REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 WEST TEN MILE ROAD
Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington
PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini and Chairperson Weddington
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Watza
ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Environmental Specialist Debbie Thor, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?
PM-99-05-169 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED
Moved by Csordas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.
VOTE ON PM-05-169 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington
Matt Quinn, Meridian Lane thanked the Master Plan Sub-Committee for the opportunity to meet regarding the changes to the proposed Master Plan. He appreciated the positive vote to the Council and stated he would appreciate it if the recommendation was followed. He felt it was an appropriate Master Plan designation for the particular parcel he spoke of.
Tom Steffler, 27110 Taft Road spoke on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Nandor and Ms. Zimmersman who own the property at 44520 West Twelve Mile Road. He understood that the amendment from Office to Parkland was a contemplation of the Citys intent to participate in the future use and development of the area which includes this property. He asked that the Commission drop the area from the exception list. He asked if the City does not move forward with a project involving the property, that the property be returned to the now existing Office use. If an effort is made to condemn the property in the future, he requested that the now existing uses of Office be considered in an evaluation of the property. He was not opposed to what the City had planned, he just asked that the zoning remain as it has been for the past 30 years.
Dan Weiss spoke in regard to the corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road. He agreed with the proposal of the Citys Planning Consultant in that the City can have the added convenience of a food store and the benefits of dollars that are flowing out of the City that could otherwise be used for the benefit of municipal purposes. He agreed with the recommendation that asks for no increased acreage, but to move the acreage around and reshape it so that which is unavailable becomes available. He asked the Commission to go along with the recommendation of the City Planner.
Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing none she closed the Audience Participation and announced there would be a second after the mid-point break and a third before adjournment.
Member Capello announced he has received several response forms regarding the AT & T Wireless on the school property.
Reid Creager, 45322 Ten Mile Road objected stating this was another example of an unnecessary expense.
Gerald Monley, Jr., 45471 Amhearst Drive was in favor of the progress.
Viorica Placinta, 23925 Hickory Grove Court objected stating it was dangerous, children play there all the time and it was too close to them.
Richard S. Terlecky, 23944 Greening Drive stated the tower would be an eyesore.
Shelly Scott, 23700 Harvest Court objected because it was unnecessary and unhealthy.
Cynthia A. Marchioni, 23401 High Meadow objected to the school location.
Jean Aldrich, 23632 Greening Drive objected stating it was too close to school property.
Linda Mastrangeto, 24130 Hickory Grove Lane objected stating it was too close to children.
Project is located in Section 27, south of Ten Mile Road and east of Taft Road at Novi High School Football Stadium. Applicant is seeking Special Land Use approval.
Jim Koster, Assistant Superintendent of the School District gave some history as to how the School District became involved. He stated AT & T approached the School District in September, the School Board conducted public meetings to discuss the pole and the ancillary equipment. At the last meeting, he was directed to negotiate a contract with AT & T. He stated it came at an opportune time as the school is reconstructing the stadium and they have taken down existing lighting and bleachers. He thought if a fair contract could be negotiated between both parties, one of the lights would be a monopole and the lights would be attached to it. He stated it was discussed publicly with the School Board and in April the contract was approved. The construction was about to begin when the City asked questions about the pole which brought them before the Commission. He stated the School District has granted permission to AT & T for the special land use.
John Riley spoke on behalf of AT & T Wireless. He introduced Dan Wellington, Assistant Design Engineer. He stated the equipment would be placed under the new bleachers. The bleachers are completely sealed which means there is no access the area underneath. The monopole is 150, the facility will not require any obstruction lighting. He stated it would be designed to accommodate additional users.
Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated a review of the site plan and special land use was conducted. He stated the pole is 150 in height and the applicant is proposing to lease 872 square feet underneath the bleachers. As part of the Special Land User requirement of Section 2508, there were certain provisions that are recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. He stated after a recommendation by the Planning Commission; 1) The City Council must determine if the proposed facility is essential or desirable. The applicant has provided information that states the additional monopole would service areas that are deficient and would provide additional space for co-location. 2) The location, size and character of the proposed facility must be compatible with the zoning district in which it is located. Mr. Pham reported the zoning is R-4 and the maximum height is 35. Under Section 2508, uses not otherwise included provides that a monopole is allowed in a district that is not I-1 or I-2. 3) All utilities and power lines must be underground. He stated one issue that needs consideration from the Planning Commission and modification by the City Council would be the fall zone from which the monopole is located. 4) The monopole setback must be a minimum of 100% of the height of the pole. Mr. Pham stated the Department recommends Special Land Use approval subject to City Council modifying the fall zone and the requirement of the equipment building under the bleachers.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant had nothing further to add.
Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated he was satisfied with the proceeding and the fact that the School District has submitted for Special Land Use review, he felt it was appropriate.
Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.
Monika Jackson, 23425 High Meadow Drive referred to the Public Hearing Notice and stated it was not real clear as to the location of the pole. She stated a lot of neighbors were not in favor of the pole on the playground nor on the school grounds. She expressed concern for the safety of the children. She visited the Planning Department to look at the site and was told that only two or three of the electrical boxes were to be located under the bleachers while one box would be located outside of the bleachers. She reported that the article from last year stated most monopoles were located on Industrial property, she pointed out that this property is Business. She asked to hear more details about the monopole.
Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.
Member Capello asked if the entire facility would be located under the bleachers?
Mr. Pham answered, yes. He stated there were fenced transformers located outside of the bleachers and deferred to Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley stated Detroit Edison was responsible for the placement of the transformers. The transformer located outside of the bleachers is one that is commonly used. Detroit Edison regulations do not allow anything above a transformer, therefore, this is why it is located outside of the bleachers. He clarified that it would be fenced in with the same fence row as the electronic equipment.
Member Capello asked if the monopole would interfere with the Police Department signals since it is located so close?
Mr. Riley stated the FCC regulates all of the radio transmissions. He assured the Commission that it was not an issue as they routinely co-locate on the same structure with police communications, fire communications and public works. He stated it was a very low powered facility.
Member Mutch asked what the actual size of the top of the structure was?
Mr. Riley answered, typically it was about 12 on a face. He explained that it is a triangular deck and the antennas are mounted to the deck.
Member Mutch asked if other providers co-locate, will their antennas be located on the same deck or would additional decks be added?
Mr. Riley anticipated an additional deck. He stated there were some providers that did not require a deck and they fasten their antennas directly to the pole.
Member Mutch asked if they would be widely separated?
Mr. Riley answered, the rule of thumb was a minimum of 10.
Member Mutch asked how many additional cell towers were anticipated to be needed within the City of Novi to provide full coverage?
Mr. Riley stated he was currently looking at co-location opportunities. He reported that he would be able to co-locate on an existing structure along I-96. The southern portion of Novi has coverage problems, however, once this site is built testing would be done.
Member Mutch asked if there were alternative Industrial Districts that the monopole could be located in?
Mr. Arroyo stated it appeared that the applicant was attempting to serve an area that is more located toward the heart of the residential component of the city. There is no Industrial zoning within that general vicinity. He stated there appears to be a lack of tall structures or other towers in the general vicinity to promote co-location outside of Industrial.
Member Mutch asked why the height of the tower was at 150 as opposed to something lower?
Mr. Riley stated the original height was 180. After discussions with City Council and Planning Commission, it was decided by the community of the City of Novi that 150 was as high of a structure that they wanted to see and the Ordinance limits the height to 150. He stated he would prefer a 180 tower.
Member Csordas asked if the 150 tower was taller than normal?
Mr. Riley answered, no. He stated most of the sites that AT & T are building today are between 120and 150' in metropolitan areas and they go up to 250 in the less populated areas.
Member Csordas asked if the technology of this particular monopole was newer or older?
Mr. Riley answered the monopole was the same design as the light standards. It is a tubular steel pole that will be larger to accommodate a different load.
Member Csordas asked how many have ever blown over, in Mr. Rileys experience?
Mr. Riley answered, to the best of his knowledge, there has never been an in service failure of a communication monopole anywhere in the country.
Member Csordas asked how long the structure has been used in the cellular industry?
Mr. Riley answered, since its inception in about 1980.
Member Koneda asked if the request were to be denied, would this create a void in the service?
Mr. Riley answered, yes. He added that there would be no available area to put up the monopole. He stated if there were Industrial area available, he would have been there a year and a half ago.
Member Koneda asked how tall the fence was proposed to be?
Mr. Riley answered it would be 8 tall.
Member Koneda clarified that the fenced area was still opened at the top, therefore, there was a chance that someone could climb over the fence and into the cabinet area. He asked what would happen if they did?
Mr. Riley answered, nothing. He clarified that there was nothing exposed. All of the electrical cabling was the same as if it were going into a home or a building. The antenna cables are very low powered and someone would have to use tools to dismantle it. He stated there was no real reason for the structure to be fenced other than AT & Ts concern with security.
Member Churella asked if the tower would provide service for both digital and cellular?
Mr. Riley explained that the tower was just a mounting surface. What determines the radio service is the particular provider that is on it. He stated it could be used to hold virtually any type of antenna for any type of service provider.
PM-99-05-170 TO GRANT SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL AND SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR AT & T WIRELESS SP99-17 SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCILS MODIFICATION OF THE FALL ZONE AND APPROVAL OF THE EQUIPMENT BUILDING LOCATION
Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (6-2): To grant Special Land Use approval and send a positive recommendation to City Council for AT & T Wireless SP99-17 subject to City Councils modification of the fall zone and approval of the equipment building location.
Member Mutch stated he would reluctantly support the motion because the applicant has met the zoning requirements and because of the lack of nearby Industrial properties to site the tower. He thought it would have an aesthetically negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. He did not support the idea of putting up the structures in Residential Districts, however, since the School District complies with the zoning standards and the height of the tower was reduced, he would vote in support of the motion.
Chairperson Weddington stated she would not be able to support the motion. She had concerns about the safety and potential vandalism at that particular location. She stated there was Industrial property located at Hickory Corporate Park at Nine Mile Road and Meadowbrook and also at Grand River. She had hoped that another site could have been found.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-170 CARRIED
Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Mutch, Piccinini
No: Koneda, Weddington
Zoning Map amendment 18.575 and 18.579 for possible rezoning from General Industrial District (I-2) to General Business District (B-3), from Residential Acreage District (R-A) to Light Industrial District (I-1), from One-Family Residential District (R-1), to Office Service Technology (OST), and from One-Family Residential District (R-1) to Light Industrial (I-1), or any other appropriate zoning district.
Lee Mamola stated the proposal was now consistent with the proposed Master Plan. He thought it had a good amount of planning logic behind it as the B-3 area represented consistency with existing land use patterns along Grand River. The I-1 area works well with the existing topography and general openness of the property in the area. He felt the Office area would work well with the features of the southern part of the property because Office uses generally tend to be more flexible in the configurations of the footprint and parking areas. Mr. Mamola asked that the request move forward positively contingent upon the action taken by the Commission on the Master Plan.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant felt the proposal was generally consistent with the new Master Plan for Land Use. He recommended approval of the rezoning application.
Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.
Michael McDonald, Mayor of Wixom thanked the Commission for looking at what was originally proposed. He stated some of the Wixom residents who border Twelve Mile Road had concerns regarding Heavy Industrial. He appreciated their cooperation in looking at the Wixom development south of Twelve Mile Road.
Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.
In regard to the property to the north, Member Mutch asked if the intent was to develop the two properties together as one development?
Mr. Mamola answered, yes.
Member Mutch asked if it would be wiser to zone the B-3 area to B-2 and indicate the types of uses being sought out as opposed to getting uses that are not in line with the intent of the Master Plan.
Mr. Arroyo stated the Master Plan designates the area as Community Commercial which is more of a local commercial. He thought B-3 zoning made the best sense for the location. He stated there were not many additional areas within the City for growth of B-3 zoning and there is a very limited amount of B-3 that is currently available within the City. He thought it was reasonable to provide a location that made the most sense for B-3 and designate it and he thought this was the area. He supported B-3 over B-2 at this location.
Member Mutch supported the changes overall. He stated he has been supportive of Commercial along the Grand River Corridor, however, the idea was that there would be some grocery center complexes on the west side of the City to make it less necessary for the residents to have to drive down Ten Mile Road to do their shopping. He stated if a complex is built at Grand River and Meadowbrook and Grand River and Wixom Road, it is accomplished and the demand on the west side of the City would be met. He thought the City was setting itself up for the opportunity for not having this happen because a zoning that allows other uses is being put in place. He thought the goals of the developer and the City could be met by giving a little more guidance and not leaving the door wide open.
Member Canup expressed concern regarding the excepted parcels.
Mr. Mamola stated they were not a part of his property. He stated there was an area on the far south that was excluded and he would like this to remain residential as it appears that it may be a nice small development for a cluster option possibility.
Member Canup stated he would like to see the entire property zoned as one major zoning rather than leaving small holes.
In regard to the excepted parcel of Cadillac Asphalt, Mr. Arroyo thought that a later zoning map amendment could be done and he thought going from I-2 to I-1 would make sense for the property. He stated this could be discussed at a future date.
Member Canup stated he would not be in favor of acting on it with the I-2 hole in the zoning. He thought it was an important factor to bring it into conformity.
Member Koneda thought as part of the Master Plan, the entire area would be designated as I-1, therefore, it would be in conformance at a later time. In regard to the OST zoning, he stated there were comments regarding wetlands and treed areas, he asked where it is located on the land?
Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect addressed the OST property.
Member Koneda asked if changing the area to an OST zoning would have the greatest impact for preserving the area as a buffer?
Ms. Lemke stated potentially, the larger residential uses would give a greater protection for the environmental resources. OST compared to an I-1 or I-2 would certainly be a better use.
PM-99-05-171 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 18.575 AND 18.579 AS PROPOSED
Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas.
Member Capello stated he considered this area a problem. He thought the OST zoning along the residential was a good idea, he had the same concerns as Member Canup in regard to not having all of it rezoned into one large parcel. He understood that the applicant did not own all of the property, however, he stated he would like to see all of the I-1 zoning and OST zoning all in one zoning district so there would be one large parcel to develop. He agreed with Member Mutch in that he was not comfortable with the B-3 zoning and its uses. He stated he would be more comfortable with B-1 but would accept B-2. He asked the applicant if there was a particular reason for choosing I-1 as opposed to trying to rezone the entire piece to OST?
Mr. Mamola answered, the large open spans of property in the middle lends itself to structures which have large spans that can lend themselves to distribution centers, warehousing or manufacturing facilities. He stated there was very little residential around the I-1 to be concerned with, therefore, the community would be allowed the opportunity to bring some I-1 uses into the City to develop its tax base with minimal impact to any neighboring residential.
Member Capello asked the applicant if there was a particular reason he was requesting B-3 as opposed to B-2?
Mr. Mamola thought B-3 made sense. He stated looking at the location of the property and the traffic concerns, to leave the property B-3 would allow a developer more opportunities to develop it as a single commercial development with one curb cut, if any, on Grand River. He stated to minimize the traffic impact was the basic reason.
Mr. Mamola stated B-3 allowed for a greater flexibility in the marketplace. He stated the larger the acreage, the more flexibility.
Member Capello asked if any thought had been given to extending the B-3 use to the west as opposed to Light Industrial?
Mr. Mamola answered, no. He stated there was a boundary there with Twelve Mile Road, there was also a wetland there that would probably have to remain.
Member Mutch stated the B-2 use had a larger site requirement for the site size, therefore, it encourages the larger plan developments. He also stated the B-2 specifically speaks to a comprehensive development where everything is integrated and designed as one project where a B-3 has more narrow broken up individual businesses.
Member Piccinini agreed with Member Mutch. She thought B-2 would be a much better zoning and stated she could only support the motion if it were amended to B-2.
Member Canup also asked the motion maker to amend the motion to change B-3 to B-2.
Member Churella saw that B-2 could work and asked the applicant for his thoughts.
Mr. Pellerito stated he did not know the difference between the two, however, he had no thoughts of an auto wash, center or dealership. He stated he would like to develop the property with a Target and a Kroger.
Mr. Mamola asked Mr. Arroyo to explain the differences between the two zonings as there have been some recent updates between the two.
Mr. Arroyo gave a brief overview of the B-2 and B-3 zonings.
Mr. Mamola stated in all likelihood, the uses in B-2 were what they intended. He did not think it would be problematic to call for a B-2 use, however, he would like more opportunity to look at it before the Matter goes before Council.
PM-99-05-072 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO STATE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DISTRICT GOING TO GENERAL BUSINESS B-2 RATHER THAN B-3
Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendments 18.575 and 18.579 as proposed with the exception of the District going to General Business B-2 rather than B-3.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-172 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup
Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a short recess.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Consideration for the proposed updated City Master Plan for Land Use, pursuant to requirements of Act 285 of Public Acts of 1931.
Chairperson Weddington announced this was a continuation from the last meeting where it was postponed in order for the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to take a look at six (6) individual parcels.
Mr. Arroyo briefly reviewed the May 12, 1999 Memorandum which summarized the recommendations from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Items 1 and 2 were recommended changes to the draft plan from the Committee. 1) The southeast corner of Grand River and Wixom Road is proposed to be changed to Community Commercial. 2) The intersection of Haggerty Road and Nine Mile Road is proposed to be changed from Multiple Family Residential to Office. In recommending this change, the Committee also recommended that some text be added to the discussion. It would specify that Office uses at the northwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road should be limited to the single parcel due the unique characteristics and location, it should not be extended further to the north or west of the parcel. Also access for the Office parcel and the Multiple Family parcel to the north should be combined to provide a single driveway on Haggerty with appropriate separation from the Haggerty/Nine Mile Road intersection. In addition, the Committee recommended the following amendments: 3) the DPW site; 4) the parcels at Dixon and Twelve Mile Road changing from Office to Community Park; 5 & 6) clean up amendment dealing with places of worship and cemetery; 7) dealt with the slight location of the existing Fire Station on Thirteen Mile Road; 8) Non-residential collectors which include Magellan Drive and the Market Street extension down to Trans-X Drive.
Mr. Arroyo stated the Committee looked at proposals to some of the other properties, including the Arkin parcel at the northeast corner of Novi Road and Nine Mile Road and no change was recommended at this time, nor were there any changes to the text that discuss the Grand River and Meadowbrook parcels in the northeast and southeast corners.
In regard to the southeast corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road, there were three different alternatives based upon discussions. 1) Make no changes; 2) To allow some local Commercial along the Ten Mile Road and Novi Road frontage. Office and Light Industrial uses would front on Arena Drive and local Commercial would front on Ten Mile Road; 3) Make all of the frontage along Ten Mile Road between Novi Road and the Railroad, Local Commercial which would provide for about 26 acres of Commercial property. To the south of the watercourse, allow for Office fronting on Novi Road and Light Industrial wrapping around the north and east of Arena Drive. Mr. Arroyo stated if this is the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the Committee suggested adding text to clarify the intent of what was to occur on the property and this text is stated in page two of his memorandum.
Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney clarified Item 4 indicated two parcels on the northwest corner and a change to one other parcel. He stated when the motions are made, they need to be specific. He stated the parcels referred to in item 4 were on a map provided at the last Public Hearing.
Member Capello asked what the parcels were currently zoned?
Mr. Arroyo answered, RA.
PM-99-05-173 TO APPROVE THE CITYS MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE AS PROPOSED AT THE LAST MEETING INCLUDING ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8 IN MR. ARROYOS MEMORANDUM DATED MAY 12, 1999
Moved by Capello, seconded by Piccinini.
Mr. Weisberger recommended that the Commission amend the draft to include the items and then move on to the next section and then vote on the whole plan.
PM-99-05-174 TO AMEND THE DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE FROM THE LAST MEETING TO REFLECT THE CHANGES REFERENCED IN ITEMS 1 THROUGH 8 IN MR. ARROYOS MAY 12, 1999 MEMORANDUM
Moved by Capello, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the draft Master Plan for Land Use to reflect the changes referenced in Items 1 through 8 in Mr. Arroyos May 12, 1999 memorandum.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-174 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Capello
PM-99-05-175 TO AMEND THE CITY MASTER PLAN FOR LAND AS AMENDED THIS EVENING IN REGARD TO THE AREA IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NOVI ROAD AND TEN MILE ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN ALTERNATIVE "C" IN MR. ARROYOS MAY 12, 1999 MEMORANDUM
Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella.
Member Piccinini asked Member Capello to amend his motion to make the entire section Local Commercial.
Member Capello stated he would not have a problem with it if there was a way to make it work. In regard to map C, Member Capello stated it looked like a section line traveled through the property and was the eastern boundary of Multiple Family. He asked Mr. Arroyo if the section line could be brought down and Master Planned the western section of the Light Industrial to bring the Commercial down to Arena Drive.
Mr. Arroyo stated it would be an option as long as the crossing was feasible. It would be encouraged by having the same uses. He stated it could still happen with Light Industrial because it is under one property owner, but the probability of the connection would be increased if it were under the same use.
Member Csordas stated he walked the property and clarified that the section line goes down pretty deep, it was wet and there are woodlands located there. He did not know that it was even developable. He thought that a bridge would have to be built over the wetlands.
Member Piccinini reported that at the last meeting, the owner indicated that he would be willing to put an access through there.
Mr. Arroyo addressed the three alternatives in his memorandum. He pointed out the location most likely for an access point. He stated it would make sense to bring the Commercial line down creating another option "D", which would be to follow the stream.
Member Piccinini asked if this would give the access point to Arena Drive?
Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.
Member Koneda stated it seemed that the real question was what to do with the land south of the creek. He stated he could support Option D, however, what would be done with the 12 acre site? He thought it needed to be discussed and stated he could not support rezoning the area Commercial and putting a bridge across the creek because he did not think it made sense.
Member Koneda asked when a Master Plan is adopted and it contains Provisions for future zoning, it is open for rezoning at any time. He asked if the petitioner could come in with a rezoning request or could the Commission put a condition on it that ties it in with road traffic improvements?
Mr. Arroyo clarified that an applicant could come forward for a rezoning request at any time. It is to have a long range focus. He stated the Commission needed to look at each rezoning application on its merits and he thought if the Commission were challenged, they would look to the Master Plan as a guide.
PM-99-05-176 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO AMEND THE DRAFT MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE TO REFLECT THE CHANGE AS DESCRIBED IN MR. ARROYOS MAY 12, 1999 MEMORANDUM. A MODIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE C WHICH WOULD DESIGNATE THE FRONTAGE ALONG TEN MILE ROAD NORTH OF THE CHAPMAN CREEK FROM NOVI ROAD TO CSX RAILROAD AS LOCAL COMMERCIAL AND THAT LOCAL COMMERCIAL WOULD ALSO DROP DOWN ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PARCEL ALONG NOVI ROAD FOR A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY 500 AND BE SQUARED OFF AT APPROXIMATELY A DISTANCE OF 450 FROM AREANA DRIVE NORTH, OTHERWISE FOLLOWING THE CHAPMAN CREEK. THE AREA SOUTH OF THE CHAPMAN CREEK WOULD BE DESIGNATED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND EXCEPTED WOULD BE THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL PARCEL, THIS WOULD BE CONFIRMED BY THE DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY MR. WEISS AND VERIFIED BY MR. ARROYO
Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (7-1): To amend the motion to
amend the draft Master Plan for Land Use to reflect the change as described in Mr.
Arroyos May 12, 1999 Memorandum. A modification of Alternative C which would
designate the frontage along Ten Mile Road north of the Chapman Creek from Novi
Road to CSX Railroad as Local commercial and that Local Commercial would also
drop down along the west side of the parcel along Novi Road for a distance of
approximately 500 and be squared off at approximately a distance of 450 from
Arena Drive North, otherwise following the Chapman Creek. The area south of the
Chapman Creek would be designated Light Industrial and excepted would be the
existing Commercial parcel, this would be confirmed by the drawings provided by
Mr. Weiss and verified by Mr. Arroyo.
Member Mutch addressed the question of access from Arena Drive. He did not think the room existed to run the road at that point, he did not think it would work as he recalled the creek was pretty close to the property. He asked if it were to remain Light Industrial as it is currently on the Master Plan versus changing it to Commercial with the language, from a legal standpoint, which would be more defensible in court?
Mr. Weisberger stated when dealing with a rezoning, the infrastructure needs to be looked at. He stated when someone comes in with a principal permitted use and it is developed under Light Industrial, unless there is some type of ingress/egress traffic problem, the Commission is obligated to approve the project.
Member Mutch did not support the idea at this time. He recommended leaving it as it is currently, wait for the road improvements to come on line and then see whether it is realistic. He thought it was premature, there is no infrastructure in place for this type of development and until there is, he could not support it.
Member Csordas understood that there was funding available for Ten Mile Road through the County provided by the Federal Government. He asked Mr. Arroyo what was in line for Ten Mile Road?
Mr. Arroyo believed the funds had been approved for preliminary design. He understood that the issue was to go back before Council within the next few months for them to make a decision. Based on what he has heard, he thought the soonest the City would likely see the construction dollars would be in the five year range.
Member Koneda stated a grocery store shopping center was really needed on the west side of the City. He expressed concern with taking the property and rezoning it Commercial which would make it the most desirable place for someone to build a shopping center and it would happen at that location first rather than at the west end. He thought it would defeat the whole purpose of trying to put Commercial zoning on the west end of the City where it is really needed. Member Koneda could not support Option C or D, he thought it was premature and thought it should be taken up at the next Master Plan update.
Member Capello stated the problem with not rezoning it was that it was planned to be developed as Light Industrial. He did not want to see that area developed as Light Industrial because it did not look very nice and it would bring more traffic onto Ten Mile Road during the peak hours. He did not think it was good planning to say that the roads were not ready for development, therefore, the future will not be planned for what should be developed once the roads are ready to handle the traffic.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-176 CARRIEDYes: Csordas, Koneda, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella
Member Mutch asked about the status of the Bosco property litigation?
Mr. Weisberger stated briefs have been filed with the Court of Appeals but there has not been an oral argument or ruling.
Member Mutch stated the density of the Bosco parcels and other properties in that quarter section were proposed to be changed from 0.8 units per acre to 1.65 units per acre. He asked that this be removed from the Master Plan and change it back to what is currently planned. He explained that it is ongoing litigation that the City is involved in and if the change is made, it would be undercutting the Citys position. Secondly, it is a very important policy decision that Council has consistently held. He thought until City Council had an opportunity to address it as a policy issue, for the Commission to make the change in the Master Plan would not be smart.
Mr. Arroyo stated he spoke to Mr. Watson at that time the Committee was considering the recommendation. Mr. Watson specified that he did not feel it would put the City in a negative position in light of the Bosco case. Because the recommendation was closer in line to what they were looking for, Mr. Watson felt it might actually be favorable in terms of the Citys position in trying to address that particular area.
Mr. Weisberger stated the Commission is developing a plan and if they thought it made sense then they should move forward with it.
PM-99-05-177 TO ADOPT THE MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE AS AMENDED THIS EVENING BY RESOLUTION WHICH IS FOUND IN THE DRAFT DOCUMENT OF NOVI 2020 MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE
Moved by Capello, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (7-1): To adopt the City Master Plan for Land Use as amended this evening by Resolution which is found in the Draft document of Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use.
Member Mutch stated he would not vote in support of the plan because he had a serious objection to the Commercial change at Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. He pointed out that the gateway concept on Grand River was a tremendous opportunity to turn Town Center into something unique for the Community. He felt overall it was a good plan, however, he would not be voting for it.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-177 CARRIED
Yes: Koneda, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas
Member Koneda stated much of the Thoroughfare planning that was done included roads that come under the jurisdiction of either the State or the County. He asked how it was made certain that the plans were in agreement with the plans of the State or County?
Mr. Arroyo stated once it is printed and available, there needs to be a fairly wide dissemination of the document to various agencies including the Road Commission and the State as well as continuing to let people know the long range vision of the Community.
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
PM-99-05-178 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 10:15 P.M.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:15 p.m.
VOTE ON PM-99-05-178 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington
Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant
Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr
May 25, 1999
Date Approved: June 02, 1999