(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Markham (arrived 8:50 p.m.), Vrettas (arrived 7:40 p.m.), Weddington, Chairperson Lorenzo

ABSENT: None

ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Dennis Watson, Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect Eric Olson, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Greg Capote, and Planning Aide Steven Cohen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there are any changes or additions to the agenda. Member Hoadley requested that an hour time limit be placed on the study’s presentation. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hoadley is suggesting that Item (1) under Matters for Discussion be limited to an hour and Member Hoadley agreed. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hoadley had any actual additions to the agenda. Member Hoadley said that he has an addition for Matters for Consideration. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Hoadley that items are only being added to the agenda at this time. Member Hoadley asked to add Soil Erosion under Matters for Consideration. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if this should be Item (8) for under Matters for Discussion and Member Hoadley replied that it should. Member Hoadley also would like to add as Item (9) Consultant and Planning Department Project Review Letter Format and add as Item (10) Impacts Statements Required by Applicants.

Member Bononi asked to include her additions wherever the Chair deemed appropriate. Member Bononi asked to add Content of Wetland Map Revision and the Conflict of Implementation Committee and Master Plan and Zoning Meeting Scheduling. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the Wetland Map Revision would be Item (11) and Scheduling of Committee Meetings would be Item (12). Member Bononi also asked to add the Comprehensive Use of Development Projects and How They Relate to Each Other. Chairperson Lorenzo stated, so noted.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the Chair will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Member Hoadley asked if a motion is needed in regard to the time limitation? Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is a consensus of the Commission to limit Item (1) to an hour. Member Bonaventura would like the presentation to be brief, but thorough and asked if a motion should be made for that? Chairperson Lorenzo replied that she believes that an hour would suffice. Member Bonaventura believes that the consultants are well aware that the Commissioners have reviewed the materials and will only highlight the good points.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that if Member Hoadley would like to make a motion, he may. Member Hoadley would prefer to see a question and answer type scenario and further asked the consultants to highlight their reports and allow the Commission to ask questions on each item. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is a consensus that the consultants will just present the highlights and allow questions and answers? Chairperson Lorenzo reported that there seems to be a consensus.

Member Hodges asked Member Hoadley if he means one hour total, including discussion and information time or just an hour for the consultants and then additional time for the Commission. Member Hoadley was hoping that the whole item could be taken care of in an hour and that the purpose is to keep it brief, yet give the Commission the opportunity to ask questions.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if there is nothing else, the Chair will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So moved, by Member Bonaventura and seconded by Member Weddington.

PM-96-05-102 TO APPROVE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Bonaventura, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve agenda as amended.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked all those in favor signify by saying aye, those opposed say no and reported that the motion passed unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-102 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Weddington

No: None

Judy Elvy, 48120 W. Eight Mile Road, Northville, advised that she was at the May 15, 1996 meeting to express her concern about the proposed zoning for a recreational ordinance. Ms. Elvy’s concern is centered around the fact that if the zoning is approved, it will directly affect her property. Ms. Elvy advised that she was in the process of writing a letter to affected homeowners when she was informed that the REC Ordinance would be discussed once again. Ms. Elvy then requested that until the affected residents along Nine and Eight Mile Roads at Beck are informed about the zoning, that a Public Hearing be postponed. Ms. Elvy feels that there is a thrust to get the zoning approved with the focus on the Meyer Berry Farm property. Ms. Elvy feels that it may be a special interest situation and does not necessarily believe that it is in the best interest of the residents. Ms. Elvy further believes that this would give the affected residents the opportunity to come forward and voice their opinions as well. Ms. Elvy advised that a few members of the SWAN organization have been informed, but because she was not informed earlier about tonight’s agenda, it was not possible to contact them to attend the meeting. Ms. Elvy asked that out of respect to those homeowners, that the REC Ordinance be tabled until they can get together and prepare a statement for the Commission. Ms. Elvy thinks that one reason the zoning is being pushed through is because she understands that Larry Meyer is about to receive another down payment from the purchasers of the property. Ms. Elvy further advised that the purchase depends upon whether or not the City is going to approve the REC Ordinance which, in Ms. Elvy’s opinion, means that this is a personal interest matter. Ms. Elvy reiterated that she is not certain whether this ordinance will be good or bad for her, but she needs time to sort it out.

Chairperson Lorenzo explained that the REC Ordinance is only on the agenda for discussion. She further explained that the whole purpose of a Public Hearing, which this is not, is to give information to the public and allow the public to participate in the process. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that even if they were to schedule a Public Hearing, Ms. Elvy would be notified as she was for tonight’s meeting. Chairperson Lorenzo believes that Ms. Elvy would have the time, at that point, to notify other homeowners that might be concerned about the issue.

Ms. Elvy wondered if by the mere fact that a Public Hearing is set means that the ordinance will go through? Chairperson Lorenzo advised that it did not and reiterated that it is only for Commission discussion and to gain public opinion on the issue.

Chairperson Lorenzo then asked if anyone else would like to participate.

Bob Shaw, Resident of Village Oaks, member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, and a member of the Board of Trustees for Community Clubs in Novi advised that the trustees for the Community Clubs had the opportunity to look at the proposed REC Ordinance and are not happy with it. Mr. Shaw further advised that he is present tonight because he is concerned about the ordinance. Mr. Shaw stated that he would like to see it get underway and even though he has concerns, he would like a Public Hearing set for citizen and developer’s input.

Bill Szur, of 51000 Nine Mile Road and an active member of SWAN stated that he wanted to voice his concerns about the REC Ordinance. Mr. Szur stated that he just received the information this evening and under one of the required conditions that Mr. Rogers recommended, it stated that the recreational facility shall not be located closer than 150' to any residentially zoned district. Mr. Szur asked if that means that the City can rezone any district property that they see fit for this use as a part of a residential district? Mr. Szur further asked if the new recreational district classification seemed more appropriate for a commercial or light industrial zone? Mr. Szur explained that since privatizing a development means money changing hands daily, it seemed more like a commercial than a recreational development. Mr. Szur asked if REC zoning is permitted on the property along Eight Mile Road, won’t that open up a loophole for other developers to find a way to privatize and commercialize other properties in an area that is supposed to be RA and R-1. Mr. Szur is asking the Planning Commission to take the time needed to study the impact of the new and clever zoning classification and the effects it will have on the citizens.

Debbie Bundoff stated that she has questions relating to the review of drafting a planning study schedule. Ms. Bundoff would like to know is if the document that she has today is going to be an official document for the City when it is completed? Ms. Bundoff further stated that it is acceptable as a draft, but she does have concerns about the document’s accuracy. Ms. Bundoff hopes that it doesn’t give a false sense to outsiders as to the kinds of conditions there are in terms of the existing land uses, the housing conditions survey, and other things of that nature. Ms. Bundoff knows that there is a lot of discrepancy in her area in terms of mapping out and finds it strange that the map depicts a fair housing condition covering several large parcels that have no building on them. Ms. Bundoff further stated that there are other housing areas with abandoned homes because of future development and if it is an official map, someone could interpret it as meaning that the houses are in good condition, only to find out that it is not fair housing condition.

Ms. Bundoff is also concerned about the recreational zoning classification and asked that it not have a Public Hearing before more information is given to the public.

Chairperson Lorenzo replied that they will try to have Mr. Rogers answer some of Ms. Bundoff’s questions regarding the accuracy and discrepancies in the mapping.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else would like to speak during Audience Participation? Seeing no one, she closed the first Audience Participation and advised that there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Weddington advised that a letter has been received from Ed Kriewall, City Manager stating that the Novi City Council and City Administration have been working toward the possibility of developing a REC District Zoning classification. In his letter, Member Weddington read that Mr. Kriewall stated that the classification that is being proposed represents a potential alternative to delivering recreational services to the community in a new light. In addition, Mr. Kriewall advised that the most important aspect of considering a recreational district zoning is to air public discussion on this zoning designation as soon as possible. Member Weddington further advised that Mr. Kriewall wrote that they believe that a public dialogue is appropriate at this time and urge that the Novi Planning Commission set this matter for Public Hearing at a Special Meeting of Wednesday, June 26, 1996 because it is very critical to the exploration of this alternative that this matter is expedited.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. PLANNING STUDIES - FY 1995-1996

Review of DRAFT planning studies scheduled to be completed by June 30, 1996:

- Existing Land Use Study

- Housing Stock and Conditions Survey (Structural Quality)

- Zoning Ordinance Review and Update

- Wildlife Habitat Master Plan

- Thoroughfare Plan: Date Collection and Analysis

- Grand River Corridor Design - Engineering Study

Mr. Capote prefaced the consultant’s comments relative to their studies in the 1995-96 Work Program by stating that the studies are a preliminary draft of their work which is due on June 30, 1996. Mr. Capote explained that tonight’s purpose is to solicit the Commission’s comments after highlighting the studies and have a question and answer period that the consultant’s can take into account before they produce their final draft. Mr. Capote added that if there is any information that may appear to be incomplete or inconsistent, now is the time for open discussion.

Existing Land Use Study

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant advised that the first planning study is well advanced and will permit a comparative study of earlier studies that were done for the City’s earlier master plans. Mr. Rogers reported that they tried their best to reflect parcel by parcel what the existing land uses are by using the standard land use classification system which is a component of every master plan. Mr. Rogers advised that they have identified the existing land uses on a parcel basis and translated them on the map which will be reduced to a reproducible form. Mr. Rogers advised that they have land uses that include residential, commercial, industrial, multiple family, mobile home parks, business, various types of industry, open unused land, and bodies of water. Mr. Rogers added that they have considerable land and street rights of way and freeway rights of way which totals approximately 1500 acres. Mr. Rogers reported that the purpose is to give an overview to the public and public officials as to what is in Novi. Mr. Rogers advised that Page 4 in the report describes the previous format. Mr. Rogers explained that the last thing that the report will provide is a review of zoned areas in the City and what percent of the zoned areas are still undeveloped homes sitting on the property. Mr. Rogers advised that some of the larger subdivisions, where plats are coming along but are not yet on the official City base map, are not included as developed projects. Mr. Roger stated that Page 9 summarizes the decrease in vacant land and that the map is still a draft in of itself. Mr. Rogers advised that the statistics that will be derived from the finalized map through the computer will appear in the 1995 summary. Mr. Rogers concluded by stating that the survey was done in October and November by two planners.

Member Hodges noted that automotive dealers and gasoline service stations are listed

according to Mr. Rogers’ definition of General Business. However, Member Hodges further noted that repair service establishments are listed under Office and asked Mr. Rogers to clarify those as opposed to automotive gasoline stations. Mr. Rogers replied that the repair services would be watch repair, shoe repair, or personal services and perhaps it should be clarified, because it is not meant to imply automotive. Mr. Rogers further explained that if it is an out and out automobile service establishment, it would have to be in an I-1 or I-2 District as a special land use not adjacent to residential.

Member Hodges stated that it may just be a matter of semantics, but under his definition of quasi public, the map showed it as semi public and asked if they both have the same definition? Mr. Rogers replied that is one in the same.

Member Hodges is confused by the semi and quasi public lands as demonstrated on the map and thinks that the qualifying factor for public is if it is municipally maintained. Member Hodges advised that there are no medical facilities that are municipally maintained and she thinks that there needs to be a much finer tuning. Member Hodges stated that if it is semi public, as a resident, she should have some personal control over the situation. She further stated that as a private, nonprofit facility, Providence should not be classified as quasi public. Member Hodges also believes that perhaps cemeteries could be considered as profit, although at the same time they are private. (end of tape) Member Hodges would like to see that definition more fine tuned and perhaps establish another definition for institution facilities. Mr. Rogers then suggested a designation for public institutions. Member Hodges does not think that anyone is confused over the fact that schools are in public land, but added it would be surprising to find Providence Hospital in a public land. Mr. Rogers believes that under the definition of public land uses, there is a reference to public hospitals. Member Hodges advised that there are not any public hospitals in Novi, yet they have been designated as such. Member Hodges thinks that anything that is quasi public will be supported by tax dollars for either maintenance or development and asked if they could look more into using institutional. Member Hodges advised that if it is quasi public, she would want to know how her money has effected that land. Mr. Rogers explained that institutional would not include public. Member Hodges stated that institutional could be public if it were like Northville Hospital and there is no question that the library and the schools are public and should not be listed as institutional.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that Mr. Rogers provide research into the definition that has been used in the past when these studies have been made. Mr. Arroyo advised that one of the benefits of an existing land use survey is that comparisons can be made from previous years and if there has been a standard definition that has been used consistently through the survey, he believes that if a change is made it will have to be footnoted so the comparison of land uses through the years can be made. Mr. Arroyo further stated that Mr. Rogers could then come back with that information and the Commission could make a decision based upon that.

Member Hodges asked if Mr. Arroyo is saying that a footnote should be used as opposed to "we’ve always done it this way." Mr. Arroyo replied that there would be a choice at that point. One choice would be, that is how it has always been done. A second would be to break it out differently, but then do it the old way as well, so that a comparison can be maintained in terms of previous years. The point that Mr. Arroyo is making is that a comparison can be maintained to the previous years and he thinks that the year to year comparison can be important for different purposes and it is never known when it is needed.

Member Bonaventura stated that he goes along with the comparison of older maps, but at the same time he has the same concerns that Commissioner Hodges has with the semi public lands. Member Bonaventura reported that some things have changed as far as existing land use. For instance, Member Bonaventura reported that in Sections 28 and 21 there are approximately 200 acres of preserved woodlands and that this is something that is relatively new to the community. The acreage is not preserved because of its wetlands, rather it is preserved either through negotiations or through options that have allowed the City to preserve these large tracts of land. Member Bonaventura would like a category for these areas on the map designating woodlands to establish that they are preserved. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if what he meant by preserved is that they have preservation easements? Member Bonaventura replied that Chairperson Lorenzo was correct. Member Bonaventura thought he would prefer to categorize them this way, rather than as semi public. Mr. Rogers advised that it would then take them out of the open land use category on Page 3. Mr. Rogers further advised that in truth, it is permanently there and preserved in perpetuity under the agreement for those adjusted lot size subdivisions. Member Bonaventura stated that in other words, it is not going to be developed and its land use has been established. Mr. Rogers advised that it is easy to determine where those are on the master plan brochure because they were highlighted in the dark green and could be updated. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that in other words, they should be called out in that category as preserved. Mr. Rogers advised that they will footnote it as a departure from the past because there were some preservation easements. Mr. Arroyo advised that another alternative would be to keep it under open, but break it into preserved woodlands, add other open lands and subtotal it, so that there would still be an open category to compare.

Member Vrettas has no problem with preservation, but would like to see it as a separate category and not as a subcategory under open lands. Member Vrettas fears that if it is put into an open land category, someone may later think it is a target of opportunity. Member Vrettas believes that if it is separated, the message is that by preserved it means preserved permanently. Member Vrettas also supports Commissioner Hodges and thinks that public should be clarified because, to him, public means that his taxes are going toward maintaining. Member Vrettas thinks a lot of residents don’t know how their taxes are being used and that these designations will give them a better understanding.

Mr. Rogers advised that some of the definitions are generic and he appreciates that the Commission may not have some of them in the City of Novi. Mr. Rogers further advised that the definitions were taken out of a standard source material, but they can better define the quasi public and institutional definitions for Novi.

Member Vrettas asked what the difference is between quasi and semi public? Although Member Vrettas can appreciate generic terms, Novi is not generic and asked that language related to the community be used.

Member Weddington stated that the examples given for local and community business on the top of Page 6 surprised her and that it appears that they may be reversed. Member Weddington stated that Vic’s fits the definition of community business and that Briarpointe Plaza is more the nature of local business. Mr. Rogers advised that Briarpointe Plaza could be considered a local business district, but it is a planned commercial center under the City’s zoning definition. Member Weddington stated that it is not a community regional shopping center as she reads the definition and is unlike Vic’s that draws people from all over the metropolitan area. Member Weddington stated that she does not want to encourage community business of a larger scale in the Briarpointe area. Mr. Rogers added that it is a gray area as to what is a local shopping center and what is a community shopping center, but he is comfortable in changing Briarpointe because it is a small center situated on only four acres.

Member Weddington asked if there is gravel mining in Section 19 between Ten and Eleven Mile Roads? Mr. Rogers replied that he will check on the mining, but there is some residual on the E.C. Levy property and they are coming in with a planned development for much of Section 19. Mr. Rogers advised that the lake is 180 acres with a housing scheme around it and although the plan is not yet before them, he met with Mr. Levy’s representatives last month. Mr. Rogers further advised that they have hired a number of firms to investigate the environmental impacts for the woodlands, wetlands, and lakes and reported that it is almost completed.

Member Hoadley assumes that when the report is completed that this information will be loaded into a computer system that will automatically update projects that are approved or developed, in addition to being the foundation of the GIS system for this study. Mr. Rogers replied that is possible since it has been digitized on the City based map. Member Hoadley asked if once it is right and approved, will it ever have to be done again? Mr. Rogers replied that if it is kept current, it can be done. Member Hoadley hopes that there is no "if" to it and that is why he would like to see it as accurate as possible, including all the necessary definitions. Member Hoadley stated that this will be the base and disagreed with Mr. Arroyo suggestion to compare this with past studies, because they are irrelevant if this is done correctly. Member Hoadley hopes that this will serve as the base and therefore, it should be very accurate from the beginning. Member Hoadley added that if it isn’t, it will have to be done again four or five years from now, wasting money and assets. Member Hoadley stated that every study that comes before the Commission should be done in a manner that the data can be input into a data base and kept current automatically.

Member Hoadley noted that the report is not complete because 1995 is incomplete and asked if it will be completed by the end of June? Mr. Rogers advised that it will be added shortly.

Member Hoadley referred to Page 9 and stated that it is difficult to understand and read. Member Hoadley asked for a definition of vacant zoned areas as opposed to areas not zoned. Mr. Rogers advised that vacant area is an area where there are no homes or streets.

Member Hoadley asked where the Vistas project fits in terms of residential acreage as it is only 4-5% developed with a total of about 300 acres and 1100-1200 units. Mr. Rogers replied that the area that is not depicted and shown as white, is called vacant. Member Hoadley believes it will be difficult to keep it accurate and that is why he is questioning the premise. Member Hoadley asked if it is the intent for the Building Department to take responsibility to access the data base and report that a house has been built as the housing grows? Mr. Rogers replied that it wasn’t the intent of Table 9 to be constantly updated but that it was intended to represent the existing zoning of which fifteen changes were made in the last five years and to report the status of the existing land use survey. Mr. Rogers does not see why it couldn’t be updated, because as the existing land use map is updated, the amount of land that is vacant is reduced. Member Hoadley wonders if once a project is approved and development begins, if the entire project should be removed from vacant and considered as developed because at that point, it becomes land not available for development. Member Hoadley then explained that it would be difficult to keep it accurate if it is updated house by house or lot by lot and would be subject to the possibility of human error. What Member Hoadley is trying to suggest is that it should be made user friendly and that perhaps vacant land, non-vacant, and developed land designations should be reconsidered.

Mr. Rogers advised that the Vistas has struggled since it was Sandstone. Mr. Rogers further advised that they have only built one project and that Watercrest, Phase II is close to getting a final site plan approval as a site condominium. It is Mr. Rogers’ opinion that Vistas may be a five to ten year build-out, as there have been no preliminary site plans approved except for two of the fifteen phases. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Mr. Rogers thought that it would then be premature to designate it as vacant land under these types of circumstances? Mr. Rogers stated that she was correct and that he is concerned about area plans. Mr. Rogers advised that although the Maples is built-out and some of the plats for projects such as Autumn Park and Broadmoor are close to being approved, it would not be difficult to take them out of the vacant land category if they have received final site plan or final preliminary plat approval.

Member Hoadley suggested that a compromise might be made to redesignate phases as they are approved. Member Hoadley reiterated that this should be used as a good data base and the studies should not have to be redone. Mr. Rogers stated that perhaps a good example would be to redesignate the Phase II section of Watercrest because it has been approved. Member Hoadley stated that the same thinking should be applied to every area and once a phase for an industrial or commercial site is approved, it should also be redesignated.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that she would have a problem with that because an approved plan does not mean that it will ever get built. Chairperson Lorenzo would agree to change the data as lots are filled and buildings are built, but would not support a change in terms of listing property as not vacant based only upon an approval. Member Hoadley stated that the Building Department will then be responsible for keeping the data current. Chairperson Lorenzo replied that may very well be, but believes there is a better way to approach it than in the way that Member Hoadley is suggesting. Member Hoadley advised that he is trying to avoid additional expense at a later date and whatever studies they have will become a starting base. Chairperson Lorenzo understands that, but expense is one thing and false data is something else.

Member Weddington stated that Chairperson Lorenzo’s thinking is the same as her own. Member Weddington further stated that if this is supposed to be an existing land use map and if buildings are not built, they do not exist. She added by saying that the map is a snapshot of one point in time and as projects are approved and developed, project maps have been used in the past to depict Member Hoadley’s desire to keep data current. A living data base is a good idea, but call it what it is. Mr. Rogers interjected by stating that is what a project map depicts and he has just delivered a new type of project map tonight at the request of Mr. Wahl. Mr. Rogers advised that it is known as a "Pre-Application, Pre-Submittal Projects" map which depicts projects that have come in for rezoning or for site plan approval, but are not officially submitted.

Member Hoadley advised that he is comfortable with Chairperson Lorenzo’s scenario and reiterated that he still believes that it should be a permanent data base because it establishes the base. Member Hoadley restated that it should be accurate, well defined, and provide an updated system which can’t be updated only once a year and still keep its accuracy. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that the Commission understands what Member Hoadley is saying and most probably agree, but right now the Commission is dealing with an existing land use study and if it is possible to incorporate and update it, that will happen in the future. Chairperson Lorenzo then stated that what Member Hoadley is proposing might be good for the future, but right now the Commission is discussing existing. Member Hoadley stated that what Chairperson Lorenzo is saying is that this is irrelevant, it is good for today only and should not be established as a starting base.

Member Weddington thinks that they are talking about several different things and that the data base is one thing and a map of existing land use is another. Member Weddington advised that the data base can be used in different ways for different purposes and further believes that the consultants understand that the City wants to develop a comprehensive data base that can be sliced and diced in different ways, but care should be taken not to mislabel information that is disseminated to the public. Member Weddington explained that if it is existing, it is existing; if it is proposed, it is proposed; if it is approved, it is approved; if it is speculative, it is speculative and further explained that there could be many different categories. Member Weddington agreed that when it is updated again and if the data base is maintained by moving projects from one category to another, then another accurate snapshot of existing land use can be taken.

Member Hoadley thinks that the same information should be developed ongoing, rather than having to have to do a physical inventory to correct it in the future.

Mr. Capote explained that one thing that may put Member Hoadley’s mind at ease is that the integration of a GIS system would accomplish what he is asking for. Mr. Capote further explained that a lot of the initial work that has been done by Mr. Rogers’ office will be integrated into the GIS system. He further stated that the Data Management Specialist, Margaret Jolin will be adding the updated information to the base study within the GIS system and that the information will be accessible. Mr. Capote stated that it is not wasted money, but is an up front cost to gather the information that will be updated as they phase into the GIS system. Mr. Capote advised that Council has spent $750,000 for this project and although he does not know the exact time when that particular component will be implemented, he believes that it will be in the near future.

Member Hoadley asked if this study will be put into the data base? Mr. Rogers replied that is what he understands and when the GIS is implemented, its data can be transferred from JCK. Mr. Capote interjected by saying that it can be copied into a DXF file and will be compatible with the Arcview software that he anticipates on having within the next sixty days. (end of tape)

Member Bonaventura asked if everyone on the Commission understands that it can be updated and printed at any time? Mr. Rogers added that it is all digitized like the new zoning map and therefore, it can be updated at any time.

Housing Stock and Conditions Survey (Structural Quality)

Mr. Rogers reported that the properties were reviewed in the field with a standard classification system used by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and one that he has used for years. Mr. Rogers reported that from the bottom of Page 1 and continuing, there are descriptions of a standard structure, a deteriorating structure, and a substandard structure. Mr. Rogers then reported that it then lists definitions of major structural elements and deficiencies and minor structural elements and deficiencies. Mr. Rogers stated that they purposely did not want to pinpoint individual homes and that these types of surveys aggregate data on a block or area basis. Mr. Rogers advised that the map before them will not go into the report and that it is just a work map taking some of the larger geographic units into consideration. Mr. Rogers then pointed to the system of coding which relates to the map and reported that as they looked at a block, they came up with a classification for each block as to whether it was in good, fair, or poor condition. Mr. Rogers reiterated that the particular printout is not in a final form, but it does give an overview of the conditions in the City. Mr. Rogers further advised that there are scattered homes along Twelve Mile, Eight Mile, and Beck Roads of which some are historic and some are abandoned. Mr. Rogers didn’t want to generate a report about which homes are substandard, but wanted to have an overall view of the conditions of a particular area. Mr. Rogers reported that a survey was completed in the Walled Lake Community sector surrounding the lake approximately four to five years ago and they have now built upon that survey. Mr. Rogers further reported that by and large, the fair and a few poor blocks would be in some of the old platted areas from the 1900-1920 areas around Walled Lake or the areas where there are a few scattered farm houses, of which some are historic.

Eric Olson, Landscape Architect worked with Brandon Rogers on the survey and stated that Mr. Rogers had already touched on most of the points. Mr. Olson added that he submitted a revised draft to the Commission and the revision highlights a series of tables as to some of the categories. Mr. Olson advised that he tried to clarify the definitions and renamed some of the headings. Mr. Olson further advised that he gave each section an overall rating after he rated each block as good, fair, or poor.

Member Bononi asked if curbside and windshield survey are the same terms and what does each of them or both of them consist of in the field? Mr. Olson replied that the terms are the same and that they describe the visual survey taken outside of each housing structure consisting of using the criteria on Page 2. Member Bononi understands him to mean that when he refers to the criteria for major and minor structural defects that if the house is looked at from the street, they would only see the front of the house and not the foundation, the back, the back of the roof, or anything else and that it would just be a general visual appearance of the house. Mr. Olson advised that they would look at the front and in most cases the side. Mr. Olson further advised that they did not include any house when they could not see its roof.

Member Bononi further asked if the homes were given a numerical value to describe their condition so that a quantitative average could be determined? Mr. Olson replied that they did apply a numeric value, but it was not shown in the report. Member Bononi asked if the Commission would be given that information. Mr. Olson doubts that they would because their intent was to get a visual block view and not depict single houses. Mr. Rogers interjected by stating that he thinks that if a detailed further study of implementation is needed, the worksheets are available as administrative files for a staff study or a consultant’s committee study. Member Bononi asked if the study data would be considered public information. Mr. Rogers replied that he would rather not consider it as public information and reiterated that the purpose of the study was to get a block average. Mr. Rogers added that they have done studies of interior inspections and have found a close correlation with exterior deficiencies and interior deficiencies. Mr. Rogers stated that it is not to say that somebody might have houses neat as a pin inside, but can’t afford to paint it or straighten the roof line. Member Bononi reported that a quantitative survey would be necessary for persons to qualify for state update and improvement programs and it doesn’t have anything to do with making someone stand out as having a deficient home on the block. Member Bononi added that it is also a matter of whether people have a right to know how the value of a property might be affected by the condition of a neighbor’s home when, for example, they decide to purchase a home.

Mr. Rogers reported that they hope to investigate any program that might provide financial or technical assistance to a neighborhood or homeowner by providing this data. Mr. Rogers explained however, that in order to accomplish that, a more detailed inspection has to be performed. Mr. Rogers reminded the Commission that the purpose of this study is to target certain blocks where there is some deterioration of one or more structures in that block. Mr. Rogers advised that they focused in two areas; one is in the north end and the other is a strip of single family homes along many of the mile roads and Grand River Avenue. Member Bononi stated that unless there is a plan to do something constructive with the information, then why have it? Member Bononi read in one portion of the plan that there would be programs available to help those who need assistance. Mr. Rogers replied that Member Bononi has a good point and he thinks that the programs that are available today should be added. Mr. Rogers recalls that a segment in the Walled Lake Structural Quality Survey four years ago listed various state and federal grants and aid programs. Mr. Rogers advised that there are not that many programs available today and that a lot are self help, education, encouragement, clean-up/fix-up, sweep up the streets, and pick up the waste type of aid.

Member Vrettas’ only concern is about how the research is done because it is a field in which he spends a lot of his time. Member Vrettas stated that the surface view does not give a picture of what is really there. Member Vrettas further stated that his home looks great on the outside, but inside there are stairs that will hurt its value when he wants to sell it. Member Vrettas is glad that this is being studied, but believes that the research is not good and further asks how can it really be researched accurately without invading people’s privacy.

Mr. Rogers advised that it would take several days to go into the 15,000 homes and it is beyond their role, their budget, and their time frame. Member Vrettas added that it would go beyond their right also. Member Vrettas stated that his concern is about how this could be used or misused due to the lack of in depth validity because of the way it was done. Member Vrettas realizes that it was well intended, but damage can be done if it is not done right and he does not know what is right in this situation. Mr. Rogers replied that this type of survey is frequently done to provide an overview and pinpoint certain neighborhoods or blocks where the City might sponsor some improvement, educational, or fix-up/self help programs without raising the assessment value. Mr. Rogers reported that is all the study is and that it is not meant to be an exhaustive, inside the house inspection. Member Vrettas is concerned about the potential for misuse due to the lack of validity and he is also concerned about the limitations that they had no control over that impacted the research. Mr. Rogers replied that perhaps they can include some caveats about the limitations of the study in the introduction. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that it should also include the scope of the study as to what it was expected to accomplish. Member Vrettas asked that it also include that previous research indicates that there is a correlation between the internal condition and external condition of a home.

Mr. Rogers reported that he was involved in dozens of urban renewal projects under the old HHFA, HUD programs and in those studies, before qualifying for heavy money for detailed interior inspections, they had to do this exact type of overview study. Mr. Rogers further reported that the federal monies are not available today in such quantities to seat too many of these urban renewal programs. Mr. Rogers does not like the term "urban renewal" and would prefer to call it "neighborhood conservation rehabilitation."

Member Weddington shares the other Commissioner’s concerns about the sensitivity and potential misuse of this type of information. Member Weddington believes that if there is a cap on it and if they deal with it as a gross overview, then when she looks at the map it shows her areas that they may target for redevelopment or as transition areas that are moving toward master plan build-out. Member Weddington also believes that its value to her is its use as a planning tool and she would limit it at that.

Member Hoadley does not share some of the same concerns as Member Vrettas, but he does have a concern about definitions and he is specifically concerned about minor structural elements. Member Hoadley asked how many structural elements does it take to define fair from poor as everything is in the eye of the beholder. Member Hoadley believes that it takes ten minor defects to make a home a 4 and stated that if that is used as the criteria between fair and poor, perhaps the number of structural elements between good, fair, and poor should be reconsidered. Member Hoadley advised that this would have value if it is done again in regards to an area that is continuing to decline or is improving. Member Hoadley is not certain that he is comfortable with the number of so called defects that makes a house poor or fair. Member Hoadley stated that sagging windows, rotted porches, or chimneys that are out of plum would tell him that it is a poor house. Member Hoadley is wondering if the criterion is correct because if it is redone in the future, it should show a trend and it should be precise in showing a decline or improvement.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Mr. Rogers or Mr. Olson wanted to explain how the criterion was formulated.

Mr. Olson explained that each house was looked at individually and a sheet was completed for each one that listed all the major eyesores. Mr. Olson further explained that each house was given a raw score which were averaged into a block score. In other words, Mr. Olson stated that each house was given a standard deteriorating or substandard category as described on Page 2. Mr. Olson advised that a standard would have no major structural defects and less than 5 minor structural defects. Mr. Olson further advised that a deteriorating structure would normally have 1 major structural defect and up to an additional 4 minor structural defects and that a substandard would have 2 major defects.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked how they determined if a house was good, fair, or poor? Mr. Olson replied that they would average the raw scores and a block that had a raw score of less than 5 would be considered good, between 5 and 10 would be fair, and raw scores more than 10 would be poor. Chairperson Lorenzo stated she thinks what Member Hoadley is asking is how good, fair, or poor was derived in terms of less than 5, 5 to 10, and more than 10 and is this standard used by other communities? In other words, where did the criteria come from? Mr. Rogers replied that the criteria came from past surveys and experience. He further stated that he used it five years ago in the Walled Lake Survey and he has also used it in other communities. Mr. Roger further reported that these types of minor and major structural deficiencies are an accepted standard operating procedure and they may be modified.

Member Hoadley disagreed and explained that if a group of homes has 4 minor defects, it could still be considered as a good area overall. Member Hoadley questions whether the true picture is being depicted because a neighborhood having no defects would also be rated as good. Member Hoadley advised that newer areas would also be good because no defects could be seen from a road inspection. Therefore, Member Hoadley questions whether 4 should be still be rated good or wonders if it should it be reduced to 2. Mr. Rogers replied that perhaps on an individual house basis, but if that is the only house on the block it will not warp the block average to a fair category.

Zoning Ordinance Review and Update

Mr. Rogers advised that a work program was developed two years ago, but the budget was not there so the work program was split. Mr. Rogers stated that half of the draft document was seen last June as his first progress report. Mr. Rogers felt that the sixteen work items should all be brought together and has since added a seventeenth item. Mr. Rogers advised that because certain things have come up, zoning analysis was added. Mr. Rogers then reported that there are a lot of standards that have been recommended for modification. Mr. Rogers advised that one example is to return review functions that the Council currently has on certain site plans to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers reported that he has addressed performance standards, off street parking, editing, definitions, and standardizing wetland computations for density. Mr. Rogers explained that it is something that should be addressed and brought before the Planning Commission and perhaps some of the seventeen areas should be prioritized. Mr. Rogers reported that one item, the RA District Statement of Intent, has already been adopted and is now known as Residential Acreage District instead of Residential Agricultural and he further reported that it is important to constantly update the ordinances. Mr. Rogers stated that he has also addressed 7-11 convenience stores, gas stations and how to handle soccer fields and their retail business function. (end of tape) Mr. Rogers also stated that a number of other zoning studies have been done and sited the OS-3 study as an example. Mr. Rogers further advised that this is not the end of all ends of the zoning ordinance, but they have kept it to the format of the original ordinance. Mr. Rogers reported that this has not yet been reviewed by Dennis Watson for legal content, although they have used the shade out, line out technique. Mr. Rogers then asked the Commission how do they wish to promulgate this massive information?

Member Bonaventura referred to Page 31 and asked about Work Element 6, Standardization of Requirements and Development Options, regarding the application of regulations such as density calculations, wetland credit and non credits. Mr. Rogers reported that they are now allowed to take out state, city, and federal regulated wetlands from any density computation. Furthermore, Mr. Rogers reported that although it can be done in many of these options, it cannot be done in the preservation option. Member Bonaventura asked if the density calculations for residential are numbers that have been reduced to compensate for roadways? Mr. Rogers replied that it would be 20%, more or less. Member Bonaventura believed that the reason that was done was to give developers a quick way to determine the number of lots. Member Bonaventura stated that if wetlands are removed from density calculations, it may affect the quick method of determining how many homes will be allowed because now Mr. Rogers would have to determine the amount of wetlands. Mr. Rogers replied that Mr. Bonaventura was correct and that he would have to calculate the regulated wetlands. Member Bonaventura stated now that the simple method to determine the number of homes has been discarded, he does not see the reasoning for numbers such as .8 or 1.65 with the 20% reduction for roads. Member Bonaventura asked that they use real numbers instead and when the site plans are brought in, roads should be measured. Mr. Rogers replied that these are caps on how many homes will fit on a given acre of land, less the wetlands. Mr. Rogers added that the controlling factor is the lot size and setback schedule of regulations and is the true test of how many homes can be built. For example, Mr. Rogers explained that R-4 has 3.3 in a 10,000 square foot lot district and an acre is 43,560 which, if streets were counted and there were no wetlands, there could be 4.3 lots per acre. Mr. Rogers then stated that a 20% reduction would decrease it to 3.6. Mr. Rogers advised that he did a survey of all of the R-4 subdivisions in the City and not one was more than 3. Mr. Rogers then stated that at that point, he cut the 3.6 back to 3.3 and he knows that even with the best engineer, that it is not possible to have 3.3 and 10,000 square foot lots from an acre. Member Bonaventura wanted to address this issue because he has worked some of the numbers and he only had one that did not work like Mr. Rogers had said. Member Bonaventura is going to believe Mr. Rogers when he says that when using lot sizes and setbacks that it basically restricts below the caps. Mr. Rogers reminded Member Bonaventura that the lot sizes in the preservation option cannot be reduced more than 20% if there are compensating upland woodlands, wetland buffer, and habitat areas. Member Bonaventura reiterated that he would like to use real numbers for the roads and does not see the reasoning behind not using them just because it is more convenient to tell a developer that they can roughly have so many lots. Mr. Rogers advised that none of the density numbers were in the zoning ordinance prior to 1985-86 and further stated that all that was listed was the known lot size. Mr. Rogers reported that he was the one who came up with numbers to help the public, the developers, and the Commission. Mr. Rogers reported that the numbers were then translated into the density plan of the master plan. Mr. Rogers reiterated that the real test for the number of lots permitted is the minimum lot size, unless the developer qualifies for an option.

Member Bononi would appreciate feedback from the other Commissioners concerning whether they would agree that relevant applications should be transferred from a standpoint of responsibility from Council to the Planning Commission. Member Bononi stated that it seems to her like an incredible addition to the Commission’s already considerable work load and she does not totally understand the reasoning.

Member Bononi then asked why the ordinance is so long? Member Bononi does not mean to criticize it, but she does see it as user unfriendly because it is wordy. Member Bononi also suggested that a graphic main use, accessory use chart from the standpoint of permitted uses be included. Member Bononi thinks that it would be more useful, more succinct and clear than a lot of the illustrations that are already included. What Member Bononi is really interested in is keeping the language as clean as possible.

Mr. Rogers replied that over half of the discussion at City Council meetings is about planning matters, which he believes should be before the Planning Commission. Mr. Rogers advised that he works for another city where every site plan, special land use, and option is a recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council. Mr. Rogers believes that the Council’s work load could be reduced, as they also have a very heavy agenda. Mr. Rogers sited the RC District as an example because all RC site plans must go before Council. Mr. Rogers believes that small RC projects can easily return to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Rogers then commented on Member Bononi’s question about burdensome ordinances by stating that there are so many codes, so much cross referencing between them, during what is perhaps, the highest incidence of development activity currently in the metro area. Mr. Rogers then reported that there are developers, architects, and builders from all over the country trying to find a way to develop a project a little bit differently from the City’s goals. Mr. Rogers has tied it down with a very strict ordinance and has added a section on cross referencing, which could be expanded and be helpful. Mr. Rogers further advised that only the best diagrams will be inserted for the final draft and a smaller format. Mr. Rogers added that diagrams can supplement an ordinance, he believes that they are useful, and that they should remain in the ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo added that procedurally, once the Planning Commission is prepared to move forward, it is preferred that it come before the Planning Commission as a whole, since it is a major update of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Arroyo further advised that it may be appropriate as a major agenda item at some point in the future where most of the evening is devoted to it and then discussed prior to getting to the point of setting a Public Hearing.

Mr. Arroyo then commented on the delegation and assignment of approval between the City Council and the Planning Commission and asked the Commission to keep in mind that every project that goes before City Council comes before the Planning Commission first for review. Mr. Arroyo believes that it is more a question of whether it needs to go to before the City Council. Mr. Arroyo thinks that there is development in some areas that are going to want to stay with the final decision of the City Council and others that might be more appropriately dealt with by the Planning Commission. Mr. Arroyo reiterated that the Commission is seeing these projects at least once prior to them going before City Council and that it just means that the final decision will rest with the Planning Commission rather than City Council.

Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Arroyo to comment on the parking section of the report. Mr. Arroyo replied that he could go into it briefly, but he does not think that the intent for tonight’s meeting is for a detailed discussion. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that she would prefer just questions and answers.

Member Bononi respectfully disagrees with what Mr. Rogers has said about the length of the ordinance, but it can be discussed at another time.

Member Hoadley advised that he spent four hours reviewing the report and has a lot of questions and concerns about deleting language that perhaps should not be deleted. Member Hoadley further advised that there is not enough time to ask the questions that he would like to ask. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested that he prepare them in writing and provide copies for the consultants and other Planning Commissioners. Member Hoadley does not think that it could be handled as an agenda at a Regular Meeting because it is very important and believes that it will take a great deal of critiquing on everyone’s part to do it correctly. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that is what Mr. Arroyo is basically suggesting. Member Hoadley is wondering if a Committee should review it before it comes before the Commission. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks that it may bog the process down. Member Hoadley advised that he has questions on almost every page. Chairperson Lorenzo again suggested that he write all his questions down for the packet. Member Hoadley replied that the Commissioner’s should have several weeks to review it. Member Hoadley further recommended to the Commission that each one of them do the same because there is a lot of specific language that he is uncomfortable with, including grammatical errors. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Hoadley that is why it is called a draft. Member Hoadley stated that he agrees with Member Bononi in making it user friendly and that the other ordinances that have already been improved should become a part of this report.

Member Bonaventura found that even though there were certain areas where Mr. Rogers was just doing some housekeeping, he found himself critiquing the ordinances instead of reviewing them for small changes. Member Bonaventura questions whether some of the options should even exist, but added that is not what this report was prepared for. Member Bonaventura requested that the Commission review the Open Space and RUD Options and questions their usefulness because there is a Preservation and Cluster Option available.

Chairperson Lorenzo referred to Page 10, Section 2401, stating that Preservation Option, 1.b calls out for wetland’s buffer and to be consistent, she suggested that setback is used instead. Mr. Rogers agreed and added that it was based upon the law. Chairperson Lorenzo then referred to Page 32, Section 2403, One Family Clustering Option and stated that as it was discussed earlier, the wetlands have been excluded from the density calculations, but wondered if they should also be excluded from the qualifying requirements? Mr. Rogers replied that is a good point and he would like to revisit it. Mr. Rogers stated that if regulated wetlands are deleted, it will change the entire scope a bit. Chairperson Lorenzo restated that the question is, should wetlands still be included as qualifying as part of the 50%? Lastly, Chairperson Lorenzo referred to Page 34, PD Options and is concerned about changing the application requirements in terms of submitting a concept plan instead of a full-blown site plan and traffic study as currently required. Chairperson Lorenzo’s personal feeling is that the PD Options are big changes from what the underlying zoning is and she thinks more information is needed, not less and she therefore, she will not support that change. Mr. Rogers replied that it came verbatim from the Preservation Option requirement. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she understands that, but she thinks that the Preservation Option is different going from RA to PD Option and that this is a more drastic change. Mr. Rogers replied that this is a discretionary modification.

While reviewing the document, Member Bonaventura noted that the density calculations for regulated wetlands were crossed out and added in the RUD. Member Bonaventura further stated that Mr. Rogers also crossed out that all interior roads shall be excluded from the density calculation in the RUD. Member Bonaventura then asked why is all of that being deleted when all the other ones were just corrected with the updating of the wetland. Mr. Rogers asked if he was certain that it was deleted? Member Bonaventura replied that he would look for it and get back with Mr. Rogers.

Member Hoadley stated that it is suggested on Page 39 that the parking requirements should be downgraded by including handicapped. Member Hoadley advised that he had previously been concerned about inadequate handicapped parking and had asked Mr. Rogers to provide information to the Commission regarding that issue. Member Hoadley then stated that he cannot support it now because it seems that even more leeway is being taken in regard to parking.

Member Hoadley then commented that he cannot support the definition of usable floor by referring to Page 1 and the exclusion of hallways and sanitary facilities.

Member Hoadley also advised that the RA District language on Page 2 does not make sense to him and advised that "residential acreage districts are intended to provide area when a particular living environment characterized by large lot, low density single family dwellings" is not even a complete sentence. Mr. Rogers replied that the language was already recommended by the Planning Commission and adopted by Council and furthermore, he stated that he sited that in the ordinance adopted September 25, 1995. Member Hoadley is just saying that it is not grammatically correct and has no meaning as it is written. (end of tape) Member Hoadley stated that these are a few examples of what he thinks are legitimate concerns.

Wildlife Habitat Master Plan

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect reported that this study is an extension of the 1993 Wildlife Habitat Plan. Ms. Lemke advised that this document was prepared by her office, Wildlife Management Services, and JCK & Associates. Ms. Lemke reported that the old plan was an inventory of the City’s habitats and were represented on the very large map before the Commission tonight. Ms. Lemke advised that there was a series of recommendations given with the plan and the Wildlife Habitat Master Plan is basically carrying out those suggestions by packaging the plan into something that is easily understood, easily distributed, and also provides an educational link to the community. Ms. Lemke reported that the plan is divided into six parts. The first part is Ordinance Revisions, which will serve as a means to carry out a specific review of the wildlife habitats as depicted on the map and will also be depicted on a master plan map. Ms. Lemke advised that there are various sections that incorporate a review process by a qualified wildlife consultant into the woodland and wetland’s ordinances. Ms. Lemke added that there is also a section that would include a reasonable buffer and be considered as part of that review. Ms. Lemke reported that the review would occur if a proposed development was in the area of one of the critical areas as they are identified on the Wildlife Master Plan.

Because some of the Commissioners are familiar with the map and some are not, Ms. Lemke explained that the Wildlife Habitat Plan identified two major types of habitats; one is the core reserve habitat area and the other is the valuable wildlife habitat area. Ms. Lemke referred to the current map and advised that the core reserve is represented by dark green in two areas. One area is located near Walled Lake and the other is in the southwest corner. Ms. Lemke reported that these are the critical areas where certain species of wildlife exist and need a large area for survival. Ms. Lemke further explained that they then move out of those areas and into other valuable wildlife habitats of which there are three types; A, B, and C. Ms. Lemke explained that type A is the highest and C is the lowest as far as the amount and quality of wildlife that was observed in them. Ms. Lemke explained that although these are still important areas, they are not as critical as the core reserve areas. Ms. Lemke advised that there are two types identified in the wildlife movement corridors and they are: apparent linkages and possible linkages. Ms. Lemke explained that the apparent linkages are areas that animals were observed using and the possible linkages are areas that although everything was in place, no animals were observed.

Ms. Lemke advised that the proposed ordinance revisions would set up a minor insert of review by a qualified consultant. Ms. Lemke further advised that they had asked themselves whether the woodland and wetland ordinances should be redone or should a natural resource ordinance be developed. Ms. Lemke reported that the natural resource ordinances that she has reviewed have a tendency to weaken the individual ordinances and she would not like to see Novi’s already strong wetland and woodland ordinances weakened in this manner. Ms. Lemke stated that there are already provisions in both ordinances for a review of wildlife and instead suggested adding a section to review developments which impact one of the habitats by a consultant retained just for that purpose. Ms. Lemke added that she does not see this happening often. Ms. Lemke believes that the consultant should be someone who would be a wildlife biologist or someone extremely accomplished in their knowledge of wildlife habitats and the animals that would be affected by destruction of wildlife habitats.

Ms. Lemke reported that she worked with Dave Bluhm to develop standards for wildlife culverts and reminded the Commission that they had required a wildlife culvert in the Vistas. Ms. Lemke stated that there are not any specific standards, so they would include in the woodland and wetland ordinances a standard for wildlife culverts to enable wildlife to move back and forth between either a core reserve area and a Type A, B, or C or along some of the linkages. Ms. Lemke advised that those would be under roads or in streams and would be designed to accommodate the type of animal that would be using the corridor. Basically, Ms. Lemke advised there would be a culvert situation of either corrugated metal or concrete. Ms. Lemke further advised that it would be an elliptical or box shape with a dirt layer on the bottom and would be channeled in the initial stages by fencing animals into that area. According to their research, Ms. Lemke reported that the animals will use them once a pathway is established.

Ms. Lemke reported that they incorporated some mechanisms to encourage the use of plants that promote wildlife habitats by adding language to Section 2509 and will keep a working list in the Forestry Department of native plant material. Ms. Lemke added that this is the first part of the master plan.

Ms. Lemke advised that the second part would target areas for restoration with additional plant materials and a small map will be produced on a colored brochure. Ms Lemke further advised that the apparent linkages for those areas are depicted in bright green and the possible linkages are depicted in bright blue. Ms. Lemke stated that a lot of them are weak and need additional plant materials to supplement the type of habitat that is already there and make it wider. Ms. Lemke noted that this will occur by an easement either for re-vegetation or as a proposed development. Ms. Lemke stated that they determined that to provide an exact plan for an area was not practical, so they decided to provide a generic with three types of habitat plans for the different potential restoration of habitats. She further advised that those would be beech maple, oak hickory, wooded wetland, a pioneer species, and a wetland meadow type hedge row situation. Ms. Lemke advised that they will have different plant materials for each one which would include the understory, the ground cover, and the overstory plant materials that should be used for those areas.

Member Vrettas asked Ms. Lemke if she takes the ecosystem throughout the state into consideration? Ms. Lemke replied that they looked at that when they were doing the natural resource plan, but it was not considered for the habitat study. However, Ms. Lemke added that she always has that in the back of her mind. Ms. Lemke stated that in conjunction with the culvert standards, they have also developed some signage standards which are included in the report in a reduced scale. Ms. Lemke also stated that there is signage for a movement corridor for the habitat that would include the core reserve areas, Type A, B, and C, and crossing signage. Ms. Lemke advised that they have proposed a blue sign with white and black animals in simple shapes to indicate that there are animals using the area.

Ms. Lemke advised that one of the big charges of the study was to produce an educational booklet and to encourage people to plant and look at their yards in a new way by encouraging all animals to use their yards and that they have prepared a garden booklet entitled, "Coming Soon to Your Novi Garden Wildlife Attraction Areas." Ms. Lemke stated that the booklet lists a host of ideas about how to introduce different plant materials and about meeting the basic needs for all animals. Ms. Lemke advised that the publication asks homeowners to look critically at their landscaping, whether it abuts one of these areas or in the middle of a subdivision. Ms. Lemke further advised that the booklet will be put together in a pamphlet form and will be available for distribution throughout the community.

In conclusion, Ms. Lemke reported that the final part of the report is intended to make the map a little more unwieldy, more usable, and to summarize what the habitat plan is all about. Ms. Lemke advised that they are using the same format as was used for the master plan for land use. Ms. Lemke stated that the map will be in full color on one side, the sketches will be reduced, the back page will be the summary, and the text will indicate exactly what the Wildlife Master Plan is about.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if each of the new Commissioners was furnished with a copy of the original? Member Bononi replied that it was not furnished, but she had read it on another occasion. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there are extra copies. Ms. Lemke stated that it has been in short supply for at least a year. Mr. Cohen stated that he will make copies to distribute to the new Commissioners.

Member Bononi commented that she appreciates all of Ms. Lemke’s work, but she is disappointed in the focus of what she interprets as compensating mostly for destroyed habitats. Member Bononi stated that a strong policy that will deal with the land as it is being developed to replace a destroyed habitat is commendable, but if there is not going to be a commitment not to destroy it to begin with, she does not understand the point. If there is a casual attitude about wetlands and woodlands, Member Bononi thinks they are in conflict with themselves when they enact an ordinance which allows the removal of large size trees to be replaced with 3" whips and all of the disruption that goes along with it. If unrestricted discharge of storm water is allowed into these areas, there is a three part problem that affects all of the areas that are depicted on Ms. Lemke’s map. Member Bononi is saying that the bottom line is that she is not looking at restoration, but rather she is looking at preservation and she thinks that the report is very light on that. Member Bononi would appreciate having more "beef" in the report from the standpoint of looking to resolve a problem before it happens, which would be at the development stage.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she thinks that Member Bononi will find that there is more of an emphasis on preservation in Phase I of the Habitat Study. She further stated that this study was more of an implementation of some of the suggestions or recommendations that came out of that study in terms of restoration and what can be done to assist in those types of areas. Member Bononi replied that her point is that she does not think that it is strong enough.

Ms. Lemke responded by stating that the Habitat Plan addresses’ areas that need to be preserved or they will be lost. Ms. Lemke stated that the mechanisms for that were to establish a means of review, which this language would do. Furthermore, Ms. Lemke stated that there were some other suggestions, like purchasing of land, which the City would have to initiate. Another suggestion was to make this a master plan, rather than just a study and sets the tone by saying that it is a valuable resource that needs to be protected. Ms. Lemke stated that this would function as the woodland and wetland ordinances by coming up with alternative plans to stay out of the areas. Member Bononi understands that and that is part of her concern.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the Commission will move along to the last two items and asked if Mr. Arroyo would like to make some brief comments. She then opened the floor for questions and answers. Mr. Arroyo advised that he is not involved in either item.

Thoroughfare Plan: Date Collection and Analysis

Mr. Capote interjected by stating that the DPW Department, in conjunction with their contract with Wayne State University, is producing the Thoroughfare Plan which is forthcoming and not available. Mr. Capote checked with Margaret Jolin today and he anticipates that the Planning Commission will have a copy within the next thirty days as it is under the Commission’s purview.

Grand River Corridor Design - Engineering Study

Mr. Capote stated that the Grand River Corridor information is incomplete as far as he can tell. Mr. Capote believes that they are still in the process of selecting consultants to perform the work and asked the Commission to refer to Mr. Wahl’s memo dated January 23, 1996 which advised that there were some recommendations made and are currently working in cooperation with Grand River Corridor Association which is no longer a city sanctioned committee. Mr. Capote advised that the information is forthcoming and that it was premature to include this item in the packet.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the Commission will take a brief recess.

Chairperson Lorenzo opened the floor for the second Audience Participation. Seeing no one, she closed Audience Participation and moved to Item 2 under Matters for Discussion.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

2. PLANNING COMMISSION BUDGET - FY 1996-1997

The Planning Studies and Budget Committee shall recommend to the Planning Commission how the revised budget should be allocated. Possible adoption of Revised Planning Commission Budget - FY 1996-1997.

Mr. Capote advised that City Council was not willing to adopt the half mil increase pursuant to April discussions during the City Council budget deliberations. Mr. Capote stated that the Council is willing to millage by a quarter, resulting in a $54,000 Planning Commission budget reduction and a 6% decrease for all departments. Mr. Capote stated that the Planning Studies and Budget Committee has made several recommendations which are listed in the packet as to how to address some of the other issues that were going to be reviewed in special studies by the various consultants. Mr. Capote advised that he will address some of those duties working in conjunction with Margaret Jolin, Data Management Specialist in the integration of the GIS system. Mr. Capote hopes that he can spend the necessary efforts in those arenas to address any issues that come from the Planning Commission or its various committees. Mr. Capote stated that the Department is requesting the recommendation from the Commission for the $54,174 reduction in the Planning Commission budget.

Member Weddington stated that the members of the Planning Studies and Budget Committee reviewed this matter with Jim Wahl last week and agreed with what the Department proposed with one exception. Member Weddington advised that they would like to reduce the Administrative Function Budget from $11,000 to $6,000 and move the $5,000 into Special Research Assignments on Emerging Issues which fully funds that item again. Member Weddington stated that they feel that is where they need to focus attention and will need flexibility there to handle some additional studies as they occur during the course of the year. Member Weddington further stated that as Mr. Capote stated, the Economic Base Study, is the one that he will be working on in house and they believe that some of the work can be done without an increase in cost. Member Weddington added that she believes that they all agreed that the projects and studies needed to be pursued and after discussing it further with Mr. Rogers, that the work can go forward by juggling the work over the next few years to get into a position to put together their next master plan for the year 2000. Member Weddington stated that one of the other conditions was that all of the mapping type projects would be coordinated with each other and with the GIS system and that some of the data would be maintained on an ongoing basis. Member Weddington advised that they also wanted to have a review and approval authority for the Special Research Assignments on Emerging Issues by the Commission so that they could keep track of the budget as the year passes to be certain that everyone is in agreement about the studies that are being proposed. Based on that, Member Weddington moved that the Commission approve the revised budget as proposed by the staff. Member Bonaventura seconded the motion.

PM-96-05-103 TO APPROVE THE REVISED BUDGET AS PROPOSED

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Bonaventura, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the revised budget as proposed.

Member Hoadley reported that the reason that special assignment work should be approved and an ongoing tabulation of hours kept is so that one study does not use the entire budget amount.

Chairperson Lorenzo is concerned about taking money from Administrative Functions and asked if it is known what is going to be cut from conferences, seminars, and periodicals? Member Weddington reported that the full budget has not been spent over the years and it means that they will have to plan who will attend conferences and limit the number of people. Chairperson Lorenzo asked how much on average has been spent over the last few years. Member Hoadley replied that the average is $4,200 to $5,000. Mr. Capote concurred that they often don’t spend all of the funds that are available for conferences and workshops. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that all of the Administrative Functions is $11,000 and of that, how much has been spent in the last couple of years. Mr. Rogers replied that as of April 30, 1996, he recalls that $4,200 was spent and there were other years when it was $5,000 to $6,000. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it is okay as long as that fund is not being depleted so that they are unable to take advantage of some of the opportunities that come before them. (end of tape)

Member Bonaventura asked if it is only for Planning Commission? Mr. Rogers replied that it is. Member Bonaventura asked when the money is not used, is it rolled back into the General Fund? Mr. Capote replied that was correct and then realigned for the following year. Mr. Capote advised that as the Commission becomes more seasoned, it has been found that not as many Planning Commissioners attend some of the MSPO and APA conferences. Mr. Capote further stated that as new Commissioners come aboard, there seems to be a greater need to educate and apprise them of their duties.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was any further discussion on the motion. Seeing no one, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll and restated that the motion is to approve the revised budget as proposed by staff.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-103 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

3. REC ORDINANCE

The Recreation District is proposed to provide areas for the development of recreational facilities by governmental entities and/or private entities. Possible scheduling of a Public Hearing.

Mr. Capote advised that the Parks and Recreation Commission, Parks and Recreation Director, and City Manager is recommending the adoption of this ordinance and that the Planning Commission hold a special public hearing on June 26, 1996 to make a recommendation on the ordinance. Mr. Capote thinks that at this time, he would like to open it up for discussion and for Brandon to give an overview of the ordinance.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant advised that this is the third draft and he was requested in writing by Mr. Wahl to research a recreation district. Mr. Rogers advised that various communities have recreation districts that include park sites. Mr. Rogers stated for example, that Milford Township, Proud Lake, Kensington, and Camp Dearborn are all REC Districts under different governmental entities. Mr. Rogers stated that West Bloomfield Township has a recreation district; it is a special land use and is almost a twenty page long ordinance. Mr. Rogers advised that some communities have an overlay district for recreation, like a flood plain or historical district. Mr. Rogers came up with a proposal that would establish a new district classification to the zoning ordinance called REC, Recreation District. Mr. Rogers advised that he may not have listed all of the principal uses permitted that the Commission might think of, but he believes he got most of them. Mr. Rogers reminded the Commission that all they are talking about tonight is a Public Hearing and that this would be a consideration of a district classification that could be applied to existing City park sites or could be applied on a planned basis for areas that are not City owned parks. Mr. Rogers advised that outside recreational uses are currently permitted if they are public uses, City sponsored, or if they are a Wayne or Oakland County park system in residential districts. Furthermore, Mr. Rogers advised that indoor recreation facilities are permitted in I-1 and I-2 Districts upon special approval in Section 1903 where it does not abut residential. Mr. Rogers then advised that under uses not otherwise permitted, outdoor commercial recreation uses that do not have an infrastructure and may not have any permanent building other than a rest room facility are limited to I-1 and I-2 Districts. Mr. Rogers reported that the proposed REC District will fill in a gap to provide a sports park and a multi-featured recreational facility.

Mr. Rogers advised that one of the facilities that was looked at was the West Bloomfield Sports facility at Farmington and Maple Roads. Mr. Rogers reported that it is located on a small site and is bordered on two sides by homes and two sides by business. Mr. Rogers advised that the adjacent homes are in the $400,000-$500,000 range, were built fairly recently and after the sports park was erected. In Mr. Rogers’ opinion, the setback and landscape screening is minimal. Mr. Rogers stated that the facility provides tennis, swimming, aerobics, workouts, and probably a diet kitchen.

Mr. Rogers reported that this particular district lists these uses as principal uses permitted. Mr. Rogers then stated that there are also required conditions for setbacks, parking, and light and noise control. Mr. Rogers advised that there are also suggested standards based upon examination of site plans that he has reviewed in the past for a "recreational facility." Mr. Rogers then referred to the Schedule of Regulations on Page 3 and stated that he has established a 30 acre minimum site area, a 200' width, front, side, and rear yards, and so forth. Mr. Rogers stated that the rest is tidying up sections of the ordinance such as the screening requirements and building facade materials. Mr. Rogers advised that this new classification has been reviewed at the staff level and by Dan Davis of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Rogers asked the Commission to review it and get public input by setting a Public Hearing. Mr. Rogers advised that once this is part of the zoning ordinance text, it is usable to zone property which would require another Public Hearing by the Planning Commission and a recommendation to City Council for a map change.

Chairperson Lorenzo opened the floor to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Bonaventura stated that while he supports a Public Hearing on this subject, in reading the ordinance, it is telling him that any piece of property off of a major road could meet the requirements for a recreational facility. Mr. Rogers replied that it has to have at least 30 acres net. Member Bonaventura asked if that would also be correct, even if it were up against residential? Mr. Rogers replied that was correct. Member Bonaventura stated that the only district that currently allows recreation is I-1 and I-2. Mr. Rogers replied that they allow outdoor recreation facilities, other than public. Member Bonaventura asked if that included indoor also? Mr. Rogers responded that indoor facilities are permitted in I-1 or I-2 and outdoor commercial recreation would have to go into I-1 or I-2 that do not have water and sewer in the vicinity. Member Bonaventura asked if an indoor recreational facility can abut residential when they go into the I-1 or I-2? Mr. Rogers replied no and that it is a Section 1903, Tier 3 use. Member Bonaventura believes that there is a reason for that, although it is not spelled out. Mr. Rogers stated that this was in the 1984 Ordinance which was before his time and was not explicit. For example, Mr. Rogers explained that it did not include soccer fields. Member Bonaventura stated that it would be interesting to produce documentation where discussion of this ordinance and discussion of the reason as to why this district is not permitted to abut residential. Member Bonaventura reiterated that he has his opinion as to why it exists that way and it would be interesting to him to find out what the people who actually put these ordinances together were thinking.

Member Bonaventura asked if a Vic Tanny’s could be constructed on a 30 acre site next to residential? Mr. Rogers replied that it could if it met the conditions on Page 2 and 3. Mr. Rogers further stated that the current Vic Tanny’s is part of a planned commercial shopping center and is another variation on the theme. Member Bonaventura asked if is it allowable in terms of the services that they offer? Member Bonaventura sees what they are looking for as far as having a recreational facility that is in a more pleasant setting than the commercial area or an industrial area, especially when it is a club type atmosphere where fees are charged for membership. Member Bonaventura also sees the opportunity and advantages for the community to have a recreational facility like this. Member Bonaventura stated that it also takes a lot of the pressure off for financing a recreational facility through tax dollars. However, Member Bonaventura has quite a few concerns and one of the biggest is the pressure that he feels as a Planning Commissioner that this is on the fast track. Member Bonaventura knows that there will be a Public Hearing where the public can offer their input and that ultimately it will be the Commission’s decision to offer either a positive or negative recommendation to City Council. However, Member Bonaventura further stated that he becomes concerned when he gets a letter from the City Manager that, although it is worded very nicely, gives the impression that this is something that should be done. Member Bonaventura added that he knows that the Commission is a separate body and will do what is best. Member Bonaventura stated that he does not have a problem with having a Public Hearing on June 26, 1996 and encourages residents to also attend to educate themselves on the subject and to present their concerns.

Member Hoadley read the draft and has a problem with a lot of its features, particularly its abutment to residential. Member Hoadley asked why a new ordinance is needed if existing ordinances are already in place to accommodate these types of facilities with only perhaps a slight modification to the I-1 District. Member Hoadley explained that one of the things that may be modified in an I-1 District is to eliminate the requirement that there cannot be outside features where there are water and sewer. Member Hoadley further stated that, to him, this type of facility should be located in an area that is convenient to all citizens and by formulating a new ordinance, it can go anywhere. Furthermore, Member Hoadley added that outdoor pools and similar facilities create noise issues, health and safety issues, and impact neighborhoods with additional children. Member Hoadley is also feeling the pressure that Member Bonaventura is feeling and thinks that it should follow the normal process. Member Hoadley suggested that the matter should go to the Implementation Committee for further study like any other ordinance so that the Commission can make a recommendation based upon informed discussion from the Committee members. In summary, Member Hoadley believes that the issues should be debated in a more informed decision making process.

Chairperson Lorenzo explained that the purpose in having the REC Ordinance on tonight’s agenda for discussion purposes was to debate it and do many of the things that Member Hoadley had mentioned.

Mr. Capote advised that the Parks and Recreation Commission and some of its subcommittees, of which Member Markham has been involved, have been working on addressing the increasing demands in the City for recreational facilities. In response to those demands, Mr. Capote stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission and its subcommittees have been working with some possible private entrepreneurs that operate these types of facilities. Mr. Capote further stated that in response to the citizens demands, some opportunities have presented themselves and therefore, the City is merely acting in response to these opportunities so that there may be an offering within the code for that potential.

Member Capello disagrees with the analysis of what the Commission should be doing with this ordinance tonight. Member Capello stated that he is not comfortable with the language either, although he thinks it is a good start. Member Capello does not think it is useful to begin to debate particular terms of this ordinance tonight if there has been an interest from the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Parks and Recreation Commission, City Council, the City Manager, and some residents that see a need for a REC ordinance. Member Capello thinks that the goal for tonight should be to determine whether or not there should be a Public Hearing to gather additional information, to gather additional facts, to listen to the public, and to listen to the Department of Parks and Recreation about why they see a need. Member Capello went on to state that after the information is gathered through a Public Hearing, then the Commission can begin to debate the pros and cons of the ordinance and its particular provisions. Member Capello believes that it is useless to debate until that information is acquired. Member Capello stated that Mr. Watson informed him that the only notice that will be sent to the public will be a Public Hearing ordinance notice from Parks and Recreation and that the actual language is not included. Therefore, Member Capello advised that if individuals wanted to know what the language is, they would have to attend the Public Hearing or contact the Department or Library for a copy. Member Capello believes that for tonight, the Commission should just decide if there is enough interest to have a Public Hearing. Furthermore, Member Capello stated from what they have learned and from what Mr. Capote has stated, there is sufficient interest to hold a Public Hearing. With that, Member Capello made a motion to schedule the REC Ordinance for Public Hearing and have the Department send out a notice for June 26, 1996. With that, Member Capello would also include in the motion that a Special Planning Commission Meeting for June 26, 1996 be held with the Public Hearing as the only item on the agenda. Member Markham seconded the motion.

PM-96-05-104 TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REC ORDINANCE AT A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 26, 1996

Moved by Capello, seconded by Markham, FAILED (3-6): To schedule a Public Hearing for the REC Ordinance at a Special Planning Commission Meeting on June 26, 1996.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to schedule a Special Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing for the REC Ordinance for June 26, 1996. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she would like to respond to Member Capello because he was absent when the Commission discussed this issue at the last meeting. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the reason that the REC Ordinance has come back before the Commission for discussion is because the majority, if not all of the Planning Commission, were not comfortable at setting a Public Hearing before the item was discussed.

Member Capello replied that he understands that and what he is saying is that he does not think that is the proper issue.

Member Vrettas stated that his comments are going to get him into a lot of trouble, but has to say it. First of all, Member Vrettas advised that he is going to vote against this because he does not like the way this process was done. He further stated that the item did not go to a subcommittee. Secondly, Member Vrettas agrees completely with Member Hoadley that the language should be improved. Thirdly, he stated that there is no doubt in his mind, that this is being "ram rodded" through because some people want to be just like West Bloomfield and have one of those sports areas. Member Vrettas stated this because he has been there and he has reviewed it. Member Vrettas has also reviewed the plans for the big complex on Eight Mile and Beck Roads, which he has a real problem with. Member Vrettas has a problem with it from two points of view. His first point of view is that he believes they have a "love affair" with business, that business could do things better than public and that is not necessarily true. Member Vrettas reported that a case in point is that he lived in an area in Ohio which is predominantly a university area for the second largest university in Ohio, the University of Akron. Member Vrettas advised that their facility, which is one of the most outstanding that he has ever seen, was run by the public and was free to the public. Member Vrettas further advised that as a citizen, it cost him five dollars to be a member, had great facilities, and was fully used. When Member Vrettas visited the West Bloomfield facility, which was as beautiful as the facility in Ohio, but was much, much more to get in and had much, much fewer people. Member Vrettas asked how can the facility serve the public if only it can only be afforded by 10-15% of the community? Member Vrettas is against this project and against the philosophy that everything must be handed over to business. Member Vrettas advised that they have a responsibility as public officials to do some of the things that the public charges them to do and that they should not pass them off to private industry. Member Vrettas feels that recreational facilities in Novi are willfully lacking because the bull has not been grabbed by the horns and just do it. Member Vrettas advised that is the only reason that he came onto to the Commission and if it gets him in trouble and he does not get reelected, so be it. He does not like how this has gone, it is politics as usual in Novi and it is wrong.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that when speaking about public, we are the public. Chairperson Lorenzo further stated that the problem in the past has been that the public does not want to spend the money to build these types of facilities. Member Vrettas disagreed by stating that they do and that bond issues have been passed for baseball diamonds and there still are no diamonds. Chairperson Lorenzo said that will be a question to be placed on a ballot. Chairperson Lorenzo reiterated that a large problem is that perhaps the majority of the public does not want to spend the tax dollars that would be needed to build a public facility. Member Vrettas stated that if the public facilities are not extravagant, there will be support.

Member Markham advised that she has quite a bit to say about this issue as it is an area of interest to her. Member Markham stated that in some aspects she agrees with Member Vrettas and that is why she was on the Aquatics Facilities Study Committee. She believes that a community has an obligation to provide a certain level of recreational facilities to their residents. Member Markham reported that the Aquatics Facilities Study Committee came in with a scaled down facility proposal and a bond issue to pay for it right at the time that the sports club issue was brought before City Council. Member Markham believed that the sports club idea was intriguing to the City because what they looked at was a potential joint venture that is not necessarily exclusive. Member Markham further believed that Novi can probably support a facility and there is a constituency for it. Like the Sports Club of West Bloomfield, Member Markham thinks that there are people in the community that would like to have a facility like that here and that it would be an asset to the community. According to Committee held Public Hearings, Member Markham reported that residents believe that the City should encourage affordable public facilities. Member Markham further reported that they were able to show, after looking at many other communities throughout the midwest, that such a public facility with reasonably low fees could support itself in terms of operating expenses. When Member Markham looks at the proposed ordinance, she is not convinced that this kind of ordinance is the solution and thinks that it was proposed only to avoid rezoning the parcel for the sports club facility to industrial because nearby residents would oppose it. (end of tape) Member Markham thinks that in today’s environment, some of these facilities can fit more reasonably into a residential kind of setting than they could in the past. In addition, she thinks that the trend seems to be that the developers also want them to fit into the communities closer to residents. With that being said, Member Markham asked why not take some of the provisions for facilities that are currently in the industrial ordinances and bring them into the residential ordinances without creating a new ordinance. As Member Markham perceives the REC Ordinance as trying to be all encompassing and she thinks as it does that, it creates a lot of areas of danger and if they are not evaluated well, they will potentially create problems in the long run. In addition, Member Markham thinks there are also some conflicts, such as setbacks from residential. For example, Member Markham explained that homes may be located along the fairway of a golf course, which although it is a permitted use, asks how it relates to the setback requirements that are called out. Member Markham then referred to the parking requirements for an ice arena or a tennis court and questioned if the parking is related to the square footage as opposed to usage in terms of how many people will actually be in the facility. Member Markham advised that those are some issues whereby when attempting to be all encompassing or broad across all of the possible recreational facility uses, is actually creating something that may not be all that useful.

Member Markham seconded Member Capello’s motion because she thinks that the public needs to have a voice in what the Commission does, but she does not support the ordinance in its current form. Member Markham is also uncomfortable with the pressure that has been placed on this issue. Member Markham further stated that this is the first time that she has seen something that has been so blatantly stated and that also makes her uncomfortable. Member Markham is willing to support the motion because she believes that the public should have a say in what is going to happen, but she resents being strong armed.

Member Bononi stated that the difficulty that she has with this ordinance, is the ordinance. Member Bononi would like to give Mr. Rogers the credit that he deserves because she knows how difficult the job is. Member Bononi advised that there are many implications that have to be taken into consideration, not the least of which are the legal as well as the planning. Member Bononi does not think it is fair to anyone to write an ordinance this quickly and in such broad language. Member Bononi added that there are many uses that could be problematical from the stand point of the quality of life as single residential zones. Member Bononi is not saying that they can’t have an ordinance, but not this ordinance.

Member Weddington stated that she agrees with Commissioner’s Capello and Markham. Member Weddington stated that there is no doubt that Novi needs recreational facilities and she is not opposed to having a Public Hearing, but like her fellow Commissioners, she does resent having it shoved down her throat. Member Weddington added that a lot of pressure has been put on the Commission and it is evident in Mr. Rogers’ work. Although Member Weddington believes that the draft is a wonderful effort, the ordinance as proposed, still needs a lot of work. Member Weddington believes that if there is going to be a REC Ordinance, it needs to have different categories of types of use. Another alternative that Member Weddington would prefer is a special land use because each type of facility is unique. Member Weddington stated that special land use approval considers the proposed use and the surrounding environment making sure that adequate protections are put in place. Member Weddington would rather see the effort made toward specifying the conditions for special land use for specific types or categories of facilities that could be used in evaluating proposals on a site specific basis rather than implement a broad ordinance that would permit anything. Member Weddington believes that it would lead to some real problems if it were adopted in its present form. Member Weddington stated that she believes that the site setback requirements are inadequate for some of these types of uses and things like this need to be looked at in much more detail before she would be willing to support it. Member Weddington would like a Public Hearing for public input, but does not think that it is ready for that in its present form. Member Weddington does not mean to criticize Mr. Rogers, but she thinks that they are trying to move too fast.

Member Hodges is also very uncomfortable with this ordinance as presented because of its broadness and has additional concerns about the definitions of quasi and public lands. Member Hodges stated that it is not so much what the ordinance says that troubles her, rather it is what it does not say. According to the ordinance, Member Hodges understands it to imply that Novi could have a race track next to a residential zone and nothing could be done to stop it. Member Hodges further stated that Member Markham talked about having homes next to fairways and those homes by golf courses are usually beautiful homes, but the problem is not the golf balls or noise, but rather people defecating, urinating, and carrying on other bodily functions in the rough. Member Hodges stated that she is also uncomfortable in allowing these types of facilities near residential because of the types of groups that the facilities will attract. To be specific, Member Hodges advised that some groups will require a PA system and this would not be appropriate abutting a residential district. Member Hodges believes that there is a lot of quality of life issues that this will bring before them and she does not support a Public Hearing. She agrees that the residents have spoken on this matter and want these types of facilities, but she does not agree that they are saying that they want what is outlined in the ordinance. Member Hodges has not yet decided whether she will support the motion to have a Public Hearing and will wait to hear from the rest of the Commissioners. Member Hodges added that she would rather see provisions and changes to the existing ordinances allowing facilities.

Member Vrettas does not want to leave a misconception that he is against Public Hearings. Member Vrettas advised that if the motion fails, he will immediately make a motion that the item is referred back to the proper committee for review. Member Vrettas would like a Public Hearing, but when it comes before the public, he wants a document that the subcommittee, through proper procedures, is comfortable with. Member Vrettas stated that the Commission knows that the proper subcommittees have not even seen the draft and it would be difficult for the Commission to defend it at a Public Hearing. Member Vrettas asked that the standard operating procedures be followed before this is brought back under a Public Hearing. Member Vrettas does not believe that the public will like the ordinance as it is now written, because the Commission doesn’t even like it.

Chairperson Lorenzo reiterated that the reason that it is before the Commission tonight is to start doing the work that normally is done in Committee and that instead, they are just doing it with a full Commission. Member Vrettas replied that he does not think that is the proper way to do it because it has not been done for any other ordinance. Chairperson Lorenzo replied that it has been done for other ordinances. Member Vrettas cannot see the justification for rushing it at this time and making a special meeting. Chairperson reiterated that the purpose was to bring it forth so that the Commission could start doing the work that is generally done by committees. Chairperson Lorenzo reminded the Commission that they have to wrap this up and to only comment if it is going to influence the issue at hand.

Member Hoadley restated that he thinks before a Public Hearing is scheduled, that this item should be sent to the Implementation Committee to ask whether or not it is needed. If it is needed, Member Hoadley asked if is it needed in its current form and what suggestions would the committee make for changes? Member Hoadley listened intently to Member Markham who has a proactive interest in seeing the recreation issue addressed and even she is saying that this may not be the way to do it. Member Hoadley added that he agrees with Member Weddington in that it may be addressed by special land use. However, Member Hoadley once again asked if they should have an informed debate at a committee level before a Public Hearing is established. Member Hoadley reiterated that he is not against a Public Hearing, but thinks it is premature.

Chairperson Lorenzo respects Member Hoadley’s opinion and as a member of several committees she respects the committee’s work, but believes that these committees don’t make magic and the committee work is done because the Commission usually does not have the time to devote to doing what they are trying to do tonight, which is debate the issue, to discuss the pros and cons, and come up with suggestions. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that to send it to a committee does not mean that they are sending it to some ultimate authority of doing something better than what they can do at the Commission level and that they are giving subcommittees a status far beyond what they are meant to be.

Member Hoadley stated that if that is the Commission’s desire, he will go along with it, but rather than have a Public Hearing at that date, why not devote the evening for a real debate and act as a committee, with input from the consultants. Member Hoadley added that they then could make a decision as to whether they want to set a date for a Public Hearing.

Member Bonaventura stated that he had no problem with a Public Hearing because the public offers their comments. However, Member Bonaventura further stated that there is a possibility that the Public Hearing is the next step to the recommendation to City Council, which is the next step to an approval of the ordinance. Mr. Rogers advised that a statutory public hearing has to be held by the Planning Commission, then they make whatever recommendation they wish to approve, to approve with conditions, to deny, and conceivably table it for further study and that under the first three scenarios, it goes to Council and Council makes the decision. Mr. Rogers further advised that Council may wish to modify the ordinance. It has occurred to Member Bonaventura that the Planning Commission’s input might mean nothing and the citizen’s input might mean nothing. Member Bonaventura went on to state that what might mean something is the June 26, 1996 date or the beginning of going through the process, which is a Public Hearing and the recommendation. It seems to Member Bonaventura that there is a strong possibility that this project could be killed with that type of decision. Member Bonaventura added that there is a possibility that some people might know that and that if it is not hurried, this particular developer and site is dead. Member Bonaventura has heard this before and he is ready to call their bluff. Member Bonaventura hopes that the Commissioners that say that they want a Public Hearing for public input also realize that it is also part of the process and that the Commission’s decision and public input might mean nothing. Member Bonaventura therefore recommends that the Commissioner’s vote against the motion.

Member Capello stated that the Commission’s responsibility is very limited and that the Commission is not playing God or the Commission is not trying to check and veto what City Council is doing. The Commission’s job is to hold a Public Hearing and gather facts, then debate the facts and present them to City Council. Member Capello advised that along with their presentation, they are allowed to make a recommendation. Member Capello stated that Member Bonaventura is correct in saying that their recommendation may or may not mean anything to City Council, but that is their prerogative and not the Commissions. Member Capello reminded the Commission that they have been asked to hold a Public Hearing and gather facts. Member Capello added that some facts and good proposals have been presented tonight. Member Capello personally disagrees that a park or a pool should go into a light industrial area. He would like to see them somewhere that would allow his children to ride their bikes. Member Capello also said that he has a lot of problems with the ordinance and thinks that special land use may be a good alternative. Member Capello is not trying to fine tune the ordinance tonight, but thinks that the Commission should try to put the public on notice that they are talking about a REC Ordinance and ask them to come before the Commission for input. Member Capello advised that the Commission is not telling the public that they are going to make a decision on this particular language because after their input, the Commission can then discuss the language and make a recommendation on language that is appropriate.

Member Hodges asked Mr. Watson if the motion that is on the floor were to pass, what language would be used in the advertisement? Mr. Watson replied that he cannot tell her right now, but he could draft it in ten minutes. Member Hodges stated that in other words, the proposed ordinance would not be in the advertisement. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that it would not be in the advertisement, but it would be available in the Library. Mr. Watson stated that it may come as a surprise to members of the Commission, but in every Public Hearing for a text change, the notice never contains the text of the ordinance. It never has and most likely, it never will because the text of an ordinance is something that inherently changes with a Public Hearing. Furthermore, Mr. Watson stated that what the public notice in the newspaper indicates is what section of the zoning ordinance is proposed for text changes. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if this would be the language that would be in the Commission’s packet and packets distributed to the library? Mr. Watson replied that it would be close.

Member Capello stated that in response to that particular issue, the Commission could always ask Mr. Rogers to provide general special land use provisions that would fit in and still schedule the Public Hearing. Member Capello stated that they could also ask him how he thinks that this would fit within the residential zoning requirements, it would not be very detailed, but could provide ideas from his experience.

Member Vrettas stated that no matter how it is massaged, what it comes down to is that the Commission is being pressured to have a hearing before it is ready. Furthermore, Member Vrettas stated that the Commission’s charge by Council and the rules and regulations of what the Planning Commission is all about is to gather facts and information, and then make recommendations. Member Vrettas advised that there is a process for doing that and it is called the Implementation Subcommittee first, then based upon their review, Planning Commission input, and then Public Hearing. Member Vrettas cannot see any reason for rushing this through and violating their own procedure when everyone has problems with it.

Mr. Watson commented that Member Vrettas is incorrect when he stated that if a Public Hearing is held, the Commission will violate its own procedures. Mr. Watson advised that there is no bylaw or procedure that says that every zoning ordinance change or every text change goes through the Implementation Committee. Mr. Watson asked Member Vrettas not to interrupt him and went on to state that the history of the Commission is that there have been innumerable changes that have gone through other processes suggested by staff, by his office, or by the City Council. Furthermore, Mr. Watson stated that it is the Commission’s prerogative to refer that to Implementation when they feel that the issue needs a particular study that would be appropriate from the Committee. By no means, stated Mr. Watson, is there any bylaw, any regulation, or procedure that would be violated if this did not go to the Implementation Committee. Mr. Watson went on to state that to imply to the public that there is some sort of violation of procedure, is incorrect and gives a terrible impression.

Member Vrettas apologized if he is creating that impression. What Member Vrettas is saying is that he can see nothing that justifies not using what they have used as an operating procedure in the past. Member Vrettas does not disagree with Mr. Watson in that they have done other things, but usually there has been a compelling reason and asks what the compelling reason is here. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that Member Vrettas has not been on the Commission long enough to go through the other changes that Mr. Watson is referring to, but they do come before the Commission from other places. Member Vrettas does not disagree with that, but he does not want to be beat over the head with it. Member Vrettas requested that the fact be accepted that common sense says that a certain procedure be followed, not that it is law, but as a practice and that it should only be violated for a compelling reason. Member Vrettas reiterated that he does not hear anything compelling and all that he hears is not to use the procedure in the past on something that everyone has trouble with. Member Vrettas asked where is their sense of responsibility.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and stated that she is going to take the floor because she believes that the discussion is becoming redundant. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that Member Vrettas has made his point and she respects his opinion, but the Commission needs to move on. Chairperson Lorenzo is in agreement with several Commissioners that tend to feel that this might be appropriate as a special land use in the residential districts. The only other way that Chairperson Lorenzo would see this as an actual ordinance was if it were to come in with a rezoning application submitted along with a site plan, a traffic study, and a community impact statement. Chairperson Lorenzo would be uncomfortable in having this as a principal use permitted because when property is being rezoned, the applicable uses are unknown to that piece of property. Furthermore, Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it would be difficult to determine how appropriate or compatible it would be if it was placed next to residential without knowing what the nature and the scope of the use would be. Chairperson Lorenzo cannot blanketly say yes to putting a recreational district next to residential or anything else without the appropriate information. Chairperson Lorenzo thinks that there are two alternatives which would be to have a rezoning application come in or a special land use and that she could only support these two alternatives with fine tuning. Lastly, Chairperson Lorenzo stated that there should also be adjustments made in terms of berming because the opacity requirements are not stated and she would also add the berming requirements incorporating the language that is in Section 1905.4 e. (end of tape)

Member Capello suggested that perhaps they could have a PD-5 Option overlay to allow this REC in a residential area. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating as an option or a special land use, but opposes having it as a principal use because she is uncomfortable with too much generalizing.

Member Vrettas stated that the Commission is making his point and that the Commission is not ready for a Public Hearing yet.

Chairperson Lorenzo thinks that they have gotten somewhere tonight.

Member Bononi said that what Chairperson Lorenzo is saying is that tonight’s discussion is the last opportunity at defining the language before it goes to Public Hearing. She asked if the Commission agrees to set it for Public Hearing, will the language remain as it is or can it be revised until it is advertised for Public Hearing?

Mr. Watson advised that the last motion that was made a week ago was to schedule it as a discussion item on June 19, 1996 and he assumes that the Commission will discuss it again on June 19, 1996 where additional changes will be made. Member Vrettas interjected that there is a motion on the floor right now. Mr. Watson replied, that it does not matter and that it is for June 26, 1996. Member Bononi stated that is not the question that she is asking.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Bononi is asking whether the language is set in stone if a Public Hearing is held? Member Bononi replied that she is asking for the last date that the Commission will have for input into language changes before it is advertised for Public Hearing? Chairperson Lorenzo stated that there would still be an opportunity if they wanted to include it on the June 5, 1996 agenda for discussion. Member Bononi stated that she is talking about the Public Hearing, at the point that the public has the opportunity to ask their questions about what that final draft says. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that it is not a final draft, it is a draft. Member Bononi stated from the standpoint of the public’s ability to have a document to which they can respond to, at which point at the Public Hearing will the Commission render a decision as far as a recommendation is concerned? Member Bononi stated that if what Chairperson Lorenzo is saying is that the ordinance language is fluid until that point, then her question has been answered.

Member Vrettas asked how is the public going to prepare? Mr. Watson replied that there will be drafts available at the Planning Department and at the Library all the way through the process. Member Vrettas asked how is the public going to be able to prepare their position with the Commission constantly changing theirs. Member Vrettas is assuming that they will because there is a lot of concern with the ordinance. Mr. Watson is not sure about Member Vrettas means about the public preparing their position. Mr. Watson advised that the whole point of the process is to get public input and a draft is available. Furthermore, Mr. Watson stated that if the draft changes, there will be revised drafts available to the public.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll and again the motion is to schedule a Special Meeting and a Public Hearing for June 26, 1996 for the proposed REC Ordinance.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-104 - MOTION FAILS

Yes: Capello, Lorenzo, Markham

No: Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura

Member Vrettas asked to make a motion that the proposed ordinance be directed to the Implementation Committee for review and possible adjustments and be brought back as soon as possible. The motion was seconded by Member Weddington.

PM-96-05-105 TO DIRECT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE ADJUSTMENTS AND BE BROUGHT BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Weddington, FAILED (3-6): To direct the proposed ordinance to the Implementation Committee for review and possible adjustments and be brought back as soon as possible.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to refer the proposed REC Ordinance to the Implementation Committee for further study. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is discussion on the motion.

Member Markham would like to know what other pressing agenda issues the Implementation Committee has in front of them and where this item would fall in the priority sequence because she does not want it to get buried for a year. Member Vrettas interjected by stating that is why he said as soon as possible. Mr. Capote stated that the Commission should understand that the Implementation Committee normally meets before every Regular Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Capote reported that the Committee currently has a number of items on its docket which could mean that this item may not come before them for four to five months depending upon the discussions that the Committee has at its next meeting. Member Vrettas asked if it is possible for the Committee to move it up to number one if they choose to. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that it is not that simple because they have other pressing items. Chairperson Lorenzo explained that they have OS-3 and they have I-1 next to residential which are two priorities above the REC Ordinance. In that case, Member Markham would not support this motion because she believes that the issue of public recreational facilities needs to be addressed more quickly. Furthermore, if this isn’t going to go before the Implementation Committee for review for four or five months, Member Markham stated that it will effectively delay any action for many more months. Member Markham suggested that the Commission look at another alternative. Member Markham advised that one thing that the Aquatics Facility Study Committee did for Public Hearings was to provide a couple of different options of ways they could look at putting a public pool in. She then suggested that they could potentially do something like that with a REC Ordinance, a Special Land Use Ordinance, or a PD-5 Option and let the public comment on various approaches.

Member Hoadley reiterated that he is not against a Public Hearing at the proper point and agrees with Member Markham that it is not appropriate to postpone it for four to five months. Member Hoadley suggested that instead of setting the June 26, 1996 date as a Public Hearing, to dedicate it as a full Commission committee meeting to debate the proposed ordinance. In the mean time, Member Hoadley proposed that they ask Mr. Rogers and Mr. Arroyo to prepare some alternatives and that a Public Hearing be held after a uniform consensus is made.

Chairperson Lorenzo reminded Member Hoadley that the motion on the floor is to refer the matter to the Implementation Committee. Member Vrettas asked if he could expedite things by withdrawing his motion because he does not want a four or five month delay and instead he would like to recommend what Member Hoadley is suggesting. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Vrettas is withdrawing his motion and making a new motion.

Member Bonaventura stated that he is on the Implementation Committee and another Committee member seconded his motion. Member Bonaventura further stated that four or five months is just a number and that he could say eight or nine months and asked how that sounds.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked how many months have the Implementation Committee been working on I-1 next to residential? Mr. Capote replied many months. Member Bonaventura replied that a committee gets done what it wants to get done and as soon as it wants to get it done. Furthermore, Member Bonaventura stated that it should be remembered who is saying that it will take four to five months and remember who is backing that person up. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she resents Member Bonaventura’s remark. Member Bonaventura apologized and further stated that he did not mean it that way, but meant it as far as position on the issues. Member Bonaventura stated that he did not want to imply that Chairperson’s Lorenzo’s position on the issue would fabricate a four to five month figure, but he believes that the four to five month figure is fabricated. As a member of the Committee, Member Bonaventura believes that it can come before that Committee in a timely manner. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if the Committee were to postpone discussion on I-1 next to residential and OS-3, Member Bonaventura could be correct, but the Committee does have priorities to address. She further stated that the Committee cannot just shuffle current issues off to the side when they have been waiting for action for months. Member Vrettas stated that may be the point and that the REC Ordinance isn’t a priority item that the Commission should be shoving it through so quickly.

Member Capello asked to make a motion to have. . . .Member Hodges interjected by asking if the motion on the floor was officially withdrawn? Member Vrettas stated that he will not withdraw his motion. Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to refer the matter to the Implementation Committee for further study and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-105 - MOTION FAILED

Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura

No: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Bononi, Capello

Member Capello would like to make a motion to have a Special Planning Commission Meeting on June 26, 1996 to discuss the REC Zoning Ordinance Amendment in whatever fashion that it may be. Member Vrettas seconded the motion.

PM-96-05-106 TO HAVE A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 26, 1996 TO DISCUSS THE REC ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To have a Special Planning Commission Meeting on June 26, 1996 to Discuss the REC Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to schedule a Special Meeting for June 26, 1996 for the sole purpose of discussing a potential REC Ordinance.

Member Weddington asked if Mr. Rogers would be able to formulate some ideas for special land use conditions and standards of review by that time. Mr. Rogers replied that he could come up with something. He further stated he is not certain about what is being said about special land use in a residential district and asked if specific districts should be addressed or should he just include the RA district? Mr. Rogers thinks that he has heard tonight that some of the uses are not desired and that this sports club does have many of these uses, some of which the Commission members may feel are inimical to a residential area. Mr. Rogers stated that if a PD-5 Option is used, there will be preliminary and final site plans going through the Planning Commission after Public Hearing, then going to City Council and that is a lengthy burdensome process, but it could be instigated.

Mr. Rogers advised that West Bloomfield Township utilized a special land use with a twenty page ordinance that it is very difficult to understand. Mr. Rogers added that the Commission also has the draft before them now. Mr. Rogers advised that the document is not entirely his work, as it has been reviewed by staff and independent sports club operators. Mr. Rogers advised that he can come up with something and if a Public Hearing is not held, it will give him more time.

Member Weddington asked if Mr. Rogers could suggest any other alternatives for discussion purposes. Mr. Rogers advised that for the text and not locational criteria, he would suggest a major thoroughfare or a specific parcel size. Mr. Rogers urges prompt review and sees the facility as a public and private partnership and that the ice arena, the aquatic, and the soccer activities could be City sponsored. Mr. Rogers advised that there are approximately 1,700 people in West Bloomfield that receive some kind of a discount by having the sports club in that township. Mr. Rogers further advised that he suggested to Dan Davis and others that it should not just be a private for profit development and that the facility could involve some public financing or could also be privately financed with a user fee.

Member Hoadley thinks that they are on the right track and that there are a lot of potential alternatives. Member Hoadley suggested that one alternative could be special land use for projects like this that are already on land owned by the City on a leased basis. Member Hoadley further suggested that Mr. Rogers take the draft of the REC Ordinance and consider the comments made tonight. Member Hoadley would like to see Mr. Rogers revise the text by considering tonight’s comments and the suggested potential alternatives found in the existing ordinances so that they might be modified to accommodate some or all of these uses.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if there is nothing further, the motion on the floor is to schedule a Special Meeting for June 26, 1996 to discuss a proposed REC Ordinance and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-106 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it is almost 11:30 and asked if the Commission wishes to continue onto Item (4) or postpone Items (4)-(13) until another agenda.

Member Capello moved to postpone Items (4)-(13) to a future agenda. Member Vrettas seconded the motion.

PM-96-05-107 TO POSTPONE ITEMS (4)-(13) TO A FUTURE AGENDA

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone items (4)-(13) to a future agenda.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that all in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye and advised that the motion passed unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-107 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley

No: None

Mr. Cohen advised that there was a considerable amount of money spent on the colored reproductions for the master plan recommendation and he asked the Commission to save their copies for a future meeting or return them to him. The Commission returned their copies to Mr. Cohen.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Chuck Young stated that he thinks that the Commission made a smart decision because there seemed to be a lot of pressure from the City Mangers, to Mr. Wahl, and then to the Commissioners and he does not understand why. Mr. Young would like the newspaper to investigate as to why so much pressure was placed on this particular situation and he would not like to see the public come before the Commission to add to the confusion. Mr. Young thinks that the Commission should come up with a good plan and added that there are a lot of recreation areas now in the City which he has supported by voting for mileages. Mr. Young also thinks that how it is accomplished should be determined by the planners and City Council. Mr. Young also advised that he is a member of SWAN (South West Association of Novi). Mr. Young reported that SWAN basically watches the corridor from Beck to Napier Road and they are concerned about the long range effect that the zoning will have on the acreage there. Mr. Young further stated that SWAN also represents an area from Nine ½ Mile Road, between Beck and Napier Roads, to Eight Mile Road and that they have been asked to go as far as Ten Mile Road. Mr. Young added that they are only looking after their area and if they can help the Commission, they will. Mr. Young also asked that they be kept informed on the matter.

Judy Elvy stated that she would like to say thank you and that she has seen democracy at its best tonight.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else would like to participate in Audience Participation. Seeing no one, she closed Audience Participation and entertained a motion to adjourn.

PM-96-05-108 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT 11:35 P.M.

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 11:35 P.M.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked all those in favor say aye, opposed say no.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-108 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Capello, Hoadley

No: None

Steve Cohen - Planning Aide

Transcribed by: Barbara Holmes

June 13, 1996