View Agenda for this meeting|
View Action Summary for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003, 7:30 P.M.
45175 W. TEN MILE, NOVI, MI 48375 (248) 347-0475


The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.


Present: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Engineer; Tom Schultz, Attorney; Larry DeBrincat, Vilican-Leman; Dr. John Freeland, Tilton & Associates


Member Sprague led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.


Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

Motion to approve the Agenda.

Motion carried 9-0.


No one from the audience wished to speak.


There was no correspondence to share with the Planning Commission.


There were no communications or Committee Reports to share with the Planning Commission.


1. Introduction by Planning Director David Evancoe of New City Landscape Architect, Lance Shipman

Mr. Evancoe introduced Lance Shipman, the new Landscape Architect for the City. Mr. Shipman is a registered Landscape Architect and a graduate of Michigan State University. He was previously employed by The Smith Group/JJR in Ann Arbor and Vilican-Leman in Southfield.

Mr. Evancoe also introduced Larry DeBrincat from Vilican-Leman, who will be consulting for the City in a Landscape Specialist capacity.


There was no Consent Agenda.


Member Ruyle informed the Planning Commission, on the advice of the City Attorney, that he is not recusing himself from voting on the request of Northern Equities, the first Public Hearing of the night. This company is currently in litigation with Brightmoor Church, of which Member Ruyle is a member. Because he does not serve in any voting capacity in his congregation, there is no conflict of interest that would preclude his voting on this matter.


The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Northern Equities for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium Approval, Wetland, and Woodland Permits. The subject property is located in Section 4, east of Beck Road and north of West Road in the (I-1) Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing a site condominium light industrial park with 24 units including associated roads and utilities. The subject property is 63.22acres.

Mr. Schmitt showed the aerials of the property. It is zoned and master planned I-1. To the west is Wixom (zoned and master planned with a similar industrial designation); to the south is Beck North Phase I (zoned and master planned I-1); to the east is Bristol Corners (zoned R-2 and master planned Single Family Residential with an area designated as a Quasi Public Neighborhood Park); to the north is the Springs Apartment Complex (Zoned RM-1 and master planned Multiple Family Residential).

The request for Beck North II is for the approval of the road layout, utility installation and site condominium. At this time no buildings are proposed and therefore no Special Land Use permits are necessary. When the anticipated buildings come forward for Preliminary Site Plan approval the Applicant will request approvals for wetland and woodland permits, and Special Land Use permits for lots 39 through 46 and lot 56. These lots are adjacent to residential.

The project does require a berm be installed between this property (light industrial) and the residential, specifically along the north and east property lines. The Applicant has requested a deferral of the berm until the actual building begins and screening becomes necessary. The project will be similar to Phase I in that the smaller lot designations will likely be combined as necessary. There is no minimum lot size for industrial park lots, other than the 3:1 width to depth ratio which has been met by this site plan.

The wetlands review recommends approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are two small wetland impacts. Additionally, it was noted that the Stormwater Management Plan utilizes the wetlands for drainage purposes.

The woodlands review required that the Applicant provide a plan for tree replacement and a determination must be made on the berm issue.

The landscape review recommended approval with a Planning Commission deferral or outright waiver of the berm requirement. It was noted that in Phase I some of the berms were installed prior to the actual construction phase of the project.

The traffic review sought a solution to the Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver issue. The Applicant has agreed to line up the property lines on Hudson Drives as a solution.

The engineering review cited the need for a City Council DCS Waiver for the use of a high density polyethylene storm sewer pipe. The Applicant has since indicated that they will instead meet the Ordinance.

There is no façade review and the Fire Department had no comments at this time.

Dave Stewart from Northern Equities introduced himself as the current owner of this property. Upon the completion of these pre-construction issues the entire site will be purchased by Amson Dembs for the construction of Beck North Phase II. He noted that Phase I began three years ago and is sold out. He also commented that he does not have a problem with Member Ruyle voting at this Public Hearing.

Mr. Stewart has been working with the Planning Staff and consultants to address the wetland and woodland issues. He commended Dr. Tilton on his resourcefulness in offering ideas for consideration on this project.

The Applicant and the future owners have met with the Bristol Corners residents. An air of cooperation between all the parties transpired once the scope of the proposal was understood. Mr. Stewart stated that one result from these meetings included the residents agreeing that the berms should be configured in conjunction with the construction of the buildings so as to maximize their effectiveness in relationship to the various buildings’ designs.

Mr. Stewart noted that two buildings in Phase I have received Special Land Use permits (Coordinated Management Specialties and Design Research Engineering). Thus far there have been no complaints regarding the buildings or the land use. They are two attractive buildings.

The Applicant provided a letter to the Planning Commission responding to the review letters, and has agreed to make the proposed changes. He specifically noted the Birchler Arroyo suggestion to align the lot lines and this has been redesigned in accordance with their recommendation. Mr. Stewart asserted that Amson Dembs is a quality builder who brings good tenants to Novi. Amson Dembs’ purchase of the entire site and the likelihood of their retaining ownership of all the parcels will bring a continuity to this project.

Member Kocan stated that she had correspondence to share with the Planning Commission.:


Sylvia and Tom Sutherland, 45776 Bristol Circle: Approved of the park but objected to the removal of the woodland buffer.


Kenneth Hopkins, 30370 Balfour Drive: Requested that the City protect its residents and specifically named the necessity of preserving the trees in his letter.

Derek Darkowski, 30369 Balfour Drive: Appreciated the interaction between the Bristol Corners residents, Northern Equities and Amson Dembs. His specific concerns were the lighting, tree buffer, height of buildings, traffic, noise, safety, winter opacity. He does not support moving Nadlan Court further north if it results in another lot being wedged into place south of lot 56 and east of lot 57.

Meghan McCliment, 45740 Bristol Circle: Objected to the project for a variety of reasons. She paid a lot premium to have a home abut the woodlands; 13 acres have already been destroyed and she believes the landowner’s "farming" of the property was an attempt to find a loophole in the Ordinance. She does not approve of lots 45,46,56,57,60 and 61 being developed. She requested that berms be placed in all areas for wetland and woodland protection.

Tania Salem, 45760 Bristol Circle: Objected to the project’s effect on the wetlands adjacent to her home. She photographs and grows wildflowers and fears their demise.

Richard Coy, 45748 Bristol Circle: Concerned that the project will increase noise and lighting levels, decrease property values and secure feeling of the woods. He requested that the Developer abide by the same wetland and woodland standards as the homeowners.

Kevin and Lori Protrowski, 45716 Bristol Circle: Stated that the project will reduce property values, create more traffic, truck traffic, noise and garbage. They see no benefit to the residents.

Jennifer Braun, 45768 Bristol Circle: Cited concern about noise and light levels. She requested that the Developer abide by wetland and woodland Ordinances. She suggested that all pad sites along the eastern border be removed to preserve the natural features and provide better screening for the Bristol Corners residents.

Joe and Elaine O’Connor, 45756 Bristol Circle: Suggested that drainage be directed away from the wetlands to preserve the trees. They requested that berms be provided to reduce light levels.

Joe and Rachel Gluck, 30385 Balfour Drive: Paid a premium for their woodland-adjacent lot. They fear that the project will create traffic, noise and lighting problems. They believe the woodlands are protected under the terms of the Ordinance.

Arnold Serlin, Novi Group LLC, 32400 Telegraph Road, Suite 200, Bingham Farms, MI (Developer of Bristol Farms): Compelled to request that the residents of Bristol Corners be protected by the City Ordinance with regard to berming, landscaping, sound-, noise- and light controls, wetlands and woodlands.

The following people addressed the Planning Commission in person at the meeting:

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court: Objected to the project because he felt the plan disregarded the natural features of the property and could negatively impact the neighboring residents. He noted that the Site Plan doesn’t show the building envelopes which would provide a much clearer picture of how the woodlands will be affected by this project. The roads already show some of this impact. He reiterated that 13 acres of woodlands have already been lost, and more will be lost with the development of this property. He noted that the Woodlands Ordinance grants relief only when there are no other feasible alternatives available to the Developer. Residents should not have to endure any adverse impact from the Developer – sound, noise, light or traffic. He asked that the residents and the woodlands be protected and that the Developer provide a reasonable and responsible development.

Greg McCliment, 45740 Bristol Circle: Expressed concern that more trees will be removed. His neighbor’s lot already takes on water. He encouraged the Developer to protect the woods and build berms that don’t require the removal of trees.

Doug Dutton, 45732 Bristol Circle: Was concerned with the ability of the property to drain properly. He located a large area of flooding in the aerial photo. He noted that the new plan shows a swale in the area that he believes will bring in more water. He asked City not to approve that plan.

Alp Onder, 30362 Balfour Drive: Has met with Ryan Dembs on two occasions. He believes the Developer will be true to his word as he has even agreed to put his promises in writing. He requested that the City uphold the Ordinance as they would for all others in the City.

Linda Roberts, 30377 Balfour Drive: Stated that several trees have been removed in the area of her home. She is concerned that more trees will die off. She noted that Northern Equities has offered to fill in the car path (that runs through the adjacent forest) with trees but she questioned how those trees can survive without adequate sun or water. She asked that all trees be saved on lots 45, 46 and 56 through 61. She requested pine trees be planted on the berms and that the natural screening of the area be restored. She asked that the cul-de-sacs and length of the drive be reviewed again in order to provide better security for the residents and save more trees.

Jason Roberts, 30377 Balfour Drive: Agreed with the comment that previously there was a questionable removal of trees which has negatively affected his view and quite possibly the adjacent wetlands. He is concerned with safety; the cul-de-sacs are located near homes where 20 kids under the age of ten live. He believes there is too much impact on the site’s natural features, and the replacement trees are not going to be 60 to 70 feet tall like the ones which will be removed. He does want to work with the Developer, but he doesn’t agree with Mr. Stewart’s comment that the residents have consented to the delay of the berm placement to coincide with the actual construction phase. He asked the City to get all of the Developer’s promises in writing and shown on the site plan so that there’s clear documentation of all agreed-upon terms.

Kelly Hallaron, 30361 Balfour Drive: Stated that her family will be most affected by this development. Her attorney wrote a letter on March 6, 2003 that cites the removal of trees in 2002 for farming purposes as a violation of the woodlands and wetlands Ordinances. Through his conversation with the Department of Agriculture, he learned that the removal of those trees was not covered under the Right to Farm Act because the land was not zoned agricultural at the time. She showed pictures dating from 2000 and 2002 which depicted the changes to the woods. One picture also showed the disturbed wetland, which has since re-formed. She said the act destroyed the buffer and compromised the opacity of the area. The high quality woodlands should be preserved; in 1997 this property had 40 acres of woodlands and now there are only 27 acres remaining with another seven proposed for removal. She assumes more will be brought down during the construction phase. The perpendicular street planned near their home will require more clearing and will bring traffic and security concerns. She noted that an area west of their home that was cleared last year happens to be where a road is proposed. She had an old Northern Equities Sales Advertisement that depicted the future location of the road. She said that the road will split the wetlands from the woodlands. She wants the berm installed in addition to the preservation of the trees for security and protection from noise and light.

Scott Hallaron, 30361 Balfour Drive: Requested the following: Nadlan Court and Cartier Drive be moved west and north to address security, noise and light issues; the 27 acres of woodlands be protected and mitigation of the wetlands be minimized; replacement of the woodlands on lots 56, 59 and 55; lots 45, 46, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 (along the north-south property line) be designated as protected woodlands and deemed non-buildable; the previously affected wetland that has since reformed be protected; replacement of the hedgerow along Hudson Drive; installation of a berm the entire length of the property line before construction begins; no drainage into the wetlands or woodlands; no pipes introduced into the area; and the preservation of all wetlands and woodlands.

No one else from the audience wished to speak so Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing. The meeting was re-convened by Chair Nagy after a five-minute break.

Member Paul began by stating that she lives in a subdivision on a premium wooded lot where the adjacent woodlands were also put into jeopardy, but there was an acceptable resolution that included the preservation of the trees. She envisioned that a similar resolution could be reached in this matter as well. Member Paul asked Planner Tim Schmitt to review the aerial photos of the property.

Mr. Schmitt thanked the area residents for their input on this project. The 1992 aerial photo showed the locations of Bristol Corners and Beck North. He pointed out the parameters of Beck North Phase 1 and the woodlands - those that were originally on the Bristol Corners property as well as those on the Beck North property.

Mr. Schmitt then showed a 1997 photo that was taken right after Bristol Corners was approved. He also gave an historical explanation of the property, noting that in 1969 both properties were zoned light industrial. It was envisioned that the area from West Park Drive to Wixom would maintain its industrial designation. In November 1984 the Bristol Corners property was zoned to R-2 and the planning process began, which included the preservation option (Lakewood Preserve). This was later abandoned and Bristol Corners became the new plan for the parcel. He noted that the aerial photo depicted the clearing and grubbing of the Bristol Corners site and some farming activity on the Beck North site.

The 2000 aerial view showed that roads and utilities had been added to the Bristol Corners site and the first phase of the subdivision was under construction. The 2002 aerial view showed the tree line and the two cutout locations. He noted that there was another location where clearing may have taken place but it was not evident on the photo. There was one property line that did not appear to have a substantial amount of trees removed. The previous Landscape Architect had noted the removal of a section that measured 30 by 100 feet.

An aerial view was shown of the existing conditions, and Mr. Schmitt pointed out the cul-de-sac in question. The end of the tree line measures about 200’ feet away from Bristol Corners (angular measurement). When light Industrial abuts residential, an incoming development must be set back a minimum of 100 feet and the building can only be 20 feet tall, or up to 25 feet tall with an additional five feet of setback for each foot the building exceeds 20 feet. The distance between the proposed building and the residents is at least 100 feet, so Mr. Schmitt suggested that it can be assumed that the line of trees will not be affected except for a few along the perimeter during the grading process. Mr. Schmitt reemphasized that there will be no building or parking lot close to the residential lots, and that the backs of the buildings will abut the homes which will also bring more privacy to the homeowners. The City has a strict lighting Ordinance, so there will be no lighting facing that direction. The lighting fixtures cannot exceed the height of the building (15 to 18 feet is typical) and the cut-offs will restrict the lights’ projection.

Member Paul’s woodlands concerns were addressed by Mr. Larry DeBrincat, Woodlands Consultant. He stated that it would not be possible to determine the caliper of trees from the aerial photos. Member Paul asked how major blocks of woodlands could be preserved; Mr. DeBrincat responded that the roads could be reconfigured, but that decision has its limitations as well. The cul-de-sac of Cartier must line up to the Wixom Cartier. The central cul-de-sac could be moved north to limit the tree removal to the east. Member Paul suggested that a loop road could eliminate some of the cul-de-sacs but Mr. DeBrincat responded that there may not be enough depth for such a design, or it might even cause a road to run along property lines.

Member Paul noted that the Plan is not in compliance with Ordinance Section 73-28(4)(h): the tree replacement plan has not been submitted and the replacement values for the trees to be removed have not been provided. Mr. DeBrincat explained that the Applicant has indicated that they would prefer to make an over-estimated contribution to the tree fund; upon completion of the project if there is a discrepancy they would ask the City for a refund.

Member Paul asked Mr. Schmitt for his opinion on connecting the drives versus the two cul-de-sacs. He replied that connecting the roads in the manner suggested would create a strip of land on the east that would be too narrow to develop. Member Paul wasn’t sure that was the case, and she suggested that they confer with Mr. Brian Coburn, City Engineer. Member Paul noted that there is no Ordinance that prohibits a developer from providing more parking than required and that this will be addressed by the Implementation Committee in the near future. She suggested that by reducing the amount of parking spaces that a loop road was indeed feasible. Mr. Coburn verified that Member Paul was speaking about putting a road between Cartier Drive and Nadlan Court that would run behind lots 49-53. Mr. Coburn explained that this design would put a road on both sides of those lots and would require an easterly easement of 60 feet that would significantly impact the build-ability of those lots. Member Paul stated that if the lots were reoriented and the driveways were across from one another it could alleviate the residential impact. Her vote on this project will indicate her support for the preservation of the natural features, although she stated that she does appreciate the rights of the Applicant to develop his land. She prefers that this development be reexamined and reconfigured to preserve the natural features.

Moved and amended by Member Paul, seconded by Member Papp:

In the matter of Beck North Corporate Park, Site Plan 00-131, motion to table the Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit for the following reasons: 1) The proposed Woodland Replacement Plan does not contain a tree inventory that specifies which trees are to be removed, which trees are to remain and replacement values for both; 2) It contains no Tree Replacement Plan to satisfy Section 37.8(a) of the Woodlands Ordinance; 3) The Site Plan, pursuant to the review process for all districts under Section 2516.3, is not compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land, including existing woodlands, wetlands, water courses and wildlife habitat; 4) The Site Plan must protect the natural environment and conserve natural resources and energy to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses of land and to promote the use of the land in a socially and economically desirable manner. The Site Plan does not meet the standards under Section 2516.d(1), due to the fact the natural resources, the health, safety and welfare, as well as the social and economic well-being of those who will use the land, residents and landowners immediately adjacent to the proposed land use or activity and the community as a whole are affected; 5) The traffic patterns for the Condominium Site Plan have unit boundaries on a given side of each street and should align with the unit boundaries which the Applicant has addressed. We need to look at the street configuration and the lot configuration to have standards meet with Design and Construction Standards, figure 1X.112; and 6) Any additional discussion items at the table are included as reasons for tabling.


Member Ruyle asked whether the discussion should cease because of the tabling of the Site Plan. Mr. Schultz explained that most communities use the term "tabling" to mean "postpone" and that the discussion could continue. Mr. Schultz added that direction from the Planning Commission to the Planning Staff as to what they should be trying to accomplish during this time of postponement would be helpful.

Member Avdoulos appreciated the presence of concerned citizens at the meeting. He asked whether the motion needed to indicate the reasons for the tabling, or whether the motion should just be succinct and the reasons why could be found in the minutes of the meeting. Chair Nagy stated that the reasons should be listed in the motion because that will give direction to the Planning Staff. Member Avdoulos recounted that the Preliminary Site Plan, the Wetlands and Woodlands permits and the Site Condominium approval are all part of the Applicant’s request.

Member Avdoulos noted that some of the citizens from the adjacent R-2 district acknowledged that they knew their subdivision abutted an industrial-zoned district. The Applicant has a reasonable right to develop their land. Member Avdoulos commented that his opinion of reasonable means that the Applicant will take into consideration what is on the site, what is next to the site and what factors are involved to ensure that the development works well within its own boundaries while respecting the adjacent boundaries. The Planning Commission would like the Applicant to respond to the citizens’ and the Commissioners’ comments.

Member Avdoulos explained that the site design does not require the removal of many trees and the readjusting and reapportioning the site is meant to accommodate roads and sewers. The hardship will fall on the abutting properties where there are woodlands; those developments will have to come in individually as Special Land Uses. Another concern is that industrial parks are designed without a master plan; such a plan could alleviate the future need for Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waivers and Same Side Driveway Spacing Waivers within the development as well as address existing issues like excessive woodlands. Member Avdoulos commented that he does not approve of farming this site now that it has been determined to be a location for an industrial development. Member Avdoulos requested that the Developer respect the natural features on the site – woodlands and wetlands. Member Avdoulos is not a fan of berm usage because of their artificiality but approves of them on this site if they could be incorporated naturally to enhance the screening.

Member Avdoulos does not want to be reactionary. He encouraged the residents to give respect to the Developer and in return the Developer will work in harmony with his neighbors. Generally speaking, Member Avdoulos found that based upon this submittal, the project is difficult to read and it remains uncertain whether it accommodates the needs of the neighbors and future tenants. A master plan for this industrial park would be a great start for the property.

Member Ruyle supported the motion. He is a firm believer of a tree inventory for each parcel. He is not in favor of a developer contributing to the tree fund if the trees can be saved. Member Ruyle walked the property and noted the road north of the Hallaron property. He suggested that something be done about that, because once the cul-de-sac is put in kids will invariably drive right through there.

Member Shroyer agreed with his fellow Commissioners and supported the motion. He agreed that the realignment of the road is appropriate, and he noted that a quick sketch by the Planning Commission seems to suggest that the concept is possible. The Planning Commission can’t accept this plan "as is" knowing that alternatives exist that would result in less impact.

Member Shroyer did not have an issue with the encroachment of Wetland "B" for the road because there are other strong wetlands. He asked about the 50-foot nature trail donated to city. Mr. Schmitt located two sets of property lines on a photo, one was the border of the industrial park and the other was the property line. He explained that prior to 1999 the Applicant donated the 50-foot strip for a permanent landscaped nature trail, knowing that the property was adjacent to residential. Then the question arose whether this nature trail relieved the industrial parcel from its obligations resulting from its adjacency to residential. The Planning Commission believed that it did not, and the issue went before the ZBA, where it was determined that this 50-foot strip was dedicated to circumvent the requirements resulting from their adjacency to residential. Now it is just part of the landscape easement and does not affect the obligatory setback requirements. Chair Nagy said it’s also considered a wildlife corridor; Mr. Schmitt responded that the legal term is a landscape easement. Mr. Schmitt confirmed that it is owned by the City but there are no maintenance issues associated with it. It is still zoned industrial and therefore counts in the measurement for the easement.

Member Shroyer asked for clarification on how wide the tree buffer area is. Mr. Schmitt responded that in its narrowest location it is 200 feet but that the average is 400 feet. Lot number 56 is closer but the northern lots are further away.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Coburn about the new stormwater structure technology. Mr. Coburn responded that the proposed swirl concentrator chambers improve the quality of stormwater by removing sedimentation. They do not provide water storage, which is provided by the wetlands adjacent to the site. These wetlands divide the site into quadrants, and the wetlands in the corners will receive the chamber-treated stormwater runoff. The stormwater calculations show that the impact to the wetlands appears to be a minimal fraction of an inch, and therefore the Stormwater Management Plan was given a positive recommendation.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Schultz whether the Planning Commission can require the Developer to cease farming the land because it is under review for an industrial use. Mr. Schultz responded that there is no basis in the Ordinance on which to defend that requirement. Rod Arroyo and previous City Staff members confirmed that the farming is a non-conforming use. Mr. Schultz remarked that it isn’t the Developer’s intention to continue farming the parcel, and he will likely acknowledge that tonight.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Stewart and he replied that there is no intent to continue farming the land. Rather, his intent is to put in the underground utilities and the roads this year. Mr. Stewart also commented that he’s been accused of many things this evening and he’d like an opportunity to defend himself. Chair Nagy stated that he would have that opportunity at the end of the question and answer process.

Member Shroyer supported the motion and suggested that there are alternative plans that would better serve the citizens and the City. He stated that he is looking forward to the City working with Amson Dembs.

Member Kocan appreciated the Developer working with the local residents. She stated that the strongest support for tabling this Site Plan is that other options would have less impact upon the environs of the property. Member Kocan agreed with the suggestion of designing a ring road and she would recommend putting it through lots 54 and 48. This option would create enough depth for lots that abut residential. She agreed with the suggestion to shorten the road and take out the cul-de-sac that goes toward the residents and the Hallarons. Member Kocan also suggested that the Developer look into moving the road south and putting in another lot next to lot 53.

Member Kocan will not approve a plan without berms installed as the park is developed. She did not know what height would be best, but it would serve a purpose on several levels. Particularly between residential and industrial, berms absorb noise. The amount of deciduous trees in the area provides no noise attenuation at all. The Ordinance requires 80% opacity in the winter. Member Kocan suggested that there be no "openness" to discourage kids from going over to the industrial park and to discourage employees from entering into the subdivision through the industrial park.

Member Kocan requested a tree survey wherein every tree is indicated. She stated that it is a good policy for the Planning Commission and the City to know what the appearance of the finished park will be. She is cognizant of the Woodlands Ordinance, and she believes there are alternatives. The farming issue doesn’t sit well with Member Kocan, as there are too many rocks on the property. She stated that although there may be an intention to farm, she found it highly suspect. She understood that in the past trees were taken out and no replacements were made, and now we can’t require them. However, any tree removed now will be replaced. Member Kocan suggested that the Developer take a sensitive look at the edges of area 58, so as to prevent the total removal of the dense trees. Member Kocan is also concerned that citizens have noticed a difference in the draining since the trees were removed. She requested that the Developer preserve the wetlands and woodlands and is looking forward to seeing the finalized landscape plan.

Member Kocan would like to see a plan with building envelopes for sale-ability purposes. She understands that lots can potentially be divided or doubled, but at least it would give an indication as to how far back the buildings may be placed.

Member Kocan is concerned about the road directed at Bristol Corners and she recommended moving the cul-de-sac further west to reduce its adverse impact on the residents, i.e., so the headlights don’t shine into their homes. She supported the motion.

Member Sprague stated that this is a challenging site, because meeting the Developer’s needs and rights must be balanced against the environmental concerns. He agreed that all parties should be commended for working together on the woodlands and neighbor issues. He noted that the Developer, Amson Dembs, has done a great job in the past.

Member Sprague expressed some reservations regarding the Special Land Use permits. He supported the idea that if the Developer presented a plan with access points and building envelopes many of the Planning Commission’s concerns would be allayed. He suggested that the Developer eliminate any unnecessary roads; if lots 45, 46 and 56 don’t get Special Land Use permits, then the cul-de-sacs would have been built for no reason.

Member Papp thanked the Hallarons for their package. He concurred that resolving Woodlands issues takes a lot of time and hard work. He believes that between the Applicant and the residents these issues can be worked out. He encouraged the Developer to keep as many trees as possible, and to fit the building envelopes onto the property to maximize the preservation of trees. He noted that if the Applicant has some tenants interested in certain parcels, he must have some idea of their building needs. He agreed that it would be helpful if the Developer gave a better idea of what he wants to build, rather than projecting the plan with a full 24 units. Member Papp appreciated the before-and-after pictures that showed what has been going on with the property. Member Papp will support the motion.

Member Markham expressed concern over the Opposite Side Driveway Spacing Waiver and Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver issues. She also appreciated the Developer’s concept of facing the buildings to each other so that driveways could go in. However, she noted that the lots are smaller than usual and Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver will still be needed. She recommended that when the Developer goes back to review this site, he should consider developing a plan that provides the big picture – a holistic approach complete with building envelopes, lot sizes and a driveway master plan. She agreed that this approach would ease some of the Planning Commission’s concerns and would also be helpful as subsequent buildings and Special Land Uses come forth.

Member Markham appreciated the residents’ well thought-out arguments and suggestions. She agreed with the Roberts’ suggestion to shorten lots 60 and 61 to save the woodlands. She cautioned that the Duttons’ suggestion regarding a drainage system from a swale into the woodlands does kill trees, an example of which can be found between Member Markham’s and Member Paul’s subdivisions. This system, within six to eight years, could result in a lot of dead trees. She recommended that the Developer look again at better ways to contain and drain water other than directly into the woodlands. Member Markham appreciated the Hallarons’ work and all the residents who came forward, which suggests that their philosophy is that they want to make it work. Member Markham supported the motion.

Chair Nagy agreed with the other Commission members. She stated that Developer and the residents have attempted to work together, and the Developer can work with the Planning Department to make this site plan work. Chair Nagy stated that she agreed with shifting the road and making it a square, realigning and shifting the buildings. Chair Nagy stated that she would like to see the building envelopes. She also stated that she is concerned about the opacity issue and the water and wetlands issues. She stated that the impervious surfaces release warmer water into the swales during summer which is not good for the trees.

Chair Nagy stated that the Planning Commission should take the farming issue to the Implementation Committee for Ordinance review. Mr. Schultz responded that it’s already underway through the City’s Administration. Chair Nagy stated that it is possible to arrive at a win/win situation, as these residents knew when they bought their homes that they abutted a light industrial district. She stated that the high quality woodlands are worth saving. She agreed that the cul-de-sacs should be removed. She stated that the Developer should work it out with the Planning Department to provide a ring road and realign the site, and that no one is opposed to the development itself.

Member Paul encouraged the use of 15-foot rather than 18-foot lighting for the development. She recommended that the Developer stay out of the wetland buffer of "A". She expressed her interest in reviewing the Stormwater Management Plan again to understand how the drainage system will work upon the removal of all the trees. She believes the water should stay on this site and looks forward to hearing more comments when the plan returns.

Mr. Schultz noted that the Planning Commission’s comments give the Planning Staff direction. He cautioned that a handful of requests that the Planning Commission made cannot be enforced, e.g., requesting that building envelopes be shown on the plan. The City must work within the limitations of the Ordinance.

Mr. Evancoe asked for clarification on the berm issue around the property’s perimeter. He explained that a ten-foot berm requires a 65- or 75-foot horizontal distance; a 15-foot berm requires 100 feet. This berm request contradicts the Commissioners’ other request to preserve the maximum number of trees. Member Kocan responded that the Commission is looking for recommendations from the Landscape Architect and the Woodlands Consultant that would increase the opacity of the perimeter, not necessarily a 10- or 15-foot berm.

Member Kocan asked that a friendly amendment be made to the motion that states, "Any additional discussion items at the table are included as reasons for tabling." Member Paul accepted the amendment to the motion as did Member Papp.

Mr. Stewart readdressed the Planning Commission. He stated that there had been a lot of discussion regarding the Developer putting water into and destroying the wetlands. He reiterated that the Planning Staff previously told the Planning Commission that the Developer has not done this. He reminded the Commission that when the Developer constructed Phase I, he was required at that time to design a Stormwater Management Plan that would accommodate two-thirds of the water from Phase 2. Therefore, there is a sixty-inch pipe already in place that is meant to maintain the water levels of the wetlands at historic levels. In the event the water in the wetlands exceeds that level it will be drained from the site via the pipe. In the matter of Bristol Corners’ residents complaining about the water runoff in the area, Mr. Stewart asserted it is actually their stormwater that is not being managed properly and now their runoff is infringing on his property in two places. Even though he was not consulted about the Bristol Corners’ water draining onto his property, Mr. Stewart said that, at the City’s request, he will be taking care of their runoff by virtue of the pipe.

Mr. Stewart stated that the wetland in the north area had been wet forever. About five years ago the City was drilling a well and they created a situation where the water ran out of it. Mr. Stewart is considering re-hydrating that wetland, which goes all the way back to the 400 to 500-foot buffer between this property and the apartment complex. There, on the apartment’s property, is a 30 to 40-foot weir that regulates the flow of the wetlands and prohibits the water levels from exceeding historic levels.

Mr. Stewart stated that this property has been farmed since 1990 – 13 years. They have harvested field corn, sweet corn and soy beans. He has suggested that no more farming be done on the site.

Mr. Stewart explained that Mr. Arroyo gave him a choice to align the lots or come up with a master plan. However, there is no way to do a master plan; Mr. Dembs does not know whether he will get a 200,000 sf user or a 20,000 sf user. Traditionally, Mr. Dembs has not used lots as small as what is depicted on this plan because he doesn’t like to build 12,000 sf buildings. He is not going to change his mind. This plan was done in a manner that provides ease in combining lots, which echoes what was done in Phase I and also at Beck West. For example, in Beck West the corner building is a combination of four lots. Alcan is a combination of three lots. Owens Corning is three lots and its neighbor is two lots. The Corning Glass building is two lots. The Weingartz building is one lot, but it evolved into a four-plus acre parcel. Mr. Stewart understood the Planning Commission’s concern, and he suggested that they should ask for joint-access driveways. He doesn’t know how the Planning Staff would like that idea but it could alleviate some problems. The loop road would result in two lots having three front yard setbacks which he finds to be unreasonable. If that is the will of the Planning Commission, then he suggested the motion be amended to allow those lots to be considered as having only one front yard.

Mr. Stewart pointed to a wooded wetland of reasonably high quality on a photo that was never intended to be touched. Two other wetlands he pointed to – the same. The Developer only planned on touching two tiny wetlands that combine for about one-half acre. They are depressions in the ground and have no outside source of water other than runoff.

Mr. Stewart pointed to a place where some woodlands were removed by the City, not him. They were taken out so that the City could put in the transmission sanitary sewer required by their contract with the City of Walled Lake. Mr. Stewart gave the City an easement so that they could fulfill the terms of their contract. The City chose to put the sewer on the north side of the road.

Mr. Stewart stated that he will build the berm but it seems to contradict what the Bristol Corners’ residents and the Planning Commission want. It does not seem to be in the best interests of the property.

Chair Nagy stated that she thought the Planning Staff could work with Mr. Stewart on the review items. She called for the vote.

Motion carried 9-0.


The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Erickson Retirement Campus for the approval of a revised Woodland Permit and a recommendation to City Council for a revised Preliminary Site Plan with a PD-1 (Planned Development) option and a revised Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and northeast of Meadowbrook Road in the (RM-1) Multiple Family District. The Applicant is proposing changes to the previously approved site plan by adding a wetland crossing, a parking deck, and modifications to the buildings in Phase II. The subject property is 102.817 acres.

Mr. Schmitt used the overhead to show the location of the Fox Run development, which is zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family with a PD-1 Option. To the east is Brightmoor Church (currently zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential with the northern portion soon to be approved for an RM-1 designation and master planned for Multiple Family Residential); to the west is Chateau Estates mobile home park (zoned and master planned MH); to the north and west is The Maples PUD (zoned and master planned as a PUD); to the north is Haverhill Farms (zoned R-2 and master planned Single Family Residential); to the south is the Seely Sanctuary and several smaller properties located along 13 Mile (zoned R-A and master planned Single Family Residential).

Mr. Schmitt displayed photos showing the Fox Run parking deck, residential buildings, community building, surface parking lot and the pedestrian crossing. The Applicant is currently developing Phase I. Preparation for Phase II is underway. As in the past, this Applicant has tried to work with the natural features of the land and has purposely stayed away from the wetlands to the rear of the property. Now, the Landscape Architect for the project has come across a large stand of trees as well as two very large trees that the Applicant would like to save. Mr. Schmitt explained that the site plan before the Commission proposes to save the trees and offers a few other minor changes:

Addition of a pedestrian crossing which involves the placement of one piling into the wetland and two pilings in the wetland’s fringe. The previous design required pedestrians to walk from building to building to navigate the site to reach the community building. This change will promote better pedestrian circulation throughout the site and has been designed to minimize the wetland impact.

Consolidation of a parking deck and a surface parking lot. This design is capable of supporting the City’s fire truck, which was a concern of Fire Marshal Evans.

Rotation of an ell-shaped building by 90 degrees.

Minor modifications to the façade that gives Phase II its own distinctive look while maintaining the general characteristics of the entire project.

Mr. Schmitt discussed the various review letters. The Wetlands Review recommended approval with revised plans being submitted for the MDEQ permit. The Woodlands Permit recommended approval because more trees are being saved, and it noted that some spot elevations are needed. The Landscape Review recommended approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Traffic review offered no comments at this time. The Engineering Review recommended approval.

The Façade review noted that previously a Section 9 Waiver was approved for the entire project. The proposed alterations resulted in the need for an additional Section 9 Waiver to address the materials used on the walkway and the parking deck. Because these changes are consistent with the overall appearance of the property and the original Section 9 Waiver, the Façade Review also gave a favorable recommendation to this site plan.

The Fire Review recommended approval with notation of two items that the Applicant has agreed to address.

The Planning Review noted that the entrance to the parking deck goes downgrade. A ZBA variance is needed for the placement of a driveway within 25 feet of a wall with openings. The units located next to this parking deck include kitchen windows, living room windows and one bedroom window facing the deck, but only the ground floor is immediately adjacent to it. The location of this deck is feasible. Previously the Fire Marshal was concerned about getting 50% coverage on every building, but this is now possible with the addition of two roads. The fire lane will support all fire trucks.

Mr. Schmitt explained that the City received several responses to the Public Hearing notices. He has spoken with many of the respondents and has determined that most were just confused about what this amendment to the site plan changed. The Haverhill residents thought that the north wetlands were being impacted but Mr. Schmitt explained that no changes are proposed for that area. Additionally, the buffer between Fox Run and the Haverhill and The Maples properties remains in tact.

Member Papp asked to review the photo of the trees that are now earmarked for preservation. Mr. Schmitt pointed out the new preservation area and the two large trees that will be saved. He noted that the visible fencing protection is the edge of the preservation area.

Mr. Peter Albertson of Nordstrom Samson and Associates represented Fox Run. He introduced Greg Gluck, Senior Retirement Development Director for the campus; Roy Baker, NSA Project Manager; Mike O’Sullivan, the Project Architect who interfaces with City Staff; Julian Vargo from the Civil Engineer’s office; and Ken Weikal, Landscape Architect.

Mr. Albertson explained that the façade issue was previously addressed on the Preliminary Site Plan. Fox Run is comprised of four basic communities, and each has its own unique façade but they feature similar characteristics.

Mr. Albertson continued that the original site plan had three parking decks. This new plan combines one deck with a surface parking lot. The new design increases the number of parking spaces but reduces the surface area and allows for more green space. The top level of the deck is at grade level and the rest is submerged. There is an access to the lower level with a division between the deck and the residential building, as well as an upper deck entrance on the north side that makes use of the natural contour of the site. The parking modifications are proposed to accommodate the building reconfigurations and to save the wooded area.

Mr. Albertson explained that the Fox Run campus is intended to be fully connected by elevated walkways that are glassed-in, enclosed conditioned spaces (not outdoor pathways). The original design placed the pedestrian link on the perimeter of the wetland. The Section 9 Waivers requested tonight are for a design with less impact than the original plan.

Mr. Albertson stated that the revisions include reconfigurations of residential buildings 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5. The amount of independent living homes remains at 1497 units. The Phase II elevation changes improve the relationship of materials to the basic roof construction configuration, and is a design enhancement rather than a major revision. None of the proposed changes impact the criteria used throughout the campus, nor do they affect the Master Plan or map amendment. The changes do not necessitate amendments to the Community Impact Statement or the Traffic Impact Statement required by the PD-1 option. The Applicant did provide a response letter to address the issues raised in the review letters.

No one from the audience wished to speak, but Member Kocan had several responses to the Public Hearing notices to share with the Planning Commission. She concurred that many of the residents’ comments suggest they thought this was a new development rather than a refinement to the already approved project.


Helen Garza, 41613 Sleepy Hollow: Objected to the project and expressed concern about changes to the wetlands and woodlands. Any potential negative change to the natural beauty of this site decreases her property value.

Tanya Klein, 41434 Cornell Drive: This resident’s home abuts the development. She believes this will decrease the value of her home. A major selling point for her was the protected wetland behind her home.

Vicki Edwards 41419 Cornell Drive: Believes the wetlands should be left alone. She does not see the need for continued development or the growth of the senior complex.

Steven Gabel, 40595 Kingsley Lane: Requested that the revision to the wetlands and woodlands does not encroach the Haverhill properties or disturb the draining between the two sites. He does not want to see the parking deck from his home, and would have objected to the project originally had he known that a parking structure was possible. He asked that landscaping be installed between Haverhill and Fox Run Phase II.

Carol Mullins, 41506 Cornell Drive: Said that the parking deck should have been on the original plans. She does not want the wetlands and woodlands disturbed as they provide habitat for the wildlife.

Rick Montes, 41410 Cornell: Paid a premium to live near the wetlands so he asked that they not be disturbed.

Robert Wieck, 41538 Cornell: Believes that there’s enough building being done already. He asked for a moratorium on building to preserve the woods.

Sandra Chalmers, 41840 Cantebury Drive: Believes that the woodlands were once beautiful and now they are just becoming a wasteland.

John Sheffer, 41765 Independence Drive: Believes that enough concessions have been given to the developers and builders.

James Remijan, 41677 Magnolia Court: Believes there is too much traffic in the area already, and asked that the "mile" roads be widened before more development is approved. He asked why his property taxes are not decreasing in relationship to all the new development in the City. He pays more taxes on his condo than he would for a $600,000 waterfront home in Waterford.

Linda and Arthur Aucutt, 31074 Seneca lane: Believe there is enough building and ample housing in the area already.

James Irwin, 41490Cornell Drive: Asked why the City bothers to designate a wetland if they are going to allow changes or building on it. The plan was approved once, there’s no reason to accept changes on it.


John Kling, 31020 Tanglewood Drive: No comment.

Gerard Thibert, 41689 Sleepy Hollow: Has no reason to object.

Maurice Sanders, 41606 Kenilworth Lane: Accepts the change as long as the wetland is maintained. He asked if the walking trail can be used by all citizens of Novi.

Albert Hamil, 30858 Collingdale Drive: Approves of change as it is necessary.

Florence Baptist, 41893 Cantebury Drive: Supports request.

Leslie Mollon, 41654 Kenilworth Lane: Approves of the request.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Nagy asked what the distance is between the Haverhill properties and the parking structure. Mr. Schmitt responded that the distance is approximately 3,000 feet.

Member Ruyle stated that this proposed change is good for the project. He liked the idea of consolidating the parking lot and deck with an underground design.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

In the matter of Fox Run Village, Phase II, Site Plan 00-66D, motion to approve the Stormwater Management Plan and Woodland Permit and recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit subject to: 1) ZBA variance for having a driveway within 25 feet of a wall with an opening; 2) Section 9 Waiver for use of pre-cast concrete on pedestrian walkways and parking decks; and 3) Subject to the comments of the attached review letters being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan, for the reason that it is a good plan.


Member Shroyer is in favor of the proposal. He asked whether any other materials were ever considered instead of the metal panels on the passageway that would have met the terms of the Ordinance. Mr. Albertson said yes. He explained that the original concept was that the pre-cast concrete piers would be used for support and concrete would support the walking surface. All glass would be used for the wall system with the exception of an aluminum mullion system. The extent of the proposed metal trim is about one foot deep. There is usage of masonry from building to building. The trim piece chosen for the final design was the most reasonable for the connection. The color of the panel was shown to the Planning Commission. Its use on the property is homogeneous to the campus design.

Member Shroyer asked about the use of wood on the carport. Mr. Albertson clarified that the carport is made of a shingle roof upon a metal deck that can only be seen from the interior. The exterior of the carport has metal trim at the end, exposed masonry on both sides of the end panel, and a gabled end trim. No wood panels are on the back side, but may have been on the original site plan submittal which has since been upgraded.

Member Papp confirmed that the number of parking spaces associated with the new design is 125. He asked whether the 12.5 feet of driveway going underground could be moved further away from residential building 2.5 to reduce its impact on the residential building. It was mentioned that there are two entrances to the parking lot and that only half would make use of this particular access. Mr. Albertson also responded that the current access location was the best alternative in relationship to the deck area below, but it will have a minimal impact on the residential building because it goes immediately downgrade. The lower deck is nine feet below the elevation of the next unit.

The 12.5 feet between the two structures will be landscaped with woodland replacement trees; Landscape Architect Ken Weikal prefers narrow growing deciduous trees with tall and narrow evergreens interspersed for this area with its southern exposure. The residential patios are to the west and east so this area is more of a sideyard.

Mr. Coburn stated that the Ordinance requires a guard rail for any retaining wall over 42 inches high, therefore these will be placed along the top of the parking deck.

Chair Nagy stated that she was in favor of the motion. She stated that whatever issues remain can be resolved between the Applicant and the Consultants. Chair Nagy called for the vote.

Motion carried 9-0.

After a ten minute break, Chair Nagy called the meeting back to order.


The Public Hearing was opened for the consideration of amending the Ordinance to add Article 9a to Ordinance No. 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add the designation for the GE Gateway East District to the Schedule of Regulations contained within section 2400 of said Ordinance, to amend footnotes (k) and (o) to the Schedule of Regulations contained within section 2400 of said Ordinance, to amend subsection 2507.2 of said Ordinance, to amend subpart 2509.6a and 2509.8b of said Ordinance, and to add the designation for the GE Gateway East District to region 1 of the schedule regulating façade materials contained within section 2520 of said Ordinance, to create the Gateway East Zoning District which is intended to encourage mixed-use development, including multiple-family residential, office, and limited commercial land uses, and to provide an optional tool with greater flexibility toward the achievement of the objectives of the Gateway East District by authorizing use of Planned Unit Development (special development option) regulations.

Mr. Evancoe provided the Planning Commission with historical information detailing the events that led up to this version of the Gateway East District Ordinance proposal. In 1999 the Planning Commission recommended to City Council the approval of an amendment to the Ordinance for the purpose of establishing this district. Mr. Rod Arroyo, Birchler Arroyo Associates, began working with a City Council committee on refining this amendment. Mr. Arroyo was invited to address the Planning Commission.

Mr. Arroyo explained that the request for the Gateway East Ordinance goes back to the last Master Plan amendment process. At that time the City determined that this corridor truly could be transformed into the gateway to downtown Novi. The design of this area would bring buildings closer to the road to give that feel of arriving into the center of the town. The density would be increased to also provide a downtown feel. Public input was sought from both residents and property owners. The local business owners in this area and the residents of Meadowbrook Glens were great contributors. Mr. Arroyo expressed that this area is really the jewel of the City; it just needs a shot in the arm.

One issue that was considered during the review process was whether there should be front yard parking, and if so, should it be one or two rows. The final recommendation was that no parking should be in the front. With this design the buildings would become the showcase which could have a calming effect on the traffic. Drivers would slow down as they entered the area because there is more activity to look at.

Another aspect of the review involved the addition of a Special Development Option that maximizes the benefit of creating this district. The City Council worked with Jerry Fisher on this concept which allows an Applicant the ability to take advantage of the increased density and mixed use options by way of a Special Development Review and Public Hearing. The Planning Commission would see a concept plan with less information than what is typically brought before them - a little more like an RUD proposal. The City Council then reviews the plan to determine whether it meets the intent of the Ordinance. If an unusual idea is proposed that offers a public benefit, the City Council would have the flexibility to review the plan in that light and consider its application in the Gateway East District.

Another change made during the review is that the Multiple Family option would be considered in the Gateway East District only through the Special Development Option. The benefit of this approach is that an Applicant can actually bring forth a mixed-use plan that, for example, qualifies for a higher density than what is allowed in the Town Center District. In essence, the Applicant is rewarded for taking advantage of the Special Development Option. In the Town Center District, the standard two-bedroom density is 12.1 units per acre. A proposed plan that utilizes the Special Development Option could be approved with a density of 15 units per acre with a single-use building or 18 units per acre with a multi-use building. A pure residential use could be approved with a density of nine units per acre as opposed to the conventional 7.3 units per acre in the RM-1. Mr. Arroyo then offered to answer specific questions that anyone wanted to ask.

Chair Nagy asked whether anyone from the audience wished to speak.

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court: Stated that he was one of the previous Planning Commission members who worked on the original version of this Ordinance. He defined the Gateway District as Grand River between Meadowbrook and the Main Street area. The previous Master Plan envisioned strip centers and cookie cutter residential apartment developments. There was no vision for the corridor. He stated that he is surprised that this Ordinance is still in the talking stages in 2003; he thought that by now the City would have several projects for the area. He considers developing this area as "smart growth" – expanding the City where city services (police, fire) already exist. He is concerned that the City’s specific goals are not outlined in the Ordinance. He would rather see the parameters spelled out rather than "options" being offered to developers. He suggested that the vagueness of the Ordinance could scare developers away.

Jonathan Brateman, 40015 Grand River: Stated that the Gateway Ordinance is an effort to provide a reasonable return for long term property owners, create new venues and offer a tax base for the community. Mr. Brateman is willing to give the Gateway District Ordinance a chance, even though it may not be perfect, e.g., some retail uses may have been omitted. There may be property owners who will need variances or rezoning, but the City must move forward on this Ordinance. He envisioned the Ordinance as a chance for a new beginning which is a good thing for this corridor.

Bill Bowman, Sr., 30180 Orchard Lake Road, Farmington: Indicated that the reason for the City’s interest in creating this district is that the NCC Ordinance was not a very good program and did not encourage development. The new district concerns both the developers and the landowners for the major reason of uncertainty. There is too much subjectivity inherent with this style of Ordinance. The applicants will submit plans and must wait to hear whether their concept has been approved. The amount of time, energy and money that is devoted is significant before an applicant will even know whether s/he can proceed with a plan.

Mr. Bowman read a letter from Leonard Siegal (Siegal/Tuomaala Associates, 31731 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills) which stated that he represents DSW Land, LLC, the owners of the southeast OS-1 zoned corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook. He does not recommend the approval of this Ordinance as it will discourage development. There are no quantifiable guidelines and therefore the enforcement of this Ordinance is highly subjective. For example, the application of the phrase, "quality of life issues may include, but are not limited to…" is uncertain and unpredictable. The successful outcome of a project is diminished by the elevated number of participants involved in the deliberations. Developing in this district is perceived as a lengthy, costly endeavor with great risk and not worthy of effort.

Mr. Siegal specifically wrote that the height and maximum floor area ratio provisions are too restrictive for 2-story construction. A structure can’t be built within the 25-foot height with a maximum floor area ratio of .25 without limiting the size of the building to 10,890 sf per square acre. Any departure from this standard could utilize the Special Development Option – a new layer of uncertainty and complexity in the approval process. Mr. Siegal asserted that DSW Land’s property would yield better if it remained zoned OS-1.

Mr. Siegal continued that the Ordinance needs clarity and clear objective guidelines. Unpredictable, subjective judgment is not beneficial for the applicant or the governing official. It does not allow for feasible development. If the Gateway Ordinance is established, DSW Land, LLC will strenuously oppose the rezoning of their property from OS-1.

Mr. Bowman finished reading Mr. Siegal’s letter and then closed by reiterating that uncertainty and subjectivity are the key two issues for his opposition.

Joe Atto, 2150 Franklin Road, Bloomfield Hills: Represented his brother, the owner of the southwest corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook. He stated that after the first meeting there was a consensus that a downtown feel should be brought to the area. However, he found that any suggestions provided to the City Council and Mayor by him and others were ignored. Specifically, his brother employed Gibbs and Associates and SGP Architects (San Francisco), both experts in traditional neighborhood development and mixed used developments. Mr. Gibbs teaches the subject at Harvard University. Many great suggestions were presented but never considered, which heightened their level of concern about the uncertainty presented in this Ordinance.

Mr. Atto said that at one meeting they openly discussed an overstated bias against retail use – an imperative element in a mixed-use development. One time it was suggested that the attorney and the Planners each write an Ordinance, and then the best one would be picked. The Planning Commission already moved Gateway East Ordinance forward to City Council and the issue became political. The process was turned over to the City Planner, who was given eleven pages of City Council comments when the Ordinance itself was only 11 pages long.

Mr. Atto stated that meaningful development requires an Ordinance, not a forced option. Mr. Atto considered this proposed draft as "contract zoning." No one will take the time and energy to develop if they don’t know whether they’ll be approved even if they meet the intent of the Ordinance. You can’t build something "without variances" because the entire Ordinance is too subjective.

Mr. Atto commented that the original precept was to define a new mixed-use district, but this proposed language doesn’t even allow residential in the base Ordinance. While the Special Development Option might be a tool to approve unique ideas, it could also have the opposite effect. Mr. Atto quoted the Mayor as saying, after countless discussions, that, "We’ll have to take a leap of faith." But there are too many City Council members, developers and land owners who don’t want to. Mr. Atto reminded the Planning Commission that there are no big developers, just small business owners, involved in this area. "Greedy developers" is not the case here in the Grand River corridor.

Mr. Atto stated that they have put many hours into this project. Once they stayed up all night to review the Ordinance when it was finally made available. The next day they presented their position on the Ordinance at the City Council meeting and were chastised for delivering their comments with no notice on the day of the meeting. Mr. Atto asked that, regrettably, the proposed Gateway East District be left to die.

Mr. Atto concluded that an Ordinance must offer practical and logical possibilities in order to make it succeed. Main Street missed those points and it became impossible to develop there and be successful. An example in the GE Ordinance that exemplifies this is the debate on whether the front yard parking should be restricted to one or two rows. The final decision was for no front yard parking. This may work in other "downtown" towns because they offer on-street parking. There will be no on-street parking on Grand River in this district, so the concept of no front yard parking does not work. Mr. Atto did express his respect for Mr. Arroyo, but felt that his hands must have been tied in developing these Ordinance standards.

Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing as no one else from the audience wished to speak.

Member Markham remembered back in 1996 she worked with Jonathan Brateman and others on what the City wanted for this corridor. She is not satisfied with this version of the Gateway East Ordinance. She asked whether a study was performed to determine how encouraging multi-family in this district affects the density in Novi. Did the plan include adjusting the density elsewhere or just absorbing it? Mr. Arroyo responded that the long range plans for this district did call for residential in that area so a residential density was factored into the equation. He explained that the buildout scenarios for that immediate area were considered at various ratios, using the existing zoning districts that included some R-A and RM-1. Gateway Village was counted with 185 units but no other NCC residential was considered. Using different calculations to ascertain the density effect of the proposed Gateway East corridor, it was forecasted that a 70% residential assumption would yield 1240 dwelling units and a 30% assumption would yield 640 dwelling units. Mr. Evancoe conveyed that trying to balance or offset this density throughout the City is not being considered.

Member Markham asked about the map for the district. Mr. Arroyo responded that the northeast and southeast corners of Meadowbrook and Grand River were included, but since some internal areas are fully developed the actual district takes on an odd shape.

Member Markham expressed concern about signage in this district because she does not believe that Novi’s Ordinance allows for effective signage in the City. It is imperative that property owners can properly identify their businesses with signage, particularly in a proposed mixed-use scenario like the Gateway East District. Mr. Arroyo responded that the Gateway East signage would be more appropriately addressed in the City’s Sign Ordinance than in the Gateway East Ordinance.

Member Markham recounted that recently a Town Center business owner (Wonderland Plaza) came before the Planning Commission with a façade upgrade and repair that was denied because it did not meet the intent of the Town Center Ordinance. She asked what will be done with business owners who do not want to conform to the Gateway East standards but may want to make a repair to their property in the distant future. Mr. Arroyo said those situations would be handled best through a flexible Building Department permit approval process that would allow for modifications. It was noted that the last façade upgrade at Wonderland Plaza was handled through the Building Department. Mr. Arroyo stated that an issue like this would be more appropriately addressed within the Façade Ordinance, not the Gateway East Ordinance. He recommended that the Planning Commission consider this issue for a future study item.

Member Markham closed by stating that the City must try to work with small business owners in this Gateway East District. She hopes that their suggestions and concerns are addressed.

Member Papp commented that successful downtowns like Northville, Plymouth and Melvindale all offer on-street parking. He recommended that this proposed district offer something similar. He also stated that in order to ensure the success of the Gateway East District residential options must be available. The residents of the area will maintain the pedestrian atmosphere. Member Papp supported the concept of working with the local businesses to make the area a more inviting place to visit.

Member Avdoulos agreed with Mr. Arroyo’s assessment that the Gateway East Ordinance is exciting and can bring character to the City, which is growing in all directions but has no discernible image other than the retail corners of the I-96 and Novi Road interchange. However, he cautioned that typically there is a process of evolution that results in a downtown area; Novi must be careful if they are going to try to "create a space." Cities like Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Northville and Plymouth are excellent examples of downtowns that successfully slow traffic down because there is excitement to look at.

Member Avdoulos was concerned that Mr. Atto and his colleagues provided information to the City that was not considered during the most recent Ordinance review. This draft is an effort that can be built upon; specifically, more substance is needed. Member Avdoulos suggested that parking decks like those in Plymouth in Northville be considered. He also recommended that the language of the Ordinance not be too restrictive. He thought that it was a bit premature to have the Planning Commission review this draft page by page. He is curious to hear other comments on this Ordinance. Overall, Member Avdoulos thought the Ordinance could be the catalyst that generates traffic by making the area an interesting place. Member Avdoulos suggested that a smaller building be developed in front of Vic’s that creates a more dimensional appearance. Passers-by would then want to peak around the buildings to see the rest of the area. He concluded by saying that the Ordinance can create spaces and create an image but he warned against trying to control the aesthetics of the area – it will evolve on its own. He stated that the Town Center District is too restrictive with the all brick requirements.

Member Shroyer noted that when he read a draft of this Ordinance two or three months ago he had many comments. He sees this area as a common link to Main Street and/or the Novi Road corridor, and would prefer that rather than creating partitions the City be looked at as a whole. He does not think that this proposal is ready to move forward, and suggested that either an open meeting or a sub-committee meeting be set up to review the Ordinance. He noted that as you move east from the proposed Gateway area there are parking areas in the front yards and wondered how the City planned to make that transition. He commented that Main Street is not Novi’s "Main Street"; more likely, Novi Road or Grand River is Novi’s "Main Street." He concluded by reiterating that he thinks the Ordinance needs more work and that no other action is warranted at this time.

Member Kocan thought that it was very hard to visualize the results of this Ordinance. It was her understanding that the direction from City Council was to hold a Public Hearing and send the Ordinance back to City Council. She was concerned that it might be detrimental to send to this Ordinance to a subcommittee for redirection. She suggested that it would be better to recommend to City Council that the issues brought forward by owners and the Planning Commission during this Public Hearing be reviewed. She stated that she thought this proposal showed some movement forward but there are issues that must be addressed before developers will buy into the concept.

Member Kocan’s suggestions for this Ordinance this evening were more administrative, e.g., fixing the Ordinance numbers that are referenced in the draft. She asked for more clarification on what the City Council expects from the Planning Commission with regard to this matter. Mr. Schultz responded that the City Council sent it to the Planning Commission for a sixty-day review and Public Hearing. If the Commission does not respond, the City Council could just act upon it. Or, the Planning Commission can respond by saying the Public Hearing was held and a list of concerns have been identified. Then, convey those ideas. Mr. Schultz further suggested that the Planning Commission could request more time from City Council if more time is needed to compile the suggestions. But, he said, acknowledge that you don’t mean sixty or ninety days. If the Planning Commission shows good faith and effort, Mr. Schultz noted that the City Council should appreciate that.

Member Paul thought that this proposal was a good start for this project and would like it to move forward. She supported the idea of the conceptual plan because it minimizes the developers’ costs before they move on to the Preliminary Site Plan level. She thought this option would give both businesses and the political body a lot of leeway. If the developer makes a good case it will be looked at positively. Member Paul commented further that the Gateway District’s appeal will be based on how friendly it seems. Issues like signage, decorative lighting, perhaps a signature tree, will all comprise the appeal of the district. She believes that street parking on Grand River would be a disaster; she also stated that it is not a safe enough corridor for street parking so she understood why parking should be moved to the rear. She noted the similarity between the concept of no front yard parking and Member Avdoulos’ comment that putting a building in front of Vic’s would make it more attractive and interesting and would break up the sea of asphalt.

Member Paul asked what decorative lighting was proposed. Mr. Arroyo said specific amenities like that would be decided upon and listed in the actual design guidelines manual, which won’t be written until it is determined that the Ordinance will indeed be incorporated. He noted that it would be City Council’s call on how a particular development meets the intent of the Ordinance. Further, he remarked that the passage of this Ordinance would not change the zoning of the "Gateway" properties; that would come at a later date.

Member Paul asked Mr. Arroyo whether the language in the Ordinance could be cleaned up a bit. For instance, mention of both sidewalks and bicycle paths can be found on page six; the Environmental Committee wants eight-foot bike paths to abut all major thoroughfares. Mr. Arroyo responded that because that section refers to the Master Plan, the eight foot path is what is specified. He also remarked that the internal paths could, in fact, be different.

Member Paul reminded the Planning Commission that Council Member Capello had requested a plan for beautifying the City’s major thoroughfares, citing the work done on Ford Road as an example. Member Paul found that on page seven, 15.b, "…the compatibility of signage, lighting or the like" is mentioned. Member Paul understands that these site improvements can be very appealing; she noted the enhancements (wrought iron fences, brick pillars, decorative down lighting lamp posts) of the Merriman-Plymouth Road corridor. She thought that the vague language of the Ordinance, e.g., "and the like") may be what developers find unsettling. Mr. Arroyo responded that the design guidelines would provide the more detailed information and would be referenced throughout the Ordinance.

Member Paul read item "g" on page 12: "The shared access drive shall be located a minimum of 300 feet and a maximum of 650 feet from the centerline of Grand River Avenue, provided, however, such distance shall take into consideration the need to make connection with adjoining properties, if feasible." She asked how this would be accomplished if an existing business like Marty Feldman says that no road can go through his property. Correspondingly, she also asked if it were wise to put the expense of a road at the beginning of this project if ultimately it won’t lead to anywhere. Mr. Arroyo envisioned that the road would provide a great benefit to the long deep parcels, and it seemed evident that there should be an interconnection. He also conceded that there are limited areas where this can happen (the undeveloped land).

Member Paul informed Mr. Arroyo that upcoming changes to the Ordinance will require that trash receptacles be placed as far away from handicapped parking spaces as possible.

Member Paul asked whether the open space included the wetlands. Mr. Arroyo responded that it did to a certain extent. Member Paul was not supportive of that concept.

Member Paul asked whether on page 21 it should be noted that façade materials should be shown in the Preliminary and Final Site Plan phases. Mr. Arroyo responded that this requirement would be noted in the development manual.

Member Paul concluded that her other comments were minor. She supported moving the Ordinance forward to City Council and reiterated that it was a good start. She acknowledged that Mr. Atto had legitimate concerns that she hopes he shares with City Council.

Member Sprague asked again for clarification on the process. He did not support giving a positive recommendation on this Ordinance if it’s clear that the developers don’t want it. He agreed that perhaps giving it a recommendation could get it moving along, but he would want the motion to identify a specific timeframe in which the design guidelines would be developed. He noted that this Ordinance should not just be allowed to flounder.

Mr. Schultz responded that the Planning Commission has been asked to review the Ordinance and hold a Public Hearing, which is what has been done. He continued that the Planning Commission must also be sure to do what they want to do, i.e., make their recommendations known to the City Council. Mr. Evancoe agreed that City Council does want the Planning Commission comments because it will help them understand the Planning Commission’s position.

Member Avdoulos suggested that the Gateway East District should not have both sidewalks and bicycle paths, and if the intent is to generate pedestrian traffic, bikes can not be part of the equation, unless a striped pavement area or a rear area of the project is provided. Member Avdoulos recommended extruding the district as far as possible, and agreed that this draft is a good start. He recommended the use of visuals that actually show existing land uses along with some conceptual mapping. It will be useful to provide images so that people can see how the Ordinance will work. He gave the example of how Soccer Zone is fronted by residential and surrounded by industrial buildings of different ages and character. If something is going to be cohesive it has to be well-thought out and visuals will help that process. Member Avdoulos believes that this project must take into consideration all the comments of the affected landowners.

Chair Nagy has been a resident of Novi for 21 years and never thought that Novi had the potential to be like Northville "when it grew up." She stated that she understands the user-friendly concepts discussed by the Planning Commission. She stated that she doesn’t want Grand River to feel all chopped up. She also acknowledged the consent judgments along the avenue. In its current form, Chair Nagy stated that she had a hard time understanding what the Ordinance wants.

From her perspective, Chair Nagy stated that the sign ordinance should be changed, and even Novi Town Center needs better signage than a brick wall that says Novi Town Center. She stated that the buildings should be increased in height and she questioned why the Ordinance was written with a two-story cap. Chair Nagy stated that she understood why the driveways should be connected, and she imagines that the existing property owners are expected to buy out one another because the properties are so long and narrow.

Chair Nagy stated that the current idea is that the Gateway East District stops at Fountain Park because further west is already developed. She stated that she prefers that this whole area be part of the Master Plan of the Grand River corridor. She stated that another strip mall is not expected in this area. She asked what the aesthetics are that are trying to be met. She asked what the intent of the Ordinance Review Committee was – to tell us they’re not looking for strip malls, but buildings with store fronts underneath and condos or offices above? She wondered if they are looking for something like the 555 building in Birmingham. She also agreed with Member Markham that there is a valid density issue associated with the Gateway East District.

Mr. Arroyo responded that the vision for the Gateway East District is a combination of both vertical mixed-use and horizontal mixed-use. He showed a 1999 sketch of the perceived district. The concept then showed one row of parking, limited retail, townhomes, shared rear service road, on-street parking on a parallel route along Grand River. He added that Grand River is likely going to have the bike path, and the shared service path would be pedestrian-oriented - away from the rush of Grand River.

Chair Nagy confirmed that there will be no big boxes. She asked Mr. Arroyo to clarify why the design of the Ordinance is limited to two stories. He responded that under the Special Development Option a developer could request up to four. Chair Nagy asked whether Mr. Atto was right - that the Ordinance is too subjective. Mr. Arroyo responded that when the Ordinance was first crafted it did not have the Special Development Option. Only the principal permitted uses could be approved for this District. City Council was not comfortable with that format, so the Option was added to allow more flexibility. He continued that although there is more uncertainty coming into a Gateway East project through the Special Development Option, there are advantages provided by its flexibility. The concept plan required in the first stage is designed to minimize the costs for the developer.

Chair Nagy asked what, if anything, would Mr. Arroyo change to this draft of the Ordinance. Mr. Arroyo responded that if he started from scratch it would look different, because this is a compilation of input from many entities.

Chair Nagy suggested that a motion be made, and afterward each Planning Commissioner could list the issues they believe still require review.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Ruyle:

In the matter of Gateway East Ordinance, motion to recommend approval to City Council with minutes of this meeting being included in the Council packet for their review and consideration, specifically noting the following comments made by the Commissioners: (Paul): Include the existing Streetscape Plan; Removal of Wetlands from Open Space; Include decorative lamp posts with down lighting; Eliminate the shared rear access drives on page 12 unless all parties are approving this prior to any roads being built; Place all trash receptacles as far away from handicapped parking as possible; Bicycles paths should abut Grand River; Internal sidewalks should be done within the development; Increase verbiage to address architecturally appealing signage; Landscaping provided should be top-grade or class A plantings; (Sprague): There would be a development of the design guidelines by October 31, 2003; (Shroyer): Incorporation of a theme for the entire City; Tie-in to Novi Road corridor to the west; Stay within compliance of the current Bike Path Ordinance, even considering a meandering bike path along the back; District does not permit any kind of strip mall along the corridor; (Shroyer and Papp): Consideration of all the concerns brought to the Planning Commission meeting by the small business owners and other residents; (Markham): Signage standards will enhance visibility of businesses; Reconsideration of permitted uses in the District; (Kocan): One joint meeting between Master Plan and Zoning Committee and/or Implementation Committee and Ordinance Review Committee to review the recommendations prior to the finalization of the Ordinance; Grammar and spelling corrections and verbiage consistency included in final version; (Papp): Include residential; (Ruyle): Consider building the corridor as tall as possible (four stories); Consider reserving top floors for residences and street level for business; Consider placing parking in the rear to remove it from Grand River; (Avdoulos): Consider reducing speed limit on Grand River around this pedestrian-oriented district; Consider a boulevard, landscaped islands, or monument for Grand River; Remove any bike paths from Grand River; Extrude area to include up to Novi Road; (Nagy): Increase the height of the buildings; reduce the speed limits; Remove bike paths.


Mr. Atto readdressed the Planning Commission and stated that the Planning Commission’s recommendations are all considerate, but they don’t address the base Ordinance vs. the forced Option. He understands that they are in a limited capacity as advisors. Mr. Atto said it would help the Ordinance most if the Planning Commission would say that the City can’t force people to do things. The Ordinance must be written that encourages applicants to develop what the City wants; it should not be a document written to prevent what the City doesn’t want. Mr. Atto stated that this Ordinance was written so as to stop developers from doing something unwanted – it was not written to encourage developers to design something acceptable to everyone. Mr. Atto reiterated that in lieu of the Special Development Option, the base Ordinance should be written to allow – and this is where the City can fill in the blank.

Chair Nagy stated that the Gateway Village was a Consent Judgment. She stated to Mr. Atto that what he sees as a forced option someone else may not. Mr. Atto responded that the base Ordinance is so stripped down that it’s going to be opposed and the Ordinance will ultimately go nowhere. He concluded by saying that the NCC District is the most restrictive, and this Gateway East District is even more restrictive than the NCC. For example, drug stores are not a permitted use in this new district, because the City thinks there are too many in this town. Mr. Atto does not believe the Ordinance should be written in this manner. He asked that, at the very least, the Planning Commission recommend reinstating all of the NCC uses for this Gateway East District. Otherwise, this proposal is just too restrictive and it will not get off the ground.

Mr. Schultz commented on the Special Development Option and the permitted uses. The original draft was very creative and listed many things that couldn’t actually be in the Ordinance. He acknowledged that perhaps the Ordinance could be written to be more specific, but the incentive is there for developers to come forward with creative concepts and therefore nothing is being forced on anybody.

Chair Nagy stated that the word used in the Ordinance is "Option" – the developers have the opportunity to make use of it or not. Member Markham agreed with Mr. Atto on his comment regarding the importance of the permitted use section of the Ordinance, and she found it to be reasonable to ask the City Council reconsider inserting all NCC uses. Member Kocan stated that there are NCC uses that should not be considered for this District. Chair Nagy stated that the Gateway East District is not a big geographical area. Member Markham rebutted that it does include two sides of Grand River Avenue and potentially 1,200 new residential units. Residents of the Gateway East District might like the opportunity to walk to a local drugstore. Chair Nagy stated that the Ordinance is meant to encourage more specialty presentations – apothecaries and charcuteries – not a corner Rite Aid.

Member Kocan confirmed with Mr. Arroyo that he would like to have the Planning Commissioners’ various grammatical corrections and the like for incorporation into the next draft of the Ordinance.

Motion carried 7-2. (Yes: Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Avdoulos, Kocan; No: Shroyer, Sprague)

As a point of interest, Mr. Brateman readdressed the Planning Commission to inform them that he has been working on the northeast corner of Meadowbrook and Grand River for about four years. He is currently working with General Motors’ Hummer Division for the property, and Mr. Scott Riddle from Detroit Hummer joined Mr. Brateman at this evening’s meeting. Their desire is to bring a visually appealing building to the corner to energize the corridor and therefore serve the community. Chair Nagy interjected that this had nothing to do with the Ordinance. Mr. Brateman apologized and explained that he was responding to the question, "How could a building be built that would incorporate all the types of things the City is trying to do visually?" Mr. Brateman showed them a rendering of a Hummer location that depicted how a building would look that is built right up to the street, using the elements that are also compatible with Main Street East.


The Public Hearing was opened to amend the City of Novi Code of Ordinances by amending the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of creating a new Article 27, authorizing review and approval by the City Council of requests for special accommodation uses in order to provide and regulate equal housing opportunities particularly suited to the needs of persons entitled to reasonable accommodation under law, and to encourage innovation in land use and variety in design and layout.

Mr. Schultz briefly explained that this Ordinance amendment addresses a specific situation. This change is meant to give the City a process by which they can review a site plan whose property owner claims entitlement to reasonable accommodation when there is nothing in the Ordinance that relates specifically to that kind of land use category. This is a process that would be placed in the Ordinance that fulfills the City’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation requirements. This process has worked well elsewhere and is rather self-explanatory.

Member Markham asked for an example of when this Ordinance might be used. Mr. Schultz gave the example of a request for a home for the handicapped in a residential area where more than six people are expected to be served. A home for six is permitted in this district, for not for more than six. This is when this Ordinance would be utilized – to address housing issues that don’t clearly fall within the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Schultz cited another case where the issue was an Alzheimer’s facility that did not fall into any particular district. The applicants argued that the existing Ordinance did not provide for their use, therefore they had a fair housing issue.

No one from the audience wished to speak so Member Markham, acting as Chair, closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan stated that there was a revised Special Accommodations Use brought before the City earlier in the day. Mr. Schultz confirmed that new numbers have been inserted to correspond with Section 27. Also, the last page indicates that a Public Hearing must be held in front of the City Manager; additional language was inserted that explains that people within 300 feet would get notices, just like a Special Land Use.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Motion to recommend to City Council the amending of the City of Novi Code of Ordinances by amending the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of creating a new Article 27, as proposed in the latest version presented at the Planning Commission table this evening.

Motion carried 9-0.



The Planning Commission offered their corrections for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Paul:

Motion to approve the minutes of May 28, 2003 as amended.

Motion carried 9-0.


There was no Consent Agenda for tonight’s meeting.



Mr. Evancoe explained that the information supplied to City Council regarding the Planning Commission budget for fiscal year 2003/2004 was agreed upon by the Budget Committee. Mr. Evancoe will implement the following changes during the next budget process:

Begin all future budget processes earlier.

Supply City Council with meeting minutes that document the Planning Commission’s discussion of their budget preferences.

Provide the Planning Commission with City Council meeting dates at which the budget will be discussed.


There were no special reports for tonight’s meeting.


No one from the audience wished to speak.


Moved by Member Markham, seconded by Member Paul:

Motion to adjourn.

Motion carried 9-0. The meeting adjourned at 1:08 a.m.



MON 6/16/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM


MON 7/21/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM



Transcribed by Jane Schimpf : June 24, 2003 ______________________________________

Date approved: July 16, 2003 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant