PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Council Chambers |
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.
Present:Member Baratta, Member Cassis, Member Greco, Member Gutman, Member Larson, Member Meyer, Chair Pehrson, Member Prince
Absent: Member Lynch (excused)
Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Member Meyer led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Larson:
VOICE VOTE ON THE AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER LARSON:
A motion to approve the July 14, 2010 Agenda. Motion carried 8-0.
No one in the audience wished to speak.
Member Greco indicated that there is correspondence related to the public hearing. There is also correspondence relating to a potential Walmart at the Novi Town Center.
Member Greco summarized the email correspondence received by the City from Christine Risnowski on June 25, 2010. The email states that Ms. Risnowski was not aware of the Planning Commission and news about putting a Walmart in the Town Center until now. She opposes this project and wants to know who approves it. She wondered why there will be tearing down of existing businesses.
Member Greco summarized an unsigned letter received July 7, 2010 by the Community Development Department, relating to the same issue of the potential for a Walmart going into the Town Center. This was addressed to the Planning Commission and the person opposes a Walmart in the Town Center and thinks it is a terrible situation and does not think there should be tearing down of existing business to put in a Walmart. The correspondence states that there are large empty lots in Novi, specifically on Meadowbrook, and if they want to build something new, they should build it there.
Deputy Director McBeth explained that there were two additional pieces of correspondence placed on the table this evening.
Member Greco read the letter dated June 22, 2010 from the Charter Township of West Bloomfield Planning Commission which provided notice of public distribution of West Bloomfield’s Master Plan update.
Member Greco read the letter dated July 12, 2010 from Andrew J. Zeigler of the State of Michigan, Department of Transportation, Lansing, Metro Regional Office. The letter indicated that MDOT has no objections to the City of Novi’s proposed Master Plan for Land Use amendments. The amendments do not conflict with MDOT’s maintenance of the I-96 corridor and efforts at multi-modal approaches to transportation. MDOT supports the City’s goals of establishing a non-motorized network and a future transit hub. Pending availability of funding, MDOT looks forward to working with Novi on implementing transportation and development objectives and strategies, particularly non-motorized access across I-96, development of non-motorized connections to the M-5 freeway path, and future development of a regional transit system.
There were no Committee Reports.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPORT
Deputy Director McBeth stated that she wanted to report on a couple of items from the July 12, 2010 City Council Agenda. These were items that the Planning Commission had recently reviewed. First was a text amendment related to the Town Center Districts for open-air business uses and outdoor sales of produce and plants. That ordinance amendment was approved for the first reading. Also approved for a first reading were the ordinance amendments related to the residential options. The City Council also approved the Preliminary Site Plan and Section 9 Façade Waiver for the Town Center Development to demolish Building F, construct a new parking lot with landscaping and make some façade improvements at that location.
Three Planning Commission members were re-appointed at Monday’s Council meeting: Andrew Gutman, David Greco and Leland Prince have each been appointed for 3 year terms. Also, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Member Cassis to serve as the dual member on the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS AND APPROVAL
Consideration of the request of G. Fisher Construction Company for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 16, south of Twelve Mile Road between West Park Drive and Beck Road, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District. The subject property is approximately 3.67 acres and the applicant is proposing to construct a 25,521 square foot medical office building.
Consideration of the request of City Center Plaza, LP, for a one-year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 22, south of Grand River Avenue, west of Novi Road, in the TC-1, Town Center District. The subject properties are approximately 1.8 acres combined and the applicant is proposing to construct a 10,400 square foot general office building at the southwest corner of Flint Street and Grand River Avenue and a 3,640 square foot retail building at the western edge of the existing City Center Plaza development.
Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Baratta:
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER BARATTA:
A motion to approve the July 14, 2010 Consent Agenda.Motion carried 8-0.
1. MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE
Public Hearing to present findings and receive comments on proposed amendments to the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use. The Planning Commission is asked to approve a resolution adopting the proposed amendments as drafted or with amendment(s).
Planner Spencer stated that the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing and considering the adoption of a set of proposed Master Plan for Land Use Amendments. This set of amendments was presented in the Master Plan for Land Use Review and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council for distribution.
The Commission’s packets include minor revisions to the previously viewed proposed amendments. Planner Spencer will discuss these revisions later.
The proposed amendments include the following items:
Replacing the current Office future land use definition with three new office land use definitions,
Presently designated Office use areas on the Future Land Use Map City-wide will be replaced with one of the new office designations generally reflecting the current Office Service (OS-1), Office Service Commercial (OSC) and Planned Office Service Technology (OST) zoning of the properties.
These changes were proposed to provide more attractive definitions for the office uses and reflect the types of office developments the City desires in specific areas of the City. Two small areas are proposed to be added to the office use areas: first the Novi Corporate Campus that has a mix of OST and I-1 zoning, and second, a parcel east of Oakland Hills Cemetery that is permitted community office uses because of a consent judgment.
The Light Industrial future land use definition will be replaced with a new Industrial, Research Development and Technology land use definition and replacing Light Industrial use areas on the Future Land Use Map City-wide with the new Industrial, Research, Development and Technology future land use designation to provide a more attractive land use definition that reflects the land uses desired in the areas.
Changes are also proposed for Special Planning Project Area 1 Study Area near the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Novi Roads. The western portion of the Study Area will be designated for Community Office future land uses and the eastern portion will be designated for Industrial, Research Development and Technology future land uses. These land uses will make the area similar to the existing land uses located in the neighborhood.
There is a proposal for the Eleven Mile and Beck Roads Study Area to create a new Suburban Low Rise future land use definition with a set of supporting goals, objectives and implementation strategies. The plan designates a portion of the Eleven Mile and Beck Roads Study Area that is located between high intensity development along Grand River Avenue and single family residential development for Suburban Low Rise uses. This area is generally located about one-half to three-quarters of a mile from Grand River Avenue. The proposed Suburban Low Rise uses will provide a transition in intensity, protect the residential character of the area and provide additional development options that can add to the City’s tax base. The balance of the study area would keep its current future land use designation while moderately increasing the maximum residential density.
Next, for the Grand River and Beck Road Study area: a new Office, Research, Development and Technology with Retail Overlay land use designation is proposed with supporting goals, objectives and implementation strategies. The designation is proposed for two areas near the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road. This designation would provide an area to develop retail services to serve the employees and visitors to the nearby office areas and provide an additional basket of permitted uses to encourage new development and make the overall area more attractive to development. The proposed access to the Retail Service Overlay area would be limited to reduce the impact of increased traffic that would result from the retail development. A Grand River and Beck Road Study Area transportation plan is included in the proposed amendments to further this strategy. Planner Spencer indicated that the Planning Commission should note this was not included on the version of the amendments on the web page.
The review proposes adding some new City-wide goals, objectives and implementation strategies to promote various concepts including alternative transportation modes and healthy lifestyles, attractive and diverse housing, "Green" building, and the preservation of natural features in the City. Also, minor future land use map changes were included to reflect current ownership and usage.
The proposed amendments include a new Future Land Use Map that includes all of the proposed changes. It also includes a map showing the location of all of the proposed changes from the previously approved map. In addition, many of the Master Plan’s reference maps are proposed to be updated and three new reference maps are proposed.
Also new to the Planning Commission are several minor changes to the proposed Future Land Use Map use designations to better reflect current ownership and usage of the parcels. These are:
An additional change is the removal of the words "that can add to the City’s tax base" on page 4 of the Executive Summary Chapter to eliminate the emphasis of this reason for creating the new "Suburban Low-Rise" land use designation. The Committee discussed those words and implications and found that there is enough other supporting data and there were no objections in removing those few words, if the Planning Commission as a whole goes along with that.
Planner Spencer concluded by saying, tonight the Commission is asked to discuss the proposed Master Plan Amendments. The Commission may approve a resolution to adopt the Master Plan amendments as presented, or as revised. After adoption, staff will merge the amendments into the current Master Plan for publication.
Chair Pehrson thanked Planner Spencer for all the hard work that he has put into this. He is to be commended and the Planning Commission thanks him for his help.
Chair Pehrson stated that this is a public hearing. If anyone would like to speak, please come forward.
Matthew Quinn stated that he was here tonight to talk about Special Planning Project Area Number 1 that is part of the proposed Master Plan. Mr. Quinn also congratulated the three Members of the Planning Commission who were reappointed and stated they have all done a good job in the past.
Mr. Quinn stated that Special Planning Project Area Number 1 concerns the property south of Ten Mile Road and east of Novi Road. It is west of the railroad tracks and is known as the old Erwin Orchard area. This entire parcel, going back to the southerly boundary, has been owned by Novi-Ten Associates and Mr. Weiss’s group for over 30 years. Mr. Quinn showed on the map: there is the Sports Club at the end of Arena Drive and the Novi Ice Arena, and the antenna facility on the Novi Ice Arena property. All of the rest of this property around the Ice Arena is designated as parkland on the City’s Master Plan. This entire parcel is important. In 2000 Mr. Weiss donated 18 acres of property to the City of Novi for Ice Arena purposes at the request of the City. Later, the City approached Mr. Weiss and wanted to put an antenna facility on this property. It was previously prohibited by the donation document. Mr. Weiss agreed to do that with the provision that the money be used to support the Novi Ice Arena. The value of that donation was $3.2 million.
In 1999, about the same time, the City initiated a Master Plan review. That Ten Mile Road frontage was designated as community commercial. That is the last time that this area on the Master Plan has been designated for any particular use. In 2004, and on the last two Master Plans, that area was designated as Special Study Area without a designation for an underlying use. Also in 2004, Mr. Weiss submitted a PRO, similar to what is pending now, and along the same lines with commercial on the frontage. At that time, there may have been some commercial on Novi Road. At that time, the Master Plan was decided to be looked at and it was made a Special Project Area.
Mr. Quinn said there is now another PRO pending that was submitted in 2009. Mr. Weiss is asking for the same thing - for the frontage to be community commercial, or whatever the newly designated term is under the Master Plan and OS-1 on the west side, along Novi Road.
Mr. Quinn said one of the reasons that the PRO did not go forward in 2004 was because the City said they were going to be planning on the reconstruction of the Ten Mile Road and Novi Road intersection. Mr. Weiss was told that the City did not think the project should go forward then because there would be too much traffic congestion without those intersection improvements. So, nothing went any further, just kind of sat and was withdrawn. All of that has been accomplished now and the City and the County have made the improvements at that intersection. An excess of $200,000 has been spent by Mr. Weiss and Kroger’s to develop this PRO that was submitted in 2009 and is pending in front of the Planning Commission. Mr. Quinn acknowledged some of the Planning Commissioners were absent from the meeting where this PRO was considered on June 23, 2010. At that the meeting, the PRO was tabled because there were three areas that needed to be addressed: dealing with detention on site, affected woodlands and wetlands. Those issues are being addressed and the PRO should be back on for the meeting on the 28th of this month.
Mr. Quinn continued noting the commercial frontage on Ten Mile Road and the reason it got designated back in 1999 Master Plan was because the City performed a Market Study. The Market Study showed that grocery stores are needed in the area and also additional local commercial. Again, this was a City initiated Master Plan change.
When the PRO was submitted this time Mr. Weiss actually hired the same company that Novi had used to do the prior Market Study. Strategic Edge also did a survey of residents. That was gone over at the last meeting.
The current Draft of the Master Plan would leave this study area as industrial. Currently, the industrial vacancy rates in the City of Novi are 16-21% and that is of the buildings built. Also, within one mile of this site, there is over 350,000 square feet of vacant industrial buildings. In fact, next door there is 107,000 square feet of industrial space across from the railroad tracks that has been vacant for about five years. Yet, the draft Master plan says to leave this study area industrial. The City of Novi has 8.3 million square feet of industrial buildings right now and the City staff has reported that there is a supply of the existing industrial land for the next 19 – 48 years. The City staff also did a study on retail vacancy rates and showed ten percent in the retail area. The staff also reported that there is an eight year supply of vacant land zoned for retail within the City. So, the City has 8 years of retail and 48 years of industrial. What will the City need sooner? Obviously, the answer is retail.
Mr. Quinn stated a report done by Mr. Weiss’s group showed the consumer research for neighborhood shopping patterns and references that over 78% of Novi resident’s were very likely, or somewhat likely to shop at a new supermarket at Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. The Market Study established that there is market support for a grocery anchored center with ancillary retail uses at Ten Mile Road and Novi Road for between 140,000 and 190,000 square feet.
The industrial component and vacancy rate in the City is out of sight. There is enough supply forever, so why would the City want more. The retail needs are greater and more urgently needed in the commercial grocery area and ancillary uses. The facts of reality bear that out.
Mr. Quinn indicated tonight the Planning Commission is being asked to adopt a Master Plan. Is there really any hurry to adopt all or any portion of the Master Plan? The pending PRO is going to be back in front of the Planning Commission in two weeks and then go to City Council. Hopefully that will get a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission and then City Council makes a final decision. If the City Council grants the PRO, what sense would it make to have a separate industrial designation in this area? If the City Council does turn it down, then the Planning Commission still has time to designate this area.
Mr. Quinn’s first option would be for the Planning Commission to postpone action on Special Project Area 1 and let it sit for awhile and go ahead and approve the balance of the Master Plan.
The second option would be to go ahead and take the step, make the change, amend the land use for Special Project Area 1 so that the area along Ten Mile Road, and the frontage that combines with the PRO Application would be designated for Community Commercial and the balance would stay as proposed, which would be OS-1, or Office in the Master Plan.
Mr. Quinn would obviously prefer the Planning Commission just go ahead and adopt the Master Plan with this change and modification making the area Community Commercial. However, if the Planning Commission doesn’t feel like they want to make that decision, wait until the City Council decides and then just postpone the action on Special Project Area 1. There is no harm in that. The Planning Commission can adopt it next month or after the City takes its final action. It is important for the City to pay special attention to the PRO that is pending.
Chair Pehrson asked if anyone else in the audience would like to address the Planning Commission. No one from the audience wished to speak
Member Greco summarized the letter received from Oakland County by indicating the County supported the Master Plan Amendments and also provided some minor comments on specific items in the Master Plan Amendments.
Member Greco stated the Planning Commission has received letters of support for the Master Plan Amendments from West Bloomfield Township, Salem Township and the Road Commission for Oakland County.
Chair Pehrson closed the audience participation and turned it over to the Planning Commission for their deliberations and comments.
Chair Pehrson asked Planner Spencer about the Figure 20. A, the Green Infrastructure Map and could he please explain what that is because he is seeing things like hub, site, link and other restoration link and those are things new to him.
Planner Spencer answered that Oakland County asked the City to participate as a City in the Green Infrastructure Project and this is a depiction of the Green Infrastructure findings. Oakland County has a whole Green Infrastructure Plan that this is connected with. The hubs are major ecological areas that the County feels are worth trying to preserve. The sites are the next level and then there are two different types of connections. It is meant to be a guide for planning purposes to help identify sensitive areas in the City and to look for opportunities for balancing development.
Member Baratta then said he had a couple of questions for Mr. Quinn. Member Baratta asked what the size of the Kroger was.
Mr. Quinn answered that it was 64,000 square feet.
Member Baratta asked how many jobs would this create.
Mr. Quinn answered in saying 125 jobs would be created.
Member Baratta also asked what the total cost of the project will be when it is totally built out.
Mr. Quinn answered Member Baratta in saying 20 million dollars.
Member Baratta stated that he prefers personally to have the natural look of the real estate and trees without development and likes running and being able to go through the natural preserves in the parks. Member Baratta has also run by an area on Eleven Mile Road that is going to be designated as a Suburban Low-Rise area. When someone owns a piece of property they do have to right to develop it.
Member Baratta explained that over the last week he had the opportunity to really look at this Novi Road and Ten Mile Road area and looked at it from an industrial perspective and warehousing perspective. Member Baratta went into a few neighborhoods around there and basically concluded that one, this is obviously an expensive piece of real estate but on the other hand it could be inexpensive because of its proximity to the adjacent railroad track.
Member Baratta is looking for very good locations that have great access to major arterials or intermodal, where the railroad takes the containers off the trains and puts them on trucks that deliver to the customer or major highways. This location does not fit that bill. It is not immediately adjacent to a highway and it does have a railroad track and it is not cheap real estate. There is a retailer that is looking at this location and retailers pay more than industrial or the warehouses. The frontage of this property should be retail. There is a group that wants to develop a Kroger store and they have been persistent. The character of that property is a retail property and it is not industrial. It does have the advantage of being adjacent to a railroad track, but companies generally do not use spurs anymore because of the expense. They use intermodal, container shipping. Spurs are too expensive. This should be retail.
Mr. Quinn and Mr. Ragsdale indicated that they want to build a 64,000 square foot unit here as well creating 125 jobs. In terms of tax base, this would be an improvement from what is currently on the books today. That would help the City. It also helps the City with providing a non-intrusive, but an allowed use and it won’t increase the pollution, where industrial could. The frontage there could be a community retail area.
Member Cassis addressed Planner Spencer and complimented him on his chart and it seems the most prevalent color in that chart is yellow. That designates 30 miles per hour. A lot of municipalities have been revising some of their speed limits and some have been accused of making speed limit changes just to increase revenue from fines. I think that certain areas in yellow should change to green.
Member Meyer stated that it was an honor to serve on the Master Plan for Land Use Sub-Committee and to be able to meet and discuss the Special Project Area 1 and the other two areas. Member Meyer has listened to the various thoughts from Mr. Quinn and Member Cassis regarding this and Member Baratta stated very clearly that it certainly would appear to serve to the best interest of the community to at least have a portion of that piece that is east of Novi Road and west of the railroad tracks designated for Community Commercial. The Committee voted and made an effort to come up with a clear and precise new Master Plan for Land Use
Member Gutman commended the staff, Planner Spencer, and the Committee for all of the hard work and the impressive work that was put in to trying to find different uses and different ways to use the real estate in Novi. The Planning Commission also discussed at the last meeting that sometimes it is okay to say that there is another alternative even after discussions have been finalized. Staff is trying to get the PRO on the next meeting agenda. It is important to hear that presentation and there were questions that were associated with that that still need to be answered before things can move along. It is important that the Planning Commission hear the PRO request and the applicant’s response to the previous questions in full before committing to deviating from the Master Plan. The suggestion was made tonight to postpone a land use decision on that particular Special Project Area 1 until this has been considered and Member Gutman believes that is an acceptable thing to do.
Member Gutman would like to make a motion specifically withholding any kind of approvals for Special Project Area 1.
Planner Spencer addressed Member Gutman and said he would like to give a suggestion that would help. Maybe the current designation could stay in place until such time that the Planning Commission elects to change that. It would stay Special Project Area 1 and areas of the study area that are currently Office and Industrial and keep those designations.
Member Gutman thought that was a reasonable thing to do.
Motion by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Greco:
Motion to approve a resolution adopting the proposed 2010 Master Plan for Land Use Amendments with the changes proposed by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on July 7, 2010, including the proposed Future Land Use Map, subject to the following revisions: the area currently designated Special Planning Project Area 1 on the Future Land Use Map shall keep this designation for further study. This motion is made for the following reasons: (1)The Master Plan & Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Community Development Department Planning Staff, reviewed the current Master Plan for Land Use’s goals, objectives, and implementation strategies, and the Future Land Use Map use designations for the entire City, and evaluated each of the three Master Plan Study Areas in detail; (2) Public comments regarding the future land uses in the study areas and City at large were solicited and people provided input through answering questionnaires, written comments and in person at City Hall, public meetings and public open houses; (3) The proposed Master Plan for Land Use amendments reflect the desires of the City’s citizens, promote natural feature protection, foster quality development, encourage investment in the City, and provide design guidance for future transportation improvements; and (4) The proposed amendments foster sound land use planning by including the following new land use goals: (a) Provide for planned development areas that provide a transition between high intensity office, industrial and commercial uses and one-family residential uses; (b) Develop the Grand River Avenue and Beck Road Study Area in a manner that supports and complements neighboring areas; (c) Create, preserve, and enhance quality residential areas in the City; and (d) Continue to promote active living and healthy lifestyles in the City of Novi and continue to achieve a high level of recognition under the State of Michigan’s "Promoting Active Communities Program."
Member Cassis asked if the Planning Commission was adopting the idea of postponing action on Special Area Project 1.
Member Gutman and Chair Pehrson stated that the proposed motion would leave that area as it is for now.
Member Cassis stated the Planning Commission has been deliberating on this Master Plan for over one year. Now someone wants to change what has been proposed and recommended by the Committee in all these past weeks and months. Member Cassis has indicated in the past that he does not think a Kroger should be in this location and most recently heard a Walmart is proposed for the City. Member Cassis has no objection to having this property commercial but the Planning Commission does not know if Kroger will close the Grand River and Beck Road store. Member Cassis appreciates what Mr. Weiss has done for the City.
Member Greco stated that he appreciated Member Cassis’s comments as well as the other Commissioner’s comments. Member Baratta had a very reasoned logical statement. Member Greco’s understanding of what the Planning Commission is doing right now and Member Gutman’s proposal on this is to adopt the proposed Master Plan Amendments but put off one small section that does not need to be dealt with while dealing with a parallel and crossing situation that is being brought to a head by the parties involved. With all of the arguments presented and the statements by Mr. Quinn and the Commission Members, Member Greco is not convinced that a Kroger store needs to go there. Member Greco would probably be closer to that store than the other store and would use it if it was there. But, it doesn’t mean it needs to be there. Member Greco needs some convincing both ways and Member Baratta’s points seem very logical and sound and Member Cassis’s arguments and passionate statement about moving forward was also very persuasive. Member Greco does not mind considering the options and taking the extra steps and that would be the reason for his support of the motion as it is set forward and to really look at these issues that are coming to a head.
Member Gutman wanted to reiterate that this is not a pro Kroger statement and certainly has nothing to do with Walmart as it is not even a party to the issue at hand. The motion is simply to hear out that issue before the Planning Commission makes a decision on that one piece. Member Gutman does not want it to be construed as a pro Kroger or pro anything. The Planning Commission would like to have all the facts before a decision is made. All of the members of the Planning Commission are all trying to do the right thing whether we agree or disagree on the issues and Member Gutman respects everyone’s comments on this.
Member Meyer asked if the Planning Commission votes on this tonight, will this be forwarded to the City Council.
Planner Spencer stated that if the Planning Commission passes the motion that they have right now, the Planning Commission will be adopting the Master Plan with this Resolution. Staff will take and make the change to leave that area Special Project Area 1. Staff will keep that definition in there and will publish the document and it will be the adopted Master Plan.
ROLL CALL VOTE MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER GRECO TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED 2010 MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE AMENDMENTS WITH THE CHANGES PROPOSED BY THE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE.
Motion to approve a resolution adopting the proposed 2010 Master Plan for Land Use Amendments with the changes proposed by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee on July 7, 2010, including the proposed Future Land Use Map, subject to the following revisions: the area currently designated Special Planning Project Area 1 on the Future Land Use Map shall keep this designation for further study. This motion is made for the following reasons: (1)The Master Plan & Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission, with the assistance of the Community Development Department Planning Staff, reviewed the current Master Plan for Land Use’s goals, objectives, and implementation strategies, and the Future Land Use Map use designations for the entire City, and evaluated each of the three Master Plan Study Areas in detail; (2) Public comments regarding the future land uses in the study areas and City at large were solicited and people provided input through answering questionnaires, written comments and in person at City Hall, public meetings and public open houses; (3) The proposed Master Plan for Land Use amendments reflect the desires of the City’s citizens, promote natural feature protection, foster quality development, encourage investment in the City, and provide design guidance for future transportation improvements; and (4) The proposed amendments foster sound land use planning by including the following new land use goals: (a) Provide for planned development areas that provide a transition between high intensity office, industrial and commercial uses and one-family residential uses; (b) Develop the Grand River Avenue and Beck Road Study Area in a manner that supports and complements neighboring areas; (c) Create, preserve, and enhance quality residential areas in the City; and (d) Continue to promote active living and healthy lifestyles in the City of Novi and continue to achieve a high level of recognition under the State of Michigan’s "Promoting Active Communities Program." Motion carried 7-1 (Nay – Cassis)
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Motion by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:
ROLL CALL VOTE ON PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER MEYER.
Motion to elect Mark Pehrson Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 8-0.
Motion by Member Greco, seconded by Member Baratta:
ROLL CALL VOTE ON PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GRECO AND SECONDED BY MEMBER BARATTA.
Motion to elect Andrew Gutman Vice Chair of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 8-0.
Motion by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Baratta:
ROLL CALL VOTE ON PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER BARATTA.
Motion to elect David Greco Secretary of the Planning Commission. Motion carried 8-0.
2. COMMITTEE MEMBER APPOINTMENTS
The Planning Commission worked together as a group to determine the following committee placements.
Administrative Liaison Committee: Members Greco, Gutman, Pehrson
ZBA: Member Cassis
Budget and Planning Studies Committee: Members Greco, Gutman, Lynch, Pehrson
CIP Committee: Members Gutman, Lynch (Pehrson, alternate)
Environmental and Walkable Novi Committee: Members Baratta, Greco, Pehrson
Communication and Community Liaison Committee: Members Baratta, Meyer, Prince
Implementation Committee: Members Cassis, Gutman, Meyer, Pehrson
Master Plan and Zoning Committee: Members Baratta, Gutman, Lynch, Meyer (Prince, alternate)
Rules Committee: Members Greco, Larson, Prince
Main Street Committee: Members Greco, Larson
3. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 10, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Member Cassis stated that there was a change on page 17 regarding the term cloverleaf. Member Cassis answered that the reason it was put in place was because the Beck Road interchange was going to be a cloverleaf interchange. Member Cassis stated that it is not a cloverleaf interchange.
Chair Pehrson said it was the 4th or 6th paragraph down on page 17. Chair Pehrson also stated it is not a cloverleaf, it is a SPUI (Single Point Urban Interchange) and that needs to be changed in the minutes.
Motion by Member Larson, seconded by Member Gutman:
VOICE VOTE ON MARCH 10, 2010 APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY MEMBER LARSON AND SECONDED BY MEMBER GUTMAN.
A motion to approve the March 10, 2010 Planning Commission minutes, as amended.Motion carried 8-0.
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
There were no Matters for Discussion.
There were no Supplemental Issues.
Christine Risnowski lives in a condo at Carlton Forest and is opposed to the Walmart. She did not hear anything about it until recently. To tear down existing businesses that are doing well, chasing them out, to put in Walmart. As Ms. Risnowski said in her letter, it does not make sense. Ms. Risnowski asked when this was going to be discussed.
Chair Pehrson stated that this has not been to the Planning Commission yet.
Ms. Risnowski asked why the City is chasing the people out.
Chair Pehrson stated that the City is not and the developer who owns that property and owns those buildings is doing what he thinks is in the best interest of his particular development.
Ms. Risnowski asked why the developer had a say about it and why doesn’t the Novi Community have a say in it.
Chair Pehrson directed Ms. Risnowski to the City’s website or the paper where the public hearings are noticed. There will be an opportunity then for the public to come down and comment. At this point in time, there is no such thing as a Walmart that has come across this Planning Commission table yet. Whether it does or doesn’t, the Planning Commission has no control over that either.
Ms. Risnowski said it was sad that the Planning Commission did not have control over that.
The meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM.
Transcribed by Juanita Freeman
Date Approved: October 6, 2010 _______Signature on File _________
Richelle Leskun, Planning Assistant