View Agenda for this meeting
NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, November 20, 2002, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS-NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. Ten Mile Road
NOVI, MI 48375 (248) 347-0475
Proceedings had and testimony taken of the
NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me, Darlene K. May,
CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of
Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road,
Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, November 20, 2002.
PRESENT:
Commission Members Antonia Nagy, Lowell Sprague,
Lynne Paul, Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Lynn Kocan,
Larry Papp, John Avdoulos
ABSENT/EXCUSED:
Member David Ruyle
ALSO PRESENT:
Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney
Gerald Fisher, Planner Timothy R. Schmitt, City
Engineer Nancy McClain, Interim Landscape
Architect Mike McGinnis, Planning/Traffic Consultant
Rodney Arroyo, Benjamin Croy, Brian Coburn
REPORTED BY:
Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Wednesday, November 20, 2002
3 7:35 p.m.
4 - - -
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I
6 would like to call the meeting of the Planning
7 Commission to order at 7:35.
8 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please, we
9 will first do the roll call.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
11 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Here.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
13 MEMBER PAUL: Here.
14 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
15 MEMBER PAPP: Here.
16 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
17 MEMBER KOCAN: Here.
18 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here.
20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
21 MEMBER MARKHAM: Here.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Present.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
25 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Here.
3
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And Mr. Ruyle is
2 absent and excused. With that Ms. Paul if you would
3 lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.
4 (Pledge of Allegiance was recited.)
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
6 much. Before we actually go on to the agenda I notice
7 that the City has a court reporter here and I would
8 like everyone to be very nice to her and don't talk
9 too fast.
10 Darlene May is our court reporter.
11 The next item on the agenda is the
12 agenda itself. Does anybody have any additions or
13 deletions?
14 (None.)
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is no
16 further comment the Chair will entertain a motion to
17 approve the agenda as is.
18 MEMBER PAUL: So moved.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say
20 "Aye."
21 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Aye.
22 MEMBER PAUL: Aye.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Aye.
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: Aye.
25 MEMBER KOCAN: Aye.
4
1 MEMBER PAPP: Aye.
2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Aye.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes.
4 The fourth item on our agenda is
5 audience participation. At this point we have three
6 public hearings. If there is anyone in the audience
7 that would like to address the commission on anything
8 other than the public hearings please come forward to
9 do so. If you are here for any of the public hearings
10 that we are having you will be able to address the
11 commission at that time.
12 So with that is there anyone that
13 would like to address the commission on any subject
14 outside of the public hearings?
15 (None.)
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, I
17 will close the audience participation.
18 The next is correspondence. Madame
19 Secretary, do we have any correspondence?
20 MEMBER KOCAN: Nothing other than the
21 public hearings.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we
23 have any communications or any reports, Madame
24 Secretary?
25 MEMBER KOCAN: The Woodland Review
5
1 board reported at the last meeting that Commissioner
2 Papp and I would be at the City Council meeting on
3 Monday for an appeal but that has been withdrawn. So
4 we get the night off. That was for a swimming pool
5 that was proposed to be in the Woodlands that was
6 denied.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we
8 have any presentations, Ms. McClain?
9 MS. MCCLAIN: Thank you. Good
10 evening. I would like to introduce the newest member
11 of our new engineering staff his name is Benjamin Croy
12 and he comes to us from MCOM in Livonia. He has been
13 an engineer for six years and is a professional
14 engineer. He's also a graduate of the University of
15 Michigan and he lives in Ypsilanti with his wife and
16 family. And you'll be seeing a lot of him coming soon
17 because he will be taking over the plan review
18 duties. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
20 MR. CROY: Thank you.
21 MR. EVANCOE: Madame Chairman?
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
23 MR. EVANCOE: Ms. McClain and the
24 other attorney And I would like to express my
25 appreciation and thanks to all of you as members of
6
1 our Planning Commission for your attendance this
2 evening at our open house with the plan review
3 center. We had a good showing and a good discussion
4 and we were glad that you were able to see some of the
5 internal operations of the planning section and also
6 appreciate the attendance of our friends from the Novi
7 Youth as well.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
9 Mr. Evancoe, and the commission appreciates it as
10 well.
11 At this point we have nothing on the
12 consent agenda so I will move forward to the public
13 hearings.
14 The first public hearing that we have
15 on our agenda is Windward Bay Condominium Boat Slip,
16 Launch (Marina), Boardwalk, Site Plan Number 02-37.
17 Public hearing on the request of Windward Bay
18 Condominium Association for approval of a Preliminary
19 Site Plan and Wetland Permit. The subject property is
20 located in Section 3 on the southeast corner of the
21 West Lake Drive and Pontiac Trail in the RM-1
22 (Low-Density Multiple Family) District. The subject
23 property is 7.94 acres.
24 Mr. Schmitt?
25 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madame
7
1 Chair.
2 Just give you an idea of where this
3 site is located. If I can get the overhead. As you
4 can see, this is Walled Lake. The Windward Bay
5 Condominiums are located here along West Park Drive.
6 The City of Walled Lake is to the north and the North
7 Haven Woods is to the south. The proposed boat slips
8 will be going in approximately right here. One of
9 these maps shows that the property is multi-family
10 with single family addition to the south and
11 additional multiple family across West Park Drive to
12 the west. In addition, there's a small amount of
13 local commercial along Pontiac Trail, and as was
14 mentioned, the zoning is RM-1.
15 The city of Walled Lake also has a
16 multiple family development just to the north.
17 B-2 zoning here with the commercial and, in addition,
18 there's a commercial development to the north of
19 Walled Lake and single family housing forwards to the
20 south.
21 The proposal is for an additional
22 boat slip launch and paving of the existing boardwalk
23 at the Windward Bay Condominium site. Just to show
24 you briefly on the site plan, the proposal is to build
25 this, which is essentially the boat launch from the
8
1 existing parking lot here along the route of an
2 existing wood chip path which runs all the way out to
3 the existing boat slips here. In addition, they'll be
4 paving this path to allow for handicapped
5 accessibility and providing additional boat slips in
6 this area which are seasonal and to be taken out, much
7 like the ones that are already there.
8 To go through the review letters,
9 there was no landscape review letter for this. There
10 is no specific requirements to add landscaping for a
11 boat launch. It's fairly a unique use.
12 The Planning Review indicated two
13 waivers from City Council that will be necessary. One
14 for the boat launch, which is not permitted in the
15 lake front park, and one for the number of boat docks
16 in excess of the permitted 13. Both of these waivers
17 will have to go to City Council as I mentioned and
18 previously the Windward Bay Condominiums received a
19 waiver for the amount of boat slips that are already
20 there, which is eleven.
21 The wetland consultant indicated that
22 they feel that this proposal does not meet the intent
23 of the original approval which was done in 1990. They
24 feel that the intent of this approval was to, "Allow
25 for the boat slips in the current position while still
9
1 maintaining the wetlands to the north." Which is up
2 in this area.
3 There are no regular woodlands on the
4 site. Traffic review, the road to the boat launch
5 will need a design construction waiver from the City
6 Council because it is not 16 feet wide or the road
7 will have to be widened to 16 feet to meet the
8 requirements and the intersection with the parking lot
9 should be made to 90 degrees to provide better
10 access.
11 In addition, several -- both the fire
12 and traffic commented that a turnaround should be
13 placed perpendicular to the boat launch near the end
14 to provide for better access. However, this is not a
15 requirement. It's merely something they felt would
16 work better on the site. As I mentioned this is
17 previously -- the actual condominiums have been
18 previously approved in 1990 and went through the full
19 site plan review process at the time. They eventually
20 requested the boat slips onto Walled Lake and went in
21 front of City Council for the waiver. Under the Lake
22 Front Protection Ordinance, which is Chapter 36,
23 you're required to have 25 lineal feet of lake
24 frontage and a 150 square feet of actual park land,
25 what is called park land along the lake.
10
1 The site was deficient in terms of
2 lineal footage along the lake; however, they provided
3 an excess in square footage which was the reason for
4 the original waiver. The site provided substantially
5 more square footage than is needed for the number of
6 units that are there and substantially less than the
7 lineal frontage in the lake. So a compromise was
8 reached in that regards.
9 Also, it should be mentioned that the
10 City Attorney has given an opinion on this in that the
11 combination of boat launch and boat slips in this area
12 would constitute a marina under the City's ordinance.
13 In past case history in the state of Michigan marina
14 and several other terms have been used
15 interchangeably -- marina facility, docking facility,
16 boat launching facility and, therefore, this
17 considered marina would have to be licensed under the
18 City's Lake Front Protection Ordinance, Chapter 36
19 again.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
21 Mr. Schmitt.
22 I think we have a Mr. David Keast,
23 K-e-a-s-t, to represent Windward Bay Condominium
24 Association. If you could limit your presentation to
25 no longer than ten minutes we would appreciate it.
11
1 MR. KEAST: I'll be happy to do that,
2 thank you. I won't get into the details of the
3 presentation just made to you because factually I
4 really don't dispute them. What we are here tonight
5 to ask the counsel to consider is whether the counsel
6 -- whether the Planning Commission has not in fact
7 created a tempest within a teapot in this situation.
8 First of all, understand the context. We are not
9 talking about a public marina. The City Attorney in
10 what I have to characterize as an ill-advised and
11 therefore ill-considered for this City to follow
12 opinion, has concluded that this is a licensed marina
13 facility and, yet, I would point out that the
14 definition within the very ordinance under which the
15 license would be issued states, "That a marina means a
16 facility which is owned or operated by a person,
17 extends into or over either a lake or stream and
18 offers services to the public or members of the marina
19 and it is required that it be offered by the owner or
20 possessor for a valuable consideration.
21 This is a facility that is used
22 solely for the personal use of members and owners of
23 the Windward Bay Condominium and other residents of
24 that facility. This is done on a compensation basis,
25 it is not within the terms of the City of Novi
12
1 ordinance. The marina which is required to be
2 licensed by this community. That's the first point.
3 The second point, we have 51
4 condominiums here. We have ten boat slips. A limited
5 use of the lake front property by this community
6 presently access through what is a regulated wetlands
7 area under the original permit application is we have
8 a woodchip path that not only impairs the surrounding
9 area when it's used because it necessarily results in
10 a downtrodden condition in the wetlands area, but
11 which also denies access to handicapped persons to the
12 lake front.
13 The sole purpose, which my clients
14 are seeking to accomplish here, is to raise through
15 the ability to provide an additional facility to
16 certain owner -- to additional owners of that
17 facility, raising the number from ten to twenty boat
18 slips. Those monies are to be used to provide the
19 very improvements we're looking at and make this
20 accessible to the handicapped. Furthermore, not only
21 will it provide access to the handicapped under the
22 paved portion of the roadway, it will also provide
23 access to the handicapped which is beneficial to the
24 environment over a boardwalk which will be raised
25 above the level of the existing wetlands. That's all
13
1 that's being done here other than to install a boat
2 launch, again, for the personal use of the owners of
3 condominiums in Windward Bay.
4 I submit to you folks that while this
5 may fall within the terms of your lake front park
6 ordinance and that my clients may well have a need to
7 work with the City to comply with the reasonable
8 traffic and other considerations -- and they are
9 willing to do that -- nevertheless, it is not such a
10 burden upon Walled Lake or any of the neighboring
11 communities that falls within the intent of the lake
12 front property and the lake front ordinance. Since it
13 is only going to be a facility which will continue to
14 be used by the existing 51 condominium owners, only
15 now there may be as many as 20 boats instead of ten
16 boats. Now, the area as has been
17 described earlier is more than sufficient to permit
18 that. The ordinance in this case would penalize the
19 Windward Bay Condominiums only because it was designed
20 in a narrow strip of land and has approximately 350
21 feet of lake front frontage. So while there are a
22 number of objections that have been raised, in
23 summary -- and I don't want to exceed my ten
24 minutes -- I think it's important for you all to
25 understand that this is not some heavy burden that is
14
1 being placed on the neighbors. All of, you know, the
2 neighboring area is developed and there is no -- in
3 fact, the only area, the only neighbors who could
4 conceivably be effected are neighbors who reside
5 across the City line over in Walled Lake. That being
6 as it may, all we're doing is adding 10 seasonal boat
7 ramps -- seasonal boat slips, rather, boat docks, and
8 one boat launch for the personal use to replace that
9 which the City can no longer do.
10 You know, in the past your city
11 assisted people to access Walled Lake and they can no
12 longer do that safely because of the lower water
13 levels. This will provide a personal use boat access
14 limited -- and you should understand that under the
15 rules of the condominium that boat launch is
16 restricted to the people who own the boat slips in the
17 condominium. We have a unique structure in Windward
18 Bay in which these are limited condo homes that can
19 only be used by the people that are the owners of the
20 boat slips. It cannot even be used by the remainder
21 of the condominium owners. So, consequently, I submit
22 to you that you should give serious consideration to
23 applying a rule of reason to the request here in
24 permitting -- because in granting a variance on these
25 issues. And I'll be happy to provide the rest of my
15
1 time to you if you have any questions that I can
2 elaborate on any particular note.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. When I
4 turn it over to the commission if they have any
5 questions we will ask for your presence again.
6 MR. KEAST: Thank you very much.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next person
8 that I have that would like to come before the
9 commission to address the public hearing is a
10 Ms. Donna Willacker, W-i-l-l-a-c-k-e-r.
11 Ms. Willacker?
12 MS. WILLACKER: Good evening.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening.
14 MS. WILLACKER: How are you tonight?
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good.
16 MS. WILLACKER: As David -- as our
17 attorney has suggested we're only trying to provide
18 access to our lake in Novi to our handicapped people
19 that live in our residence. It's unconscionable to
20 realize the city of Novi nowhere has given access to
21 handicapped people on any of the waterways or made it
22 easy for them to utilize any of the waterways they're
23 responsible for in Novi.
24 We've been a good group of people
25 here at Windward Bay, a large tax paying base that
16
1 have been certainly loyal to the city of Novi and its
2 needs and now we have needs within our own community
3 to make sure that our handicapped people do indeed
4 gain access to our lake. It is required with the
5 wooden chip path being the way it is as the attorney
6 has resounded, you cannot -- if you're instable at all
7 in your ability to walk you cannot maneuver down that
8 chipped path.
9 The herbaceous growth is being
10 downtrodden every instance of walking on it. The
11 raised wooden boardwalk that we worked and designed
12 with the DEQ and the DNR, they certainly looked at not
13 disturbing the herbaceous vegetation and one of the
14 other initial critical points is to certainly maintain
15 the quality of our species of animals that do partake
16 in that area as well and the DEQ and DNR commended us
17 on not only our foresight to look for and take care of
18 the handicapped folks in our area, but also to protect
19 the wetlands, animals and the vegetation that reside
20 there and the only way we can achieve that goal is by
21 providing ten additional boat slips. The monies from
22 those additional boat slips would create the pavement
23 path and indeed the raised wooden boardwalk that the
24 DEQ and DNR thought most appropriate for the area so
25 there would be little or no disruption.
17
1 In fact, we would benefit the
2 herbaceous area by having the raised wooden boardwalk
3 and certainly caring for our animals in the area. I
4 beg you to care for the handicapped folks in our area.
5 I would further beg you off this particular agenda to
6 look into the handicapped needs in the city of Novi
7 and maybe wonder why those haven't been taken care of
8 prior to us meeting tonight. Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
10 much.
11 Mr. Fisher, could you correct me if
12 I'm wrong. I am in a condominium association myself.
13 It's my understanding that condominium association
14 owners are supposed to provide handicapped access, not
15 the City.
16 MR. FISHER: That's absolutely right.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
18 much. I just want to clarify that.
19 Our next member of the audience is
20 Mr. Anthony Hopeck, H-o-p-e-c-k.
21 Sir, if you would like to come
22 forwards.
23 MR. HOPECK: Good evening. Thanks
24 for meeting with us. Just bringing up some of the
25 points. As being one of the owners over at the
18
1 condominium complex and would like to get a boat slip
2 over there, just bringing up some of points our
3 attorney brought up as well. Just addressing the
4 handicapped issue and also with the land that we have
5 to work with out front just to have a little more
6 access for the people at our complex as private use
7 for ten additional slips. With funding coming from
8 that to take advantage of the -- you know, put in for
9 the cement to let us to get if for the handicapped and
10 the launches. That's about all I have to say.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
12 much.
13 Our next audience member who would
14 like to participate is Kevin Dittmer, D-i-t-t-m-e-r.
15 If you would like to come forwards, sir.
16 MR. DITTMER: Good evening.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening.
18 MR. DITTMER: I am petitioning for
19 approval. Just a few minor points that I would like
20 to make. You know, of the impact that this is going
21 to have, I think it's going to be a lot less than
22 people might perceive. I know myself and a couple of
23 the other owners, you know, we're looking to not put
24 off shore race boats. We actually have kayaks and
25 things like that that have minimal impact to the
19
1 environment and to the lake. Other than that, you
2 know, the people that seem to have a problem with
3 this, with it being an environmental attack are the
4 same people that, you know, go out with their high
5 polluting two stroke engines on the pontoon boats and
6 things like that, burning leaves or fertilizing their
7 lawns. There's a lot of other things that have a
8 greater impact on our lake, health and environment
9 then what we're proposing. So that's all I -- we're
10 all members of the same community and we just all want
11 rightful access to the lake. Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
13 much, sir.
14 Is there anyone else that would like
15 to address the commission regarding this subject?
16 Yes, Mr. Smith?
17 MR. SMITH: Good evening, Madame
18 Chair, members of the commission and the staff of the
19 City of Novi. I'm here representing the LAHA, The
20 Lake Area Homeowners Association, as a president and
21 I'm here to willing to speak on the site approval of
22 02-37 that we're looking at this evening.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: We need your name
24 and address for the record, please.
25 MR. SMITH: I'm sorry. That's
20
1 Asa Smith, 1294 East Lake Drive.
2 As you probably know in your packets
3 that you have been furnished with all the basic
4 criteria that has gone on with this complex over
5 approximately the last 15 years. This all started in
6 1988 with the same thing that's before you tonight
7 about putting in a dock, a facility and working its
8 way through the wetlands and the woodlands that were
9 there. I think if you have read and looked through
10 the packet that was all brought forth with the minutes
11 from some of the meetings that took place from '88 up
12 into the '90s until this package was approved you will
13 find that some of the issues in there, the criteria
14 for what is happening tonight has already been
15 established. That they have got what they looked for
16 and what they require and what was given to them at
17 the time both by the DEQ and the DNR and the City of
18 Novi and the Planning Commissioners at that time.
19 We feel that that is adequate. That
20 what they have there now is what they asked for and,
21 if you would recall or probably look back into the
22 deeds and covenants and restrictions that were put
23 onto the association at that time, you would find that
24 there will probably be included in there as to what
25 they can do and what they have to abide by. I believe
21
1 that somewhere in those minutes it states the fact
2 that this was part of the criteria that would've been
3 asked for so they would have to abide and follow by
4 the regulations that were set forth at that time.
5 We are concerned as homeowners on the
6 the quality of the lake and the amount of boats and
7 the usage that are available at any given time could
8 be used on the lake. We feel with what is there and
9 in your information packages that with the ordinances
10 and the rules and regulations that have been
11 established by the City, that criteria has been met
12 and we have the different ordinances -- specifically,
13 the keyhole ordinances which limits the frontage that
14 we can have for boats and I believe if you look at the
15 old plans and the current plans you will find that
16 they have not changed in that great much of a detail.
17 If they put in the pavement and
18 there, I know, that's a wetland area and it's kind of
19 critical as to how that will be constructed, what will
20 be the subbasis, how the road will hold up over a
21 period of time and what will happen with the precast
22 concrete slabs that will be established and put into
23 the lake. That bottom land from that area is what we
24 know as muck, plain swamp-like muck and there is no
25 stability unless you excavate and backfill it for
22
1 quite a ways down to give it stability. Although it
2 may ascetically look good when it's first put into
3 position, to be operable there are many things that
4 are effected, but the ice freeze and the thawing and
5 so forth over the years and I think that it will not
6 be a good thing that will happen for the City.
7 So I just hope that you have all
8 looked at the information and have taken a look at the
9 site, studied what is there and what the potential is
10 that they're planning to put in place. So I trust you
11 to make your decisions and help with this tonight.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
13 Mr. Smith.
14 MR. SMITH: Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there anyone
16 else that would like to comment on this subject?
17 Yes, ma'am. Would you please come
18 forward and state your name, address and spell your
19 last name for the court reporter.
20 MS. HOLDEN: Beth Holden, 44750
21 Bayview Drive, Number 38, and the last name is
22 H-o-l-d-e-n.
23 I live in Windward Bay and I've lived
24 there for three years. I have a kayak and I am also
25 one of the people that would like to get a boat dock.
23
1 I have been hauling my kayak down to the water for
2 three years now. I put wheels on it because it's too
3 heavy for me to carry. One of the things that
4 concerns me doing that is that I am hauling it through
5 the wetland areas and all of that. If I had a path at
6 least I wouldn't be, you know, doing that.
7 If I had a boat dock my boat would be
8 down there. One of the other issues I wanted to
9 address was the gentleman that spoke before me said
10 that the lake is so busy. I've been on the lake
11 countless times in my kayak. Normally I'm one of five
12 people on the lake in my boat. I've never even run
13 across anybody else, you know, anywhere near me. I
14 don't really think that it's an issue of, you know,
15 the lake is too busy. I'd also like to bring up, my
16 father who was handicapped never got to see the lake
17 because he couldn't get down there. He passed away
18 last year so he will never see the lake but it
19 would've been very nice to have the path so that he
20 could've gone down there. Thank you very much.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, ma'am.
22 Is there anyone else that would like
23 to address the commission regarding this issue?
24 MS. WILLACKER: I'd like to make a
25 correction if I may.
24
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You may.
2 MS. WILLACKER: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you can.
4 Give your name again.
5 MS. WILLACKER: I did. Donna
6 Willacker. The gentleman, I believe Tim Schmitt,
7 noticed that we didn't have a turnaround existing on
8 this property. That indeed is incorrect. We have a
9 massive back parking area where we have emergency
10 turnaround available for the full size fire trucks of
11 Novi and it would be more than adequate and, again, in
12 the two and a half years we've dealt with the DEQ and
13 DNR on this project to make sure the impact was
14 minimal, in fact, that the impact of this project
15 provided benefits as opposed to a negative effect that
16 we're currently dealing with they found that more than
17 adequate and more than impressive to handle the
18 situation.
19 He also stated that that would be
20 pavement from the back parking area. Again, which is
21 large enough to do at least one full size of Novi fire
22 truck to do any backing up or emergency turnaround.
23 It has a "Y" back there that allows additional.
24 Again, it is shown on the one picture of the aerial
25 photo. The view of it is disturbed by the number of
25
1 trees in that particular photo but if you were to look
2 closely you can clearly see we have a massive amount
3 of land dedicated to that currently paved.
4 You also noted that would be all
5 pavement all the way back to the existing docks.
6 Indeed that is not correct. The DEQ and DNR felt it
7 most fitting and most beneficial for the area in a
8 cleanup matter, in a cleanup mode to indeed have the
9 raised boardwalk. So I just want that to stand
10 corrected and you should also know the other thing
11 that should be mentioned here before any voting takes
12 place is originally this gentleman Mr. Schmitt
13 mentioned that all these variances were given back in
14 1988. That was, indeed the case. In 1988 when a
15 developer was out there developing the project for
16 this multi-family issuance, these are no longer held
17 by a developer. They are individually owned
18 cooperatives. There is one 51st of all that lake
19 property down there that each 51 people own. So the
20 same rules that the people have requested variances
21 for in 1988 none of the conditions exist the same way.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
23 MS. WILLACKER: And indeed the care
24 and concern for our handicapped people remains.
25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
26
1 Is there anyone else that would like
2 to address the commissioners?
3 Yes, ma'am, please come forwards.
4 MS. LORI: Hi, my name is Margaret
5 Lori. I live in the South Point Condominiums at 1127
6 South Point Drive and the president of the
7 association. But, personally not in the context,
8 personally I applaud them wanting to provide for
9 handicapped people. I have a vested interest in that
10 and I think it's really nice; however, I'm really
11 against the additional boat slips or boat launch. We
12 at South Point have approximately 350 feet of lake
13 frontage. We have 72 units. We have 13 boat slips
14 which is all we're allowed under the Novi ordinance.
15 Certainly other people would enjoy having them.
16 Certainly we would enjoy the revenue from selling them
17 to people; however, it's not good for the lake. Two
18 years ago they did a count on the registered boats on
19 the lake and there were 468 at the time. That's a lot
20 of boats. Now, obviously they're not all out at the
21 same time but they're only so many boats that are
22 really doable per acre without getting dangerous and
23 our lake is constructed such that the docks stick out,
24 a lot of them 100 feet out into the lake. So you take
25 that into consideration out of the 640 acres that it
27
1 has and then you also take out the nonusable area with
2 the rocks and marsh land and it shrinks the area
3 down. We have a lot of Ski-Doos and whatnot.
4 There's a lot of beautiful kayaks
5 like the young lady mentioned and we welcome them,
6 but, no, I don't think that this should be allowed.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
9 much, ma'am.
10 Is there anyone else that would like
11 to address the commission?
12 Seeing none I will close the public
13 hearing responses.
14 I'm sorry, Madame Secretary, do we
15 have any correspondence.
16 MEMBER KOCAN: We do, Madame Chair.
17 We have responses to the public hearing form and I
18 have seven approvals and 28 objections and if you'll
19 bear with me I will be reading parts of each of them.
20 So the court reporter knows the names and
21 addresses are on each of the forms so I'm not going to
22 spell each of them. I am going to discuss them all.
23 The approvals first.
24 From Mark Walls, 44800 Bayview Drive.
25 The reason for approval increased accessibility of the
28
1 lakefront for handicapped individuals. Provides
2 residents with a boat launch. In the spring and other
3 wet times the raised walkway would keep low areas of
4 walk down to the existing docks from being disturbed.
5 It would also provide revenue for much needed projects
6 around the community.
7 Approval from Keith Mannor, 44700
8 Bayview Drive. Believes it would add value to the
9 area.
10 Approval for two sites owned by
11 Haitham Semma, 1611 West Lake Drive, 1623 West Lake
12 Drive. Believes the request is great for the City,
13 the lake area and the community.
14 A. Nels Carlson, 44700 Bayview
15 Drive. Supports this because of increased property
16 values and believes it's already been authorized by
17 the DEQ.
18 John Martin, 44800 Bayview Drive, 100
19 percent in favor of the plans.
20 Cynthia Harrington, 44950 Bayview
21 Drive, approves.
22 The objections. First by
23 George Kiba, K-i-b-a, 1127 South Lake Drive. Believes
24 the lake is overcrowded, makes a comments that it
25 appears an umbrella board composed of planners from
29
1 Walled Lake and Novi should rule on such matters. It's
2 upsetting further the birds' sanctuary and
3 overcrowding are other opposing reasons.
4 Gerald Ross, 1911 West Lake Drive.
5 Objects because when the development was first built
6 the condo owners knew of the keyholing ordinance and
7 the opposition to more boats on the lake they were
8 allotted. Let the current owners have a lottery for
9 those slips. No more.
10 Roger Curtis, II, 1192 West Lake
11 Drive. States that the original stipulation was that
12 there would be no development and usage of the lake in
13 the woodlands and wetland. Believes that the
14 development company that purchased this property has
15 not lived up to the original agreement.
16 Susan Curtis, 1192 West Lake Drive,
17 objects because the old DNR permit allowed ten boats
18 every summer. Every summer there are typically twelve
19 to fourteen or more boats on the docks. In the last
20 three years there has been a boat lift in the lake
21 next to the docks. In the winter on the shore the
22 lift in the docks are being stored. Also the 25 foot
23 green bumper across the lake front and the backside of
24 the property has been cut on. There's all night
25 parties and campfires already on the property.
30
1 Joann Aloe, 1529 West Lake Drive
2 objects because the boat launch will encourage
3 nonresidents to bring boats. Concerned also about
4 water quality problems coming in from other lakes
5 foreign to Walled Lake and condo owners who bought
6 there did so knowing Walled Lake had a limited number
7 of access points with the protection of all.
8 David Boyer, 1191 West Lake Drive,
9 objects because of overcrowding. All residents with
10 property on the lake should be part of this proposal
11 and I guess I have a question with that comment. It
12 was also stated that the public notice was received on
13 11-16. Which is three days prior to the meeting. Is
14 that within our notice requests?
15 MR. SCHMITT: That was within the
16 notice request time and obviously we can't control how
17 quick the mail gets to them. They were sent out in
18 the time required.
19 MEMBER KOCAN: That was in the
20 letter. I just wanted to address that.
21 Objection from James Bolz, B-o-l-z,
22 1689 Harbor Cove, strongly objects. Number one,
23 directly violates the lake front property protection
24 ordinance. Number two, further disrupts this wetland
25 area. Establishes a precedent of a walkway through
31
1 wetlands. Number three, this is a keyhole. There is
2 too little lake front for this many residents and 21
3 boat slips are not justifiable. It would create a
4 true marina. Number four, who will regulate and
5 monitor the launch. "I foresee numerous launches of
6 Jet Skis and other boats."
7 Christy Weindorf, 1641 Westland Lake
8 Drive. Keyholing. No control over company boats.
9 "Hasn't this been turned down before?"
10 Elizabeth Casemore, 1155 South Lake
11 Drive, objects because of water pollution, boat
12 traffic access, destruction of the swan area.
13 Bernard Grisco, 1127 South Lake
14 Drive, objects to boat launch.
15 Marilyn Hickman, 1127 South Lake
16 Drive, access needs to be limited in order to keep the
17 lake protected and beautiful.
18 Carol Johnston, 1601 West Lake Drive.
19 "What about the one boat to each 40 feet of property
20 you own? How can these people keep getting more than
21 the lake front property owners who are paying higher
22 taxes. This has to stop."
23 Stephanie Spackman, 1653 West Lake
24 Drive, the wetland should not be compromised.
25 Kenneth Penn, 1929 West Lake Drive,
32
1 believes that a boat launch is a DNR issue.
2 Overcrowding on the lake, strongly opposes any
3 additional boat slips.
4 Sarah Gourlay, 124 North Haven,
5 states years ago she's been mowing behind -- "Years
6 ago I have been mowing behind my house. They did not
7 want me to. Mowed the weeds and they put a lock on my
8 gate. I mowed back there for 43 years and we on this
9 side of the street are not allowed down to the lake.
10 So we do not get any use of the lake behind my
11 property or anyone else on this side of North Haven."
12 Virginia Runyon, 1155 South Lake,
13 objects because of environmental noise pollution, lake
14 access issues.
15 Carl Laurie, 1127 South Lake Drive.
16 They already have the allowed boat slips. Swans are
17 nesting in that area. It would contribute to
18 overcrowding.
19 Roland McMichael and Mary McMichael,
20 1127 South Lake Drive. "Absolutely not. Don't let
21 the ongoing Sandstone fiasco blur your vision."
22 Joseph T. Ross, 1127 South Lake
23 Drive, objects.
24 Carl Andrew Travis, 1127 South Lake
25 Drive, objects because of too many boats and it's in
33
1 violation of City ordinance.
2 Tim Richardson, 1511 West Lake Drive,
3 objects because there's already enough boat slips.
4 "Same thing as keyholing which is not allowed in
5 Novi."
6 Arthur Zelinsky, 1155 South Lake
7 Drive. "There's currently overcrowding on the lake.
8 Could become hazardous."
9 Carol Smith, 1127 South Lake Drive,
10 overcrowding. Requesting extra boat spaces when other
11 places can't have more.
12 Looks like Gary -- G-r something
13 N-d-s-k-e, 116 North Haven. They already have a lot
14 of boat slips now.
15 Rebecca V. Gulyas, 1155 South Lake
16 Drive, overcrowding and wetlands are issues that she
17 objects to crowding more.
18 Harold Ward, 1127 South Lake Drive,
19 this will increase boat traffic.
20 Joseph Cameron, 1127 South Lake
21 Drive, too much traffic on the lake. Especially
22 during the weekends.
23 And I cannot read the name. I
24 believe it's 135 North Haven. No wetland should be
25 destroyed for a boat launch. Also there's
34
1 overcrowding on the lake.
2 Those are all of the responses I
3 have, Madame Chair.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
5 much, Madame Secretary. With that I will turn this
6 over to the commission. Mr. Avdoulos?
7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you, Madame
8 Chairman.
9 MR. EVANCOE: Just before the
10 commission goes into its discussion I would like to, I
11 guess, correct the correction that was offered by the
12 applicant on one point. She mentioned a disagreement
13 about this turnaround that has been proposed by our
14 planning and traffic consultant. That turnaround is
15 actually suggested to be down near the water at the
16 point where the launching would take place. It's not
17 to replace or somehow interfere with the existing
18 turnaround that's closer to the residences.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I
20 think all the commissioners I can speak for that's how
21 we read it, Mr. Evancoe, but thank you for that
22 correction.
23 Who would like to start.
24 Mr. Avdoulos?
25 MEMBER AVDOULOS: First of all, I
35
1 guess throughout all the correspondence and
2 information that we received I didn't see anywhere --
3 and anybody can correct me if I'm wrong -- about the
4 big issue being barrier free access to the boat
5 docks. All I read and all I saw was that we want to
6 propose ten extra boat docks, a drive down to the boat
7 launch, a boardwalk and nothing that -- the applicant
8 has not provided a narrative in any form or fashion on
9 the drawings that indicated that part of this project
10 is to provide access for barrier free and that's first
11 and foremost. It's not that I have a problem with it.
12 It's just that it was never brought up in any of our
13 literature.
14 If the issue is to provide barrier
15 free access to the boat docks then I don't see any
16 problem if the applicant would've come forward to
17 provide access to the existing boat docks and, you
18 know, work at that, but to create a whole set of new
19 docks, provide access to it and indicate that they're
20 basically for barrier free purposes, I just didn't
21 like the way that was presented. There is no question
22 that nobody wants to deny anybody use of the lake.
23 There's a couple of questions that I
24 have, Madame Chair. One of them is in regards to --
25 and I did have the same question whether this is a
36
1 dock or is this a marina and one question I have to
2 the applicant is for the extra docks and for the docks
3 that are sitting there now, is anybody paying any
4 money for this? Are these docks dedicated? Are they
5 reserved?
6 MR. EVANCOE: These are privately
7 owned. They are privately owned by condominium owners
8 who own these docks.
9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: So do they own them
10 or do they pay a monthly fee or rent?
11 MR. KEAST: No. They own them. They
12 purchase them and own them. They pay no fee other
13 than the association dues toward maintenance.
14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: So based on that,
15 then, I go to the counsel. The question as to whether
16 this is dock or a marina, I read the commentary and I
17 was looking at the same time at the City of Novi
18 ordinance with regard to waterways. And I sort of
19 came to the same conclusion and I just wanted at least
20 for the record, you know, for our guidance to help us
21 along. And you state your opinions
22 MR. FISHER: Okay. Thank you. Essentially
23 there are two avenues of thought that are relevant
24 here. First of all, treating a commonly owned and
25 utilized dock like this as a marina is consistent with
37
1 the statewide trends. I believe that the rulings of
2 the DNR slash DEQ are consistent with that, including
3 homeowner's associations, that operate a dock like
4 this for -- that is commonly used by a number of
5 people is considered to be a marina.
6 I am familiar with a case in the
7 Oakland County Circuit Court decided in 1993 by one of
8 our senior jurists, now the Honorable Richard Kuhn,
9 that did have a specific case right on the point of
10 whether
11 or not a homeowner's association is a marina and
12 indeed he held it was a marina.
13 The second avenue of thinking on this
14 type of issue is to look at the ordinance for the
15 purpose of determining what it attempts to do. If you
16 read the ordinance as a whole what you find is that
17 this is not -- this is not a dock that is a single
18 family residence where one person is responsible for
19 the entire structure and for what occurs there. It
20 isn't anything that is one home and one dock and where
21 you have this common facility. The ordinance is
22 attempting to get at things such as whether or not the
23 State permit has been issued for obvious health,
24 safety and welfare considerations there. Whether the
25 dock structure and facilities are safe because you
38
1 don't have a one-on-one thing where somebody is
2 responsible only for themselves. Whether there are
3 minimum specifications for a dockage purpose when you
4 have a common scheme. Whether there is sufficient
5 parking available, because if there isn't sufficient
6 parking what is going to happen there? Whether there
7 is adequacy in terms of toilet facilities as well as
8 any boat cleanout facilities for sanitary purposes
9 and, lastly, an attempt to make sure there is the
10 absence of pollution. All of these criteria in this
11 ordinance are legitimately directed to a common scheme
12 of boat ownership and usage at the water front in an
13 effort to make sure that these very precious and
14 valuable lake resources are maintained and conserved
15 in a proper manner and that they are safely used. And
16 if you put all of that together in this situation, it
17 would seem fairly clear that the intent of the
18 ordinance is to regulate this facility.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you. Yeah,
21 and I guess that dovetails into one of the questions I
22 had and it was a real simple one. The drawings have
23 not been sealed and typically engineering drawings
24 when they're presented they're sealed because somebody
25 takes responsibility for them. The zoning ordinance
39
1 indicates that the documents should at least
2 accommodate a capacity of 200 pounds per foot. So you
3 have design criteria to make sure the dock is adequate
4 and safe for the users. That is within the ordinance
5 and along with that are issues as to licensing. Does
6 the owner of this dock have to be licensed? Whether
7 they put this new one now or the existing now, do they
8 have to maintain it on a yearly basis as it's stated
9 in the zoning ordinance? Is there enough parking
10 spaces on-site? Because the parking is one space per
11 two berths so if they're looking for -- it will be a
12 total of 20 something spaces so two berths and then
13 plus the one space per five foot of dock length.
14 None of that is depicted on the
15 drawings so we can make the determination of what is
16 going on. Is there an environmental impact study?
17 The engineer on the drawings indicates there is not.
18 MR. KEAST: Excuse me, sir.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, you may not
20 interrupt the commission at this point.
21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I did not ask a
22 question.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: When he asks a
24 question. You can let him finish.
25 MR. KEAST: I apologize.
40
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's up to the
2 Commissioner right now.
3 MEMBER AVDOULOS: The other thing was
4 the fact that the Fire Marshall recommending a
5 turnaround area at the base of the proposed dock and
6 one of the commissioners has indicated that that is a
7 260 foot long drive that you're going to go backwards
8 and is twelve feet wide so it seems kind of difficult
9 to do in that configuration that's shown.
10 The whole issue when I first read
11 this comes up to what happened years ago where a
12 deficiency of 930 feet of lake frontage was waived by
13 City Council; 1,275 feet minimum required, 345 that's
14 present. So the property itself received in my
15 opinion the maximum that it could receive at that time
16 and it received a waiver. The intent of the previous
17 Planning Commission was to limit the overuse of the
18 lake, limit the stress on the natural environmental
19 features, conserve and develop these natural resources
20 and City policy is to protect these lakes in
21 overusage, degradation or destruction. I'm not
22 indicating that ten more boats are going to cause a
23 big problem, but this slip along with the next slip is
24 going to basically wipe out the 345 feet of beach
25 front that this piece of property has.
41
1 And there's a lot of other issues
2 that are involved and I'm sure the other Planning
3 Commissioners have their opinions and comments and
4 statements, but based on the zoning ordinance, as it
5 relates to the lake front use standard in the intent
6 of City policy within the ordinance, right now I can't
7 support an approval of this project.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
9 Mr. Avdoulos.
10 Do we have any other further
11 comments? Mr. Shroyer?
12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madame
13 Chair. I have just a few questions and most of them
14 will be addressed to the City. First of all, in
15 regard to the license issue are there other, quote,
16 unquote, marinas within the City of Novi currently
17 licensed?
18 MR. SCHMITT: South Point
19 Condominiums are probably the only thing. I don't
20 believe they are actually.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's no marinas
22 in Novi.
23 MR. KEAST: It's not a licensed
24 marina.
25 MEMBER SHROYER: The second question
42
1 I would have and this is primarily because I am not a
2 boater, sailer, whatever the proper term is.
3 Referring to the kayaks that are currently being used
4 and I'll address this to Mr. Keast.
5 MR. KEAST: Yes, sir?
6 MEMBER SHROYER: How are the kayaks
7 currently being launched that don't own a boat slip?
8 MR. KEAST: Probably could best ask
9 one of the individuals who was up here earlier.
10 MR. SCHMITT: I know they can get it
11 down there.
12 MR. KEAST: They are currently being
13 carried down to the launch from the shore, through
14 existing wetland areas in the shore.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: At least for the
16 kayaks they wouldn't need a concrete slab out in the
17 lake to launch a boat.
18 MR. KEAST: That would be true.
19 MEMBER SHROYER: They can do it right
20 from the shore.
21 MR. KEAST: That would be true.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Has there been any
23 consideration for any type of storage and I know
24 that's all a whole new set of ordinances and
25 everything else?
43
1 MR. KEAST: My understanding as I was
2 indicating earlier both DNR and DEQ have been involved
3 in this project for three years and approved things
4 after extensive study and I might mention after --
5 it's not as though the City has been ignored in this
6 process. The planning staff was involved in this
7 process in October of 2000, I believe. So at any rate
8 the ordinance-
9 MEMBER SHROYER: (Interposing) DNR
10 would not permit.
11 MR. KEAST: DNR has indicated that it
12 is not something they would find acceptable.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. This can
14 maybe go to Aimee Kay.
15 One of the statements in our packet
16 says there was incorrect statement addresses. Can you
17 address that for me, please.
18 MS. KAY: Aimee Kay, JCK and
19 Associates Consulting of Novi.
20 I'm going to defer to my letter of
21 August 27th, 2002. On the first page I think you're
22 referring to I mentioned that -- I'll read part of it
23 and then I'll answer your questions.
24 Well, the plan that was submitted to
25 our office did lack significant information. What we
44
1 usually look for in a plan submittal is a recent
2 wetland boundary flagged up and marked in the field
3 and we go out and verify the flagging. We see if it
4 matches the plan submittal and we go through what the
5 proposed impacts are going to be.
6 I mentioned on the first page of that
7 we did receive what seemed to be an overlay or a copy
8 of the prior submittal from 1988. And it lacked
9 significant information as far as cross sections. We
10 waived at our discretion any wetland boundary since I
11 had seen the site twelve years ago and felt
12 comfortable in general the layout with the wetlands
13 did represent the wetlands and lakeshore hadn't
14 changed significantly, but that's what I meant by that
15 depiction. We did have some problems with the plan
16 overall just because we usually do require more
17 information on the plan.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you very much.
19 Leafing down through basically
20 everything by the way I am very much in favor of
21 trying to provide some type of access for handicapped
22 and I think the boardwalk is an excellent option to
23 put forth for that because at least when I went out
24 there the woodchipped path basically is gone. It's
25 disintegrated. It's been removed or whatever and I
45
1 can see how it would be very difficult for anyone with
2 a disability to be able to take advantage of the lake
3 front. However, the boat launch is not there. Does
4 not meet other requirements under Section 3662. The
5 way I read it we currently had waived and approved the
6 eleven boat slips that somewhere it said that based on
7 the 25 linear foot of lake front it could be up to
8 13. Is that correct?
9 MS. KAY: Yeah. City Council applied
10 the standard. They allowed them to have eleven at the
11 time of the initial waiver.
12 MEMBER SHROYER: If we were to
13 consider the possibility of granting an additional two
14 slips could that be added on to the existing one or is
15 that going to extend into the Walled Lake property?
16 MR. SCHMITT: I believe the lifting
17 slip would have to be extended further out in the
18 lake. I don't believe it would go far enough north to
19 reach into the actual city of Walled Lake. Is that
20 what you're asking?
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
22 MR. SCHMITT: I don't believe it
23 would reach far enough north.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Could an extension
25 be made on the bottom portion of one of the T's to add
46
1 two more slips?
2 MR. SCHMITT: That's a matter of
3 configuration on the existing slip "T".
4 MEMBER SHROYER: The only other thing
5 I wanted to say is this: We as a commission have to
6 take seriously all the legal representations that we
7 have, Madame Chair. The representation of our staff
8 and of our consultants. That charge basically of our
9 commission is to review the ordinances and determine
10 whether or not they are appropriate and whether or not
11 they should be upheld. From what I've read and from
12 what I heard this evening from the audience and also
13 from correspondence, it's my opinion that the correct
14 ordinances are appropriate in this instance and do
15 need to be upheld.
16 Thank you, Madame Chairman.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
18 Commissioner Paul?
19 MEMBER PAUL: I add after written
20 correspondence and four to one ratio opposing approval
21 and receiving negative responses from two other
22 associations this evening, it's just a big comment
23 and I agree with the two previous speakers. I'm not
24 going to be in support of this in the matter of
25 Windward Bay Condominiums SP02-37. Motion to deny the
47
1 preliminary site plan and wetland for the following
2 reasons: Windward Bay Condominiums must obtain a
3 license under the provisions of Chapter 36, Article 2,
4 Division 2 of the Novi City Code in order to construct
5 and operate ten new seasonal boat slips and a
6 boardwalk and boat launch. Gerald Fisher's letter
7 dated October 31st, 2002.
8 Section 36 dash 31 is in violation
9 because it is unlawful for any person to engage in the
10 business of operating a dock and/or marina without
11 obtaining a license under the division. The violation
12 in Section 36 dash 32 requires any person wishing to
13 engage in the business of operating a dock or a marina
14 must apply to the Building Department for a license
15 and this must be examined by a professional engineer.
16 The number of boat docks proposed are
17 in excess of the 13 committed boat slips per Section
18 36 dash 62. The proposed site is in violation of the
19 City of Novi's design and construction standards
20 Figure 9 dash 6. The intersection is not in a 90
21 degree angle to the existing asphalt pavement and the
22 width is less than 16 feet at 12 feet currently. A
23 turnaround area is not provided for the 300 foot boat
24 launch and a boat launch is not permitted in a lake
25 sight per ordinance 36 dash 62.
48
1 The plan did not meet the wetland and
2 water course protection ordinance and the wetland and
3 water course setback by the zoning 92 dash 98. The
4 plantings and borders are installed at the end of the
5 parking area at the turnaround to prohibit vehicles
6 from entering the area. That the existing forest
7 wetland area remain undisturbed. That the woodchip
8 path not exceed five feet in width. That the
9 herbaceous vegetation along the northern borderline
10 property line and adjacent to Walled Lake remain.
11 That the limit of actual lake front of 1.5 acres
12 within the southeastern portion of the project allow
13 herbaceous vegetation to remain. Have ten seasonal
14 boat slips. Limited, maintained mowing area and
15 minimal beach standing. Five boats to be greater than
16 five horsepower and five boats to be less than five
17 horsepower.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have a
19 second to that motion?
20 MEMBER KOCAN: Support.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has
22 been made and seconded. Do I have any additional
23 comments from the commissioners?
24 Commissioner Markham?
25 MEMBER MARKHAM: I appreciate
49
1 especially Mr. Avdoulos's comments. They were very
2 thorough so I'll try not to be redundant but I do want
3 to go on record with my opinion as to where this falls
4 for me. For me the issue is really ordinance
5 compliance. The ordinance, the watercourse ordinance
6 is written specifically to address issues of density.
7 If we didn't know how many people lived in this
8 particular unit, but we went all the way around the
9 lake and we divided it up evenly according to how many
10 people could be around the lake, that's how I believe
11 the density requirements and the frontage requirements
12 were developed and just because this condominium
13 complex has 51 units doesn't mean they should have
14 access for 51 boats. If we did that for every
15 condominium complex or multi-family unit that wants to
16 be around Walled Lake we would have more boats than we
17 need. So I believe the frontage requirements are
18 valid and should be upheld.
19 The boat launch for me is a real open
20 question. We haven't discussed it very much tonight
21 because I think there have been other issues that have
22 overridden, but I see a lot of potential for lack of
23 control of this boat launch and for people to be able
24 to use it -- or people to try to use it that shouldn't
25 be able to use it on a regular basis. So that is
50
1 something that I am very uncomfortable with and mainly
2 for the reason that this is not in compliance with our
3 existing ordinances in several cases, I will be
4 supporting the motion to deny.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, very
6 much. Do I have any further comments? Commissioner
7 Papp?
8 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madame
9 Chair. I would like to say I agree with my fellow
10 commissioners. I too had a problem with the boat
11 launch and the turnaround and the twelve foot driveway
12 and also the 260 foot length and also the problem with
13 the ordinances and the way they're written and the way
14 that they want them to amend this. So I too will be
15 supporting the motion.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
17 Commissioner Kocan?
18 MEMBER KOCAN: Our charge is the
19 ordinances and that is always a major issue and that
20 is the reason I support the motion. I would -- and I
21 believe that the people in the condominium area would
22 be especially pleased if this developer would address
23 the handicapped issue without adding any additional
24 boat slips and a boat launch. If it's that important
25 And they're on record stating that this evening, if
51
1 they need to do that, then they should do exactly that
2 and I would applaud them if they do. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner
4 Sprague?
5 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes, I would like to
6 go on record. As I considered the issue there's three
7 issues that came forward to me. The first is the
8 handicapped access and, as Commissioner Kocan just
9 said, I would be in support of providing handicapped
10 access and placing a path to the boardwalk to the
11 existing slips. I don't really think that's a
12 rationalization to put in a boat launch and seasonal
13 slips, though.
14 Another issue is what I would
15 consider an equity issue. I think there are
16 ordinances set up so that there is access to the lake
17 and people have rights to the lake that have some
18 distribution of equity. I think to grant a waiver in
19 this case would be going beyond that. I can envision
20 under the circumstances saying let's put more slips
21 here, then the next group is going to come ask for
22 more slips and the next group. We'll have no basis to
23 say no and I don't think that's where we want to go.
24 The third is the preservation of the
25 environment. I think when that development was put in
52
1 it was a negotiation with the deal about how the
2 environment would be left and I don't think there's
3 any reason now to say we should change that. If we
4 want to improve it by putting a boardwalk in that
5 would be great but I don't think that putting a launch
6 in enhances the environment nor does adding boat
7 slips. So I will support the motion. Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commission
9 Shroyer?
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, thank you
11 Madame Chair. Mr. Fisher, counsel, approving a waiver
12 to allow eleven slips in the past, do we need to amend
13 the motion to say eleven as opposed to ten as the
14 motion was made?
15 MR. FISHER: The motion -- I think
16 it's to deny ten additional.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. That's the
18 motion.
19 MEMBER SHROYER: That's fine, then.
20 Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is no
22 further comments I would like to put my comment on the
23 record. I went out to the site this Sunday and in
24 reviewing my packet I did not see any requirements for
25 any handicapped access and maybe I just missed that
53
1 somewhere. Being a condominium owner myself as well
2 as the past president of our association I am in full
3 agreement with handicapped ordinances and am very
4 familiar with the State of Michigan's regulations with
5 regard to handicapped access and it is my
6 understanding that handicapped access is incumbent
7 upon the association to provide to their association
8 members, not for the City to provide it.
9 The second thing that I was
10 disappointed in is in reading the original minutes
11 according to the record the docks would not be sold
12 and they would be rented to the residents from the
13 association on an annual basis. And they would have
14 the right to use or have access to the rest of the
15 lake and I have questions with regards to maintenance
16 and repair and who would be responsible. With that
17 being said I also found it very interesting when I
18 went out there that that we've already had a violation
19 in 1997 regarding the buffer. Going out to this
20 property I see that they are mowing further and
21 further into the property which I think is incorrect.
22 I also see that there was a MDEQ permit granted and
23 materials already purchased, which is a little ahead
24 of itself. I also see that the -- one of the things
25 that disturbs me is that we haven't taken into account
54
1 the Jet Skis and in viewing photographs of the dock as
2 it is at the present day, I see interspersed with the
3 boats a bunch of Jet Skis and I think that is in
4 violation of the original permit which was reviewed.
5 -- I mean received and requested.
6 I am also in agreement with the fact
7 that this is our charge as a commission to uphold the
8 ordinances of this City and while I understand that
9 people would like to have access and would like to
10 have more space, we have to uphold our ordinances. I
11 also believe that we must have first and foremost
12 before even reviewing this we should have had a
13 license and with that I have nothing further to say.
14 If there is nothing further, the
15 Chair will call for the vote.
16 MR SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
17 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
19 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
23 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
55
1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
2 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
4 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
6 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
7 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes eight to
8 Zero.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
10 much and with this the commissione will take a 15
11 minute break.
12 (A 15-minute break was taken.)
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call
14 the meeting to order again.
15 Our second public hearing this
16 evening is Venture Drive Spec Building B, Site Plan
17 Number 99 dash 53. Public hearing on the request of
18 Bennett Donaldson of J.B. Donaldson Company for
19 approval of a Preliminary/Final Site Plan and Special
20 Land Use Permit. The subject property is located at
21 Section 26 north of Nine Mile Road between Meadowbrook
22 and Novi Road in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District.
23 The developer is proposing an additional parking lot.
24 The subject property is 1.316 acres. Mr. Schmitt?
25 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madame
56
1 Chairperson. Just give you a perspective on where
2 we're at here. This is the Hickory Corporate Park on
3 Nine Mile Road south and Venture Drive, running north
4 and south. The subject property is actually right
5 here. It is already built. The building was proposed
6 in the late '90s as a spec building and was approved.
7 However, the future users of both spec building "A"
8 and spec building "B" were required to come back for
9 future special land use approval and, in addition,
10 there was some questions at the time of parking
11 requirements for future user, which is another reason
12 why they're back at this time.
13 The zoning area is all I-1 for the
14 industrial part and R-4 for the adjacent Meadowbrook
15 Lake subdivision. And it is a special land use. It
16 is master planned in the land use for light industrial
17 as well. There are two main issues
18 to look at here. The first being a ZBA variance which
19 is required for this parcel. If I can zoom in here.
20 Under a current zoning ordinance in the I-1 district
21 there is 10 foot setback from the side required of all
22 parking lots. The application has shown a 5.09 feet
23 setback here which obviously will require variance.
24 The applicant has worked with City
25 staff and we have decided this is more than likely the
57
1 best course of action. You can look at this in two
2 different ways and both would require a variance for
3 this property. Either the property can go forward for
4 variance for the actual number of parking spaces and
5 have less in the required amount or they can propose
6 this parking also and have the variance with the side
7 yard set back.
8 Now, in terms of the long-term view
9 ability of the property and from the site planning is
10 the preferred alternative. The applicant has designed
11 the site with the adjacent residential in mind. There
12 is no connection around the rear of the building to
13 provide for parking there. The truck docks are in
14 front of the building which preclude some parking in
15 the front of the building; therefore, this is probably
16 the most realistic alternative for Mr. Donaldson.
17 In addition, the other issue is the
18 traffic. There's an opposite side driveway spacing
19 waiver required here. This is from the property.
20 This is the Venture Drive building we're talking
21 about. They do need a waiver for this spacing.
22 The applicant is required to submit a
23 noise analysis for review by the planning department
24 and commission. Given the fact that this was a
25 speculative industrial building there was a noise
58
1 analysis done with the initial approval. It was
2 virtually the same noise analysis which you have in
3 front of you today. The user that came into the
4 building did not significantly change the calculations
5 and, in addition, the Venture Drive Spec Building A,
6 which received special land use approval for the user
7 work room within the past year, used the same noise
8 analysis. Therefore, some continuity is a good idea
9 in a situation like this and given that the consultant
10 had already done the noise analysis it was the best
11 course of action to maintain that consultant for this
12 user.
13 There are no major issues in any of
14 the other disciplines. No wetlands or woodlands were
15 located on the site. There are minor landscaping
16 comments. There was no facade given to the building.
17 It's already built and the fire department has no
18 comments. Thank you very much.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Would
20 the applicant like to address the commission?
21 I would appreciate your keeping it to
22 three minutes.
23 MR. DONALDSON: Three minutes?
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'll give you
25 five.
59
1 MR. DONALDSON: Fine. I'm Bennett
2 Donaldson with J.D. Allen company. I'm here for
3 special land use approval, preliminary and final site
4 plan approval. Basically, I guess the way to put it,
5 is a building use approval as well. The building's
6 been here for roughly approximately three years. It's
7 been vacant that whole time. We were fortunate enough
8 to get Carpet Work Room in relatively quickly after
9 we built the buildings but the second building has
10 been slow to move. I think, though, that we have been
11 very fortunate in finding a very good user for the
12 site. Very low impact as far as truck traffic is
13 concerned. He has said to me that, you know, at the
14 most they'll have two deliveries a month. I believe
15 their statement says one delivery a week but he feels
16 it's more of two deliveries a month, which I know the
17 residents would appreciate and I feel that I've got a
18 pretty good understanding of that special land use
19 side of the street as far as what the residents are
20 trying to accomplish over there from the developer and
21 I think we've done our best to facilitate them as far
22 as bringing in users that would complement that use
23 there.
24 The sound study that was done was a
25 carry over basically from the previous sound study
60
1 that we did for our carpet work room and the overall
2 development of those two buildings. We felt that
3 since it had been approved previously and, as Tim had
4 suggested, offered some continuity in the overall
5 approval process that that would be sufficient.
6 In addition to that, you know, I know
7 that we have to go in front of the ZBA to address the
8 side yard setback so I don't think this is necessary
9 for me to talk about the arguments part of that, if
10 that is a good idea, bad idea or what have you.
11 Anyways we feel very good about the
12 user. I've given you some pamphlets to sort of
13 summarize who the user is, what they do. I don't know
14 if any of you had the opportunity to see their
15 operation but the bulk of their lion share of their
16 actual physical work will maintain and be completed in
17 a Dearborn facility, things such as cleaning the
18 furniture.
19 Basically the business is a fire
20 restoration company. If you have an unfortunate, you
21 know, fire in your home they come in, they'll work
22 with the insurance companies to repair your home, take
23 your furniture out, clean it if necessary, clean your
24 curtains and then they'll warehouse it until the time
25 which you can move it back into your home after
61
1 they've cleaned it up, painted it, fixed it, what have
2 you. So that is really the nature of their business.
3 This building is really of an administrative nature
4 for them and storage.
5 There's a letter which Jim Mester
6 (ph) who represents Sun Glow has issued to the
7 planning department. I think you all have a copy of
8 it suggesting sort of what their plans are for the
9 building. While limited washing area will be in that
10 building but, for the most part, they're going to have
11 their administrative staff there. They're going to be
12 storing their dryers, their vacuums and things of that
13 nature in the building. So we felt the use was
14 consistent with what everybody is trying to accomplish
15 and we hope the commission sees clear to approve it.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Is
17 there anyone in the audience that would like to
18 address the commission regarding this public hearing
19 of Venture Drive Spec Building?
20 Seeing no one. Do we have any
21 correspondence?
22 MEMBER KOCAN: No, we do not.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none, I'll
24 close the public hearing and turn it over to the
25 commission. Yes, Mr. Coburn?
62
1 MR. COBURN: I would like to make a
2 clarification. The opposite side driveway spacing
3 waiver is actually to the north of the J.H. Bennett
4 site as mentioned.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan?
6 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, Madame
7 Chairman. I would propose that we divide this into
8 two issues and talk about each of them separately and
9 I first propose we talk about the special land use
10 because we need to get past that before we can get to
11 the preliminary and final site plan. So if that's
12 agreeable I'm going to start with the special land use
13 and it is extremely important you come back before us
14 because this is light industrial which applies to that
15 production. It is very near and deer to my heart and
16 my home. So it's important that we know that there's
17 some compliance with the ordinances. So I do have
18 some questions for you, Mr. Donaldson. First of all,
19 I guess I'll start with the noise analysis.
20 MR. DONALDSON: Yes.
21 MEMBER KOCAN: And we've talked about
22 that in the past?
23 MR. DONALDSON: Yes.
24 MEMBER KOCAN: As a matter of fact,
25 March 6th Jan Sar was in front of the Planning
63
1 Commission and we did have a noise analysis report
2 from, I believe, the same certified industrial
3 hygienist and at that time I made the statement that
4 this person did not, in fact, have the certified sound
5 engineer certification on the curriculum vitae.
6 MR. DONALDSON: Yes.
7 MEMBER KOCAN: And I was concerned
8 about this setting a bad precedent to get a report
9 done by a hygienist and we talked about that at that
10 meeting and we stated that we would no longer -- at
11 least I stated that I -- and it was endorsed by the
12 chairperson at that time that it was very important
13 that we state the ordinance, the noise ordinance was
14 revised in 1999 so maybe up until that time we did
15 accept noise analysis reports from an industrial
16 hygienist. We lowered the decibel levels that were
17 allowed next to residential and we also required that
18 a certified sound engineer make a presentation. So,
19 as I stated in March, even though I believe that this
20 development could, in fact, comply with our ordinance,
21 on principal I need to request that we get a certified
22 sound engineer. I don't believe I would go to a sound
23 engineer and ask him to do an environmental odor or
24 pollution report and so I can't go to an industrial
25 hygienist and ask them to do the noise report. So
64
1 that's one stipulation I'm going to ask for before I
2 can approve this special land use.
3 The other things that I'm looking at
4 as stated in ordinance is Section 1900. The intent of
5 the light industrial is very clear that we have to be
6 sensitive to the residential and we have to ensure
7 that there are no odors, no other situations coming
8 from the building. So I have some questions. Because
9 when I read the information from Sun Glow, they are a
10 restoration service and it talks about how the
11 facility in Novi plans to be a warehouse and office
12 space and they plan to do their cleaning in Dearborn
13 Heights. To me there's still room that this operation
14 could end up coming over to Novi. So what I need to
15 know is are the cleaning services similar to a dry
16 cleaning type operation, because if they are that's
17 not allowed in light industrial. If, in fact, the
18 cleaning is going to be done in Novi, which it doesn't
19 state that, but I'm trying to protect everybody here,
20 will there be release of odors. There's chemicals
21 that are being stored in the building that are
22 household items and there are other chemicals that are
23 nonhousehold items and if you're cleaning and you're
24 using solvents you're going to have to have exhaust
25 fans and if you have exhaust fans they're going to
65
1 exhaust out of the building. This development does
2 directly abut residential property.
3 So we have a report from the
4 industrial hygienist on the noise. I'd really like to
5 see him do a report on the potential odors for any --
6 the fumes, if there would be any fumes, that would
7 come from the building. I'm not comfortable with
8 approving special land use without having that. If we
9 were able to have that.
10 Let me see what else we have to look
11 at. We have to make a finding that the use meets the
12 zoning and if, in fact, it is not a dry cleaning and
13 it is mostly warehouse and office, it would meet the
14 ordinance 1905, the uses that are allowed next to
15 residential. We will be stipulating that the
16 ordinance when we do the site plan we will be looking
17 at the conditions that are required so we can make a
18 finding that it is in harmony with the site design
19 regulations. We haven't gotten there but I suspect we
20 will.
21 What other questions? Did I have?
22 This is just for the special land use. I just want to
23 make one more comment about the sound engineer report
24 just to state that maybe it is something that we need
25 to bring up to the Planning Commission. I think our
66
1 ordinance is fine the way it is. I think we need to
2 continue to enforce it. That's my recommendation;
3 however, it could at some point be something brought
4 to implementation should anyone think that that would
5 be appropriate.
6 Given that, I would be willing to
7 make a motion pending unless we want additional
8 discussion --
9 MR. FISHER: May I?
10 MEMBER KOCAN: Mr. Fisher?
11 MR. FISHER: Before you make a
12 motion, this is a special land use and as a result of
13 that the commission is authorized to impose reasonable
14 conditions in connection with the proof and, provided
15 that this works for the applicant, you would be
16 permitted, for example, to include in your motion if
17 you're going to make a motion of approving the
18 condition, that the use would not be permitted to have
19 fumes that escape or travel to the adjoining
20 residential and, therefore, you're never going to be
21 able to figure out each and every activity that occurs
22 on the property and that may be unreasonably limiting
23 to the applicant. But if the applicant would indicate
24 that there would not be fumes traveling over to the
25 residential property and you have a condition such as
67
1 that, in the event fumes occurred in the future, that
2 would be a violation of the use, an impermissible use.
3 MEMBER KOCAN: Could we ask the
4 developer, Madame Chair?
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
6 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah. We would not
7 be opposed as to what you suggested an industrial
8 hygienist to check the air quality to make sure that
9 they're not emitting any fumes. I can submit to you
10 in their documentation as far as the chemicals that
11 they use it is mostly all detergents and whatnot.
12 Nothing of a toxic nature or what have you, but I am
13 not -- we're not opposed to that and we would be happy
14 to prove our case so to speak as far as the fumes or
15 if any emissions at all are of an unsafe nature.
16 MEMBER KOCAN: Would you also be
17 amenable by noise analysis by a certified sound
18 engineer?
19 MR. DONALDSON: We would if the
20 commission finds that necessary. Like I said, we have
21 precedence in the City for the previous projects that
22 we've done that has been adequate and with the traffic
23 being such as far as, you know, all this -- the sounds
24 have been based on truck traffic and with this user's
25 truck traffic being less than say carpet work or
68
1 J.H. Bennett both using industrial hygienists it would
2 certainly be in compliance, but we are not opposed if
3 the commission finds it necessary for us to do another
4 sound study with the registered sound engineer. We're
5 not opposed to that. I just don't know. Common sense
6 wise it says to me if these guys have one delivery a
7 week at the most -- and this it what the study is
8 based upon -- it just seems that that's not -- we
9 would be doing it.
10 MEMBER KOCAN: Technically, though,
11 if I'm correct, Mr. Fisher, the truck traffic noise is
12 not considered under our ordinance, is that correct, I
13 mean, the State of Michigan allows truck traffic and
14 that is not a consideration from what I understand
15 within the noise ordinance that what we do is
16 considered the air conditioning noise.
17 MR. FISHER: That's generally the
18 case, but I assume that if you have regular traffic on
19 the site that is in circulation then you would have to
20 look at the ordinance to confirm the regular traffic
21 on the site for circulation. You may take that into
22 consideration in terms of the overall impact in your
23 discretion and improving special land use.
24 MEMBER KOCAN: I understand. I think
25 what it is, if there is an idling of a truck they're
69
1 allowed to idle is what I was thinking. And something
2 just crossed my mind.
3 MR. DONALDSON: I was just going to
4 say that our mechanical units, we have a residential
5 mechanical unit so the furnaces are inside the
6 building with residential condensers on the outside of
7 the building. There will be two residential
8 condensers just as in the Carpet Work Room. Almost
9 the same set up but, again, if the commission finds it
10 necessary for to us do another
11 Sound analysis we will but I don't know if that's necessary.
12 MEMBER KOCAN: Can you state for the
13 record what the hours of operation would be for this
14 building.
15 MR. DONALDSON: As I recall -- and
16 I think this is in the letter but I don't completely
17 remember -- I think it's six days a week. It might be
18 5:00, 8:00 to 5:00. There's no unusual operating
19 hours. There's no 24 hour shifts.
20 MEMBER KOCAN: And one other thing
21 was because the letter stated that a lot of the work
22 is done for residential persons, will this be a retail
23 establishment or is this -- will there be resident --
24 I take my burnt out chair down the street and get it
25 restored or how does that work?
70
1 MR. DONALDSON: No. This is not a
2 residential walk up, deliver your smoke damaged
3 furniture for cleaning. This is an insurance procured
4 operation where these are the certified insurance
5 contractors that goes in and takes care of the house.
6 So these relationships they build up with insurance
7 companies and they are the preferred insurance
8 subcontractor. So it is not of a retail nature at
9 all.
10 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. In that case I
11 would be willing to suggest a motion for approval of
12 special land use for Venture Drive Spec Building,
13 SP 99 dash 53 with the following conditions: That
14 there be a submission of a noise analysis by a
15 certified a sound engineer as required by Section
16 2519.10.C. That there be a stipulation that there
17 will be no dry cleaning done in the building. That
18 there will be a stipulation preferably by an
19 industrial hygienist that there will be no odors,
20 fumes or emissions from the building. That the hours
21 of operation are such that it would be compatible with
22 the building adjacent and given those conditions this
23 would allow us to make the finding as required in
24 Section 2516.2.C. that this use is allowable under the
25 ordinance and it does comply with the Master Plan.
71
1 MEMBER PAUL: Second.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have a second to
3 the motion. Is there any further discussion?
4 Mr. Avdoulos?
5 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yeah, I guess the
6 concern with the odors and then I want a
7 clarification. Are things going to be brought to the
8 facility that may be in a burned condition, from that
9 point they get restored there?
10 MR. DONALDSON: No. They're not
11 an upholstery type of operation where you bring
12 something that has been burned. It's almost all smoke
13 damage with maybe some soot.
14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yeah, because my
15 concern is those things that would be the smoke
16 damaged items have very strong odors and I know they
17 use air scrubbers and stuff to get things out but I
18 guess the concern is those odors imminating beyond the
19 units themselves and drifting over the residential
20 area.
21 MR. DONALDSON: Right. There are
22 no exhaust fans located on the facility. They're not
23 -- the furniture or things that they would be bringing
24 would be of, you know, a smoked damage type of article
25 or item and as they stated most of their operation is
72
1 going to be, you know, handled in Dearborn facility.
2 But there will be -- there is a small area of the
3 building I think it shows in the floor plan an area
4 for washing.
5 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And then there is
6 going to be storage of any highly combustible items?
7 MR. DONALDSON: No.
8 MEMBER ADVOULOS: And I saw
9 detergents and stuff but in the letter and it is lost
10 here. I think it was like item 20.
11 MR. FISHER: While he's looking,
12 Madame Chair, I would strongly suggest the only way
13 we're going to be able to enforce this in the future
14 that if you add a condition there would be no adverse
15 odors at the residential lot line.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I thought this was
17 contained within our motion?
18 MR. FISHER: I didn't hear it as part
19 of the motion.
20 MS. KOCAN: I said stipulation that
21 there would be no odors or other emissions or fumes
22 from the building at the residential property line.
23 MR. FISHER: Yeah. So that there's a
24 test for it.
25 MEMBER KOCAN: I would accept that.
73
1 At the residential property line.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And would the
3 seconder of that motion accept the amendment to the
4 motion?
5 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
6 MR. DONALDSON: Just a point of
7 clarity. Does this test need to happen when they're
8 in the building or while they're operating or what is
9 the best way to execute this?
10 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I don't know if
11 that is during a process or if there is a complaint.
12 MR. FISHER: The test would happen if
13 there was a complaint.
14 MR. AVDOULOS: And I guess my
15 question was answered here, if there is combustible
16 storage it would be done in accordance with Section
17 413 of the International Fire Code if there was any
18 kind of storage that the proper accommodations would
19 be taken to take care of that?
20 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah.
21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: That's all.
22 MEMBER KOCAN: Can I just add
23 something that I did have a discussion with the fire
24 chief this evening before I came to the meeting and we
25 talked about did he have a chance to review the
74
1 chemicals and he said that he had at this time and did
2 give his letter of approval and my question was so
3 what if something happens later on and they bring in
4 different operations and he did state that there is an
5 annual check, annual inspection and they do take the
6 sheets that are sumbitted and go through the buildings
7 and should they find that the operation has changed
8 that they could, in fact, bring that before the
9 Planning Commission. So we do have some resort to
10 keeping this operation as to what it's being presented
11 as, but I would still like to have the stipulations on
12 that.
13 MR. DONALDSON: And I do know that
14 Jim Mester with Sun Glow has spoken to Mike Evans
15 about what they would do with future racking and that
16 resulted in a rack sprinkler. I know that he's
17 sensitive to that as well so I think there was
18 previous doubt about the establishment with Mike Evans
19 and Jim Mester so I think that everybody there is
20 trying to meet the requirements.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Donaldson, I
22 do appreciate your submittal; however, since this is
23 at the commission please allow the commissioners to
24 answer a question instead of voluntarily speaking and
25 it will make things go along that much quicker.
75
1 MR. DONALDSON: I'm all for that.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Shroyer?
3 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madame
4 Chair. In regards to the special land use I didn't
5 have any problem at all until I got the brochure. Now
6 I have a question. I'll direct it to the City. I'm
7 not 100 percent familiar with all of our rules,
8 regulations, et cetera. My question will be regarding
9 the transportation of hazardous materials in Article
10 DOT Subsection HM 126F especially DOT Department of
11 Transportation, Subsection HM 126F.
12 Do we have designated roadways for
13 the transportation of hazardous materials? I know a
14 lot of communities do.
15 MR. FISHER: I can't tell you offhand
16 whether we do or not.
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. O'Neil, Do you
18 happen to know?
19 MR. O'NEILL: I don't know either.
20 MR. FISHER: I don't think there are
21 any city established roadways. There may be county.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.
23 And Mr. Donaldson, let me ask you in
24 regard to being such as demolition things, clean up
25 debris and removal would that include items such as
76
1 asbestos shingles perhaps in a burnt out residence?
2 MR. DONALDSON: I think you never can
3 tell what type of residence you're running into so the
4 possibility is certainly there, but I do know when
5 they are there they use hazardous disposal companies
6 to take those things away on-site, you know, where the
7 home is. So nothing is trucked back to the facility
8 to be disposed of.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: So they subcontract
10 it out to the professionals?
11 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah.
12 MEMBER SHROYER: To remove all the
13 hazardous materials so nothing would be-
14 MR. DONALDSON: (Interposing)
15 There's no point in them bringing items back to the
16 facility for disposals. It's done, you know, like any
17 other demolition project. There would be 30 yard
18 containers and if there is a hazardous material it
19 would be done in a, you know, like hazardous hauler
20 would take those things.
21 MEMBER SHROYER: Obviously the
22 subcontractors would then have to adhere to all state
23 and Federal laws so I'm sure everything is okay
24 through DOT and MDOT. That's all I have, Madame
25 Chair, thank you.
77
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
2 commissioner. Member Paul?
3 MEMBER PAUL: I have one question for
4 you, Mr. Donaldson. Special storage for contaminated
5 contents, what are you considering contaminated
6 contents? I see a brochure of molds, fire hazards and
7 I just want to clarify on the record what all those
8 items are.
9 MR. DONALDSON: Contaminated
10 contents, I don't know of any contaminated contents
11 other than the smoke damaged items. That's what they
12 usually deal with, you know, they deal with fire type
13 of contaminants. They dispose of things that are
14 damaged beyond repair. Is that under the mold
15 section?
16 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
17 MR. DONALDSON: I think they're
18 talking about disposing of that mold. I mean they
19 have an onstaff industrial hygienist who would -- what
20 they do is they explained it to me and they have a
21 special system for disposing of the mold where they
22 capture the molds that they take it off a wall or
23 whatever and it goes to a specialty handler that
24 handles the mold as opposed to throwing in the
25 dumpster or whatever. That's what I think they're
78
1 referring to as they have the ability to dispose of
2 these toxics or whatever the black mold is or that
3 growth properly.
4 MEMBER PAUL: I'm not completely
5 comfortable with that because it says storage of it so
6 I don't know if that is storage on-site and then it
7 gets removed or storage at the site where you're
8 proposing and that concerns me. What regulations do
9 they follow, do they follow OSHA guidelines or what
10 are they?
11 MR. DONALDSON: Well, you have the
12 Health Department guidelines. You have OSHA
13 guidelines and those are mandated in there. When you
14 have a fire or something along those lines generally
15 speaking you can request that the Health Department
16 come into your home and do an air quality test. They
17 offer air quality tests. This is big business for
18 them and it's a good sector of what they do is dealing
19 with these type of molds.
20 MEMBER PAUL: Okay. Thank you.
21 For the purpose of the motion would
22 it be something that you would be amendable to add
23 with Member Shroyer's comments stating that we have
24 the City applicant and the traffic consultant review
25 what hazardous, what roads they can travel with the
79
1 hazardous materials so we have a plan in place prior
2 to them starting the function?
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't-
4 MR. SCHMITT: (Interposing) It seems
5 like a situation where we're going to take the easier
6 road anyway which is the larger road which is less
7 hazardous in general. I don't think they're
8 necessarily going to be cutting through the adjacent
9 subdivision to get through this property. If they can
10 stick to widely accepted routes to get to the site and
11 frankly they have to comply with all state regulation
12 in general if they're in violation of that at the
13 state level or the county level they're in violation.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If Mr. Papp would
15 like to answer that question for the chair?
16 MEMBER PAPP: What I would like to
17 comment on, I believe if they're hauling hazardous
18 waste it has to be identified on the outside of the
19 vehicle with a triangle with a number so that if the
20 vehicle is in an accident with the city the fire
21 department knows what they're carrying. So I believe
22 they can travel on any major road within the city but
23 it has to be truly marked on the outside prior to
24 leaving the establishment.
25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Coburn, do you
80
1 have a comment?
2 MR. COBURN: In addition, trucks
3 leaving the drive can go west on Nine Mile they are
4 prohibited from traveling east on Nine Mile.
5 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
7 further comments by any commissioners?
8 MEMBER MARKHAM: I just have a
9 question. We're only dealing with the special land
10 use at this moment, right?
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Then I'm okay.
13 MEMBER PAPP: I have one. You
14 mentioned something about contents are outside?
15 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, like air
16 conditioning condenser.
17 MEMBER PAPP: Would that be running
18 day and night?
19 MR. DONALDSON: No.
20 MEMBER PAPP: Okay, thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
22 other questions?
23 If not, I have a question. My
24 question is, actually, I know exactly what's going on
25 because I've actually had my mother's house burned
81
1 down so I know what they do. They do take damaged
2 goods, for example, if you have a vase and it's all
3 singed they take that and clean it and more often than
4 not depending on the item that they are trying to
5 restore, like paint or something like that, they will
6 use regular household detergent like for example,
7 Dove, something that's very -- or Joy, that's very
8 easy. But there are other things that they might have
9 to use a different chemical on and I'm not concerned
10 about this operation in the sense that I think it
11 would cause any toxic fumes because most household
12 chemicals have toxic fumes. My question to you is, do
13 you know how they will dispose of these things, the
14 water or the chemical; once they've cleaned the item
15 where does the residue go?
16 MR. DONALDSON: Well, in terms of,
17 you know, they have a trench drain in their facility
18 and it's got an oil and gas separator in it. If some
19 of those contaminants, if you will, were to go down
20 the trench drain they would be caught there.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So are they going
22 down the regular sewer?
23 MR. DONALDSON: The water that goes
24 in the trench drain will go down the regular sewer
25 with exception of items that can't pass through the
82
1 oil and gas separator.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmitt?
3 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am?
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any
5 filterization required when you're adding all of this
6 detergent?
7 MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry, I'm going to
8 turn that over to the engineer.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. Maybe
10 I'm asking the wrong one.
11 MR. COBURN: There's certainly
12 prohibited items that you cannot put into the sewer
13 system or storm sewer system. Off the top of my head
14 I can't name those for you, but they're proposing to
15 -- or Mr. Donaldson is stating that in the storm sewer
16 system you have an oil gas separator and if they're
17 utilizing a trench drain for discharge he's stating
18 the oil gas separator will take care of that. That's
19 correct for certain items. For items that don't flow
20 that's incorrect, but they would be happy to have
21 clarification from the applicant on the type of
22 disposal system they will be using if more information
23 would be needed.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's the crux of
25 my question and that's the only objection I have and I
83
1 don't think that you would be capable of answering my
2 question. I would like to have further information.
3 Mr. Fisher, do you have anything you
4 would like to say?
5 MR. FISHER: Yes, I think I'm happy
6 to say that you can take that burden off of your
7 shoulders to some degree because that's really not an
8 issue you have to worry about. This is an issue for
9 the county of Oakland. It's an issue for the City of
10 Detroit and it's an issue for -- if it's an issue with
11 the City it's for Public Services. So you don't have
12 to deal with that.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So that's not
14 ours. But then we do have some means of regulating
15 within the City another department outside of us?
16 MR. FISHER: There are very strict
17 ordinances that have been required by Federal rulings
18 and State rulings. Yeah, you don't have to carry that
19 burden.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. Then
21 with that I will support the motion as amended. Do we
22 have any further comments? Yes, Member Papp?
23 MEMBER PAPP: Is it possible just to
24 amend the motion so that it would only be used as a
25 warehouse?
84
1 MR. FISHER: I don't know if the
2 applicant is --
3 MR. DONALDSON: Well, the user has
4 sent me part of his operations as a small washing
5 area. I think that would --
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: He's going to
7 clean?
8 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah, that would
9 conflict with what his operation is. There is a
10 component of his operation that is that. Even though
11 the bulk operation here is dedicated to the
12 warehousing administrative there is a small component
13 and that's why he's making this move, you know, or
14 expanding.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If I could just
16 interject one thing. Having gone through this
17 experience, what they do is come and pick up your
18 items and they have to have a place of storage because
19 it's an insurance company and the insurance company
20 once you have a fire is the one that provides you with
21 the names of restoration companies. Then as the
22 insured you pick your restoration company. They come
23 in, they make an assessment of what is saveable. They
24 remove the items and have to take it to a warehouse
25 in order to store it and then it has to be cleaned and
85
1 the return of any of these items can take anywhere
2 from six to eight weeks, if not more. I think that's
3 the part about the warehousing that this applicant is
4 looking for and with my understanding of this, this
5 would be a smaller cleaning operation.
6 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan?
8 MEMBER KOCAN: Because I'm not
9 familiar with the operation so I'm going to ask a
10 personal question. Madame Chair, are you comfortable
11 having this 110 feet away from a residential
12 neighborhood?
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think after
14 reading everything I did here and since most of this
15 would be a warehousing thing to store items, I think
16 that I would be comfortable with it and knowing that
17 we have the State and Federal laws which regulate what
18 can go into the sewer system, I am. I also feel that
19 one of the things that is -- some of these things are
20 things that we use in our homes. Tar and grease
21 remover you use that on your car. For example, most
22 of these things in my estimation you would be able to
23 have in your home. I don't think they would cause
24 hazardous toxic waste.
25 MS. MARKHAM: Anything could be
86
1 toxic.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, anything can
3 be toxic but it's not like you're having a hard time
4 breathing as if they were bringing asphalt shingles to
5 restore or anything like that. But I would be with
6 all the conditions that we've put on this motion for
7 special land use.
8 If there is nothing further may we
9 have -- I would like to call for the vote please.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner
11 Avdoulos?
12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
14 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
16 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
19 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
20 MR. SCHMITT: Commission Paul?
21 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
25 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
87
1 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes eight to
2 zero.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That was for the
4 first special land use and we will now discuss the
5 site plan?
6 MEMBER KOCAN: I will talk quickly as
7 I spent most of my time on the special land use
8 issue. The site plan issues that I have in reviewing
9 the packet to me the requirement for additional
10 parking has to do with perhaps an error from years ago
11 when the original parking was calculated. It looks
12 like the parking requirements were based as if the
13 building was 100% warehouse so it allowed a lesser
14 number of parking spaces than technically should have
15 been. I don't know if there would have been enough
16 spaces based on how this building is laid out today.
17 So it's just not imposed by this developer but I think
18 it's from a previous error. I see a need for
19 additional parking. My main concerns are that they
20 still stay away from residential and, as a matter of
21 fact in our ordinance we have light industrial
22 abutting residential. The minimal distance is 100
23 feet away from residential property and I believe the
24 building setback is 110 feet. I believe the parking
25 is still 100 feet from residential.
88
1 A main concern is the lighting. It
2 is allowed by ordinance that the lights could be 20
3 feet, 25 feet, as high as 25 feet on the building. In
4 looking at the site plan the developer has complied
5 with the ordinance that its zero candles I believe at
6 the lot line that there will be some light poles.
7 There will be lights on the building but they will not
8 exceed 18 feet at the most. Probably closer to 15
9 feet and as long as that's shielded down that's a main
10 concern that I would have.
11 With regard to the opposite side
12 driveway spacing waiver, to the north our consultants
13 have stated that they're anticipating low traffic
14 volumes and did not anticipate turning problems
15 because there will be little traffic coming from the
16 north going south. None of which would technically be
17 turning into the building. Issues if you're going to
18 be five feet away from the parking lot to the south,
19 you would need to have approval from the people to the
20 south and it's my understanding that you have got that
21 approval; is that correct?
22 MR. DONALDSON: Yes, that's
23 correct.
24 MEMBER KOCAN: There are some
25 encroachments of the driveways and I believe that our
89
1 traffic engineer stated that either you have to
2 eliminate the encroachments or you have to get
3 easements from the other development and that's all I
4 have at this time. Thank you, Madame Chairperson.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anyone else that
6 would like to comment? Mr. Advoulos?
7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I have a question.
8 The parking that's been being provided is that to fill
9 the requirements of the ordinance or is that what the
10 actual user is going to need?
11 MR. DONALDSON: It's a little bit
12 over what the -- as far as their office ratio and
13 warehouse ratio requires, but it's really more for
14 compliance of the ordinance and in compliance of what
15 their needs are.
16 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yeah, because I
17 know in the planning review we have indicated how many
18 parking spaces are required and stuff. I don't see it
19 anywhere on the drawings and a lot of times if the
20 parking exists and the occupant can identify that they
21 aren't going to have anymore than "X" amount of
22 employees, then I favor not even, you know, dealing
23 with the parking because that just adds more surface
24 area and more sewers and whatever and there is no
25 documentation on that. It's done on the review chart
90
1 but it's not done on the drawing so there is no way of
2 knowing whether the owner needs those spaces or not.
3 So I would at least appreciate that the data be shown
4 on the drawings and I don't know if that is going to
5 make or break this. I'm not opposed to the parking
6 that's required but if it is not required then I don't
7 see -- you know, putting it in.
8 MR. DONALDSON: The calculation
9 may be on the first or second page of the engineer
10 drawing from Professional Engineering. If it's not,
11 we will add it to it but I can almost assure you if
12 you did the calculations I know them in my head that
13 we had inadequate parking and therefore need some
14 additional parking.
15 MEMBER ADVOULOS: And I understand
16 what was discussed by our City engineers that this
17 would probably be the most realistic course of action
18 if the building were sold the parking is already there
19 and the site is planned out. So you know, 50/50.
20 That's my comment.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
22 Mr. Coburn, did you have a comment you would like to
23 Make?
24 MR. COBURN: I apologize. I have a
25 correction to make for the opposite side of the
91
1 driveway spacing waiver. It states 150 feet is
2 required. It's actually 200 feet. I apologize for
3 the record.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham?
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you, Madame
6 Chair. I just have one general comment relative to
7 this parking area. I understand why we need the
8 variance. I understand why we need the parking. I
9 just think it's kind of an inelegant solution to this
10 issue. We're going to put essentially a five foot
11 wide little concrete barrier and stuff some Japanese
12 yews that are going to grow to this high in the middle
13 of this parking area to separate two industrial
14 buildings. It seems ludicrous to me. I wish there
15 were a more -- I'll use the word elegant way to make
16 this work between this building and the Jan Sar
17 development to the south. Both developments need
18 parking. We're trying to buffer from the residential
19 as much as possible. We're already asking for a
20 waiver. It would've been nice if we could've asked
21 for a waiver that had a creative solution attached. I
22 think this little five foot wide piece of concrete
23 down the middle is going to be ugly and I don't think
24 that -- I can't see how we can go ahead and change
25 this. I mean, the plans meet the requirements
92
1 assuming you get the variance but it's not very
2 pretty.
3 MR. SCHMITT: It does meet the code.
4 Frankly, I would have loved to have been able to say
5 you don't need the parking. What you use is fine
6 but, unfortunately, there is no provision in the code
7 that would allow for flexibility in terms of parking
8 because realistically this parking lot is going to be
9 the most used. It requires in the ordinance that he
10 get approximately eight more spaces and eleven more
11 spaces on the site. There will be five feet between
12 this parking lot and the property line and if Jan Sar
13 does decide to come in for future development in that
14 area they will be required a ten foot setback as
15 well. So it will be fifteen feet between parking lots
16 which is 20 spaces.
17 The big issue with this site, though,
18 is going to Mr. Donaldson who initially built it. He
19 did build it very much with the site and everything in
20 mind and has really done everything to mitigate the
21 concerns of those residents and this is the side
22 effect of that is that now he needs a small variance
23 to meet the parking requirements.
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: And I don't disagree
25 with it. I agree you need the parking. I understand
93
1 why you need the variance. I can support the
2 variance. It just to me it seems kind of silly to put
3 this little concrete barrier in the middle of two
4 parking lots. There should have been a better way of
5 going about making that work.
6 MR. SCHMITT: There's really nothing
7 we can do in the code to provide for that. As close
8 as we can get is to what was actually done with "A"
9 and "B" where they share the common drive and the
10 parking lot is split. Since Jan Sar's drive is so far
11 to the south that wasn't a feasible situation.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Again, in these
13 industrial developments that keep coming before us I'm
14 not seeing a lot of coordination to adjacent
15 properties and I would like to see the City working in
16 the future to improve the situation. I understand
17 that there's not a lot that can be done in this
18 particular case but I want to go on record as saying I
19 think we can do a better job.
20 MR. SCHMITT: I would like to say
21 that Mr. Donaldson has coordinated this one
22 significantly better than other situations in the
23 City. All start with -- well, the vast majority fall
24 under the requirements. It's just this additional
25 parking issue is what's causing the issue.
94
1 MEMBER MARKHAM: I understand.
2 Okay. That's all I have.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other comments
4 by any of the commissioners?
5 (No comments.)
6 MEMBER KOCAN: In that case, I will
7 tender a motion. In matter of Venture Drive Spec S1
8 PC 99-53C motion to grant approval of the preliminary
9 and final site plan with the following conditions:
10 The planning condition waiver of the opposite side
11 driveway spacing for the existing driveway to the
12 north 130 feet. Proposed 200 feet required based on
13 anticipated low traffic volume, ZBA variance to be
14 obtained for the required 10 foot parking lot set back
15 4.91 feet proposed as the parking variance is more
16 desirable then a variance in the number of spaces
17 required. The new proposed access, the south curb
18 return encroachment is removed or agreement is reached
19 with the adjacent property owner. Subject to the
20 comments on the attached review letters building
21 addresses on the final stamping plans and comments by
22 the commission.
23 Do we have a second to that motion?
24 MEMBER PAUL: Second.
25 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Second.
95
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second by
2 Mr. Avdoulos.
3 I just have one question, Mr. Arroyo,
4 and if I could ask you one question. Were you able to
5 -- if you would come to the podium.
6 Were you able to review this at all
7 or is this all in-house?
8 MR. ARROYO: The preliminary site is
9 something you would review.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So I can't ask
11 you about the driveway spacing for the existing
12 driveway to the north 130 feet proposed and 200 feet
13 is required?
14 MR. ARROYO: Can I make a comment
15 because I'm familiar with the area. I would agree
16 that there would be low traffic volumes particularly
17 southbound left-turns into this driveway would be
18 minimal. Negligible is probably a better term and,
19 therefore, I don't see that the waiver is a problem.
20 I don't have a problem with that.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I
22 appreciate your comments.
23 If there are no further comments I
24 would like to call a roll for the vote.
25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
96
1 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
3 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
4 Mr. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
7 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
9 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
13 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
14 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
15 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
16 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes eight to
17 zero.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
19 much.
20 We are at the third public hearing
21 which is Master Plan Amendment and this is a public
22 hearing on the request of Detroit Catholic Central
23 High School to amend the Master Plan from Office and
24 Light Industrial to Single-Family Residential as
25 designated on the Master Plan for Land Use. The
97
1 subject property is located in Section 18 on the west
2 side of Wixom Road and south of Grand River Avenue.
3 The subject property is approximately 60 acres.
4 And I will turn this over to
5 Mr. Schmitt.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Chairperson
7 Nagy. Give you some perspective on where we're at.
8 This is the entire parcel that is currently owned by
9 Detroit Catholic Central High School. As you can see,
10 the dark yellow line is the actual parcel and there
11 are underlying parcels which is the property line
12 indications. This property was donated to them by the
13 owner of other property in the area and they have
14 chosen this location for the site of a new high school
15 in the future.
16 The current Master Plan shows the
17 area. The vast majority of their parcel is Master
18 Plans currently zoned office industrial and a small
19 portion of it is zoned I-1 and R-1 in the southern
20 portion. So the north we have B-2 and B-3
21 developments and across the street it is zoned I-1;
22 however, it is being developed as the Novi Promenade
23 Shopping Center under this section.
24 To the south is the Island Lake
25 development which is an RUD. In this area it's zoned
98
1 R-1.
2 Here is the actual Master Plan. Half
3 of the property is master planned for office and half
4 of the property is master planned for light
5 industrial. The applicant is requesting that the
6 entire property be remaster planned to single family
7 residential. This will allow in the future rezoning
8 of the property to R-1 which does allow as a special
9 land use private or parochial high school and
10 elementary school, et cetera.
11 At this point, obviously, we are
12 under the assumption that Detroit Catholic Central
13 High School will come to Novi; however, from a master
14 plan perspective we need to take into account the fact
15 that there is always a chance that this will not
16 happen. So the request on the table is merely to
17 master plan the property for single family
18 residential.
19 To give a brief background of the
20 project, just to summarize some of the findings,
21 obviously some of the impacts on public services are
22 going to be a little different than a normal
23 development. If it is developed in the future as
24 single family residential it will have similar
25 developments to any other residential development in
99
1 the city. If it is developed as a school the impact
2 will be slightly different so I'm going to highlight a
3 few of the main differences.
4 Obviously, Detroit Catholic Central
5 will not add students in the existing Novi school
6 system. Their impacts on the road system are -- there
7 will be impacts to the road system. Given the
8 improvements in the area the impacts are somewhat
9 unknown although it can be assumed that they will be
10 adding approximately 5 to 600 cars to that area of
11 Wixom Road per day. When the rezoning comes forward
12 they will have provided a traffic study which will
13 show that these cars are not all coming at the exact
14 same time. They are staggered throughout the day and
15 there is a one major 500 car impact on the area.
16 In terms of other City services, the
17 impacts will be similar to residential development.
18 It is possible that you might see an increase in the
19 police or fire runs as a precautionary measure. Given
20 that number of children in one area, obviously, we
21 take high precautions but, obviously, that's
22 speculative and it's merely possible.
23 If you look at some of the
24 surrounding properties -- and I'm going to go ahead
25 and put the zoning map up again. This area is
100
1 somewhat changing in nature especially given the Novi
2 Promenade development across Wixom Road. Previously
3 with Island Lake being there you can say that the area
4 was decided residential in nature with the large
5 educational user to the southern end of the corridor,
6 the existing Novi Middle School and elementary schools
7 that are located there.
8 With the added benefit of Novi
9 Promenade, the B-2 zoning to the north, the character
10 has changed in nature somewhat and provides an
11 interesting bulk end to the corridor, in my opinion,
12 that you will have an educational user to the north
13 and educational user to the south and single family
14 residential in between. It does provide a certain
15 amount of buffer between the Island Lake development
16 and future I-1 developments to the north. The
17 quantification of that is difficult, however, it's
18 obvious that the direct impacts of the I-1 will be
19 somewhat mitigated.
20 Birchler Arroyo did perform a
21 Master Plan study on several properties which is
22 included with your packet. Just a few of the
23 highlights from their study. They did do a traffic
24 and trip generation analysis for the site and, as you
25 can see, it's estimated that 1,180 daily trips will be
101
1 generated from the high school and 834 daily trips
2 from single family residential.
3 Theoretically, if this site was
4 developed into single family residential that would be
5 about 1.65 units per acres consistent with the R-1
6 zone. The interesting feature of this site is that
7 it's fairly heavily wooded and there is a large
8 wetland system in the center. Obviously, there is
9 more of a concern with the actual site plan process;
10 however, it should be noted at this time that either
11 the residential or high school use would seem to
12 indicate that they would be able to work around the
13 natural features a little more than office or
14 industrial users might be able to.
15 Lastly, there are obviously some
16 negative impacts associated with any development. The
17 interesting feature of this parcel is that it has the
18 southern finger giving it access to Wixom Road. This
19 does essentially surround four properties that are
20 located fronting on the Wixom Road. Right there.
21 They're all currently being used as
22 single family homes. None of them will become
23 landlocked which is a previous problem from the
24 commission concerned about that. The property will
25 still have access onto Wixom Road. I believe there is
102
1 some question from the property owners as to what the
2 effect will be on the property and, frankly, it is not
3 -- it's not perfectly clear as to what that effect
4 would be. It is somewhat relevant to say that the
5 impact on these properties will be lessened if the
6 property is master planned single family residential
7 then it would be if it remains OST or light
8 industrial. The impacts from OST or industrial
9 development could have a large amount of noise, more
10 paving, more impact on the natural features, et
11 cetera. It may not be as healthy of a neighbor as
12 houses or a high school would be.
13 The applicant is certainly very
14 willing and wanting to become a good neighbor in the
15 City and during the site planning process we will be
16 attempting to mitigate as many of these facts that
17 they will have as possible. However, the southern
18 finger is fairly obviously going to be used for the
19 secondary access point for this property and there is
20 very little way around at this point but the details
21 will be dealt with at the site plan stage of the
22 process; however, it's best to at least bring them to
23 light at this point and make the commissioners aware
24 of this.
25 The City staff really feel that this
103
1 will be a positive addition to the community should
2 Detroit Catholic go through with this in the future.
3 It really is a unique user to the Detroit area and
4 really the country. They are a well-known high school
5 and they produce excellent students and athletes in
6 general. As I mentioned, the applicant is very
7 willing to work with the City staff and the residents
8 to try to mitigate the impacts as much as possible and
9 really bring quality development to the city of Novi.
10 Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Would
12 the applicant wish to address the commission? Try to
13 keep it to no longer than ten minutes.
14 MR. RYAN: Thank you, Madame
15 Chairperson, Members of the Commission. My name is
16 Tom Ryan. I'm an attorney in the Sylvan Lake,
17 2055 Orchard Lake Road, representing Detroit Catholic
18 Central High School. I echo many of the comments
19 Mr. Schmitt has stated. I won't repeat them.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you slow
21 down for the court reporter, please.
22 MR. RYAN: Thank you. I apologize.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
24 MR. RYAN: I would like to ask
25 Father Richard Elmer, President of the Detroit
104
1 Catholic Central just to address you briefly. I would
2 like to give him several of my ten minutes. We won't
3 keep you here all night but I think you should know a
4 little bit about the school and the institution. So I
5 would like Father Elmer to come to the podium, please.
6 FATHER ELMER: My name is Richard
7 Elmer, E-l-m-e-r, 14200 Breakfast Drive, Redford,
8 Michigan 48236. That's the school's address.
9 Catholic Central was established in
10 Detroit in 1928 by the Brazilian Fathers of which I am
11 a member of that community. It's a religious
12 community of priests founded in 1822. Our motto is
13 teaching goodness, discipline and you know. Which
14 indicates our mission and that is to help young men
15 grow spiritually, morally, intellectually and
16 physically. We're a private college preparatory
17 school for boys grades 9 through 12. We're accredited
18 by the North Central Association of Colleges and
19 Schools. We have 1,009 students at the present time
20 coming from quite a few parts of Southeastern
21 Michigan. We have a faculty of 64, 11 of whom are
22 Brazilian priests.
23 We hope to build our new Catholic
24 Central near the southwest corner of Grand River and
25 Wixom Road. A few things about the academics. Last
105
1 year's senior class had 31 national merit scholars, 21
2 finalists and 10 commended. The previous year we have
3 26 scholars, 13 semifinalists and 13 commended
4 students. 98 percent of our graduates attend
5 institutions of higher learning. We have ten advanced
6 placement classes that are offered. Our ACT and SAT
7 scores are well above the national and state
8 averages. For the second year in a row and the only
9 two years in existence we've won the Governor's cup
10 for the highest number of MEAP awardees among schools
11 in the Catholic league.
12 We have ten hours of Christian
13 service that's required yearly. It factors into
14 10,000 hours of service mostly to the community of
15 Novi if they would have us. Sixteen percent of our
16 students are of faiths other than Catholic. We have
17 an excellent academic team. Our football team,
18 they've taken eight state titles in the last 15 years.
19 Including the last two years we've had two national
20 champions in football in 1999 and 2001.
21 Our band has 116 students in the
22 music program which is both marching and symphonic.
23 We have 21 clubs and activities in the school.
24 Athletically we've won seven state championships in
25 the last three years.
106
1 Why do we want to move into Novi?
2 When it became apparent from our long range strategic
3 plan that a westward move was necessary for us, we
4 decided and looked at where our families were moving
5 and it was to the west, but also to the northwest.
6 Novi seemed to be the ideal choice. Our present
7 constituency was moving westward. Talked to the City
8 of Novi officials and they were very welcome to the
9 possibility of Catholic Central coming to their
10 community the city of Novi. Also one of the reasons
11 is the excellent educational system in the city of
12 Novi maintained by extremely competent leadership.
13 I've had a number of conversations
14 with Dr. Lippe, couldn't be more impressed with his
15 leadership in education than any city and to reinforce
16 the decision it wasn't hard when 60 acres of land was
17 offered to us free. So that, too, was a factor in
18 making that decision. Lakeside Oakland development
19 and Frank Pellerito and his wife Colleen were the ones
20 that gave us the property. And, in summary, the
21 Catholic Central family would very much like to become
22 part of and become citizens and neighbors of the city
23 of Novi and we pray this will become a reality and
24 thank you.
25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
107
1 Father Elmer.
2 MR. RYAN: Just briefly, Madame
3 Chair, if I may. I think that this makes a lot of
4 sense. It's a win, win situation for the City and for
5 the use of this property it will extend the
6 residential zone. It's not a spot zone. It will
7 provide a buffer between the heavier industrial uses
8 to the north and to the pure residential uses to the
9 south and we believe that any adverse impacts will be
10 lessened by the R-1 zoning and we will strive to work
11 through the site planning process should you allow
12 this amendment and then the rezoning to work with the
13 neighbors to minimize the impact on them. Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
15 Mr. Ryan.
16 I have several members of the
17 audience that would like to speak. First one is
18 Mr. Alan Bond if you would like to approach the
19 podium.
20 MR. BOND: Good evening. Mr. Alan
21 Bond. Also with me is my wife Kathleen.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening.
23 MR. BOND: I would like to read a
24 letter that I've written into the record if I may and
25 then I'll have some very brief comments.
108
1 "Honored Commission Members:
2 "Kathleen and I appear this evening
3 to voice our concerns regarding this proposed Master
4 Plan amendment by Catholic Central High School.
5 "We are one of the property owners
6 about to be surrounded by their development. Our
7 concerns are many. Traffic and noise have already
8 increased due to the Novi Promenade development
9 directly across Wixom Road from our home. Adding 1100
10 high school students and 500 cars and that would be
11 500 cars twice per day to the area will be a
12 significant disruption to our formerly quiet
13 residence. "For Kathleen and I, the
14 issue is the value of our property. As with many in
15 the middle class, it is our largest single assets.
16 Will this development decrease the value of our
17 property? The answer can be find in Novi's own Master
18 Plan Amendment Report dated November 13th, 2002.
19 Passages on pages 7 and 8 clearly state that there
20 will be a major negative impact to the single-family
21 homes along Wixom Road."
22 That's us.
23 "Although the report suggests the
24 impact will be mitigated, it is unclear to us how the
25 city will mitigate the impact of our home being
109
1 sandwiched between a major educational facility to the
2 west and an enormous retail area to the east.
3 "Of course, our concerns would
4 disappear should Catholic Central purchase our
5 property and we look forward to productive
6 negotiations with the school. If that does not
7 happen, Kathleen and I will look to rezone our
8 property to office under the current master plan. We
9 wish only to preserve the value of our property.
10 "The Master Plan Amendment report
11 suggests on page 2 and elsewhere that our property be
12 re-designated R-1 on the master plan. We vigorously
13 oppose any such action by the city that limits our
14 options to recoup value lost to city sanctioned
15 development. Should the city of Novi follow a course
16 of action that leaves us with an unsaleable or sharply
17 devalued property, it will incur significant
18 liability."
19 Now, I should add to this that
20 Kathleen and I are neutral when it comes to the change
21 of master plan for Catholic Central. We understand
22 that Catholic Central would be an asset to the city of
23 Novi. I happen to work as a police lieutenant in
24 Redford Township where Catholic Central is currently
25 located and their reputation is second to none. We
110
1 are quite aware of that.
2 Our concern is that we would have our
3 delightful little home on 1.7 acres of Novi's finest
4 land sitting directly behind a school and fronted by a
5 major retail development. Should we decide to sell
6 that home and we will at some point when we are able
7 to retire, will a residential potential owner consider
8 this property? We think the answer is no and that
9 makes us very concerned about the value of our
10 property. We understand that this meeting tonight is
11 only to consider the Master Plan Amendment and that
12 our concerns will be handled at some future point
13 should we continue to own the property at the site
14 planning rezoning. However, we did wish to make the
15 commission aware of our concerns and we think they are
16 very valid concerns. Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
18 much, Mr. and Mrs. Bond.
19 We have another person that would
20 like to come forward, Chris Walsh.
21 MR. WALSH: I'm Chris Walsh,
22 27053 Wixom Road. I wrote a statement to read tonight
23 and I'll make it as quick as I can.
24 "My name is Chris Walsh, and my wife
25 and our 2 week old child now live at 27053 Wixom Road,
111
1 directly across the street from the entrance to the
2 new Target store on Wixom Road.
3 "When we moved into our home 9 years
4 ago, Wixom Road was a dirt road with cars that went by
5 every day slowly because of the shape of the road and
6 the low speed limit. Since then, because of
7 developments, our road is now paved, we lost about
8 30 feet of our front yard, placing the roadway within
9 35 feet of our bedroom window, the Target was allowed
10 to install their entrance at a point wherein every car
11 that exits shines it's headlights into my bedroom,
12 once again from a distance of about 35 feet.
13 "At night the street sweepers that
14 were hired by Target keep our new child awake even
15 when she could be sleeping, and the store and folks
16 exiting the store squealing tires and revving engines
17 have turned what used to be a peaceful place to live
18 into a tempest of activity.
19 "Now that Target has been built
20 across the street from our home, we realize that the
21 location of our home has been made a place or property
22 that has lost its intrinsic value as a home to any
23 potential buyer in the future. In other words, what
24 family would want to raise their children in a home
25 that has speeding cars in front of it, a street light,
112
1 and a large shopping center directly across the
2 street. Now, we have a private school that will be
3 built behind our home, for high school students. When
4 this school is completed, my family will have a
5 minimum of 2000 automobiles a day circle our home, as
6 the proposed entrance is on the left of our home and
7 the proposed exit is on our right. The school is to
8 be placed behind our home and the Target is in front
9 of our home.
10 "So we start from the premise that
11 our home has had it's value very diminished, as a
12 home, as a result of the zoning that allowed the
13 Target store to exist in the first place, and
14 secondarily the new school. This leaves our home, the
15 largest object of value we own, in a situation wherein
16 its real value will at some point lie in our ability
17 to sell the property to an establishment or entity
18 that would establish or place commercial business'
19 within our property. In other words, we will need the
20 ability to sell our property to someone that cannot
21 only use it, but can deliver to us fair market value
22 for the home that we purchased in Novi with the
23 original intent of raising our family.
24 "Now, I understand that the
25 organization that owns the property wishes to rezone
113
1 their property that is behind our home to residential,
2 and further that if this occurs that the zoning
3 commission would at that point possibly consider it
4 inappropriate to have our property zoned anything but
5 residential.
6 "If our property is zoned
7 residential, like the school, then there is no way
8 that any business could ever use our property as
9 commercial, which drives the value of our homes
10 straight down. At this point we as property owners
11 have been straightjacketed. Our homes are undesirable
12 and they can't be sold to anyone as business either."
13 So we're kind of stuck in the
14 middle. We just want to make sure that nothing
15 happens to that house. That's basically it.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
17 MR. WALSH: That's what I got to say,
18 thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could I ask you
20 due to the lateness of the hour I notice that what you
21 read is typed up. Would you mind giving that to the
22 court reporter?
23 MR. WALSH: No.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have another
25 audience member that would like to speak, Mr. Don
114
1 Dominick. I would like to remind the audience members
2 to please remember to limit your comments to the
3 commissioner to three minutes.
4 MR. DOMINICK: Members of the
5 Planning Commission, my name is Don Dominick. I reside
6 at 26991 Wixom Road. As was mentioned earlier the
7 dynamics in the changes going on in that corridor are
8 very evident. I've been a resident of Novi since 1976
9 and I for one can tell you I've seen much progress and
10 much development and I agree with the development,
11 but I agree with sensible planning. As far as the
12 rezoning and for such a fine institution and
13 organization as Catholic Central, I think it would be
14 a very good move for Novi to accept that. However,
15 the noninclusion of residential property in this area
16 reminds me of the development in the '80s along
17 Novi Road when it took a look at Wendy's and other
18 areas, Bob Evans. It didn't include residential.
19 Those homes sat vacant. I think they were an eyesore
20 to this community. I would hope that somewhere along
21 the lines is some type of open communication with
22 Catholic Central to develop and run and build this
23 fine facility in which they're wanting to bring to
24 town.
25 I can't quite comprehend -- and to be
115
1 honest being here since '76, I was an employee of the
2 fire department here for 24 years. I never really
3 thought that something like this would happen to me.
4 I saw what happened to others, as I said, in the
5 '80s. I've had total confidence in this community.
6 However, very recently -- and it happened so very
7 quickly. I can look out my picture window -- and,
8 again, I want to remind everybody that I did make the
9 comment, yes, I agree with the development.
10 I look out my picture window that
11 used to be deer, used to be a dirt road. Now I can
12 look at the loading docket of a Target store which my
13 mailbox is closer to than my house. It's a shorter
14 walk from my mailbox there then it is to my front
15 door. So stranded in this oasis of property, I feel
16 as if I've been squeezed to the west. Now there is 80
17 foot between myself and my neighbor Mr. Bond that
18 spoke earlier, where there is going to be a secondary
19 access road. So instead of being involved in the fire
20 department we were a secondary access road. However,
21 that road on the plan is 20 feet from my bedroom
22 window. You've already heard the number of cars that
23 will pass in and out each day and when I take a look
24 at the minutes that you provided September 16th on
25 page 7 it clearly indicates that the homeowners and I
116
1 know there's only four of us -- were not included in
2 the study. I feel that without a doubt with a total
3 of 80 feet between my property line and the property
4 line of my owner to the north which, again, appears to
5 be designated for that secondary access road, again 20
6 feet from my bedroom window, is where that line
7 delineates, the one that runs east/west and is the
8 southern drive.
9 I would hope that the Planning
10 Commission takes into account -- I feel confident
11 having the opportunity to speak with Father Elmer over
12 the last couple of days. I feel relieved over the
13 fact I hoped that we can somehow come up with a fair
14 market value for the property because, as Father Elmer
15 said, their long-term strategic plan is to move to the
16 west.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Dominick, I
18 don't mean to be rude. You are well over your three
19 minutes. If you could come close to finishing up I
20 would appreciate it.
21 MR. DOMINICK: Yes, ma'am.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
23 MR. DOMINICK: Our long-term
24 strategic plan, my wife and I, was to put our kids
25 through college. I have a son now that is a junior at
117
1 Michigan State and we worked very hard to pay our
2 house off in time so we wouldn't have a house payment
3 to continue to pay tuition. And my daughter, who is
4 now a senior, will be attending Michigan State next
5 year and I would like to think that my property values
6 don't plummet so low that my kids don't attend
7 college. Thank you very much.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
9 Mr. Dominick.
10 Is there anyone else in the audience
11 that would like to address the commission?
12 Yes, sir, if you would please come
13 forward and please state your name and address for the
14 record and spell your last name for the court
15 reporter, please.
16 MR. HERBEL: I realize the hour
17 is late. My name is Richard Herbel. I live at
18 43600 Cottisford and I own the property to the north.
19 We didn't know one another and we sat in the same
20 area. I own the large white farmhouse and I've owned
21 it for twelve, fifteen years as investment property.
22 This area is not going to be conducive to residential
23 in the future. As you know it, the shopping center
24 across the street is going to have more stores, more
25 traffic. It's currently zoned office and the logical
118
1 and fair thing to do would be to leave the zoning
2 ordinance for the four property owners at least office
3 or commercial. Because of all the traffic it doesn't
4 fit any of the residential users that are provided in
5 other areas of the city. I'm for the Catholic Central
6 coming in but I don't want to see the zoning change.
7 When there's football games there's going to be a lot
8 more cars. When the shopping center is built out
9 there's going to be a lot more cars and office will be
10 compatible with that. Having homes with little
11 children in that traffic pattern is not your perfect
12 place. Not on Wixom. If the Catholic Central will
13 leave the office zoning for the rest maybe we can have
14 a market for property when the time is right. Thank
15 you.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
17 Mr. Herbel. I appreciate your comments.
18 Mr. Mutch, three minutes, please.
19 MR. MUTCH: Andrew Mutch, 24541
20 Hampton Court. My first comment would be just it's a
21 quarter to 11:00 at night and I know there was some
22 other issues that took this late but I mean I always
23 felt that having public hearings this late in the hour
24 wasn't to the benefit of anybody and I still stand on
25 that, but that's a separate issue.
119
1 I just wanted to touch on three
2 important points and, as some of you know, I served on
3 the Planning Commission when we last had a major
4 master plan amendment and one of the significant
5 changes in that master plan was that designation of
6 the commercial area that's now Target. I opposed that
7 vigorously but it was approved. I think it made an
8 important point that these amendments and these
9 changes never happen in a vacuum and unfortunately I
10 don't think there was a lot of forethought put into
11 the potential impact of that change and the scope of
12 that change and you've heard from some of the people
13 tonight who have been directly impacted by that
14 change. It's just not planning. In fact, it became a
15 legal device for developers to strongarm the City into
16 approving a development that maybe wasn't in the best
17 interest of the city. So it has serious and long-term
18 ramifications no matter what you do. The question
19 tonight is not one about the applicant. I don't think
20 there's anybody that doubts that Catholic Central
21 would be a benefit to the city but it's a question
22 about the land use. And I have several issues that I
23 would like to hear discussed before this decision is
24 made. One is to look at the issue of adjacency and
25 there's really two issues of adjacency. One is if
120
1 it's designated for single family residential and that
2 leads to single family residential zoning that impacts
3 all of the surrounding OST property. And then it also
4 has an impact on the other properties along Wixom
5 Road. And even if their zoning is not changed or
6 their zoning is allowed to go to some other
7 designation they're still impacted by adjacency to a
8 residential district.
9 The other question is consistency.
10 Several months back Singh Development Company was here
11 before the Planning Commission asking for a change to
12 the master plan to accommodate a residential
13 development that they wanted and one could argue that
14 would actually provide more benefits in terms of tax
15 revenue to the city but the Planning Commission said,
16 "No, we didn't want to lose that OST property and the
17 potential tax revenue with job growth from that." And
18 I would like to hear some of the discussion that
19 explain why those two applicants would be treated
20 differently.
21 In closing, I would just throw out a
22 couple of ideas for the commission to consider in
23 terms of if you decide to accommodate this change how
24 it might be done best. First, would be to look at an
25 alternative land use designation other than , maybe a
121
1 public or institutional designation that you would use
2 on school sites that we've done in other locations in
3 the city. But not only that I think the commission
4 has to look at changes or developing zoning provisions
5 or districts even that would accommodate these large
6 school properties while still protecting the value of
7 the OST property that's adjacent and accommodating the
8 property interests of the people on Wixom Road. Thank
9 you.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
11 Mr. Mutch. I would like to make a comment before I
12 turn this over to the commission. Is there anyone
13 else that would like to approach the commission and
14 give us a comment regarding this site or this master
15 plan amendment?
16 There is no correspondence?
17 MEMBER KOCAN: No.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Closing the public
19 hearing. I would just like to make the comment that
20 this commission was not -- we're not the ones that
21 approved the Target. I just had to say that. It's
22 not us.
23 With that, and also I would like to
24 remind the people that we are really talking only
25 about this one property which is Catholic Central.
122
1 That our intent is not to rezone any other pieces of
2 property at this point. The master plan committee
3 only made the recommendation with regard to the
4 property that is owned by Catholic Central. With that
5 I turn this over to the commission. Member Markham?
6 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you,
7 Madame Chair. I'll go first. I'm on the master plan
8 and zoning committee and I was fortunate to be able to
9 review this before many of the other members of the
10 commission being a member of that committee. So I've
11 had a little more time to think about it.
12 I'll start with Mr. Mutch's questions
13 first because I think they're good questions and I
14 think that they're very thoughtful. My impression of
15 the current zones on this piece of property and the
16 current master planning on this property is that an
17 office designation for this piece of property is, if
18 not in fact, almost what I would consider to be a spot
19 zoning. Someone mentioned spot zoning earlier
20 tonight. I think this is spot zoning. You have
21 office surrounded by light industrial, heavy
22 industrial and residential and offices stuck in the
23 middle here. I believe that in contrast to the Singh
24 development that we denied a few months ago that
25 development as residential was really not adjacent to
123
1 any other residential. So that in and of itself was
2 spot zoning. That's where I see the distinction
3 between the two. I do think that residential and a
4 potential school use is a better use for this piece of
5 property than an office. We have other pieces of
6 property in this community that are better served as
7 being potential office OST kind of developments. The
8 M-5 corridor, the Thirteen Mile area, those we're
9 having office complexes go in up there adjacent to
10 each other. Hopefully we're learning how to put
11 driveways where they ought to be and that sort of
12 thing as we develop these developments, but we're not
13 putting an office in the middle of a whole bunch of
14 other zoning. I think by bringing that back to a
15 residential designation that we would, in fact, be
16 providing that buffer between the Island Lake
17 development to the south and the industrial
18 developments and commercial developments to the north
19 and east.
20 I feel very much for the residents in
21 these four homes as well as the Wyzinskys who live
22 across the street. I think that the situation with
23 the Target is an unfortunate situation for homeowners
24 who thought they were going to stay there for a long
25 time and now are looking at an unknown future for
124
1 their homes. I do not think we should be talking
2 about changing the master plan tonight for those
3 parcels. I would like the City, Catholic Central, the
4 residents in those homes and possibly our planning
5 consultants or our attorneys to think about what those
6 parcels should be long-term. Because I agree with
7 Mr. Dominick who said that when we developed up along
8 Novi Road and left those houses they were eyesores for
9 many, many years. I don't know what it's going to be,
10 I think it's a Tim Horton's but I'm not sure. That
11 was a terrible ugly little house sitting on a hill for
12 -- what is it going to be?
13 MEMBER KOCAN: A bike shop.
14 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yeah. I wasn't sure
15 what it was going to be.
16 Anyway, it is certainly much better
17 than what was there for so many years in our
18 community. So I do think that we need to do long-term
19 thinking about what those home parcels should look
20 like. Maybe they won't all be dealt with in exactly
21 the same way but I don't think we should be talking
22 about changing the master plan designation for them
23 tonight. I do think we should change the master plan
24 designation for the Catholic Central parcel and with
25 that I make the motion that we amend the master plan
125
1 for the parcel designated as Catholic Central. It's
2 Section 18 on the west side of Wixom Road and south of
3 Grand River Avenue in office -- from OST and light
4 industrial to residential single family residential or
5 any other appropriate designation. Should I just say-
6 MR. EVANCOE: (Interposing) Single
7 residential development.
8 MEMBER KOCAN: Do you have any
9 reasons why?
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think she
11 stated them all.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Because this
13 designation will be more consistent with surrounding
14 properties and will provide a buffer between single
15 family residential to the south and industrial parcel.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second
17 to that motion?
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Supported.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by
20 Mr. Shroyer.
21 Mr. Arroyo, did you want to say
22 anything before we continue with our decision?
23 MR. ARROYO: Yes, I actually did have
24 a comment and I discussed this previously with
25 Mr. Fisher earlier and actually Mr. Mutch stole my
126
1 thunder a little bit in terms of what I wanted to
2 suggest. I know one concern that I'm sensing is that
3 there is a particular user that's come before you but
4 you're looking to change your master plan to single
5 family residential which would allow the user but we
6 would also allow other uses including potential use
7 away from single family residential.
8 Another option that you could
9 consider would be to master plan this property
10 public. Your master plan does include under the
11 public definition both public and private schools.
12 One thing that that would do for you is it would make
13 a policy statement that you're making this change
14 because of a specific situation. You feel that a
15 public use or quasi public use depending on how you
16 want to refer to it on this property makes some
17 sense. What that could ultimately lead to is when it
18 comes time to make a change in your zoning plan and
19 make a recommendation to City Council and you have to
20 then rezone the property to -- and still institutional
21 zoning classification you would then have to rezone it
22 to a residential classification, for example, R-1.
23 The potential exists that you could enter into a
24 development agreement that specifies if the school
25 were to go away that the zoning classification would
127
1 revert back to what it currently is or to another
2 designation or you could fall back into the office
3 classification if you consider that to be reasonable
4 or take some other steps. There's some other options
5 and that's why I think it might be helpful to get
6 Mr. Fisher's input on how that might be structured,
7 but if there is a concern about the ultimate user here
8 and you feel this particular use which is a high
9 school makes some sense you may be able to state that
10 as part of the decision that you're making this
11 evening and not commit this property necessarily to
12 developing a single family residential if that's not
13 your intent.
14 I know that complicates things a
15 little bit but I think it's certainly worth
16 considering. The other way would be to go residential
17 and industrial in the sense that it singe family
18 residential homes. I think if you're going to get an
19 application for a high school on this property it
20 would be a reasonable way to go.
21 I just wanted to bring that option up
22 as something for you to think about and potentially
23 explore. So that's why I decided to make a comment.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, go ahead
25 Commissioner Kocan.
128
1 MEMBER KOCAN: Just a question,
2 you've offered the option of public zoning and then
3 you've talking about single family residential. In
4 your opinion as a planning consultant, my question was
5 why R-1, why not R-2 or R-3 if we're looking at single
6 family residential based on if you take Catholic
7 Central out of the equation and you looked at this
8 without, you know, having a plan in front of you?
9 What size of residential would really be better if you
10 can say better, next to an industrial, heavy
11 industrial office, commercial? So my question was
12 maybe single family residential might be the way to go
13 but would we be better off looking at an R-2?
14 MR. ARROYO: It's an excellent
15 question. I can tell you what the thought was of the
16 master plan zoning committee when the master plan was
17 updated and I think it's helpful for me to show you
18 this graph to make that explanation.
19 This shows some of the natural
20 features in the area. This is the subject property
21 that they're looking at right now. Island Lake is to
22 the south. These are the single family homes. When
23 the master plan rezoning committee recommended the
24 full master plan amendment in 1999 was looking at this
25 property, they were influenced by these natural
129
1 features. You have wetlands coming through. You have
2 woodlands on this site. The feeling that maintaining
3 this area as residential at a density similar to what
4 you're finding to the south within Island Lake which
5 is still fairly low density -- this is zoned R-1 and
6 is developed at R-1 density. That this would provide
7 a fairly good natural buffer between a more intense
8 office use to the north, which would have been OST,
9 which is what was envisioned north of this property,
10 and the Planning Commission felt at the time a lower
11 density R-1 or R-A or R-1 type density would still
12 make sense in this location because you had that
13 density to the south and you had this type of buffer.
14 That's why they designated it the way they did and
15 currently copied the master plan.
16 Could you go to something more
17 intense, you could consider it. I think one of the
18 points that's been made is originally when the master
19 plan amendment was being considered in 1999 this area
20 across was not going to be commercial. It was going
21 to be industrial and it was a change that was made
22 right at the very end of the process and the impact on
23 adjacent property is obviously something that needs to
24 be considered.
25 That gives you at least the
130
1 perspective of why it was designated as it currently
2 is.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have one
4 comment to make. I really wish we could've had this
5 discussion during our master plan process of this
6 committee. I this it really could've benefited the
7 master planning committee and we would have welcomed
8 this. I just could also make one comment that being
9 on the master plan committee we are very concerned not
10 about just this Catholic Central even though we made
11 the recommendation but the property of the residents
12 involved and that's why we didn't rezone that area
13 even though our planners suggested it. One of our
14 planners suggested we rezone. We did not. We feel
15 they have every right to have the best use of their
16 property. So I think that all has to be taken into
17 account even though we are just here to make the
18 decision on that and maybe you should be at our master
19 plan meeting next time and we can work things out a
20 little better. Any comments?
21 First, Mr. Fisher, do you have any
22 comments now or would you like to wait until
23 commissioner Paul is done?
24 MR. FISHER: I would always defer to
25 Commissioner Paul.
131
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Very good answer.
2 Commissioner Paul?
3 MEMBER PAUL: I have a question for
4 you, Mr. Arroyo. I'm trying to find public. Where
5 are you?
6 MR. ARROYO: In the master plan it's
7 on page 54. If you have the master plan for land use,
8 the full document.
9 MEMBER MARKHAM: I have it. I always
10 carry my master plans.
11 Public land use is defined as land
12 uses recommended in these areas include facilities
13 such as Government buildings, fire stations, public
14 and private schools and public utilities such as waste
15 water treatment plant and water storage facilities.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Doesn't say
17 anything about schools?
18 MR. ARROYO: Yes, it does. It says
19 public and private schools.
20 MEMBER PAUL: I think I would ask
21 legal counsel then, what would be the better thing to
22 put in our motion, public or R-1 and I wouldn't want
23 this to be a higher density than R-1 in my opinion
24 because this road is also very narrow and it's very,
25 very dense already. If rezoned, would a condition on
132
1 this motion say Catholic Central would, move forward
2 the site would turn back over to R-A of or R-1 I would
3 be more comfortable with that then going back to
4 office. And my fear of office is we would have a
5 similar situation to the promenade with the Wyzinskys'
6 property and I would like to keep it as residential as
7 possible with the current four residents that are
8 abutting that area.
9 MR. FISHER: Well, one thing we need
10 to do is keep in mind that we are doing an overall
11 master plan study that will be able to follow this and
12 in a couple of years and at that point in time we'll
13 know a greater certaintly what will happen on the
14 Catholic Central property, I assume. I assume in a
15 couple years we'll know where things are going.
16 MR. ARROYO: 2005.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It doesn't have to
18 be every five years?
19 MR. EVANCOE: 2004.
20 MR. FISHER: Yeah. So what you do
21 with this property as it relates to the adjacent
22 properties and so forth is something that can be
23 corrected if circumstances change. Overall, I think
24 my reference would be consistenttent with what
25 Mr. Arroyo has indicated to the public classification
133
1 because then you're not creating the potential for
2 spot zones later on these other properties. You know,
3 if we're talking about this property being spot zoned
4 if we have a large piece that's residential and we
5 want to put OST or office or other uses along the
6 front as we may have a bigger spot zoning issue and I
7 don't think you had that with the public
8 classification having these other uses in there
9 because the public is public, I mean, it's something
10 that generally speaking is legitimately adjacent to
11 anything, so to speak. So a public is not going to be
12 a problem and, as I say, even if you continue with the
13 motion as residential and something happens in a
14 couple of years you're going to be finishing your
15 master plan and you can make adjustments.
16 MEMBER PAUL: One question. To me
17 with knowledge of this ordinance and with Mr. Arroyo's
18 knowledge it sounds like you would rather go public
19 than R-A or R-1?
20 MR. FISHER: I think listening to the
21 input tonight I don't think it has any adverse
22 consequences to the applicant and I think it may
23 provide some relief to the other adjoining property
24 owners.
25 MEMBER PAUL: Would the motion be
134
1 amended, would you be amenable?
2 MEMBER MARKHAM: I want to ask some
3 questions before I do change my motion.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Go ahead.
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'm not clear on why
6 the residents might be adversely effected by a
7 residential designation but not adversely effected by
8 a public designation.
9 MR. FISHER: Well, this property
10 is -- I mean, obviously is a large piece of property
11 and there is some considerable part of it adjacent to
12 the road and these properties or some of the other
13 smaller property, even though they're not small, but
14 they are relatively smaller and they are engulfed in
15 by this land. So if you have a residential master
16 plan designation on them and these other properties
17 are later going to be either reaffirmed or actively
18 pursued for nonresidential, the argument could easily
19 be made what you're doing is either creating or
20 perpetuating spot zones around what you've now master
21 planned for residential.
22 Now, I compare that to a public
23 classification, for example. I mean it's intended to
24 be a school and the school that you could have easily
25 in a residential zone that might be next to an office
135
1 or commercial.
2 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. I'd like to
3 ask the applicant, do you have an opinion or an
4 objection to a public?
5 MR. RYAN: Yes, we do. Tom Ryan,
6 attorney for Detroit Catholic Central. You know,
7 unfortunately it didn't come up at the subcommittee
8 and we've been on the agenda here for a few months and
9 Mr. Arroyo's own Katherine wrote that because of the
10 fact that OST is really not a viable use for this
11 property. I mean, those are not my words. Those are
12 their words that there are other zones in the city
13 where it's more appropriate for OST. We have
14 residential to the south, high quality residential,
15 and it seems a natural extension that there is no spot
16 zoning by eliminating the master plan area for OST and
17 light industrial because it's not viable in this area
18 in using the other more viable locations in the city
19 and making it residential. I mean, the adjoining
20 properties on Wixom Road, whatever the zoning is, it's
21 a residential use. So it's very compatible. I mean,
22 whatever they do in the future you can do or not do
23 that's your business, but these homes are currently
24 single family residential use and we want to be the
25 same use. The same zoning eventually.
136
1 MEMBER MARKHAM: Do you have an
2 objection to a public classification?
3 MR. RYAN: I really think we would
4 like to stick with the residential use. I don't think
5 that harms anybody. We've been going along for the
6 process and I mean we're going to come back here in a
7 couple of weeks hopefully for rezoning to R-1. I
8 mean, I don't know what the difference for your master
9 plan is going to be if you have a yellow spot on your
10 master plan for us or a purple or whatever the public
11 zoning is. I mean, we're adjacent to single family
12 residential. They're our neighbors. We're going to
13 work with them and to the south is single family
14 residential and it seems and I thought the
15 subcommittee agree and the planning consultant agreed
16 that the yellow residential zone was a natural
17 progression and not a spot zone for this area of the
18 city.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. You've
20 answered the question.
21 MEMBER MARKHAM: Well, I guess with
22 that I would suggest that we leave my motion on the
23 table and let the commission vote and if the
24 commission as a whole feels it's not the right
25 designation then we can make another motion.
137
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
2 other comments by any other commissioners?
3 MEMBER KOCAN: We still have to
4 discuss this thoroughly. I guess my concern with
5 looking at just part of the parcel and not everything
6 to Wixom Road is -- and maybe I just don't understand
7 it. I'd like to have things printed up. I want to
8 read them at home. To dissect it. I don't like being
9 presented with a new option the night of the meeting.
10 I abhor that, because I'm lost here. What I think
11 about zonings and rezoning and trying not to spot zone
12 I try to think of the zoning as I've said previously
13 without the proposed development. I have not seen
14 what Catholic Central is going to look like on this
15 parcel so I'm not sure exactly how it's going to be
16 developed so I have no opinion as to what's going to
17 be where. No educated opinion. But when I look at
18 the parcels along Wixom Road I guess I look at
19 consistency, if that's the right term. If the
20 residents are looking for something more office or
21 more industrial usage at some point and maybe this
22 shouldn't even enter into my decision but it does. It
23 bothers me. I would like to have the entire parcel
24 along all of the frontage on Wixom Road to be one
25 consistent zone. I don't want, you know, this one to
138
1 be residential because it's an entryway to the school
2 and then it's going to be office because of these two
3 houses and then it's going to be residential because
4 we need secondary access and then it's going to be
5 residential or office or whatever else again. I have
6 a real problem with that so I'm having a problem with
7 trying to consider zoning the back end of the property
8 without considering zoning the front end of the
9 property at the same time.
10 Personally -- and I know that
11 Catholic Central is on a timetable and I know that at
12 some point, you know, we got this property we have to
13 do something with it, I would personally like
14 additional time to review the options to see exactly
15 what the public zoning does, what impacts it has, what
16 ramifications it has. I guess I don't understand why
17 Catholic Central would be opposed to a public
18 designation as opposed to residential. I don't
19 understand your argument for that because to me it
20 sounds like there's no negative impact at all to
21 Catholic Central with the public designation and it
22 might be more beneficial to the residents with the
23 public designation. I guess I would just like to see
24 more arguments. That's -- I don't know how I'm going
25 to vote tonight.
139
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
2 further comments? Member Sprague?
3 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes, I'd like to
4 echo Commissioner Kocan's comments. My issue is not
5 whether or not it would be a good addition to the
6 community I believe they would. I'm concerned how we
7 intend to do some things piecemeal. I want to protect
8 the four homeowners and their property and I want to
9 protect the City of Novi so that what happened on Novi
10 Road doesn't happen again and I'm struggling with the
11 way to do that. Is there really a way to do that? I
12 know we have this issue of rezoning this property in
13 front us and that's what we're supposed to deal with,
14 but it doesn't really deal with the whole issue. I'm
15 unsure where to go with this. I'm really looking for
16 options on how we solve the whole problem instead of
17 solve one piece of it and create other problems we're
18 going to have to struggle with later.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I
20 would like to make a comment but before I do I would
21 like to have Mr. Arroyo come to the podium one more
22 time and, as I said, I am on the master plan and
23 zoning committee commission meeting. I'm a little
24 disappointed because these are not options that were
25 brought up in things that we talked about. So, as I
140
1 said to you, we did make the recommendation to rezone.
2 in the consideration of the master plan committee we
3 considered the neighbors. We also have to consider
4 what's across the street. We can't change Target but
5 that's other residential. Would you please give me
6 your professional opinion as to the zoning that you
7 feel would be appropriate for the Catholic Central
8 whether it's public or residential.
9 MR. ARROYO: In my opinion, I would
10 suggest that you consider it public. When you get to
11 the zoning, I would recommend an R-1 designation. I
12 think that that's reasonable and appropriate and, in
13 fact, I think you could even include that in a motion
14 in terms of a master plan designation. The intent
15 would be even if I designated it as public you can say
16 that your intent is ultimately a zoning classification
17 of single family residential would be there with the
18 public use and in that you've made a policy at the
19 same time of what your opinion is. The other option
20 is go to the other way which is perfectly acceptable
21 and designate it as single family residential. I
22 think it's a matter of preference. I only brought it
23 up as a way of trying to address some concerns that I
24 was perceiving that you weren't feeling that you were
25 having a strong policy statement about these single
141
1 family residences as you would be with the public. So
2 it is just as an option for you to consider.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, I
4 appreciate your comments.
5 The motion stands. Unfortunately, I
6 didn't write it down.
7 Do you remember your motion?
8 MR. SCHMITT: The motion was to
9 amend the master plan to single family residential
10 which would consistent with the surrounding
11 properties.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Single family.
13 MS. KOCAN: I'm going to do something
14 that may be unpopular. I'm making a motion to table
15 and see where it goes, because I see a lot of head
16 shaking and people are not really sure about what it
17 is that's the best thing to do and, therefore, I put
18 that motion to table on the floor until we get
19 additional information regarding the public
20 designation with regard to additional input from --
21 what we do have the residential input that was stated
22 this evening that was not in my opinion it was not
23 part of the master plan minutes. What it is that they
24 would be requesting. That's my motion.
25 MEMBER SHROYER: There's another
142
1 motion on the table.
2 MEMBER KOCAN: My motion to table
3 supersedes. If I get a second.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second
5 to the motion?
6 MEMBER PAPP: I'll second it.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's a second
8 to the motion to table this. Do we have any other
9 comments?
10 MEMBER MARKHAM: I would like to.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham?
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'm very unhappy
13 with how this has gone tonight. I can usually hold my
14 temper at these meetings but I am very unhappy that we
15 spent as much time as we did at the master plan
16 committee reviewing this and these options were never
17 brought out. It's laid out in front of the applicant.
18 No wonder they say they don't want to consider a
19 change they don't know what it would mean and now
20 we're going to wait until we know what we might do
21 with these other residents' homes. I think that's
22 just asking to delay for months the possibility of
23 moving forward on this piece of property and I think
24 that's wrong and I am very unhappy with the materials
25 that was presented to us because it was incomplete.
143
1 And I feel like a fool. I feel like I have egg on my
2 face for having made the original motion and making
3 the recommendations that I made but it was because I
4 was not given all of the information, evidently, and
5 that's all I have to say.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Ryan, any
7 follow-up?
8 MR. RYAN: Just briefly. Thank you.
9 I would just say -- and I know the hour is late and I
10 appreciate all your time and appreciate your comments.
11 But hearing Mr. Arroyo just speak we all know we're
12 going to get the R-1 next time we come here. If it
13 doesn't matter if it's R-1 or public, then why not
14 just make it residential, because we're going to come
15 back here in "X" amount of weeks and ask for R-1
16 anyway.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So are you saying
18 that if the commission would, you would be amenable
19 with R-1?
20 MR. RYAN: Yes, ma'am.
21 MEMBER MARKHAM: But that's a zoning
22 designation.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right.
24 MR. RYAN: Sorry.
25 MEMBER SHROYER: It has to be the
144
1 same.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody have
3 any comment, any other comment?
4 The motion on the table -- the motion
5 at the table at this point is to table this. Can I
6 have a roll call if you would please, Mr. Schmitt.
7 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No.
9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
10 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul.
12 MEMBER PAUL: No.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
16 MEMBER SPRAGUE: No.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: No.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
20 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
22 MEMBER MARKHAM: No.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Motion fails four to
24 four.
25 MEMBER KOCAN: No. Only three
145
1 people opposed.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Oh, you're right, I'm
3 sorry.
4 MEMBER KOCAN: Five to three.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Five to three, not
6 four to four. The motion fails five to three. There
7 were only three people that voted-
8 MR. SCHMITT: (Interposing) Oh,
9 Avdoulos, Nagy, Paul and Sprague voted no.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And Markham.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Then that fails the
12 motion five to three.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's right.
14 MR. SCHMITT: I'm sorry. I
15 apologize.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's late.
17 Now we're back to the original
18 motion which was to amend the master plan from office
19 and light industrial to single family residential as
20 designated on the master plan for land use. That was
21 the original.
22 Member Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Mr. Fisher, since I
24 supported the original motion am I permitted to vote
25 against it?
146
1 MR. FISHER: Yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. Is
3 there any further discussion on this?
4 On the original motion which is
5 stated would you like to restate it again?
6 MEMBER MARKHAM: It's to change the
7 master plan designation from office and light
8 industrial to single family.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. If you
10 would, please, call for the roll, please.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy?
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
16 MEMBER PAPP: No.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
18 MEMBER PAUL: No.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
20 MEMBER SHROYER: No.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
22 MEMBER SPRAGUE: No.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
24 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
147
1 MEMBER KOCAN: No.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Motion fails five to
3 three.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Unfortunately,
5 with that we are concluded in this and will have to go
6 back to the planning department.
7 MR. EVANCOE: You can still make
8 another motion if you like?
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: What other motion
10 is there to make at 11:30?
11 MR. EVANCOE: You can say public if
12 you wanted it.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. I would like
14 to say to the commission at this hour and I am aware
15 that we are all tired. We have come to some sort of
16 reasonable resolution at this point.
17 MEMBER KOCAN: Mr. Fisher, can we
18 make a motion to table again and give us two weeks?
19 I'm not looking to table this for two months?
20 MR. FISHER: In other words, the
21 thrust of that would be to make sure it's not to be
22 considered denied but to continue the dialogue. I
23 think it would be proper to make a motion to postpone
24 for a future proceedings.
25 CHAIRPERSON: And make a date as to
148
1 next Planning Commission.
2 MR. FISHER: Right.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you?
4 MEMBER KOCAN: Motion to postpone
5 until a recent Planning Commission meeting when we
6 have additional materials.
7 MEMBER MARKHAM: Second.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. The
9 motion is to postpone until the next available date
10 after the commission receives further information.
11 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please call the roll.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
13 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
14 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
15 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
16 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
17 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
18 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
19 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
23 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
25 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
149
1 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
3 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes eight to
4 zero.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now that the
6 motion is passed we will postpone this until the next
7 agenda.
8 MR. RYAN: Thank you.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And your
10 properties are not rezoned.
11 We are almost done here and we are
12 approaching that magical hour. All in favor of
13 continuing the meeting say "Aye".
14 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Aye.
15 MEMBER PAUL: Aye.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Aye.
17 MEMBER MARKHAM: Aye.
18 MEMBER KOCAN: Aye.
19 MEMBER PAPP: Aye.
20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Aye.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion to
22 continue the meeting. We're going to continue the
23 meeting and would like to get out of here because the
24 court reporter can't hear and I really appreciate all
25 of your cooperation at this point in the evening.
150
1 Other matters of consideration we
2 have the approval of the October 16th, 2002 Planning
3 Commission meeting minutes.
4 MEMBER KOCAN: I can make a motion to
5 postpone this to the next meeting. I probably have 18
6 pages of corrections.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's
8 wonderful.
9 MEMBER SPRAGUE: So moved.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say,
11 "Aye".
12 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Aye.
13 MEMBER PAUL: Aye.
14 MEMBER SHROYER: Aye.
15 MEMBER MARKHAM: Aye.
16 MEMBER KOCAN: Aye.
17 MEMBER PAPP: Aye.
18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Aye.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next matter
20 for consideration is the request of JS Evangelistic
21 Development, LLC for approval of a one year Final Site
22 Plan extension. The subject property is located in
23 Section 2 at Fourteen Mile and Decker Roads. The
24 applicant proposes 100 unit congregate senior housing
25 project on 4.67 acres. The property is zoned R-A,
151
1 parenthesis, PUD. The applicant received one previous
2 site plan extension on December 19th, 2001. I will
3 turn this over to the commission. Do we have a motion
4 to extend this one year?
5 MEMBER KOCAN: Madame Chair, based on
6 the information that was supplied to the planning
7 department they are not aware of any changes to the
8 ordinances or surrounding land uses that would effect
9 an additional extension. I make a motion in the
10 matter of Maples Manor SP98-57 to grant approval of a
11 one year final site plan extension.
12 MEMBER PAUL: Support.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any
14 further discussion?
15 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please call
16 the roll.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?
20 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
22 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy?
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
152
1 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
3 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
5 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
7 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
8 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes eight to
9 zero.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. The
11 next item on the agenda is matters for discussion.
12 There are no matters for discussion.
13 The next item on the agenda is
14 special reports. Do we have any special reports?
15 MR. EVANCOE: No.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
17 Mr. Evancoe. We have no special reports.
18 The next item on the agenda is
19 audience participation. Is there anyone that would
20 like to come forward and address the Planning
21 Commission?
22 Seeing no one, I will close the
23 audience participation.
24 The next item is the Chair will
25 entertain a motion to adjourn.
153
1 MEMBER PAUL: So moved.
2 MS. KOCAN: All in favor say "I".
3 MEMBER SPRAGUE: I.
4 MEMBER PAUL: I.
5 MEMBER SHROYER: I.
6 MEMBER MARKHAM: I.
7 MEMBER KOCAN: I.
8 MEMBER PAPP: I.
9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes.
11 Thank you very much.
12 (The meeting was concluded
13 at 11:40 p.m.)
14 - - -
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3
4 I, Darlene K. May, do hereby certify
5 that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings
6 had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter
7 at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do
8 further certify that the foregoing transcript,
9 consisting of one hundred fifty-five (155) typewritten
10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said
11 stenographic notes.
12
13
14 Signature on File
Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479
15
16
January 17, 2003
17 (Date)
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
155
|