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

PRESENT: Members Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Canup (absence excused), Chairperson Churella (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber.

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

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as Amended.

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

No: None

None

None

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

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2001 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 18, 2001. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Member Kocan stated the word "underline" on page 3 of the July 11, 2001 should be changed to "underlying". She indicated her statement on page 5 of the July 18, 2001 minutes should read "the building is required to be one hundred twenty-five feet from the property line".

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2001 and Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 18, 2001 as amended.

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

No: None

This proposed parking lot expansion is in Section 24 and is located at the northwest intersection at Ten Mile and Haggerty Roads and is on 3.93 acres and is zoned B-3 (General Business). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals on the proposed parking lot expansion.

Alan Cruz, Project Engineer with Grissim-Metz introduced the new Site Plan with the proposed parking area. He noted the improvements are part of the original Site Plan, which is currently being constructed. The two (2) points of access are located off Haggerty Road and Ten Mile Road and provide circulation through the site. Customer and employee parking are located along the northern edge and the areas near the building and vehicle inventory parking along the west perimeter. Car display platforms will front along Haggerty Road with ungulated grass and pavement strips while utilizing the building as a backdrop. The building will also screen the parking located in the back. Mr. Cruz proposed an addition to the approved parking area and along the frontage of Ten Mile Road. The new parking area will be exclusively for vehicle inventory. There will be no repairs, refinishing or customer/employee parking will occur in the proposed area. Eight foot (8’) evergreens will be used to screen along the north perimeter. Ginkgo Trees will line the western edge and the frontage along Ten Mile Road. Low shrubs will line the drive isle creating a nice entrance into the Jaguar dealership. A continuation of an evergreen hedge will form a semi-circular arch in the middle to create a single car platform display area. The platform will be consistent with the other car platform designs along Haggerty Road. He noted the additional plantings. The indentation of the evergreen hedge and the single car display platform will showcase the highest line vehicle of Jaguar. He stated the submitted photometric plan ensures that no over spill will occur onto the adjacent properties or Ten Mile Road.

In summary, Mr. Cruz indicated that the new parking lot plan would accommodate vehicle inventory only and no repairs/refinishing will occur on the site. The light, landscape and parking lot geometric meet the design requirements.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated August 29, 2001. He indicated the applicant has provided the letter from their sound consultant indicating the expansion will not impact the noise levels that were established in the previous review. He stated the minor items in the review letter could be addressed at Final.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the comments in the review letter dated August 31, 2001. He noted the waiver required - The absence of an end island on the west side of the proposed parking expansion requires a Planning Commission Waiver of the zoning ordinance requirement. The proposed is to be utilized as an inventory and would not have circulation by customers. He recalled similar instances in the past with areas that were not likely to have high usage. He stated that if the internal landscaping requirements are met then the Commission could chose to accept this waiver. If the Commission did not chose to grant the waiver, the result would be a loss of the two (2) spaces and the provision of the end island.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan with the comments of the review letter dated September 4, 2001 being addressed at Final.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval subject to the conditions of her review letter. Additional shrubs are required to provide screening for the base of the car display area due to the fact that the area will not be ungulate. The Site Plan meets the interior island requirements and the required number of trees. Therefore, the sufficient square footage and number of trees are sufficient if the Commission chose to approve the waiver of the end island. She indicated a Planning Commissioner contacted her questioning the lack of the berm. Ms. Lemke stated a ZBA Variance was granted for the berm along Haggerty and Ten Mile Road. She noted the continuation of the design with a thirty inch (30") high evergreen hedge with gay lilies in front with the Ginkgo Trees. The elevations along Ten Mile Road are two (2) feet higher than the elevation in the road consistently along the south roadway. She noted her recommendation for approval with this item being provided on subsequent plans.

Acting Chairperson Richards announced he has received a letter dated August 17, 2001 from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

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

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

Member Nagy stated Preliminary Site Plan Approval was granted and construction has begun. Therefore, she questioned why there was a need to propose more parking space.

Mr. Cruz stated the original proposal included an addition to the building, which is not currently in the plans for Jaguar. Instead, Jaguar has opted to increase the vehicle inventory parking on the site. He stated the Phase II would not be built.

Member Nagy noted her concern with the end island. She questioned why the applicant could not meet the ordinance requirement.

Mr. Cruz stated the intent of an end island is for circulation safety purposes. The proposed parking lot is for vehicle inventory with porters bringing in and parking cars. He noted the desire to gain the additional space for the vehicle inventory by eliminating the island.

Member Nagy felt the end island would make it safer for the vehicles traveling from the north side of the parking lot around to the front. She indicated Rouge Tributary was located on this side. She referred to the review letter dated September 4, 2001 – The engineer must provide one (1) catch basin located in the lowest point of the proposed parking expansion with a 12" outlet or larger, tied into the existing storm sewer system. She questioned how she could have the knowledge that the pre-treatment would be handled.

Ms. Weber indicated the sedimentation basin located to the west, which was previously installed with the original Jaguar plans. The basin is sized to accommodate the additional area. There is also a detention basin located after the sedimentation basin. She stated it has been verified to have adequate capacity.

Member Nagy questioned if the runoff would be taken care of.

Ms. Weber answered, yes. She indicated the desire to have the runoff routed to a storm catch basin. She noted that this could be provided on the Final Site Plan.

Mr. Cruz designated the corner the catch basin would be installed. He pointed out the existing storm sewer that they would be connecting with. He indicated the pre-engineering to allow the pipes to handle the additional flow. The sizes of the storm pipe have taken into account the capacity.

Member Nagy asked if there were any flood issues on the site.

Ms. Weber answered, no.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Nagy’s comments. He felt that the applicant had pre-knowledge of the type of inventory to be considered for the site. Therefore, he did not understand the request for additional space. He stated that he did not have a problem with the request, because the space would be utilized for a parking lot or a building. However, he did not agree with granting relief from the west end island for two (2) extra inventory spots. He explained that the end islands are for safety as well as to provide aesthetic quality by breaking up the expansive parking. Member Koneda felt the end islands should be provided because of the possibility of customers walking around the inventory area. Therefore, he would not support a motion that would grant relief from the end island requirement. He added that both end islands should be built to City specifications.

Member Koneda asked Ms. Weber if she agreed with the engineering for the storm water collection.

Ms. Weber answered, yes.

Member Koneda questioned if there were curb cuts to route water.

Ms. Weber stated the catch basin would be placed there.

Member Koneda clarified that the issue was eliminated. The Special Land Use issue, shielding of the lighting from the residential, could be addressed as part of the Final. The letter regarding the noise analysis has been submitted indicating compliance with the ordinance. Therefore, the request meets the requirements for Special Land Use. He stated his support of a motion to grant Special Land Use Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval without the commission waiver for the end island.

Member Piccinini agreed with Member Koneda’s comments.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Jaguar SP00-49 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Land Use Approval as it will not cause a detrimental impact on the capabilities of public services including water service, sanitary sewer, storm water disposal, police and fire, and the proposed use will promote the use of land in a social and economic manner and conditioned upon the all recommendations and conditions of the consultants.

Member Mutch indicated that the end island is not included in the Site Plan. He suggested including a positive statement in the motion.

Member Piccinini suggested the amendment to add the end island on the west side of the parking lot expansion.

Member Mutch suggested to indicated for east and west because the east is not according to the standards.

Member Piccinini and Member Koneda accepted the amendment to the motion.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Jaguar SP00-49 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Land Use Approval as it will not cause a detrimental impact on the capabilities of public services including water service, sanitary sewer, storm water disposal, police and fire, and the proposed use will promote the use of land in a social and economic manner and conditional upon the applicant providing all end islands as required by ordinance, subject to consultant’s recommendations and conditions

Member Mutch indicated a waiver along the north side when the initial plan was approved. The waiver was to eliminate landscaping between the proposed use and the adjoining car dealership to provide additional parking area. Therefore, he expressed his disconcertment with the additional parking. He felt the original parking had a nice balance of building and parking lot, however, it is becoming an area with a lot of parking lot for the use. He stated Jaguar is a higher end product and one would not anticipate a "mass" parking lot of Jaguars. He questioned the intent of the use of the parking adjacent to Ten Mile (not the inventory lot).

Mr. Cruz indicated it would be part of the inventory parking with special edition vehicles.

Member Mutch noted his concern. He stated the other areas adjacent to Ten Mile and Haggerty Road were mainly customer parking and display stands with the effects of the landscaping. However, the site is moving away from the concept of fully integrated displays along Grand River Avenue. He indicated that because the site meets standards he would continue to support the motion with the included amendment.

Tony Dellicolli indicated the inventory parking lot addition and the spaces adjacent to Ten Mile were shown in the rezoning application as a potential expansion of the site. It was not part of the original Site Plan approval because it had not been worked out. He noted the landscaping with trees on the north end of the property (between Suburban and the proposed site). The total number of spaces for inventory on the frontage is thirteen (13), which will be fully landscaped. He added the interior lot behind those spaces would also be landscaped. The visibility from Ten Mile would not change.

Member Mutch was certain that he expressed similar concerns when the site came before the Commission with the rezoning request. He noted there was landscaping to a degree along the north side, however there was a reduction in the setback. He indicated that during the rezoning process, the use is considered. Therefore, the information Mr. Dellicolli was referring to was irrelevant. He recalled his concerns of the extension of the use to the west. He did not consider a parking lot to be the best use of land. However, if the need has been presented and the request meets standards of the Ordinance, then he would be in a position to support the request.

Member Kocan indicated she would be supporting the motion. She noted her preference of an additional island in the middle of the inventory parking lot to break up the parking lot. She referred to the ZBA minutes indicating the removal of the berm with additional landscaping because parking would not be visible. Other minutes indicate the parking would be elevated higher than the roadway. Therefore, she preferred to have as many trees planted as possible. She requested the applicant comply with the Ordinance requirement for the end island. She advised the City to use caution when giving the certificate of occupancy. Specifically ensuring that the lights are shielded, as they should be, to avoid impacting the residents.

Member Landry indicated his support of the motion. He was convinced the landscaping would address the concerns of the parking lot. He commended the landscaping.

Acting Chairperson Richards expressed his satisfaction with how the site was coming to look just as they had laid it out the Commission. He was surprised that the inventory storage would be outside verses inside. He indicated his support of the landscaping and the motion.

Member Nagy asked the applicant to define the section color coded orange on the south side of the parking lot.

Mr. Cruz identified the orange section as low lying shrubs approximately ten feet (10’) in height.

Member Nagy asked if this was the location of the one (1) displaying vehicle.

Mr. Cruz answered, yes.

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

No: None

This proposed office building is in Section 4 and is located on the NW corner of West Road and Hudson Drive and is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) and parcel 1 is on .99 acres. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Bob Varga of Biddison Architecture and Design indicated he was available for any questions.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the parking lot setback issue being resolved and subject to the remaining comments of the review letter dated July 10, 2001 being addressed at Final. The site plan does not provide the required 10-foot parking setback along the north property line. He indicated if the issue requires resolution with a ZBA variance, then he could recommend approval subject to the granting of the variance. However, he indicated a Planning Commission Waiver can resolve this issue only if additional parking setback is provided elsewhere on the site. If the two parcels are combined, then no variance or waiver is required. He added that Ms. Lemke could comment further. He pointed out the control of two (2) different parcels, one to the north and one to the south. Therefore, if the two (2) parcels were combined into one (1), leaving no parcel line between them then there would not be a need for the greenspace setback. However, because the property is planned to be developed into two (2) separate lots the greenspace requirement applies. He stated that all setbacks are required. The required Lighting Plan would need to be submitted at Final.

In regard to Traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the resolution of Item #6 in the review letter dated July 20, 2001 and subject to the remaining comments of the letter being addressed at Final. Item #6 addresses the easement between the two (2) parcels and its alignment with the easement on the East Side of the street. He referred to attached graphics to further demonstrate this comment. An easement was provided on both sides to provide for the two (2) parcels to interconnect and align to avoid a driveway spacing issue. The proposed easement would need to straddle the property line, which creates an offset due to the location of the easement on the East Side (which is located further to the north). He indicated the desire to have these easements line up, which could involve moving the easement on the East Side or the West Side. He noted that either side was fine providing the result was an alignment. He explained that as the parcel on the East Side develops, the alignment would avoid having the Commission in a position to grant a driveway spacing waiver due to off set driveways. Mr. Arroyo indicated he was in agreement of a conditional approval of the Preliminary Site Plan providing the issue could be resolved at Final and the applicant was willing to address the issue. He noted the intent was to prevent a future situation of the drives not aligning properly on the two sides of the street. He requested that the applicant respond on the matter.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan in her review letter dated July 2, 2001. She noted the excess on the east and south sides. Based on this additional area, she recommended approval of the Planning Commission Waiver for the parking lot setback. She noted her approval was subject to two conditions. 1) The loading area needs to be screened. Evergreen plantings should be used. Retaining wall may need to be moved to accommodate screening. 2) The landscaping required to break up the expanse of interior pavement has been provided except: a minimum of 8" in width from back curb to back curb is required. Ms. Lemke indicated that there are a number of items included in her review letter that are required for Final Site Plan Approval.

Ms. Weber recommended approval from an engineering perspective of the Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated July 5, 2001. Water and sanitary is available to service the site. Storm water will be collected in proposed on-site storm sewer. Storm water is then passes through an on-site oil/gas separator and routed to the existing 15" storm sewer located in Hudson Drive. These unrestricted flows will then flow to an existing sedimentation/permanent water quality basin (which was installed with the overall Beck North Corporate Park) prior to discharge off-site. The storm water is then conveyed and detained in the North Novi Regional Detention Basin. She noted the required easements at Final and prior to the recommendation of Final Site Plan Approval.

In regard to Wetlands, Ms. Weber indicated that currently, no Wetland Permit required. The applicant is proposing buffer disturbance for the construction of the drive and dumpster and temporary buffer disturbance for grading purposes, which would be further reviewed. She recommended approval subject to the comments of the review letter dated July 17, 2001 being addressed at Final.

In regard to façade, Ms. Weber referred to the review letter dated April 26, 2001, which recommended approval and indicated that a Section Nine Facade Waiver was not required.

Acting Chairperson Richards announced he has received a letter dated June 22, 2001 from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next submittal. 1) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 2) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 3) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. This shall be noted on the plans.

Member Koneda identified the issue of the driveway location and the fact that it is a shared access drive. He clarified if Mr. Arroyo suggested moving the driveway to one parcel verses being split. He questioned the drive location needed to be off set of the property line to obtain the alignment.

Mr. Arroyo explained the driveway would need to be located along the property line to give both properties access. Therefore, he suggested considering moving the East Side driveway (if the property owner agreed) or making a modification to ensure the alignment.

Member Koneda asked if the property on the East Side was approved.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He added not "that" parcel.

Member Koneda clarified if the driveways were arbitrarily put in place when site plan approval was granted for the Corporate Park.

Mr. Arroyo stated that based upon the approved plan, the easements align fairly closely based. However, he recalled the proposed property having a particular issue because it was not desired for Parcel #1 to have its own access due to its close proximity to West Road. Parcel #1 needs to be combined with Parcel #4 to obtain the maximum separation and avoid having the left turn conflict. Therefore, it is there by design to allow a shared driveway. The locations were put in place and the easements were closely aligned for the provision of access to both sides of the street.

Member Koneda noted his support for shared access drives and the reduction of curb cuts. He asked if Mr. Arroyo felt confident that the issue could be resolved as part of Final.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that upon review of the Final Site plan the drives would need to be able to line up. However, he restated his desire to hear a response from the applicant.

Bob Varga noted his communications with the owner of Parcel #2 to explore the possibilities of moving the eastern easements to the south to create an alignment. He felt confident of this option because Parcel #2 would need to place their parking along the north property line when they develop. He assured the Commission that this matter would be resolved prior Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Koneda stated his preference to have the shared access drive and felt a solution could be reached to resolve the matter. He did not feel it was necessary to postpone the matter for an appropriate negotiation to be reached.

Mr. Varga added his efforts to quickly deal with the issues.

Member Koneda felt the deficiency of the greenspace issue was related to the shared access drive. He clarified if the reason for the ten (10) foot parking setback from the property line is to provide greenspace to prevent the visual of the expanse of cement and asphalt.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated the reason for this requirement in the Ordinance is to provide greenspace to provide the visual capacity.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Member Koneda stated all Site Plans with a shared access drive will bring this same issue before the Commission. He did not feel that anyone would want to place greenspace next to a driveway.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Member Koneda suggested that the Commission consider making a recommendation to Implementation to address these future issues. Member Koneda stated that based on Ms. Lemke’s recommendation and calculation of greenspace, there is sufficient area elsewhere on the site to make up for the deficiency. Therefore, he felt it was appropriate to grant a Planning Commission Waiver and that it was not necessary to send the matter to ZBA.

Ms. Lemke, agreed. She stated that the requirement could be waived due to the excess area in other places on the site. She explained that if it were required in the future, it would continue to need excess greenspace to meet the requirement. She stated the site meets this excess area.

Member Koneda asked the City Attorney if he agreed.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

PM-01-09-268 IN THE MATTER OF YOUNGSOFT SP-01-39 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL CONDITIONAL UPON THE APPLICANT REACHING AN AGREEMENT ON THE DRIVEWAY EASEMENT ISSUE AND TO GRANT A PLANNING COMMISSION WAIVER FOR THE PARKING LOT SETBACK DEFICIENCY TO THE NORTH BASED ON THE FACT THE AREA HAS BEEN MADE UP ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE SUBJECT TO THE ALL THE CONSULTANT’S CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Youngsoft SP-01-39 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval conditional upon the applicant reaching an agreement on the driveway easement issue and to grant a Planning Commission Waiver for the parking lot setback deficiency to the north based on the fact the area has been made up elsewhere on the site subject to the all the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Landry agreed with Member Koneda’s comments regarding the reduction of curb cuts with shared access. He referred to the photograph depicting a driveway and cars immediately abutting the driveway. He questioned if there was a safety issue with the possibility of a driver backing out of the driveway at the same time traffic is turning into the roadway.

Mr. Arroyo stated the picture depicts the area closer. He indicated that there is a lot of separation and was not concerned. He indicated that it meets the ordinance requirement.

Member Landry asked if the secondary access of Parcel #1 would be located in the extreme northwest corner through the access of Parcel #4.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Landry questioned if the commission would have to require Parcel #4 to have a secondary access out to the roadway when it develops.

Mr. Arroyo indicated there were a couple of options. The preferable option would be to have Parcel #4 provide a shared access to the parcel to its north. He explained if the access is on Hudson, there would be an issue of an offset from DeSoto court on the East Side. Therefore, it would be likely that Parcel #4 would extend their connection to the parcel immediately north to provide the secondary access.

Member Nagy questioned what landscaping would be located in the front of the parking spaces.

Mr. Varga indicated there might be maintenance of lawn. The south, which is viewed from West Road, would have a berm along the entire south end and would be heavily treed.

Member Piccinini commented on the greenspace for the shared access. She disagreed with the suggestion to send the matter to Implementation because she preferred the greenspace in between. She stated that although the façade meets ordinance requirements, she did not feel it demonstrated a lot of architectural flare. She felt that more effort could have been placed in the design to bring it up to date.

Member Kocan referred to the review letter comment – Explore shifting the dumpster further from the wetland to reduce or eliminate buffer intrusion and possible runoff to the wetland. She emphasized that the applicant should explore thoroughly the options to have the least amount of intrusion, specifically runoff. She clarified if the developers of Parcel #1 are the owners of Parcel #4.

Mr. Varga answered, correct.

Member Kocan asked if he had any knowledge of when the development would be coming forward.

Mr. Varga stated that at this point, there is not any information available. He stated that he was aware that they would be proposing another office type of building. Currently there is a software office type use and therefore, the piece to the north would have the same type of use. He stated he did not have the knowledge of the design or size of the building to be proposed.

Member Kocan stated that although she liked the idea of a shared access she did not like the effect on Parcel #2 and Parcel #5. She was aware that Mr. Arroyo would be reviewing this matter prior to Final. However, she hope that an approval of the proposed project would not create a hardship or more curb cuts, due to the uneven lot alignment between Parcel #1 and Parcel #4 and then between Parcel #2 and Parcel #5. She stated that she would be supporting the motion.

Member Mutch clarified if it was necessary for the drive to straddle the property lines due to the need for both parcels to have access. He clarified further if the drives needed to physically straddle the line to provide the access, or could there be an access agreement if the drive was entirely on the other parcel. He questioned if this would sufficiently provide the necessary access.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. Potentially, an access easement could be written from a drive located completely offsite to provide the access into the parcel.

Member Mutch questioned if the access drive was located entirely on the northern parcel when the Condo was laid out.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the access drive crossed over the parcel. If the owners on the East Side are not willing to move, he noted the option to shift the drive to the north to obtain the alignment. He anticipated if the drive access easement on the East Side (between Parcel #2 and Parcel #5) is moved to the south, then Parcel #5 will still be able to maintain access to that easement and would not need their own curb cut onto Hudson Drive. He indicated that if this could not be worked out, then the matter would return to the Commission.

Member Mutch was cognizant of the fact that shifting the drive entirely onto the northern parcel would have potential impact. He noted that Parcel #1 and Parcel #4 are not as large as Parcel #2 and Parcel #5. Therefore, he recognized the applicant’s leeway was limited. However, the motive for clarification was to understand how many options there were to work with and to ensure that if the drive had to move further north, or off the parcel, the access could still be provided. He noted his support of the motion.

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

No: None

Mr. Evancoe indicated the City prepares a yearly calendar for the community including scheduled Public Meetings such as Planning Commission meetings. He asked the Commission if they were willing to conduct Planning Commission meetings on alternate weeks from the City Council meetings. He stated this change would allow for better Staff support for the Commission. It would also give the commissioners a more feasible schedule to attend the City Council meetings. He noted the inclusion of a letter from the City Manager, which was provided to the Consultant Review Committee in August. He expressed his openness to do the option that works the best for the Commission. However, he felt that the Staff could be of better service to the Commission if the meetings were not conducted on the same week as the City Council meetings.

Member Piccinini indicated that she has schedule obligations until May. She suggested meeting every other Tuesday or starting the meeting at 7:00 p.m. as of January 2002. Another option would be to meet on the opposite Wednesday, which was feasible for her after the fiscal year.

Acting Chairperson Richards indicated time frame referred to January due to the printing of City Calendar.

Mr. Evancoe stated the City Calendar could print to reflect the changed meetings at mid-year.

Ms. Brock reminded the Commission that the Zoning Board of Appeals meets every first Tuesday of each month.

Acting Chairperson Richards clarified that the discussion was referring to the second and forth Tuesday of each month.

Member Piccinini stated that the City Council meets the first and third week of the month. She clarified that moving Planning Commission meetings to the second and forth week would not effect ZBA.

Acting Chairperson Richards answered, correct.

Member Nagy stated that she could agree to the Tuesday. However, would not agree to Wednesday. She indicated that she has a prior commitment for every second Wednesday of the month. She objected to changing the start time of the meeting to 7:00 p.m. due to the hours of her employment. She stated the second and forth Tuesday with a start time of 7:30 p.m. was feasible as of January.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Piccinini, SUPERCEDED BY MOTION TO TABLE: As of January 2002 that the Planning Commission will meet the second and forth Tuesday of each month with a start time of 7:30 p.m.

Member Landry stated that he did not have a preference of Tuesday or Wednesday or which week of the month. However, he questioned if the change would impact the consultants.

Mr. Arroyo indicated his prior commitment for the second Tuesday of the month. He stated he is currently exploring the possibility moving this commitment to another day of the month. However, he would not have this information until next month. He suggested the possibility of having his Staff, Kathy Wyrosdick, to attend the meeting.

Member Landry asked if the scheduling of the Planning Commission meeting would assist him in rescheduling his other meeting commitment.

Mr. Arroyo did not think it would impact the decision. He indicated that he would check Kathy Wyrosdick’s schedule to determine her availability for the alternate Tuesday.

Member Landry asked the other Consultant’s if their schedules would be impacted.

Ms. Weber stated that she was not aware of any conflicts. However, she indicated the need to discuss schedules with David Bluhm, in the event that she could not attend a meeting.

Ms. Lemke stated that her office would not be affected.

Member Piccinini suggested that the motion be contingent upon the response of the schedule updates, which would indicate if there would or would not be schedule conflicts. She indicated that November is the deadline for the approving the calendar dates.

Acting Chairperson Richards suggested tabling the matter until the next Planning Commission meeting.

Member Nagy indicated that she made a motion.

Member Piccinini stated a motion to table would supercede any motion on the floor.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To table the matter of 2002 Planning Schedule, starting time and ending time to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Member Nagy stated that Member Canup has a flexible schedule, Chairperson Churella is retired and the consultant’s seem to be able to work out their schedules. Therefore, she felt that the Commission should make a decision and not table the matter.

Acting Chairperson Richards found three (3) people who appeared to be indecisive. Therefore, he did not find it harmful to table the matter for one (1) meeting. He stated the basic ideas have been conveyed and outlined.

Member Mutch agreed that tabling would be appropriate. He suggested the City Staff provide feedback of the impacts of a Tuesday meeting day. He stated that he understood family needs and commitments. However, he felt the commissioner’s personal needs were less relevant than the need for the Commission to function as a commission. He pointed out to the commissioners that their decision on meeting schedules would also impact future commissioners. Member Mutch indicated that he did not have any schedule conflicts with the dates and times suggested.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the City Staff was flexible for either day.

Member Koneda noted that he was prepared to support the change of the meeting dates to the second and forth Wednesday of each month to assist the City Staff. However, he questioned why the current meeting dates have become a problem when they have been set since 1969. He stated that although he did not have any schedule conflicts. However, he preferred keeping the meeting time on Wednesday to allow him the appropriate time to review the packet information.

Acting Chairperson Richards indicated that he did not have a preference of Tuesday or Wednesday. His focus was to provide the Planning Department adequate time to prepare for the meetings. He understood the many changes taking place in the Planning Department process and the new Staff. Therefore, he supported the change of alternate weeks to provide the time needed.

Member Piccinini stated if the meeting day was changed to Tuesday then the Planning Commission packets should be distributed on Thursday instead of Friday. She indicated her current commitments as a mother and wife was scheduled around her position as commissioner.

Member Nagy agreed with Member Piccinini’s comments. She indicated that her current commitments were scheduled based on the Planning Commission meetings. She referred to Mr. Helwig’s letter "I have spoken several times with the City Attorney Gerald Fisher concerning legal support for the Planning Commission. He will continue as envisioned to support the Planning Commission until January 1, 2002." She noted her expectation to have Mr. Fisher’s attendance at the Planning Commission meetings since the Planning Commission is accommodating the Staff and the City Attorney. She indicated that City Attorney Mr. Schultz has other commitments to tend to. She restated her expectation to have the City Attorney present at the Planning Commission meetings.

Acting Chairperson Richards asked Mr. Schultz to comment on the matter.

Mr. Schultz stated that he did not have any comment(s) regarding Mr. Fisher’s schedule. He stated that he could discuss the matter with Mr. Fisher and have a response for the commission at the next meeting.

Acting Chairperson Richards requested that he provide the information at the next meeting.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Koneda did not believe it was within the Commission’s discretion to determine who would represent the City Attorney’s office. He felt this discretion was between the City Council and the City Attorney’s office. He expressed his satisfaction with the representation and advice provided by Mr. Schultz. He believed Mr. Fisher was helping at the interim to assist in establishing good correlation between City Council and the Planning Commission. He stated the letter indicated this commitment was until January 2002, which could change after that date.

Mr. Schultz indicated that he spoke to Mr. Fisher after the last meeting when the issue was raised. He felt that Mr. Fisher was concerned that it was being viewed that he was requesting the change in the commission meeting. He believed that Mr. Fisher would like him to convey that the City Attorney office would be represented regardless of the meeting date and it is not at Mr. Fisher’s request.

Acting Chairperson Richards clarified that the commission was not indicating that it was at Mr. Fisher’s request. He asked Mr. Schultz how the changes would impact his schedule.

Mr. Schultz indicated that he did not have any conflicts.

Member Kocan indicated no preference for Tuesday or Wednesday providing she received her information packet with enough time to review. She expressed the advantage of having the same City Attorney attending the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Specifically, with the projects that are forwarded to City Council. She felt the continuity and explanations were helpful. Member Kocan suggested that the Legal Staff and the City take this into consideration. In discussion with City Administration, she recalled this to be the reasoning and recommendation for the change. She felt 7:30 p.m. was more appropriate the time for the committees would meet prior to the Planning Commission meetings. However, she indicated she would be in support of the decision the majority supports.

Member Nagy stated Mr. Schultz is currently working on right-of-way acquisitions, which is time consuming. She felt strongly that it was extremely important to have continuity in the legal representation between Planning Commission and City Council. She pointed out that Mr. Fisher and Mr. Schultz do not always agree. She indicated that she was not willing to make any accommodations without this continuity.

Mr. Evancoe clarified if the reason for tabling the matter to next meeting was to verify the consultant schedule.

Acting Chairperson Richards added the need for Legal Staff’s schedule information and the inclusion of feedback from the two (2) absent commissioners. He indicated the ending time would not change.

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

No: None

Member Piccinini commented on the issue of legal representation. In past practices, the same attorney was present at Committee meetings and Planning Commission meetings. She stressed the importance of this consistency. She suggested giving Mr. Schultz that same opportunity.

Mr. Evancoe recapped the items covered in his presentation at the last meeting. The determination of whether or not notifications should be provided to residential property owners adjacent to a site being reviewed for a site plan, which is not part of a required Public Hearing. He noted his document, which outlined legal considerations, staffing consideration, the description of five current notification provisions, alternative means for providing notifications and policy consideration for the Commission to take into consideration. He referenced a letter from the City Attorney, which indicated and supported much of the information included in his previous presentation. It is not a legal requirement to provide notifications for such projects. Therefore, the question remains what makes for an appropriate notice and what the Commission expects from the Staff to meet this determination.

Member Koneda indicated that notices were typically sent out due to a requirement for a Public Hearing. He did not find a reason to change the procedures. He felt that a lack of notification, regardless of a legal commitment, would defer matters.

Member Mutch recalled the previous discussion, when Member Kocan raised the matter. He stated there are situations, which do not involve a statutory requirement for a public notice, in which comments from the public were either helpful or could have been helpful. The Public raises issues that are useful and are relevant to the discussion, which may have not been considered or addressed by the applicant or consultants. In contrast, he agreed with Member Koneda’s comments. He felt most of the issues would be covered under hearing requirements because the situation would be typical with industrial adjacent to residential. Typically there would also be Special Land Use requirement, which would trigger a Public Hearing. Another situation to trigger a Public Hearing would be a rezoning. Member Mutch noted his openness to the possibility to bring in public comments with being cognizant to not create a legal issue. He asked Mr. Schultz if it was possible for the City to solicit comments by mailing to property owners.

Mr. Schultz noted the difficulty in answering Member Mutch’s question. He stated from his perspective there would not be a good legal basis to make the argument of precedence. Even though it was the Planning Commission acting and not the legislative body, it would essentially create a rule that the City would be bound by. In one sense, the notice described would not be binding in the future if inadvertently failed to be done. However, this is not to say that they would not be faced with the argument or a judge who accepts the argument. He felt the commission needed to recognize that their actions would come to be seen by a property owner and possibly a judge from a different view.

Member Mutch accepted this response. He felt confident that most cases would be covered with the established Public Hearing Notices. However, he felt that the Commission should be open to the opportunities that could bring information forward to the Commission.

Member Nagy stated the current notification procedures should remain as written. She questioned if the matter was within the Commission’s purview. She stressed her position to place the residents’ needs first. However, she felt the change in notification procedure could create problems in the future. She stated the small amount of audience participation during the public hearings indicates that there is not a problem with the current notification procedures.

Member Piccinini indicated the Michigan Legislature states that notice should only be provided in the cases of rezoning and Special Land Uses. It specifically does not include Site Plans for permitted use. She referenced the current notification procedures Mr. Evancoe previously presented. She agreed with Member Mutch’s comments regarding the notifications that occur due to a Special Land Use. She stated Member Kocan’s comment(s) and concern(s) were appropriate, however, she felt the data provided indicated the matter should be "left alone".

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Nagy, In the matter of Matters for Consideration Item #3 – Residential properties abutting non-residential properties to not change the notification procedures in any manner.

Member Landry agreed that potential problems could arise if they chose a procedure different from those included in the Ordinance. He explained that from a legal standpoint, every citizen is presumed to know the law and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Theoretically, the law is written down and is maintained in a place where everyone has access. Everyone is expected to read it and conduct him or herself accordingly. Therefore, the Commission could not stand behind this general principal if they chose to began to do an procedure other than what is written. He agreed with Mr. Schultz’ comments.

Member Kocan reiterated her comments from the previous meeting. She indicated that she was not aware of the magnitude of her comments until the gathered information/research was presented. She noted the provided information was thorough. She did not find it necessary to change the notification requirements. She referred to Member Piccinini’s comment(s) regarding the notice requirements. The Michigan Legislature states that notices should only be provided for cases such as rezoning and Special Land Use. This specifically does not include site plans for permitted uses, because such plans are permitted by right if they adhere to all the code requirements. She stated her concern arose with developer’s request(s) of waiver(s) or variance(s) while abutting residential property. She preferred that communications take place between the resident and developer prior to her support of a waiver or a variance. Therefore, she informed her commissioners that she would not be approving waivers or variances for property abutting residential if the developer has not spoken to that resident. She felt this should be a courtesy that the developer should extend to the residents and should be discussed at the pre-application meeting. The residents expect the Ordinances to be enforced. She recalled residents who did not come to the public hearings for the developments next to Meadowbrook Lake because they expected the Ordinance to be enforced. The residents later discovered waivers and variances were granted and it was too late to do anything. She felt that it was courteous and respectful for a developer to discuss the development with the people whom will be impacted.

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

No: None

None

None

None

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:04 p.m.

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

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

November 9, 2001

Date Approved: December 5, 2001