PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
Amended Copy
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 W. TEN MILE ROAD,
NOVI, MI 48375 (248) 347-0475

The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Ruyle (excused)

Staff Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Nancy McLain, Engineering; Elaine Grehl, Woodlands Consultant; Ben Croy, Engineer;

Also Present: Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Mr. Avdoulos led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Sprague requested that items 3 and 4 be reversed in order. Member Paul requested that Hanging Fire and Environmental Committee Update be added to Matters for Discussion. Member Kocan requested a discussion on adding an April 9, 2003 meeting also be added to Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Papp, seconded by Member Kocan:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Kocan read aloud the following two letters:

1. Maria and Robert Hilliard. The writer expressed their gratitude to the Planning Commission for their dedication. The letter discussed the City Council meeting of March 17, 2003 and a proposed Woodlands Ordinance Amendment. The writer suggested that City Council and the Planning Commission meet to discuss the issues brought forward. The writer personified the Applicant, Planning Commission and City Council in an anecdote in an effort to bring light to the recent Woodlands Ordinance Amendment matter.

2. Detroit Catholic Central High School. The Reverend Richard J. Elmer wrote that Catholic Central proposes to re-plant the number of displaced trees required by the current Woodlands Ordinance over a ten-year, equal-installment basis. The students will perform this community service work under the coordination of City personnel, the first installment to be completed in spring 2004. Catholic Central will also (1) Open their Woodlands for flora and fauna study to the Novi students; (2) Open their athletic fields and auxiliary gyms to Novi athletes; (3) promote Novi Community Service amongst their student body. Details of this Agreement will be determined by representatives of the City of Novi and Catholic Central High School. Their intent is to be a good neighbor and provide an acceptable development here in Novi.

There were no communications or reports.

Mr. Evancoe presented two new training opportunities to the Commissioners:

1. SEMCOG is offering a free one-day seminar in Detroit called, "Making Your Development Work: Planning for Win-Win Developer Partnerships." It will be held on Wednesday, April 16, 2003 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

2. Michigan Municipal League is offering a seminar called "Basic Planning and Zoning" in Novi at the Doubletree Hotel. It will be held April 22, 2003 from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Steve Langworthy of the Langworthy Lablanc consulting firm of Grand Rapids and Royal Oak will be the speaker.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Magna Intier Automotive for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 12, south of Lewis Drive and west of Haggerty Road in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The subject property is 30.7 acres. The Developer is proposing a parking lot expansion.

Planner Tim Schmitt used an overhead presentation to discuss this Site Plan. The M-5 connector is to the west, Haggerty Road to the east, Lewis Drive to the north. The Magna site is surrounded by and Master Planned for OST in all Novi directions and Single Family Residential in Farmington Hills. The proposed change will include one row of parking along the southern and eastern boundaries of the existing parking lot, filling in a truck well and striping it for parking, and restriping a portion of the existing lot to provide better traffic flow and more parking spaces. The truckwell where change is proposed is bricked over; their loading area is in the rear. The Commissioners need to address the following:

The condition of Site Plan Approval for SP01-73 will need to be removed to allow for Magna’s parking. At the time, the Planning Commission limited the Developer to 1,059 parking spaces.

A bank of trees could be removed to add parking in another area but the Developer would prefer to put this additional parking in the area previously stated. The Woodlands review finds that the design meets the intent of the City’s Ordinance, but there are two trees along Haggerty Road whose survival should be considered.

There are no Wetlands issues on the site. The Landscape, Traffic and Engineering reviews were all favorable. The Fire Marshall had no comment.

Timothy Stoepker spoke on behalf Magna Intier Automotive. This business is expanding and the proposed 64 parking spaces along Haggerty Road and 29 spaces on the south are necessary. Another 74 spaces will be made from existing asphalt and restriping. The net addition of asphalt is only for 93 spaces. Mr. Stoepker forecast that by the end of the year their current 904 employees (single-shift) and daily 135 visitors will grow to 991 and 135 respectively and conservatively. This requires 1,126 parking spaces though only 1,059 are currently available. In 2004 employment will rise to 1,063 and a constant visitor count of 135 would require 1,198 spaces or 139 more than available. In 2005 the numbers of 1,124 (employees) and 135 (visitors) yield a need for 1,259 parking spaces or 200 more than the current level. Boss Engineering provided this Plan which does not violate any setbacks. There is no other impact to the property’s egress. Aesthetically, the berm will be reconfigured in a similar manner just further east and is acceptable to the City’s Landscape Architect.

Mr. Stoepker referred to Section 2516 which asked and answered these questions:

1. Is use permitted and complies with all criteria?: Yes – Master Plan, Ordinances, Landscape, Traffic, Engineering, Public Safety, Fire. No change is made to traffic access.

2. Is use compatible with surrounding areas?: OST is north, south and west; berm across from the residential area.

3. Should the poplar tree and the spruce tree on Haggerty be saved? The spruce will be in the way of the berm that will be moved to that area. Detroit Edison trims the east side and height of that tree to keep it clear from the wires. The tree would not be able to grow in a normal fashion. The poplar tree has also been trimmed by Detroit Edison and would not weather a relocation. Neither tree is consistent with the existing landscape design and therefore the Petitioner has asked whether both trees can be removed.

Chair Nagy opened the discussion to the audience for their participation. Mr. Wayne Hogan asked whether Magna would entertain more handicapped parking areas for their building. Mr. Stoepker indicated that 12 spaces are near the door and meet all ADA requirements. Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Markham confirmed with Mr. Stoepker that the employee numbers he described are tied to secured contracts. She supported the Petitioner’s decision to save the Woodlands area and move the parking elsewhere. She approved of the two (substandard) trees’ removal. She confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that the aerials provided for this meeting were the most up-to-date available.

Member Papp confirmed that no one uses the building egress near the specified truckwell. He confirmed that Magna will be permanently placing the visitor parking signs that are currently staged in buckets. He garnered through Mike Stefani, VP of Intier Automotive, that this company does engineering work on car interiors. Member Papp supported the proposed Site Plan.

Member Kocan complimented the Petitioner on his landscaping. She confirmed that the current berm design was in response to the Planning Commission motion to approve the Site Plan with the parking restrictions compliant with the condition of SP01-73. She confirmed that the Petitioner has no plans to increase the size of his building, and she expressed concern that the parking ratio in the City Ordinance does not adequately address parking needs. Mr. Schmitt assured Member Kocan that this is the only example of a business whose parking needs exceed the Ordinance standards. Member Kocan confirmed that the detention pond will accommodate the additional runoff. She asked about the shortcoming of 37 spaces in 2005 and Mr. Stoepker acknowledged that possibility; however there is an additional land-banked area.

Member Shroyer asked whether a three- or four-foot landscaped area is required between the building and the proposed truckwell parking area. Mr. Evancoe noted that the Landscape review did not specify that, perhaps because it was previously approved without landscaping. Mr. Stoepker explained that there are five feet between the building and the first parking area and could accommodate landscaping by removing the lipped section. Mr. Schmitt stated that the required five feet of maneuvering space is provided. Member Shroyer stated that he would support approving it without the landscape but with a waiver.

Member Shroyer also asked about the Haggerty berm area to ensure that the neighboring residential is shielded from headlights. Elaine Grehl, Woodlands Consultant, confirmed that the berm at 3-3 ½’ is adequate. Mr. Evancoe concurred that the landscaping provides sufficient buffering. Ms. Grehl described the land-bank area as dense Woodlands of high quality. Member Shroyer concurred with leaving the Woodlands alone and placing the proposed parking elsewhere.

Member Paul confirmed that the poplar is a double-stemmed 18" (x2) tree and the spruce has a 14" trunk and is 35 feet high. Adding five trees (3:poplar and 2:spruce) to the site could satisfy the removal of these two trees. Ms. Grehl explained that the Ordinance takes into account the trunk diameter but not the height so additional trees could not be required to compensate for the removal of a tall tree. Mr. Stoepker stated that he would agree to replace the spruce with four trees or two 15’ trees and the poplar with five trees (end of tape). Mr. Evancoe cited a study wherein it was found that the survivability of smaller trees is more likely and they will even grow taller than a tall tree within the same time frame.

Mr. Schmitt stated that the stormwater discharge design rate is .15 cfs which is the maximum allowed under the Ordinance. The area in question will be stoned and vegetated to reduce the discharge rate. Member Paul confirmed that the January landscape issues – mulch, irrigation, street trees, parking lot plans, utility buffer – are addressed and approved in the March landscape letter.

Member Sprague confirmed that in 2005 the traffic count will be 1,124 employees and 135 daily visitors for a total of 1,259. Member Schmitt stated that the building could hold substantially more employees under the fire code. The property can accommodate more parking in the future by tapping into the Woodlands area.

Member Avdoulos verified that the existing pedestrian doors will remain operational and the existing sidewalk will stay. Mr. Schmitt clarified that the top of the berm measures at 913.5 and that is about 3 ½ feet higher than the parking area which is measured at 910 and therefore meets the Ordinance. Member Avdoulos supported the Petitioner’s design.

Chair Nagy agreed with the other Commissioners that the Petitioner has brought forth a desirable Plan. She verified that the berm meets the Ordinance.

Moved by Member Papp, supported by Member Shroyer:

Mr. Schultz asked why the motion specified the number of parking spaces. Member Papp responded that the motion approves the Site Plan as proposed. Member Paul asked if the motion addressed the additional tree plantings. Member Papp stated yes, as required replacements.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Toll Brothers for Preliminary Site Plan and Site Condominium approval. The subject property is located in Section 19 on the north side of Ten Mile Road between Napier and Wixom Roads. The Developer proposes 76 detached single family homes in the RA (Residential District). The subject property is approximately 907 acres.

Mr. Schmitt described the property at 10 Mile and Napier Roads. He noted the proposed site of the Oakpoint Church. The property is zoned R-A and is under development under an RUD Agreement. The Land Use Map indicates residential areas in all directions except for the golf course to the south. On February 26, 2003 the Planning Commission questioned whether the RUD language was formally filed with the City; it has not because it was bumped from the City Council meeting for time constraint reasons. The Planning Commission can choose to make tonight’s motion conditional upon the successful completion of same.

The Site Plan describes single-family lots with the road configuration outlined in the RUD Amendment. Some lots (shown in green at the meeting) are 110’ foot lots that provide lesser setbacks and 120’ lots (in yellow) that provide greater setbacks. Mr. Schmitt explained that the Planning Commission needs to clarify this stipulation of the RUD Agreement and determine whether it is preferred to have the different sideyard setbacks or continuity of the setbacks. The Petitioner prefers that the setbacks remain constant to minimize sightline disturbance. Member Kocan and Mr. Schmitt discussed the sideyard setbacks and how to measure on a pie shaped lot. Mr. Evancoe confirmed that it is measured where the house is closest to the lot line.

Mr. Schmitt stated that the Wetlands Permit was previously approved by the Planning Commission. Other reviews indicated adjustments that can be made prior to Final Site Plan.

Kevin Sullivan of Toll Brothers responded to questions from a previous Planning Commission meeting. He read aloud a letter that reiterated the Developer will also (1)Reduce height of berm along 10 Mile and Terra Del Mar to meet standards. Mr. Evancoe stated that this berm only measures 14 ft. from the northeast – it measures five feet from the entry road coming in off of 10 Mile and does not obstruct vision at the intersection; (2)The berm extending west of Terra Del Mar along 10 Mile will be extended to the westernmost property line; (3)The adjacent detention basin will be reconfigured to accommodate the berm change.

Chair Nagy opened the floor to the public. Member Kocan read a letter from John Hengstebeck, 25100 Delmont, Novi, MI 48374. He wrote of his approval for the project and stated that the Toll Brothers are doing a great job. No one in the audience wished to speak; Chair Nagy closed the Public Hearing.

Member Paul confirmed with Ben Croy, Engineer, that the temporary T-turn at the end of Langley Road is acceptable during construction but must be turned into a cul de sac if another phase to the development does not connect to this phase at some future point. Mr. Croy confirmed that the five points in the Birchler Arroyo letter (Soil Erosion Plan, ROW permits, MDEQ sanitary sewer permit) come at the time of Final Site Plan. Mr. Sullivan explained to Member Paul that Toll Brothers built a $500,000 booster station on Wixom Road and Eleven Mile to address the water pressure for this area. This station’s capacity is for 2200 homes and the entire Toll Brothers development is 756; the Developer and the City have entered into a payback arrangement triggered by future development in the area.

Mr. Schmitt explained to Member Paul that the lot widths do range from 96 to 120 feet but the overall flow of this phase is uninterrupted. The original concern about lot widths related to the future road connection with the adjacent property and the lots adjacent to the park.

Member Avdoulos recommended that the Planning Commission choose a minimum combined setback because the lot widths range from 90 feet to 150 feet if the lot is on a curve. Pro-ratios would become too confusing so the Planning Commission should choose the 10/30 or the 15/35 and Member Avdoulos supports the 10/30.

Mr. Evancoe explained to Member Kocan that 87% of the lots are less than 110 feet wide so the small setbacks are more reasonable. Member Kocan stated that if the proposed berm is slightly higher than required it will be good for the neighboring homes. She reminded the Developer that the new detention pond must meet engineering standards, the replacement trees must be provided and the RUD Agreement must be approved.

Member Markham confirmed that Bellingham and Langley are stub streets now but the intent is for the Developer to the east to someday connect his streets to these. Mr. Sullivan stated that the RUD Agreement adds a five-acre parcel and realigns some of the streets in a future phase, both of which have previously been discussed before the Planning Commission.

Chair Nagy reminded the Planning Commission that the Toll Brothers have previously provided a timeline of their intended schedule. She also supported the height of the berm.

Moved by Member Shroyer, supported by Member Paul:

In the matter of the request of Toll Brothers for approval of Preliminary Site Plan for Site Condominium approval Phase 4B1, Site Plan 02-43, motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: (1)Planning Commission’s interpretation of the RUD stipulation regarding variation of setback based on lot width, approving the variations as discussed, with the minimum combined sideyard setback of 10 feet/30 feet; (2)The City Council’s review and approval of the proposed written RUD Amendment modifying the overall development. It should be clarified if the Site Plan is approved and the subsequent approval of the RUD Agreement Amendment is inconsistent with the approved Site Plan it shall be necessary for the Site Plan to return to the Planning Commission for conformance with the RUD Agreement; (3)The Langley Court reflecting a T-turnaround; (4)All lots meet area and dimensional requirements; (5)The 76 developments in this phase are within the number permitted in this RUD; (6)The Preliminary Site Plan is consistent with the Island Lake Area RUD Plan; (7)Because the Applicant the City, the Planning Commission and the City Council have worked cohesively toward an acceptable resolution for this submittal, that all berms and replacement trees are required as discussed; (8)The comments on the attached review letters be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review.

Member Kocan asked that Member Shroyer amend to clarify that the extension of the berm needs to be the entire right of way which will require redesign of the detention basin.

Moved by Member Shroyer, supported by Member Paul:

In the matter of the request of Toll Brothers for approval of Preliminary Site Plan for Site Condominium approval Phase 4B1, Site Plan 02-43, motion to amend the motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: (1)Planning Commission’s interpretation of the RUD stipulation regarding variation of setback based on lot width, approving the variations as discussed, with the minimum combined sideyard setback of 10 feet/30 feet; (2)The City Council’s review and approval of the proposed written RUD Amendment modifying the overall development. It should be clarified if the Site Plan is approved and the subsequent approval of the RUD Agreement Amendment is inconsistent with the approved Site Plan it shall be necessary for the Site Plan to return to the Planning Commission for conformance with the RUD Agreement; (3)The Langley Court reflecting a T-turnaround; (4)All lots meet area and dimensional requirements; (5)The 76 developments in this phase are within the number permitted in this RUD; (6)The Preliminary Site Plan is consistent with the Island Lake Area RUD Plan; (7)Because the Applicant the City, the Planning Commission and the City Council have worked cohesively toward an acceptable resolution for this submittal, that all berms and replacement trees are required as discussed; (8)The comments on the attached review letters be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review; (9) the extension of the berm needs to be the entire right of way which will require redesign of the detention basin.

Consideration of the request of Ridgeview Centre, LLC. for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 12 on the south side of 13 Mile Road between M-5 and Haggerty Roads in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The Developer is proposing two office buildings. The subject property is 4.59 acres.

Mr. Schmitt described the property along 13 Mile, Cabot Drive to the west. The surrounding zoning and Master Plan is OST in all directions. Building A is slated for office/warehouse (Kip AMERICA has signed lease for its corporate and training headquarters and some R&D) and Building B is (speculated multi-) office. The uses are permitted – the warehouse is as an ancillary use. Access to the site is from 13 Mile, and a stub is proposed to the south for secondary access. The Planning letter suggests that a waiver can be granted that eliminates parking lot setbacks and would promote future use of the shared driveway, but is not necessary for this Plan to get its approval. The wetland permit was approved as there is minimal impact. Temporary impacts to the buffer will be restored after the retaining wall is built. There are no regulated Woodlands. The Landscape review noted items that can be addressed at Final Site Plan; the Applicant has submitted another Landscape plan that appears to conform to the Ordinance. Minor comments came from the Traffic and Engineering reports. The Fire Department recommends approval.

Mr. Gary Jonna, President of Whitehall Real Estate Interests and Managing Partner of Ridgeview Centre LLC, addressed the Commission. He introduced Lise Newman, the Project Architect from Landry Newman Architecture. She described the Site Plan - buildings that will sit high on a ridge and the entryway is a bridge. The Applicant has maximized green space by consolidating parking in the center. The building materials represent Kip AMERICA’s hi-tech image. The predominant color is earth-tone, 100% masonry on Building B, and a 16-foot high masonry base on Building A topped by a white metal panel. Ms. Newman stated that they are requesting a variance for a 4" accent band of rusticated splitfaced masonry (8" above the windows and 16" at the pier), 1% of the façade on Building A and 3% on Building B. The Applicant was not able to find the appropriate look with an approved material.

Kip AMERICA President Sherman Sawtelle explained that his company was established five years ago and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ketsigau (sp) in Tokyo, Japan, makers of wide format engineering printers and scanners. They have supplied to the OEMs since the 1960s through 3-M, Canon, Ricoh and Xerox. Kip AMERICA will distribute products for the North American market. Kip AMERICA will increase its employee count to accommodate their growth in the aerospace, utility and automotive industries. They consider Novi to be a great location for seeking technical employees.

The western entrance, according to their Japanese chairman, brings good fortune and continued success. Their relocation timing is critical. Their hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:30 – 5:00. They receive one or two product deliveries daily. He offered the Commissioners information on his company.

Mr. Jonna closed by referring to Lise Newman’s March 14, 2003 letter that indicated that the review letters were all favorable, and that his company will accommodate all the suggestions contained therein. He explained that Kip AMERICA has signed a decade-long lease and that they want their own tax bill. The split parcels would still have common ownership. In order for this to be accomplished efficiently they are asking for the parking lot waiver. He noted that the design offers an additional 20,000 sf of green space above and beyond the Ordinance requirements. He reiterated that his company has addressed the landscape comments with another Plan. He stressed that Kip AMERICA is the ideal candidate for OST: Contemporary architecture, high-paying jobs, long-term commitment, etc.

Chair Nagy thanked the Applicant for their input. Attorney Mr. Schultz stated that the lot split is a Planning policy issue and the Planning Commission does have the authority to waive the parking lot setback under certain circumstances. Mr. Schmitt explained that the two parcels will share a driveway which will reduce the curb cuts onto 13 Mile; this style of access management is supported by the Planning Department.

Member Avdoulos commented that this development will act as the anchor to the industrial park behind it. The shared driveway is acceptable; the landscape design in the parking area works to reduce the appearance of unending asphalt. The building materials are appropriate and the rough-faced detail block is acceptable and will provide a subtle horizontal accent. The recessed windows and pilaster piers enhance the building’s appearance. The Planning Commission should become more trusting of the architects to provide unique materials in their designs. He supported the approval of this design, provided that the Developer does satisfactorily address the fire truck and semi truck issues brought forth by Rod Arroyo and the Fire Department.

Member Kocan stated her appreciation for the Developer’s response letter which is helpful to the Planning Commission. She asked whether the previously approved (January 2002) Site Plan has been scrapped. Mr. Jonna responded that the old Plan was for a three-story 66,000 sf building and does not reflect today’s office market. Mr. Jonna’s new Plan is in response to the opportunity to serve Kip AMERICA and he considers this new Plan superior.

Mr. Schultz then explained that by the time of Final Site Plan the stub street issue will probably have been successfully addressed. Rod Arroyo’s letter requires that an east or (preferably) south access point must be provided, and Mr. Schultz said it is perfectly acceptable to include language in the motion that addresses this point. There is no way for the City to force a neighbor to connect to the stub; the Planning Commission can choose to approve either this stub or a construction waiver to satisfy the issues raised by the Traffic Engineer and the Fire Department. Mr. Jonna committed his company to providing a connection and a cross access easement. He noted that the south stub street shown on the Plan is designed to complement the Millennium Site Plan.

Member Kocan quoted from Section 2302.A.1.c wherein the Ordinance requires a 6-10’ berm to screen the loading area. Mr. Jonna’s Landscape Architect, Mr. Mark Russell of Russell Design, provided an updated Plan that has been reviewed with the City’s Landscape Architect, Mike McGinnis. He in turn, provided a letter that stated that the new Plan met the intent of the Ordinance and he recommended approval of the design. Additional plantings along the east side screen the dumpster and utilities; additional southern plantings include evergreen trees and shrubs to screen an in-line loading area which has been shifted more to the center of the lot. A current Plan for a six-foot arbor vitae hedge has now been continued to the west and circulates around the transformer just south of the Kip building. Additional plants were also added to the western property line and along the right of way back to the southern portion of the property. The 8-foot retaining wall elevation in the wetland area measures 912, the property measures 906 and the arbor vitae hedge measures 918, or 13 feet higher than the south property line. Mr. McGinnis concurred that this will provide adequate screening. Mr. Schmitt substantiated that a berm waiver is necessary if the Planning Commission approves the proposed landscape design.

Member Kocan confirmed that #7 in Mr. Arroyo’s letter incorrectly identified 13 Mile Road as Haggerty Road. She stated for the record that the Engineering letter also incorrectly identified 13 Mile Road as 11 Mile Road. Mr. Schmitt explained that Mr. Arroyo’s handicap parking issue can ideally be solved by extending the sidewalk south for the western building and north and south for the eastern building (and would require a Planning Commission waiver for greenspace shortcomings) but he would also support placing the handicap ramp on the concrete island if the other option proves unworthy. Ms. Newman stated that both designs are ADA compliant.

Member Kocan asked what percentage of employees pertain to the "ancillary" warehouse use of the Building A, since it represents 57% of the floor plan. Mr. Sawtelle said that of the 50 employees that will be in the building, five will be warehouse employees. Mr. Schmitt affirmed that he and the Engineer have resolved the inadequacies of the detention basin design at the construction entrance. Member Kocan closed in stating that the curved sidewalk eliminates the required four-foot greenspace between it and the building in some cases, but because so much greenspace is provided in the Plan, she would wait to hear comments from her fellow Commissioners.

Member Markham approves of the building and the shared parking designs. She concurred with Member Avdoulos that architects should be allowed to design, directing that comment to address Member Kocan’s concern for the missing greenspace between the sidewalk and building. She recommended a waiver. (end of tape)

Mr. Schmitt read Ordinance language that specifies that rough-faced façade material must be a clay product but through discussions with the architect he has learned that an appropriate white clay is not available. A Section 9 Waiver can address this or the Planning Commission can require a clay product. Member Markham again recommended a waiver.

Mr. Papp expressed his pleasure in the design, the concept and the greenspace. He stated that he is confident that this development will fit this corner well. He reiterated his belief that the Planning Commission needs to revamp the City’s façade Ordinance with more suitable language.

Member Schmitt explained to Member Paul that each handicapped parking space requires its own sign, and that this detail is often omitted on the Preliminary Site Plan but is always present on the Final Site Plan. He explained that the Building Department will perform the ADA review (which supercedes any inconsistencies possibly found in the City’s Ordinance) to determine that health and safety issues have been met before they issue any permit. He explained that the hatched area on the blueprint would be converted into a ramp with curb cuts, which is a better design than converting the u-shaped island into a ramp because with this design passengers from the two interior spaces would be forced into the traffic pattern.

Mr. Schmitt explained that the new detention basin design will take the flow initially into the western pond and an equalization culvert will be placed between the two. This will require additional piping but will provide adequate pretreatment measures.

Member Shroyer commended the Developer on an excellent design.

Chair Nagy confirmed that this is the proposed design and not just a concept. She supported all aspects of the Plan. She welcomed Kip AMERICA as a great new member of the community.

Member Kocan discussed the specific language necessary to provide a waiver for the rough-faced block.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Papp:

Mr. Schultz stated that the term "waiver" is not necessary for the greenspace shortcoming; rather the Planning Commission needs to state only that the intent of the Ordinance has been met.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Papp:

Member Shroyer confirmed that the motion covered the handicapped parking issues, extended sidewalks and errors in road names found in the review letters.

The applicants thanked the Commission and stated that construction will begin in May and they will be moved in by November 1^st.

Consideration of the request of Diversified Glass Corporation for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 23 on the east side of Novi Road, north of Ten Mile Road in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The Developer is proposing an expansion to an existing building. The subject property is 1.2 acres.

Mr. Schmitt described the property located on the east side of Novi Road, north of 10 Mile across from the Pine Ridge Shopping Center. The surrounding zoning is I-1 to the north, east and south and B-3 to the west. The Land Use map shows light industrial uses to the north and east, and a local commercial use to the west and in the future to the south. The Façade review noted that materials used in the addition must match existing materials. A lighting plan and updated landscape information will be submitted at Final Site Plan. There are no Woodlands to address and no Traffic or Fire Department comments. The Engineering Review referenced a previous Site Plan which was identical to this but its expiration date has since lapsed; the same comments from the first Site Plan apply to this submittal as well. This 1,800 sf addition will be used for warehousing.

Steve Dumont from McCann, Dumont and Associates stated that this is a straight forward project that adds square footage to the parking lot and building which will be constructed from the same materials as the existing building. He clarified that this project taps into the existing storm system behind the building and a catch basin will be added.

Member Avdoulos stated that the relocation of the loading area to the rear of the building is a great improvement.

Member Kocan confirmed that the stormwater design is the same as the previously approved design and that the Applicant understands that the same comments still apply. She also verified that the Birchler Arroyo letter from November 6, 2002 was addressed in the plans dated January 3, 2003, and that the landscape comments will also be addressed.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Paul confirmed that there would not be any outdoor storage on the site. Mr. Croy then explained to Member Paul that the entire discharge for the property will go to a regional discharge basin and is considered unrestricted because it is not diverted elsewhere first. Member Paul recommended that when an opportunity arises to improve a stormwater system the Planning Commission should act upon it. To accept this Final Site Plan as is this Applicant will have to meet the intent of the Stormwater Ordinance or request a waiver from the City Council. Mr. Schultz confirmed this information.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Mr. Dumont clarified with Chair Nagy that he did not have to come back before the Planning Commission; he only has to meet the requirements of the Ordinance. Ms. McClain explained that the Applicant will have to show a Plan that indicates that his regional detention basin can accommodate the 100-year storm provision. Detention is not necessary on sites where regional basins have previously been constructed. The Applicant must meet the water quality portion of the Ordinance which would be through a sedimentation basin. Mr. Dumont expressed that they will most likely choose to meet the Ordinance, barring unforeseen costs. Ms. McClain stressed that the Plan approval can go forward regardless; even if he chooses to go for the variance he can still work on the Site Plan before he reaches City Council.

Motion carried 8-0.

Chair Nagy reconvened the meeting and opened discussions on the budget. Member Sprague spoke on behalf of the Budget Committee and explained to the Planning Commission that the night’s objective is to recommend a budget to City Council.

Member Sprague rearranged the information from the spreadsheet into another format for the purpose of discussion. The total budget request is $108,691. If the line item "Emerging Issues" for $11,500 is included the request would then be $120,191. From the top of the document, $6,691 is proposed for Routine Operations. These are the general expenses (magazines, periodicals, membership dues, etc).

Under "Objective Focus Costs", the biggest project is the Master Plan slated for completion in the next 14 months. Currently the Planning Commission is asking for:

$20,000 Land Use Analysis

$30,000 Studies Update

$32,100 Growth Management Plan

Mr. Sprague asked to Planning Commission to discuss whether they need $82,100 to complete the Master Plan.

Additional requests include $9900 for Conferences and Workshops; $10,000 Natural Features. The Planning Commission also needs to recommend whether the Planning Commission or the Planning Department budget will house the $11,500 Emerging Issues line.

Member Markham spoke on behalf of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and discussed what studies are still necessary to complete and what existing studies can be used in lieu of ordering new ones. The Committee reviewed the studies that were performed in 1997-99 for the last Master Plan and determined that an additional $30,000 above and beyond the Growth Management Plan allocation is necessary.

Mr. Sprague asked whether anything more has been done to the 2004 Master Plan Update since it was last shared with the Commission on March 7, 2003. He thought that the Update was going to be shared with the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for their input. Member Markham responded that it was a foundation document only and that it does need to be expanded. She cited a Greenways Plan as an example of a study to be added.

Chair Nagy spoke about the Growth Management Plan memo dating back to 2002. She was unaware that City Council passed this Plan and she stated her preference in moving the remaining $32,100 into the Planning budget. Chair Nagy had copies of completed studies on Grand River and Thoroughfare. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee needs to draw what information it can from existing studies and then work on the Economic Base, Demographic Profile, Thoroughfare Update, Community Facilities, Build-out Profile and Greenways. She also stated that Elaine Grehl’s Woodlands (end of tape)

Chair Nagy stated that in previous years during budget review the Planning Commission was provided with the name of a study, its description and associated costs. She has asked for a list of all completed studies from the previous ten years, as well as the authors’ names, how much each cost and when it was complete. She would also like to see a list of studies that were approved for funding and whether they were actually completed.

Member Sprague suggested that in future years the Planning Commission discuss their wish list in the fall. Then at Budget review time they will be prepared to take that list and apply dollar values to it.

Member Markham indicated that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee used the following logic in their review: In fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99 the overall Planning budget was about $86,000. Of that, about $60,000 per year reflected Master Plan items. It did not include the Natural Features Study for $10,000. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee assumed that for this Master Plan that similar funding levels will be necessary, so they offered the $30,000 figure to complement the existing $32,100 figure for a budget number of $62,100.

Member Sprague asked whether specific studies should be listed in their Budget package for City Council.

Member Kocan commented that thus far, she has heard two things from the Planning Commission. First, the Growth Management Plan covered four studies but the Planning Commission would prefer that these studies fall under the category of "Master Plan Update Studies". Last Year these studies were allocated:

Water/Sewer: $ 5,000

Thoroughfare: $19,000

Economic Base:$ 6,000

Fiscal Analysis: $12,100

Member Markham asked whether the Fiscal Analysis should be part of the Planning Department or Commission budget. This study builds upon the Economic Base Study. Mr. Evancoe explained that this study is unique in that it relates specifically to the Growth Management Plan as opposed to the other studies that are considered a component of the Master Plan review. As a whole, the Growth Management Plan is an implementation strategy for the Master Plan.

Chair Nagy stated that neither the Implementation or the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has ever considered merging the Growth Management Plan with the Master Plan. Member Kocan continued with the Demographic Profile, which would be $6,000 of the $30,000 reserve. Community Facilities would likely be performed in house. Build-Out Profile would provide rough projections on target date, population, etc. This would be done at the end of the process once the Land Use Plan has been revised, and in the past it was budgeted in two $15,000 increments. Mr. Evancoe reminded the Committee that previous budgeted amounts reflect more consultants and less Staff.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Markham:

Motion to extend the meeting to 12:30.

Member Markham confirmed that the Greenways Plan (ties the greenways together from community to community and its need is State-endorsed), Natural Features Study and Land Use Analysis were not overlapping each other. Mr. Evancoe remarked that both he and Darcy Schmitt have experience with Greenway review although there are time constraint issues with performing this study in-house. Member Markham stated that the Greenways Plan is a definite inclusion for the new Master Plan; $6,000 was appropriated. The Land Use Plan is budgeted for $20,000. Natural Features Study is budgeted at $10,000.

Member Markham asked about other studies that so far had not been discussed. The Housing Profile will be performed in-house. The Parks and Recreation Profile will come from their budget. Ms. McClain explained that the Utilities Profile is satisfied by the Water Master Plan Update (in progress), Storm Water Master Plan Update ($40,000 in current budget and in the RFP stage) possible Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (Engineering budget). Gas and electric are not typically reviewed. JCK is finalizing their 2001 Water Study. In all:

Mr. Sprague suggested that the Commission consider how to prepare their budget package for City Council submittal.

Mr. Evancoe explained to the Planning Commission that their input for City Council is to provide a narrative that explains their objective, which is to update the Master Plan. Under Standards of Performance, the Commission should provide generalized statements regarding each study that they would like performed. Mr. Evancoe expressed concern that the strategy of placing the Growth Management Plan under the Master Plan may appear as a double appropriation, as the City Council already approved the spending of $42,100 for the Growth Management Plan in last year’s budget. Of this amount, $10,000 is anticipated to hit this year’s budget, and the remaining $32,100 will hit next year’s budget.

Member Markham asked whether the City Council considers the Growth Management Plan and the Master Plan exclusive of each other or do they view the two as integrated plans. Mr. Evancoe asked whether the Planning Commission wants the funding to remain under the Growth Management Plan or should it be dissolved in favor of adding those items directly to the funding for the Master Plan. Member Kocan suggested that the four Growth Management Plan studies be indented and listed under the Master Plan update. Mr. Sprague explained that Kathy Smith-Roy knew the dollar amount of the Growth Management Plan line item but could not confirm what the four items were. Chair Nagy stated that because the Growth Management Plan is already funded it should probably stay as is.

Member Kocan also explained that although the Community Facilities line item is $0 because it will be performed in house, it still needs to be part of the Standards of Performance narrative that accompanies the budget. Also, the Build-out Profile is listed at $15,000, but can be another number as recommended by the Staff. All of this will assist the Planning Commission in reviewing the budget during next year’s process.

Mr. Sprague asked what is represented by the $10,000 that will be spent from the Growth Management Plan funding in the current fiscal year. Mr. Evancoe explained that the money will be spent on the pre-planning work for those four deliverables outlined in the Growth Management Plan. This is part of the public planning process. Mr. Evancoe continued that the City Council wants to hold a policy discussion in the near future regarding whether there is any need to pursue this Growth Management Plan. Some on the City Council doubt whether proceeding with it is a good idea. Some work has been completed on the Growth Management Plan but the Planning Department hasn’t gone too far as yet. At this time the Growth Management Plan concept is somewhat up in the air.

Chair Nagy explained that by delineating it like Member Kocan did it allows City Council to change their minds while still allowing the Planning Commission the possibility of getting the money for the Master Plan update. Based on the amount of work that lies before the Planning Department, Chair Nagy thinks that a Consultant may need to be brought in. The Planning Commission understands that even though they ask City Council for the money, the actual budget may approve a lesser amount.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Sprague:

Motion to approve the revised Budget as discussed this evening, totaling $117,191 with the delineated plans as discussed at the table.

Member Shroyer added his concerns that the timing of this Agenda item has placed the Planning Commission under the gun. He stressed that the Planning Commission needs to have a Plan and a schedule put in place early and depicted via a yearly calendar. This will lend itself to the Planning Commission making reasonable and proper decisions. Member Shroyer also stated that the Growth Management Plan presentation was made to the officers of the Planning Commission; he now remembers very little detail about what the Plan is actually about. He does not have a comfort level with pushing forth this Plan.

Member Shroyer discussed the budget material found in the Planning Commission packet (Mr. Evancoe’s four-page letter, Planning Commission Overview with Objectives, Standards of Performance and Measures, and the Novi Community Master Plan 2004 update). He stated that there are several paragraphs with which he doesn’t agree. Although he is in favor of what the Planning Commission is doing budget-wise, he does not want the letter and update to accompany the budget when it goes to City Council. He suggested that the Planning Commission have a chance to review this information first.

Chair Nagy asked where this information came from. Mr. Schmitt stated that the Master Plan 2004 update was an internal memo responding to the concerns of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee at the beginning of the budget process. Chair Nagy stated that the memo doesn’t belong there.

Member Kocan stated that the Planning Commission overview is how the new Administration chose to present the budget. This includes the objectives and the standards of performance. The Planning Commission changed the years from 2002/03 to 2003/04. This year the Budget Committee looked at it more seriously and subsequently determined their recommendation for dollar figures. She informed the Commission that indeed, now they need to approve the verbiage that corresponds to the budget. The Standards of Performance need to be determined by the Master Plan Committee rather than the Budget Committee, which is why this budget has been brought to this table now for the third time. She conceded that the Planning Commission is up against the wall but it must get the job done, even if that means removing some of the questionable items. She suggested that the Standards of Performance be reviewed paragraph by paragraph. The Budget Committee prepared the Objectives after their first meeting when they discussed the Staff’s role and their necessary time frames in light of the Master Plan being slated for next year. They understood that they alone could not approve this document which is why it is before the Planning Commission now. Member Kocan was not sure whether these items are part of the package that goes to City Council but she believes that the budget submittal requires something else to substantiate its case.

Mr. Shroyer then commented on the Staff’s ability to perform in-house studies. The Planning Commission has been asking for, e.g., surrounding communities’ zoning maps, undeveloped Novi land maps, etc. Thus far the Staff has not been able to provide these items so Mr. Shroyer wondered how the Staff will have time to perform even more studies. He prefers that money be allocated for the studies now so that if the Staff can not perform them then money is already there to pay a Consultant.

Mr. Sprague suggested that, at minimum, the Planning Commission should give the City Council the budget numbers and the overview (as agreed upon by the Commission) and, over the course of the next two days he will work alongside Mr. Evancoe and Kathy Smith-Roy to make the necessary revisions. The product could be faxed among the Commission for approval prior to Friday’s packet preparation.

Member Markham requested that the chart on the Master Plan update be removed. She stated that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and the Staff can prepare a better supporting document. Mr. Evancoe explained that the Staff worked with the Budget Committee on that document for their purposes and it was not intended to go much further.

Chair Nagy supported sending the budget numbers to City Council but doesn’t support the submission of the other documents. She expressed concern that too much information is not necessary, and that the Planning Director can address the City Council in person to express the Planning Commission’s goals. Mr. Evancoe clarified that historically there has not been an opportunity for the Planning Director to function in this manner; his addressing the City Council on budget matters occurs only when he is called upon to do so.

Mr. Evancoe also explained that the narrative portion is in fact a part of the budget document; every portion of the budget is supported by a document in this exact format. Chair Nagy apologized for the confusion.

The Committee proceeded to review the pages that will be submitted with the budget. Mr. Shroyer objected to the unnecessary inclusion of Item C (Identify appropriate effective methods of expanding public input to the Master Plan process, etc.) on page one under "Update Master Plan and Standards of Performance". Member Markham concurred, stating that while the Planning Commission wants public input, the statement sets up an unrealistic expectation for the public. The Novi 2020 and the other focus groups became a disappointment in the end because people thought things were going to happen but they never did. Member Markham then stated that the Planning Commission is not equipped to handle the expectations that come with increased public input.

Member Kocan stated that this is the exact verbiage from last year, but that she had no problem with removing it from the text. Mr. Evancoe explained that based on conversations he has had with Mr. Helwig, there is indication that previous levels of public participation in developing the current Master Plan was not very inclusive or broad based. Though it was called Public Participation, the new Administration feels that it can be done better so that there is a community-wide feeling of true ownership to this document. Mr. Evancoe assured the Planning Commission that this is a Department goal but it does not have to be stated as a Planning Commission goal in this document.

Member Kocan asked whether the word "ensure" could be inserted before the words "public input" and then Item C would just read, "Ensure the public input into the Master Plan process." The Commission concurred.

Member Paul asked whether the motion should be amended or a second motion should be made that includes a directive on how to proceed with future budget reviews. She had three concerns:

Timing of the Budget proposal and current fiscal year status. She recommended that perhaps the Budget Committee could receive quarterly updates on budget performance – both financial status and accomplishments.

Update on Studies. She recommended regular presentations to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee which would then be included under Committee Reports at the Planning Commission.

Calendarization of Budget process. She recommended that Staff and Commission work together on this so that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and Budget Committee be given enough review time before the budget comes before the Planning Commission.

Member Sprague suggested that the Budget Committee and Staff work together to establish a process and develop a calendar before a final motion at the Planning Commission level is made. Member Paul agreed.

Member Kocan stated that the motion on the table is strictly the dollar amount. She asked if the Planning Commission wanted to amend the motion to include the updating of the Standards of Performance. Member Sprague did ask that he see a copy of the updated Standards of Performance prior to its delivery to City Council.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Sprague:

Motion to amend the motion approve the revised Budget as discussed this evening, totaling $117,191 with the delineated plans and the updated Standards of Performance as discussed at the table.

Member Kocan added that when the City Council approves the budget the Planning Commission wants a Staff presentation so that they know what was actually approved. Mr. Shroyer also stated that the Rules Committee is going to address the scheduling issue as well.

Mr. Evancoe addressed the Commission regarding a Planning Studies and Budget Committee. While it appears that this Commission is going to have the Master Plan and Zoning Committee perform in this manner, Mr. Evancoe wanted to point out that traditionally a Studies Committee has been appointed to review the studies.

Member Paul stated that the water towers are a big issue for the Planning Commission – both aesthetically and financially. She recommends that the City consider two underground pumping stations with a five-million gallon tank on the City’s west side. Ms. McClain explained that location plays a large role in what kind of tank can be used. The Engineering Department will always try to design concealed and well-suited tanks first wherever possible. Member Paul noted that the total sum of the water towers proposed in the Capital Improvements Programs was $14.4 million dollars.

Member Paul stated that the CIP is a planning tool which when used wisely, can assist the City in receiving grants. The CIP should encourage a balanced growth initiative rather than reactive planning. Member Paul does not believe that the proposed CIP works in this manner. The storm/sanitary sewers, water mains, water towers, etc., listed in the document are reactionary. She expressed concern on the following points:

• 45: Beck Road extension for Maybury Park Estates – too exclusive.

• 49: Grand River/Beck storage tank

• 50: 12Mile:West Park/Grand River water main

• 52: Beck:Grand River/Eleven Mile water main upgrade

• 54: 10 Mile:Beck/Wixom water main

• 55-58: water tanks

Member Paul supports the following:

• 72: Tree stump grinder – will help control diseased trees – should be 2003/04.

• 74: Skid steer – departments say this is imperative.

• 87: Street sweeper – to complement use of existing sweeper and would act as preventative maintenance in areas near waterways that have dredging problems – should be 2003/04.

Member Sprague serves on the CIP Committee and reiterated to the Commission that this document fulfills an obligation to the State and it is not a prioritization of the Planning Commission’s requests. This is a product of a joint committee and covers a wide array of items that are not under the jurisdiction of this Commission. Capital improvements include all public places, purchases that last over five years and are over $25,000. It is the City Council’s responsibility to review and determine the priority level of each line item.

Member Kocan stated that because the Commission reviews the Master Plan that ultimately it should be concerned with all the items listed on this Plan. Member Kocan supports:

• 24: Nine Mile:Novi/Meadowbrook - needs funding now and major reconstruction later.

• 10: Eleven Mile repairs should be reduced – necessity is questionable.

• Remove "above-ground" language from water tanks

Member Kocan confirmed that the Rouge River stabilization money is in this fiscal year and commented that there are quite a few new sidewalk projects on the list. Member Markham explained that the newly listed sidewalk projects are "gap-fillers" and their inclusion is meant to prevent their oversight in the future.

Ms. McClain offered her comments to the Planning Commission.

• 45: Beck sewer is also service to Tuscany. It is a requirement of the Site Plan that it be put in. Its inclusion here indicates that it may be done as an SAD or a payback but the final payment will come from the developers.

• 50: 12 Mile:West Park/Grand River - The City needs another crossing of I-96 in order to provide reliable service. This is a current project.

• The City’s pipes get larger as they head west and this must be adjusted without the delay of waiting for Detroit to provide the 72" main at Napier.

• The City is obligated to provide adequate water pressure not only to new developments but to existing developments as well.

• The City is currently taking advantage of the Grand River road repair and is doing some sewer replacement now.

• The Beck Road sewer repair will be done in conjunction with the road repair.

• The JCK water study will address what to expect from the water tower upgrades.

Chair Nagy expressed her concerns about these areas:

• Roads in Royal Crown, Westmont, Walton Woods and many others are likely in the same state of disrepair.

• Capital Improvements that satisfy both commercial and residential taxpayers.

Mr. Papp confirmed that the Statute of Limitations on developers repairing shortcomings is seven years. When developers dedicate their streets to the City, Engineering first reviews bills of sale. After acceptance a Maintenance and Guarantee Bond is in effect for two years and when the roads are placed on Act 51 the City begins receiving gas tax money for their maintenance. Westmont’s roads have not been accepted and discussion on the repairs is ongoing. Mr. Schultz interjected that currently City Council has asked the Ordinance Review Committee to address whether changes should be made to the Roadway Performance Standards.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Avdoulos offered this comment:

• 31 and 34: Nine Mile:Beck/Napier paving is critical to address water draining (no crest or ditches), potholes, dust, health and safety concerns. (end of tape)

Chair Nagy agreed that 31 and 34 are real issues and that Nine Mile should be chip-sealed and given swales. Ms. McClain stated that road repairs are not considered capital improvement items. The City is considering a pilot chip seal program and she will discuss Nine Mile drainage with Mr. McCusker. The City Council has discussed a vehicle for paving the unpaved Novi roads.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Sprague confirmed that item 45 will be funded either by an SAD or through a payback Ordinance.

Moved by Member Paul, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Kocan expressed her discomfort with removing items from the program. Member Paul defended her motion, noting that she can not support spending $14,400,000 on the west side of the city without having more information. Chair Nagy concurred with Member Paul.

Yes: Nagy, Paul

No: Shroyer, Sprague, Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Papp

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Mr. Schultz confirmed for Chair Nagy that project Number 21 relates to the 1997 Dell condemnation lawsuit that is pending before the Michigan Supreme Court. In the event that the City prevails in that case, there needs to be money budgeted for the purchase of that land.

Member Paul asked that Number 36 (Taft Road signalization) be removed from the list as recently installed stop signs are functioning properly.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Member Avdoulos requested that language be included in the motion that emphasizes the need for Number 31, "Nine Mile: Beck/Napier paving," and Number 34, "Paving 13 miles of unpaved Novi roads," with their ranking to suggest immediacy.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Markham:

Yes: Sprague, Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Shroyer

No: Paul

Member Paul understood this report would include the status of all projects.

Member Paul suggested that the Planning Commission and the Environmental Committee give their input on the pending new Woodlands and Wetlands maps. Chair Nagy asked that the Environmental Committee choose a meeting date to discuss this issue.

Member Kocan suggested that the Planning Commission meet on April 9, 2003; the Rules Committee will be finalizing the rules on April 2, 2003. This meeting would allow the Commissioners to be fresh when reviewing the draft provided by the Rules Committee. The meeting could allow consultants time before the Commission as no developers would be on the Agenda. The Commission supported the idea and Chair Nagy will work with Mr. Evancoe in developing the Agenda.

Moved by Member Kocan, supported by Member Shroyer:

Motion to add an April 9, 2003 Planning Commission meeting to the schedule.

There were no special reports.

Mr. Hogan addressed the Planning Commission and first thanked them for their recognition of handicapped parking safety issues. He stressed the difference between handicapped parking and barrier-free parking. He expressed his disappointment in a recent Parks and Recreation purchase that came without barrier-free access. In reference to Ridgeview, he welcomed the planning of a building with a western entrance that is more likely to be (sun) cleared on snow days. He cited Outback, Olive Garden and Red Hot & Blue as restaurants with good handicapped accessibility. He cited the east side of Providence Park, Providence Hospital as a poor example as it requires going the length of the parking lot to get to a ramp. He stated that snow-plow contractors do address the condition of the handicapped areas only after the situation is discussed with them; he recommends that the absolute necessity of clearing handicapped areas become part of the contract language. He explained that concrete planters in the landscaped areas of the parking areas sometimes hold water then overflow, ultimately creating ice slicks near the handicapped areas. In the summer they become mosquito nesting areas; he recommends that they are designed with drainage capabilities. Chili’s at 8 Mile/Haggerty and Mongolian Barbeque are examples of where the water drains appropriately. He stated that garbage trucks do great divot-like damage on asphalt in the summer time when they make their adjusting turns; those in wheelchairs are more aware of this damage because of their circumstances. He offered his assistance in reviewing any handicapped parking areas.

Moved by Markham:

Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 1:17 a.m.

WED 3/26/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

TUE 4/1/03 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 4/2/03 RULES COMMITTEE 5:00 PM

MON 4/07/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 4/09/03 NEW PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

WED 4/16/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

FRI 4/18/03 CITY OFFICES CLOSED GOOD FRIDAY

MON 4/21/03 CITY COUNCIL 7:30 PM

WED 4/23/03 MASTER PLAN & ZONING COMMITTEE 7:00 PM

WED 4/30/03 PLANNING COMMISSION 7:30 PM

Signature on File

Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf

Date Approved: May 14, 2003