View Agenda for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, December 18, 2002, 7:30 P.M.
NOVI, MI 48375 (248) 347-0475

Proceedings had and testimony taken of the NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me, Darlene K. May, CSR-6479, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 West Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, December 18, 2002.


Commission Members Antonia Nagy, Lowell Sprague,

Lynne Paul, Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Lynn Kocan,

Larry Papp, John Avdoulos, David Ruyle


Planning Director, David Evancoe, Stephanie Simon,

Timothy R. Schmidt, Barbara McBeth, Nancy McClain,

Mike McGinnis, Rodney Arroyo




Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479

22 Novi, Michigan

23 Wednesday, December 18, 2002

24 7:35 p.m.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening, I

4 would like to call the meeting to order. It's 7:33.

5 I know that that is not Mr. Fisher sitting there.

6 MS. SIMON: It's, what, a bowtie that

7 I'm not wearing?

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it might

9 be the bow tie. If you would please state your name.

10 MS. SIMON: My name is Stephanie

11 Simon. I am one of the attorneys in Mr. Fisher's

12 office.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We would just like

14 to welcome you.

15 MS. SIMON: Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

17 much.

18 Member Sprague, if you could lead us

19 in the Pledge of Allegiance.

20 I'm sorry. Let's do the roll call.

21 I just love that flag.

22 Ms. McBeth?

23 MS. MCBETH: Chairperson Nagy?









1 MS. MCBETH: Member Papp?


3 MS. MCBETH: Member Paul?


5 MS. MCBETH: Member Ruyle?


7 MS. MCBETH: Member Avdoulos?


9 MS. MCBETH: Member Sprague?


11 MS. MCBETH: Member Kocan?


13 MS. MCBETH: Member Markham?


MS. MCBETH: Member Shroyer?


15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now we can do the

16 Pledge of Allegiance, Mr. Sprague.

17 (Pledge of Allegiance recited.)


19 approval for the agenda or would someone like to add

20 something else?

21 Commissioner Markham?

22 MEMBER MARKHAM: I would like to add

23 one item under matters for discussion and that would

24 be the 2003 workload and calendar for the Planning






1 Commission.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That will be item

3 two.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: Madame Chair, after

5 reading the minutes for approval this evening I would

6 like to add -- and I'm hoping to put into matters for

7 consideration -- the possibility of sending the

8 definition of a dumpster and accessory building to

9 implementation to committee to address that back

10 issue.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That will be item

12 number three.

13 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval as

14 amended.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

16 "Aye".


18 MEMBER PAUL: "Aye."




22 MEMBER PAPP: "Aye."








1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this point I

2 will open the audience participation. The first one

3 to anyone who would like to discuss any issue other

4 than what is on the public hearings at which time if

5 anyone would like to address any of the public issue

6 items you will have a chance to at the time. Would

7 anyone like to come forward?

8 Seeing none, I will close the

9 audience participation.

10 Do we have any correspondence

11 matters, Madame Secretary?

12 MEMBER KOCAN: Nothing other than

13 public hearing issues.


15 Mr. Evancoe, do we have any

16 communications or committee reports?

17 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, Madame Chair. I

18 do have two reports I would like to provide. First of

19 all, good evening and good to see all of you. I want

20 to, first of all -- I'd like to just highlight several

21 items that took place at the City Council meeting on

22 Monday. There were four planning related items and I

23 thought with the suggestion of Commissioner Kocan that

24 it would be good to inform you about what occurred






1 there. And I think as a general rule I'll try to do

2 that more often. I think that might be a good idea.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

4 much.

5 MR. EVANCOE: As far as Monday

6 evening we had the four items. The first one was the

7 RUD amendment for Island Lake and you'll recall that

8 that was a matter that included three amendments.

9 There was a five acre parcel added along Wixom Road.

10 There was a change to 4B just to the west of the Oak

11 Point Church and then there were some minor revisions

12 to the street pay out in phase four and five. The

13 City Council affirmed the recommendation that came

14 from the Planning Commission by recommending two of

15 the items but not recommending the change from single

16 family detached to single family attached housing for

17 that parcel adjacent to the Oak Point Church. So they

18 passed what was recommended by the Planning

19 Commission.

20 The second item was a zoning text

21 amendment that was requested by Singh Development and

22 that related to the PD-2 plan development option

23 allowing for mixed use developments and that was

24 approved by the City Council.






1 The third item was another request

2 from Singh Development having to do with the rezoning

3 of the OST parcel fronting on Meadowbrook Road between

4 Twelve Mile and I-96 from OST to RM-2. That was

5 passed by the City Council, however, they also

6 requested that a development agreement be put together

7 and returned to them within 15 days and the essence of

8 that development agreement would be to have the

9 developers stipulate that they will do this as

10 condominiums and not as rental units. So that will

11 return to the City Council within 50 days.

12 Then the fourth and final item was

13 the custody of the reserved RUD agreement, the

14 contract and that was approved as presented.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you so much.

16 MR. EVANCOE: My second report is

17 just a brief one to inform the commission for those

18 who may not be aware that Beth Brock of our staff has

19 accepted a new position with Orion Township. She

20 recently moved to Lake Orion and was doing about an

21 hour and a half commute each way and she was able to

22 secure a position as the Orion Township Planning and

23 Zoning administrator, I believe is her title. So

24 she's been with us for about three and a half years,








1 obviously a great employee. Someone that we will miss

2 but I certainly have wished her well in her new job.


4 There are no presentations except

5 what you just said?

6 MR. EVANCOE: No. That's all I have

7 at this time.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then I would just

9 like to state for the record, unfortunately Ms. Brock

10 is unable to attend this meeting and I would like to

11 express our gratitude to Ms. Brock from the Planning

12 Commission for all her hard work, all the times that

13 she's answered our question and we've appreciated her

14 very much and we wish her good luck and a wonderful

15 future in Lake Orion.

16 The second thing I would like to do

17 is thank the department for providing the Planning

18 Commission with the related websites. I thought it

19 was very useful. I'm sure all of us will use it and I

20 would like to thank Mr. Evancoe.

21 With that I would like to move on to

22 the consent agenda. Do we have any removals from the

23 consent agenda?

24 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval.







2 second?

3 MEMBER PAUL: Second.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second. All in

5 favor say aye.








13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's passed eight

14 to zero.

15 Moving on to the public hearings.

16 Mr. Evancoe, our first hearing is a public hearing on

17 the request of Detroit Catholic Central High School to

18 rezone the subject property located in Section 18 on

19 the west side of Wixom Road and south of Grand River


20 for OST, Office Service Technology, and I-1 light

21 industrial, to R1, one family residential. The

22 subject property is approximately 60 acres.

23 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madame

24 Chair. I would like to begin by just very briefly and






1 I'll try to keep my presentation brief because you're

2 all very aware of this project. At your last meeting

3 the Planning Commission determined to amend the

4 master plan to single family from its present office

5 and light industrial district and if I'm able to get

6 the overhead to come on we will show a map that

7 indicates the new land use arrangement in the master

8 plan. But we will have to wait a moment to see if

9 that turns on.

10 Apparently it does not. Anyway, this

11 is the map. I guess I will hold it up for now and

12 show you that this area that was blue and pink, which

13 was light industrial and office, is now yellow, single

14 family residential, similar to what is present at the

15 Island Lake Development to the south. I also want to

16 show you the zoning district map and, again, this is

17 what is currently shown in the request before you --

18 okay. We do have the overhead now so we'll place

19 that.

20 The subject parcel is shown in the

21 heavy yellow line on the drawing and you can see that

22 a portion of it is currently zoned R-1 so there would

23 be no proposed change to that portion of the subject

24 property. Most of the site is zoned OST and then a






1 small portion along the north side is zoned I-1. And

2 the request again this evening is to change those

3 zonings to R-1 single family residential. And you've

4 received our report.

5 We believe that the R-1 zoning

6 district in this area would be compatible with both

7 the existing uses of the homes that are directly to

8 the east as well as the existing Island Lake

9 Development to the south and the R-1 parcel that is

10 directly to the west of the site. And we do feel that

11 that as developed as a high school facility that makes

12 for a good transitional land use between the single

13 family residential uses that currently exist and the

14 I-1 uses that would be directly to the north. And so

15 with that I will conclude my presentation, thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, very

17 much. Does the petitioner today like to add anything?

18 MR. RYAN: No, Madame Chair, thank

19 you very much. Tom Ryan, Attorney for Detroit

20 Catholic Central High School. The Address is

21 2055 Orchard Lake Road, Sylvan Lake, Michigan 48320.


23 forgot we had the court reporter here.

24 Seeing no further presentations do we






1 have any members of the audience that would like to

2 address the commission regarding this hearing?

3 Seeing no one, Madame Chair, do we

4 have any correspondence?

5 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm secretary.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. You

7 know, I think there is something going on with me

8 tonight.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: We do have two letters

10 that are unsigned but they did come from Varsity

11 Lincoln Mercury. They're both in approval of the

12 rezoning stating that they would be delighted to

13 neighbor an educational institution with such a fine

14 reputation and their presence in the city will behest

15 Novi. That's all I have.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There is nobody

17 that would like to add anything. With that, I will

18 close the public hearing and I will turn it over to

19 the commission.

20 Madame Secretary?

21 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, Madame

22 Chair. As I was unable to be here at the last hearing

23 everyone got a chance to put their opinions on the

24 record and so I would indulge the commission and the






1 audience to hear little bit of my thought process that

2 goes into master plan changes and rezoning issues.

3 I do believe that Detroit Catholic

4 Central will be a welcome addition to the City of

5 Novi. However, when we do our rezoning decisions

6 we're supposed to make those decisions without a

7 particular site plan in mind. So now our job is to

8 separate the plan from the property and yet we have to

9 justify placement in the zoning for the plan. So what

10 I go through are a number of things.

11 By ordinance, a private school is

12 permitted in a residential district. I am on record

13 as opposing single family, one family residential

14 abutting any industrial properties. I worked with the

15 City on revisions for noise ordinance from '95 to '97

16 and the consensus at that time was that significant

17 buffer was required between residential and industrial

18 properties because they are not compatible uses.

19 That's why we have an ordinance that requires a

20 minimum ten foot berm rather than a six foot berm

21 where a residential properties does abut light

22 industrial properties.

23 During that discussion about the

24 noise ordinance it was the recommendation of the






1 planners that more compatible uses between single

2 family residential and industrial are multiple family

3 residential per office. When I look at a master plan

4 and subsequent rezonings that's what I'm looking for.

5 My second consideration is density.

6 I look at the current and the proposed developments in

7 the area. To the east of the school property are four

8 single family residents. However, in my opinion the

9 residential nature of those properties has changed

10 significantly and unless Catholic Central plans to

11 utilize those homes I believe those properties will

12 have to be rezoned in the future. Particularly since

13 directly across from the residents on Wixom Road is

14 Target two more large box stores are in the plan

15 stage. One of which is said to be Loew's.

16 To the south is the Island Lake

17 residential development. Prior to Island Lake the

18 entire parcel of property was zoned for one acre

19 lots. With the Island Lake Development as an RUD a

20 minimum number of one acre lots were proposed -- I'm

21 sorry.

22 Oh, okay with the development as an

23 RUD. Actually what ended up was a minimum number of

24 one acre lots were proposed with extra credits for






1 approximately 300 additional homes approved for the

2 acreage that Novi Middle School and Deerfield

3 Elementary School sit on, as well as for the lake

4 itself. So this section of the City in my opinion is

5 maxed out for residential development, but then I also

6 looked at the particular piece of property that is

7 being rezoned. It is in the City's best interest to

8 protect as many of the environmental features on this

9 property as possible. Which I believe actually any

10 type of development could be sensitive to. While I

11 have not seen the site plan for the proposed school I

12 understand that careful placement considerations have

13 been made by the developer and I will be looking at

14 that closely when I review the site plan. I will also

15 be looking for an alternative to having a secondary

16 driveway at the southeast end of the property, which

17 splits two existing residential properties as I

18 believe this could become a virtual highway at the

19 beginning and end of the school day.

20 Another consideration is the

21 diversity of the City's tax base. With the decision

22 on Monday evening by the City Council to consider

23 rezoning the OST property at Twelve Mile and

24 Meadowbrook to multiple family residential now it






1 becomes even more imperative that we protect as much

2 of the OST property as possible.

3 After considering everything, I do


4 believe that a school is a good use for the property

5 and the school does provide a buffer for the

6 industrial to the north and the residential to the

7 south. However, I do not want to see additional

8 housing in that area should the school not be

9 developed. At the last meeting, the Planning

10 Commission unanimously agreed to a compromise with

11 regard to master planning the property as

12 residential. Adding an expression of intent that

13 should the school not be developed on this property,

14 within a reasonable period of time, the City will look

15 to the Master Plan of 1999 and propose to rezone the

16 property accordingly. For me, that proviso is

17 critical. I can only support a rezoning to single

18 family residential if the language includes the

19 expression of intent. Therefore, Madame Chair, if

20 you'll allow me I would like to offer the following

21 motion.


23 MEMBER KOCAN: In the spirit of

24 compromise, in the matter of zoning map amendment






1 18.624 for Detroit Catholic Central to make a positive

2 recommendation to City Council to rezone the property

3 from OST, office service technical, and I-1, light

4 industrial, to R-1, one family residential, with the

5 expression of intent that should the approximately 60

6 acre parcel not be developed as a private school

7 within a five year period -- and I ask our attorney if

8 five years is an appropriate specified time frame. If

9 it's inappropriate we can discuss that.

10 Then the process shall begin for the

11 zoning on said property to revert back to the Master

12 Plan designation and the Novi 20/20 Master Plan dated

13 May 19th, 1999 for the following reasons:

14 Residential zoning is compatible with the master plan

15 designation which includes a similar expression of

16 intent. Residential zoning is a prerequisite for the

17 development of the private school and the zoning

18 designation with the expression of intent should a

19 school not be built on the property aids in protecting

20 the property values of the one family residential

21 already on Wixom Road. That's my motion.

22 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.


24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That will be a






1 motion by Member Kocan to my left and will be seconded

2 by Mr. Ruyle. If you can answer the commissioner's

3 question regarding the number of queries.

4 MS. SIMON: Yes. Mr. Fisher is here

5 tonight to answer questions regarding that. So if you

6 can.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are we getting two

8 for the price of one, Mr. Fisher?

9 MR. FISHER: Good evening. Attorney

10 Gerald Fisher. Yes, this is the bargain night and I

11 actually thought it might be most appropriate for me

12 to attend this meeting for continuity purposes in

13 light of the history.


15 MR. FISHER: And I don't mean to

16 shirk my duties attending the meeting but I didn't get

17 home until about 2:00 in the morning on Monday evening

18 and I have the ordinance review tomorrow night. So

19 I'm whining to you, I know.

20 I think -- and I confirmed with


21 petitioner that five years would be an appropriate

22 period of time.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Are

24 there any further discussion on the motion?






1 Seeing none, Ms. McBeth, could you

2 please call the roll.

3 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Papp?


5 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Paul?


7 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Ruyle?


9 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Shroyer?


11 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Sprague?


13 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos?


15 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Kocan?


17 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Markham?


19 MS. MCBETH: And Chairperson Nagy?


21 MS. MCBETH: Motion passes nine to

22 zero.

23 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair, if I may.

24 This has been a great 2002. Thank you for your






1 consideration. I wish you the best of the holiday

2 season and look forward to the same in 2003.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, good

4 luck.

5 Commissioner Shroyer?

6 MEMBER SHROYER: May I have a

7 follow-up comment please?


9 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand that

10 there has been a conceptual plan submitted and I would

11 request a copy of that be provided to the master

12 planning and zoning committee ASAP for our preliminary

13 review even though it may not be on our agenda.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is that request

15 available to us?

16 MS. MCBETH: I'm to bring it to the

17 master planning and zoning committee at the next

18 possible meeting?


20 MS. MCBETH: That would be possible.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you very much.


23 Merry Christmas to you all.

24 Our next item on the public hearing






1 is Waltonwood Phase II, Site Plan Number 02-38. This

2 is the public hearing on the request of Singh

3 Development Company for a recommendation to City

4 Council of approval of a Preliminary Site Plan with a

5 PD-1 (Planned Development) Option. The subject

6 property is located in Section 14 on the south side of

7 Twelve Mile Road between Novi and Meadowbrook Roads in

8 the RM-1 (Low-Density Multiple Family) District. The

9 developer is proposing a design change to the Phase II

10 assisted living portion of the building and additional

11 11,000 square foot expansion of the existing

12 facility. The subject property is 13.41 acres.

13 Mr. Schmidt?

14 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Madame

15 Chair. I would like to point out the zoning first.

16 As you can see this is Twelve Mile Road and Twelve

17 Oaks Mall is located here. Phase II is located here

18 with Phase I directly adjacent. The property is zoned

19 RM-1 and it's surrounded by both regional, commercial

20 and OST zoned properties. The land use map as you can

21 see is consistent with what was said in the public

22 hearing. It is a PD-1 option currently and Phase I is

23 currently developed as an independent living

24 facility.







1 This is basically an aerial photo of

2 the area. The reason for this change is, as you

3 mentioned, the design change in the Phase II

4 property. Phase II was originally approved in the

5 following configurations: As you can see, here is

6 Phase I which is already constructed. The blue line

7 indicates where Phase I was originally planned on

8 going. You can see there was parking proposed to be

9 in this location.

10 The yellow outline indicates the new

11 area and the gray parking is the new parking lot that

12 is proposed. The reason for this change is fairly

13 simple, it is to increase the size of the units in the

14 project and I will allow the applicant to explain it

15 further. However, while the building is increasing

16 the number of units in the building is decreasing.

17 The original proposal included 110 units and it is now

18 including only 80 units.

19 I'll skip over the planning review

20 for a second. Go through the other reviews. There

21 are no wetlands and woodlands on the site. The

22 permits were issued previously to Phase I and there no

23 changes to them. Landscaping and traffic engineering,

24 all those comments will be addressed at the time of






1 the final site plan as did the fire Marshall. The

2 facade review indicated that Section 9 waiver is

3 required and recommended. The building will be in the

4 exact same facade as Phase I which was originally

5 approved for the Section 9 waiver.

6 In terms of planning there are four

7 variances that are required for this project. The

8 first is a variance for the rear yard setback. In

9 this location. Seventy-five feet is required and

10 approximately 61 feet is provided. This is due to the

11 unique configuration of the rear property line as it

12 curves in that area. If it was a straight line more

13 than likely it would not need this variance.

14 The second variance is needed in

15 this location. The variance for the exterior side

16 yard parking, 50 feet is required and only 46 feet is

17 provided. This is due to the fact that the new

18 parking area needs to be located near the new main

19 entrance to Phase II whereas this parking is now

20 eliminated.

21 In addition, that parking area also

22 encompasses approximately 35 percent of the area

23 between the property line and the building setback

24 line. Under our zoning code only 30 percent of this






1 area is allowed to be paved for maneuvering lanes,

2 parking spaces and access drive. Therefore variances

3 will be required on that. Finally, the applicants

4 indicated the desire to seek a variance of the noise

5 allowance requirement. The code has been changed

6 since Phase I was originally approved and a noise

7 analysis is now required. The applicant has indicated

8 that given this is a very quiet residential user they

9 do not feel the noise analysis is necessary and they

10 will be asking for variance of that provision.

11 I have nothing further. If have you

12 any questions feel free to ask.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

14 have any comments from the applicant?

15 Here he comes.

16 MR. PHAM: Good evening. My name

17 is Khanh Pham, with Singh Development.

18 K-h-a-n-h. Last name is P-h-a-m.

19 It's Singh Development.

20 Mr. Schmidt did an excellent job of

21 explaining why we want to do what we're doing, but let

22 me explain operationally why we reduced our units and

23 increased our unit size and would encounter four

24 variances versus building what was already approved.






1 When we got this approved, we built Phase I, 141

2 units. Is doing very well and now ready for Phase II,

3 but when we relooked at our layout we realized that we

4 made a design error that would be adverse to our

5 residents moving into Phase II and those are assisted

6 living residents. You can see here -- if the over --

7 When we were initially approved

8 there was concern about access and safety to the

9 site. So a secondary access was brought in from

10 Twelve Mile right up here through the site and

11 connected into a circulation road which we call Huron

12 Circle. That allowed a situation where if there was a

13 traffic incident at Twelve Oaks Mall that would tie up

14 the Ring Road that there would be a second form of

15 getting to the site in a fast and expeditious way

16 without trying to go through the Ring Road itself and

17 come from the access road. We created that and I

18 think that was a wise choice for the City Fire

19 Department that that was a needed improvement. And

20 then we laid out our building. Which is like this.

21 Again Phase I is completed. We did a

22 figure eight design and then a donut, if you just want

23 to make a simple design for assisted living. We put

24 our secondary entrance right here and this is the main






1 entrance. When we started thinking about Phase II we

2 realized that the second entrance where it's located

3 is right off the circulation drive. This second

4 entrance is also for our assisted living wing for the

5 residents who need the most help and the least mobile

6 when they're getting right on and off of the

7 circulation drive.

8 That circulation drive we thought

9 would be for emergency purposes only but for residents

10 of Twelve Oaks Mall who have slowly understood how to

11 get around the traffic situation, they are slowly

12 using the circulation drive to cut through traffic.

13 The issue is not whether we can stop this issue as

14 when our residents are coming in for Phase II is this

15 the best location for them to be dropped off.

16 The second reason that we rotated

17 that was for emergency vehicles. When they are called

18 to the site we were concerned that they would be

19 confused in which entrance to go into. If it was a

20 resident of Phase II and they entered the main

21 entrance and it created a delay, maybe the person

22 who's helping did not know that, by the way, it's a

23 Phase II person that called for help, that there would

24 be a timely response to responding to that incident or






1 vice versa would come into Phase II entrance and find

2 out that the resident is actually in Phase I.

3 So we looked at that and we realized

4 that this situation would not be in the best interest

5 of our residents or be a situation where we would want

6 any of our residents to encounter. So we looked at

7 the redesign and then we did this: This allowed us to

8 take the drop off area off of the circulation drive of

9 Huron Circle. Furthermore, it allowed us to have the

10 second entrance facing the different side than the

11 primary entrance and that allowed us to say come to

12 the west entrance versus the north or the south

13 entrance or come to the south entrance. That would

14 facilitate information for emergency responders.

15 In addition to that, the third reason

16 is that if you look at the first layout -- to be

17 honest, I don't know what we were thinking. Phase I

18 is the independent congregate residents. They are

19 more mobile and we created a figure eight so that

20 there would be a cut through in the middle. So the

21 residents anywhere here could have two points of

22 getting to the main center. For our assisted living,

23 who are less mobile, again, I will admit that we were

24 not thinking, anybody over here only has one way






1 around. That's the long way around to get to their

2 services in the center. So for those reasons we

3 rotated the building to get the entrance off of the

4 circulation drive to have a separate entrance for

5 confusion purposes and then to create a design that

6 would accommodate our residents. And while we're

7 doing that we reduced our units down to 80 units. We

8 have shortened the building to 20 extra feet and the

9 reason why the square footage jumped so high is that

10 we created two courtyards and the courtyard was

11 accomplished through a center hallway. When it's two

12 stories, that's one of the reasons why the square

13 footage increased and some of our unit size has

14 increased but other than that those are the reasons

15 why we're doing this change.

16 There are no wetlands or woodlands

17 and we are asking for your recommendation to City

18 Council and a Section 9 waiver. Thank you.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

20 much. Is there anybody that would like to address the

21 commission regarding the public hearing on this

22 development?

23 Seeing none, I'll close the audience

24 participation and turn it over to the commission.






1 Commissioner Paul?

2 MEMBER PAUL: Mr. Schmidt, I have

3 some questions for you. I was looking at the building

4 setback and the parking setback and I want to

5 understand. I read your section 2100 E-5 and looked

6 at the 30 percent that is required for the area for

7 the parking setback and the applicant is requesting

8 35 percent and I want to go over with you how you

9 think we can somehow meet this ordinance?

10 MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. I'm all ears.

11 MEMBER PAUL: That's the question.

12 MR. SCHMIDT: That's the question.

13 MEMBER PAUL: How can we meet our

14 ordinance? How can we get rid of five percent setback

15 issues to possibly come up with the parking coming

16 into our conformance with the parking setback?

17 MR. SCHMIDT: This is actually two

18 issues here that we're looking at. There's a parking

19 setback issue first and there is a percentage of paved

20 area issue. Both of which concern the western most

21 parking lot. The setback issue is only on

22 approximately the bottom of three or four parking

23 spaces in the lot. The rest is, as the property line

24 curves back to the west, the rest of the parking lot






1 is in conformance. So theoretically you could remove

2 three or four parking spaces there which would bring

3 that parking lot into conformance with the setbacks.

4 In terms of the paved area

5 calculations then it is feasible to think that it

6 would be much closer, within 30 percent at that point,

7 by removing approximately a thousand square foot of

8 paved area.

9 MEMBER PAUL: So that would be four

10 parking spaces?

11 MR. SCHMIDT: I believe it's four. I

12 would have to get an exact number and I believe the

13 applicant might also be able to speak to this, but it

14 is three or four spaces in the southern end of the

15 parking lot.

16 MEMBER PAUL: The other question I

17 have is, again, about parking. We require 155 spaces

18 but 162 are provided. Why do we have these extra few

19 parking spaces? If we can alleviate the seven, does

20 that help with the parking setback again?

21 MR. SCHMIDT: I think part of the

22 reason -- and the applicant can speak to this more --

23 is to provide the parking at the new entrance. I

24 think by meeting the exact number of parking spaces






1 that are required you're going to have a parking lot

2 of approximately ten spaces, half of which are going

3 to be handicapped and it's not going to be very

4 feasible to provide for visitor parking for that

5 entrance and I believe that was probably the thinking

6 behind that. I'm sure Khanh can speak to that.

7 MEMBER PAUL: Before you go on, I

8 would like to make a point that I do appreciate the

9 spaces being at the front. I think that is very

10 important because someone wanting to visit their

11 grandmother they're going to want to get off at the

12 front as close as possible to the site, but I do want

13 to see if there is anyway in that front parking lot we

14 can eliminate enough parking spaces on the southern

15 portion of that parking lot. Is there anyway we can

16 bring this into conformance?

17 MR. PHAM: Let me address the first

18 one, the 30 percent paved parking area. We are

19 seeking a variance for that. Normally you would have

20 a parking lot adjacent to a building. For our unique

21 situation we created Huron Circle that goes around the

22 parking lot as well. If you look right here, normally

23 you would have just a parking lot right here. But the

24 pavement has exceed your 30 percent because we've






1 added Huron Circle, which is a safety circulation

2 drive so you can access the building without going

3 through a parking lot. If that was not there for

4 safety, we would not have the 30 percent issue. We

5 would be in full conformance of your paved 30 percent

6 area.

7 Then your second question is can we

8 remove those parking spaces, theoretically I agree

9 with you we can remove them. However, I agree with

10 Mr. Schmidt, because we have a limited amount of

11 parking up here only and a lot of parking back here.

12 If you start taking spaces here -- and it's not an

13 absolute parking kind of situation. These are to

14 serve the entrances that they're designed for. So if

15 you remove four, five, parking spaces here you have

16 now left this entrance without sufficient parking for

17 the visitors to the assisted living Phase II. So

18 hopefully that answers your question that for a paved

19 area you're right we can knock out some parking

20 spaces, but it would not be feasible to the entrance.

21 What encumbers us is Huron Circle. If that wasn't

22 there we would not need that variance for that 30

23 percent.

24 MEMBER PAUL: I can understand the






1 need of the circle drive but I do still have a problem

2 with the parking setback. If this parking setback

3 maybe two or three spots on the south portion of this

4 parking lot could be eliminated possibly then your

5 building setback wouldn't be an issue. Because this

6 is such an odd shape it seems to be an issue for you

7 in setbacks in several -- four areas to be exact and I

8 think that's some of the concern.

9 Is there anyway to eliminate two

10 parking spaces and how many would remain on-site?

11 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul, I

12 actually did a rough calculation and four parking

13 spaces would be required to be eliminated from the far

14 western edge of that parking lot at the southern

15 portion. If I eliminated four parking spaces back to

16 the curb the property line would be exactly. This,

17 however, may not solve the problem of the percentage

18 of the paved area between the property line and the

19 setback line. It's a fairly intense calculation that

20 I cannot run at this time.

21 MEMBER PAUL: I can appreciate that.

22 MR. PHAM: We would lose seven

23 parking spaces to fall under. We did the

24 calculation. We're actually 36 percent over because






1 you can't just cut a corner out and still call it a

2 parking space. So we would lose about seven parking

3 spaces to accommodate your 30 percentage. So when we

4 looked at that that was not feasible so that's the

5 reason why we have the variance to stress that for the

6 needs of that entrance and that we're encumbered by

7 Huron Circle.

8 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Khanh.

9 MR. SCHMIDT: Just to clarify for the

10 rest of the commissioners, this is the exact area

11 we're talking about.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: Point of

13 information if I can interject.

14 The setback is required from the road

15 around Twelve Oaks Mall or because of Huron Circle;

16 where is the setback?

17 MR. SCHMIDT: The setback is in the

18 property line to the parking lot.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: So the property line

20 which is more the road around Twelve Oaks Mall?

21 MR. SCHMIDT: It's this dark black.

22 It's just off of the road if you would like to think

23 of it that way. It's this dark, black line.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: So it's not Huron






1 Circle that is creating the problem?

2 MR. SCHMIDT: Huron Circle is

3 creating the paved area problem.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: The paved area

5 problem. And Huron Circle when Mr. Khanh talks about

6 the addition of that, is he also including Huron

7 Circle the part that comes up to the building, the

8 dropoff point?

9 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. All paved areas,

10 actually.

11 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you.

12 MR. SCHMIDT: The four parking spaces

13 actually eliminated would be these four spaces to

14 right here. Essentially -- and this is all

15 theoretical. The curb would be dropped in right

16 here. This distance would then meet the setback for

17 the parking area. Assuming of course this then

18 becomes landscaping.

19 MEMBER PAUL: So then eleven or

20 twelve spaces would remain in that parking lot if we

21 eliminated three or four and if landscaping would go

22 in there we already have our surfaces that we're

23 trying to eliminate a little bit with parking space

24 and we have the road that we're not going to eliminate






1 and that's going to stay and that's important for

2 safety issues and I can appreciate that and I can be

3 in support of the variance but I do have an issue with

4 the setback. I think that the parking spaces are

5 important in that front area, but there is other

6 parking spaces around this structure. They're not too

7 far removed and maybe there needs to be a possible

8 door on the other section of Phase II that could be a

9 side entrance that could still have security purposes

10 that wouldn't be just a front main entrance for

11 specific reasons of holidays when there's more

12 visitors than twelve people. So that was a concern

13 that I had and I would be in support of having some

14 landscaping in place of those three or four parking

15 spaces.

16 In the past, Mr. Schmidt, have there

17 been other variances that have been given to this

18 applicant for Phase I of this site?

19 MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not -- Member Paul,

20 yes the entire building received, I believe, three

21 variances for its original approval and this was for

22 the entire -- this would be considered the entire

23 building at that time. I received a variance for --

24 they received a Planning Commission waiver of the






1 45 degree angle to the property line. Given the

2 unique configuration of the property line the building

3 could not be oriented to the 45 degrees. It received

4 a variance for the setback from Crescent Lake. In one

5 area of Phase I it is less than required now, the

6 setback to manmade lake and it received a variance for

7 the length of the overall building and this is due to

8 the overall concept of continual care. The building

9 was connected and exceeded the overall length. This

10 is really a special case in that situation.

11 In addition the ZBA granted the right

12 for a public right of way since this was due to the

13 fact that they were on the main road to the mall which

14 was not designated.

15 MEMBER PAUL: I am in support of the

16 extra five percent of superfluous surface but I am not

17 in support of the setback for parking. Also I would

18 like to see a little bit more landscaping and possibly

19 a landscaping question would be is landscaping that

20 was put in the place of those three or four spaces on

21 this front entrance parking lot, is there anyway that

22 we could make it as attractive as possible because the

23 setback is close to the road?

24 You have basically a large parking






1 lot at Twelve Oaks Mall. You have the Ring Road, then

2 you have more parking and I'm trying to think is it

3 going to be sufficient amount of landscaping or could

4 we put a berm in there in that area to help with the

5 closeness to the Ring Road.

6 MR. MCGINNIS: Well, you have about

7 20 feet so there's plenty of room to add some

8 landscaping in there. The space about 20 feet long.

9 MEMBER PAUL: Mr. Schmidt, would that

10 landscaping if it was added be any problem with safety

11 on that road for visibility and traffic flow?

12 MR. SCHMIDT: I'm assuming the

13 applicant would plant materials that were low to the

14 ground so as not to impede the field of division.

15 That's a liability at that point.

16 MEMBER PAUL: Ms. McClain, do you

17 have a comment?

18 MS. MCGINNIS: For traffic traveling

19 on the Ring Road around Waltonwood they would not have

20 a problem. The only thing we have to make sure is

21 that there would be nothing in the site triangle from

22 that drive to the south but once again the plants

23 would be below the site triangle in that area.

24 MEMBER PAUL: Okay. I'll let my






1 other fellow --

2 MR. EVANCOE: Madame Chair?

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Evancoe?

4 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, I might offer

5 a possible suggestion. I don't know if we can get

6 that site plan on the overhead again that would be

7 helpful. If you do look at eliminating several spaces

8 there it looks to me like the north end of that same

9 parking bay directly across from the entrance to the

10 new building might accommodate a space or two,

11 perhaps.

12 I don't know, Khanh, if you can point

13 to the area that I'm referring to that would help.

14 Directly opposite -- yeah, right in that area.

15 Perhaps with some massaging of that we can get one or

16 two spaces right there, maybe. Something to consider

17 anyway.

18 MEMBER PAUL: If we would bring

19 possibly two spaces it looks like it would fit into

20 that space. Probably two is the limitation because of

21 the drive.

22 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

23 MEMBER PAUL: But if we had two there

24 then you're really only getting rid of one or two






1 spaces on that side and you would be in compliance

2 possibly with the ordinance requirements by meeting

3 the setback; is that correct?

4 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. That area would

5 still meet the setback requirements.

6 MEMBER PAUL: One other comment. I

7 do appreciate you changing the configuration for the

8 assisted living because as I am a nurse And I look at

9 the needs of the people and you did explain that very

10 well that they need to be more mobile in the area.

11 They have stretchers more often, wheelchairs and they

12 need the extra space in the internal building. So I

13 think that was a wise move and I appreciate it.

14 MR. PHAM: Thank you.

15 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Any

17 other discussion here? Mr. Avdoulos?

18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: There are a couple

19 points of clarification. The correspondence that we

20 got from the Planning Department and from some of the

21 consultants indicate an 11,000 square foot addition

22 from the original approved building and on the

23 drawings that the applicant has submitted that the

24 actual addition is 16,000 square feet. So it's a






1 little bigger than what was approved for. I want to

2 make sure that it is 80 units that are being added.

3 There was some -- and I guess I was trying to figure

4 out what the consistency is. We have in one of the

5 schedules 105 rooms proposed. Is that rooms as in how

6 many rooms the building has, not units?

7 MR. SCHMIDT: That includes two

8 bedroom and one bedroom units. So there is an

9 additional total number of units that are allowed.

10 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And then there's a

11 number that says 93 beds. So I wanted to, you know,

12 be looking at things that were apples to apples.

13 MR. SCHMIDT: In the PD-1 and the

14 RM-1 we have several standards that were applied.

15 Some of them are living room. Some were two bedroom

16 units. So the discrepancy is that, but those are the

17 correct figures.

18 MEMBER AVDOULOS: All right. The

19 question I have is there's eight parking spaces that

20 were added. And I think it's to the north of the

21 site. What are those for?

22 MR. PHAM: The eight parking spaces

23 is just for the service court that's in the center of

24 the building.






1 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. Before this

2 addition what was that space used for? I mean,

3 there's an existing drive there but there was never

4 parking there.

5 MR. PHAM: Yeah. I have an aerial

6 that does a better job of showing it to you.

7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I guess my

8 point is that the spaces weren't there before and if

9 they're not required now why introduce them and then,

10 you know, consistently be going above the surface

11 that's required?

12 MR. PHAM: Hopefully this -- we'll

13 zoom in. When we put in Phase I we also put in full

14 construction to the site that is a circular drive and

15 a parking that is very difficult see, right here, as

16 well. Because we thought that when we put in Phase II

17 just put in the building, an entrance and call it a

18 day. And those spaces were planned to service Phase

19 II. When we rotated the building all those parking

20 spaces had to be removed and after they were removed

21 we realized that we still had a service court that had

22 to be served by help, kitchen help or drop off areas

23 for supplies. So that area still had to have some

24 spaces for help and also for drop off. So that






1 additional eight spaces were put back there when that

2 whole parking lot would be removed due to Phase II

3 reconfiguration.

4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: So that is to

5 supplement the parking right to the north of that that

6 was removed?

7 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

8 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. Because of

9 the configuration of the building. That's fine.

10 Can you put the other site plan up.

11 MR. PHAM: Sure.

12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Two other points

13 and I think there's other commissioners that had the

14 same concern. My first concern is when you come in

15 off of the mall drive that comes off the Twelve Mile

16 and you come into the entrance of the building or the

17 new entrance, is a visitor supposed to come in and

18 then go down and then around the front entrance?

19 MR. PHAM: I'm sorry?

20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Right there. Come

21 in.

22 MR. PHAM: Yes.

23 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And how do you get

24 to the front door?






1 MR. PHAM: Through the drop off area.

2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: That's the thing,

3 I don't think -- you're actually going opposite of

4 traffic when you go that way. When you're going to be

5 coming in you're going to be driving in and you're

6 going to be -- it's actually backwards to the way you

7 normally approach an entrance to a building.

8 MR. PHAM: I understand.


10 Mr. Arroyo had addressed that with dedicating that

11 with a one-way drive. So there has to be signage in

12 order to prevent that, but with the speed that people

13 come off those roads and shoot in my main concern is

14 that that's a short area that no one is going to stop

15 at and then in order to properly enter the building

16 you have to come down and then whip around and I don't

17 know if there is enough room around that -- it's not

18 even a full circle. It's an elongated ellipsis -- to

19 make that turn to get into the entrance properly.

20 So I'm concerned with that

21 configuration. It looks, you know, kind of tight. I

22 just want to make sure traffic wise and circulation

23 wise it works for vehicles and for fire departments

24 because that's how a fire truck is going to come in.






1 Although probably they'll negate the one way sign

2 because they have the ability to do that. But I'm

3 looking at there is a little bit of congestion concern

4 I have in that area.

5 The other concern is the far corner

6 of the existing building to the road is about 25 feet

7 away from the curb and then that new addition, I guess

8 that's the northeast corner, is about 15 feet away

9 from the curb and I don't know if there is any

10 opportunities to, you know, pull the building back a

11 bit. It gets real tight and, I mean, it's right on

12 the curb.

13 MR. PHAM: Okay.

14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Do you understand?

15 MR. PHAM: Yeah. You're talking

16 about the northeast corner?

17 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Not that one. I'm

18 sorry. I'm talking about the northwest corner.

19 MR. PHAM: Right here?

20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Right there.

21 You're 15 or less than 15 feet away from the curb and

22 then when you go to the opposite southeast corner of

23 the existing building right there you're about 25 feet

24 diagonal. So you've got a little bit more breathing






1 room there. I'm just concerned that the building is

2 starting to encroach and become larger than what the

3 site can support.

4 MR. PHAM: Okay. Again, this is a

5 circulation drive.

6 MR. AVDOULOS: I understand that and

7 I understand the amount of units and the size of the

8 building is dictated by the amount of building.

9 There's circulation issues inside the building and

10 it's almost like this is a -- it's not an actual

11 hardship. It's kind of like a self-inflicted

12 hardship. There's things that the addition seems to

13 be oversized to what the site can accommodate. We

14 have a variance request for the parking -- which I

15 didn't see a big problem of four feet.

16 But it's a variance we're adding

17 extra surface area. We're encroaching upon the

18 existing Ring Road. It just seems that the whole

19 thing is swelling up and it looks like a difficult

20 animal. I'm sure it could work but I think it needs a

21 little more massaging. And that's -- those are those


23 And then the other question I have

24 and the fire marshall had indicated a height of 14






1 feet clear that they required underneath the canopy.

2 And I know that's for emergency access to that.

3 That's where the concern came in. If a fire truck is

4 going to come under there will it be able to maneuver

5 around that front aisle?

6 MR. PHAM: We would have no problem

7 meeting the height for fire department's

8 recommendation.

9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I think it is

10 indicated on the drawings. They show the canopy a

11 little higher than anything else.

12 Ms. McClain?

13 MS. MCCLAIN: If I can make a comment

14 about the fire truck. During the discussions with the

15 fire marshall he indicated that it wouldn't be likely

16 that one of the large fire trucks or the ladder trucks

17 would go into that area but what needs to be able to

18 be serviced in that area is an ambulance. Because of

19 the type of equipment that the fire truck would be

20 using they wouldn't actually want to be quite that

21 close to the building anyway and under a canopy. So

22 the 14 feet is to meet requirements to get one of the

23 large ambulances underneath and the emergency response

24 vehicles, that type.






1 MEMBER AVDOULOS: They're talking

2 about the large square boxes?

3 MS. MCCLAIN: Yes. The fire rescue

4 squad.


6 understood. And that's all I have for now, Madame.


8 Commissioner Kocan?

9 MEMBER KOCAN: I'll comment on

10 Avdoulos. I also had a concern with the northwest

11 corner because the best part of this building when I

12 drive around Twelve Oaks Mall is the fact that it's

13 setback from the road and it is gorgeous. When you

14 start bringing it closer to the road this corner

15 concerns me greatly. Not only because the setback

16 you're requesting additional 14 feet setback but it

17 also requires the sidewalk to almost be on the road.

18 It -- I understand that you reduced the number of

19 units. You've enlarged the rooms and enlarging the

20 rooms is, you know, a quality of life issue and we

21 certainly appreciate that. But I also have a problem

22 with your encroaching so close to Huron Circle drive

23 with regards to parking in front of the building. I

24 would like there to be no variances. I think if we






1 can add a couple of parking spots to the north take

2 out the portion that there is no variance there. I

3 also appreciate, having a grandmother who is in

4 assisted living, I like being right at the front

5 door. However, there's also the grand entrance that

6 people can also get into. My biggest concern is the

7 northwest corner.

8 I do have a question with regard to

9 the noise analysis and I'm wondering are there any

10 outside generators that are proposed?

11 MR. PHAM: There is existing

12 generators there already.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: For Phase I?

14 MR. PHAM: For the facility, yes.

15 One of the reasons why we're asking for a variance for

16 the noise analysis was that our Phase I is already

17 up. The service court or the hub, you may call it, is

18 where all activity occurs. That is already up. If we

19 added Phase II, again, we would be measuring the noise

20 from the hub that's already existing from the 141

21 units. And if you look at your noise study ordinance,

22 formal study you're measuring the impact of special

23 land use of adjacent property owners of adjacent

24 property owners is residential, RC, which is a higher






1 core.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: My question is are you

3 adding another generator outside of the proposed

4 addition?

5 MR. PHAM: Yes.

6 MEMBER KOCAN: And where is that

7 going?

8 MR. PHAM: In the same service court

9 as the first one.

10 MEMBER KOCAN: And I did receive --

11 and I read all of the minutes and now I'm trying to


12 understand what you're saying. The noise ordinance,

13 the noise analysis has the biggest impact when you've

14 got something other than residential next to

15 residential. OST you have to be considered this is a

16 more residential type of development surrounded by

17 either other residential that is already existing and

18 has the same use as well as an office complex and a

19 shopping mall. So I'm looking to give you a waiver

20 here, Mr. Khanh, but my question is, you know, where

21 are you adding the extra AC units on top of the

22 building are you adding more generators and where are

23 they going to be?

24 If you keep them in the court area






1 that will muffle the noise for the outside noise. And

2 the primary responsibility is to your residents. If

3 it's too noisy for your residents you'll hear about

4 it.

5 MR. PHAM: They won't pay us.

6 MEMBER KOCAN: So that's my concern.

7 I don't want it on the outside where it can impact the


8 office complex or something even though they're not

9 residential. That's my question. So I may not have a

10 problem with recommending a waiver on noise analysis.

11 I have a concern with that corner.

12 Thank you, Madame.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

14 Shroyer?

15 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madame

16 Chair. Well, I've got a lot of comments but most of

17 them have already been covered. I like the sign. I

18 think it's a very attractive building. I think Phase

19 I is excellent. I like what's been done. I like the

20 intent of what you want to do in Phase II as well.

21 However, and there's always a however, listening to

22 what the planning commissioners have to say and

23 reviewing my notes as well, it appears that there's

24 quite a few concerns that we have. I do not want to






1 send any negative recommendations to counsel on this

2 matter; therefore, regarding Waltonwood developments

3 Phase II SP 02-38 I move that we table this matter to

4 give the applicant and the City time to review the

5 comments and suggestions made by the Commission and

6 come back to us at a later date for review and

7 consideration.


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any further. Do

10 you have any further comments, Ms. McBeth?

11 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Commissioner

12 Paul.

13 MR. PHAM: Chairperson Nagy?


15 MR. PHAM: Can I make one comment

16 real quick?

17 MEMBER KOCAN: You called roll.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I did call the

19 roll.

20 MR. PHAM: I just want to make one

21 point. We're scheduled to go to the ZBA to try to

22 press our case with the four variances for January

23 7th, 2003. We would like if you would indulge us to

24 seek the variance, still work out the parking issue






1 that you have addressed, Commissioner Paul, and

2 continue to go forward to City Council. This is not

3 our last review. City Council still has it, but we

4 have been in a situation where we have been in the

5 process for a very long time and we're running into

6 issues with construction start and we're asking for

7 that indulgence so we can go to ZBA and continuing

8 with City Council with your comments.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

10 Shroyer?

11 MEMBER SHROYER: I appreciate your

12 comments. Once again, another however. I still feel

13 there's enough issues not just with the parking but

14 with the building and setbacks. It's -- I feel the

15 property is overbuilt. You've tried to make it too

16 large for the area and, consequently, I would like to

17 go forwards with the motion and continue on with the

18 roll call.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

20 much. If there is no further comments, Ms. McBeth, if

21 you would call the roll.

22 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Paul?


24 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Ruyle?







2 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Shroyer?


4 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Sprague?


6 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos?


8 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Kocan?


10 MS. MCBETH: Commissioner Markham?


12 MS. MCBETH: Chairperson Nagy?


14 MS. MCBETH: And Commissioner Papp?


16 MS. MCBETH: So the motion passes

17 five to three. Excuse me, six to three.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

19 much. Before we get into our next public hearing the

20 commission will take a ten minute break.

21 (Recess taken.)

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call

23 the meeting to order. The next item on our public

24 hearing agenda is Seely Sanctuary, Site Plan Number






1 02-42. Public hearing at the request of Singh

2 Development company for approval of the Preliminary

3 Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and a

4 Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is

5 located in Section 12 on the south side of Thirteen

6 Mile Road between M-5 and Meadowbrook Road in the RA,

7 (Residential Acreage) District. The developer is

8 proposing a place of worship. The subject property is

9 9.659 acres.

10 Ms. McBeth?

11 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madame,

12 Chair.

13 I'll put the aerial so we can

14 identify the location of the property and zoom in. As

15 you said, on the south side of Thirteen Mile Road the

16 subject property is outlined here in blue and the

17 proposing Seely Sanctuary. As you can tell from the

18 aerial photo the site is currently vacant. To the

19 north is the Fox Run Village which is currently under

20 construction. To the northeast is the Brightmoor

21 Church. To the east are single family homes that

22 front on Thirteen Mile Road. To the south is

23 Meadowbrook Elementary. To the west are single family

24 homes that front on Thirteen Mile Road as well as on






1 Meadowbrook, which is located right about in this

2 area.

3 The Master Plan is right here and it

4 shows that the site is master planned for single

5 family residential uses and that Master Plan

6 recommends similar uses for the properties to the

7 west, to the east, to the northeast. To the south

8 the Master Plan recommends public use of the property

9 where the school is located and to the north the

10 Master Plan recommends a PD-1 option where the Fox Run

11 Village is located.

12 The zoning map shows that the

13 property again outlined here in blue is zoned RA,

14 residential acreage, as are the properties to the

15 west, to the east, to the northeast and to the south.

16 To the north across Thirteen Mile Road is RM-1, low

17 density multiple family.

18 I'll show you a small version of a

19 colored up site plan. North at the top of the page

20 and Thirteen Mile right here. The plan does show that

21 the petitioner proposes to construct a 29,203 square

22 foot sanctuary building located here on the plan with

23 the seating capacity in that main area of worship

24 containing approximately 800 seats and a 7,200 square






1 foot administration building that is located on the

2 west part of the site.

3 The sanctuary building contains a

4 sanctuary hall and various offices and conference

5 rooms on the first floor. The lower level contains a

6 multipurpose room, a kitchen, a number of classrooms

7 and living quarters for the church officials.

8 Two driveways are proposed on the

9 site. One on the west side here and one here on the

10 east side of the property here which both front on

11 Thirteen Mile Road.

12 The building is oriented -- sanctuary

13 building is oriented at an angle to the road and it's

14 located northeast of the large quality wetland which

15 is located here on this site.

16 During the review of the submitted

17 plans the staff and consultants found a number of

18 important items for the Planning Commission to

19 consider. The Planning Review showed that there was

20 an insufficient front yard building setback along the

21 north property line to the sanctuary being due to that

22 overhang that projects into the required front

23 building setback. The overhang extends approximately

24 12 feet into the required 75 foot front yard building






1 setback. If that is not revised on the plans then a

2 Zoning Board of Appeals variance would be required.

3 Additionally, the Planning Commission is asked to

4 consider making a finding that the proposed plans meet

5 the intent of the special land use ordinance.

6 As required for special use clearance

7 a noise analysis was prepared by a certified sound

8 engineer for the project and the report concluded that

9 predicted sound levels of the proposed improvements

10 will be within the decibel restrictions of the

11 ordinance.

12 The wetland review indicated that the

13 project falls under a non mior use permit category of

14 the ordinance and required permit approval by the

15 Planning Commission. The wetland consultants did make

16 a number of recommendations and a revision to the plan

17 was submitted by the applicant that addresses some of

18 those concerns.

19 In fact, today we received a letter,

20 unfortunately after 5:00, but it did get faxed in

21 today about noon that was from the applicant's wetland

22 consultant that elaborated on some of these concerns.

23 The letter was included in the Planning Commission

24 packages from last week. On the back of that letter






1 was a little sketch that included some of the changes

2 that could be made to alleviate some of the wetland's

3 concerns. We do have the wetland consultant here this

4 evening, Aimee Kay, who can address some of those

5 concerns that you have with that.

6 The small plan shows the elimination

7 of approximately 12 parking spaces. The site exceeds

8 ordinance requirements by 14 spaces so that would be

9 okay to eliminate those 12 spaces. The wetlands

10 review stated that during consultations with the

11 applicant it was indicated that this would be

12 difficult to preserve any additional woodlands on the

13 site. Some of those factors considered were the

14 constraints of the site ordinance requirements for

15 building setback and the driveway locations,

16 preservation of high quality wetlands on the property

17 and the new storm water ordinance, all being factors

18 that would go in the elimination of preservation of

19 woodlands on the property. A woodlands permit is

20 needed with the Planning Commission finding that no

21 other alternatives are feasible.

22 The landscaping review indicated that

23 a Planning Commission waiver is required in order to

24 eliminate either a wall or a berm along the areas that






1 currently have a woodlands buffer. That would be

2 along the east property line here. Along the west

3 property line here and along the south property line.

4 Additionally two Zoning Board of

5 Appeals variances would be required if the Planning

6 Commission approves this plan and these, again, deal

7 with walls and berms. One variance is required to

8 eliminate the required wall or berm along the areas

9 where wetlands are currently existing on the east and

10 the south property lines. I'm sorry that would be the

11 west and south property lines.

12 A second variance is required to eliminate

13 the berm or wall along Thirteen Mile Road. Again,

14 areas that have wetlands and areas that have woodlands

15 that can be preserved. The traffic engineers review

16 stated that two driveway spacing waivers would be

17 required. For the proposed easterly driveway relative

18 to the Brightmoor Church driveway that requires at

19 least a 400 foot spacing distance and 360 feet is

20 proposed between this driveway and that driveway.

21 Again, we found another variance that

22 would be required, a Planning Commission variance for

23 the opposite side driveway spacing as it relates to

24 this westerly driveway and relating to the Fox Run






1 driveway here where, again, 400 feet is required and

2 303 feet is provided. The engineers' review indicated

3 that the plan does meet the ordinance requirements and

4 the Planning Commission approval of the proposed storm

5 water management plan would be required.

6 The fire review revealed that one

7 item might be addressed at the time of final site plan

8 review and I will show you the building elevations.

9 This is an elevation of the proposed

10 sanctuary building. This would be the front of the

11 building. The facades would be indicated where the

12 proposed building elevations are in full compliance

13 with the facades ordinance. The sanctuary building

14 contains mostly brick depending on the facade with

15 small areas of efface that are illustrated in light

16 gray on this drawing here.

17 And there is about 15 percent trim

18 material which is scattered throughout the different

19 building elevations. I'll show you the other sides of

20 building. The sanctuary building illustrated on the

21 back and sides and there's also building elevation for

22 the administration building which is also brick with

23 about ten or eleven percent trim. The facade board is

24 located in front of me. Here I can pass it around if






1 people would like to take a look at the materials and

2 that will conclude my presentation.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: A point of information

4 before you leave. Can you go back to the other site

5 plan. With regards to the spacing waivers, the

6 opposite side driveway spacing waivers, can you

7 explain -- and this is information because you and I

8 talked this afternoon and I appreciate that, but for

9 the Planning Commission why there are waivers for the

10 two driveways but not a third driveway spacing waiver

11 for the one that's directly opposite it.

12 MS. MCBETH: Yes. I can do that and

13 I think Nancy can easier explain this too. This

14 waiver here is needed for that opposite relationship

15 and this waiver is needed for this relationship.

16 However, it is not needed for the relationship of this

17 middle main drive to the Fox Run Drive located right

18 about here and Nancy has a very nice diagram she will

19 explain it for you in detail.


20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ms. McClain, if

21 you can please explain that for us.

22 MS. MCCLAIN: Well, we often talk

23 about the interlock situation when we're talking about

24 driveway spacing waivers where the left turns get into






1 the interlock situation, the gridlock situation.

2 That's what is being addressed in the two longer

3 waivers to both drives.

4 If somebody was to want to make a

5 left turn into the Seely Boulevard driveway and

6 somebody else wants to make a left turn into the New

7 Life driveway as they both turn into their center lane

8 to make the left turns there's a conflict in there and

9 it's the same situation in the next drive down. Our

10 requirements because of the volumes of over 300

11 vehicles in and out of the drive on the north side of

12 the road, our requirements are for 400 feet to help

13 alleviate those interlock concerns.

14 In the relationship between Fox Run

15 Drive and the Seely Boulevard Drive we don't have a

16 left turn interlock problem because the left turns

17 coming out of Seely Boulevard would then go into the

18 through traffic lanes and the Fox Run would come into

19 the other lane. They're not trying to use the same

20 lane and that's where the problem comes in.

21 Does that seem to address the

22 concerns?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, it does.

24 Commissioner Papp?






1 MEMBER PAPP: I have one question for

2 you. On the Fox Run Drive I've seen it where people

3 will come out and make a left turn and use that center

4 lane to merge back into the right lane when they're

5 headed east. So I see with this driveway layout that

6 there's going to be a problem. How do we resolve

7 that?

8 MS. MCCLAIN: Well, part of this

9 problem is being alleviated by some widening to the

10 road in this area along the western side from Fox Run

11 and there'll be a left-turn lane in here. When you

12 give that additional lane -- I know it doesn't seem

13 like it because it's not the traffic flow that's

14 making the turn, it gives more openness and more feel

15 and people have more of a comfort level of turning in.

16 That's part of it, but this is not considered an

17 interlock situation because you're not -- people are

18 not in a main traffic stream merging in. It's a

19 turning situation into a lane so we are not required

20 to have as long as an area between those two. You're

21 coming from -- you're coming from a stop into a

22 left-turn position. Technically you're supposed to

23 come in and move through into the through travel lane,

24 not reside in this continuous left-turn lane. That






1 left-turn lane is for left turns on the through route,

2 not on the turn pattern.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that we

4 basically answered the questions. I would like to

5 proceed with the presentation unless there is no

6 questions from --

7 Commissioner Ruyle?

8 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you. Maybe you

9 can answer it, Ms. McClain -- or Barbara McBeth.

10 In your presentation you made a

11 statement, does this fall under the new storm water or

12 the old one? I think you said in your presentation it

13 falls under the new one.

14 MS. MCBETH: Yes, it does. I

15 indicated that the engineering review indicated that

16 the planning commissioners asked to approve the

17 proposed storm water management plan that was part of

18 that.

19 MEMBER RUYLE: It's the new one.


21 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing nothing

23 further by the department? If we do not, Mr. Khanh?

24 Please again state your name and







1 where you're from for the court reporter.

2 MR. PHAM: Khanh Pham, K-h-a-n-h,

3 P-h-a-m, Singh Development.

4 Just to clarify, normally Singh

5 Development does not normally do a nonprofit project

6 like this. We were asked because our owner is part of

7 the Hindu community to represent them, to guide them

8 through the process so they can avoid hurdles and

9 setbacks due to the ordinance and development issues

10 and that's the reason why we're here today. Singh

11 Development is the applicant for the site plan but the

12 Hindu community is asking, seeking special land use

13 approval for a sanctuary to accommodate 800 people.

14 We in conjunction with the community have designed a

15 site plan that would accommodate the residents there

16 for the next 20 years. Currently -- and I think the

17 question has been asked -- how many people attend the

18 facility? And right now it's between 400 and 500

19 people. Of course, you never build a facility to just

20 accommodate today's needs. You build it for

21 tommorrow. And that's the reason why the facility is

22 to accommodate for the 800 people. And so tonight

23 we're asking for a wetland, woodlands and site plan

24 approval and with your indulgence special land use as






1 well.


3 Mr. Khanh.

4 This is a public hearing. Is there

5 anyone one in the audience that wishes to address the

6 commissioner regarding this site?

7 Seeing none, I will ask Madame

8 Secretary to read any correspondence that we may have.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: Before I read this.

10 Let me clarify because there was a letter put on the

11 table dated December 18th from the environmental

12 consultant from the development and I don't think I

13 heard you state all of the items that were contained

14 in the letter. So I will read it. Okay.

15 MS. MCBETH: If you would like to,

16 thank you.

17 MR. EVANCOE: That was our hope that

18 you could read that into the record.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: This is a letter from

20 Brooks Williamson and Associates to the City dated

21 today which provides background information for the

22 Seely sanctuary project discussing discusses proposed

23 revisions.

24 "The proposed plan revisions would






1 totally eliminate impacts to the wetland and reduce

2 buffer impacts by almost 50 percent. The original

3 application for wetland use permit dated August 15th,

4 2002 for proposed permanent impact to .006 acres of

5 wetland and then 0.14 acres of buffer as well as a

6 cantillation fact and detention basin discharged into

7 wetlands. An application was also submitted to MDQ.

8 A subsequent review letter from Ms. Aimee Kay of JCK

9 and Associates dated October 10th recommended redesign

10 of the site in order to preserve wetlands and more of

11 it's purpose. A meeting was held on October 15,

12 between Ms. Kay and members of the project design team

13 to discuss the comments and recommendations made in

14 the letter. During that discussion the team gave

15 Ms. Kay verbal explanations as to why the rather

16 substantial plan revisions advocated in her letter

17 were either not necessary or were not feasible or

18 prudent due to design and/or zoning constraints.

19 These arguments include the

20 following: The zoning ordinance allows only rear

21 parking at places of worship with no parking allowed

22 north of the building corner. There are functional

23 and operational problems with combining the main

24 building with the administration building,






1 specifically heating and cooling phasing, that

2 requires their separation as proposed. The majority

3 of the buffer impact is temporary "great change, not

4 elimination," and will be restored with native

5 vegetation.

6 The last point, permanent fill in the

7 buffer would not have a significant adverse effect on

8 storm water quality because runoff from all hard

9 surfaces will be detained in a wet bottom detention

10 basin and would not flow over land through the buffer

11 anyway. As a result of this discussion, Ms. Kay

12 agreed that the only real area of concern was the

13 wetland to be filled along the north side of wetland A

14 and that removal of the proposed gazebo and a number

15 of parking spaces to eliminate this fill would make

16 the plan acceptable to her. Proposed revisions would

17 accomplish this by eliminating the gazebo and

18 12 parking spaces. Thereby relocating the proposed

19 retaining wall further to the north and completely out

20 of the wetland in question. Revised as such the

21 project would involve no wetland fill and the area of

22 permanent buffer impact would be reduceded by nearly

23 2700 square feet to approximately 0.08 acres. This

24 concept, therefore, addresses the only wetland or






1 buffer related concern that remain after the October

2 15th meeting with Ms. Kay. Subsequent to that meeting

3 the MDEQ Issued a permit for the project as proposed.

4 We believe that the revised project would involve only

5 minimal and reasonable impacts and, request support

6 for the proposed revisions.

7 That's all.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Seeing

9 no comments from the audience I will close the

10 audience participation and refer the matter for

11 discussion to the commission.

12 Mr. Ruyle.

13 MR. RUYLE: Thank, Madame Chair.

14 Mr. Khanh, is that the way to pronounce

15 it right?

16 MR. PHAM: That's my first name but

17 that's correct.

18 MR. RUYLE: I'm sorry. What are the

19 hours of worship on Sunday morning?

20 MR. PHAM: Around 10:45 it would

21 start and it would end around 1:30 in the afternoon on

22 Sunday.

23 MR. RUYLE: The reason I'm asking

24 this question is because there is a church across the






1 street and that church meets from 9:00 in the morning

2 until approximately 12:30. So I can see a conflict of

3 -- and it's a very unique situation. It's a Sunday,

4 which is usually a dead time on our roads. And we're

5 going to have approximately 4 to 500 people which

6 would be approximately 250 to 300 cars in your

7 location and they run anywhere from 4 to 500 per

8 service and they have two services. So it would be

9 approximately the same amount of traffic entering and

10 going in both locations at the same time. And that's

11 why I have a problem with the opposite side driveway

12 not being long enough because of the left turn lanes,

13 et cetera. And with that I will turn it back to the

14 commissioner for further comments.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

16 have any further comments by the commissioners?

17 Member Paul?

18 MEMBER PAUL: I have -- I'll start

19 back with just the zoning. This is zoned RA. If we

20 look at the present property as a single family the

21 Planning Commission would not allow encroachment into

22 the wetland if at all possible. We have permitted a

23 large structure to encroach into the wetlands if there

24 is no another feasible way then we redesign the site






1 with our planners and applicants to meet our

2 ordinances and provide the least impact.

3 We now have a special land use we are

4 looking at which is incompatible in the RA zoning


5 under 2516.2C. The Planning Commission needs to

6 exercise its discretion in oversight plan approval

7 based on many criteria and this site does not meet the

8 requirements under 2516.2C3. Whether relative to

9 other feasible uses of the site the proposed use is

10 compatible with natural features and characteristics

11 of the land including the existing woodlands,

12 wetlands, water courses and wildlife habitats.

13 The current plan does not meet these

14 requirements. There is not a feasible way for this

15 site to meet these requirements and I feel that there

16 is. After reading Aimee Kay's letter I feel that

17 there are definite alternative methods and I have

18 several things that I would like to bring forward.

19 One, I would like to ask the

20 applicant why an administrative building is necessary

21 and I have to express my concern. One, an

22 administrative building usually functions between

23 Monday and Friday. Is that correct with this site?

24 MR. PHAM: No.






1 MEMBER PAUL: What is different about

2 this site?

3 MR. PHAM: Because you have a

4 different religion. The administration building, we

5 explained, is to service one hundred percent to the

6 sanctuary itself. When we were explaining the

7 operations to Commissioner Ruyle when people arrive at

8 10:30 there isn't like two services or there isn't a

9 situation where you arrive at 10:30 and you sit at

10 service for an hour and then you congregate afterwards

11 and leave. This is a whole set communion day where

12 you're there. So this administration building when

13 there is enough capacity, there's a need for it, will

14 be for possible adult education for the religion,

15 running activities such as coordinating for

16 fundraising and it's all done relatively because

17 they're all there on Sunday.

18 MEMBER PAUL: So this office will

19 function on Sunday?

20 MR. PHAM: There will be activities

21 but not like a full service like in and out traffic

22 every single hour. So that's the reason why the

23 administration building is necessary for this

24 congregation.







1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. May I

2 interject. I would like to clarify a point before we

3 go further and, that is, on your site plan you have

4 proposed future administrative building. Are you

5 requesting approval of this site plan including this

6 building or just the sanctuary?

7 MR. PHAM: With this building. The

8 reason we call it future is after the sanctuary's

9 built and that's what we call future, the

10 administration building will be built.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Am I correct that

12 would be a whole other plan that the Planning

13 Commission would have to review, am I correct,

14 Mr. Evancoe?

15 MR. EVANCOE: No, I don't believe

16 so. I think in this instance like this it's not

17 uncommon to have phases to a project. If you think

18 about subdivisions oftentimes that are approved but

19 they ultimately are built in, you know, three, four or

20 five, six phases. And so they just happen to have two

21 buildings on the same site. That would not be

22 particularly uncommon.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have plans

24 for that?






1 MR. PHAM: Yes, you do. I mean, this

2 is no different -- and excuse me, Mr. Ruyle. If we

3 were to come in with a school which can be adjacent or

4 compatible to the sanctuary. However, this is not the

5 case, this is an administration building that could

6 have classrooms there but we don't know what's going

7 to be entailed until the build out up, but it's not a

8 full service school like over in the Brightmoor side.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, Mr. Khanh, I

10 wanted to clarify that because of what the review

11 states and these plans stated it didn't seem to

12 coincide that it was asked for approval.

13 And I appreciate your indulgence.

14 Commissioner Paul, and I'm done.

15 MR. EVANCOE: If I can momentarily

16 elaborate. Maybe an example of multiple buildings

17 would be like the Ericson site directly across where

18 you have one site, one project, but multiple buildings

19 or a multiple family development where you've got

20 multiple apartment buildings or something. I just

21 wanted to mention that. Thank you.

22 MEMBER PAUL: After your explanation,

23 Mr. Pham, I really believe that you have to be

24 reminded you're in the state of Michigan and it's cold






1 and it's winter. If I was in this site and I was

2 going to be in the sanctuary and then I had to go to a

3 classroom quite a bit of distance away I would not

4 really think that was the best use of my time to walk

5 through the snow in January in my dressy clothes. So

6 that is a concern I have. But I really feel that this

7 administrative building really could be included in

8 the sanctuary and I would like to hear your rationale

9 of why it cannot be included.

10 MR. PHAM: Okay. On your first

11 question about the classrooms, currently in the

12 sanctuary we already have some classrooms. We

13 recognize that the full buildout some classrooms may

14 not be enough to service this community. So that's

15 the reason why the administration building which would

16 serve for administrative purpose and classrooms to

17 this sanctuary. Why it cannot be put in there, simply

18 put, the site is limited in that there is a special

19 land use department you cannot put a building or

20 parking behind the 75 feet.

21 If you put the administration

22 building in there and with the necessary parking, this

23 site does not work. And, on an operational point of

24 view, we did not think that if, let's say, one person






1 was to be there on a Monday or Tuesday doing something

2 that you would fire up all 37,000 square feet, even if

3 you have different zones, for that facility.

4 And it's also a safety issue too. I

5 mean, when it's not in operation there so there can be

6 no vandalism occurring on the sanctuary property other

7 than going into the administration building. And

8 that's a big concern now in all the churches.

9 MEMBER PAUL: Well, I have to just

10 point out that St. James, Holy Family and the

11 Methodist Church on Eight and Taft, even though it's

12 not in the confines of the city, they have met their

13 maximum capacity and they all regret not having a

14 basement for a future site. If you had that you could

15 possibly have more classrooms that were down below and

16 possibly have an area for accommodations for a party

17 or a funeral, whatever may be needed in that area, but

18 I feel that this administrative building being

19 separate is really encroaching on Wetland A and I know

20 that some of the things you've done to eliminate the

21 parking and the gazebo have helped but not completely

22 erased all of the needs.

23 I have to clarify some things in

24 the parking. I looked at several areas and,






1 Ms. McBeth, this question would be for you. When I

2 look at occupancy we have 800 people as one and then

3 we have 792 as another for occupancy. What is the

4 number that we are using?

5 MS. MCBETH: We used the 800 number

6 the standard occupancy with the assumption that they

7 would be able to get 800 seats in that facility.

8 MEMBER PAUL: But the occupancy

9 limits itself to 792; is that correct?

10 MS. MCBETH: There was a reference on

11 one of the plans that did limit the occupancy to 792.

12 MEMBER PAUL: If we have 792 spaces,

13 that would give us a calculation for parking for 264

14 spaces instead of your 267. So there's three

15 eliminated. If we had the office that, to me, is

16 utilizing the same parking spaces. If the sanctuary

17 and the office were considered as one we could

18 possibly eliminate the other 32 spaces, but that would

19 bring us down to a total of 264 spaces, which really

20 changes the configuration of the site and we would

21 really have some issues alleviated with the buffer in

22 Wetland A. So that's an issue.

23 If I look at parking and just look at

24 264 spaces, they propose the 313, initially. They






1 subtracted 12 so there's still in excess of their

2 parking spaces. Even if they use the office space,

3 there would be 296. So they're in excess of five

4 spaces. So really and truly this is very unclear to

5 me with the occupancy, the pew space, multiplication

6 and now they were above their occupancy rate with or

7 without the office. What number do you want to go

8 with?

9 MS. MCBETH: We did comment in the

10 review letter that it was a little bit uncertain and

11 that we wanted to make sure that we had a firm number

12 at the time of final site plan review so we can

13 confirm there would be adequate number of parking to

14 meet the number of seats, number of seats that are

15 expected in that main area of worship.

16 MEMBER PAUL: I understand that we

17 have to have proper amount of spacing. Do you think

18 if we had the administrative building possibly, or the

19 offices that they're proposing, enclosed in the

20 sanctuary that we could eliminate the 32 spaces and

21 still have enough for the site?

22 MS. MCBETH: I think that it's up to

23 the discretion of the Planning Commission to take a

24 look at that and listen to the applicant and find out








1 what the different functions of the site are. The

2 ordinance states that the parking requirements are

3 based on the number of seats in that main area of

4 worship. It goes on to say that parking for accessory

5 uses can also be provided or should also be provided

6 if it's determined necessary by the City. So I think

7 that dialogue with the applicant to determine if those

8 spaces are necessary would be something that is within

9 the Planning Commission's purview.

10 MEMBER PAUL: I'm almost hesitant to

11 ask you the question because I feel like I'm not

12 getting complete answers.

13 But would you like to address the

14 parking?

15 MR. PHAM: Sure. I guess you're

16 asking the question can the building, administration

17 building be included in the main building so that it

18 can share parking to reduce 32 spaces?


20 MR. PHAM: So we can clarify the

21 question. It's not as simple as just enlarging the

22 building. It's just enlarging cost. There's only so

23 much money the congregation has to build the first

24 building the way it is budgeted and when there are






1 build out times to have more money build the

2 administration building. Right now there isn't enough

3 people to build a building with all offices all

4 together. That's why it's one building and another

5 building.

6 I mean, if they had more money and

7 the site was differently, maybe. But there's a site

8 issue. Because if you add the building, the overhead

9 could come on real quick.

10 If this building was to get bigger,

11 obviously, it would come out this way to the south or

12 bigger to the east. If that's the case that would

13 displace parking that having been made up somewhere as

14 well. We believe -- and I really do believe this --

15 that the parking minimum is a minimum and we know from

16 practice that a lot of people drive and that rather

17 than face the problem that, oh, meet your minimum and

18 we're going to have a parking problem where someone is

19 going to complain they're parking in a fire lane or

20 they're parking on the driveway and have them

21 ticketed,it's not a win/win situation-

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) I

23 think with all due respect you're going beyond her

24 answer. I mean, her question. She's basically asking






1 you a question.

2 MEMBER PAUL: What is your minimum

3 parking spaces? I can understand all of the things

4 you're saying.

5 MR. PHAM: For 800 people plus the

6 administration building.

7 MEMBER PAUL: Why does it say 792?

8 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I can answer that.

9 Is that based on taking a square footage of the

10 building and dividing it by the requirements of the

11 scheduled regulations and you end up getting "X"

12 amount of occupants?

13 MR. PHAM: Actually, may I continue,

14 please?

15 MS. MCBETH: Please.

16 MR. PHAM: It's more on your

17 ordinance of pews length and accommodating for all the

18 aisles in the sanctuary.

19 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Right. Typically

20 when buildings are designed you get an occupancy load

21 based on codes or whatever. Then, say you were

22 building an office building and it said you needed

23 1200 occupants and you had the design for that but you

24 know your business only has 200 people, you're going






1 to the City and request the parking for the amount of

2 people that you have. If you had something in this

3 case where it says 792 but you want to make sure that

4 you accommodate 800, you have to meet the minimum 792,

5 but if you have extra that's fine, but you have to be

6 able to accommodate for those extra if you know you're

7 going to add them.

8 So they're just rounding up the 792

9 to 800 based on the few counts and it's not -- the

10 eight people is not a big number is what I've seen in

11 the past.

12 MEMBER PAUL: I'm looking at the

13 site. You have a potential of half the congregation

14 coming to this church and you're looking between four

15 and 500. Say there's 400 people and you're proposing

16 an occupancy of 800, it's good to have future

17 development thoughts but I think that's a lot.

18 I think we have a very important

19 Wetland A and I would like to ask Ms. Kay to come

20 forward, please.

21 Ms. Kay, I have a lot of concern

22 with the buffer around Wetland A. When I read your

23 letter I really thought the detention basin in the

24 Wetland B area was a good proposal. Is there anyway






1 we could get all of your requirements met and not just

2 partial?

3 MS. KAY: Well, I mean, that's what

4 the applicant here needs to explain a little bit

5 further. I'm going to digress one time and I'll try

6 to finish your question. It's not too often that I

7 hear such a mischaracterization of what I have agreed

8 to and haven't agreed to as you read in the packet,

9 Commissioner Kocan. It does mischaracterize what I

10 have agreed to and not agreed to and it's a

11 disappointment to me that I have to come here and hear

12 about a letter that hasn't been sent to me ahead of

13 time. I'm not trying to chide the applicants. I did

14 not agree to that specifically.

15 I'm going to back up and tell you

16 what happened on our October 15th meeting with their

17 team to describe to me why -- you know, what kind of

18 changes could be made based on my October 10th

19 letter. And really I'm going to characterize the

20 meeting and, you know, they can mention if they feel

21 differently.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And slow down for

23 the court reporter.

24 MS. KAY: I asked for three things






1 basically at the meeting. They were very unhappy

2 with, obviously, with us not recommending approval and

3 I wanted to focus the meeting on what they could do.

4 All of the items I have requested for them to do were

5 in the letter and they felt that I focused too much on

6 the buffer. One of the reasons why I focused on the

7 buffer of the wetland is because it has absolutely

8 been providing treatments, storm water treatments for

9 this wetland. It is in essence actually acting as a

10 buffer and not all buffers do that for wetlands.

11 There is a thick vegetation. The

12 vegetation surrounding that is necessary to reduce

13 heat for post development, you know, if this project

14 goes through it is going to be necessary to keep every

15 square inch of this buffer. So I said that it was

16 very important and that's why I focused on it.

17 However, under the ordinance we do

18 look at redesigning whatever they submit if it looks

19 like they're options or other alternatives available

20 and I did ask them to look at the administration

21 building and ask them why couldn't they incorporate

22 that into their sanctuary and try to have some kind of

23 verbal understanding of -- you know, I don't know what

24 their church's needs are and I did hear them out. It






1 wasn't to my satisfaction because really the only

2 explanation I got that day was there was heating and

3 cooling costs. I'm not an architect. I'm not an

4 engineer. I only work with them and I do know that my

5 understanding was if they incorporated it it seems to

6 make more sense to build two separate buildings and

7 incorporate one small and I think it's roughly 2000

8 square feet into a much larger building.

9 Again, I gave them the opportunity to

10 put that in writing. Telling me that verbally is one

11 thing but I asked them to submit an alternative

12 analysis where I could see a blueprint with, you know,

13 alternative A, what they submit, alternate B

14 incorporating into a larger building and tell me why

15 that's cost prohibitive why that would be a hardship

16 and why that wouldn't function and that information

17 was the focus of my meeting. That's what I requested

18 of them and I haven't received that.

19 The other thing that I asked them for

20 at my meeting was some of the things we discussed and

21 some of the options and this is very typical of any

22 scenario where an applicant is unhappy with us not

23 recommending approval is that they're going to go to

24 the Planning Commission that is the forum where you






1 can discuss these issues and take -- if you're not

2 going to revise your plan and not going to submit any

3 additional information that's where they need to

4 discuss that.

5 Obviously, that's what we're doing

6 here this evening but short of them giving me

7 something in writing to feel more comfortable I could

8 not change my letter.

9 They did fax me this removal of 12

10 parking spaces and I believe that's why they sent this

11 letter this evening and the prior letter last evening

12 saying I was in agreement based on this revision.

13 They feel that that's a worthy revision and that's up

14 to all the commissioners this evening. My thinking

15 thus far is that I'm very happy with the 12 parking

16 spaces removal so I don't want to give anybody the

17 impression that I'm not. It is in an area of the

18 wetland, whether it is two tiny areas that jet out it

19 is going to reduce an area where they're going to keep

20 parking and sidewalk and other features away from the

21 other wetlands. So this is a plus. I'm not thinking

22 that that's enough at this point and I need something

23 a little more substantial than a verbal promise or

24 verbal agreement that's what can be done. And I'm






1 sorry for taking your time on that, but the buffer is

2 the specific question.

3 MEMBER PAUL: No, I appreciate it.

4 The buffer even with the 12 spaces alleviated do you

5 feel that there is any other way we can eliminate

6 anymore encroachment in the buffer of the wetlands?

7 MS. KAY: What I did is I took out my

8 scale the old fashioned way and I took a couple of

9 ways we can change this. As I saw it, if they remove

10 the administration building and incorporate it into

11 the sanctuary there was a lot more you can do with the

12 detention basin. You can refigure it.

13 As I understand based on the

14 engineer's comments addressed the reconfiguring the

15 basin as well and I think that we need to defer to the

16 applicants that are here this evening about storm

17 water pipes and things like that, but we can go over

18 to Wetland B, which is something that I mentioned in

19 my letter, because it is already not functioning as a

20 wetland. It's technically a wetland. It needs to be

21 restored and I advised them some area. They, you

22 know, at our meeting the engineer explained why that

23 could not be done. I still need to have proof

24 positive on a plan to show me that cannot be done.






1 Obviously, factoring into the 32 parking spaces but I

2 don't know if that is necessary, whether or not they

3 need that. It just seems to me that everything shifts

4 over to the other side and they will be almost

5 entirely out of the wetland.

6 But getting the detention, the major

7 detention basin out of the wetland on that

8 southwestern portion of the site they -- I mean, that

9 is for the most part a temporary, temporary impact but

10 that kind of temporary impact in essence is almost

11 permanent. Because when you bring the edge of fill or

12 edge of construction, the grating down to open water

13 portion of wetland it's practically known that you're

14 going to get some construction and once that happens

15 the sediments are never going to be out of that

16 system.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You said the

18 sediments as well?

19 MS. KAY: I'm sorry. Any

20 construction sediments that go into the water ponds

21 even if you were going to try to retrieve them

22 mechanically there's a lot of clay, clay content in

23 the soils, and once those get into the water they just

24 continue to be -- they're too fine to remove. So






1 that's a concern for us and it's not like we're trying

2 to jump the gun and accuse them of having some kind of

3 construction impact that may be preventable, but over

4 the years we have seen time and time again that if you

5 can keep that distance it really makes the difference

6 upon a long determine project.


8 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you. I agree

9 with you on the detention basin. If it can be

10 redesigned I would like to incorporate that in the

11 wetland and the overall capacity, I think, is very

12 important for that function to keep wetland clean and

13 keep it at its high integrity that it at this time.

14 Also I would like to ask you about

15 the water table. You made a comment about if you stay

16 away from the buffer we'll be able to keep the water

17 table at Wetland A in its current level. Are there

18 are some problems currently at Wetland A, some dead

19 trees and some problems there that I don't know and

20 you're concerned about the water level raising so

21 there will be more problems?

22 MS. KAY: I really wasn't concerned

23 that they were raising. I'm raising that as an issue

24 because it's been an issue for all developing






1 communities that have protected these regulated wooded

2 wetlands with trees around the frontage, meaning the

3 outer edge of the wetland boundary itself. What we

4 have seen is times where people don't consider beyond

5 the volume amount. What I was really concerned with

6 by the line is the amount of plans they're proposing

7 for the tree replacement if you want to touch on your

8 woodland consultant.

9 The only reason I want to mention the

10 trees is actually give them credit I wanted that to be

11 stated for the record that those trees around the

12 fringe that weren't there probably 10, 15 years are

13 already dead so whatever is gone on urban land use

14 wise had already happened. There's not going to be

15 anymore problems. Planting new trees in the buffer or

16 down too close could be a problem because you can't

17 replicate these changes so quickly in nature. So I

18 wouldn't want to see anything being planned too close

19 to the open water portion.

20 MEMBER PAUL: With the storm water

21 runoff on the parking lot and the roof line will that

22 possibly be a heating problem that the runoff would

23 create algae buildup in Wetland A because they're so

24 close?






1 MS. KAY: It could conceivably and

2 they need to look at that and there will be a final

3 site plan issued. Typically what we request is to

4 look at that and see if there is anything about a roof

5 top diversion. There are some things. But I was

6 actually more concerned with heating issues and such

7 as that there is an existing storm water discharge to

8 north -- the north end of Wetland A in the southwest

9 corner of the site "F". It's an existing storm water

10 discharge. It comes directly from untreated segments

11 and road surface. I still don't understand what

12 they're going to do with that. Because the plan

13 showed one thing and after talking to the engineers

14 and the storm water individual there is some confusion

15 about what they're going to do with that. Are they

16 going to keep that in its place or direct it. So I

17 would also be interested in hearing what they're going

18 to end up doing with that. Because continued direct

19 storm water discharge is unsafe from what I've seen.

20 Untreated is not going to help this wetland. That's

21 probably in part with some of the impact we've seen

22 with the trees in that area. So I would like to see

23 that rectified from the storm water management.

24 MEMBER PAUL: Is there any other






1 comments you would like to make for the record.

2 MS. KAY: No, that's it. I would

3 just generally say I wasn't happy with the changes

4 they've made and I would like to see changes made

5 further.

6 MEMBER PAUL: Thank you for your

7 explanation.

8 Mr. Khanh?

9 MR. PHAM: Yes. Pham.

10 MEMBER PAUL: I'll get it right. Can

11 you explain to me what your storm water treatment plan

12 is going to be after Aimee Kay's comment about the

13 untreated water?

14 MR. PHAM: Sure. Currently now all

15 of the runoff from Thirteen Mile is untreated into

16 Wetland A and in our initial submittal we had that

17 runoff redirected into our basin to be treated and

18 then released into Wetland A. However, through the

19 comments of the City engineer and your storm water

20 management plan, and that's where the confusion comes

21 in, we were asked to not let it treat into the basin

22 but reroute around the basins and then lead untreated

23 into Wetland A, but that's where I think Nancy needs

24 to clarify what the storm water requirements are






1 because we have only changed it because they asked us

2 to change it.

3 MEMBER PAUL: That would be a very

4 good question because I like Proposal A from them

5 better with the retention basin with the treated water

6 as opposed to up and around and over and through the

7 woods. I'm not sure what your explanation is.

8 MS. MCCLAIN: Well, one of the

9 requirements of our storm water ordinances is that

10 they do not have to detain water coming from off their

11 site and passing through a site to an area on the

12 site. It doesn't matter whether it is Seely Sanctuary

13 or anybody anywhere else in the city. If that water

14 is already flowing across there they are not required

15 to do additional detaining of that water.

16 In that light, when JCK did the

17 review of this and looking at the fact they didn't

18 have retain it and to actually eliminate some of the

19 size and the impact of the detention basins, which are

20 sized to hold a hundred year storm for the site, they

21 recommended that that be rerouted around. If you look

22 where it currently goes, it goes across the middle of

23 the site and across -- just to the east of their

24 western drive and goes down.






1 JCK was recommending that it be

2 routed around the side, the wetland side of the larger

3 detention basin and discharged over there. That's how

4 the water that is currently coming from the road and

5 going to the wetland and JCK is recommending that they

6 still route it through the wetland. One of the things

7 that they could do is bring it through their detention

8 basin and still allow that storm water to runoff. It

9 would be in addition to their requirement that they're

10 allowed to runoff. So they can size their pipes to

11 handle their hundred year runoff allowances plus

12 everything that comes through from the other side.

13 That was initially what you had suggested and JCK had

14 asked that they do it differently. Either one is

15 acceptable as far as the regulations go.

16 MEMBER PAUL: But I hear the proposal

17 for your section to go around the detention basin. It

18 sounds like you still have some untreated water that

19 will enter Wetland A and that doesn't make any sense

20 to me. If you have the opportunity and the applicant

21 is willing, sounds like the best solution would be to

22 put the untreated water into the detention basin,

23 allow for the larger capacity of water and then have

24 it discharged from there. Is that a correct






1 understanding?

2 MS. MCCLAIN: I don't disagree with

3 that. If they do end up routing it through their

4 system, it will be treated and, in effect, the volume

5 of water coming out the other end will be the same.

6 In a high volume situation, a large storm situation,

7 you're going to end up with approximately the same

8 type of flow through of water. There will be an

9 opportunity for sediments to settle out, but in the

10 low situations actually that would be better and that

11 would allow more sediment to settle out. Either way,

12 by our ordinance the way is acceptable and JCK made

13 the recommendation to them to continue, in effect what

14 they're doing. Just relocate -- I should say in

15 effect continue doing what we're doing because it's

16 coming from the roadway. It's not anything of the

17 applicants. Just in effect relocate where it's being

18 done at.

19 MEMBER PAUL: Mr. Pham, are you in

20 agreement with the first way you proposed it to have

21 the little bit larger capacity for the culverts to

22 filter the water in the detention basin?

23 MR. PHAM: For the first time tonight

24 I'm in agreement with you.







2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you write

3 that down.

4 MEMBER PAUL: I'm going to turn it

5 over to the commission at this time.


7 other commission members? Commissioner Papp?

8 MEMBER PAPP: Just a couple of

9 questions. We're looking at approving both the

10 sanctuary and the proposed administration building; is

11 that correct?

12 That's what we're proposing; is that

13 correct?

14 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.

15 MEMBER PAPP: The administration

16 building is 7,200 square feet?

17 MR. PHAM: That's correct, two

18 stories.

19 MEMBER PAPP: And the letter that's

20 before me says there's operational problems with

21 combining the main building with the administration

22 building because of the heating and cooling?

23 MR. PHAM: That's one of the many

24 reasons that's correct.






1 MEMBER PAPP: And the heating and

2 cooling problem is if people are working in this

3 building you don't want to heat the entire 29,000

4 square foot sanctuary?

5 MR. PHAM: Yes. It can be addressed

6 with different phases of the site but, like I said

7 before with Commissioner Paul, it's also a security

8 issue that we're opening up a whole facility when

9 there is only one or two people that need access to

10 the building. That's the reason why currently right

11 now there isn't a need, but when they're at buildup

12 there is a separate building.

13 MEMBER PAPP: But they could have a

14 separate entrance if they added it to the main

15 sanctuary. They wouldn't have to open up the entire

16 building they could open a wing of the building.

17 MR. PHAM: Yes, you can, but there

18 is also a design issue. Like I tried to explain, you

19 can't just squeeze 7,200 square feet into this

20 footprint. It has to grow somewhere and that's

21 something that would take additional parking to

22 accommodate for that growth and also right now there

23 isn't a need for that building until there is more

24 residents. So we're going to build this all one big






1 building to not really use it just yet.

2 MEMBER PAPP: So if we approve this

3 as part of our plan this may be built five years from

4 now, ten years from now?

5 MR. PHAM: It would probably be built

6 four years.

7 Because the sanctuary can handle all

8 the work that needs to be done right now, but when it

9 can't that's when this building will be built. Right

10 after more people arrive on the site.

11 If you notice in the floor plan, I'm

12 sorry to be verbose, but there are only two offices in

13 that building.

14 MEMBER PAPP: In the administration

15 building?

16 MR. PHAM: No. In the sanctuary.

17 MEMBER PAPP: The administration

18 building is going to be 80 feet by 80 feet or 85 or

19 something like that?

20 MR. PHAM: Approximately.

21 MEMBER PAPP: Not a very big

22 building.

23 MR. PHAM: No, it's not.

24 MEMBER PAPP: I just figure there






1 should be a way that you should be able to combine

2 this in that sanctuary. It's not a very big

3 building. It's not a very big building plus it's so

4 far away from the sanctuary and, like they said, when

5 you get into the winter conditions you have here

6 you're going to walk from the administration building

7 to the sanctuary?

8 MR. PHAM: No. I think they would

9 drive.

10 MEMBER PAPP: They would drive?

11 MR. PHAM: No. I think that's the

12 standard everybody does today.

13 MEMBER PAPP: I have no further

14 questions today.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan?

16 MEMBER KOCAN: Let me continue

17 there. Because if you're asking us to approve the

18 administration -- well, number one first thing you

19 said it may be four years away. Question to the City,

20 if we approve a site plan would they have to get

21 extensions for every year that they don't start that

22 phase or is it considered a phase as opposed to a site

23 plan?

24 MR. EVANCOE: I'm going to maybe ask






1 Barbara too because she spent more time on this, but I

2 think it would be regarded as a phase. So I feel that

3 if construction began on Phase I, which is the

4 sanctuary, I don't think that the extensions would be

5 required.

6 MS. MCBETH: Thank you. I did have a

7 conversation with Mr. Pham myself between ourselves

8 and we were concerned because it said future building

9 on there. He had assured us that by the time they

10 were completing the work with the main sanctuary

11 building the other building would be either ready to

12 start or would soon be ready to start and as long as

13 there is an open building permit on a property they

14 would be allowed to continue. They wouldn't need to

15 keep coming back for site plan expansions as long as

16 there was an open building permit.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: With regards to that

18 administration building the four foot green

19 landscaping that's supposed to go around the building,

20 that does not show up on the landscape plan. Is that

21 not required?

22 There is no plan of what's going

23 inside that building in this packet there is -- it's

24 right up against the detention basin. I don't see it






1 separated from it at all. I can't approve the

2 administration building as part of this plan and my

3 concern is if you have a plan that you want to put a

4 future administration building on and we allow you to

5 build the sanctuary, now it's going to come back as a

6 hardship that we have to have the administration

7 building or we're going to, you know, end up

8 infringing on other things. This administration

9 building in my opinion is not ready to be approved

10 based on the plans we have in front of us.

11 MR. PHAM: I think the purpose of

12 being here is for the sanctuary. If the

13 administration building does not have adequate plans

14 to gain approval, then I think we would come back for

15 that at a later time. If you'd need more detail or

16 more understanding that there is a need. Because

17 right now I think there is a shortage of why we need

18 that extra building and we would accept the approval

19 of the sanctuary and then when the administration

20 building would be needed.

21 MEMBER KOCAN: My point is I'm not

22 willing to do that because you're going to push us

23 against the wall and say now it's a hardship that we

24 have to have this administration building. We told






1 you we're going to have one. I'm anticipating a

2 problem. So if I'm going to approve a whole concept I

3 want everything there.

4 Let me move on. With regards to

5 buffers and parking setbacks I want to know that the

6 parking setback on the south and east side -- my notes

7 says it's we only have a 35 foot setback and we're not

8 proposing berming; is that correct?

9 MS. MCBETH: A 35 foot setback for

10 the parking lot is required and I believe it's

11 provided on all sides. They were not proposing a berm

12 around the entire property and I believe that maybe

13 Mike McGinnis can answer some questions about that.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: Because it says there

15 are already some trees there that could possibly be a

16 buffer but 35 feet of trees in my opinion is not a

17 buffer. It's not a noise barriers unless you have

18 150 feet of trees it provides no noise attenuation.

19 So I'm concerned. And I guess I need to hear more

20 about how dense the trees are. Do we propose

21 additional plantings there, whatever.

22 There's also if you can address, I

23 know it was done in the presentation but that was

24 quite awhile ago, the berm and the wall requirements






1 that are being proposed and not being proposed.

2 MR. MCGINNIS: There is a -- since

3 it's RA with special land use and it's applying RA


4 zoning it does go into the requirement for a berm

5 around the perimeter and the right of way berm along

6 Thirteen Mile. However, there are existing trees and

7 shrubs around the perimeter of the site and in order

8 to -- if we put the buffer in there we would be

9 infringing on the woodlands requirement. Or the

10 woodlands would be difficult to save the trees. So we

11 could propose a wall but for the same reason, you

12 know, we're not proposing the wall because of the

13 existing woodlands. I did mention in the chart that

14 the additional buffering landscape may be required and

15 the applicant has indicated that once the boundaries

16 are established and we evaluate the trees, that we can

17 go in with additional buffering planting when it's

18 required.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: So you're saying that

20 there's actually woodlands around the outside like on

21 the east and south side?

22 MR. MCGINNIS: Yes, that's correct.

23 And our woodlands person can address that too.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: When I look at L-1,






1 there's considerable spacing between the trees and I

2 apologize I didn't get out to walk around the site to

3 look. So I do get concerned about the buffering.

4 Just as a general comment, my

5 concerns are overbuilding the site. I do commend the

6 developer for the noise analysis and I think that if

7 the Planning Commission read the curriculum vitae for

8 this noise analyst they will see a considerable

9 difference between this background and one of the

10 industrial hygienist who does the noise analysis. So

11 I just wanted to point that out. I appreciate the

12 noise analysis.

13 I'm uncomfortable with approving this

14 plan when it's not complete. There's handicapped

15 parking that needs to be rectified. There's the

16 overhang that requires a variance. The biggest

17 variance is the driveway spacing issue. If one was an

18 office building and one was a church, I wouldn't have

19 as much problem with that because you have two

20 different kinds of operation but in this particular

21 instance you have the exact same type of operation

22 which creates a big problem. I want berms where you

23 can put berms and that's all I'm going to say for

24 right now. Thank you.






1 MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Madame.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner.

3 Shroyer?

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you, Madame

5 Chair. I'll start out the same way I did the last

6 public hearing. I love the building. Looks great.

7 And there's a but in there as a well.

8 First question I have is to the City

9 and I'm not sure who to address it to so I'll start

10 with Mr. Evancoe and he can pass it on. In regard to

11 special land use, which is one of the things under

12 consideration, one of the requirements is that no

13 parking is permitted in a front yard under section

14 402.1, I believe. What exactly constitutes a front

15 yard? I'm having trouble determining the front yard

16 in this plan.

17 MR. EVANCOE: And I would like to ask

18 Barbara to answer that, please.

19 MS. MCBETH: Thank you. It would be

20 the area between the closest point of the building to

21 Thirteen Mile Road. So the point of the building, the

22 north point of the building, and the right of way line

23 would constitute the front yard in this situation.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: And we have two






1 buildings?

2 MS. MCBETH: We have two buildings,

3 that's correct.


5 administration building there's no parking north of

6 the closest point to that building; however, on the

7 sanctuary there is parking to the north of the

8 northern most point of that building. So my

9 interpretation is that there is parking in the front

10 lawn which creates problems with special land use. Am

11 I misinterpreting this?

12 MS. MCBETH: I'm not sure. Have you

13 identified the parking spaces or the driveways?

14 MEMBER SHROYER: Spaces. Just below

15 Wetland C the parking spaces on the north side is

16 north of the northern most point.

17 MS. MCBETH: Right. Yes, I see what

18 we did. We discussed this at the preapplication

19 meeting and because you'll note that the property line

20 varies along Thirteen Mile Road, they've taken some

21 additional land for right of way and I keep stepping

22 back and stepping back. We believe it is a fair

23 interpretation of the ordinance to call the front yard

24 setback where the building meets the right of way line






1 at that point and not to just continue to take the

2 widest point of the right of way as the front yard.

3 We considered it a fair interpretation to say that it

4 meets the requirement because of where the main

5 sanctuary building was located and the rest of the

6 park falls outside of that line.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Could you come up

8 front so everybody can understand what you just said.

9 We've restricted it before and that's

10 a real concern of mine and also I don't want to set a

11 precedent for the future consideration is the reason

12 I'm bringing it up.

13 MS. MCBETH: Yes. And this could be

14 something that the Planning Commission could interpret

15 as well. We had to apply an interpretation that we

16 thought was reasonable in this situation and I'll tell

17 you what the situation was that we applied. The trees

18 on this plan are nice but they kind of block the view

19 of what I'm trying to point at. This is the right of

20 way line closest to the main sanctuary building, this

21 point right here, and it does meet the setback

22 requirement there. If you go on this side of the

23 driveway you can see that the property line steps back

24 because on Thirteen Mile Road the right of way is not






1 quite so wide at that point.

2 What we did was we took the building

3 setback at this point and determined that that would

4 be the front yard setback as we considered it and as

5 the property continues over here, the parking that's

6 in this location does not actually fall within the

7 front yard area. That was the interpretation that we

8 made.

9 We did ask them at the time, however,

10 to eliminate a few spaces that were located over in

11 this vicinity because as you can see the road gets

12 slightly wider here again. We thought to apply a fair

13 standard we would ask them to eliminate those spaces

14 in this area and they would be acceptable to put the

15 spaces in this area at this site.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you.

17 MS. MCBETH: That's clarified?

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes. And that's the

19 City's interpretation and recommendation. So now I'm

20 going to turn to legal counsel and ask if we as a City

21 are permitted to interpret something that way which is

22 opposite what our ordinance says? Or not opposite.

23 MS. SIMON: I was discussing a plan

24 with Mr. Schmidt over here. But I think the ordinance






1 should be interpreted the way that a normal person

2 would understand the ordinance.

3 MEMBER SHROYER: That's flexible

4 enough and we can make an interpretation?

5 MS. SIMON: Right.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: So that does not

7 prohibit us from approving a special land use on

8 that. Thank you.

9 The next question I have goes to our

10 woodlands expert. So if you would please step

11 forward.

12 Help me with interpreting the

13 written verbiage regarding the removal of four and

14 three quarter acres of woodlands while preserving

15 13 percent. It seems way out of proportion and I need

16 a better understanding of this.

17 MS. GREHL: In answer to your

18 question, I guess I could've put an 87 percent as

19 being removed but instead I guess I was trying to

20 soften the severity of it.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Don't soften it.

22 Tell it like it is.

23 MS. GREHL: And it truly is. And

24 that's rough calculations. That's why I did request






1 in my review for them to have accurate established

2 woodlands and how much they're taking out, but that

3 was for my calculations.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: So you're saying

5 that 87 percent of the woodlands would be removed from

6 this property and we're only going to retain 13

7 percent under the current site plan?

8 MS. GREHL: Yeah.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: What is the quality

10 of the woodlands being removed?

11 MS. GREHL: They're kind of marginal,

12 kind of what you would find with a lot of surrounding

13 wetlands. The trees are primarily walnuts. So there

14 isn't any -- oh, there's a few on the north side.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're having a

16 hard time hearing you. If you could speak loudly.

17 MR. EVANCOE: You were describing

18 some of the species that you found in the woodlands

19 that are proposed to be removed and I think the

20 question has to deal with what your opinion is of the

21 quality of the woodlands that are proposed to be

22 removed.

23 MS. GREHL: My opinion is that

24 they're not wonderful. My true opinion is I'm not the






1 wetlands expert but it's awesome, that wetlands area,

2 and I would rather see that protected as much as

3 humanly possible, being the primary, you know,

4 environmental thing.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: When I walked the

6 property I didn't see any what I would consider

7 outstanding species as well, but I'm not an expert so

8 I wanted to get your opinion on record.

9 Also, somewhere in the verbiage it

10 indicated that the replacement requirements are not

11 being met. Has that been revisited and discussed with

12 the applicant?

13 MS. GREHL: The number of

14 replacements are not being met?


16 MS. GREHL: That's true and we

17 haven't ironed out the details yet. But since it's

18 being presented under a Singh Development and they

19 have other developments in the city it's an ordinance

20 that if they can't fulfill all the ordinances on that

21 site they can use a different site. Right now I think

22 they need something like 550 and they're only

23 proposing like 200 so they only need 350.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: And I believe






1 Ms. Kay said we wouldn't be -- it would not be good to

2 plant trees in the buffer area of Wetland A because of

3 potential water damage, et cetera.

4 Right, did I interpret that

5 correctly?

6 MS. KAY: Anything at the upper edge

7 is going to be fine.

8 MR. EVANCOE: If it's okay to save

9 time I think I can clarify and, Aimee, please tell me

10 if I don't say this right. But I believe they did

11 indicate as you've indicated, Commissioner Shroyer,

12 close to the water's edge within the buffer would not

13 be advisable because of the little bit of

14 unpredictability about water level fluctuation, but I

15 think what she has indicated that higher up within the

16 25 foot buffer probably would be acceptable for

17 plantings.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. The last

19 two comments I had or questions I had is regarded back

20 to the traffic situation. Because I fully agree with

21 commissioner Ruyle that I think we have a major

22 concern with the traffic flow especially on Sunday

23 morning. And there is the concern about the left turn

24 situation and the clogging aspects.






1 I do know with the proposed drives

2 there's egresses and ingresses and I also note that we

3 had not widened the road the entire length of the

4 property, which I know is not a requirement. So my

5 question to the City would be would that help

6 alleviate the traffic situation if we did have a full

7 width the length of that property? That's question

8 one if you can address that please, Ms. McClain.

9 MS. MCCLAIN: That wouldn't

10 particularly help address the situation because where

11 the turning situation is at it's people who are

12 traveling down Thirteen Mile and merging into that

13 continuous left-turn lane to make their appropriate

14 left turn. And in that center area, which is going to

15 be provided, is where the conflicts occur.

16 If this was going to be strictly a

17 two lane roadway and there wasn't a provided left-turn

18 lane, it would help to add the left-turn lane to help

19 eliminate conflicts and eliminate backups. Once we

20 have that lane in the additional road widening does

21 not particularly help that situation.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: And as a follow-up

23 to a question that I asked regarding the Brightmoor

24 property, what is the timetable for the widening of






1 the Thirteen Mile road?

2 MS. MCCLAIN: The widening going into

3 New Life drive has already been constructed. The

4 widening around Fox Run is to be done this coming

5 construction season during the summer in 2003.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: And last question

7 regarding that, is there a proposal for additional

8 traffic lights anywhere along this property?

9 MS. MCCLAIN: I believe there's a

10 proposal for one at the New Life drive. Seely

11 Sanctuary in itself would not be providing enough

12 traffic to require a light. At the time that New Life

13 drive would serve in addition to the church in the

14 development back behind it and/or a connection up to

15 Fourteen Mile Road. At that point a traffic signal

16 may be required to handle the turning traffic.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: And there's no

18 possibility of aligning the major entrance to this

19 development with Fox Run's?

20 MS. MCCLAIN: I think I'll let Khanh

21 start?

22 MR. PHAM: If I may, during the

23 preapplication process we met Rod Arroyo and Bill

24 Stimpson.






1 We met with them as part of the

2 preapplication process and those concerns were

3 addressed so we went ahead and did a traffic study.

4 According to the requirements of Bill Stimpson

5 factoring in that some day New Life drive will have

6 the capacity to have a light. So that those issues

7 were factored in so when we did our site plan, we

8 actually had a site plan which the driveway had to be

9 removed for safety purposes to its current location

10 which at no point can we avoid not asking for a waiver

11 because of the existence of Fox run's drive.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

13 Mr. Pham.

14 The only other comments I have is I

15 share with Commissioner Kocan the concerns of

16 approving a plan that is not in my opinion complete

17 regarding landscaping and other issues. So right now

18 at this point I'm very hesitant to move forward and

19 with that I'll give up the floor, Madame Chair.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

21 Markham?

22 MEMBER MARKHAM: I don't have a lot

23 to add. I concur with many of the comments that have

24 been stated tonight. I do have a couple of points.






1 One is the City attorney's comment that a normal

2 person, what a normal person would be and the

3 interpretation of what's in the ordinance. I think

4 I'm fairly normal and I think those parking spaces are

5 in the front yard. You know, you see them from the

6 street. To me that's the front yard, but the

7 Brightmoor church that's across the street also has

8 parking in the front yard and I would have a question

9 does anybody remember whether they received a waiver?

10 MR. EVANCOE: A ZBA waiver.

11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. Well, that

12 explains it.

13 Mr. Pham, you have made reference

14 several times tonight that this is a little different

15 religion. I just am curious as to what religion.

16 MR. PHAM: It's a Hindu with a

17 Buddhist type religion that's more of a Unitarian that

18 respects more service versus an entity and it serves

19 the Indian community.

20 MEMBER MARKHAM: Do they meet

21 somewhere else in the Novi area at this time?

22 MR. PHAM: No, they do not.

23 MEMBER MARKHAM: So this is a new

24 congregation we're talking about.






1 There were some photos that were

2 referenced in the wetlands letter that I never saw any

3 copies of and I wondered why we didn't get at least

4 some black and white Xeroxes of those.

5 Aimee, you're so good. It's okay. I

6 don't necessarily need to see them at this point. My

7 question was more administrative.

8 MR. EVANCOE: I don't think I've seen

9 these before either but I certainly would obviously

10 have tried to pass those on to you if we had them I

11 don't think we had them, but I will certainly show

12 them to you now. We apologize.

13 MEMBER MARKHAM: They were probably

14 in an attachment somewhere.

15 I too cannot support the

16 administration building as a separate entity at this

17 time because of the uncertainty. Many times

18 developments have come back to us with big changes

19 three, four years down the road and I'm very reluctant

20 to approve something that we don't know -- that we're

21 thinking is probably not going to be built four or

22 five years. So I just can't support that aspect of

23 this plan at this time.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Sprague?






1 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Thank you. Just one

2 question. Is there going to be any alternate uses

3 rather than just worship on Sunday? Some churches are

4 fairly active during the week and evenings for

5 concerts or anything like that or is it really a

6 Sunday-

7 MR. PHAM: (Interposing) It's just a

8 Sunday.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what, you

10 let him finish the question and then you can answer.

11 We have a court reporter and she's a human being.

12 She's not a machine.

13 MEMBER SPRAGUE: I'm done.

14 MR. PHAM: And I apologize. Because

15 of the focus of this congregation is to more serve

16 versus do anything else. They do it only on Sunday.

17 So as part of our traffic study we had to diagram what

18 other activities could or would occur throughout the

19 week that could potentially cause a conflict and our

20 answer is there would be none. Only on Sunday.

21 MEMBER SPRAGUE: So other than the

22 administration building or the offices in the

23 sanctuary nobody would be there the other six days of

24 the week?






1 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

2 MEMBER SPRAGUE: And I have the same

3 concerns that the rest of the commission has voiced.

4 My primary concern is the wetland issue are not

5 addressed to our satisfaction and I will not support

6 them in the plan. Thank you.


8 Have you spoken, Mr. Avdoulos?


10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll go to

11 Mr. Avdoulos. You don't mind, do you, Mr. Ruyle?

12 MEMBER RUYLE: I'm going to be here

13 tonight anyway.

14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: The sanctuary, I'm

15 going to start with that. I agree with Commissioner

16 Shroyer. I think the design that has been developed

17 is admirable. It is something that's very simple and

18 blends in with the residential character. The siting

19 of the sanctuary is set up nicely to take advantage of

20 its proximity to the wetland. The congregants on the

21 inside can look out beyond the altar behind it. And

22 also the people in the multipurpose room in the lower

23 level can also look down into the wetland itself.

24 The issue with one of the variances






1 requested for the front yards building setback

2 encroachment and I think it was item two, building

3 setbacks, that the overhang extends past the building

4 setback line. Doing a little sketch I think the

5 building can easily be rotated. I think it's on a

6 45 degree angle but it can be rotated to the eliminate

7 that. So I'm not even concerned with that.

8 The concern I had initially after

9 reading everything is the wetlands. I know there's

10 discussion on the wetland and we'll look at getting --

11 trying to resolve those issues.

12 My main concern, too, and I had it as

13 a question here is about this administration building.

14 Being part of a church group myself I can

15 understand -- I actually understood why there was a

16 separate building. If you have a board meeting on a

17 Tuesday night instead of going into the church or

18 sanctuary or temple and occupying a space there this

19 building being smaller can occupy the same activities

20 with less operational use and it can be done during

21 the week very easily, easy to maintain. However

22 because it's not a part of the sanctuary, it's a

23 separate entity, and I know it can be determined as an

24 accessory use or ancillary use to the building it's






1 not fully defined. We do have some elevation sketches

2 and along with those sketches were a box plan that

3 indicated, you know, possible office space and some

4 areas for bathrooms and elevator and two stairwells.

5 And that's it. So we have what I call like a spec

6 tenant office building. And that's the way I read it.

7 I guess the concern is that we can

8 approve this and then at a later date the applicant

9 can come in and say, you know, we want to change this

10 into maybe like a childcare facility. Which a lot of

11 churches do. They have wings that are attached to the

12 church. They convert their classrooms into facilities

13 that they can rent out as part of the fundraising

14 effort. The issue is that if we just focus on the

15 sanctuary, I think this project has a good opportunity

16 to advance; however, there's still parking that's

17 going to be required up front. If you knock off the

18 32 spaces that's required for the administration

19 building we're still going to require spaces up front

20 to accommodate the sanctuary at some amount of spaces.

21 It almost feels like we have a site.

22 We've got a wetland. We've got a design that's sort

23 of working with the wetland but again it's almost like

24 we're shoehorning and trying to squeeze a lot of stuff






1 and the only way to get this future administration

2 building or the extra spaces that the church may be

3 anticipating or that the sanctuary may be anticipating

4 in the future is to create a separate building or spot

5 for a separate building. But I think as all the other

6 planning commissioners indicated we're very

7 uncomfortable.


9 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Except -- what I've

10 heard so far. And, you know, unless the use is more

11 defined and a little bit more attached to the

12 sanctuary, maybe not physically but descriptively and

13 in a little better idea what it is going to be used

14 for I think that's where the issues lie.

15 The one question I did have for our

16 wetland consultant is there was a question on

17 hydrology absorption and I guess my question is is

18 that indicating -- where's she at?

19 I guess my question is with regard

20 to hydrology absorption does that indicate the

21 rerouting and not enough water going into the

22 wetland?

23 I didn't understand that terminology

24 and I wanted to make sure that whatever is being






1 developed is not cutting off, you know, any water

2 that's being fed here. I understand the idea of

3 taking storm water and running it in to supplement and

4 rejuvenate the wetland, but I was trying to figure out

5 what that particular item meant.

6 MS. KAY: I'm trying to think where

7 that is mentioned in my letter. On page 3, storm

8 water management commentary. Regardless, I can answer

9 in general.


11 MS. KAY: That's what I figured it

12 was regarding. In general, post development and how I

13 perceive this project, you know, whether or not the

14 administration building is adjoined with the

15 sanctuary, I don't perceive a problem necessarily with

16 increased water levels at all. What we're usually

17 trying to attend to or alleviate and minimize, you

18 know, parking just land uses and anything that we can

19 perceive from our site investigation and historical

20 documentation whether or not what the current

21 conditions of the wetland and how we perceive those

22 developments would be. That's why we raise the issue

23 of the storm water, the existing storm water

24 discharge. That is direct. Sometimes people say the






1 word direct and it can be 60 feet away because, we

2 know the surface flows, but this outfall is at the

3 water edge. So that was one of the things I really

4 wanted to see directed. Because there's been some

5 commentary this evening from your City engineer when

6 she was referring to JCK wanted this and that, that

7 was JCK engineers. I wanted to preface that. I did

8 have discussions with our JCK engineer as it wasn't

9 that we had a necessary disagreement but there are

10 conflicting interpretations with the storm water and

11 all I'm trying to achieve under your ordinance is that

12 we get any storm water going to this wetland treated.

13 And I think you can achieve that easily by

14 reconfiguring the detention basin. So I think that

15 will be attempted as well. And that was just open

16 commentary in the letter so people will understand

17 this is under the new storm water ordinance and we

18 wanted to put those items verbatim and they're just as

19 a reminder for discussions.

20 So does that satisfy your question?

21 MR. AVDOULOS: Yeah. And that is

22 what was indicated on your note here that hydrology of

23 storm water runoff, but that was from the storm

24 management.






1 MS. KAY: Yes. And the applicant did

2 mention that, obviously, all the storm water from the

3 parking surface is going to be directed into the

4 detention basin systems.

5 MR. AVDOULOS: And then rerouted.

6 MS. KAY: Correct. So there are

7 things that they can do and that is going to be

8 helpful and we just wanted to iron out issues

9 pertaining in proximity in any structure to the


10 retaining wall. I think that's going to be a

11 difficult issue during construction. We took some

12 measurements and I see that at this point that it can

13 be inconceivable to work from the one side back. So

14 we want to see that ironed out as well.

15 MEMBER AVDOULOS: So all in all the

16 wetland in your opinion is very important and

17 ultimately important, important consideration for this

18 project?

19 MS. KAY: Yes. That's why we focused

20 on Wetland A. It's a large body of surface water. It

21 basically -- it's at its equilibrium and in effect it

22 could -- I can never say that the water levels won't

23 be raised but there was historical information in our

24 files to indicate that enough land use changes






1 happened in the last 10, 12 years to have us concerned

2 where inlets are, where outlets are going and things

3 like that and fortunately for you you have new storm

4 water and hopefully people can iron out those

5 conflicting bits of information.

6 MEMBER AVDOULOS: All right. I thank

7 you.

8 I think that as I indicated before

9 that that the sanctuary is fine where it is. I think

10 it's sited well. I think the administration building

11 is not only causing a point of concern but it's also

12 creating an impact on the very important environmental

13 feature and for that I'm not ready to support the

14 project until we know there's further revisions in the

15 plan and further development at least to satisfy the

16 concerns with the wetland and to lessen the impact on

17 the site in this area of the wetlands of this site.

18 Thank you.


20 MR. RUYLE: Thank you, Madame Chair,

21 for allowing me a few more comments. First of all, I

22 guess I'm a committee of one again on the commission

23 here because I don't agree with the nonphase issue as

24 Mr. Evancoe has pointed out and the developers pointed






1 out. We have approved many plans where there is

2 phases and this is what this is here. In saying that,

3 I'm going to ask you a blunt question. Earlier in the

4 evening you started to make a statement that you would

5 remove the administration building out of these

6 plans. And if you would do that, and you can only do

7 it, we can't do it, I think you would have your

8 project. I will vote with you. I have no problem

9 with that but you're going -- the way I read it you're

10 going to have an eight to one vote. So I think it

11 would behoove you to remove that out of your plans and

12 then just go put the sanctuary in as such now and come

13 back with the other building. Thank you, Madame

14 Chairperson.

15 You can respond to that if you would

16 like to.

17 MR. PHAM: Thank you. I really think

18 in the best interest of making this meeting shorter, I

19 agree with you, Commissioner Ruyle. We would remove

20 the administration building so that we can get the

21 sanctuary approved, work more diligently with the

22 wetlands consultant and staff to demonstrate minimal

23 impact to the environment and if you so deem in the

24 future to accept the administration building then






1 we'll bring it forward for approval at that time.

2 MR. RUYLE: So what you're saying is

3 you are removing it?

4 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

5 MR. RUYLE: That's for the record?

6 MR. PHAM: That's for the record.

7 MR. RUYLE: Thank you, Madame Chair.


9 would like to put my comments on the record. With or

10 without the administration building I'm not able to

11 support this project. I believe that there are way

12 too many variances with this project. I have grave

13 concerns because I didn't get a clear understanding of

14 whether or not this meets our new storm water

15 management ordinance and the answer is simple but yes?

16 MS. MCCLAIN: (Nods.)

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The second

18 concern I have is I found Ms. Kay's wetland review

19 excellent. I was able to follow it very clearly. I

20 have grave concerns about the impact that this would

21 have on this environmental feature and I happen to

22 believe that the changes in that area are quite

23 extensive. I have grave concerns about the traffic

24 and also the planning -- rather the Master Plan






1 committee approved a new Master Plan change which

2 would allow residential behind Brightmoor Church.

3 That will add more traffic on an already overused --

4 or rather overloaded road.

5 I am also concerned about the

6 Planning Commission waiver that they would like to

7 eliminate the wall on the east, west and south

8 property lines contain woodlands. I wasn't getting a

9 clear understanding about the quality of the

10 woodlands. I assume the quality was low.

11 MS. MCCLAIN: Yes.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, the woodlands

13 person said yes. I'm still not totally clear on the

14 parking. I'm really concerned about the outfall of

15 the water edge. I, basically, am concerned also that

16 there was not a written response to Ms. Kay from your

17 -- what was it, wetlands expert?

18 I would like whatever agreement they

19 have to be in written form to the commission. And the

20 other thing I'm concerned about is some of these items

21 in here that I'd like to know who is responsible. In

22 Wetland B there is sediments on the surface that need

23 to be removed to regain its original grade elevations

24 and storm water detention capabilities.






1 Mr. Evancoe, who is responsible for

2 the removal of that debris?

3 MR. EVANCOE: I would say that the

4 owner of the property is.


6 Ms. Kay, if you can please come

7 forwards.

8 And it is late. Talk slow.

9 MS. KAY: I don't usually interject

10 at this point but I did look into that because we were

11 considering, you know, is this one of those situations

12 where we want to pursue a violation, and we did not.

13 And the reason is because It gets pretty expensive and

14 different utility expansion projects that have been

15 going on. The project across the street adjacently in

16 use on the west, northwest side of this property where

17 that wetland is located because it would be

18 considered, you know, fill from perhaps the

19 residential property. There's been extensive --

20 there's been a sidewalk constructed?


22 MS. KAY: Recently, in the last year.

23 There's been underground utility constructed in the

24 last two or three years and that's in addition to






1 years prior other construction improvements of

2 roadside.

3 So it was actually -- we could not

4 determine where all the fill came from. We believe

5 it's probably a combination of most of the utilities

6 and some of the sidewalk construction. And some of

7 that was the Road Commission work and some of it

8 wasn't independent of the City of Novi. So it was too

9 hard to go through all those channels and figure it

10 out because the wetland is so small. So the easiest

11 and most cost effective thing would be not to really

12 put it back on the property owner because they don't

13 live on the property.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I understand that,

15 but I guess what I'm concerned about is in your letter

16 you are indicating that wetland area B, which is

17 already not functioning due to its severely degraded

18 condition, I am concerned about why are these areas

19 within our city in this condition? I understand that

20 you can't answer the question to whose responsibility

21 of the cleanup is.

22 I would like to ask in your wetland

23 review you talked about the storm water management and

24 sections 12 through 181. Unfortunately, I do not have






1 the ordinance with me. But with some of the changes

2 that we proposed, do you feel that it would meet from

3 a wetlands perspective storm management ordinance in

4 the sections D, E, H, I, J, all of those comments,

5 that you made, would they be meeting the ordinance

6 with whatever changes?

7 MS. KAY: And that's why I broke it

8 down in this letter so you can see it and our remarks

9 in bold was some brief commentary and perhaps I could

10 elaborate and so I'll elaborate now.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. If you would

12 like to take us through the review you may.

13 MS. KAY: Okay. I can just say yes

14 or no.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You may elaborate

16 but I just want to be clear on this. Go ahead and

17 elaborate and just do it slowly.

18 MS. KAY: With regard to Letter B,

19 the storm water management section 12-181 it states,

20 "To assure the storm water runoff from developments is

21 controlled so that the water quality and water forces

22 ground water recharged by storm water and habitats

23 situated in areas impacted by storm water are

24 protected."






1 My remark in the letter reads, "The

2 buffer around Wetland A maintains the water quality

3 and needs to be preserved." And I should have added

4 in it's entirety in this case. In as much as truly

5 feasible and reasonable. And that was why I focused

6 on that.

7 With regard to "E" I won't read

8 that, but I wanted to mention that the trees were

9 already dead. For the sake of in the future, for the

10 record, people didn't think that this development

11 caused the existing trees to have died. For that

12 reason it's just noteworthy. It tells you something

13 about that system, that it used to have peripheral

14 trees and now they're all dead.

15 So moving on to "H". To promote the

16 avoidance of degradation of water resources by

17 reducing and/or avoiding impacts on hydrology external

18 lines. I remarked redesign site plans to eliminate

19 the buffer and I should have added impacts not

20 eliminate the buffer but I assumed that people would

21 know I meant eliminate the buffer impacts. Again,

22 that would achieve that part of the storm water

23 ordinance.

24 "I" and "J" basically we believe that






1 anything that we mention in this letter as far as

2 redesign and all the alternatives that would be

3 recommended would achieve the other two items and so

4 thus far that's why we made the commentary in the

5 letter.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have one more

7 question on the proposed impacts. I mean, obviously,

8 there's quite a few, but construction of centilevered

9 deck of over 34 feet of wetland.

10 MS. KAY: I like that feature.

11 Actually, I think it's a great feature

12 architecturally -- so we actually like that feature

13 and architecturally it's great and we do agree that

14 when these people are using the building that's going

15 to be a wonderful feature for them to see

16 aesthetically and even though there is some temporary

17 removal of vegetation underneath that I think that

18 they just stated that in the record as there was a

19 perceived removal of vegetation. I don't think

20 there's going to be a lot of vegetation. I believe

21 they probably did that for maintenance purposes of the

22 structure itself.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

24 much, I really appreciate it.






1 There's quite a few things regarding

2 the traffic and I did want to address one item in

3 Mr. Arroyo's letter and that was item Number 14. "The

4 ADA discourages the placement of the parking where

5 users must pass behind other vehicles. These four

6 spaces should be relocated to a location abutting the

7 sidewalk."

8 did I miss something or did he change

9 that, Ms. McClain?

10 MS. MCCLAIN: That would actually be

11 a fairly simple thing for them to do because it's the

12 four spaces that are at the north end of the east line

13 of parking on their plan. All they have to do is move

14 them into that front row and restripe it.


16 MS. MCCLAIN: They wouldn't

17 necessarily lose any spaces it's just a restriping

18 issue.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then we have some

20 issues with regard to the design and construction of

21 standards. In Mr. Arroyo's letter there is the west

22 drive should be 30 feet wide at the interior ends of

23 the curb returns, not the 24 proposed. He discusses

24 the widening is especially -- he says, "Each roadway






1 within the boulevard should be widened to the 24 foot

2 City standard."

3 Have they met that?

4 MS. MCCLAIN: They have agreed to

5 meet that. Both of those comments are easily

6 achievable.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I just want to

8 make sure all the traffic concerns are in there. I'd

9 like to see some changes and maybe a little bit of

10 working out with the staff some of the concerns that

11 the Planning Commission has, but if anyone else has

12 any comments or a motion, the chair would most

13 certainly entertain that.

14 Chairman Kocan. I'm sorry.

15 MEMBER KOCAN: That's twice I got

16 promoted.

17 MR. RUYLE: Three times.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: That's it. It's my

19 job.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's my wishful

21 thinking.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I'll offer a motion.

23 And I'll discuss the special land use separate from

24 the preliminary site plan. In the matter of SP O2-42






1 Seely Sanctuary, motion to deny special land use

2 permit for the following reasons: Even with the

3 removal of the administration building the site plan

4 does not comply with special land use ordinance

5 2516.2C1 as there is detrimental impact on existing

6 thoroughfares. Does not comply 2516.2C3 because the

7 proximity to the wetlands impacts the natural features

8 and the site plan does not fully comply with section

9 12-181 of the storm water management ordinance. Does

10 not comply with 2516.2C7. The site plan does not

11 conform to applicable site plan regulations and

12 ordinances as evidenced by the wall and berm waivers

13 and variances, the opposite side driveway setback

14 waivers as well as encroachment issues. That is my

15 motion.


17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have a second

18 to the motion. Is there any further discussion.

19 MEMBER MARKHAM: I want to ask a

20 question.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner

22 Markham?

23 MEMBER MARKHAM: Okay. I have a

24 question relative to -- it's a procedural question.






1 If we deny the special land use does the applicant

2 have to come back to us or do they have another avenue

3 that they can pursue and I'm asking that of the

4 attorney.

5 MS. SIMON: Thank you for asking the

6 question.

7 MEMBER MARKHAM: My copy of the City

8 charter is missing the page.

9 MS. SIMON: I don't have the City

10 charter with me but I believe that the section of the

11 ordinance or chapter is a Chapter 26 -- of the

12 ordinance that applies?

13 Does anyone have their's?

14 MR. EVANCOE: You mean article 26 of

15 the zoning ordinance?

16 MS. SIMON: No.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Of the City Code?

18 MS. SIMON: Right.

19 MR. EVANCOE: I don't have the City

20 Code. We may have it back here.

21 MS. SIMON: May I just have a moment?

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. As a matter

23 of fact, why don't we take a five minute break and you

24 guys can find that. So take your time.






1 MS. SIMON: Thank you for your

2 moment.

3 (A short break was taken.)

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If we could call

5 the meeting to order, please. Mr. Pham, would you

6 like to make a statement?

7 MR. PHAM: Yes. In our cooperation

8 and the relationship with the Planning Commission I've

9 heard all of your comments and I think rather to

10 defend your motion I would love to have the option to

11 work with staff, heed your comments and come back with

12 a more sensitive plan to address some of your comments

13 and our needs.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you're request

15 is that we table it?

16 MR. PHAM: That's correct.

17 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved.

18 MEMBER PAUL: We have a motion on the

19 table.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: Yeah, but the motion

21 on the table supersedes.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have a motion to

23 supersede.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll support.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So we have a

2 motion by Mr. Ruyle to table. We have a second by

3 Mr. Schmidt.

4 MR. SCHMIDT: No, ma'am.


6 MEMBER SHROYER: I would rather be

7 the chairperson.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have a second

9 by Mr. Shroyer.

10 Mr. Schmidt. Do you think you could

11 call the roll?

12 MR. SCHMIDT: I would be happy to

13 call the roll.

14 Commissioner Ruyle?


16 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Shroyer?


18 MR. SCHMIDT: Sprague.


20 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


22 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Kocan?


24 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Markham?







2 MR. SCHMIDT: Chairperson Nagy?


4 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Papp?


6 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul?


8 MR. SCHMIDT: Motion passes nine to

9 zero.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

11 much, Mr. Khanh.

12 MR. PHAM: Thank you.


14 gentlemen, the next item on the agenda is matters for

15 consideration. First one is Haggerty pumping station

16 SP01-71. Consideration of the request of the City of

17 Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and the Clean

18 Water Team for approval of a revised Preliminary and

19 Final Site Plan. The subject property is located in

20 Section 1 on the south side of Fourteen Mile Road and

21 west of Haggerty Road. The applicant proposes a

22 revision to the fencing, landscape plan and

23 reconsideration of the conditions of Planning

24 Commission's approval.






1 Ms. McBeth?

2 MS. MCBETH: Thank you, Madame Chair.

3 The subject property is outlined in yellow on the

4 aerial photo that is on the screen in front of you.

5 Fourteen Mile Road is depicted in this area right here

6 and M-5 is to the left of the screen and on the right

7 of the screen is Haggerty Road. The subject property

8 is currently under development with an unmanned 15,000

9 square foot pump station building and a ten million

10 gallon water reservoir. To the east is the North Novi

11 Medical Building. To the south is vacant land. To

12 the east is vacant land and a single family home that

13 appears to be used at this time only as an office.

14 To the north is a shopping center

15 within Commerce Township. I'll show you the zoning

16 map which, again, the property is outlined in yellow.

17 That's here on the page. It's a little difficult to

18 see but that's the location of it and it is zoned OST,

19 office, service, technology, as is the properties to

20 the east, to the west and to the south.

21 To the north within Commerce Township

22 the properties are zoned for commercial purposes. The

23 Master Plan recommends all office uses for the site

24 and the surrounding properties within the City of






1 Novi.

2 I'll show a small version of a site

3 plan. This one is not in color but I think you can

4 read it nonetheless. Fourteen Mile Road is along the

5 top portion here and the water reservoir that's under

6 construction is right here and the unmanned pump

7 station is off to the west. The preliminary site plan

8 approval was granted for these improvements one year

9 ago. The applicant has now requested revisions to

10 that approved final site plan. As a result of

11 increased security concerns for the property the

12 landscape plan has been modified to allow installation

13 of security system which means a clear zone along both

14 sides of the perimeter fence. That perimeter doesn't

15 go exactly around the perimeter but it is highlighted

16 on the plans in these areas.

17 Additionally, the applicant is

18 seeking consideration of the Planning Commission

19 approval that require the perimeter fence to be vinyl

20 coated. The applicant is seeking approval for a

21 galvanized chain link fence as a substitute. These

22 changes are requested again as a type of security

23 system that's being proposed that requires these

24 changes.








1 During review of the proposed site

2 plan City staff and consultants determine the

3 following items should be brought to the Planning

4 Commission's attention. The Planning department

5 review indicated that the Planning Commission is asked

6 to reconsider conditions that were placed on

7 preliminary site plan approval.

8 First that original approval had

9 required that the parking and loading areas as well as

10 all along this west property line were to be screened

11 from the adjacent properties for substantial

12 landscaping in these areas. The revised landscape

13 plan has eliminated much of the landscaping that

14 could've been used to screen these areas in order to

15 provide that clear area around the security fence.

16 Second, the Planning Commission is asked to reconsider

17 the requirement that the proposed perimeter fencing be

18 a vinyl coated fence material. The applicant is

19 proposing galvanized chain link fence around the

20 perimeter of the site.

21 City staff has met with the applicant

22 to determine if there is another feasible alternative

23 to the fence material and the applicant has provided

24 documentation for the Planning Commission's






1 consideration that the galvanized fence is the best

2 material to use for the proposed security system. The

3 wetlands review indicated that administrative approval

4 of the revised wetland permit is recommended for an

5 additional 300 square feet of wetland buffer impact

6 which is required, again, for that ten foot clear zone

7 required around the perimeter of the fencing.

8 The landscaping and woodlands reviews

9 only revealed only minor items that may be addressed

10 at the time of final stamping sets if the Planning

11 Commission approves the revised site plan and finally

12 the engineering and fire reviews recommend approval.

13 Thank you. That concludes my presentation.


15 Would the applicant like to address

16 the commission on any of these issues? If you would

17 please come forwards, sir, and state your name. And I

18 do have a question before you get started. Did you by

19 any chance bring a sample of the fencing?

20 MR. MAULT: No.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. State

22 your name and who you are for the court reporter.

23 MR. MAULT: My name is Lee Mault and

24 I'm with the Clear Water Team. I'm with Clear Water






1 Team and I work for Tetra Tech which is the

2 engineering arm of the design built team that is

3 currently working on this project, has been working on

4 it and the reason we're in front of you this evening

5 is that following the terrorists attacks of September

6 11th a lot of things changed concerning security,

7 especially of our water systems, infrastructure. The

8 plans that were prepared and put together for

9 preliminary site plan approval had no consideration,

10 really, of the extent of the security requirements

11 that have now become evident. And, just to give you a

12 timeline, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department in

13 looking at what they really needed to do on all of

14 their facilities came up with well defined plans that

15 are part of another contract that's now -- that's now

16 in place. And those requirements are what we had to

17 go back and look at in order to try to come up with

18 the security system for the project.

19 The contract that we're working under

20 had an allowance for security but did not define what

21 those security requirements were going to be and so

22 when the owner of the Detroit Water and Sewerage

23 Department came out with those requirements was on the

24 order of -- I'm thinking April of this last year






1 following what we had brought to the Planning

2 Commission. We've looked over all those requirements

3 and they are extensive. You've got cameras, infrared

4 and microwave detection systems that are on the

5 perimeter. There's new requirements for clear zones

6 ten feet either side, of the perimeter fence that

7 extend up basically to the heavens. As we looked at

8 all those things we realized that what we had in a

9 landscaping plan was going to need to change

10 significantly and that's when we met with the Planning

11 Department and said what do we do now. It's clearl

12 that we brought before you before has got to change

13 rather drastically.

14 So we looked at what we could save,

15 what we could stay with on the landscaping plan, and

16 as you've seen from what's been presented to you, a

17 lot of the screening foliage can't be where we had it

18 on the site in order to meet the clear zone

19 requirements and to make sure that the microwave and

20 the infrared detection systems can work. Beyond that,

21 and getting the information to our security

22 specialists, they came back and also informed us that

23 the shaker systems, which are just generally called

24 the shaker systems and there's a couple of different






1 type kinds available, the one that we're using as I

2 understand it -- and I'm not an expert on it but I do

3 have some people that can talk about it here tonight

4 -- it's the better of the two systems that are

5 available, the more sensitive, less false alarms and

6 all that so we're not going with anything inexpensive,

7 but what we've been told is a vinyl coating on a fence

8 that the systems will generate a great many false

9 alarms. They have tried to fine tune them to make

10 them work and the real trick of these systems is that

11 they listen. They're basically a microphone and they

12 listen for certain sounds and with a regular chain

13 link fence, they can detect the difference between

14 wind blowing the fence or, you know, a general shaking

15 as opposed to the sound that's generated when a person

16 is trying to climb the fence and access a facility.

17 So the shaker system is kind of first

18 line of defense and the microwave and infrared setups

19 are -- if someone is on-site where are they and it's a

20 real, do we have a real perpetrator We also met with

21 the police and fire department to talk about the fire

22 alarm system and the security setup to see what

23 concerns they may have and did find that the police

24 department had a serious concern with the potential






1 for false alarms and was also very concerned that from

2 their standpoint the original landscape plan would


3 provide a great deal of problem for them identifying

4 an intruder on site without presenting a great deal of

5 danger to themselves. There's a lot of cover, it's

6 easy for someone to hide. And the police department

7 did write a letter that is part of the package that we

8 submitted.


10 MEMBER KOCAN: Point of information.

11 Is there a difference between when I think galvanized

12 chain link fence, I think of the playgrounds when I

13 was growing up and in your letter it states bare

14 galvanized chain link fabric fencing material, are

15 they one and the same materials?

16 MR. MAULT: Yes. It's the same

17 stuff.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have

19 anything else? That's about it.

20 MR. MAULT: I'm ready for any

21 questions and we do have some more folks that can

22 answer in more detail.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think you

24 basically presented everything we need to understand






1 what is in that packet and if the commissioners have

2 any specific questions to address the individual then

3 we'll call upon them. With that I would like to turn

4 this over to the commission.

5 Member Papp?

6 MEMBER PAPP: I take it the alarm

7 might go to a central station, it won't go directly to

8 the police department; is that correct?

9 MR. MAULT: I'll defer that question.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: When you come up

11 to answer this question, please state your name and

12 spell it for the court reporter.

13 MR. STANGIS: My name is Norman

14 Stangis, S-t-a-n-g-i-s. I'm with Clear Water Team. I

15 work for Motor City Electric who is doing electrical

16 installation and will be installing the security

17 system. The security system for the Haggerty Pumping

18 Station is monitored by the main office building

19 downtown, which is DWSD's facility who would contact

20 the City of Novi police to respond.

21 MEMBER PAPP: Now, you mentioned

22 something about cameras. Can they tune into those

23 cameras and see if there is an intrusion?

24 MR. STANGIS: The camera is only






1 monitored by DWSD.

2 MEMBER PAPP: In Detroit?

3 MR. STANGIS: Yes, sir.

4 MEMBER PAPP: I understand in the

5 City of Novi we have a charge for false alarms, $50

6 for the first alarm, 100 for the second false alarm

7 and it keeps going on to thousands of dollars I

8 think. And the only way to get that reset is to move.

9 I found that out. I had to move.

10 In the galvanized fence you have a

11 shaker system that goes on the galvanized fence; is

12 that correct?

13 MR. STANGIS: Yes, sir. It's

14 actually they use what they call strain sensitive

15 cable. That's like a microphone listening that sends

16 a very distinct signal that when the galvanized

17 Material grinds together if you're trying to cut it or

18 if you're trying to climb it. What it can do it's a

19 smart system. It can compensate for the wind, noise

20 across the entire fence line. It filters it out and

21 it's sensitive enough to isolate the point of

22 intrusions within a three meter ten foot section of

23 the fence.

24 MEMBER PAPP: How tall is this fence






1 going to be?

2 MR. STANGIS: Eight feet.

3 MEMBER PAPP: Would it be barbed wire

4 at the top or no?


6 MEMBER PAPP: Just regular galvanized

7 fence.

8 That's all.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

10 have any further questions by any of the

11 commissioners. Commissioner Ruyle?

12 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madame

13 Chair. Either one of you gentleman can answer this

14 question and it pertains to the safety features also.

15 That is on the Novi northern border. Novi stops at

16 Fourteen Mile. Commerce Township is on the other

17 side. Have you contacted Commerce Township as a

18 backup to the police departments, et cetera?

19 MR. STANGIS: I have not.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: Do you plan on it?

21 Because there may be times you might have a Commerce

22 Township police officer or if they don't have them the

23 Oakland County, where a Novi police officer may not be

24 in the immediate area and required. It's just a






1 suggestion.

2 Kay, I would make that suggestion to

3 your security people that you have two police

4 departments, one jurisdiction but they do cooperate.

5 Okay.

6 MR. STANGIS: We will talk to DWSD on

7 that.

8 MR. RUYLE: And I read someplace from

9 this thing no fence shall exceed eight feet in heighth

10 except barbed wire placed along the top of the fence

11 may be projected beyond the maximum heighth limited to

12 the fence. The no fence including barbed wire. So

13 it's stating overall heighth of eleven feet. That's

14 the ordinance. So you can put barbed wire up there.

15 MR. MAULT: That was actually

16 discussed at last year's Planning Commission meeting.

17 The -- I think the desire of the Commission at that

18 time as we understood it was to not have the barbed

19 wire on the fencing. And we did have it on the

20 original plans so we took it off.

21 MEMBER RUYLE: I agree with that.

22 But this commission as it sits basically there was

23 only three members that was on the other commission

24 when we talked. We were not aware of the






1 ramifications of 9-11. Seriously, when it came down

2 to the water supply, et cetera, et cetera. And I

3 would be willing to add it in a motion if that's what

4 the commission so requires or the City so requires to

5 allow them to do that. It's protected us as citizens

6 and I have no problem with that.

7 Thank you, Madame Chair.


9 Commissioner Kocan?

10 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm ambivalent about

11 adding additional barbed wire to the top of the fence

12 particularly since it is right on the border of the

13 City of Novi. So if that is something that is a

14 requirement that you felt you needed now is your time

15 to speak up on that.

16 Before I propose a motion I do have

17 a question with regards to landscaping and I do

18 understand that we are removing considerable

19 landscaping along the western border and I do note

20 that on the proposed landscape some additional tree

21 haves been added. I do see some more trees in front

22 of that proposed reservoir and it's amazing how much

23 bigger it is in real life than it is on a blueprint

24 print.






1 My question to the landscapers is

2 would it be beneficial to haves six pine trees and two

3 spruce in front of reservoir should we be looking at

4 six more at the end of that driveway?

5 MEMBER RUYLE: Ms. Kocan?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let her finish.

7 MEMBER KOCAN: So I just have a

8 question there to see if I didn't see anything written

9 but it may also adds to the aesthetics of the area as

10 long as it doesn't impede on the security of the

11 location. And it's also my understanding but the

12 planners have to reason to me -- that for Tim and Barb

13 McBeth when you have OST next to OST the landscaping

14 requirements can be waived by the Planning Commission.

15 Is that correct?

16 MS. MCBETH: That's right. There's a

17 provision in the OST zoning district that the Planning

18 Commission can waive the requirements for additional

19 landscaping there, but because it was a particular

20 statement in the request from last year we brought it

21 back.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I personally would

23 like to see an additional five trees for taking out

24 considerably other trees.






1 MR. MCGINNIS: I'm all for adding

2 trees wherever we have room. I did go over the plan

3 with Detective Stolingross (ph) to see if there were

4 any, in fact, we had to eliminate as many as we did

5 and he agreed that the clear zones that are shown on

6 the plan should be maintained. There are underground

7 piping considerations but I'm sure the applicant would

8 be happy to squeeze in a few more trees if we don't

9 interfere with the underground utilities?

10 MEMBER KOCAN: Do you see where I'm

11 talking about, sir?

12 MR. STANGIS: I don't.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: It's where --

14 MS. MCCLAIN: If I can have the

15 overhead, please.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: Right where your

17 pencil was if you put in four or five more pine trees

18 going to the south. The the reservoir to the left of

19 the pine tree right there to the edge of the building?

20 MS. MCCLAIN: It's very hard to see

21 on this one. It kind of frays out where the piping is

22 for the intake piping and the exit piping.

23 MR. STANGIS: The area, I can

24 address, I know the area you're taking about is a very






1 utility, heavy utility laden area?

2 MEMBER KOCAN: In that case I

3 withdraw my request. I'm ready to make a motion.

4 MR. STANGIS: I will say that we

5 looked at the beam spread and all the requirements and

6 we jammed a tree anywhere we felt we could reasonably

7 put one because we feel that there could be more

8 either but what can we do?

9 MEMBER KOCAN: And we appreciate

10 that. In the matter of Haggerty Pump Station Site

11 Plan Number SPO1-71, motion to approve the revised

12 preliminary site plan and the revised final site plan

13 subject to the planning commission reconsideration and

14 removal of the requirement that the parking and

15 loading area be screened from the adjacent properties

16 with landscaping. The planning commission

17 reconsideration of the requirement for the proposed

18 perimeter fencing to be vinyl coated fence so that the

19 applicant may construct a galvanized chain link fence

20 around the perimeter of the site subject to the

21 comments on the attached review letters being

22 addressed at the time of final stamping set for the

23 following reasons: Because of water supply, security

24 purposes as stated at this meeting.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a

2 second to the motion?


4 MEMBER RUYLE: Before you second it

5 can you add anything in there about wire?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: She didn't make

7 that as her motion.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: I wasn't going to put

9 the barbed wire in.

10 MEMBER RUYLE: I would like to see a

11 deed put in there that if they feel it's a requirement

12 in their security that they need to add barbed wire

13 that they have it.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we first get

15 approval and the we can get an amendment?


17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have a second

18 to the motion. Mr. Ruyle would you like to make an

19 amendment to the motion.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. Madame chairman,

21 I would like to see item D added to the motion stating

22 that at the discretion of their security department

23 which I'm referring to the Detroit Water Department,

24 that if they feel it's necessary to increase the






1 heighth of the fence up to 10 feet with an additional

2 barbed wire that we would go along with that.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: I'll accept the

4 amendment.


6 CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Schmidt, if you

7 would please call the -- I'm sorry. Is there anymore

8 discussion.

9 Seeing none, Mr. Schmidt, if you

10 would please call the roll.

11 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Shroyer?


13 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Sprague?


15 MR. SCHMIDT: Commission Avdoulos?


17 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Kocan.


19 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Markham?


21 MR. SCHMIDT: Chairperson Nagy?


23 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Papp?







1 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul?


3 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Ruyle?


5 MR. SCHMIDT: Motion passes

6 unanimously.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

8 much, gentlemen.

9 MR. STANGIS: Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item for

11 matters for consideration is the approval of the

12 October 16, 2002 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

13 Ms. Kocan, do we have any

14 corrections?

15 MS. KOCAN: Madame Chair I have a

16 considerable amount of corrections and we're already

17 of time so bear with me. Maybe get a drink of water.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what, why

19 don't we just give it to the staff and they can give

20 it to the person that does this?

21 MEMBER KOCAN: Let me look and see if

22 there is anything in here where I question what

23 somebody said.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: As long as the rest of






1 the commission is comfortable with that a lot of my

2 changes is adding instead of 93 it should be 93

3 degrees and some square foot should be in there and

4 setback, but I do add some verbiage to some of the

5 motions and it was to clarify the three motions that

6 we did the night of the Island Lake RUD and it's to

7 add the specific sections to those motions at the

8 beginning of each motion.

9 Like on Page 15, the motion is

10 recommendation to the City Council of the proposed RUD

11 agreement amendment to section 3D on the site plan.

12 And that has to be said in two places. On page 16,

13 the next motion a positive RUD amendment to section 4B

14 west on the site plan, taking into consideration. On

15 page 17 in the middle of the page the motion in the

16 matter of Island Lake Novi RUD phases 4B east add the

17 words on the site plan. And in the second time that

18 the motion's repeated. It's also at the bottom of

19 page 18, the same thing. And I think the rest of them

20 are minor changes that I would hope that nobody would

21 have a problem with. As long as the rest of the

22 commission is comfortable.

23 MEMBER RUYLE: Madame Chair, we still

24 have not extended this meeting.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, Mr. Ruyle,

2 make the motion.

3 MEMBER RUYLE: Make a motion that we

4 extend the meeting to the time we need to complete the

5 agenda.

6 MEMBER PAUL: Second.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

8 Aye.









17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes.

18 Do we have any other corrections from

19 any other commissioners regarding the minutes of

20 October 16th.

21 MEMBER MARKHAM: I would like to make

22 a motion.


24 MEMBER MARKHAM: I move that we






1 accept all the changes that Member Kocan has included

2 including the ones she didn't tell us about. Because

3 we trust her.

4 MEMBER PAUL: Second.


6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any other

7 discussion. If not could we please call the roll.

8 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Sprague?


10 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


12 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Kocan?


14 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Markham?


16 MR. SCHMIDT: Chairperson Nagy?


18 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Papp?


20 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul?


22 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Ruyle?


24 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Shroyer?







2 MR. SCHMIDT: Motion Passes nine to

3 zero.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Our

5 next item if I wrote this correctly is the Dumpsters

6 act ---

7 MEMBER KOCAN: I added this to the

8 agenda and I would like to make a motion that the

9 Planning Commission send the issue of the definition

10 of dumpsters as an accessory building and to address

11 setback issues to implementation.

12 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved.

13 MEMBER PAUL: Second.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmidt do you

15 want to say something?

16 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. If I may

17 intervene. We had a letter concerning a project we've

18 been working on almost since the very first thing I

19 worked on here actually dated September 19th from our

20 City attorney's office and within that it specifically

21 references that dumpster enclosures would fall under

22 the accessory structure guidelines within the setbacks

23 and the location and total for it, et cetera. So

24 given the City attorney opinion that we have, and






1 correct me if I'm wrong here, there may not be a need

2 to do that.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: I just want it amended

4 in the ordinance so I can find it in my ordinance

5 instead of looking for it.

6 MR. RUYLE: Withdraw my motion.

7 MEMBER KOCAN: Withdraw the second.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You withdraw your

9 second?

10 MEMBER RUYLE: I thought I made the

11 motion.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: I made it.

13 MR. EVANCOE: Then I withdraw my

14 second.


16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any

17 discussion, if not, we can please call the roll roll

18 Mr. Schmidt..

19 MR. EVANCOE: Don't need to.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Have a motion on

21 the table.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I think it needs to be

23 very specific in our ordinance. Because the word

24 dumpster is not in our ordinance in the accessory or






1 accessories building. I would like to add it we're

2 cleaning up the ordinance and giving all the

3 definitions, making it as clean as possible.

4 MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. Commissioner

5 Avdoulos?


7 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Kocan?


9 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Markham?


11 MR. SCHMIDT: Chairperson Nagy?


13 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Papp?


15 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul?


17 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Ruyle?


19 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Shroyer.


21 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Sprague?


23 MR. SCHMIDT: Motion passes nine to

24 zero.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

2 much. We have matters for discussion. Is that

3 usually in our minutes, matters for discussion?


5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would like to

6 first pick on Commissioner Markham who actually

7 changed the order of this and I'm going to accommodate

8 her. Item number two which is the extra Planning

9 Commission meeting date, if you would like to address

10 that.

11 MEMBER MARKHAM: Thank you, Madame

12 chair.

13 I'll try to be brief. The

14 administrative committee which consists of the

15 officers of the commission met with Mr. Evancoe

16 earlier this week and one of the items that we

17 discussed was the agenda. Because Chairperson Nagy

18 is not always available on Thursday afternoon.

19 Mr. Evancoe always has a difficult time setting what's

20 considered to be a reasonable agenda with the number

21 of projects we have coming before us. It's always a

22 delicate balancing act and I think you do a good job

23 and we're almost done and it's close to 11:30 there.

24 Our bylaws also say that's the chairperson's job. It






1 also says that our meeting should start at 7:30 and

2 end at 11:30 and we have some reasons why we extended

3 the meeting. We have a lot of problems coming before

4 us and I'm concerned that if we don't have three or

5 more public hearings per meeting we're going To --

6 even at that rate we're going to get way behind in the

7 spring. So we were kicking around some ideas as to

8 how we could deal with that and one suggestion was

9 that the months that we have five Wednesdays that we

10 would have three meetings and maybe because the burden

11 on the Planning Department might be difficult with two

12 weeks in a row having Planning Commission meetings

13 maybe that third meeting would be a meeting in which

14 we clear up some other business that we always have

15 our difficult time setting aside time for. Otherwise

16 we're not going to have time to do anything except all

17 these public hearings and not at the rate we should.

18 If we don't add some extra dates in here. So I would

19 suggest that we do that. Also, I

20 was noticing the schedule that was put out that was in

21 our packet. There are some dates that I added on here

22 that could be the fifth Wednesday but also our bylaws

23 state that our meetings will take place on the first

24 and third in a month unless there's a holiday that






1 intertwines with that and yet most of the months of

2 2003 we're actually meeting either the second and

3 fourth or the third and fifth and I know this because

4 as I was filling them out on my calendar I have

5 another standing meeting on the second Wednesday of

6 every month so I'm not going to be able to attend. So

7 I don't know if there is a reason that these dates

8 were picked, but for example in the month of April we

9 picked 16th and the 30th. If we had picked the 2nd

10 and the 16th we could actually add the 30th in as the

11 third meeting. I understand that some commissioners

12 are not going to be at certain of these meetings, but

13 all we really need to conduct business is a quorum is

14 five or more of us. So we need to understand that

15 every now and then one of us or two of us is not going

16 to be here.

17 So with that I would like to make a

18 motion that -- or I'll make the motion and then, you

19 know, maybe we can have some discussion. I would like

20 to make a motion that we have the planning department

21 add a third meeting in every month in 2003 in which

22 there are five Wednesdays and issue a revised schedule

23 that reflects that.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second






1 to that motion?


3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion has been

4 seconded. Is there further discussion?


6 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madame

7 Chair.

8 Member Markham, I think that the

9 reason why we went to the other Wednesdays was the

10 fact that the staff had prepared for two meetings, one

11 City Council meeting and we were trying to go to the

12 opposite week from City Council. So that staff would

13 have more time to prepare for also. I think that was

14 the reason why.

15 MEMBER MARKHAM: It doesn't always

16 work out that way.

17 MR. RUYLE: I agree, but that was the

18 gist of it. My other question to you is counterwise

19 there's only three meetings in -- there is only three

20 five week Wednesdays.

21 MEMBER MARKHAM: Actually, there are

22 four. There are three but I did have a question about

23 August because there is only one meeting scheduled in

24 August and I was suggesting to add a meeting to August






1 as well.

2 MR. RUYLE: But there is only three.

3 MEMBER MARKHAM: There are only three

4 months.

5 MR. EVANCOE: July, August and

6 October.

7 MR. EVANCOE: There is December but I

8 doubt if that is a month we would want to add.

9 MEMBER MARKHAM: December I left

10 alone.





15 MEMBER PAPP: Can we maybe make the

16 third meeting just for public hearing?

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't mean to

18 interject so I'm going to speak up so the court

19 reporter can hear me. They are back to back and we

20 don't want to make it too difficult on this staff

21 either. More than two would be difficult for them to

22 do their preparation. And if we had those three extra

23 meetings then we would have six public hearings more

24 than we already have. It's just a suggestion.






1 Anything else, Mr. Papp?



4 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Well, will three or

5 four additional meetings be sufficient if we do two

6 hearings to clear the backlog?


8 hearings, Mr. Evancoe?

9 MR. EVANCOE: Well, it allows for

10 nine -- if we stay with three public hearings a

11 meeting it allows for nine more public hearings to get

12 accomplished in the year. It doesn't necessarily

13 address the immediate backlog that we have but over

14 the course of the year it is helpful.

15 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Does it help or does

16 it resolve the issue?

17 MR. EVANCOE : Well, it's a mixed

18 blessing. I mean, it's good in terms of getting

19 through more cases but then, of course, that increases

20 yours and our workload.

21 MEMBER SPRAGUE: Will it bring us

22 current with the cases?

23 MR. EVANCOE : Well, right now the

24 situation is there. There are about I believe 25 or






1 so cases that need to come to the Planning Commission.

2 So at approximately three per meeting what that ends

3 up saying is that if a person comes in today and

4 applies we can't tell them that they can get to your

5 commission until about May and that's hard to swallow

6 for the developers to apply now and be told that

7 you're not going to get before the Planning Commission

8 before May. That's a tough one. So what we discussed

9 earlier this week was, you know, how do we -- what can

10 we do about that one. The idea I had was to just

11 speed up these meetings and do more cases in each

12 meeting but the other alternative was also outside of

13 was more meeting. A few more meetings.

14 One thing that will be a little

15 difficult and I'm not saying it's prohibited is the

16 City calendar is now published based on the calendar

17 that we submitted previously. So it will not include

18 these but that doesn't mean we can't do it. We just

19 have to make sure we notify properly and put it up in

20 the lobby.

21 MEMBER SPRAGUE: I understand the

22 developer may not like to wait four or five months.

23 But are we running into legal requirements making them

24 wait that long?






1 MR. EVANCOE: I don't think that you

2 are. And maybe Stephanie can address this one too.

3 The site plan review manual has a provision in it

4 where it indicates that you can get on the first

5 available Planning Commission meeting essentially. It

6 says that, you know, we'll complete a review within 25

7 working days and then the first available Planning

8 Commission you're on. I think -- I think there is a

9 little bit of a possible legal issue that, you know,

10 is it reasonable to delay folks that long. But I

11 think Stephanie can say more about it.

12 MS. SIMON: According to the

13 commission bylaws in Section 3.12, Subsection C, which

14 states, "No matters for considerations which otherwise

15 meets the requirements for these bylaws or rules for

16 procedure may be delayed from the agenda for more than

17 two consecutive meetings, parens, excluding special

18 meetings established for planning purposes only, end

19 parens." That is it must appear no later than the

20 third meeting for which it is eligible.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't think

22 that's the question, with all due respect. Because

23 we're not delaying things. Isn't that bylaw relating

24 to the fact that once it comes before usus? Once it's






1 on the agenda.

2 MS. SIMON: I think it says maybe

3 delayed from the agenda, meaning the current agenda.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's now not how

5 we were interpreting this.

6 May I make a suggestion. It is

7 really difficult to hash out this problem. I don't

8 think that from what I understand from legal counsel

9 that we necessarily have an obligation to get

10 everything on as quickly as we can. Sometimes it's

11 impossible. I also understand from some architects

12 that when they plan things they'll get something like

13 three extra months to a project because things can

14 come up and delays can happen. I think the public

15 hearings maybe would be added to the agenda if the

16 commission was not presented with so many plans, with

17 so many variances. I think the commission, each

18 member of the commission has specific questions and

19 they're usually related to the variances that are

20 found within our packets. It would be much more

21 helpful if some of the applicants that come before us

22 would be dissuaded from not following our ordinances

23 and that they should. I also understand that it's not

24 within the department's total control to do that. But







1 in reading a couple of the review letters I think some

2 things have been alleviated and maybe if we all kind

3 of work collectively at reducing the number of

4 variances, and maybe if the commission after calling

5 the applicants, getting the variances, maybe we can

6 move the process along quicker by not having

7 repetition, by making our motions quicker to table or

8 to deny. Because these hearings are taking long and

9 it's not anyone's particular fault and there is no

10 blame here, but I don't feel the staff should be

11 pressured nor this commission to work at a pace that

12 is not totally fair. And, to my knowledge, there's

13 actually people who watch the Planning Commission

14 meetings and complain that at a certain point they

15 tune out because they have to go to sleep. So I would

16 like to be fair to all of us and maybe not now -- I

17 take that back.

18 Let the record reflect I corrected

19 myself.

20 Maybe now is not the time to totally

21 work it out. And maybe the point is that there is a

22 suggestion made by one of the members of the liaison

23 committee and maybe it's something the commission can

24 think about and bring back to our next commission






1 meeting and put it back on the table. I don't know if

2 we can. I've thrown a suggestion out there.

3 Commissioner Shroyer, if you like

4 would you like to say something?

5 MEMBER SHROYER: I can wait until the

6 next meeting.


8 MS. SIMON: I just have one point of

9 clarification with regard to my last remark. I just

10 want the record to be clear that the section I read

11 previously only applies to the site plans that meet

12 all the requirements of Section 2516, which I don't

13 think is something that you usually see here. It only

14 applies to perfect site plans.


16 appreciate that correction.

17 So how would everyone feel about

18 that? We're discussing this at a 12:00 at night, that

19 you all think about it and come back. And Mr. Evancoe

20 did you have something you would like to add?

21 MR. EVANCOE: First I want to say I

22 appreciate the comments you just made and I think

23 those are very well placed and I don't want to sound

24 at all like I don't favor the way the commission does






1 its business because you all are very dedicated and do

2 a wonderful job, but one thing as you're all

3 considering this if we could even add one more case to

4 a standard agenda that would be 24 more cases in a

5 year more or less that would get accomplished and they

6 don't have to be the public hearings. Because when I

7 mentioned there were 24 items those aren't all public

8 hearings. Some of these those are pretty

9 straightforward site plans. So maybe I could work

10 with the chair to put together the kind of agenda that

11 may have one more case then what you're used to but

12 perhaps in sum it's a combination of hard ones and

13 easy ones.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a

15 great idea. Would everyone be amenable that we move

16 this to next time and let Mr. Evancoe and I work it

17 out and go from there? And you always have the

18 ability to tell us no.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: I don't want to

20 belabor this. It does go back to I'm hearing we're

21 going to be backed up, but how many times is the staff

22 waiting for a consultant letter or something to come

23 in at 5:00 on Friday and that to me has got to stop.

24 If things are truly ready they should be ready -- we






1 talked about sending this to the bylaw committee --

2 ten days before the Planning Commission meeting so

3 that the chairperson has copies of the review letters

4 and she knows at that point whether there are 18

5 variances or one. Then she and the director can sit

6 down and make out an agenda and that is something

7 we're going to need a bylaws meeting soon. So that is

8 something I would like to see.

9 So I welcome having a site plan on

10 the shelf. Everybody has got to have all their

11 comments in. The staff isn't running around trying to

12 get the last letters. The developer has responded to

13 all of the issues that were put in writing and it's in

14 writing so we have it Friday night instead of the

15 night of the meeting. That's my ideal situation.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And let me just

17 make one comment. I do get letters including the one

18 we had this evening. I got it on December 16th. So

19 if we get the letters, you know, in order to make an

20 agenda I have to have the consultant letters,

21 Mr. Evancoe does and I'm receiving too many letters

22 after the fact. So we'll all work on every area

23 together. I want to be cooperative with everyone and

24 we'll work it out.






1 MR. SCHMIDT: Point of clarification

2 there's actually a motion on the table that there

3 being all months with five Wednesdays.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I appreciate that.

5 MS. SCHMIDT: And there was, I

6 believe, an additional motion attempted to be made.

7 So some clarification is going to need to be made.


9 MEMBER MARKHAM: Madame Chair, I

10 would like to add one more thing and that is per the

11 rest of the commission we have also discussed the idea

12 that site plans with very few variances or none would

13 go first in a meeting and site plans with a large

14 number of variances would go last in a meeting and if

15 we could get in that kind of cycle we could

16 conceivably add an extra site plan per meeting if one

17 didn't have a lot of variances.

18 It would accomplish two things.

19 It might move the docket along. It also would make

20 the developer, it would discourage the developer from

21 coming with a lot of variances because they know

22 they're not going to get their hearing until 10:00,

23 10:30 at night and even then it might be long and

24 drawn out and it might over time encourage people to






1 have a more complete package when they come forwards.

2 So we're working on that and I want to continue to

3 urge the planning department to pull those out that

4 look really good and move them up.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We do have a

6 motion on the floor. Mr. Papp?

7 MEMBER PAPP: When does one get on

8 the agenda, when all the information is here or are

9 you still getting it at the last minute.

10 MR. EVANCOE: One criteria is based

11 on whether they apply. If somebody has been, you know

12 -- if they apply in let's say September obviously they

13 would want to move them along quicker then somebody

14 that just applies when they apply.

15 MEMBER PAPP: Is the information

16 being gathered from then.

17 MR. EVANCOE: When they apply they've

18 turned in everything they're supposed to turn. We've

19 certified that their application is at the last minute

20 and it's complete

21 MEMBER PAPP: Why Friday?

22 MR. EVANCOE: It's kind of the

23 nature of the business. I always want something.

24 Generally we're getting the reviews done in advance.






1 There's a lot of last minute paperwork. What it

2 really -- I think I got the answer I just thought. It

3 often comes down to the attachments, gathering those.

4 Those last minute maps that we think might be helpful

5 to include or running, perhaps, to our GIS department

6 so you crank out one more match.

7 MEMBER PAPP: So it's not the

8 applicant that's giving you the information?


10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We do have a

11 motion on the table.

12 MR. SCHMIDT: Can we get it repeated?

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I thought the

14 motion was with regards to the extra meetings.

15 MR. SCHMIDT: The motion on the table

16 is to add a third a meeting in all months with five

17 Wednesdays.

18 MS. KOCAN: And back to the table for

19 discussion I thought.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you like to

21 amend the motion to bring it back to the table for

22 discussion?


24 MEMBER PAPP: Second.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion is to

2 add a third meeting and that it would be

3 MEMBER MARKHAM: A third meeting in

4 the months that have five Wednesday-

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing)

6 Third meeting in months of five Wednesdays and we will

7 discuss this and think about it and bring it back to

8 the next meeting.

9 MR. EVANCOE: So if I may, are you

10 saying that you're really not scheduling those

11 meetings?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're giving the

13 commission the opportunity to think about it and look

14 at the dates on the calendar and bring it to the next

15 meeting in January and they can discuss it again.

16 MEMBER MARKHAM: Madame Chair, I

17 would like to add one more thing and that's in August

18 and December we scheduled two meetings each month.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does the seconder

20 of the motion accept that?

21 It's justing coming back for

22 discussion.

23 MR. EVANCOE: If we could have that

24 part of the discussion because there was a reason






1 August turned out and I can't recall what that was and

2 there is a reason that helped.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And everybody can

4 look at the calendar.

5 MR. SCHMIDT: So the motion is to

6 bring back for discussion.


8 MEMBER KOCAN: As the alternative if

9 we don't want to add that third meeting is to add an

10 additional one or two agenda items to an existing

11 meeting. So it's for discussion. The officers felt

12 it was more effective to have perhaps a meeting back

13 to back with two public hearings rather than adding

14 two public hearings to an existing agenda and that's

15 what we're testing the waters on.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We've had a lot

17 of discussion. Now I think everybody understands the

18 common sense we're all trying to work together.

19 Could we please vote?

20 MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. Commissioner

21 Kocan?


23 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Markham?







1 MR. SCHMIDT: Chairperson Nagy?


3 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Papp?


5 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Paul?


7 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Ruyle?


9 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Sprague?


11 MR. SCHMIDT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


13 MR. SCHMIDT: Motion passes nine to

14 zero.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And then we have

16 one more item and that is Member Kocan regarding the

17 joint meeting with City Council.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Very quicly, you

19 received on your table tonight a suggested topic to

20 the joint PCC meeting and this was something that the

21 officers developed and something that the Planning

22 Commission as a whole has not seen. I don't want this

23 to get lost; however, we do know there is going to be

24 a new City Council within the next probably 15, 20






1 days so I'm not looking to have this on an agenda

2 immediately but if the other commissioners would

3 please look at this and make any suggestions or

4 reordering of the information I do believe it would be

5 appropriate to have a joint meeting at sometime.

6 That's all I have at this time.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any

8 additional comments? If not we do we have any special

9 reports?

10 Yes, Mr. Ruyle?

11 MEMBER RUYLE: Just to reiterate that

12 I did complete my project at home and you all are

13 invited at any time you want to come and see it.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

15 much. Mr. Evancoe?

16 MR. EVANCOE: Madame Chair, I belive

17 Commissioner Shroyer.


19 MEMBER SHROYER: I just wanted to go

20 back to the attorney because we never got an attorney

21 answer to our question regarding the size of the table

22 and you requested five minutes to research it.

23 MS. SIMON: Yes. It's actually

24 believed at this point but I'm not quite sure so it's






1 actually believed right now that the appeal would be

2 to the circuit and I would like to have a report back

3 to you at the next meeting where you would have a

4 final answer.

5 MEMBER MARKHAM: Can you also tell us

6 where it's found in the ordinances? Just cite

7 wherever it is.


8 MS. SIMON: Absolutely.

9 MEMBER MARKHAM: As opposed to

10 bringing it back to the next meeting could we have it

11 in the city staff so we can have it in our packet?

12 MS. SIMON: Absolutely.


14 MR. EVANCOE: Just one. I wanted

15 everyone to note there is a couple of errors on the

16 calendar. Instead of the 8th of January it should be

17 the 15th. And instead of the 22nd it should be the

18 29th.


20 Anything else? Do you have anything?

21 MR. SHROYER: Certainly not at this

22 hour.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is

24 nothing else then we have audience participation. If






1 there is anyone in the audience that would like to

2 come forwards please come forward and since there is

3 no one except Mr. Foley I will close the audience

4 participation. And do I hear a motion to adjourn?

5 MR. EVANCOE: So ruled.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

8 aye.







15 MR. EVANCOE : Aye.


17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Adjourned at

18 12:08 a.m.

19 (The meeting was concluded at

20 12:08 a.m.)

21 - - -









1 C E R T I F I C A T E



4 I, Darlene K. May, do hereby certify

5 that I have recorded stenographically the proceedings

6 had and testimony taken in the above-entitled matter

7 at the time and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do

8 further certify that the foregoing transcript,

9 consisting of one hundred ninety-two (192) typewritten

10 pages, is a true and correct transcript of my said

11 stenographic notes.



14 Signature on File

Darlene K. May, RPR, CSR-6479



17 (Date)


19 Signature on File

Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant


21 Date Approved: April 9, 2003