|
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD (810) 347-0475
Meeting called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA:
Planning Aide Steve Cohen requested that under MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION, the following be added: (2) Planning Commissioner to the Environmental Committee and (3) discussion of a possible Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on Wednesday, January 31, 1996, regarding the Work Program.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-075 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo No: None
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION:
There being no audience participants, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the first Audience Participation.
CONSENT AGENDA:
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Lorenzo noted the following corrections to the Minutes: Page 10, last paragraph, sixth line, it should read, "his letter to Greg Capote she sees." On Page 17, the second and third paragraph, Chairperson Lorenzo questions whether she was the speaker at that point. On Page 27, the second paragraph, "Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Watson how far we were along." On Page 35, third paragraph, seventh sentence, "terms of a site plan and land use."
Member Weddington noted the following corrections: Page 24, second paragraph, "minutes formats."
Dennis Watson noted the incorrect spelling of Lynn Kocan’s last name.
Member Hoadley commented that these minutes are from Wednesday, June 28. We now have more concise minutes and there is no excuse for this to happen again. It is requested that the Planning Department make a sincere effort in the future to get minutes back to the Commission at the following meeting; that is two weeks to do them. Member Hoadley stated that this meeting was so long ago he cannot remember whether they are right, wrong, or indifferent and that’s the point that we’ve been trying to make. Now that the shorter version has been adopted, there is no excuse not to do them promptly and it is hoped that this never repeats itself. It is understandable as to why it happened, but now we should be able to do it right and on a timely basis.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-076 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo No: None
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
DISCUSSION
Mr. Chris Cagle, 40799 Grand River, on behalf of Glenda’s Market, introduced Architect Steve Lomski who briefly "walked" the Commissioners through the Site Plan.
Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated that the plan is to build a 6,000 square foot retail market and two attached greenhouses totaling 3,840 square feet, total square footage will be 9,840 square feet. The property is zoned Non-Center Commercial (NCC). Preliminary Site Plan approval is recommended subject to ZBA considering two issues: (1) whether it is proper to expand and relocate a non-conforming building and use on the site; and (2) whether it is proper to expand a non-conforming use on adjacent property not previously used by the non-conforming use.
David Bluhm Engineer for JCK and Associates reported that they have reviewed the Preliminary Site Plan. Applicant is proposing a water main extension from Grand River Avenue and necessary sanitary sewers will be extended from the south to service the building. The plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and approval is recommended.
Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reported that they have reviewed the latest Preliminary Site Plan. There is only one point of access proposed off of Grand River and applicant has indicated on the site plan the location of a potential easement area for a marginal access road that would run parallel to Grand River Avenue adjacent to the Grand River right-of-way. The parking lot layout meets City standards. A garden center would generate, on average, approximately 215 trips per average weekday, however, this can be a seasonal business and during the peak season the number could increase to 1,400 trips per day based on national studies that are available. Mr. Arroyo has found the Preliminary Site Plan meets the City’s standards and is recommending approval.
Chairperson Lorenzo noted for the record a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain, City of Novi Fire Department which states that "the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended."
DISCUSSION
Member Weddington stated that her main concern is approving an extension or continuation of a non-conforming use and concern for the point Mr. Rogers brought up in extending this into an additional parcel that has not been previously involved in this use.
Dennis Watson stated that an expansion of a non-conforming use is something that is not permitted under the Ordinance and it has to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Member Weddington asked if that decision is solely with the ZBA? Mr. Watson replied "yes," it is not a waiver that the Planning Commission can grant.
Member Weddington asked if there was any concern of "precedent." Dennis Watson stated that every case going to the ZBA has to establish their practical difficulty or undue hardship to the ZBA. Either they can make the case or they cannot make the case. If they make the case and it’s granted, that is not a precedent for the next applicant that fails to make the case.
Member Bononi expressed a concern about what, if anything, will be sold at the retail section of the store in addition to what is already sold. Also, what is the material proposed for the greenhouse windows and what is the material proposed for the parking area?
Applicant replied that they will sell what they are selling now. The parking area will be asphalt and the greenhouse windows will be clear laminated materials.
Member Bononi asked if the outlet for the detention basin would require right-of-way easement over property of others or would they traverse across their own property to get into a storm sewer somewhere else.
Dave Bluhm responded by stating that they have two alternatives; (1) is to go through Joseph, which is existing right-of-way, and (2) is to go across the undeveloped parcel to the south - in that case they would have to get easements; all that occurring before Final Site Plan approval.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-077 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo, Capello No: None
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Planning Commission to direct the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to conduct further research and to report back by February 7, 1996.
Brandon Rogers referred to his letter of December 14, 1995 (attached) regarding a proposed Work Program for Master Plan for Land Use evaluation of southeast quarter of Section 10, and analysis and possible revision of PD-1 Option Regulations. There was interest by three groups: Master Plan and Zoning Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council.
Mr. Rogers discussed in detail his proposed "8-point" Work Program to properly understand land use, environmental, traffic and utility factors in the Study Area (SE Quarter, Section 10). The time/cost estimate is $6,419.10.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if this would require a budget amendment from the City Council. Mr. Rogers replied from one fund or another. This work, on top of the extraordinary workload the consultants are doing under the retainer, this special project study could not be done under the retainer services that are currently provided.
Steve Cohen stated that if the Planning Commission feels that this is a necessary study, Mr. Wahl would go to City Council and ask for the budget amendment. The City Council would determine whether or not the money is available.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated it would seem that this would be the first step in this issue even before it gets referred to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee or the Implementation Committee. This seems to be the basis for those committees to follow through with the work because until we have the answers it would seem that we don’t have anything to work with.
Member Hoadley stated that he would prefer this and would want an independent study so we can make intelligent, informed decisions on this. Maybe what we have is the proper thing to have but without that kind of information, he does not want to make that kind of decision.
DISCUSSION
Member Hodges asked how much of this information is available and just needs to be compiled in this particular format for Items 1, 2, and 3? Mr. Rogers responded by stating that under Item 1 an existing land use survey for the City has just been completed. The budget only budgeted one day to draw the graphics of existing land use on a base map to be provided by JCK. Which is a nominal amount of time. The utility data is mainly one drawing of the various maps showing on a composite map storm water management program, the water sewer, any retention areas in that area.
Rod Arroyo stated that the traffic component involves potential analysis of four to five different development scenarios, coming up with trip generation forecasts for each one of those, assigning those trips to the road network, and then focusing on the intersection of Twelve Mile and Novi Roads to determine how the level of service is going to change depending on the type of development within Section 10. The bulk of work would occur once all the land use alternatives are identified by Brandon Rogers, and then we can determine the transportation forecasts and level of service analysis so you can see how each one of these land use recommendations might impact traffic flow.
Member Hoadley asked if that would be with or without the current PD-1 Option off or on. Mr. Rogers stated one would be the PD-1 overlay option, one would be a straight RM-1, one would be an R-4, one would be an RA, and the fifth one might be large lot.
Member Hoadley stated that on Item 7, the Committee discussed the possibility of several revisions in the PD-1 Option if we decide to revise it; height, setback requirements. He would like parking to be considered. Mr. Rogers asked for a copy of the minutes from the meeting Member Hoadley is referring to.
Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out to Member Hoadley that the issues he is referring to in terms of Ordinance revisions, would actually be the responsibility and jurisdiction of the Implementation Committee. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that any revisions would come out of the Implementation Committee after Mr. Rogers’ study. What she envisions happening is once Mr. Rogers completes his study in terms of compiling the information, then the issues of density and trip generation and infrastructure will go to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and the issues of either revising the PD-1 Option or possibly even developing a new Ordinance that might address concerns that we have in that area, would go to the Implementation Committee.
Member Hoadley stated that since these items are interrelated, possibly a joint committee meeting should be held. Chairperson Lorenzo said it is premature at this point and it would probably be better to have the Master Plan and Zoning Committee focus on what that Committee should be looking at and the Implementation Committee focusing on Ordinance revisions, etc.
Member Hoadley suggested these studies be done parallel and to get this all put together, we have to figure out a way to move them forward together, in a joint meeting or something.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated that Member Hoadley’s point is well taken. All this work will be done concurrently and obviously there is going to be a need for communication between all of the members of the committees.
Brandon Rogers stated that cooperation in the environmental analysis is critical. Linda Lemke and Sue Tepatti will be coming up with a composite map showing sensitive lands and where we might protect those and maybe have intrusion in other areas.
Member Capello does not see a lot of sense in going forward and conducting a study to determine what other possible uses the land can be put to at this stage. So far we have had a very small handful of people come forward and say they are not comfortable with the PD-1 Option. Before we do away with the PD-1 Option or before we change the Master Plan or zoning of this property, we should try to fine tune the PD-1 Option and see if there are certain elements in the PD-1 Option that we are uncomfortable with and to delete, amend, or change those to be more compatible with what we like. When that is done and we still say on this particular piece of land we don’t like this zoning, we don’t like the PD-1 option being applied to it, then we can take the next step and say "well, maybe it should be something else." Right now we’re going ahead and saying "let’s see if it should be something else" before we even make a decision that we’re uncomfortable with what it is right now.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo are going to look at comparisons.
Member Capello stated that he does not think a decision has been made yet to say that the current RM-1 and the PD-1 Option are something that we don’t want. Before we make that decision, why are we telling them to go ahead and study to see if it should be changed?
Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the majority of the Commission members did feel that there was at least a problem with it and it seems that the City Council, to some degree, agreed that we should be studying this issue in depth.
Member Capello stated that the issue is the PD-1 Option, not re-zoning the entire section. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that in order to study the Option, we need to also study these other components. Member Capello stated that we need to study the Option first and if we’re uncomfortable with the Option, then go forward and study the other components.
Member Bonaventura stated he agrees with Member Capello in that the Commission should be looking at the Option. Member Bonaventura stated that he has problems with how this got to here. Didn’t this Planning Commission send the City Council a recommendation? Chairperson Lorenzo replied that it did.
Member Bonaventura then asked if the Council did not like the Planning Commission’s recommendation and could the Commission save the City $6,000 by sending them a different recommendation?
Chairperson Lorenzo responded that from reading the minutes, the Council felt that we had not given it enough study to make a decision one way or the other.
Member Bonaventura stated he is against the motion as it now stands.
Member Bononi expressed concerns about the amount of money and materials proposed for this special study as it seems that the materials and information are already available.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-078 - MOTION FAILED
Yes: Hoadley, Lorenzo, Bononi No: Bonaventura, Capello, Hodges, Weddington
DISCUSSION
Member Hodges stated that even though the first motion was voted down, she does not think City Council was asking for that directive from us. Member Hodges believes that Mr. Rogers was working off of comments made by the Planning Commission. The Commission needs to stay focused and these two items were specifically what they are asking the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to focus on.
Chairperson Lorenzo agrees with Member Hodges and would support the motion. Her concern is that it appears that Mr. Rogers, in evaluating this information and doing research, has prepared a time cost analysis of what that is going to take and we are back to square one again. How is the Master Plan and Zoning Committee going to compile this research without the assistance of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo?
Member Hodges stated that she is not asking for research, but for "review." We can review what is in the Master Plan, we can review the options of zoning without doing a study. To research and study is precise, exact detail which does take the time and the money that Mr. Rogers has outlined.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo based upon Member Hodges’ suggestions, if they could assist the Master Plan and Zoning Committee without additional funding?
Mr. Rogers stated that they will bring in published maps and an existing land use survey. Developing alternative land use plans is based upon a knowledge of the sensitive areas and what the net developable area results. Mr. Rogers can provide certain data, but it won’t be newly generated data like doing an in-depth study on the PD-1 Ordinance, which would include surveying a number of other cities and then coming back with drafts of the Ordinance. That is new work, but Mr. Rogers understands Member Hodges concerns and that they would like to review alternative plans from applicant. Member Hoadley stated he will not be able to comply with the motion if it’s passed because he needs the additional information in order to make an informed decision. He noted that this has been debated more than once over the past three or four months and anything additional isn’t going to help him.
Member Capello stated that he believes Mr. Rogers was trying to tell the Commission that when that project comes in, it’s going to have specific information on trip generation and the effect on the community which is going to be reviewed by the consultants. In the December 18 meeting, the Committee did not feel that a decision could be made on whether or not the PD-1 Option should stay or not. The way it was left is that the Committee was going to come back to the Commission and ask for a directive and the directive that we wanted was to review alternatives to the PD-1 Option and, if those alternatives were acceptable, see where in the City the PD-1 Option might fit in. Three present members of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee voted "no" and the reason is because this issue has already been discussed and decided that it’s a dead-end issue.
Chairperson Lorenzo noted that the Planning Commission majority has directed the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to come back with specific information and regardless of whether you agree with that directive or not, you have the duty to come back with that information in the time allotted.
Member Hodges stated that if the Committee has met and concluded that this is a "dead" issue, put it in writing and the Commission will pass it on to City Council as part of the findings of the subcommittee.
Member Capello stated that they have already done that. And tonight they have taken the step that needs to be taken is to revamp the PD-1 Option or decide not to revamp the PD-1 Option.
Member Hoadley stated that he will not be available in February and will not be able to give the Commission what they want without the additional information. He will have to be noncommittal. The Council directed us to study whether the PD-1 Option should be eliminated or modified and it can’t be done without the additional information that the Committee feels is absolutely essential.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers, in terms of comparisons, is there enough information to date in terms of the underlying zoning of RA and RM-1 compared to RM-2, PD-1 Option, what the density and population comparisons would be, preservation of natural resources and what are the trip generation and levels of service?
Mr. Rogers stated that he could do a chart with those five or six options and what the dwelling unit count and the density is. It’s more than just pulling maps out of the book; they have to be presented in a coordinated fashion.
David Bluhm added that for utilities it’s simple because it is Master Plan information and easy to pull it together. In addition, Mr. Bluhm stated that the hard part for JCK is the wetlands’ issue. There is some effort necessary to pull together an accurate representation of what’s out there and then show that.
Rod Arroyo stated he could provide, based on information that has been submitted from other sources, an indication of what the current level of service is out there and an indication of the potential trip generation from one property within Section 10 based on the RM-1/PD-1. Mr. Arroyo added that it won’t be information that you can use for a valuable comparison of different alternatives.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked that the Committee use the available information that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo can provide and compile that information in a report back to the Commission. If the Committee feels that they can’t go any further with that because of lack of funding, which should be added to the report. Then, if the Committee feels that nothing else can be done, then that should be stated in writing.
Member Weddington stated that it would be very helpful to see a condensed, summarized compilation of all of this data with some focus on the issues. The focus is necessary to see the issues. The reaction of most of the Commission members is that the PD-1 Option is just too much density for us. Member Hodges is in agreement with Chairperson Lorenzo and Member Capello and will support the latest recommendation.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-079 - MOTION CARRIED
Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Weddington, Bonaventura No: Capello, Hoadley, Bononi
DISCUSSION
Chairperson Lorenzo stated that for clarification, in addition to the information that the Commission has requested, the Committee should look at possible Ordinance revisions that would then have to be referred to the Implementation Committee.
Dennis Watson added by stating that the Implementation Committee is normally the Committee used to work on specific Ordinance changes, but if you have an Ordinance change that is associated with work that another Committee is doing, and if it’s the Commission’s choice to let that other Committee work on it, there’s nothing wrong with it.
Chairperson Lorenzo’s personal feeling is that she would prefer to have the Master Plan and Zoning Committee focus on Master Plan and Zoning and Land Use issues and have the Implementation Committee focus on Ordinance revisions.
Member Capello stated that what the Committee is saying is they cannot do that without having the ability to work on the PD-1 Option at the same time and they believe that’s what City Council is asking for and that is what they are trying to deliver.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-080 - MOTION CARRIED
Yes: Weddington, Capello, Hoadley, Bononi No: Hodges, Lorenzo, Bonaventura
AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated that he has expressed his concerns as far as discussion on the PD-1 Option. In the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, we’re trying to get away from the site specific issues because, again with the PD-1 being a Master Plan Option, it’s something that the Planning Commission can always put anywhere on the Master Plan. His concern from the beginning has been with the language of the Ordinance itself and he feels it needed to be more specific as far as environmental preservation, the woodlands, and the wildlife habitat. We know that a lot of that area is regulated woodland, we know that is part of an extension of the core reserve as far as wildlife habitat. The question of density and height; all those things that are in that language. Mr. Mutch stated that he felt that the Commission, at least the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, had to have that philosophical discussion of whether the PD-1 was still appropriate for this Committee because he believes that is one of the underlying questions that still hasn’t been answered as far as the Commission goes. Do you still feel that is something that we need in this community? At this stage, if it’s going to be Implementation Committee or Master Plan and Zoning Committee, Mr. Mutch would like to see a lot of work as far as the language because he realizes that whatever is decided, once it goes to City Council, if they decide they want to keep the PD-1 Option, developments are going to go forward under the Option and Mr. Mutch would like to see those to be high quality developments.
Mr. Mutch continued by stating that there is a history in this community that we really have to do it wrong before we realize how to do it right. We had this previously with the adjusted lot size option. In reading old minutes, Member Bonaventura said that he felt like he was on a clean up committee for the adjusted lot size. They switched it over to the Preservation Option, but all these projects came in and you had problems with them. Mr. Mutch does not want to see the same thing happen with the PD-1 where all these projects come in and there will be a clean up committee to fix it after it has been handled wrong. Let’s get it right first, get amendments to the Ordinance, and look at the whole philosophical question.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Steve Cohen stated he was proud to report back that the Planning and Community Development Department, along with Sue Tepatti and Linda Lemke, submitted an application in March which has recently been scored by the MDNR as one of the top applications in the State of Michigan. The location is a 45-acre parcel in between Orchard Hills Subdivision and Meadowbrook Lakes. Currently there is a Bill with a component in the Bill that wants to preserve critical and unique open spaces with farm land. Thus, only farm land can be preserved under this particular program. Obviously there are some problems with that. One is that the money comes out of our state’s General Fund, thus, we all pay for this. It seems like only certain areas get to use this grant because of their location and because they can farm. Mr. Cohen is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt this resolution to show its support for this Grant because it is an excellent growth management tool in addition to a preservation tool.
Member Bonaventura commended Mr. Cohen on the work he has done on the resolution and asked where this resolution is sent.
Steve Cohen reported to the governor, our representatives in Lansing, and the two supporters of the Bill, who are from the west side of the state. It will include the resolutions from the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Parks and Rec. Commission, in addition to a cover letter.
Moved by Bonaventura, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To support the resolution for the MDNR Grant.
DISCUSSION
Member Bononi expressed her concerns as to whether the DNR would have the ability to transfer these development rights after they acquired them. She was also concerned about the ten-year limit on holding those development rights as to what happens to them after that and if this site were acquired and publicly accessible; who would manage the site, under what circumstances, and also, would the City be reimbursed by the state for lost property tax revenue. There is also a section in the documentation that states that one of the reservations about this deal is the fact that at the point that the property tax no longer becomes desirable for tax purposes that people are bailing out of this program. What is likelihood that this property would be protected for the ten years?
Steve Cohen responded by stating that the DNR purchases the development rights from the developer forever. The developer has suggested possibly giving it to a natural conservancy or giving it to the City of Novi. If the City of Novi takes it over, there are a lot of negotiations that occur and have to be approved by the City Council. There has been talk of turning it into a passive park. The liability would go on to the City of Novi if they decided to do so. The City of Novi can refuse to take liability, force the developer to hang on to the land, or give it to a nature conservancy. The key is that the State of Michigan will purchase development rights; not the land.
Member Bononi then asked if they have the ability to transfer those development rights to anyone else.
Steve Cohen stated that it is his understanding is that it is pretty much locked up; but can be reconfirmed at the appropriate time. Once the state takes on that right, the City of Novi would probably consent in that agreement and any change or any transfer of development rights would have to be approved by the City of Novi.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-081 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo, Capello No: None
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
Member Bonaventura stated this item is on the agenda because of Objective 3: Involve citizens, homeowners groups, property owners, developers in the planning process, including noted planning authorities from around the state. We have a group of citizens in this community that are unique in that they have served on the Planning Commission and in the time they served they received a lot of instruction, education, and are knowledgeable on where we have been, where we were going, and can offer a little history. Steve Cohen provided a list of past Commissioners and other interested parties and, if they are willing to serve, a committee formed. Member Bonaventura suggests that the Commission send a letter to each of these individuals requesting their input on whether they would be interested in serving on a committee with Commission direction at a later date.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it is a good idea, but is not sure if it’s premature at this point. We are not at the point of going through a Work Program yet and we don’t know what the elements could be in terms of the directive. We need to establish the directive before we establish the committee.
Member Hoadley stressed that the Committee has some absolute direction. He would want to have the Committee report to the Commission as a whole or to the Committee that’s responsible for it. Member Hoadley encourages involving more citizens, but wants the Committee and direction to the Committee to be structured properly.
Steve Cohen noted the need for another member to the Committee.
Member Hoadley volunteered to serve if no one else is interested.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission had any objections to a fourth member. There being no objections, she asked if anyone else was interested in serving -- Member Bononi raised her hand.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-082 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo, Capello No: None
DISCUSSION
Member Hodges asked that Member Vrettas be notified about the scheduling of this special meeting.
Chairperson Lorenzo wished everyone a happy and safe holiday and a healthy and prosperous new year.
VOTE ON PM-95-12-083 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo, Capello No: None
Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Weddington, Lorenzo, Capello No: None
Steven Cohen, Planning Aide Transcribed by Christine Gehler January 23, 1996 Corrections assisted by Barbara Holmes February 13, 1996 Date Approved: February 21, 1996
|