Present: Member Baratta, Member Cassis, Member Greco, Member Gutman, Member Larson, Member Lynch, Member Meyer, Chairperson Pehrson, Member Prince

1. ADOPTION OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDURE

   Planner Kapelanski stated that the City Council recently approved an ordinance that replaced Chapter 27 of the City Code, which is the Chapter that establishes the Planning Commission. This is a result of the passage of the Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, which replaces the previously approved Municipal Planning Act. The new law requires that all provisions be in place by July 1, 2011. There are several clean-up changes that are proposed as part of changes to the rules, mainly to bring the rules into compliance with the new Act. In addition, the requirement that no public hearing can be held within five business days of a city holiday is recommended to be eliminated by the staff. There are changes also in the rules that change the number of Planning Commissioner’s from nine to seven. The City Council did have the option of reducing the membership of the Planning Commission to seven members and elected to do that as part of the changes to the city code.

   Planner Kapelanski stated that the Committees have also been slightly altered and a couple of them have been eliminated. The Communications and Community Liaison Committee and the Planning Commission Capital Improvements Committee have been eliminated.

   With the change in the number of members to the Planning Commission, staff wanted to make sure that Planning Commission members weren’t obligated to serve on too many committees. Eliminating a couple of those committees that do not regularly meet might be something the Planning Commission would be interested in.

   Planner Kapelanski stated there was a brief Rules Committee meeting just prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The Rules Committee did recommend approval of these changes and also recommended combining the Planning Studies and Budget Committee and the City Capital Improvements Program Committee. This has not been done in the text. If the Planning Commission agrees with that recommendation, staff can change that as well.

   Chair Pehrson turned the matter over to the Planning Commission for their consideration.

   Member Meyer stated that he wanted to say that under point 2.1.k, he would recommend that the last part of that sentence (so a member of the Planning Commission may serve in the same office of the Planning Commission for any number of terms) and eliminate the phrase, "but not more than two consecutive full terms".

   Member Meyer stated that if someone is doing a good job, the Planning Commission should just simply have that as their procedure rather than making an exception to the procedure when good leadership is found.

   Member Meyer also wanted to share that from his six years on the Planning Commission, that if the rules indicate someone should be on the Commission for one year prior to being on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission should hold to that or eliminate that qualifier of one year.

   Member Meyer also wanted to thank the staff for the work put into this document. He believes that the elimination of a few of those committees, with the reduction in the number of members, is going to be very practical and achievable. Member Meyer said that he always believes if you set goals, they should be achievable goals.

   Member Lynch wanted to confirm that the Capital Improvements Committee is being combined with the Planning Studies and Budget Committee.

   Planner Kapelanski stated that right now the new version of the rules that was presented eliminates the Planning Commission Capital Improvements Program Committee because we already have the City Capital Improvements Program Committee and those are very similar. The staff is recommending that the Planning Commission Capital Improvements Program Committee be stricken. The Rules Committee also recommended combining the Planning Studies and Budget Committee with the City Capital Improvements Program Committee because they perform similar functions. The Planning Commission would still have the opportunity to discuss the Capital Improvements Program as part of the City Capital Improvements Program Committee.

   Deputy Director McBeth stated that the Capital Improvements Committee is still listed as a committee, but is proposed not to be duplicated twice in the rules. It is provided under city committees, showing two members and one alternate and will serve the same function as it had prior.

   Member Lynch thanked the staff for putting this together.

   Member Lynch stated that he had missed a few meetings and he was wondering the reason for going from nine to seven members.

   Deputy Director McBeth stated that her understanding is that the State Law changed and it allowed a reduction in the number of members. There was logic in having seven members since there are seven members on the City Council and seven members on the Zoning Board of Appeals. The timing was also considered, as people were aware that three members are stepping down, so the reduction in the total number would not require removal of any sitting members.

   Member Meyer commented that on the committee that is being eliminated called Communications and Community Liaison, he certainly does not want it communicated to the public that City officials think this is a wonderful idea that there is not a Communications and Community Liaison Committee. Member Meyer said that the City is communicating with residents in many ways without necessarily needing a formal committee to do that. The public is now able to access so much of the meeting material on the City’s website. There is a much greater effort in communicating and having that community connection.

   Chair Pehrson asked about the question on the delegate from the Planning Commission to the Zoning Board of Appeals and wondered if this is still a desire of the City or a function of law somewhere that says that delegate is required. In speaking with Mr. Wrobel in the past and Member Cassis when he served as delegate, it seems that delegate is often not a voting member of the ZBA. Chair Pehrson wondered what the value is of asking one of the Planning Commissioners to be part of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but not serve as a voting member.

   Deputy Director McBeth stated that the Planning Commission member that served on the Zoning Board of Appeals typically has been asked not to vote on matters that have come before the Planning Commission, but provide the expertise otherwise. It is a matter that is left to each community to determine if the community wants to have a person act as a liaison or delegate between the Boards. It is up to the City Council to say whether this would continue. If the Planning Commission has a feeling about this one way or the other, it could be expressed.

   Chair Pehrson stated that personally, and not speaking for any of the other members, he did not think it really fulfills the role of the liaison if a delegate is there but his or her hands are tied and he or she cannot provide any input. Chair Pehrson said it doesn’t seem that there is any value there. He does not know if it is worthwhile going forward.

   Chair Pehrson also stated that the only other comment or question he had was with regard to notifying the public of meeting agenda items via the Novi News. Are there other means or methods the City can employ for notifications, such as the City website and does the State law require a notification in the newspaper?

   City Attorney Kolb answered in saying that the statute does provide a notice has to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Then for petitions affecting specific properties, the City has to notify residents within 300 feet in all sections.

   Chair Pehrson confirmed with City Attorney Kolb that the notices had to be published in the Novi News.

   Moved by Member Gutman and seconded by Member Meyer:

   ROLL CALL VOTE ON BY-LAWS AND RULES OF PROCEDUE APPROVAL MOTION MADE BY MEMBER GUTMAN AND SECONDED BY MEMBER MEYER:

   Motion to approve the Planning Commission By-laws and Rules of Procedure, as modified by Member Meyer. Motion carried 9-0.

2. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 15, 2011 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES