eliminated through the Administrative review process. The most important items in the Work Program have to deal with the steps to complete several elements of the Master Plan Update before the year 2000, including the Land Use Plan, Residential Density Plan and the Thoroughfare Plan. There was money budgeted for reproduction of a brochure and the plan so it could be distributed within this fiscal year.





The Special Meeting request is to present the Grand River Avenue Corridor Study.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development stated none of the Consultants were a part of the team that worked on this project. He stated it was a special study that involved an analysis of what was anticipated to be needed for improving the function of the road that was done by Finkbeiner, Pettis & Strout. It was also a preliminary design concept of what type of amenities should be provided along the Grand River Corridor. Mr. Wahl stated most of the work was completed in the Fall of 1997 and several months have been spent on trying to determine alternatives for financing the estimated $40 million dollars to do this type of development for the Community.





Member Churella stated he would like to reschedule the meeting.


Chairperson Weddington asked if any public notices have been published for the June 03, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting?


Heidi Hannan, Planning Assistant answered, not as of yet.


Member Canup suggested moving the next three meetings up one week because many of the Commissioners may not be in town for the July 01, 1998 meeting.


Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Weisberger if the Commission was allowed to move their meetings around as long as no public notices have been given for a specific meeting?


Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney did not know why it could not be done. His only concern was whether or not there was any time passing on a 45 day requirement for Preliminary Plats.





Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reschedule the Planning Commission Meetings for June and July to delay them by one week. The June 3rd meeting will be held on June 10th and the June 17th meeting will be held on June 24. The July 1st meeting will be held on July 8th and the July 15th meeting will be held on July 22nd.





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

No: Weddington


Chairperson Weddington asked if there was something that could be done to publicize the changes to the Planning Commission Meetings? She suggested asking Lou Martin to send out a Press Release and stated the newspaper and cable needs to be notified.





Member Bononi asked the status of the map that was committed to be delivered May 01, 1998.


Mr. Bluhm stated the date he was working under was June 01, 1998. He stated the maps are done and the drafting is finished. The maps are currently being proofed by Ms. Lemke and the Environmental Department of JCK and the revisions to the proofs will be finished next week and into the packets for the following week. He stated they will be available at the next meeting.





Chairperson Weddington stated Member Capello asked her to mention this issue. He saw some building plans for Main Street which seemed to indicate that the buildings were being connected. It was his recollection that the different buildings were to be separate buildings with pedestrian access between them. The passageways may have been covered by canopies or skylights but the intent was that people would have access from the parking areas both on the street and at the rear of the buildings to be able to get through. Chairperson Weddington stated she would like to have this issue looked into and reviewed with the Commission.


Mr. Wahl stated the Department is already looking into the matter. He stated the buildings were connected on the plans that he has seen, however, there was a pedestrian pass through that was part of the plan. He did not know how it was being constructed because the Department does not get involved in that aspect as it is a function of the Building Department. He stated he would check into the matter to see how it is being built and provide a report to the Commission.


Member Csordas asked what would happen if the buildings were built contrary to the Final Site Plan?


Mr. Weisberger answered it would be ticketed for building a building contrary to the Final Site Plan approval and the applicant would be in violation of the Ordinance.


Member Vrettas announced due to the rescheduling of the next four meetings, this was his last meeting and he bid the Commission farewell.









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



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

No: None


Heidi Hannan - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

May 26, 1998

Date Approved: June 10, 1998