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

PRESENT: Members Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda and Piccinini

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Canup, Mutch, Richards and Watza

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Beth Brock

Chairperson Capello announced that the application for the Dixon Road property rezoning 18.590

was temporarily withdrawn. Therefore, it would not be heard at this meeting. Residents would

receive a new notice via mail if it should be brought forth again.

Chairperson Capello asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Member Piccinini asked to make a change to the Consent Agenda. To set a Public Hearing for April 19, 2000 for Zoning Ordinance 2503 and to set a Public Hearing for April 19, 2000 for Zoning Ordinance 2600. Under Matters for Consideration, she also added review of attached and detached accessory structures in RA districts be sent to the Implementation Committee.

Member Koneda added under Matters for Consideration, consideration of sending an ordinance revision to the Implementation Committee to permit reduction in side yard parking setbacks in I-1 districts when shared drive access is provided.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the Agenda to include Item 7 under the Consent Agenda to set a Public Hearing for April 19, 2000 on Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2503.e.2 and to add Item 8 under the Consent Agenda to set a Public Hearing for April 19, 2000 an amendment to Section 201 and Section 2600 to add tattoo parlors to adult use categories and add number 2 under Matters for Consideration to send to the Implementation Committee for review, review of the Ordinance regarding the maximum size of detached and attached structures in RA Districts and to add Item 3 under Matters for Consideration to send to Implementation Committee a review of the side yard setbacks in I-1 and OST Districts.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini

No: None

Chairperson Capello announced all of the items under the Consent Agenda would be subject to the Consultants conditions, recommendations and requirements and any Planning Commission waivers that are required under any of the particular site plans are granted with site plan approval under the Consent Agenda.

None

None

Chairperson Capello announced there were 6 items on the Consent Agenda. Amson Dembs Spec Building A SP00-03 Preliminary Site Plan approval, Amson Dembs Spec Building B SP00-04 Preliminary Site Plan approval, Amson Dembs Spec Building C SP00-05 Preliminary Site Plan, Haggerty Corporate Office Centre II SP 00-08 Preliminary Site Plan approval, Haggerty Corporate Office Centre III SP00-09 Preliminary Site Plan approval, and the approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 01, 2000.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini

No: None

The proposed rezoning of a 0.73 acre parcel in Section 25, on the northwest corner of Nine Mile and Haggerty Roads. The applicant is seeking rezoning from Low-Density Multiple Family Residential District (RM-1) to Office Service District (OS-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Tony Randazzo, one of the owners, represented the parcel of property. He stated the property was sold to a congregate care facility and they decided not to go through with the plan because they felt that there was an overabundance of senior citizen housing in the area. As a result, the original configuration required that they make a little notch out for emergency vehicles. Since then, Mr. Randazzo decided to build an office and stick with the low density multiple-family zoning. He stated he met with the city planner to discuss squaring off the parcel because of the concern regarding the entrance. As a result of being able to square off the parcel, it would bring the entrance further down and avoid congestion in the area.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval. He stated the Commission previously rezoned the parcel to the north as well as the subject parcel to RM-1 and the corner parcel was rezoned to OS-1 which is consistent with the Master Plan. The applicant is asking to extend the OS-1 designation to the north to include the parcel less than one acre in size. Mr. Arroyo stated it was not exactly with the boundaries of the Master Plan, however, the parcel was fairly small. He stated the Master Plan for Land Use specified that the plan was intended to show generalized land use and is not intended to indicate precise size, shape or dimension. Mr. Arroyo recommended that the Commission send a positive recommendation to City Council for rezoning.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo stated the differences between the underlying zoning and the proposed zoning were not very significant. He stated the difference would be approximately 22 trips over a 24 hour period and 10 to 15 trips over a peak hour period. Mr. Arroyo stated when the property was originally before the Commission, there was concern about the development parcels as it relates to access to Haggerty Road. The Commission recommended and Council approved conditions to the previous rezoning. One of which, that there be shared access between the RM-1 parcel and the OS-1 parcels so there would be just one access road to Haggerty Road. Mr. Arroyo thought this condition still made sense and thought the Commission should consider including it within the motion. He stated the residents of the R-3 parcel located adjacent to the parcel wanted a wall rather than a berm. He also believed this to be a condition of the previous rezoning change and thought this would be another condition to consider recommending to City Council.

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

John Sherwood, 23980 Meadowbrook represented Mr. Roger Christianson who resides at 39624 Nine Mile Road at Haggerty Road. His property is located adjacent to the parcel in question. Mr. Christianson asked that Mr. Sherwood speak on his behalf and have made, the assurances that he was given verbally in regard to the development of the property. He was told that his property and the proposed development would be separated by a wall to be made of brick and to be a minimum of six feet in height. Furthermore, he would like to see the wall continue to the R.O.W. as to complete the division of the properties. Mr. Christianson has been a Novi resident in excess of 80 years and would like to maintain some semblance of tranquility from the ever encroaching development taking place in the City.

Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda believed that when the rezoning was granted for the OS-1 zoning at the front, he thought the front parcel already had a brick wall attached to it. Therefore, he asked if the brick wall just needed to be extended?

Mr. Arroyo recalled that it may have also been attached to the RM-1 zoning.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council on rezoning map amendment 18.589 subject to construction of the six foot brick wall along the westerly property line and the shared access driveway along the northern property which abuts the RM-1 district.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini

No: None

This cell tower project is located in Section 26, at the Novi Ice Arena off of Arena Drive and east of Novi Road. The 9.185 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use recommendations to City Council.

Dan Davis, Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Novi stated they were approached by Sprint PCS in the fall of 1999 regarding the possibility of a cell tower installation at the Novi Ice Arena. He stated he has been meeting with the City Council regarding the matter and they will need to address contract negotiations and ground lease for the site.

Robert Starkman of Richard Kahn O’Rielly stated the site was contained within City property located at the Novi Ice Arena. The site would contain a 150’ monopole which would allow for two additional carriers to co-locate on the tower along with Sprint PCS. He stated all of the requested revisions have been made to the plans. He reported that they have five other sites that are co-locations on existing towers or on rooftops. He stated this was the first time for approaching the City to build a new structure within the City, they always try to be good neighbors and locate on existing structures whenever possible.

Paul Bristo stated the site would provide better service in the general area as well as to off-load sites along I-75 and I-696.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated he has reviewed the application against the specific standards of the Zoning Ordinance and it was his opinion that it meets the standards subject to certain conditions and information. Mr. Arroyo asked that the applicant demonstrate why they need to have the site at that location and why other structures and towers could not fulfill the need. There were some other minor conditions associated with the Ordinance that could be provided at the time of Final should the City Council approve the application. Mr. Arroyo stated the project is located in an I-1 district and is separated from residential uses in an appropriate manner.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo stated there was not a significant issue associated with these facilities. He stated they were typically not occupied and they were visited on an infrequent basis for the purpose of maintenance. Therefore, he has not performed an analysis beyond this.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended engineering approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the landscaping.

Jim Wahl reiterated that City Council requested that the Commission work with the Department and Consultants on a wireless communication/cellular tower study to have a better grasp of these types of facilities and where they might best be located. He stated this work was referred to the Master Plan Committee in January and research has been being conducted since that time. He felt this was a good opportunity for the Commission to continue that study by having a hands-on look at a project and seeing what an applicant has to go through in order to adequately service their customers. However, City Council has determined to wait further action for completion of the wireless communication study. Mr. Wahl stated the Department has considered that it would be appropriate and respectfully requested a recommendation from the Commission to postpone the matter until the study is completed and the recommendations are brought back to the Commission.

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

Bob Shaw, 40612 Village Oaks stated his cellular service is terrible. He believed that the tower was needed. As a Novi Parks and Recreation Commissioner, Mr. Shaw stated the money could be used. In regard to postponing until further studying is completed, he did not think the Planning Commission should wait for something that may never be completed, he encouraged them to move forward. As a taxpayer, Mr. Shaw encouraged the Commission to move the issue on to Council so the issues could be addressed with them.

Graham Ward, 21559 Ingram agreed with the comments of Mr. Shaw. For three years, he has served in some capacity of the organization that is responsible with regard to the Ice Arena. He believed it to be a Council issue and would like to see this issue passed on to Council so a recommendation to do the right thing can be made. He encouraged the Commission to look with favor upon the application. He did not think it was a plan to be concerned with.

Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda stated typically the Commission will act on the Ordinance as they exist at the time. He asked if it was appropriate for the commission to take action on this site plan submittal even though City Council has requested delaying action until a Master Plan study for cellular towers could be completed.

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney understood the purpose of the study was to try to come up with a master plan for the ultimate location for cell towers throughout the City. He did not believe that there was an anticipated Ordinance change. He stated whenever an application comes in, it is looked at in accordance with the Ordinance that is in place at that time.

Member Koneda thought the site was a good location. He stated it backs up to an industrial use as well as the railroad tracks, it is far enough away from the ice arena to where it does not cause any grief.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Novi Ice Arena/Sprint PCS 99-63 to grant Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use.

Member Cassis agreed with the comments of Mr. Shaw. He thought it was a good location as it did not interfere with residential. As a taxpayer, he stated he would like to see the ice arena supported and this would be a great project to supplement the income of the ice arena. Member Cassis felt there was a need for it. He felt that the Commission should not abstain from their obligation to take action on it, he stated as Planning Commissioners this was the reason they were here and felt it should be moved forward.

Chairperson Capello stated the Special Land Use was based upon the letter and recommendations of Rod Arroyo plus the additional documentation that was submitted since the letter was written.

Yes: Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Capello

No: None

This daycare project is located in Section 33, on the south side of Nine Mile Road between Taft and Beck Roads. The 3.13 acre site is zoned One-Family Residential

(R-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.

Robert Armstrong, Architect introduced Paul Fram of Childtime. He requested Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan approvals. The one-story building was approximately 8,200 square feet that was intended to provide child care for a maximum of 132 children. Operation would occur Monday through Fridays from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. with 20 employees. A 4’ 6" high berm has been provided with the appropriate plant screening. A traffic impact study and noise study have been provided which both meet the requirements of the Ordinances.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use due to outstanding site plan issues. He did not recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan due to the need for a variance for the placement of the dumpster in the front yard. If the ZBA were to grant a variance on the issue, he would then be in a position to recommend approval. There were a couple of other items that would require some additional consideration. Some details needed at the time of Final include exterior lighting to ensure that the lighting on site is appropriate and does not spill off to impact adjacent properties.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo stated the project has access to Nine Mile Road. He provided estimates of trip generation for the project based upon review of the applicant’s traffic study. The applicant has provided the appropriate review against warrants for deceleration and center turn lanes and passing lanes and have addressed them satisfactorily. Mr. Arroyo stated the only outstanding issue was driveway spacing. The Ordinance requires that there be appropriate spacing based on the speed of the roadway between the driveway to serve the subject site and the entryway into the Royal Crown subdivision. The applicant has moved their driveway west of the original submittal to increase the separation and come closer to the standard. They are still approximately 10’ less than the standard of 200’. The applicant would need a waiver from the Commission for driveway spacing should the Commission choose to approve the project.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval. He stated the site is fully served by water and sewer. Storm sewers will collect drainage distributed to a detention basin on the west side of the site. It will outlet to an existing storm sewer. There is quite a bit of topography on the site, it falls generally from the back to the front and there will be quite a bit of grading necessary to make the site work. There were a couple of comments that needed to be addressed at the time of Final. He felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval due to the deficient berm height on the west property line and the southwest corner. It appeared that they could engineer it to meet the required 4’ 6" height. The applicant has met the opacity requirement. There were a number of items required at the time of Final as listed in her letter dated February 28, 2000. Ms. Lemke noted that previous daycare centers were required to have a more decorative fencing rather than chain link.

Member Churella announced he has received several letters of correspondence regarding the project.

He stated he has received letters from about 30 residents stating that they were against the proposed childcare center being approved. They stated the proposal essentially is a commercial building in a residential area. Residents within the area of the proposed development believed when they moved into Novi that they were not moving into a commercial development area and that it would only be residential. The traffic volumes on Nine Mile Road would be increased a great deal and the proposed would create more traffic during peak hours. More traffic endangers the safety of the children walking to and from Thornton School. The proposed development is located directly across from the main entrance of Royal Crown which will create a hazard for the people coming in and out of the neighborhood. The residents believe that the facility would decrease property values and set a precedent for future developments of that type in the area. Other daycare centers were brought before the Commission in the past and at that time it was shown that there was plenty of capacity and another was not needed. There was a comment made that if the project were to be approved, they would desire a fence between the facility and the neighborhood.

Chairperson Capello announced that the Correspondence is available as part of the public record in the Planning and Community Development Department.

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

Chris Varlamos, 22432 Havergale Street represented the Royal Crown Phase IV Homeowners Association who strongly opposed the project. He stated the traffic generated would overlap with that of Thornton Creek. He stated it was currently a hazard and it would only exacerbate an already bad situation. He asked if this was in the Master Plan? He expressed concern for the development to the west along Nine Mile Road.

Richard Bond, 46700 Nine Mile Road was against the project because an existing house was being torn down to build the building. He believed that the childcare center located on Ten Mile Road had a lot of concerns, therefore, this is already one business that has set a precedent in Novi. He stated he did not see the noise study in the packet, however, he was interested to see what it said. He expressed concerns with the hours that the dumpster would be emptied and its impact on noise. He expressed concern with the lighting and questioned the need for lighting if the business was only opened until 6:30 p.m. He questioned why there was a lighted sign on the building and why it was needed. He felt that the sign should be completely eliminated from the building. He thought extreme consideration should be given to the handling of the dumpster.

Pete Walsh, 22350 Worchester borders the property on the southwest corner. He also represented Mr. and Mrs. Ridley whose property is located directly south of the project. He had hoped that the residents would have been notified by Childtime and given some insight regarding the project. He stated the first time he had heard about it was through the mailing and he was disappointed. He objected to the project. He thought Childtime should be required to set a higher standard for the proposal. He did not feel it was the type of quality that is preferred within the community. He expressed concerns regarding the dumpster. He asked if there would be more than 150 children allowed? He questioned the noise study and expressed concern about the lighting. He thought the Commission should carefully consider the concerns of the residents. He thought if developed with the interest of the Community in mind that it could possibly be an asset to the Community.

Donna Conway, 22257 Hazelton Court lives in the Barclay Estates Subdivision and her house backs to Nine Mile Road. She opposed the development for several reasons as stated tonight, however, her main concern was the traffic and the safety of the children. She felt if the development goes in, people would cut through Barclay Estates as well as Bradford of Novi. She stated traffic was already horrendous on rainy and snowy days and she could not imagine what 780 more trips per day would do for traffic on Nine Mile Road. She also noted that Children’s World on Ten Mile Road was nowhere near filled to capacity. She stated there was three childcare centers located within three miles and did not understand why another daycare center was needed.

Sheryl Khoury, 46590 Galway Drive was in favor of the project. She did not think it would add to the traffic in a way that would be harmful. She stated her daughter was number 80 on the Northville pre-school wait list, therefore, she believed there was a need for it. She asked the Commission to take into consideration that they will always hear from people who are against something more than you will if they are for it. She asked the Commission to allow the petitioner to build the development.

Sibrey McMans, 22297 Hazelton Court backs to Nine Mile Road. She anticipated that the traffic would be heavier especially during the morning school hours. She stated the traffic was heavier especially on snowy and rainy days. She thought the development would add to the traffic and danger in the area.

Lanora Crawford, 46133 Nine Mile Road located next door to the property in question. She stated she has lived in Novi for fourteen years. She was very opposed to the daycare center. She stated she checked with several realtors who confirmed the fact that the property value would feel a decrease with a daycare center being put in. She stated the noise and traffic was a major concern. She stated people do not adhere to the 30 mph speed limit on Nine Mile Road. She expressed concern and hoped that the Commission would vote down the daycare center that was not needed. She stated there were 13 centers located in the Novi/Northville area, therefore there was no shortage of daycare.

Joe Boelter, 47297 Autumn Park Court stated the project was a commercial development. He saw it as the first foot in the door to construct more commercial development on Nine Mile Road. He stated he purchased his property because that stretch of Nine Mile Road has retained a residential character and he thought it was important. He stated the sidewalk system along Nine Mile Road is not completed, therefore it is very dangerous to children and pedestrians and should be considered by the Commission to be completed. Mr. Boelter urged the Commission to drive the stretch of Nine Mile Road. He didn’t think another daycare center was needed in the middle of a residential area.

Chairperson Capello asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the Master Plan deals with general land use categories and it designates the particular area along Nine Mile Road as Residential. The Zoning Ordinance is what identifies what uses are allowed within a Residential district. He stated it was up to the City Council to make that determination as to what uses are appropriate within a Residential district. Several different uses are included within a Residential district subject to Special Land Use.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated screening berms were required for the property on the east, south and the west property lines. They are to be 4’ 6" in height with plant materials on top. There is also a 30" to 36" berm required along Nine Mile Road.

Member Churella stated he would be voting against the project due to the fact that it does not fit the Ordinance in that it does not have a secondary access. He stated it was not needed in the area. He thought they could locate down Nine Mile Road where it is zoned Commercial.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED (4-1): To deny Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approval for Child Time SP99-64.

Member Koneda stated the Ordinance does not require a demonstration of need as a requirement for Site Plan approval, therefore it is not a condition. He stated the applicant needs to meet the requirements per the Zoning Ordinance, he stated the only requirement that the applicant does not meet is the noise analysis that has not been completed.

Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant did provide a noise analysis, however, it was turned in late.

Member Koneda stated the Commission did not see it. He asked if it met the requirements?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. Therefore, they did not require a ZBA variance.

In regard to the secondary access point, Member Koneda stated the Fire Marshal signed off on it and asked for clarification.

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated there was a requirement in Section 1525 of the Novi Code which states except as otherwise provided secondary or emergency access is required or only one point of access to a site is provided. It goes on to provide that the access shall be a driveway constructed in accordance with certain provisions of the Design and Construction standards. He stated there is a provision within the Novi Code that requires secondary access.

Mr. Arroyo asked if there was any option to have that waived Administratively or would the applicant have to go to City Council or ZBA?

Mr. Watson believed they would have to go to City Council.

Member Koneda asked if the petitioner know that it was a requirement when they started the process?

Mr. Armstrong answered, he was aware of it and he had direct conversations with the Fire Marshal regarding it. He stated it was addressed by being determined that two drives off of Nine Mile Road would essentially be too much on the narrow site. It was proposed to increase the construction type or provide a sprinkler system in the facility. The Fire Marshal’s concern was to reduce any further risk by fire to the facility which was the intent of the secondary drive. And if this was done, he would accept a waiver on the secondary drive.

Member Koneda asked if there was a requirement on sprinkler systems in public buildings?

Mr. Arroyo stated it was a building code issue and he was unsure.

Member Koneda asked when research data was done regarding locating a daycare facility, how far does the draw come from?

Paul Fram of Childtime stated the demographics primarily support a one mile radius around the facility and is opened up to two miles for the demographic studies.

Member Koneda asked if the applicant had any problem complying with all of the requests of the landscape architect regarding berming, screening and decorative fencing?

Mr. Fram answered, no. However, he stated the decorative fencing could be addressed. He stated the chain link fence was not the most attractive but from a safety standpoint, it was about the best material. He stated he has used aluminum fence sections in the past which resembles wrought iron.

Member Koneda asked about the dumpster location. He stated the Ordinance requires that the dumpster not be located in the front yard. He stated it looks as if the dumpster could be located in the back by extending the driveway.

Mr. Anderson stated there was a specific reason it was not located in the rear. He stated the floorplan of the building allows every classroom direct egress to the outdoors for fire and life safety issues. He believed there to be about twelve exits around the sides and back of the building which are secured within a fenced play yard.

Member Koneda clarified that the only site plan issue was the location of the dumpster. He stated he liked the location of the dumpster, he was more concerned about extending the driveway around the rear which would create a nuisance to the neighbors. Member Koneda stated he visited the site twice and he agreed with the comments regarding traffic and speed. However, it is a 30 mph road, the driveway spacing of 190’ has a 10’ deficiency, however, it appears to be in the best location possible without intruding on the neighbors. Therefore, he would not support the motion because all of the requirements of the zoning have been met.

Member Cassis stated he would support the motion. He thought the main function of a Special Land Use was that the use was in harmony with the purposes and conforms with the applicable site design regulations of the zoning district. The key word was harmony. He stated clearly there was no structure in that area, except for the school, that was 8,000 square feet. He stated the structure would not be in harmony with the area, it has the characteristics of a commercial building, all of the traffic and it is an oversized building on a lot that requires variances. He thought the Ordinance should be changed because lately the Commission has been witnessing this type of childcare center that is so different from what it used to be. Member Cassis felt it was not the right location for the type of operation.

Chairperson Capello appreciated Nine Mile Road knowing that the road would stay the way that it is. He agreed with the comments of Member Cassis that this was not the right area for the size of daycare center. He stated perhaps it should be sent back to the Implementation Committee to discuss the new wave of daycare centers and the proper locations for them. He stated the entire front yard of the site would be parking lot and he felt it would destroy the aesthetics of Nine Mile Road.

Yes: Churella, Piccinini, Capello, Cassis

No: Koneda

Member Koneda voted against the motion because he believed the Site Plan to be in compliance with the intent of the current Zoning Ordinance.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the Special Land Use requirements in an R-1 District back to the Implementation Committee to be re-evaluated.

Yes: Koneda, Piccinini, Capello, Cassis, Churella

No: None

This carport addition project is located in Section 26, on the south side of Ten Mile Road between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Roads. The 26.17 acre site is zoned Low-Density Multiple Family Residential (RM-1). The applicant is seeking a Section Nine Waiver.

Jason Nesler, Property Manager for Novi Ridge Apartments and Townhomes stated the Ordinance indicates that all facades must be made of the same material and of the same color as the existing buildings. Being that a carport is generally made all of structural steel, he added a brick panel to each end of the carports to better meet the Façade Ordinance. He received a letter from JCK stating that although it does not meet the Ordinance, it is consistent with the intent of the Ordinance.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the portion of the Façade Ordinance that pertains to the structures is Paragraph 12. He stated it was not designed to include structures of this kind. The intent of the section was to deal with canopies for gas stations. All open air structures of this type have to be addressed under this section of the Ordinance. Mr. Necci believed the applicant has done all that he finds reasonable to comply with the Ordinance, therefore he recommended a Section 9 Waiver.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant a Section 9 Waiver of the Façade Ordinance for Novi Ridge Apartments and Townhomes SP99-49.

Yes: Piccinini, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda

No: None

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the review of the maximum size of attached and detached buildings in RA Districts and review of the side yard setback requirement in OST and I-1 Districts to the Implementation Committee for study.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini,

No: None

Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo

Rod Arroyo, Planning Consultant described the differences between subdivisions and site condos. He clarified that a subdivision is a type of development that divides larger parcels into individual lots that have separate ownership which are then sold. A subdivision is approved then later building permits or site plans are approved for individual structures.

A site condominium is not a type of development, it is a form of ownership. They require a condominium association to oversee the general common elements and their maintenance. The process generally proceeds quicker than a plat process.

The land in a subdivision is owned by the individual whereas in a site condominium, the land could be individual or joint ownership. The roads are typically public in a subdivision, whereas in a site condo, they may be either public or private.

In regard to the Dixon Road project, Debbie Bundoff, asked if a public hearing had to be notified in the newspaper as this was her only way of finding out about it because she does not live within 500’ of the project to receive a notice.

Chairperson Capello answered, yes.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:15 p.m.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini

No: None

________________________________

Beth Brock - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane Vimr

March 23, 2000

Date Approved: April 05, 2000