View Agenda for this meeting







Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Member Capello.


PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards




ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Façade Review Planner Chris Fox, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Beth Brock






Member Capello asked if there were any amendments to the Agenda?




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




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None




Susan Harten stated that she would like to speak on the Kindercare issue. She asked if the noise study has been submitted?


Member Capello stated that during audience participation the resident is given the opportunity to make statements. If she would address the questions and the consultants or staff will try to address the questions when the item is come to on the agenda.


Ms. Harten asked what the status is of the noise study? If it is not available tonight she was wondering if the Planning Commission is prepared to make a decision tonight in the absence of this study? There was decision on October 20 about the four-(4) acre parcel that Kindercare is interested in and that there was a leftover eleven (11) acre parcel. She went to the Assessing Department and the parcel in question that is being talked about is 5.49 acres. She is unclear of where the eleven-(11) acre parcel is coming up and she would like to have it addressed. She stated that she is here tonight to re-editerate her opinion of why the city should deny Kindercare the ability to build a daycare facility at the intersection of Ten Mile and Beck Road. She is joined tonight by other residents of Broadmoor Park subdivision and owners of daycare facilities in the area. The four-(4) week time span since the last meeting has given her additional time to educate herself on the project. She met with Community Development, Assessing, Dave Bluhm at JCK, local daycare owners, and other Broadmoor Park residents. She remained convinced that this development is not in the best interest of the community and her voice will not be the only one that the Commissioners will here tonight. It should also be noted that the low turnout at the October 20 meeting was not as Member Mutch had wondered. It reflected a community that was at that time unaware of the scope of the project and therefore the impact that it would have on the local resources and infrastructure. She is not against development and in her opinion, development makes sense if four criteria’s are met. One, that there is a demonstrated need for the proposed development. Two, the development can be constructed at an appropriate location. Three, the infrastructure exists to support the success of the development. Four, the site is developed in aesthetically pleasing manner. None of these criteria exist for the Kindercare facility. First, there is no demonstrated need for another daycare facility in the area. Within the three-mile radius that Kindercare proposes to serve, numerous facilities exist and these facilities are currently running under capacity. Kindercare proposes to build a facility with a capacity for one hundred eighty (180) children yet local supplies shows that one hundred sixty eight (168) available spaces exist at current facilities. This does not include the care program. The decision to permit this development may impose undo hardships on existing daycare facilities already vying for local business. There is no need for the Kindercare development and the Commissioners approval vote will only serve to bring an unnecessary business to an already diluted market. An intersection is not an appropriate location for this type of business. Kindercare will bring an additional traffic volume to the area per the traffic report. One hundred fifty five (155) additional trips at peak hours and eight hundred fifteen (815) trips over a twenty four-(24) hour period. The proposed site plan does not allow for reasonable ingress/egress options on Beck Road. The Beck Road entrance is less than one hundred (100) yards from the Ten Mile to Beck Road intersection and only fifty five (55) yards away from the Baker Street entrance into the subdivision. As currently proposed and without road widening for an acceleration/deceleration lane the site does not provide reasonable exit or entrance options. An unpaved shoulder used by traffic exiting south on Beck to avoid hitting the traffic trying to enter Broadmoor Park. While JCK did not find any other problems, other independent engineers have expressed concern. A safe site distance is five hundred (500) feet. As traffic heads south on Beck Road the road raises to meet the middle of the intersection. It is not until you are at the top of the intersection that you can see down Beck Road. The distance from the center of the intersection to the Beck Road entrance to Kindercare is two hundred ninety (290) feet, well below the five hundred (500) feet recommended. A vehicle traveling at forty (40) miles per hour with momentum through the intersection covers fifty nine (59) feet per second and will require 4.9 seconds to come to a complete stop. This is do-able for a vehicle with a large engine and good tires and they can do it in four (4) seconds. For the rest of the drivers, it leaves less than one (1) second for a margin of error. Accidents that occur as a result of the situation are known in the auto industry as "the most violent collusion." It is considered the most violent because it is a side impact collision which in turn causes great bodily harm to the drivers and the passengers. This outcome is even more evident with SUV’s, they are a high bumper vehicle and crash into windows. These cars crash into windows not sidebars and fenders. The five hundred-(500) safe site distance concept exists because it allows a car traveling at forty (40) miles an hour, eight (8) seconds to react. This intersection provides 4.9 with a margin of less than one (1) second for normal vehicles. Also, there is the chance of loose or wandering children heading into the intersection, it is an intersection with known traffic flow problems and no remedies to those problems available in the near distant future. The Road Bond issue failed and Mr. Arroyo only recently applied for a Road Grant at this intersection. If the Commissioners vote to approve they must enter into the decision knowing that there is potential for a child to be harmed by the known danger posed by a four way intersection. Do the Commissioners and Kindercare want to accept this potential liability? The infrastructure does not exist to support this business. She does not agree with the Planning Commission’s philosophy to move forward with development in the absence of necessary infrastructure. It is poor planning to allow any further development at this intersection before the road is repaired and widened. Beck Road continues to be a heavily traveled through fare for traffic on M-14 and 96. It is also heavily traveled by residents of South Lyon and the western communities. The intersection cannot handle the current volume so it is inconceivable to believe that it can handle eight hundred fifteen (815) additional trips per day. There is also no left turn signal for any direction of traffic at this intersection. Very few cars can ever turn on a green light so most are usually done on a red light. A right hand turn entrance into the facility of Ten Mile will force the majority of traffic to exit on the Beck Road entrance. However, the right hand turn creates two (2) problems for her neighborhood. The potential use of Totenham Court as a turn around for traffic needing to head north and the use of Baker Street as a through fare to head east on Ten Mile. On behalf of the residents of Broadmoor Park, she does not want the additional traffic coming through the neighborhood. Water pressure is already low in the neighborhood. Some of it is certainly due to the over-watering of new lawns low water pressure has always existed for the neighborhood because Novi is at the end of the water line. The current plans will allow Kindercare to tap into the water at the edge of the subdivision. It would be unfair of the Planning Commission to stretch this resource further without first addressing the needs of the current consumers. No approval vote tonight can be granted without this plan in place. The site also sits low and will require Kindercare to build its center ten to twelve feet above the existing land level. This would create drainage issues for the intersection and the properties that surround the development. The Planning Commission is also considering allowing Kindercare to cross the district line for sewer, tapping into the sewer system available in Phase 2 of the Broadmoor Park subdivision. While there is capacity now there may not be once, the development is complete. The system was not built to support the Kindercare facility. If the Planning Commission votes to approve, she does not want them to grant the variance to allow them to tap into that system. Another system in their district is available to the facility and Kindercare's own cost concerns should not drive the Planning Commission’s decision on this issue. Great consideration must be given to any development that borders residential property to ensure that it is aesthetically pleasing. Large and numerous shade trees, not evergreens, are what are needed to buffer a facility that is raised ten to twelve feet to offset drainage issues. High berms are also needed to hide a sea of blacktop, which will house forty-nine (49) parking spaces and fence playground areas. She respectively asks the Planning Commission to deny approval for the site to be developed by Kindercare. She asks that the Commissioners demonstrate restraint until the infrastructure exists to support any development at that intersection. She is not as convinced as Member Capello is that commercial development will come if you do not vote here for Kindercare tonight. It is zoned R-1 and is a good location for additional residential housing or a community park. The land is even suprisingly cheap. The four-(4) acre parcel is assessed at $112,000 and the adjoining five acres is assessed at $133,000. She asked why the city has not considered a park? The community wants and needs greenspace, this is an excellent location to preserve. The city has not explored local homeowner interest in purchasing the land at this intersection. The homeowner to the west of the Kindercare parcel has tried to purchase the land for ten (10) years. Across the street, residents of Broadmoor Park have been blocked from buying the southeast corner of the intersection. Alternative remedies exist for this location, the Planning Commission is just not looking hard enough. If the Planning Commission chooses to grant permission to Kindercare despite the arguments tonight, she urges them to reject their current plan until a revised plan can be addressed.


Phil Seymour, 26200 Town Center Drive, stated that he represents the Sheldon family who is the owner of the property where the proposed Kindercare facility is to be located. As the owner, he is in favor of the Kindercare project. The Sheldon family has owned the parcel for several years, there have been other uses proposed for this property. These uses have not fit in with the neighborhood or the area. He believes that the Kindercare facility is compatible with the area and he asks the Planning Commission to approve the site plan and the Special Land Use. The predecessor spoke briefly about the need for additional daycare facilities in the city of Novi. He knows that Kindercare is a national facility, they do their homework and are not going to propose a new facility in an area where they do not believe that the need for additional daycare is required. The other argument was talking about the limited sight distance for cars at that location. It would seem to him that nothing could be used at that intersection because there is not sufficient sight distance to allow speeding cars to stop. He asked the Planning Commission to approve the Special Land Use and daycare site plan.




Reagan Schwarzlose, 23937 Beck Road, stated that he lives south of the proposed Kindercare site. He thinks that two (2) corrections need to be made in statements that were made in the last meeting concerning this project. There was a statement made that when the daycare facility at the southeast corner was brought before the Planning Commission that the residents in the area told the Commission that they would accept one on the southwest corner. He did not then and does not now support this type of development. Secondly, it was referred to that the adjoining L-shaped track was vacant. It is not vacant and has been a residential development for some time. The owner had called several councilmembers and invited them to view the track to see how it lies out. The L-shaped parcel has a drive that is just adjoining this property, which by development of the Kindercare property would make the drive unusable. As traffic currently is, trying to get out of his driveway at peak hours, he has counted in excess fifty to sixty cars before someone will let him out. The traffic numbers presented and used by Kindercare and the city were 1995 and 1997 traffic counts. Based on the construction on 275 traffic over the last year has been re-routed through Beck Road. Although sections of 275 have been re-opened the traffic along Beck Road has not subsided and utilization of the 1995 and 1997 traffic counts would be erroneous. It is evident that the developers and the Planning Commission have not been at the intersection at peak hours. If they did, they would not even be considering this proposal. Development of the site will affect the flow of water off the site onto the adjoining properties. Going into the project is already known that two (2) variances are going to be asked for. One, to not have to complete a noise survey. It was very evident by the fact that the comment was made that they would not be looking to make a noise analysis because they do not make anything. It is very evident that they have never been in a facility that has one hundred eighty (180) children. Secondly, there would be an adverse burden on a septic system that was not designed to carry this type of capacity. He is looking for development of that property within the residential zoning. Several attempts in the past years have been made by the adjoining landowner to try to acquire the property to no avail. He would like to see it developed within the residential zoning and to residentially based property that would conform to the neighborhood.


Barbara Engerer, representing Pathways to Learning Children’s Center, stated that in 1998 she was denied approval to expand. She now has a low enrollment that she feels is partially due to the competition that she is facing against the newer and more modern facilities. Part of the reason that she was denied was traffic and noise. The neighbors did not see a need for a larger facility in the area. It is getting harder to get qualified help, it is going to hurt the Novi area as far as the quality of care being given in the facilities and is going to raise the prices that are being charged.


Ned Nagar, 40760 Ladene, stated that he has been a resident of Novi for the last twenty-four (24) years. He is the owner of a small family owned child care, Bloomingday Child Care Center, at Ten Mile and Wixom Road, just one mile from the proposed project. He is here tonight to refresh the memory of the Planning Commission and then request all of the Commissioners to make a conscious decision to be just, fair and consistent in their decision making. During the last eight years he has brought three (3) separate projects all for one childcare center to this commission for approval. The first two (2) were rejected and the last one was approved after going through a process that makes climbing Mount Everest a good possibility. Tonight he would like to summarize the comments and the reasons given to him for rejections. First, he was told that it would create a traffic gridlock, sixty (60) cars coming and going during peak hours in an already congested area. He was told that it would increase the possibility of accidents due to increased traffic. The Commission bought the idea of children getting hurt and accidents by younger drivers as complained by local resident. The Commission accepted the fact that the noise made by sixty (60) small children playing outdoors would disturb the calmness and serenity of the neighborhood. The Novi News had an excellent editorial on this decision and their publication following the meeting. The project that he presented was so close to the existing homes that the backyard was about four hundred (400) foot away. The Commissioner felt that they would rather see more homes than a childcare center. The reasoning was the better and optimum use of the land. He is glad that their vision was correct. The site was Nine Mile and Meadowbrook, the area has beautiful new homes on that site that blend well with existing homes. The Commissioners were doubtful of the need of childcare center where another existed in close proximity. They were concerned that if and when the demand falls and the business fails what will the owners do with the structure? They could not open any other business because of zoning constraints. The Commissioners were concerned that if this or other child care facilities fails then the city will have an eyesore on it’s hand because of restrictions of alternate users and zoning constraints. The Commissioner reminded him that it was their duty and obligation to make sure that the community needs are balanced and met both for the residential and business community. In the immediate area of the project, he has three to five childcare centers including the new Children’s World. There are more than enough childcare centers in the area to meet the current demand and the demand for the next couple of years. Most of the childcare facilities have vacant capacity at this moment. This does not include the home daycare facilities. He strongly believes that it is not necessary to have a childcare, gas station, fast food restaurant, or a strip mall at every corner lot in the city. He hopes that the Commissioners will not make any decisions to jeopardize the liability of existing businesses, especially the small one and the family-owned ones. He would like to request the Commission to deny the request for this project for the same reasons that he was denied for, mainly traffic congestion, existing business liabilities, best possible use of land, and objection by neighbors. If the approval of this project results in the failure of other childcare centers for lack of enrollment should the city and the Planning Commission be held accountable for their decision?


(Note: The second side of the first tape was blank. The next few pages are based on notes.)


Terry Prasad, 24080 Tottenham Court, stated that she is here to express her concerns about the traffic situation. Making a right hand turn out of her house to head north on Beck Road is very difficult.


Bonita Crawford, 23432 Argyle, stated that she is against Kindercare because of traffic concerns.


Gayle Frey, 23376 Argyle, stated that she is against Kindercare because of traffic concerns. She asked if the Planning Commission would look into buying the land for green space?


Keshaw Rao, stated that he is against Kindercare because of traffic and all of the kids being dropped off and picked up.




J. Frank O’Shea, 380 N. Old Woodward, stated that Fountain Walk should add additional upscale development to Novi, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the City as a place to live. It should add value to both existing and future residential areas. The taxes Fountain Walk pays will be far greater than the taxes now paid on the vacant property.


Virginia A. Lawingak, 23973 Beck Road, stated that she objects to Kindercare for safety reasons. She stated that there are two or three daycare centers in a one-mile area.


Warren Vallerand, 24139 Broadmoor Park Blvd., stated that he objects to Kindercare for two reasons. One, current traffic flow is excessive. Two, area is zoned residential and should stay that way..




Member Capello announced there were two items on the Consent Agenda.







Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To approve Saint Joseph Mercy Health System SP 98-52 for a one-year extension of the Preliminary Site Plan. Also, to approve minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 20,




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None






  2. This project is located in Section 35, on the north side of Eight Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook Road. The 3.62 acre property is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The proposed use is permitted in the I-1 district subject to special conditions. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.


    Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated that for the planning review he recommends approval of the Clements Industrial Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan application subject to the items being addressed on the final site plan. Variances that were granted by the ZBA were a waiver of special land use requirement for a noise analysis completed by a certified sound engineer. In addition, a waiver of rear building setback requirement of 110 feet (Sec. 2400.1 - 5 feet of horizontal setback per every foot of building height). A waiver of off-street parking setback of 100 feet. Subject to City approved off-site landscaping, waiver of landscaped berm requirement adjacent to residential district. One, the loading dock for Building "A" located to the rear of the property should be separated from circulation lanes by a tapered landscaped end island that runs the full distance of the loading area, excepting of a 5-foot recessed area at the end. The plans show the proposed end island is only 35 feet long. The applicant has agreed to lengthen and landscape island. Two, front yard loading spaces must be recessed at least 60 feet from the front wall "in order to provide that a semi-trailer truck tractor and cab shall not, when in place for loading or unloading, project past the front wall of the building". In order to meet the intent of Section 1905.4.a., a wall or heavy landscape screening must be provided. Three, dimensions for parking stalls, loading areas, maneuvering lanes and radii of drive returns must be identified. Four, the plan must be modified to correct the parking table. Five, the applicant should provide additional information regarding the type of manufacturing and related activities intended for the development to ensure compliance with the permitted uses within the I-1 district. Six, the final plans should note that floodlights will not be located on the building walls abutting the residential district. Seven, the plan should also note that windows and doors of non-office areas may not be left open. Eight, details of the dumpster screen wall must be submitted for review. Nine, details on the proposed site lighting are also required. The plans should be consistent (25’ height maximum adjacent to residential).


    He stated that he recommended approval for the traffic review subject to the items in his letter. The two buildings will generate 215 weekday trips, 44 during the a.m. peak hour and 34 during the p.m. peak hour. He had some minor signage revisions that should be included in the final site plan.



    David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated that outside of items in his letter, which can be addressed at time of final site plan preparation, the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility. An off-site private detention basin easement from the City of Novi to the owner of the Clements property will be required prior to final site plan approval.


    Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated that she has reviewed the plans and is recommending approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan with several items. She would like determination by the City Attorney whether a permanent easement is required for the landscape plantings on the park property. In addition, that additional evergreens and shrubs on the park property meet the opacity requirements.


    Member Capello 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 item being corrected on the next plan submittal. The fire department connection on Bldg. B shall be relocated to the southeast corner of the office area. The berm and landscape materials will obstruct the proposed location.


    Member Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.


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



    (Note: Side three of the tape begins.)


    Member Capello asked if it is a 1902 use would it require the noise analysis and all of the same things that were required originally?


    Mr. Arroyo stated that he does not know what the Building department specifically requires but if it were to be brought back to the Planning Commission then yes, there would be a need for it.


    Member Capello stated that he is not so concerned with this project because it does not really abut residential but if they were coming to the Commissioners and there was residential then it would be a whole different concern.


    Mr. Arroyo stated that it is a concern and he thinks that there has to be. Maybe it would be a better idea if there were better communication between the Planning and Building department regarding these uses so that the process is firmly put in place.


    Member Capello asked if there is any independent special land use approval for existing buildings?


    Mr. Arroyo stated that if it is a Special Land Use that comes forward and is a substantial change in use then he thinks that the Commissioners have the ability to require Special Land Use approval. With the Special Land Use, approval there is a mandatory requirement for a site plan.


    Member Capello stated that Mr. Arroyo thinks that the Commissioners have a right to require Special Land Use approval not coupled with site plan approval.


    Mr. Weisberger stated that he thought that it was added to the Site Plan Manual, Special Land Use as a reviewable item.


    Mr. Arroyo stated that you have to have a site plan by state law with a Special Land Use. In his opinion, they should be granted together because quite often it is the specific design elements in the site plan that help to have the assurance that the conditions and standards associated with the Special Land Use are being met. Most of the communities that he deals with address both Special Land Use and site plan simultaneously.


    Member Capello stated that he could not recall one Special Land Use coming in an existing building where they just relied on an old site plan.


    Mr. Arroyo stated that he thought that there might have been one or two.




    Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, PASSES (4-3): To grant Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approval subject to the consultant’s comments and variances granted.


    VOTE ON PM-99-11-260 PASSES


    Yes: Capello, Churella, Koneda, and Richards

    No: Canup, Mutch, Piccinini



This project is located in Section 15, on the west side of Donelson between Twelve Mile and I-96. The 71.23 acre property is zoned Regional Center District (R-C). The applicant is seeking a Woodland Permit and a recommendation of a Wetland Permit to the City Council.


Joe Sutchek, Vice-President for Ramco Gershenson, stated that he understands that there has been an opinion rendered by the city attorney that the modifications to the site plan require a re-evaluation of the existing wetland permit and existing woodland permit that was previously granted. He respectfully disagrees with the opinion. He does not believe that the changes to the plans do not alter the work in the wetlands or woodlands per the permits that have already been issued. He also understands that the Planning Commission has to take advice of the city attorney and proceed with the wetland. He just wants the record to reflect the fact that he does not agree with the necessity of it, he does not agree that the ordinance requires it based on the changes that are being made.


Mr. Arroyo stated that if this is the portion for wetlands and woodlands then he does not have any comments to make at this time.


Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist stated that in her November 10 letter she included the previous wetland permit recommendation for approval, which was approved by City Council. She has amended her letter, due to the new situation and she only wants to comment on the second paragraph. She has discussed this at great length and had some misunderstanding of whether or not this had to come back for review so she will just re-iterate what she said in her letter. It states that her understanding is that a change in activity needs the Planning Commission’s understanding. For the project as a whole, she has brought a wetland map because the actual change in the site plan does not affect any change in wetland impact. Although there is no wetland shown on the plan, the only change in activity is the shifting of the parking and the building structure. It moves over a little bit but the actual impact is not changed. They are submitting to fill in all of the wetlands on the site so she is just agreeing with the original recommendation. She continues to recommend approval. There were seven (7) original wetlands on the site; two of the wetlands were regulated. Another change that has nothing to do with the design of the site plan is that two- (2) of the wetlands were re-delineated in April and she verified it. She has verified that the two- (2) wetlands are smaller in size and that changes their mitigation ratio.

Ms. Lemke stated that she included in a cover letter dated November 5 her previous two (2) letters. One was for preliminary and the other was for final for this project. They are still removing all of the trees on the site. She went through the last paragraph and her condition on her July 7, 1998 letter. She was denying it then and she would continue to deny it. They are removing twenty-seven (27) acres of woodlands and eight hundred thirty (830) regulated trees in conjunction with all of the regulated wetland on the site. Although the quality of the woodlands area are lower for the particular type and location of woodlands they still provide natural areas which function and will continue to function for many years as buffers, filters, limited habitat areas. They will continue to provide heating, cooling, windscreen, noise buffers, and visual beauty for this area of the city. In summary, she does not recommend approval for a woodland permit. If approval were granted for this project, the following condition would apply. Payment in a dollar amount into the city’s tree fund of $207,500 for eight hundred thirty (830) trees at two hundred fifty (250) dollars a piece.


Member Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.


Debbie Bundoff, Novi/Twelve Mile Road, stated that she still is concerned because although she hears that this doesn’t impact the woodlands or wetlands in any way it seems odd to ask for a Preliminary Site Plan recommendation for City Council. Later this evening the Commission would entertain an idea to approve the woodlands and wetlands before they have gone through the site plan changes that brought this project back to the Commissioners.


Mr. Sutchek stated that he would like to briefly go through the changes in the two (2) site plans to further document the record. The changes are on the plan as they relate to the previously approved woodlands permit and the previously approved wetlands permit. He asked if this is acceptable to the Chairman or if he should wait until the site plan comes up?


Member Capello suggested that he wait until he opens up the discussion to see if the Commissioners want him to get into it.


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




Member Capello asked the Commissioners if they would like the petitioner to give an overview of the changes in the plan?


Member Churella stated that he would.


Mr. Sutchek stated that changes are as follows. The existing site plan, the theatre has approximately fifty two hundred (5200) seats and the size is being reduced to forty two hundred (4200) seats. It is a significant decrease in the intensity of that use. On the existing site plan there was a two-story one hundred thousand (100,000) square foot sporting goods/retail store. On the revised site plan there is a two-story one hundred fifty five thousand (155,000) square foot Grade Indoors Store. Grade Indoors Store is the new concept for a home furnishing and a home interior store. The store is set up in a series of rooms that are viewed as home furnishings/home accessory products in a natural room setting. It is similar to a furniture store but not a furniture store. It has the traffic intensity characteristics of a furniture store, a lesser intense use than a more typical retail store. The other changes are the access drives into the interior service port and are being relocated. One driveway is being proposed to move seventy (70) feet further to the south. The rest of the plan is the same. The overall traffic circulation on the inside of the site, the landscaping, the architectural building elevation concept, the curb cuts onto the public road system, and the proposed road improvements are all the same. The modification in the woodlands and the wetlands is exactly the same under the existing plan versus the new plan. The changes that really involve have to do with the change in the two (2) buildings, none of which alter any of the work that has to be done in the woodlands or wetlands per the existing permits, which have already been approved.


Member Mutch asked for clarification on the existing wetlands permit they were required to mitigate 13.5 acres and assuming under new wetlands permit they would be required to mitigate 7.38 acres, correct?


Ms. Kay stated that is correct. It is due to the change in re-delineating the two-(2) largest wetlands systems that were on the site and they were pretty significantly changed. It is unusual but there was justification for it and so the ratio that it regarded was one and a half-(1 ½).


Member Mutch stated that he is confused as to why the petitioner does not want to go through the wetlands permit process.


Mr. Sutchek stated that he believes that the work that has to be done in the wetlands and woodlands for the revised site plan is exactly the same as the work that has to be done on the existing permits. He does not believe that the Ordinance requires a re-evaluation of the wetlands and the woodlands permit because the work being done in the wetlands is no different between the two-(2) site plans.


Member Mutch asked that although the original permit would require more mitigation he is willing to mitigate more wetlands?


Ms. Kay stated that he is not mitigating more, he is mitigating less.


Member Mutch stated that the original wetland permit issue was not re-visited.


Ms. Kay asked if he has a specific wetland in mind?


Member Mutch stated that he is wondering about the permit itself. The original permit had a greater mitigation requirement and if it stayed in place, it would still apply.


Ms. Kay stated that there was not a greater mitigation requirement. There were seven (7) wetlands on site and the number of thirteen (13) plus to be mitigated for involved the higher acreage for the two (2) wetlands in question that were re-delineated.


Member Mutch stated that he thought that once a permit was approved he did not realize that if it was re-delineated. He thought that what was approved was approved.


Ms. Kay stated that one (1) of the conditions was that the applicant get a MDEQ permit for one (1) of the wetlands that was larger than five (5) acres. They did it and during the review, the State commented on the fact that they thought that the original de-lineation was incorrect and a new consultant was hired. The new consultant de-lineated during the appropriate time of year where you can find vegetation and see beneath the snow. She checked the wetland boundary and agreed with the State with the new wetland consultant. This can come up from time to time and this is why she stated that this is a little unusual. It is not very often that wetlands are made smaller but the wetlands are not being made smaller, they were not that big to begin with. That is why the number was that large to begin with.


Member Mutch stated that he understands the process by which that changed. He is just uncomfortable with the idea that what is originally approved in terms of mitigation may be changed post decision because of re-delineation. In this case, it is only being brought back because this project is being revised. He asked Ms. Lemke if the applicant submitted any legit alternative plans for preserving the woodlands on the site?


Ms. Lemke stated that they submitted three (3) alternatives with three (3) different areas of woodlands preserved on each plan and all three (3) were isolated. She brought out in her July 7, 1998 letter that she thought another alternative could be presented that would have combined more than one (1) woodlands or combine a wooded and wetland habitat. Many the concerns were that they would not be able to preserve them because they would be surrounded by construction. They did present some but there were other alternatives that they could have presented.


Member Mutch stated that any plan on a site of this size that fails to preserve even one (1) tree and is taking down trees off-site for the detention areas strikes him as over-building the site. It does not show respect for the Woodlands Ordinance but this has been approved once before so he imagines that it will get approved again.


Member Richards asked when the Preliminary Site Plan will be looked at?


Member Capello stated that it would be looked at after the Public Hearing, it will be under Matters for Consideration. He stated that since the wetlands is a recommendation and the woodlands is the Planning Commission’s then he would like to have two (2) separate motions.




Moved by Churella, seconded by Piccinini, PASSES (6-1): To send a positive recommendation to City Council on the wetland permit on Fountain Walk SP 98-16.




Member Richards asked that since the original had thirteen (13) acres and now is going to seven (7), does it mean that the applicant will abide by the thirteen (13)?


Ms. Kay stated that there was not thirteen (13) acres of wetland on the site to begin with. There were seven (7) wetland areas on the site and only two (2) were to be regulated by the city. Those two (2) in total acreage were smaller in size. Wetland A is 1.35 acres and Wetland B is 3.57 acres. If these two (2) numbers were added together and multiplied by a one and a half (1 ½) ratio then that is the 7.38 that they will mitigate. They will create more wetland than is physically there on the site for the two (2) regulated wetlands. The other five (5) were not regulated by the city, therefore she does not have any jurisdiction to have them create more wetlands on another site and that is what is happening. They are offering to mitigate 7.38 acres and that means create wetlands in another area of the city. There is going to be a net gain and regulated wetlands in the city of Novi.


Member Richards asked what parts the city of Novi has jurisdiction over?


Ms. Kay stated that in the southeast corner of the property, there is a wetland that is 3.57 acres and is a rather large wetland. Just north of that also on the east side is another wetland that is 1.35 acres. These two (2) wetlands on the site are regulated only by the city, not by the state. She has done evaluations on them and the applicant is going to fill them in to create 7.38 acres.


Mr. Weisberger stated that it is his opinion that what the Commissioners are doing tonight is issuing a wetland permit for the revised site plan. There is a wetland permit for the site plan that is already approved. Nothing is being done with the original site plan. The motion is to send a positive recommendation for a wetland permit for the revised site plan. What goes along with this wetland permit is a mitigation of 7.38 acres and what goes along with the old wetland permit is the mitigation of 13.5 acres. His office has not investigated whether or not the 13.5 could be reduced after the fact or not. However, this is not an issue before the Commissioners tonight.


Member Koneda asked if the mitigation site is the city owned property on West Road north of Twelve Mile?


Ms. Kay stated that it is.


Member Koneda asked if this is the site the city has put aside for mitigation to try to create a larger wetland area, which will be more beneficial to the city?


Ms. Kay stated that this is correct. This was the premise of the original approval.




Yes: Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Richards, Canup, Capello

No: Mutch



SP 98-16


Moved by Churella, seconded by Piccinini, PASSES (5-2): To approve the Woodland Permit for Fountain Walk SP 98-16.




Member Mutch asked if there has been any indication of the method of replacement?


Ms. Lemke stated that they have verbally indicated that they will be putting the money in the tree fund. She is looking for a letter eventually which is part of final site plan approval.


Mr. Sutchek stated that there is a misunderstanding. It was always his position that the Planning Commission and City Council approvals were conditioned upon all of the consultant’s recommendations. That was one (1) of the recommendations. He has always interpreted it as a written binding obligation to pay the $207,000 into the tree fund. He re-certified that that is the case and he has a letter to give to Jim Wahl to clear up any misunderstanding.


Member Capello asked if this is a requirement or do they still have the option of planting trees somewhere in the city of Novi?


Ms. Lemke stated that he had the option to re-plant on another piece of property, owned or had interest in, or put money into the tree fund.


Member Capello asked if once he has made the commitment is he obligated to put it into the tree fund?


Ms. Lemke stated that if he decided that he wanted to put it somewhere else then she could work something out.




Yes: Piccinini, Richards, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: Koneda and Mutch








  2. This project is located in Section 15, on the west side of Donelson between Twelve Mile and I-96. The 71.23 acre property is zoned Regional Center District (R-C). The applicant is seeking a recommendation of a Preliminary Site Plan to the City Council.


    Mr. Sutchek stated that he has already explained the changes in the plan. The modifications to the site plan meet all of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. A change was a minor modification to the location of the entry drive into the service port. The only alteration to the curb cuts onto a public road occurs to line up with the driveway. The theatre has been reduced by approximately one thousand (1,000) seats. The project is really the same and the changes have to do with the reduction in the seating.


    Mr. Arroyo stated that her planning review letter of November 8 recommends approval of this Preliminary Site Plan subject to a number of items being addressed in the final site plan.


    The traffic letter of November 10 also recommends approval and is subject to a number of comments. It is also subject to the road improvement package that the applicant has previously committed to that is included within the site plan approval package. It is scheduled to be addressed through the applicant’s private funding or special assessment district. They have provided as part of the new site plan, since there is an increase in square footage, a revised trip generation analysis and an abbreviated traffic study. There are two (2) significant changes associated with the site plan. They are reduction in the number of seats in the theatre and an increase in floor area associated with the Home Furnishing Center. In comparison with the previously approved plans if the Home Furnishing Center is treated like a furniture store from a trip generation perspective this project is forecast to generate less traffic than the previous plan that had been approved. If it functions more like a traditional retail use, it would be found within a shopping center. The new plan will generate slightly more traffic than the original approval and the comparison would be a weekday, PM peak hour. Under the previous plan it would have twenty four hundred (2400) trips being generated by the development. There would be twenty five hundred twelve (2512) if it is treated as a shopping center or just under twenty two hundred (2200) hundred if it is treated as a furniture store. There is a similar comparison for Saturday, which he will not go into detail. The bottom line is that the traffic generation from this particular site plan in comparison with the previous one is going to be similar. The applicant has looked at two (2) of the critical intersections, Novi Road at the westbound off-ramps to I-96 and West Oaks Drive/Novi Road intersection. They added on the additional traffic that would be generated to determine that basically the same level of service that was going to be anticipated with the previous plan would be provided with this plan so there is no change in off-site level of service. As long as the improvements that are included within the site plan package and have been previously discussed in detail are in fact put in place when this project opens then the level of service that are expected and forecasted in the traffic study should be a reality. Regarding the internal circulation, he only had one (1) significant comment that he is looking for. The drive that was shifted slightly to the south, there is a re-configuration of the parking aisle and he had attached to his letter a sketch plan of how it might be re-configured to better accommodate turning traffic in the area and reducing the number of conflicts. He would look to see this taken care of on the final site plan. He is recommending approval.


    Mr. Bluhm stated that he also reviewed the revised plan for the project. The changes proposed are very minimal from an engineering perspective and therefore there are no significant changes from his comments that he had previously made in the original reviews. There are a couple of points that he would like to make. The applicant has proposed with the new plan to direct all of the sanitary sewer flows to Donelson Drive into the sewers that exist in that area. In the original application and plans he had indicated that based on the usage, the sewers were going to be insufficient. They had agreed to take some of the flows to Donelson and some to the other side of the site, the northwest side of the site into a sewer that is being proposed along Twelve Mile/new Street. The new street is the street that is extending on the west side of the site from Twelve Mile. He would like to remind the applicant that it would still be an issue. He has talked with the engineer and it does appear that it is probably just an oversight on their part. At the final site plan level, he will be expecting them to correct these deficiencies. At the south edge of the plan, there is a two staged water treatment detention area that is located off-site in the Detroit Edison Corridor that they are proposing to use. He has two (2) comments regarding easements. One is that they have to have easements to detain off-site similar to the project that the Commissioners saw before this. There is also an issue with the easements required for the New Street on the west side of the property. There is one (1) Design and Construction Standards variance required. The applicant is proposing that the public roadways be an easement in lieu of right-of-way, which is typically required. They will have to go to City Council to get it before the final site plan is approved. He feels that the plan continues to demonstrate feasibility and he is recommending approval. Mr. Fox will be reviewing the facades when the Commissioners get to that point.


    Ms. Lemke stated that she is recommending approval. She will be looking at the changes in detail at final.


    Chris Fox of JCK stated that he has come up with another Section Nine waiver recommendations. There has been a change in the Ordinance since the previous Section Nine waivers was granted but is affected in only two (2) areas. The percentage of the EIFS material per the Ordinance has gone down from seventy-five (75) percent to twenty-five (25) percent. The design of the building has not changed significantly since the original approval. He has recommended approval of the material because the buildings have not significantly changed. The same has occurred for the ceramic tile and again no significant changes to the buildings. The other change is the applicant has replaced split-face block inside the service courtyard with pre-cast concrete panels. Pre-cast panels are not allowed by the Ordinance. The type of panels that they are going to use has a very similar look to the original split-face block. It looks almost exactly the same. He has a condition that he must see an actual sample of that material as a contingency to his approval. He gives a recommendation for Section Nine waiver for both of the items.


    James Wahl stated that the department’s role in this project has been to provide a recommendation at the time of City Council review. He has been working on this project for over two (2) years since the site was rezoned to Regional Center in 1977. He would like to go through the history a little bit because he thinks that it is important to the consideration of the design of this project. There were older commercial centers to the east of this site and there was a large area that was planned for Office Service Technology to the west. There was a strong feeling at the time of the rezoning that some type of transitional project that brought a more contemporary, attractive transition between the older projects and the opportunities that there are to the west was what was being looked for. This project has no back door; there is a good front door to existing developments, to Twelve Mile Road, the freeway, and to the areas to the west. One of the important considerations of his recommendation to City Council at that time was the design of this project is taking the Novi Town Center project and taking it to another level of improvement. He thinks that it has accomplished what the rezoning process started out as two (2) years ago. He did recommend to City Council when this project came through a year ago that it is approved and there is nothing in this re-submittal to change his overview. His job is to take all of the recommendations in total, look at how it fits into the city’s Master Plan and land development policies, and make a recommendation of an overview of that conclusion. His opinion is the same as it was one (1) year ago. He worked with the Ramco Gershenson Company through the North Central Traffic Planning Committee to look at each and every intersection numerous times to design and develop a package that not only meets that immediate needs of this particular project but fits in with all of the major roadways in the section of the city. A number of changes were made throughout the planning process. The committee met on a monthly basis throughout the process. He thinks that it is important to note that the mitigation program which he did work with MDEQ and the Department of Public Services on he feels that it is a very innovative program. It is very complimentary of all of the city’s goals and objectives to preserve and protect that particular portion of the community, which is a large area that is evolving into a nature preserve. He is taking an area that was considered to be almost unsalvageable in mitigating in an area where a superior environment can be designed. In conclusion, he feels that the changes that have been made are minor from the original approval and that the positive elements of this development for the community remain and he will be recommending approval of the site plan to City Council.




    Member Koneda stated that two (2) variances were already granted by ZBA for the building height and for the driveway spacing for the restaurants. He asked if they carry over automatically or does the applicant have to go back to ZBA?


    Mr. Weisberger stated that it depends on how the ZBA phrased their motion. His review of the minutes indicates that it was not site plan specific, that it runs with the land.


    Member Koneda asked if the motion would have to include conditional upon?


    Mr. Weisberger stated that he does not believe that they will have to go back to the ZBA.


    Member Koneda stated that he had a question concerning the recommendation on the driveway entrance. He asked if the crook closes off the aisle way so that it does not conflict with the entrance?


    Mr. Arroyo pointed to the board to explain.


    Member Koneda asked if the City Council granted a Design and Construction waiver for the easement versus the right-of-way?


    Mr. Weisberger stated that he believes that they did. In order for them to give Preliminary Site Plan approval, they would have had to grant the waivers.


    Mr. Sutchek stated that they did.


    Mr. Weisberger stated that the minutes indicate that they did.


    Member Richards pointed to an area on the map and asked about the island?


    Mr. Arroyo stated that he thinks that it has been added for the purposes for providing for drop-off area. If there was not an island there, there would be a fairly large expansive pavement that would probably be more detrimental. With this alignment, the aisle aligns directly to channelize down another way to exit the property. If there were not island, particularly if you were coming inbound you would end up in a fairly large pavement area that he thinks could be confusing. This is primarily a service area, you can see a number of service bays and he does not think that it is going to be that popular in terms of location. There will be circulation around the property but it is not adjacent to a major entrance off the off-site system.


    Member Richards asked if it would be one-way?


    Mr. Arroyo pointed to the spot that would be one-way. He will take a closer look at final but he does not know that you would be able to make it a two-way.

    Member Richards stated that if you build an establishment like this you have to take into account that people take one-day bus shopping trips. He asked if the project could take care of this type of event with buses maneuvering around the facility?


    Mr. Arroyo stated that it lends itself well to having buses come in, drop off and then leave the site. The site is not intended for parking of buses unless the applicant plans to design something for it.


    Mr. Sutchek stated that this is not that type of a facility. It is does not have the retailers that create the mega-regional draw similar to Great Lakes Crossing. This is a Detroit metropolitan area based market and he does not see daylong bus trips coming from outside the Detroit metropolitan area. This concept is not the same as Great Lakes Crossing from that standpoint. He sees very little demand for that kind of facility.


    Member Richards stated that they do it now at Twelve Oaks and it is not a Great Lakes Crossing type of facility.


    Mr. Sutchek stated that Twelve Oaks is an enclosed mall and is entirely different venue, shopping destination. This is a combination entertainment/restaurant/retail center. There is not the amount of pure retail space that an enclosed mall has. There is plenty of room for buses to park on the site although there is not a designated space for it.




    Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, PASSES (6-1): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for approval of Fountain Walk SP 98-16 subject to the consultant’s recommendations and to grant a Section Nine façade waiver.




    Member Capello stated that in the original submittal, there was a phasing plan and he did not see any mention of the phasing plan in the revised. He asked if he is still planning on the same phasing plan?


    Mr. Sutchek stated that the project was never envisioned as being built in phases. There was not a phasing plan submitted with the first site plan application and there was not one submitted with the revised plan.


    Member Capello stated that he thought that there was one for the restaurants.


    Mr. Sutchek stated that there are only two (2) stand alone restaurants at this location but again this project is not being put together and timed on a specified phasing schedule.


    Member Mutch stated that he did not support this the first time around because he thinks that this is going to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back when it comes to the Novi Road/I-96/Twelve Mile area. Obviously there are road improvements planned but he thinks that there is a limit to commercial development in Novi and this is over the limit. He also has some concerns on the site plan itself that there is a lack of adequate pedestrian access between the out lot restaurants to the retail development itself. If you go to the restaurant then you want to go shopping or vice versa then, you have to get in your car and find a new parking spot. From other locations it looks like there is quite a distance for people that are handicapped have to go to get to a main entrance. He thinks that it shows a lack of good planning in that area. Hopefully, some changes can be made if this is approved between preliminary and final site plan. He cannot support it because it is too much commercial in an area that cannot support it.


    VOTE ON PM-99-11-263 PASSES


    Yes: Piccinini, Richards, Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda

    No: Mutch


  3. KINDERCARE SP 99-43

This project is located on 4 acres in Section 29, on the southwest corner of Ten Mile and Beck Roads. The site is zoned One-Family Residential (R-1). The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 district subject to special conditions. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.


Michael Belchinko, real estate manager with Kindercare, stated that during the October 20 Planning Commission meeting he was asked to address several issues and he is here to discuss them. One, was the noise study. He was requested to conduct a noise study and he has since retained an engineering firm to conduct the noise study. Due to scheduling conflicts, the study will be conducted next week. He was also asked to look at providing sidewalks from the building to the street and he will be able to comply with that request. In addition, a four-(4) foot green space along the inside of the playground fence will also be provided. He was also asked to look at a continuous right turn lane along Ten Mile Road from his exit/entrance point. At this point, he still feels that his customers who want to exit onto Beck Road will still use Beck Road. He looked at the costs involved in that development. He would have to re-locate several utility poles and do the roadwork. Currently, his budget cannot handle such a development cost. He was also asked to look at the setback from the proposed right-of-way on Beck Road. Currently, he feels that there is adequate space in the existing right-of-way. If he had to set back from the proposed right-of-way, which does not exist at this time it would require him to re-engineer the entire site and provide significant screening and drainage problems to the site.


Mr. Arroyo stated that he had nothing to add at this point. He has gone through the individual letters already.


Mr. Bluhm stated that there is nothing different.


Ms. Lemke stated that everything is the same.




Member Churella stated that after hearing all of the words that were said by the residents and given this report in his opinion he doesn't think that this project is needed in this location at this time. It seems that the daycare centers right now are more than sufficient. He thinks that the other daycare owners would be hurt by opening another large facility right in their midst. He cannot vote for it.


Member Richards stated that he sees this project as increasing the traffic at that location. He has looked at Mr. Arroyo’s notes. One of the suggestions was to add one hundred fifty (150) feet to the left turn lane on Beck. He asked who would pay for this? It will not be necessary if the facility is not there. There is no way to turn left off Ten Mile that is going west into this particular facility without endangering people in terms of traffic. Even if they would put the no left turn there is always the person that goes past the sign and figures out that they can not make the turn. From that viewpoint, he cannot support having a facility at that location.


Member Mutch stated that he would like to clarify some comments that would made earlier. When he commented at the last meeting that there were residents that would come, out to say that they would support a daycare center on the southeast corner he did not just make stuff up off the floor. He has opinions of his own and he can voice them pretty well. Residents from Broadmoor Park felt that the location was a better location for a daycare center. In a sense, he agrees that the southeast corner was a totally inappropriate location because it did not provide the necessary size for a site. The other comment was regarding a park on the property. He is probably the biggest green thumb on the Commission after Member Koneda but he does not make the decisions. The Commission does not have a budget that allows them to buy one (1) acre of parkland much less four (4) acres of parkland. That is a case that would have to be taken up with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. After living in Novi for twenty seven (27) years and still waiting for some parkland on the east side of the city he thinks that there are some other people who have some desires for parklands in their neighborhood as well. The Commission can not just deny development with the idea that they are going to build a park there. Regarding the traffic impacts, when looking at a Special Land Use obviously any SLU is going to have a more negative impact from traffic as opposed to a principle permitted use that could go in there. The question is, do they mitigate the traffic impacts sufficiently to balance out the negative impacts? It is a difficult decision because he knows that if it is developed residentially there will be zero improvements at that intersection and there will be additional traffic. If there were a park there, the city would have traffic without any improvements. He would have to look at the improvements that are being proposed and whether they offset the impacts that are going to be created. He does see improvements taking place. The only way that he could support this would be a provision of at least a public highway easement between the entrances on Ten Mile to the Beck Road intersection to permit the city to construct a right turn lane at that location. Otherwise, he does not think that it was proposed at the last meeting that the Commissioners required them to put in a turn lane. A highway easement to allow the city to construct a turn lane would be appropriate. Otherwise, he has to look at the criteria of the Ordinances, which in most cases that have been met have been addressed. He is not sure if he could vote against this at this point because the Ordinance has to be followed and the project has to be looked at as a Special Land Use. It does give some leeway but the Commissioners cannot arbitrarily deny something. Business need is a legitimate question but it is not a criteria under Special Land Use so if it is going to be denied it has to be based on the criteria that is listed in the Ordinance, specifically the traffic and any other issues.


Member Canup stated that the Commissioners have heard quite a bit from the residents at this meeting and the last meeting. He thinks with all of the information that has been presented he would like to make a motion.




Moved by Canup, seconded by Capello, PASSES (6-1): To deny Special Land Use for Kindercare SP99-43 based on Ordinance 2516.2C subsections one, two and six.




Mr. Arroyo asked if it is the Special Land Use and site plan included?


Member Capello stated that it is just for Special Land Use.


Member Koneda asked for clarification on what the three-(3) issues are?


Member Capello stated that subsection two (2) has to do with availability of public services, subsection six (6) talks about the social and economical impacts of the development, and subsection one (1) talks about safety and thoroughfares.


Mr. Weisberger stated that he could read the language. Subsection one (1) states that whether the project is relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use will cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares. Subsection two (2) states whether relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use will cause any detrimental impact on the capabilities of public services. Subsection six (6) states whether relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use will promote the use of the land in a socially and economical manner.




Yes: Piccinini, Richards, Canup, Capello, Churella, Mutch

No: Koneda




Moved by Canup, seconded by Piccinini, PASSES (6-1): To deny Preliminary Site Plan for Kindercare SP 99-43.




Yes: Richards, Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini

No: Mutch




Mr. Weisberger stated that Mr. Csordas has left the Commission and the by-laws indicate when the Chairperson has left the Vice-President shall succeed. Member Capello would then become Chairperson and would leave a vacancy at Vice-Chair. The by-laws do not indicate that the Secretary automatically becomes Vice-Chair. Vice-Chair is open and Secretary can be nominated if he wants to be.


Member Capello stated that he had asked to have an election on all three (3) positions.




Moved by Churella, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To nominate Member Capello as Chairperson of the Planning Commission.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None




Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To nominate Member Piccinini as Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None


Member Churella asked if the officers automatically on some of the committees?


Mr. Weisberger stated that he does not know who automatically is on the committee.


Member Capello stated that there is an opening on Implementation. The Chair is automatically on it so there is one (1) open position.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To appoint Member Piccinini to the Implementation Committee.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None


Member Capello stated that the newly elected officers automatically fill Administrative Liaison.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To appoint Member Richards to the Planning Studies and Budget Committee.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None


Member Capello asked if anyone has any interest in Rules or Communication?


Beth Brock, Planning Assistant, stated that Member Watza would like to remain on the same committees that he is presently on.


















Moved by Churella, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:50 p.m.




Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None




Beth Brock - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Sarah Marchioni

December 2, 1999


Date Approved: December 15, 1999