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.

                   Commission Members Antonia Nagy, Lowell Sprague, 
                   Lynne Paul, Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Lynn Kocan,
                   Larry Papp, John Avdoulos
                    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.


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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. 


           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.  


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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. 


           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 


           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, 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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.


           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 


           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?  


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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 


           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 


           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?


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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? 


           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.


           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 


           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.  


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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?


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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.  


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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.


           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?


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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,  


           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. 


           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 


           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 


           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, 


           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, 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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 


           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 


           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.  


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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.


           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.


           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 


           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.


           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 


           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 


           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 


           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 
          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.  


           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 


           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 


           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?


           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?


           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 


           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.


           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. 


           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, 


           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?


           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.                         


           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                             - - -


           1                 C  E  R  T  I  F  I  C  A  T  E
           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.
          14                            Signature on File
                                        Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479
              January 17, 2003
          17        (Date)