View Agenda for this meetingNOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2002, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER
45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan 48375
(248) 347-0475
Proceedings had before the NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me,
Maureen A. Haran, CSR-3606, a Notary Public, within and
for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at
45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, December 4, 2002.
PRESENT:
Chairperson: Antonia Nagy
Commission Members: Lowell Sprague, Lynne Paul,
Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Larry Papp, David Ruyle,
John Avdoulos
ABSENT/EXCUSED:
Commission Member Lynn Kocan
ALSO PRESENT:
Planning Director: David Evancoe
City Attorney: Gerald A. Fisher
Planner: Timothy R. Schmitt
City Engineer: Nancy McClain
21
REPORTED BY:
22
Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606
23
24
1
1 Novi, Michigan
2 Wednesday, December 4, 2002
3 7:35 p.m.
4 _ _ _
5 CALL TO ORDER
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I'd
7 like to call the Planning Commission meeting to
8 order.
9 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please call
10 the roll.
11 ROLL CALL
12 MR. SCHMITT: Member Avdoulos?
13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Here.
14 MR. SCHMITT: Member Kocan?
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent.
16 MR. SCHMITT: Excused.
17 Member Markham?
18 MEMBER MARKHAM: Here
19 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Member Papp?
22 MEMBER PAPP: Here.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Member Paul?
24 MEMBER PAUL: Here.
3
1 MR. SCHMITT: Member Ruyle?
2 MEMBER RUYLE: Here.
3 MR. SCHMITT: Member Shroyer?
4 MEMBER SHROYER: Here.
5 MR. SCHMITT: And Member Sprague?
6 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Here.
7 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
9 Mr. Avdoulos, if you would lead us in
10 the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
11 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
12 (Pledge of Allegiance was recited
13 at this time.)
14 APPROVAL OF AGENDA
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are there any
16 deletions or additions to the Agenda?
17 Mr. Ruyle?
18 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you,
19 Madam Chair.
20 Under Matters for Consideration, we'd
21 like to add Number 2, and we'll just call it the
22 Twelve Mile Road - Napier Study Plan.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Under Matters for
24 Discussion or Consideration?
4
1 MEMBER RUYLE: No. Matters for
2 Consideration.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Twelve Mile?
4 MEMBER RUYLE: Because we have to vote
5 on it.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Twelve Mile?
7 MEMBER RUYLE: Twelve Mile - Napier
8 Study Plan.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher?
10 MR. FISHER: Mr. Ruyle has made the
11 request. Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner
13 Markham?
14 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'd like to add an
15 item under Matters for Discussion: Training
16 materials.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.
18 Member Kocan is not here this evening
19 and she was the person that wanted to put under
20 Matters for Discussion the discussion on scheduling
21 the joint meeting with City Council. And I would
22 like to postpone that to the next Agenda and make
23 discussion on subcommittee meetings Item Number 1,
24 and the Training materials, Item Number 2. If no one
5
1 has any objection.
2 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval as
3 amended.
4 MEMBER PAUL: Second.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say
6 aye.
7 ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All opposed say
9 nay.
10 (No response from the Members.)
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes.
12 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have our first
14 audience participation and this is with regard to
15 anyone who would like to address the Commission on
16 anything other than the public hearings this
17 evening. The two public hearings this evening will
18 be the Master Plan Amendment on Ten Mile and Beck,
19 and the second Master Plan Amendment is the -- I
20 better put my glasses on. Pardon me.
21 The second Master Plan Amendment is
22 Master Plan for Single Family Residential to Multiple
23 at Thirteen and west of M-5. If there is anyone that
24 would like to address this Commission on any other
6
1 topic, other than those two, please come forward.
2 Yes, sir. Mr. Mutch. And if you
3 would please state your name and address, and spell
4 your last name for the court reporter.
5 MR. MUTCH: Court reporter tonight,
6 okay.
7 Andrew Mutch. 64541 Hampton Court.
8 Last name, M-u-t-c-h.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
10 MR. MUTCH: Good evening, Madam Chair
11 and members of the Planning Commission.
12 My comments tonight are directed
13 towards the Master Plan Amendment for Catholic
14 Central High School, which is under Matters for
15 Consideration.
16 At the last meeting when this item was
17 discussed, I came forward with the concept of looking
18 at some alternative land use ideas for this
19 property. And at that time, I suggested that there
20 was a Public Land Use designation on our Master Plan,
21 which might better fit that property. And the
22 Commission discussed that and some other
23 alternatives, and tabled that to give some
24 consideration to all the alternatives, and tonight
7
1 you will most likely vote on one of those.
2 I think in some of the discussion and
3 in some of the comments that I've read, that there
4 seems to be a focus on whether there's a right or
5 wrong answer to this question, and I don't think
6 there is one single right answer or wrong answer.
7 I think there's a slew of alternatives and we have
8 to decide which is the best alternative that meets
9 the needs of the Applicant, the needs of the City and
10 the needs of the surrounding property owners. And I
11 think the best alternative is the Public Land Use.
12 Now, the first question is: Does the
13 Public Land Use designation allow the Applicant to
14 move forward with the Catholic Central High School
15 plan, if the Commission is inclined to accept that?
16 And it does.
17 In fact, the language of Public Land
18 Use specifically includes private schools, such as
19 what is proposed under the Catholic Central Master
20 Plan Amendment. So this Applicant can move forward
21 with that designation on that property and fulfill
22 their vision for this property with that
23 designation.
24 Now the second question is: Does the
8
1 Public Land Use designation meet the needs of the
2 City? And I think it most definitely does. In fact,
3 of all the alternatives, I think it's the one that
4 best meets the needs of the City.
5 The Planning Commission could simply
6 designate this for Single Family Residential as has
7 been proposed. But, if you designate this as Public
8 Land Use, you are giving specific direction to these
9 property owners and future property owners that that
10 is your vision for this piece of property. Not
11 single family developed homes, subdivision
12 development, or other land uses of that nature. In
13 fact, I would guess that, save for this proponent
14 coming forward with the suggestion, that you would
15 not be considering residential land use for this
16 area.
17 The Planning Commission, when it
18 amended the Master Plan in 1999, did look at this
19 area in-depth, and endorsed the Plan as it now
20 stands. So from the City's viewpoint, the Public
21 Land Use is the most appropriate, and it gives you
22 the most control. If this Applicant, for whatever
23 reason, walks away and Catholic Central does not
24 become a reality, you have another opportunity to
9
1 review the future land use of that area with other
2 proponents. If you just simply make it Single Family
3 Residential, then anybody can come forward and under
4 your Master Plan, those visions of that property
5 which may not jive with yours, can simply be
6 approved.
7 And finally, I think the Public Land
8 Use designation best meets the needs of the
9 neighboring property owners. Clearly, designating
10 Single Family Residential on that property does not
11 match what will be there if Catholic Central is
12 developed. A high school of that size, with those
13 type of facilities, has much different impacts on the
14 surrounding property owners, and has much different
15 impacts in terms of land use. And clearly, the
16 Public designation recognizes those impacts, and
17 better gives the surrounding property owners, who we
18 all realize are in a very awkward position, much
19 better alternatives for the future. Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
21 Mr. Mutch.
22 We have Mayor Clark.
23 MAYOR CLARK: Thank you, Madam Chair,
24 but I do come here tonight simply as a private
10
1 citizen to speak in support of Item Number 1, Matters
2 for Consideration, the request for the Master Plan
3 Amendment for Catholic Central.
4 I'll just take a few moments of your
5 time and I'd like to point out a couple of things.
6 We have the distinction in this community of having
7 one of the outstanding public educational systems in
8 the State of Michigan. It's been recognized
9 nationally. To have one of the finest private
10 educational institutions anywhere, would only be a
11 plus and a positive for this community.
12 I would have to respectfully disagree
13 with the last speaker. I don't think Public Land Use
14 would be appropriate here for two reasons: Number
15 one, if Catholic Central did not develop, certainly
16 there's no other public school that's going to build
17 on that site. And nor will there be any other
18 governmental building, given the constraints and how
19 the voters have expressed their concerns in recent
20 elections relative, for example, to a new library. I
21 think the message is clear. You add to that, the
22 state budget cuts that are coming, I don't think
23 you'll see any government or public institutional
24 buildings going up for a long time into the future.
11
1 Certainly not in Novi.
2 Residential will allow Catholic
3 Central to be built. It is appropriate, and I say
4 that for two reasons: There was a concern addressed,
5 but what if Catholic Central doesn't build? Number
6 one, as everyone knows, Catholic Central was
7 fortunate enough to receive a donation of this
8 acreage from Mr. Pellerito. That property was looked
9 at in years past by several entrepreneurs for
10 purposes of development, and they walked away. They
11 said the site is just too difficult and too costly to
12 develop.
13 Secondly, Catholic Central has already
14 raised $24 million that they will commit to this
15 project. And when this project is finished, it will
16 be well in excess of that number. They're raising
17 additional funds as we speak. They are committed to
18 Novi. They have every intention to build that school
19 here.
20 This facility will add to the quality
21 of life in our community, it certainly will do
22 nothing to detract, but only add to everyone's
23 property values, as some families who do have
24 children who attend or in the future will attend,
12
1 will look at Novi as a place to live.
2 Finally, I am concerned and aware of
3 the concerns of the four homeowners who appeared at
4 your last meeting. I watched the meeting. And they
5 have some legitimate concerns, but I think adopting
6 the request of Catholic Central will in no way
7 devalue their property, but if anything, will add to
8 its value. If in the future, someone would make an
9 offer on their property for some sort of -- certainly
10 a business venture, they always have the option to
11 come in and make an offer saying subject to getting a
12 zoning change, and I think in light of the
13 circumstances, and certainly I can't speak for the
14 ZBA, but I think that they would certainly look with
15 favorable eye at that proposal, given what is going
16 on in that area and what is across the street from
17 where the high school is proposed to be.
18 And to say that, for example, well,
19 if this ended up being just Residential, it's not
20 good for the City of Novi. I find that one a little
21 hard to understand. Or the concept that, well, no
22 one would build homes in that area. Over 20 years
23 ago when I came out to Novi, I almost ended up in
24 Northville Township, and I can take you to an area at
13
1 Six and Bradner where there are homes now in an area
2 where we almost built, and three or four of those
3 homes are within 75 feet of the rail spur that goes
4 through Northville. And those homes now are valued
5 at about $300,000. So you'd be surprised where
6 people will build homes. Where we may not build a
7 home, someone else will. But I don't think we really
8 have to be concerned about that.
9 Catholic Central has the land and as
10 I've indicated, they've raised a substantial portion
11 of the funds already that they need to make this
12 project a reality. They have every intention to come
13 to Novi, to be good citizens in Novi, and are
14 hopefully looking forward -- if this project moves
15 ahead -- to opening their doors to the entering class
16 in 2005. Thank you.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
18 much, Mr. Clark.
19 Do we have anyone else in the audience
20 who would like to address the Commission on any
21 matters other than these two public hearings?
22 (No response from the audience.)
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I
24 will close the audience participation.
14
1 CORRESPONDENCE
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Vice Chair,
3 do we have any correspondence on anything other than
4 the public hearings?
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: No. We have several
6 letters but they're all related to the public
7 hearings.
8 COMMUNICATIONS/COMMITTEE REPORTS
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do we have
10 any communication and/or community reports? None?
11 PRESENTATIONS
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
13 presentations, Mr. Evancoe?
14 MR. EVANCOE: No, ma'am. We do not.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
16 much.
17 With that, the Commission will move on
18 to the next item which is the Consent Agenda -
19 Removals and Approvals.
20 CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS AND APPROVAL
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
22 removals or approvals?
23 MEMBER RUYLE: Move to approve.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say
15
1 aye.
2 ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes
4 six -- seven -- eight to zero.
5 PUBLIC HEARINGS
6 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - ASPEN GROUP/BECK LLC
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item on the
8 Agenda is the public hearings, and the first public
9 hearing is public hearing on the request of Aspen
10 Group/Beck LLC to amend the Master Plan from Single
11 Family Residential to Local Commercial.
12 The subject property is located in
13 Section 29 on the southwest corner of Ten Mile and
14 Beck Road. The subject property is 4.0 acres.
15 Mr. Schmitt.
16 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you,
17 Madam Chair.
18 The request this evening is for a
19 Master Plan Amendment, as you mentioned, from Single
20 Family Residential to Local Commercial.
21 I just want to stress for the members
22 of the audience that are watching at home and here in
23 the chambers, that this is not involving a rezoning
24 request at this time. A rezoning request may follow,
16
1 however this is simply for the Master Plan Amendment.
2 To give a brief overview of the area,
3 if I can get the overhead.
4 As you can see, the subject property
5 is located at the southwest corner of Ten Mile and
6 Beck Roads. It is surrounded by single family homes,
7 generally low density. Catty-corner across Ten Mile
8 and Beck at the northeast corner, is a Local
9 Commercial designation, which is currently developed
10 as the Briar Pointe Plaza Shopping Center. A small
11 strip center of approximately 12,000 square feet.
12 Further to the north is higher
13 density Single Family, and as I mentioned other
14 Single Family all around.
15 There are three main subdivisions in
16 the area: Greenwood Oaks to the north, Briarwood to
17 the northeast, and Broadmoor Park to the southeast.
18 The request would allow for the future
19 rezoning of the property to B-1, Local Commercial.
20 This would be the same zoning that is located at the
21 Briarpointe Shopping Center. It would allow for
22 small retail uses that you would see on a general
23 strip center type development. This would not allow
24 for items such as a gas station or a fast food
17
1 restaurant, or large big box realtor.
2 The general character of the area is
3 strongly residential. As you travel from this
4 building to the west on Ten Mile Road, you'll see the
5 side of the residential character along the road.
6 Many subdivisions abut the road and have homes that
7 actually have their rear yards along Ten Mile Road.
8 There's very little Commercial in the area, which I
9 believe prompted this request to provide for the
10 local community commercial needs.
11 The entire area is currently Master
12 Planned at 1.65 units per acre on the Single Family
13 map, Master Plan density map. This would -- this
14 request would remove this parcel from that density
15 and not contribute to the overall residential density
16 of the area. However, it would add a moderate
17 impact, moderate traffic count user to the area,
18 adding approximately -- estimated between 500 and
19 1300 additional trips per day in the area. Specific
20 traffic numbers will be available at the time of
21 rezoning, however the estimate was given on the
22 possible rezoning request.
23 There are no woodlands on the property
24 and there's a very tiny amount of wetlands on the
18
1 southwest corner.
2 The most important thing to look at,
3 especially in this area, is the participation survey
4 that was recently completed by the City. Within that
5 survey and within the 1999 Master Plan for land use,
6 there was a decided slant towards not adding
7 additional Commercial throughout the City. The City
8 has focused the Commercial efforts along the
9 Grand River corridor, most notably the West Market
10 Square Shopping Center just north of this property at
11 Beck and Grand River, which has a Home Depot, a
12 Kroger, several restaurants, and other small
13 commercial ventures, which serve the local community
14 needs.
15 In terms of compatibility with the
16 surrounding areas, this Commercial development will
17 be somewhat out of the character with the rest of the
18 area, however it will be much along the lines of the
19 Briarpointe Plaza, a corner Commercial area amongst
20 residential.
21 It is the staff's recommendation that
22 the Master Plan remain unchanged for the property.
23 We feel that the Residential designation is
24 appropriate, especially given the surrounding
19
1 parcels, which will probably not be developed in a
2 major way, and more than likely will remain Single
3 Family Residential.
4 If you have any questions, feel free
5 to ask.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
7 much.
8 If the Applicant would like to come
9 forward and address the Commission. And after that,
10 we'll have audience participation.
11 MR. SABLE: Good evening. My name is
12 Richard Sable. I'm an attorney. Address,
13 12900 Hall Road, Sterling Heights.
14 When we submitted the application, we
15 also submitted a supplemental package to the Planning
16 Commission members, which explain the reasons why for
17 the zoning designation change that we're seeking.
18 Now, listening to the Planner here,
19 he made a number of comments that I agree with. In
20 looking at the map that he showed me on the screen,
21 it's pretty obvious that, to me, it makes sense to
22 take this corner and put it into the Local Family
23 Commercial. Obviously, we disagree with his
24 recommendation, that's why we're standing here.
20
1 I'm not going to go over some of the
2 comments that he made because, again, there was
3 what's surrounding in the area, that's correct. The
4 parcel itself is four acres. Looking at the current
5 zoning designation, as we indicated in our request,
6 we spent some time and money and did a design here
7 for Single Family Residential under the existing
8 zoning. In order to be able to do any Single Family
9 Residential here and meet your ordinances, the most
10 we could get out of this parcel is three single
11 family lots, which would be somewhere in the vicinity
12 of half acre lots.
13 Just the very cost of meeting the
14 ordinances, developing this site, with the road
15 improvements that would have to be done, the
16 utilities that have to be taken care of, literally
17 take us far in excess of $160,000 per lot for these
18 three lots, to be able to develop the lots. And as
19 we know just from the whole market in this area,
20 there isn't any single family half acre lots that
21 sell for anything over 150, and more likely on the
22 average of $125,000 per lot.
23 We're not in any position that -- this
24 parcel in looking at its configuration, it doesn't
21
1 even make sense to take a corner, develop the
2 cul-de-sac and have three single family lots.
3 Now, looking at some of the reasons
4 why, independent of the fact that we can't
5 economically develop Single Family on this property,
6 we look right to what you've done in the past and,
7 again, right on the north side of the street. And
8 looking to your Master Plan, we put that in our
9 presentation, Page 46:
10 The Master Plan provides that the
11 community should provide for appropriate
12 location for a variety of high quality
13 commercial land uses, and to provide for the
14 convenient shopping needs of existing and
15 planned residential neighborhoods in suitable
16 locations that minimize the impact on
17 residential areas.
18 This parcel meets that test under your
19 Master Plan. This parcel meets for providing for a
20 neighborhood commercial center.
21 Looking at your whole community with
22 the uses all along in this whole area, there's a
23 limited amount of Commercial here that serves the
24 needs of the community. Our studies have shown that
22
1 there's an existing demand. In fact, we have users
2 where we can actually use this site be able to have
3 the site (unintelligible), would not be a spec site,
4 literally a site for where we have available users.
5 That's why we're seeking this zoning request.
6 Now, independent of that, is this
7 community, City of Novi, you have other commercial
8 areas. The other commercial developments and the
9 Commercial zoning designations don't look to provide
10 sufficient Commercial for what all the planned
11 Residential is in this area. That's the reason for
12 the zoning classification that you have with the
13 Neighborhood Commercial. It's going to be within the
14 neighborhood. It's going to be within an area that
15 abuts Single Family Residential. That's obviously
16 why you approved the shopping center designation over
17 on the north side of Ten Mile Road. That's obviously
18 why we don't have any problem with coming in with
19 seeking these zoning requests. It's pretty obvious
20 from the way that the planned development took place
21 in this area, that this corner was looked at with
22 property splits and all the other developments that
23 were approved of looking at, more likely than not,
24 that this would be a Commercial shopping center
23
1 designated area.
2 I have nothing more to present to you
3 at this time, other than to say that we have filed a
4 report. I'm sure all of you have read it, and we're
5 available here to ask any question -- answer any
6 questions that you may have concerning our requests.
7 Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
9 much, Mr. Ryan.
10 At this point, we have members of the
11 audience that would like to come in and address the
12 Commission, and the first person is Mr. Frank
13 Brennan. If you would please come forward and state
14 your name and address for the court reporter.
15 MR. BRENNAN: Good evening, thank you
16 very much.
17 Frank Brennan, 23876 Heartwood,
18 Echo Valley. We're just a bit west of this site.
19 Maybe a little bit of history. This
20 site was owned by the Klussenger (phonetic) family,
21 that is just south of the property. They owned it
22 for probably 30 years. When Mr. Klussenger got a
23 little ill a number of years ago, he sold the
24 property to Max Sheldon. Sheldon ultimately sold it
24
1 to someone else.
2 Echo Valley, in particular, is well
3 served for our commercial needs with the commercial
4 strip that is on Grand River and we fought long and
5 hard to get Kroger to move up there, and we're very
6 pleased to have our residential community.
7 There's been considerable discussion
8 in this community regarding what some have viewed as
9 an over-build of commercial development. Now, while
10 one can point to the overall economy as the culprit,
11 there is some extended history and troubling recent
12 events that should bring concern about rezoning
13 additional commercial. Specifically, four items:
14 The Town Center has struggled since its beginning, to
15 achieve lease capacity. West Oaks still has empty
16 shelves at Service Merchandise and Kmart. Main
17 Street struggles - Vic's is gone, golf store is gone,
18 LaTouche is gone. What was long ago the Novi Inn
19 sits idle.
20 And closer to the issue before you
21 tonight, the referenced Briarpointe Commercial
22 district has had the video store and Center Street
23 Market closed for two years. Do we really need to
24 create more Commercial zoning?
25
1 Secondly, let me have just a couple of
2 comments on the Master Plan. There's been
3 considerable time and effort in developing our Master
4 Plan, specifically as we look at the build-out of the
5 west side of the City, which has been designated
6 Beck-West. The Master Plan is focused on large lot
7 residential housing as its preference. This, in
8 fact, was the nucleus of debate with Aspen and their
9 clients for the northwest corner. They were seeking
10 to have much higher density. And if you recall, the
11 case went to ZBA, has since gone to Circuit Court and
12 our ruling was upheld.
13 There's no reason why this property in
14 discussion cannot be built Residential. I agree,
15 two, three large lots could fit on this gorgeous
16 site. Would it be easy? No. Will it take a little
17 work? Yes. But it would blend with the neighborhood
18 community.
19 Aspen, just like their purchase on the
20 northwest corner, bought this property and it was
21 zoned residential. They should have had due
22 diligence in to consider whether rezoning was
23 possible or achievable. They didn't do their
24 homework, that's their problem. I encourage you to
26
1 decline this rezoning request.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
3 Mr. Brennan.
4 The next member of the audience is
5 a Mr. John -- hopefully I'm pronouncing your name
6 correctly -- Kuenzel?
7 MR. KUENZEL: Close enough.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Please
9 state your name and address for the court reporter.
10 MR. KUENZEL: Yes. My name is
11 John Kuenzel. I live at 23819 Heartwood in Novi, in
12 Echo Valley.
13 My concern -- I share Frank's
14 sentiments with regard to the need for additional
15 commercial development. We have the vacant units
16 over there in the Briarpointe. They've been vacant
17 for a long time. And any of the needs that might be
18 addressed by a commercial development on that
19 southwest corner, can be met right there at the
20 CVS Pharmacy. Basically, if you're looking for, you
21 know, a 7-Eleven type facility, those needs can be
22 met at that pharmacy.
23 So what could be put into the small
24 development? It kind of boggles your mind to try and
27
1 figure out what they would put there when there are
2 vacant units right across the street where anybody
3 that wanted to put something in, could put something
4 in.
5 I have a greater concern, however,
6 with the traffic. And that is -- that was addressed
7 by the gentleman who spoke earlier for the City. He
8 talks about 500 to 1500 vehicles going in and out of
9 this development. I drive through that intersection
10 almost daily, and it is an almost blind intersection
11 by the way the roads slope up towards Beck Road, and
12 when you add additional traffic going in and out of
13 short drives near that corner, you're presenting a
14 safety hazard to the community that's totally
15 unnecessary.
16 I agree with Mr. Brennan. These
17 people bought it knowing it was zoned residential.
18 It needs to be built and developed residential. We
19 need to maintain the integrity of the community.
20 Please don't change the Plan. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
22 The next member of the audience is
23 Jackie Haas. Mrs. Haas, if you would step forward
24 and state your name and your address.
28
1 MS. HAAS: Jackie Haas. 22726
2 Summer Lane, Autumn Park Subdivision.
3 My husband and I, as well as many of
4 our neighbors, are opposed to the Master Plan
5 Amendment and any future zoning changes at the
6 southwest corner of Ten and Beck from Residential to
7 Commercial.
8 There is no need for more commercial
9 space in the middle of a residential area, especially
10 when the commercial space at the northeast corner has
11 been vacant, more than 50 percent vacant, for more
12 than 18 months. Adding more commercial would only
13 serve as more traffic that the infrastructure cannot
14 support. It will be a breach of good faith by the
15 City to all who have bought houses in this area with
16 the understanding that it was a residential corner
17 with the exception of Briarpointe, which was already
18 in existence.
19 Novi, currently, has a high vacancy
20 rate of commercial property throughout the City. The
21 citizens would be better served by a moratorium
22 enacted until the current glut of commercial space is
23 negated. Thank you very much.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
29
1 much.
2 The next member of the audience is a
3 Mr. Dennis Cline. Sir, if you would like to step
4 forward and spell your last name for the court
5 reporter.
6 MR. CLINE: Good evening. My name is
7 Dennis Cline. We will be residing at 47527
8 Greenwich. I currently live in Novi; I've been a
9 15-year resident.
10 We just purchased this house, and our
11 backyard will back right up to the northwest field
12 that Aspen also owns that they've tried to rezone.
13 Our contention is that we really don't like the idea
14 of more commercial in that area. One of the reasons
15 we bought that home was because it was R rated, R-1,
16 and all the way around there-
17 VOICE: (Unintelligible)
18 MR. CLINE: Yeah, R rated.
19 The Ten and Haggerty area where we
20 currently reside is heavily commercial, and we have
21 seen it over the last 15 years, traffic has gotten to
22 be really, really, bad in that area. And one of the
23 reasons why we moved out there is because it's more
24 residential and there's less traffic on that. And I
30
1 don't think they need to have another shopping
2 center. Novi doesn't need one at every single corner
3 of every major intersection in this town. You know,
4 if you go a mile and a half up the road and there's a
5 major section up there, where it has everything that
6 you want on that.
7 And so I'm just opposing it and
8 hopefully you do too. Thank you for your
9 consideration.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
11 The next member of the audience is a
12 Mr. Alan Gleichman -- did I pronounce that correctly?
13 MR. GLEICHMAN: Yes.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have a request
15 of the audience members. I happen to be a court
16 reporter myself, and I would appreciate it if
17 everyone spoke just a little bit slower so -- she's
18 not familiar with all the names and places in our
19 City -- so that she can correctly understand it, and
20 do a correct verbatim transcript. And I appreciate
21 your cooperation.
22 MR. GLEICHMAN: My name is Alan
23 Gleichman, G-l-e-i-c-h-m-a-n. I reside at 47162
24 Scarlet Drive South, which is in the Briarwood
31
1 Village, just north of the Briarwood Pointe
2 commercial that was spoken about earlier, which was
3 not approved by the Commission. It was sued into
4 existence. So let's clear that up.
5 We do not need commercial as was
6 stated before. There is plenty of commercial
7 available in the immediate area and very close by on
8 Grand River. Our residents do not feel the need and
9 have not expressed needs for additional commercial
10 space.
11 Thank you very much.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
13 Mr. Gleichman.
14 Our next member of the audience that
15 would like to address the Commission is Mr. Patrick
16 Ramsey. If you would please come forward.
17 MR. RAMSEY: Patrick Ramsey,
18 R-a-m-s-e-y.
19 Good evening, Madam Chairperson.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening,
21 sir.
22 MR. RAMSEY: I come to you, not just
23 as a citizen in Roma Ridge Subdivision, but as their
24 subdivision Homeowner's Association president for the
32
1 last four years. And I had a number of people come
2 to me when we when the proposal to change the
3 property zoning came forward, and express some
4 concern, and as a result we drafted a letter which
5 was sent to the attention of Donna Howe, part of the
6 Planning Commission. I have some spare copies if
7 that hasn't been distributed to the members.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Has it?
9
10 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, I believe
11 it's in the stack of letters provided to the
12 secretary.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
14 MR. RAMSEY: There's four points,
15 really, I'd like to cover in the letter. And first,
16 one that has been mentioned a number of times, is
17 that kitty-corner from this property there's a
18 commercial center, that is far from being fully
19 utilized. It doesn't seem to make sense to have
20 another property that would be under utilized.
21 I keep hearing tonight, meeting the
22 commercial needs of the homeowners. And as a
23 homeowner, I have to admit, instead of meeting my
24 commercial needs, I feel very over saturated in terms
33
1 of commercial development, and I just don't see how
2 this would add any value to our neighborhood, to our
3 community.
4 The second point I'd like to mention
5 is that point that was mentioned by the
6 representative of the Aspen Group, and some other
7 folks in terms of a commercial corridor. The
8 Grand River area has been designated as a commercial
9 corridor, and a few years ago there was a proposal at
10 Eight and Beck that did not proceed as a commercial
11 property. And again, the direction of the City has
12 been to push new development to that corridor. And
13 again, if there's a need, I think that is the place
14 where it should be, and so do the homeowners in our
15 association.
16 Third, is the traffic, and it's
17 mentioned over and over. And I can tell you that I'm
18 not someone who has done traffic studies, but I can
19 tell you I know many people who have been involved in
20 serious accidents at that intersection. Making a
21 left-hand turn at that corner is difficult. I can
22 say from personal experience with our friends next
23 door at the police department, who I have met on a
24 few occasions, thanks to my Mustang which has gotten
34
1 me into trouble, that I'm not known to be a cautious
2 driver, especially with my right foot.
3 Having said that, I don't go through
4 that intersection because it scares the heck out of
5 me. I know too many people who have been injured in
6 left-hand turns trying to go through there, either
7 proceeding eastbound on Beck or making a left-hand
8 turn onto Ten Mile. It's not a good intersection.
9 The grade is part of the problem, but another part is
10 capacity. It just cannot handle additional traffic.
11 Now I do know that there's been a
12 right-hand turn lane that has just been added in the
13 last week. That does not alleviate any of the
14 difficulty in the sight lines and capacity for trying
15 to make a left-hand turn at that intersection.
16 I think the last point that I'd like
17 to mention, is that the area from a visual standpoint
18 I believe would be negatively impacted by having
19 another development in the area that's primarily
20 residential. And a number of people feel very
21 strongly about that and I think I want to echo that
22 on behalf of the people in our association as well.
23 I thank you for your time, and as
24 representing Roma Ridge we really strongly would like
35
1 a denial on moving forward with this development.
2 Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
4 The next member of the audience is --
5 and forgive me if I don't pronounce your name
6 correctly -- Michael Rajkovic.
7 MR. RAJKOVIC: Thank you.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you would spell
9 your name for the court reporter, your last name.
10 MR. RAJKOVIC: I'm Michael Rajkovic. I
11 live on 47330 Baker Street in Broadmoor Park
12 Subdivision, that's directly across from Ten Mile
13 Road where this proposed development would be.
14 I am before you for the third time, I
15 think, in two years fighting developers who want to
16 put commercial property on those corners where we
17 live. A number of my neighbors are behind me in
18 Broadmoor Park. I know some of them do not intend to
19 speak tonight, but I do know how they feel because
20 we've been through this twice before.
21 The Commission has rightly denied
22 rezoning of the two corners south of Ten Mile
23 before. Once on the west side, once on the east
24 side. They were both rezoning proposals for daycare
36
1 centers. They were denied primarily due to safety
2 issues. Your own City consultants, JCK Associates,
3 has identified a line-of-sight issue on that
4 intersection. A line-of-sight issue is when a
5 vehicle doesn't have -- when it's pulling out into
6 Ten Mile, it doesn't have enough time to clear before
7 another vehicle coming at 50 miles an hour, which is
8 the speed at that intersection, hits it.
9 Imagine if you have a car coming at 50
10 miles an hour through the light, and somebody trying
11 to put out on the left-hand side into the
12 intersection, because the grade is high, the vehicle
13 coming from the right cannot be seen in time. It
14 takes about eight seconds to close that distance
15 before a vehicle pulls out. Now, you be the judge as
16 to how many seconds a person needs to pull out
17 safely. JCK has demonstrated that when we talked
18 about the daycare centers.
19 I live on the third house from
20 Beck Road on Baker Street, on the southeast corner.
21 And I can't tell you how many times a night my kids
22 and my wife and I get woken up by sounds of
23 ambulances coming through that corner, and police
24 cars. That is a dangerous corner as it is, as many
37
1 of my neighbors have already pointed out.
2 Mr. Sable, the attorney from
3 Sterling Heights who spoke here earlier, talked about
4 neighborhood commercial center. My neighborhood
5 doesn't want another commercial center. The
6 commercial center across the street is half empty as
7 our other neighbors have correctly pointed out. A
8 lot of commercial centers in the town are under
9 utilized. Grand River again and again has been
10 mentioned as the commercial area that this city has
11 designated, and it's a mile and a half down. I don't
12 need another one across the street from me.
13 There's about 15 homes there in that
14 corner, that average about a half million dollars
15 apiece in market value right now. That's about how
16 much we paid for it. It ranges from $400,000 to
17 $600,000 in that area. I can tell you, any realtor
18 that you want to talk to or any appraiser that you
19 want to talk to, will tell you, you put commercial
20 centers there, our property values will go down.
21 We sent letters into the Planning
22 Commission when the daycare center proposals were
23 there from appraisers and from realtors, that ranged
24 in the estimates from five to ten percent reduction
38
1 in property values. You add up 15 homes at half a
2 million bucks each, that's $7.5 million. Okay. Ten
3 percent down, that's three-quarters of a million out
4 of our pockets of our money if we put these
5 commercial areas in.
6 I think I'm repeating some of the
7 things that have already been said. But again, we
8 live there, we don't want this commercial property
9 next to our homes.
10 And again, I want to respectfully
11 remind you of the survey that was done. The survey
12 clearly said the residents don't want this property
13 rezoned, and I encourage you again, please do not
14 allow it. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
16 much, sir.
17 (Applause from the audience.)
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Obviously, you have
19 strong support.
20 The next person from the audience is
21 Reagan Schwarzlose. If you would please spell your
22 last name for the court reporter.
23 MR. SCHWARZLOSE: Thank you. My name
24 is Reagan Schwarzlose, S-c-h-w-a-r-z-l-o-s-e.
39
1 I live at 23937 Beck Road. This is just south of
2 the proposed four-acre parcel. I abut the tract that
3 surrounds the four acres.
4 Many of the comments that I was
5 planning to make have already been addressed by the
6 people who have made comments before. So I really
7 don't choose to go back over those again. But
8 probably the most important one is that being that
9 I've lived at that residence over ten years now, come
10 before this Commission and the Council several times,
11 each time a zoning change or proposed development has
12 been planned or proposed for that center.
13 And each time the developer has
14 brought forth that he was bringing something that was
15 going to present or help the needs of the community,
16 it was something that the community wanted. And each
17 time we come forth in the chambers, there's always
18 been a strong opposition to any change in zoning in
19 any commercial development. So it's hard for me to
20 comprehend how you could be serving the needs of
21 community, when the community itself at each and
22 every meeting, and each and every time it's
23 presented, has stated their opposition.
24 And to your credit, the Planning Board
40
1 and the Council's credit, to this point has stood
2 behind the Master Plan. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
4 A Ms. Rosina DeGiulio. If you could
5 please spell your last name.
6 MS. DeGIULIO: Good evening. My name
7 is Rosina, my first name is spelled R-o-s-i-n-a, and
8 my last name is D-e-G, like in George, -i-u-l-i-o,
9 and I reside at 24116 Woodham, which is in Echo
10 Valley sub.
11 And the points that I wanted to bring
12 up have already been made, but the one that I want to
13 emphasize is the problem with the traffic and the
14 safety issues there.
15 Whenever the expressway closes down or
16 there's an accident for some reason, we get the
17 overflow on Ten Mile when the expressway closes. And
18 Monday morning, for example, when we had bad weather,
19 it was bumper to bumper out on Ten Mile. I couldn't
20 even get out at nine-thirty in the morning.
21 The other thing is with all the
22 construction in the area, we have a lot of
23 construction vehicles, and nobody obeys the speed
24 limit on that road. I've seen those big construction
41
1 trucks go at 55 miles an hour and they go right
2 through that intersection at Ten Mile and Beck and
3 run amber lights all the time.
4 And school busses are another issue.
5 With all the schools we have at that end of town, the
6 visibility is reduced by school busses.
7 We don't need any more commercial.
8 I'm sick of looking at ugly buildings like at
9 Briarwood where it's half empty and it's been that
10 way for over two years now, and we don't need anymore
11 traffic. I'm concerned about the quality of my life
12 here in Novi. I lived at Nine Mile and Haggerty and
13 moved to the west side because the commercial
14 corridor was supposed to be Grand River, and that's
15 the reason I moved there to keep the quality of life
16 intact and get away from the traffic and the over
17 development.
18 So I would like to thank everybody
19 here, the Council for addressing these issues, and I
20 respectfully ask you to deny this request. Thank
21 you.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, ma'am.
23 The next member of the audience is
24 Mr. Ran Ahluwalia -- am I close?
42
1 MR. AHLUWALIA: Pretty close, yes.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. If
3 could you spell your last name for the reporter,
4 please.
5 MR. AHLUWALIA: Good evening. My name
6 is Ran Ahluwalia. My last name is A-h-l-u-w-a-l-i-a,
7 and I reside at 47445 Greenwich Drive, Novi, in the
8 Greenwood Oaks Subdivision.
9 Tonight I'm representing the
10 Homeowners Association Board of Directors, of which
11 I'm a member, and also the views of the residents in
12 the Greenwood Oaks Subdivision.
13 I apologize if a number of comments
14 that I'm going to bring up have already been
15 discussed, but it's important that we reiterate our
16 position.
17 The first point of bringing a business
18 commercial development is that you must note that the
19 development in Briarpointe is already in existence
20 and it has a number of vacancies, and it has had
21 those vacancies for a number of years now. So
22 bringing an additional business development when you
23 already have business developments which are under
24 utilized is an issue and a concern we have.
43
1 The other concern we had was the
2 traffic flow is going to increase substantially with
3 this new proposed development. The four corners of
4 that Ten Mile and Beck area are highly residential,
5 and many of our homeowners in Greenwood Oaks
6 purchased homes on that basis. And quite frankly,
7 when you have businesses on Grand River and Beck
8 which are also under utilized as well, you really
9 have to question the need for additional development
10 in that area. It's clearly over saturated and, you
11 know, as homeowners we're all concerned about
12 potential effects on property prices, et cetera.
13 We appreciate your careful
14 consideration in keeping this development out of the
15 community. Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
17 Our next member is Mr. Chris Pargoff.
18 MR. PARGOFF: Good evening. My name
19 is Chris Pargoff. P, as in Paul, -a-r-g-o-f-f, as in
20 Frank.
21 I'm also opposed to altering of the
22 Master Plan at this time. Everytime we play with the
23 Plan, the citizens of Novi have our vision of the
24 City shattered. A complete study is necessary
44
1 because this is not the only corner in question.
2 There are two other empty corners at Ten Mile, two at
3 Nine Mile, and three at Eleven Mile. Any one of
4 these corners could be the next one to be Master
5 Planned out of its current zoning. We need the
6 Master Plan to be in existence for its integrity.
7 There were many months of study put into the present
8 Master Plan, and we should not just willy-nilly
9 piecemeal it out of existence.
10 I work in a city with its shopping
11 center on almost every major intersection, and all of
12 these centers have at least one, and sometimes many
13 empty stores. This is not the fate I want to see for
14 the City of Novi. Thank you.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
16 The next member of the audience is
17 Mr. Dennis Ringvelski.
18 MR. RINGVELSKI: I'll definitely
19 spell it.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
21 MR. RINGVELSKI: My name is Dennis
22 Ringvelski. That's R-i-n-g-v-, as in Victor,
23 -e-l-s-k-i. And I live at 24359 Nantucket Drive, and
24 that's in Greenwood Oaks-I.
45
1 I'm not going to repeat what everybody
2 said here, because I agree with all of them on the
3 traffic and on the density and all that sort of
4 thing. My wife is a board member of the Greenwood
5 Oaks I and II, and asked me to come. She could not
6 come tonight.
7 Basically, I moved into -- oh, by the
8 way, I want to tell you why I moved into Novi,
9 especially where I did, west of Beck. I like the R
10 rating also. 24 years ago, when I moved into Novi
11 into Echo Valley, whom we have many members here
12 tonight, I very carefully checked the zoning and what
13 Master Plan existed at that time. Ten years ago,
14 when I moved into Greenwood Oaks-I, I again closely
15 followed the area of this corner and what was going
16 on with the Master Plan, and decided that this is
17 where I want to stay. I want to stay in Novi, just
18 two blocks north of where I used to live.
19 When I did that though, I did my
20 homework. I checked the zoning, I checked the Master
21 Plan. I knew what I was buying. I knew what the
22 largest investment of my life would be. I think the
23 gentlemen here, the Applicants, should have done
24 their homework a little more carefully. I really
46
1 don't like to see them coming here, crying the blues,
2 that they can only put three or four homes on this
3 property now. They well knew that what that was
4 before they brought this property. I don't have
5 lawyers, real estate agents, architects, traffic
6 planners, or anybody working for me, but I was able
7 to figure that out for myself. So I would ask you
8 to, again, deny this request. Thank you.
9 (Applause from the audience.)
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
11 much.
12 Your enthusiasm, I think, is probably
13 appreciated by all the members of the audience, and
14 we at the Planning Commission are always thrilled
15 with your enthusiasm too, but we don't really need
16 the clapping anymore.
17 Okay. The next person is
18 Mr. Paul Vogel.
19 MR. VOGEL: Good evening. My name is
20 Paul Vogel. That's V-, as in Victor, -o-g-e-l.
21 24614 Venice Drive, Roma Ridge Subdivision.
22 Madam Chair and Board Members, before
23 I forget, I haven't had the opportunity, I appreciate
24 the efforts and the volunteerism that you put in to
47
1 serving on this board.
2 The reason I came to Novi, it's a
3 great community. It's built upon all the people in
4 this audience and we shouldn't forget it's also built
5 upon developers who are interested in coming into
6 this community and investing in it. But I'm
7 adamantly opposed to any consideration of a change to
8 the Master Plan. The Master Plan has served as a
9 document that's guidance, and there has been a lot of
10 reiteration of things about traffic. I think the
11 most important thing the lack of utilization of
12 existing commercial development that would be
13 kitty-corner from this.
14 And with all the energy that's in the
15 audience and the effort that's being put into this
16 meeting tonight, I'd like to see the City stick by
17 the Master Plan so the developers understand how
18 adamant the citizens are about what's already been
19 decided in a democratic forum, and that the energy
20 that's here tonight can be used to assist these
21 developers and get them where we need them, on
22 Grand River, where we've got some real needs. And I
23 appreciate your consideration, and hopefully you will
24 deny the request to change the zoning. Thank you.
48
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
2 Is there anyone else who would like to
3 address the Commission that has not spoken?
4 Yes, sir. If you would please come
5 forward, state your name and address, and spell it
6 for the court reporter.
7 MR. McCARTHY: Good evening. My name
8 is Dick McCarthy, M-c-C-a-r-t-h-y. I live at
9 23898 Broadmoor Park Lane, which is catty-corner to
10 the area in question.
11 I agree with what everyone has said
12 but I am a business owner in Novi right now, and I'd
13 like to just present an idea that should be
14 considered. If they were to build this mall, this
15 little strip mall, as a business owner I'm not sure
16 that I would want to participate in renting a place
17 because of the horrendous traffic problems. At times
18 in the morning and the evening the traffic is backed
19 up about a half mile in each direction. I know the
20 impact that it had on the one owner at Grand River
21 and Novi Road, the Oak and Pine Designs. It
22 basically put them out of business because of the bad
23 traffic.
24 But if I was to sit -- after the unit
49
1 was built, and I was to sit there and look at the
2 traffic situation, there's no way I would rent one of
3 the units because no one could come and participate
4 in my business. As a business person, I have to make
5 money and if no one can get in or get out, I'm not
6 going to make any money. So if the unit was built,
7 we would just have a number of vacant properties just
8 like we have now across the street. I don't really
9 think it's a good idea. Thank you.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
11 much.
12 Is there anyone else that would like
13 to address the Commission?
14 Seeing no one else, I will close the
15 audience participation.
16 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair?
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, sir?
18 MR. EVANCOE: With your permission,
19 Madam Chair, I'd like to address one point that I
20 think may need some clarification that's been raised
21 in the comments so far, just so the Commission is
22 aware as they proceed.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, thank you,
24 Mr. Evancoe.
50
1 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you. I
2 appreciate that.
3 There was reference, I believe, made
4 by the Petitioner that if the property were to remain
5 zoned R-1, Single Family, that only three lots could
6 be put there, and I think one of the audience members
7 also alluded to that statistic also.
8 I've done just a very rough
9 calculation here, and what I'm finding is that you
10 can actually get, looks like perhaps seven lots, and
11 something in that vicinity on that property. So it
12 is a little bit more developable, I believe, as
13 Single Family than what may have been indicated.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
15 Mr. Evancoe. I think the Commission really
16 appreciates that information.
17 If there are no further comments, I'm
18 going to turn it over to the Commission.
19 MEMBER MARKHAM: We have
20 correspondence.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, I
22 apologize. We have correspondence and the
23 Vice Chair, if you would read it, please.
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: We have lots of
51
1 correspondence tonight. I'm going to try and hit the
2 highlights of all of these letters, and not read
3 complete texts for the sake of time.
4 The first letter is from the
5 Roma Ridge Homeowners Association, Mr. Patrick
6 Ramsey. And he spoke tonight and covered his four
7 points of the fact that the commercial center across
8 the street is half vacant, that commercial
9 development should be on the Grand River corridor,
10 that traffic will be an issue, and that the visual
11 impact is not a positive thing if the commercial
12 development goes in.
13 The next letter is from Richard and
14 Margaret Sayles, 45785 Willingham Drive. We are
15 writing to request that the Commission not approve
16 the proposed change of this property from Single
17 Family to Community Commercial. We've lived in
18 Wesmont Village for seven years. We've noticed
19 almost constant vacancies in the CVS shopping center
20 located in the northeast corner.
21 The next letter is from Gilmer,
22 22616 Summer Lane, Novi. We, the homeowners in
23 Autumn Park, are against the primary zone for
24 commercial development within the western section of
52
1 Novi. Please advise. Thank you.
2 The next letter is from Alan Kennedy,
3 47183 Sunnybrook Lane, expressing strong objection to
4 proposal to rezone the property. I do not know the
5 criteria by which the Planning Commission makes such
6 decisions, but it would seem to me the first would be
7 whether the area residents need another commercial
8 establishment. The clear answer to this is no, we do
9 not need another gas station, fast food outlet, strip
10 mall, Home Depot. We do not need additional traffic,
11 or visual degradation that this would bring. And I
12 believe this will decrease our property values.
13 The next one is from Enamul and
14 Sultana Haque, H-a-q-u-e, 47553 Greenwich Drive,
15 Novi, expressing strong opposition to the proposal to
16 rezone. We strongly feel the present owner can make
17 a substantial profit by utilizing this property for
18 residential use. This property is surrounded by
19 subdivisions and using it for commercial will not
20 only make all these subdivisions unsafe, but
21 dramatically reduce the property values.
22 The next letter is from, I believe
23 it's George Odmmen, O-d-m-m-e-n. I strongly oppose
24 any business or condominium development on this
53
1 property. Development should proceed only for the
2 current zoning. We will not hesitate to drag this
3 issue to any length if this property is rezoned.
4 The next letter is from Richard
5 Meyer, 47506 Greenwich Drive. I am unable to attend
6 the public hearing, however I would like to express
7 my opposition to this proposal as a homeowner in
8 Greenwood Oaks. I feel rezoning would adversely
9 affect the property values, not to mention adding
10 traffic.
11 The next two letters are from
12 James Edwards and Denise Edwards, 23880 Forest Park
13 Drive, Novi. I understand there's a rezoning. When
14 I moved to Novi a year and a half ago, I moved to
15 this area specifically because of the residential
16 country atmosphere. I formerly lived in Westland who
17 allowed new strip malls to be built without first
18 filling the older vacant ones. Livonia, too, where I
19 just moved from had the same problem. If you drive
20 around Novi, in just the year and a half we have
21 lived there there have become many vacant stores that
22 need to be filled, not only to beautify, but to
23 increase the reputation of what Novi is not known
24 for.
54
1 The next letter is from Lynne and
2 Frank Shipp. There's no address. They say they are
3 residents of the Roma Ridge Subdivision. Another
4 commercial development is not needed there. Nor do
5 we think it would be economically profitable adding
6 additional blight to that corner with vacated
7 buildings. It would add congestion and greatly
8 decrease the residential appeal of that area.
9 The next letter is from Richard E.
10 Copp, C-o-p-p. 24438 Redwing Drive, Novi. Please
11 leave this area as a residential area. The area at
12 the intersection is already under used with only CVS
13 staying in business. We don't need more empty
14 businesses or empty buildings.
15 The next letter is from Douglas Gee
16 and Barbara Gee, G-e-e. We reside in Broadmoor Park
17 Subdivision located at Ten Mile and Beck. Additional
18 commercial property at this location is totally
19 unnecessary. Grand River has been designated as a
20 primary zone and developing this corner within the
21 heart of the residential is inconsistent with that
22 direction.
23 The next letter is from Megan Lilly,
24 25258 Buckminister Drive. In the past years Novi has
55
1 been beautiful with many aspects of nature such as
2 trees and meadows, but now if someone were to drive
3 through Novi, all they would see would be the
4 construction of more subdivisions and commercial
5 buildings. When construction of commercial buildings
6 continue, older buildings are being emptied and left
7 vacant -- she cites Novi Town Center and Fountain
8 Walk and Twelve Oaks Mall as an example. Even with
9 all of the shopping options, someone could still have
10 a hard time finding a specific item.
11 An option in replacing building,
12 commercial buildings, would be to build something
13 that Novi does not yet have. There are no museums in
14 the area that someone could go to, why not work on a
15 museum. Also there are no nice parks so people could
16 sit and stop to talk, visit with friends or let their
17 children play outside.
18 The next letter is from Jodi
19 Emmenecker, E-m-m-e-n-e-c-k-e-r, 24481 Redwing Drive.
20 13-year resident of Briarwood. The center that
21 exists at Ten Mile and Beck has never been full. As
22 a matter of fact, it has dwindled to just a couple of
23 open stores. I didn't build this far out to be
24 surrounded by commercial property. Don't mess with
56
1 that.
2 The next letter is from Greg and
3 Paula Buran, 22502 Autumn Park Boulevard. We were
4 recently made aware of the proposed rezoning. We
5 vehemently oppose any commercial development. We
6 have ample vacant commercial space at Main Street,
7 Grand River corridor, and across from the proposed
8 site in the CVS strip mall.
9 The next letter is from Jim Krystoff,
10 K-r-y-s-t-o-f-f, 47631 Greenwich Drive. First of
11 all, what has been the developers' effort to date in
12 developing the parcel as zoned, if they bought it
13 knowing it was R-1, they must have had some plans for
14 developing it in that manner, otherwise why would
15 they have bought it? To claim economic and/or
16 physical infeasibility now leads me to someone didn't
17 do his or her homework upfront. I have to question
18 claims that more convenient store space is needed in
19 the area.
20 The next letter is from Jeremy W.
21 Holt, H-o-l-t. Lived here for 13 years. No address.
22 Cites five points -- five practical issues. It will
23 create further danger at a busy intersection. Create
24 more retail space in an area where space is 50
57
1 percent utilized. Add to the Ten Mile and Beck
2 congestion. Detract from the intended commercial
3 corridor on Grand River, and create community safety
4 issues. We should not allow the visual appeal and
5 safety of this community to be diminished.
6 And that is all of the letters.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
8 much.
9 And now I will turn this over to the
10 Commission for discussion.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, if I may
12 interrupt for a moment.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Schmitt.
14 MR. SCHMITT: Due to the amount of
15 traffic discussion that has occurred tonight, we have
16 our City Engineer here this evening, and she would
17 like to discuss some of the improvements that are
18 going on in the area.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
20 Ms. McClain.
21 MS. McCLAIN: Just for your
22 information, in October the City Council approved a
23 change order to an existing contract so that we can
24 do some work at Beck Road. Part of that you already
58
1 see out there, that's the right turn lane that has
2 been added.
3 In addition, signal improvements have
4 been designed and they are -- I should say, getting
5 the equipment and getting ready to do the
6 installation of individual left turn heads for that
7 intersection.
8 So there will be some assistance for
9 the residents there. And it should be completed by
10 spring, unless the winter continues as it has for the
11 past couple of days. So there will be some work on
12 the traffic.
13 Additional improvements to that
14 intersection will require additional right-of-way.
15 As money becomes available through the City budget
16 and as any proposals come for those three properties,
17 we will be able to get that additional right-of-way
18 and do additional improvements at that intersection.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
20 much. That was very useful information.
21 Does anyone else have anything from
22 the Department?
23 MR. EVANCOE: No, Madam Chair. We are
24 waiting for your comments. Thanks.
59
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
2 much.
3 With that, I'll turn it over to the
4 Commission. Mr. Ruyle.
5 MEMBER RUYLE: Sir, would you come to
6 the podium?
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Could
8 you identify yourself; is it Mr. Ryan?
9 MR. SABLE: No. It's Richard Sable.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry.
11 MEMBER RUYLE: Mr. Sable, when you
12 first came to the subcommittee, which ended up in a 2
13 to 2 vote -- 2 to go forward, 2 to deny -- I asked
14 you at that time, because I serve on that committee,
15 what were you planning on putting there. And I also
16 very strongly suggested not a strip mall.
17 Have you got an answer to that
18 question?
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, you have to
20 come to the podium.
21 MR. SABLE: This is one of the
22 members of the Aspen Group. I have brought him here.
23 MR. GOLWICK: My name is David Golwick
24 (phonetic). I'm here on behalf the Aspen Group. I
60
1 wasn't necessarily prepared to discuss what our uses
2 were on the property, I know that was part of this
3 forum. But having been asked, the mention has been
4 over and over about a strip mall. Really is not
5 really our intention. First of all, after you net
6 out right-of-way on that parcel, it's a three-acre
7 parcel. It was not in our intention ever to design
8 it as a strip mall that's been mentioned, it would be
9 a one or two user property, and depending, you know,
10 if someone was to look at the permitted uses within
11 the B-1 district, some of those included office uses
12 as well.
13 The corner would be well served as a
14 bank or a medical use to serve Providence Hospital
15 which is within two miles of the property. So I just
16 wanted, I guess since I've been asked, to let it be
17 known that a, quote-unquote, strip mall has been
18 comparing our property to what's going on at
19 Briarwood is really not a fair comparison and a grave
20 assumption.
21 MR. SABLE: I guess to continue with
22 that, Mr. Ruyle, is -- as you are well aware and I'm
23 sure I don't have to indicate, that a zoning request
24 it's difficult to say, here is our proposed use,
61
1 because technically if you were to approve it, we're
2 authorized to build, you know, what's ever authorized
3 under the zoning classification.
4 But as a practical matter what happens
5 when you look at the site, it's not really feasible
6 to turn around and say that we'd be putting a strip
7 center in here. There's other uses, freestanding
8 buildings. That's why I listed the uses in there.
9 And really, the overall intent is for a couple of
10 freestanding buildings, that if we were involved in a
11 planning situation that you'd have plenty of
12 provisions in the ordinances for setbacks, green
13 belts, architectural detail and design standards,
14 that really can make something that's beneficial.
15 And I guess the reason I wanted to
16 have one of the members of the Aspen Group appear and
17 just mention to you, no, their intention is not to
18 really build a strip center here. Obviously, when
19 you're looking at that, and we can't make the thing
20 called contract zoning.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you speak up?
22 MR. SABLE: Contract zoning is not
23 something that we can propose here.
24 So our intent has not been to build a
62
1 strip center, our intent is to have a couple of
2 freestanding buildings and freestanding buildings are
3 uses that are authorized under our proposed
4 rezoning. Thanks.
5 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, sir.
6 In going over what I've heard
7 tonight, and correct me, Madam Secretary or Madam
8 Vice Chair, we have 14 negative comments in the
9 audience and 16 negative comments from letters.
10 MEMBER MARKHAM: I didn't count.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: I have 30 total.
12 MEMBER RUYLE: 30 total. I didn't
13 hear one positive recommendation from any of the
14 citizens in Novi. And without an agreement from the
15 Petitioner that we would not have a strip mall or
16 something of that nature in that area, I would be
17 voting not to change the Master Plan. Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
19 Mr. Ruyle.
20 Mr. Avdoulos?
21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I guess nothing has
22 been left unturned, based on the comments of our
23 residents.
24 I live about two miles from the
63
1 proposed site. My personnel commercial needs are
2 met. I guess meeting commercial needs can be a
3 perceived statement. I didn't receive any kind of
4 market study. I was never asked if everything around
5 me is satisfying our family needs. The Beck
6 corridor, I think, acts as it should. At Beck and
7 M-14 we have a big commercial development there. At
8 Grand River and Beck we have another commercial
9 development there. And then we have a nice little
10 gas station at Seven Mile and Beck, and then we have
11 our CVS and our dry cleaning at Ten Mile and Beck.
12 When Home Depot opened up at
13 Grand River, I was overcome with joy. My wife liked
14 the Kroger's better, and then I was bookended by
15 another Home Depot at Five Mile and Beck, and I was
16 even more pleased. I guess the only thing I would be
17 looking for in that area around Ten Mile and Beck
18 would be a good pizza place, which could be
19 accommodated in the vacant spaces.
20 But I do tend to agree with all the
21 comments that residents have made. I cannot support
22 a change or an amendment to the Master Plan. I think
23 we should leave it as is, and keep the character of
24 Beck Road residential, as it is now. Thank you,
64
1 Madam Chair.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
3 Commissioner Paul.
4 MEMBER PAUL: I asked Glenn Lemmon,
5 our City Assessor, what some of the homes in
6 Broadmoor Park on Baker Street, Trafalgar, if I said
7 it correctly, and Tottenham are worth, and there is a
8 sale list and I have those listed. These all abut
9 Beck Road and there's eleven homes here, all are
10 between the range of $379,000, which is the lowest,
11 all the way up to 525 -- I'm sorry, $560,000. With
12 that, it's hard for me to understand, since these
13 abut Beck Road, that any of the sites that are zoned
14 residential on the corner of Beck and Ten Mile would
15 not be viable for residential. Therefore, I don't
16 see a hardship.
17 I did a small retail vacancy survey of
18 my own on Ten and Beck, Briar Ridge, that is vacant.
19 Ten and Novi Road, Pine Ridge has some vacancies.
20 Grand River and Novi Road, the Antique Pine Design is
21 empty. Grand River and Novi Road on the southwest
22 corner has some vacancies. Town Center, West Oaks,
23 Beck and Grand River at Providence Park, Main Street,
24 Vic's and LaTouche. In that one and a half mile
65
1 radius, there are many vacancies. And I have not
2 heard any compelling reason why we should zone
3 anything else as B-1 in the area of Beck and Ten
4 Mile, since these are in the same market retail
5 areas.
6 Therefore I'm prepared to make a
7 motion: In the matter of Aspen Group/Beck LLC,
8 Master Plan Amendment to amend the City of Novi
9 Master Plan for land use, to designate the four-acre
10 property located in Section 29 on the southwest
11 corner of Ten Mile and Beck Road from Single Family
12 Residential to Local Commercial.
13 Motion to deny the Aspen Group/Beck
14 LLC Master Plan Amendment for the following reasons:
15 This request is premature due to all the current
16 vacancies in very close proximity in the same retail
17 market. The many citizens who are in close proximity
18 to the site brought their property -- bought their
19 property, excuse me, with the knowledge of the Master
20 Plan being zoned Residential. Residential is very
21 viable on Beck Road. Traffic concerns are many at
22 the intersection of Ten Mile and Beck Road.
23 Therefore, health and safety are in jeopardy in the
24 site and this would be zoned Commercial which would
66
1 increase traffic volume, and would therefore lead to
2 more unsafe travel on Beck and Ten Mile. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we have a
4 second to that motion?
5 MEMBER PAPP: I'll second it.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp seconded
7 the motion.
8 Do you have any further discussion?
9 Member Shroyer.
10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madam
11 Chair.
12 Just a couple of points in
13 clarification. This will go to the City, please.
14 Mr. Evancoe, or a member of your
15 staff. The Applicant indicated it was a three-acre
16 parcel, and our records show it's a four-acre parcel.
17 MR. SCHMITT: It's actually a
18 four-acre parcel. I believe the Applicant stated
19 that after the right-of-way was parceled out, it
20 would be more like a three-acre parcel. But as of
21 this time, it is a four-acre parcel.
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay, thank you.
23 And what other properties in Novi are similar in size
24 and also zoned B-1?
67
1 MR. SCHMITT: The Walgreen's at
2 Ten Mile and Novi Road, while not being zoned the
3 same, is virtually -- would be the exact same size
4 after the right-of-way is taken out. And we probably
5 have the exact same type of development.
6 The Briarwood Plaza Shopping Center is
7 a similar size, a slightly larger parcel, I believe.
8 And further down Ten Mile Road at Meadowbrook and
9 Ten Mile, is a similar B-1 designation, although the
10 parcels are slightly larger.
11 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you.
12 Member Ruyle had asked concerning what
13 type of building was going to be built or buildings,
14 because in the Applicant's discussion he did indicate
15 that they were looking at high quality, quote-
16 unquote. I think that was answered appropriately.
17 I will mention that I am not totally
18 opposed to a medical office or a bank, and I'm a
19 hundred percent opposed to any type of strip mall or
20 commercial property along that line.
21 I am very, very, concerned right now
22 that we have not had an opportunity to review the
23 current Master Plan for the entire City and this
24 major corridor of Beck and Ten Mile. Consequently,
68
1 down the road, I can see the possibility of a
2 change. But right now, until things have changed, I
3 have to agree with the citizens that have come out in
4 force, and with the letters that have come forth,
5 indicating that at least now it is not the time to
6 consider anything other than residential.
7 So for those reasons alone, I'm going
8 to be supporting the motion that was made.
9 Thank you, Madam Chair.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
11 Commissioner Markham.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: I first would like
13 to make a distinction so that everybody is clear on
14 what we're talking about tonight. We're talking
15 about a Master Plan amendment and not a zoning
16 change. The zoning change would come later, if the
17 Master Plan were amended. So just so everybody knows
18 that's the process.
19 One concern I have with what the
20 Petitioner said was that they do plan -- if they did
21 get their Master Plan change and their rezoning is
22 approved, that they would put something like a bank
23 or an office on this piece of property. But if it
24 were rezoned to B-1, Local Business, there are a lot
69
1 of other things that would be allowed there, and
2 things such as groceries, baked goods, dry cleaners,
3 you know, lots of similar things to what are
4 currently in the development kitty-corner, and
5 there's nothing after the City, if it were to make
6 those changes, that would prevent this developer from
7 selling to someone else who might actually build a
8 strip mall on that corner. So I'm very reluctant to
9 support a change at this time.
10 I was on the Planning Commission when
11 Kroger tried to come into the northwest corner, about
12 four or five years ago, and I'm really happy to see
13 that we held our ground and did strengthen the
14 commercial corridor on Grand River and the needs are
15 now met there that weren't when I first moved into
16 this part of the town.
17 So I will be supporting the motion to
18 deny, and those are my reasons. Thank you.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Papp.
20 MEMBER PAPP: I just want to go back
21 to the Citizens' Perception Survey that was presented
22 to the Planning Commission on August 7. The survey
23 clearly stated that the results -- I'm sorry, that
24 the location of shopping in Novi satisfies their
70
1 needs. 3.4 rating out of 4.0. That's the citizens
2 telling us no more shopping centers, and really
3 putting the point across in the survey. Therefore, I
4 will be supporting the motion.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
6 Do we have any further comments?
7 Mr. Sprague.
8 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you, Madam
9 Chair.
10 I just wanted to weigh in. Really, as
11 far as Master Plan amendments go, I'm not a strong
12 proponent of amending the Plan on a routine basis.
13 The criteria applied to any change, is whether it
14 fundamentally changes what we're trying to do with
15 that property? And if it does, is it a significant
16 improvement over what we currently have.
17 I think in this case, it does
18 fundamentally change it but I think as we've heard
19 from the residents, nobody believes that it's
20 significant and positive for the City, and I would
21 concur with that. So I would be in support of the
22 motion.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
24 Mr. Ruyle.
71
1 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
2 To jump on Commissioner Markham's
3 comments, I want to make it clear to the citizens
4 that the Master Plan is a living, breathing,
5 document. It's not something that is carved in
6 stone. And when it is conducive to the City to
7 change the Master Plan, then by all means we should
8 change the Master Plan. This does not mean that this
9 particular parcel should be changed.
10 We've got to remember that the Master
11 Plan is a document that guides us. Not anything else
12 other than that. And that's why we have one, to make
13 sure we do it right for you as citizens.
14 Thank you, Madam Chair.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
16 Does anyone else have any comments?
17 I'd just like to put my comments on
18 the record.
19 I am a member of the Master Plan and
20 Zoning Committee. I did not support the Master Plan
21 Amendment at the committee level, even though it was
22 a 2-2 vote.
23 At the present time, I feel that we
24 have to -- first and foremost, we are obligated to
72
1 oversee the health, safety, and welfare of our
2 residents and those that work and have businesses
3 within our city. I feel that we must keep the
4 integrity of the Master Plan intact. I will be
5 supporting the motion.
6 And I also want to say I appreciate
7 the Applicant coming in, and all the members of the
8 audience and everyone who participated.
9 And with that, I'd like to call the
10 roll, Mr. Schmitt.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Avdoulos?
12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
14 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy?
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
18 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
20 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
22 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer:
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
73
1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague:
2 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
3 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
5 much.
6 At this point, the Commission will
7 take a break for 15 minutes.
8 (A brief recess was taken.)
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call
10 the meeting back to order, please.
11 Thank you.
12 PUBLIC HEARINGS
13 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - SEIGAL TUOMAALA ASSOCIATES
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item on
15 our Agenda is the Master Plan Amendment Public
16 Hearing on the request of Leonard G. Seigal of Seigal
17 Tuomaala Associates, Architects, and Planners, to
18 amend the Master Plan from Single Family Residential
19 to Multiple Family.
20 The subject property is located in
21 Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and west of
22 the M-5 connector. The subject property is
23 approximately 61.5 acres.
24 Mr. Schmitt.
74
1 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
2 MEMBER RUYLE: Excuse me, Madam Chair.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I apologize,
4 Mr. Ruyle.
5 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes, Madam Chair. For
6 matters already stated on the record, I ask to be
7 recused from this matter.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
9 much.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.
11 The request before you this evening is
12 for the rear half of the Brightmoor Christian Church
13 parcel located at the corner of Thirteen Mile and the
14 M-5 connector. As you can see here, this is the
15 entire parcel. It's currently designated Single
16 Family. Has density of 1.65 units per acre. As you
17 can see to the west, there's a PD-1 option, Multiple
18 Family Development. That is the Erickson Retirement
19 Community Development that is currently under
20 development. To the north is the Maple's PUD, a
21 quasi neighborhood park serving the Haverhill Farms
22 Subdivision, and a vacant long and narrow piece that
23 has previously been in front of the Commission for
24 other developments, and it's currently vacant.
75
1 In terms of the overall corridor, once
2 again this is the subject parcel. This is a mobile
3 home park further to the west. As you can see
4 Erickson is currently under development, and to the
5 south you have multiple single family homes along
6 Thirteen Mile Road.
7 The request this evening as was
8 mentioned is to redesignate this parcel from Single
9 Family Residential to Multiple Family Residential. At
10 the Master Plan Zoning Subcommittee meeting on
11 October 21, a recommendation was forwarded to the
12 full Planning Commission that the property be
13 redesignated to Multiple Family Residential with the
14 intent of developing -- with the intent of producing
15 a Development Agreement at the time of rezoning.
16 As I mentioned, the Development
17 Agreement would be done at the time of the rezoning.
18 There would be input from staff, the Planning
19 Commission, and City Council on the terms of that
20 Development Agreement, along with the assistance of
21 the developer. However, at this time, no document
22 has been produced or authorized by the City Council,
23 so there's no need to worry about that yet.
24 In terms of the character of corridor,
76
1 it's decidedly dense in nature, to be honest. The
2 Multiple Family development, Erickson is a very large
3 dense development, although it doesn't have the same
4 impact as a normal Multiple Family development. The
5 mobile home park is fairly dense, and the single
6 family residential in the area is developed at
7 densities of 2.0 and 1.65 units per acre.
8 As part of the Development Agreement,
9 the Applicant and the Master Plan Zoning Committee
10 agreed that the development will not exceed 200
11 units. These units would be in the form of duplexes
12 which will be built on the site.
13 The overall reason for the Multiple
14 Family designation is because the Applicant is
15 wishing to develop a two-family development. Normally
16 you would go with the RT zoning, however as recently
17 indicated in the Trilium Village discussion, lot
18 lines are required in an RT development. The
19 Applicant has indicated they would like to develop
20 without lot lines, which is how he's done it
21 previously in the past. And, therefore, we have
22 chosen as a staff and with the developer's input, to
23 go with the Multiple Family development and develop
24 the Development Agreement, to provide for the
77
1 necessary setbacks, height restrictions and density
2 limitations.
3 You've been given a copy of the
4 conceptual plan that we're currently working off of
5 with the developer. As you can see, there's a large
6 amount of woodlands and wetlands on the site. The
7 developer has kept this in mind throughout the
8 process and firmly intends on protecting as much of
9 that area as possible. However, those effects will
10 be looked at at the time of site plan and mitigated
11 thusly at that time.
12 In conclusion, the overall character
13 of the area is fairly residential. There's a large
14 amount of residential development in the area and
15 given that this development will occur behind the
16 Brightmoor Christian Church parcel, it will not have
17 an overall impact on the feeling of the area, the
18 character.
19 The traffic impact will be looked at
20 at the time of rezoning. However, it can be expected
21 that approximately 200 units of apartments, which is
22 currently how we've looked at this, will produce
23 approximately 1300 weekday trips. Obviously, that
24 will change as the number of units changes and we get
78
1 more firmly intact into the two-family designation.
2 And finally, it should be noted that
3 the property currently has no taxable value to the
4 City, given that it is developed as a church. This
5 proposal will bring the rear 61 acres of the parcel
6 back onto the City tax rolls, producing taxable
7 income once again for the City.
8 It is the staff's recommendation that
9 this Master Plan amendment be approved with the
10 contingency that a Development Agreement will be
11 produced at the time of rezoning. The Applicant has
12 worked with the Master Plan Zoning Committee and the
13 staff to iron out some of the initial details of
14 this, and further details will be dealt with later.
15 However, at this time, the Master Plan Amendment
16 would be an appropriate step towards future
17 development. Thank you.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
19 Does the Applicant have anything that
20 they would like to address the Commission with?
21 Please state your name and spell it
22 for the court reporter.
23 PASTOR FOLINO: Yes. Thank you.
24 My name is Pastor Thomas Folino, F as
79
1 in Frank, -o-l-i-n-o. I am the Business
2 Administrator and Chief Financial Officer of
3 Brightmoor Christian Church, Franklin Road Christian
4 School.
5 In 19 -- or in 2001, we moved into the
6 facility. It's the church on the hill on the corner
7 of M-5 and Thirteen Mile. We have a 101-acre
8 parcel. Approximately 40 of it has always been the
9 intention of the church to use it for the
10 ecclesiastical purposes and education purposes that
11 we currently have. It's always been the intention of
12 our congregation to somehow develop the northern part
13 of the property in a manner that would be beneficial
14 to the community and citizens, beneficial to the
15 City, and beneficial to the church.
16 As you all know, the Thirteen Mile
17 corridor has significantly changed in its development
18 dynamics based on what's happening at the Erickson
19 property. So over the course of the last 15 months,
20 we have diligently examined what would be the best
21 use of this property given the surrounding
22 conditions.
23 We've examined everything from Single
24 Family Residential, which it's currently zoned at,
80
1 all the way up to some intense use Multifamily, to
2 the level of 450 to 500 apartments Multifamily
3 dwelling. And in our desire to be a good citizen,
4 and in our desire to partner in with the community to
5 do what we feel is in the best interest of not only
6 the church, and the community itself, we've searched
7 diligently developers in the area, because being a
8 church we're not a developer, but we wanted to
9 partner in with a developer that would come into
10 agreement with our vision for what's going to
11 happen. We also have a desire to serve our senior
12 citizens and our constituency in our church, and this
13 developer is sympathetic to that.
14 So what we're proposing is a Master
15 Plan Amendment that would be the first phase in us
16 developing the type of development that we feel is in
17 the best interests of the City, best interests of the
18 citizens, and best interests of the church. That
19 developer is PT Commerce and representing them is
20 Mr. Jim Galbraith and Mr. Mark Kasab (phonetic). The
21 church has entered into a Development Agreement with
22 them conditional as to what happens here, and of
23 course the City Council, relative to Master Plan
24 Amendment and site development and rezoning.
81
1 So in order to explain the development
2 to you, I'd like to introduce to you Mr. Jim
3 Galbraith. Thank you.
4 MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you, Tom.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could,
6 please spell your name, last name for the court
7 reporter.
8 MR. GALBRAITH: Yes. My name is Jim
9 Galbraith. It's G-a-l-b-r-a-i-t-h. My office is in
10 Farmington Hills, Michigan.
11 And I don't know that I have a great
12 deal more to say from what both staff and Pastor Tom
13 have said this evening. I will indicate to you and
14 affirm to you that we have entered into a Development
15 Agreement with the Brightmoor Church, to develop what
16 we refer to as the residual 60 acres of the site.
17 We have worked over the course of the
18 late summer months and fall with the Master Plan
19 Amendment Committee, having met in review sessions on
20 a number of occasions, and have come forth with a
21 conceptual plan at this stage, which we believe
22 recognizes the environmental characteristics of the
23 site, which are quite significant.
24 We have done a woodlands inventory and
82
1 a wetlands inventory, and in your packets you'll see
2 a conceptual plan that has attempted, at this level
3 and stage of refinement, to respect those, staying
4 out of those areas in terms of the development core
5 of the property, and developing primarily the upland
6 meadow areas of the site. We would be preserving the
7 wetland core and the woodland core in the northwest
8 portion of the site up against the Erickson parcel.
9 We believe that a Master Plan
10 Amendment to Multifamily is appropriate, if not
11 compelling, because of the relationship of the
12 residual property to the M-5 Connector, which it
13 abuts immediately to the east. The Erickson
14 property, which it abuts to the west, the other
15 density characteristics in the area. We also have a
16 wonderful natural buffer in transition to the
17 Haverhill Single Family Development. It's really
18 contained on their property, it's not contained so
19 much on the Brightmoor property, but it's a
20 continuation of that wetland/woodland system that is
21 common to the Erickson piece, the Brightmoor piece
22 and the Haverhill property.
23 I don't have a great deal more to say
24 than that. I would be happy to answer any questions
83
1 you might have. What we're hoping to do here if the
2 Planning Commission sees fit to recommend an
3 Amendment to the Master Plan, is to then come forth
4 with a rezoning request, a Development Agreement to
5 develop the community into 200 duplex condominiums.
6 They're essentially attached single family units of
7 approximately 1500 square feet.
8 We've had a great deal of experience
9 in developing this product throughout Oakland County,
10 and we believe that it would be a real asset to the
11 community in terms of offering an additional element
12 to the housing product lines, and would be a real
13 asset to the Brightmoor Church congregates, who might
14 like to live in proximity to the church. And as we
15 go through the site planning process, we'll be
16 relying on a very heavy pedestrian orientation to the
17 church, so it's being done in a very unified fashion.
18 And with that, I thank you for your
19 time this evening, and we'll be happy to answer any
20 questions that the Commissioners or staff might have.
21 Thank you.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
23 This is a public hearing. Is there
24 any member of the audience that would like to address
84
1 the Commission?
2 Seeing none. Do we have any
3 correspondence, Vice Chairman Markham?
4 MEMBER MARKHAM: No, Madam Chair, we
5 have no correspondence.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With that, I will
7 close the public hearing -- I'm sorry.
8 Mr. Evancoe.
9 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
10 With your permission, I'd like to add
11 a couple of comments that might assist the Commission
12 as they deliberate over this case.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
14 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
15 I believe that Tim may have
16 inadvertently left out a portion of our staff
17 recommendation, and I wanted to bring that to your
18 attention.
19 We had at the end of our
20 recommendation, a suggestion to the Commission that
21 if it so chooses to adopt this Amendment, that it
22 would direct that the residential patterns map, which
23 is the map that I'm showing here, which you're all
24 familiar with, which is on the reverse side of our
85
1 land use map, that the subject property be changed to
2 3.25 units per acre as opposed to the 1.65 that it
3 currently indicates. That density would be in
4 accordance with the Development Agreement that
5 eventually will be put forth here, and I say that not
6 presupposing that the Council will authorize that
7 Development Agreement, but if the Council does choose
8 to authorize the staff to work with the Petitioner on
9 the Development Agreement, that would be the density
10 we would be looking towards.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
12 Before the Commission proceeds, I have
13 one question for you. I am on the Master Plan Zoning
14 Committee, and when Mr. Galbraith indicated 200
15 units, 3.5, 200 duplexes, you're not talking 400
16 units, are you?
17 MR. EVANCOE: No. And I may need to
18 ask Tim, but according to Tim, the density that was
19 being sought was 3.25. A maximum of 3.25 per acre.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.
21 MR. EVANCOE: And I might just add one
22 note too. This is actually is a procedure that
23 probably should become a standard part of our process
24 when we amend the Master Plan for Residential, that
86
1 we would pretty much automatically update that other
2 map as well.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's very
4 important. Thank you.
5 Is there anything else?
6 MR. EVANCOE: No, ma'am. Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
8 much.
9 I will close the public hearing and
10 turn it over to the Commission.
11 Vice Chairman Markham.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you, Madam
13 Chair.
14 I'd like to continue on that same
15 question. If we amended the density pattern part of
16 the Master Plan, would the parcel that the church
17 would be on then be excluded from the Master Plan?
18 And where I'm going with that, is I'm
19 on the Master Planning Committee as well, and when we
20 deliberated over this, the density question was, to
21 me, the most important question. The fact that this
22 developer -- or the Brightmoor Church ended up with
23 Erickson going in next door, really changed the
24 character of the property and its potential. So
87
1 understanding that they wanted to do something a
2 little more dense than originally sought, I still was
3 concerned that we maintain that 1.65 density for that
4 general area, so that we didn't over tax the
5 infrastructure of that part of the community.
6 So my question would be, if we're
7 going to change this parcel to reflect a 3. --
8 whatever it was -- 3.2 -- what was it? 3.25, then
9 the church parcel, in my view, would come out of this
10 map.
11 MR. EVANCOE: I would agree with that,
12 yes. I don't think there it anything that would
13 compel us to follow precisely existing property lines
14 for this. So I think we could very easily divide off
15 and not include the church property as a part of
16 that, because there is no residential plan there.
17 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. I do
18 appreciate that the developer is trying to work with
19 the parcel and be sensitive to the environment
20 there. It is a really nice parcel. There's a lot of
21 beautiful woodlands, high quality woodlands and
22 wetlands on the parcel, and I think if we proceed
23 this way, that there's a potential for having a very
24 nice residential development. But I would stress
88
1 that I will only agree with something that includes
2 that limit on the number of units, to keep that
3 density of the general range of what was originally
4 planned out there. That's all. Thank you.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Sprague.
6 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you.
7 Just to follow that up. Is the 3.25
8 density ratio on the 61 and a half acres, or is it on
9 the entire lot, the entire 100 acres?
10 MR. EVANCOE: My understanding is it
11 would only be for the 60 acres where the residential
12 is planned, not the portion that includes the church
13 and school.
14 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Okay. And I think
15 somewhere in the notes -- and I did want to say it
16 was clear the Committee has spent a lot of time and a
17 lot of effort on this -- that it looked like the 101
18 acres, the way it's set forth now, could house a 168
19 units; is that correct?
20 MR. EVANCOE: That would sound about
21 right, based on 1.65, yes.
22 MEMBER SPRAGUE: And so is it a fair
23 assumption to say the infrastructure for that area is
24 designed to support 168 units as opposed to 200 units
89
1 or any other higher number?
2 MR. SCHMITT: I've actually spoken
3 with the City Engineer about this. The sewer lines
4 are being -- in the process of being built, and they
5 are programmed to support the residential to the rear
6 of the Brightmoor parcel.
7 MEMBER SPRAGUE: At what level?
8 MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Coburn indicated
9 that the 200 units are easily supportable under the
10 current programing.
11 MEMBER SPRAGUE: That was -- you know,
12 as I looked through all this, and all the work that
13 was done, it is clear that the density matches
14 everything else, but that the density for the parcel
15 next to it was a big issue and an exception, and I
16 just wondered why we would be going over the 168
17 units.
18 I mean, if we put 168 units on there,
19 plus the church, then we've already added more
20 density from that perspective. There's more than it
21 originally called for. I'm wondering why we would go
22 to the 200.
23 MR. EVANCOE: If I may respond to
24 Commissioner Sprague.
90
1 One way to look at it, perhaps, is to
2 be reminded that within that RM-1 zoning district the
3 density is actually allowable as high as 10.9
4 dwelling units. So through the Development Agreement
5 and by notating it on this map, you would be locking
6 in a density that's really quite a bit lower than
7 what normally be required within the district, if
8 that adds any comfort. I just wanted to mention
9 that.
10 MEMBER SPRAGUE: The current zoning or
11 with the Amendment if it was approved?
12 MR. EVANCOE: With the amendment. If
13 this goes to RM-1 and you did not have this
14 Development Agreement, you could have densities in
15 the range that I mentioned.
16 MEMBER SPRAGUE: But if we don't make
17 the Amendment, then the density would be-
18 MR. EVANCOE: (Interposing) No. Then
19 it remains at the Single Family level.
20 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Could I ask the
21 Petitioner why we're at 200 units instead of 168?
22 MR. GALBRAITH: Well, I think from our
23 view, from a land use standpoint, given the character
24 of the surrounding areas, that your Master Plan as it
91
1 stands today, is probably in our view, in our
2 opinion, no longer appropriate for that parcel
3 because of the impact of the M-5 Connector and the
4 Erickson parcel.
5 We felt that -- likewise, we also felt
6 that it was inappropriate to be asking for a straight
7 up Mult Family zoning on the piece, the residual
8 piece, that could result in densities in the 8 to 10
9 units per acre range. We felt that this represented
10 an appropriate residential transition between the
11 Erickson parcel and the Connector itself. In
12 recognizing that these are also two-bedroom units,
13 that tend to be lifestyle change units, and appealing
14 to empty nesters. The impact on infrastructure tends
15 to be much less than it is if they were three and
16 four-bedroom units, in that range.
17 MEMBER SPRAGUE: There already have
18 been a number of comments about the desire for senior
19 housing. Is it intended that all of these will be
20 senior housing?
21 MR. GALBRAITH: No. I don't mean to
22 imply that at all. These are sold as condominiums on
23 the open market. But we know from having developed a
24 number of communities with this type of product in
92
1 them, that the greatest appeal is to a lifestyle
2 change buyer. And they also tend to be people that
3 are already situated in the community where we're
4 selling. They tend to be folks that are coming out
5 and buying.
6 They already live within three to five
7 miles of the site, and their desire is to stay in the
8 community, but their desire is also is to no longer
9 have to support a large single family home and so
10 forth. It will appeal to a cross section of buyers.
11 It just happens to be weighted on the lifestyle
12 change end of things.
13 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
15 Commissioner Shroyer.
16 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madam
17 Chair.
18 I don't have any questions, but I do
19 have a couple of comments I want to make.
20 Having served on the Master Planning
21 Zoning Subcommittee as well, we've had many, many,
22 meetings and quite a bit of discussion centered
23 around this. I'd like to thank the church
24 representatives and the developer for working with us
93
1 to share what I consider a very viable development.
2 It's bringing a tax base to the City. It's not over
3 building like many of our developer's come in and
4 want to do. It has a preservation of our wetlands
5 and our woodlands. It's just a win-win all the way
6 around, and I will be supporting this Amendment and
7 encourage my fellow commissioners to do the same.
8 Thank you, Madam Chair.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
10 Mr. Avdoulos.
11 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yeah, going through
12 the information that was presented, I commend both
13 the Committee and the Applicant. I think this
14 project would be a good transition from the
15 development, the Erickson Development, and in the M-5
16 Connector area I think it's appropriate.
17 There are a couple of comments that
18 the commissioners made during their meetings, and the
19 one that stuck out in my mind, is Member Shroyer had
20 encouraged creativity. And I think that's what we
21 look for in a lot of developments, to not only
22 provide amenities for those who live in the
23 community, but also for those who are around the
24 area. And what I mean by encouraging creativity is,
94
1 Commissioner Shroyer indicated he'd like to develop
2 more green space, bike paths, sidewalks.
3 And I like to see community churches
4 being used, such as I think an example of Northville
5 Christian on Six Mile, where the Township uses their
6 soccer fields for the Northville Soccer Association.
7 It's not a church directed program, but it's a
8 city-wide community directed program, and everybody
9 gets to utilize the space, and I think that works out
10 very well for the community.
11 I'm encouraged by what I've seen thus
12 far, and I will support the Amendment. Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
14 Commissioner Paul.
15 MEMBER PAUL: I'm in agreement with all
16 of the previous commissioners. I am very thrilled to
17 see the site come forward. I'd like to see the field
18 space also, because I think the park space is
19 necessary in our city, and we currently don't have
20 the funds to add additional land for park space.
21 And with that, I'd like to make a
22 motion: In the matter of the request of Brightmoor
23 Christian Church to send a positive recommendation to
24 the Planning Commission -- I'm sorry.
95
1 In the matter of the request of
2 Brightmoor Christian Church to rezone the 61.5-acre
3 parcel-
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Master plan.
5 MEMBER PAUL: Master Plan. The 61.5
6 acre parcel from RA to RM-1 and Master Plan Amendment
7 to designate the property from Single Family to
8 Multiple Family with a Development Agreement which
9 would include the following standards: 10-foot side
10 yard setback. 25-foot front yard setback. 35-foot
11 rear yard setback. 35-foot heighth, not to exceed a
12 total number of 100 dwellings, which is 200 units,
13 and to preserve as much open space as possible, and
14 all the provisions of Section 25-16 of the zoning
15 ordinance.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a second
17 to that motion?
18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Second.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any further
20 discussion?
21 Mr. Papp.
22 MEMBER PAPP: I just have one
23 question. Looking at the aerial map, I notice a lot
24 of green space north. Is that privately owned? Or
96
1 who's the owner of north of this property?
2 MR. EVANCOE: Right. That's owned by
3 the neighborhood association of Haverhill
4 Subdivision. So it's what we call a quasi public
5 park.
6 MEMBER PAPP: I was just curious
7 because any time I see green space I think of a
8 developer coming in and putting another subdivision
9 in.
10 MR. EVANCOE: Right. Most of that, I
11 believe, is wetland.
12 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you. No further
13 questions.
14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: Should we be
16 including in this motion the density issue?
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher?
18 MR. FISHER: Well, I think that is
19 what Mr. Evancoe had requested. And, I mean, for
20 this purpose, in this specific property, you've got
21 the density covered with the 200 units, but I think
22 in terms of the actual Master Plan designation, you
23 want to specify that.
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Would the
97
1 motioner be open to adding the 61.5-acres at a
2 density of a maximum of 3.25 acres -- or units per
3 acre?
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. 61.5
5 not 65.
6 MEMBER SHROYER: 61.5.
7 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And the second?
9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
11 Commissioner Markham.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Madam Chair, or the
13 rest of the Commission. Do we want to include the
14 rezoning? I think your motion included the rezoning.
15 Do we want to do that at this time, or do we only
16 want to do the Master Plan Amendment?
17 MR. EVANCOE: Only the Master Plan.
18 MEMBER MARKHAM: That's what I
19 thought.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So we need to amend
21 the motion, to remove the part where you said rezone
22 the 65 acre parcel from RA to RN.
23 MEMBER MARKHAM: All we're doing is
24 changing the Master Plan to designate the property
98
1 from Single Family to Multifamily.
2 MEMBER PAUL: Agreed.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos?
4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes. I agree.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anybody else --
6 I have a question.
7 Mr. Fisher, when we're doing this, is
8 there, in any way, the question that Ms. Markham
9 asked about what we do on the Master Plan for land
10 use, designate the church. Is this in anyway --
11 should we do anything special with regard to that?
12 Do you remember her original question?
13 MR. FISHER: I guess the question is
14 does the application cover the church as well, or is
15 the application relating only to this additional
16 property. And if that's the case, I don't think
17 there's any need to-
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) It's
19 contained within our motion.
20 MR. FISHER: Yes.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: 61.5.
22 MR. FISHER: Because that's the
23 proposal before the Commission.
24 MR. EVANCOE: Just to clarify. There
99
1 is no change being proposed for the church portion of
2 this.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right, I understood
4 that. But there should be maybe, that's my concern.
5 Should there be?
6 MR. FISHER: My understanding of the
7 consensus of the discussion was no.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.
9 MR. FISHER: Tonight.
10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The other question
11 that I do have is with regard to the wetlands in
12 there, and this is near Haverhill, isn't that where
13 we're having some problems, some of the residents are
14 having problems?
15 As I recall they were before the
16 Council, and I want to know if maybe Mr. Evancoe, you
17 could answer this, if that in any way impacts that
18 subdivision?
19 MR. EVANCOE: I don't believe it would
20 at all. If I'm correct, and maybe somebody can
21 correct me, I believe the drainage is flowing in a
22 southerly direction, isn't it?
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is that correct,
24 Mr. Schmitt?
100
1 MR. SCHMITT: Yeah, that is correct,
2 and so any drainage from this property is going to
3 not go to the north, to Haverhill.
4 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair, I would
5 suggest getting a confirmation of that from the
6 developer. I assume they'll concur with that.
7 MR. GAILBRAITH: Yes, Mr. Fisher, I
8 would concur with that. The drainage patterns in
9 this area are from the north to the south. And
10 therefore, any storm water coming off of our property
11 would not go into the system to the north into the
12 Haverhill property. And we're very sensitive to the
13 wetlands on the piece and we'll be developing a storm
14 water management program as part of the detailed site
15 planning and engineering that we do, and we'll have,
16 I'm sure, numerous opportunities to review that with
17 the Engineering Department and the Planning staff and
18 your Commission.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
20 much.
21 Ms. McClain, do you have anything to
22 add to that? Because I saw you running all the way
23 downstairs, I might as well give you that
24 opportunity.
101
1 MS. MccLAIN: Well, it's a good thing
2 I had the TV on.
3 This area, and I want to step around
4 to the other side.
5 The area right up in here, which is
6 the wetlands, does connect into this.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right.
8 MS. McCLAIN: But that's not the area
9 that's having the problem. The area that's having
10 the problem is up here, and the drainage does not go
11 up to the north, to this section, up by Fourteen
12 Mile. The drainage splits about in the middle, about
13 near the cul-de-sac on the south side of Haverhill
14 and flows north and south.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
16 much. I appreciate you coming down and answering
17 that question.
18 I happen to think that -- I was on the
19 Master Planning Committee, and I do think there is a
20 market for this type of housing. Very rarely do you
21 see this type of housing developed anymore,
22 preferably one-story. We do have an aging population
23 of which I am one, and I think this is a very
24 marketable idea. I think it's very good for the
102
1 community, and I'm in support of the motion. And if
2 there's no further comments by any of the
3 commissioners, I had like to call for the vote.
4 Are there any other comments?
5 Commissioner Markham.
6 MEMBER MARKHAM: At the risk of
7 beating a dead horse. I just want to make sure that
8 somewhere in the notes we remember when we ultimately
9 amend the Master Plan, that the piece that the church
10 is on, gets taken out of the residential density
11 pattern.
12 MR. EVANCOE: I think the record
13 reflects that. We'll do it that way.
14 MEMBER MARKHAM: It's hard to remember
15 it, whether it's in the motion or not.
16 I guess it doesn't need to be in the
17 motion, I just wanted it to be noted somewhere for
18 future updates of the Master Plan.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other
20 comments?
21 If not, Mr. Schmitt, would you please
22 call the roll.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
103
1 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
4 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
6 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
8 Commissioner Shroyer?
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
11 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
14 MR. SCHMITT: The motion passes 7-0.
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And Mr. Ruyle
16 recused himself.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Oh, that's right. My
18 apologies.
19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
20 much. Good luck, gentlemen.
21 MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you for your
22 consideration this evening.
23
24
104
1 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
2 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT - DCC HIGH SCHOOL
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving on to the
4 Matters of Consideration.
5 Our first Matter of Consideration is
6 Master Plan Amendment. Consideration of the request
7 of Detroit Catholic Central High School to amend the
8 Master Plan from Office and Light Industrial to
9 Single Family Residential. The subject property is
10 located in Section 18 on the west side of Wixom Road
11 and south of Grand River Avenue. The subject
12 property is approximately 60 acres.
13 Mr. Evancoe.
14 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you very much.
15 Madam Chair, members of the
16 Commission, I want to begin like we normally do by
17 reminding folks of the location of the property. I
18 will try not to dwell on that because we're all quite
19 familiar with it. But for those who might not be
20 aware, that are watching by television, if we can get
21 the image from the overhead onto the screen. Thank
22 you.
23 This is the Catholic Central
24 property. It is located directly to the north of the
105
1 Island Lake Development. It's on the west side of
2 Wixom Road. It's across from the existing Target
3 Store, and it is directly south of properties that
4 have frontage on Twelve Mile Road.
5 The future land use map with which we
6 are most concerned with this evening, currently
7 indicates that the property has several designations,
8 actually. It has Light Industrial, as well as Office
9 designations on it at this time. In terms of zoning,
10 the property has three zoning designations. It has
11 primarily OST, which is the light blue. It has a
12 small portion of I-1 zoning along its northern edge,
13 and then a small portion in the southeast corner is
14 zoned as R-1, Single Family Residential.
15 And I might just note, too, that in
16 terms of surrounding zoning, we have the four houses
17 that currently front Wixom Road are zoned R-1, as is
18 the Island Lake Development. And of course, the I-1
19 and I-2 to the north.
20 I want to begin this evening by
21 providing a little bit of an overview of where we're
22 at with this particular matter. The Master Plan and
23 Zoning Committee, as you'll recall, conducted a
24 meeting on September 16, and they recommended that
106
1 this property be designated as Single Family
2 Residential, from its current designation on the
3 Master Plan for land use. The staff agreed with
4 that, that recommendation, and forwarded a
5 complementary recommendation along with the
6 committee.
7 The Commission had made a
8 recommendation to designate the property as Single
9 Family, at which time an alternate suggestion was
10 made to possibly designate the property as Public.
11 And after some discussion, the Commission determined
12 that it would be best to table the matter to this
13 evening in order to offer the staff some opportunity
14 to give further study and consideration to the Public
15 designation.
16 Staff did prepare a supplemental
17 report which addressed the possibility of the Public
18 designation and then reaffirmed its agreement with
19 the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, and we do
20 continue to recommend the Single Family land use
21 designation on the Master Plan.
22 Before I go on, I do want to clarify a
23 few terms, because I think that there has been, I
24 don't know if it's confusion, but there's been some
107
1 use of terminology that I think we need to make sure
2 we are indeed clear on. That we are only dealing
3 here with the land use designation and not zoning,
4 and I think we've addressed that even earlier this
5 evening on the other cases.
6 The question of what zoning district
7 is most appropriate for the Catholic Central property
8 is going to be addressed at your
9 December 18th meeting. So just to keep us focused,
10 we are really only going to be taking action this
11 evening with regard to the land use designation, not
12 the zoning.
13 This -- I also would like to
14 just add a reminder too, that we are only dealing
15 with the Catholic Central property. That's the only
16 property that has been requested to be changed at
17 this time. There are no changes proposed for the
18 land use or the zoning for the surrounding
19 properties. And in either case, should the
20 Commission decide to stay with the Single Family
21 designation or to go with the Public designation, the
22 zoning, nevertheless, will need to be Single Family.
23 R-1, has been the suggestion, but again, that is not
24 before you this evening to make that determination.
108
1 That will come up later on this month.
2 I want to highlight the Planning
3 Department's report, and I know that you all had a
4 chance to look at that, and I want to break that
5 into, really, two sections. First of all, why do we,
6 along with the Master Planning and Zoning Committee,
7 recommend the Single Family designation. And then
8 I'll look at the other Public designations. So I'm
9 going to add this to our overhead, and we can just
10 quickly go through these.
11 Why do we recommend the Single Family
12 designation. First of all, it is compatible with the
13 adjacent single family residences to the south and
14 east. Again, those properties are currently zoned
15 R-1. They are used as residences, and so to
16 designate the property directly behind them as
17 Residential would be compatible land use.
18 Secondly, there are other areas of the
19 community, and this was highlighted at the last
20 Planning Commission meeting, that are proving to be a
21 better location for office uses, such as the Haggerty
22 corridor, as well as the OST corridor along
23 Meadowbrook Road. It is our feeling that Office
24 would be out of character really, with the
109
1 surrounding land uses, being that they are
2 Residential primarily.
3 Thirdly, it provides the most logical
4 basis for the Single Family zoning, which is to
5 follow at your December 18th meeting. There really
6 is no land use, future land use designation, that
7 would be more supportive of a Single Family zoning
8 than indeed the Single Family land use designation.
9 And then, fourthly, in the event that
10 a high school does not locate there, Residential
11 development will have the least impact on nearby
12 residents, and can most easily conform to the site's
13 unique natural features. That was alluded to in our
14 report that, as you know, and because you've reviewed
15 many site plans, Single Family Residential
16 development is a much more flexible style of
17 development that has the ability, particularly with
18 the many, five or so, development options that we
19 offer for Residential, including the new Open Space
20 Amendment recently adopted by the City Council.
21 These are all mechanisms that make it
22 possible for Single Family development to weave its
23 way, if you will, through and around sensitive
24 natural features. And this is much more difficult to
110
1 do with properties that are zoned Office-Industrial,
2 essentially Non Residential, because of the large
3 footprint that those buildings tend to have and the
4 expansive parking lots that usually accompany them.
5 In terms of why we do not recommend
6 the Public designation with a Development Agreement,
7 I'll begin by saying that the existing zoning is less
8 compatible with the nearby existing Residential than
9 the proposed Single Family designation zone. And
10 again, this is kind of like a repeat of the converse
11 of what was mentioned earlier.
12 Secondly, it creates uncertainty for
13 surrounding property owners about how the property
14 could be developed in the future without the Detroit
15 Catholic Central property. And that is because with
16 the Development Agreement, at least going on the
17 suggestion that was made at the last meeting, the
18 notion is that you might designate it Public on the
19 land use map, subject to a Development Agreement that
20 would have the property revert back to its present
21 zoning, or something other than Single Family, if the
22 high school does not locate there. That, really, if
23 I were living near that, would give me a certain
24 degree of uncertainty, I guess, as to what ultimately
111
1 would be developable there. With Single Family, we
2 know exactly what that means. It's very clear to
3 anyone around it what would be entailed. With having
4 a mix of Industrial or Office, there's quite a few
5 permitted uses and special land uses that are
6 possible.
7 Number four, as far as why we do not
8 recommend the Public. The Public designation has
9 historically been reserved for facilities that are
10 truly under public ownership. And I know that the
11 Land Use Plan does enable private schools to be
12 included as public. I'm not exactly sure why that
13 was done, but I think that we need to be careful
14 about protecting some of our classifications. I
15 think there's a danger in watering down, if you will,
16 what we mean when we say public. And I think there's
17 something to be said for reserving the Public
18 designation for truly public projects.
19 And then finally, reverting the
20 property to a Non Residential zone would permit
21 developments that are more likely to harm the site's
22 natural features than Single Family. I've already
23 mentioned that as one of the reasons for the Single
24 Family designation.
112
1 And so with that, Madam Chair, I will
2 return and be available for questions, and I
3 appreciate your time. And again, this is not an easy
4 matter, and I certainly respect everyone's opinion
5 and hopefully we can work through this and have a
6 good resolution. Thank you.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
8 Mr. Evancoe.
9 Would you like to direct some
10 questions?
11 MR. RYAN: Thank you, Madam Chair.
12 My name is Tom Ryan, R-y-a-n.
13 My office is at 2055 Orchard Lake Road in
14 Sylvan Lake, Michigan 48320.
15 Thank you for hearing us again this
16 evening, and we appreciate being here. We appreciate
17 all the time and effort that not only you but the
18 staff has put in on the project. I will speak
19 briefly.
20 I would just echo what Mayor Clark
21 said. I appreciate his comments -- we appreciate his
22 comments. He stole a lot of my thunder, so I won't
23 repeat myself. I'd also like to thank Mr. Evancoe
24 for his presentation and just pick up on Mr. Ruyle
113
1 from the last public hearing. Again, we are here for
2 a Master Plan Amendment. The Master Plan is a
3 living, breathing document which changes.
4 It's my understanding you can review
5 the Master Plan in toto in the next couple of years,
6 and if for some reason this doesn't work out, you
7 have the opportunity again to review it. I would
8 submit, and I won't give it to you for the record,
9 but this is Exhibit A. This was filed today at
10 City. This is our preliminary site plan work. We
11 are going forward with this project. This is
12 something that we will see to fruition. If for some
13 reason it doesn't go through, you have to decide
14 whether the City is better off with a Residential
15 Master Plan designation or a Public. And I submit
16 for the reasons stated by the Mayor and Mr. Evancoe,
17 that Residential makes sense.
18 These four properties on our east that
19 are currently used as Single Family Residential and
20 zoned as Single Family Residential, but in fact are
21 Master Planned Office, you understand that in the
22 future, ideally you have your Master Plan designation
23 and your zoning in sync. But when you have issues
24 where they're not, you have an issue, perhaps in the
114
1 future, with those properties on Wixom Road. It is
2 not our intention to harm those properties
3 whatsoever. We did not generate this land division
4 and how the properties are designated on Wixom Road,
5 and we are got going to harm our neighbors.
6 You will see -- and we're not here for
7 site plan tonight, but you will see that -- and it
8 just makes sense. We have approximately 1,000 feet
9 to work with north and south on Wixom Road. We don't
10 own all that frontage, we have these other four
11 owners there that we must accommodate, and we
12 understand that. But we have 1,000 feet on
13 Wixom Road; we have approximately 2200 feet from east
14 to west. So our orientation, frankly, is away from
15 Wixom Road. It is not Wixom Road. Our site issues
16 are going to be to the -- way to the west. We will
17 not impact the residential use or the future use for
18 those four properties on Wixom Road. We will
19 accommodate them, we will screen them, we will buffer
20 them so what they do, we assume will be high quality,
21 and whatever it is the City will allow, and we won't
22 impact and we won't harm them. If they need
23 variances, if they have natural feature issues, we
24 will cooperate with them. Because, really, our
115
1 orientation is to the west. Way to the west. So we
2 will not -- we do not see as harming those people in
3 the least.
4 They are, again, zoned Single Family
5 Residential. Our zoning, we believe, should be
6 Single Family Residential. As indicated, that issue
7 will be front of you in two weeks. So again, we do
8 not want to harm those people, we will not harm those
9 people. We believe that the Single Family
10 Residential Master Plan designation makes the most
11 sense under the circumstances. Thank you.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.
13 Does anyone else wish to address the
14 Commission? We ask that you come forward and state
15 your name and spell it, and your home address for the
16 court reporter, please.
17 MR. HERBEL: Good evening. My name is
18 Richard Herbel, H-e-r-b-e-l. I was at home watching
19 on T.V. and I wasn't aware that this issue was going
20 to be on the Agenda tonight. I just today
21 received from the City of Novi indicating a change of
22 zoning, but for the 18th. And I thought the matter
23 was going to be postponed until then, so I didn't
24 think I had to be here to make any kind of comments.
116
1 So I rushed out tonight. I apologize, I don't know
2 what was said in my transition -- in my getting here,
3 but I'd just like to say these things.
4 We support Catholic Central being
5 here. We don't think that that is a problem and I
6 think it would be a very good thing. The thing we
7 have to keep in mind here though, is that this
8 property, even though it's zoned residential was
9 zoned residential on a dirt road, before Target,
10 before Lakes of Novi. Now with Target coming in
11 there and Lowe's coming in, and with the expressway
12 cloverleaf possibly coming in, the traffic is going
13 to be quite heavy. And when the school has
14 activities and they have students coming and going
15 every day, football games, plays, proms, whatever,
16 this is also going to add to the traffic problems in
17 the area.
18 The neighbors there and myself, are
19 concerned that when the time comes for us to want to
20 sell our property, we won't be able to sell it as a
21 neighborhood residential area, because who would like
22 to see little children playing along a busy traveled
23 road. So if you're going to make any designation for
24 Catholic Central, make it for them, to allow them to
117
1 accomplish their goals, but don't include the
2 properties, the residential properties, on Wixom Road
3 because the time -- we're in transition. What was
4 once residential, now is not. Now it's heavy
5 traffic. There is going to be even more so. So
6 please keep that in mind -- and we welcome them as a
7 neighbor.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
9 Mr. Herbel. We are not rezoning the property this
10 evening, we are only changing the Master Plan. And
11 the 18th, yes, the Commission will discuss the
12 zoning. This is only for a Master Plan Amendment,
13 and I appreciate your coming down.
14 MR. HERBEL: It's a good thing I was
15 channel chasing.
16 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair?
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
18 MR. EVANCOE: If I may add to the
19 comment that you just offered. We are also not doing
20 anything to these properties at all. This is only
21 the Catholic Central property.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Herbel, I don't
23 know if you heard Mr. Evancoe, but we are not doing
24 anything with the four pieces of property, including
118
1 yours. Only Catholic Central.
2 MR. HERBEL: Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
4 much.
5 I'd like to turn this matter over to
6 the Commission. Do we have any comments or
7 discussion?
8 John Avdoulos.
9 MR. AVDOULOS: I'll go first.
10 I guess about two weeks ago, many
11 issues were raised by the adjacent owners of the
12 property before us, and their concerns were taken
13 with serious consideration towards all of the facts.
14 And over the past two weeks, I've gone by that site
15 about three or four times just to get a good
16 familiarity with the surrounding area. The issue was
17 tabled to allow the Planning Commission to thoroughly
18 review all the available information before approving
19 or denying the Master Plan Amendment.
20 As our last resident indicated,
21 Wixom Road is no longer a rural country road. We are
22 in transition. It has become a main artery for new
23 residential developments and for the Grand River
24 corridor and expressway. Residents' concerns are not
119
1 that Detroit Catholic Central will occupy the site,
2 but what will the surrounding area look like once the
3 Detroit Catholic Central is in place. And the
4 concerns were raised that you'll have Target to the
5 east, Cadillac Asphalt to the north, and Detroit
6 Catholic Central will be to the west of them.
7 If the property is amended and rezoned
8 there are two facts: Detroit Catholic Central will
9 occupy the site. No one disputes the institution's
10 integrity, however this is what concerns the
11 neighbors, exactly what was stated earlier, that
12 they'll be bookended by this development.
13 If, and I think it seems like Detroit
14 Catholic Central will go along with this plan, and
15 it's been indicated that sensitivity and care and
16 cooperation with the neighbors will be paramount
17 during these initial planning stages. The Mayor also
18 made comments where during the public process of
19 planning, the residents will see what the layout is,
20 where the building is going to be located, where the
21 amenities will be located, and there are
22 opportunities for them to rezone at a future date. I
23 think I agree with the Planning Department, that we
24 are looking at this particular property to see what
120
1 is the best avenue for the Master Plan at that time.
2 If nothing happens to the Master Plan,
3 the property zoning as is remains. This might be, as
4 indicated before, potential for a worse type of
5 development for the neighbors, such as office
6 buildings or industrial buildings. There are many
7 instances, not only in this general area, but all
8 over the state, where schools really co-exist very
9 closely with neighborhoods and residences. I don't
10 think it as a negative.
11 Right now, we can't do anything about
12 Target. And I think that was the big issue last week
13 that we heard, and we really want to take that to
14 heart. But I think with the cooperation, we can
15 consider, you know, all the options possible to make
16 everybody happy. It's next to near impossible. The
17 one thing that I enjoyed going up and down Wixom Road
18 is the Wizinsky property. I think it's a fantastic
19 landmark. I'd like to see it be able to co-exist
20 with the surrounding neighborhood.
21 I do not feel that Public is an
22 appropriate designation for this particular area.
23 With all the information presented before us, the
24 reaffirmation of the Planning Department to its
121
1 previous recommendation, I support the Master Plan
2 Committee's recommendation to designate the property
3 before us as Residential. Thank you.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we
5 have any other comments?
6 Commissioner Shroyer.
7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,
8 Madam Chair.
9 Being on the Master Planning and
10 Zoning and coming forth with that recommendation
11 initially, I was pretty set that this was the right
12 way to go. After the last meeting and the possible
13 Public designation, I was totally up in the air.
14 I come this evening still up in the
15 air. My main concern is what do we need to do to get
16 DCC located in the City of Novi. I think that's the
17 number one issue that we need to address this
18 evening. And the questions that I have are very
19 simple, and I'll address them to Mr. Evancoe.
20 First of all, in regard to building a
21 school, what can be done in an area of Master Plan,
22 R-1, that cannot be done in area zoned Public -- or
23 Master Planned Public?
24 MR. EVANCOE: If I understand your
122
1 question, and if I get off track, please redirect
2 me.
3 But the property, because it is a
4 school requires a Single Family zoning designation.
5 And that has to be R-1 through R-4 essentially.
6 MEMBER SHROYER: Zoning, next meeting.
7 MR. EVANCOE: Right. And so to set
8 the foundation for that, you need to have a land use
9 designation that is logical towards supporting a
10 zoning request like that. And so the Single Family
11 certainly does that. If they're going to be zoned
12 Single Family, it certainly makes sense to designate
13 the Land Use Plan, Single Family. But you can do it
14 with that Public as well. You can do it that way
15 too.
16 The important thing, in terms of
17 actually allowing for the location of the facility is
18 the zoning. That's what's ultimately going to
19 determine whether it's a permitted use or not.
20 MEMBER SHROYER: So let me paraphrase
21 what you're saying here: It doesn't matter which it
22 is Master Planned, whether it be Public or whether it
23 be R-1 or Single Family, as long as the zoning is for
24 Residential-
123
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing)
2 Single Family Residential.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: (Continuing) -Single
4 Family Residential, to build the school.
5 MR. EVANCOE: Well, it does matter
6 because you have to choose a land use designation
7 that logically supports the underlying zoning. You
8 wouldn't want to, you know, obviously go with a --
9 I'm trying to think of something ridiculous, but --
10 Commercial. You wouldn't want to designate this
11 Commercial and then try to come back two weeks from
12 now and get it zoned Single Family. So we're looking
13 for a land use designation that's compatible.
14 But for the many other reasons that I
15 indicated in the presentation, we do feel that there
16 is one option better than the other, and we feel that
17 the Single Family is a better designation than the
18 Public.
19 MEMBER SHROYER: Is there something
20 that they can do under R-1 that they can't do under
21 Public?
22 MR. EVANCOE: Under Single Family
23 versus-
24 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. Single Family
124
1 versus Public.
2 MR. EVANCOE: Well, Single Family-
3 MEMBER SHROYER: (Interposing) Here
4 again Master Plan, not zoning.
5 MR. EVANCOE: You mean the land use
6 designation doesn't, per se, indicate what you can
7 do. That's zoning. It simply says what is the
8 desired general future land use for this area.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: So again to
10 paraphrase: It doesn't matter this evening whether
11 we designate the two options that we're considering-
12 MR. EVANCOE: Right.
13 MEMBER SHROYER: (Continuing) -as long
14 as the zoning is appropriate at the next meeting to
15 allow them to build the school.
16 MR. EVANCOE: Well, I wouldn't put it
17 in those terms myself, because I think it does
18 matter. Because, again, going back to some of the
19 things we indicated in our report.
20 In the event, for example, that the
21 school did not locate there, then we need to think
22 about what is best if that happens. And it's our
23 opinion, that because there is the Single Family to
24 the south and to the east, that the Single Family
125
1 designation with the subsequent zoning is much more
2 compatible than to have -- have that, quite frankly,
3 as it's currently zoned. I think the way it's
4 currently zoned is not compatible with the
5 residential that's nearby.
6 MEMBER SHROYER: That I totally agree
7 with.
8 MR. EVANCOE: Sure.
9 MEMBER SHROYER: Nothing would prevent
10 us, however, from coming in with a Development
11 Agreement with this as well, where we revert back to
12 the original -- or the current Master Plan
13 designation, if DCC decided not to build in the
14 future.
15 MR. EVANCOE: No. Nothing would
16 prevent you. It does add an additional step though,
17 and some uncertainty into the approval process for
18 DCC. Because, again, the City Council has to
19 authorize the city attorney to work with the
20 Petitioner on the Development Agreement. That adds,
21 potentially, a delay in their process, and some
22 additional uncertainty. When you throw in a
23 Development Agreement into the equation, you have one
24 more thing that groups of people have to come to
126
1 agreement on, both in terms of the Petitioner and the
2 City, as well as the political values as well.
3 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. I guess that
4 answered the question. I'm looking for a specific --
5 what can't they do under one that they can do under
6 the other regarding the building a school?
7 MR. EVANCOE: Well, under the Public,
8 obviously, they can do any kind of public facility.
9 I mean, if for some reason -- and again, a lot of
10 this it very academic because we have every reason to
11 believe that the school is going there, especially
12 after today, receiving their official site plans.
13 But, for academic purposes, you know, if they didn't,
14 then any other public kind of use can go in there: a
15 sewage treatment plant, a City Hall annex. I mean, ,
16 I know I'm being a little bit off the wall here, but
17 anything that's considered public could go in there.
18 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll yield the floor
19 to Mr. Avdoulos.
20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Well, I just wanted
21 to ask Commissioner Shroyer a question.
22 Are you indicating that if we
23 designated a Master Plan Amendment as Public, then
24 can a rezoning occur as an R-1, rather than just
127
1 saying Residential and then zoning R-1?
2 I'm trying to figure out what the
3 benefit would be if you just say Public, and then you
4 rezone the site R-1, I don't know how that jives.
5 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm trying to get a
6 good grasp as to the benefits of one over the other,
7 and what I'll do is I'll go back to the last meeting
8 when Mr. Ryan had indicated that they definitely
9 wanted to stay with the R-1 designation. And if you
10 can come forward.
11 Do you still feel that way and have
12 you looked at Public and thought about what you can
13 or cannot do in building a school under a Public
14 designation?
15 MR. RYAN: Yes, I have, Mr. Shroyer.
16 And we were a little bit surprised by the Public
17 discussion last time. We got to look at it over the
18 two weeks. Really, the Public designation is not
19 mentioned in the zoning ordinance. It's only
20 mentioned about -- there are two sets of the Master
21 Plan-
22 MEMBER SHROYER: Right.
23 MR. RYAN: (Continuing) -which talks
24 about waste water treatment, public facilities,
128
1 public and private schools. But there are no
2 schedule of regulations in the zoning ordinance which
3 foot to that. So it doesn't make any sense -- all
4 due respect, it doesn't make any sense for this
5 property, and for our application, to put us in the
6 Public, because I don't think it gets the City
7 anywhere.
8 I mean, would you rather have to
9 defend your Master Plan and your zoning ordinance
10 with a Public designation underlying the Master Plan,
11 or a Residential? Again, look at the -- I mean, I
12 respectfully say, look at the property you question,
13 not just the Applicant. But we have -- and you'll
14 see it when we go for site planning. We have
15 valuable woodlands and wetlands on that property. I
16 mean, I think we're doing the City a big favor, if
17 you will, by getting this changed out of Office and
18 Light Industrial, because it's totally inappropriate.
19 And we all agree, I think, in this room, that it
20 should be Residentially zoned.
21 And I know that's in two weeks, but it
22 just doesn't seem to make any sense when the history
23 of the City has been for private schools that they be
24 zoned and that they be Master Plan designated as
129
1 Residential. Because as indicated by Commissioner --
2 the commissioner, and also by the Planning Director,
3 that it's customary in this country to have schools,
4 whether public or private, in Residential zones.
5 And now with the new state law taking
6 away from bodies such as the Planning Commission and
7 Council, the ability to zone or -- strike that -- the
8 ability to regulate how a school is placed on a
9 site -- although there's maybe hope in the offing,
10 Mr. Fisher. I know this Northville case was
11 apparently granted leave by the Michigan Supreme
12 Court, so maybe there's hope in the future, but you
13 have no say-so on a public high school facility, or a
14 public school. Whereas with us, we need to go
15 through the process. We need to be zoned
16 Residential, and I just say that if it's a toss up,
17 and I don't think it is, I agree with Mr. Evancoe,
18 that I think it's better for everyone that we be
19 Master Plan designated Residential.
20 The map flows -- that yellow line,
21 that yellow area flows up through, you know, our
22 property, ending on our property from the north and
23 the south. The properties to our east that we are
24 very concerned about and talked about, are already
130
1 zoned and utilized as Single Family Residential, it
2 just seems to make sense to keep it Residential,
3 because we're going to be here in two weeks and ask
4 for the R-1 zoning. I hope that helps you in some
5 fashion.
6 MR. SHROYER: Well, somewhat. Thank
7 you.
8 We have an inconsistency within the
9 Master Plan as to what's zoned Public and what's
10 zoned Residential in regard to schools. And that's
11 something that this whole Commission, or at least the
12 Master Planning and Zoning group will have to go back
13 and review at a later date. I was just trying to get
14 a clearer understanding this evening as to what can
15 be done or what can't be done under one of the
16 designations as opposed to the other. So as I said,
17 my main concern is allowing you to build and
18 welcoming you to our community.
19 MR. RYAN: I understand that sir. I
20 appreciate that. And if I didn't say, I don't mean
21 to repeat myself, but when you look at the natural
22 features on this property, I think it doesn't lend
23 itself for Public use, it lends itself to more
24 creative Residential use.
131
1 If something, God forbid, happened to
2 us and we go away, I would think with the woodlands
3 and the wetlands on that property, you would want to
4 have a Residential zone underlying a Residential
5 Master Plan Amendment, as opposed to Public, because
6 you don't want any waste water facility there. You
7 don't want, I mean, maybe a City Hall, but I just
8 think that particular property in this particular
9 case, cries out for a Residential underlying Master
10 Plan Amendment, because of the natural features.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could we limit --
12 excuse me. Could we limit the discussion, in order
13 to expedite the matter, strictly to Master Plan. I
14 think that would be of great benefit.
15 MEMBER SHROYER: And that's all I'm
16 trying to talk about, Madam Chair, even though my
17 words come out wrong occasionally-
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing)
19 Mr. Shroyer, I was in no way reprimanding you. I
20 think we're getting beyond the discussion of
21 Master Plan, and I think that would expedite matters
22 if we stick to the Master Plan.
23 MEMBER SHROYER: At this point, I
24 would like to yield the floor, with the possibility
132
1 of requesting it back again later in the evening.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
3 much.
4 Mr. Sprague.
5 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you.
6 It seems to me, from what I've heard,
7 that the conversations between Public or Single
8 Family, if you designate it Public, leaves us in a
9 greater position of control. That that's what we
10 gain by that. And as Single Family, what happens is
11 there's uncertainty around that property.
12 My question is, whereas Mr. Shroyer
13 wants to make sure we attract DCC to the community,
14 which I feel is a very positive thing for the
15 community and want to do, I want to protect the four
16 landowners as well, and I'm wondering which is better
17 for the four landowners. Is it that we have control
18 until it can revert back and we have some decision
19 making over it, or is the certainty of us zoning it
20 Single Family, which does seem to be appropriate for
21 this area, give them the ability to know what's going
22 to happen with that parcel from a Planning use
23 perspective, so they can make the decisions they
24 need. Because it does seem clear that their
133
1 properties have been harmed, but I'm not sure I
2 believe that it's Detroit Catholic Central that's
3 harmed them. It sounds to me like it's the Target
4 development that really put a crimp on their property
5 values.
6 I guess I'll ask Mr. Evancoe if that's
7 a fair summary of it or not.
8 MR. EVANCOE: Well, I think those
9 points are very well taken. I think that I tend to
10 look at it a little bit differently in this respect.
11 That I think that the uncertainty comes in more if
12 you do not plan it for Single Family than if you --
13 than the other way. Because if you go with the
14 Public designation with the Development Agreement
15 that has this revert, potentially, someday back to
16 Office or Office and Light Industrial, whatever you
17 choose, to me that creates uncertainty about what's
18 going to happen.
19 Right now, we can say it's Single
20 Family, and it's on the record and everybody knows.
21 If we say that this could change some day, at an
22 unknown time, and to a district that has a multitude
23 of permitted uses and permitted special uses, to me,
24 if I were a resident in Island Lake or in one of the
134
1 four homes fronting on Wixom Road, I would feel less
2 certain under that scenario than the other.
3 So I think I might not agree on that
4 one point. But -- if that's helpful.
5 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Well, I think that is
6 in agreement with my point. You stated it clearly.
7 I'd actually like to ask the one
8 landowner who is here what he thinks, whether the
9 certainty is preferable to him as he values his
10 property, over us having control.
11 MR. HERBEL: Thank you. Just to make
12 a few comments. I know it's getting late again. l
13 followed the last discussion and it was quite late as
14 well.
15 I think the -- and I understand
16 Mr. Shroyer's concern. I think there is more control
17 in the Single Family for the back portion. Because
18 it doesn't really -- this would not hurt us as much
19 as, say, Industrial or something like that.
20 But keep in mind when I reiterated
21 that our property is in transition. We may be coming
22 back to you some day and ask for flexibility for the
23 four properties, because the Catholic Central portion
24 is fine, but it doesn't relieve us of the stress that
135
1 we are going to be under as time goes by. We're
2 going to have their traffic, which only adds up with
3 the other shopping center traffic, and all the heavy
4 traffic on the road. And it would be more
5 appropriate if we do go to Single Family, to allow
6 the four property owners to have a buffered
7 designation, whether it be Commercial or something
8 like that, which would not affect Catholic Central in
9 any way. We would be the buffer to them for what
10 happens along the road.
11 So just keep in mind that this
12 might -- in the future be a little flexible with
13 those four property owners should they come before
14 you and ask for some consideration. Thank you.
15 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham.
17 MEMBER MARKHAM: I thought a lot in
18 the last couple of weeks about the Public designation
19 and whether it was to our advantage or not. And I
20 really can see no compelling reason to go to a Public
21 designation on the Master Plan.
22 First of all, if I were a resident in
23 Island Lake or one of those four homeowners or the
24 Wizinskys, I would be concerned about changing the
136
1 designation to a designation that says you could put
2 a fire station, public or private school, or a public
3 utility such as waste water treatment or water
4 storage. That, to me, would make me very nervous
5 that the designation is changing from what it is now
6 to something like that.
7 I think the Single Family is a less
8 invasive use, even if Catholic Central didn't come in
9 and we ended up putting in Single Family, just for
10 the shear fact that we have to be more
11 environmentally sensitive in the Single Family
12 designation than we do in the OST or the Industrial
13 designation that it currently has. There's been a
14 lot of talk about if we went to a Public designation,
15 we'd have a Development Agreement so that we could
16 then revert back to the OST/Industrial designation
17 that it currently has, but I don't think that's the
18 best designation for the property. I think that's an
19 outdated designation now that we have Commercial
20 across the street.
21 I did talk to Member Kocan today and
22 she doesn't agree with me, and I will say this
23 because she's not here tonight and I know she would
24 have liked to have been, she feels that OST is a good
137
1 buffer designation for that property between
2 Residential and the more aggressive industrial uses
3 to the north. And I want that on the record.
4 I don't agree with that designation
5 for that property anymore for two reasons: one is I
6 think there are better OST locations in the
7 community. And if I were developing an office
8 complex, I wouldn't choose to put it here because I
9 don't think it would be as financially viable as it
10 might be in another part of the community. So I
11 don't think that is the best designation for this
12 property, therefore I don't think it's important for
13 a Development Agreement and a Public designation
14 which would then revert back to that.
15 We also do not have any other private
16 schools in our community that are on publicly
17 designated land right now, that I know of. I mean,
18 the ones I could think of have been the ones that you
19 stated, Walsh College, the Brightmoor, the Christian
20 School at Eleven Mile and Taft. All of those are not
21 on Public land, so I don't see any reason why
22 Catholic Central should be on Public land. And I
23 will not support a Master Plan change to Public. I
24 will support a Master Plan change to Single Family
138
1 Residential.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Ruyle.
3 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam
4 Chair.
5 I'm looking forward to the day that I
6 can say welcome to Novi to Catholic Central High
7 School. I think it's a great organization, great
8 institution, and I think it will benefit our
9 community quite well.
10 With that, Madam Chair, if you will
11 entertain a motion, I would like to make one.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, because not
13 every member -- well, yes, you can. I'm sorry. We
14 can keep the discussion going.
15 MEMBER RUYLE: In the matter of
16 Catholic Central High School Master Plan Amendment to
17 amend the City of Novi Master Plan for land use, to
18 designate the 60-acre property located on the west
19 side of Wixom Road, south of Grand River from Office
20 and Industrial to Single Family Residential. Motion
21 to approve the Catholic Central High School Master
22 Plan Amendment for the following reason: that it is
23 better than the zoning that it is now.
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: I'll second that.
139
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have a second on
2 the motion. Do we have further discussion?
3 Member Paul.
4 MEMBER PAUL: I still am very
5 compelled -- first of all, I have to state I would
6 really like Catholic Central to come forward. That
7 is definitely something I think is a good fit for
8 that property, being across from Target which is a
9 high density area, having another school in that
10 area.
11 When I look at this whole area and it
12 has changed with spot zoning on the Master Plan.
13 One, Levy used to own this property. It used to be a
14 commercial site, and it's traveled commercial and
15 farm land all the way up this corridor. Now we have
16 a change, and mainly not just the residential
17 component on the west side of the road, but we have
18 Target that's the biggest component, but we also have
19 Cadillac Asphalt. And that site does not seem like
20 it should abut Residential, to me. And that is my
21 biggest concern.
22 I looked at the site, and I drove by
23 it right out of there this afternoon, when I actually
24 did go to our own little private Target because no
140
1 one can really see it there. I looked, when I exited
2 right by Carl Wizinsky's property, and I just don't
3 see this being zoned Residential. Even though this
4 is a private school, if we had a Development
5 Agreement that would Master Plan this as Public, and
6 keep it that way. And if it would change, that for
7 some unforeseen reason Catholic Central would not
8 come forth, it could revert back to the current
9 zoning, and then when the Master Plan actually does
10 study this, which I hope is very soon, then maybe
11 they can change the zoning at that time. It may be
12 more beneficial for these four residents.
13 My biggest fear is if we were looking
14 at this whole parcel with Catholic Central, and these
15 four homeowners were part of that, it would make much
16 more sense. But since Catholic Central does not own
17 those four pieces of property, it doesn't seem to be
18 the best interest of the residents.
19 I think it should be Master Planned as
20 Public at this time. And no one has given me any
21 specific reason why we can't when we again look at
22 this in two weeks, and put the zoning as we're
23 talking about. So if we're just looking at the
24 Master Plan, the best Master Plan use is public and
141
1 private schools, and that's Master Planned as
2 Public.
3 And I have to ask a question legally:
4 Why do we have to Master Plan this site, Mr. Fisher,
5 at this time?
6 MR. FISHER: Just for clarification.
7 Do you mean why do we have to change the-
8 MEMBER PAUL: (Interposing) The Master
9 Plan.
10 MR. FISHER: Basically, what we are
11 going to have to do if this school is going to be
12 established at this site is, we're going to have to
13 change the zoning.
14 MEMBER PAUL: True.
15 MR. FISHER: And what we do not want
16 to do anymore often than we have to, or than this
17 Commission feels that we have to, is we do not want
18 to zone in a manner that is inconsistent with the
19 Master Plan, because the more you do that, the less
20 strength we have in ultimately defending the
21 Master Plan and defending the zoning ordinance. So
22 therefore, it is important that we modify the
23 Master Plan.
24 MEMBER PAUL: Maybe this is a question
142
1 -- thank you, Mr. Fisher -- for Mr. Evancoe.
2 When Catholic Central comes forward
3 and the site plan is complete, what remaining parcels
4 would be left under this area for Mr. Pellerito to
5 possibly come back in and do something else with in
6 the future?
7 MR. EVANCOE: You know, I don't know
8 if Tim knows the answer to that, or perhaps the
9 Petitioner. I'm not real familiar with Mr. Pellerito
10 and which parcels he specifically still owns. I'm
11 not able to answer that.
12 MR. SCHMITT: If I could get the
13 overhead briefly.
14 My understanding, currently this is
15 the Catholic Central parcel. Mr. Pellerito currently
16 owns this large square parcel located right there. I
17 believe he also owns a parcel further to the west
18 that's not located on this map. Most directly
19 adjacent would be this parcel.
20 MR. EVANCOE: Thanks, Tim.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Paul,
22 you still have the floor.
23 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you. As a
24 Planning Commission, we have denied a Master Plan
143
1 Amendment in the last year that was in a Commercial
2 area and refused Residential in this area in a
3 combined use. So to be consistent, this is a concern
4 to me. And right now we're being inconsistent if we
5 zone this Residential and let a school facility be
6 there.
7 So as a consistent basis for us, I
8 really believe we should zone this -- Master Plan
9 this, excuse me, as Public, and then we can do the
10 zoning when it's appropriate.
11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Can I ask a question?
12 I just didn't understand what you said
13 about being inconsistent. Could you explain that?
14 MEMBER PAUL: Yes. When Singh
15 Developoment came forward in a commercial area, they
16 wanted to do mixed use and we told them no. How can
17 we zone this as Residential and then put a public
18 facility there? It doesn't make sense.
19 MEMBER MARKHAM: But a school is
20 allowed in a residential area, so I don't see how
21 they're the same.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I really-
23 MEMBER MARKHAM: (Interposing) I just
24 don't understand it.
144
1 MEMBER PAUL: This isn't a debate.
2 This is my concern.
3 MEMBER MARKHAM: No. I'm asking a
4 question.
5 MEMBER PAUL: I understand. And right
6 now what I'm saying is that I know that Residential
7 allows for private schools, but so does Public and we
8 could zone it back to that. But currently, to me,
9 just a standard Residential zoning does not make
10 sense across from Target, with the traffic and how
11 that whole site is going to be developed, and there
12 is no reason why we can't take this, zone it as
13 Public -- I'm sorry, Master Plan this as Public, and
14 zone it appropriately so that this site would fit.
15 There's no compelling reason I've heard tonight, not
16 from anybody.
17 And so to stay consistent, to me, I
18 cannot support the motion on the table. I support it
19 as Public, and I want Catholic Central to come
20 forward very much, and I would do it in that
21 circumstance, and then I would beg the City to amend
22 this Master Plan as soon as we can, so that we won't
23 have this spot zoning that's obviously necessary. We
24 have three sites before us in one evening.
145
1 I really want to protect these four
2 residents very, very, much. I do not think a
3 residential subdivision by any means would be great
4 across from Target. If there was not an exit from
5 Target, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But you have
6 trucks coming in and out of there. You have lots of
7 cars, lots of traffic, and I do not think that's a
8 good site.
9 Office, to me, when I look at Office,
10 the OST district is most important by a highway. And
11 it's very easily accessible to 96. So that's not a
12 compelling reason to change that from Office.
13 I have one suggestion for the
14 Applicant. I think Carl Wizinsky's property is
15 lovely. That white home would be a lovely home for
16 you, Father Elmer. I would like you to be in there
17 so that house could stay, and then in the future, you
18 can put the far rear of your property as a football
19 stadium. Lighting would not be a concern. And I
20 know this is pie in the sky with your funding, but
21 lighting would not be a concern with business, or
22 with Target right next to you. So that was just a
23 friendly suggestion that I wanted to offer to you.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Just for clarification
146
1 sake, I'd like to bring up the Pellerito properties
2 again. Just for the Commission's sake, the Pellerito
3 property to the west is currently Master Planned for
4 Office, but it's currently zoned R-1, and the
5 property to the north is Master Planned Light
6 Industrial and it's currently zoned that way.
7 I think in terms of consistency sake,
8 Mr. Fisher's comments should be kept strongly in
9 mind, in that the legal basis for zoning is really
10 the Master Plan, and to keep it in consistency gives
11 us stronger basis for defending it in the courts.
12 Thank you.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you,
14 Mr. Schmitt.
15 MEMBER PAUL: I am still in support of
16 Public. Even with those comments, I still think that
17 this could work. I don't think this is a legally
18 challengeable problem. If we want to look at the
19 zoning, we can look at B-2. B-2 has a component for
20 public schools. I would not want to do this actual
21 Master Plan Amendment. Even though it's surrounding
22 Master Plan, it does not fit with our whole overall
23 flow with Island Lakes being there. So even though
24 that's a closed zoning, I looked at I-2, I looked at
147
1 Light Industrial, and the best fit for me is still
2 Master Planned as Public. Thank you.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any
4 further comments?
5 Mr. Papp.
6 MEMBER PAPP: I promise to be very
7 fast.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, you can -- just
9 don't talk fast.
10 MEMBER PAPP: I agree with
11 Commissioner Paul. Looking at the Single Family and
12 the Office, the people on Island Lake and Single
13 Family realized that the property north of them was
14 zoned as Office. And the purpose of the Master Plan,
15 I will read this out of the book, the purpose of the
16 Master Plan, R-2, Item Number 6, is to protect the
17 property values.
18 I think that's very important to the
19 four residents, and I, too, am very concerned about
20 the four residents that have their property out
21 there. So I, too, would not be supporting the
22 motion.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we
24 have any further comments?
148
1 Then I would like to -- do you have
2 any comments, Mr. Schmitt?
3 MR. SCHMITT: I was expecting you to
4 call for the vote.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. I'd like to
6 make a couple of comments.
7 We all want Catholic Central to come
8 in. I think that this is a Master Plan problem. And
9 I feel that what we should be looking at is that the
10 Committee, which has been making every effort to work
11 on the Master Plan, really hasn't been able to work
12 in this area as a whole that much. And even some of
13 us on the Committee that are sitting at the Planning
14 Commission, probably will not be seeing eye to eye
15 with regard to the Master Plan and this corridor.
16 With that being said, I have a couple
17 of questions. The first question that I have is is
18 there sewer out there? Utility, sewers, everything
19 is out there?
20 MR. SCHMITT: Sewer lines are located
21 approximately 100 to 200 feet to the south at the
22 Island Lake Development, and water is available at
23 the site.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second question I
149
1 have, and this is one that I don't think has been
2 either asked or even answered is, within the
3 recommendation there is a discussion regarding the
4 possible impact, and I would like to know how -- this
5 might be a poorly phrased question, Mr. Evancoe --
6 how is it that there would be more impact if we
7 designated Public on the Master Plan rather than
8 Single Family? I don't really see that has been
9 answered.
10 MR. EVANCOE: Okay, thank you.
11 The reason that we say that, is going
12 with the presumption that there would be a
13 Development Agreement attached to the Public
14 designation calling for this zoning to revert back to
15 Office, primarily Office and maybe some Light
16 Industrial, which is how it's currently zoned. And
17 we feel that those uses are not as compatible with
18 existing Single Family, as if this area developed as
19 Single Family.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I guess that's my
21 question though. Is -- and I don't want to belabor
22 this point because I really think we can vote on
23 this. My question is: How would, if you designated
24 this Public use, okay, with the caveat that if DCC is
150
1 not built -- well, here's my notes -- with the caveat
2 that if DCC is not built, and that at that point you
3 would revert back to the designation of the
4 Master Plan which is Office and Light Industrial, and
5 you would exclude any abutting of -- any abutting
6 and/or adjacent property, which would eliminate the
7 four, why would you need a Development Agreement?
8 Why can't you just say that you amend
9 the Master Plan to Public use designation rather than
10 the Single Family, and then you have the caveat that
11 in the event that Catholic Central is abandoned
12 or rather -- yes, is not built, the Master Plan
13 designation reverts to the Master Plan designation in
14 our Master Plan, which is dated May 19, 1999, and
15 would exclude any and all abutting and/or adjacent
16 properties. And at that point, it would be the
17 same.
18 And then you could allow the Master
19 Plan Committee at some point to Master Plan that
20 whole corridor. Because that's the problem here, as
21 I see it, is that we're not in agreement as to what
22 should be in that corridor. It's not that they're
23 not in agreement as to Catholic Central, it's the
24 corridor. And as I recall, the Public Enabling Act
151
1 doesn't even require us to change the Master Plan.
2 Am I incorrect on that?
3 MR. FISHER: It does not require you
4 but it is certainly a recommended-
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing)
6 Right. Okay. So why can't you make a motion to that
7 effect, and let's just move on, because I think
8 that's the problem that the Commission is having.
9 They're trying to Master Plan this
10 area, not just looking at this site. And there is a
11 question, and I think it's a very good legitimate
12 question that I've heard somewhere, and this has
13 happened in Novi before. You Master Plan something,
14 you rezone it, the next property owner comes in and
15 says, hey, I want that too.
16 And I'm not being -- by no means do I
17 mean to be offensive, but that's exactly what
18 happened when we put in Foxrun Village, is that
19 everything after that is coming in and asking for,
20 now, a change in rezoning. And I think that is what
21 I'd like to see avoided. Is let's get on with this,
22 make the motion, it can always revert back to the
23 original zoning, and let these people go home.
24 I mean, to me it seems pretty simple.
152
1 We cannot, as a Commission, I think, Master Plan that
2 area at the Commission table. And why would you have
3 to have a Development Agreement, Mr. Fisher, if you
4 put in a caveat or a proviso?
5 MR. FISHER: Well, I think what you're
6 saying is that you'd put in a proviso that the
7 Commission would later revert, that would be intent.
8 It wouldn't automatically revert, because you have to
9 have a public hearing and all that. But what you're
10 saying is that you'd have a proviso saying that was
11 your intent.
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. If we could
13 -- can you make a motion with a proviso and then not
14 have to make these people go through the Development
15 Agreement?
16 MR. FISHER: You could do that, if you
17 wish.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why wouldn't it be
19 binding? It would be binding.
20 MEMBER MARKHAM: Because you have to
21 have a public hearing.
22 MR. FISHER: No, it would not be
23 binding because in order to modify the Master Plan,
24 you have to go through the procedure set forth in the
153
1 statute.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So correct
3 me if I'm wrong.
4 You're saying that if we have a
5 proviso, then in order for -- five years from now, in
6 order for the Commission to revert back to the
7 original Master Plan for land use, which is Office
8 and Light Industrial, then we would have to have a
9 public hearing then?
10 MR. FISHER: That's correct.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Well, that
12 to me, is simple.
13 We have the motion on the table. Does
14 anybody have anything else to add?
15 Mr. Avdoulos.
16 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I guess I'm getting
17 sort of confused as to -- the process here is to
18 amend the Master Plan to allow Catholic Central to
19 locate onto this site. And a lot of the discussion,
20 90 percent of the discussion is what if they don't go
21 on the site, what if they don't go on the site.
22 Whether it's Residential or whether
23 it's Public, and I think Residential, personally, is
24 the way to go, they are going to locate on the site.
154
1 Period.
2 And so now, I guess the concern is if
3 this is Residential, and correct me if I'm wrong, is
4 the concern that these other properties to the north
5 are going to ask to be zoned or Master Planned
6 residential so they can develop that, or are we
7 looking here at allowing Catholic Central to locate
8 to this City, locate to this property? The property
9 is unique. It doesn't set itself up for anything
10 other than what Catholic Central is doing, or
11 residential because of the large amounts of woodlands
12 and wetlands.
13 I think the Master Plan Committee
14 reviewed the Residential amendment. The Public issue
15 was brought up last meeting, and it's just been
16 throwing confusion into everything. And I think that
17 we are really mucking the waters here, and we're not
18 really thinking clearly, in all honesty. Because we
19 say Residential, Catholic Central is going to come
20 in, we're going to go through rezoning, we're going
21 to go through site plan approval, they'll locate
22 here, and then that's it. They're here.
23 And then the Residential does not harm
24 the residences that are right next to it, because
155
1 it's Residential. And if they have a real problem,
2 as our last resident indicated they could come in and
3 we could see what the City could do to work with
4 them. But I think going Public is really, really,
5 confusing things. It's less clear than a
6 Residential, and I'd like the recommendation that the
7 Master Plan Committee brought forward.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
9 I don't want anyone to misunderstand
10 my comments. My comments are that, basically, if you
11 make a motion with the proviso that it reverts back
12 to the original Master Plan use, which is what it
13 seems like everybody is worried about, whether or not
14 what's going to happen five years from now or ten
15 years from now. If they don't build, it reverts
16 back. I mean, that to me is so simple. I don't
17 understand why we have to keep discussing this.
18 Commissioner Paul.
19 MEMBER PAUL: There's a motion on the
20 table. I'm prepared, with whatever happens, to make
21 a motion to make this Master Plan Amendment Public,
22 and then we can further look at this in two weeks to
23 go to Residential with the proviso. I just want to
24 make that clear before the vote is called, because
156
1 there is a motion already on the table.
2 MEMBER RUYLE: A couple of questions.
3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner
4 Markham, did you have anything to say?
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: Well, I agree with
6 Mr. Avdoulos. We have taken a fairly simple process
7 with the developer we know is going to develop, and
8 we've delayed it two weeks. We've created all this
9 confusion over something that has a 99.9 percent
10 chance of never happening, which is that they won't
11 develop. You know they got the money, the property
12 was given to them, why don't we just do the simple
13 thing, which is Master Plan it Residential, and get
14 on with it.
15 We have spent more time discussing a
16 moot point in the last two weeks, I just can't
17 believe it, and I'm very frustrated. And I agree
18 with Mr. Ruyle - call for the question, and let the
19 chips fall where they may.
20 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
23 MEMBER PAPP: No.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
157
1 MEMBER PAUL: No.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
3 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes.
4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer:
5 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
7 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos:
9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes, 5 to 3.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would just like
14 to state for the record that my no vote is only
15 because I thought someone would put a proviso into
16 the motion. Simply for that reason.
17 MR. RYAN: Thank you for your time.
18 We'll see you in two weeks.
19 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair, I -- we may
20 need -- we need six positive votes for a Master Plan
21 Amendment.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We don't have six
23 votes, we only have five. Two-thirds.
24 MR. FISHER: Six. It takes a six
158
1 member vote.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member-
3 MEMBER PAUL: In the matter of Detroit
4 Catholic Central High School Master Plan Amendment to
5 amend the City of Novi Master Plan for land use, we
6 designate the 60-acre property located on the west
7 side of Wixom Road and south of Grand River from
8 Office and Light Industrial to Single Family
9 Residential.
10 I move to amend the Master Plan for
11 the 60-acre property to Public use designation with
12 the proviso that in the event private school usage is
13 abandoned by Detroit Catholic Central, the Master
14 Plan designation reverts to the Master Plan
15 designation reflected in the Novi 20/20 Master Plan
16 dated May 19, 1999 as Office and Light Industrial,
17 and to exclude any and all abutting and/or adjacent
18 properties for the following reasons:
19 Public use designation allows for
20 private schools, provides an appropriate transition
21 between the residential subdivision to the south from
22 Light Industrial to the north and the Commercial to
23 the east, to protect property values, and to promote
24 a land use pattern that establishes a diversified tax
159
1 base.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a second
3 to that motion?
4 MEMBER PAPP: I'll second it.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Where did the second
7 come from? I apologize.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It came from
9 Mr. Papp.
10 Mr. Fisher.
11 MR. FISHER: Thank you. I just wanted
12 to point out the clarification that the proviso would
13 be an expression of intent, rather than an
14 automatic. In other words, it would be the intent
15 that you would take action later.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. You said
17 that if they didn't go in, you could do this five or
18 ten years later and they would have to have a public
19 hearing.
20 MR. FISHER: Right. It would take a
21 new hearing, et cetera.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Mr. Evancoe.
23 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.
24 I think I just need to express my concerns about
160
1 following up, or following through on that motion.
2 Because I think any time you try to pass on an
3 obligation to a future Planning Commission whose
4 composition is unknown at this time, and a date
5 uncertain, I think, you know, we've talked about
6 wanting certainty for surrounding property owners,
7 and I think this just -- I don't think any of us are
8 going to know what's going to happen.
9 It doesn't really resolve anything to
10 say that we're going to revert back at some date, and
11 we're going to have somebody else to do that. They
12 may not do it. They may not even be interested in
13 discussing the topic three years from now or
14 whenever.
15 So I just want to put on the record
16 that I have a great concern about that.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you for your
18 comment.
19 Mr. Schmitt, call for the vote.
20 MR. AVDOULOS: I have a question.
21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry.
22 Mr. Avdoulos.
23 MEMBER AVDOULOS: If this motion
24 passes, and there's a rezoning, what is the rezoning;
161
1 R-1?
2 MR. SCHMITT: The rezoning will not
3 change. The rezoning will still come forward as an
4 R-1 rezoning.
5 MEMBER AVDOULOS: In a Public-
6 MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Call for the vote,
8 please.
9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
10 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
12 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
14 MEMBER RUYLE: No.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer:
16 MEMBER SHROYER: No.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
18 MEMBER SPRAGUE: No.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: No.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
22 MEMBER MARKHAM: No.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy?
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
162
1 MR. SCHMITT: Motion failed, 3 to 5.
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, my goodness.
3 MEMBER MARKHAM: State your motion but
4 add her proviso.
5 MEMBER RUYLE: That's what I'm going
6 to do.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Mr. Ruyle.
8 MEMBER RUYLE: I'm going to go back to
9 the same motion that I made prior.
10 In the matter of Catholic Central High
11 School Master Plan Amendment, to amend the City of
12 Novi Master Plan for land use to designate the
13 60-acre property located on the west side of
14 Wixom Road, south of Grand River, from Office and
15 Industrial to Single Family Residential, motion to
16 approve Catholic Central High School Master Plan
17 Amendment and -- what do you call it, a proviso?
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Proviso.
19 MEMBER RUYLE: (Continuing) - a
20 proviso. That is, if Catholic Central does not build
21 on this property, it will revert back to the original
22 zoning.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you like to
24 include the verbiage of Ms. Paul?
163
1 MEMBER RUYLE: As what?
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: As the original
3 Master Plan designation. We can just insert that.
4 MEMBER RUYLE: As long as it doesn't
5 say Public, I don't care.
6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're adding to
7 your motion a proviso.
8 Is there a second to that motion?
9 MR. FISHER: Hold on. Again, it's the
10 same comment. It would really be an expression of
11 intent.
12 MEMBER RUYLE: Right. Expression of
13 intent. Nothing more than that.
14 MR. FISHER: Thank you.
15 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I'll support the
16 motion.
17 MR. EVANCOE: I think the terminology
18 may have been mixed there. I think Commissioner
19 Ruyle indicated zoning at the end of his motion.
20 MEMBER RUYLE: If I did, take zoning
21 out. Master Plan Amendment.
22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It is a Master Plan
23 Amendment. If we could just make sure that-
24 MEMBER RUYLE: All I want is a Master
164
1 Plan Amendment. Nothing about zoning. Will you
2 accept that as a second?
3 MR. AVDOULOS: Yes, sir.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you amending
5 her motion to include the proviso?
6 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. I'm putting the
7 proviso in there. But I don't want the word Public
8 in there at all.
9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. It's not. You
10 already said no.
11 Okay. With that, can we call for the
12 motion, please -- I mean for the vote.
13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
14 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
16 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes.
17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
20 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos:
22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
24 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
165
1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Chairperson Nagy?
2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
3 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Papp?
4 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
5 MR. SCHMITT: The motion passes
6 8 to 0.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
8 much.
9 MR. RYAN: Thank you again. Still see
10 you in two weeks.
11 (A brief recess was taken.)
12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call
13 the meeting back to order.
14 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair?
15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Evancoe.
16 MR. EVANCOE: May I, just before you
17 continue on to the Twelve Mile and Napier. I want to
18 offer a very sincere thanks to the Commission -- this
19 was a struggle, this last case. We know it was a
20 struggle and I just appreciate everybody's serious
21 dedication to coming up with a solution. And I think
22 we all deserve a thanks, so.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. Thank you
24 very much.
166
1 MEMBER RUYLE: Madam Chair, I make a
2 motion that we extend the meeting beyond the 11:30
3 deadline to complete the Agenda.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say
5 aye.
6 ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Our next Matter for
8 Consideration is the Twelve Mile-Napier Study.
9 Mr. Fisher.
10 MR. FISHER: Thank you, Madam Chair.
11 I very much appreciate that this
12 matter has been added to the Agenda, and you have at
13 your places, each of you, a proposed resolution.
14 This relates to property which has
15 been subjected to litigation in the City for some 15
16 years or longer, and we now have a little bit of a
17 window of opportunity, in the sense that we are
18 between cases.
19 There have been three cases or more
20 filed in this matter, and we're between cases. And
21 obviously, when the next case is started, two things
22 will happen: number one, there will be negotiations
23 for settlement, which the judge will require us to
24 engage in; and number two, it would be very nice if
167
1 we could do something that would obviate the
2 litigation, to side track the litigation and settle
3 it in another manner.
4 And basically, in the litigation the
5 property owner is suggesting that the OS-2 district
6 does not provide a reasonable use of the land. If we
7 are going to negotiate for a settlement, it would be
8 certainly an enhancement to have the Planning
9 Commission's input and have studied, in the customary
10 fashion, so that if we did negotiate, we would have
11 the benefit of that input. But even more
12 immediately, if we could arrive at a use that was
13 reasonable for the property, and I'm just assuming
14 that OS-2 isn't, but I'm not positive of that either,
15 maybe it is a reasonable use. But in the event that
16 we can come up with a use that is concluded to be
17 reasonable, and the developer recognized that there
18 was no reason to pursue a suit any further, we would
19 have done a good service for the community.
20 And so what I'm suggesting here is
21 that we merely refer this to the Master Plan Zoning
22 Committee for study purposes, to ascertain whether we
23 can find an appropriate use for this land.
24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you really sure
168
1 you want to do that?
2 MR. FISHER: And it can be with or
3 without a proviso.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
5 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, does
6 everybody on the Commission know what property we're
7 talking about? If not, I'm prepared to show it here.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that would
9 be very good to have a visual effect.
10 MR. EVANCOE: If we could have the
11 overhead come on.
12 We're talking about this property in
13 the far northwest corner of the City. Here is the
14 property we just dealt with. Here is the one that
15 Jerry is referring to, Mr. Fisher.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: May I ask a
17 question; what exactly does that person want?
18 MR. FISHER: Well, in the litigation
19 they're asking for a mobile home park.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.
21 MEMBER RUYLE: This has been going on
22 for 15, 20 years. It's a joke.
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So, with that, we
24 need a motion for someone to refer this to the Master
169
1 Plan Committee.
2 MR. FISHER: It would really be to
3 adopt this resolution.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: To adopt this
5 resolution. I'm sorry.
6 Mr. Ruyle.
7 MEMBER RUYLE: Be resolved that the
8 subject of the appropriate planning and zoning of the
9 land designated as Twelve Mile - Napier-
10 MR. FISHER: (Interposing) Mr. Ruyle,
11 you can merely make a motion to approve the
12 resolution.
13 MEMBER RUYLE: Okay, that's fine. I
14 make a motion to approve the resolution as written.
15 MEMBER PAUL: I'll second it.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Paul
17 seconds the motion.
18 I think that we should take a roll for
19 this one:
20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?
21 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes.
22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
23 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes.
24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?
170
1 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Yes.
2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?
3 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Yes.
4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: Yes.
6 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.
8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?
9 MEMBER PAPP: Yes.
10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?
11 MEMBER PAUL: Yes.
12 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.
13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very
14 much.
15 MR. FISHER: Thank you.
16 MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We move on to
18 Matters for Discussion. The first item is something
19 that I asked to be put on, which is a discussion on
20 subcommittee meeting dates, and I'm referring to
21 Budget, Capital Improvements. And I think at one
22 point Mr. Shroyer talked about yearly calendar
23 committee meetings. Although, I think maybe yearly
24 calendar, I'm thinking about, may be a little too
171
1 much because sometimes we have one, sometimes we have
2 two, sometimes we have none. So my greatest concern,
3 with all due respect, is the Budget and Capital
4 Improvements. And I'd like to see those two
5 committees meet and start working on those things,
6 because we end up having the budget for the Council
7 that starts in, what, April?
8 MR. EVANCOE: Well, the budget process
9 starts even sooner than that, really. Maybe in
10 March, and it ends up getting adopted in June.
11 If I may, just for a moment while I
12 have the floor, I think that Beth Brock from my
13 office was intending on convening those committees in
14 January, along the lines of what I think you're
15 hoping to do is to get started soon, so.
16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. You know,
17 then real soon in January, because I think there was
18 a point where I was on the Commission, and we didn't
19 really even do the Capital Improvements, and since
20 we're charged by statute to do that, I would like to
21 make sure the Capital Improvements and Budget
22 Committee meet. Those are all the comments I have.
23 Mr. Shroyer, don't -- I'm kidding you.
24 Mr. Shroyer.
172
1 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I'll tack onto
2 that because it was the original intent of my request
3 on the yearly meeting, to have all subcommittees have
4 specified dates and times, whether it be a quarterly
5 meeting or a bimonthly meeting or whatever. I know I
6 serve on four subcommittees, and in the year that
7 I've been here, we've only -- one of the committees
8 that I serve on has met. None of the other three
9 have. And until we have it, you know, on the
10 calendar, I don't think we're going to meet, because
11 everybody is so busy. We're going our own way and we
12 don't think about it unless it's brought up.
13 The Capital Improvements is obviously
14 very, very, important. The Budget Committee is very,
15 very, important as well. But we've always discussed
16 rules that need to be changed. We've talked about
17 other items that need to be discussed, and I'd still
18 like to see the subcommittee meetings, meeting dates
19 and times, set on our master calendar. Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. I think
21 that's something that can be worked out. And if
22 there's no further discussion, I'd like to move to
23 Item Number 2, unless someone has any comments.
24 If not, Item Number 2. Commissioner Markham.
173
1 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you, Madam
2 Chair.
3 In our packet from last week, I think,
4 or in that brown envelope that we got, was this flier
5 from American Planning Association, the best of
6 Contemporary Community Planning. And in it, they
7 suggest they have CD rom package that was developed
8 from the APA meeting that was held in the spring. And
9 there are nine modules in here that they have on CD
10 rom, that you can buy for $245.
11 The topics are pretty good, and I was
12 wondering if the City could entertain, potentially,
13 buying this package and then it would be available
14 for us, or new Planning Commissioners, as training
15 tools. They're all about an hour, if you want to go
16 through one of those modules, as well as residents.
17 Maybe it's something we can do on a regular basis.
18 There are nine different ones. For example, there's
19 one on Effective Capital Improvements Programing.
20 You know, how that can -- how a good Capital
21 Improvement Program can be developed. And I think if
22 we make improvements in that, we'd certainly pay for
23 the $245 that we spend. So I would like to suggest
24 that we might want that think about that.
174
1 I'd rather sit through these at my
2 convenience then try to go, actually, to the
3 conference wherever it may be held, you know.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're not budgeted-
5 MEMBER MARKHAM: (Interposing) And
6 we're not budgeted for those anyway.
7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can I just
8 interject one comment before you go on.
9 There are on -- for those of us, and
10 most of us here, I'm sure, all have computers. There
11 are a lot of web sites that you can go to for free
12 information. There's also an IGA, is that it? Or IG
13 something or other, if you're hooked up through the
14 City, you have this password and you can, you know,
15 you have all this information from Planning. Do you
16 know what I'm talking about, Mr. Evancoe?
17 MR. EVANCOE: Well, there is an
18 organization that the City Manager belongs to called
19 the Innervations Group-
20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's it, that's
21 it.
22 MR. EVANCOE: -and they do have a lot
23 of good information. And of course the APA web site
24 is a wonderful resource. All kinds of interesting
175
1 things there.
2 If I may, those of us that did
3 attend the Chicago conference received, at least I
4 did, and I assume that Commissioner Kocan and
5 Chairperson Nagy probably received a CD rom this
6 week -- did you not? Okay. I did receive my council
7 -- what am I trying to say -- conference proceedings
8 CD this week, and you should receive yours too. But
9 I'd be glad to share that with anybody that would
10 like to see it. I haven't opened it up yet, but I
11 believe it has the whole Chicago conference.
12 MEMBER MARKHAM: Maybe this is what
13 this is.
14 MR. EVANCOE: I think it might. I'd
15 like to see what you have, if I could look at that
16 later, but it may be that very thing.
17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I think
18 that's a good idea.
19 Mr. Papp.
20 MEMBER PAPP: Is there a list of web
21 sites that you might recommend that we could look at?
22 MR. EVANCOE: I would be glad to put
23 one together.
24 MEMBER PAPP: Excuse me, Mr. Schmitt?
176
1 MR. SCHMITT: Just having come out of
2 graduate school, I could certainly put one together.
3 A long list of planning references for you.
4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you, like in
5 put that in written form and then maybe just include
6 it in our next packet?
7 MR. EVANCOE: Be happy to.
8 MR. SCHMITT: Not a problem.
9 We don't have a very good web site for
10 our Planning Department.
11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Any further
12 discussion?
13 If not-
14 MEMBER PAPP: I'd just like to say
15 that the City's web site is very easy to use, and I
16 use it quite often to look up ordinances and stuff,
17 so it's a very good site.
18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. With that,
19 are there any special reports?
20 MR. EVANCOE: Not from the staff, no.
21 (Brief discussion off the
22 record.)
23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there anyone in
24 the audience that would like to address the
177
1 Commission?
2 Seeing no one, I will close the
3 audience participation.
4 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for adjournment.
5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say
6 aye.
7 ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Meeting adjourned
9 at 11:29 p.m.
10 (Above proceedings ended at
11 11:29 p.m.)
12 _ _ _
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
178
1
2
3 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do hereby certify
4 that I have recorded stenographically, the
5 proceedings had and the testimony taken in the
6 above-entitled matter, at the time and place
7 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that
8 the foregoing transcript, consisting of 179 (one
9 hundred seventy-nine pages), is a full, true and
10 correct transcript of my stenographic notes.
11
12
13
14
15 Signature on File
16 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606
17
18 December 12, 2003
19 (Date)
Signature on File
Donna Howe
Date Approved: January 29, 2003
20
21
22
23
24
179
|