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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Kocan (late arrival), Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Churella.

ALSO PRESENT: Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber and Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick.

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

Member Mutch added issues of staff support and communication under Matters for Consideration to address recent issues.

Member Koneda postponed the approval of the Regular Planning Commission Minutes of April 25, 2001 to the next Planning Commission meeting. The addition of Consent Agenda Item 2) To place Maybury Park Site Plan discussion on the June 12, 2001 meeting under Item #1 Matters for Consideration.

Member Nagy added the Regular Planning Commission minutes of April 25, 2001 to Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as Amended.

Yes: Canup, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Piccinini announced there were two (2) items on the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the consent agenda as amended.

Yes: Canup, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

The proposed rezoning of 45.616 acres in Section 14, located south of Twelve Mile Road and west of Meadowbrook Road. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation from Office Service Technology (OST) to High Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-2) or any other appropriate district. The applicant is also requesting a Master Plan amendment from Office to Multiple Family Residential (20.7 dwelling units per acre).

Chairperson Piccinini announced that the Master Plan Amendment from OST to RM-2 would be addressed first and the zoning request would follow.

Joe Galvin spoke on behalf of Singh Development Company outlining the property on an aerial photograph. He requested a Master Plan Amendment from Office Service Technology (OST) to High Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-2). He described the parcel as irregularly shaped, currently Master Planned office and zoned OST. Singh requested the Master Plan Amendment to allow multiple-residential use of the parcel. He referred to the OST Study, which indicated why the parcel was Master Planned for office. He stated the proposed parcel was part of Study Area 2. He asked the commission to note that when the Planning Commission adopted the Master Plan, with respect to the property, it was done in the aggregate with other properties in Study Area 2. Therefore, he felt the analysis was not parcel specific. He noted two of the findings he felt were significant. 1) Environmental factors, which certain parts of the site were filled and required special soil analysis for construction purposes. 2) That possible zoning for higher density housing (cluster, apartments) adjacent to the lake is possible. The Enclave and Waltonwood properties are zoned RM-1 PD-1. He stated three (3) reasons why the Planning Commission should change the Master Plan with respect to the parcel. 1) For Planning Considerations – is the use, which is proposed for the amendment consistent with neighboring land uses and zoning in the vicinity. He felt if the Planning Commission granted the amendment, they would be completing a circle of multiple residential planning around Crescent Lake. 2) Physical – is the use which is proposed for the land appropriate. He described the physical characteristics of the property. He stated wetland locations make an OST development difficult on the proposed parcel when reviewing the topography of the area with the soil conditions that were referenced in the OST Study. He stated the commission was aware that the northerly portion of the site was fill from the construction of the mall. He note a number of unstable soils, (darker areas on the map), that were inappropriate for the heavier construction materials, required roads and the office development. He felt the parcel was more suitable for the use suggested in the OST Study, multiple residential use. He indicated the woodlands are divided into two major divisions - northerly portion and the southerly portion. He stated that a Brooks Williamson’s Historically Study showed that the northerly portion was of a lesser quality than the southerly portion. He felt from a planning perspective and physical perspective, the severe environmental features determined that the land would be more appropriately used as a multiple use verses an office use. 3) The economic viability of any use on the parcel. He felt that the ability to construct high tech office uses on the property was severely limited. He stated that market studies indicate that if land is not uniquely suited for office uses, then it should not be Master Planned or zoned for it at the present time. He felt from an economic perspective, the three (3) principle components of a decision to change the Master Plan have been met. He indicated the OST Study acknowledge this from planning perspective with the surrounding land uses and surrounding zoning showing multiple to be more appropriate than an office development. He continued that physically, the property location principally setback from Meadowbrook and the drop off behind, indicated the land is not suited to hold the buildings, parking lots and road systems appropriate to the use. Mr. Galvin stated there was a lack of visibility, market ability and physical characteristics of the property indicated a multiple use. He noted there would be additional comments that he would like to share with the commission when the zoning is discussed.

Kathy Wyrosdick, Planning and Traffic Consultant noted that specific recommendations were not given in the review of the Master Plan Amendment. She stated they instead provide the commission with the information and analysis of the proposal to allow the commission to make an informed decision on what they feel is justifiable for the future land use. She felt the applicant well described the parcel, its natural features and the limitations of the site. She noted the property is currently recommended on the Master Plan for office use; RM-1 with a PD-1 located west of the property, which is developed as the Enclave; PD-1 north of the property is the developed Waltonwood; RC to the west, which is the developed Twelve Oaks Mall; and east, north and south is currently Master Planned for office. She indicated a small portion of the parcel is current zoned RM-1, which may have been in anticipation for expansion of the Waltonwood development. The remainder of the proposed site is zoned OST. The trend of the existing zoning and the Master Plan is multiple-family surrounding the Crescent Lake to the north and the south. The applicant is proposing an extension to wrap around Crescent Lake, continuing this type of zoning and type of use. Therefore, she felt that the proposed land use would be consistent with the current residential development and the office high tech uses along Meadowbrook Road could be accommodated adjacent to multiple-family uses. Typical site plan issues would exist for screening and buffering with the residential adjacent to an office development. She indicated that the City Code has a number of ordinance standards to protect this type of adjacency. She noted the poor soil and number of wetlands. She agreed that visibility from Meadowbrook Road is more limited than the visibility for office developments along Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road. She explained that because it is not as visible from the roadway, it might have an impact on the commercial type developments such as offices. Ms. Wyrosdick indicated the unique characteristics at the back portion of the site. However, she did not feel this was the case with the "pigtail" parcels along Meadowbrook Road, which would be better left as office. She explained that those would predominantly be used as drives or the possible roadway to connect Meadowbrook Road to the Waltonwood, Twelve Oaks and Twelve Mile Road. She noted other proposed developments: Trane (office tech use) in preliminary and Beechforest in final. She pointed out the vacant parcel with nothing planned and the sliver parcel with the thought that if the two (2) parcels were left as office with the driveways carefully aligned in/out of the Singh Development. The remainder of the office could be used in conjunction with the smaller parcels. This would make them more viable high tech office parcels. She noted this was a portion of the thinking behind leaving those two (2) parcels out of the amendment and only considering the western portion of the property. Therefore, she felt this was appropriate.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick indicated that because there is no site plan at this stage, they consider what could potentially be developed in a RM-2 and the most units that could be developed. There is a determination of the square footage that could be developed under an office zoning. It was found that the potential weekday trip of a RM-2 develop would be similar in the number of trips and impacts if the parcel was developed as OST. Therefore, the trip generation would be comparable. She felt the impact would be similar or less than what is currently Master Planned or zoned. The applicant indicated that they planned to develop with less density than the RM-2 permits. She noted the consideration of the over flow into other parcels. If one parcel is Master Planned, it could significantly impact the development of the surrounding parcels. In her review, she did not find this to be the case. The characteristics stated by the applicant are unique to the proposed parcel and she did not find them to be characteristics of the vacant parcels along the west or East Side of Meadowbrook Road. She did not foresee an impact or reason for a RM-2 expansion into the vacant parcels. The result would be a consistent multiple-family use around Crescent Lake and the OST remaining along the road frontage. She was in agreement of this change and did not feel there would be carry over. Wetlands exist on the subject’s site would impact the development, which would be addressed as a site plan issue. A multiple-family development would have less of an impact on the land than office development. Multiple-family would not require heavy paving for loading areas, the buildings could be lighter, would not require as many parking spaces per square foot and there would not be large truck traffic on the site. Woodlands would also be addressed with a site plan review. She noted the impacts to be similar to those of the wetlands.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated a housing/density perspective was not included in the Master Plan because it was not planned for Multiple-family. The applicant indicated they planned to construct two hundred fifty (250) units, this could increase to the City’s number of multiple-family dwelling units by 2.4% overall. The Waltonwood and Enclave developments have three hundred twenty (320), which would total with the two hundred fifty (250) to approximately five hundred and seventy (570) dwelling units.

Member Canup announced there were three (3) correspondences.

Joseph Marcucci, 27487 Meadowbrook Road, wrote "I, would like to voice my objection to the change to the proposed plan to change the zoning on Meadowbrook Road from the current Master Plan zoning to Multiple-family residential."

Mary Louise Taylor, 27551 Meadowbrook Road and Marjorie E. F’Geppert, 27563, wrote "The two of us are owners of two abutting parcels of land lying North and adjacent to a portion of the land being requested to be rezoned form OST to Multiple Residential. At this time, we must register an objection to the rezoning for the following reasons: 1) We believe that it is required that owners and occupants, within 500 feet, to receive written advance notice of such request and the date of hearing. We did not receive any such written notice and only because someone delivered to us a copy of the newspaper notice that we became aware of this hearing. 2) In particular, we do not agree that the frontage parcels on Meadowbrook Road should be rezoned form OST to Multiple Family Residential. Also, if the area abutting our property is used for roadway purposes, no matter the zoning, the abutting parcels should, for traffic control reasons, be able to have access drives connected to the future road. 3) Of extreme importance is the effect that rezoning to a residential classification will have on the remaining OST future tax base properties. The more stringent requirements relative to setback screening and other requirements, not now present with the abutting property, will discourage sale and use of the Meadowbrook frontage OST zoned properties. 4) We are also most concerned, that a transaction into which we have entered with a builder/developer will be jeopardized or delayed, which will be a great imposition to us, if the rezoning is granted. Thank you for your consideration."

Member Canup noted that Ms. F’Geppert and Ms. Taylor are located nineteen hundred (1900) feet from the requested zoned property. The City notifies residents within five hundred (500) feet, therefore being the reasoning for the lack of notification.

Fried & Bugbee, P.C., 42400 Grand River Avenue Suite 100, representing Beechforest Park, LLC, wrote "Dear Members of the City of Novi Planning Commission, This firm represents Beechforest Park, LLC ("Beechforest") and Beechlake, LLC ("Beechlake"). We have been requested by both of those entities to object in writing to the proposed Zoning Map Amendment No. 18.605. Beechforest is the owner of approximately thirteen (13) acres of real estate consisting of three (3) parcels of real estate depicted on the map shown on the subject public hearing notice as parcels 50-22-200-015, 50-22-200-004 and 50-22-200-011. Beechforest’s real estate fronts on Meadowbrook Road. Beechlake is the owner of approximately five (5) acres of real estate consisting of a single parcel of real estate depicted on the map shown on the subject public hearing notice as parcel 50-22-401-010. Both entities’ real estate is adjacent to the southeasterly portion of the real estate that is requested to be rezoned by proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.605. Beechforest has, following submittal of a site plan and subsequent revised site plans, received preliminary site plan approval for a four story, approximately 150,000 square foot, office building on nine (9) acres of its real estate, adjacent to the property that is the subject of the rezoning request. Approval of proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.605 would jeopardize Beechforest‘s approved development. The effect of the proposed zoning map amendment upon Beechforest’s development includes the following: A) The proposed zoning map amendment, if granted, would cause Beechforest’s site to be adjacent to a residential zoning district. The effect of which could be to limit Beechforest’s site development to a maximum height of three (3) stories, instead of the four (4) story height that has been approved under it’s preliminary site plan and permitted because of the current OST zoning of the property that is the subject of the residential rezoning request. B) The proposed zoning map amendment, if granted, would cause Beechforest’s site to be subject to more stringent screening requirements because the site would then be adjacent to a residential zoning district instead of being adjacent to OST zoned property. C) Beechforest has expended a considerable amount of time, effort and money to develop a site plan and gain preliminary site plan approval of a preliminary site plan that is in accord with the current zoning that not only benefits Beechforest, but is in accord with the Master Plan. To, at this stage, make a zoning change of the property adjacent to Beechforest’s site from a OST Zoning District to a Residential Use is unfair to Beechforest. If this rezoning request is granted, Beechlake’s real estate and the remaining real estate of Beechforest not currently part of the office development will suffer from similar adverse affects. Further, if this rezoning request is granted, it will not only have an adverse effect on Beechforest’s and Beechlake’s property, but nearly all other property that is zoned OST located on the west side of Meadowbrook Road between I-96 and 12 Mile Road. There may very well be other problems that affect the OST zoning district if this rezoning is granted. Beechforest has gone through the site plan process for its site in good faith. It only asks the same in return. For the reasons set forth above, Beechforest and Beechlake respectfully object to and requests that the City of Novi Planning Commission not recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment 18.605. Finally, it is my understanding that Mr. Ted Minasian, Managing Member of Beechforest and Beechlake, will be present at the hearing on this matter on June 6, 2001 to object to the proposed zoning change."

Chairperson Piccinini informed the Commission that the discussion would be for the Master Plan and there would be a separate discussion for the zoning.

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

Peter Hoadley, 31084 Arlington Circle, noted that he previously served on the Planning Commission. He recalled spending over a thousand hours of time in the five (5) years to develop the Master Plan. Meetings with developers and citizens, surveys and many public hearings resulted in the plan today. He felt they did a good job. He stated it was a lot of work to have the OST Ordinance passed, which he felt has already attracted nice development to the community. He stated the OST developments are high end uses, develop a lot of taxes and little infrastructure to the City. He did not feel that the apartment dwellings brought a lot of revenue into the City in terms of density of people. He felt they were the lowest use in terms of tax generation. He stated the apartment developments generally bring in the most problems in terms of traffic. He commended Mr. Galvin’s presentation. However, he felt the cons would be the increased density and a non-conforming use. He stated the OST zoning has minimal employees per square foot because they are research offices. He did not recall the current OST zonings bringing a large infusion of traffic or additional employees. He stated these development have workers that relocate into high-class subdivisions verses apartments. He felt the commission should consider the amount of time and effort put into the Master Plan by the previous planning commissioners. He urged the commission to reject the request of rezoning and he encouraged them to follow the Master Plan as developed. He felt that OST development enjoyed having the wetlands and woodlands as amenities and the future four (4) lane divided highway to give the exposure on the limited access road.

Louis Bugbee, 42400 Grand River Avenue, spoke on behalf of Beechforest and Beechlake LLC. He recalled the property being Master Planned since 1993 for office use. He suspected that it was Master Planned as office for a good reason and did not feel that it should be changed for a single developer. He understood that the Master Plan is subject to change, however, he stated the conclusion of the years of studies determined the land to be office use. He stated that he knows Mary Louise Taylor and he recalls her property being contiguous to the parcel identified on the zoning proposed map 200-009. He was not certain where it was measured from, but he noted her property within feet of the proposed. He added that her sister is the parcel north of Mary Louise Taylor.

Ted Minasian, did not find the logic of the zoning change. He noted the development by Bird and Kachman on the East Side of Meadowbrook Road, having similar issues with the wetlands and woodlands. However, they have developed a master site plan with five (5) office high tech buildings. He believed the proposed property could be developed as OST. He did not feel the exposure on Meadowbrook Road differed much from the Bird and Kachman site or Haggerty Corridor Park. He felt the property could be developed as OST although the density would not be there based upon the woodlands and wetlands. He urged that the property remain zoned as OST.

Debbie Bundoff, Novi and Twelve Mile Road, stated that there would be a potential liability for the OST district abutting residential. She stated the parcels would have different screening and different setback problems if adjacent to one another. Although the site is not visible from Meadowbrook Road, she noted that it is highly visible from the expressway and Twelve Mile Road. She questioned the density of the area with Waltonwood and Enclave included the expansion of Waltonwood. She questioned why the applicant needed RM-2 zoning verses a RM-1. She asked what the different setback requirements would be for RM-1 verses RM-2. She stated that she resides adjacent to a multiple residential project, which used office as their entrance. She noted in calculating the density, the property would be used as their density and would be completely used to make the density. She feared that in the future the density would be overlapped with the use of office. Therefore, she stated the Commission would be giving them the opportunity to "double-dip" on the office property. She stated this would be technically over building a site that was already planned. She felt in that case, the commission would be overstepping what the land and area could accommodate in traffic. She agreed that the OST zoning has brought beautiful projects to the Novi community.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter of the Master Plan Amendment. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing for the Master Plan Amendment and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Mutch recalled reviewing the proposed at the Master Planning and Zoning Committee to discuss a number of the issues brought forward by the applicant and the residents. He felt that there were environmental issues on portions of the site with the topography, wetlands and woodlands. He felt these issues could potentially impede an OST development, where as a residential development could provide better protection for the resources. In contrast adjacency issues exist with potential and approved OST projects. He felt the residential development in the area, with the existing development along Crescent Lake, had merit. He felt if there was to be high-density, multi-family development in the City, it would be appropriate for this area. However, he did not feel some of the other approved area of high-density, multi-family and multi-story developments were appropriate. He stated prior to approving a Master Plan Amendment for the site, he preferred the Master Plan Amendment to include limitations: 1) the provision of the connector road to be "called out"; 2) the protection of the woodlands, on the southern portion of the site, (historical since at least 1940); 3) a limitation on the total density on the site be consistent with the RM-1 zoning district. He stated with these limitations, he could support a Master Plan Amendment. He would then be open to further comment on how to handle the "pig-tail" properties along Meadowbrook Road. He felt these properties raised issues of adjacency and comprehensive development. He believed to ensure the best possible development in that area, with the remainder of the properties, (the portions extending south of Crescent Lake and portions fronting on Crescent Lake) the proposed with his three (3) suggested limitations would be appropriate for a Master Plan Amendment.

Member Nagy questioned the relevance of Mary Louise Taylor issued raised by Mr. Bugbee.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Brock who was notified in the area.

Member Churella stated the letter submitted from Mary Louise Taylor and Marjorie E. F’Geppert appeared to indicate that they abut the "pig-tail" properties on the north side.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the width of the parcels.

Ms. Brock stated that it did not appear to be measured properly.

Member Canup questioned how many additional residents were not notified.

Member Nagy questioned the proceedings if there was not proper notification.

Member Canup stated that they could not proceed.

Member Nagy asked Ms. Brock to clarify if there was proper notification.

Ms. Brock indicated on the map the area from which the notifications appeared to be measured from.

Chairperson Piccinini asked how Ms. Brock was determining this.

Ms. Brock stated her comment was an estimate.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if she could obtain the information now.

Ms. Brock stated that she was not able to pull new information from the system now.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that the residents were stating to be #16 and #17 on the map, which are located north of the "pig-tail". She added that one of the properties abuts the "pig-tail".

Member Canup clarified if the "pig-tail" was requested in the zoning.

Chairperson Piccinini answered correct.

Member Canup continued that any resident located five hundred (500) feet from the "pig-tail" should have received notification. He added that this would have included residents on the north side of Twelve Mile Road. He did not feel it was appropriate to proceed with the hearing under the presented circumstances.

Chairperson Piccinini referred to the City Attorney for comment.

Gerald Fisher stated the statute has a notice requirement that has not been met. He indicated the awareness of one resident that was not notified that presumably should have been notified. He stated the lack of knowledge of those that were not notified. Under the circumstances, he stated the Planning Commission could be proceeding in a manner that could be defective.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.605 to table until proper notification is given to the residents in the area.

Ms. Brock expressed her concern while comparing the notification map produced and the legal description.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the notification requirement.

Ms. Brock answered, fifteen (15) days. She indicated that it would be printed in the next newspaper.

Member Canup asked if it was properly advertised in the Novi News.

Ms. Brock stated that it was correctly advertised in the Novi News. She stated the concern was if the surrounding property owners were properly notified.

Member Canup asked if this information could be checked immediately on a ten (10) minutes break. He did not feel it was fair for those that have come to the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that there is a motion on the table. She asked Mr. Fisher if a recess could be taken with a motion on the floor.

Mr. Fisher stated a motion to table would be needed.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified it would superceded the other motion.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To Table the meeting for 15 minutes.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

(break)

Chairperson Piccinini announced that it appeared they could proceed with the Master Plan. However, due to the improper notification, the zoning would be tabled until a later date. She noted that Dave Evancoe could further explain.

Gerald Fisher notified the commission that a motion needed to be made to take the matter off of the table.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To remove the matter from the table.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Dave Evancoe explained that only a newspaper notification is required for the Master Plan Amendment and therefore there was proper notification. He stated if the Commission could proceed if they chose. In regard to the zoning, two (2) tax identification numbers apply to the property. One (1) was notified within five hundred (500) feet and one (1) was not notified. Therefore, he stated that it appeared that a number of properties were not notified. He stated for this reason, the zoning matter could not proceed.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher regarding the development agreement mentioned in the letters. She asked if this should be addressed in the Master Plan or only the zoning.

Gerald Fisher stated that generally speaking he recommended it be restricted to the zoning.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that it would not be necessary to discuss it.

Gerald Fisher stated that if the commission chose to only go forward with the Master Plan Amendment based upon a certain assumption as far as development, then he advised also discussing it as far as the Master Plan is concerned.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the applicant regarding the question of the two (2) "pig-tail" properties remaining OST. She asked if there was an objection, discussion or any feelings to discuss related to how this would or would not work for the property.

Joe Galvin stated after discussions with Singh Development he felt it would be okay for the south "pig-tail" property to remain OST. However, he stated they needed the north "pig-tail" Master Planned as multiple with the remainder of the parcel. He stated it is a necessary element of the development as it would be the entryway into the development. He requested permission from the Chair to speak to the notice issue as permitted during the meeting.

Member Nagy clarified if the three (3) homes, (red square on the rendering), were purchased.

Joe Galvin stated designated on the consultant map the first "pig-tail" of the home. He understood that a portion of the Trane Site Plan to the north is not and the north of the south "pig-tail" is under independent ownership. Therefore, from a perspective of assembly, he designated a piece that could be theoretically assembled. He restated that the north piece is essential. He stated that he is attempting to stay to the Master Plan issues.

Member Nagy stated her strong objections to a Master Plan Amendment in this regard. She explained that Mr. Fisher sent a letter to the City Council and the Planning Commission. She quoted from the letter "In deed under Michigan Case Law if the Master Plan is ignored, the City faces the risk of losing the presumption of Zoning Ordinance validity otherwise courted." She did not feel the Master Plan should be amended with respect to Mr. Fisher’s letter. She stated an apartment dwelling is inappropriate with OST around it. Although the back portion of the property faces portions of the RM-1, however the entrance is along Meadowbrook Road, which is OST. She felt if the Master Plan was changed for this situation, they would be changing it constantly. She did not feel it was appropriate to rezone from OST. She explained that the proposed multi-family would have a higher density (over the density at least 2.4%), more use of police and fire, less tax space, people attending school, traffic and increased water/sewer. She felt these reasons, in addition to the current OST zoning, indicated that the Master Plan should not be amended. She encouraged the Planning Commission to follow the City Attorney’s advice.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan: In the matter of Master Plan Amendment 18.605 from Office Service Technology (OST) to High Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-2) be denied because it is not in accordance with the Master Plan, which is at this time zoned OST.

Member Mutch noted that the Master Plan does not speak to any zoning, therefore it would be improper to state that it is zoned OST. Instead he suggested that the motion state that an office designation.

Member Nagy amended her motion.

Member Kocan accepted the amendment.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (5-3): In the matter of Master Plan Amendment 18.605 from Office Service Technology (OST) to High Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-2) be denied because it is not in accordance with the Master Plan, which is at this time is office designation.

Member Canup thanked Mr. Hoadley for his presentation and he agreed with his comments. Member Canup felt that those who have purchased property made a considerable investment with the knowledge that they were abutting OST property. He felt a Master Plan amendment would be unfair to them. He agreed with the point that they would be restricted to a three-story building verses a four-story as they may have intended when they purchased the property. He noted in due diligence the possible developments of an OST zoned property with a Master Plan two (2) years old would have been determined. Therefore, he would support the motion.

Member Landry concurred with Member Canup. He stated his support of the motion. He felt maintaining the integrity of the Master Plan is paramount. He stated his concern of the effect on the surrounding property owners. He noted an argument could be made that a change in the Master Plan, and ultimately the zoning, would create an area surrounding the lake. He indicated the two (2) PD-1 properties are virtually islands in a sea of for alternate uses, which he did not find the need to expand.

Member Mutch was surprised to hear objectionable comments regarding a limited multi-family development in the area of the City with the most intense development. In contrast the same commission decided to not uphold the Master Plan with a fifteen hundred (1500) unit development in an area in which people purchased property and developed their homes based on the Master Plan and zoning. The Court indicated the zoning and the Master Plan should stay consistent. He stated this is the purpose of the Master Plan Amendment; recognize the changes in condition as the commission did previously when they allowed the fifteen hundred (1500) unit development and the wisdom of the majority of the commission. He stated because the Master Plan and zoning would be in accordance he felt there would not be legal issues raised. He noted RM-1 and PD-1 abut portions of the property at the north and the south with undeveloped portions. He felt this would bring adjacency issues regardless of the direction the commission went. Member Mutch noted the woodlands were not protected in their entirety through the OST planning process in the Magna and the Novaplex project. He reminded the commission that there is no reason, other than good will, for the OST developer to preserve the woodlands. He felt there was an alternative use, consistent with the development of the area, which would protect the environmental resources in the area. Therefore, he stated to deny the Master Plan Amendment would not be appropriate.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch. He stated he would not support the motion. Originally the entire site was an outlot for the Twelve Oaks Mall under the ownership of Taubman. He noted that Singh Development acquired the site with the understanding of the natural features on the site. Singh developed Waltonwood and he believed that they might have envisioned the continuation around. The frontage along Meadowbrook Road is developing as OST and he believed the idea of the Master Plan was that one would acquire as much of the property as possible and develop similar to Twelve Mile Road and Haggerty Road. However, this did not occur and instead OST buyers purchased the property fronting Meadowbrook Road and he was not aware of any one approaching Singh or Taubman to purchase the site to the back. He agreed that the many natural features of the site would not be protected in an OST development. Therefore, he felt it was important to take in to consideration these natural features when considering a rezoning. Member Mutch stated that he was not in support of rezoning the two "pig-tails" fronting Meadowbrook Road. He felt they would better served as OST. He stated he would support a rezoning of the parcel to the rear and changing the Master Plan. He noted the topography of the site "drops off" to the rear and he did not feel that the site would be acquired and developed as OST. Member Koneda stated his concern regarding the impact on the Beechforest property. He felt that because Beechforest is in final, they could be considered an existing condition permitted to build at four-stories. Future developments would be limited at three-stories. He asked if this was correct.

Chairperson Piccinini answered yes.

Member Koneda recalled the rezoning issue Member Mutch referred to. He stated his reason for support on that issue was due to the fact that the multiple development for senior housing would preserve more of the natural features on the site than any other possible zoning, especially single-family residential. He stated he feels as strongly in this situation. He indicated that there are natural features that need protection. He felt that a rezoning to RM-1 would be the best way to protect the site and therefore, would not support the motion.

Member Nagy compared the natural features of the proposed site with other items approved by the Planning Commission. She stated the Planning Commission approved a development that would remove over three thousand (3000) trees. She did not feel the topography should be an issue because the developers could amend the soil to allow them to build. She gave the example of Jaguar. She questioned the City Attorney if the site or the conditions of the soil it should be the burden of the Planning Commission.

Gerald Fisher stated that although it was not the burden of the commission, it would be reasonable to take into consideration during the overall process.

Member Nagy stated that other developers have amended the soil and therefore she felt the proposed site could be developed as OST in a creative manner. In addition, she felt they could maintain the natural features of the site.

Member Kocan stated her support of the motion was due to the OST being a recent zoning in the Ordinance. She did not feel there was enough time to determine if it could not be developed as OST. She noted the paperwork included words such as difficult, challenging and remoteness. She did not find the description of impossible. She stated that she is unwilling to add additional density to the area at this time or create a burden for additional developers in the proposed area.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she was on the Master Plan Committee that reviewed the area, topography, wetlands and the natural features of the land extensively. She agreed that residential would be a better use for the area. She recalled discussion of a limit up to 250 units. She commented that there are a lot of imported poor soils into the site and felt that economics are considered in a review. Therefore, she found it reasonable to discuss these issues. She expressed her disappointment because she did not feel the site would develop as OST due to the difficulty of the site. She felt the site to the south would not have been burdened because it is in its final stages. She felt it was unfortunate that site plan related issues dealing with a connecting road from the mall access and other City-desired issues did not have the opportunity to be discussed. She urged the Commission to reconsider. She stated that she would not vote in support of the motion.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Landry, Nagy, Richards

No: Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini

Chairperson Piccinini stated that the Zoning Map Amendment did not have proper notification.

Mr. Evancoe suggested asking the petitioner if they wanted to pursue the rezoning request due to the recent action.

Joe Galvin answered, yes.

Chairperson Piccinini stated a motion would be required to table the matter until the first meeting in July until proper notification.

Member Kocan asked if there would need to be a newspaper notification and residential notification.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the newspaper would need to be revised to reflect the new date. Therefore, both would need to be re-notified.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the Matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.605 to table until the first Planning Commission meeting in July to allow proper notification

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

The proposed rezoning of 40 acres in Section 20, located south of 11 Mile and west of Beck Road. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation from Residential Acreage (RA) to One Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate district.

Terry Sever requested a rezoning in accordance with the Master Plan. He asked the Commission to notice the condition of the wetlands on the site in photographs presented from 1996 and 1987. He presented an enlargement of the wetland from both 1998 and 1987. He did not feel that it had an impact on the zoning today, however there was a substantial increase in wetland from prior development. He noted that the 1987 photograph indicated a small amount of development. He indicated that the owner of the property feels the development of the area has caused additional discharge onto the property effecting the wetland area. He felt this was significant with respect to density. He continued that if property had come before the commission in 1987 for development, then the density calculations would have been done in a substantially less wetland area. He estimated the calculations to be at the 1.65 allowable density up to forty (40) or forty-five (45) lots. Mr. Sever noted that the property owner would like to sell the property, however he would like it to be rezoned to meet the Master Plan of the community.

Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval of the rezoning request in the review letter date April 13, 2001. She indicated the background of the property and some of the possible impacts on adjacent area. She pointed out the subject’s site on Beck Road. She noted the developments to the East of the property; two (2) parcels that make up the "Bosco Farm property"; Greenwood subdivision (zoned R-1) located to the south; Bosco property currently vacant with a single-family home, barn feature and some minor development for single-family development; Pioneer Meadows and single family development to the East; and the remaining predominantly vacant areas to west and northwest. Current zoning of the area: East is R-A and developed for a higher density due to it being a previous subdivision prior to the zoning; R-1 zoning cluster condominium development; R-A zoning; and to the North and West is zoned R-A. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends a 1.65 dwelling units per acre to the North, South, East and West of the property. She stated this is equivalent to the requested rezoning of 1.65 d/u per acre. Currently the R-A is at a density of 0.8 d/u per acre. Ms. Wyrosdick explained the history of the past Master Plans. She designated the subject’s property on the original Master Plan with 1.65 d/u stopping at Meadowbrook Road to the south of the property and the remainder R-A with 0.8 d/u per acre. In 1999 an amendment extended the 1.65 d/u per acre to encompass the higher density type uses to the East, (Timber Meadows and Beck House Congregate Care), leaving the remaining at a lower density residential R-A. She designated the stopping point at the easement line. She noted the land uses permitted in the R-A zoning are similar to those of the requested R-1 zoning with the difference being the density and the lot size (0.8 d/u per acre verses 1.65 d/u per acre). She noted the applicant’s indication that the rezoning would be to allow for a higher density residential development in conformance with the Master Plan. She agreed that the request is in conformance with the Master Plan Recommendations for Land Use, is compatible with the surrounding uses to the East and the West is predominantly vacant to be developed in the future. Ms. Wyrosdick noted the conceptual plan is irrelevant to the requested rezoning and would be an issue during the site plan or subdivision platting process. She referred to the review letter dated April 13, 2001 – Impact on Public Utilities/Services – The parcel is not currently served by sewer. The applicant is negotiating with the City to have sewer extended for the development of this parcel. It appears that the property would be served with a 16" watermain running along Beck Road. She explained that the City is extending the sewer but not to the applicant’s property. Therefore, it would be the applicant’s responsibility or the developer of the property to extend the sewer to the property at the time of development. She noted the light woodlands located on the site to be considered at the time of platting or site plan review.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval in the review letter dated May 30, 2001 based on the fact that it is consistent with the land use and the Master Plan recommendations. She estimated the impact from the existing R-A to the proposed R-1 could develop approximately thirteen (13) dwelling units with the wetland taking a lot of the developable area out of the site. Trip generation would be approximately 160 trips per day, 19 during the AM Peak hour and 17 PM Peak hour. Compared to the proposed R-1, she estimated approximately thirty-three (33) units that could be developed. Thirty-three (33) units would generate approximately 375 trips per day, 33 during the AM Peak hour and 40 PM Peak hour. Access and circulation to the site are platting or site plan issues. She added that they would need to provide a secondary access or emergency access when the site is developed. Cul-de-sac length standards should be upheld. She clarified to the Planning Commission and the applicant that a rezoning of the property does not give any type of approval of the conceptual site plan they submitted.

Member Canup announced that he received a letters from:

Alice Hahn, 25711 Strath Haven, wrote "I object to zoning to rezone property located south of Eleven Mile Road and West of Beck Road. Any rezoning other than residential will increase traffic and interfere with residential family life."

Paulette Shaffer, 24507 Nantucket, wrote "Too much traffic. Roads do not accommodate traffic and loss of natural wildlife."

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

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

Member Canup noted that he has lived by the proposed property for almost thirty (30) years. He estimated the site to be at least two–thirds (2/3) wetlands under the proposed R-1 zoning. He questioned approximately how many lots could be placed on the site if hypothetically thirty (30) of the 40-acres was wetland.

Ms. Wyrosdick estimated approximately thirty-three (33) lots/units. She noted some of the preservation options available would not increase the density but may be able to obtain the density permitted under the R-1. They would not be able to increase the density with the preservation option or development of that type. She estimated a conventional subdivision would also yield thirty-three (33) lots.

Member Canup clarified that this would be approximately three (3) to the acre if there were 10-acres usable.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated her estimate was based on approximately half. In the assumption of 10-acres she estimated approximately 17 lots/units at the 1.65 d/u per acre.

Member Canup clarified that this figure would represent all opportunities that could be taken advantage of.

Mr. Evancoe noted the minimum lot size being a half-acre. He stated the figure would need to include the removal of the streets.

Ms. Wyrosdick estimated at the 1.65 density with 10-acres, approximately sixteen (16) or seventeen (17) lots. She added the half-acre could be modified under the preservation option or a cluster option. However, they could not go above the density that is permitted under a conventional development of the hypothetical developments of 16.5 or 17 with the assumed 10-acres of net.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that the wetlands would net out.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered; correct it is taken out of the equation. She explained the amount that is left over is what the density is based on.

Member Canup noted that he did not have an issue with the density being 1.65 per acre. He explained that the nature of his question was to ensure that there would be no opportunity to lessen and take advantage of the wetlands or a cluster option, etc…

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the only way to increase density under the current zoning ordinance would be with a density bonus for preserving natural features through a RUD development. However, she indicated that the proposed site did not qualify because it is under the acreage to qualify for a RUD.

Mr. Sever requested to comment.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that he would need to wait to be permitted to comment.

Member Canup stated that he wanted to ensure there would be no surprises similar to Best Buy along the expressway. Member Canup entertained discussion for Mr. Sever to comment.

Mr. Sever stated that the wetland study has indicated the property to have 18-20 acres of wetland. He noted that this would have to be verified through the proper process. He did not want the public to be misinformed that there would be 16-18 lots. He felt that thirty (30) would be a more appropriate estimate with the water table and other issues involved. He anticipated a cluster fashion with the existing density similar to Abbey Street located off of Eleven Mile Road. He stated the applicant is only requesting a rezoning and would be adhere to the ordinances.

Member Mutch stated that the cluster option did not reference that site area. It states wetlands; woodlands used to qualify…overall permitted unit densing within an unsubdivided parcel shall not exceed the following dwelling unit densities by district. He did not find this limitation in terms of net site area under the cluster option. He questioned if this was "spelled out".

Ms. Wyrosdick stated she would need to look into this to know if it is explicitly "spelled out". However, she did not recall an instant in the past, which did not include net site area. She noted that density typically is determined on net site area as outlined in the schedule of regulations. She noted this has likewise been the interpreted the cluster option. She did not recall permitted density to be above net site area with the exception of an RUD.

Member Mutch clarified that although the site itself did not qualify for the RUD, it could be incorporate into surrounding properties as an RUD proposal.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Member Mutch indicated that the School District purchased most of the Bosco property. He informed voters to be aware when they vote on Monday that it has already been purchased. He noted that most of the Bosco property would be developed for school use. He asked if there were planning issues that the Commission should be aware in terms of the Master Plan and the development of that property for school uses verses adjoining residential.

Ms. Wyrosdick clarified if he was asking if the school use might encroach into the property.

Member Mutch clarified further that he was concerned with the potential impacts.

Ms. Wyrosdick noted that with a change in use that is unforeseeable, such as a school, regardless of site plan issue is a matter that the City has little control over. She felt that it would be appropriate how this would impact the Master Plan. She stated that she could not determine that in the Master Plan and Amendments to the Master Plan in a ten-minute discussion. She agreed that Member Mutch had a valid point. Ms. Wyrosdick stated in purchasing the property and constructing a site could have an impact on the development of that area. She did not feel that the impact would include no residential adjacent because she schools and residential are good adjacent uses. However, she suggested that the issue be reviewed by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Member Mutch asked if the property owner currently had a buyer looking at the property.

Mr. Sever answered, yes. He continued that there was an agreement and the due diligence period will run out in August.

Member Mutch asked what the plans would be in terms of the provision of sewer service to that area.

Mr. Sever stated the developer is aware that they will be required to extend the sewer at their cost. He thought there might be an easement agreement with the schools. He felt the extended sewer would benefit the subdivision to the south and the subdivision to the east, which are on half-acre lots with septic. He felt the R-1 would help in the future if the property were back on the market, the R-1 would help protect the zoning with regard to the Bosco property.

Ms. Wyrosdick clarified the question of the density in the cluster. It states in the cluster development, the density shall be in accordance with the definition of density contained in Section 201 (referring back to definitions) and lists the dwelling per acre. She noted that the definition speak to the net site area.

Member Kocan recalled Mr. Bosco’s requests for rezoning from R-A to R-1 on numerous occasions. She questioned if there was a lawsuit against the City and the City won.

Mr. Sever recalled Mr. Bosco requesting R-3.

Member Kocan questioned what factors that the Master Planning Committee took into consideration after the numerous requests. She stated that historical information on the situation would be helpful.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she was on the Master Plan Committee during that time. She also recalled Mr. Bosco requesting R-3. She stated the change from R-A to R-1 was due the change in the definition of the net number. She noted that in the previous Master Plan, the wetland number counted. Therefore, the numbers of the sections overall (not individual parcels) were similar in count, which R-A equals what the R-1 did in many of the area due to the wetland and environmental issues.

Member Mutch noted the City Council’s approval of the higher density apartments located on Beck Road and north of Eleven Mile Road. He stated the entire area was R-A and the domino effect of bringing it to R-1. He recalled Mr. Bosco’s legal issue starting several years prior to these factors.

Member Koneda reminded the Commission that the issue is not what the potential developer would do with the site. Instead, he stated the issue was if the Commission would be in support to bring the site in conformance with the Master Plan. He did not find any reason to not bring the site into conformance with the Master Plan. He stated there was no indication of a mistake in the Master Planning to rezone to R-1.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.608 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the parcel from R-A to R-1.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if Member Koneda would amend his motion to include the reason being that it is compatible with surrounding land uses and in compliance with the Master Plan. She asked if Mr. Fisher he agreed.

Member Koneda agreed.

Member Richards also accepted the amendment.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.608 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the parcel from R-A to R-1 because it is compatible with the surrounding land uses and in compliance with the Master Plan.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Mutch explained that he did not think it would impact the adjoining density. He felt it was relevant in the Planning Commission decision making process to be cognizant of City-owned properties and other governmental entities because it impacts in the design and requirements of subdivisions. He stated that future property owners and residents should be aware that this is a potential school site because it would impact their purchasing decision. Therefore, he felt the Master Plan should reflect this information.

Member Canup agreed with Member Mutch’s comments. He was not certain of the proper avenue to address the issue. He stated that the school property needed to be depicted.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that currently there is residential depicted. She questioned where the school designation would appear on the Master Plan.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the school property, as a land use designation would appear as a Public Land Use. She agreed that the issue should go before the Master Plan Committee for a land use designation on the Master Plan Map. However, she felt the committee should also review the impact of the school location on the surrounding land uses to find if the impacts would justify an amendment to the surrounding land use.

Member Canup was concerned that future adjacent residents might assume similar houses would be built adjacent to their home due to the Master Planned as R-1.

Ms. Wyrosdick noted that issue of designation of the school site on the Master Plan and the issue of what land use changes might be appropriate could be addressed by the Master Planning and Zoning Committee.

Member Canup noted that with this information, he would second the motion.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe if he concurred to the comments made by Ms. Wyrosdick and if he had any additional comments regarding the discussion.

Mr. Evancoe agreed with Ms. Wyrosdick’s comments. He felt a review of the possible impacts on the surrounding area would be important. He explained further that it is a large change when an area thought to be developed with a residential pattern would instead be developed with an institutional land use.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send to Master Planning and Zoning Committee to study potential impacts on surrounding areas and a notation of the school at the Eleven Mile Road and Beck Road area.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

An Ordinance to add a definition of "Day Care Center" to Section 201 definitions: D – F of Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to add a definition of "Group Day Care Home" to Section 201 definitions: G – K of said Ordinance, to amend subsections 402.4, 902.2, 1102.4 and 1202.5 of said Ordinance, and to add subsection 2302.6 to said Ordinance, to modify the standards for Child Day Care establishments within the City of Novi.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated there was no previous definition of a day care center or a group day care home in the current Zoning Ordinance. She stated this amendment would add these definitions to the ordinance. A Day Care Center would be a larger facility that takes care of children on a daily basis throughout the year. This would exclude Sunday Schools, religious instructional classes, religious or vacation bible schools, a facility operated by a religious organization in which children are not care for more than three (3) hours during a church service. A group day care home is regulated by the State. This would be defined as a private home in which six (6) to twelve (12) children (not including the children that are related to the owner of the home) are being taken care of or supervised for not more than 24-hours per day and on a regular basis. The definition closely mirrors the State Regulations for group day care homes. Day care centers, regardless of size, have been a permitted use subject to special conditions or Special Land Use in Residential Districts. She explained that this could permit a day care center of approximately fifty (50) students could be established in a residential district through the Special Land Use process. She noted these could have also included types of uses such as Kindercare or Children’s World, which she did not feel were supported in the past. They were not found to be appropriate uses in the residential districts. She added a day care center located in residential areas would allow people to drop off children close to where they live. She stated it was complimentary to one being at home, running errands during the time the children are at daycare creating less of an impact. Ms. Wyrosdick indicated the change would be that group day care homes and day care centers would be permitted as Special Land Uses, however the daycare center would be limited to fifty (50) children in the Residential District. She stated the larger day care facilities would be located in office and commercial district. She added the amendment would limit the use to a smaller scale day care facility. She explained how they derived the number "50" for the number of children. She stated average size/square footage per child, with the daycare facilities is approximately 70 square feet per child. She calculated that a fifty (50) child day care center would be approximately 3500 square feet, which is equivalent to the homes built today. She indicated that the remaining amendments shown are intended to "clean up". The removal of the nursery school, day nurseries and child wording portions out of the title such as in the office and commercial districts. A nursery school would be reminiscent of a public school, which is a different Special Land Use.

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

Debbie Bundoff, Novi Twelve Mile Road asked for clarification. She questioned if taking the terminology of "children" out of the ordinance would give the option to group day care homes for adults, such as the handicapped to operate.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, no. She explained that a group day care home is defined as a private home in which six (6) but not more than twelve (12) minor children are given care and supervision. She noted the other amendments referring to the commercial and office districts were defining the term better and not removing it.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that the resident was concerned with group day care homes for adults.

Debbie Bundoff explained that the word nursery gives the idea of children. However, the "group day care home" could refer to any age.

Ms. Wyrosdick noted that it could not be anybody because it is defined as a use that takes care of children.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Landry interpreted the current Section 902.2 (Non-Center Commercial District) as allowing a day care center with adults. He clarified that the language is being replaced with the current definition to restrict it to minor children. Therefore, he asked if this change would remove the special use for an adult day care center. He questioned if this was the intent of the change.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that it appears that it would remove the use because the section speaks to child or adult day care facilities. She deferred to the implementation to speak on the intent of the change because she was not part of the drafting of the change.

Chairperson Piccinini did not recall the discussion and deferred to Member Mutch for comment.

Member Mutch did not recall adult day care being discussed specifically. He believed that the term "adult day care" is separately defined in the ordinance.

Member Kocan stated that it is not.

Member Mutch deferred to Mr. Fisher to address the matter due to it being a separate legal issue and its regulation by State Law. He did recall some discussion regarding adult day care being regulated by State Law. He felt this might be the reason for it not being defined separately in the ordinance, as it is a separate legal issue.

Member Landry wanted to ensure that the Commission exercised caution and was aware of what is being decided. He understood if Mr. Fisher needed time to research the information.

Gerald Fisher stated that a day care center or an adult day care center for six (6) or less is permitted, under State Law, as a single–family residential use. He stated a facility in excess of six (6) is not longer a permitted use and requires another type of approval.

Member Landry clarified that the current ordinance, despite what the ordinance says, would not allow an adult day care facility with more than six (6) adults.

Gerald Fisher answered, correct. He clarified if they were referring to a single-family zone.

Mr. Evancoe stated it is a non-center commercial district.

Gerald Fisher stated if the center is commercial, it would not permit any adult facilities of any size.

Member Landry questioned if that would be the case although it currently states adult day care facilities.

Gerald Fisher stated that prior to the amendment it would.

Member Landry answered, correct. He stressed that this is his point.

Gerald Fisher restated that after the amendment it would not and would be eliminated by the amendment.

Member Kocan stated that she was not in support of pulling the wording out without any type of reasoning. She questioned if children centers would be permitted in a NCC District, then why would adult day care centers were excluded. She wanted to ensure that the intent of the amendment was not to limit to only children.

Member Nagy suggested that the amendment return to the Implementation Committee.

Gerald Fisher stated the six (6) or less authorization in the State Law was developed by the State Legislature approximately at the same time as Congress began moving in the direction that people be de-institutionalized. The idea was to provide a living space for the handicapped in a main stream environment. He stated deleting this would have some consistency with the notion. He stated it is not a residential zone. He noted if the commission recognized that up to six (6) per unit in a residential zone, then the Commission would essentially be encouraging people to occupy residences in a main stream environment rather than a non-center commercial district.

Member Kocan preferred to see the information written out. She felt that adult day care centers would become a trend. Due to the foreseeable market of adult day care centers, she did not feel it should be removed from the ordinance without further clarification.

Chairperson Piccinini commented that the public hearing was closed and there would not be a need for future notification. She asked Beth Brock if the issue could be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda when Mr. Arroyo would be in attendance. She stated the commission could continue to discuss the remaining issues tonight or they could send it back to Implementation Committee.

Member Nagy preferred to review the information in writing.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned which information she would like to see in writing.

Member Nagy deferred to Member Kocan.

Member Kocan stated that she did not want adult day care centers facilitation removed.

Chairperson Piccinini felt that Mr. Arroyo could explain this at this next meeting.

Member Kocan was agreeable to this.

Member Landry felt that the elimination of "adult day care facilities" was not really considered and was done inadvertently. He stated that if it were not considered, he would like to see it considered. He stated his agreement with Member Kocan’s comments and felt the matter should return to the Implementation Committee and studied.

Moved by Landry, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 2000-18.167 to send it back to the Implementation Committee to consider the effect on adult day care facilities in the Non-Center Commercial District (NCC), to define "adult day care center", determine if "not including dormitories" should be struck.

Member Kocan suggested the motion be amended to include having the Implementation Committee take the continuing comments into consideration.

Member Koneda noted that State Law permits an adult day care facility in a Residential District with six (6) or fewer residents.

Gerald Fisher answered, correct.

Member Koneda continued that according to this ordinance, a day care center (minor oriented) of fifty (50) or less in a residential area. (tape ends) He recalled discussion of a closed-head injury facility with a less than fifty (50) people but more than six (6) proposed for a residential area. He stated due to the manual labor that would be done to collect income he recalled it not being found appropriate for a Residential District. He suggested that all of these be covered in the NCC District or another district appropriately.

Member Kocan agreed. She suggested that in addition to the State Definition of "adult day care facility" that the City should define the term to not include closed head injuries if it is strictly a drop off center. She referred to page 3 of the comparison draft "(not including dormitories)". She pointed out that the term "dormitories" is not defined in the ordinance. She noted in Part VI the "(not including dormitories)" is crossed off. She questioned if it should be crossed off in both areas to be consistent. Member Kocan questioned if the Implementation Committee discussed a formula to discuss the maximum size for a day care center in a Residential District. She noted the four (4) residential districts and the idea that placing a 3500 square foot day care center in R-A may not be as proportioned to a R-4.

Member Mutch commented that the Committee reviewed several formulas during their discussion. He stated the ordinance was intended to address this by placing a minimum parcel size and additional requirements on the amount of play area required, the parcel must abut and have access to a major thoroughfare a section line collector road. He stated these criteria would immediately rule out almost every R-4 parcel in the City. A parcel would need to be larger or another subdivision lot at least an acre in size. He stated the provisions for access and half-acre size would limit the group day care. He added the limit on the number of children would keep out the large corporate facilities. He agreed that if the adult day care was to be included in the ordinance, it needed to be defined. He felt part of the "cleaning up" included the removal of the term "adult day care" due to the lack of definition. He recalled the Committee’s focus of discussion primarily being the child day care center. He did not recall the intent of the Committee to address adult day care facilities. He stated the Committee was not directed to address where the State Law applies or does not. He was in support of the motion to include the giving a definition to "adult day care center".

Member Koneda addressed Member Kocan’s comment regarding the dormitories. He stated that it could be completely struck. He felt the hours of operation were defined in the definition of day care center "…care and supervision for periods of less than 24-hours a day".

Gerald Fisher added that adult day care centers under the Federal Fair Housing Act there is an obligation on the part of all communities to make a "reasonable accommodation" to provide for handicapped housing. This would include housing for the elderly. He stated that Case Law had demonstrated the difficulty of dealing with this issue within the framework of current State Law and Local Ordinances. He stated the City of Taylor was "taken to task" in litigation that lasted approximately six (6) years and then went to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals. He stated that he brought this to the attention of the City Council in a pending matter, which Council directed him to prepare an ordinance to address the issue. It has been sent to the Planning Department and Planning Consultants for an initial review and then to the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if this Ordinance would address adult facilities.

Gerald Fisher stated it would apply to any facility or housing for any individuals that are entitled to what is known as a "reasonable accommodation" under the Federal Fair Housing Act.

Member Koneda questioned if this would include the terms of "adult day care".

Gerald Fisher stated it would depend upon what the term means. He stated it includes adult care centers in excess of six (6) residents.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if the commission was discussing an issue that he has already addressed.

Gerald Fisher stated that he has "touched on it". However, it would come before the Planning Commission.

Member Kocan questioned what portion of the Ordinance would permit a day care center larger than fifty (50) children.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, the Non-Center Commercial District (NCC).

Member Kocan questioned if this was the only district.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, no.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated it is permitted in Office Service Commercial District (OSC), Planned Office Service District (OS-2), Office Service District (OS-1) and residential if fifty (50) or less.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

An Ordinance to amend Section 24, Section 2401 and 2402, of the City of Novi Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, relating to open space preservation, in order to clarify the intent of the open space preservation option and to provide greater incentive for use of the option.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated the amendment stems from an implementation recommendation from the Master Plan to encourage preservation of natural features in open space. The current residential options at the City of Novi were reviewed to determine standards that would benefit the developer to use. The amendment would combine the subdivision open space and the cluster option. The elements of the cluster option encourages preservation of open space, natural features, woodlands, wetlands and historic sites. The elements of the subdivision open space lacks the natural features but allows lot size reduction to encourage active recreation such as a park. The combination of the two (2) options would provide active recreation areas in conjunction with the preservation of woodland area to create a wide range of preserved and open space type uses in one development. The cluster option allows the lot sizes to be reduced only if natural features are preserved. The cluster option did not allow a lot reduction with the preservation of green space or a passive active park. The combination of the two (2) options would allow a developer take credit for the creation of a park and the preserve woodlands and wetlands in conjunction. She stated this amendment would benefit the City overall and help achieve the Implementation techniques from the Master Plan. She gave an example of lot reduction. She noted that currently under the R-A District, based upon the percentage of area being preserved (PCP) a 0.75-acre lot could be reduced by fifty percent (50%) to a 21,780 square foot lot. R-3 could be reduced by thirty percent (30%); equivalent to the open space or natural features being preserved. She explained that preservation of a small area would not allow the reduction of all the lots, it is required to be equivalent to the site preservation. R-2 could be reduced by twenty percent (20%). She stated it permits less setbacks with the smaller lots, which would be required with the larger lots under a conventional subdivision. Rear yards could be reduced if abutting a park with the reasoning that the amount of setback would not be needed with the park or open space, which acts as a rear yard. She noted this is for a passive recreation and would not apply to the preservation of woodlands. Density would be permitted equivalent to the density that would be permitted under the typical straight zoning of a conventional type of the development seen of a cluster or open space. The revision would not increase the density. The revision would allow a developer to preserve open space and create nice features on the site and in return be able to reduce lot size. She stated this would better achieve the density otherwise permitted if the natural features were not preserved.

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

Terry Sever emphasized that he is a realtor and not a developer. He was in support of the amendment. He noted that in his experience of reading the Ordinance to find the expectations of the seller of the property. He recalled the cluster option with the thirty percent (30%) reduction, whether detached or attached required space between them. As a result, he found smaller lots of 60’ or 70’ to construct condominiums. However, he felt if the fifty (50) feet between the condominiums could be broken up among the units, the result would be a better development with 70’ or 80’ or 90’ lots. However the amendment would permit a thirty percent (30%) reduction as opposed to the previous ten percent (10%). He felt this would allow a better distribution of frontage in terms of a better development.

She asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Koneda: In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 01-18.168 to send a positive recommendation to City Council.

Member Richards asked for an explanation of slopes greater than or equal to ten percent (10%) of Part I.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated it would be a matter of topography in which a steep slope becomes unbuildable due to the grading that would be required to build it. She stated leaving the slope in its natural state in a preserved area might provide a nice view of rolling hills, etc… She stated some prefer to view meadows and rolling hills verses mass grading with houses. The steep slope left in its natural state would be included as a natural feature.

Member Richards asked if this would become a problem with water or erosion. He stated this could be a problem for those buying homes in that development.

Victoria Weber clarified if Member Richards’ concern was the areas that would not be disturbed and the drainage in those areas.

Member Richards answered, correct.

Ms. Weber stated that typically a review of the natural features for a residential area includes an evaluation to determine that the drainage will not collect in the back of the lots. She added that it does have to drain off the lots. She stated this would be a provision that would be reviewed in detail on the Engineering Plans. In a large area with natural features to be preserved may have areas outside the residential lots in which water would naturally collect. She explained that this would be part of the natural features of the property. From an engineering perspective, she noted the concern of what is on the lots, if it drains and ensuring that there would not be ponding on the lots.

Member Kocan commended the efforts that have been made to combine the two (2) options. However, she felt a comparison draft should have been prepared prior to coming to the Planning Commission. Likewise, she noted it should have one prior to going to City Council. She stated it made her work harder to find what was new and what was not new. She noted her findings. She indicated a run-on in Part I Intent and missing text, which differed from the current ordinance. She stated the original text read "Upon review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council, a reduction of lot sizes and lot widths by a developer may be permitted when an area of this site which meets the requirements of this Section is designed as open space and preserved. The percentage of area of the net site so preserved is the basis for the calculation of the allowable lot size and lot width reduction." (Missing text noted in italicizes.) She did not feel the text was left out intentionally. She questioned where the end quote would be in the second paragraph of the Part I Intent.

Member Mutch noted the end quote would be place after similar features.

Member Kocan continued, at the bottom of page 3 referring to rear yards in the R-A District. She indicated the parenthesis was added (see graphic for example) and there is not graphic included.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated there is a graphic in existence that only needed to be added.

Member Kocan stated "bona-fide" was removed. She continued that text on page 6 previously stated "every other factor relating to the legal or practical problems of ownership". The amended text does not include "or practical problems of". She questioned if this was intentionally left out. She hoped that the lot sizes were not being reduced too much. She stated that because she is not real adept she would defer to the judgement of the planners and the Commission hoping changes are compatible.

Member Landry noted a change on page 4. He stated "Part V. The Article 24, Section 2501.4" should read "Part V. The Article 24, Section 2401.4". He questioned the location of d. He explained the text outlined a, b, c, e and f.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated that the intent was to remove the old text of c) and change the other letters to coincide.

Member Mutch addressed Member Kocan’s comment on the removal of "bona-fide". He indicated that it was intentional. He recalled the several projects that included the loss of trees or wetlands due to the lack of flexibility in the preservation option. Also the desire to have a park in a development but the developers did not want to because there was no credit for it. He suggested an amendment to page 3 – to reduce the required amount of open space from four (4) acres to two (2) acres. He noted the reasoning was due to the idea that 2-acres of the smaller developments would be a large enough area to have a small neighborhood park. He did not want to preclude a development from utilizing the option because of the four (4) acres. He felt that a lot could still be done with 2-acres.

Member Nagy accepted the amendments to her motion.

Member Mutch addressed Member Kocan’s concern regarding lot size. He stated it is a sliding scale. He explained that with the smaller lots there would be less of a reduction to ensure that the lots would not be too small. He stated this open space planning is consistent with a number of communities, who have been successful with very high quality developments.

Mr. Evancoe stated in Illinois, they were able to require developers to set aside land when platting subdivisions. He gave the example of a 40-acre subdivision being required to give 5-acres to a local park, school district or both. The alternative was for the developer to pay into a fund the City could use to acquire land for a park or school. He felt that the amendment would be positive and encouraging to a developer to be proactive verses to requiring. He felt that time would tell if this were enough incentive for developers.

Gerald Fisher addressed Member Mutch’s amendment of 2-acres verses 4-acres. He stated that 4-acres or 2-acres is a great amount of property on a small development. He stated 4-acres or 2-acres is a small amount of area on a large development. He felt it would be a misnomer to have an open space of 2-4-acres on an 80-acre development. He suggested the consideration of requiring a certain percentage of open space or land set aside for open space verses a fixed number of acres. He stated if could be considered arbitrary without considering the entire size of the project.

Member Mutch noted the validity of Mr. Fisher’s comments. He recalled some discussion taking place but not consensus was made, which may be the reason for the lack of a revision. He stated there is only a credit for what is saved. Therefore, if open space were not set aside there would not be the lot size reduction. He stated that he would be open to having a minimum. He felt it has been shown to the benefit of the developer to have smaller lots size, which would reduce the development cost and provide them premium lots backing to open space.

Ms. Wyrosdick pointed out that the lot size reductions are based on a preservation credit percentage (PCP). She explained that this would review the amount of the entire net site area being preserved as a percentage of the entire net site area. For example if a 2-acre parcel from a 20-acre parcel would be a small percentage to reduce lots. She stated the benefit would not be reaped unless the preservation is enlarged. She compared a 2-acre parcel preservation on a 10-acre parcel, which would have more reduced lot sizes. She felt that Member Mutch’s comment was included in the preservation credit area.

Member Koneda stated the R-A District permits 150’ width that could be reduced with the PCP. He stated a 2-acre savings on a 20-acre site would be ten percent (10%). He clarified if this would mean that the width could be reduced by ten percent (10%) being fifteen feet (15’) allowing one hundred thirty-five feet (135’). He clarified if it would also mean that a larger savings would allow a lot reduction of one hundred twenty feet (120’).

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, yes.

Member Koneda stated there would be an incentive in lot width and total area because the lot area would be reduced by the same amount. He stated a developer would not receive a lot of credit if they chose to put in a 4-acre site on a large lot.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated a 40-acre parcel with the preservation of 2-acres would not reap the amount of benefit of a 10-acre site preserving 2-acres.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 01-18.168 to send a positive recommendation to City Council, the addition of an end quote after similar features in second paragraph of Part I Intent, the addition of the missing punctuation and text to Part I Intent "The percentage of area of the net site so preserved…", the addition of the missing text to Part V "…or practical problems of…", the correction of the lettering in Part V and the correction of the text "Section 2501.4" to "Section 2401.4" in Part V.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Chairperson Piccinini indicated a meeting with Beth Brock and David Evancoe, which they discussed communication issues such as e-mail. She noted the possibility of the Planning Director and the Planning Commission Chair meeting regularly to discuss the agenda prior to its approval. She suggested sending the matter to the Administrative Liaison Committee (A committee that reviews procedures and requests work assignments for staff and consultants for the Planning Commission). She indicated another result of the meeting was to provide copies for the legal on all Consultant letters, future agendas, etc… She noted a motion was needed to send the matter to the committee.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the Administrative Liaison Committee to study and return a report and/or recommendations, not more than forty-five (45) days, of the steps being taken to improve the issues of providing support from staff and consultant and improving communications to the Planning Commission and the City Council.

Member Nagy asked the situation to be clarified.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the Administrative Liaison Committee would review the procedures from the consultants and the staff to determine if they are working well or not and suggest changes. She stated it would be an attempt to address some of the issues that have arose.

Member Nagy asked if the Planning Commission would be overseeing how the staff works.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, no.

Member Nagy asked if Chairperson Piccinini could define communication.

Chairperson Piccinini gave a few examples. She note that currently the Planning Commissioners do not have e-mail and the City Council does. She was not certain with regard to the open meeting act. She stated there is merit to the possibilities of all Planning Commissioners having an e-mail address. She added that the legal question would need to be addressed if there would be a quorum for information in which everyone is sent the same information. She felt it was important to look into these amenities to allow everyone to receive the information. Chairperson Piccinini indicated that Mr. Fisher does not currently receive the future agendas nor is he copied with all the communications from the consultants.

Member Landry asked if the discussion regarding communication between the Planning Commission and Staff would include the Administrative Liaison Committee and the members of the Staff or only three (3) Planning Commissioners.

Chairperson Piccinini stated it would include the Committee and support staff Beth Brock. She added that Mr. Evancoe typically attend the Committee Meetings.

Member Landry clarified that members of the Staff would have the opportunity to participate in the discussion.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Member Mutch added the issue of clarifying the procedure for a Planning Commission to obtain information needed to make a decision while not overburdening staff.

Chairperson Piccinini agreed. She noted the possibility of a person of contact on a regular basis.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she and City Attorney, Tom Schultz, discussed issues that were repeatedly raised. She reference the Interoffice Memorandum dated Tuesday, May 15, 2001. She asked Mr. Fisher to speak to 2.3 Duties of the Officers – specifically addressing if the Chairperson would have the "final say" with the setting of the agenda or if it would be a joint decision.

Mr. Fisher stated by necessity it would be somewhat of a joint decision. He stated that to an extent, setting the agenda would be setting the workload. (Tape ends)

(Tape begins)

Mr. Fisher felt it would be good to clarify this matter. However, he stated to some extent some limited point in time, if the staff is unable to accommodate the agenda, this would be why consultation would be necessary.

Chairperson Piccinini stated accommodating the agenda is not always the reason for conflict in decisions. She stated it was the same issue of how it is placed on the agenda. She stated that she did not place a stipulation of the reason.

Mr. Fisher stated the question could be how or when.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the Member Mutch’s point of Robert’s Rules, which need to be followed in the Inner Bylaws. She asked Mr. Fisher what those rules state.

Member Nagy stated there is nothing specifically addressing who sets the agenda. She stated in running a meeting, Robert’s Rules are being followed. She added that it is an organization "a business".

Chairperson Piccinini suggested sending the matter to the Rules Committee.

Moved by Landry, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (6-2): To send by-law matter 2.3 Duties of the officers to the Rules Committee to determine what happens in impasse.

Member Kocan noted that it was her request to place the item on the agenda. She stated the issue was one person’s definition of a reasonable agenda as opposed to another person’s definition. She recalled a Planning Commission meeting with six (6) or seven (7) Public Hearings, which she did not feel was fair to the public.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that Member Kocan’s point did not have any relevance to the matter and it would apply to Item 3.11 Beginning and Ending Times.

Member Kocan felt that it applied to the matter of a reasonable agenda.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that Member Kocan’s point not the reason there was an issue with impasse.

Member Kocan clarified that she was looking at the definition of a reasonable agenda.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that this would be addressed at the 3.11 Beginning and Ending Times. She announced that the discussion is only for the motion to send the matter of impasse to the Rules Committee. She added each item would be discussed after.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Landry, Nagy

Chairperson Piccinini stated her awareness that the meetings run openly with lobbying back and forth. She felt this created confusion as to who held the floor. She noted that the Commissioners are not to speak until recognized by the Chairperson.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that this items refers back to the "Robert’s Rules of Order". She stated a new planning commissioner orientation packet, by Birchler Arroyo, contains a quick reference under Parliamentary Procedures.

Chairperson Piccinini gave Member Kocan the floor to speak to the matter.

Member Kocan stated that her point is more pertinent to item 2.3, as it is related to the reasonable agenda. She questioned if there are legal ramifications for the procedure of a site plan being submitted to the City. She asked if there was a required timeframe that the Planning Commission must hear it.

Gerald Fisher stated that he did not believe there was.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated there was a timeframe for Plat Plans, however she did not recall one for Site Plans.

Gerald Fisher stated that a Plat Plan is not a Site Plan.

Ms. Wyrosdick agreed.

Member Kocan felt this was a consideration that the Chair and the Planning Department needed to review. She did not feel the public should have to sit in the meeting until midnight. She was aware that late meetings would occur occasionally, however she did not agree with scheduling a late meeting knowingly. She raised the issue of a recent developer whom had several negative recommendations. As a result, he was asked to stop his presentation and was redirected to meet with the consultants. She stated her disappointment that the RUD will be discussed at the next meeting because it had not yet been approved by the City Council. Member Kocan stated that she did not agree with spending her weekend in review of a project that had not been finalized. She stated a project with several open issues or negativity should not be placed on the agenda to take up critical planning time.

Chairperson Piccinini addressed Member Kocan’s comments. She agreed that it was not productive for anyone to stay at late hour meetings. She added that was the reasoning an extra meeting. She stated after a project is submitted there are approximately 20 working day to receive back review letter. She stated that if the comments are negative, they have the right to due process and can write a letter to be placed on the next available agenda. This being the reason that projects comes before the Commission regardless of the number of negative comments. She questioned Mr. Fisher if they were able to tell people that they could not be on the agenda due to negative comments or if they could only instruct/advise.

Gerald Fisher stated that they should be placed on the agenda in what would be called a "reasonable time". He stated if there are two (2) meetings a month causing a delay, it may be necessary to have an extra meeting at some point. He added that a delay of three (3) or four (4) months might be said by some to be unreasonable.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Member Kocan to restate her third comment.

Member Kocan commented on developments, such as the RUD, coming forward, with no response or finalization from the City Council. She stated that although the developer takes the risk to re-review was not a productive use of the Planning Commission’s time. She felt that the Planning Department and the Chair should be able to advise the applicant that the project can not go forward until the issues are resolved.

Member Nagy addressed Member Kocan’s comments. She understood the "due process". However, in contrast, she stated the Planning Department would have the ability to inform the applicant that they could go forward but that the Planning Commission may not give a positive recommendation or may review with no recommendation. She questioned if this was true.

Gerald Fisher clarified that Member Nagy was referring to the possible alternative of coming to the meeting for discussion.

Member Nagy answered, correct. She questioned if the Planning Department could tell the applicant what the general past history of the Planning Commission. For example that they may listen to the presentation but may not vote on it.

Gerald Fisher stated that this would be a good practice.

Member Nagy asked why this could not be done.

Chairperson Piccinini felt that this was the reasoning for a letter to address the desire to go forward despite the negative recommendations.

Member Nagy questioned if the Chair would be the person to direct this comment.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Member Nagy felt that this comment should come from the Planning Director.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she at an interim.

Member Nagy stated her agreement with Member Kocan’s comments regarding the agendas. She felt it was difficult to be fair with the public, the applicant and the commission in the late evening. She recalled an individual taping the meeting commenting that "The Planning Commission is shuffling items through." Therefore, she felt that there should be reasonable agendas to be fair to those participating. She stressed that the positions of the commission are volunteers.

Member Landry felt in "due process" rights, if an applicant asking the commission to exercise powers, that could be exercise at that time, on a project that is "ready", then it should be able to come before the commission prior to a project that is requesting an advisory opinion with an unapproved RUD. He stated that an applicant, who is ready, should not have to wait for relief. He felt that there was no due process right that would allow an applicant to request an action that the Commission did have the power to do at that time. He preferred that a RUD Site Plan not come before the Commission prior to the RUD being approved by the City Council. He felt this would lengthen the meeting and delay those with legitimate business.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that this issue could be discussed more clearly at the next meeting. She stated that it should be on the agenda to allow the discussion to come forward.

Member Koneda stated his past experiences with meetings that moved quickly and also a few meetings that ended after 11:00 p.m. He did not feel that the number of public hearings determined how long the meetings would last. Instead, he felt that the lateness of a meeting was determined by the complexity of the site and how many comments are made, etc… He stated the public and the petitioner has the right to be heard and come before the commission in a reasonable amount of time. However, he also felt that they owed it to the public to table some items prior to the end of the night. Therefore, he suggested a time check be done. He gave the possibility that at 9:30 p.m. an assessment should be done to determine if the remaining public hearing could be heard. If there was not adequate time, a motion should be made to table the public hearings until the next meeting and move forward with the other items.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that 3.11(b) states "All Commissioner meetings shall adjourn no later than 11:30 p.m. unless: There are petitioners remaining on the agenda…" She recalled the instance which they attempted to stop the meeting. She stated that they did not have the right. She noted that often when the items are being placed on the agenda, there is no knowledge of how complex the issue could be. Therefore, some of the issues that arise could not be anticipated.

Chairperson Piccinini stated this item could come under Administrative Liaison Committee or become a separate Information Committee. She stated the purpose would be to establish format and type of information the Planning Commission will consistently receive in regards to information in the packets and at the meetings. She stated there would be a transition time that would occur with the upcoming changes in staff jobs.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the Community Development Department planned to hire two (2) Planners and one (1) Landscape Architect. The Department of Public Works planned to hire a City Engineer. He noted these would affect in-house reviews.

Chairperson Piccinini felt that the Planning Commission should be part of this process. She felt that they should continue to receive information in the format and not having changes without the Planning Commission approval. She suggested sending the matter to the Administrative Liaison Committee or having the new Information Committee. She explained the intent to send any changes in the information to the Committee and then to the Planning Commission prior to any changes.

Member Landry suggested sending it to the Administrative Liaison Committee to consider along with 2.3 Duties of the Officers.

Moved by Landry, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send Section 2.4 of the by-laws to the Administrative Liaison Committee to determine if there is a need for an addition to the by-laws and to return suggestions to the Planning Commission

Member Mutch asked if the motion was only to address 2.4.

Chairperson Piccinini stated it would be to send Section 2.4 to the Administrative Liaison Committee to review the information.

Member Mutch asked if the remainder of the by-laws would be approved.

Chairperson Piccinini stated they were for discussion and had no changes.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Nagy noted the several omissions in the minutes due to the tapes beginning and ending. She recalled Oak Pointe Church having more discussion than one (1) page. She questioned who is responsible for taping the meetings.

Beth Brock stated Audio Video Staff does the taping. She indicated that it has been brought to their attention. The Audio Video Staff’s response was that the error might have been related to a break. She indicated that they would be addressing the matter. She asked that the Commissioners send any written comments missing from the minutes to the Planning Department. Another draft would be incorporated and brought before the commission for approval.

Member Landry asked why there are no minutes available for Committee meetings.

Beth Brock noted that there are brief minutes from Committee Meetings typed from her notes. She stated that it is a page summary of the meeting.

Member Landry stated that tonight’s discussion included information from a committee meeting. He stated that members should not be expected to rely on their memories. He clarified if there were minutes.

Beth Brock answered, yes.

Member Koneda stated that the committee meetings are informal and progressive. He stated that there is a lot of comment output during the discussions. Therefore, he was not certain how helpful the minutes would be.

Beth Brock stated the minutes would include the motions and a summary of the meeting.

Member Kocan stated that she recalled formal minutes from Implementation when she attended as a resident. She stated that it included more than the motions.

Member Kocan indicated corrections to the Committee Lists. She stated she replaced Member Mutch on the Woodlands Review Board and is not on the Environmental Committee.

Chairperson Piccinini stated her notes indicate the Environmental Committee with Member Churella, Member Koneda and Member Nagy.

Member Koneda recalled Member Churella stepping down from the Planning Studies and Budget Committee.

Beth Brock clarified that Planning Studies & Budget is Member Landry instead of Member Churella and Environmental Committee is Member Churella and not Member Kocan.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

None

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:45 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

June 25, 2001

Date Approved: July 11, 2001