View Agenda for this Meeting


WEDNESDAY, APRIL 19, 2000 AT 7:30 P.M.




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


PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, and Richards


ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Churella, Piccinini, Watza


ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Director of Planning and Community Development and Planning Assistant Beth Brock






Chairperson Capello asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney added possible reconsideration or recision of the action

taken on the Magna project at the last meeting as Item 2 under Matters for Consideration.


Chairperson Capello asked if there were any other changes to the Agenda? Seeing none he

entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: None












Chairperson Capello announced there were 4 items on the Consent Agenda. Cummins Michigan, Inc, 99-02, Beechforest Park SP99-30, Jared Jewelers SP00-15 and approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 05, 2000. He entertained a motion to approve the Consent Agenda with the amendments to the minutes of the meeting of April 05, 2000.





Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: None





An Ordinance to add Subsection 1701.7 to Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, The City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to Permit Brewpubs within the RC Regional Center District.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated the Ordinance would allow Brewpubs in the RC District. The amendment to the Ordinance does two things, it adds a provision within Section 1701 which is the principle uses within the RC District to specifically allow Brewpubs within that zoning district.


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


Cheryl Hines of the Taubman Company represented PLC Novi West Development, the developers for the upcoming Fountain Walk project. They made the request because they consider it to be a compatible use within the district. She stated they have been working with a Brewpub restaurant/entertainment type user that is interested in locating in the project. She believed this was the type of tenant that would help create the unique atmosphere and fun-type of complex that is being created at Fountain Walk.


Debbie Bundoff expressed her concern with not being familiar with where RC zoning is located throughout the City. Because it happens to be in her neighborhood, she thought she might be concerned, however, it was difficult for her to speak about it without knowing exactly what it was. She expressed concern about blanketing any RC district without knowing what the Ordinance reads as far as any special conditions.


Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




Member Koneda was in favor of the Zoning Text Amendment, however, he did not feel it belonged in 1701, he felt it belonged in 1702. Restaurants are permitted in RC Districts subject to special conditions which is 1702 and since Brewpubs are essentially enhanced restaurants, he felt it belonged in that portion of the Ordinance. He suggested changing the text. He thought a condition G should be added, similar to what is in the RC-1 for restaurants that says, "distance between free-standing structures not closer than 1000 feet." He would support a motion with these changes.


Member Canup asked if the restriction of 2,000 barrels of beer per year would hamper the restaurant in being able to run their operation?


Chairperson Capello clarified that the brewpub would be limited to brewing beer just for their own use within their restaurant, that is why there is a limitation on the barrels.


Mr. Watson stated the limitation is in the definition and with a brewpub, the brewing of the beer is an accessory use for sale on the same premises as opposed to distribution.


Chairperson Capello agreed with the comments of Member Koneda in regard to moving the text to 1702.


Mr. Watson stated within the brewpub, they are permitted to have a tap room restaurant having a minimum seating occupancy of 125 people. Therefore, he thought if it were put in as a principle use permitted, they would not be subject to it, simply because there was eating there.


Member Canup made note of letter D that says. "…full lunch and dinner meal service for consumption…". He asked if it would be imposing hardships on certain types of restaurants to say that they must be open for lunch in order to be a brewpub?


Mr. Watson answered, yes.


Member Canup thought the Commission should take a good look at it and maybe alleviate that they must be open for lunch, he thought that decision should be up to the restaurant.


Mr. Watson thought the original reason for the requirement was that they didn’t want a brewpub type of establishment to go in as a bar, they wanted it to be more like a special type of restaurant. Whether lunch was essential to it or not was debatable.


Member Canup still thought the Commission should take a good look at it. He suggested the language, " There shall be included a taproom/restaurant having a minimum seating occupancy of at least one hundred twenty-five (125) persons which shall provide full meal service on a daily basis."


Mr. Watson asked if it included putting it in as a special land use as opposed to a principle use permitted?


Member Canup agreed and thought it would be a very important part.


Chairperson Capello clarified that it would be put under 1702 instead of 1701.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (5-1): To amend Subsection 1702 of Ordinance 97-18 as drafted by Dennis Watson with the exception of Subsection 7(d) instead of reading, "shall provide full lunch and dinner meal… ", to "shall provide full meal service… ".




Member Mutch stated he would not support the amendment to the Ordinance. One concern that was brought up when the Fountain Walk project was brought forth was the potential impact on Main Street and assurances were made along the line that it would not affect Main Street and the uses in the area would be complimentary, not competitive. He felt that unfortunately, Fountain Walk was trying to become more and more like the Main Street uses and did not feel it was appropriate. He expressed concern about the brewpub type of use going into the RC district and opening the area up later into the night, generating traffic. He stated the nice thing about Main Street was that it was concentrated in one area. Unfortunately, he thought a big loop hole was being opened up.

Member Canup stated by making it a special use gives the Commission total control of it.




Yes: Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Richards, Canup

No: Mutch



This corporate park site condominium project is located in Section 9, east of beck and south of West Roads. The forty-seven acre site is zoned Light Industrial District (I-1) and General Industrial District (I-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.


David Stewart of Northern Equities Group, the developer of Beck West Corporate Park Site Condominium as well as Beck North Corporate Site Condominium. He stated this was the third phase of an existing park. The primary road is Magellan Drive which runs from Beck Road to West Park Drive. He stated the only road to be added is the extension of the cul-de-sac. The site condominium encompasses approximately 20 lots, most of which have reservation agreements on them and are awaiting the installation of improvements. There is a small woodland and an existing wetland, neither of which are impacted by the project. He stated the Commission would see each lot again as they are sold to individual builders or owners, they will come forth with site plans for approval. He asked the Commission for approval to begin the process for the site condominium as a whole.


Kathy Wyrosdick of Birchler Arroyo Associates recommended approval. She stated it is a 20 unit general industrial site condominium development. There are some minor site plan revisions that need to be made prior to final site plan approval such as logical numbers on the units and some other site plan details.


In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval. She pointed out that there is an estimated total buildout of approximately 1.1 million square feet of industrial floor area, 840,000 square feet of that within the City of Novi. Anticipated trip generations is estimated at 8,050 for a 24 hour period. 1,065 during the a.m. peak hour and 1,135 during the p.m. peak hour. There are some issues with the traffic study that need to be resolved prior to final site plan approval and there is also some access easements that need to be clarified. Subject to these issues, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval of the site plan.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated there were no specific engineering concerns, he had a couple of comments. Of particular note was an existing flood plane on the FEMA map that runs diagonally across the end or the cul-de-sac that will have to be disposed of through a map revision process. The applicant is aware of this and has already submitted an application. The map revision will be required before any of the individual parcels can be constructed. With these comments, he recommended approval.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan. She stated there were several parcels that would require individual woodlands permits from the Planning Commission. These were parcels 29, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28.


Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) the proposed Magellan Drive cul-de-sac is over 800’ long. Section 11-194 (7) allows a maximum cul-de-sac of 800’. Applicant shall reduce the cul-de-sac length to a maximum of 800’ or request a waiver.


Mr. Stewart stated he was aware that the Fire Marshal spoke with Mr. Arroyo and has reconsidered that position because of where he took his measurement. He stated the cul-de-sac is less than 800’ long.


Chairperson Capello clarified that a waiver was not required.


Ms. Wyrosdick agreed.


Chairperson Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




Member Mutch asked if the parcel on the east side of West Park Drive was included within the site condominium?


Mr. Stewart answered, yes.


Member Mutch stated it looks like the setbacks were based on the inclusion of the parcel in an industrial park. Because of the split by the road, can it be considered as part of an industrial park?


Mr. Stewart clarified that the parcel was a part of the parent parcel prior to him donating the R.O.W. to the City for West Park Drive. Therefore, the separation occurred because of the installation of West Park Drive.


Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney did not believe that the fact that it was bifurcated by West Park Drive eliminated it.


Member Mutch expressed concern if that was the case because the intent of the Ordinance was that there be a group of lots and a reduction in the setbacks because it did not make sense to have the additional buffering between individual lots within an actual park. He stated it was clearly separated off on its own and its’ buffering needs were going to be different than if it was a specific lot within the park.


Member Mutch asked where the residential zoning in Wixom was located?


Ms. Lemke believed it to be on the east property line.


Member Mutch recalled in Ms. Lemke’s letter that there would be no requirement for buffering, treating it as residential adjacent to industrial because it is in another community. He asked if this was how the Ordinance treated properties in another community?


Mr. Watson stated he would have to look at that particular section of the Ordinance.


Member Mutch thought the long term plan in Wixom was to make it all industrial. He expressed concern with letting a heavy industrial use go in next to residential.


Mr. Stewart believed the pieces in question had already been rezoned to light industrial as is all of the land on the east side of Beck Road.


Member Mutch stated if that were the case then it would address his concern, however, he would like clarification on the specific issue.


Member Mutch expressed concern with the potential traffic impact. He was concerned with whether there was adequate at Beck Road from the extension of Magellan Drive into the site. He stated he drove it today and now knows that there is not adequate access into the park. He stated he drove past the entrance. He was concerned with the traffic and considered it to be unsafe, he stated it would force a lot of traffic onto West Park Drive that otherwise would be exiting onto Beck Road. He asked if it could or would be addressed?


Ms. Wyrosdick answered, yes. She stated the intersections would be analyzed and at that point it could better be determined what the road improvements will need to be.


Mr. Stewart stated the original plan was submitted to the City of Wixom and the intersection is located within the City of Wixom. He stated it called for acceleration/deceleration passing lanes, Wixom asked him to give them the money and not do the improvements because Wixom Road is scheduled to be turned into a five-lane road from Twelve Mile Road to West Road when the interchange is completed at Twelve Mile Road and I-96. He stated the improvements were done on Beck Road, north of West Road last year.


Member Mutch understood that may have been the City of Wixom’s position, however, at that time it was not impacting the Novi community but now it would be. He thought some discussion needed to take place because it was clearly not a safe situation. He stated it would force a lot of traffic unnecessarily onto the local road because of Wixom’s unwillingness to move forward with the improvements that should take place there.


Member Mutch asked if the required greenbelt along the R.O.W. along West Park Drive was something that could be waived? He asked how it was to be addressed?


Ms. Lemke stated the applicant would need to go to the ZBA to obtain a waiver. She stated the problem is the excessive grade change and she did not see any benefit from putting in any landscaping.


Member Koneda asked if each parcel would have to go to the ZBA?


Ms. Lemke answered, no. It only pertained to the parcel along West Road.


In regard to access to parcels 5 and 6, Member Koneda asked if the applicant intended to have a cross driveway?


Mr. Stewart stated there was an existing common easement along a common road allowing ingress and egress for both parcels.


Member Koneda asked how access was proposed to lot 7?


Mr. Stewart answered, off of Magellan Drive, there is about 80’ to 90’ to the south of the wetland.


Member Canup asked if the differences between a site condominium and a platted subdivision made any difference to the City?


Mr. Watson answered, no. He stated from the City’s standpoint, when site condos started coming forth a number of years ago, a provision was put in the Zoning Ordinance that says that they have to comply with the same substantive requirements as a subdivision.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Beck West Corporate Park Site Condominiums SP00-12 subject to Consultants comments and recommendations and resolving the traffic issues with Mr. Arroyo’s office.




Member Mutch was in support of the motion because he thought the Traffic Consultants are aware of the traffic concerns and he felt they definitely needed to be resolved.




Yes: Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards, Canup, Capello

No: None



This corporate park site condominium project is located in Section 4, east of Beck and north of West Roads. This forty-seven acre site is zoned Light Industrial District (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit approvals.


David Stewart asked for approval on the first phase of the condominium development. It would take development just south of the wooded wet area. It is about 60 acres with 27 lots. There is a small wetland on the southeast corner of the property. They have applied for a permit with the DEQ to discharge water as suggested by the engineering consultants. He stated there was a small amount of woodlands that affects two small lots. He stated the east side backs up to single family homes. He stated there was a meeting between himself, the Woodlands Consultant, a couple of the homeowners and a representative of the developer of Bristol Corners. The suggestion and agreement that was made to deal with the berming and landscape issue on the border was that they were to meet tomorrow morning in the field to determine the best way to fulfill the berm and landscape requirements in view of some unique situations along the border. Specifically, there is a significant hedgerow on the border and some fairly significant topography which impacts the advisibility of the berm. He has donated a 50’ section to the City to be used as a habitat trail, therefore, if they are required to put in berms and plantings, they would have to obtain permission from the City to go onto their property.


Kathy Wyrosdick of Birchler Arroyo Associates recommended approval of the 27 unit first phase of Beck North Site Condominiums subject to the resolution of berm or additional plantings. And also subject to an understanding that as the lots adjacent to the residential on the east side are developed, they will probably be special land uses unless office is proposed. With that general understanding, approval was recommended.


In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval subject to the secondary access drive being paved, clarification of some other items on the site plan and subject to a traffic impact study being submitted for review and approval prior to final site plan. Trip generation for the entire build-out of the site is estimated to be 12,645 daily, 1,615 during the a.m. peak hour and 1,670 during the p.m. peak hour.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the plan was submitted about one year ago as a road and utility improvement plan. It continues to be reviewed and is nearing approval. The infrastructure will be approved through the DPS Department. Mr. Bluhm stated the roads will be public. There is a small cul-de-sac on the west side that extends into the City of Wixom. He stated he was in the middle of ongoing discussions with the applicant as far as utility service to the Wixom parcels. There is an issue with the road being in Wixom and he was not going to accept it as a public road. He believed one option for the road was that it would be privately maintained by the developer. Stormwater on the site is being directed to the wetland. There is a sedimentation basin prior to the release into the wetland. The applicant is proposing a small swale improvement to a discharge to large culverts with the Taft Road extension. The site will drain undetained to the regional basin. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the woodlands were not being impacted with the overall development. There were a few lots that would be impacted. Ten lots will be required for individual woodlands permits when they come in for approval. Protective fencing is required for it and also for any berms that would take place along the eastern property line. The eastern property is a wildlife habitat corridor as well as a regulated woodland, therefore, the applicant is seeking a partial waiver for the required berm. The residents desire a combination of just berming and just screening plant materials. She stated additional screening could be required at the time the individual lots come forward. The topography is complicated, on the northern end, there is a much lower grade elevation between the two sites and the south end has a very high separation. Ms. Lemke recommended that the Planning Commission grant the waiver with that provision and that the Landscape Plan come back to the Planning Commission at the time of Final and individual lots demonstrate that the audio screening has been accomplished for each lot use. Individual lots will also be required to provide the R.O.W. plantings along all interior streets and along West Road at the time of individual parcel site plan approvals. There are a number of other items in her letter that can be addressed at the time of Final. Ms. Lemke recommended approval.


Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist stated the applicant is planning to dredge the soils within the wetland located off-site in the southeastern corner of the parcel. The total is approximately 0.18 acres. A second impact as the applicant is proposing to discharge stormwater from the sedimentation basin at an unrestricted rate to the southeast wetland that ultimately outlets to the south into an extensive wetland watercourse system. Ms. Kay recommended approval.


Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) applicant shall provide hydrants on Perry Court at the end of Hudson Dr. cul-de-sac; 2) the project has a 2000’ cul-de-sac. A secondary emergency access is required.


Chairperson Capello asked the applicant if number two of the Fire Marshal’s letter was provided?


Mr. Stewart stated it was his intent to provide what was called for in the Ordinance which was an 18’ wide all weather road to the north, to hook up to the east/west road in Wixom Road which ultimately outlets on to Beck Road.




Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Arnold F. Serlin of Novi Group LLC. He stated Bristol Corners West, a single family subdivision is east of and shares a property line with a part of the proposed Beck North Corporate Park. He was concerned about the screening of the impacted areas by means of berming and landscaping in accordance with applicable Zoning Ordinances be constructed and that no relief from the requirements be permitted. At a meeting held on April 13, 2000, the applicant gave assurances that the Ordinance requirements would be satisfied. Further, a site walk has been scheduled with all interested parties to determine more precisely the size and character of the screening elements. Therefore, based on representations made by the applicant and subject to Final Site Plan approval requiring an approved berm and landscape plan, and with each site lot requiring site plan approval, he had no objection to Beck North Corporate Park receiving Preliminary Site Plan approval.


Dan B. Thompson, 45678 Marlborough Pl. objected to the above request. He requested that the developers of the corporate park be required to erect a brick/concrete wall along all borders of Bristol Corners Subdivision.


Deborah Bennett, 30880 Beck Road objected to the request until concerns about water and sewer needs were answered.


Glen A. Zuchniewicz, 45737 Bristol Circle stated his concern with the proposal stems from the fact that there would be no physical or natural separation between the proposed development and his subdivision. Without the separation, he believed there would be a tendency for employees working in businesses at the site to use the natural wetlands, woodlands, andother areas within the subdivision as a lunch or break area. To greatly reduce the chance of this happening, he proposed that the City of Novi Planning Department require the site developer to construct a continuous wall along the easterly property line of the proposed site.


Kevin G. Protrowski, 45716 Bristol Circle, objected to having any industrial plat within 500’ of his property. He purchased the property to live by the woodlands and he did not wish to look through the woods to see garbage dumps, loading docks, spot lights, etc.


Lori A. Protrowski, 45716 Bristol Circle objected to having an condominium industrial plat within such proximity to her property and family. She stated they paid a premium for their property and home and it would reduce the long term value of her property.


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


Jeff Dowd, 45751 Bristol Circle objected to the development. He thought it would detract from the property value in the subdivision. He thought it would affect the way the residents live. He stated it was possible that there could be situations where the tenants in the development could have noisy operations and odors. He strongly objected to the development. Mr. Dowd believed that more than five lots were being affected by the development. In addition, there was already additional road put in, a cul-de-sac and they were actually starting to build homes already. He did not believe the description of the subdivision was accurate and that the map needed to be updated to assess the affect that it would have. Secondly, he asked if the berming and landscaping would extend all the way to the end of the property. He expressed concern that the berming be extended to the back of the property.


Doug Dutton, 45732 Bristol Circle stated his lot backs up to the park which backs to the development. He objected to the plan, he stated he would like to see some type of wall or buffer so the people on lunch break don’t walk through the subdivision. He stated if something could be worked out then he would go along with it.


Joseph O’Connor, 45756 Bristol Circle stated he backs up to the woods and is the property located closest to the industrial property. He expressed concern with people walking around in the woods and the fact that he would be able to see the industrial complex. He stated he works in a light industrial complex in Wixom and knows what goes on. He has seen what the guys do at lunch and they wander around. He was not thrilled with the possibility of people walking through the woods and being able to see his house, possibly theft and chemical spills going into the wetland area. He stated he was never aware of a meeting or site walk that was held on April 13th as no one from Bristol Corners contacted him. Mr. O’Connor opposed the project.


Glen Zuchniewicz, 45737 Bristol Circle expressed concern with properly separating the eastern border. He was not aware of the agreement to build a nature trail area along the border. He stated even though it sounded like a good deal, his concerns still remain the same and that being that it invites people onto the property. Since he and the other property owners were going to be the ones who will have to bear the expense for any damage or anything that happens within the common areas of their property, he would like to see the City consider a good separation.


Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




Chairperson Capello stated if this project is approved, it is just the beginning of the approval process. Each time a developer wants to build a building on the lot, the specific uses of that building will be taken into account and the public will have an opportunity to come forward and discuss whether the uses are going to affect the adjoining properties and additional berms or buffers are going to be required. Even though the Planning Commission has the opportunity to bring any of the projects back for final approval, they normally do not because the projects are subject to Consultants recommendations and the Commission relies upon them to do their jobs. In this particular case because of the topography, the Consultants will all go back out and walk the site to make some specific decisions on which woodlands should be left as opposed to cutting them down or building berms to protect the property owners.


Member Mutch stated light industrial zoning was present on the property prior to the development of Bristol Corners when the houses were purchased. He stated the zoning was not going to change and it has to be dealt with. Fortunately, Novi has a strict light industrial ordinance that deals with issues of berming, setbacks, noise and uses and as the projects come forward, the residents will become more familiar. He stated the Ordinances are intended to protect the adjoining residential and the job of the Commission is to enforce the Ordinances.


Member Mutch asked the petitioner to address the City habitat trail property that is shown to be 80’ wide when currently the property is only 50’ wide.


Mr. Stewart stated they were trying to determine whether it was in theirs and the City’s best interest to leave it at 50’ or to donate an additional 30’ to the City. The reason is because the standard setback in light industrial is 20’. The minimum practical setback in this zoning from a residential district is 100’. He stated the chances are that you wouldn’t get any buildings less than 20’ tall, and using the Ordinance as written would result in 100’ setback. Right now, he did not know what was in his best interest.


Member Mutch asked if he had any understanding with the City in terms of doing that type of work on the City property?


Mr. Stewart stated he has had conversations with Mr. Watson but he does not have any agreement with the City. He stated he was more than willing to comply with the Ordinance. He would like for it not to be a detriment to the habitat trail, but rather a compliment to it.


Member Mutch stated in Ms. Lemke’s letter dated July 19, 1999, she pointed out that the habitat trail provided a significant wildlife habitat linkage as protected by the City’s Woodland Ordinance. He expressed concern with knowing it was adjacent to residential and there is a 10 to 15’ berm requirement. A 10’ berm would require 70’ of space to construct, can the berming be built without negatively impacting the woodland while continuing to keep the property as a usable piece of property?


Ms. Lemke stated from the preliminary drawings, it looked like Mr. Stewart provided that a 10’ berm could be put in particularly on the northern edge. She stated this was one of the things they were going to look at in the field, to see if they need to take out a few more trees in the hedgerow on the northern edge. She did not want to compromise hedgerow so she would be looking at this. She stated it appeared that they would be able to get some berming in but the exact height and width was something that would be determined. If it needs to be done, it is a matter of putting back the right trees and vegetation to fill in the gap.


Ms. Lemke pointed out that it is not a trail in the terms of human beings. She clarified that it is an animal wildlife habitat corridor which means that it is not being designed for any human use.


Member Mutch clarified that there has been no discussions of a pedestrian pathway?

Ms. Lemke answered, there has been no discussions.


Member Mutch asked if it was something that should be discussed?


Ms. Lemke stated that would be up to the City.


Member Mutch stated where trails currently exist, they have been very successful. They help connect up to City park property and have been useful. He expressed concern that if it is not planned for people to access the City park property, they would be unable to do it in the future if it is not planned for now. As part of the motion, he thought the Commission needed to add direction to talk to Parks and Recreation or whoever is responsible for those types of activities.


Member Mutch asked about the required greenbelt that the applicant was not showing along West Road.


Ms. Lemke stated she addressed it in her letter as being part of the specific lots that would come in for approval.


Member Mutch asked if any thought had been given to a future overpass for the railroad and how it might affect the surrounding properties?


Ms. Wyrosdick stated it has not been totally considered in this review because it is such a distant future possibility. She stated the site plan had not been reviewed with that anticipation.


Mr. Bluhm added that it would be a significant impact. He stated the road is very close and it would be a significant impact to the access point. He did not believe there was anything in the short or medium range for anything like that.


Member Mutch asked if the applicant was paying a fee for the unrestricted stormwater discharge?


Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated there would be a storm water tap fee required as part of the Final Site Plan through the Department of Public Services.


Member Mutch asked if the wetland that was being dredged was on the applicants property?


Ms. Kay answered no. The actual portion is off-site but it is connected to the same wetland system.


Member Mutch asked who’s property it was located on?


Mr. Stewart answered, the City’s.


Member Mutch asked if the applicant had approval from the City to do so?


Mr. Stewart answered he would have the approval if the Wetland Permit is approved.


Member Mutch asked if the granting of a Wetland Permit by the Planning Commission gave the applicant the authority to dredge City property?


Mr. Watson answered, yes. To the extent that any activities are going to go on in that area, the applicant will need either a license agreement or an easement to do so. He thought that until the Consultants complete their determination as to how the berming and screening was to be done, it should be taken before the City Council.


Member Mutch clarified that the motion should include subject to getting the permission.

Mr. Watson answered, yes.

In regard to the berming, Member Mutch clarified that the current phase was only what was shown on the plan. To the degree that berming is required, it was only required for those portions of the property that currently abut the property shown. Future phases would have to provide screening requirements but the Commission could not require the applicant to put them in place for a property that is not before them. Member Mutch asked what happens when the remainder of the properties further develop? He asked if there would be a problem with adequate screening?


Ms. Lemke referred to the areas that would be stringently looked at regarding berming and planting requirements.


In regard to Phase II, Member Cassis asked what kind of woodlands existed?


Ms. Lemke stated there were high quality woodlands.


Member Cassis asked if there were challenges to be met in the future?


Ms. Lemke answered she and Mr. Stewart were still discussing that.


Member Cassis asked if there would be problems in the second development as far as woodlands were concerned?


Ms. Lemke stated she did not know exactly what the applicant was proposing but she has had discussions with the applicant.


Member Koneda clarified that all of the parcels along the eastern boundary are subject to special land use and all of the other parcels are principal permitted uses. He asked if there was envisionment for rear yard loading areas on those sites?


Mr. Stewart stated it was up to the Consultants and the Planning Commission. He stated he could ask for side yard loading to be done but in the past the City has always wanted rear yard loading.


Member Koneda opposed rear yard loading because of abutting residential. He thought it was more of a nuisance to neighbors. He stated it was something that needed to be considered. He asked if the condition of special land uses along the eastern boundary was attached to the lots when they are sold?


Mr. Stewart stated via the City Ordinance, it was implicit.


In regard to berming on the eastern side, Member Koneda said he would like to waive the berming and have additional plantings to preserve the woodlands as much as possible. He expressed concern with the residents along that side, some want berming and some do not. He proposed the following waiver: A Planning Commission waiver of the eastern boundary berming with the condition that the developer provide equivalent screening as required by ordinance, subject to agreements with individual property owners and concurrent by the landscape architect.


Ms. Lemke stated she did not want to waive all of the berming, she wanted a partial waiver because she thought some berming could be done without having any affect on the existing woodlands.


Member Koneda asked if only the berming for the habitat corridor should be waived and then require berming for all of the residents? He suggested waiving the berming and having the option of putting additional plantings or other things to obtain equivalent screening.


Chairperson Capello thought if the Commission granted a general partial waiver, it would come back for Final and he was confident that it would be all worked out. And at Final, the waiver can be granted based on the plans that are submitted.


Member Koneda clarified that the Commission would not waive the berming requirement as part of the Preliminary Site Plan, rather they would defer it to Final Site Plan.


Chairperson Capello answered, yes.


Member Koneda stated he could accept that.


In regard to the road, Member Richards asked for clarification.


Mr. Stewart stated the road was based on the route of the main transmission sewer from Walled Lake to the south. He stated the proposal was not to burden the City. He stated he was doing his best to obtain utilities from Wixom to avoid getting involved in cross agreements between the two Cities.


In regard to the habitat trail, Member Richards understood the concerns of the citizens. Essentially, a program that had interconnecting habitat trails throughout Novi was done away with because of the reasons stated by the residents. He clarified that this proposal was strictly for the animals to connect from one woodland to another.


Ms. Lemke agreed.




Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval and to grant a Wetland Permit to Beck North Corporate Site Condominiums SP00-13, conditioned upon the conditions and recommendations of the Consultants and the issue of berming to come back to the Planning Commission for Final approval.




In regard to the concern raised by some of the residents in regard to a fence, Mr. Stewart offered a 6’ high wooden fence to the five (5) residents who live along the area and he received a unanimous answer of, No. He stated they all wanted the berming and plantings where appropriate. They all felt that if a fence were put in, there was the potential that it would harm the existing hedgerow.


Member Mutch asked when the second phase comes in, would notices would be sent out and would there be a Public Hearing? Would individual projects also get noticed.


Mr. Watson answered residents who were located within 500’ of the project would receive notices.




Yes: Koneda, Mutch, Richards, Canup, Capello, Cassis

No: None


The proposed rezoning of 9.7 acres in Section 23, north of Trans-X Drive and east of Novi Road. The applicant is seeking rezoning recommendation from Light Industrial District (I-1) and General Industrial District (I-2) to High Density, Mid-Rise Multiple-family Residential Districts (RM-2) or any other appropriate zoning district.


Chairperson Capello announced he has received City Response Forms from the following:


Gloria A. Webber, 25425 Trans-X objected to the businesses along Trans-X as they require a lot of truck traffic. The traffic creates noise and dust at all times of the day. Temperform gets sand delivered at 4:00 a.m.


James E. Smallegan, 4840 Mandale Court, West Bloomfield approved the rezoning.


Michael Baittinger, 25425 Trans-X Drive objected considering the industrial nature of the businesses already located on Trans-X. The noise and heavy truck traffic would be annoying and a nuisance to residential families. Truck traffic and deliveries start as early as 3:00 a.m. most mornings.


Mike Kahm of Singh Development stated the success of a downtown and its businesses are dependent on people coming there. He proposed to continue the same theme as started at Main Street Village with a neo-traditional street-scape oriented community. He proposed a rezoning to RM-2, he believed the district was consistent with the master plan for the area. The architectural concept was consistent with what currently exists at Main Street Village.


Jim Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development stated the area has been worked on for about ten years. He stated the plan envisioned the area along Trans-X Drive transitioning into uses that would be part of the Main Street development, primarily residential uses. He stated it has been the long hope that this type of project would come along.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed his letter dated March 15, 2000. He recommended approval. Although the RM-2 zoning is not Town Center which is what the Master Plan calls for, it is a use that would be permitted within the Town Center District if it were zoned that way. He stated it would compliment the Main Street project and provide rooftops nearby. The potential density within the RM-2 classification is somewhat higher than TC, which would be the difference between 120 and 200 dwelling units on this piece of property. Mr. Arroyo supported the additional residential component within the Town Center area, he thought a key component to having a true downtown was to have a mixture of uses, he thought more residential in the area was a good idea. He also thought it was compatible with the existing multiple family directly east of the property. The potential extension of Market Street to serve the site and connect into Trans-X was consistent with what has been recommended on the Thoroughfare Plan.


In regard to traffic, the RM-2 would generate somewhat more traffic daily as well as during the peak hour. He stated there is also the potential for internal trip making which are trips essentially within the same general district. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the proposed rezoning application.


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


Frank Stevens of Stevens Industries, Trans-X Drive. He stated he was surprised when the petitioner did not come to the property owners when they started the project. He stated a big problem was heavy industrial abutting residential. He stated planning is a process of avoiding problems and in this case problems are being created. He stated some of the I-2 buildings are working 24 hours a day at times and there is nothing that could be done to protect from the noise that will be made. He stated there were also heavy trucks travelling on Trans-X Drive. He thought the Commission needed to address the issue of the industry and then handle the zoning and complete it. He stated he has been involved in the development of the Town Center and the concept plans do include the area as residential mixed use, but always after the industrial parcels have been moved or relocated. Mr. Galvin opposed the rezoning until the issues of the abutment of two extremely different zones was addressed.


Joe Evangelista owner of the property in question. He stated over the last several years he has cooperated in trying to develop his property. He stated he originally wanted to develop it as industrial and was asked to hold off, he was then approached to consider senior housing and for whatever reasons, it did not happen. He currently has a tenant leasing the property, over the years, it has been used as a yard. He stated if he cannot sell the property and cannot build on it, he may as well continue using it as a yard. He was unclear what the City wanted him to use it for because everything he has tried does not work. He thought the rezoning fit the plan and would like to see it approved. He stated he has been very patient and has worked with the City.


In regard to Mr. Stevens comments, Mr. Arroyo stated there has not been a rezoning on Trans-X Drive. The Planning Commission has modified the Master Plan to change the designation for some parts of Trans-X Drive. He stated when the Master Plan was going through evaluation, one of the things that came up was that the influence of Main Street directly north of the area as well as the exposure of a portion of it to Novi Road was a potential to provide for the long range expansion of the Town Center area. Trans-X Drive seemed to be a natural delineation between where Main Street may eventually stop and the associated uses. He thought one advantage was the residents moving into the residential units would know that the industry already exists and it would not be a surprise down the road. He stated there seems to be more of an acceptance when people move in and they know of the conditions up front.


Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




Member Canup saw it as a very unique, serious potential problem with living across the street from a foundry. He thought it was a very delicate situation that needed a lot of attention and thought before the Commission approved it.


Member Cassis thought it was a great step forward in the development of the downtown. He thought additional residential was vital for the survival of the commercial being built. He applauded Singh Development for coming forward and having the courage to develop the residential project. He stated the master plan was being gradually executed. Member Cassis approved the project.




Moved by Cassis, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (4-2): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Rezoning Map Amendment 18.591 to rezone from I-1 and I-2 to RM-2.




Member Mutch added his comments of support for the motion. He stated the property was vacant and was being used as a storage yard. He expressed concern with the RM-2, he expected to see the TC standards adhered to in terms of the overall details of the project so it is compatible with the remainder of the TC development. Member Mutch stated he would support the motion.

Member Koneda thought RM-2 was a better use for the property because it would ensure that a commercial development would not be built. He was not sure that he would like to see a restaurant overlooking the foundry as well as the apartments. It is in compliance with the Master Plan. He thought it was important to get more residents into the Town Center area to support Main Street as this was the intent. In regard to Trans-X Drive, he expressed concern with the primary entrance coming in off of Trans-X Drive. Member Koneda thought the rezoning was appropriate.


Member Richards agreed with the concerns of Member Canup. He stated there were several concerns when residential abuts industrial. He expressed concern with there being only one way in and out once the residents occupy the area. If a truck comes in, they could block the entire entrance and exit. He felt that more study should be done so the homeowners and industries could agree to create a win/win situation.


Chairperson Capello did not think there would ever be an overall plan that would absolutely work all at once. He thought the area would just have to be approved in pieces. He knew it would be a problem but he thought this was the first piece to improving the puzzle that is why he was going to vote in support of the motion.




Yes: Mutch, Capelllo, Cassis, Koneda

No: Richards, Canup



The proposed rezoning of 6.54 acres in Section 10, on the east side of Dixon Road and north of Twelve Mile Road. The applicant is seeking rezoning recommendation from Residential Acreage District (RA) to One-Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.


Chairperson Capello announced he has received correspondence from the following:


Virgil P. and Josephine D. Jackson, 28160 Dixon Road approved of the rezoning.


Anne-Marie Bitonti, 7660 Barnshury, West Bloomfield approved of the rezoning.


Norman Akarakcian owner of the property proposed to convert three lots into nine individual residential R-1 lots which will enhance the area. He proposed to bring in sewer and city water to connect the entire area.


Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed his letter dated April 07, 2000. He recommended approval of the rezoning to R-1. It is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use and the density recommendations which call for 1.65 dwelling units per acre. A number of potential options have been identified and Mr. Arroyo believes that the applicant’s request is reasonable and consistent with the plan. There is no specific traffic review because they are only going from one residential classification to the next. Therefore an analysis is not required. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.


Chairperson Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.




Member Canup expressed concern that three lots were being taken and turned into a nine-lot subdivision. Looking at the surrounding area, he asked what would happen if someone else would decide to do the same thing? He thought what needed to be done was a broader scale of development if there was to be development there.


Member Mutch expressed some of the same concerns as Member Canup. He expressed concern the prematureness of it and the scale. To rezone just the three parcels, he thought would create some problems. One issue was that Dixon Road was unpaved and the area is not currently served by sewer. He asked if there was any sewer service to the subject site and the properties to the north along Dixon Road.


Mr. Bluhm answered, there was not sewer immediately available. He stated the Fountain Walk development south of Twelve Mile Road would be bringing the sewer along Twelve Mile Road from the west, off of the map to Dixon Road. The sewer would be designed to service with another extension up Dixon Road.


Member Mutch asked if it would make more sense to do the sewer the entire area at once or by piece, project by project?


Mr. Bluhm stated the City only has Fountain Walk and can only require them to bring it to Dixon and Twelve Mile Road. He stated it makes sense to do it all at once, but they cannot make them bring it up Dixon Road with the Ordinances the way they are.


Member Mutch asked if it would be more expensive for the property owners when it finally has to be extended north?


Mr. Bluhm answered there would be incremental additional costs if it is pieced in and built individually.


Member Mutch was concerned about the remainder piece to the east that would remain residential and not be rezoned to Multiple-Family and how it could be developed if the developer moved forward with the plan as it were currently proposed. He stated it would be inaccessible. He stated if the area was to be significantly increased in density from R-A to R-1, the area should be looked at as a whole for the utilities and road improvements as opposed to doing it piece by piece and ending up with a bunch of small projects.


Member Cassis thought there was no alternative but to grant the rezoning irregardless of the size. He owns the property and wants to develop it, it is consistent with the Master Plan and he felt it was good that someone was coming forth to start establishing the borders.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (4-2): To send a negative recommendation to City Council for Rezoning Map Amendment 19.593 from R-A to R-1 or any other appropriate zoning district.




Yes: Richards, Canup, Capello, Mutch

No: Cassis, Koneda











Member Mutch stated at the last meeting Member Koneda brought up the point that there had been a Committee that dealt with pedestrian paths and recommendations for future paths and budgeting monies for it. He stated that pedestrian pathways have been incorporated into the Master Plan, therefore, it seemed appropriate to appoint a couple of people to this Committee and get it back up and running. He believed in the past to have two Commissioners from the Parks and Recreation Commission and two Commissioners from the Planning Commission.


Member Mutch nominated Member Koneda for the Pedestrian Path Committee appointment.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Koneda to the Pedestrian Path Committee.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: None


Chairperson Mutch thought the Commission should get its’ people on board before contacting the Parks and Recreation Commission for their appointments.


Chairperson Capello authorized Member Mutch on behalf of the Planning Commission to contact the Parks and Recreation Commission and ask if they would like to add two more people to the Committee.




Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated during the course of the Discussion and action on this project, the motion that was made included a provision to find that the wetlands in question were not essential and that motion was approved. Mr. Watson stated it turns out that the Wetlands Ordinance has a particular procedure for a determination of essentiality. The procedure calls for the determination of essentiality to be made by the City’s Wetland Consultant. This was done initially by a review by JCK in February. The Wetlands Ordinance permits an applicant to go further if they dispute the issue of essentiality. It calls upon the applicant to take an appeal within ten (10) calendar days of the determination. This was not done in this case as JCK and the applicant were working out the wetland issues. In the absence of such an appeal from that determination, the question of whether the wetland was essential or not essential was not before the Planning Commission and was not appropriately made a part of the motion. He clarified that this was a procedural change that was made to the Ordinance last year. This puts the application in a quandary. Once it was realized that this was the case, it was reviewed with JCK as well as with the Community Development staff and they have discussed the issue of essentiality and mitigation of the wetland. It appeared that all that would need to be done was simply to revise the prior approval to delete that part of the motion and provide for the mitigation. In order to do this, either a motion for reconsideration or a motion to rescind prior action needs to be made.





Chairperson Capello had a couple of problems with it. He stated in order to make a motion for reconsideration, someone that voted positive has to do so and three of the members that voted positive are absent, leaving one person that could make the motion. Secondly, he did not know if the motion needed to be seconded by somebody that voted positively.


Mr. Watson clarified that a motion to reconsider needs to be made by someone who was in the majority, it does not need to be seconded by someone in the majority. He stated a motion to rescind is not subject to that requirement.


Chairperson Capello stated he discussed the issue and he wholly disagreed with Mr. Watson’s analysis. He briefly explained his reasons. He referred to Section 12-173 of the Ordinance, Subsection A and B sets forth how the wetland process goes and certain wetland use permits are granted. Subsection B(1) allows a residential minor use permit are granted, Subsection (2) non-residential minor use permits are granted by the Department of Planning and Community Development. Subsection (3) talks about determination of essentiality where an applicant may seek a determination of whether a wetland is essential. He stated if they choose not to do so, they submit it as part of their site plan and the Commission moves down to Subsection (4), Other Use Permits. Other use permits are granted by the Planning Commission. He felt the Commission was fully within their rights to do what they did under Subsection (4). Given this, he does not want to hold up the Magna project. He asked if there was a way that the Commission could wait until the other Commissioners were present to vote on the motion, letting the applicant continue with their plan, because as he saw it, the applicant has a permit that is valid.


Mr. Watson stated it could be done, however, the difficulty is that it puts action by them in the air. He stated there was not much that the Consultants could do, with the issue unresolved.


Chairperson Capello stated until it is rescinded, they have the approval that was given at the last meeting.


Mr. Watson did not agree that it was a valid approval. He thought the essentiality decision, having not come before the Commission on an appeal was not a valid approval.


Chairperson Capello disagreed. He stated Mr. Watson’s opinion did not necessarily mean that the Commission’s action at the last meeting was not something that they could rely upon.


Mr. Watson stated it certainly puts it in question.


Member Canup asked if making a motion was the simplest way to resolve the issue and get it so the applicant could move on?


Mr. Watson answered, yes. He stated Aimee Kay has spent the last day working with the applicant to resolve the remaining issues on the Wetland Permit.


Aimee Kay, Senior Environmental Specialist stated the Commission did make a decision on the behalf of the applicant and the motion made at the last meeting was made on their behalf without their request. She stated she had already been working with them on that issue. She stated the applicant was willing to go with that. Ms. Kay informed the Commission at that meeting that she did not think they had that authority and referred to Counsel at that time. She stated the applicant was just told yesterday at 1:30 p.m. that there was a problem with the permit. She stated they have been working with her to resolve it and it has been resolved. She stated they found a suitable site on the site that she conceptually agreed to and thought the Commission should take action on it.


Member Canup asked the petitioner if what was worked out was acceptable?



Keith Owen of DeMattia stated giving the short notice, there was not a MI representative at the meeting. He stated he has discussed the potential for mitigation on the site with them, giving the circumstances. He stated he has worked diligently with the staff and Consultants to try to move forward. They have a conceptual approach to dealing with mitigation as discussed with Dave Bluhm and Aimee Kay. He was concerned about the next step to take to make sure the project moves forward. He added that since the approval of the plan at the last meeting, he has submitted final engineering on the project, they have moved forward with a commitment on structural steel and hugely exposed on the project from both a financial and timing standpoint. He stated they were willing to work out the issue of mitigation consistent with the concept that was discussed with Mr. Bluhm and Ms. Kay and are prepared to move it forward provided that they can continue through the process. He stated he has final documents in hand based on the commitment he thought they had received.


Member Canup asked if the mitigation would still allow the petitioner to go forward as in the past or would it change the project significantly?


Mr. Owen stated the concept for mitigation leaves the site plan entirely in tact with the exception of the fact that they would be looking to provide the mitigation to meet the approximate 6/10 of an acre wetland impact. The mitigation zone would be along the setback between the parking area and Lewis Drive, as well as taking some of the free board area of the detention basins that are not going to be in standing water all of the time. Treating them from a planting standpoint, with appropriate wetland community plant materials. In concept, the plan was proposed to Mr. Bluhm and Ms. Kay with the understanding that the applicant would comply with the amount of impacted wetland on the site. To the extent that they could keep the project moving forward with respect to engineering and other planning related reviews, he was certainly willing to do it.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider the Wetland Permit granted by the Planning Commission to Magna at the last Planning Commission meeting.




Chairperson Capello stated Magna did not submit for any type of a wetland review under 12-173 Subsection B(3) which he did not believe gave the Consultants any specific authority to grant or deny any wetland permit or to make any determination on essentiality or non-essentiality. The applicant submitted a wetland permit under the site plan application under 12.173 Subsection B(4) which specifically left the determination of the essentiality or non-essentiality of wetlands less than two acres within the purview of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved it five (5) to zero (0). Chairperson Capello found it as a personal embarrassment as the Chairman of the Planning Commission that somebody would then go back to Magna on such a small issue and create such a large issue out of it by telling them that they do not have permit approval when in fact they do have approval and a valid permit. Chairperson Capello then apologized to the applicant.


Member Canup clarified that his reason for making the motion was to settle the matter and get it moving forward.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: None


Chairperson Capello asked what the Commission was approving?


Ms. Kay recommended at a minimum 1 to 1 ratio and anything above that is at their discretion.


Chairperson Capello asked if they had agreed to a location?


Ms. Kay answered, yes.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant the Wetland Use Permit with the mitigation at a 1 to 1 ratio at a location agreed upon in the last 24 hours between the Consultants and the applicant.




Member Mutch commented that when the determination of non-essentiality was made by the Commission, there was absolutely nothing put on the record in terms of points to counter what the Consultant had stated in terms of the points considered essential. He thought the motion was deficient, the Commission made no finding. He thought to delay it any further was to punish the applicant for something that they did not ask for. He thought this was not the place to make a point about the wetlands.


Chairperson Capello stated it was not the applicant’s obligation to come forward with facts to determine that the wetlands are non-essential, it is up to the City to come forward with the facts to determine that it is essential. That is where the Commission did not meet its’ burden, it was totally backwards of how the decisions should be made.


Member Mutch respectfully disagreed with the Chair stating that the Consultant presented the facts. He clarified that he was not referencing the applicant’s actions, but the Commission’s actions in determining if they were going to determine that a wetland was not essential, they needed to make some findings of that fact. He stated the Commission did not do its’ job on that point.


Member Cassis asked Ms. Kay if she was in agreement on certain mitigation of the wetlands and did she approve of the situation?


Ms. Kay answered, yes.


Member Cassis asked if the applicant was going to abide by what she recommended?


Ms. Kay answered, yes. As she understood it, they came to an agreement on the ratio, which is per Ordinance, and the location. She stated she has had sufficient discussions with them regarding it.




Yes: Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards, Canup

No: None









Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo.


Mr. Arroyo briefly described what a land conservancy was. He stated it was generally a non-profit corporation that is in the business of tempting to protect land because of a certain value associated with it. Conservancies are involved in land transactions, they are also involved in management of the land that they have under their control.


Land can transfer to a conservancy in a number of ways. In some instances, people will give property to a land conservancy, outright ownership, in other cases the land conservancy seeks out property they think is valuable and purchases it. Sometimes conservancies are given land that they don’t think are valuable and end up selling the land to the private sector and use the proceeds to purchase other valuable land. They are also sometimes the recipients of conservation easements. There may also be deed restrictions that might involve the conservancy which limit how the land can be used or preserved.










Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:20 p.m.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Richards

No: None




Beth Brock - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

April 27, 2000


Date Approved: May 17, 2000