|View Agenda for this meeting
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2001 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 WEST TEN MILE ROAD
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Piccinini.
PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Richards
ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Façade Consultant Christian Fox, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?
PM-01-06-150 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS SUBMITTED
Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as submitted.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-150 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini
Member Churella announced that he had received one correspondence:
Richard Hurbell wrote "On June 12, 2001 the Novi City Planning Commission received a Site Plan for the McLean Meadows Estates SP 01-28. The Preliminary Site Plan and Woodlands Approval. No action was taken and the plan was table for further study and review. A year ago Mystic Forest was being planned and then developed. I spoke to Hugh Crawford, who was then the Novi Councilman, and asked why the City of Novi did not require the developer to include the last two (2) parcels of Novi Road. McLean’s 5.37-acres and our 2.3-acres into the development along Novi Road. All that ended up being done was that they stub street entrance was required by Mystic Forest to provide future access to the parcel to the south. The stub street does not serve any practical purpose. It eliminated the need for the curb cut along the west side Novi Road. They also noted a need for the left turn lane on the downhill slope on Novi Road. It provided access to the City’s sewer lines to the developer. The site is presently shown as a retention pond along Novi Road on the southwest corner of the property. It suggests that when the developer that when the pond was full, it would drain down the culvert along Novi Road. My property drops along the west side of the Novi Road and when Novi Road is widened, the water will drain across my property creating a wetland. It does not happen to be a nicer pond just north of McLean sitting on Novi Road. Should this be constructed, the water would drain under Novi Road and sent on to the stream to the east. According to the plan as presented in the McLean Development, no access is provided for our land to the south. Novi did require Mystic Forest to provide access to the adjacent property. Would it not be fair for the developer of McLean property to do the same. Without such connection, our property would be isolated and therefore unsaleable with no access to Novi Road unless Novi would allow for a curb cut. Thank you."
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. LOISELLE BUILDING SP 00-59A
This retail building is located in Section 15, on the southwest corner of Novi Road and Fonda Street. The .43 acre site is zoned Town Center (TC). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.
Thomas Opal of Apec Consulting Engineers introduced himself representing the applicant Mr. Loiselle.
Joe Obudzinski of Joseph Philips Architects introduced himself as the architect of the proposed project.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval in his review letter dated May 21, 2001. He stated the proposed use is a twenty-six hundred (2600) square foot retail building proposed to be a retail bicycle store. He noted that a Planning Commission Waiver would be required for the parking setbacks. The applicant is requesting to reduce the parking setback along Fonda Drive from the required twenty (20) feet to ten (10) feet. He indicated that the applicant would be providing additional setback of thirty-two (32) feet instead of the required twenty (20) from Novi Road for the parking lot. He added that a portion of the westerly property line also has additional setback. Mr. Arroyo felt confident that the applicant would meet the standard to provide for this waiver. However, he stated that additional calculations were needed to verify this. He stated that in a "rough overview" it appeared there would be enough green space to meet the minimum requirement of the Ordinance. Again, he stated that the appropriate documentation would need to be submitted to ensure that this standard would be met. He added that condition could be addressed at Final. He stated it was found that there was a problem, the plan would need to be adjusted or they would have to come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Arroyo stated that easements and a complete Lighting Plan, demonstrating compliance with the updated Lighting Standards would be required at Final. He stated the remaining Planning Review items could be addressed on the Final Site Plan.
In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the comments in the review letter dated May 23, 2001. He stated that this type of specialty retail does not tend to generate high volumes of traffic during the AM and PM Peak hour. Access is proposed from Fonda Drive with a right in/right out access point and direct lefts would not be permitted. The situation would be similar to the Wendy’s driveway located on Fonda. He stated that the minor comments of his traffic review letter could be resolved at Final.
Victoria Weber Engineering Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated May 22, 2001. The site is serviced by existing public utilities. Parking lot detention is proposed due to the site size limitation. She indicated that the site is very small and was looked at closely during the review. She stated there are a number of comments and easement requirements outlined in the review letter that could be addressed at the time of Final.
Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscaping Plan subject to the comments in her review letter dated May 17, 2001. Ms. Lemke amended her letter dated May 17, 2001 stating that the project is located in the Town Center District therefore would not require a Planning Commission Waiver for the berm verses the wall. She stated the site is six (6) canopy trees short of meeting the parking area requirements. She indicated that the applicant has agreed to provide this and she would review it at Final.
Christian Fox of JCK recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver in the review letter dated May 9, 2001, for the standing seam metal on all four (4) façades. He identified the building as Region 1 in the TC District. He stated that the copper metal would tie in with the existing buildings in the area. He noted a recommendation to reduce the percentages of materials, which the applicant has conformed with. He added that they have also conformed with the request to have more consistent elevations with the surrounding buildings. He stated that the percentages on one of the façades exceed up to fifty percent (50%). He added that this is due to the large expansive windows on the building. The building walls are brick and the façades with windows have decreased the brick and increased the percentage of metal to a high number. He indicated the requirement to meet the standards of the TC District for 1602.9 – that the building be primarily brick and stone. The average percentage of brick for all of the façades is approximately fifty-four and one-half percent (54.5%), therefore, he felt this was consistent with the requirements.
Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated May 1, 2001 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 hydrant location is not acceptable. This hydrant would be difficult to use for this building. The hydrant shall be located at the corner of Novi Road and Fonda Street or on Fonda Street at the driveway of the proposed building.
Member Mutch stated that in his first review of the plan, he did not feel that this was a concept he envisioned for that corner of the Town Center area. However, after reviewing the ordinance standards, he realized that this was the design the Zoning Ordinance would require for the site.
He asked Mr. Arroyo if he agreed.
Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.
Member Mutch asked if this area was considered in the past for a rezoning from TC–1 to encourage development that would be comparable with some of the surrounding developments. A zoning in which the buildings could be closer to the main roads and not setback behind a parking lot area.
Mr. Arroyo recalled a concept plan study approximately a year ago, that reviewed the possibility of what would happen if the entire northwest quadrant became a TC-1 type zoning. He stated a conceptual layout was developed as a possibility. He felt there was viability potentially to extend this depending upon which way the City wanted to go from the policy perspective.
Member Mutch asked if the parcel was zoned TC-1, could a larger building be built potentially.
Mr. Arroyo stated that the potential exists, however, the site is small. He stated the ability to park would be the driving determination. He stated that possibly there could be a larger building, however, he would not be able to determine how much larger without a review.
Member Mutch questioned if this would move the building closer to the road.
Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He stated it could possibly be positioned similar to the TC-1 zoning project, Novi Crossings, being constructed at Grand River Avenue and Novi Road. He stated the setbacks could be similar on the proposed site if it was zoned TC-1.
Member Mutch felt that with some minor modifications, the proposed appears to meet the standards of the Ordinance. He felt that it is unfortunate that the site plan is at the Site Plan Approval stage and it is not consistent with what was envisioned for this location. He hoped that this would be corrected in the future process. He realized that this was not a reason to deny the plan.
Member Koneda read Item 10 of the Traffic Review letter, "By reducing the Fonda Street parking setback by 1- feet and enlarging the paved area at the west end of the lot, it will now be possible for a garbage truck to service the dumpster and then turn around on the site by backing into the north part of the lot." He questioned if the deficiency in setback was requested to meet the service need.
Mr. Arroyo answered it was partially the reason. He stated it improves traffic access. In addition, he noted the large amount of right-of-way along Fonda, originally acquired by MDOT. He explained that it appears to have a larger front yard due to the green space between the front property line and the bike path. He stated that the green belt would be reduced if the waiver is granted. He stated when driving by, it would appear to have more than the ten (10) foot green strip in the front but it would not all be on the proposed property.
Member Koneda asked regarding the front parking setback at thirty-two (32) feet, which is twelve (12) feet in excess of the ordinance requirements. He stated there is plenty of green space, however, he questioned if this was from the existing right-of-way and not the future right-of-way. He questioned if the future right-of-way reduces the front parking setback.
Mr. Arroyo stated that it does.
Member Koneda indicated that according to the ordinance, decisions can not be made on future right-of-way.
Mr. Arroyo stated that it has been the advice of the Legal Counsel through the years that the setbacks need to be from the existing right-of-way.
Member Koneda asked Mr. Fisher if he agreed with this advice.
Mr. Fisher answered, yes.
Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo to explain his comment regarding the open space and the public right-of-way, 15% and 39%.
Mr. Arroyo explained the confusion with how the numbers are calculated. He stated the numbers that were submitted did not reflect the true calculation according to ordinance. He felt confident that there would be the 15% open space, however, it would need to be confirmed. For example along the west property line depicts a twenty-three (23) foot side setback back into the parking area. He stated that this green space could not be counted, because it is not all green and portions of it are paved. He explained that this would need to be taken out of the calculation.
Member Koneda clarified that he needed a final confirmation that the green space calculations make up for the deficiency in the side yard parking setback.
Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.
Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch’s comments to have a TC-1 development. However, he stated that the proposed appears to meet the TC Ordinance, with two (2) Planning Commission Waivers required.
PM-01-06-151 IN THE MATTER OF LOISELLE BUILDING SP 00-59A TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, PLANNING COMMISSION WAIVER OF THE SIDE YARD PARKING SETBACK CONDITIONAL UPON GREEN SPACE CALCULATION VERIFICATION BY MR. ARROYO, GRANT A SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER TO ALLOW THE EXCESSIVE USE OF THE COPPER STANDING SEAM METAL WHICH WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING CONSULTANT TO BRING THE BUILDING INTO VISUAL CONNECTION WITH ADJACENT BUILDING USING THE SAME MATERIAL, CONTINGENT UPON THE CONSULTANT’S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Loiselle Building SP 00-59A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Planning Commission Waiver of the side yard parking setback conditional upon green space calculation verification by Mr. Arroyo, grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver to allow the excessive use of the copper standing seam metal which was a recommendation by the Planning Consultant to bring the building into visual connection with adjacent building using the same material, contingent upon the consultant’s comments and recommendations.
Member Landry referred to Ms. Lemke’s letter indicating "a minimum of 4’ green space immediately adjacent to the building on all 4 sides has been provided." He asked Ms. Lemke to point out the 4’ on the West Side of the building.
Ms. Lemke indicated that the West Side is a loading area. She stated the minimum 4’ green space would not be required where there is a loading or unloading area.
Member Kocan stated because Fonda Street is not shown on the Site Plan, she was not clear on the flow of the traffic, the entranceway is for Wendy’s, and the setback of the Loiselle Building looks in comparison to where Wendy’s is setback. She questioned if vehicles traveling on Fonda Street would be not be permitted to make a U-turn at Wendy’s and instead would have to go around the cul-de-sac and come back to enter the site. She also asked if the proposed building would be comparable to Wendy’s setback from Novi Road. She asked if there was a visual available to address these questions.
Thomas Opal stated that he did not have a picture of the Wendy’s site. He explained that the vehicles would drive into Wendy’s, located west of the proposed site. He stated that vehicles would not be permitted to turn onto Fonda Drive to make a left in the proposed site. He stated that they would be required to go around the cul-de-sac and turn right. He indicated that he did not have information regarding the setbacks for Wendy’s along Novi Road. Although he believed them to be comparable, he was not certain to what degree.
Member Kocan felt the parking in the front of Wendy’s would add to the "visual" if it was not set too far back or too far forward. She asked if there were restrictions with regard to the two (2) driveways on Fonda Drive.
Mr. Arroyo indicated the Site Plan includes the outline of the parking for the Wendy’s along Novi Road. He also showed the Commission a color reduction, which indicates the outline of the parking. He stated the Wendy’s parking is close to the site’s proposed parking. Therefore, he stated that the setback was fairly comparable. In terms of Fonda Drive, he indicated opening in front of the Big Boy Drive, which does not line up with the drive. He stated that vehicles would not be permitted to turn left from these drives to access the site. Instead they would utilized the cul-de-sac, turn right into the site and then turn right out. Mr. Arroyo explained the relationship between the proposed site and the Wendy’s drive onto Fonda. He recalled two (2) homes that separate the driveway from the Wendy’s access. He believed two (2) drives exist between. He stated there would be adequate spacing.
Member Kocan clarified that the two (2) homes would not be removed.
Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He noted the existing home is shown on the Site Plan, which to his knowledge would not be removed because it is not part of the proposed development.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-151 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini
2. FOX RUN VILLAGE (AKA ERICKSON RETIREMENT COMMUNITY) SP 00-66A
This project is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and northeast of Meadowbrook Road. The 102.817 acre site is zoned Low Density Multiple Family (RM-1) District. The applicant is seeking a Special Land Use Permit.
Joe Galvin represented Erickson. He requested a Special Land Use Permit to allow the construction of the assisted living and skill nursing beds at the facility. He stated that the City Council has approved the project pursuant to the Planning Commission’s prior approvals of the changes to the Master Plan, the zoning and the approval of the Site Plan PD-1 Option. He stated that the Permit would give the allowance to complete Erickson’s contract with the residents to care for them throughout their lives. He stated that they meet each of the specific criteria under the Zoning Ordinance with having the requisite amount of land; the buildings are forty (40) feet off of the property line; and the provision of the noise analysis. He stated the general criteria of the Special Land Use has been considered by the Planning Commission at the time of approval of the Site Plan. He requested that the Planning Commission approve the final act that would bring Fox Run Village to the City of Novi.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant noted an update to his letter. He explained that the conditions were different at the time of the original review. He noted some of the conditions were the rezoning had not been approved, the PD-1 Option had not been approved and the noise analysis had not been submitted. Since this time, he stated that all of these issues were addressed. He indicated that the noise analysis submitted demonstrates compliance with the City’s noise standards, the rezoning and PD-1 Option was approved. Therefore, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Special Land Use. He reminded the Commission that a Special Land Use is subject to the Special Land Use Standards and findings in Section 2516 2 (C). He stated that the proposed complies with the Special Land Use Standards.
Member Churella felt that the Commission has spent a lot of time in discussion regarding this plan and it has been approved.
PM-01-06-152 IN THE MATTER OF FOX RUN VILLAGE (AKA ERICKSON RETIREMENT COMMUNITY) SP 00-66A TO GRANT SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT AS IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL SPECIAL LAND USE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONED ON ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAIVERS AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS.
Moved by Churella, seconded by Landry: In the matter of Fox Run Village (AKA Erickson Retirement Community) SP 00-66A to grant Special Land Use Permit as it is in compliance with the general Special Land Use Standards and conditioned on all previous conditions, recommendations and waivers and present recommendations and conditions.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the approval be subject to execution of the development agreement. He noted that Mr. Galvin has this and would he awaiting materials back from Mr. Galvin. He also suggested, as a factual analysis for a basis for granting the Special Land Use Approval to include that because this would be a retirement community, issues such as traffic would be non peak and that the impact on utilities and services would be generally diminished in light of the nature of the occupants of the entire project, with the exception of EMS.
Chairperson Piccinini clarified that these amendments would include that the traffic be non peak, decreased use of utilities and services with the exception of EMS and the execution of the development agreement.
Member Churella accepted the amendments.
PM-01-06-153 IN THE MATTER OF FOX RUN VILLAGE (AKA ERICKSON RETIREMENT COMMUNITY) SP 00-66A TO GRANT SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT AS IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL SPECIAL LAND USE STANDARDS SUBJECT THAT THE TRAFFIC BE NON PEAK, DECREASED USE OF UTILITIES AND SERVICES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EMS, THE EXECUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONDITIONED ON ALL PREVIOUS CONDITIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND WAIVERS AND PRESENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS
Moved by Churella, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Fox Run Village (AKA Erickson Retirement Community) SP 00-66A to grant Special Land Use Permit as it is in compliance with the general Special Land Use Standards subject that the traffic be non peak, decreased use of utilities and services with the exception of EMS, the execution of the development agreement and conditioned on all previous conditions, recommendations and waivers and present recommendations and conditions
VOTE ON PM-01-06-153
Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini
3. GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C
This building addition project is located in Section 35, on Novi Road and north of Eight Mile Road. The 2.97 acre site is zoned General Business District (B-3). The applicant is requesting to proceed administratively with changes to the site plan. If the Commission decides to grant the petitioner’s request then the Commission may choose to act on the petitioner’s request for a Section Nine Façade Waiver.
Matt Quinn spoke on behalf of Guernsey Dairy Farms. A year ago Guernsey Dairy Farm began the process to expand the refrigeration area of their building. Currently the ice cream is stored in five (5) separate freezers throughout the building. Guernsey Dairy felt this was effecting the quality of the ice cream due to the lack of being able to keep the freezers at the same temperature. The Preliminary Site Plan was approved by the Planning Commission for an expansion. It was later determined by Guernsey Dairy that additional minor items would be needed. Changes included three (3) additions to the floor print of the building. 1) A five hundred fifty-seven (557) square foot office was added to the front of the expansion area. 2) The addition of two hundred seventy-nine (279) square feet to the rear of the freezer room due to the size of the steel. 3) The relocation of the electrical switch gear to the rear of the existing expansion adding one hundred thirty-four (134) square feet. He noted this change was according to the recommendation made by Detroit Edison. In regard to the footprint, the applicant added nine hundred seventy (970) square feet to the approved Preliminary Site Plan. Matt Quinn pointed out the changes on a diagram. Another change included paving the gravel parking area, which he did not feel would change the drainage. He noted the option to either enclose the rear area or leave it open with panels. He stated the proposal is to enclose the rear due to the recommendation of the City Electrical Inspector. The ordinance indicates that changes less than one thousand (1000) square feet of an approved Site Plan could be reviewed administratively. He explained the administrative review is important because the alternative would be to re-draw plans, submit and wait forty (40) days for an approval. He explained that the existing facility is torn up with the steel in place, foundation poured, flooring in and the panels on site. He added that the panels have been slightly damaged with the recent storm. The applicant is unable to operate their current business as in the past due to the construction of the addition. He stated Detroit Edison is scheduled to hook-up the electrical switchgear in the rear of the building. The applicant has obtained a Building Permit for the originally approved plan. Matt Quinn stated the revised plans were submitted and reviewed by consultants. He indicated the Engineers have signed off on the revised plan, Linda Lemke noted the revised plan and a Section Nine Façade is recommended for the revised plan. He stated Guernsey Dairy voluntarily stopped construction when the situation arose and requested to come before the Planning Commission for administrative approval. He stated that although the approval appears simple, the difficulty lies with the addition of a second floor. The original plan has two (2) large "milk towers" extending up through the roof. It was thought to square off the building by enclosing the two (2) "milk towers" and create a second floor. Lee Stevens, the architect, designed the second floor totaling thirteen hundred (1300) square feet. He identified the second floor as an attic with the only item being a downdraft furnace to provide heat the floor below. He stated that Lee Stevens and Mike McGuire commit that the attic area would not be drywall, air conditioned or heated therefore qualifying it as a true attic. He noted that according to the fire code the area around the furnace is required to be drywall. He stated that the space would not be leased or useable. Mr. Quinn indicated the ordinance interpretation that attic space is not included in the calculation of the 1,000 square foot of change from the approved Site Plan. Therefore, because the plan is under 1,000 square feet, he requested to have the matter handled administratively. He stated this would permit Guernsey Dairy to continue construction, Administration would finish the plan review and there would not be a delay causing financial distress or further complications. He submitted a letter from the architect identifying the second floor as attic space only, which would be indicated on the final design. He also submitted a letter written by Mr. Stevens indicating that with the addition of the 970’ square feet there continues to be an excess of fifteen (15) parking spaces with the addition of the footprint and parking lot changes proposed.
Mr. Evancoe stated that Mr. Quinn adequately summarized the history of the project. He asked the Planning Commission for direction. He felt the changes were significant enough to possibly warrant a review by the commission. He recapped the changes of the addition of a second story, ten (10) additional parking spaces, changes in façade due to the second story and the total square footage being over 1,000 square feet. He noted Mr. Quinn’s comments to make the additional area (second floor) an attic space. Mr. Evancoe referred to the ordinance, which indicates that Staff does not have the ability to grant an Administrative Approval if greater than 1,000 square feet. He noted that the petitioner was offered the option to come before the commission. He stated due to his recent employment at the City of Novi, he deferred to Mr. Arroyo to provide the historical details on the project.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the ordinance provides for the ability to administratively approve certain expansion up to 1,000 square feet. He noted that it would be typical for minor changes to occur between the approved Preliminary Site Plan stage and a Final Site Plan. He noted these might be a result of field changes, such as the request of Detroit Edison. He added that they are typically minor changes or "bump outs". However, he felt the addition of the second story was significant and deemed a review by the Planning Commission. The approved Preliminary Site Plan elevation depicted a continuation of the current height of the one-story building. Later in the process the elevation was increased, which he felt was a significant change that the commission needed to be aware of. If the second-story were truly an attic with no building permit for occupancy, not heated or cooled then it would not be calculated in the square footage, which would place them under the 1,000 square foot limit. Mr. Arroyo stated if the Planning Commission was comfortable with the addition of the second-story, the administrative review process could continue.
Mr. Fox stated the original addition was a continuation of the existing building in its design and height along the frontage visible from Novi Road. The addition of the second-story has changed this appearance. He noted that the addition projects out as a separate building and therefore is calculated as a separate building. As a result the percentages of materials are better than prior. The larger expanses of brick have brought the north and west elevation into compliance, whereas originally they were included in the Waiver recommendation for the metal panels. Mr. Fox indicated the only remaining waiver is for the East Side (backside) of the building, with 71% of the metal panels. He noted this to be fairly consistent with the original granting of the waiver. Mr. Fox continued to recommend a Section Nine Facade Waiver based on the percentages of the materials.
Member Canup did not feel the request was unreasonable.
PM-01-06-154 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C TO GRANT THE REQUEST AS STATED AND SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER.
Moved by Canup, MOTION DIES LACK OF SUPPORT: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy Farms SP 00-16C to grant the request as stated and Section Nine Facade Waiver.
Member Nagy questioned the reason to add the second floor if it is only attic space.
Matt Quinn referred to the Site Plan. He pointed out the height of the current building and the location of the garage door. He noted the milk silos in the inside portion were determined from an architectural standpoint to large enough and obtrusive enough to enclose them verses having them stick out. He stated when the area was squared off, the space was created.
Member Nagy commented on the addition of the ten (10) parking spaces. She understood that Guernsey currently owns the property behind, however she was concerned with the runoff. She questioned if Ms. Weber anticipated problems with the runoff.
Ms. Weber stated the runoff created by ten (10) parking spaces would be insignificant. She requested that the parking lots drain sufficiently as part of the Revised Final Site Plan.
Member Nagy asked Ms. Lemke regarding the landscaping in the front, which was discussed at the last meeting.
Ms. Lemke stated the plans were modified to include additional plant material along the front and the northern property line. She added that the applicant has met the screening requirements for the parking.
Member Koneda stated the Site Plan submitted indicates the second-floor would be finished. He felt their willingness to keep it as an attic is a technicality to remain under the 1,000 square foot requirement to meet the ordinance. He questioned what would prevent them from obtaining a permit in the future to finish the second floor. He felt that they would ultimately get what they wanted. He asked what the process would be.
Mr. Arroyo stated a revised site plan would need to be submitted requesting permission to use the second floor. It would be determined if there was enough parking and if the plan was found to be approvable, they could request permission from the Building Department to finish it as usable space.
Member Koneda asked if the only requirement was for the space need to be less than 1,000 square feet or if it would need to come before the commission.
Mr. Arroyo believed that it would have to come back to the commission because it would be exceeding the 1,000 square feet from the original submittal. He explained original submittal of "X" square feet and they are beyond the 1,000, they are required to come before the commission. He stated they are not permitted to add 1,000 and then 1,000 etc…
Gerald Fisher suggested the preparation and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. He stated this would prevent a slip of paper being lost from future disclosure and everybody would be on notice.
Member Koneda asked if the enclosure of the milk silos was the suggestion of the consultants, the architect or Guernsey.
Lee Stevens, the architect, answered that it was his suggestion. He explained that it would enclose the milk tanks and compressors for refrigeration that would be exposed. He stated the wall extension would cover these items and make the building appear neater. He felt overall the building looked better with the addition.
Member Koneda agreed with Mr. Stevens. He indicated that the addition of the second story was the only change from the original plan that he did not like. He noted that he was prepared to deny their request for an administrative review. However, he noted if Member Canup restated his motion, he would second it.
Member Churella noted the office building to the north and nearby retail have sidewalk leading to Guernsey Dairy. However, to cross from the other two (2) businesses with sidewalks is not possible. He noted the five (5) foot sidewalk in front of the building that stops at the end of the old building with no safety path continuing. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to add the safety path and fill the ditch needed to place the safety paths.
Mr. McGuire was not certain. He stated the parking lot projects out with the sidewalk to the north coming into the parking lot. He recalled it being located back 20’ from the edge of the parking. Therefore, he felt a continuation of the sidewalk would come across the parking lot.
Member Churella stated that he was speaking about in front of the parking lot. He felt that the safety path should be there.
Mr. McGuire explained the site at the edge of the street with a small ditch, parking lot and landscaping. He assumed that some of the landscaping would need to be removed to place a sidewalk.
Chairperson Piccinini agreed that the storm sewer should have been required to be filled in the first review and a connection provided. She noted that when she walks in the area, she found that she is required to walk in the parking lot and through trees. She did not feel this was safe for pedestrians walking along Novi Road. She stated that she could support the motion if the pipe was place, filled in and a sidewalk in place. She compared this request to the improvements that other applicants have made in the Region 1 District with revisions and increased sizes.
Member Landry referred to text in Mr. Arroyo’s letter dated June 15, 2001 – From our initial review, we have also found that the new loading area in the rear of the property does not meet the minimum 10 foot setback and would require a variance. He questioned whom they would need the variance from.
Mr. Arroyo stated after discussion with the applicant, they have pulled the paving area back. He stated that to his understanding this has been changed on the site plan. He indicated that there was no longer a need for a variance.
Member Landry asked if the additional information was submitted that he needed to determine if there was a need for additional parking.
Mr. Arroyo stated that if the attic space is going to be an attic and not occupied space, then he did not believe there would be a parking issue.
Member Landry asked if Mr. Arroyo recommended that the applicant submit a Revised Site Plan.
Mr. Arroyo stated that the Planning Commission would need to determine if a Preliminary or Final Site Plan should be submitted. He stated the applicant is requesting a Final Site Plan with an Administrative Review. The Commission could request a Revised Preliminary to go through the full procedure. He stated he would review the plan, as the Commission deemed appropriate.
Member Landry asked if there was the possibility to expedite the process if an additional Preliminary Site Plan was requested to review sidewalks, parking etc…
Gerald Fisher stated this would be a matter of scheduling for the Planning Commission providing that the Staff and Consultants have the ability to review the materials.
Member Landry stated when the Final Site Plan was submitted, a no revisions affidavit was included stating that the building façade was not changed. He stated the façade had in fact been changed and he asked the petitioner to speak to this.
Matt Quinn was aware of this. He explained that this process had been occurring for over a year. He stated that revised plans were submitted and review letter received. He stated when it was time for Mr. Stevens to file the final document; he referred to the revised plan when he indicated there were no changes to that plan. He explained that the original intent was that it applied back to the plan that the Planning Commission approved. He stated although there was confusion, it was not intentional.
PM-01-06-155 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE CHANGES THE REQUEST AS STATED INCLUDING THE SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK AND PROPERLY FILL IN THE STORM SEWER
Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy Farms SP 00-16C to grant Administrative Review of the changes the request as stated including the Section Nine Facade Waiver providing that the applicant agree to put in a sidewalk and properly fill in the storm sewer.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if the applicant was willing to agree to these provisions.
Mr. McGuire answered, yes.
Member Nagy suggested that the amendment include the affidavit regarding the attic to be filed with the Register of Deeds as recommended by the City Attorney.
Member Canup and Member Churella accepted the amendment.
Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher to further clarify the details of the affidavit.
Gerald Fisher stated it would be an affidavit clarifying that the Site Plan review and approval would include and contemplate that the second floor be used solely for attic purposes and not useable space and that no Site Plan approval had been granted for useable space on second floor.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if then the applicant would have to go through the process if they wanted to use the space in the future.
Gerald Fisher answered, yes.
PM-01-06-156 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE CHANGES THE REQUEST AS STATED INCLUDING THE SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK AND PROPERLY FILL IN THE STORM SEWER AND THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE REGISTER OF DEED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SECOND FLOOR AREA WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE UNLESS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy Farms SP 00-16C to grant Administrative Review of the changes the request as stated including the Section Nine Facade Waiver providing that the applicant agree to put in a sidewalk and properly fill in the storm sewer and the preparation and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the second floor area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Kocan stated the new addition has a formal/new look and the remainder of the building has a Dutch look with canopies. She stated they appear completely different from one another. She understood that it is still in the planning stage. She questioned if the consultants would make them look like one building. She felt they should place canopies on the entire building or remove them completely.
Mr. Fox stated that he and Mr. Necci had discussed this situation. He indicated that Mr. Necci felt that new building would be utilizing the same type of brick and the changes were not significant enough to be considered different in look. He indicated the two-story addition, which is different from the existing building would give it a slightly different look. He stated extending the mansards would not be consistent with the two-story building to attempt to match this material/look to the two-story addition.
Member Kocan asked what could be done after it is constructed.
Mr. Fox stated that the commission has the right to deny the Section Nine Facade Waiver recommendation based on the design.
Member Kocan stated that she would prefer that the addition look similar to the existing building.
Chairperson Piccinini clarified if she was indicating that the original building could be altered to create the consistency between the two (2) buildings.
Member Kocan noted that the alteration could be on either building.
Mr. Fox felt that a downgrade of the new addition would create a flat expansive brick, which would detract from the appearance of the building.
Member Kocan stated that she would be more amenable to updating the look of the existing building to create a comparable look with the new building. She felt the two (2) story with windows and brick was nice but it did not match the existing building.
Mr. Fox estimated an approximate 13’ dimension difference between the front of the original and the front of the new building. He noted that this creates an offset and slight difference in visual.
Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Stevens if the entrance to the restaurant could be squared off, similar to the new addition, and incorporate it.
Mr. Stevens stated the restaurant has a mansard entrance and the new addition would have a truck door. He noted they preferred that the restaurant be at a smaller scale. He stated the truck door sets back 13’ giving the recess look. He felt there were two (2) facades.
Member Kocan understood his comments. However, she did not desire the difference in the two façades. She asked for the other Board Members to comment.
Member Nagy understood Member Kocan’s comments. She was not very please with the landscaping. She questioned the possibility to tie the buildings together using the landscaping features.
Ms. Lemke stated that unfortunately the area where the proposed building ties into the existing building is the location of the driveway. She noted the plant materials to the north and south. She stated the applicant has not been asked to change the plant materials because they are not making changes to the parking lot.
Ms. Lemke questioned if the architect was aware the Novi Road is curved.
Mr. Stevens stated that it is not curved to the north.
Ms. Lemke also thought that it was not curved. She stated that she and Ms. Weber felt that if Novi Road were not curved, the sidewalk would impact the existing landscaping, which would be an issue. She stated if the sidewalk is continued down to and including the area for the historic specimen Bur Oak would impact the tree. She asked that these items be considered.
Member Nagy stated that she did not feel comfortable approving the site plans. She did not feel the information was adequate and preferred to have new site plans. She did not feel that this was a City-created problem. She stated that she would be in support of expediting the process.
Member Koneda agreed that there have been several changes, however he stated that he would like to move the project along. He referred to the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting August 16, 2000, which stated that the new building would not have to meet the requirements for parking and landscaping due to it being a small addition to the building. He questioned if this would still apply as an existing condition, which the requirements for major landscaping changes would not be necessary. He recalled Member Mutch comments regarding the continuing sidewalk for the residents, as documented in the minutes. He recalled Ms. Lemke’s comments stating the impacts the sidewalk would have on the landscaping and the historic specimen tree. He stated the need for a culvert to cover the ditch. He understood that the applicant was in agreement to provide this and therefore, the sidewalk would not have a negative impact on the historic tree.
Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke to clarify her comments.
Ms. Lemke deferred to Ms. Weber.
Ms. Weber stated that five feet (5’) is the minimum setback for a sidewalk from a curbed road and twelve feet (12’) for an uncurbed road. Therefore, she felt it would be okay if the ditch was enclosed, storm sewer in place, curbed and the sidewalk constructed.
Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke if this would help the tree.
Ms. Lemke stated that it would need to be reviewed further. She noted the existing utilities disturbing the root structure. She stated if it went into an already disturbed root area it might be okay, however, it would not be okay it disturbed a new root structure.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if there was room to move around the tree. She clarified if they were referencing the tree south of the drive.
Member Koneda answered, yes. He asked how far is the sidewalk.
Member Churella stated it goes north.
Chairperson Piccinini asked where the driveway is across the street.
Ms. Lemke stated that it is not shown on the plan.
Member Koneda felt that the commission was willing to approve the plan if they put the sidewalk, cover the ditch and curb the road. Therefore, the question is how far is the sidewalk to clear up what everyone is asking.
Chairperson Piccinini agreed.
Member Canup amended his motion to include that the sidewalk terminates at the first driveway north of the historical specimen tree.
PM-01-06-157 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE CHANGES THE REQUEST AS STATED INCLUDING THE SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK (WITH THE SIDEWALK TERMINATING AT THE FIRST DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE HISTORICAL SPECIMEN TREE) AND PROPERLY FILL IN THE STORM SEWER AND THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE REGISTER OF DEED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SECOND FLOOR AREA WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE UNLESS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy Farms SP 00-16C to grant Administrative Review of the changes the request as stated including the Section Nine Facade Waiver providing that the applicant agree to put in a sidewalk (with the sidewalk terminating at the first driveway north of the historical specimen tree) and properly fill in the storm sewer and the preparation and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the second floor area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Landry stated that he would like to give approval and move the site plan forward, however, he was hesitant due to all of the questions and issues being raised. He felt that the commission should review a new site plan. He felt there should be a complete sidewalk. He stated that he would be in support of expediting the process to allow the appropriate landscaping approval, etc…
Member Koneda commented that the other side of the driveway might be Northville. Therefore, the City of Novi does not have the authority to have the applicant install a sidewalk.
Member Mutch stated that he would like to have the sidewalk. However, after hearing some of the issues raised, he felt the detail should be reviewed. He stated the second story is not what was reviewed prior. He did not recall milk tanks projecting above the roof in the original plan. He did not agree with the idea that he addition would be walled off and not used. He felt it was more sensible to review a plan with the space as usable and the requested improvements. He did not feel comfortable approving the plan administratively with all of the changes and additions.
Member Kocan stated that the issues could not be tabled to allow another site plan because there is not a site plan before the Commission.
Chairperson Piccinini explained that the commission could vote in favor of the motion or send it back through the process. Further she noted the plan would be reviewed administratively or go through the entire review process again.
Member Kocan stated that Preliminary and Final Site Plan were discussed. Therefore, in order to have a site plan to represent all of the issues, she questioned if the step would be to have a Revised Site Plan.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.
Member Kocan asked if there could be a Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan at the same time.
Mr. Evancoe stated the applicant could resubmit as a Preliminary and Final Site Plan simultaneously. He added that it would be Preliminary in the sense that it would be different from what was previously approved, however, they are far enough along to make it Final.
Member Koneda noted several instances in which plans came back to the commission for Final Site Plan Approval. He suggested having the Staff work on the actions and the Commission act on the Final Site Plan. He questioned if their only action was to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval or if they could administratively agree with the changes and have the Staff administratively handle the review. However, due to the magnitude of the changes, could the commission require to see the Final to ensure that all the requests have been incorporated. Instead of denying the request, he asked if the plan could back for Final.
Mr. Arroyo stated the ordinance allows the Planning Commission to call back a plan for Final Site Plan if they deem appropriate. Procedurally this would occur on the time of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval. However, he was not certain if this could be done at this point. Therefore, he deferred to Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Fisher thought this could be done. He added if the Site Plan was going to come back before the Commission, he suggested having it come back for Preliminary and Final at the same time.
Member Canup noted his reason for wanting to approve the plan and move it forward was because he felt they could rely on the expertise and the honesty of the consultants and the City Planning Department to enforce the conditions to the motion. He did not find what it would accomplish by not letting it go into an Administrative Review and have it finished. He stated alternately, the applicant would come back with the items already incorporated, the Planning Commission would approve it and then it would move forward. He felt it would shorten the agenda and allow the petitioner to go forward with their addition. Member Canup called for a vote on the motion.
Chairperson Piccinini clarified if Member Canup wanted to amend his motion with the addition of the curb for the street.
Member Canup answered, yes.
PM-01-06-158 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16C TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF THE CHANGES THE REQUEST AS STATED INCLUDING THE SECTION NINE FACADE WAIVER PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK (WITH THE SIDEWALK TERMINATING AT THE FIRST DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE HISTORICAL SPECIMEN TREE), PROPERLY FILLING IN THE DITCH, THE STORM SEWER AND PREPARATION, THE ADDITION OF THE CURB FOR THE STREET AND THE PREPARATION AND FILING OF AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE REGISTER OF DEED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SECOND FLOOR AREA WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE UNLESS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, MOTION FAILS (4-4): In the matter of Guernsey Dairy Farms SP 00-16C to grant Administrative Review of the changes the request as stated including the Section Nine Facade Waiver providing that the applicant agree to put in a sidewalk (with the sidewalk terminating at the first driveway north of the historical specimen tree) properly filling in the ditch, the storm sewer and the preparation, the addition of the curb for the street and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the second floor area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-158 MOTION FAILS
Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini
No: Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy
PM-01-06-159 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY SP 00-16C TO PLACE IT ON THE FIRST AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA IN AUGUST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW.
Moved by Landry, MOTION DIES LACK OF SUPPORT: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy SP 00-16C to place it on the first available Planning Commission agenda in August for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Review.
Mr. Quinn asked what would be accomplished. He stated that they came before the commission with the matter of 970 square feet. The Commission raised the sidewalk issue. He stated they came before the Planning Commission for administrative approval. He agreed to abide by the conditions of the commission to add the sidewalk. Therefore, he asked why the delay was necessary. He stated the ordinance indicates 970 square feet is less than 1,000. He requested that the commission make a finding on the motions to make it clear if they are denying the administrative rights saying that the addition is greater than 1,000 square feet or not. He stated if it less than 1,000 square feet, then they could be approved. However, if the commission interprets the addition to be greater than 1,000 square then they would not have the administrative approval.
Mr. Fisher stated this would be a finding of fact in whether or not the addition is greater than 1,000 square feet. He stated the 1,000 is net usable square footage under the ordinance for purposes for this type of consideration. He stated the factual issue of whether it is more than 1,000 would need to be deferred to Mr. Evancoe and Mr. Arroyo.
Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the addition was found to be under 1,000 as opposed to being over 1,000, whether administrative or not administrative, would the conditions the Commission requested still apply.
Mr. Fisher answered, if the applicant agrees.
Chairperson Piccinini clarified if it is under 1,000.
Mr. Fisher answered, yes.
Mr. Arroyo stated that according to what has been presented and the second floor developed as an attic (not useable space); the addition appears to be under 1,000 square feet. He stated the applicant would need to provide the documentation on the Final Plan to demonstrate this.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if the stairway in the back room not useable space and therefore would not be calculated in the useable space.
Mr. Arroyo stated typically a mechanical room would not be calculated.
Mr. Fisher added that the Commission has the right to request that it come back for Final Site Plan Approval. Therefore, he stated if the Commission wanted to review the plan, they have the right to regardless of the administrative review.
PM-01-06-160 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY SP 00-16C THAT THE FINDINGS IS THAT THE ADDITION IS UNDER 1,000 SQUARE FEET AND COULD ADMINISTRATIVELY PROCEED BUT WILL RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE FINAL SITE APPROVAL.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Kocan: In the matter of Guernsey Dairy SP 00-16C that the findings is that the addition is under 1,000 square feet and could administratively proceed but will return to the Planning Commission for the Final Site Approval.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if Member Koneda and Member Kocan would amend the motion to include the conditions of putting in a sidewalk (with the sidewalk terminating at the first driveway north of the historical specimen tree) properly filling in the storm sewer and the preparation, the addition of the curb for the street and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the second floor area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Koneda and Member Kocan agreed to the amendment.
PM-01-06-161 IN THE MATTER OF GUERNSEY DAIRY SP 00-16C THAT THE FINDINGS IS THAT THE ADDITION IS UNDER 1,000 SQUARE FEET AND COULD ADMINISTRATIVELY PROCEED BUT WILL RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE FINAL SITE APPROVAL PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT AGREE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK (WITH THE SIDEWALK TERMINATING AT THE FIRST DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE HISTORICAL SPECIMEN TREE) PROPERLY FILLING IN THE DITCH, THE STORM SEWER AND THE PREPARATION, THE ADDITION OF THE CURB FOR THE STREET AND FILING OF AN AFFIDAVIT WITH THE REGISTER OF DEED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SECOND FLOOR AREA WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR USEABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE UNLESS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Moved by Koneda, seconded Kocan, CARRIED (5-3): In the matter of Guernsey Dairy SP 00-16C that the findings is that the addition is under 1,000 square feet and could administratively proceed but will return to the Planning Commission for the Final Site Approval providing that the applicant agree to put in a sidewalk (with the sidewalk terminating at the first driveway north of the historical specimen tree) properly filling in the ditch, the storm sewer and the preparation, the addition of the curb for the street and filing of an Affidavit with the Register of Deed to the effect that the second floor area would not be utilized for useable square footage unless subsequently approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Mutch asked if the only issue relevant to their finding for the approval is that the addition is the 1,000 square feet. He stated in reviewing the item, in which a plan could be approved administratively, he questioned if this was the only finding that was relevant. He agreed that issues were raised in terms of the façade and other changes to the site plan that he felt were relevant to that finding. He stated that although these may not change the motion, he did not want the commission to be forced into taking a motion or position based on these criteria alone. He did not feel this was the only relevant issue and he asked the City Attorney to clarify his comment. He added that neither the Planning Commission nor the City made the changes "messing up" the process. He understood the applicant’s concerns and desire to have it expedited, however, he did not like the idea that the Planning Commission was the target of blame for the issue at hand. He stressed that the plan presented is not the plan that the commission reviewed last year.
Member Koneda stated the plan submitted for the Revised Site Plan had the second story finished off making the plan exceed the 1,000 square foot. He asked Mr. Evancoe if this discussion would be taking place tonight if the plan had been submitted administratively with a two-story building and 970 square feet.
Mr. Evancoe answered, probably not.
Member Koneda clarified if that would be because it would be under 1,000 square foot.
Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.
Member Koneda asked if there was an issue with the two-story building enclosing the milk silos that meets the criteria. He stated if the applicant had submitted a plan identifying the attic as an attic verses a finished second floor this discussion would not be taking place.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that the plan is different than the preliminary approved plan.
Member Koneda stated if it was handled administratively, the commission would not have seen the plan.
Chairperson Piccinini stated it was not prior to the original final. She stated that it could not be changed midstream, without it coming back to the Commission.
Mr. Evancoe stated the changes were at different stages. He stated there were changes between the Preliminary Plan that the Planning Commission approved and the first Final Site Plan that the Planning Department received. There were more changes when the Final Stamping Sets were submitted. He stated that the consultants indicated that they had never had a situation similar, because plans submitted for Stamping Sets has always been identical to the Final Site Plan.
Chairperson Piccinini clarified that it would not have been expected for any applicant to change the square footage from Preliminary to Final.
Mr. Evancoe answered, correct. He added that the Ordinance contemplates that this could occur up to the 1,000 square feet.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if this could happen during the process.
Mr. Evancoe answered, yes.
Mr. Fisher indicated that Section 2516.c (9) states that if the addition is under 1,000 square feet it could be reviewed administratively. He noted the proviso in Section 2516.c. to be contemplated in the motion on the floor which states "If during any administrative review process authorized under this subpart or subpart (d) it is determined that changes or modifications to a site plan may significantly impact the site or adjacent areas, the site plan shall be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval." He stated the motion makes this determination in advance and calls for the plan to come back following Administrative Review.
Member Landry questioned if the motion on the floor states that the plan go to Administrative Review and come back to the Planning Commission for Final Approval. Therefore, if the plan comes before the Planning Commission at Final, changes could be made at that time.
Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He added that it is subject to the Planning Commission’s Final Review.
Member Landry stated that the Planning Commission has the Final Approval. He questioned if the motion also indicates a sidewalk and curbing.
Chairperson Piccinini stated it would be the sidewalk, filling the ditch, put a storm sewer, curb the road and the affidavit.
Member Landry clarified that the Planning Commission had the ability to reject any site plan for any reason.
Mr. Fisher stated that his comment was broad. He stated it would be for the reasons stated in the ordinance.
Member Landry clarified that the Commission has the right to request another plan even though it is under 1,000 feet.
Mr. Fisher stated if it meet the other qualifications in the section, which means that it is determined that the changes or modifications to a site may significantly impact a site or adjacent areas, then it would come back to the Commission.
Member Canup questioned if it does effect the site or the adjacent areas.
Mr. Evancoe stated the addition of the parking, which could impact drainage and landscaping, was part of the reason it was brought back to the Commission. He added that the square footage was not the only reason that it was brought back before the commission.
Member Canup clarified that if the ten (10) additional parking spaces were removed and the addition was under 1,000 square feet they would not have been before the Commission.
Mr. Evancoe stated the remaining issues would still have been the change in the façade and the Section Nine Facade Waiver.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-161 CARRIED
Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini
No: Churella, Landry, Nagy
Member Kocan advised the applicant to consider whether or not he would like to utilize the second story for office space, because it may be able to be handled at the same time. She noted that it is a significant change to add seven feet (7’) to a building and this was the reason for her vote.
4. HOME DEPOT SEASONAL SALES EXPANSION SP 01-31
This expansion is located in Section 17, on the northwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road. The 11,086 square foot addition is zoned Community Business District (B-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.
Joe Galvin requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval to allow an increase of the seasonal sales area at Home Depot. The addition would physically attach the building. He noted that the addition would be aesthetically consistent and physically identical with the existing building on the site. He was aware of the required ZBA variances due to the proposed being an outdoor seasonal sales area. He noted that they had obtained ZBA variances for the initial seasonal sales area. He felt the Preliminary Site Plan met the criteria of the Zoning Ordinance with the exception to the required ZBA variances. Mr. Galvin stated the success of the store has brought forth the reason for the expansion request. He stated the current seasonal sales area, (peat, soils, outdoor plant materials and ancillary materials), functions at approximately sixty percent (60%) of what it should. He stated each portion of the facility would be physically integrated with the existing building. He designated on the rendering the area with respect to the center. He felt the center, as a whole, would have a minimum impact. He felt the function of the store would become better and the goods could be sold more efficiently. He introduced Mike Klingl of Greenberg Farrow Architecture and Gary Jonna of Jonna Realty Ventures, who would be available for questions. He reminded the Commission that Mr. Jonna and Providence have brought a first class shopping area to the Novi Community. He hoped the shopping area could be continued with the proposed addition.
Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan in the review letter dated June 11, 2001, due to the required ZBA variance. He stated when the project came before the City; it proposed a use that typically and customarily has outdoor storage. There was the challenge of how the project could be accomplished in a manner that would fit within the intent of the district. The applicant had proposed a site plan that was recommended for conditional approval subject to a ZBA variance and the variance was granted. He showed the Commission a photograph of another Home Depot location to demonstrate the possibilities of an outdoor storage situation if not handled in a proper manner. He described the subject’s site as being screened from view, very attractive with a brick wall with a fence. He noted that the outdoor storage is not visible if the items are stored below the twelve (12) foot fence/wall. He felt this was an excellent example of the use of creative design to address practical difficulties of a site. The applicant proposed to expand the sales area with the same treatment and screening. He added if done properly, there could be a minimal impact on screening and the outdoor storage impacts could be reduced. In contrast if not done properly, there could be a negative impact. Mr. Arroyo suggested, based on a previous suggestion of Mr. Fisher regarding another case, that if the plan is approved and a ZBA variance granted that an affidavit be filed. The affidavit would specify that no materials would be stored above the twelve foot (12’) high screening area and the site would maintain its present appearance. He suggested that Mr. Fisher and the Planning Commission consider this option.
In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan in the review letter dated June 13, 2001.
Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan in the review letter dated May 31, 2001. She noted the comments of the review letter could be addressed at Final.
Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Plan in her review letter dated May 24, 2001. Existing trees are being transplanted to meet the required landscaping. She noted changes would need to be provided on plans submitted for Final Stamping. Ms. Lemke recalled the Chair’s request of her most recent landscape report to be included and it was not. She indicated the holding of three hundred and eleven thousand, seven hundred seventy-eight dollars and seventy-five cents ($311,778.75). She noted the several meetings with the applicant and the extensive checklist, which could be viewed at the Planning Department. She explained that the challenge is left to the applicant to bring it to and exceed the current standards.
Mr. Fox of JCK noted the percentages of the split-faced block on all facades and percentages of E.I.F.S. on the East and West facades exceed the maximum allowed by the ordinance. The Façade Ordinance states that an addition that is less than 100% of the original building may used the same materials as the original building provided that the additional constitutes a continuation of the existing facades (Section 2520.7). He stated the extension of the outdoor storage is an exact copy of the existing building. Therefore, it meets the criteria and does not require a façade waiver.
Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated May 14, 2001 from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.
Member Churella announced that he had received a letter from Cindy Uglow, City of Novi Neighborhood Service Coordinator dated June 19, 2001. Her letter stated that it was brought to her attention by Ordinance Enforcement that Home Depot has continually been in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. She indicated that Home Depot was storing materials on the sidewalk, parking lot in the rear of the building, storage is being conducted in open air seasonal sales area above the twelve foot (12’) fence limit. She noted that several verbal and written violations have been issued to the store manager with limited cooperation. She indicated that the store manager was notified today of non-compliance and promised to remove it by 4:30 p.m. today. Home Depot was also warned by the Fire Department for blocking Fire Lanes in the rear of the building.
Member Nagy indicated that upon her visit to Home Depot, she noted the landscaping. She requested that the Store Manager address the concerns.
Joe Galvin agreed that the affidavit, suggested by Mr. Arroyo, would be an efficient and effective manner to deal with the issue. He noted the presence of the Assistant Store Manager. He stated the issue cited yesterday was in the timing of moving a delivery into the facility. He identified these issues as operational issues and agreed they were important issues that should and would be taken care of.
Member Nagy asked who would be responsible for the landscaping. She was not clear if Home Depot was owned by one company or if it was leased.
Joe Galvin believed the shopping center to be a joint venture owned by a company and Providence Plus who lease to Home Depot. He noted that he is not familiar with the leasing provisions concerning the maintenance of landscaping. He stated the original installation of the landscaping, referred to by Ms. Lemke, had been negotiated by the shopping center.
Member Nagy referred to a previous discussion she had with Ms. Lemke regarding the many dead trees toward the expressway. She questioned what the guarantee of compliance would be if they have shown non-compliance. She asked Ms. Lemke’s experience with the landscaping.
Ms. Lemke referred to the $311,778.75 bond to guarantee compliance with the approved site plan. She explained after they obtain the checklist, they would be responsible for replacing the plant materials and conforming the site to the requirements of the ordinance. She indicated an inspection scheduled for this week. She noted that there are a number of items outstanding. The money would not be released until the site is in full compliance.
Member Landry asked the Assistant Store Manager to address the reason for the storage above the 12’ screening fence/wall. He questioned if there was not enough room for the storage.
Home Depot Assistant Store Manager stated it was due to the lack of room. However, he noted it has been brought down below the 12’ level.
Member Landry asked if the granting of the approval would provide the additional space to avoid the storage in excess of the 12 feet.
Member Koneda stated the issue at hand was the Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the addition because they would need to go before ZBA for the variance for outdoor storage. He noted the request for outdoor storage more than doubles the existing storage on the site. He recalled in July 1999, the architectural firm indicated the site would be a prototype for new stores to function with less storage. He questioned if the prototype was not successful or if there was a high demand for live plants.
Home Depot Assistant Store Manager noted that it is both reasons. He explained that the Novi location was one of three prototypes to be constructed. He stated it was found that the attempt to keep most of the materials inside the indoor garden portion of the building did not come to fruition. He stated the live materials are not the only items being stored in that area. In addition, he noted the soils and fertilizers, stored inside have been brought outside and encroach on the area of the live material. The live materials and the mulch are the two primary items functioning in the sixty percent (60%) below what is typically sold in this area.
Member Koneda stated that he frequently visits the store and was disappointed with the garden center. He noted the stacked racks in the isles preventing the accessibility to the plant materials. He understood the need of the proposed. He stated if the expansion of the outdoor storage is found to meet the Preliminary Site Plan requirement, then an approval could be granted conditional upon the ZBA approval. The other option is a denial due to the required ZBA variance, which then the site plan would come before the Commission after the ZBA approval. He asked the City Attorney if this was correct.
Jerry Fisher answered, correct.
Member Koneda clarified if Mr. Fisher had recommended, in previous discussions, that if a ZBA variance was the only "hold up", then the motion should be made conditional upon the granting of the ZBA variance.
Jerry Fisher answered, correct. He added that to his understanding that would be consistent with past practice.
Member Koneda noted that based on this information, although he was not in favor of the expansion of the outdoor sales, he would make a motion.
PM-01-06-162 IN THE MATTER OF HOME DEPOT SALES EXPANSIONS SP 01-31 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON ZBA VARIANCE FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN A B-2 DISTRICT AND CONTINGENT UPON ALL OF THE CONSULTANT’S CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Landry: In the matter of Home Depot Sales Expansions SP 01-31 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval contingent upon ZBA variance for outdoor storage in a B-2 District and contingent upon all of the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.
Chairperson Piccinini asked if Member Koneda would like to amend the motion to include the affidavit from the applicant that they would not store materials higher than twelve feet (12’).
Member Koneda stated that they are not permitted to store anything over twelve feet (12’) under the conditions of the original site plan. He did not find the reasoning for completing an affidavit due to their current lack of compliance.
Jerry Fisher stated that in many respects Member Koneda was correct. However, he agreed with Mr. Arroyo in the fact that it would clarify that they are on notice of it. In the event of a future issue, it would not hurt to have it on record. He stated the Planning Commission could request the affidavit. He suggested that the Planning Commission recommend that the ZBA require the affidavit as part of their discretionary authority.
Member Koneda accepted the condition to his motion.
Member Landry accepted the condition to the motion.
PM-01-06-163 IN THE MATTER OF HOME DEPOT SALES EXPANSIONS SP 01-31 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON ZBA VARIANCE FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN A B-2 DISTRICT, RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ZBA REQUIRE THE AFFIDAVIT AS PART OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AND CONTINGENT UPON ALL OF THE CONSULTANT’S CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Landry: In the matter of Home Depot Sales Expansions SP 01-31 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval contingent upon ZBA variance for outdoor storage in a B-2 District, recommendation that the ZBA require the affidavit as part of their discretionary authority and contingent upon all of the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.
Member Churella asked what guarantee could be made that they would not violate the ordinance and if they did violate it, what type of fine could be given.
Gerald Fisher suggested recommending the issue to the Implementation Committee for exploration of methods of amending the ordinance to enforce these situations in some effective manner.
Member Mutch stated that he would not support the motion. He felt the distinction between the proposed and other cases is that the proposed is not a situation that would normally be approvable with a ZBA variance for a minor issue. He commented that the proposed is not a permitted use nor is it under Special Land Use conditions. He added that it is specifically not permitted in the B-2 District due to the concerns of the outdoor storage uses and the negative impacts. He noted they are seeing those negative impacts. He commended the applicant for a job well done with the screening. He stated if the ZBA variances were followed as they should, there may not be an issue. However, he stated he would not be comfortable sending the case to ZBA as approved. He felt the issue at hand belonged to the ZBA. Member Mutch stated the ZBA made the original finding that outdoor storage uses according to their specifications was okay. The applicant is now requesting this to be doubled. He felt the ZBA should be able to review this without any indication or influence from the Planning Commission. He felt the proposed was a greater expansion of the use. He commented on the Affidavit letter stating that they should follow the ordinance/requirements of the ZBA and if they are in violation then the solution should be a ticket given for the non-compliance. He felt the Planning Commission should deny the site plan and allow ZBA to take a fresh look at the case because the ZBA is the decision making body. He continued that if the ZBA grants the variance, they would come before the Planning Commission based on the conditions ZBA imposes.
Home Depot Assistant Store Manager indicated the change in the last 6 – 8 months in the Home Depot leadership. He noted a directive was passed out to the stores, which indicated that any violations in the store against the law of the community would result in job loss. He stated the leadership felt that this is one of the issues that is detrimental to the approval of additional stores. He noted their efforts to bring the stores up to their fullest potential. He stated the new leadership of the company has placed this issue on high priority.
Member Koneda asked Mr. Fisher for clarification. Although he was not in favor of the expansion, he felt it might be acceptable if it was done correctly. He stated the applicant would need to go before the ZBA and justify the need for the expansion. He explained that if the Planning Commission voted affirmatively on the motion, they were not supporting the motion. Instead they would be indicating that if the ZBA was to grant the variance; it meets the other conditions for site plan approval. He did not find a reason to not approve it. He questioned the result if the Planning Commission denied the site plan due to the required ZBA variance. Therefore, Member Koneda asked Mr. Fisher to explain how the ZBA might review the case based on the Planning Commission’s action.
Gerald Fisher did not feel that technically there would be any difference in terms of how the ZBA would look at the case. He stated in this situation, if the commission felt it was appropriate to not burden of a future agenda, they could approve it subject to a condition. They could indicate that it is not intended as part of the Commission’s action to influence the decision of the ZBA and that they are only acting upon the portion of the review that the Commission has jurisdiction to act upon.
Member Koneda asked if it would be agreeable to add this stipulation to the motion.
Member Landry accepted the amendment to the motion.
Member Koneda stated if the ZBA denied the request, then the request is denied. However, he questioned what would happen if ZBA grants the request and the Planning Commission denied the request.
Member Mutch asked if it could be on a Consent Agenda item.
Member Koneda thought that it could.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that she was not certain if it could even if it was approved. She referred to the City Attorney.
Gerald Fisher stated that it would be the Planning Commission’s protocol and they could do so if they wished.
Member Mutch restated that the proposed is not an allowable use. He stated the Planning Commission would be giving an approval for something that could not be approved by normal standards. He stated although it may meet the standards of the zoning district the use, is not allowable.
Joe Galvin responded to Member Mutch. He stated there was no useful purpose to requiring them to come back before the Planning Commission. He felt it would have a negative connotation. He stated the denotation would not change as indicated by Mr. Fisher. He stated it was clear that the use would go before the ZBA and that the other criteria under the ordinance have been met. He stated physically and aesthetically this was a "good thing". He asked that the Commission vote favorably on the motion that is currently before the Commission. He felt the real concerns were clearly articulated. He realized the operational issues and the message would be sent to the company immediately and directly.
PM-01-06-164 IN THE MATTER OF HOME DEPOT SALES EXPANSIONS SP 01-31 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON ZBA VARIANCE FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE IN A B-2 DISTRICT, WITH THE INDICATION THAT IT IS NOT INTENDED AS PART OF THE COMMISSION’S ACTION TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION OF THE ZBA AND THAT THEY ARE ONLY ACTING UPON THE PORTION OF THE REVIEW THAT THE COMMISSION HAS JURISDICTION TO ACT UPON, RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ZBA REQUIRE THE AFFIDAVIT AS PART OF THEIR DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY AND CONTINGENT UPON ALL OF THE CONSULTANT’S CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Landry, CARRIED (7-1): In the matter of Home Depot Sales Expansions SP 01-31 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval contingent upon ZBA variance for outdoor storage in a B-2 District, with the indication that it is not intended as part of the Commission’s action to influence the decision of the ZBA and that they are only acting upon the portion of the review that the Commission has jurisdiction to act upon, recommendation that the ZBA require the affidavit as part of their discretionary authority and contingent upon all of the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-164 CARRIED
Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini,
5. LEGAL BRIEFING
1) Code of Conduct
2) Sample motion sheets
Code of Conduct
Chairperson Piccinini stated that the Code of Conduct was approved by the City and had been enforced since 1991. She stated that the commissioners were supplied with the minutes from the Rules Committee Meeting. The meeting of March 27, 2001 began the discussions for Section III and Section IV. She summarized:
Section A and B Conflict of Interest - covered in the Bylaws in the Article from Secrest Wardle.
C 1 - covered in the Bylaws in the Standard of Conduct in several areas.
C 2 – Personal Interest - was too restrictive, Planning Commissioners should be held at the same standards as other Boards and Committees.
C 3 – Association with other Boards - was believed to be too restrictive and should be on a case by case basis for each commission member.
D – Procedures addressed in Bylaws and Article by Secrest Wardle.
E 1 – too restrictive. Planning Commissioners should be held at the same standards as other Boards and Committees.
E 2 – Covered in Standards of Conduct or the Resolution.
E 3 – Confidentiality is covered in Standards of Conduct No. 1
E 4 – part of the Rules Committee discussion.
Chairperson Piccinini indicated that several changes were made to the motions. The removal of the Landscape Section because there is not a separate motion for Landscape Plans. She noted the following Rules Committee meeting had discussions regarding the motion made to bring back to the Commission. The motion in the Section III - Conflict of Interest: moved by Canup, seconded by Churella and carried unanimously: to adopt the City Attorney’s Article and Mr. Arroyo’s handbook and remove the first three (3) pages of the City Attorney’s handbook in Section III – Conflict of Interest for all of the reasons stated at the first meeting. Regarding Section IV – Sample Motions A-F, she suggested that the sample motions be incorporated in the Planning Commission packets and all motions should stipulate reasons for denial. She stated this was moved by Canup, seconded by Churella and carried unanimously: to amend and include sample motions in Planning Commission packets.
Member Landry questioned if the information provided in the commissioner packets was the Resolution by the City of Novi that was passed in January of 1991.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.
Member Landry questioned if it is being suggested that the 1991 Resolution be substituted for Section III.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, no. She explained that several of the areas in Section III are already covered in the Resolution, the Bylaws or in another Article they already have from the attorneys.
Member Landry stated that the Resolution has already been passed ten (10) year ago.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.
Member Landry stated that there are existing Bylaws. Therefore, he questioned if the Rules Committee is suggesting that there is not a need for the entire Section III – Conflict of interest.
Chairperson Piccinini indicated that it would be the first three (3) pages - Conflict of Interest.
Member Landry stated this would encompass A – E.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.
Member Landry restated that it should be removed and is not needed.
Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.
Member Nagy questioned which book the commissioners should be using, the handbook from the City Attorney or the handbook she received at the beginning of her term.
Chairperson Piccinini indicated discussion at the Rules Committee to incorporate the two (2) books together. She stated this would be another motion and issue to discuss.
Member Nagy questioned if the request was to remove the Financial Interest, Personal Interest, etc…
Member Nagy questioned why this matter was being discussed with a book to use a the guide and existing bylaws.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that the reason was because the point is redundant.
Member Nagy clarified that a book exists that they already use.
Chairperson Piccinini stated Mr. Arroyo’s handbook was the only text that was approved by the Planning Commission. She stated the Legal handbook was not technically approved by the Planning Commission.
Member Nagy felt that the official planning commission book should be established, prior to the addition and subtracting of sections.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that this was also discussed. However, the idea was to remove the redundancy and incorporate verses leaving in the redundancy and taking it out again later. She felt that it should be streamlined first before they are combined.
Member Nagy restated that she would first like to have the Planning Commission determine which handbook should be used as the Official Planning Commission Handbook. She felt that once this was determined, the Commission could then determine the additions and subtractions of text. She indicated that she has read the books. She preferred the handbook from the seminar.
Member Koneda stated the handbooks are informational items that were presented by Consultants. He continued that the Legal Staff provided a handbook to guide the Planning Commission to act by. He stated that Mr. Arroyo presented a handbook indicating his perspective on planning. He stated that both of the books are guides. He reminded the Commission that they are governed by the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures. He stated the handbooks are information for the Commissioners to utilize as they chose when they are act with the rules and procedures. He stated the Rules of Procedures is the only document that governs the actions of the Planning Commission. He referred to page 6 of the Rules of Procedures. He indicated the brief comments regarding Voting and Conflict of Interest stated in Item 3.6(e) – Any members of the Commission shall be excused from discussing or voting on any issue in which that member has a financial interest other than the common public interest. He suggested that since the By-laws and Rules of Procedure is the only governing document he felt any action taken should be included in this document. Member Koneda stated any changes or added information regarding Conflict of Interest or Procedures should be made to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures. He felt it was not important what book the commissioners preferred because they do not govern the Commission. He suggested asking the Rules Committee if they would like incorporate the revisions to the By-laws.
Chairperson Piccinini agreed with Member Koneda.
Member Landry agreed with Member Koneda. He stated the only document the Commission has the ability to amend would be the By-laws and Rules of Procedure.
Member Koneda added that it would be appropriate to have more definition included in the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that it was suggested to send the ideas to the Rules Committee to find a recommendation, which they have done. She questioned if Member Koneda was suggesting a different motion.
Member Koneda suggested returning the matter to the Rules Committee and request the specific suggestion to be an amendment to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures and bring it back to the Commission as a change to Bylaws of Rules and Procedures.
PM-01-06-165 IN THE MATTER OF LEGAL BRIEFING 1) CODE OF CONDUCT TO RETURN THE MATTER TO THE RULES COMMITTEE TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION AS A CHANGE TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy: In the matter of Legal Briefing 1) Code of Conduct to return the matter to the Rules Committee to be an amendment to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures and return to the Commission as a change to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures
Chairperson Piccinini clarified if Member Koneda was also including to the sample motions. She stated the sample motions were a long term issue. She added that they are only suggestions.
Member Koneda stated there is a section called motions. He stated if the Rules Committee felt that the Commission should standardize the way the motions are made, which he agreed with, then he felt it should be added as 3.5 (c) under Motions. He suggested that it could also be added to the back as an Appendix. He stated that the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures would become longer in length, however, it is the document governing how the Commission is to conduct.
PM-01-06-166 IN THE MATTER OF LEGAL BRIEFING 1) CODE OF CONDUCT AND 2) SAMPLE MOTION SHEETS TO RETURN THE MATTER TO THE RULES COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES AND POSSIBLE APPENDIX ADDITIONS AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION AS A CHANGE TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy: In the matter of Legal Briefing 1) Code of Conduct and 2) Sample Motion Sheets to return the matter to the Rules Committee to determine changes to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures and possible appendix additions and return to the Commission as a change to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures
Member Nagy stated that she agreed with Member Koneda’s and Member Landry’s comments. She thanked Member Koneda for the clarification.
Member Mutch assumed that the Standards of Conduct already applied to the Commissioners. He felt the discussion on a committee level should include the possibility of it being a reference in the Bylaws of Rules and Procedure. He did not feel that there was any point to attach a lengthy text.
Chairperson Piccinini asked Member Koneda if he would amend his motion to include Member Mutch’s comment.
Member Koneda and Member Nagy accept the amendment.
PM-01-06-167 IN THE MATTER OF LEGAL BRIEFING 1) CODE OF CONDUCT AND 2) SAMPLE MOTION SHEETS TO RETURN THE MATTER TO THE RULES COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES AND POSSIBLE APPENDIX ADDITIONS AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION AS A CHANGE TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES AND TO INCLUDE THE RESOLUTION AS A REFERENCE TO THE BYLAWS OF RULES AND PROCEDURES.
Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Legal Briefing 1) Code of Conduct and 2) Sample Motion Sheets to return the matter to the Rules Committee to determine changes to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures and possible appendix additions and return to the Commission as a change to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures and to include the Resolution as a reference to the Bylaws of Rules and Procedures.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-167 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini,
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
Mr. Evancoe announced the information requested information regarding architectural review ordinances has been located and copies would be distributed to the Commissioners. He addressed Member Kocan’s concern regarding the possibility of notifications to residential property owners adjacent to non-residential properties when reviewing Preliminary Site Plans. He recalled the review of a Site Plan with residential adjacent to non-residential that clearly indicated the possibility of impact to the adjacent residential properties. However, because it was not a Public Hearing the residents were not notified and therefore, did not have the opportunity to express possible concerns. He indicated that the issue is still being looked into. He noted that the attempt is to utilize the assistance of Dave Maurice, GIS Environmental Service Manager, to find if this could be done efficiently with his GIS capabilities. He explained that the alternative would be overwhelming and involve counting the number of residential properties throughout the City that are located contiguous to non-residential. He stated that non residential would include everything such as office, industrial, commercial, etc… Mr. Evancoe hoped to have information regarding this matter by the July 11th or July 18th Planning Commission meeting.
Mike Fellows indicated that he does not reside at the City of Novi. He stated that often the applicant is allowed to speak during the discussion of a motion and other times not. He questioned if there was a rule regarding this. He felt that it was helpful during the discussion to be able to provide some information.
Chairperson Piccinini stated that the applicant would need to be asked by the Chair to speak. She added however, it could typically be requested by a commissioner.
PM-01-06-168 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 10:10 P.M.
Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:10 p.m.
VOTE ON PM-01-06-168 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini
Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant
Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji
July 26, 2001
Date Approved: August 1, 2001