REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairperson Lorenzo.

(8) Present (1) Absent-Excused - Capello

ALSO PRESENT: Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

David Bluhm - Engineering Consultant

Rod Arroyo - Traffic Consultant

Dennis Watson - Assistant City Attorney

Steven Cohen - Planning Aide

It was,

Moved by Member Weddington

Seconded by Member Vrettas

(Voice Vote) MOTION CARRIED

None.

It was,

Moved by Member Vrettas

Seconded by Member Weddington

To approve the Minutes of June 21, 1995.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

It was,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To postpone Delfino Estates Subdivision, SP95-06A to the August 16, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.

(Voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

Mr. Jeff Spoon was present. He indicated the Glen Oaks Apartments would now be named The Enclave Condominiums. He indicated they would be taking away from the institutional look of the property and turning it into a residential type of property.

Mr. Spoon said if everyone would recall, at the present time there was a large gated entry and he indicated he would be removing that gated entryway and would be changing the appearance of it with a gatehouse as they enter the property. He then discussed the gatehouse and said it would be built with a roof over the entry. He also indicated each building would have monument signs and he wanted to give each building its own identity with the monument signs and being fully landscaped.

Mr. Spoon said he would be changing the facade of each of the buildings so the residents and guests would get the feeling of residential rather than institutional. He discussed the facades and also indicated he would be adding additional carports. He indicated there was a community building in the middle and all the buildings were attached to it with a walkway.

Mr. Spoon said the only way anyone could get to the community building was through the second floor of the building so he would be designing a complete entry to this community building so that the community room would be accessed to all the residents. He indicated they would be expanding the deck and also doing some interior work to the pool area as well as all the entries.

Mr. Spoon indicated he will add a nice pedestrian walkway with benches to view the water that surrounds the site. He indicated the entire site would have an underground sprinkling system. He indicated the lobby area would be much more elegant looking and an office in the lobby area would be added.

Mr. Spoon discussed his marketing strategy for the property. He indicated the units would be offered in an as-is condition with no architectural changes to the property, but he would allow the buyers to upgrade carpeting, appliances, etc., and he would also be offering a re-designed model as an alternative. He then pointed out the monument signs on the drawings.

Mr. Spoon said in summary, he felt he has put together the most talented people in the field and with all this effort, he would be successful in changing a rental project into a condominium development.

Mr. Rogers reviewed his letter of July 23, 1995 and also indicated Mr. Eric Olsen was present if anyone had any landscaping questions. He indicated the applicant was filing simultaneously a request for PD-1 review, preliminary site plan review and final site plan review for the Commission's recommendation to City Council. He said he checked with Mr. Watson who has indicated it was possible for them to do all of this simultaneously and he indicated there was a timing problem for the applicant.

Mr. Rogers indicated the PD-1 criteria was met and he found that all preliminary application data has been provided. He said the structural improvements, the gatehouse, and the carports and deck meet the RM-1 setback standards.

Mr. Rogers highlighted the landscape plan briefly and indicated he was recommending approval of the landscape plan with the five conditions listed in his letter. He also indicated the proposed facade renovations and additions appear compatible with the building facade.

Mr. Rogers stated he recommended PD-1 approval and preliminary site plan approval and final site plan approval subject to the three conditions in his letter. He felt it was a well-executed plan.

Mr. Bluhm's letter was reviewed and it was indicated approval was recommended.

Mr. Arroyo reviewed his letter and from a traffic prospective, it was pretty straight-forward and the modifications to the entryway was acceptable and will provide for ingress and egress and will also provide for emergency access and he did not anticipate that the trip generation would change. He indicated he recommended approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated a letter from Daniel W. Roy indicated that the plan was reviewed and approval recommended. She indicated there was a letter from Lisa Dittmar from JCK that states there was no change to the plan that would affect the previous wetland review and she recommended approval.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Ms. Lynn Kocan was present. She asked about the status of the current residents and would they be displaced or offered condos at reduced rates and did the Ordinance speak to this type of situation. It was stated Mr. Spoon would address those questions shortly.

There being no further Audience Participation, the public hearing was closed.

Mr. Spoon said the status of the current residents was one, he was required by law to give notice and he would be giving notice to them in about 3-4 weeks and his sales staff would be contacting all the residents and sitting down with them and explaining what would be offered such as the prices, financing, etc.

Mr. Spoon said he was not looking to remove people from the project. He said he was concerned about being successful in converting the entire development to condominiums and if he achieves only half, half rentals and half condominiums, he would be in trouble.

Mr. Spoon said regarding the current residents, he was looking to start off with a phase by phase conversion. He pointed out the project would be called The Enclave and the first building would be called The Forest and the second building The Vistas and the third building would be called The Shores. He said for the phasing, the first building would be The Shores and would be the first building to be offered as conversion and then after that was successful, he would move on to the other buildings. He indicated he was trying not to have it scattered throughout the development of condominiums and apartments.

Mr. Spoon said each resident would be offered either the present apartment for sale or another unit for sale or if they decide to continue renting, then he would move them to the other developments and he just wanted to be sure that every single resident has the opportunity to buy and it would be an incentive program and he would be starting off with each building one at a time.

Mr. Spoon said he would be giving them notice sometime in August and the reason for the delay was he wanted to have the office ready so he could sit down with each and every buyer and discuss what was going on.

Member Taub asked if the guard house would be manned on a 24 hour basis and it was stated yes and the lane closest to the guard house would be for visitors and the other lane would have a card and the resident could pull up and put the card in and the gate would open up. Member Taub asked the percentage of apartment dwellers who choose to stay and own as condominium owners and Mr. Spoon replied 15% to 20% and he indicated the overall property values would increase.

Member Taub asked who would be the management team and Mr. Spoon said it would be Farbman Management which was his company also and he would be handling the management for the Association also.

Member Hodges had a concern of the one building's name of the Vistas and she suggested he may want to reconsider that name as the Vistas project was very close and Mr. Spoon felt that was a valid point and he could change that name.

Member Hoadley indicated he was impressed with the project and he would make a motion to the City Council.

It was,

Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Bonaventura

To send a positive recommendation to City Council for The Enclave Condominiums, SP95-36A for the PD-1 Option, Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan subject to the Consultants' recommendations and comments; and also subject to the developer's comments in regards to the phasing and the offering of the rentals to the people to purchase and to make his comments part of the record and motion.

Member Mutch asked what was the occupancy rate presently and Mr. Spoon replied it was about 90%.

Member Weddington asked what was the longest lease term that Mr. Spoon has remaining there now and how long did he expect this conversion process to take. Mr. Spoon replied the conversation process should take about three years and Member Weddington asked if he had any leases that were longer than that and Mr. Spoon replied no, the average lease there was about a year and usually after the year, it goes to a month-to-month basis. Member Weddington said there would be no termination of any leases then and no one would be put out in the street and Mr. Spoon replied no.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Vrettas (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes)

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Matt Ray said there were several issues brought up at the last meeting. He felt they have resolved those issues. He said the rail spur was eliminated, the parking on the west side of the building was eliminated, the rooftop appurtenances have been redesigned and they have accommodated the mechanical equipment by lowering the roof on the east side of the addition 10 feet and any equipment that was necessary to be outside the building was located in this area. He said he would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. Rogers reviewed his letter of July 5, 1995 as attached. He said what is proposed is an addition of 231,200 square feet to an existing building having 228,800 square feet. He said the rail spur was eliminated. He said the fact that the building abuts a residentially zoned district limits the height to 25 feet including roof appurtenances.

Mr. Rogers said the present building did receive a ZBA variance for a one foot three inch height in excess of the 25 feet and to keep the building of the same design, roofline and interior design, they are also asking for that one foot three inch height variance to the 25 feet.

Mr. Rogers said the addition would screen further from the residential area, the truck marshaling area and the railroad to the east of this building and no truck storage/loading would occur on the west side and no lighting except at the pedestrian doors and no outside storage on site.

Mr. Rogers said there were no regulated woodlands on the site. He concluded that it was proper to grant special land use at this time subject to the ZBA granting the waiver of the one foot three inch height variance.

Mr. Rogers reviewed the preliminary site plan and indicated he recommended approval subject to the ZBA granting the one foot three inch height waiver.

Mr. Gary Streight reviewed his letter of July 19, 1995 as attached. He recommended approval of the preliminary site plan.

Mr. Arroyo also reviewed his letter of July 17, 1995. He indicated he recommended approval subject to deleting the rail spur from the engineering drawings.

Ms. Tepatti reviewed her letter of July 28, 1995 as attached. She indicated she recommended approval of the Wetlands Permit subject to the following conditions: (1) Oil and grease separators with four foot sumps shall be installed in the catch basins prior to discharge to the remaining swale. (2) A buffer enhancement plan shall be submitted, showing thick plantings of shrubs along the entire buffer edge. (3) The remaining section of swale between the river and the proposed outlets, shall not be disturbed. It is currently vegetated with cattails and will help filter and slow the storm water before it reaches the river. (4) A wetland mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval, for the construction of 0.25 acres of wetland habitat and a perimeter buffer.

Chairperson Lorenzo indicated there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department stating he recommended approval subject to (1) Add fire hydrants to the north and east sides of the development to conform to the 300 foot maximum spacing for commercial developments.

Ms. Roder of the Novi Heights Subdivision was present. She indicated her subdivision borders on the Arbor Drug Warehouse and they still oppose the expansion if certain measures are not taken and from what she saw in the planning office, the site plans show that the railroad spur has been removed but the engineering drawings do not show that, and she felt everything needs to be consistent. She felt to protect the residents, they should place a restriction that they couldn’t be approved without that being removed from the engineering drawings.

Ms. Order also felt that the truck traffic on Novi Road has not been adequately addressed. She said there is a substantial problem and it is increasing every day. Also, they still have the noise problem and it has not gone away and will not be alleviated by increasing this warehouse.

Ms. Order said there was also the problem with the berm and you want the extension to the berm, but the berm that is existing is not maintained and she and her husband went for a walk to look at this at Marlon Street by Johnson Controls where the fire gates were and it has been mowed and at Durson, the weeds extend from the fence towards the berm to approximately 6-7 feet. She said on Stassen which was the closest to where she lived, they extend at least ten feet and are taller than she is. She said this has to be taken care of and it was a breeding ground for insects and it does not increase the health and welfare of the residents. She asked that the Commission take this into consideration.

Mr. Jerry DeAngeles of 44000 Stassen Street said his property abuts right to the northern part of the building and the parking lot, and his question was what type of lighting would be at the north end of the building and what type of lighting would be in the parking lots.

Mr. DeAngeles said his house was to the west of there and he has a two-story house. He also asked would there be any freezer trucks or cold storage and for the berm, if it is going to be extended, would there be evergreens continued all the way down to the end.

Ms. Lynn Kocan also had a few questions. She asked about the 1 foot three inch building height variance, which takes it from 25 feet to 26 feet 3 inches, and it has been stated a couple of times, that the ZBA variance was granted and she asked would that variance still apply or did it expire so they would have to request a new one.

Mr. Rogers felt they would have to go back to the ZBA as it was a new submittal and the other site plan was not approved and so it was a new game and they would go to the ZBA and undoubtedly mention that they received the variance in 1986 and another one in 1993 and they will probably make their case the same way again.

Ms. Kocan asked about the air intake rain hoods along the west facade and increasing the height to 29'4", and was that now off the plan because they are lowering the roof on the east side and Mr. Rogers said no. He explained the rain hoods that are on the west side of the existing building, were just rain hoods over air intake points and they would continue a few of them on the new addition also. He said they were of the same round metal color as the wall facing and they don’t result, even if you consider them part of the principal building, to any deficiency in the setback. He said they were low and they take in the air and then they exhaust the air on the other side of the building.

Mr. Rogers indicated the roof appurtenances that went up 7, 8, 9 feet above the height limitation before were not there anymore and they have dropped the roof level on the east side of the building and they have some of those roof HVAC’s on the other side of the building so that they would be out of sight from the Clark Street side and they wouldn’t be moving air across the roof of the building to the Clark Street side of the building and they are nestled down into the building envelope.

Ms. Kocan said so nothing on that building would be 29 feet 4 inches and Mr. Rogers said no and explained the way the height of 26 feet 3 inches is computed. He said he took an average height of the east side of the building and the average height of the west side of the building which is only 23 feet high and came up with the 26 feet 3 inches and used that as the height variance criteria. He said it was the same as he did nine years ago for the first building.

Ms. Kocan said the proposed parking that was discussed, proposed parking for the current use has been removed along the west side of the building, however, if another user or an owner takes over, could or would those parking spaces be mandated along the residential border on the west side of the building which would be right next to Mr. DeAngeles’ property. She felt they may be landbanking those sites right now.

Mr. Watson explained if a different use came in and needed that parking and wanted to put it there, they would have to come back for a new special land use approval and site plan approval.

Ms. Kocan said and landbanking was allowed because for the building, there is as many employees as there is the amount of square footage and Mr. Watson said correct.

Ms. Kocan said regarding the traffic increase, the proportion increases 66% in the morning peak hours, 40% in the afternoon peak hours and there was no break-out of what percentage of those increases were actually car traffic, which is truck traffic and she asked were they all cars or trucks. She felt there would be an impact on GenMar Drive, as was stated by Ms. Order, even if Novi Road was widened to five lanes. She said with GenMar Drive being only two lanes at the entrance, many times traffic is stopped to allow trucks to turn onto GenMar Drive.

Ms. Kocan said as long as that entranceway stays as narrow as it is, depending upon the increase of the amount of truck traffic into there, they are going to be backed up and she asked would trucks be able to continue to turn into that street.

Ms. Kocan said there was no discussion about the outside diesel generator on the northeast corner of the building and she was wondering what its purpose is, when it will be running and will it in fact comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance. She said those were her questions on this project.

Mr. DeAngeles asked again regarding the lighting if whatever is approved lights up the area, what recourse did he have. Chairperson Lorenzo indicated they would be addressing all of the questions asked.

CHAIRPERSON LORENZO CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Taub said regarding the lighting issue, could the applicant discuss the potential impacts on abutting uses.

Mr. Ray said no direct light will shine across the property line and there are going to be two lights on the west side of the building over the fire exits that were required by code, and the front face will be fully shielded so that the light only casts down.

Member Taub asked if this lighting would be on throughout the night and Mr. Ray believed the warehouse closes at 6:00 PM and Member Taub said the only lighting would be the code required lighting.

Mr. Ray indicated there would be a pole light and he pointed it out and stated it was well over 300 feet away from the property line. He said the light, by the time it reaches the property line, will be diminished and there should be no effect on the neighbors.

Mr. Ray pointed out Stassen Drive and pointed out two wall lights which would be 175 watts and the front face would be shielded. He pointed out a few other lights and the pole lighting which would be 25 feet high. He said the parking lot lighting would be not be on all night and it will shut off an hour after the warehouse closes. He said the only time it will actually be on will be in the wintertime.

Member Vrettas was concerned about the traffic on Novi Road and he was glad to hear they were going to five lanes. He asked if someone could speak to the diesel generator and would there be a concern with the noise.

Mr. Ray said there was a diesel generator proposed in the small alcove, tucked into the corner of the building which will be protected by an eight foot high concrete wall and the reason for the generator is there are computers inside for inventory control and some emergency lighting has to be maintained in case of a power outage. He said the only time it was expected to run is during a power outtage.

Member Weddington said to Ms. Tepatti seeing that this overall site will be paved over either with a building or parking and eliminating half of the surface and paving over everything, she was surprised Ms. Tepatti didn’t see any adverse impact on the river from storm water drainage. She was concerned about any method to deal with that.

Ms. Tepatti said she talked with Mr. Bluhm about that and about rerouting the storm in some way to the northern corner and perhaps providing a basin, but he had felt that was not feasible from an engineering standpoint from the length of the storm that would have to be added and for possible future expansion or use of that green area, but he didn’t feel that was possible, but they could look in it further, because they do have to build that mitigation area now and it was mandated under their DNR permit as well.

Member Weddington asked if that mitigation area would be able to handle the storm water and would that be advisable or not. Ms. Tepatti said normally they would rather have a separate basin at least prior to it going to the mitigation area, but they haven’t seen any plans at all for the mitigation area yet so it might help supply some hydrology to that area if it is needed. She said they could look into that further.

Member Weddington asked if there was sewer accessible in this area to use and Mr. Straight said there was no existing sewer than what is one the site and throughout the development and what the development does eventually is to drain into the Rouge River and at this point, what they were actually proposing is the best alternative they have seen.

Member Weddington said in addition to the storm water drainage, she did have concerns also about the traffic on Novi Road which is bad and she has yet to see a widening of a road fix that, and whenever they add lanes, they add more traffic.

Member Weddington felt this was a huge building and they were more than doubling the size of this.

Member Bonaventura said concerning the generator, does he have a diesel generator now for the existing building for power failures, and Mr. Ray said no, they have a battery back-up at this time. Member Bonaventura asked why would the diesel generator be needed and wouldn’t the battery back-up be sufficient for this.

Mr. Cal Fix from Arbor Drugs indicated the new computer systems for the new warehouse would require a battery pack that is probably three to four times the size of the one they have and also would not operate the emergency lighting or egress lighting or allow the employees to exit the building in case of Edison loss.

Mr. Fix said the main reason for the diesel generator is if they lose their electric power, they have 200 people who could safely exit the building and possibly save the data that was in the computers.

Member Bonaventura said since this is their first experience with the diesel generator, was he aware of decibel levels or whether it would meet codes as far as sound. He asked if it was soundproofed. Mr. Fix said they anticipate the VPS’s not to be greater than 75 and they also anticipate that the VPS’s will not violate any ordinances. He said Arbor has and the new Meijer management has a substantial diesel generator in Troy and they ran a test on Saturday and Sunday and that was around 74 VPS and it facilitates about a 300,000 square foot building. He said so far they have had no complaints nor has the new Meijer management nor the City of Troy so this one will be about the same size.

Member Bonaventura said they submitted a traffic study as required and they gave them the highlights of the report but was there any reason why they didn’t receive it and Mr. Arroyo said he wasn’t aware if they were normally distributed to the Commission and Mr. Cohen said they were not.

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Arroyo was he around when this whole development on GenMar Drive came in, and Mr. Arroyo said for part of it, not all of it. He said he reviewed the original Arbor Warehouse but not the Johnson Controls building. He thought maybe one expansion to Johnson Control he reviewed.

Member Bonaventura asked if this came in as an individual site plan for a park with maybe one building on it, and Mr. Arroyo recalled yes Genmar Drive was built and it was anticipated it would be an industrial park and he thought Arbor was the first building.

Member Bonaventura said he was aware of the problem going southbound on Novi Road and turning west onto GenMar Drive and the fact that tractor-trailers have to go into the northbound lane on Novi Road in order to swing into this park.

Mr. Arroyo said he has not seen that happen. He has seen tractor trailers stay in the through-lane and make their right turn from the through-lane rather than getting into the deceleration lane, but he has never witnessed a tractor trailer going into the northbound lane to make a right turn and he couldn’t imagine why that would happen. He said GenMar Drive was wide enough for three lanes and it was a 36 foot wide roadway and based on the site plan that was provided, it looked like it has an inbound radius of 25-30 feet and there would be no reason why a tractor trailer would have to go into a northbound lane to make a turn and if that ever occurred, he felt that would be a lazy turn rather than something that is required.

Member Bonaventura said according to their community impact statement, from what was said earlier and from what they say in this community impact statement, it says that according to Oakland County Road Commission, Novi Road between Grand River and Ten Mile Road is planned to be widened to five lanes in 1995 and Mr. Arroyo indicated that was not correct.

Mr. Arroyo indicated it was in the design phase and the year that the actual widening will take place he couldn’t tell them that. He said normally when a road is in a design phase, they then have to go into the right-of-way acquisition and into construction and you are typically looking at a minimum of three years from this point in the process.

Mr. Arroyo said he would say the most likely scenario would be three years from now when that would go in place, but it could be accelerated and those things happen, but it could also be delayed.

Mr. Arroyo discussed the truck traffic and according to the Traffic Study, Arbor Drug currently has six trucks and thirteen trailers that are assigned to the existing warehouse and the company is anticipating adding one truck per year as it increases it retail capabilities, and another 20-25 trucks come to this site from outside supplies on a daily basis and Arbor does not anticipate any increase in supplier vehicles with the addition and they also note here that the average truck loading time at this facility is approximately one hour. He said therefore most of the traffic increased from this expansion is anticipated to be vehicular traffic and not truck traffic based on information provided.

Member Bonaventura said that Arbor Drugs forecasts a total of 150 am peak hour trips, 147 pm peak hour trips and 462 daily trips, then it says it compares with 90 am and 88 pm for the existing facility. He asked the amount of daily trips and Mr. Arroyo said there was not a daily count taken and apparently they had taken a count at one time or an estimate of their actual morning and afternoon peak hour trips. He said the guidelines for analyzing developments for the traffic study generally look at the peak hours, peaks of the day, so they wouldn’t have been required to submit the daily information.

Member Bonaventura said so that equals out to an increase of 60 am and 59 pm and was that the minimal impact and Mr. Arroyo said what he had referred to was that Arbor had anticipated that of the 60 or so, approximately 48 would use and pass through the Grand River Novi Intersection and obviously some of that traffic would turn southbound and not go through the Grand River Novi Intersection, so they were forecasting approximately 48 vehicles during the am peak hour, and pm peak hour going north and they would pass through the Grand River Novi Intersection and his response is that number of vehicles added to that intersection, would only have a minimal impact.

Member Bonaventura said the last time they discussed this, it was mentioned by Mr. Bluhm that the question of the trucks going into the northbound lane was a known problem and he has actually witnessed this. Mr. Arroyo suggested if that was still considered to be a possible problem or a concern, that the Planning Commission could correspond with Mr. Nowicki so he could make sure that the County is aware of that as part of the re-design of that roadway so that issue could be addressed in the redesigned phase because if they were in the process right now of redesigning Novi Road, there could be some modifications made to address that situation, and he felt that was a good piece of information to forward on to the Road Commission.

Chairperson Lorenzo requested Mr. Cohen and Mr. Arroyo to get together and decide who should contact the Road Commission.

Member Bonaventura said until this issue is resolved and until he had more information on that corner, he could not support the special land use for Arbor Drug.

Member Hoadley said he has seen the site two days ago and drove over the site and drove by the subdivision which abuts it to see if there would be any light or sound intrusion based on the existing building and he found none.

Member Hoadley asked about the proper maintenance of the berm by their company which apparently hasn’t been done.

The Vice-President of Distribution was present and indicated he has been out to the site about a week ago and he wasn’t familiar with the weeds that they were referring to and the site looked fine to him and he would invite anyone to meet him there and they could show him what they were and he would talk to their landscaping people.

Mr. Watson said it sounded from the way it was described by Ms. Order that the area where there was a problem, was one of the areas from the existing landscaping plan. He said it was probably not a bad idea to have them show you the area, but one of the requirements of the ordinance is that when the landscaping plan is approved, as a part of the site plan, the property has to be maintained in accordance with the approved site plan.

Mr. Watson said so they would probably within the next week or so, get some contact from the Ordinance Enforcement officers as to that issue as well because if it was not maintained in accordance with what has been approved, it was going to be in violation of the Ordinance.

Mr. Rogers commented if there were weeds there, it could be from the crown of the berm towards the residential and it was out of sight because he has driven in back there and the lawn slopes up gradually and it looks clean to him, but it was on the other side of the berm where the residents see. He said he has asked Mr. Olsen to take a look at it. Member Hoadley commented as of two days ago, there were weeds there on the homeowner’s side of the berm.

Member Hoadley then indicated he would support the project and felt it would be a good addition and would minimize the cost to the City as far as maintaining the infrastructure and fire and police protection and would generate quite a bit of extra revenue for the City.

Member Hoadley had a concern of extending that berm and was he intending to extend it the same height with the same type of trees and Mr. Ray stated yes, and he asked would it be irrigated and Mr. Ray replied he believed it was irrigated now.

Member Hoadley had a concern with Mr. Arroyo’s report and he had the same traffic concerns and he said to Mr. Arroyo that they were again using 1991 traffic figures and he felt they should not use outdated traffic generation trips and material and he didn’t feel it was fair to the Commission, the public nor the petitioners.

Member Hoadley urged Mr. Arroyo and the Planning Department to update their figures as soon as possible.

Member Hoadley asked if this intersection should have a traffic light knowing that the traffic count was around 7,000 to 8,000 lower than what it truly is today. He said Mr. Arroyo testified two weeks ago that it was around 35,000-36,000 and Mr. Arroyo replied yes at the intersection.

Mr. Arroyo said he would be very doubtful that the warrants for a signal could be met at this location and he didn’t think the volumes that were coming out on GenMar Drive are sufficient to do that. He said it could be monitored as time goes on and once again, it was a County Road and would require the County approving a signal there.

Member Hoadley requested Mr. Arroyo, when he contacted Mr. Nowicki, that he also address that subject with him and address it with the County.

Member Hoadley asked if gas and oil separators were required and Ms. Tepatti said yes. He asked if any would be required on the site retention at all and he wanted to make sure there was no impact or no increase of impact to the Rouge River from this project and how could they do that.

Ms. Tepatti said as far as the detention goes, she would defer to Mr. Streight and she was also surprised that the DNR did not require any pre-treatment as they have also usually required the pre-treatment in this type of situation. She said she was just talking with Mr. Streight about that possibility and he had said that for some of the future parking, he doesn’t expect to have a storm system under it either and they would probably be sloping it south towards the existing building, but it is something that they could look at and see if the petitioner is in favor of doing that and it could be easily incorporated with the wetland mitigation.

Member Hoadley said common sense tells him they should have some type of on-site small retention basin with oil and gas separators and he then asked where would the oil and gas separators go. Ms. Tepatti said they would go in the last catch basins prior to the discharge and there was an existing discharge there now and they have storm underneath that whole proposed addition that would be abandoned, so that is currently picking up all the storm water that was on this site and it was discharging to an existing ditch that they dug which is going to the river, so they would be modifying the storm and then there will be a place for the oil and gas separators to go before it discharges to the river. She said because of the proximity of the parking lot to the river, there was no room for a basin directly in that area and they were trying to use the existing discharge, so they didn’t have to break the river bank again, but she could look at requiring them to have a basin in that northern corner.

Member Hoadley asked if this would be addressed at final and she said yes.

Member Hoadley asked if there was any reason why they couldn’t extend that wall up high enough and put in insulation so they could eliminate the noise problem for the residents and would he do that and Mr. Ray replied yes.

It was then,

Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Vrettas

To grant Special Land Use Approval to Arbor Drug Warehouse Addition, SP95-25B subject to all Consultants’ letters, subject to the public testimony of the applicant, and to make it part of the public record and that it also be a condition of final site plan approval.

Member Weddington asked if Member Hoadley could clarify his conditions. Member Hoadley indicated the petitioner has agreed to do certain things on the public record and Mr. Watson suggested he list those conditions.

Member Hoadley said this would include the publicly stated record that they have produced.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if he was speaking to soundproofing the generator and Member Hoadley said yes and also the berming being extended, proper maintenance of the berm, proper weed control, lighting, all the public statements that they have made.

Member Mutch said some concerns have been expressed about the entrance to GenMar Drive in general, and reference was made of the wide turns of the trucks, particularly on southbound Novi Road and not just staying in the deceleration lane, but blocking traffic. She understood originally, when they discussed this, that it was just the southbound lane and that they were going from the deceleration lane into the southbound lane, and she didn’t realize there was a concern that they were actually going over to the northbound lane.

Member Mutch said in any case, it seems to her the solution for that problem might be the widening of the entrance somehow, but a question occurs to her as she looks at the plan, whose responsibility is it or under whose authority can that entrance be reconfigured anyway.

Mr. Arroyo said it was not Arbor Drug property and that complicates the problem because it was an off-site location and that would be his interpretation.

Mr. Watson said it was not a part of or a condition of the site plan.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo what he was saying as far as that particular problem goes, the actual impediment to the flow of traffic on Novi Road, and would that be best addressed in the redesign of Novi Road as it is being widened.

Mr. Arroyo said yes that would be his recommendation because then the engineers that were involved in the design of the widening could be made aware of the situation and they can go out and see if it warrants any particular special treatment in order to deal with the volume of trucks that are turning at that particular location. He said then through that process, hopefully that situation can be eliminated or it may take a combination of some minor design modifications and also some discussions with the operators of the trucks.

Mr. Arroyo said what makes the most sense is that if it is being designed, to make the people who are designing it aware of the problem and let them look at it and hopefully that problem can be taken care of. He added it was a County road and they were doing the design, and let them know about it and make them aware of it so if there is a need for corrective action, they can take it.

Member Mutch said it doesn’t seem that there is too much the City can do about it at least in requiring Arbor to do anything about it with their site plan, but if the City does everything they can with the County, would it be his expectation that they would include modifications.

Mr. Arroyo replied he didn’t see any reason why they wouldn’t, and Mr. Arroyo replied if they were made aware that there is a concern there, then he felt they would investigate it and they usually do not ignore a concern, particularly coming from a municipality and they will investigate it and if they agree that something needs to be done, he felt something would be done about it.

Member Mutch said in looking at the site plan, did he feel there was enough property between Sticker Paint and GenMar to do something about the angle and Mr. Arroyo said if there wasn’t enough right-of-way there right now, there could be an acquisition of additional right-of-way. He said if they would be aware of this problem before they get into the right-of-way acquisition phase, they can determine if additional right-of-way is necessary to resolve a particular problem.

Member Mutch said if the County then incorporates those concerns in the redesign or the design and widening of the road and the redesign of the entrance, how do they as a City stay on top of that, because it was one thing for them to pay attention and be aware of the problem and it was another thing for them to follow through and actually do it so what would be the protection for those who are concerned about that to know whether or not the modification adequately address this.

Mr. Arroyo said the way that happens is by what you have just suggested they do which is to let Mr. Nowicki know the concern because his office will be responsible for reviewing and coordinating the engineering plans from the County and obviously the DPS Department is the primary contact for any road work that is being done in this City and the County will be in contact with the City regarding the plans and the plans would be forwarded to the City when they are prepared and when they are ready.

Mr. Arroyo said since his office is the one that makes that contact, if he is aware of it, then he was sure they will follow up and make sure that those concerns are being addressed as long as he knows that is something that is a concern.

Mr. Arroyo said to keep in mind, this is a different situation than if Novi Road were a City road and they would have a totally different scenario here and keep in mind also when the permits are granted for access to a County road, it was the County who decides if the permit is granted and how the driveway is going to be designed and if this were a City road, it would be different and it would be the City and they could definitely have more impact but at this point, the City does not have jurisdiction over that driveway and the best thing they can do is to identify there is a problem or a potential problem and suggest that it be thoroughly investigated by the County.

Member Mutch said it was one thing if it was being dealt with here and it comes back here or Council, but if that is not happening, those who really are willing to stay on top of it need to know how to track that through the system, and so what she was hearing from Mr. Arroyo was that they should stay on top of what Mr. Nowicki is doing with it, and he would be the contact person within the City who is most likely to know at what stage those things were at and Mr. Arroyo replied correct.

Member Taub said he had concerns because of the fact that there are adjacent or abutting residents. He said in addition to the traffic concerns, there were drainage issues that were unresolved, lighting concerns and other impacts by increasing the pre-existing use and the residents are going to bare the further brunt.

Member Taub said in the past, they tried to balance it and they have ended up voting in favor of the commercial use, but in this case, with some of the questions that have been brought out by the Commissioners as well as the public, he could not support it at this time.

Member Bonaventura said he also could not support it at this time and would be in favor of a postponement. He said he didn’t necessarily know whether the comments that he made about the large swings of trucks going in there, which would seem to him to be extremely dangerous, exists or not, but for him to take the attitude that it was off-site and that the two are not connected, would be like putting blinders on and he can’t do that and this has to be a consideration, so he would be in favor of postponing it rather than disapproving it.

Member Mutch presented some photographs and discussed them briefly.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked a question of Mr. Arroyo and said he had indicated that there were presently 6 trucks plus 13 tractor-trailers and Mr. Arroyo said yes plus 20-25 additional daily trucks. Chairperson Lorenzo said they were talking about a total of 31 trucks plus 13 tractor-trailers and Mr. Arroyo said the petitioner says that for the existing operation, they would have a maximum of 44 trucks and they have 6 trucks, 13 trailers, and 20-25 trucks from outside suppliers.

Chairperson Lorenzo said that is what is currently in and out of there on a daily basis and Mr. Arroyo said correct, and Chairperson said there would be only 1 truck per year, in addition to that as the business prospers, and Mr. Arroyo said that is what they claim in their traffic study.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked the petitioner how many years, providing their success, did he anticipate the 1 truck per year to increase, 20 years, 20 additional trucks, 5 years, 3 years, and when did he feel they would max out with the additional truck traffic.

A gentleman from Arbor Drugs responded they were anticipating being able to handle 250 stores and 1 truck, 2 trailers represents about 15 stores per year, and they were at 175 now. Chairperson Lorenzo said that would be 5 more trucks and would include up to 5 years, 1 truck per year and they were Arbor trucks.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they were going to assume then, that they would also have additional outside trucks and the gentleman said yes, at the same proportion, every year.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked when he says the same proportion, would that be one additional outside truck or the numbers he has now of 20-25.

The gentleman said it would be about 2 outside trucks per year, and Chairperson Lorenzo said for a total of 3 actual trucks per year for five years and that is when he would max out then and he replied yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked about the building height and other than their desire to match the rooflines, is there any compelling reason that necessitates the additional building height and Mr. Ray indicated with the conveyor system and racking system, there would be products flowing on the conveyors from one building to another, and there is an existing conveyor system in the existing building so they would like to maintain that system and they were very expensive and they would be gravity flow from one end to the other, so the height was required.

Chairperson Lorenzo said but it would it be possible to accommodate a similar system with a building height that would meet the Ordinance requirements and Mr. Ray indicated it would be very close and as much of the floor area they use, they use the height also and it would be very tight.

The warehouse manager indicated presently when they came into the facility in 1986, they asked for a variance because with the addition of the 1 foot 3 inches, it added a third level to the whole warehouse. He said if they don’t get the 1 foot 3 inches, they would lose one-third of the height of floor space in the warehouse.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it was possible to go under, and Mr. Ray stated it was not very practical and Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it was feasible and Mr. Ray replied again if they go down to accommodate the height, it means that the conveyor system will not align.

The warehouse manager felt there would be all kinds of logistical problems as far as stocking and the hi-low equipment, etc.

Chairperson Lorenzo said then in their opinion, once they build the building, that is the existing building with those specs, they were locked into the second building as to the building height, and warehouse manager said if they don’t get the variance, they would only have two levels in the warehouse and in reality, losing one-third of the useable warehouse space.

Chairperson Lorenzo said her concern was they have an ordinance that addresses light industrial next to residential and requires a maximum of 25 feet and she was concerned with these situations where they ask for variances to go higher than that and she didn’t like the tone that is setting in terms of a precedent with other buildings in other locations or this location.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers if he could give an objective viewpoint as to whether it would be feasible for them to accomplish their goals, similarly to what other companies have done to meet their ordinance requirements.

Mr. Rogers had two items to bring up. He felt the existing building has set the module and there is a lot of cohesiveness between those two elements and this is the other half of the element and were this first building not built and not had that variance, he might very well say otherwise, but the building is there.

Mr. Rogers referred to his report on Page Two, in the third paragraph, the third line, where he states, "general surrounding grade along the west and east side of the proposed addition," and he found the height which should be, "26 feet 4 inches and not 29 feet 4 inches," because the west side of the building is 23 feet 4 inches high, and on the east side, it is 29 feet, 4 inches high and technically, that 26 feet 4 inches you are looking at, there is a 1 foot 4 inch divergence. He said the record should show that is what is based upon their architectural plans, and it is closer to 1 foot 4 inches, than 1 foot 3 inches and there is a 1 inch disparity.

Mr. Rogers felt this should be made part of the record and Chairperson Lorenzo said then he concurred with the petitioner and Mr. Rogers said he would and it has been set and if they look at the floor plans, it was all automated and it’s functionally far superior. He said the building sits down and there was a 10 foot berm on the other side and he couldn’t see where that 1 foot 3 inches/1 foot 4 inches makes any difference at all and it was a very low profile building.

Mr. Rogers said the Planning Commission and ZBA eight years ago, agreed to the 1 foot 3 inches so they were merely continuing the mode.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Olson in terms of the berm and the problem that Member Mutch pointed out to them in terms of the photographs, it does not appear that the evergreens are sufficiently shielding this building in terms of visibility, and she asked what can they do.

Mr. Olson replied since he has not reviewed the plans, he wasn’t sure what he was looking at here, but he believed he believed they could require additional plantings, probably shrubs to block the view of the fence and Chairperson Lorenzo asked about the building itself.

Mr. Watson replied Section 1905.4, Subpart e of the Ordinance provides very specific requirements for just what the landscaping plantings are suppose to be. Mr. Rogers said they would have to go back and look at the original landscape plan.

Mr. Watson said during Final site plan approval, any landscaping plan is going to be approved and they would have to provide for it to comply with those requirements. Mr. Rogers added that both buildings should be treated in tandem.

Mr. Watson pointed out that the berming and screening requirements were not to totally hide the building, and they have called for certain levels of opacity in winter, and certain higher levels of opacity in the summer, within two years after plantings.

Mr. Watson said when Chairperson Lorenzo asks what could they do about that portion of the building showing, they could do what the Ordinance provides.

Mr. Rogers commented when the road emergency access through Marlon went through, it broke the continuity of the berm, but he felt this was part of the same site and they have recomputed the parking for the entire complex, and he felt it was totally legitimate to address, at the time of Final site plan approval, both buildings to get the degree of opacity and the proper slope of the berm.

Mr. Rogers said as he recalled when he was out there, the berm had already been built all the way up to the railroad, but there was no landscaping around it.

Chairperson Lorenzo said whoever makes the motion might want to consider asking this to come back for Final.

Member Hodges commented regarding the landscaping, she would suggest having some of the accelerated growth evergreens, rather than dictating whether or not it could be seen. She asked Mr. Olson about the short-term landscaping which she felt would work very well and could they request them and Mr. Olsen said yes.

Member Hoadley said he would amend his motion to reflect that.

Member Mutch asked Member Hodges if she was saying to add trees on the berm or they should actually add trees closer to the fence, which would be more effective in blocking the long-range view.

Member Hodges explained that the trees should be designated and this does not include the existing, but the proposed, and hopefully what would be approved that night. Member Mutch asked if she was talking about landscaping that was part of the berm or just the whole area.

Member Hodges said for what is being proposed for that night and the landscape plan that exists now has already been approved unless they want to come back with a revised plan..

Mr. Watson said they were back here that night for a revised plan for the whole site, so at the time of Final, they will be submitting a landscaping plan for the entire site that will have to comply with the specific requirements of the Ordinance which has specific provisions dealing with evergreen plantings, deciduous plantings and levels of opacity, and he would presume that when Ms. Lemke reviews this plan, that she is going to review it so it complies with those standards.

Mr. Rogers said as far as he knows, the original plan did comply.

Mr. Watson said they were not concerned with the original plan now and in the plan that will be submitted for the new revised landscaping plan, that would be reviewed in accordance with the current requirements.

Member Mutch said it seemed to her that whatever comes back as part of a landscaping plan, that the ability to screen the view of the building for the residents does not have to be restricted to putting more trees on the berm and that in fact, they could do something closer to the fence, which usually may not be thought of because they focus on the berm, and that would be equally effective and would also possibly soften the effect of that industrial look of the chain link fence so she wasn’t trying to redesign the landscape plan.

Chairperson Lorenzo said what Mr. Watson was indicating was that the Ordinance may not require those specific types.

Mr. Watson apologized if his comments seemed rude or stifling and that was not his intent. He said there may be different ways they can design the landscaping plan, and Ms. Lemke can make suggestions as to how to do it, but the purpose of his comments was to suggest to all of them that everything they desire on here, has to be in accordance with what the Ordinance requires and they just don’t pull out things they could like to see here and consider them a requirement when the Ordinance doesn’t call for it.

Mr. Watson said the Ordinance provides for a lot of latitude from Ms. Lemke when she is reviewing those, but his whole point is to suggest that there are very specific requirements for landscaping in an I-1 development adjacent to a residential development that were specifically put into the Ordinance to address those very concerns and the landscaping plan will be reviewed in accordance with that.

Chairperson Lorenzo said if it appears that the Commission as a whole, feels that there should be additional screening in those types of situations, perhaps there is a deficiency in the Ordinance and perhaps they should review that.

Member Mutch agreed but she felt what Mr. Watson was able to point out when he read directly from the Ordinance is that what indeed is required by the Ordinance does not appear from the photographs to actually have been met by what is out there and here they were commenting on the fact that although the Ordinance does require it, it hasn’t happened.

Chairperson Lorenzo restated the motion:

To approve Special Land Use for Arbor Drug Warehouse Addition, SP95-25B subject to all of the Consultants’ conditions and additionally: (1) that the generator be sound-proofed, (2) that there be maintenance of the existing and proposed berm, (3) that the lighting be directed away from the residential area to avoid any adverse impacts, and (4) that a ZBA variance is required for the 1 foot 3 inch building height.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (No), Vrettas (Yes), Weddington (No), Bonaventura (No), Hoadley (Yes)

(5) Yeas (3) Nays

MOTION CARRIED

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

It was,

Moved by Member Hodges

Seconded by Member Hoadley

ROLL CALL VOTE: Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (No), Vrettas (Yes), Weddington (No), Bonaventura (No), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes)

(5) Yeas (3) Nays

MOTION CARRIED.

THE COMMISSION TOOK A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

4. Darcey Subdivision, SP95-34 - Property Located North of Nine Mile Road, between Beck Road and Taft Road for Possible Tentative Preliminary Plat Recommendation to City Council.

CONSULTANTS' REPORTS

Mr. Rogers reviewed his report of July 13, 1995 and indicated this was a small plat on the north side of Nine Mile Road east of Beck Road and it also abuts the Thornton Creek Elementary School, which was to the immediate east of this site.

Mr. Rogers indicated to the west and north was the Autumn Park Adjusted Lot Size Subdivision, which was under development. He said also there was an existing home which sits immediately to the west.

Mr. Rogers said there was an outlot, the former Autry home site, excepted from the plat which consists of 2.18 acres. He said all the proposed subdivision lots comply with the R-1 District standards and all were at least 120 feet in width and they meet the half acre size.

Mr. Rogers said there was a five foot concrete sidewalk proposed along Nine Mile and along the interior street and those were described in Notes 6 and 7 and those should be drawn on the plat itself and the non-access greenbelt was along Nine Mile Road.

Mr. Rogers indicated the proposed subdivision name and street name should be reviewed by the Street Naming Committee and he would ask Mr. Cohen if that has happened yet.

Mr. Cohen replied that on Wednesday, July 26th, both the street name and the subdivision name were approved.

Mr. Rogers said they have a new Ordinance adopted June 19, 1995 that requires where a plat was adjacent to a school site such as this one was, a pedestrian walkway easement was required and he attached a copy of that Ordinance to the file and also to the Petitioner.

Mr. Rogers said the cul-de-sac length of 400 feet was within the 800 foot maximum limit so that was in compliance. He said there was going to be and continuing to be, review of the protection requirements of some property line woodlands that were along the west edge of the subject site, so he recommended Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval subject to the design of the pedestrian walkway easement to the Thornton Creek School and the second condition has already been satisfied.

Mr. Streight of JCK indicated they reviewed the Tentative Preliminary Plat and water and sanitary service would be provided by extending existing sewers along Nine Mile Road and individual wells would be required to provide water service for each individual lot. He said a storm sewer system would reflect run-off from the site and discharge to the existing 27" storm sewer on the Thornton Elementary School site and a stub would be provided to the west property line between Lot 4 and Lot 5 to pick up off-site drainage.

Mr. Streight said if the parcel on the north side of 2.18 acres was not to be included in the plat, then it should not be included in the plat boundary as indicated. He said they need verification of the capacity of the storm sewer through the Thornton Elementary School and they require a 20 foot wide easement from the schools to convey the storm water across their property.

Mr. Streight said outside of those comments, which could be addressed at time of Final Preliminary Plat, they have no other objections to the plan and were recommending approval.

Mr. Arroyo indicated he has also reviewed the Tentative Preliminary Plat and as has been mentioned, access was from one cul-de-sac and they find that the cul-de-sac meets the City standards. He said in terms of trip generation, this was a six lot subdivision and would generate approximately 60 trips per day, 6 trips during the peak hour. He said they have made some comments regarding some minor modifications that would be necessary to the deceleration taper, which could be handled at the time of subdivision engineering drawings.

Mr. Arroyo said he was recommending approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat.

Chairperson Lorenzo also wanted to indicate that there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy Captain of the Novi Fire Department, which indicates that the above plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Richard Bond was present and he indicated he shared approximately 340 feet of boundary line with this proposed subdivision and he had no issues with it and he felt the Commission should approve it.

There being no further Audience Participation, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Rogers could he explain the criteria for putting a pathway to the school. Mr. Rogers asked if he had read the Ordinance attached to his letter and Member Bonaventura said no he didn't, and Mr. Rogers indicated it was Ordinance No. 95-45.22 adopted by the City Council on June 19, 1995 and it says in the first sentence, "When a plat is adjacent to property owned by a school district, the plat shall include at least one pedestrian safety path to provide access to such adjacent property. In addition, such pedestrian safety paths may be required where adjacent property is utilized or planned to be utilized by a church, park, or other community facility or within a plat where the length of a block exceeds 1,000 feet." He said that was where he was coming from.

Member Bonaventura asked how did that relate to this as far 1,000 feet and Mr. Rogers replied 1,000 feet doesn't apply but this plat abuts a school site, Thornton Creek Elementary School, along the entire east edge and for that matter, along the entire north edge.

Member Bonaventura asked where would he propose to putting this walkway and Mr. Rogers referred to the house that was to remain and said it would have to come between Lot 3 and that house at the end of the cul-de-sac.

Member Bonaventura said as far as the short distance from the end of that cul-de-sac to Nine Mile where there was a pedestrian sidewalk, that goes directly to the front of that school. Mr. Rogers said and the school has the sidewalk along Nine Mile.

Member Bonaventura said he failed to see the need in this circumstance for the pedestrian walkway at the end of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Rogers said he was aware of that and it was a short walking distance, 400 feet down and another 200 feet over and they were within 600 feet of the school site, but the Ordinance says what it says and it may not be feasible. He thought it was feasible and for all the other lots, they really couldn't reduce them and they were just over a half acre in size and the only place they were going to find the space to put it through was on part of this accepted parcel, which was about 2.2 acres and he would have to defer to Mr. Watson that if it was not feasible and they don't want to require it, would this be a waiver.

Mr. Autry asked to address that issue and he indicated he had no objection to putting that sidewalk in and it was better than the kids wandering all over the property looking for a place to walk. He said that short sidewalk between his house and the north lot would not be a problem, and he would be happy to put it in and meet over with the school sidewalk and it was not a problem at all.

Mr. Autry said he would rather have it there as to have the kids wandering across randomly. Mr Rogers asked Mr. Autry if he was still going to continue to live there and Mr. Autry said he was still there.

Mr. Rogers said he was going to ask Mr. Watson that if there was no good purpose for putting it in there, would that be a waiver by the City Council of the Ordinance provision.

Mr. Watson replied the Subdivision Ordinance does provide for variances and the variances were granted by the City Council upon recommendation by the Planning Commission, and if the Planning Commission has thoughts one way or the other as to whether it should be there or not be there, they should include that in their Minutes.

Member Bonaventura said in actuality, that was his only concern with the project and it may seem silly, but it was a matter of principal and he has a problem having walkways between lots like that and he really felt it was a bad policy when it was not needed. He said he appreciated the Ordinance as far as the intent of it with the school system, but this particular site was small and the cul-de-sac was so short, and then the sidewalk system would be in place and the rest of it was in place.

Member Bonaventura said he also had a problem with school children walking between two properties rather than a public sidewalk, which was right out in the open and that was just his personal feeling and he would be interested if any of the other Commissioners have opinions on it.

Member Hoadley said he didn't have that concern at all, in fact, he felt it was a good idea and it should be there on this one as well as any others if at all possible.

Member Hoadley said he did have a concern as to why this lot was not included and he asked if it would be dedicated to the City and not be a private road and it was stated yes.

Member Hoadley said he saw no reason not to include that lot then as part of this subdivision since the City was going to have to maintain that road in front of it and he wondered why would they want to exclude that lot.

Mr. Autry replied he just went with what the engineers drew up and the house that he has there, has the sewer tied in already and the school provided sewer service to his house when he brought the property from them, so they showed the house as being there.

Member Hoadley asked if he had any objection to having this lot 7 for his subdivision, and Mr. Autry said he had been advised that they should just come in for the six lots.

Member Hoadley said his only problem with that was eventually he may have a water tap or someone else may have a water tap or a sewer tap that was going to come off that cul-de-sac, and that the City was going to maintain that area of sidewalk and road for them and it seems to him it should be part of the subdivision. He then said he was not ready to support this project the way it is.

Member Hodges indicated she had a concern about the pathway and her concern was that knowing human nature, the children were going to make a path from out of the park through the subdivision and maybe a suggestion would be to have a westward path so that they have some place to go other than roaming through yards.

Member Hodges said the other comment she had was in response to what Member Hoadley just stated that Mr. Autry's taxes would not go to pay for that cul-de-sac, but every other lot owner would and Member Hoadley said he didn't know that. Member Hodges said Mr. Autry was a taxpayer, so she felt they could assume that the tax money would be used for the maintenance of those roads and she didn't feel he was getting a freebie.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Watson if they could exclude a lot like that, and Mr. Watson said yes and it does occur at times, but based on what they were looking at, it was whether the subdivision as laid out, complies with both the Subdivision Control Act and their Subdivision Ordinance and it appears that it does. She said one thing that it couldn't do was leave a parcel landlocked and he assumed that was the reason why it was designed with the cul-de-sac having at least that minimum amount of sufficient frontage on that excluded parcel. Mr. Rogers commented it was 121.10 feet.

Mr. Watson said he assumed it was done that way so it doesn't leave that parcel being a non-conforming parcel. Mr. Rogers said that 121.10 feet was on the curb and the 120 feet was on the court and that was what they go by.

Member Hoadley said he was saying that under their Ordinances, it could be excluded and Mr. Watson said it appears that this could comply with the regulations of the plat with or without that being included.

Member Hoadley asked if the applicant would be able to exclude every other lot and Mr. Watson said not every other lot. He said at some point, he would have a problem where he would be violating the Plat Act by having too many splits separate from the subdivision. Member Hoadley said then they couldn't have a split off of this small an area, but they could actually split off that big of an acreage and Mr. Watson replied yes.

Mr. Watson said one thing that it does do was it doesn't appear that there would ever be a practical way of further dividing that parcel and it would just remain as a two plus acre site.

Member Hodges then asked about the island that was going to be landscaped and asked about a flagpole existing and Mr. Arroyo indicated that would be coming out.

Mr. Rick Hirth of Warner, Cantrell and Padmos, engineers for the project was present. He said he might be able to address the comment about the sidewalk from Autumn Park as he had helped out on that project. He stated he believed that the Autumn Park builders were working out a path and not on Mr. Autry's property, but on Autumn Park and the School property to provide that walkway to the school.

Member Hodges asked if that would go north of the property and Mr. Hirth indicated it would go north of his property completely. Member Hodges asked would it go all the way around, and Mr. Hirth indicated the school property goes all the way around and Mr. Autry's property abuts right up to Autumn Park.

Member Hodges said they would have something from the north end then and Mr. Hirth said that was his understanding and Member Hodges said it would actually come closer to the school building then and Mr. Hirth said yes.

Member Weddington said she hated to see the large lots broken up, but she certainly understood the applicant was probably doing this out of self-defense as development was going on around him but that was just her observation.

Member Weddington said her interpretation of this requirement of access being provided to the school through a newly platted subdivision was that the plat should include at least one pedestrian safety path to provide access and she would think that the sidewalk system that has been laid out would do that and that was just her own interpretation of the Ordinance and she would rather not see a separate sidewalk or a safety path go between the houses. She said she shared Member Bonaventura's concern as long as there was another access for the Autumn Park Subdivision and she felt Member Hodges brought up a good point.

Member Vrettas said he wanted to talk about a sidewalk too and he wanted to commend Mr. Rogers for catching that detail in the Ordinance and putting it in but like Member Bonaventura, he felt if it doesn't serve a useful purpose other than satisfying an Ordinance, and if the owner doesn't want it, then why have it. He said his feelings were to leave it up to the owner and let him decide.

Chairperson Lorenzo said she believed Mr. Autry did state that he was willing to put that sidewalk in.

Mr. Autry then indicated he just talked to his engineer who informed him that the sidewalk running parallel to the one lot would make that lot less valuable and it wouldn't bother him to run it across in front of his house, but it would knock the value of the existing lot there that they have shown, the north lot, so if the Ordinance does not require it, he probably would not put it in.

Chairperson Lorenzo said then he would prefer not to put the sidewalk in and Mr. Autry said correct under his engineer's advice.

Mr. Rogers said there was a sidewalk from this 400 foot cul-de-sac along Nine Mile to the school site and the maximum distance was 600 feet. He said in talking to Mr. Arroyo, he could see where an interpretation could be made that there was indeed a pedestrian safety path from the plat to the school site.

Mr. Rogers said if this was a road network going up 1,000 feet with and many other roads, yes, they would want a pedestrian intersection as they were planning from Autumn Park into the school site which was north of this particular plat, so maybe this was a judgement decision although he had to fall back on Mr. Watson's advice and he asked Mr. Watson if they put in the sidewalk on Darcey Court and they have a sidewalk on Nine Mile, does that sidewalk suffice.

Mr. Watson said it wasn't a question of whether it was discretion or whether they want it or don't want it but it was a question of whether the Ordinance requires it or doesn't require it, and if the Ordinance requires it, the discretion was with the City Council to grant a variance.

Mr. Watson then said he didn't see the sidewalk on the plans. Mr. Rogers said it was Footnote 6 and 7 on the notes and Footnote 6 says interior sidewalks would be provided per City standards and that was on both sides of the road and then Footnote 7 indicates a five foot concrete walk was to be installed along Nine Mile, which would connect up with the sidewalk in front of the school.

Mr. Watson asked was it correct then that the school property was actually at this point adjacent to Nine Mile Road.

Mr. Autry asked to interrupt and he stated Northville Schools was going to put a sidewalk in front of his property on Nine Mile before this coming school season starts so that would be in place long before their Final approval on this subdivision.

Mr. Watson said the Ordinance requirement was that the Plat shall include at least one pedestrian safety path to provide access to such adjacent property and by virtue of the fact that they were adjacent at that point on Nine Mile, he felt they would provide it.

Mr. Arroyo said another thing to take into consideration was if they did have a safety path along the north side of Lot No. 3, there were a couple of issues that he felt would have to be explored, and one question was if the school district was going to be willing to extend it from the property line to a point where it would provide access and the second question was it looks like it would take them directly into a parking lot and they would have children crossing the parking lot to get to the school which he felt raises a number of questions, whereas if they went down to Nine Mile and went along the sidewalk and then went up the main entrance into the school, that seems to be a much more logical entryway, so he had some concerns, and he felt that was something that should be considered as to exactly where they were going to go once they get to the property line and was that logical.

Member Mutch said it occurred to her too that they would be walking into a parking lot further up. She asked for the sidewalk on Nine Mile, does anyone know if it just continues along Nine Mile, or regarding the entrance for the drive leading up to the school, was there a sidewalk that runs along that drive.

Mr. Autry said there was a sidewalk only in front of the school on Nine Mile but at the present time, the Northville Schools have asked for his permission to run a sidewalk in front of his house because last winter, they just had kids running all over and they plan on having that sidewalk in before school opens up so he was surprised that they haven't started on it already.

Member Mutch said her question wasn't so much about that part of the sidewalk, but she was just curious whether those children walk along Nine Mile on that new sidewalk and then to the existing sidewalk when they get to the actual driveway entrance. She asked has Northville Schools provided a walkway up to the school. Mr. Autry replied they have and Member Mutch said so they were not just walking in the driveway. Mr. Autry said they have provided a sidewalk all the way back and from the sidewalk to Nine Mile, it extends north all the way back to the school and they don't cross the parking lot.

Member Weddington then said she would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Member Weddington

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval for Darcey Subdivision, SP95-34.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Vrettas asked would Member Weddington consider an amendment to not require that sidewalk.

Mr. Watson said the conclusion that he reached and the Commission may differ on this or the City Council may differ on this was that the sidewalk connecting the subdivision along Nine Mile to the school property satisfies that requirement.

Member Vrettas said then they don't have to put it in and Mr. Watson said that was correct.

Member Hodges asked since she didn't check with her Ordinance, she had to ask would there be sidewalks in the subdivision, and Mr. Rogers said yes and he referred to Footnote 6. He also stated that before they go to Final Preliminary Plat, that they actually delineate the sidewalk on the plan, which was five foot concrete.

Member Hoadley asked about a difference in acreage here, and JCK indicates it was under 5 acres and Mr. Rogers indicates it was over 5 acres and if it was under 5 acres, the Commission controls it and if it was over 5 acres, it goes to City Council and he asked what was it.

Mr. Rogers said the legal description in the upper right corner, which takes them to the centerline of 9 Mile, may be the disparity, calls out 6.7896 acres, and all plats of any size and it has to go to Council and the five acre rule applies in the Town Center zoning going to Council.

Chairperson Lorenzo said to Mr. Rogers that he referenced a woodlands protection plat pending and was that a woodlands permit pending and Mr. Rogers said no and the note here states and he believed it was correct, that there were no regulated woodlands on the site, and this was a canopy overhang from trees on the adjacent property. He said he did make a note for the record that the proposed protective fencing along this drip line be established and made a condition of any plat approval. Chairperson Lorenzo said that was in there already with his recommendation then and Mr. Rogers said yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo said regarding the entranceway, would there be any conflicts between exiting from Bradford and this entranceway and it seems awfully close to her. Mr. Arroyo replied the one thing that this has going for it was the fact that it was a six lot subdivision as he mentioned, six trips during the peak hour, very low volume and he didn't see it as being a significant problem, given that extremely low volume and they also don't really have a choice and it wasn't like they could say move it over 75 feet.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mutch (Yes), Taub (No), Vrettas (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes)

(7) Yeas (1) Nay

MOTION CARRIED.

5. Ordinance No. 95-18 - An Ordinance to Amend Article 21 of Ordinance 84-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, To Revise the Standards For Uses Within the P-1 Zoning District for Possible Recommendation to City Council.

Mr. Rogers said they may remember that Mr. Feldman petitioned for rezoning of property behind the dealership on Grand River from RM-1 to B-3 or any other appropriate classification. He said the Planning Commission spent some time with the Petitioner's architect, Mr. Tkacz who was present that evening, looking at a site plan and discussing buffering requirements and inquiring about the nature of the cars to be parked on the lot. He said they were actually designing the berm at that meeting and it was going to go up on a slope and then be a retaining wall.

Mr. Roger said as he recalled, the decision which was not before them that night, was to recommend approval of a majority vote to Council to rezone about 2/3 to 3/4 of that property, the southerly portion, to P-1 District and then the northerly part, 65-75 feet to a B-3 configuration to allow the expansion of the building southerly from what it was today.

Mr. Rogers said it was what they call conditional zoning because they attach conditions on the recommendation for rezoning. He said the conditions were that there be the screening wall and berm treatment and the types of uses of the property. He said at the Council meeting, it was not acted on and as he recalled, Councilman Rob Mitzel requested that he and the Staff address the P-1 Ordinance so as to make it useable for this property.

Mr. Rogers said in other words to allow the parking for more than 24 hours of unlicensed new vehicles, loaners, things other than customer cars, which was the intended use of most of the property by Marty Feldman. He said it was to put cars waiting to be prepped and new cars in storage, passenger vehicles, etc., and so a draft was prepared to revisit the P-1 District Classification, the text only, to make it useable in this circumstance.

Mr. Rogers said the principal change here would be in Section 2102, which sets up for the first time a Special Land Use in the P-1 District, and heretofore, it was principal uses only subject to certain conditions and so the way the principal uses were structured on Page 1, which would require a public hearing and action by the Planning Commission, there would be the following language:

1. Parking for sale of new, unlicensed passenger vehicles and parking of rental and loaner vehicles, but not including junk or inoperable vehicles, partially dismantled or damaged vehicles, and subject to the following conditions:

a. No car hauler delivery operations shall be allowed.

b. A landscaped berm shall be provided around all sides of a P-1 zoned site abutting a residential zoned district which shall comply with standards at Sec. 1905.4,c. (Mr. Rogers indicated those were the standards they have for I-1 Districts next to Residential where they could require a berm of 6-10 feet high, triple-tracking evergreens on top, irrigation, etc.)

c. No dumpster or trash storage facility shall be permitted on the P-1 District.

d. Night lighting shall be shielded from all adjacent residential zoned districts.

Mr. Rogers said the other change was on Page 2, Item #3, where it states, "Parking areas shall be used solely for parking of private passenger vehicles for periods of less than one day," and then he indicated the following was added: except for uses under Sec. 2102 - Parking areas shall not be used as an off-street loading area.

Mr. Rogers said so it cross-references them back to Page 1 and other than that, all the other standards of the P-1 District were substantially the same.

Mr. Rogers said it was really permitting in a P-1 District, parking of vehicles for longer than one day if they meet those standards and the zoning was affected on the property, which was the rezoning action that they have to take and recommend to Council.

Mr. Rogers added he has conferred with Member Hoadley who suggested that they might expand on Page 1, Item 1, after the second line there, "Parking for the sale of new unlicensed passenger vehicles and parking of rental and loaner vehicles," and add the words, "for periods of longer than one day," or words to that effect and that would make it clear that the 24 hour rule does not apply. Mr. Rogers suspected that some of those cars might be sitting there for a week or two.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Stanley Tkacz, Architect, was present representing Mr. Feldman. He said he has not been privy to the written word that has been presented that evening, but from what he has heard, he didn't feel it would effect their original approval or the plans presented to this Commission or to the City Council for their review, other than going from the B-3 to the B-1. He said so the project would not at this time, without seeing the written word, be either changed or altered from the original presentation.

There being no further Audience Participation, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Hodges said she needed clarification on the car hauler delivery and how do the cars get on the lot if the car hauler doesn't bring them.

Mr. Tkacz indicated what was originally approved when they were before the Commission back in May was that any turnaround of a car hauler was done within the B-3 area. He said they just changed the parking and put the parking from the B-3 and moved it into the back B-3 that had the conditional area. He said any car hauler activity would appear in the regular B-3 area or north of that, which would be the P-1 Parking District.

Member Hodges asked would that be where the dumpsters would be kept and Mr. Tkacz said yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo noted this was an Ordinance Amendment and not a site plan issue at this point in time.

Member Hodges said she understood, but she needed to know how the Ordinance affected the site plan.

Mr. Watson said not to belabor the point, but it might make the Commission think of other conditions that they might want to put in there to make the Ordinance work the way they want it to work and although the Commission was not considering the specific site plan, it may give them ideas as to what they really want to do and if they want to do this.

Member Hodges said her only real concern was the trash storage facility and would than mean big barrel cans.

Mr. Tkacz said they were required under the Ordinance to screen and provide 6 foot high screen walls around any trash receptacles, and as it was indicated in the existing Ordinance and the one presented, they could not put those screen walls within the P-1 District and they would still have them on the site. He said that was required by their Zoning Ordinance under the B-3 requirements.

Member Hoadley said as Mr. Rogers already brought out, he did discuss this with him and he felt the language was a bit vague and the intent of this was to allow the type of parking for new and used car dealers beyond 24 hours, and on Page 2, Item #3, it states, "Parking areas shall be used solely for parking of private passenger vehicles for periods of less than one day, except for uses under Sec. 2101. Parking areas shall not be used as an off-street loading area."

Member Hoadley said it goes back and refers, but he would like to see if they would agree to make it very specific because when they were a little vague, that was when lawsuits occur.

Mr. Watson indicated he had some language for that and what he would do would be to add after the words partially dismantled or damaged vehicles, "without time limitation" followed by a comma. He said then continue so it would indicate those were the things permitted and that there was no limitation on it.

Member Hoadley asked him to repeat that language again.

Mr. Watson indicated after the words partially dismantled or damaged vehicles, to add the phrase, "without time limitation" followed by a comma.

Member Weddington said her comment was on the same issue and she was going to suggest something, but she felt Mr. Watson's suggestion was even better, and she concurred with the proposal, but she would just toss out for consideration, do they want to put an upper limit on this or do they want cars to be able to be parked there for months or years.

Mr. Tkacz commented it wouldn't be in their best interest to leave cars there and if they were parked there for years, Mr. Feldman would be out of business.

Member Bonaventura commented on June 5, 1995, at the City Council meeting, Mr. Fried stated he had difficulty changing a Zoning Ordinance to accommodate one person or a piece of property. He said he agreed with Mr. Fried, and he had problems writing a Zoning Ordinance to accommodate one person or one piece of property.

Member Bonaventura said he didn't necessarily have a problem with the Ordinance, but Mr. Tkacz mentioned on June 5, 1995 that he had worked in nine states and three countries, and he knew what it took to re-write a Zoning Ordinance with public meetings and that they were looking at a 6-12 month period to rewrite a Zoning Section.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Rogers had asked for clarification from Councilman Mitzel as to which direction he should take as far as the Implementation Committee or the Staff looking at the P-1 District.

Member Bonaventura said he would like to read to them the purpose of the Implementation Committee which was, "To research and develop Zoning Ordinance Amendments designed to address shortcomings or gaps in existing Zoning Ordinances as they relate to identified problems, and also investigate innovative planning and zoning practices for new approaches through development issues, problems and opportunities."

Member Bonaventura felt they skipped a bit of the process. He said one thing that really bothers him was that this has been 5-6 weeks and they were having a public hearing that night and it would then be going to City Council, and he knows Mr. Feldman was in a hurry, but residents for over a year have been asking the Administration to look at the 24 Hour Operations and as close as they were, all they were getting was a public hearing and not an Ordinance change.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Bonaventura to stick to the issue at hand. Member Bonaventura said the issue was if this was on the fast-track and Novi was on the fast-track then, the developers in this community, the real estate brokers, and the business people were king in Novi.

Member Bonaventura said he took offense to the fact that this has come up so quickly and in fact, it hasn't come up in front of the Implementation Committee. He then said he didn't necessarily have a problem with the Ordinance itself.

Mr. Wahl said he just wanted to respond to those comments. He said everyone should be aware that this year was perhaps one of their busiest years that they have had in terms of development in planning in the community, so they have to make some judgements in terms of balancing the assignments and where they go and how complicated they were and how much time they take and things of that nature.

Mr. Wahl said on occasion, they have made decisions to bring items such as a work session right to this Commission, rather than spending perhaps an extensive amount of time in a Committee or backing things up or otherwise slowing down the entire planning process in this community.

Mr. Wahl said and when they start involving the City Council, that complicates the scheduling even more because on a number of occasions, they have been asked why things were taking so long, so they were trying to be as sensitive as they could to balancing all of those elements, and to understand how long it takes to do an OS-3 Ordinance versus this Ordinance and what was the most efficient, effective way to deal with it.

Mr. Wahl said also in terms of residents, he felt that was why this Ordinance was handled and they thought it was relatively straight-forward and that they could bring it back to this Commission without putting it in a Committee that has many other important things to deal with. He said that was their way of responding to a pending project and not holding it up and responding to Council's concerns and of dealing with their very busy Agenda in what they consider to be an efficient and effective manner.

Mr. Wahl said that was something they would be working with Chairperson Lorenzo on to balance all of those responsibilities. Furthermore, he felt it was a bad impression and inaccurate to suggest that the Department or the Staff somehow has not provided extensive research, information, and recommendations as far as this 24 hour operation was concerned and they have spent a lot of time and effort to bring it to them in a rather timely fashion.

Mr. Wahl said this Planning Commission months ago, decided not to take any action at that point in time and as far as they were concerned, the book was essentially closed at that point in time so he felt for the public's benefit and the Commission, he would just reflect that he felt the characterization of other assignments and how they have been handled was simply not accurate and he wanted to clarify that as far as he was concerned.

Chairperson Lorenzo said she appreciated Mr. Wahl's comments and she concurred that they could not compare apples to oranges, and some items that come to them on the Implementation Committee were very complex and do require additional information and this apparently does not fit that type of category.

Member Mutch said this particular Ordinance deals with passenger cars and yet a car dealership may have small trucks, recreational vehicles and vans too and she asked were they defined differently or were they covered by another Ordinance.

Mr. Rogers said the answer to that he felt was whether or not they define passenger vehicles or not, and he would have to check that issue further and he would suggest that it be part of what the Planning Commission's recommendation was and that it be looked into to make sure this language was consistent with that purpose and if passenger vehicles were not defined in a manner to be inclusive, than this be modified accordingly.

Member Mutch felt if they have nine people making recommendations to City Council and they were talking about passenger vehicles and not anything else, they should at least agree on what they all think passenger vehicles are.

It was then,

Moved by Member Mutch

Seconded by Member Taub

To send a positive recommendation to City Council on Ordinance No. 95-18.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Vrettas asked if they should add a rider about the clarification language, and Mr. Watson said he took the motion to cover the language that Member Hoadley desired to clarify the issue.

Member Bonaventura commented the word "solely" was taken out from the original Intent of the P-1 and he wondered why.

Mr. Watson explained the reason why the word, "solely," was taken out was because it was clear from the use that was added that they were just not there for parking and they were there for sale as well.

Member Bonaventura asked if the customer would be able to walk up to the cars and inspect them and talk with a salesperson while looking at the cars and Mr. Watson said yes he assumed so.

Member Bonaventura said he was talking about the Ordinance and as far as sales, he thought this was for storage but he must be mistaken. He then asked Mr. Rogers if sales were allowed as far as inspection of cars, and Mr. Rogers said in his draft, he just called out parking of new unlicensed passenger vehicles and in the draft that Mr. Watson did, "for sale of" was added.

Member Bonaventura referred to Section 2103 under Mr. Rogers' version under Required Conditions, and Item #4 states, "No commercial repair work or service of any kind, or sale or display thereof, shall be conducted in such parking area."

Mr. Watson felt that was inconsistent with #1 and he felt the same language that has been added to Part Three except for uses under Section 2102 should be added there. He said really what should happen was it should be divided into two separate sentences and they should separate sale displays from the commercial repair work. He said they don't want repair work on that property if it was sale and display occurring there.

Mr. Watson indicated it was in conflict with Section 2102 and it should be reworded to divide it into two separate sentences, one of which precludes commercial work or service of any kind and the second without exception, precludes sales or display except as permitted under Section 2102.

Member Mutch said when she first read that, she thought that it meant that they not only couldn't do commercial repair work, but they couldn't have the type of display using a vehicle that would show the kind of work that was being done elsewhere by that same business, such as tire repairs.

Mr. Rogers then referred to Page 2 at the bottom, where it states, "Side and Rear Yards - Where the P-1 District was contiguous to the side and rear lot lines, the required wall should be located along the said lot line." He said now they were talking about a screening berm under Section 2102.1B consistent with Section 1905.4C, and he felt they have to say that where it abuts a residentially zoned district, at least for special land uses that they have there under Section 2102, that they should require the berm and not the regular wall.

Mr. Tkacz said if they would remember, they discussed that originally and in the discussion of the preliminary design, they said that the wall should occur between the berm and the property line, so that it was on the inside of the berm, and he had brought that up on one of their first original designs.

Chairperson Lorenzo then asked Mr. Watson with all of the modifications to this, did he feel it was adequate to send to Council in this fashion or should they postpone it. Mr. Watson said he would send it to Council in any fashion the Commission wants him to or he would bring a draft back to the Commission and it was entirely up to them. He added that he understood all of the changes and all of the things that have been discussed thus far.

Member Mutch said just regarding the last question raised, the discussion about the wall being on the inside of the berm, was Mr. Rogers saying that this Item #1, Side and Rear Yard Section, be changed and she further was he saying that where it says the required wall, did he want that changed at that point or did he want it to say, "the required wall shall be located along said lot line inside the berm." She said she was trying to pick up on what they were both saying.

Mr. Rogers indicated that was a site planning issue how that berm and wall was designed.

Member Mutch then asked if he was suggesting that this be changed, and Mr. Rogers said he felt there has to be for Section 2102 uses, a reference to the requirement under Subsection B for a landscaped berm.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Rogers to read back the way he felt "Side and Rear Yards" should be written. Mr. Rogers stated said the present Ordinance calls out the way it was presently written and that it be a required wall along the side or rear lot line and it doesn't define the height of that wall, and this presumedly would be for a small parking lot, not a commercial parking lot and not a new car storage lot. He said that issue was one item.

Mr. Rogers said another issue was that this Section 2104 talks about all of the uses permitted in this district, whether they were principal uses permitted or special uses permitted, and he didn't think they would resolve the final language that night.

Member Mutch asked if he wanted a reference in this paragraph back to Section 2102B and Mr. Rogers said yes for those uses permitted on special approval under Section 2102 and they were not talking about a wall, they were talking about a berm.

Mr. Watson said they just want to make it clear that Section 2104.1 wasn't requiring a wall instead of a berm for those uses in Section 2102 and Mr. Rogers said that was correct.

Mr. Rogers said to bear with him on one more point and he referred to Section 2509, the Landscape Section of the Ordinance, and where a P-1 District abuts a residential district, there was a requirement for a 4'6" berm, so the wall was superfluous. He said so if they were going to have just a parking lot, a P-1 parking lot, Section 2509, Paragraph 5A calls for a 4'6" berm landscaping between that P-1 District and the residential district.

Mr. Rogers said if they have a Section 2102 use, they were talking about the standards that they have under Section 1905.4.C., for industrial uses adjacent to residential, where they could require from a 6 foot to a 10 foot high berm landscaping.

Mr. Rogers felt if they were going to tidy this up, they should delete the wall completely and have those two requirements. He said for the principal uses permitted under Section 2101, the requirement was for a 4'6" landscaped berm and if it was a Section 2102 use, then the screening requirement was as shown under Section 1905.4.C., which was the industrial next to residential.

Mr. Rogers felt they should delete the word "wall" entirely and that was back when they were requiring walls as screening between residential/non-residential, but now they were into berms, but the Commission could approve a wall if there was no ability to put in a berm.

Member Hoadley remarked that was the problem with trying to design an Ordinance for one specific use and he really did agree with Member Bonaventura on this one, and it probably should have gone to the Implementation Committee first to look at, but it was before them now. He asked with the language they want to change this to, would it make it where the Petitioner could not put a wall and Mr. Rogers said no. He said the P-1 Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission could modify the berm and permit a wall and also the Planning Commission could recommend to the ZBA the feasibility of eliminating a berm in its entirety so they have that in the Ordinance when the site plan comes in.

Member Bonaventura said if this motion doesn't pass, he would be ready to make a motion to send this to the Implementation Committee.

Member Weddington asked for the motion to be repeated:

To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Ordinance No. 95-18 with the revisions requested by the Planning Commission.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Taub (Yes), Vrettas (No), Weddington (No), Bonaventura (No), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes)

(5) Yeas (3) Nays

MOTION CARRIED.

Member Hoadley commented that in the future, they should follow their rules and not have those items come before the Commission because they had a big debate here and there was no reason for it and it should have come before the Implementation Committee, and in the future he would request that.

Member Taub commented that it still has to go to City Council so this was not absolute and the key was the discussion on the record for the Council to review.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Committee Appointments

Possible Planning Commissioner nominations for appointment to the following Committees:

6. Feurst Property Committee - (1 Vacancy)

Member Taub felt they should address this issue when they have a full Commission present. Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out that their next few Agendas are very full and Member Taub said they could have this as an item first on the Agenda after Public Hearings.

Member Mutch pointed out that as far as she knew, Committee No. 6, Feurst Property Committee is a committee that was appointed by the School Board two years ago that no longer exists. She said it had included a Council member and a Planning Commissioner and a Parks & Recreation member, etc., and that Committee did its work, made its report to the School Board by no later than June of 1993 and hasn’t existed since that point. She said Lodia Richards represented the Planning Commission at that time, so that is one that does not need to be filled.

Member Mutch also suggested if the Commission decides to move this to another date, what they might do is indicate individually if they have any interests in serving on any of those Committees and that way the Chairperson would know in advance who was interested and who was not and that way if someone couldn’t be there, their interests would be known.

Member Hodges asked if being a Committee member required an action by the Commission and do they vote on it and it was stated no, and she said why didn’t they request that the people make their intentions known and if someone wants to stay as they are, fine, but if they want to change or be added to a committee, they could put it in writing to Mr. Cohen who would provide the Commission with a revised list within 30 days.

There was a Commission consensus to do that and Chairperson Lorenzo asked that Mr. Cohen solicit for the next packet requests for Committees of choice.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None.

There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M.

_______________________________

Steven Cohen

Planning Aide

Transcribed by Sharon Hendrian