Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Csordas

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Chairperson Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Watza

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Capello

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Beth Brock

Chairperson Csordas asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To approve the Agenda as presented.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Csordas announced there were three items on the Consent Agenda. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, September 1, and September 15, 1999. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Seeing none he entertained a motion to approve the minutes.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of August 18, September 1, and September 15, 1999 as presented.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza

No: None

1. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 18.155 - TC-1 SIGN AMENDMENT

An Ordinance to amend the definition of "Height of Ground Pole Sign or Entranceway Sign" contained within Section 28-1, amend Subparts 28-6(1)d.2, 28-6(2)b.1 (b), 28-6(2)b.2, and 28-6(2)b.3, amend Subsection 28-6(3) and amend Subpart 28-8(4)b.3 of the Novi Code of Ordinances, to correct typographical errors and to allow wall signs for those businesses in the TC-1 District which have entrances, or an outside wall, that are adjacent to a parking lot where the majority of the businesses’ off-street parking occurs.

 

Heidi Hannan, Community Development Coordinator stated that this amendment was generated because the TC-1 ordinance had been in use for a year. Some items came up through the Design Review Committee and the work that is done with the signs that has been presented for Main Street. The members of the committee worked with the Building and Planning Department to address some of the issues. Specifically, the fact that in the current Main Street development anyone with a tenant space that is adjacent to the rear parking does not qualify for any type of sign. There were a few drafts done of signage that was thought to be acceptable for the back of the building. Mr. Chen put up some mock signs for the Town Center Steering Committee. The intent of the signs is to identify buildings that have tenant space along the back wall without entrances. It is not meant to be an advertisement so the committee tried to minimize the sign. It is not something that you are supposed to see from Grand River Avenue. However, the committee did think that because of the size of the development it would be helpful in getting people from their cars to the various businesses that don’t have frontage along Main or Market Street. The Town Center Steering Committee did look at the draft and made a recommendation to support the twenty four (24) square foot sign on the back of the building. However, after the meeting there was some discussion. Members and the Chair approached her with the understanding that perhaps there should have been a second motion. They thought that there some support for the thirty-(30) square foot sign. This might be taken into consideration. There is not a lot of difference between the two (2) but she is certainly prepared to support either. She asked if there was any information requested of her?

 

Chairperson Csordas stated that there was none that he was aware of.

 

Ms. Hannan stated that the other changes have to do with things that were found that were typographical or just cleaning up things that were redundant.

 

Chairperson Csordas announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

 

John Bernard, Real Estate agent for Main Street, stated that a realty division within Novi has been created. He would appreciate it if the Commissioners would consider the thirty- (30) square foot that Ms. Hannan mentioned. Signage for a development of this nature is critical especially to the rear of the buildings. The additional six- (6) square foot is not a lot in his perspective but for a merchant it would help a lot.

 

Seeing no one else he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Canup stated that he sat on the review committee for the signage for the area. It was a board decision and vote to endorse the twenty four-(24) square foot. He does not care for the small talk that was presented to the board. The unanimous decision of the board was twenty-four (24).

 

Member Koneda stated that on the front of the building the signs for the businesses are only in the area where businesses have external entrances. He asked how big the sign for Main Street tennis was?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that she does not know the exact dimensions of each sign but the people on the front of the building are entitled to 1.25 square foot per lineal foot of frontage.

 

James Chen stated that they are entitled to a 37.5 square foot. He believes that the total square footage is around thirty-five (35), which is under thirty-seven (37). There is also a projecting sign, which is about nine (9) square feet.

 

Member Koneda asked if the only ones that would qualify would be the occupants of the building that have frontage on the rear wall.

 

Mr. Chen stated that is correct. Some of the tenants do not have any frontage on Main Street and they are facing the identity problem. It is felt that if signage in the back is given it may help some problems.

 

Member Koneda asked why Mr. Wahl voted against the recommended amendment at the Town Center Steering Committee meeting?

 

James Wahl, stated that he was one of the minority that felt that thirty (30) square feet would be acceptable.

 

Member Piccinini asked why twenty-four (24) feet was chosen? On number three, she asked if the twenty (20) square feet is per user?

 

Ms. Hannan asked which three (3) she was referring to?

 

Member Piccinini stated on page two-(2) part three (3b).

 

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated that as he reads it then twenty (20) square feet is permitted.

 

Member Piccinini asked if there were ten (10) users then they only get twenty (20) square feet?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that is true. The directory sign is meant to be a listing of tenants. Mr. Chen will have to work this out on first come, first serve basis. Maybe not everyone will be on one (1) directory sign.

 

Member Piccinini asked if the second sign is thirty (30) feet or just one (1) thirty (30) foot sign?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that the ordinance language calls for thirty (30) square feet. The recommendation of the Town Center Steering Committee as Member Canup pointed out was in fact twenty-four (24) square feet.

 

Member Piccinini asked about part four-(4) number two (2) is it talking about second signs?

 

Mr. Chen stated that the directory sign is a different sign than the actual sign that is being addressed.

 

Ms. Hannan stated that the way that the ordinance is currently written is that it jumps around a lot as far as placement. The committee tried to take the height requirement for the sign that is new and put it in with the existing language. Any of the wall signs that are permitted have to be from eight and a half (8 ½) feet to twelve (12) feet.

 

Member Piccinini asked if "any wall sign permitted" instead of all wall signs?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that would be fine.

 

Member Piccinini stated that on page four (4), part six three-d (63d) it states the "direct separate" entrance. She asked if there is a better wording such as individual entrance rather than direct separate?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that the reason that it needed to be clarified was that the way that the Main Street development is arranged for some of the buildings, their main entrance, would be a shared entrance. By putting direct, you clarify that the entrance would be directly into the business. Some of them will consider their main entrance a shared entrance.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that the intent is for exterior entrances not interior. He suggested that "exterior" be added as the wording.

 

Member Canup explained why there was the twenty-four (24) and not the thirty-(30) feet decided by the board. Mock signs were put on the building and the committee had the opportunity to look at them. There was a twenty four (24) and thirty (30) and there was not a great deal of noticibality between the two (2). This is a gift to have the ability to change the ordinance to accommodate the buildings. The twenty-four (24) square feet serves the purpose extremely well from the area that is meant to serve a purpose from, which is the parking lot.

 

Member Koneda asked if the signs are going to be uniform?

 

Ms. Hannan stated that the placement would be up to the Design Review Committee which Member Canup and Member Schmid from City Council currently sit on along with Doug Necci. Because the signs are limited to the tenant space, there will not be a sign on every thirty-(30) feet. As far as what the tenant can do with the sign, he will have to meet the requirements of the Design Review manual. The committee will review the signs so will be uniform in size and placement. They can use any of the materials that are approved in the Design Review Manual. The lighting restrictions would be the gooseneck lighting.

 

Member Churella stated that a twenty four (24) would be three by eight (3 x 8) or four by six (4 x 6). A thirty (30) foot sign would be five by six (5 x 6). On the smaller sign, there are two (2) options but on the bigger one, there is only one (1) option. He agrees with Member Canup, he does not think that twelve (12) square inches is going to make a big difference. If they are uniformed, he thinks that they will look even better.

 

Chairperson Csordas asked Mr. Watson if he had language for the one section of part six three one (361)?

 

Mr. Watson stated that each separately owned and operated business occupying a building on a single parcel of land, which has a separate exterior entrance, is entitled to one (1) identification sign.

 

Member Piccinini stated that is good.

 

Ms. Hannan stated that Mr. Chen would like to add something.

 

Mr. Chen stated that he as a developer for the Main Street would be happy with twenty-four (24) square feet. He thinks that he can get the job done. Thirty (30) square feet would make it easier with the tenants but either way he would appreciate to help the project. The tenants in the back, in terms of the fairness to the tenants in the front facing the Main Street, he definitely feels that they need some sort of signage. He will be happy with either.

 

Chairperson Csordas stated that he had attended the meeting and he agrees with Member Canup on the twenty-four (24) square feet being appropriate. Also, it is critical to support the businesses that are not fronting Main Street and they do need to have signage. The depth of the parking lot is not that far from the building.

 

Mr. Watson repeated the language from part six (6) subsection 28-6(3) subpart d that would read "each separately owned and operated business occupying a building on a single parcel of land, which has a separate exterior entrance, is entitled to one identification wall sign."

 

Member Mutch asked about page two-(2) section four (4) if it is supposed to be twenty four (24) feet also?

 

Ms. Hannan stated yes.

 

PM-99-10-237 FOR A POSTITIVE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 18.155 TC-1 SIGN AMENDMENT WHICH INCLUDES THE REVISIONS, DISCUSSED THIS EVENING

 

Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): For a positive recommendation of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment 18.155 TC-1 Sign amendment, which includes the revisions, discussed this evening.

 

VOTE ON PM-99-10-237

 

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Canup

No: None

 

 

2. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 18.156 - CLEAN-UP #3

An Ordinance to add the definitions of "Floor Area, Gross", "Floor Area, Gross Leasable" and "Scenic Drive" to Section 201 of Ordinance No. 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to amend the definition of "Floor Area, Usable" contained within Section 201 of said Ordinance, to amend Subsections 402.1, 2505.12 and 2507.3 of said Ordinance, to amend Subpart 1905.4e of said Ordinances, to amend footnote (B) of Section 2400, Schedule of Regulations, and to amend Sections 602, 902, 1101, 2301 and 2406 of said Ordinance, to delete excess verbiage, permit hospice care facilities as a special land use in the RM-1 and NCC Districts, permit hospice care facilities as a principal permitted use in the OS-1 and OS-2 Districts, delete the PD-2 and PD-4 options, amend land area requirements for child care centers, allow the waiver of the berming requirements in the I-1 District and provide new loading space requirements.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the Implementation Committee has been working on a series of minor amendments and clean-up amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Some of the amendments are specifically related to addressing typos and other minor changes that need to be made. Others are some that some more clarification or some other minor changes would be necessary so there are a variety of different modifications. This is the third in the series and there is not another set coming forward at this time. This is the last of the original set that the Commissioners will see for awhile. The first two-(2) parts of it that are on the first page add some new definitions to the definition section. Back when the Zoning Ordinance was amended there is quite a bit of reference particularly in the parking section, gross floor area and gross lease able area. It was felt that it would be appropriate to add definitions so that it is clear exactly what is included. For example, with gross lease able area things that are excluded from the calculation of gross leasable area is if you have an office building that has a central atrium. It is just common space that is open to everyone in the building but is not used as active office space. That is deleted from the calculation. If there were shared bathroom facilities for the entire building that is open to the public would also be deleted. Parking is calculated based upon just that area that is actively being used as office space in the case of office. Also, there is a minor amendment to the usable floor area definition. To strike the reference to computing parking because it is only used for computing parking in certain instances. It used to be used in more instances so he is just trying to clarify this. The definition of scenic drive is also new. It is missing from the current Zoning Ordinance and it was felt that it would be appropriate to add it to the ordinance. It basically specifies that a scenic drive is one that is designated on the Thoroughfare Plan as a scenic drive. However, there is an indication that if the scenic drive is paved then it has an equivalent designation as a minor arterial. Also, by potentially designating as a minor arterial then obviously it has been paved and can handle a different level of traffic. Potentially, there might be Special Land Uses that could locate along a minor arterial. That was an issue that was addressed as to is it appropriate to have special land uses in a residential district along a scenic drive. The feeling that the Implementation Committee had was that if the road is paved then yes. If it is gravel or unpaved then it really would not be appropriate. In the case of Novi, Meadowbrook Road could potentially have Special Land Uses north of Twelve Mile between Twelve and Thirteen where it is designated as a scenic drive. However, Nine Mile, west of Beck, which is not paved would not be qualify because it would not have the same equivalence as a minor arterial.

Part five (5) dealing with churches is really a consistent change. In one of the previous clean-up amendments it was clarified that if there was a Special Land Use you can park cars in the front yard as long as they are set back seventy five (75) feet. One of the things that were not included was that there is a specific mention to churches specifying that they can not park within the front yard. It was thought to be consistent with other Special land Uses that if you have a church you could park cars in the front yard as long as they were set back the minimum of seventy five (75) feet in a residential district which is required for all Special Land Uses. This makes this consistent with the other Special Land Uses.

Part six (6) which deals with some changes to the ordinance regarding hospice care. They are a type of care that are similar in nature to some of the other uses. Also, there is reference made in terms of the land area ratio that hospice care is treated like those facilities. In child care centers there was a typo in the ordinance that referred some of the convalescent homes standards had carried down to child care centers and that is being struck. The child care provision for the one hundred (100) square feet of outdoor play area is being added to that particular provision. This is a definite clean-up amendment that needed to be made to clarify the provisions that apply.

Part seven (7) which is Section 902, the NCC district, adds convalescent homes, assisted living facilities, hospice care facilities as a Special Land Use within the NCC district. The thought was that it is already permitted in other districts that allow for multiple-family housing in similar facilities so the Committee thought that it would be appropriate also in the NCC district.

Part eight (8), Section 1101, Office Service District, adds the hospice care facility clean-up amendment.

Page six (6) part nine (9) is something that came from the Planning Commission in reviewing some site plans. It was pointed out that in all of the districts, except for I-1 there is the ability to waive the berm requirements if there is a woodland in place that has similar screening and buffering requirements. In the I-1 district, there is an ability to make the berm smaller but the Commissioners can not waive it all together. This was something that the Commissioners said that if there was extensive woodland then they should be able to waive the berm. There is no sense in putting a smaller berm there if the screening and buffering is already in place. This would allow the Planning Commission to waive or modify the requirements for an earth berm or obscuring wall when adjacent to a woodland. Mr. Arroyo suggested that adding to the end that "when adjacent to a woodland of equivalent screening and buffering" to make it clear that not just any woodland would qualify for waiving the berm.

Chairperson Csordas asked if Mr. Arroyo said "of equivalent screening and buffering"?

Mr. Arroyo stated yes. At the end of the paragraph, it states that the Planning Commission may permit the six (6) to ten-(10) foot berm. That ends up coming out because obviously if you are able to waive it in a case of a substantial woodland being in place then that would be taken out.

Part ten (10), Section 2301, principle uses permitted, and hospice care facilities being added to OS-2 as a clean-up amendment.

Part eleven (11) which is a consistency amendment with churches and the parking in the front yard specifying that they can have parking in the front yard if it meets certain conditions.

Under the planned development options, if the Commissioners recall on the Master Plan, some changes were made in the planned development options by deleting two (2) of them. This makes the Zoning Ordinance consistent. The PD-1 still remains as it always has which is primarily geared toward RM-1 development. However, the PD-2 is one that was really not used and referred to development in the OS-1 district. That is being stricken because it no longer shows up on the Master Plan. The PD-3 is being renamed and re-designated as PD-2 to bring it into conformance with the Master Plan designations. Finally, PD-4 which was the old high-tech designation is being deleted altogether because the OST district took the place of the PD-4 designation.

On page twenty-seven (27) through twenty-nine (29) there are two (2) additional amendments. These should be stricken because they were in the clean-up amendment that went to City Council and ended up being overlapped. One is the computing of off-street parking under paragraph twelve (12). That is already proposed to be deleted in amendments that have gone to City Council. The treatment of loading areas for office buildings when you are in an I-1 district is already covered. These last two (2) items should be deleted from any action that is taken because they are already covered.

Chairperson Csordas asked Ms. Lemke if she had anything that, she would like to add?

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated that on the waiver of the berm for the woodlands she would like to say a sufficient depth to meet the screening requirements with possibly the addition of supplemental evergreen trees. The depth and the evergreen trees would be important.

Chairperson Csordas asked Ms. Lemke what she would recommend as far as depth standard?

Ms. Lemke stated that it would have to be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet. She was going to go with sufficient depth because she feels comfortable with it.

Mr. Watson stated "which is of sufficient depth to provide equivalent screening and buffering." He asked Ms. Lemke if this was okay.

Ms. Lemke stated that would be fine.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he felt that it was important to include the word "buffering" in there because it is more than just the tree screening. It is also the noise issues and some of the other things that are important that the berm accomplishes.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Chairperson Csordas announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Debbie Bundoft, Novi / 12 Mile Road, stated that she has a concern about deleting the PD-2 and PD-4 options. On page twenty-one (21) it states that PD-2 option is not being deleted, PD-3 is turning into PD-2.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he is deleting PD-2 and PD-4 in their current form and re-numbering PD-3 to become PD-2.

Ms. Bundoft stated that there are some parcels that are zoned PD-3 and she asked if there is not a PD-3 anymore?

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is not a PD-3 anywhere. The only place where PD was designated was on the Master Plan, it was never in the Zoning Ordinance, and the Zoning Ordinance referred to the Master Plan map. The Master Plan has now been changed to specify only PD-1 and PD-2. All of the areas that were PD-3 before are now designated as PD-2. This is just making it consistent. Any area, as of before the Master Plan passed, that was PD-3 area before has now become a PD-2 area on the Master Plan map and now the Zoning Ordinance language will be consistent with it.

Ms. Bundoft stated that in the past when someone got a site plan approval contingent with a zoning of a PD-3 she asked if this is all changed then because they came in as PD-3?

Mr. Arroyo stated that the standards are the same, they have not changed. If that property wanted to come in for an expansion or an amendment, all the new PD-2 standards would apply. It has no impact on any of the projects that were approved that way.

Ms. Bundoft stated that it was a surprise to find that in there without an explanation as to why now PD-3 is PD-2.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he was re-numbering them so there was not a PD-1 and PD-3 and everyone was wondering where the PD-2 is. It is cleaner to just make PD-1, PD-2 and then get rid of PD-3 and PD-4 altogether.

Ms. Bundoft stated that it would have helped to have an explanation on the yellow sheet.

Seeing no one else he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Mutch stated that he had a comment for page three (3). The change stated a child care center and he understands that it is a technical change. He would like to see an addition under that section to include a minimum site area for those uses. He thinks that the Commissioners consistently run into problems with child care centers and abutting land uses. He would like to see a minimum of site size of two (2) acres to ensure that when the uses go into residential area that there is enough space to ensure that as much can be reduced as possible. What he is seeing is people trying to build a childcare center on a site that is probably too small for the use and doesn’t provide enough buffering for the neighboring uses. He thinks that a two (2) acre minimum would be consistent if you go back to page two (2) a three (3) acre minimum is required for a church. A daycare is a quasi-residential use, it has some residential qualities and some commercial qualities. He thinks that it is appropriate for residential areas but he thinks that enough buffer has to provided for the adjoining residents.

Chairperson Csordas asked that Member Mutch’s recommendation is to add two-(2) acres minimum?

Member Piccinini stated that it would be a two-(2) acre minimum site.

Member Canup stated that he would like to hear some discussion as to why the two (2) acres. He has been an advocate for some time because something needs to be done with the childcare thing. His question is, is two (2) acres enough?

Member Mutch stated that he was trying to find a good compromise site. Two (2) acres seems to provide enough area to provide a minimum amount of buffer to adjoining land uses. It would not be so large that childcare would be driven out of residential areas. He thinks that the childcare is appropriately located in residential areas with the proper buffering. He does not want it to be a five-(5) acre minimum and make it impossible for them to locate in a residential area. He does not think that one (1) acre is large enough. He suggested that he would be willing to listen to anyone that wanted to come up with a different number.

Member Churella asked if three (3) acres was for the church?

Chairperson Csordas stated that is correct.

Member Churella stated that a daycare center would be more obtrusive than the church. Church meets on Sundays and maybe once during the week. A daycare is a constant in and out with kids and the playground areas. He stated that a good example is the corner of Beck Road and Ten Mile where it was obviously too close to the residents that were there. He supports the ideas but he wants to make sure that two (2) acres was large enough. He thinks that maybe it should be three (3) acres.

Chairperson Csordas asked if anyone recalled what the acreage was on the church on Ten Mile, east of Beck?

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated that there is one being proposed right now at the southwest corner of Ten Mile and Beck. It is about 2.4 acres.

Member Piccinini stated that two (2) acres would give enough buffering and have a building that is equivalent to some things surrounding it. She thinks that two (2) acres is a good idea.

Member Churella stated that the residents that were going to abut the new facility that was put in there was quite a bit of concern about the noise. Kids are going to be outside playing and creating noise. To launch these type of facilities into a residential area there has to be some restrictions, more so than what they have at present.

Member Piccinini stated that if you start going at three (3) acres there is just going to be larger facilities and will have more of an impact in that small areas.

Mr. Watson asked if a size limitation to the site is really what the Commissioners are looking for? Member Mutch’s point was to have some buffering to avoid the impact of the use upon adjacent residents. If you make it two (2) or three (3) acres or whatever size, if the use itself fills up the entire site then maybe that impact is going to be there on the adjacent property in any case. He is wondering if rather than a size limitation maybe, they are looking for something such as berming, screening or something to separate. He wanted to toss this out for thought.

Member Koneda stated that he agrees with Mr. Watson. The issue is that if you have a bigger minimum size then you can end up with a bigger facility. He thinks the issue is really setback requirements and screening. He thinks that the Commissioners need to look at the setback requirements for childcare centers to make sure that these problems do not occur.

Chairperson Csordas asked what the setback requirements are?

Mr. Arroyo stated that the building setbacks are seventy-five (75) feet from all property lines. The parking setback is seventy-five (75) feet from the front and twenty (20) from the side and the rear.

Member Koneda asked if there was talk of the parking requirements for childcare centers?

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is a clamp amendment, which would allow the parking to take place in the front yard instead of back next to the residential in the rear yard.

Member Koneda asked if there is anything that addresses the parking setback? He thinks that it is the biggest issue that people complain about is the location of the playgrounds.

Mr. Arroyo stated for "all off-street parking lots serving any use other than single-family residential the setback from any interior side, or rear lot line shall not be less than twenty (20) feet." In addition to this, there is the screening requirements and the berming requirements and there is a four (4) foot six (6) inch high berm.

Chairperson Csordas stated that that was one of the issues at the other childcare center that resulted in a brick wall there.

Ms. Lemke stated that there were several issues with it and also utilities, which was the determining factor on the wall. If you do the berm it is three to one slope so it is however high it is times three with a two to four foot cost.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it becomes more than twenty (20), about twenty-five (25). If the Commissioners decide on the berm that is what the numbers would be for separation. There would be a minimum of twenty (20) feet for the parking.

Member Canup stated that rather than acting on this particular portion of it, he would like to see a little more research done on it. Maybe he could see a diagram showing a two-(2) acre piece, a building sitting in the middle, something so that he could see how it would look. To him, this is a major important change and the Commissioners need to give it a lot of attention rather than voting on it tonight.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that the changes to the childcare facility need to go forward because what is there is incorrect. Maybe the Commissioners could continue to pass them on and come back later with an amendment that addresses it more comprehensively. Otherwise, none of the other amendments would not move forward at this point so he is just bringing this up as an option. If the Commissioners want to talk about it at the next meeting then it could wait.

Chairperson Csordas asked if there is any urgency for this particular ordinance?

Mr. Arroyo stated that it could wait a meeting and he would not see a problem with it.

Chairperson Csordas stated that he agrees with Member Canup.

Member Piccinini suggested making a drawing showing the different acreage of one half, one, and two-acre example.

Mr. Arroyo stated that with a half acre there is not going to be much of a building left. You could probably take care of four (4) kids.

PM-99-10-238 TO TABLE ACTION ON ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 18.156 UNTIL THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To table action on Zoning Ordinance Amendment 18.156 until the next Planning Commission meeting.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza

No: None

Member Koneda asked that on page six (6) Section 9e, the language that was asked to be fixed be changed? He also asked Ms. Lemke if she wanted to add the information about the supplemental screening?

Ms. Lemke stated that that is needed.

1. GRAND OAKS CENTRE SP 99-42

This project is located in Section 24, southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Karim Boulevard. This 2.423 acre site is zoned NCC, Non-Center Commercial District. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

 

Ivan Benda, Benda & Alessandri Architects stated that he has reviewed the comments provided by the professional staff and he has no difficulty with any of the comments. He has a couple of questions but they are technical in nature and perhaps he could work with the staff on them during the final site plan review.

 

Chairperson Csordas asked if he would rather not talk about that this evening?

 

Mr. Benda stated that is correct.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that he would begin with the September 27 planning review letter first. He is recommending approval for preliminary site plan. There are some minor changes in the loading and the dumpster area that need to be made to the plan. They will not have a significant impact on the site and can be cleaned up at final. He noted that the applicant has designed the building with the appropriate parking so that there could be some flexibility with the uses. They are looking potentially at medical office and office but they could also have some retail uses. The retail uses in the NCC district are limited, they could have no more than two (2) users and a maximum square footage of each user would be 15,000 square feet. There are also a couple of minor changes that he is looking to for the sidewalk around the building. Other than that, he is recommending approval of the project from a planning perspective.

 

He moved on to the traffic review letter of September 30. In terms of traffic, he provided some background information. He does point out that a driving spacing waiver is going to be required from the Planning Commission in this case basically because of a number of existing driveways in the surrounding area. There is an existing driveway on the north side that is approximately sixty-seven (67) feet from where the applicant wants his driveway. There is another driveway into the self-storage area that is approximately one hundred seventy four (174) feet and would need to be two hundred (200) feet. He has worked with the applicant very carefully to position the driveway to provide reasonable separation from the intersection, which is the most critical. He believes that the driveway is placed in the best possible location for access to Grand River. He had a couple of other minor comments related to the internal layout with the sidewalks and the parking lot. These can all be addressed at final site plan so he is recommending approval of the preliminary site plan from a traffic perspective.

 

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant, stated that she has also reviewed the plans for engineering feasibility and she is also recommending approval. She had a few minor comments that can be addressed at the time of final site plan preparation.

 

Ms. Lemke stated that she is also recommending approval with her comments in the September 28 letter.

 

Ms. Weber stated that there was a letter from Doug Necci and he is recommending approval. It does meet full compliance with the façade ordinance.

 

Chairperson Csordas announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal. One, all weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. Two, all water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. Three, the building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. This shall be noted on the plans. This is signed by Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Canup asked why the entrance off Grand River and not off the side street?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that the applicant is proposing entrances off both locations and he thinks that there is a couple of reasons. One, from a circulation perspective, particularly for truck deliveries there may be the potential for retail and they want to be able to capture some of the traffic off Grand River. In the ordinance, it would allow for one (1) access point to each roadway and he thinks that is the reason why it is seen on the plan.

 

Member Canup stated that there is one across the street that has two buildings with an entrance off Grand River and the side street.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that there are two (2) points of access.

 

Member Piccinini asked for some clarification on the access and the location?

 

Mr. Arroyo asked if she meant in terms of the driveway spacing?

 

Member Piccinini stated yes.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that the Design and Construction Standards provides for driveway spacing and the distance depends upon the direction of the offset. The boulevard drive on the north side is more of a consideration because the same center left turn lane will be used and more separation will be needed. There is one hundred seventy four (174) feet from here to the driveway. It is supposed to be two hundred (200) feet. There is sixty-seven (67) feet from one driveway and it is supposed to be one hundred fifty (150). He favored them going away from the intersection as much as possible because it is the most critical offset.

 

Member Piccinini stated that she is looking at the two-(2) left across from each other. She asked if Mr. Arroyo thought it was too close?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that it is less than desirable.

 

Member Mutch asked what the speed limit is on that section of Grand River?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that he thinks that it is forty-five (45).

 

Member Mutch asked if Mr. Arroyo was stating that within seventy (70) feet, there could potentially be someone turning into it at forty-five (45) miles per hour?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is a center left turn lane that can be used. They would obviously have to wait for an available gap to make the turn.

 

Member Mutch stated that Grand River has a number of curb cuts and yet at the same time it is expected to service the Thoroughfare to funnel a lot of traffic through. Every opportunity to limit the number of curb cuts seems to be an opportunity to maintain the traffic flow. There could be two (2) entrances onto the street and maybe in the future signalize or improvements at the intersection. He is just seeing another entrance on Grand River more potential for problems in the future. The other shopping center, which is much larger, has the two (2) entrances and would seem logical to site them right across the street on Karim. He does not think that he could support the waiver for the spacing. It seems like to do that would create a bigger mess. For the potential pass-by driver who would use the entrance, it would be one hundred (100) feet more to Karim. It is convenience over safety from the sound of it.

 

Chairperson Csordas asked Mr. Arroyo what his recommendation would be?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that if the access to Grand River was closed and had access off of Karim then some minor modifications would have to be made internally to the site. He thinks that it would still be accessible.

 

Chairperson Csordas asked if it would affect parking and the retention basins?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not think that it would get into the basin at all because the location would likely stay where it is. The question that he would like at is the truck circulation and it is possible that it could work. It is something that he could talk a look at as part of final and make sure that it is adequate. He does not see it as an overwhelming obstacle.

 

Chairperson Csordas stated that the motion would then include taking the driveway from Grand River off and leaving the one.

 

Member Piccinini asked if two (2) would gain anything?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated that the concern becomes if there is adequate room to get two (2) in there. If you put another one (1) in it obviously will end up being closer to Grand River. He has concerns about it being too close to Grand River. He could look at it as part of the final review if the Commissioners felt comfortable with it. His initial feeling is that one (1) would probably suffice.

 

Member Mutch stated that it was done across the street and that is no reason to do it. However, there are two (2) entrances on Karim for Pheasant Run so he is not sure where the problem is.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated the one (1) at the north end by the intersection would likely not be permitted. It is very close to the intersection and he would not consider it desirable.

 

Member Churella stated that Grand River is going to widen, there is no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The other driveway, it might be a year or two, will be widened. He can see no reason to have two (2) on the small road. He thinks that the way that the plan is drawn up is fine and that it should be approved.

 

 

PM-99-10-239 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR GRAND OAKS CENTRE SP 99-42 INCLUDING A DRIVEWAY SPACING WAIVER BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANT’S RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, PASSES (4-3): To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Grand Oaks Centre SP 99-42 including a driveway spacing waiver by the Planning Commission and subject to the Consultant’s recommendations.

 

VOTE ON PM-99-10-239 PASSES

 

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Watza

No: Mutch, Piccinini, Canup

 

2. ROAD BOND PROGRAM

Presentation by Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant and JCK Associates, City Engineer Consultant, regarding the proposed Road Bond Program and possible action by the Planning Commission.

James Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that he was contacted by the Citizens Committee that is working on the Road Bond program in presenting it to the public and working for passage of that measure. They requested that the Planning Commission put this matter on the agenda for purposes of considering possible endorsement. He did consult with the Chair and added it to the agenda. The Department has worked to bring forward project proposals beyond the planning stage meaning to implement the road plans that this community has in the case of the Planning Commission the Thoroughfare Plan is the key planning document. Obviously, the Road Bond is the implementation of the planning tool, it comes after several steps of a thorough transportation planning process which Mr. Arroyo is going to explain later as part of a briefing. In essence, this is an implementation tool, a Road Bond proposal to accomplish those types of planning recommendations.

Chairperson Csordas asked where the Committee is on all of the past Road Bond issues? He asked if most of the projects are nearing completion?

Mr. Wahl stated that the 1996 program is in its final stages of construction with the Taft Road extension and Ms. Weber could elaborate on it if there are any more questions.

Ms. Weber stated that most of the projects are nearing completion. However, there are a few that are on hold and if there are any specific questions then she could answer them.

Chairperson Csordas asked if it is a short list?

Ms. Weber stated that there are about twenty (20) items or more.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he would like to briefly run through the various improvements that the City Council has selected as part of the upcoming Road Bond. The proposed Road Bond is approximately $28.5 million dollars. This is going to fund $71 million dollars worth of road improvements. The reason for this is that a lot of the local money will be leveraged to provide matches for grants at the federal and state levels. There is another $43 million dollars worth of road improvements that are anticipated to come from dollars at the federal and state level that will come into Novi. Again, $71 million dollars in total value and the actual amount included in the proposed Road Bond package is $28.5 million dollars. What is included in terms of developments? There are eight (8) road improvement projects, eight (8) intersection projects, an Economic Development fund, and some subdivision rehabilitation projects that have typically been included in the Road Bond program. He will quickly run through the road improvement projects.

At the top is the paving of Delmont and Dinser Drive, which is located at the intersection where Wixom comes into Ten Mile Road. This was originally part of Wixom Road at one time, they are currently graveled roadways and they are included as a surfacing project to either asphalt or concrete.

The next road improvement would be Meadowbrook Road. Meadowbrook Road is proposed for improvement between 11 Mile and 12 Mile. It will be upgrades to this road, the pavement conditions are in poor shape, and will be upgraded. There is a potential with some of the development that is included in that area that some money could be contributed from some of the private sector interests so that we may end up with a three-lane section through there. It will be upgraded to handle a higher volume of traffic and to handle traffic that is more heavy-duty because it does serve an industrial area south of the freeway.

The next road improvement is Twelve Mile Road from east of Novi Road all the way to west of Dixon Road. This is the local share match that is associated with the project that is being funded principally by Ramco Gershenson and the Taubman Company as part of proposed retail development. The next improvement is part of the continuation of the Town Center ring-road improvement project. That is the Crescent Boulevard extension to the east, from the Wyndam Hotel area continuing east and then south crossing 11 Mile coming out to Grand River, just west of the Country Epicure restaurant is located. This project was in the last Road Bond for the purposes of acquiring right-of-way only and not for construction. This Road Bond is in the purpose of actual construction dollars.

The next improvement is Novi Road, between Grand River and Ten Mile Road. Novi Road is scheduled to be widened to five lanes including a grade separation over the railroad tracks. That project is an Oakland County Road Commission project. However, there is a local match that is required in this case and so that is included in the Road Bond program. He is hoping that this project could be under construction within two (2) years.

The next improvement is Nine Mile Road. This is from Novi Road to Venture Drive, improving it to a three-(3) lane section. This is the component of Nine Mile that is zoned Industrial from Venture Drive west. This intersection at Novi and Nine Mile was recently upgraded to provide widening and a new signal. This is a continuation, as a two-phase project that would provide the center turn lane to improve access, upgrade the pavement, resurface it to encourage all of the traffic generated by the industrial to go out this way rather than go through the residential areas. This is an important project as well from an Economic Development standpoint and from a perspective of trying to target, the traffic to the roadways that are best suited to handle them.

Another development related to the Town Center area is Main Street west which is the last leg of the ring road around Grand River / Novi intersection. This project would go through the area where if you drive it right now then it is Flint Street. This is another Economic Development related project but also has the goal of achieving the city’s perspective of completing the ring road and providing for a circulation pattern around the Grand River / Novi Road intersection.

He had mentioned before that there are eight (8) intersection improvements and the most important and most significant of all of them is the Beck Road interchange with I-96. This very expensive improvement requires a local match in the neighborhood of $6 million dollars. One of the major contributions of this Road Bond program is to provide the local match and the contribution necessary so that Novi can stay in line for the state dollars that will hopefully enable this new interchange to be under construction by the year 2001.

Next on the list is Ten Mile and Beck Road is slated for signal upgrade and also for the addition of right turn lanes on all four (4) approaches. There are currently no right turn lanes in any of the approaches as you go to that intersection. It is handling an increasing amount of traffic and the signal upgrade will be a scat signal upgrade with left turn signal phasing where warranted. Almost all of the improvements that he will go through on intersections involve installing scat signals, which is the computer-based real time adjusted signal system where the signals are coordinated. In addition, they can adjust to real time demands where traffic conditions change.

Ten-Mile and Taft is another location where a signal upgrade is being looked at. Potentially there could be some lane widening where warranted.

Ten Mile and Meadowbrook is another intersection where it has just the two (2) phase signal and would likely benefit from the scat signal program. In addition, it would have the addition of left turn signal phasing.

Ten Mile and Cranbrook, Cranbrook is a collector road that runs from Nine Mile Road, past Ten Mile to the north and provides for connections to a number of residential developments. By providing traffic there it would serve these residential developments and would provide some gaps for people trying to get in and out along Ten Mile Road.

14 Mile and Novi Road, formerly known, as Decker Road is a signal upgrade to add left turn signal phasing and likely to provide some additional lane storage length where necessary.

Grand River and Taft is also looking at signal upgrade there and potentially some lane improvements where necessary.

The subdivision rehab program is targeted for the Country Place subdivision, Village Oaks and Willowbrook subdivision. Actually, the city is going to be looking at an entire area that is in need of repair and replacement. In addition, the Economic Development fund has a separate fund that is included in the Road Bond that could be used for potential road matches. There is not a specific road identified at this point. The City Council wanted to be in a position where if between now and the next Road Bond, whenever that might be, there was a need for certain improvements to be made. They have to come up with a match and there will be some money available. One of the areas that that could be targeted for is Grand River. Grand River has been a priority for the city, in terms of widening it to five (5) lanes. That might be a target but frankly, it could go anywhere. It would be the discretion of the Council in terms of what they think is appropriate.

That gives the Planning Commissioners an overview of the type of improvements that are included. Again, it is a $28.5 million dollar Road Bond program that will fund over $71 million dollars, potentially in road improvements.

Member Churella asked why Ten Mile is not an essential project to widen? There are back-ups in the mornings and afternoons a mile long. He asked if there is a reason why the city does not think that Ten Mile is important?

Mr. Arroyo stated that City Council has been addressing this issue over the last few years. One reason why it has not been included in this Road Bond is that there has been some funding allocated to improve Ten-Mile but it is not targeted for several years down the road. Even if the city were to decide that they wanted to make an improvement to Ten Mile the Road Bond, if it included the local match, would not be needed at this point in time. There is still a policy question as to what is going to happen on that segment. It may be that the Council will choose not to make any improvements at this time or they may choose to do something completely different. The most important consideration at this point is that the funding that has been applied for and is available would not call for the construction within the Haggerty to Novi Road segment until beyond when this Road Bond program is anticipated to cover.

Member Piccinini asked if the improvements that are being made on Ten Mile at the intersections are being fit for the four-(4) lane?

Mr. Arroyo stated that they are primarily signalization improvements such as adding the scat signals with warranted left turn signal phasing. There may be some minor lengthening of lanes, like right turn lanes or left turn lanes if necessary. The major component of these improvements is really signalization upgrades.

Member Piccinini asked that this really is not going to be increasing the intersections, as far as lanes correct?

Mr. Arroyo stated not significantly in terms of lane-age.

Member Canup stated that his concern is the Crescent Road. He asked if Mr. Arroyo could elaborate on it and tell him why it is being done?

Mr. Arroyo stated that there are a couple of reasons. One, is a traffic flow reason. It is important to point out that is has been a part of the city’s long-range planning for many years to have a ring road system and also to extend Crescent Boulevard to the east. There are a couple of benefits that were associated with it. One, it enables westbound traffic on Grand River that is destined for the interchange to avoid the Novi / Grand River intersection and avoid the whole Town Center area. It also provides additional access to a portion of the city opening opportunities for Economic Development. Right now, a lot of the property could benefit from some improved access. If you look at the city’s road improvement projects quite often there is capacity and convenience issues associated. There is also Economic Development issues, the city is looking to target areas where you can provide infrastructure so that the tax base will grow.

Member Canup stated that his thoughts are that the people are spending $7 million dollars, which appears to be the largest one, and he is having difficulty accepting this as a taxpayer. He feels that this is property that is not useable. If it is left alone then the developers will come in, develop the property and put the road in for nothing.

Member Churella asked where he would move the money?

Member Canup stated that he would move it to Ten Mile where it would get some value to everyone in the city rather than a few property owners.

Mr. Wahl stated that the situation in the area is a little different than some of the other development areas where he has seen substantial special assessment districts involved in putting in new roads. He believes that Commissioner Canup is correct from the standpoint that many these properties could develop with new projects and road systems related to those projects. He thinks that proposed development would go in and would build access roads to existing roads. The other situation would be that there are a lot of wetlands in the area and pockets of land that are essentially undevelopable so the amount of acreage that could be built does not have enough buildable acreage left. You would end up millions of dollars spread out over a small amount of acreage. The numbers did not really make sense. More importantly, the developments could go in and build access roads to existing roads. The whole Town Center area needs this segment of the overall ring road system and the overall highway system from the standpoint of how traffic is moved in the city. From the standpoint of the city’s benefit, this is really an important project.

Member Canup stated that some of the comments were made that it will improve a tax-base. However, on the other hand it is being said that there is not enough property there to warrant a special assessment and get a return on it. He is not going to support it with that kind of money. Ten Mile Road is a major problem in the city and the money is being spent in the wrong place.

Member Mutch asked if the neighboring communities at the borders are going to be giving a share on the cost of the improvements?

Mr. Arroyo stated that it has been the city’s policy in the past to contact the other communities, ask them to participate and provide their share. He is sure that it will be done in this particular instance.

Member Mutch stated that the benefit will spread across the border and the neighboring communities should be giving a share. He recalled when the city went through the whole process of rezoning the Providence property on the north side of Grand River, which was recently approved for a big retail development. The argument for the rezoning was that the developer for the project would donate the excess property that was going to be used for the interchange. The value of the land would constitute the city’s share of the project, the funding share. There was a rezoning to a commercial district so that the value of the land would be even higher. He does not have a clue as to how much an acre commercial zoning at a freeway interchange goes but he imagines that it goes for a pretty penny. Yet when you look at the funding share that is not reflected at all, the city is being asked to put up six (6) million dollars which by his math is the twenty (20) percent. He is wondering where this donation went because he does not see it. He asked why city tax payers having to front the whole share?

Mr. Arroyo stated that as far as he knows the donation is still on-line. He does not know the value of that donation. He also does not know until all of the final plans are in place by the Department of Transportation is the full extent to which improvements are going to be made away from the interchange. There may be a need for the city to augment some of the improvements that MDOT is doing, this happened with the M-5 interchange. There were no plans to extend 12 Mile Road Boulevard through to Meadowbrook Road where it currently exists, it was actually going to stop short of Meadowbrook Road. The city picked up the tab of extending that to the point where it currently exists today. There could be a potential for some additional improvements around that interchange. If in fact some money is freed up, it could be used in the interchange and for augmenting some of the state’s improvements. There are still a lot of questions in that area in terms of what is going to happen. This will be monitored and if there were not a need to use that then it would likely not be borrowed. There will be a number of options that the Council would have in that particular instance. He thinks that they just want to have their bases covered so that this project does not become jeopardized. He thinks that it is such a critical improvement to the community that they want to make sure that everything is in place and nothing is going to delay or jeopardize the funding of it.

Member Mutch agreed that he thought it was an important project but he thinks that what is presented does not reflect the donation and value. Also, if additional improvements are going to be necessary that maybe it is too early at the engineering stage but maybe some indication of that that maybe a wider area is going to be covered by this project. Just looking at it looks like a lot of money to be asking for. He asked if the improvement to Novi Road between Ten-Mile and Grand River is going to be a five-lane cross section?

Mr. Arroyo stated that is correct.

Member Mutch stated that at the Master Plan and Zoning meeting, when the transportation portion of the Master Plan was being done, communication from Mr. Arroyo’s office indicated that it was really down the road and was going to be insufficient.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it was toward the build-out of the community in the twenty (20) to thirty (30) year range there would be a need for additional capacity and possibly a seven-lane section in that area.

Member Mutch asked if it is premature to look at that kind of improvement?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not think that it is warranted to go to a wider section now and you could not justify getting the funding to do this. The widening beyond five (5) lanes is way down the road. It is something that may be needed long-term. He would not change anything that is occurring with that road right now.

Member Mutch asked if it is tried to do special assessment districts where it is looked at a fifty (50) percent share or something less than one hundred (100) percent? He can understand the point on Crescent Road and other projects that the property that is there cannot support a full special assessment. On the other hand, two (2) huge office projects have been approved off Meadowbrook Road, north of I-96 within the last month. That paving is primarily benefiting them. He asked if it is looked at to do special assessments on the commercial properties? He knows that it cannot be done on residential properties because of the charter.

Chairperson Csordas stated that these were all good questions but he does not think that this is the purpose of this presentation. This presentation was for the Planning Commission in case someone had not seen the issues. He would like to move along.

Member Churella stated that he could go ahead and support this bonding program if they would change the emphasis to where he thinks it is more strategically needed. The bonding program is something needed in this community. However, he thinks that some of the choices of where the money is put is not right.

Member Koneda stated that he agrees with many of the comments that were made earlier. He thinks that although some of these projects are important to the city to have economic development they are not necessarily important to the residents. When you have a Road Bond issue in which thirty five (35) percent of your bonding is going to go to improvements that only benefit the development of certain areas he does not think that it is in the best interest of most of the residents in the community. He cannot support the Crescent Road extension or the Main Street West. He agrees with Commissioner Mutch when he mentioned the signalization of the traffic lights on the intersections to the neighbors. He thinks that surrounding communities should agree to help pay for their section that will be improved. The way that it is right now, he cannot support it.

Chairperson Csordas stated that he is going to close this discussion. It does state possible action by the Planning Commission but he does not hear a lot of support for any type of positive recommendation. This is just an information type of presentation for the benefit of the Commissioners and anybody in the community.

1. Scheduling of Committee Meetings

1. Administrative Liasion Committee………….Re: Presentation at Commission meetings
2. Master Plan and Zoning Committee………Re: Grand River and Meadowbrook, DTN Gateway

Mr. Wahl stated that there has been problems scheduling committee meetings and he thought since everyone is here it would be easier to do that.

Chairperson Csordas asked who is on the Administrative Liasion Committee?

Mr. Wahl stated that Chairperson Csordas, Vice-Chair, and Secretary.

Chairperson Csordas asked when he wanted to have it?

Mr. Wahl stated that Monday and Wednesday’s are the easiest nights to schedule the meetings.

Chairperson Csordas stated that Member Capello is not here so they could call each other the following day.

Mr. Wahl stated that the purpose of putting this on the agenda was because no one would call each other.

Mr. Wahl suggested Monday, October 25^th at 6:30p.m.

Chairperson Csordas stated that they would call each other. He asked who is on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee?

(Pointing took place so it was not recorded.)

Mr. Arroyo stated that it is typically met Tuesday afternoons around 4:00.

Chairperson Csordas stated that he could not do it. He suggested everyone call Mr. Wahl the following day. He stated that it is tentatively scheduled for Thursday at 6:00 at the first possible Thursday.

1. Traffic Planning Report: Planning Commissioners Briefing Program

1999 Update and briefing for new Planning Commissioners regarding various aspects of traffic and road planning practice, as well as review of current road projects.

Mr. Arroyo stated that on an annual basis, he provides a report that gives an overview of various transportation planning activities that are occurring within the community. There are two (2) packets, the Road and Traffic Planning Report that is prepared on an annual basis and also a Transportation Planning packet that is usually given to new members when they come on board. It also has some good resource information that may be a benefit. This tells you a little bit about the process. The Thoroughfare Plan is the main planning activity from a Transportation perspective that the Planning Commission is involved in. From that, there is the ten-year Transportation Improvements Plan, which provides many ideas for Road Bonds and other construction projects. He provided some information on past planning activities, some of the transportation planning activity that has occurred. Some of the success that the community has had in getting grants for road improvements and there has been a lot of money spent on road improvements in the past. A lot of it has come from dollars outside the community from state and federal funds, much like this current Road Bond. There is also some information about road funding sources such as where the money comes from. It is a fairly limited number of sources of road funds that are available to choose from. These are described and broken down by city, federal, state, and county. JCK provided an update on road projects and the Road Bond of 1996. At the end of the report, there is a summary of the ten-year transportation improvement plan. This identified one hundred ninety (190) million dollars worth of improvements needed within the city of Novi over the next ten (10) years to meet demands. There is a significant amount of road construction and expansion if he is going to provide for adequate levels of service on the roadway. Finally, there is a transportation glossary with some common terms that are used.

Member Watza stated that he would like to see a presentation down the road about how the projects are funded. He thinks that there is some confusion of where the money comes from and the advantages of matching funds. He thinks it may be helpful to the Commissioners and the citizens of Novi.

None

Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:40 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza

No: None

________________________________

Beth Brock - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Sarah Marchioni

October 15, 1999

Date Approved: October 20, 1999