The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present:　 Members, Victor Cassis David Greco, Andrew Gutman, Brian Larson, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Brian Burke (excused), Michael Lynch (excused)

Also Present: Steve Rumple, Community Development Director; Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; John Freeland, Woodland Consultant; Doug Necci, Façade Consultant; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney

Member Gutman led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Chair Pehrson said that Papa Joe’s has been removed from the agenda.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said this was the last 2008 Planning Commission meeting. She wished everyone happy holidays and said the next meeting would be January 14, 2009.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Whitehall Real Estate Interest for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 17, south of Grand River Avenue and west of Beck Road in the OSC, Office Service Commercial District. The subject property is approximately 1.31 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build a one story 7,015 square-foot speculative general/medical office building and associated parking facilities on the northwest corner of the Providence Park Hospital planned office complex site.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project and explained that the site plan was designed with anticipation of a 50-50 mix of retail and office space. The plan includes parking and drainage facilities. The parcel is located on the northwest corner of the Providence campus. The site is at the southwest corner of Providence Parkway and Grand River Avenue. The property is zoned OSC, as are the properties to the north, the 52-1 District Court, and the vacant property elsewhere on the Providence Campus in the east and south. The vacant properties to the west are zoned I-1 Light Industrial District. The subject property is master planned for Office, as are the properties to the west, south and east. The property to the north is master planned for Public Uses.

The site contains regulated woodlands and wetlands, though the official maps do not depict either on this site. There are no Habitat Priority Areas or flood plains on the site.

The Applicant has worked well with the City through the planning process. The Staff feels this is a good plan being presented at this meeting. The plan demonstrates general compliance with the standards of the Zoning Ordinance. There are no wetland impacts that require a wetland permit, but there are about 5,000 square feet of buffer impact. The Applicant is proposing to remove seven regulated trees. The Applicant proposes to pay into the tree fund. No landscaping waivers are requested. The façade complies with the Ordinance. There are no substantial Engineering or Traffic issues. All disciplines recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Woodland Permit, subject to minor corrections listed in the review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Gary Jonna addressed the Planning Commission. He said the plan is intended to be Phase 2 of the Providence Park Village Center. Phase 1 was the Staybridge Suites. This is intended to provide opportunities for medical specialties that don’t otherwise exist in some of the other buildings. This is referred to as medical retail, meaning those types of uses that are of a medical uses that are of a service nature – consumer-focused businesses that thrive with signage and convenient parking. This project is not large in scale. The building elevations were shown to the Planning Commission. Some of the materials of the other Providence buildings were used to provide continuity of design across the campus. Mr. Jonna said they intend to comply will all of the comments from the various consultants.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Gutman said it was nice to hear the Applicant agree to comply with the reviews.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Wrobel asked what "other medical" might include. Mr. Jonna responded that it might be dental and dental specialties. These uses would round out the campus so that every part of the body can be taken care of on site. Cosmetic dentistry, oral surgery, specialized dental practices would fall under this category. There are certain credentialing and staffing requirements required by Providence to be on the campus.

Member Meyer thanked the Applicant for his collaboration. He affirmed the fact that Providence is making every effort possible to continue what is becoming a beautiful campus – the hospital, Assyrian Cancer Institute – it is truly a remarkable site. In these economic times, Providence is making a positive statement on behalf of Novi and the State of Michigan.

Member Cassis said the proposal was lovely and supplements what has taken place at the campus. He was gratified that this will be on the Grand River frontage. It gives the campus a nice classy look as an office building. It is a great project and the City appreciates it very much.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Chapter 37, Woodlands Protection, to amend the City Code related to an update of the Woodland Protection Ordinance and revised Regulated Woodland Map.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said that Landscape David Beschke and Woodland Consultant John Freeland were instrumental in the update of the map and the Ordinance. She said this has been a long project and she wished to go over the highlights of the work.

This is a Public Hearing for consideration of an updated Regulated Woodland Map and Woodland Protection Ordinance. The City’s Regulated Woodland Map serves as a guideline for development on wooded parcels within the City with the ultimate goal of protecting, conserving and preserving valuable resources. It is important to note that the Regulated Woodland Map simply serves as a guideline for responsible development. On any regulated wooded site where development is proposed, a tree survey specifically delineating site woodlands is required. The Planning Commission frequently sees these plans.

Staff created the proposed Woodland Map by utilizing The City’s GIS system to carefully review the current Regulated Woodland Map (last updated in 1998) against an overlay of the City’s most recent aerial photography. All potential wooded areas were delineated and documented on a working map. The working map was then field-verified throughout the City by David Beschke as the City’s Landscape Architect and Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Woodland Consultant. City woodlands were reviewed with regard to tree health, species, rarity, density and maturity. Any necessary corrections or clarifications were prepared on the final map as proposed. Ms. McBeth said that it was interesting to note that even with the ongoing development, the natural succession and the past woodland mitigation projects have actually added about 220 acres to the City’s woodlands, for a total of 4,870 acres. The revised map has already been favorably introduced to the members of the Environmental Committee.

Staff has proposed considerable revisions to the Woodland Protection Ordinance with the intent of clarifying requirements and offering innovative opportunities, while still protecting personal property rights. Revisions were made to assure clarity of the Ordinance, define woodland terminology and outline Staff and Consultant duties.

Just a few of the highlights of the proposed Ordinance include:

The newly included Reforestation Credit Table on Page 14 is a significant new addition allowing for more diverse Woodland Replacements. Currently only large canopy trees and evergreens are allowed toward replacement credits. The revised Ordinance encourages mixed use of native canopy trees, evergreens, sub-canopy trees, large and small shrubs, perennials and groundcovers. Smaller sized vegetation would be allowed in exchange for higher plant quantities. These practices would allow for a far more complete and viable woodland habitat and is a great improvement over past practice that gave credit solely for large trees of a single caliper size.

The updated Regulated Woodland Map and Ordinance no longer define woodlands as light, medium or dense categories as did the previous version. This past methodology had no bearing on the level of protection afforded to the woodlands. Defining site woodlands as simply regulated or unregulated is a much more straightforward and effective approach, especially as a narrative describing the general nature of all site vegetation and will be required for any Woodland Permit submittal. Ms. McBeth said the Consultant’s review generally provides a description of the woodland quality.

Historic and Specimen trees are more closely defined and are encouraged for nomination by residents. A new Specimen Tree Table on page 9 of the revised Ordinance identifies minimum sizes for nomination of Specimen trees by species.

The chart noting acceptable Woodland Replacement Species has been modified to include many more native species. All non-native species are now prohibited.

The woodland replacement value for evergreens has been altered from the current two evergreens to one required canopy tree credit to a ratio of 1.5 evergreens to one canopy tree. This will encourage the use of more evergreens. Evergreens provide for good habitat and often provide for better screening and buffering. Applicants and residents appreciate the value of evergreens, and the improved ratio is more equitable with the City’s landscape performance guarantee standards.

Finally, the Ordinance now makes it clearer that Regulated Woodlands are intended for passive rather than active recreation. Any proposed pavement or built amenities within woodlands will require a woodland permit.

The draft Ordinance has already been reviewed by the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, City Planners, the City Woodland Consultant and the City Attorney. Public comment on the updated map and Ordinance was solicited through display at the Civic Center and through information posted on the City website. Public comments received to date are in the Planning Commission packages.

Ms. McBeth said that David Beschke and Dr. John Freeland were available for any questions.

Chair Pehrson opened the floor for public comment.

Rick Shanoski, Barclay Estates Subdivision: Commented that the map seemed very coarse and appears to map areas on private property. What is the impact to the homeowner who happens to have regulated woodlands and runs afoul? He was afraid they may be blind-sided by the Ordinance provisions, if they didn’t realize that there were regulated woodlands on their own properties. How are the homeowners being protected in that respect?

Member Gutman said there was no correspondence. Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Pehrson asked Mr. Beschke to respond to Mr. Shanoski’s comments. Mr. Beschke said there are many private properties that were regulated before and remain regulated with the update. This doesn’t tend to affect them. This map is really aimed at large parcels that are yet to be developed. In the case where a private residence backs up to a woodland, the City actually extended the woodline as far as it could go just to show the full breath of it. This is a rough map and when an area is zoomed in on with the online mapping portal, one can see how close it is. The map that is produced actually is very rough. The City has never denied someone who wanted to remove a tree in their private residence at the back yard. If the tree is threatening or diseased, the City simply goes out and takes a look at the tree and the resident is told whether its removal is fine. It is reasonable to try to extend the boundaries onto someone’s lot if the boundary of the woodland goes there, but it doesn’t really affect the private resident.

Chair Pehrson noted that it is Novi’s typical methodology to solicit public comment in many ways, such as through correspondence and online comments. He asked whether the City responds to the comments collected. For example, comment #7 from the online list said the area near Rotary Park looked good except the writer asked why the section north of Asbury and south of Roethel was not regulated. Chair Pehrson thought it seemed like a fair question. Mr. Beschke said it did seem like a fair question, and he said there were eight comments received through the Survey Monkey. He did not know of any way to respond directly to those people. The comments are anonymous. He said the City could certainly look at these areas; that is part of the reason for this opportunity. One of the reasons for the public comments was to determine whether the public had questions about specific areas. The map can be revised prior to being adopted. The comment has been taken into account but the City can’t directly answer the author.

Chair Pehrson remembered the beautiful oak tree specimen on Grand River. He asked what the process was for designating a tree as historic. If it is deemed historic by a count of ten votes, does the tree become untouchable? Mr. Beschke said there was information beyond the definitions, which can be found on page ten. There is a section that explains what qualifies as an historic tree. This is up to the Planning Commission. It is not new to the Ordinance. The Planning Commission can adopt an historic tree if someone comes forward with appropriate information that proves the tree is historic for any of the different reasons – associated with a notable person or historic figure, a state, an educator, art, literature or law. The nominator has to prove their case, and it is something of a fuzzy science. If the tree is dedicated as an historic tree, it has the same regulations as any of the regulated woodland trees.

Ms. McBeth added that the section of Ordinance Mr. Beschke referred to states that the removal of any designated specimen or historic tree would require approval by the Planning Commission. Replacement of the removed tree may be required on an inch-for-inch basis. This is more of an honorary nomination. Ms. McBeth also said that if there was any notoriety associated with a tree on a site plan before the Planning Commission, this information would be provided to the members for consideration. The intent is to include the location of all of these trees on the Woodland Map, and then this information would be referenced as part of the Consultant’s review.

Member Meyer commented that he once visited Abraham Lincoln’s birthplace and saw a 300-year old tree; the next time he visited, the tree had died.

Member Cassis complimented the Planning Department and Mr. Beschke for their hard work. Some of the language has been clarified. He noted Letter "h" on page 21; he asked how the cost of trees is estimated. Mr. Beschke responded that standard fees are adopted by City Council. Canopy trees are considered as $400 average price. It’s far easier to use a benchmark price rather than have the Applicant estimate on each species of tree. The performance guarantees and bonds are based on this number. A large shrub is $50. [$250] is the price for a sub-canopy tree. The prices were just adjusted a few years ago, and every few years these costs are reviewed.

Member Gutman commended the Staff’s efforts. It’s great to be part of a City where the Staff proactively works at improving the process for our constituents.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Cassis:

Dr. John Freeland introduced himself to the Planning Commission. Chair Pehrson thanked him for his continued service and dedication in helping the City learn and grow. He understood that much of the collaborative effort included him. Dr. Freeland had no other comment.

The Public Hearing was opened on Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance Article 25, General Provisions, Section 2516 Site Plan Review and Section 2520 Exterior Building Wall Façade Materials, In order to provide for administrative approval of façade waivers when an applicant proposes only to upgrade an existing non-conforming façade that previously received a Section 9 Façade Waiver by the Planning Commission.

Planner Mark Spencer said that the City’s Planning Staff has reviewed Sections 2516 and 2520 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding administrative review of façades. Staff identified two minor Ordinance modifications that could help reduce the processing time for approval of a modification to an existing façade that was previously approved with a Section 9 Waiver.

The amendment would allow administrative façade waivers be granted on proposed revisions to non-conforming façades that previously received a Section 9 Waivers when the proposed modification is equal or more conforming to the material requirements in Section 2520 and when, in the opinion of the City’s Façade Consultant, the proposed façade is consistent with the overall project design and will generally enhance the visual quality of the project.

Mr. Spencer added that revising a façade seldom has substantial issues, and reducing the processing time may encourage more reinvestment in the City’s commercial properties. The Rojo Mexican Restaurant that was recently approved by the Planning Commission is an example of one request that could have been approved administratively under this Ordinance amendment.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Wrobel asked the Façade Consultant, Doug Necci, whether he had any comments to add. Mr. Necci said he had nothing more to add, per se. This amendment will expedite the process without significantly compromising the quality of the façades at all. It is a good suggestion and he supported the amendment.

Member Greco understood that from a technical perspective the change doesn’t make much of a difference. He asked whether visually, a façade proposed under this language may be so significantly different that a recommendation for approval from the Consultant may not align itself with what the Planning Commission might have approved. He recalled the Rojo façade was quite a change; he said there was no doubt about it, the façade review is about opinion. However, the Planning Commission is charged with doing its job, and he wanted to ensure that it isn’t reducing its responsibility if in fact this review should be their responsibility, which is to make sure that things are appropriate. The engineers could potentially approve everything, but the Planning Commission members volunteer their time to ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the community. Are there situations where façades that fall under this language could be vastly different?

Mr. Necci said that a façade revision is usually a minor change to the previously approve façade. The Rojo request was to repaint the EIFS and add a stone masonry gateway. It puts a responsibility on him to have an eye for things that would be objectionable and certainly, if he saw something askew, he would recommend the request go before the Planning Commission. The key phrase in this amendment is, "…the façade change must be equal or better than what was already approved – an improvement to the design." He will be watchful of this, and he has the prerogative to send a façade to the Planning Commission if he finds that this statement has been violated.

Moved by Member Meyer, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance Article 14, B-2, Community Business District, Article 15, B-3, General Business and Article 17, RC, Regional Center District, in order to modify the standards for outdoor sales of produce and seasonal plants.

Planner Kristen Kapelanski explained that the proposed changes before the Planning Commission, for recommendation to City Council, deal with Article 14, Article 15 and Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. The properties affected were highlighted in pink, red and purple on a map provided to the Planning Commission members and shown at the meeting.

Staff is suggesting modifications related to the outdoor sale of produce and seasonal plant materials. Recently, existing and proposed businesses have approached the Community Development Department to obtain an approval and permit to allow outdoor sales of produce and plants. This amendment addresses the need for a provision within the Ordinance to regulate and permit such sales. Outdoor sales of produce and plant material only would be permitted in the B-2, B-3 and RC Districts as a Special Land Use, subject to special conditions regulating the hours of operation of outside sales, establishing a minimum pathway width, ensuring the sales area conforms with all building and fire codes, and the sales area does not occupy required parking spaces, drive aisles or landscape beds.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing.

Member Cassis asked whether this amendment pertained to the shopping center owner or the major tenant, such as Busch’s. What if Busch’s brought in a subcontractor to sell trees on their site? Would Busch’s be responsible for this, and would this Ordinance apply to such a situation? Ms. Kapelanski said the Ordinance would apply, but there is a provision that the sale of the produce and seasonal plant material has to be ancillary to the principal use. There couldn’t be mostly outdoor sales with minimal indoor sales. If Busch’s want to bring a contractor in to sell produce outside, she did not think the City would allow a register or anything to be placed outside, because that would require different conditions. If someone wanted to contract in such a manner, Busch’s would be responsible for meeting the conditions. Member Cassis confirmed with City Attorney Kristin Kolb that Ms. Kapelanski’s explanation accurately described how the Ordinance would work.

Member Meyer asked whether this amendment would provide for or exclude an Eastern Market or Farmers’ Market in Novi. Ms. Kapelanski said this amendment would not cover anything like a Farmers’ Market. The covered use would have to be accessory to the larger principal use. There is an Ordinance provision for temporary sales that would cover Farmers’ market temporary sales – they can be three times per year. She said the Temporary Use Ordinance is the section that explains things like Christmas tree sales, and this Ordinance also lists acceptable times of the year and length of use provisions.

Member Meyer wished to confirm that the landowner’s permission to use the land would be required. Ms. Kapelanski responded that she didn’t know the specific provisions of that Ordinance. Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth added that Ms. Kapelanski was correct – there is section of the Ordinance that administratively approves things like Christmas tree sales in the Business Zoning District. The Building Official reviews and verifies that the proposal meets the standards of that Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to provide just limited outdoor sales for existing businesses in B-2, B-3 and RC Districts, and only on the sidewalk areas adjacent to the building. Member Meyer confirmed that the use has to be ancillary and connected to a business that is already there – someone can’t pull up with their truck on a Saturday afternoon and begin selling goods.

Chair Pehrson confirmed that the proprietor is responsible for clearing and removal of snow in the area where people may wish to walk in order to view and purchase goods. Ms. Kapelanski agreed, stating that all the usual provisions of the Code would apply and the owner would have to maintain a six-foot clear pathway.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Consideration of the request of HTT Devco c/o Arthur Hill and Companies for a recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan approval and Section 9 Façade Waiver. The subject property is located in Section 15, at the existing Twelve Mile Crossing at Fountain Walk, in the RC, Regional Center District. The subject property is approximately 67.21 acres and the Applicant is proposing to occupy an existing 37,361 square-foot retail tenant space.

Consideration of the request of City of Novi Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 27, south of Ten Mile between Taft and Novi roads, in the R-4, One-Family Residential District. The subject site is approximately 1.3 acres of a 91 acre parcel and the Applicant is proposing to construct a 1,309 square foot concession and restroom building to replace the existing concession and restroom building adjacent to the ball fields.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. The City proposes to demolish the existing concession and restroom building located between the four baseball fields in Ella Mae Power Park, located just south of City Hall. The plan is to construct a new 1,309 square-foot concession and restroom facility as an accessory to the park’s baseball fields. There will not be a press box above this building. The proposed site work includes removing and replacing existing asphalt sidewalks and the addition of new outdoor lighting, landscaping and artwork.

Although the City is exempt from its Zoning Ordinance, The State of Michigan Municipal Planning Act requires Planning Commission approval of all proposed municipal streets, parks, buildings and structures.

The property is bordered by Single Family Residential in the north, east and south and Novi High School on the west. This property and the surrounding properties are all zoned either R-3 or R-4, one-family residential. The property is depicted on the Master Plan for Land Use Future Land Use Map for Park and Public Uses. The properties to the north, east and south are master planned for Single Family Residential and the high school property to the west is master planned for Educational Facility Use. There are no woodlands, wetlands or natural feature habitat areas affected by this project.

In general, the Site Plan meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance with minor exceptions. A complete outdoor lighting plan was not submitted as required when a project is adjacent to residential uses. The Site Plan depicts several light fixtures on the exterior of the building and one decorative ground mounted tubular fixture. Currently, the site contains several "shoe box" fixtures and the adjacent sports fields are illuminated with multiple 1,500 watt fixtures on seventy-foot poles. A considerable amount of light from these fixtures spills onto the site area. Staff researched and reviewed the manufacturers’ specifications for the proposed fixtures and concluded that these fixtures will only add a small amount of illumination to the site therefore the Planning Commission could consider waiving this requirement.

The proposed landscaping meets all requirements except that foundation planting was not provided. The Planning Commission may consider waiving this requirement since it would be impractical to provide it as the foundation areas all provide access to the building.

Engineering has requested minor corrections.

The proposed façade does not meet the material requirements of the Ordinance but due to the project’s unique use of materials and interesting design elements that are consistent with the building’s use and location, the City’s Façade Consultant recommends approval subject to his acceptance of the color selection. After he wrote his review he reviewed the selections and he approves of their choices.

The plan meets the requirements of the fire code with the exception of providing an access road to within 150 feet of the exterior of the building. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission condition their approval subject to the Applicant providing an approved access or satisfying the concerns of the Fire Marshal. The Applicant indicates he will bring an access road in from the west, and it will come within 150 feet from all points of the building. There is truck traffic in this area that services other storage buildings in the area. This is probably a good location for the placement of this road.

Based on the positive reviews from all reviewers, Staff recommends approval of the site plan subject to the Planning Commission waiving the outdoor lighting and foundation planting requirements, a Planning Commission Finding that the façade materials proposed are acceptable, the Applicant providing a fire access drive or otherwise address the concerns of the Fire Marshal, and the Applicant making several minor changes as listed in the review letters.

Dennis Schlitt from Integrated Design Solutions addressed the Planning Commission. His firm provided the architectural and engineering services on this project. They have also been the project managers on the Civic Center lighting project. He thanked the Planning Commission and Mark Spencer for their time.

Member Cassis confirmed the existing building would be demolished. He said this is a lovely building and befits the high school next door. It fits the image of the City. He asked whether this should have been a Public Hearing. Mr. Spencer said that no Public Hearing was required because this building was considered an accessory to the park facility. This is not deemed a "commercial building" though there will be limited sales of concessions. Even the Building Department will not view this building as a restaurant. There will be an approval by the Health Department. City Attorney Kristin Kolb added that only site plan approval is being sought, which does not require a Public Hearing. Standard community notice is considered given by the publication of the Agenda.

Member Gutman said the proposal was impressive and a great addition to the City.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel:

In the matter of Ella Mae Power Park Concession Building, SP08-44, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Finding that the building materials are acceptable given the recommendation of the City’s Façade Consultant that the materials are consistent with the building’s use and location; 2) Planning Commission Acceptance of the Planning Staff’s recommendation not to require the submittal of a complete outdoor lighting plan because the Planning Staff determined, with the information provided, that the proposed lighting will have little impact on the overall lighting of the area, and the Planning Commission’s acceptance of the use of the proposed decorative lighting fixture; 3) Planning Commission Acceptance of the City’s Landscape Architect recommendation not to require foundation plantings because it is impractical to provide them since all foundation areas will provide access to the building; 4) Façade color approval by the City’s Façade Consultant, which as already been approved; 5) The Applicant providing a twelve-foot wide fire apparatus access drive within 150 feet of all exterior portions of the building or the Applicant otherwise addressing the concerns of the Fire Marshal; and 6) The conditions and items listed in the Staff and Consultant review letters being addressed on the Stamping Set submittal; for the reasons that the location and character of the project are complementary to the park and will provide recreation value to the community and otherwise meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion carried 7-0.

Consideration of resolution to commence the Master Plan Review and Amendment Process.

Planner Mark Spencer said that at the December 2, 2008 Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting, the members discussed the petition to rezone the property depicted on the Master Plan for Land Use Map as a Special Planning Project Area 1. The Committee also discussed the Master Plan review requirements for the State of Michigan and some of the steps that are involved. The plan is again up for review in 2009. The Planning Commission studied the Master Plan and amended three areas of the City in 2008, one of which was Special Planning Project Area 2. Based on this information and the need for a 2009 review, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee passed a motion requesting that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution to formally open the Master Plan review process and to direct the Planning Staff and Master Plan and Zoning Committee to commence review of the area in Section 26 described as Special Planning Project Area 1, and other areas of the City that the Committee identifies as needing review.

Member Gutman is a member of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, and he said this is an important resolution. He wished to add to it the intent to concentrate also on the northeast corner of Grand River and Beck, as a second area for study.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Meyer:

Member Wrobel confirmed that it was acceptable to add the additional language to the motion, as it wasn’t part of the Committee’s motion.

The Planning Commission members turned their changes in for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Gutman:

The meeting adjourned at 8:06 PM.

MON 12/15/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED/THU 12/24&12/25 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED/THU 12/31&1/01 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 01/05/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 01/13/09 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM

WED 01/14/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 01/19/09 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 01/26/09 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 01/28/09 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf Signature on File

Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

December 18, 2008

Date Approved: January 14, 2009