View Agenda for this meeting
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2002, 7:30 P.M.
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.
Chairperson:  Antonia Nagy
Commission Members:  Lowell Sprague, Lynne Paul, 
Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Larry Papp, David Ruyle, 
John Avdoulos 
Commission Member Lynn Kocan
Planning Director:  David Evancoe
City Attorney:  Gerald A. Fisher
Planner:  Timothy R. Schmitt
City Engineer:  Nancy McClain
            REPORTED BY:
                  Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606        


          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.


          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.  
         12                           (Pledge of Allegiance was recited 
         13                           at this time.)
         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?


          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 


          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.  
         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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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,  


          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 


          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.  


          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.
          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.  
         21                      CHAIRPERSON NAGY:  Do we have any 
         22       removals or approvals?
         23                      MEMBER RUYLE:  Move to approve.  
         24                      CHAIRPERSON NAGY:  All in favor say


          1       aye. 
          2                      ALL MEMBERS:  Aye.  
          3                      CHAIRPERSON NAGY:  Motion passes 
          4       six -- seven -- eight to zero.  
          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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?  


          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 


          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 


          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. 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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?             
         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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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?


          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.  


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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.


          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 


          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. 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.


          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 


          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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?  


          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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.


          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 


          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.


          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. 
         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. 


          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.    


          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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, 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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, 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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?   


          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. 


          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 


          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 
         21                      If not, Mr. Schmitt, would you please 
         22       call the roll.  
         23                      MR. SCHMITT:  Commissioner Markham? 
         24                      MEMBER MARKHAM:  Yes.


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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. 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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. 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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-  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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, 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.     


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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.  


          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.   


          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 


          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 


          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?  


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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. 


          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 


          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.  


          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 


          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 


          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?


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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;  


          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.


          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?  


          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 


          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.


          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. 


          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 


          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 


          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 


          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?


          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 


          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.


          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.  


          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.             


          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 


          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?


          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 


          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                            _ _ _


          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.  
         15       Signature on File
         16       Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606
         18       December 12, 2003
         19       (Date)
								Signature on File
								Donna Howe
		Date Approved:  January 29, 2003