REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1996 AT 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD
Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo
PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello (Arrived 7:36 p.m.), Churella, Hoadley
Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Staff Planner Gregory Capote and Staff Planner Steven Cohen
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda? Chairperson Lorenzo stated there is a request to schedule a Public Hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments for either October 16, 1996 or November 6, 1996 depending upon whether the language can be incorporated by the October 16, 1996 meeting. She added it as Item 2 under Matters for Consideration. Steve Cohen, Staff Planner requested to schedule a joint meeting with the City Council on Saturday, October 5, 1996. Chairperson Lorenzo added this as Item 3 under Matters for Consideration. She asked if there were any other changes or additions to the Agenda? Seeing none she entertained a motion.
PM-96-09-228 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED
Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To
approve the Agenda as amended.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-228 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bononi, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
Roger Jacob, owns the property on the southwest corner of Novi Road and Erma Street. He thanked the Planning Commission for taking the time to consider his father speaking in regard to the Public Hearing at the last meeting. The Public Hearing was in regard to the rezoning of the properties located along Novi Road, south of Erma Street. He expressed concern with his parcel which has 200 feet of frontage along Novi Road and is 100 feet in depth. He stated he is preparing a petition regarding the possibility of obtaining additional frontage along Novi Road due to the possible vacation of Erma Street. He asked the Planning Commission for their consideration and fair decision on the proposed rezoning. He asked that the border of the rezoning be made one lot south of his lot.
Jim Korte stated the SES Homeowners Association has always been in support of the rezoning of the Novi corridor. He stated residential nature of the area is an addition to the area. Mr. Korte stated his property backs up to the corridor at the corner of Erma Street. The Jacob property is directly behind his property. The city values the property at an SEV of roughly 35, therefore the property 200 feet is worth $70,000.
Jonathan Brateman, 24230 Karim Boulevard #125, Chairman of the Legislative Affairs Committee for the Novi Chamber of Commerce discussed the OST Ordinance. He stated several Board Directors of the Chamber toured potential areas for the Ordinance, and also looked at areas that have been developed. He stated many people have stated to him that Novi has an abundance of Industrial land. He asked the Commission to give the real estate development community, the Chamber, and potential businesses, the tools that an Ordinance like the OST can provide in terms of bringing high quality uses to the city.
Virgil P. Jackson, owns the A-1 Radiator Shop on Novi Road and Pleasant Cove Road. He stated he bought the property over 39 years ago before Novi was even a city. He stated he would like his property to remain commercial and was opposed to the rezoning.
It was Mr. Korte’s belief that during earlier situations, Virgil Jackson’s property was to be removed from this specific situation. He asked the Commission if this has happened?
Chairperson Lorenzo stated if Mr. Korte was referring to the informal Public Hearing that was held by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, this is the recommendation that has come forward from that Committee. However, it is a recommendation from a Committee of four (4) which is now before the Commission of eight (8).
Mr. Korte asked if Mr. Jackson’s radiator shop is still in the rezoning question?
Chairperson Lorenzo again stated she believes the recommendation from the Committee was to exclude Mr. Jackson’s property, however, that does not mean that it is the consensus of the Commission.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation announcing there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.
Member Capello announced he has received several letters, therefore he will be summarizing the correspondence.
Sarah Gray, President of the SES Homeowners Association wrote in continued support of the proposed rezoning and master planning for the properties lying west of Novi Road, from Erma Street, running south to the Shawood Canal. She stated there will never again be enough "drive-through" traffic to support any additional commercial. She stressed that it was not intended to include the radiator shop owned by Virgil Jackson nor Mr. Chicorel’s commercial property at the northwest corner of the same intersection.
Albert Chicorel of the American Mortgage Company stated a small section of commercial road from 13 Mile Road to Pleasant Cove has been the most traveled road section in Novi for the past 15 years, there is not one parcel from 13 Mile Road to Pleasant Cove that even warrants any new residential housing. He therefore feels that this small section from Thirteen Mile Road to Pleasant Cove should remain as it has been, commercial.
Hugh McVeigh, 27070 Taft Road stated he is a senior resident in Novi and was definitely in favor of the passing of the OST Ordinance. He stated it will bring good development to the community and hopefully some tax relief to the homeowners.
Mary Karagosian, 45475 West Ten Mile Road stated she was aware that the OST Ordinance was being considered. She stated more tax base is needed to fix the roads and other items, and suggested that the Commission vote for the OST Ordinance. She does not live in Novi but stated she was very interested in the passage of the Ordinance for the good of the City of Novi and its’ inhabitants.
Richard Gilbert of Novi stated he has had the opportunity to review a draft of the OST Ordinance. The OST Ordinance appears to have most of the ingredients to be successful in its’ goal, except for one drawback, the OST zone cannot be located adjacent /abutting residential zoned property without consideration for what the abutting property is Master Planned. In looking at the Zoning Map, it appears that if the OST Ordinance does not incorporate the Master Planned item as a qualification for OST, this item will defeat the OST Ordinance purpose in a number of cases. Mr. Gilbert stated the OST Ordinance should be passed with the modification that the OST zone to be placed on property adjacent to residential zoned property if such property is Master Planned for other than residential use.
Connie Mallett, President of the Novi Chamber of Commerce stated the Economic Development Committee of the Novi Chamber of Commerce has voted unanimously to recommend the Chamber Board of Directors approve the adoption of the proposed OST Ordinance with the modification amendment to the Master Plan to allow OST development without screening requirements. The Executive Committee adopted the ED Committees recommendation.
Lynn Peterson, 34431 Country Lane stated as a property owner and a tax payer in the City of Novi, she has been following the progress for lack thereof an ordinance which would assist in creating a better tax base in the City of Novi. She urged the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the OST Ordinance with Provision No. 2, to incorporate the language which includes "unless the Master Plan for Land Use recommends uses other than residential".
Jack D. Hamburger of The Parliament Company, stated the proposed OST Ordinance seems to respond to providing an ordinance that will accommodate the high tech companies, and if passed, it would redirect his attention to Novi for these types of uses. An item which can create major problems is the over requirement of berms and expansive screen walls, he stated these should be made practical and not over oppressive.
Marc Robling, Manager of the Robert Bosch Corporation stated the restriction of abutting districts that are presently residential zoned but Master Planned for other uses will add difficulty to developing properties. It was his opinion that Novi is well advised to add the words "or Master Planned" to enable development of the districts without undue effort and expense.
William Bowman President of Thompson Brown Realtors, addressed a single most important issue that he felt from his experience would determine the viability and marketability of the OST Ordinance to accomplish its intended purpose for the City of Novi. The purpose is to attract high quality, high tech firms to the City of Novi, the type of which have located in Novi’s neighboring communities as a result of those communities having high tech user friendly workable ordinances. He asked the Commission to consider using the following language to be incorporated in the OST Ordinance. "Unless specified under Section 2301A(2-5) inclusive shall not be located on a building site adjacent to and/or sharing a common boundary with an RA, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RT or MH District unless the Master Plan for Land Use recommends uses other than above referenced residential uses or when the OST District is separated from the above referenced residential districts by a public R.O.W. He stated a very substantial amount of the property in the City of Novi including areas that are well suited for the OST zoning classification are actually zoned as one of the above referenced residential districts but Master Planned for other than residential districts. Without the Master Plan qualifying language and the public R.O.W. language, those properties west of Haggerty Road, south of Twelve Mile Road which have previously been designated as high tech OS-2/PD-4, and those properties on the south side of Twelve Mile Road between Dixon Road on the east and Beck Road on the west overlooking the I-96 freeway will never get off the ground because of a technicality in the ordinance which obviously destroys the purpose and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Bowman also addressed the Business Motel and recommended the language should read, "a minimum of bedroom, bathroom and closet space", so that it is less restrictive. Page 4, paragraph 4, provides for total enclosure of all truck loading and unloading, Mr. Bowman recommended that it be taken into account that there must be some ingress and egress for their trucks. Page 4, paragraph 5, provides for setbacks and building heights and parking is provided in OS-2, he assumes that parking means the "location of parking" and not the number of parking spaces.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 4, 1996? Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the minutes.
PM-96-09-229 TO APPROVE THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 1996
Moved by Weddington, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the September 4, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-229 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
1. ORDINANCE 96-18 (CREATION OF THE OST PLANNED OFFICE SERVICE TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT)
An Ordinance to add a definition of "Business Motel" to Section 201 of Ordinance No. 84-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add Article 23A to said Ordinance, and to delete subsection 2406.9 from said Ordinance, to provide an OST Planned Office Service Technology District for possible recommendation to City Council.
Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated that before the Commission is a recommendation from the Implementation Committee and some members of the Committee wish to comment on the proposed draft. The OST District would supplant what is currently in an OS-2, PD-4 overlay District. He stated the OST is a District that may reach to a market that is seen in adjacent communities. It will set up principle uses permitted and required conditions for these uses. There are no Special Land Uses, no requirements to have a Public Hearing if the property is zoned OST and the final jurisdiction on approving preliminary and final site plans is from the Planning Commission. The statement of intent in the proposed draft is to provide sufficient space to meet the needs of the City’s future economy for research of office high tech and related uses experimental, demonstration, display laboratories. There are setbacks and limitations on environmental impacts and a desire to promote the most desirable use of land. Required conditions would be that truck service areas are to be screened from any public R.O.W. adjacent uses. There must be access into the truck service loading area through a gate or staggered roadway so there will be no direct visibility from a service road. The setbacks of buildings and parking lots would be as for the OS-2 District. Off street parking and loading areas would be as per the Ordinance. Mr. Rogers stated the major issue remaining is if certain uses in an OST District can abut residentially zoned land or if it is sufficient to say they’re adjacent to land proposed for other than residential. Option 1 in the Ordinance states one can be adjacent to residential if separated by a public R.O.W. Option 2 does not have the public street separation, however, it could have. There must be compliance with the performance standards for noise, vibration, smoke, odor, etc. which are already in the Zoning Ordinance. It was Mr. Rogers feeling if the property were located adjacent to non-residentially Master Planned property with the possibility of the public R.O.W., it would open up development of 10-30 acre parcels.
Greg Capote, Senior Staff Planner explained the reason for proposing the change. He stated the PD-4 Option was first looked at by the Planning Commission and the Implementation Committee in 1990. He stated the PD-4 Option is being rescinded and an entirely new district is being created to send a strong message to the community that the City of Novi is keeping up to date with current trends in the marketplace. Mr. Capote stated the Implementation Committee, in working with staff and consultants, is recommending that an OST District be allowed adjacent to residentially zoned and used parcels of land, as long as the land is Master Planned for any use other than residential. By inacting the Ordinance with this provision, brings the Master Plan to fruition. Mr. Capote stated the objective is to permit the continuation of high quality of the I-96/Twelve Mile Road corridor for office high tech development implemented by the OS-4, PD-4 Option.
Chairperson Lorenzo announced it is a Public Hearing and opened the floor to the Public.
Bill Bowman Sr., 30180 Orchard Lake Road of Farmington Hills, complimented the Planning Commission and the Implementation Committee for all of their hard work to write an Ordinance and come to a conclusion. Through his experience, he stated this type of Ordinance has worked for the City of Farmington Hills, bringing in the types of businesses that were intended under the Ordinance. Mr. Bowman stated he believed the OST Ordinance is a good ordinance and he hates to see it thrown out because it was not considered in regard to the specific technicality.
Lynn Kocan, 23088 Ennishore Drive in the Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision stated residents of Meadowbrook Lake wished that the Master Plan took precedence over current zoning. She cautioned the Commission not to elevate the Master Plan to the level of zoning. In order for the City to be consistent, the current zoning needs to take precedence over the Master Plan. She stated if the intensity of such a zoning district as OST requires that it not be next to residential, then she recommended that it not be placed next to residential.
Blair Bowman, 43700 Expo Center Drive reiterated that he was very encouraged by the draft of the OST Ordinance. He expressed concerns in regard to the history of the PD-4 and the previous work prior to that adoption. If an Ordinance is not workable, the usefulness is questionable. He stated if the marketplace is allowed flexibility which the Ordinance as proposed with the modification would provide, very high quality development will be brought and placed. Mr. Bowman stated the flexibility should be provided in the Ordinance and he strongly supports and encourages the efforts.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the OST Ordinance? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.
Member Capello asked Mr. Bowman to explain the parking in more detail.
Mr. Bill Bowman stated there will be a section in the Ordinance stating what the parking requirements are for the OST zoning. Mr. Bowman understood it to be regulated by the types of uses to be incorporated within the development.
Mr. Rogers stated the split use analysis is a discretionary review that is taken. The staff and consultants look at the predominant use of the building. Under the proposed new ordinance, the building can be split into components.
Chairperson Lorenzo interjected asking if the concern for Item 5 regarding the parking was a misunderstanding?
Mr. Bill Bowman stated he was looking for a clarification which he had just received.
Member Capello stated when there is OS-2 property with residential next door, residential will not be rezoned OS-2 because of the domino effect. He asked if any of the areas shown on the map are planned subdivisions?
Mr. Bill Bowman answered, those that he has identified have no plans for future residential use.
Member Capello asked if the actual current use is already a planned, platted subdivision?
Mr. Bill Bowman stated he did not know of any of those that are platted residential properties.
Member Capello asked how many of the residential properties are up for sale?
Mr. Bill Bowman stated Detroit Edison owns about 65 acres of the area. Through his discussions with Mr. Palmer and Mr. Potter, they have indicated that their plans are for future high tech development. There are 20 acres north of the Edison property which is under the control of a gentleman who is in control of creating a high tech development, however, he is waiting to see if he should proceed with it, depending upon what happens at this meeting. The property to the north is a nonconforming use of landscaping and has a "For Sale" sign erected. The next six or eight acres is a heating and plumbing, non-conforming use. The piece to the north of that, is a vacant piece of property. The piece to the south of the Amoco Station and Cookers’ Restaurant is vacant. He stated Mrs. Kahn, a superintendent of the M-5 connector, had a substantial amount to do with the purchasing of the property for the highway department and she indicated that the property is going to be excess property. She also indicated her interest in the high tech zoning.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated this meeting is to discuss a Zoning Ordinance change, not potential rezonings.
Member Capello stated his question was to try to understand the layout of the problem as Ms. Kocan spoke to correlate the properties and the planning of the properties to Meadowbrook Lake. He stated he is not familiar with the property, however, the portions of property that he has seen, he did not think were in correlation. He stated he was trying to obtain a rough idea through the area, if the parcels were really large lot parcels which would never develop.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated she appreciated the clarification. She did not want to mis-speak for Ms. Kocan, however, she thought she heard Ms. Kocan’s basic comment that the Master Plan does not guarantee that the property will ever be rezoned and used as such. She stated she would not like to focus on each of the areas that may be potentially rezoned to OST and asked the Commission to refrain from going through each potential piece and identifying if it is a platted subdivision.
Member Capello explained the Chair is viewing it one way and he is viewing it another. He thought the types of properties zoned are important to whether or not the language "as zoned".
Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would appreciate a motion to go forward with the discussions on potential properties and uses, etc., to see if there is a majority on the Commission to move forward in that deem of questioning.
PM-96-09-230 TO AMEND THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ON PAGE 5, NUMBER 8, OPTION 2, USES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 2301A(2-5) INCLUSIVE SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN A BUILDING SITE ADJACENT TO AND/OR SHARING A COMMON BOUNDARY WITH AN RA, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RT AND MH DISTRICT UNLESS THE MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE RECOMMENDS USES OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL OR IS SEPARATED FROM THE ABOVE REFERENCED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BY A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BERM
Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, FAILED (4-4): To amend the proposed language on page 5, number 8, option 2, to read, "to continue after the word residential" or "is separated from the above referenced residential districts by a public right-of-way or a berm".
Member Churella stated he agreed with the motion, however, he though it could be improved by saying that it could be separated by a R.O.W. or a berm. He asked if Member Capello would mind adding this amendment to the motion?
Member Capello stated he did not have a problem with the amendment.
Mr. Rogers stated it is an "or" situation.
PM-96-09-231 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ADD "OR A BERM"
Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas
Member Hoadley agreed with Member Capello’s motion and complimented the Implementation Committee on the work they have done. He asked why Option 1 couldn’t be connected with Option 2 by adding "and/or". He thought the berming could be appropriate in lieu of putting a road. He offered this information to Member Capello that he link Options 1 and 2 with an "and/or" and incorporate under Option 2 the berming.
PM-96-09-232 TO LINK OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2 TOGETHER WITH "AND/OR" AND INCORPORATE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE "AND/OR BERMING" IN LIEU OF A ROAD
Moved by Hoadley, seconded by none, MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF SUPPORT
Member Capello clarified that his motion did include what Member Hoadley said, he just did not repeat "the uses specified in Option 2". Member Capello stated it does say the exact same thing that Member Hoadley asked for in his motion.
Member Bononi stated she will not be in support of any language which proposes to use the Master Plan as a zoning designation.
Member Weddington clarified that Option 1 and Option 2 are two different things.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated they have been tied in a way that is incorporating a little of both.
Member Weddington stated the original issue was whether it would be referred to as residential districts as currently zoned or second option Master Planned as residential. She wanted to clarify this because one of the main issues is whether the Commission goes with what is currently zoned or Master Planned.
Member Weddington asked how the other communities who have had success with a high tech zoning district protect the neighboring residential districts? Or are they separated by right of ways or some kind of buffer?
Mr. Rogers stated he does not have the Farmington Hills Ordinance at hand, he stated he would refer the question to Mr. Bowman.
Mr. Bill Bowman stated it requires a 100 foot setback from residential.
Member Weddington stated she asked because it seems that generally the tech developments are contained within major roadway boundaries and she has not seen an area where it abuts residential.
Mr. Bill Bowman stated he is not suggesting that the Ordinance locate tech developments next to residential. He stated these are areas that are isolated within themselves from exposure to the expressway, access to major roads, access to the interchanges at reasonably convenient locations. He did not feel there was a lot of difference in what is being proposed.
Member Weddington asked Mr. Capote about the protections for neighboring residential in the city of Wixom?
Mr. Capote answered he did not have those specifics but would be happy to provide the Commission with that information. He stated Wixom has the same Ordinance as Farmington Hills and stated they are probably equal in setbacks, berming, etc.
Member Bononi responded to Member Weddington’s questions about alternatives. She stated there are four alternatives that she is accustomed to working with: 1) To allow such developments to abut single family and multiple family zones wherein buffers and natural areas are used. 2) Right-of-way 3) Combined zone change, where the developer will get a parcel together and propose an OST and maybe a smaller transitional zone in order to meet the abutting zoning requirement. 4) Overlay Zoning or Special Development Districts. Member Bononi stated these are four (4) ways that this can be done without compromising the Zoning Map.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated Member Bononi and Member Weddington expressed some of her concerns. She stated the fundamental question would be, will we allow OST next to residentially zoned and used property? If so, she stated the property needs to be protected through setbacks and berms. She also expressed concerns about allowing residentially zoned property, master planned for office. There is no guarantee that a residentially zoned parcel is going to become office use. She stated it is good to call out the Master Plan, however, the protections are still needed if it is assumed that someone could be living there indefinitely and that it may never be rezoned. She expressed concern in protecting the residents living on the property from any adverse impacts, which Mr. Bowman indicated in other communities, the way they protect the residents is through setbacks and berming. As long as there is protection for residents, the Commission may move forward. She stated she did not support the separation by right-of-way because she does not believe a R.O.W. is a buffer. She stated a road next to a residential property could be intrusive. Chairperson Lorenzo agreed with Member Hoadley that there could be a scenario where, in order to meet the intent of the Ordinance, a road would be put in where ever the adjacent property is, regardless of the environment of the area. She was in support of allowing OST next to residential as long as there are sufficient protections such as berming, setbacks, etc.
It was Member Capello‘s understanding the purpose of the R.O.W. was for existing R.O.W. roads such as Twelve Mile Road. If the property abuts residential in a R.O.W. between properties such as residential and OST, that R.O.W. is allowed to have the OST. If the Commission requires every building erected in OS-2, to put a berm up if there is a house next door to it, there will be a hodge podge of small 2-6 acre parcels with 10 foot berms. The idea is to develop it as a park setting. The concern is, what can be done for the existing residents if an OST is allowed next to it.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated Member Capello’s point is based on assumptions. She stated his assumptions are intensive as her assumptions are protective.
Member Capello stated his assumptions are realistic as residents are not going to live there forever.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated it is not known. Unless the property owners want to rezone their property, she stated there is not a problem, however, a problem does exist if the two property owners abutting do not want their property rezoned to OST. She stated we cannot make the assumption that those property owners won’t reside there forever, or that they may not sell their property as residents. She stated the Commission has an obligation to protect the residents property with berming and setbacks if they are not willing to rezone their property.
Member Markham asked for some distinction between an already residentially developed parcel and an undeveloped residential parcel. RA is used as a "holding pattern", so it is logical as OST is put in, it will be next to a parcel that is zoned residential. Those parcels that are vacant, in an area, it makes sense to rezone them to OST, it does not make sense to put up a berm if there is nothing on the other side of it. She stated it makes sense to say if the property is developed as residential or there is an occupied home, a berm would be required, otherwise none would be required.
Member Bononi clarified through her experience, a requirement in a zone, is a requirement in a zone, is a requirement in a zone, it is irrelevant whether or not the adjoining property is vacant or not because it may not always be vacant. The property owner has a right to expect that the requirements in the zone will have been met.
Chairperson Lorenzo shared with the Commission, an earlier conversation between Mr. Bowman and herself. She stated that Mr. Bowman asked her for input on the Zoning Ordinance, which they struggled with both options that are before the Commission. She stated that Mr. Bowman and herself had discussed using Item 2 as an alternative replacing "...ends with residential" with "...and the adjacent residentially zoned property is vacant or unoccupied as a residential use". Chairperson Lorenzo stated her main concern was to protect the residents that may be living next to an OST use.
PM-96-09-233 CALL FOR THE QUESTION
Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello
VOTE ON PM-96-09-230 FAILED
Yes: Churella, Hoadley, Vrettas, Capello
No: Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Bononi
Chairperson Lorenzo entertained another motion or further Discussion.
Member Hoadley stated the motion should be resubmitted to include a 100 foot setback and some type of berming to accommodate all of the goals. Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bill Bowman if this would work?
Mr. Bill Bowman expressed concern that the Ordinance will over protect a resident who wants to sell their property but won’t be able to, by virtue of the items being discussed. He wanted to know how you come to a point of rational sense?
Member Churella stated when property is zoned, the Commission is not going to split-zone one parcel. They are mainly interested in protecting the residents behind who are a part of a large subdivision. Member Churella suggested restructuring the Ordinance to fit the ramifications and vote on it.
PM-96-09-234 TO AMEND 2302.8 TO READ, USES SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 2301A(2-5) INCLUSIVE SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ON A BUILDING SITE ADJACENT TO AND/OR SHARING A COMMON BOUNDARY WITHIN RA, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RT OR MH DISTRICT UNLESS THE MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE RECOMMENDS USES OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY OWNER OCCUPIED OR IS SEPARATED FROM THE ABOVE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR BY A BERM AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 2302A, UNLESS THE OWNER OF THE OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAIVES IN WRITING THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BERM
Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas
Member Markham asked if it was necessary to include the statement, "unless the Master Plan for Land Use recommends uses other than residential" if all the provisions for protecting residential are incorporated.
Member Capello answered yes, otherwise all of the properties are being limited.
Member Markham disagreed, stating if that segment is taken out, it would actually be opening it up. She stated the Master Plan for Land Use says that the only place you can allow OST, is next to something that is Master Planned for something other than residential. She again stated if the segment regarding the Master Plan is taken out, the OST could actually be put next to any residential property as long as it meets the requirements.
Mr. Rogers agreed that the Master Plan is a guide, he stated the City Council makes the final decision on what property is zoned OST. He hoped the Commissions recommendation to the City Council would be for the areas proposed and not a scattered residential pattern. Mr. Rogers stated there are many references in the present Zoning Ordinance to recommendations in the Master Plan and this is not improper.
Member Capello stated he did not have a problem removing the segment regarding the Master Plan.
Mr. Bill Bowman again expressed concern regarding the Ordinance and its’ tendency to over protect a resident who wants to sell their property.
Member Capello further clarified that residential where the owner lives on the property is the only area that will need to be bermed around, a tenant, vacant land or a boarded up house does not have to be bermed around.
PM-96-09-235 TO AMEND 2302.8 TO READ, USES SPECIFIED UNDER 2301.8 (2-5) INCLUSIVE SHALL NOT BE LOCATED ON A BUILDING SITE ADJACENT TO AND/OR SHARING A COMMON BOUNDARY WITHIN RA, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RT AND MH DISTRICT WHERE THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS OWNER OCCUPIED OR IS SEPARATED FROM THE ABOVE REFERENCED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BY A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OR SEPARATED BY A BERM AS PROVIDED IN 2302A (1, 2 OR 3), UNLESS THE OWNER OF THE OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAIVES THE BERMING REQUIREMENT IN WRITING
Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend 2302.8 to read, uses specified under 2301.8 2-5 inclusive shall not be located on a building site adjacent to and/or sharing a common boundary within RA, R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, RT and MH District where that residential property is owner occupied or is separated from the above referenced residential district by a public right-of-way or separated by a berm as provided in 2302A 1,2, or 3, unless the owner of the occupied residential property waives the berming requirement in writing.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-235
Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo
Chairperson Lorenzo stated the Commission will take a brief recess.
Ed Bozian, stated he had a small interest in a piece of property. He stated he was not familiar with the OST Ordinance and has no preparation for it. In regard to the residents, he stated the primary concern is getting taxed out of their property. He stated he spoke with Mr. Bill Bowman who seems to feel that this would not happen. Mr. Bozian expressed concern with a rezoning that would raise the property taxes.
Unknown Gentleman spoke regarding the protection of the proposed residential property in terms of screening. He asked if it becomes residential property, how will it be screened from the existing commercial properties?
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the second Audience Participation announcing there will be a third before adjournment. She then turned the Matter of OST back to the Commission.
PM-96-09-236 TO AMEND PAGE 1, LINE 4, "RENTAL UNITS CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF A BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND CLOSET SPACE", PAGE 3, SECTION 2301A(4)C, "SUCH USES SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY AS PART OF THE MIXED USE BUILDING IN WHICH NO LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF BUILDING FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT IS UTILIZED FOR OFFICE", PAGE 4, SECTION 2302A(4), FIRST LINE, "INTENT OF THIS SECTION IS TO REQUIRE THE SCREENING OF ALL LOADING AND UNLOADING AND PARKING PLACES"
Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas
Member Bononi asked Member Capello, in reference to page 3, why is the word "development" changed to "building" when in planning, "development" is used to include anything that goes on the site and "building is not often referred to.
Member Capello agreed with Member Bononi that the word "development" includes one building or multiple buildings, however, as used in this particular section, he thought the beginning sentence was speaking of a one building development. He stated if the reading is interpreted as it stands, using "development" in the first sentence can be construed that more than one building is needed to meet those requirements.
Member Bononi stated she felt the word "development" in that case was not singular or plural, but did not want to push the issue.
Member Bononi referred to page 2, section 2301A(3). She believed the language should read, "and including laboratories engaging in genetic research", number 4, after the third line, first word "research, but excluding those facilities conducting research on infectious diseases". Her last comment was on page 5, section 8, which talks about abutting zones and being separated by a public right-of-way, she stated she was not sure what that meant within the context of the language that has been adopted or if it has any contextual meaning at all.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers for an interpretation when language such as "separated by a public right-of-way" is used.
Mr. Rogers stated it could be a right-of-way that is existing or as may be created in the future based upon good comprehensive planning. He stated the way it is written, talks about public right-of-way.
It was Member Bononi’s concern that the language was in agreement with that portion that was already amended.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated the irrigation on page 4, seems to have been missed and asked if anyone would like to address the issue.
PM-96-09-237 TO AMEND SECTION 2302A, TO THE BERM SHALL BE HYDRO SEEDED AND IRRIGATED
Moved by Bononi, no second given
Member Churella stated that Member Bononi included the language to read "but excluding those facilities conducting research on infectious diseases". He stated unless it is explicit as to which diseases to exclude, he felt it was too general.
Member Bononi clarified that this matter had been discussed with Mr. Watson who stated that the Commission could not regulate anything that has already been regulated by the Federal Government.
Mr. Watson stated by including "all infectious diseases" it presents the same problem and he did not see why it needed to be included.
Member Bononi stated the concern was obvious from having research conducted on organism that would have a variable in quality or could endanger the citizens in any way. She expressed a real concern in regard to this.
Mr. Watson asked how Member Bononi proposed to define it, so that she would exclude those things that are a real danger to the citizens and not barring research that is not a danger. Mr. Watson recommended that it is not a zoning issue. It is not an issue that can be accomplished through a zoning regulation, but it is an issue that can be accomplished through other public health regulations. He suggested having Mr. Rogers and himself explore what the regulations are, pertaining to both Federally and State as to the public health regulations and then bring the information back so the Commission can make a determination whether it is adequate or not. If not, then he recommended it be sent to the Ordinance Review Committee because it may be researched in other zoning districts.
Member Bononi stated her concern was from the standpoint of permitted use. There should be awareness of what an applicant is proposing to do in any given facility, she stated from a planning standpoint, the Commission has a right to know that, but whether or not they have the right to regulate it, is legal issue. Member Bononi stated she has a concern and she defers to Mr. Watson’s knowledge as to the appropriate agency to look at the issue to determine the Commissions ability to define the permitted use.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Bononi if she wished to withdraw that particular amendment and after the motion is voted upon, make another motion to refer that issue to Mr. Watson and Mr. Rogers?
Member Bononi stated she will withdraw the phrase after the word research on page 2, "but excluding those facilities conducting research on infectious diseases until such time that Mr. Watson refers the Commission to the proper venue.
Member Hoadley referred to page 3, and asked how they came up with 10 percent of the building to be used as office space?
Mr. Rogers stated it was a lot higher than that. The 10 percent includes a wide range of laboratory and research as well as office space.
Member Hoadley restated his question, what if they don’t need the space? Is 10,000 square feet of office space going to be required in a 100,000 square foot building just to comply with the Ordinance?
Member Weddington stated it is primarily an office district.
Member Hoadley stated he is trying to clarify the need for a minimum requirement. He stated he could see some applicants coming in and not needing it and asked if the Commission would require the applicant to put it in whether they needed it or not?
Member Capello responded to Member Hoadley and advised him not to get bogged down with what he thinks of office, with walls and doors. He stated it had been talked about and if there is carpeting, a dropped ceiling, heating and air conditioning, it is probably construed as office, which the laboratory, testing and research would all be included in what is generically called "office".
Member Weddington stated this was discussed at length and originally there was a much higher percentage which was scaled back to 10 percent. She stated it is primarily an office district and office uses are broader types of uses. The Implementation Committee felt that more flexibility was needed and that 10 percent was not an unreasonably high amount of space.
Member Hoadley asked where the 6-10 feet of berming came from?
Mr. Rogers stated it came straight from the I-1 Ordinance.
Member Hoadley asked if this type of berming was needed for an OST? He stated he could see it if it was against a subdivision, but not an individual house.
Mr. Rogers stated under the required conditions on page 3 and 4, it talks about screening the truck service, loading and unloading areas by either a solid ornamental wall of a design construction material similar to that of the principle building or by an earth berm and plantings. Mr. Rogers stated Member Hoadley is speaking about the berm around the truck service area which may be located only at the rear of the building.
Member Hoadley asked what type of berm is being talked about as far a screening off a residential area? He stated this may work in some instances where it backs up to a subdivision, however, he cannot see a 10 foot high berm if there is a large separation between the resident and the berm.
It was Member Weddington’s belief that the berming requirements were to be made consistent in all cases, where a berm is required. She stated the two situations where a berm is required is 1) an alternative for screening the truck, shipping and receiving area or 2) if the proposed development is proposed next to existing owner occupied residential so it will not be required in every case.
Member Markham stated after hearing that both Farmington Hills and Wixom have a requirement for 100 foot setback instead of the 75 foot setback that is being suggested, she suggested amending paragraph 5, page 4, section 2400, footnote M, to modify the minimum setback requirements from 75 feet to 100 feet.
PM-96-09-238 TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT NUMBER 5, THE MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR BUILDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS AND PARKING FOR ALL USES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN SECTION 2400 OR OS-2
Moved by Markham, no second given
Chairperson Lorenzo asked the motion maker Member Capello and the seconder, Member Vrettas if this amendment was acceptable.
Members Capello and Vrettas accepted the amendment to the motion.
Member Churella stated he would like to add an amendment to the motion. He referred to page 3, paragraph 2 in regard to existing trees of six inches or more, which states if a tree is six inches or more, the berm must be divided around the tree. He stated from past experience when this is done, the tree normally dies, he stated it would be better if it were required to replace the tree and continue the berm.
Chairperson Lorenzo deferred to Ms. Lemke on that issue, and stated if Ms. Lemke approved this type of language, perhaps her experience poses something else. She then stated after the current motion is voted upon, if Member Churella would like to make a motion to refer that section back to Ms. Lemke for further review, it can be done then.
Member Capello referred to page 3, paragraph C, third sentence. He stated it does not make sense because when there is a planned multi-building development, not less than 10 percent of the initial building on site, what happens with the rest of the buildings?
PM-96-09-239 TO PROPOSE THE THIRD SENTENCE TO READ, "WHEN THERE IS A PLANNED MULTI-BUILDING DEVELOPMENT, NOT LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS OWNED BY A SINGLE OWNER
Moved by Capello, no second given, FAILED PER DISCUSSION
Member Bononi stated individual uses can be referred to, therefore, ownership does not necessarily have anything to do with it. She stated it is not ownership as much as it is use, she did not see the necessity from a planning standpoint to get into ownership when the issue is whether or not each individual use meet the 10 percent rule.
Member Capello stated the issue remains, what portion of the development will the 10 percent rule apply?
Member Bononi answered it would apply to each use. She gave an example, there may be one building that is 500,000 square feet which is separated into four uses. Each of these uses and/or all buildings on the site is required to meet the 10 percent rule.
Chairperson Lorenzo interjected to ask Member Bononi and Mr. Rogers if it is specifying what is being said?
Member Bononi stated she felt it already says it.
Mr. Rogers stated 10 percent of the total development should be required for office use.
Member Weddington stated this is why the original language referred to "development" rather than "building".
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the amendment to the language, in terms of adding "building" should be removed and should remain "development"?
Mr. Watson stated a development may be a single building development, this is to account for a multi-building development.
Member Capello asked if there is a user who builds a building and occupies 80 percent of it as office and then decides that 100,000 square feet of office is needed, in a separate building. In total, this owner has met his 10 percent requirement, however, he has not met it building by building, how will this be handled?
Mr. Watson stated this would treat the development as a whole, solely to make sure that they don’t try to do all of the manufacturing and assembly in the initial building and not build the rest of the development.
Member Capello then asked what will happen if a user occupies his first building of 100,000 square feet as office, and the next 3 or 4 buildings are not required to have office. Then this owner moves out and the next occupant only wishes to occupy 10 percent office. This would meet the building requirement, however, the development as a whole will not meet the requirement, how will this be handled?
Mr. Watson stated the applicant who comes in with a multi-building site plan will be knowledgeable of the Ordinance they are coming in on and they will not be able to reduce once the buildings are occupied.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other proposed amendments. Seeing none, she restated all of the proposed amendments.
PM-96-09-240 PAGE 1, PART 1, SENTENCE 4, TO AMEND TO INCLUDE "A MINIMUM OF A BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND CLOSET SPACE"; PAGE 2, SECTION 3, "LABORATORIES, MEDICAL EXPERIMENTAL, FILM DEMONSTRATION DISPLAY OR TESTING AND INCLUDING LABORATORIES ENGAGED IN GENETIC RESEARCH"; PAGE 4, TO ADD "AND IRRIGATED"; PAGE 4, NUMBER 4, "THE SCREENING OF ALL TRUCK LOADING, UNLOADING AND PARKING AREAS"; PAGE 4, NUMBER 5, "MINIMUM FRONT, SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR BUILDING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 100 FEET. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS AND PARKING FOR ALL USES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN SECTION 2400"
Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
VOTE ON PM-96-09-240 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas
PM-96-09-241 TO ADD IN SECTION 2301B, "USES SIMILAR IN NATURE, AS PROGRESS AND TECHNOLOGY MAY DICTATE, AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 2301A (1-6) ARE PERMITTED BY SPECIAL LAND USE AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3006"
Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add in Section 2301B, "Uses similar in nature, as progress and technology may dictate, as set forth in section 2301A, 1-6 are permitted by Special Land Use as provided for in section 3006"
Member Bononi did not see the need for it unless some specifics could be given as to why Member Capello felt it was necessary. She stated there are other avenues for appeal if an applicant comes in with a use that is not included in the Ordinance.
Mr. Watson stated if there was concern regarding similar uses, a category could be added O1A which would add uses similar to the above uses. The problem with the Special Land Use provision is that it is too general and broad.
Member Capello stated it is to try to cover areas that cannot be defined today. He stated similar uses can be put in, however, it takes the interpretation outside of the Commissions control.
Chairperson Lorenzo interjected to ask if this would be creating what is trying to be avoided, in terms of OS-2, PD-4 Special Land Use. Companies want to know that they fit under a zoning classification, they do not want to come in with questions. If it is a Special Land Use, she did not feel that the companies would come to Novi.
Member Capello stated it is different to have a Special Land Use within the OST and a Special Land Use which would be the OST. He stated it is going a step beyond.
Member Bononi stated through going one step further, we should be able to define them by virtue of what Member Capello is saying. She stated she can see where he would like to take this, but felt it would create more problems than it will solve.
Member Markham agreed in principle with Member Capello that there should be some allowance for similar uses that cannot be anticipated, she liked the suggestion that the language be amended in Section 2301A and stay away from Special Land Use.
PM-96-09-242 TO AMEND TO ADD SECTION 2301A (7) TO READ OTHER USES SIMILAR IN NATURE, AS PROGRESS AND TECHNOLOGY MAY DICTATE, AS THOUGH SET FORTH IN 2301A (1-6)
Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley
VOTE ON PM-96-09-242 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas
PM-96-09-243 TO REFER 2302A(2) TO LINDA LEMKE
Moved by Churella, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To refer 2302A(2) to Linda Lemke.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-243 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi
PM-96-09-244 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 96-18 AS AMENDED WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF LINDA LEMKE, DENNIS WATSON AND BRANDON ROGERS GO DIRECTLY TO CITY COUNCIL.
Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for the OST Ordinance as amended with the recommendations of Linda Lemke, Dennis Watson and Brandon Rogers go directly to City Council.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-244 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee has reviewed the following areas:
* Master Plan on both sides of Lanny’s Road, south of Grand River Avenue
* Master Plan and Zoning on both sides of Novi Road, between Thirteen Mile Road and Twelve ½ Mile Road.
Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated in the Spring of 1996, the Planning Commission considered two possible amendments to the Zoning Map. The first being the parcel on Lanny’s Road which was proposed to be rezoned from I-1 to R-4 and the other at the Southwest corner of Austin Road and Novi Road which was proposed to be rezoned from both B-3 and R-4 to B-1. He stated the City Council denied both applications, however, as a part of that action, they referred back to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee further study of these areas to determine the need for any changes to the zoning boundaries or the Master Plan boundaries. An additional study was undertaken by that Committee over several months. On July 31, 1996 an informal public meeting was held and some affected property owners offered comments. In addition, some of the Committee members requested additional information. Mr. Arroyo briefly reviewed the recommendations as they currently stand from the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. 1) Regarding Lanny’s Road, the recommendation has not changed, the recommendation is to change the Master Plan for Land Use to modify it to be in conformance with the Zoning Map, for the four parcels. The recommendation is to change it from industrial to residential with the appropriate density map modification. 2) The existing All State Building and the Radiator Shop are excluded from the rezoning and will remain B-3. All of the other properties along the west side of Novi Road up to Erma Street are proposed to be rezoned from B-3 to R-4. On the east side of Novi Road, the property south of Linhart is proposed to be rezoned to the same designation. The Master Plan would be modified to make a similar change from Non-Center Commercial to Residential and the appropriate density map modifications will reflect that. Mr. Arroyo stated a lot of the properties have small lots, many of which are non-conforming and felt the need for the Commission to understand exactly what is being talked about. On the west side of Novi Road, south of Erma Street, there are four parcels but technically three parcels that are 40 feet wide or less. The parcel north of Austin Drive has 37 feet of frontage on Novi Road and is under common ownership with the parcel to the north and is developed as one single family lot. The Ordinance states when there is one or two non-conforming lots which are under similar ownership, to be developed as residential, they would be treated as one lot. The first parcel south of Erma Street has 201' of frontage, the next parcel has 80', then the three 40' parcels, an 80' parcel, a 160' parcel, an 80' parcel and then the 37' parcel. On the east side of Novi Road, south of Linhart, the parcel is 177' wide, which is in excess of the residential requirement. Mr. Arroyo stated R-4 has a minimum lot width of 80' with a minimum area requirement of 10,000 sq. ft. Given the fact that the lots on the west side of Novi Road are only 100' deep, they would have to be 100' wide to meet the minimum area requirement. Not only would the 40' wide lots be non-conforming, but also the 80' wide lots would be non-conforming to R-4 because of the lot area. Another possibility would be the RT zoning. The minimum lot width is 50' and the minimum lot area is 7,500 sq. ft. In this situation, there would be fewer non-conforming lots because all of the 80' lots would meet the minimum lot area.
Mr. Arroyo referred to a memorandum which describes how some parcels might be developed under different zoning scenarios. The first sketch showed a B-3 building envelope on a 40' x 100' lot to show what would happen if a 40' x 100' foot lot were to be developed with B-3 zoning. If the setback requirements are met, there could only be a 10' x 50' building of 500 square feet built, in addition, parking would have to be provided on the site of which the Ordinance requires 2,000 sq. ft. for every 1,000 sq. ft of building area. Mr. Arroyo stated this would be a parcel that would not be developed as business. It is possible to develop a building in R-4 according to the setback requirements, however the building would be narrow and would have to be two floors to meet the 1,000 sq. ft. minimum floor area. Under RT, two units would be provided within a single structure, it would have to be two floors to provide the 750 sq. ft. per unit minimum. Mr. Arroyo reviewed the additional sketches provided show conforming lots and how they might be developed under R-4 and RT scenarios. He stated a building could be put on either one and would meet Ordinance requirements in terms of setbacks and floor area. Mr. Arroyo stated he conferred with Brandon Rogers on the sketches and Mr. Rogers agrees with them.
Chairperson Lorenzo thanked Mr. Arroyo for his presentation stating his extra effort was appreciated. She then turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion and possible direction.
Member Hoadley asked Mr. Arroyo for a scenario layout with the restrictions of the B-3 zoning, in regard to the lot that measures 100' x 200'.
Mr. Arroyo stated the question would be how large of a building could be put on the lot. He stated he cannot answer off the top of his head, but a retail building could be put on a parcel of this size. Mr. Arroyo stated when there is residential abutting a business, the requirement is that there be a six foot high berm which the Commission can waive in lieu of a wall.
Member Hoadley asked if the potential is, that the 100' x 200' lot is not developable?
Mr. Arroyo stated he did not say it is undevelopable, he stated the building on it would likely be fairly small.
Member Hoadley stated RT may be better zoning rather than R-4.
Mr. Arroyo stated it came up in discussions and he sees it as a viable alternative. One thing that the RT District is intended to do, is to provide a transition between thorofares and residentially zoned, single family areas. Mr. Arroyo stated if a property is zoned RT, single family developments can still be developed under the R-4 regulations.
Member Hoadley asked what the height requirement was?
Mr. Arroyo believed it to be 35' which would be 2 ½ stories. He also stated Novi Road will be a completely different road in terms of traffic volume. Currently it has carried approximately 27,000 cars per day, once it re-opens, there will be a dramatic change in volume which will drop to approximately 10,000 to 14,000 or less. Mr. Arroyo stated one reason there has been a provision of a lot more business zoning in that area is because there has been a lot of drive-by traffic which retail business rely on for business. The volumes are dropping and will continue to drop which is changing the character. He stated this is one reason the Committee has chosen to look at this corridor.
Member Hoadley asked how much commercial has been approved for the Vistas, which is located 1,000' away?
Mr. Rogers answered about 25 to 35 acres.
Member Markham stated the communication of the land owners shows that they are not in favor of the change at Novi Road. She recognizes the change in traffic because of Decker Road and the planned Taft Road extension, however, she stated we are not at that point yet. There are a lot of objections and no real data. She stated it was premature to change the zoning at this point. She stated zoning changes need to be done with a great deal of caution, in cases where the zoning is to be changed, she felt the desires of the effected land owners need to be taken into consideration. At this time, Member Markham is not in favor of the rezoning. In the Lanny’s Road area, she stated she is in favor of making the change that was recommended, which was to amend the Master Plan to meet the current zoning requirements.
PM-96-09-245 TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR LANNY’S ROAD WITHIN 60 DAYS
Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for the proposed Lanny’s Road Master Plan amendments within 60 days.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-245 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella
Member Vrettas spoke in regard to Novi Road. He stated several residents were concerned as to the status of the Commission’s recommendation, once they attended the Public Hearing, the Commission realized that the Consultants had inadvertently included two sections that the Commission did not want rezoned. Once these two sections were removed, all objections ceased to exist with the exception of one gentleman who had a concern about the property he wanted to use for commercial purposes. He stated there was a lot of thought and discussion done by the Commission. He stated the one section that dealt with commercial plan was a piece of property that has been there for over 26 years with no development. He stated it was the Commission feeling that for the section to be commercially developed was not feasible.
PM-96-09-246 TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVI ROAD BETWEEN 12 ½ MILE ROAD AND 13 MILE ROAD AS RECOMMENDED BY THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE, INCLUDING RT, R-4 OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ZONING
Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for the possible Novi Road zoning changes.
Member Hoadley stated the piece of property that Member Vrettas spoke of has been up for sale for at least six years, he has been told by members of the homeowners association who surround that piece of property, that it is not maintained and has been an eyesore to the neighborhood for years. This was his reasoning for setting up a Public Hearing.
Member Bononi extended gratitude to Mr. Arroyo for providing the Commission with the quality and kind of information she feels is needed in order to make zoning referral decisions. She stated the information was of great help to her. She hoped this was a direction that would continue to extend because it makes the work of the Commission much easier. She also stated at the meeting of August 31, 1996, it was discussed in detail the proposal of the RT zone. It was also her recollection that the Commission voted to formally look into the RT zone application, this was not included in the minutes that are provided, nor is there any mention of the lengthy discussion that took place regarding RT. She stated either zone could be used equally, considering the limitations that are being looked at from the standpoint of depth. Member Bononi shared the concern of Member Markham regarding the people who own the property and whether or not they would like to see the zone changes. She disagreed that waiting would do any good, because the configuration of the land is not going to change and she did not see how putting off the decision would enable the parcels to be used in a commercial way. Member Bononi stated of the zonings R-4 and RT, she was not convinced that one was better than the other, but in regard to number of units, she tended toward RT. It was her feeling that it could prove to be something that could work out very well on the limited sites.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-246 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley
2. TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR 11/06/96, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE LANGUAGE CAN BE INCORPORATED BY THAT DATE.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated the Chair will entertain a motion.
PM-96-09-247 TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR 11-06-96 FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Moved by Churella, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for the Zoning Ordinance Amendments for 11-06-96.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-247 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo
3. TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TENTATIVELY FOR SATURDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1996.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the Commission would like to make a recommendation to City Council in terms of a joint meeting not being scheduled on a Saturday?
PM-96-09-248 TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING NOT TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE COMMISSION FOR A SATURDAY
Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Weddington, FAILED (2-6): To make a recommendation to City Council requesting not to schedule a joint meeting with the Commission for a Saturday.
Member Markham stated she only has a problem with Saturday, October 5, 1996, she stated she did not have a problem with Saturdays in general.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated it seems that several others do. She asked by a show of hands, who has a problem with Saturdays in general? She then asked if there was anyone other than Member Vrettas and Member Hoadley who objects to Saturday meetings?
Mr. Cohen stated that Mayor McLallen had in mind that Saturday meetings be held between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.
Chairperson Lorenzo stated then there is only one objection to a Saturday meeting. She then asked if the motion maker would like to withdraw the motion in terms of the recommendation of not having a Saturday meeting?
VOTE ON PM-96-09-248 FAILED
Yes: Vrettas, Churella
No: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Markham
PM-96-09-249 TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1996 FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 10:00 A.M.
Moved by Weddington, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a joint meeting with City Council on Saturday, October 12, 1996 from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-249 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas
MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION
1. SITE PLAN EXTENSIONS
Discussion of possible time limits for site plan extensions.
Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it was the Commissions’ pleasure to move forward or to postpone to an upcoming Agenda?
PM-96-09-250 TO POSTPONE SITE PLAN EXTENSIONS TO AN UPCOMING FUTURE AGENDA
Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone Site Plan extensions to an upcoming future Agenda.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-250 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas
Unknown Gentleman stated there is another gentleman who is opposing the rezoning, who expressed his concerns through him. He stated he personally posted the sign on the property for sale two years ago, he also stated he has been maintaining the lot. It has been site cleared, berms have been built, however, the lot has not been mowed much this year because of the construction.
A. Jackson asked in regard to the rezoning, if the radiator shop was excluded from the rezoning?
Chairperson Lorenzo answered no, she would not make that statement. She explained that all the Commission did this evening was to schedule a Public Hearing within 60 days from all of the properties.
Member Hoadley interjected, but not including Mr. Jackson’s property.
Chairperson Lorenzo then answered yes.
PM-96-09-251 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 11:35 P.M.
Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:35 p.m.
VOTE ON PM-96-09-251 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Yes: Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington
Steven Cohen - Staff Planner
Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr
September 27, 1996
Date Approved: October 16, 1996