The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Richard Gaul, Lynn Kocan, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Members Andrew Gutman (excused), David Lipski (Excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Acting Planning Director; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Tom Schultz, City Attorney

Member Gaul led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Acting Planning Director Barbara McBeth asked that a Closed Session be added to the Agenda to discuss confidential communication from the City Attorney’s office. City Attorney Tom Schultz noted that this language was pursuant to the language of the Act. The matter would be placed before the Public Hearings.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share at this time.

Chair Kocan noted that there will be an Implementation Committee meeting on Monday, September 13, 2004. There is a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting on Thursday, September 2, 2004 at 6:30 p.m.

Acting Planning Director Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the text amendment relating to fences was approved at the August 23, 2004 City Council meeting. The first reading of the text amendment relating to language found in the Zoning Ordinance regarding performance guarantees was also approved at the same meeting. Additionally, Ms. McBeth said that City Council asked that the Master Plan be brought before the City Council for comment prior to the Planning Commission holding its Public Hearing.

There was no Consent Agenda.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

At 8:23 p.m. the Planning Commission members returned to the City Council Chambers.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Sprague:

Motion to reconvene to the regular Planning Commission meeting.

The Public Hearing was re-opened on the request of William Eldridge for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property in Section 11 located on the northeast corner of Twelve Mile and Novi roads from R-4 (Residential Acreage) to B-3 (General Business). The subject property is 1.3 acres.

Acting Planning Director Barbara McBeth reminded the Planning Commission that this matter is a continuation of a Public Hearing that was first opened at the Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2004. At that time, several members of public and residents provided comments for the Planning Commission and Council’s consideration. The Planning Commission’s motion at the July 14 meeting was to continue the Public Hearing to a future meeting to allow time for a determination to be made on the platting of the subject property regarding the location of cemetery plots. The Planning Department and City Attorney had a meeting with the Applicant’s attorneys on July 22, 2004 and a number of items were discussed. The Planning Department’s summary of items discussed at that meeting was included in the Planning Commission’s packets. Since the Public Hearing was not postponed to a specific date, and as a courtesy to the residents with an interest in this matter, the Planning Department sent notices again for the continuation of the Public Hearing this evening. The Planning Commission is asked to forward a recommendation to City Council for approval or denial of the Applicant’s requested rezoning to B-3 zoning for the property.

The subject property is approximately 1.3 acres and is located on the northeast corner of Twelve Mile and Novi Road in Section 11 of the City of Novi. The current zoning of the property is R-4, One Family Residential. The subject property has historically been used as the Oakland Hills Memorial Cemetery entrance with two driveways, one on Twelve Mile, and the other on Novi Road. The adjoining uses are: to the west is a gas station, to the north and east is the cemetery, to the south are retail businesses and to the southwest is the Midas Muffler shop.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends quasi-public cemetery uses for the site and the surrounding properties to the north, northeast and east. To the south, the Master Plan recommends regional commercial uses for the property. To the west, the Master Plan recommends community commercial uses for the properties.

A Planning Review, Civil Engineering Review, Traffic Engineering Review and a letter from the Police Chief were included in the Planning Commission packets for consideration.

The Planning Review letter recommended the following:

R-4, One Family Residential zoning is consistent with the historic, current and proposed designation of the Master Plan for Land Use which recommends quasi public cemetery uses.

R-4, One Family Residential zoning is consistent with the zoning in the northeast quadrant of Novi Road and Twelve Mile.

R-4, One Family Residential zoning is consistent with the current and historic use of the subject property as a cemetery entrance.

The Applicant has voluntarily offered deed restrictions for the property to limit the uses of the subject property if rezoned to B-3, General Business, as a result of the request of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for assurances regarding the future utilization of the property. However, the property owner has indicated there is no interest in pursuing development under the Planned Rezoning Overlay Ordinance, which has been developed to allow review of a site plan in conjunction with rezoning requests and allows for site-specific uses of the property.

For properties on the north side of Twelve Mile from Novi Road to the M-5 collector road, the City has historically encouraged residential zoning and uses permitted in the residential district. Across from Twelve Oaks Mall, there is also a cluster of office uses, further east of the proposed rezoning with intervening cemetery use. There are no commercial uses east of Novi Road on the north side of Twelve Mile.

Based on the public opinion survey completed in 2002 for the update of the Master Plan for Land Use, many people held the opinion that adequate retail development currently exists in the City of Novi, and no further land should be zoned for retail purposes.

While the Applicant has addressed the property boundary question by offering to shift the rezoning boundary three feet to allow adequate setback for the existing mausoleum on the adjacent parcel, review of the landscaping requirements for commercial parcels that abut residential parcels shows that the developable area of the site may be limited due to berming requirements.

Several questions were raised at the Public Hearing and were addressed in a memo to the Planning Commission. Among the questions were the following:

A resident questioned future driveway locations relating to possible future development of the site. While the matter before the Planning Commission this evening is only the rezoning request, and not a site plan, the Planning Department’s preliminary calculations show that there is adequate distance for driveways to be located relative to the intersection of 12 Mile and Novi roads. The Planning Department is concerned however, about the proximity of driveways relative to other existing driveways in the area, and will review this in detail at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review for any same side or opposite side driveway spacing considerations.

A resident questioned whether there is adequate site area for future development if property is "returned" to the cemetery in order to allow adequate building setback for the existing mausoleum. The three feet of distance under consideration results in a relatively small land area, approximately 270 square feet, and the resulting site is expected to be just slightly less than 1.3 acres as a result.

A question was raised regarding the land sale. The Applicant has provided deeds showing land ownership for review by the City Assessor and City Attorney. The City Assessor’s office indicated again last week that there has been no formal request to split the subject property from the larger cemetery parcel.

Several questions were raised regarding State laws regulating cemeteries. The City Attorney has investigated these questions and may have additional information to report.

A question of an Impact Study was raised at the previous meeting. The Applicant has provided the Traffic Impact Statement as required by the rezoning review process. The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed this information and recommended that a full Traffic Impact Study be requested at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review if the rezoning is approved. A Community Impact Statement is required with any site plan for non-residential projects over thirty acres, if a permitted use, or ten acres, if the plan is a Special Land Use. This site is approximately 1.3 acres in size, so no Community Impact Statement is required.

A question was raised about the possibility of gasoline leaking into the larger cemetery parcel if the property is rezoned and a site plan is submitted for a gas station. This again is an issue that would be of concern with a site plan submittal for a gas station, which is not proposed at this time. The memo provided to the Planning Commission indicates that gas stations are not only subject to the regulations of the City of Novi in its Zoning Ordinance and other codes and ordinances, but also subject to the regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency on a federal level, and the Fire Safety Board and MDEQ for State of Michigan oversight.

A small sketch was prepared by the Planning Department in answer to another question at the meeting. The sketch showed the possible land areas needed if the property is rezoned to B-3, General Business, for berm requirements between the B-3 zoning and the existing residential zoning of the cemetery. Approximately 40 feet of land area would be needed along the north and east sides of the site for a required six foot tall berm, and approximately 20 feet of land area may be required along the front and side abutting the street for a three foot tall berm. Land remaining for possible future development is approximately 170 feet by 230 feet.

Finally, the list of alternate land uses permitted in the R-4 zoning district was provided in the Planning Review, pages six and seven. Uses permitted subject to special conditions in the R-4 district include daycares, churches, public or private elementary schools, private recreational facilities, mortuaries, and several other uses.

The Civil Engineering Report indicated that there are water mains located along both frontages that are adequate to serve the site regardless of the zoning of the site. The sanitary sewer, while not immediately available, does have the capacity to support additional flows that would be anticipated with the higher use zoning of B-3. Engineer Ben Croy was present at the meeting to field any questions.

The Traffic Engineering Review provided a trip generation comparison for potential uses of the site if the property is rezoned to B-3, General Business. One comment in this letter recommended that a representative of the cemetery be asked about peak cemetery traffic times, how that traffic is managed and what the usage differences are between the corner entrance at this site and the other access drives away from the corner. As requested, Police Chief Schaeffer provided a letter with comment about the traffic at this location.

The requested action this evening is that the Planning Commission hold the Public Hearing and, if the Planning Commission chooses, to forward a recommendation to City Council for approval or denial of this rezoning request.

Chair Kocan noted that an eight-foot berm would require a width of up to 52 feet of land, while a six-foot berm would require up to 40 feet.

City Attorney Tom Schultz said that the first legal issue may have been resolved, which is the required setback from the mausoleum. He asked that the Applicant address the possibility of his proposing a property line that provides the ten-foot setback.

Mr. Schultz said that as far as the City can tell, this land is part of a platted cemetery. This corner parcel is part of a plat that is recorded at the Oakland Country Register of Deeds. It is part of the road system and has historically provided the access to the cemetery. Mr. Schultz said that the question has been raised - does the fact that this land is platted as cemetery property relate to the issue of appropriate legal use and the request to rezone the land for commercial uses?

Mr. Schultz also noted that the Assessor’s Office has confirmed that this land has been part of the whole cemetery parcel and has been exempt from taxation over the years; the significance of this fact is that the statute that permits cemeteries to be exempt from taxation relates to land used exclusively for burial grounds. The Applicant’s response to this is that the property has been under separate ownership for some time and because it does not specifically contain burial sites, it is not part of the burial ground. From the City Attorney’s perspective, there is argument that the land is still part of the cemetery and part of the burial plat because it has been tax exempt and has historically been used in conjunction with the cemetery.

The City Attorney’s office holds the opinion that there is not a sufficient basis to determine that a commercial use of this property – a use other than for a cemetery – is a permitted lawful use. Mr. Schultz said that this is relevant for the Planning Commission to consider. If there is a question of whether this request is a lawful permitted use, the Planning Commission should consider this when making their recommendation to City Council on the rezoning.

Allen Greene, 39577 North Woodward Avenue, Suite 300, Bloomfield Hills, represented the Applicant. He said that information regarding the sale of the corner has been provided to the City – when it was sold, how it was sold, what the circumstances were, what rights remained with the cemetery and with the Applicant, an explanation of the two-year easement for corner ingress and egress, a set of deeds, information on ownership, an explanation of the mausoleum setback issue. The Applicant is prepared to reduce the size of this parcel to provide the adequate setback; a new survey with a revised property description has been drawn up. The impact of this reduced size is immaterial.

Mr. Greene said that when the new entrance was being built, the Applicant offered the new cemetery owners, The Sienna Group, an opportunity to utilize any of the old materials from the existing entrance and gates. They declined the offer, but have since asked if the offer was still open. The Applicant has also agreed that the City can take and use the materials. Another issue discussed was whether the materials could be used to construct a new boundary wall, making use of the historical significance of the materials.

Mr. Greene raised the question of the cemetery plat. He said that at a meeting between the Applicant, the City and the City Attorney’s office a copy of the plat was presented. The Applicant stated that there are no platted lots on this particular property. The land is not considered under the definition of burial ground. He said that it would be appropriate and the Applicant would be lawfully allowed to split this property. If someone were to determine that this was not the case, the Applicant would have to go through the regular judicial vacation process. He said that they have not had a response from the City on this position. He said that he has been told that the conversation explaining the City Attorney’s position is privileged information which won’t be shared with him, so he does not know how to respond to the City Attorney’ conclusions.

Mr. Greene said that there is not a lot of case law dealing with cemetery plats in the State of Michigan, and therefore it is an interpretation of the statute. He also said that this is not the first case where a cemetery has sold off a portion of their property that is not going to be used for burial purposes. Other cemeteries have sold off land to pay for operations or other items. Commercial facilities have subsequently been built on the land.

Mr. Greene said that the zoning of this corner is an appropriate discussion for the Planning Commission. He said that all the parties have been speaking with the State of Michigan, and no one has given the indication that the Applicant must do a plat vacation in order to utilize this property for another use. The zoning of the property is a different matter. He said that this land is no longer owned by the cemetery. The Applicant has no relationship with the cemetery. He said it was even difficult for the Applicant to communicate with the cemetery owners. He said that the issues brought up at the last Planning Commission meeting, i.e., the poorly maintained roads, the gravel roads, etc, is not under the control of this Applicant.

Mr. Greene said that the underlying zoning of the property is currently R-4. If the City Attorney’s opinion is that the property cannot be developed as anything other than as a cemetery, then he is saying that the Applicant cannot develop the land as R-4 unless something different is done. The Applicant disagrees with that opinion. He said that it must be determined what the appropriate zoning of this land should be. If the Applicant cannot develop it for other reasons, i.e., it is platted, then that is an issue that the Applicant has to deal with.

Mr. Greene asserted that at one point years ago, the City made a determination that this property should be zoned R-4. What the Applicant is suggesting is that the R-4 zoning of the corner piece, to the extent that the owner is allowed to use and develop it, is really inappropriate today. The location is a heavily-commercial corridor, with the other three corners of the intersection developed for intense commercial use. There is a huge amount of traffic. The Applicant’s position would be that they could split the land for three single family lots, but that is unreasonable. It is not an appropriate, suitable zoning classification. It is not a desirable place to live. There is no other situation in the entire community where there is residential zoning under that situation. The Applicant actually looked for comparables – houses in a location similar to this – and they found that it would be noisy, hazardous and the property would be surrounded by two main roads and some of the heaviest commercial traffic in the area. It would not be economically feasible to develop. It would be difficult to market the property. There are no utilities there. Previously Exxon Mobil researched that it would cost over $100,000 to bring utilities to the site.

Mr. Greene said that their position is that the R-4 zoning is inappropriate and unreasonable. He recognized that the City Attorneys have an issue with whatever the property is ultimately zoned. There is apparently an issue of whether the Applicant can site plan and develop the land. That may be an issue that will have to be resolved by an opinion of someone else. Mr. Greene said that the statute does not define what it means by the term "burial ground." It is not a well-drafted statute. Historically, people have treated the issue as such that if there are burial sites they have to be vacated. He said that vacating can be done.

Mr. Greene said that previously the Applicant has discussed with the City what type of commercial use is appropriate. B-2 does not work for the property because a larger lot size is necessary. B-3 is most consistent with the type of uses on the other three corners. There seems to be an issue with some of the B-3 uses. He said that the Applicant continues to offer to deed-restrict the property to eliminate uses upon which he and the City can agree. He said that this is a lawful and appropriate use as long as the offer comes from the land owner. The deed-restriction would be written such that it could never be changed or modified without the approval of the City of Novi.

Mr. Greene said that single users, e.g., wine shop, flower shop, bank, gas station, etc., are the types of businesses interested in the site. He said that if there is really a concern about leaking gas next to the cemetery, the Applicant would be prepared to consider that as part of their deed restriction. The Applicant wants to try to market and develop this property as opposed to just holding it forever.

Mr. Schultz said that he understood Mr. Greene say that the Applicant would modify the property line on the eastern side. Mr. Greene concurred. Mr. Schultz said that he wanted that on the record more clearly, because the advertisements for the rezoning (the Public Notices) have described the property with the line in the further east location. He said that essentially, that is an amendment to their application. Mr. Greene said his understanding was that these types of changes, an amendment to a proposed rezoning which simply reduces the size or the scope of the rezoning, but does not change the rezoning in any way, can be appropriately done in this manner. He said he thought that it does not result in a need for a new Public Hearing. Mr. Schultz said that he is attempting to avoid the need for a new Public Hearing. Essentially it is a reduction in the area, and the City Attorney is comfortable with the manner in which this is proceeding. He just wanted to ensure that the record appropriately represented both the Applicant’s and the City Attorney’s position: that the continuation of this Public Hearing is now being held on the property with an amended property line. Mr. Greene stated that in order to give the ten foot setback they have reduced the property to provide the setback and thereby have modified their rezoning application.

Mr. Schultz did not want Mr. Greene to think that the City has been discussing something new (since the litigation of the ROW settlement) of which Mr. Greene is unaware. The issue has been and remains that the section of the Cemetery Act that has been cited in briefs filed, e.g., the litigation for the ROW issues and talks about the process for establishing a cemetery. Once a cemetery is established, the process for vacating the cemetery has been outlined. The Act refers to "burial ground" and "burying grounds"; Mr. Schultz said that Mr. Greene was correct in stating that no great definitions have been established for those terms. Mr. Schultz continued that there are a couple of clues within the Statute and within the Tax Act that help define those terms. With regard to laying out the cemetery, the original platters were required to not only show the burial sites (the grave sites) but also a road system and an entrance way. These items are in fact shown on the map recorded at the Register of Deeds. That is the starting point of the issue.

Mr. Schultz said that the other statute that has been discussed rather consistently is that in order to achieve a tax exempt status, which this entire parcel has had, the land has to be burial grounds. That is the term used in the General Tax Act. Based upon those issues and the historical use of the property, the City Attorney’s office does in fact conclude that there is a question of whether or not any other use other than cemetery could be a lawful use. The information provided by Mr. Greene is correct; there was a meeting and a copy of the plat was provided. This does not rebut or address the question that is raised by the fact that there is a plat and there have been tax exemptions. With regard to whether this is an issue that needs to be looked at now or whether it just affects their ability to develop the property, from the City Attorney’s perspective it is an appropriate consideration for this Planning Commission to make – whether or not the circuit court would grant the vacation, whether or not Mr. Greene can take action on behalf of the property owner that would result in allowing a B-3 use, the fact that it hasn’t been done, and right now the land appears to be restricted to cemetery use.

Mr. Schultz said that there is no cemetery classification in the Ordinance. Cemeteries are only allowed in an R-4 district. If a cemetery use is an appropriate use, regardless of who actually owns the property, the existence of the R-4 classification is an appropriate consideration for the Planning Commission to take into account, in the opinion of the City Attorney.

Chair Kocan said that the information from the July 14, 2004 meeting is part of the Public Hearing record. She asked Member Sprague to read the correspondence into the record.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment.

Mr. Schultz asked to respond regarding the comment made about a new entrance. He said that the new entrance was part of a proposal to build an office for the cemetery further north on Novi Road, in conjunction with a site plan that was never completed. That accounts for the fact that the road and entrance were never brought up to Novi standards because the project that resulted in the new entranceway was never completed. In short, there is a broader picture of a full site plan, not just a swap of entranceway locations.

Mr. Greene asked to respond for the record that this Applicant had no part in the construction of the new cemetery office. The reason the new cemetery owners submitted that plan was that the old cemetery office was on the subject parcel.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Gaul asked Mr. Greene if the depiction of the subject property as tax exempt was accurate. Mr. Greene believed that to be the case, because the property was never split. He said that he holds a different view as to how that tax exemption might work. He thought that part of the issue is whether the property is burial ground or if the land is just associated with a cemetery; it may not be taxable because the land has no other value other than in connection with the cemetery. How does one assess a value to the entrance or to other land affiliated with a cemetery? Other cemeteries have "future land" that remains tax exempt until it is sold or something else is done with it.

Member Gaul reiterated that he heard Mr. Greene say that the subject property was no longer part of the cemetery. Mr. Greene responded that the statement was correct. When the property was sold, the cemetery was sold off separately. This subject property and another piece of property (remote from the entrance) remained. It had already been in the works by the cemetery ownership that the entrance was going to be moved because the corner wasn’t a good location and it was getting too crowded at that intersection. Part of the sale was that the new owners were not buying the corner, and the price reflected that as well. The new owners committed in the sale document that they were going to build a new entrance that was already being planned. They were given a two-year easement that said that they could continue to use the entrance at the corner until the new entrance was built; two years being the maximum. It did expire. Mr. Greene said that it was his understanding that at one point this entrance was chained off, because the cemetery no longer had the right to use it. For sale signs were placed on the property.

More recently, as an accommodation to the cemetery, the Applicant gave the cemetery the right to use this entrance until the corner was sold or developed. There was no consideration for that; it was more of a courtesy. The property wasn’t split initially because the land was going to be used as a cemetery entrance for two years. After that occurred, the issue of the proper zoning and land use of this property arose. The Applicant had a two-year time period where, in connection with the condemnation action for the Twelve Mile process (and even before this) there was discussion among the parties that maybe the land use issue could be rolled into the condemnation issues. Then it was suggested that specific site plan issues and uses should be looked at. Mr. Greene’s intent at that time was the lot split issue would be dealt with in connection with any agreement that was reached there. They spent two years on the gas station site and had a contract with Exxon Mobil. They designed full site plans and the Applicant entered into a contract with Ivanhoe Huntley to do a development on the other piece of property. All of these things went fairly far along. The Applicant delayed court dates and they placed the condemnation money in escrow even though they were entitled to the money. At the eleventh hour City Council decided that they didn’t want to do it that way. Mr. Greene said that he was not involved in this, but in the end City Council said they did not want to merge the issues together. At that point the Applicant completed the condemnation action, of which Mr. Schultz was a part, resolved the cases and immediately filed the rezoning request.

Member Gaul said that it bothered him that the property is tax exempt because it is being defined as being exclusively used as burial grounds. Mr. Greene said that he was not involved in that and cannot explain it. He did say that it was never used for burial grounds, and whether or not the land is tax exempt, it probably had no taxable value. To this date, until and unless the City and land owner determine some other acceptable use for the property other than vacant or cemetery entrance use, it still has no value. Mr. Greene got the impression that the Planning Commission thinks that somehow it was unfair that the Applicant is trying to develop and rezone the property without paying any taxes. The reality is that up until this present date, and through this present date, the City hasn’t made a decision as to whether the property can be used for anything other than a cemetery entrance. There would be no value to the property, whether it is tax exempt or on the tax rolls. There are issues that need to be resolved and Mr. Greene did not disagree. Mr. Greene reiterated that he was not involved in those previous dealings.

Mr. Schultz said that the first issue stated was whether there might be some taxable value to the property if it weren’t contemplated as part of the cemetery, or even if it was contemplated as useful to the cemetery but not part of their burial grounds. Mr. Schultz took issue with the comment that there would be no value. He thought that the meeting’s attendees don’t know what that value would be, but there would certainly be some value to the land. The property being used for the cemetery was sold for a substantial sum. It seems likely that somebody, most likely the cemetery, would want the entranceway and it would have some value to somebody who wants to operate a cemetery there. It is an issue for the Tax Assessor.

Mr. Schultz said that the perspective of City Attorney’s office on the history of this property and how it came to be, the problem with what was presented is that the manner described is not how property is supposed to be sold and parceled up. It was one piece of property. A split is not done at the City unless and until there is a determination that the property meets the requirements for basic things like property lines and setbacks. Does the new parcel meet width and depth requirements? Does the parcel meet area requirements? These are issues that the City considers in a parcel split before they approve it – is the parceled land a buildable piece of property? The way property is supposed to be bought and sold, so that the City is aware of who owns what and how it should be valued and whether it is buildable, is the property owner comes and makes an application for the lot split prior to the purchase of the property. The City reacts to the request, and if the reaction is favorable, then transfer occurs. The City doesn’t recognize and has no interest in an off-the-books transfer such as what occurred here. The City is oblivious of the fact that a two-year easement was given and some rights existed that were supposed to lapse, because the proper process is not undertaken. The process that the City expects to see here wasn’t undertaken, so the City didn’t find out until the City began looking for the party who should be paid just compensation for the roadway. The issues now raised about whether the parcel can be used for a commercial use might have been raised and resolved had the proper channels been taken.

Chair Kocan reiterated that unless that property is vacated, the City’s position is that there is a question regarding the use of the land. The fact that the parcel was not split makes no difference. Mr. Schultz rephrased that the split might be accomplished if the new parcel meets the Ordinance requirements. The current hang-up is the setback/property line issue. The zoning of the property, the use of the property, is really a separate question from the City Attorney’s perspective, the Planning Commission can consider that the request may not be a lawful use of the property as part of their determination in recommending to City Council on the rezoning to B-3. It can be part of their calculation, that it doesn’t make sense to rezone a property if it may never be able to be used in that manner. That district may affect the property next door or the property across the street. If the property is going to be rezoned and have some affect on the properties around it, the City should be sure that the property can be used pursuant to the proposed zoning.

Chair Kocan said that Mr. Greene brought up that it hadn’t been determined what the underlying zoning for that property is, but Chair Kocan said that it is R-4 and must be R-4 for a cemetery to be on the property. Mr. Schultz said that for the cemetery use it must remain so, or the City runs the risk of creating a non-conforming situation. He said that Mr. Greene was accurate in his statements about what went on in connection with the litigation involving the road right of way acquisition. There was a request on the part of the property owner to talk about land use at the time. It was entirely appropriate for the City and the property owner to have that discussion. Ultimately it did not happen. There was a good faith escrowing of the just compensation as the two parties worked through the issues – again, entirely appropriate. City Council determined that, as part of their process in resolving their litigation, they did not want to address the zoning change at that time. The property owner went through a lot of work to propose a use that he thought was appropriate, and City Council determined that the City would just pay the just compensation – whatever the court would determine that to be. The City Council said they would not address the land use. That is how the case was resolved, and the now a separate rezoning request is being presented.

Member Cassis asked whether a notice was sent to the new owners of the cemetery. Mr. Schmitt said that they were sent a notice but they did not return any comment to the City. Member Cassis thought it was important to know the cemetery’s position on this rezoning. He thought it sounded like a tenuous situation between the two parties. Member Cassis’ impression of what this rezoning is the more that is said, the more confusing the issue becomes. He said that the Applicant claims that a 1.3 acre of property has no value; Member Cassis begged to differ. He thought that what may have transpired was the Applicant executed a transaction with hope of getting a higher use. They put themselves in an untenable position. Member Cassis’ impression was that the new cemetery owners can’t take the corner property back, or they don’t want it, or they are not in a proper position to make a transaction. The Applicant has created his own hardship instead of a landslide monetary gain. Now he comes before the Planning Commission to try to extricate himself from this position. Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission’s role in the City is not to rescue a landowner from the hardships caused by his own actions. Member Cassis reiterated the Applicant’s statements that they didn’t know what to do with the property and that they were coming to the Planning Commission for relief because they don’t know what the value of the property is. They’ve said they don’t know what they want to do with the property. Member Cassis noted that none of the previous attempts by the Applicant to bring a plan before the City ever bore any fruit.

Member Cassis believes that this Applicant will continue to cry out loud because of the problem that has been created. The deterioration of a nice looking cemetery has occurred; loved ones who have been laid to rest have been robbed of an appropriate and lovely setting. He said that alternatively, other cemeteries are trying to improve their curb appeal. While some of this information is ancillary to the rezoning, the motives of the Applicant have been exposed; now as a result of their own doing they have placed themselves in an untenable position. He did not support the Applicant’s request.

Member Wrobel noted that this request was denied by City Council in 1994 and the ZBA in 1995. The property was not sold until 1996. Therefore, at the time the landowner split the property he was already aware of the City’s position toward the rezoning of the property, but went ahead with the split anyway. Member Wrobel did not see any overwhelming need or change in the situation that should prompt the Planning Commission to act differently than the City Council and ZBA before them.

Member Wrobel’s main issue with the request is that there is no resolve at this time regarding whether the land can be lawfully used otherwise. Until that decision has been made in favor of the Applicant, Member Wrobel said that he could not consider supporting the request.

Member Sprague also viewed the problems with this property as a self-created hardship. While the Applicant has identified other cemeteries that have converted land to other uses, this is a vastly different situation. This is an issue where the property owner sold off the cemetery and kept a tiny piece of land and ultimately created his own hardship.

Member Sprague noted that the Applicant has not vacated the plot; the benefit of that non-action is that he hasn’t had to pay property taxes. Member Sprague did not agree that the land does not have any assessable value. In order to find out if there is value, the Applicant should vacate the property and clear the issue up.

From a planning perspective, Member Sprague did not think the property should be rezoned. The request is not in compliance with the Master Plan and is not compatible with the adjacent uses. It would not be compatible with the northeast quadrant. The current use of the property as a cemetery entrance will indeed bring traffic, but the roads can handle that volume. The Police Chief’s review of this rezoning request indicated that the potential for accidents is significant. This proposed lot is much smaller than the other three corners, and the access roads will make the corner even more congested.

From a legal perspective, Member Sprague said the issue of vacating the land if it is considered burial grounds is significant. He did not believe the Planning Commission should go forward with this problem unresolved.

Member Sprague said there would be quite a limitation on the lot from the landscaping requirements. Again, such a small lot will create many variances that will reveal themselves during the site planning process.

Most importantly, Member Sprague did not believe the rezoning request was compatible with the adjacent uses of the property.

Member Sprague said that the cemetery was created in 1920 and changing the corner now shakes up would be a violation of the public’s trust. In conclusion, Member Sprague said he would not support any motion for the rezoning of this property.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission must base its decision on what is best for the property. Member Pehrson visited some of the cemetery sites that the Applicant identified at the last meeting. Specifically he noted the difference between this property and Cadillac Memorial Garden on Ford Road. The sell-off at Cadillac did not impact any of the entrances or the area. He said that the back side of the new development is but ten feet from cemetery plots.

Member Pehrson thought that traffic would become an issue as a result of this rezoning. He said that request will not conform to the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Cassis:

Member Avdoulos said that this request pursues a rezoning and another use for the property. In this case, public trust and the historical use of this property as a cemetery must be taken into consideration. A landmark entrance has been negated and replaced with a "side" entry.

Member Avdoulos said that areas around cemeteries can be appropriately developed. This particular parcel has different issues. There seems to be a hardship that was created by this parcel split. Member Avdoulos said that the request is somewhat akin to rezoning an imaginary piece of property because there has not been a split and there is no taxation proof that the ownerships are different. Once the City can be satisfied that there are no attachments connecting this parcel and the cemetery, then would be appropriate time for the City to consider this request. At this time reviewing and recommending the request is not plausible.

Member Avdoulos said that the potential could arise that the corner is rezoned but never developed, and then the cemetery is stuck with an adjacent parcel that is non-conforming. Or, a future developer could argue that they are not bound by a previously signed deed restriction.

At this time Member Avdoulos did not think that this corner was conducive for another use. If in the future a complementary use came forward then it could be looked at again. Member Avdoulos asked whether every intersection in the City has to have two gas stations.

Member Avdoulos noted that one of the charges of the Implementation Committee has been to brainstorm ideas on how to beautify thoroughfares and intersections. They determined the best route would be to enhance the visual aesthetics and provide quality characteristics (churches, homes, schools, and in this case, a quality cemetery). Member Avdoulos supported the motion.

Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Schultz what the tax burden would be if the parcel was split. Mr. Schultz responded that he could not answer the question and that the Tax Assessor would be a better authority.

Chair Kocan agreed with the motion. She said that a rezoning must consider compatibility. R-4 is compatible. The Master Plan recommends that the land remain as it is currently zoned. She said that compatibility with what already exists in the area must be considered. Chair Kocan said this is where the public trust comes into play. The question here is finer than what can be placed next to a cemetery; the question is what can be put in place instead of the entrance to the cemetery.

Chair Kocan did not approve of the B-3 zoning because of the intensity of its uses. There are curb cut issues. There are right-in/right-out issues on Twelve Mile and on Novi Road. The site size is an issue. Rezoning the parcel to B-3 with a deed restriction is not the best planning method, even though the Applicant has offered to provide one. Chair Kocan said that the PRO, Planned Rezoning Overlay, provides a better avenue for site-specific development. She could not support a blanket B-3 rezoning.

Chair Kocan does not believe that it is necessary to develop this corner as commercial just because the other three corners are commercial. The roads are a dividing line. This particular area of the City is zoned a particular way. She agrees with the current zoning and the current Master Plan. She supported the motion.

Member Cassis advised Mr. Eldridge that the legality issues surrounding the rezoning prohibits the Planning Commission from considering the request. Secondly, Member Cassis said that it did not seem likely that the Planning Commission supported the request to rezone the property to B-3.

Motion to provide a negative recommendation to City Council for Rezoning Request 18.638 to rezone the land from R-4 (One Family Residential District) to B-3 (General Business District) for the following reasons: 1) The proposed district does not conform to the Master Plan, which calls for the continuation of historic and current quasi-public cemetery use. By contrast, the current district is consistent with the Master Plan; 2) The proposed district would negatively affect the City’s ability to implement and follow the Master Plan in this area and it would establish a commercial use on the north side of Twelve Mile between Novi Road and M-5 which is not in agreement with the Master Plan; 3) The proposed district would negatively affect the objectives, goals and policies of the Master Plan for the same reasons. The Master Plan for the area calls for the residential and/or office use with this parcel to remain cemetery use. 4) The proposed district would be incompatible with the existing cemetery use directly adjacent to the north and east sides; 5) The proposed district is not consistent with the existing zoning in the northeast quadrant of Novi Road and Twelve Mile; 6) The proposed district is not consistent with the current historic use of the subject property as a cemetery entrance; 7) The Applicant has indicated that he has no interest in pursuing the development under the PRO Ordinance, which has been developed to allow the review of a site plan in conjunction with a rezoning request and allows for site-specific use of the property; 8) There are currently adequate retail uses within the area, which has a significant number of properties for such uses; 9) As a result of the landscaping requirements for the commercial parcels that abut residential parcels, the usable area would be limited; 10) The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the subject property may be lawfully used for anything other than cemetery purposes, since it appears to be platted burial ground that has not been vacated; and 11) The traffic concerns for that area as listed by the Police Chief in his letter of recommendation.

The Planning Commission took a brief recess.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Fanning/Howey Associates, Incorporated, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 28 on the south side of Ten Mile, west of Taft Road, in the R-3 (Single Family Residential) District. The subject property is approximately 11.24 acres. The Applicant is proposing a 28,055 square foot addition to the building.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is located on the south side of Ten Mile and surrounded by Westmont Green, Windridge Place and Wintergreen Place. On the north side of the Ten Mile there are more subdivisions and a daycare.

Mr. Schmitt said the zoning of the property, and the properties to the south and east, is R-3. To the north the properties are zoned R-4 and to the west they are zoned R-1. The entire area is master planned for single family uses.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the property.

Mr. Schmitt continued that St. James was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 5, 1992. At that time Brandon Rogers, the Planning Consultant, told the Planning Commission that this was a good plan on a magnificent site: 10-11 acres with room for expansion. The minutes of that meeting indicate that the expansion plans for an auditorium/gymnasium, kitchen, classrooms and offices were discussed at that time.

A church in a residential district is considered a Special Land Use. The original plan did receive Special Land Use approval. When the Planning Department first saw the proposal for this expansion of 28,000 square feet (the original building is 20,000 square feet), the decision was made that the Planning Commission should revisit the Special Land Use issue given the notable expansion size.

The Planning Review indicated there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Planning Department has determined that no additional parking will be required as a result of the addition; the site will have 420 parking spaces once a row of parking along the southern drive is removed. Only 306 spaces are required. Therefore, they exceed the Ordinance standards for parking. They expanded their parking lot in 2000, at which time additional landscaping was also provided. Given the nature of this use, i.e., the gymnasium use will not run concurrent with the chapel use, additional parking would not be required. Additionally, there are no parking standards in the Ordinance for gymnasiums or classroom facilities. With churches, the Ordinance language requires determination on whether or not the additional use would be considered accessory.

The Landscape Review, Traffic Review and Engineering Review recommended approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Fire Department indicated the same, and two minor comments were noted.

The Façade Review indicated that a Section 9 Façade Waiver is required for the building because of the fact that the addition is greater than 100% of the current building. The addition itself meets the Ordinance requirements. There is a large standing-c metal roof over the main part of the existing building and any pitch greater than six on twelve counts toward the façade measurements. The Phase I metal roof puts the building over the allowable percentages – 28.4% proposed, 25% allowed, but the original building was constructed prior to the City’s Façade Ordinance

The building addition will not be any closer than the existing building to Wintergreen Subdivision. The only new landscaping will be the building perimeter landscaping – foundation plantings. There is existing landscaping and a berm around the property.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record.

Thomas and Christine Pyden, 45992 Ashford Circle, Novi: Approved of the project as it will be beneficial to the St. James community.

Kathleen Neville, 24081 Westmont, Novi: Approved because it is attractive and St. James Church is a good neighbor.

Steven and Isumi Myers, 46320 W. Ten Mile, Novi: Approved of the project.

Liping Sun, 24126 Wintergreen Circle, Novi: Objected for traffic, noise and trespassing reasons.

Mamjeh Shafiemir, 24169 Westmont Court, Novi: Objected for traffic reasons.

Larry Schiller, 23568 Wintergreen Circle, Novi: Objected for traffic reasons and he does not want a hall.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment:

David Berdish, 45848 Ashford Circle, Novi: Objected because the church is an eyesore and nuisance. The church has not provided the promised greenbelt. They have not provided the site plan-approved 415 trees on their site plan; only 250 were probably planted and most have died. The church has a loud air conditioning unit and the parking lot is used for hockey games, fire works, motor vehicle test track and training ground for new drivers.

Rakesh Sarman, 24144 Wintergreen Circle, Novi: Objected because the church is not a good neighbor. They never respond to correspondence or phone calls. The landscaping is nothing but shrubs and does not shield the beaming lights of the church. The congregants walk through his yard to get to church against his wishes. The church is very noisy, especially at night. There is no control and no supervision. The recreation activities will make it worse. No one ever responds to the request for a green barrier between the church and the homes. The City has told him that the landscaping is according to the plan; he said again that the lights from the church go straight into his home.

Larry Czekaj, 24383 Nantucket, Novi: Approved of the plan because it is attractive and conforms to the Ordinances. He was part of the St. James Committee that put this plan together. He said that the Building Department will ensure that the landscaping is provided according to plan. He said the parking lot is used by people that are not just St. James members. He said the subdivisions were sold off by the Archdiocese. He said that people who move in next to an existing church should expect issues relating to "people traffic."

Ken Krause, 46211 Galway, represented the Applicant. He is the Chairman of the St. James Building Committee. He reiterated that the church was in place before the subdivisions were built. He said that he was involved with the parking lot expansion. He said that at that time the Church’s pastor was Rev. James Crock and now it is Rev. Charnley, so he cannot comment on who was not returning Mr. Sarman’s phone calls.

Mr. Krause said that when the parking lot was expanded, the neighbors were concerned but there wasn’t a Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level. Members of adjoining households did come to a Parish Council Meeting and they voiced their concerns. But they saw the plans for berms and ample landscaping. Mr. Krause conceded that the trees arrived early and the construction was delayed due to winter conditions. He did not know how many trees were dead, and he said some were less than fully healthy. The church has hired a gardener to assess the health of the plants. The expansion area is not near Mr. Sarman’s home. The majority of the landscaping was placed on the berms and in the expansion area.

Mr. Krause said that the neighbors were invited to come to the Parish for a meeting; four homeowners attended. There was concern voiced at that time about the screening. No comment was brought forward that St. James Church was a bad neighbor. He said that the children using the parking lot are mostly children from the surrounding neighborhood. He said the people cutting through Mr. Sarman’s yard may be St. James’ parishioners, but they are also Mr. Sarman’s neighbors.

Mr. Berdish asked to comment once more for the record. He said that the trees were delivered in September and not planted until the following September. He said that one can visualize where the missing trees belong because of the mulch that is left.

Father George Charnley said that in fourteen months he had received three phone calls from neighbors. He has responded to all three calls.

Mr. Sarman asked to comment again. He said that most of the plans that he has seen included tall trees because fencing was too expensive. All he is asking for is a barrier to prohibit people from walking through his property and landscaping that stops the beam light from entering his home.

John Davids of Fanning/Howey represented the Applicant. He was the Project Designer. He said that during their design process they worked hard to ensure that the addition stayed within the bounds of the master planned area. They placed the entrances to the building isolated to the east and west areas where there are already entrances. There will be no entrances to the south. They have tried to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. The plantings include a variety of species and should be pleasing. The addition will function seamlessly with the existing building. The architectural character of the addition very closely matches the existing building.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos asked Mr. Schmitt to identify where the Sarman and Berdish homes were in relation to the church. He located them on the overhead for the Planning Commission to see.

Member Avdoulos said that the history of how the landscape has been provided has left some neighbors unsettled. He asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman to comment. Mr. Shipman said the three church projects are viewed separately. Only plantings pertaining to the addition were reviewed for the purpose of this Public Hearing. The perimeter plantings, which are part of the parking lot expansion, can be reviewed based on changes to Ordinance that allows the City to require a maintenance program for a site’s landscaping. Mr. Shipman noted that there are at least 28 sites on the City’s list that will be reviewed for landscaping accuracy, and St. James is one of the sites on the list. Mr. Shipman said that first the landowner will be approached on the subject and if he fails to correct the deficiency, violations will be issued by the Code Enforcement Officers.

Mr. Shipman continued that the expansion site plan will address the south and southwest areas of the site, and the original plan can be pulled for review of the entire site’s landscaping. He assured the Planning Commission that there are avenues to correct the landscaping deficiencies and that the City will follow up on this matter.

Member Avdoulos asked for clarification regarding the various site plan landscaping plans. Mr. Shipman identified blue print GD1.1 as the print showing existing conditions. Based on this information, Mr. Shipman stated that there is an obvious deficiency of landscaping based on the parking lot expansion. He said that the actual condition would also have to be verified in the field. He said that the berm is approximately six feet on average; the requirement is four to six feet.

Member Avdoulos said that the Planning Commission’s charge to ensure that the original plan provides enough screening, especially in the case of a Special Land Use (the church) adjacent to residential. It was his understanding that the Applicant is charged with providing the landscaping according to plan and the City verifies this information through field inspections. Member Avdoulos said that he hopes St. James will respond to their neighbors’ concerns whenever they are brought forward.

Member Avdoulos said that in areas where heavy landscaping has been provided, it acts as a deterrent to people wanting to cut through yards. He said that the City requires a Noise Analysis that is a requirement for a Special Land Use, though he didn’t see it in this review. He did not know whose responsibility it is to police the unwanted use of parking lots, but he acknowledged that unwelcome lot use does occur.

Member Avdoulos said that St. James is an exceptional architectural piece designed by an award-winning architectural firm (the church itself is not award-winning). It is a compliment to Novi. The proposed addition is compatible and complementary. The architecture does not overpower the building or the site. The site has always been master planned for the expansion. The site can accommodate both buildings. He supported the Section 9 Façade Waiver. As a total project, the Ordinance requirements have been met, with some minor issues that need to be resolved.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Mr. Schmitt confirmed that Member Avdoulos was referring to the findings in the Special Land Use section.

Member Sprague asked whether, "The Applicant bringing the current landscaping for the site in total into compliance rather than leaving it to the regular enforcement process." Mr. Schultz confirmed that this was appropriate under the Special Land Use motion. Member Avdoulos and Member Pehrson accepted the change.

Chair Kocan said that Ordinances are only as good as their enforcement. She appreciated Member Sprague’s stipulation being added to the motion. She said the landscaping should be brought into conformance.

Chair Kocan said that the Noise Analysis for this review stated that this building should be in compliance. Although the actual air conditioning equipment was not cited in the report, the noise engineer said that this plan should easily meet the requirement. If in fact there is an issue, Mr. Berdish should contact the City to investigate the matter. Chair Kocan is very sympathetic to residents who abut non-residential property. She hopes that the City will stand behind the Ordinance as it is written.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Cassis commented that the building is beautiful. He suggested that the church pass the plate around to raise money for more trees.

Member Wrobel said that he has visited the site a number of times and has noted the sparsity of the landscaping. He asked what the exterior lights would be like on the new addition. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant is proposing wall packs at the height of 12-15 feet to match the existing lighting around the building. There are no additional poles. Mr. Davids also responded, stating that the lighting would be minimal so that the focus remained on the sanctuary.

Chair Kocan confirmed that the lighting would face downward. She asked if the lights by the ten additional doors would be at door-height or at 12-15 feet. Mr. Davids said those sconces would be placed at 8-9 feet.

Chair Kocan asked if the parking lot lights are shielded. Mr. Schmitt said that he believed they are full cut-off fixtures but he would have to go on site to confirm that information. He said the question is since this site plan is not affecting the parking lot, is it appropriate to require a change to the parking lot at this time? Mr. Davids said that they are "shoebox" fixtures.

Chair Kocan said that perhaps the neighbors or the church should consider installing a fence to keep people from cutting through the homeowners’ back yards. Mr. Schmitt said that it is possible that the master deed of the site prohibits that, and that it’s possible the church has the same covenant. Chair Kocan then told the residents that they may wish to take that issue up with their homeowners’ association.

Chair Kocan said that because this plan meets the Ordinance, there is no justifiable reason to deny this plan.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Cassis:

Mr. Davids asked to what standard he was bringing his perimeter landscaping into compliance. Member Sprague said that the motion was for the landscaping to be brought into compliance with the plan as it was originally approved. He asked that the church give consideration to the legitimate concerns of their neighbors.

Consideration of the request of the Huntington Bank Corporation for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 17 on the east side of Wixom Road, south of Grand River Avenue, in the Novi Promenade Shopping Center, in the B-3 (General Business) District. The subject property is approximately 1.35 acres. The Applicant is proposing a 4,153 square foot freestanding banking center.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The Target building is to the south. To the northeast is the proposed Sam’s Club (which will first have to go before the ZBA for some variances). Wixom Road borders the west, and across that road is Catholic Central. Further north is Grand River Avenue.

The subject property, as are the properties to the north, south and east, are zoned I-1, light industrial, and developed under a consent judgment. The main portion of this site is to be developed under the B-2 Zoning Ordinance, and the outlots are to be reviewed under the B-3 Zoning Ordinance. This is the third outlot at the Novi Promenade. Across Wixom Road, Catholic Central is zoned R-1. The area is master planned for community commercial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. To the west the area is master planned for single family uses.

The wetlands and woodland maps identify the locations of the wetlands and woodlands. These issues were taken care of with the overall development of the Promenade Center; therefore no permits are needed for this project. The wetlands review indicated that a letter of authorization will be issued because there will be temporary impacts to the wetland.

The Planning Review noted that the ZBA will have to act upon the Applicant’s request for no loading zone. This is a consistent request from banks, as most of their deliveries use the front door. Mr. Schmitt told the Planning Commission that the Implementation Committee has discussed this issue and will be recommending that this requirement be removed for banks. Previously the ZBA has approved this variance for other banks.

The Landscape Review noted that a ZBA variance will be necessary for the lack of interior building landscaping in the drive-through area. Again, Mr. Schmitt noted this is a common request from banks. He noted that the Planning Commission can waive other landscaping issues but not this one; this was probably an oversight when the new Ordinance was written and will be brought forward as a clean-up item in the future. The Planning Commission is also being asked to waive the street tree requirement on this property to maintain continuity throughout the Promenade development (Target, Sam’s Club and the gas station will not have street trees).

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Façade Review indicated that a Section 9 Waiver is required for the reason that the percentage of EIFS along the west elevation is too high, based on the fact there is a substantial amount of vision glass. Once this is removed from the calculation, the EIFS percentage becomes exaggerated.

The Fire Department had no comments.

Brad Schneider of Professional Design Groups, Marietta, Georgia, represented the Applicant. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission had.

Member Pehrson asked Landscape Architect Mr. Shipman about the street tree waiver. Mr. Shipman said this was a similar scenario to the gas station site at Sam’s Club. The majority of the Promenade frontage along Wixom Road belongs to Target and they developed prior to the street tree Ordinance. Additionally, there isn’t adequate room between Wixom Road and the sidewalk to accommodate street trees. Therefore, the waiver of street trees for this project is recommended. Mr. Shipman has also recommended that the frontage landscaping of this project imitate what is planted at Target – the rocks and berm plantings.

Member Pehrson asked about the parking lot landscaping. Mr. Shipman responded that the deficient westerly four trees and the easterly two trees can be added to the Final Site Plan; it is a requirement to have a tree for every 35 lineal feet.

Member Pehrson did not have a problem with the Section 9 Waiver and he noted that it is also a common request from banks. He suggested that the Ordinance is not up to date with current design standards.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Cassis commented that the building was beautiful. He asked why the architect chose dark red brick. Mr. Schneider said that this was a corporate color that is used throughout Ohio and Indiana.

Member Avdoulos thought the project would be complementary to the Target and Sam’s Club, and even the red brick being used on Catholic Central. He had no problem with the variance or waiver issues on this project. He supported the motion.

Chair Kocan said that the loading zone language will be coming forward from the Implementation Committee. Her concern is that the Brinks truck will potentially block parking spaces, and in this case it is a handicapped space. While she acknowledges that the truck will not be there for any length of time, she would still like (bank) projects designed with some sort of loading area that does not block parking spaces.

Chair Kocan asked whether the modified stacking configuration must be acknowledged in the motion. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Planning Commission has previously made the finding that this type of stacking configuration meets the intent of the Ordinance so no additional finding is necessary. City Attorney Tom Schultz concurred.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Pehrson thanked Acting Planning Director Barbara Ms. McBeth and Civil Engineer Ben Croy for the memorandum on Michigan Barrier-Free Standards.

Planner Tim Schmitt acknowledged Toll Brothers and thanked them for the use of the Island Lake grounds for the upcoming Sprint Triathlon.

Chair Kocan noted that the comments from Oakland County regarding the new Master Plan were very complimentary. City Council will be reviewing the Master Plan and the Public Hearing will be heard by the Planning Commission thereafter. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee will discuss the Master Plan at their September 2, 2004 meeting.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:33 p.m.

MON 08/23/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 08/25/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/06/04 LABOR DAY, CITY OFFICES CLOSED

TUE 09/07/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/08/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/13/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 09/22/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, August 31, 2004 Signature on File

First Submittal for Approval: September 8 2004 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date

Approved: September 22, 2004