(248) 347-0475

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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza (arrived 7:53 p.m.), Chairperson Weddington

ABSENT: Members Bononi, Vrettas

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Khanh Pham, and Planning Assistant Heidi Hannan

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions to the Agenda?

PM-98-05-082 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED

Moved by Canup, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-082 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

INTRODUCTIONS

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development announced that Steve Rumple has moved on to White Lake Township and Khanh Pham will be assuming his duties. He also introduced Heidi Hannan, Planning Assistant who will be handling the Agenda Items for the Planning Commission and working on the Site Plan Process matters.

Jim Kuptz, 24830 Willowbrook spoke in regard to AGA Gas and Beechtree Subdivision. He stated there is an existing berm on the AGA Gas site which they are moving back, however, it was just thrown in on the deal with Beechtree. Mr. Kuptz asked that it be revised and brought back to the Planning Commission, he stated the berm was being moved back and he believed it would cause a hardship for him.

Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Wahl to address the procedural issues.

Mr. Wahl stated a meeting was held with Mr. Kuptz this afternoon and there were some questions that were not able to be answered, however, the Department would proceed to obtain answers. He stated the plan was approved and he was not aware that approving or not approving the minutes had any bearing on a previous approval.

Member Capello announced he has received one letter from James Harrington, 24101 Novi Road. He was informed that the May 06, 1998 Planning Commission Agenda would include consideration of the amendment to the Novi City Code essentially reversing current procedure and providing for direct access to the ZBA even prior to any formal application to the Planning Commission. In view of the fact that there is apparently a lengthy Agenda, he submitted his comments for consideration in lieu of a personal appearance. In his seven or more years as a member officer and/or chairperson of the ZBA, he was unaware of a single instance in which construction or development was halted or delayed because of failure of the ZBA to timely consider and review a properly researched and prepared variance request. A single time constraint for submission of a variance request is the 14 day minimum notice period prior to a matter being brought on for Hearing. Giving the necessary time constraints associated with other areas of the construction process, the variance approval/denial time frame is virtually lightening quick. Part of the consideration of variance cases is access to the formal minutes, discussions and other communications between various involved City boards, including but not limited to Planning, City Council, Building Department and others. It was Mr. Harrington’s opinion that there is a clear and present danger of serious error by the ZBA without the underlying investigation and evaluation which has proven over the years to make a ZBA decision in the best interest of the City of Novi. By way of example, there have been significant cases in the past where they would have been powerless to act in a responsible or rational fashion without the carefully considered input of former consultant Brandon Rogers, the Novi Planning Commission and others. While City Ordinance does not require submission of this important amendment to the board, common courtesy and respect for the services of the board members over the years would suggest the minimal responsibility of raising these issues to the board, in session, during a regularly scheduled board meeting. There is the possibility of a significantly increased liability to the City which could flow from hasty denial or uninformed action by the ZBA. Certainly a disgruntled applicant would be encouraged to immediately file suit in the event of an unsuccessful application when it could be avoided through orderly Planning Commission procedures which have been in place over the years. Mr. Harrington believed the proposed amendment to the City Code was unwarranted and unnecessary.

Chairperson Weddington announced there were two items for approval, the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 01, 1998 and April 15, 1998. She asked if there were any changes or corrections to either set of minutes?

Chairperson Weddington referred to the minutes of April 01, 1998, Page 16, the motion should read, "Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a negative recommendation to City Council on the Preliminary Site Plan and the Wetland Permit and to deny Woodland Permit."

Member Hoadley referred to the minutes of April 01, 1998, Page 14, third paragraph, 4th line should read, "...however, it was not an issue that the Commission could work on." He referred to Page 15, paragraph 5, third line, replace the word "together" with "one another". He referred to the last line of paragraph 5, it should read, "...if they want to be stubborn then the Commission should hold their feet to the fire." He referred to page 21, second paragraph from the bottom, should read, "...the City will be between a rock and a hard spot."

Member Hoadley referred to the minutes of April 15, 1998, Page 20, 10th paragraph should read, "...Member Hoadley asked if the road cut were put in off of Centennial Drive, closer to 14 Mile Road, would...".

Chairperson Weddington referred to Page 11, the word "accepted" should be replaced by "excepted" in the motion.

PM-98-05-083 TO APPROVE THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 01, 1998 AND APRIL 15, 1998 AS AMENDED

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 01, 1998 and April 15, 1998 as amended.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Weddington announced this was a continuation of a set of Public Hearings that were started at the meeting of April 15, 1998. She announced there were seven (7) Public Hearings for the purpose of rezoning separate parcels of property. She opened the Public Hearing to the Public for comments.

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.588

Located between Grand River Avenue and I-96 Expressway, between Taft and Beck Roads. A proposed change of zoning from Planned Office Service District (OS-2) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Blair Bowman, 43700 Expo Center Drive applauded the efforts on the OST Ordinance, he thought it was a very necessary Ordinance. He questioned the amount of areas that it is being placed in, coupled with the fact that there has been significant amounts of discussions concerning the lack of non-adjacent to residential industrial property in the community. He thought a more practical zoning for this area would be that of a light industrial nature. He asked the Commission to consider light industrial for this area as a prudent alternative.

2. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.589

Located easterly of the CSX Railroad, north of I-96 Expressway and south of Twelve Mile Road. A proposed change from Residential Acreage (R-A) and Conference District (C) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Matt Quinn, 21995 Meridian stated given the fact that the area was under consideration for OST, the City has the opportunity to see a world class facility be constructed as soon as the OST zoning occurs. He thought there were a number of Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies that were looking for this type of zoning and Novi is a target area. With the rezonings, he stated the City would see a significant impact to lessen the burden on the residential property owners. He urged that this amendment be approved.

3. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.590

Located west of Meadowbrook Road, between I-96 Expressway and Twelve Mile Road. A proposed change of zoning from Residential Acreage (R-A), Office Service District (OS-1) and Regional Center District (R-C) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

4. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.591

Located between I-96 Expressway and Twelve Mile Road westerly of M-5 Highway. A proposed change of zoning from Residential Acreage (R-A) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Steve Reed, 27168 Meadowbrook Road stated he does not wish to be rezoned. If the City wishes to Master Plan the area, that was fine, however, he wanted his home to be left alone.

5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.592

Located between Haggerty Road and M-5 Highway, from I-96 Expressway to Twelve Mile Road. A proposed change of zoning from Residential Acreage (R-A) and Office Service District (OS-1) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Matt Quinn, 21995 Meridian thought the OST zoning did not fit for each of the various parcels under consideration because it can have some adverse affects. He referred to the property south of Twelve Mile Road, west of Haggerty Road, the third parcel in, on the south side of Twelve Mile Road. He stated the parcel is currently zoned OS-1, he asked that it not be rezoned to OST because it is a completely isolated parcel that sits separately by itself and is the end of development in that area. He stated his client has a proposal to place a hotel on the site which would be a benefit to the zoning that currently exists across Haggerty Road, and would assist the OST development that is presumed to be built to the south and north. Mr. Quinn asked the Commission to rezone the property to B-2.

Arie Leibovitz, 29548 Southfield Road stated he was proposing a hotel that would serve the corporate clients in the immediate area of OST. He reported that the traffic count for a hotel was significantly less than what would be generated by the OS-1 or OST during the peak hours. He asked the Commission to give consideration to this.

6. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.593

Located between Twelve Mile and Thirteen Mile Roads, from Haggerty Road to M-5 Highway. A proposed change of zoning from Residential Acreage (R-A) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Manley Cox, 28635 Haggerty Road stated he has lived in the area for 50 years. He supported the OST rezoning and understood it. He thought it was time for a change that would be good for the City.

7. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.594

Located between Thirteen Mile and Fourteen Mile Road from Haggerty Road to M-5 Highway. A proposed change of zoning from Residential Acreage (R-A) and Office Service District (OS-1) to Office Service Technology District (OST) or any other appropriate District.

Ann LeDuc, 30426 Conway Court in Farmington Hills. Ms. LeDuc stated she lives at the northwest corner of Thirteen Mile Road and Haggerty Road which is across the street from the proposed zoning. She expressed concern with the traffic and asked if there was a way for the rezoning to take place after the M-5 construction is complete, to assess the traffic patterns and alleviate some of the Haggerty Road traffic. She also expressed concern with the area being zoned Commercial and the potential for traffic to cut through her subdivision from Haggerty Road.

Albert Rosen is a resident of Farmington Hills. He spoke about the health, safety and welfare of his City, the neighboring City. He suggested that before the Commission acts definitively on the amendment, to think about the idea of a solution to leave the condition of the land in its pristine condition for residential. He thought it would benefit the City more.

Don Conrad represented Joe Orham, the property owner at the corner of Haggerty Road and Fourteen Mile Road. Mr. Orham supported the amendment but he requested that his property be considered separately to be zoned B-3 which is similar to the neighboring gas station.

David Hutka, 40563 Paisley Circle in the Haverhill Subdivision stated he recently moved into the area and the area surrounding the subdivision was residential and now suddenly it is becoming OST. He was surprised and asked about the procedures.

Chairperson Weddington explained the reasoning for Public Hearings and stated there have been notices and articles in the Novi News. She stated there has been interest expressed in the areas for development for high tech type developments and there have also been studies conducted regarding the alternative uses of the land. The study considered a number of criteria in coming up with these particular areas for consideration for rezoning to OST. Those factors are site size, road access, visibility on a major thoroughfare, the availability of utilities, environmental factors, the current zoning of the property, the uses of adjacent property and what the alternative zoning districts might be.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion and possible Action.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello stated the Taubman Company has submitted a letter in regard to ZMA 18.590 that clarifies ownership of some of the properties which abut the Singh Congregate Care Facility and the proposed property for rezoning. Since that parcel of property was not included in the Public Hearing, he did not see why the Commission could not address their concern and rezone it to OST.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated if the parcel was not included and was not made a part of the petition to rezone, the public would not be put on Notice that the area is to be rezoned to OST and it cannot be considered.

PM-98-05-084 FOR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.590 TO BE REZONED TO OST

Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council to rezone the area described in Zoning Map Amendment 18.590 located west of Meadowbrook Road, between I-96 and Twelve Mile Road to OST.

DISCUSSION

Chairperson Weddington made some general comments that apply to all of the areas and address some of the issues that have been raised by some of the residents. In regard to traffic and protection of the wetlands and woodlands and the loss of natural resources in that area, she thought one of the ways to protect them and manage traffic was through comprehensive development that addresses a larger area. She stated more could be done with the routing of the roads, the circulation and the traffic patterns as well as preserving wetlands and wetlands and making them an amenity for the development. She stated she would support the motion.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-084 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

PM-98-05-085 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.592 TO REZONE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO OST WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY THAT LIES SOUTH OF TWELVE MILE ROAD, EAST OF PARCEL #200-012, WEST OF PARCEL #200-015 AND NORTH OF PARCEL #200-017, PARCEL #034 IS RECOMMENDED TO BE REZONED TO B-2

Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (4-3): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.592 for the area of land between Haggerty Road and M-5 from I-96 to south of Twelve Mile Road down to the mobile home park, excluding the mobile home park to be rezoned from its current zoning designation to OST with the exception of the parcel #034 which is the parcel immediately west of the Cooker’s restaurant to be rezoned to B-2.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley was not totally in favor of the B-2 zoning and thought there was enough B zoning within the City. He was not opposed to the hotel, however, he was opposed to the hotel that had to be on B-2 or B-3 zoned property. Member Hoadley understood that a hotel could be built on a property that is contingent to or close to an OST development and asked Mr. Rogers if this was correct?

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated if it is part of the OST development.

Member Hoadley asked if the property due north is rezoned to OST and the corporate park is put in, why can’t the property due south on Twelve Mile Road be considered part of the project and allow a hotel?

Mr. Rogers stated it could work, he stated there was nothing in the permissive use of hotels and motels. It states that it should be part of an overall design of an OST District development.

Mr. Weisberger stated the Ordinance states, it shall be constructed at the same time as or after one of the principal permitted uses on the same development site.

Member Hoadley stated he would like to see the property rezoned to OS-C and eliminate any possibility of a B use on that parcel. He stated he could not support the motion as stated because he thought there was another zoning that could be used versus going to a B zoning.

Member Capello stated it was a small parcel of land, there were wetlands and woodlands and the setback requirements in other districts would create difficult in putting up any sizeable hotel on the property. He stated he would stick to his motion and assume that the applicant would build his hotel.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if there was a large difference between setback requirements for OS-C and B-2?

Mr. Rogers answered the setbacks were 35' on each side in an OS-C, 50' in an OST, and 30' in a B-2.

Member Hoadley stood on his decision not to support the motion because he thought OS-C would guarantee a hotel and B-2 would not.

Mr. Weisberger stated the intent of the OS-C was for larger complex of office buildings and he did not believe that a hotel would fit within it unless it was part of a larger project.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-085 CARRIED

Yes: Capello, Csordas, Watza, Weddington

No: Canup, Churella, Hoadley

PM-98-05-086 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.588 FOR THE AREA OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN GRAND RIVER AVENUE AND I-96 EXPRESSWAY AND BETWEEN TAFT AND BECK ROADS FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING TO OST

Moved by Canup, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council on Zoning Map Amendment 18.588 for the area of land located between Grand River Avenue and I-96 Expressway and between Taft and Beck Roads from it’s current zoning to OST.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello realized that there are several other existing businesses that may need to expand in the future and the expansion may be inconsistent with the OST, he stated he would not want to see companies moving out of the area because the expansion that they require for their business is no longer consistent with the Ordinance. He expressed concern with what would happen at the northeast corner of Beck Road and Grand River after the interchange goes in and after Providence develops their property on the northwest corner. He thought it was a little premature to rezone that area right now and would like to have it studied further.

Member Csordas asked what the impact on the existing businesses in the area would be?

Chairperson Weddington stated there was no impact.

Member Capello could not see where there would be any impact and if they did want to expand, he thought they could appear before the ZBA.

Mr. Weisberger stated any expansion or enlargement of the non-conforming use would have to comply with OST requirements unless they seek relief from the ZBA.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-086 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None

PM-98-05-087 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.589 FOR THE AREA LOCATED EAST OF THE CSX RAILROAD, NORTH OF I-96 EXPRESSWAY, SOUTH OF TWELVE MILE ROAD AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP

Moved by Churella, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.589 for the area located east of the CSX Railroad, north of I-96 Expressway, south of Twelve Mile Road as designated on the map.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-087 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: None

PM-98-05-088 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.591 FOR THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN I-96 EXPRESSWAY, TWELVE MILE ROAD AND WEST OF THE M-5 HIGHWAY

Moved by Canup, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.591 for the area located between I-96 Expressway, Twelve Mile Road and west of the M-5 Highway.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-088 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas

No: None

PM-98-05-089 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.593 FOR THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN TWELVE AND THIRTEEN MILE ROADS AND HAGGERTY AND THE M-5 HIGHWAY

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.593 for the area located between Twelve and Thirteen Mile Roads and Haggerty and the M-5 Highway.

DISCUSSION

In regard to some of the concerns from neighboring residents in Farmington Hills, Member Hoadley stated there would be no access to the land from M-5 and there was possible access from Haggerty Road. He was hopeful that all access/egress to the parcels would come from Twelve Mile Road and Thirteen Mile Roads. He stated there would be adequate buffering, it would be a low density type of use similar to the office park on Twelve Mile Road.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-089 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley

No: None

PM-98-05-090 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.594 FOR THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN THIRTEEN AND FOURTEEN MILE ROADS AND BETWEEN HAGGERTY ROAD AND M-5 HIGHWAY EXCLUDING THE PARCELS AT THE CORNER OF FOURTEEN MILE AND HAGGERTY ROADS THAT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED, TO OST

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.594 for the area located between Thirteen and Fourteen Mile Roads and between Haggerty Road and M-5 Highway excluding the parcels at the corner of Fourteen Mile and Haggerty Roads that is already developed, to OST.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley stated there was some information in the packet about a piece of property that surrounds the B-3 zoning at the corner, to be left out of the rezoning. Member Hoadley stated he would be opposed to doing so because he felt there was enough Commercial at that corner and would hate to see it extended. He would like to see the entire area be rezoned to OST.

Member Capello asked for clarification of the area.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-090 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza

No: None

Member Canup suggested that Mr. Wahl contact Mr. Reed, an concerned resident who spoke at both Public Hearings, and explain what the rezoning means to him as a property owner.

Khanh Pham, Staff Planner reported that the Department has spoken to Mr. Reed a number of times including during the break at the meeting of April 15, 1998 as well as afterward. Mr. Pham explained that Mr. Reed was aware of the issues but he was adamant that the rezoning and developmental pressures would force him off of his property. Mr. Reed does not want to move, however, if he had to he believes he could not stay in Novi.

8. BEARING SERVICES, SP97-59A

Seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals. This project is located at 46825 Grand River Avenue and is zoned Light Industrial (I-1) and is on 11.07 acres and the applicant is proposing to build a corporate office and warehouse.

Doug Savage requested Preliminary Site Plan approval for Bearing Services. He introduced his architect, Art Bates.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated a special land use review was required because the land abuts residential to the south. He stated there was compatibility with the adjacent uses and he referred to the necessary Woodland and Wetland Permits. General standards for I-1 uses apply, Mr. Rogers pointed out that the applicant would submit a report from a certified sound engineer and this would be a contingency on any recommendation for special land use approval. Mr. Rogers recommended special land use approval subject to the report from the sound engineer.

Mr. Rogers stated the building complies with I-1 District setbacks, the height of the building does not exceed the 25' maximum. There is adequate parking, the parking lots observe the required 40' front yard setback.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there were a few items that needed to be submitted for final, however, the petitioner has basically met all of the requirements. A berm is required 10' high, adjacent to residential, however, there is a natural woodlands area of 700' in width and depth to the south which would provide the required screening with no supplemental plantings, Ms. Lemke recommended that the Planning Commission waive the berm requirement. She stated the southern regulated woodlands should be put into a preservation easement. The plan meets all of the requirements for the R.O.W. plantings for the parking and the interior building greenspace. Ms. Lemke recommended approval.

Mr. Rogers approved the plans that showed the elimination of a translucent panel which was a concern of Mr. Necci. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to special land use approval and the clarification of the translucent panels.

In regard to utilities on the site, Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated there was an existing water main and sanitary sewer on the site which was located along Grand River Avenue. She stated the applicant would need to provide ties to ¼ and/or section corners and they will need to be on the Michigan State Plane Coordinate System as well as the property corners. In regard to the Woodland review, Ms. Weber stated the detention basin is intruding into the woodlands area and she felt the basin could be redesigned while keeping the volume the same so there is no intrusion into the woodlands or wetlands. Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Ms. Weber reported that Mr. Wickens from JCK reviewed the plans for wetlands feasibility. The detention configuration will need to be reconfigured to minimize the intrusion into the wetlands setback. Mr. Wickens also required that the 25' wetland setback be shown on the plans and some restoration plantings may be required. Mr. Wickens recommended approval for a Wetlands Permit.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the project is proposing one point of access to Grand River. The project is anticipated to generate 280 trips during an average weekday and approximately 45 trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Minor modifications to the driveway approach to show the passing lane on the north side of Grand River will need to be made on the Final. Mr. Arroyo recommended that the deceleration lane be 50' long to provide for additional truck ingress to the site. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the woodlands on the site are indicated as Medium on the Official Woodlands Map, there are about 7 acres on the southern portion and 2 acres on the western portion. She stated the scattered trees with no understory are not regulated or a part of the woodlands area, the majority are to be removed due to the poor quality. There are no historic or specimen trees on the site or no potential trees to be considered. The woodlands continues off site to the west and are part of a larger system to the south of the site. The majority of tree species are Red Maple, Elm, Basswood and Ash. The Wildlife Habitat Master Plan indicates that the area is part of a larger Type C habitat, which is good quality. The southwest corner woodlands where understory still exists is considered to be high quality. Ms. Lemke stated she had approved the original plan which showed a smaller detention basin. The detention basin was enlarged and after reviewing it with the petitioner and JCK, it can be made smaller to stay out of the higher quality woodlands. The petitioner has agreed to do so, therefore, revised plans and landscape plans will need to be reviewed as a condition of the recommendation for approval. There were a few minor items that could be addressed during the Final Woodlands Engineering Review and at that time woodland replacement trees would be established. In summary, Ms. Lemke recommended approval for a Woodlands Permit with the conditions: 1) payment of a replacement and fence maintenance financial guarantee and payment of Woodlands Inspection Fees be determined at Final Woodlands Engineering Review; 2) remaining regulated woodlands are placed into a preservation easement; 3) no construction, including clearing or grubbing can begin until a protective fencing has been approved by the City and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held; 4) review of Final Engineering Plans per comments in her letter.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the applicant is in full compliance. They have made the revisions to the translucent panels and changed the percentage of metal siding to bring the facade into full compliance with the Facade Chart, therefore, there is no facade issue.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

In regard to the relocation of the detention basin, Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney asked Ms. Weber if it would have any impact on the wetland?

Ms. Weber answered, not on the wetlands. She stated the storm water that is in the basin would discharge at a restricted or agriculture rate, to the wetlands. As far as any intrusion into the wetlands themselves, she stated there would not be any, however, there would be intrusion into the buffer.

Mr. Weisberger stated any intrusion into the wetland buffer does not necessarily necessitate a requirement for a Wetland Permit, however, it would necessitate a finding by the Planning Commission that it is in the public interest to intrude upon the wetland buffer.

Mr. Savage commented that he had a meeting with the Consultant and he has redesigned the retention basin to the same footprint as the original one. He was ready to submit them through the formal letter of transmittal.

Mr. Weisberger clarified, if all of the intrusion was in the wetland setback, there was no need for the Commission to be voting on or approving a Wetland Permit, they need to make a finding that is in the public interest to have an intrusion into the wetland setback.

PM-98-05-091 TO APPROVE BEARING SERVICES SP97-59A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, SPECIAL LAND USE AND WOODLAND PERMIT SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE RETENTION BASIN BEING DOWNSIZED AND NOT INTRUDE INTO THE WETLANDS OR THE WETLANDS BARRIER, TO INCLUDE THE REVISED CONCEPT SUBMITTED BY MR. ARROYO

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup.

DISCUSSION

In regard to Mr. Rogers request for a Sound Engineering report, Member Churella asked the petitioner what he was proposing that was different than any other building?

Mr. Savage answered, heating and air conditioning units that are on the front part of the office.

Member Churella stated he would like to remove the request because there are a lot of air conditioning units on roofs and the sound level is already known. To have the applicant spend a lot of money for an engineer to come out and tell him that it is alright, which the Commission already knows, he amended the Motion to remove that requirement.

Chairperson Weddington stated there is a new requirement in the Ordinance for that report because it abuts residential.

Mr. Rogers clarified that the Ordinance states any Special Land Use, whether it is adjacent to residential or industrial is required to provide a report from a Certified Sound Engineer.

Member Churella asked if that requirement could be waived by the Planning Commission?

Mr. Rogers answered no, however the ZBA could waive it.

Member Canup suggested sending it to the ZBA.

Member Capello asked if a berm was required along the rear of the property?

Ms. Lemke answered yes, it was required and she recommended it be waived.

Member Hoadley clarified that his motion included specifically to waive the 10' berm.

In regard to the accel/decel lanes, Mr. Arroyo stated it should be made from 25 to 50, Member Hoadley asked about the accel lane?

Mr. Arroyo stated the deceleration taper lane is most critical because the trucks and other vehicles are trying to be removed from the roadway as best as possible. From an acceleration standpoint, the lane primarily provides for a larger radius to turn out, he did not see a lot of benefit to having an excessively long acceleration lane. He pointed out that the plan wold be forwarded and it would be up the County Road Commission to eventually issue the permit.

Member Hoadley stated his concern was that the use would have a lot of tractor trailers going in and out per day and there was not a whole lot of taper for acceleration for those vehicles to blend into traffic. He thought the same criteria should exist for the accel as the decel, for safety and easier blending of traffic.

Mr. Arroyo suggested coordinating with the Road Commission to obtain their input and come back with a recommendation. He pointed out that because it was a Special Land Use in the I-1 District, it has to come back to the Planning Commission for Final, therefore, the Commission would be able to review it again.

PM-98-05-092 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE A 50' STACKING ON THE ACCELERATION LANE AND MAKE THE TAPER IDENTICAL TO THE DECEL LANE, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ROAD COMMISSION

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, FAILED (3-4): To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use Approval, Woodland Permit Approval subject to all of the Consultants recommendations including waiver of the berm, the retention basin being downsized with no intrusion into the wetland or buffer area, and extension of the traffic stacking and accel and decel lanes.

DISCUSSION

Member Churella did not think the 25' was needed. He stated it would cost the applicant more money and he did not think it was necessary.

Member Hoadley stated the Commission has the opportunity to make the projects as safe as possible and with the traffic congestions, the Commission should never pass up the opportunity to do so.

Member Capello agreed with Member Churella.

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Weddington

No: Canup, Capello, Churella, Watza

PM-98-05-093 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SPECIAL LAND USE APPROVAL AND WOODLANDS PERMIT FOR BEARING SERVICES, SP97-59A SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS CONDITIONS INCLUDING WAIVER OF THE BERM AND DOWNSIZING OF THE RETENTION BASIN WITH NO INTRUSION INTO THE WETLANDS AREA OR BUFFER AREA

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use Approval and Woodlands Permit for Bearing Services, SP97-59A subject to all of the consultants conditions including waiver of the berm and downsizing of the retention basin with no intrusion into the wetlands area or buffer area.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-093 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup

No: None

PM-98-05-094 TO MOVE ITEM #10 UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS, ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - FACADE ORDINANCE, ABOVE ITEM #9 ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - TC-1 FOR THE SAKE OF MR. NECCI AND THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR

Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To move Item #10 under Public Hearings above Item #9.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-094 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None

Mr. Necci stated he would be present for the TC-1 Text Amendment as well as the Facade Ordinance.

Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a brief recess.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

9. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - TC-1

An amendment to Zoning Section 1602.10.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated there were two sections that were amended. He stated the Zoning Ordinance amendments deal with footnote A of 1602.4 which deals with projecting signs. The size and width of projecting signs and the spacing between any two projecting signs has been amended. Part 2 of the proposed amendments sets up or establishes a Design Review Committee, composed of three people who will review all signs in the TC-1 District except temporary signs. Mr. Weisberger pointed out that the Sign Ordinance and the TC-1 Zoning Ordinance were before the Commission for recommendation and discussion.

In regard to the Sign Ordinance, he stated direction was given to come up with a Sign Ordinance that would capture the feel in both the area requirements for the sign placement, uniqueness of the signs and the design and type of sign.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant thought it was important that the design criteria for the Committee to look at, also be adopted.

Mr. Weisberger pointed out that Mr. Necci designed the criteria based upon certain things that Fried, Watson and Bugbee, P.C. deleted from his criteria in order to fit the Ordinance as drafted. Mr. Weisberger thought Mr. Necci would like to make some changes that he would not be opposed to, in order to bring it into consistency with what is trying to be accomplished.

Mr. Weisberger stated there were some clarifications of definitions, there was some consolidation of sections to shorten the lengthy Sign Ordinance, specifically, the Expo District called out what signs were permitted which had not been previously provided. Mr. Weisberger stated the bulk of the changes occurred in the area requirements for wall signs. It was broken down into three distinct categories; 1) for all districts except TC-1 and Expo; 2) TC-1 District; 3) Expo District.

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development reported the work was done at the request of City Council, based on the possibility that "90 variances would be required or requested for the Main Street project". He stated the assignment was much more complicated than expected and over 20 meetings have been held with various ad-hoc committees through the Town Center Steering Committee. Mr. Wahl stated he was looking forward to sending it to City Council before more variance requests come forward.

Secondly, he reported simultaneously, the Facade Ordinance issues came forward. He stated City Council was looking for the Consultants and Staff to develop some type of design relationship between the Site Plan Review Process and Sign Review which this amendment does not address. He stated it was a much larger issue that Mr. Necci was working on from the standpoint of the Facade Review and it is still in process.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant thought the sign regulations for other zoning districts could be revisited at a later date. He recommended the text amendments.

Doug Necci of JCK reported that he drafted a conceptual manual for the TC-1 District. It was based on some photos that Mr. Wahl put together of Northville. He stated in order to write an Ordinance for the Main Street Project, it would be completely different than any sign arrangement in the City. The signage for other buildings that are in TC-1 have already evolved in a way that is more consistent with Novi than what is envisioned for the Main Street project. Therefore, an Ordinance is being written for TC-1 but there are already existing buildings which are already going away from the aesthetic objective that is wanted for the signs.

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

James Chen spoke in regard to the Main Street development. He referred to Page 8 of the Comparison Draft, item 8, he asked if it meant that all of the signs within the TC-1 District must be approved by the Design Review Committee? If the answer was yes, it was his opinion to move the review process from ZBA to the Design Review Committee. He asked if the examples provided by Mr. Necci were followed, would there still be a need for a review? He stated the projecting signs were very important at the pedestrian level for the Main Street project, however, he asked if it would be a problem to allow the businesses to erect a small pedestrian projecting sign along with a wall sign? In regard to canopy signs, Mr. Chen thought they should be treated equally as any other sign. The formula should also apply to canopy signs so as not to encourage businesses to use this type of sign. Lastly, Mr. Chen referred to the Sign Review Manual, Page 2, under Allowable Projecting Signs he thought the language needed to be reviewed again.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Weisberger referred to Section 8, Page 8, the language as written is that all signs must be reviewed by the Design Review Committee which is not the same as the ZBA. Any permanent sign whether it be an entranceway, canopy, wall or projective sign must all be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Weisberger referred to Page 13, in regard to canopy signs, the square footage is 24 square feet on either side of the canopy. In regard to a business being allowed to erect more than one sign, Mr. Weisberger stated there was a formula in the Ordinance which allows for a business to have wall signage based on 1¼ square feet per street frontage, they are also allowed to erect a projecting sign which would then be reduced from their allowable signage, therefore, yes, a business can have both a wall sign and a projecting sign.

Mr. Wahl thought the Committee concept was more fashioned on the Street Naming Committee as an Administrative function, they meet on an "as needed basis" and perform their duties at a minimum cost. Mr. Wahl stated this was being looked at as being a very similar function to a sign application, however, it is more complicated in terms of the qualitative aspect. The purpose is to facilitate it, yet provide a thorough response to the new approach to the Sign Ordinance, he saw it as an extension of the existing process in being able to do it very quickly at a minimum cost.

In regard to 98-18, Part 1, fourth line, Member Capello asked for clarification on the statement regarding 5' into the R.O.W.

Mr. Rogers stated the intent was to allow up to 5' to encroach into the Main Street’s 70' R.O.W., it would overhang the sidewalk due to the 0' setback allowed in the TC-1 District.

Member Capello clarified that the 40 square feet was combined faces, not per side of the sign.

Mr. Weisberger thought this should also be clarified in the Ordinance.

Member Capello referred to Page 2 of the Review Manual, in regard to the projecting signs, he stated only two faces to the sign are shown and the portion of the sign that is facing the street, there is no signage allowed, therefore, technically a three sided sign could not be allowed. He thought Mr. Necci’s language from the Manual should be incorporated into that section of the Ordinance. He referred to Page 2 and asked who serves on the Ordinance Review Committee?

Mr. Wahl stated the Ordinance Review Committee was made up of representatives from the Building Department, Tony Nowicki...

Mr. Weisberger stated it has been interpreted that the actual Committee members consisted only of the Council members.

Chairperson Weddington stated it should be clarified.

Member Capello stated he would like to see a representative from the Town Center Steering Committee as part of the review process, other than a City Council member.

Member Hoadley agreed with Member Capello.

In regard to the Review Manual, Member Capello thought the intention was to reduce the signage in the Town Center District because of pedestrians and slow traffic. He stated the normal standard in the City for a wall sign is for every 2' of frontage, the applicant is allowed 1 square foot of sign. It is coming before the Commission now as stating for every foot of frontage, the applicant is allowed 1¼ square feet of sign, about a 250% increase in the size of the sign which is totally contrary to where the whole thing began to have the signs smaller. He stated he would like to see in the Design Manual, the ability to increase the size of the... (end of tape).

Mr. Necci suggested putting area limits which supersede area limits that may affect all of the other parts of the City, in the Manual.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant clarified the discussion on projecting signs and the statement that was made regarding the 40 square foot area consisting of a 20 square foot combined sides of the sign. He stated that was not the way the Ordinance reads, he stated the 40 square feet would be one side of the sign and the other side would also be 40.

Member Hoadley suggested saying 20 square feet per side.

Mr. Weisberger clarified that the motion should include a voting member of the Ordinance Review Committee which would be a Council member and add a non-Council Town Center Steering Committee member to the Committee, the 40 square feet be clarified in Part 1 to be 20 square feet per side and to adopt Mr. Necci’s language regarding the projection sign in the Sign Ordinance definition.

PM-98-05-095 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON SIGN ORDINANCE 98-18 FOR THE TC-1 DISTRICT SIGNS AS SHOWN IN THE COMPARISON DRAFT WITH THE ADDITION OR CHANGES TO THE MEASUREMENT OF THE SIGN AREA TO 20' PER SIDE, INCORPORATION OF MR. NECCI’S LANGUAGE TO BE ADOPTED IN THE SIGN ORDINANCE DEFINITION AND UNDER SECTION B, PAGE 2, ITEM 3 BE CLARIFIED TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM THE CITY ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE AND TO ADD A FOURTH MEMBER TO THE COMMITTEE BEING A NON-COUNCIL MEMBER OF THE TOWN CENTER STEERING COMMITTEE

Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council on Sign Ordinance 98-18 for the TC-1 District signs as shown in the comparison draft with the addition or changes to the measurement of the sign area to 20' per side, incorporation of Mr. Necci’s language to be adopted in the Sign Ordinance definition and under Section B, Page 2, Item 3 be clarified to be a representative of the City Council from the City Ordinance Review Committee and to add a fourth member to the Committee being a non-Council member of the Town Center Steering Committee.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-095 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None

Chairperson Weddington asked the Commission if they would like to discuss the Sign Ordinance at this time since they were already on the subject, or would they like to wait?

Member Capello suggested moving discussion on the Sign Ordinance all the way to the end of the Agenda, because if the Commission does not complete the Agenda, it will be only one item to carry over to the next meeting versus carrying over three other items as well.

10. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - FACADE ORDINANCE

An amendment to the schedule of regulating exterior facade materials.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the amendment consists of a new Facade Chart. Most of the changes are corrections to typographical errors and transposition errors. Mr. Necci stated there were two changes, one related to pre-cast concrete and a line regarding the fabric awnings which prohibited awnings with translucent back lit arrangements which are used as a sign.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant recommended the changes to the amendment.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello asked why "Precast" and "Other Precast" was circled on the comparison draft?

Doug Necci of JCK explained that the circled words were the ones that were added.

Member Capello asked what the diagonal lines in the boxes meant?

Mr. Necci explained that the top number in the box was the existing percentage and the bottom number was the proposed percentage.

Member Capello stated, when the Maples of Novi project came before the Commission and the applicant brought in a product which was concrete block but it looked like nice brick, he asked if there was anything in the amendment that provided for the use of that material?

Mr. Necci answered no, future use of that material would require a waiver. He thought it was best to keep that as a waiver scenario rather than trying to build it into the Ordinance.

PM-98-05-096 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FACADE ORDINANCE 97-18, SECTION 2520, SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS

Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council to adopt the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Facade Ordinance Schedule Regulating Exterior Facade Materials Section 2520.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley stated he reviewed it with Mr. Necci in depth and he agreed and approved of the housekeeping changes that were made.

Yes: Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: None

11. ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - VARIANCE REQUESTS

An amendment to allow for the granting of variances prior to the site plan submittal process.

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated the Ordinance comes to the Commission at the request of the City Manager Ed Kriewall because of complaints of several developers who have said they were scared away or may be scared away from developing in Novi. The developers not knowing whether or not they would obtain a variance from the ZBA after going through the development of Site Plans, appearing before Planning Commission for Preliminary Site Plan and then being turned down by the ZBA. They asked if there was an Ordinance which would allow them to go directly to the ZBA, provided that they provide sufficient information, and find out whether or not they would be turned down before they start the whole process. Mr. Weisberger stated the only addition was a quote at the bottom which reads, "a variance granted pursuant to a request made under this subsection shall not be deemed to obviate the need for site plan approval.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant did not recommend the Amendment. He thought the ZBA was made up of very hard working people but they are not a Planning Commission, they are not site planners and they are not Planning Consultants. It was his opinion that the Planning Commission’s hands were not tied by some variance granted by a ZBA. Mr. Rogers did not think the Commission was taking a step forward by approving the Amendment.

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning & Community Development clarified the reason problems are not heard of, is because the applicant never gets to the table.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello thought the comments and concerns of Mr. Wahl were very accurate. He explained it takes a year to a year and ½ to get before the Commission for Preliminary Site Plan approval and some developers are not willing to take the first step toward that unless they know they will get some relief in the way of variances. Member Capello did not know if what was being proposed was a reasonable means of doing so. He preferred to spend an hour in a joint meeting with the ZBA to see if there is something that could be worked out between the two proposals.

PM-98-05-097 TO SCHEDULE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE ZBA NOT TO EXCEED ONE HOUR AND 25 MINUTES

Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella.

DISCUSSION

Member Canup did not think it was a good move, he did not see any reason to waste an hour and a half. He thought the current system was fine and it did not need to be changed to accommodate the few people who would like to develop in the City. The current system is good enough for other people to develop in the City.

Member Hoadley agreed with Member Canup and stated he would be voting against the motion. He stated he sat on the ZBA and they are not planners, they want the information that the Planning Commission develops in Public Hearings before they grant variances. Member Hoadley thought Mr. Harrington made some good points.

Member Churella asked if there was a way to speed up the process even though it comes to the Planning Commission first, so the applicant will know whether or not he will fit the criteria of the ZBA to obtain a variance?

Member Canup explained that the criteria for the ZBA to pass anything, is that the applicant must show a practical hardship. Being on the ZBA, he stated a lot of applicants come in trying to crawl through a hole or find an edge and they really do not have a hardship. He stated if the hardship is practical and was not self created, the applicant has a very good chance of obtaining a variance.

Member Hoadley stated when the applicant would get a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission subject to ZBA variances, the chances of the variances being granted were much improved. He thought it would be very detrimental to most developers by hurting them, not helping them.

Member Churella agreed with the comments of the Commissioners.

Mr. Wahl stated if an Item is on the May Agenda, it probably would not get to the ZBA until July because the Agendas fill up quickly. He stated 60 to 90 days are added to the process. He clarified that the City Manager expressed concerns of applicants spending hundreds and thousands of dollars and then finding out that he cannot build the building because a variance cannot be granted.

Member Canup stated if the applicant lives within the Ordinances, he would not have to appear before the ZBA. He stated the changes that would be made would affect or help very few people .

Member Capello stated it was not a matter of 15 days, they were talking about a year and 15 days. He thought the applicants were looking for relief before they begin the Preliminary Site Plan Process.

Member Capello withdrew his motion.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a negative recommendation to City Council regarding the proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance regarding the timing of Variance Requests and to appoint a joint committee made up of three members of the Planning Commission and three Members of the ZBA to develop some alternatives to address the perceived problem.

DISCUSSION

Chairperson Weddington was not sure whether there was a problem, but she stated the proposed text amendment was not the solution. She stated it was much too broad in scope, there was no standard of review, the decisions of the ZBA cannot be overturned by Council or the Planning Commission. The only appeal is through circuit court, she thought it would have negative, unintended consequences by discouraging development. She stated the Commission should be encouraging compliance with the Ordinances not circumvention. Chairperson Weddington stated she would be in support of the recommendation and thought there were alternatives that she would like discussed.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-098 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas

No: None

Chairperson Weddington asked that Mr. Harrington’s letter be forwarded to City Council along with the action. She also asked that Mr. Antosiak’s comments at the April 01, 1998 meeting should also be included.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

Member Hoadley mentioned that the issue of roads has almost been excluded. He asked what the reasoning was for this and thought there were some issues that had a much lower priority than some of the road improvements.

Member Csordas explained that prioritization and ranking was submitted by each Department head and then a matrix was done showing the requests for projects by priority and ranking. In regard to the road projects, he thought a lot of them were pre-funded.

Khanh Pham, Staff Planner stated the DPS submitted 10 to 12 road projects, however, they were all part of the 1996 Road Bond Program which were already programmed by Council and funds were already allocated.

Member Hoadley was concerned that if the Commission did not keep the road issue on the table forefront then it would not happen. He stated as long as they remain a high priority, the emphasis would be on trying to find the funding for them.

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt the Capital Improvements Plan as presented.

Yes: Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley

No: None

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. PLANNING CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS

Chairperson Weddington stated the Assistant City Manager sent out requests for qualifications to all of the Planning Consultants who actively work in Oakland County as well as some others who asked to be considered. There were 22 firms in all, they were asked that their qualifications be returned by April 17, 1998 and the City received responses from six (6) firms. To speed the process along, a sub-committee was formed to screen the qualifications that were returned. The sub-committee was made up of three members of Council’s Consultant Review Committee and three members of the Planning Commissions Administrative Liaison Committee. She stated the sub-committee met on April 23, 1998 and reviewed the responses. The criteria that were considered, included the professional credentials and background, the education and experience of the people that would be supporting the City, ideas for creativity and innovation, staff resources, experience in other fast growing suburban communities, and any conflicts of interest, accomplishment and excellence, the quality of the presentations that were submitted. The sub-committee unanimously recommended to interview three of the firms; 1) Birchler Arroyo Associates; 2) Carlisle Wortman Associates; 3) The Strader Group. It was the recommendation of the sub-committee that Council hire Birchler Arroyo an Associates, based on their overall presentation, the fact that the Commission knows Rod Arroyo and the work that he has done. Chairperson Weddington stated the decision of the Planning Consultant belongs to the Planning Commission, however, City Council needs to verify the selection. Once the selection is forwarded to Council, negotiations would be entered into contract terms.

PM-98-05-100 TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE TO HIRE THE FIRM OF BIRCHLER ARROYO AND ASSOCIATES AS THE CITY’S PLANNING CONSULTANT AND TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THEY NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT

Moved by Canup, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To accept the recommendation of the sub-committee to hire the firm of Birchler Arroyo and Associates as the City’s Planning Consultant and to recommend to Council that they negotiate a contract.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello asked what the next step was. He asked if Mr. Arroyo needed to submit a fee proposal?

Chairperson Weddington explained once the Council confirms, they will enter into those negotiations and ask the firm to submit a bid.

Member Canup had a problem with recommending a firm without knowing what they charge or what their fees are ahead of time. He stated he would not think of interviewing somebody without looking at least a fee schedule of their charges.

Chairperson Weddington stated Council made a conscious decision to go the route of the Request for Qualifications, which defers the fees until a decision is made based on the qualifications because they want the best professional services.

Member Hoadley reported that Mr. Arroyo pledged to the Commission that he would be hiring a professional traffic engineer.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-100 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

PM-98-05-101 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 12:00 P.M.

Moved by Watza, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:00 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-98-05-101 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

_____________________________________

Khanh Pham - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

May 12, 1998

Date Approved: May 20, 1998