The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Lorenzo at 7:35 P.M.

ROLL CALL: MEMBERS Bonaventura (Present), Capello (Absent-Excused), Clark (Absent-Excused), Hoadley (Present), Hodges (Present), Lorenzo (Present), Mutch (Present), Taub (Present), Weddington (Present)

(7) Present (2) Absent/Excused-Capello & Clark

A quorum being present, the meeting was in session.

ALSO PRESENT: Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

David Bluhm - Engineering Consultant

Rod Arroyo - Traffic Consultant

Dennis Watson - Assistant City Attorney

Linda Lemke - Landscape Architect

Sue Tepatti - Wetlands Consultant

James Wahl - Director of Planning

Greg Capote - Staff Planner

Steve Cohen - Planning Clerk

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Planning Commission pledged Allegiance to the Flag.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Member Bonaventura said under Matters for Discussion, he would like to add Item #3, Updating of Woodlands Map. He explained this would be as far as how it relates to their Budget or possibly someone else's Budget.

It was,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hoadley

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Taub said there was a letter concerning Profile Steel and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said he could read that letter at the time they discuss Profile Steel.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None and Vice-Chair Lorenzo closed the Audience Participation.

There were no items under the Consent Agenda.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Mr. Clif Seiber with Seiber-Keast Associates was present. He indicated he was representing Fretter. He said the Commission has seen this plan before and it was before them about two years ago and it was proposed as a computer store. He indicated there was the existing Fretter store located in West Oaks on Karevich Drive, located on the easterly portion of the site. He explained what was being proposed was that Fretter would relocate their store to the new facility which includes 19,950 sq. ft. of building area.

Mr. Seiber said there was an existing driveway approach to Karevich Drive and they were providing a central driveway access, which would tend to tie the two building facilities together for the central parking area. He said also a driveway access was located to the westerly side of the site to an existing driveway aisle.

Mr. Seiber indicated the total parking was 255 which he believed meets the Ordinance requirements. He indicated there were a couple of points that he thought Mr. Rogers would discuss in his review for the need of a rear yard setback and they had a deficiency of 10 feet and that variance was received or issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals on February 7, 1995.

Mr. Seiber said they were also requesting a Planning Commission waiver on the width of the greenbelt area along the southerly part of the building. He said in order to compensate for that loss of greenbelt, they have provided additional green area to the southerly part of the parking lot rather than right directly behind that building.

Mr. Seiber then said he would be glad to answer any questions and Mr. Mike Boggio, the architect, was also present who would answer any questions concerning the building facade.

Mr. Rogers indicated this has a long history back in 1982 when Fretter first came in and was given permission to build less than a 50,000 sq. ft. store if they promised within two years after Karevich Drive was opened and usable, to build another building or an addition to the then-Fretter.

Mr. Rogers said he didn't know whether Mr. Cohen put in the packet that Consent Judgement, but it was quite familiar to the City Council.

Mr. Rogers indicated this was a PD-3 Option and it was an amendment to a PD-3 project that includes the existing Fretters store, so they just couldn't take the new building at the back. He said although the property has been split and was in two sidwells, both properties stand on their own regarding the parking and setbacks, and they have to look at it as one PD-3 project.

Mr. Rogers said what makes it even more important was now that Fretter may move to the rear building that was being built, another retail tenant would occupy where Fretter was today, so that alone, since the use had to be called out as he recalled in the PD-3 Ordinance, would have triggered reexamination of the entire site.

Mr. Rogers said there was special documentation that they have to follow in a PD-3 such as written statements, and they have a book here that answered to his satisfaction all the questions in the Ordinance. He said this was not just a simple site plan. He said further, this Preliminary site plan has to be approved by City Council and when the Final comes in, it must come to the Planning Commission and must go back to the City Council. He stated it was a rather laborious process that they were looking at right now in the Zoning Ordinance Update to try to simplify.

Mr. Rogers said so assuming that the PD-3 option applies, which has certain setback standards different than the RC zoning underlying this property, he looked at it against those setback standards. He said regarding the new building being built, it too doesn't have 50,000 sq. ft., and it was quite like Scott Shuptrine, which came in with about 30,000-35,000 sq. ft., so they had to go to City Council for an exception and that would be a condition that the Commission would have to place on this. He added it was an exception and not a variance or a waiver and that was spelled out specifically in the Ordinance to build a 19,950 sq. ft. one-story building on the site instead of 50,000 sq. ft. He added that they could never build a 50,000 sq. ft. on that site and still provide the parking.

Mr. Rogers said they meet all the setback requirements for the new building, and regarding the 25 foot rear yard setback, that variance has been granted by the ZBA.

Mr. Rogers said relative to the parking, looking at the two buildings being on one site, he called it out as a planned commercial center, but Mr. Boggio, the architect, worked on it as two individual retail buildings and under either scenario, they meet the parking. He said they also discussed the planned retail center because it was more stringent.

Mr. Rogers said they need 255 parking spaces including the handicapped and those spaces were provided and he didn't have the exact number but they were on the site plan.

Mr. Rogers said regarding the parking lot setbacks, the east side yard setback of this new building doesn't have a greenspace setback because it was co-mingling its parking and its access aisles in with the old Fretter building site plan so he saw that as an irrelevant standard.

Mr. Rogers said the Commission has to recommend a waiver to the Council which was the south side yard as it was deficient by a few feet and there should be 10 feet and in some places it was less than 10 feet. He felt they make up that minor deficiency elsewhere on the site with interior landscaping.

Mr. Rogers said on Page 3 of his letter, he referred to the Fretter Agreement of June 20, 1985, which states that the architectural design and the plan of the building must be compatible with the rendering submitted to City Council contained in Plan No. 8317 dated August 20, 1984 by Havis Glovinski Associates. He said he found that the proposed facade plan was compatible with the proposed renovated former Fretter store. He said he did not have that drawing that evening, but the main intent was that the two buildings blend together and not be radically different.

Mr. Rogers said they were not reviewing the facade plan in detail that evening, but he found it was a great improvement on the existing Fretter building and it blends in with the proposed Fretter building. He said there were windows and brick and some ornamentation, which Mr. Boggio could review.

Mr. Rogers then asked Ms. Lemke if there was anything she would like to comment on regarding the landscape plan. Ms. Lemke said she had some concerns but she felt they could be resolved. She indicated there were some corner clearance issues which were basically minor things and she has given them a copy of her report at the Preliminary stage, so there was still time to resolve those issues before Final.

Mr. Rogers indicated they have submitted a landscape plan for both parcels and that was required in a PD-3 and there was also a chance they would be dressing up the old Fretter site because the landscaping was rather thin there.

Mr. Rogers said he recommended PD-3 Option Approval and Preliminary site plan approval and it must go to City Council and his four conditions were: (1) Granting of an exception by City Council of the size of building being less than 50,000 sq. ft. (2) Approval by City Council of the PD-3 Option. (3) Waiver by Planning Commission of the deficient south side greenspace in consideration of alternate interior greenspace being available. (Note: the deficient rear (south) yard building setback was waived by the ZBA on February 7, 1995). (4) Consideration of landscape plan review concerns at the time of Final site plan submittal.

Mr. Bluhm indicated he has also reviewed the Preliminary site plan and it was very straight-forward from an engineering point of view. He said water and sewer would be extended into the property from mains adjacent to it and there was quite an extensive amount of pavement through the parking and building and they were proposing to close storm sewers to pick up the surface drainage and that would be directed to the existing storm sewers that were along the south and the west part of the property and then directed to the regional detention basin for the West Oaks development, so therefore no detention was required.

Mr. Bluhm said the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and he was recommending approval.

Mr. Arroyo said he has also reviewed the plan and it was also fairly straight-forward from a traffic prospective. He said the access to this proposed site was virtually identical to the access and layout plan for a previous site plan that was submitted when it was proposed to be a computer store. He said at that time he reviewed it and he has once again reviewed it and the applicant has briefly highlighted the access plan and he found it to be acceptable.

Mr. Arroyo said the Impact Assessment Report that was included in the packet includes a forecast of trip generation and it was forecast to generate 812 average trips per day and on Saturday, the forecast would be just slightly higher than that of 838 trips per day.

Mr. Arroyo said because of the development location on an internal roadway system, a private roadway system, and the existing volumes projected for this development and the surrounding road network, no additional improvements were anticipated and he was recommending approval.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo noted that there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the Novi Fire Department, who indicated the plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the following condition: (1) To add a fire hydrant at the west entrance to conform to the 300' maximum spacing for a commercial development.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no Audience Participation and Vice-Chair Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Weddington asked about the 10 foot rear yard setback and was there any particular reason why the building couldn't be moved 10 feet forward since there was an excess of front yard setback and she knows it was a very minor issue, but she was just curious as to why because there was so much more excess space in the front.

Mr. Seiber explained it was primarily due to the driveway and parking configuration and in order to provide the required greenbelt in the front and provide for two rows of parking along the front, they needed that depth to make it work. He explained it was very difficult to make the parking work on this site, primarily because when Fretter was originally built, it was built under a different parking standard and since that was built, the parking standard increased the required parking and really in order for them to fit that on the site, they had to provide additional parking for the existing building. He said so that made the parking layout very tight and they really didn't have the extra room to make that work.

It was then,

Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Taub

To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Fretter, SP95-16 subject to the Consultants' recommendations.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if that included a recommendation for the exception and the waiver for the south side greenspace and Member Hoadley said yes.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo then restated the motion:

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Bonaventura said he wouldn't be supporting this because he didn't believe the waiver was appropriate for the 10 feet. He asked if that waiver was given by the Planning Commission and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she believed it was a recommendation to the Council, who grants the waiver.

(voice vote) (6) Yeas (1) Nay-Bonaventura

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Chester Stempian, representing A & M Label, was present. He indicated basically it was a 12,000 sq. ft. addition to an existing 12,800 sq. ft. facility. He said that was presented to the Commission a year ago as a smaller building, but the economy improved and A & M Label decided to go for a building that was twice the size that was recommended a year ago, so they had to make a new presentation and it seems from the letters they have received, they were not encountering many difficulties. He then said he would be happy to answer any questions.

CONSULTANTS' REVIEWS

Mr. Rogers indicated they had an approved Preliminary site plan a year ago which may or may not had been extended. He said this plan pretty well changes a lot of things in that older plan. He said in his report of March 1, 1995 and his subsequent report handed out that night of March 15, 1995, he was recommending approval of both the Special Land Use and the Preliminary site plan.

Mr. Rogers indicated there were regulated wetlands and woodlands all around the westerly and the southerly side of the site and the one point they would discuss more later on was that the off-street loading and unloading docks do face some residential zoning of R-A about a half mile away for lots that front on Eleven Mile Road.

Mr. Rogers said regarding the traffic impact, Mr. Arroyo would talk about the need for aisle width and laneage. He said there were utilities and there was a fire station and police station within two miles and the regulated woodlands and wetlands were not being disturbed by this development of the parking lot or to his knowledge, the retention basin they see in blue on the site plan.

Mr. Rogers said he recommended approval subject to discussion later of the truck dock location and the traffic implications by Mr. Arroyo.

Mr. Rogers then continued on with the site plan and he indicated since this was adjacent to residential on two sides of the site and they were capped out at a 20 foot high building height and they do not exceed that.

Mr. Rogers said they show the proposed 120 foot right-of-way of Grand River and they show a sidewalk along Grand River. He said he has mentioned it in the past and Mr. Arroyo has mentioned it in his report about the marginal access road requirement along the front, but now they were not adding on to the front of the building or putting a parking lot in the front of the building, so the space was there for a 30 foot easement and he agreed that should be shown on the Final site plan.

Mr. Rogers said regarding parking, they have ample parking and 30 spaces were required and 43 were provided. He said regarding the off-street loading and unloading, there were recessed truckwells and he saw no problem but he would come back and discuss that issue in a moment.

Mr. Rogers indicated the landscape plan and the facade plan would be reviewed at the time of Final. He said they were allowed under Section 2520.6 to continue the material construction of the existing building and that was why some of the walls were plain block painted but the design and roof line and the materials would be of a unified design.

Mr. Rogers said in his last communication of March 15th, he didn't make it clear that the truck dock loading requires a variance and the inference was that the Planning Commission might give a waiver. He said that issue has to go to the ZBA and a showing has to be made on the basis of some of the findings that he mentions in his letter, such as there was no other place to put it; that the nearest homes in all likelihood in the future would be thousands of feet away; that it was shielded by existing woodlands and could be better screened if need be by the landscaping treatment that would be required along the south and part of the west property line at the time of site plan review, where the existing vegetation according to Ms. Lemke was not sufficient.

Mr. Rogers said the lot was only 197.5 feet wide and they couldn't put big truck loading docks on the side of this building unless they were small trucks or semi's that had side-loading doors. He said he could see a good reason to favorably recommend to the ZBA that this technicality in the screening requirement was unique to the site and it was not like some other recent industrial developments where truck loading dock doors had to be moved and were moved to a side not facing residential. He said he could distinguish it and felt each case has to be decided upon its own merits and he would recommend that.

Mr. Bluhm indicated he has reviewed the Preliminary site plan and he indicated the utilities would be extended through the existing building to the new addition and the applicant has proposed a retention basin at the back of the site. He explained a retention basin differs from a detention basin in that it was intended to be used where there was no ultimate outlet for the water after it was detained or held back.

Mr. Bluhm said typically with a retention basis, as they could see on this plan, a larger area was necessary because they have to hold two back-to-back 100 year storms in the basin to adequately

eliminate the need for the outlet for the basin itself, and percolation and evaporation would take care of the water that would be in there.

Mr. Bluhm said that was an acceptable means of retention for the property. He said he assumed that the applicant was to propose storm sewers to direct the water to the basin and that would be required although it wasn't shown and it doesn't significantly impact it at this time.

Mr. Bluhm indicated one comment he would make with the retention basin was that it appears at the location it was presently at, that it might interfere with some of the environmental features. He said it does appear that there was the ability to move the basin further to the east, closer to the building or further to the north and closer to the building without any problems and that could be addressed better at the Final site plan.

Mr. Bluhm said two other minor comments were that the radius in the approach to Grand River extends across the adjacent property owner, and the applicant would have to secure approval from that property owner to allow that to occur, and there was a minor piece of sidewalk that they would have to show on the Final but beyond that, the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility.

Mr. Arroyo stated he reviewed the Preliminary site plan and one point of access was proposed to Grand River and Grand River was designated as an arterial in the Thoroughfare Plan, and they have correctly shown the 120 foot of future right-of-way, however, the future marginal access frontage easement of 30 feet was not shown on the site plan and needs to be added as a condition of any approval that might occur that evening.

Mr. Arroyo stated he has also provided the Commission with some information on trip generation and the total project at completion could be expected to generate approximately 84 average trips per day if they look at trip generation based on a per square foot basis, however, if they look at it on a per employee basis, it could be lower at 71 trips per day.

Mr. Arroyo said the site plan does show an acceleration and deceleration taper combination that was required and it appears to be adequate.

Mr. Arroyo said regarding internal site issues, he did have a couple of issues that needed to be resolved. He said one was the width of the drive along the east side of the existing building. He said he was asking that it be dimensioned on the plan because it does not scale 22 feet and it scales approximately 20 feet and it may be that one of two things would happen.

Mr. Arroyo said it would need to be widened. He said they would have to make some modifications to their driveway anyway based on the Road Commission's comments and based on meeting City standards, and it may be that they need to do a minor widening of their internal drive to meet the 22 foot requirement.

Mr. Arroyo said if they did that, that would encroach into the 10 foot side yard setback that was required and that would be a Planning Commission waiver action if they felt that was appropriate to go from 10 feet to 8 feet.

Mr. Arroyo said the other possibility was if it was 20 feet, they would have to pursue some other type of action possibly with the ZBA or some discussion as to whether or not that might be considered having any grandfathering or vesting since it was an existing driveway and if it was substandard. He said those were some issues that need to be resolved.

Mr. Arroyo also indicated in looking at the layout of the rear parking area, the applicant has shown a WB-50 tractor/trailer combination as it approaches and makes a turn and as they all could see, there were a number of parking spaces that would likely have to be removed if there was to be adequate room for that type of design vehicle to make that turn. However, he noted there were several access parking spaces on the plan, so he believed if those spaces were actually deleted, that it would not cause a parking shortfall and Mr. Rogers could comment on that issue as well.

Mr. Arroyo then said he recommended Preliminary approval subject to the resolution of those items that he has discussed in his letter.

Ms. Tepatti indicated she has reviewed the plan for the wetland impacts. She said at the time the original plan was prepared, the applicant had not had wetland boundaries flagged in the field, but since that time, he has hired a Consultant to take a look at the wetlands and those boundaries have been flagged and she has verified them and they were shown on the plan.

Ms. Tepatti indicated the vacant property to the south of the existing building consists of a couple of wetlands and one was a very small pocket, an isolated pocket, which was about a tenth of an acre or so in size. She said the other wetland was part of a large forested system that was located at the southern end of the property and that extends off of the site.

Ms. Tepatti said the applicant was proposing to have a portion of the parking lot within the tenth of an acre wetland, and her office has no objection to this as that wetland was quite small and was of a lower quality with some low quality shrubs and trees and it had been disturbed quite a while ago in the past. She indicated there was some debris and fill at the northern end of that wetland.

Ms. Tepatti said as Mr. Bluhm had stated there was a retention basin currently shown at the rear of the property and in discussions with the applicant and with Mr. Bluhm, the applicant has agreed to move that basin and there appears to be adequate room to locate it virtually entirely in the upland, so she expected the wetland impacts to be very small, if any, to the wetland to the south and there would be some impacts still to the tenth of an acre pocket of wetland in the area of the parking lot.

Ms. Tepatti said she also did not expect any hydrologic impacts to the forested wetland to the south as there would be no discharges to that wetland as Mr. Bluhm has stated.

Ms. Tepatti indicated she has recommended approval for the wetland permit provided that she reviews future drawings to ensure that the basin was relocated and that some possible enhancement may occur if it was needed along the wetland or buffer edge.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo noted that there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the Novi Fire Department, who stated the plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the following condition: (1) Show fire hydrants on all future plans. Maximum spacing for commercial developments is 300 feet.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

There was no Audience Participation and Vice-Chair Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing.

Member Hodges asked Mr. Arroyo since their plans didn't show it, for the widening of Grand River, would the sidewalk that was proposed be in the position it should be once the widening was completed.

Mr. Arroyo said it was properly shown as located one foot inside the 120 foot future right-of-way which was the proper location.

Mr. Rogers asked if they would need an easement of access and Mr. Arroyo replied it would depend upon whether or not it was dedicated.

Mr. Rogers said he also called out on the east side of that driveway, that a sidewalk should be continued to the property line, which would be about five feet.

Member Hodges thought it was shown on there and Mr. Arroyo said no, but it would be on the east side of their driveway and there would be a small sidewalk that would need to be added on which was not shown.

Member Hoadley said his plan shows the driveway was 24 feet wide and Mr. Arroyo said that was correct and for the approach, they were proposing to widen it to 24 feet because today it was not 24 feet and it was something less, probably 20 feet wide.

Member Hoadley said but the plan shows 24 feet and Mr. Arroyo just said 20 feet. Mr. Arroyo explained what he was referring to was that it was 24 feet at the approach, however, along the east side of the building, it scales only 20 feet wide and so it may be that it was 22 feet, which was the minimum standard. He said there was a different standard for a driveway approach than there was for an internal aisle.

Member Hoadley then asked the applicant a question and was this a mistake on the drawing part or did he plan on having it 22 feet wide.

Mr. Stempian said the original building was maybe 20 years old and it always had a 20 foot side drive and that was how they have operated with their 55 foot trucks all this time. He said there was a 10 foot side yard plus 20 feet and the building was 30 feet to the side property, so the issue he sees here was that he has 30 feet to work with and if they widen it to 22 feet, they have an 8 foot side yard, which was fine, but they were stuck between a rock and hard place here so it was whatever they feel was best traffic-wise or circulation-wise to do.

Mr. Stempian said there wasn't that much traffic once the people were in and there were two shifts so they might have 20 people working a shift and they were going back and forth adjacent to the building and when trucks come in, it was during the day. He said again there wouldn't be that much traffic and they were certainly going to give way for the trucks coming through and most likely it was just one vehicle going through at a time when that occurs.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Stempian if he would have any problems making that 22 feet wide and Mr. Stempian said it was 20 feet wide now and they would have no problem making it 22 feet wide, but that was in conflict with the side yard landscape requirement of 10 feet because it then cuts that down to 8 feet.

Mr. Arroyo said that would require the Planning Commission to grant a 2 foot waiver of the side yard setback requirement or leave it as is, but then they would have to address how they would meet that standard and that would be another question.

Member Hoadley asked what would Mr. Arroyo's recommendation be and Mr. Arroyo said in this particular instance given the fact that they have truck traffic, he would prefer to see the 22 foot width and he didn't know that losing 2 feet of landscaping in a situation like that was going to be all that critical when the adjacent land use has the same zoning as this land use.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers for his recommendation, and Mr. Rogers replied he would recommend the 22 foot width. He said 8 feet of landscaping was 2 feet less, but it was still adequate and Member Hoadley said they could take the 2 feet off the landscaping then and Mr. Rogers said yes. He also added it was adjacent to industrial and anyone re-developing the adjacent property to the east, would have to put in 10 feet, so they would end up with 18 feet so he felt they should look at the 22 feet.

Member Hoadley asked if the applicant agreed with that and Mr. Stempian said he would agree with that.

Member Hoadley asked about the retention basin, and he assumed there was no storm water sewer system along Grand River there and Mr. Bluhm said primarily in that area it was handled through open ditch. Member Hoadley said for futuring when it was available, was there any plans to connect the retention basins, all of them, to that kind of a system and was there any provision in this plan where they could do that later on.

Mr. Bluhm said he would look at that too and the primary drainage character of this land was away from Grand River, from north to south, and there was an ultimate drainage course proposed behind this property and back to the east, but there was nothing defined now in place and it was just sporatic low areas right now.

Mr. Bluhm said but the basic fall of the property means the storm water goes to the back of the property. Member Hoadley said there would be no problem connecting that to a storm system and Mr. Bluhm said no, and if there were ever improvements made at the rear of the property, the basin would be located properly to eliminate it if possible.

Member Weddington said she went through and cleaned out her old records and came across her notes from the last time the Petitioner was here and it appears to her that this plan does address a number of the issues or questions that they had on the former plan and there were some issues about buffering and landscaping and the drive that went around the building, so she felt this was an improvement over the last proposed plan that they had.

Member Weddington wanted to check with Ms. Lemke to see if she concurs with the resolution of the driveway side yard landscape buffer issue.

Ms. Lemke said 8 feet was plenty of room to plant but any smaller than that would be too small. She said then when they couple that with the fact that they would have an adjacent buffer area on the adjacent property, that would be fine to do a planting there and she wouldn't have a problem with that.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers if the residential property was vacant and Mr. Rogers replied there were homes on Eleven Mile and she asked would there be other homes in the future and Mr. Rogers indicated there were a few homes along Beck, maybe 2-3 that were in the west side yard as you extend down but there was a large wetlands area and a large woodlands area in through there.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked even if the whole residential area was built out according to the Zoning Ordinance of R-A, one home per acre, would this addition remain invisible.

Mr. Rogers said there was on the south side of this property the green area there and a person couldn't see it, and Mr. Stempian said it would be virtually impossible for any residence to see the back of the building or the overhead doors, in fact, right now there were overhead doors facing south.

Mr. Rogers said those woodlands on the plan were all on the applicant's property, at least at the south end of this property, but those woodlands go further off the map onto the adjacent property.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if that was maintained even throughout the various seasons in the winter and Mr. Rogers said he really didn't know.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said her only other comment was that she would like to see this brought back at Final to address the retention basin issue in particular.

It was then,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To grant Special Land Use Approval to A & M Label and Graphics, SP95-14.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if there was any discussion on the motion and there was none and Member Taub called the question and Member Hodges seconded the calling of the question and a vote was taken.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

It was then,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hodges

To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Wetland Permit Approval to A & M Label and Graphics, SP95-14 per the Consultants' recommendations; to grant the waiver for the deficient greenspace; and to come back to the Planning Commission for Final Approval.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Hoadley asked does the positioning of the loading docks require a variance and Mr. Rogers said yes a variance and they should get that before they submit for Final.

Member Hoadley said he would amend the motion then.

Mr. Watson felt that issue had been included since the motion was made subject to the recommendations of the Consultants and that was one of Mr. Rogers' recommendations.

Member Hoadley then withdrew his motion. Mr. Rogers added the Minutes of this meeting would go to the ZBA.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously.

1. Aspen Woods, SP94-36B - Property Located South of Eleven Mile Road, easterly of Beck Road for Possible One-Family Clustering Option, Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit and Wetlands Permit Approval.

Mr. Ray Cousineau representing the Tri-Mount Company was present. He said back in January he was before the Planning Commission with the site plan for Aspen Woods, a site condominium cluster proposal, south side of Eleven Mile between Lochmoor Village and Pioneer Meadows. He said at that time, he had presented a revision of the plan and there was a limited discussion about the plan, and he felt at least some of it was favorable and favorable enough for him to continue with the proposal.

Mr. Cousineau said there was a good deal of discussion regarding the south end of the project and regarding the impact on what he was proposing to do on the sensitive lands. He said there was even a request to review reducing the number of units on the south by 6.

Mr. Cousineau said what he has done since that time was to clarify some information that wasn't properly clarified at the prior meeting. He said he has re-evaluated and re-surveyed the wetland lines and the accurate lines have been reflected on this particular plan.

Mr. Cousineau said they have also conducted a full tree survey and evaluated the quantity and quality of trees throughout the site and also the number of trees impacted by the proposed development. He then asked Mr. Ludwig to make a brief presentation as to what the plan changes were and then he would like to have an opportunity to make some closing remarks before the Commission discusses it.

Mr. Cousineau said they were hoping that evening for an approval when it was all done because he did believe it was approvable and that was his goal that evening.

PLEASE NOTE: In the following discussion of Mr. Ludwig, it was very difficult at times to hear him speak and also there were papers rustling at the time so a lot of the discussion was inaudible.

Mr. Ludwig said he wanted to point out the revisions that were made on the plan as a result of their last meeting and as a result of several discussions with the staff. He said he would outline the major items.

Mr. Ludwig said he was agreeing with the Consultants on the wetland line as represented on the plan. He said a point of discussion last time was the woodlands line and where the delineation was of the medium density woodland, and he has done that now and Ms. Lemke agreed with that.

Mr. Ludwig noted they have deleted one unit on the south end. He pointed out the delineation of the medium woodland line and stated that was shown at the rear and actually about 5-10 feet beyond what they call the zoning disturbance. He said they have worked very hard in many different layers with the engineering of the road, with the sewer and septic and storm, with the grading, and the actual orientation of the unit to maintain a snow fence line and tree protection at the delineation of the medium woodlands.

Mr. Ludwig discussed the geometrics of the cul-de-sac and indicated they were reviewed and approved by Mr. Arroyo. He also discussed what they have done to reduce the impact in the woodlands area. (tape inaudible)

Mr. Ludwig pointed out the unit that was dropped and stated it was obvious that was a medium woodlands and they deleted it from the plans and preserved approximately 18-20 of the high quality woodlands.

Mr. Ludwig discussed the mitigation. (tape inaudible)

Mr. Ludwig said the Planning Commission had suggested that they explore alternatives and they did that at length. He said it had been asked what would happen if they dropped six units from the cul-de-sac and they did that and took this area and enlarged it and detailed every one of the trees that were there and then what would happen if the cul-de-sac was pulled up into the area. He said they had dropped out six units and that loss was approximately 23 trees and he had the specifics and all the trees were primarily 8-10" maple and ash and a couple of walnuts.

Mr. Ludwig also discussed the disturbance on the buffer zone. (tape inaudible)

Mr. Cousineau briefly wanted to state that normally when he comes before the Commission or Council, he comes with an atmosphere of compromise and he tries to work with the community as best he possibly can. He said his partners feel that he gives up too much, but that was his style. He said with this particular site, he didn't have a lot of flexibility and his hands were tied in many respects in terms of what they could do and it was tied to economics, but that was what motivates them.

Mr. Cousineau said the plan before the Commission that they want them to consider was the current plan proposing 33 units. He said at the last meeting, they discussed an R-1 conventional layout and an R-1 preservation option layout, both yielding 16 lots, and both proposed more intrusion into the sensitive lands than this particular plan and both from his standpoint, were not feasible economically.

Mr. Cousineau said Mr. Ludwig touched upon dropping six units and there was no way he could drop six units in this particular plan or the prior plan which was 34 units. He said they had proposed dropping one unit but beyond that, he had very little flexibility and to drop the six units does not make this project economically feasible.

Mr. Cousineau said also in consideration of dropping the six units, if dropping six units saves 42 regulated trees, they don't believe that was justification for dropping six units, especially since the 42 trees were a replaceable resource, which they would intend to replace.

Mr. Cousineau said he wanted to discuss the 33 unit plan because there was a lot that this plan does do. He said there were things that it doesn't do, but there were a lot of things that it does do. He said first of all the plan that he has proposed was the plan that proposes the least intrusive amount of development or construction within the sensitive lands throughout the site.

Mr. Cousineau said it was economically viable for them and it was a workable plan and it was not one that they like and they would prefer something a lot different, but they feel this was a good blend of what the City would like and what works for them.

Mr. Cousineau said they believe the plan complies with all of the Ordinances and standards with the exception of two needed variances, which they have discussed previously. He said one was the side yard setback along the location for Lochmoor. He said as indicated previously, they could eliminate the need for that variance by simply taking the roadway and realigning it along the rear yards of Lochmoor and shifting those units over to the west side of the roadway, but they felt it was an undesirable layout from a planning standpoint and certainly undesirable from Lochmoor.

Mr. Cousineau said they were proposing this because it meets more with the harmony of the single family environment established by Lochmoor and they just feel it makes a lot more sense, therefore, he felt it was an approvable variance.

Mr. Cousineau said the other variance was a variance from the Design and Construction standards regarding the geometrics of the cul-de-sac and as Mr. Ludwig indicated, the City of Novi cul-de-sac dimensions were a 58 foot radius and they were proposing to use a cul-de-sac dimension that complies with the Oakland County Road Commission's standards.

Mr. Cousineau said they have reviewed this with the City Staff and they have no objection to this, especially considering those were private roads and that allows him to reduce the radius down to 47 feet, tighten up that cul-de-sac and the associated grading with it, and generally do a much better job of preserving trees and sensitive lands in that area, but again the plan was approvable with those two exceptions.

Mr. Cousineau said this plan also provides a significant buffering to Pioneer Meadows on the west which addresses their concerns and the buffering to the Briarwood Conservancy and the woodlands to the south. He said this plan proposes to fill about one-half acre of wetland and in exchange for that, they were creating almost one acre of new wetland and the net result was that the site before construction, would have 9.5 acres of wetland and afterwards it would have 10 acres of wetland.

Mr. Cousineau said regarding the storm drainage, that was a critical issue here and he certainly didn't want to create another Briarwood situation within this development. He said he has taken a lot of work to design this project so that the storm drainage would be captured by an internal storm system in the roadway and routed to the storm system in Eleven Mile. He said right now it drains naturally to the south and to the west and if they had to chose, they could have continued that drainage pattern, but after meeting with the homeowners in Pioneer Meadows and representatives of Briarwood, they felt that was an undesirable alternative so he has designed it at his expense and it was a considerable expense to take the drainage to the north to eliminate the potential of a Briarwood type drainage problem again.

Mr. Cousineau said this site plan preserves approximately five acres of high quality upland woodlands and he pointed out the areas and he felt that was a significant benefit to this site and it was not something he was required to do but as part of the whole package he was preserving that.

Mr. Cousineau said he would like the Commission to take a look at the Site Analysis that he put together regarding preservation of all areas of the site.

Mr. Cousineau said under the Cluster Option, he was required to preserve a minimum of 55% of the sensitive lands on the site or 55% of the site has to be set aside as preserved sensitive lands and they have done that and in fact, they have done far more than that. He said he did an analysis that reviewed what they were actually doing here, taking a look at what they were developing/building here, such as the homes, the driveway, the sidewalks, the roadways, and the lawn areas, which he called the Developed Area.

Mr. Cousineau said they were disturbing or developing approximately 8.7 acres of a 27 acre site and that works out to be 32% and the net result that they were in essence preserving was 68% of this site in sensitive lands and also lands outside of the sensitive areas and he felt that was a significant benefit.

Mr. Cousineau said from his standpoint, that was something they have never done before and he felt that was something that really has to be taken into consideration when taking a look at the overall proposal.

Mr. Cousineau said to sum up, he felt this was the best plan approvable given the need for the two variances and he would like the Commission to approve this particular plan subject to him receiving the two required variances. He said he had very little flexibility but there was some but again, it was very important that they move ahead with some action on this plan.

CONSULTANTS' REVIEWS

Mr. Rogers said the facts have been laid out excellently and he would merely note on the site plan application, they would need some street names reviewed by the Committee and the open space maintenance agreement should be submitted in a form reviewable by the City Attorney before the Final site plan was approved.

Mr. Rogers said they might note at the bottom the density of this project and because of the large open space, it was 1.21 dwelling units per acre or under the 1.65 permitted in an R-1 District.

Mr. Rogers said earlier he looked very closely at the cluster groupings and he knows in the original plan, they had a single unit cluster and they agreed that was not a cluster, but they would note, there were two's, three's and four's in groups of clusters and where they get more in a cluster, adjacent to more of a cluster, the spacing between the groups of clusters varies and becomes greater. He indicated they have met all of those requirements.

Mr. Rogers said they have talked about the 75 foot building setback line required around the entire perimeter of the site and they do meet that except for along Lochmoor Village on the east edge there. He agreed the road was best where it was because if they put it adjacent to Lochmoor village, the homes being built in there would then be double frontage lots and would not be good planning.

Mr. Rogers said the building envelopes have the proper 30 foot setback from the edge of road pavement and they now show the 8 foot asphalt bikeway along Eleven Mile within the 43 foot right-of-way dedication from centerline. He said the right-of-way should be dimensioned on all sheets. He said sidewalks were now shown along all internal roads, and some were adjacent to the curb and he believed Mr. Pargoff was suggesting some adjustments in the sidewalks around a certain historic tree.

Mr. Rogers indicated they have submitted earlier architectural renovations of the building facades of a typical cluster and a typical floor plan and that was a requirement of cluster. He noted this was the first detached cluster plan they have had in the City that has come along this far. He said Silver Beech Estates was the other one. He said they have three attached clusters, Arrowon Pines, the development down at the southwest corner of 9 Mile and Novi Road, and Weathervane Village at Taft and Ten Mile.

Mr. Rogers said Ms. Lemke's review on the landscape plan was in his report and what they have submitted was adequate at this juncture and her letter reads for itself and they have corrected missing data so he recommended the Preliminary site plan approval which was possible by this Planning Commission on the basis of the six conditions in his letter and also subject to the Woodlands Permit being reviewed and approved.

Mr. Bluhm said he has also reviewed the Revised Preliminary site plan. He said one of his concerns with the plan that was last submitted was with the location of the sidewalks that were abutting the curbing and as they could see on the plan, they have provided some separation for that sidewalk and that was obviously a much safer condition and he would like to see that uniformly throughout the site where possible.

Mr. Bluhm noted the applicant was also proposing to elevate the roadway from the existing grades from the T-intersection to Lochmoor to the cul-de-sac area. He said the reasons were two-fold. He said first of all, the sanitary sewer service from Lochmoor requires the elevation to occur to service the units in the southern end of the site and then secondly, as Mr. Cousineau mentioned, drainage concerns have forced that issue forward also.

Mr. Bluhm said the applicant was also proposing water main extensions onto the site obviously for fire protection and at this time, wells were proposed for domestic supply.

Mr. Bluhm said sanitary sewers would also be brought in from the Lochmoor Village site, and he would like to make the comment that easements would be required along Lochmoor to allow the construction of the sewers.

Mr. Bluhm said with regard to the roadway and the areas on the west side of the road that were open areas, because of the elevation of the road, there was going to be some severe grades down to the wetland and he has talked to the applicant about guardrail requirements that were structural so that they provide safe vehicular movement and he would like to deal with the applicant more in providing that and making it somewhat aesthetically pleasing too at the Final.

Mr. Bluhm said with regard to the storm drainage as Mr. Cousineau had mentioned, the storm water from the roadway would be directed to the north and as they could see on the east side of the plan in front of them on the top, there was a light green area and that was a combined detention sedimentation basin that would be used for the storm water. He said if they look further to the north, there was a smaller area closer to Eleven Mile that was also another detention sedimentation basin and the two would be interconnected.

Mr. Bluhm said as Mr. Cousineau mentioned, the storm water would then be directed to Eleven Mile into the existing sewer that was put in when the road was constructed.

Mr. Bluhm said regarding the cul-de-sac, the County's requirement for the width of the pavement was 47 feet and the City standard was 58 feet and he had no concerns with going to 47 feet as long as the fire department accepts that, which it appears they have and a Council variance was granted for that condition.

Mr. Bluhm said beyond that, this plan continues to demonstrate engineering feasibility and he was recommending approval.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the only outstanding issue he had was the one Mr. Bluhm just mentioned which was the 47 foot radius and he also did not object to that, provided that the fire department finds it to be acceptable and he believed they do. He said, therefore, he also recommended approval subject to a waiver of the Design and Construction Standards provision that requires a 58 foot radius for a cul-de-sac bulb.

Ms. Lemke indicated she was recommending approval of this plan for the cluster option and for the woodlands permit. She stated the plan has changed by moving the cul-de-sac and the units to the south of this project, northerly about 40 feet and that was minute adjusting but it was still adjusting and it still makes this a better plan.

Ms. Lemke said the plan saves additional upland woodlands by doing that and by manipulating the side slopes on the cul-de-sac and by losing one unit. She indicated primarily the area of intrusion was into the new growth areas and then there was a minor intrusion along to the north of the project.

Ms. Lemke said the applicant has some housekeeping things to do such as changing numbers and making sure the tree survey was correct. She said she had some concerns in two areas on grading that they want to look at during Final, and one was the eastern property line adjacent to Lochmoor Village. She indicated there were existing mature trees there and she would like to look at that and see if they could do some hand swale digging in there and save more than what was being indicated and then she wanted to look again at the cul-de-sac on the side slopes.

Ms. Lemke indicated she was recommending approval with the following conditions: (1) The woodlands area not being developed be placed in a woodlands preservation easement before construction begins, (2) An environmental pre-con meeting occurs, (3) Snow fencing was expected, (4) Receipt of the woodlands permit before any construction could begin, (5) Payment of bonds as directed by Mr. Pargoff, (6) Review of final engineering documents by her office, (7) Furnishing missing data on the revised plans, (8) That more substantial snow fencing be provided for the historic tree.

Mr. Pargoff indicated his particular comments were directed more toward specific recommendations that he would like to see incorporated in their woodlands permit.

Mr. Pargoff said the current plan was an improvement over the previous submittals in that the cul-de-sac has been moved forward from the heart of the medium woodlands. He said he continues to have some concerns with units 19 and 20. He said this area removes approximately 25 regulated trees and a greater number of high quality smaller trees.

Mr. Pargoff said those units would have no back yard and he pointed them out on the plan and indicated it was the area to the west. He stated if the Commission chooses to accept those units, he would recommend some type of barrier wall even though it would be a minor wall type situation anywhere from 6-8" high. He said that would limit the possible intrusion of any wetlands into the walk-out basements that were going to be associated with those units.

Mr. Pargoff said he would also recommend a chainlink fence at the rear of lots 19 and 20 and again, the ones to the south and along the roadway adjacent to the historic swamp white oak, which he would indicate in a moment. He said this fence would need to be brought closer to the sidewalk on Woodruff Street with the addition of possible tree wells.

Mr. Pargoff said in order to better protect the specimen oak, he would ask that the sidewalk be eliminated and ended at unit 11 and that there be no sidewalk along the main artery there in Aspen Woods and he pointed that out to everyone. He said that would move grading further from the root system of more trees and without a sidewalk, grading and fencing might be moved closer to the curb and allow the possible saving of trees 525, 528 and 535 and those were the baby trees of the mother oak.

Mr. Pargoff said he would also recommend that the storm sewer that was being installed under those trees be "jacked and bored" and basically be tunneled through rather than being dug on a surface situation.

Mr. Pargoff said the storm inlet must also be moved so as to do less damage to adjacent trees and he noted that was the storm outlet that moves water away from the historic oak tree.

Mr. Pargoff said the entire storm and sanitary system needs to be adjusted to do less damage west of the historic oak.

Mr. Pargoff said he would ask that the trees as noted in his letter be bonded for possible loss because of the filling around approximately one-half of their root systems and the trees were located primarily on the west side of the roadway that goes into the project. He said because of this filling on the root systems, they become problematic as to their survival, however, they very well may survive and he was only asking for bonding for possible destruction of those trees.

Mr. Pargoff said the critical aspect would be the removal of the sidewalk and the preservation of that historic swamp white oak.

Mr. Pargoff said he tended to disagree with Mr. Rogers on the landscaping however, and he felt the landscaping does not meet the current Street Tree Ordinance and he would like to see that adjusted at the time of Final site plan approval.

Ms. Tepatti indicated she has reviewed this plan for the wetland impacts and she had also reviewed it in the past. She said in her first review of the plan, she gave it a negative recommendation and that was primarily due to a lot of intrusions into the buffer and the units' proximity to the wetlands.

Ms. Tepatti said since that initial review and negative recommendation, as Mr. Cousineau stated, the wetland boundary has been reflagged and verified by her office and that new survey has been shown on the plan and that has taken care of some of the concerns that she had and other adjustments were made to the plan, which addressed the majority of her concerns.

Ms. Tepatti said the current plan does reflect much less buffer intrusions than did the previous one and as also stated, the southern cul-de-sac has been pulled away from the woodlands and also from the associated wetlands, so that the actual units were much further away than they were from the actual wetland boundary.

Ms. Tepatti said the four road crossings that were associated with the development involve about a half acre of wetland, and mitigation was proposed for this filling at approximately a 2 to 1 ratio and some of this mitigation would be incorporated into the detention basin for the site and her office would be reviewing those plans and planting plans as they were submitted in the future.

Ms. Tepatti indicated as was stated, her primary objection in the past has involved units 21 and 22 which have been previously very close to the existing wetland boundary and that was in a wooded area where there was evidence of quite a bit of standing water. She said her concern was that one unit was within 5 feet of that actual boundary, so once they were constructed and lawns were installed, there would virtually be no buffer and they would be right up against a mature woodland with standing water.

Ms. Tepatti said the majority of her concerns for this have been addressed by the recent presentation of the altered plan showing the unit width reduced. She said as was stated, the previous units were within 5 or 15 feet of the wetland and then the units have been downsized and have been pushed 5 feet closer to the road and the width of each unit has been reduced by about 7 feet.

Ms. Tepatti said the result of this was that once restoration was done after the grading, there would be 10-15 feet of buffer preserved, where previously there would have been none and the units would have been very close to the wetland.

Ms. Tepatti said so she did commend Mr. Cousineau for making this effort and she did feel that it was significant that he has reduced the size of the units to preserve the buffer. She said the buffer in this area was primarily a shrubby habitat and there were not, according to the woodlands survey, very many regulated trees in that area, so she has looked at this plan in the last few days and was pretty much satisfied that this was a good compromise and addressed her concerns with the proximity to the wetland.

Ms. Tepatti said she was therefore recommending approval of the plan and of the buffer intrusion on those two lots. She stated she had her regular conditions such as a DNR permit that still must be obtained for the fill for the road crossings. She stated also that she would be reviewing wetland mitigation plans and there should be planting plans submitted for the buffer enhancement or restoration. She indicated shrubs should be planned on the slopes of the road crossings.

Ms. Tepatti said she would also like the condominium documents to reflect the restrictions associated with the wetlands and the buffers on the site and that conservation easements be placed over all the remaining wetlands in the future mitigation areas.

Mr. Watson indicated he had one minor comment and Mr. Rogers had mentioned it briefly, which was one of the requirements for the cluster option was that as a part of the site planning process, the applicant must provide assurance of the permanence of the open space and the manner in which the open space was going to be maintained and that was to be submitted to his office for review and he was to render an opinion on that.

Mr. Watson said he has yet to be provided that documentation and he would ask that if this was approved, that it be a condition that the documentation be submitted along with the Final site plan application.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said for the record she would like to add that there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the Novi Fire Department, who indicated the plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the following conditions: (1) Provide street names on all future plans. (2) The connector street to Lochmoor Lane must be opened throughout and after construction to provide a secondary access. (3) To show the following "Fire Department Notes" on all future plans: (a) All roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. (b) All watermains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. (c) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. (d) Street names on suitable poles shall be established and installed prior to construction above the foundation. (e) Fire prevention practice during construction shall be in accordance with the adopted Building Code and Fire Prevention Code.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Taub said he felt favorably toward this plan several weeks ago and after listening to their Consultants, he felt apart from the fact that he thought it was a very salutary plan, it definitely preserves woodlands, wetlands and the buffer areas. He also felt from an attorney's standpoint and given the recent legal trends, the Commission was constrained to approve it.

Member Taub said he did not feel this was an appropriate project to push the envelope on such things as woodlands permits and wetlands permits and he was not the City Attorney and he would defer to him and ask for his comments, but he felt the Commission would be recklessly pushing the legal envelope in light of trends state-wide and nationally as far as issues of taking and the like.

Member Taub felt they would be pushing the envelope recklessly if they didn't approve a project like this, which he felt was salutary anyway, but which demonstrates efforts by the developer to improve.

Member Taub said obviously from a pure planning standpoint in terms of issues such as density and enhancing woodlands and wetlands to the maximum, Planners or Commissioners would often essentially barter to obtain less lots, but in this case, he sensed he would be walking into a bear trap, especially in light of the fact that all of the Consultants with certain conditions, supported this project.

Member Taub further stated even though it may be less than ideal, he felt it would be a mistake for them to assume the role of owners and attempt to basically convert the property to some ideal. He then said he would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Member Taub

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To grant the One-Family Clustering Option subject to the verbal and written recommendations of the Consultants.

Member Hoadley said they should also add to the motion:

Subject to Mr. Watson's comments that this be referred to him also.

Member Taub said he would amend his motion:

To include the fact that the submissions be made to the City Attorney's office as pointed out by Mr. Watson during his comments.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Hoadley indicated he had a problem with some of the recommendations from Mr. Pargoff. He said first of all he didn't see why they would want to require a chainlink fence and to him it was offensive looking to start with, in lieu of something else such as a vegetation barrier. He said he did not feel that a chainlink fence was appropriate for a lovely location such as this.

Member Hoadley said secondly, his personal philosophy was that the safety of children and the convenience for pedestrians far overreaches the preservation of a tree and he was wondering if that sidewalk could be deviated either in front or behind the tree so there was no intrusion, otherwise, he would be very uncomfortable agreeing with Mr. Pargoff about eliminating sidewalks that their Ordinance requires because they were there for the safety of the children. He said he would prefer them using the sidewalks than be playing out in the streets, in lieu of the tree.

Mr. Pargoff commented regarding the chainlink fence, that chainlink fence was strictly during the construction and not after the project was completed and Member Hoadley said he didn't say that.

Member Hoadley said he would like Mr. Pargoff to address his other concern as far as the health and safety of the community as a whole as opposed to the tree.

Mr. Pargoff said there was a sidewalk on the other side of the street and again this was a recommendation. Member Hoadley asked if a person had to cross the street to get to it and Mr. Pargoff replied yes and Member Hoadley said he did not feel then that they were addressing the safety of the community overall if the children had to cross the street.

Mr. Pargoff said his concern right now was with the tree and this was an attempt to save more trees but if that was the preference of the Commission, then that was up to them and Member Hoadley said it was a preference of this Commissioner and he had a philosophical disagreement any time they put the health and safety of their children and people over trees. He said his concern was always for the people.

Member Mutch indicated she would support the motion that Member Taub made, but for none of the reasons that he stated and leave it at that.

Member Weddington asked about the well water supply and were those individual wells or a community well and Mr. Bluhm said he would have Mr. Cousineau answer that question, but there were a couple of different ways they could do it, either individual wells for the units or a small community well system. He asked Mr. Cousineau if they had decided which way they would go on this issue.

Mr. Cousineau said at this point since the Moratorium was still in existence, it would probably be a type 3 well system, which was a small community well system and he indicated Lochmoor was using the same thing, but he said they anticipate by the time they were able to construct this, it was likely that the Moratorium may be lifted.

Member Weddington asked Mr. Cousineau if he then intended to connect to the City water supply and he said yes.

Member Hodges said one of the comments made by Ms. Tepatti was the concern over units 21 and 22 and her recommendation was to perhaps eliminate one or both of the units and the motion was made that the approval be made according to the recommendations of the Consultants and she gave them a choice, one or both. She asked does the Commission need to in turn make a decision one or both.

Ms. Tepatti said they have revised the plan just in the last couple of days and she has seen a revision and based on that revision, her concerns have been addressed because they have decreased the size of the units and have pulled them further away from the wetland, so she would withdraw that objection to the plan.

Member Hodges asked if it was sufficient though and she thought the first comment was that the plans had been moved five feet closer to the right-of-way for units 21 and 22 and was that correct, and Ms. Tepatti said yes but they have also decreased the width of the buildings by a total of 15 feet, 7 feet on each unit, which pulls them further away from the buffer.

Ms. Tepatti said the tightest portion of the units were on the sides and also due to the steep slopes in the area, so by reducing the width of the buildings, they were pulling further away from the buffer in the tightest areas. She said they were still disturbing the buffer and they would still be close to it, but she felt that was a compromise that she could live with.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Cousineau was before them the end of December and it was postponed that night before all the Commissioners gave their comments and he was glad it was postponed because it did give him an opportunity to go over the Minutes of the meeting.

Member Bonaventura said Member Taub had just stated it might be reckless and they might be walking into a bear trap, but he would take that risk right now. He said if anyone took the time to read the Minutes or was interested in what Mr. Cousineau was driving at, it goes on for several pages in the Minutes.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Cousineau first starts off talking about the compatibility of the surrounding area for this site as one of the reasons for building a different type of unit than what was being built in Walden Woods I and II and he gave the layout of the land and what was adjacent to this property. He said some of the numbers didn't work and he wouldn't get into the specifics right now regarding the numbers that didn't work, but Mr. Cousineau gave them the impression that land was hard to come by in Novi and was very expensive.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Cousineau had given him the impression in the Minutes that he searched high and low for this piece of property and that he had been in negotiations on other pieces of property where he had said the price was too high and backed out and then within a week the property was sold to someone else. He said that gave him the impression that this was a very interesting market and a lot of speculating was going on.

Member Bonaventura said as far as the site and as far as Mr. Cousineau not being able to build what he has in Walden Woods I and II, he gave the example that in Walden Woods II, he would actually have to downgrade his homes that were up against Lochmoor Village because Lochmoor Village was a Consent Judgement and the square footage of the lots was about 8,000 sq. ft.

Member Bonaventura said that gave them the impression that being a Consent Judgement and such small lots, it might not be desirable to put the homes that he has in Walden Woods I up against that.

Member Bonaventura said then Mr. Cousineau stated Pioneer Meadows, which was buffered, basically didn't effect him and Member Bonaventura said he agreed with that, but to use his reasoning that he has to downgrade to clusters in this because of Lochmoor Village, they could use the same reasoning if they looked at Walden Woods I and Walden Woods II as one big subdivision and to the east, there was the elementary school parking lot and to the west there was the Lochmoor Village Consent Judgement.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Cousineau also indicated that he was doing very successful in Walden Woods I and it has turned out to be a very good project for him. Member Bonaventura said so as far as Mr. Cousineau's angle or spin on compatibility to the surrounding area, he didn't buy it.

Member Bonaventura said the other point Mr. Cousineau took, which was something he always felt they shouldn't even be considering, was he brought up land development costs and he gave them a cost sales analysis of the area, which he found very interesting and he was surprised he even brought it up because they shouldn't even be considering such things right now at this moment.

Member Bonaventura said he shouldn't be talking about such things but since Mr. Cousineau spent a good part of 15 minutes talking about it, he might have swayed some of the Commissioners in thinking that for poor Mr. Cousineau, it would not be cost-effective for him to build compatible homes to Lochmoor Village even on this site, so he had to go to clusters.

Member Bonaventura said some of the numbers intrigued him and what Mr. Cousineau did here was he goes from the cost of the land, the cost of the development, and then to the total cost and then a multiple of 4 and multiple of 5 to get to the selling price he believed.

Member Bonaventura said for 16 lots, R-1 Conventional, considering this land and if they take into account the cost of buying it, the principal and the interest, and the cost of carrying this land, it was a million dollars, and to do that with 16 lots, they would have to sell the units at $637,000.

Member Bonaventura said under the Preservation Option, R-1 for 16 lots, it would cost a little less to develop under the Preservation Option because he was assuming they were closer together and he was staying out of the woods and the cost would be $577,000 a unit.

Member Bonaventura said then with the Cluster, it would be $272,000 a unit, which was cost-effective for Mr. Cousineau.

Member Bonaventura then said he had problems with this as far as the cost of the land. He said Mr. Cousineau had indicated he bought it two years ago. Member Bonaventura said he checked with Assessing and was told that R-A goes for $11,000 an acre and that was what it was when Mr. Cousineau bought it.

Member Bonaventura said then taking it to R-1, it then goes up to $34,000 an acre, so obviously when Mr. Cousineau got his rezoning, the price of the property went up also. He said this number here, the million dollars, he had a hard time believing was a true number.

Member Bonaventura said he wouldn't discuss this anymore because it was utter nonsense in his mind for someone to even pass out a sheet of information like this with no basis, and he really hoped that none of the Commissioners use this information to come to the conclusion on whether to grant a Cluster Option on this property because he personally did not feel it had any basis for it.

Member Bonaventura said that brings him to a question and he asked was Mr. Cousineau required to bring in other conceptuals as far as a conventional layout and Mr. Rogers said no not under the option, but under the woodlands review, alternatives were submitted.

Member Bonaventura said then Mr. Cousineau wouldn't be required to show them an R-1 and Mr. Rogers said he actually did at the rezoning, and Mr. Cousineau did an R-A, an R-A Preservation and an R-1 and R-1 Preservation and he did at least 3-4 schematics.

Member Bonaventura then said regarding the motion, he would be voting against the motion because basically he felt what they were doing was they were doubling the burden on their community and Mr. Cousineau has received a rezoning once already from R-A to R-1 and the R-1 allowed him to go to the Cluster Option and he was asking for 33 homes and if he tried to build a conventional subdivision in R-1, he would end up with 16 homes.

Member Bonaventura felt Mr. Cousineau would be doubling the burden on the roads, on the school systems, on the police department and fire department and he felt this was where they were making their mistake. He said it was a very small project but when they add the projects up one after another after another, the burden on the community was unbelievable.

Member Bonaventura said one other point he wanted to make was if this Commission decides to go to this Cluster Option, he would like Mr. Pargoff to schedule a tour for the Planning Commission when this site was cleared and he asked Mr. Pargoff if that would be possible and would he be notified when the site was going to be cleared and removed of all the vegetation and Mr. Pargoff said they have a procedure in place where there was a two-step clearing process and there was one initial step to clear the site in order to be able to place the regulated fencing in place and then they were allowed to go in and continue to clear the site completely.

Member Bonaventura said he could get a specific date then and Mr. Pargoff said yes.

Member Bonaventura said what he would like to suggest was if this goes through, which it might, he would have Mr. Pargoff contact him on that matter and he would get some of the Commissioners together because it was a lot different than looking at a blueprint and looking at some circles and to actually witness a site being cleared, would open up their eyes.

Member Bonaventura said his other comment was Lochmoor Village and the variance, and he thought the variance was a 45 foot variance and Mr. Rogers said that was correct. Member Bonaventura said it was up against Lochmoor Village and the Petitioner was threatening to put a road up against Lochmoor Village and personally, he didn't think the Petitioner was respecting the future residents of Lochmoor Village.

Member Bonaventura said that subdivision was well underway and about 40% developed and for anyone who buys those homes, if they go to the City to find out what it was zoned behind their future home and they find out it was R-1 and they read the standards to R-1, he really felt that was a wrong thing to do to the future residents of the City of Novi.

Member Bonaventura said Mr. Cousineau has admitted this was a bad site, a difficult parcel, and he felt Mr. Cousineau would just have to live with that, so he would not be in favor of this project.

Member Taub said he didn't think it was relevant how much money a developer was going to make. He said a developer was an entrepreneur and whether Mr. Cousineau or any other developer was going to make 50 million dollars on a project or lose his shirt, was not the Commission's concern. He said he didn't see his role as sitting up there and deciding that Mr. Cousineau was going to make too much money and he didn't feel that was relevant.

Member Taub said density issues were relevant, but he was looking at an issue of disapproving a project to knock out six units to go into litigation and then probably enter into a Consent Judgement like Lochmoor and at the same time, blow out some of their ordinances in light of current legal trends.

Member Taub said he couldn't go for that and obviously he could see the issue of possibly making certain concessions or giveaways but then he looked at projects like The Vistas, not this project, where they were debating should they take off 6 of the 33 or maybe they should fight for the next 5 years all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and knock off 16 and maybe they would lose and lose their Woodlands Ordinance.

Member Taub said he has been consistently concerned about density issues, woodlands and wetlands, but he just didn't see this as the proper battleground when they have a developer who painstakingly put together a program and adjusted a program and all the Consultants basically support it with a few recommendations. He said if they vote this down, they would be voting this down in light of no support from their Consultants and nothing but concerns about downzoning and then adjusting the Cluster.

Member Taub said he couldn't sit there as an economic czar and say Mr. Cousineau could not make a lot of money and he would vote down his project. He said he understood what Member Bonaventura was saying and no one does his homework more than Member Bonaventura and no one cares more than Member Bonaventura, but he felt he had to be a realist, and he felt they had to see that basically their roles up here do have certain constraints.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers was it his recommendation that the waiver on the setbacks would be more desirable in regards to being less offensive to Lochmoor than having a street there and Mr. Rogers said yes that was his recommendation and Member Hoadley asked why.

Mr. Rogers said were they to have built R-1 type lots and homes on that property, the rear yard setback would also be 35 feet. He said what Member Bonaventura was saying though was they have a cluster of 3 and a cluster of 4, and he forgot the spacing between them but they don't have as much side yard spacing in those detached clusters than they would in an R-1 zoning.

Member Hoadley said that was not his question and his question was the waiver in regards to the setback on the back lot lines, as opposed to having a road there and didn't he say it would be less desirable to have a road there and Mr. Rogers said yes because they would end up with a double frontage lot for the people in Lochmoor Village.

Member Hoadley said then he had to disagree with Member Bonaventura from that one point. He said he also was concerned about density but this was a legal option under their ordinances and he would have to vote for it because he couldn't see where the applicant hasn't met all the requirements.

Member Hoadley then said he disagreed with Mr. Pargoff regarding the sidewalk issue, which Mr. Pargoff didn't have in his written submission but he has it into the record now verbally about disallowing a sidewalk, and he would like to offer an amendment that the sidewalk not be eliminated unless there was a way to do it where it could go around the trees.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said that might be a woodland permit issue and they were now on the one-family clustering option issue and that could be a woodlands permit issue.

Member Hoadley said there was a motion on the floor in regards to all the Consultants' recommendations and Mr. Pargoff just made a verbal recommendation to eliminate a sidewalk that he was opposed to.

Mr. Rogers remarked the sidewalk was a specific requirement under the Cluster Option on site plan review, so it would be under the site plan action.

Member Hoadley said he would like to amend the motion then:

To disregard Mr. Pargoff's one recommendation in regards to eliminating the sidewalk.

THERE WAS NO SECOND TO THE MOTION AND THE MOTION FAILED.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she had a few questions. She asked first engineering-wise, regarding lots 21 and 22 with the wetland being very close to the buildings, was there any potential for drainage or ponding of water from those wetlands to extend onto the unit boundaries.

Mr. Bluhm said what he would do when the grading plan comes in was he believed they have shown grades for the walk-outs to be either a foot or two foot above the water elevation in the wetland areas and that was an issue that they would have to look at fairly closely when they come in.

Mr. Bluhm said he didn't know that they had any indications of the seasonal fluctuations of the water in that wetland and he didn't know if Ms. Tepatti could speak to that any more definitively. He said one thing they ask the Applicant to do when they were so close to a wetland like that was to elevate those areas as much as they could.

Mr. Bluhm said Mr. Pargoff mentioned putting in a slight one tier type of timber retaining wall that would help elevate it even further so they do look pretty significantly at that.

Vice-Chairman Lorenzo said they don't know at this point whether there were seasonal fluctuations changes and whether they were going to have a lot of water or standing water or pooling water or draining water anywhere near the units themselves.

Mr. Bluhm said there was no definitive elevation for the wetland that they have. Vice-Chair Lorenzo said that concerned her a great deal.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked how much of a backyard would those people have outside of the unit. Mr. Bluhm replied in those areas, very little, possibly 10 feet and then about 7 feet on the sides.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said then they probably wouldn't be able to have even a deck and Ms. Tepatti said maybe a small deck but there wouldn't be much besides that. Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked about children's play equipment and Ms. Tepatti replied no.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said and they don't know whether those items would be under water at any point and Ms. Tepatti said that was correct but she wouldn't expect that there would be standing water every season beyond the wetland line. She said the wetland boundary typically was at an elevation that over time was established and she wouldn't expect that this regularly floods beyond that boundary and as Mr. Bluhm stated, there may be some fluctuation here and there, but she wouldn't think it was a regular thing that occurs, otherwise the wetland boundary would be further out.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said if they eliminated one unit, would there be more space to deal with in terms of taking that structure further away from the buffer and the wetland area. Ms. Tepatti said if they centered it, she was sure it probably could but she wasn't sure what type of variance or if they could have one unit by itself but she was sure if they had just one, they would be able to avoid more buffer area.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said in terms of the detention basin and discharge, where would the final discharge go to and Mr. Bluhm asked if she meant beyond the site and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said yes and Mr. Bluhm explained the Eleven Mile storm sewer extends to Beck Road and then west of Beck Road and then outlets into a branch of the Novi-Lyon Drain, he believed, that extends west of Beck Road and that was the ultimate outlet.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if there were any wetlands involved with that drain and Mr. Bluhm said there was going to be wetlands and obviously right in the vicinity of the drain itself and then there were probably wetlands associated with the periphery of it also.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if there would be oil and gas separators at the end before it hits that wetland area, and Mr. Bluhm said the detention basins and especially the sedimentation and the water quality benefits of the basins that they were providing, were going to be a pretty effective eliminator of gas and oil.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if it would dissipate before it got there and Mr. Bluhm said it would.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said to Mr. Pargoff it has been indicated that 25 regulated trees would be removed along with a greater number of high quality smaller trees and she asked Mr. Pargoff if he knew how many trees totally would be removed and Mr. Pargoff said not totally but it was quite a few and he really did not go out and count all those smaller trees as they were below the regulated size.

Vice-Chairman Lorenzo asked if he could give her an approximate number and Mr. Pargoff replied approximately 50 more and it would be 75 total, but those 50 were unregulated.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she understood that and they were unregulated in terms of replacement, but in terms of a woodlands, they were looking at a total woodlands ecosystem which includes the smaller trees as well as the large trees, so she felt that was a significant point.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked about the zone of disturbance as it was called on lots 19 and 20 and was that a light woodlands and Mr. Pargoff said no, and Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked where does that fall with the line from medium and Mr. Pargoff pointed it out.

Mr. Ludwig then spoke briefly on this matter also. (tape inaudible)

Vice-Chair Lorenzo then said to Mr. Ludwig that he was saying that was a light woodlands as opposed to medium and Mr. Ludwig said yes and she asked Mr. Pargoff about that matter.

Mr. Pargoff pointed out where the line runs and indicated the line the developer was indicating was a very close representation of where it was and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said then it was not actually where the units were located but somewhere within that area.

Mr. Pargoff said the other point he wanted to make here was there was a trail that runs from one of the houses in Pioneer Meadows back almost right through to Lochmoor and if they do walk the site, it was pretty obvious that the homeowners from Pioneer Meadows have been using this as a path between the open area of what used to be Lochmoor there and through the woods and it was about the back of the lots was where that pathway runs.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if that pathway was in the medium woodlands or the light woodlands, and Mr. Pargoff said he would say that the line they have drawn, which he then pointed out, was very close to the medium woodlands.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said that would be the medium woodlands and everything in the white area would be a light woodlands then and Mr. Pargoff replied yes.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo then indicated she had some very strong concerns about both of the lots with the wetland areas and not so much from the wetland prospective or buffer prospective, but because of the homeowners living there and having standing water on their property. She said she did not think that buyers should be buying into that and she wasn't sure if that was something that was going to be disclosed to them at any point in time.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she disagreed with Member Taub in terms of the reasonableness of requesting or requiring the elimination of a lot or even multiple lots at this point. She said from the standpoint as Member Bonaventura pointed out, this was a rezoned area and was rezoned from R-A to R-1 so the Petitioner gained density or gained units just from that fact alone.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said in addition to that, the Petitioner has basically told them and had provided them documentation that it was more cost-effective for him to do a cluster option project than it was to do a conventional project and it looks like they were saving him, if they allow cluster at all, more than double the amount of money that it would cost him to develop an R-1 or an R-1 Preservation.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said on top of that, the numbers in terms of how many units realistically or optimistically the Petitioner would gain from a conventional, would be either 16 or 21 units or lots. She said even if they removed 3 lots, that would still be 30 units and that would still be a net gain of between 9-14 units above what the Petitioner would get realistically or optimistically with a conventional preservation option.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said so she didn't see this in terms of unreasonable if they were to require or request the Petitioner to remove one or more lots due to the health, safety and welfare reasons.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said Member Taub also mentioned that economics shouldn't count, but she felt if the Petitioner were to be considering litigation at any point, the economics was what it was all about when getting to that point, and it was economics of the use and as she just explained, she felt the economics, even with reductions, would still be in Mr. Cousineau's favor over the conventional or preservation option.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo felt the Commission would be very reasonable and very accommodating even if they were to request or require a maximum of three lots.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said at this point, her major concern was at least one of the two lots with the wetlands and again for reasons of the potential of ponding of water on that property, and not even so much from a wetland prospective, but from the prospective of the homeowner having to deal with inches or feet of water on their property.

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Pargoff about those two lots that he indicated wouldn't have any back yards, lots 19 and 20, and with his experience in this City when they have lots like that notched in and people don't have back yards, has he ever seen anything happen and do people make their own back yards.

Mr. Pargoff said it would depend upon the people that move in and if they were people who do not have small children, it was usually a situation where they were looking to keep those amenities but if they have small children, they want areas for their children to run and play and grassy back yards.

Member Bonaventura said Member Taub talked about that he didn't want the Commission to be financial czars and in the Community Impact Statement for Aspen Woods, the City of Novi asks a series of questions which were to be answered and one question was why should the proposed land use occupy the proposed site, were there market or financial reasons, was the location itself the major reason, etc., so he didn't think it was unusual to talk about that and it was something worth considering, especially when the Petitioner brings it up for such a long period of time as he did at the last meeting.

Member Bonaventura said if this motion fails, he would be willing to make another motion to remove lots 19-22. Vice-Chair Lorenzo said Member Bonaventura could try to amend the motion and that would be an option.

Member Bonaventura said seeing the comments from the motion-maker, he wouldn't at this time.

Vice-Chairman Lorenzo said he shouldn't be so pessimistic, and first of all she would correct him because the amendment has little to do with the main motion and that would be an amendment to the main motion so what he could do was to move to amend and then they would need a second and then they would vote on that.

AMENDMENT TO MAIN MOTION

It was then,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hodges

To amend the motion to eliminate Lots 19-22 for environmental, safety, health, and welfare reasons.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION

None.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION TO AMEND THE MAIN MOTION:

Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (No), Taub (No), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Hoadley (No)

(4) Yeas (3) Nays

AMENDED MAIN MOTION

Vice-Chair Lorenzo restated the Amended Main Motion:

To approve the One-Family Clustering Option for Aspen Woods, SP94-36B subject to the verbal and written recommendations and conditions of the Consultants; that the documentation be provided for their Legal Counsel in terms of the Cluster Option; and with the removal of Lots 19-22 for environmental, safety, health, and welfare reasons.

FURTHER DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley called the question.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON AMENDED MAIN MOTION:

Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (No), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (No)

(5) Yeas (2) Nays

MOTION CARRIED.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if there was a motion for Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL

It was,

Moved by Member Taub

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Aspen Woods, SP94-36B subject to the Consultants' recommendations and to return to the Planning Commission for Final Approval.

Member Taub called the question as he felt they have had ample discussion.

(voice vote) (6) Yeas (1) Nay-Bonaventura

MOTION CARRIED.

WOODLANDS PERMIT APPROVAL

It was,

Moved by Member Taub

Seconded by Member Hoadley

Member Taub called the question and a vote was taken.

(voice vote) (5) Yeas (2) Nays

Bonaventura & Hodges

MOTION CARRIED.

It was,

Moved by Member Taub

Seconded by Member Hoadley

To grant Wetlands Permit Approval for Aspen Woods, SP94-36B subject to the Consultants' recommendations.

Member Taub called the question and a vote was taken.

(voice vote) (5) Yeas (2) Nays

Bonaventura & Hodges

MOTION CARRIED.

AT THIS POINT, THE COMMISSION TOOK A TEN MINUTE BREAK.

2. Profile Steel & Wire Inc., SP94-51A - Property Located South of Grand River Avenue, Easterly of Wixom Road for Possible Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Frank Patrello of S.S.O.E. Inc. site engineer was present. He indicated he was representing the Petitioner.

Mr. Patrello said this was a building renovation project and he has received the Consultants' letters which he has reviewed and he believed they were all recommending Preliminary Site Plan Approval and they have contingencies and they would be working with them to satisfy their comments. He said he understood if they do this, they could get Final site plan approval administratively and that was his intent.

CONSULTANTS REVIEWS

Mr. Rogers said what they have before them was a Revised Preliminary site plan and a Revised Final site plan and both had come before them and other people for review and they had subsequent workshop meetings with those gentlemen who were in the Audience that night to resolve the concerns and they also reviewed the concerns of Mr. Wizinsky, who lives adjacent to the site and he considered his input.

Mr. Rogers said the building facades were upgrades and removed in some cases and it was the same building footprint and he has found that the building complies with the I-2 zoning district standards and based upon the size of the building rather than the employees expected on maximum shift, they have more than enough off-street parking, 39 spaces versus 19 required.

Mr. Rogers said there has been some loading areas in the past in the front of the building and it should be at the rear and they talked during the intermission about what appears to be on the facade plan, a loading door on the west end of the building, which was not going to be there and were it to be there, it would face residential and then they would get into an A & M label review issue.

Mr. Rogers said on the fire lane access around the building, it should be reviewed by the Fire Marshall and they could drive around the building but it was not all paved and that was his earlier comment that he wasn't certain whether the Fire Marshall was satisfied with the current crushed gravel and his report would probably speak to that.

Mr. Rogers then asked Ms. Lemke to continue with the landscape review.

Ms. Lemke indicated she has reviewed the berm primarily and it now meets the 10 feet in height which they were concerned about previously and it occurs throughout the length of the berm and that continues around the corner up the berm.

Ms. Lemke said the section now indicated a 4 foot width crest which was required and the berm was located closer to Wixom Road. She said the berm was indicated at a 3 to 1 slope. She said as part of the berm that was on the adjacent residential property, a waiver would be required and a provision for the easement would be needed. She said that easement as indicated on this plan would be 56 feet.

Ms. Lemke indicated the berm now meets the requirements for planting and the plantings were predominantly evergreen on the top of the berm with spreading and evergreen shrubs and flowering crabs located throughout the length of the berm. She said the sizes and species were acceptable and the spacings were also acceptable and they meet the required shredded hardwood bark also.

Ms. Lemke said the berm was required in the I-2 District to be sodded and irrigated and due to the location of this in a more rural area, she was recommending that those provisions be amended to seeding and a waiver of irrigation, with the Petitioner to detail the method, frequency and specific timetable for watering throughout the first growing season.

Ms. Lemke indicated this plan meets the requirements with 3 Autumn Ash located adjacent to the parking area and the plan meets the corner clearance.

Ms. Lemke stated regarding the screening along the eastern property line, she was not recommending that due to the existing hedgerow and the Detroit Edison Utility Easement that separates the adjacent zoning on the other side of the I-1 and R-3. She said since this utility corridor would never be developed and because the existing hedgerow of mature trees and smaller shrubs which now exist on the proposed parcel, as well as on Detroit Edison's property, was very substantial, she recommended that no additional berming or planting be required in this area along the eastern property line.

Ms. Lemke said in summary she was recommending approval with the following conditions: (1) Screening of the transformers being included; (2) The waiver of the screening along the eastern property line; (3) The waiver of sodding to seeding and waiver of irrigation for watering with the Petitioner to detail the method, frequency and timetable; and (4) A ZBA variance and a provision for easement for location of berm on adjacent property.

Mr. Rogers said to Ms. Lemke that they had a conference during the intermission and the transformer was there and it was underneath the big open craneway on the north side of the building and it was very small and they could see a small notation and where it was located, it was really inside the structure and he didn't think any screening was necessary.

Mr. Rogers referred to Page 4 of his letter regarding building facades, and they were proposing new metal siding on portions of the west, east, and south facades, and the balance of the facades would be painted over the existing plain block and the concrete panel wall system. He said other improvements would be replacing downspouts, recaulking, replacement of windows, and a new sign on the west facade. He felt those improvements comply with the Ordinance and so he was recommending Preliminary site plan approval and then there were the landscape issues to be adjusted at the time of Final site plan examination and review by the ZBA of the off-premise portion of the berm off of Wixom Road.

Mr. Rogers felt those were minor changes and if the Planning Commission recommends or approves the Preliminary site plan, they could resolve those issues administratively for Final site plan approval.

Mr. Bluhm indicated he has also reviewed the Preliminary and the Final site plan for this project and it has been ongoing for quite some time now and the plans at least from an engineering prospective were at a level that was very close to Final site plan approval.

Mr. Bluhm said they were improving an existing facility and as part of that improvement, they were going to be upgrading the septic field system and that was a County and State jurisdiction item and the City has no involvement with it. He said they were paving an existing gravel parking lot that was very hard-packed already and fairly impervious. He indicated by paving it, they were also providing slopes to the pavement to direct the storm water to the west and to the south and then via ditches and culverts under the driveways into the existing pond that was there that they could see on the plans fairly clearly here on the south side.

Mr. Bluhm said that basically serves now as a detention pond and he had them provide him with detailed calculations from the existing condition as a gravel condition, to the paved condition and there was virtually no difference in the detention volumes, so he had no real concerns with the detention in that pond based on its present condition.

Mr. Bluhm said in addition to this local drainage issue on the south, there was also an off-site drainage ditch that takes a good amount of undeveloped water from the north in a large wetland type situation and then along their westerly property line directly to the south to the driveway and then also north-south of the driveway to the west towards Wixom Road, there were storm sewers that currently pick that water up.

Mr. Bluhm said the main concern he had with that was the latest plan was showing the berm basically crossing and cutting off that ditch that exists right now. He said the ditch for the most part serves as a conveyance channel for the 100 year storm that may go through there on a very infrequent basis and the applicant has shown a small storm sewer to pick the ditch water up, but he was concerned with the 100 year storm volumes that go through there and he would like to see them provide a more adequate storm sewer under that berm area and back out to the open ditch location.

Mr. Bluhm indicated the City also has due south of this property a proposed regional storm water basin, and it was his understanding at this time, the City has not purchased that property and they were looking at acquiring it, but it hasn't happened yet. He indicated his thoughts were that they could put the storm sewer directly into the road and outlet the water into the area regional basin, but it doesn't appear that this was an option now.

Mr. Bluhm said so they definitely have some options here and he had no problems with the Preliminary site plan, but he would like to have a look at it administratively for them to address the overall off-site drainage concern.

Mr. Arroyo indicated access to this project was to Wixom Road which was recently paved by the City from Grand River to Eleven Mile Road and it was scheduled to be extended as part of the City's Road Bond Program down to Ten Mile Road.

Mr. Arroyo said in reviewing this project, he had also reviewed the traffic information that was provided and the Traffic Study forecasts 345 average daily trips, however, when the trip generation was done, a very conservative or high estimate was provided because it was based on square footage of this site, that being slightly over 92,000 sq. ft., which was a fairly large facility. He said and when they look at the number of employees, it was fairly low, approximately 20, on the maximum shift.

Mr. Arroyo said if they look at a trip generation from the prospective of the number of employees, the forecast on a daily basis drops down to about 42, so there was a significant difference so he felt the conditions that were being shown by the applicant were definitely worse case and probably would not be actually realized.

Mr. Arroyo said most of the traffic would be oriented to the north towards I-96 and Grand River, and the Grand River-Wixom Intersection was operating at an acceptable level and would not experience degradation due to this project.

Mr. Arroyo said the only condition that they have in terms of their Preliminary site plan recommendation was that they provide an enlarged detail of that intersection of Wixom and their project entrance as part of the Revised Final site plan.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo indicated they have a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the Novi Fire Department that states the plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo then said usually when the Commission comes back from break, they have an Audience Participation and at this point, if Mr. Wizinsky has any comments, she suggested he could speak at this point.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Member Taub also said at this point, there was a letter from Mr. Wizinsky and he didn't think it was necessary for him to read the letter if Mr. Wizinsky was going to speak and Mr. Wizinsky said that would be fine. Member Taub then submitted the letter to the Clerk.

Mr. Karl Wizinsky introduced himself and also his wife, Marcia Boynton. He said he really had a handful of issues or questions that remain. He felt they have made a lot of progress over the last several months in moving towards a site plan for the Profile project.

Mr. Wizinsky said he did put a sticker where his property was in Section 17 and it was really right on the edge of what was master planned residential and across the street from residential and the Corvo or the Profile site has an access road to the south of their property and then the bulk of their acreage, which was about 26 acres was to the east of him.

Mr. Wizinsky said the property south of the Profile project was in the process of being purchased for the City for park land and potentially an elementary school, which was something that was not announced even 3-4 months ago.

Mr. Wizinsky said so one of the items that he did put in was the fencing and the project does call for a fence on the inside of the berm between his residential property and the project, but because it was an I-2 with residential to the south and to the east, it seemed appropriate that perhaps the entire project would be fenced. He said when he made his presentation to the ZBA prior to construction starting, he found kids going back there because the empty building was a great attraction to younger kids.

Mr. Wizinsky said Mr. Bluhm indicated and shared some of his concerns on the drainage and there was actually in the 1983 Storm Water Master Plan, a proposed ditch along the property line and his eastern property line, and Profile's western line that the City has currently an easement on or was in the process of getting an easement. He said as Mr. Bluhm indicated, he felt long term the goal would be to have that drainage ditch go under the proposed berm and the access road into the master planned storm drain, which would be really at Wixom Road just south of the Profile driveway.

Mr. Wizinsky said his understanding was that they were very close to the final purchase agreement with the property owner, and he felt it would be great if the timing was such that they could do that drainage at the same time, rather than put the berm in, resurface the road and come back in a couple of months and go under the berm with a culvert and under the road. He said so if there was any way possible of coordinating that, it would be very appropriate.

Mr. Wizinsky said the signage was not addressed anywhere and currently there was a construction sign up at the road and he would assume that there would be some kind of a sign and he didn't know if this was the right area that addresses that, but it would seem it would good to handle that all at once.

Mr. Wizinsky said regarding the disposal system, as was mentioned, it was unique to have a larger septic system placed and his concern was the placement on the northern side of the property, which was not right next to it, but there was a very large wetland north of the property. He said he was aware that the County was the governmental entity that monitors that and he was just wondering if that as been taken into consideration in the plans.

Mr. Wizinsky said he felt they have addressed the overhead door and there was an overhead door facing the residential property, but he felt they have concluded that it was on the plan, but it was not going to be put there and it would be moved to the northern side of the building.

Mr. Wizinsky said regarding the outdoor lighting, there was nothing on the plan that shows the outdoor lighting, but there were currently two flood lights that face his property which he understood was not a part of the Ordinance and there was one also by the door, so he would like to have someone investigate that. Again, he felt they have made a great deal of progress in moving toward the compliance with the Ordinance on many of the non-conforming features of this site.

Mr. Phil Garcia, the architect with S.S.O.E. for the Petitioner was present and requested to address some of Mr. Wizinsky's comments.

Mr. Garcia said one, the septic system has been reviewed and approved and a permit issued for it by Oakland County so that all has been addressed. He said regarding the property to the south, while there may be some future plans for a school, park, etc., it was currently zoned I-1 so they were abutting an industrial property, not a residential property, and basically they were told they had to go by the current zoning in Planning so he didn't feel that was an issue at this point.

Mr. Garcia said as far as the door facing his residence, it was true there was a door existing in the building which initially the building plans proposed to keep that door, but the owner has since decided that he was going to be moving materials in that way anyway, so when it was built, it would just be built without the door. He said as they probably know, they already have a Building Permit for this project because the site plan had been approved administratively about a year and a half ago and through circumstances, they ended up back here getting a retroactive site plan approval.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Wizinsky if he was willing to deed or give a variance or easement for that berm to the Petitioner. Mr. Wizinsky said they talked very early on about that and he was willing to give an easement and they had talked about a 30 foot easement and that was one of the things, if at all possible, to move the berm closer to the road and he felt they could do that.

Mr. Wizinsky said if they went with the long-term drainage plan, they would bring the water from the north to the south underneath the berm at where the berm turns and underneath the road and then go directly into the proposed detention pond. He felt they could move the berm closer to the road because the most recent plan calls for a 56 foot easement and they really started out at a 28 foot easement and that obviously was about double the original size. He said that was pretty close to an acre of land.

Mr. Wizinsky said so he would prefer if at all possible to move that berm closer to the driveway on the southern part of his property.

Member Hoadley said to Mr. Bluhm that Mr. Wizinsky makes the point in regards to the long-term drainage underneath this berm to be constructed and was he addressing that on Final or was that something the Commission should address now.

Mr. Bluhm said no, it was nothing they could address now because they have yet to show the storm sewer under the berm area that has the sufficient size to allow that agriculture 100 year flow to go through. He said it was something they would deal with the engineer on and it was fairly routine but as of right now, they have not shown that and it was something they would have to show on the administrative or resubmittal of the Final.

Member Hoadley asked the Petitioner if he was willing to address that scenario positively and the Petitioner said yes they were and they would address it and work it out with Mr. Bluhm.

Member Mutch asked the Petitioner when he indicated the property was not abutting residential in the one direction and that it was presently abutting industrial, was he saying that he didn't want to have that perimeter fencing and the Petitioner said that was correct and that was almost a half mile of fence and since they were abutting vacant I-1 land at the present time, it really doesn't make any sense to have that fence in at this time.

Member Mutch said she understood from that point of view, but was he comfortable that the security of his property was not going to be effected. She said the City was acquiring that property to the south and there would be many more people than were there right now and was he concerned.

The Petitioner said the plant would be running several shifts, and there would always be someone working at the plant.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked Mr. Bluhm regarding the placement of the septic tank, did he see any problem with the proximity to the wetlands.

Mr. Bluhm replied no, the County looks at that as a condition of issuing their permits and there would be distance requirements for septic fields to any environmental feature area so that was addressed at that level and as Mr. Garcia mentioned, they do have their permits.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said he mentioned they had the permit, but she didn't know if they would address that specifically and Mr. Blum indicated it would be addressed with that permit application.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked Mr. Wizinsky in terms of the Final being handled administratively, was he comfortable with that or would he prefer to see this come back to the Commission to make sure that the eyes were dotted and t's were crossed, and Mr. Wizinsky said he would prefer it to come back to the Commission. He stated the drainage was really important to him and the drainage has been an issue for the last seven years for him, and he has been told as Section 17 was developed, they would begin to work on it.

Mr. Wizinsky said now there was the redevelopment of this 26 acre parcel and again, he thought putting in the berm and putting in a road and then coming back to put the culverts under it retrospectively, makes it a much larger project . He said he knows there was a timing issue with the ownership of the property by the City, but it could be weeks that they were talking about. He indicated yes he would be more comfortable to have this come back for Final.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo commended Mr. Wizinsky. She felt he has done his homework to get him to this point. She said she realized there was discretion in terms of administrative approvals, but in the future, she would ask that those undertaking the discretionary measures, would have a little more sensitivity to the abutting landowners in the situation.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she would rather see an issue like this come to the Commission and have all the issues looked at closely, than to have missed a homeowner and have him go through the steps that Mr. Wizinsky has had to go through to get to this point. She said she could understand the red tape that he has gone through and she appreciated that and she could also relate to the drainage issues.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo appreciated and commended Mr. Wizinsky on what he has done and she felt it was unfortunate that he had to do what he had to do to get this far.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said if there was a motion made, she would appreciate that this project would come back for Final.

Member Hoadley indicated he would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Member Hoadley

Seconded by Member Hodges

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

None.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously.

Mr. Lee Mamola was present and he indicated he has prepared a Preliminary Site Plan for the Commission's review and approval of an industrial parcel and it was an industrial building of about 35,000 sq. ft. He said he has received the review comments of the Consultants and he would like to address a specific concern or two of the Consultants, primarily dealing with site access and the on-site circulation, parking and paving areas.

Mr. Mamola said the plan to his far right was a representation of what was submitted to them and that plan was 47 parking spaces and the width of the curb cut was deficient by their standards and it needs to be 6 feet wider or 30 feet wide.

Mr. Mamola said he was asking that this plan be approved subject to the Consultants' letters and what he would like to show the Commission was that it was feasible and very likely to go ahead and accommodate the 30 foot width of the drive at this position, and they do lose two parking spaces near the front, however, they do have the ability to pick up additional parking in the rear but what has happened here was a bit unusual.

Mr. Mamola explained when they looked at the site initially in the winter, they were led to believe that in the rear of the property, there was an existing land form from the railroad track backwards toward the building, and now that the snow was gone, that land form was really a manmade pile of dirt, which could be removed and developed as property, as a parking area in the back, so he had the ability to improve the on-site circulation in the rear to accommodate the drive's standards, and they were in no need for a greenbelt setback waiver and then they meet all the other zoning requirements.

Mr. Mamola said he would add that this project was a very nicely sited project for industrial development and it was totally surrounded by other I-1 uses or other I-1 zoned property. He said it was designed with the specific idea that as you come off Nine Mile near the fire station and come down to Clayton Environmental and come down Roethel Drive, that the entry of this building be visible first.

Mr. Mamola said there was a comment on one of the review letters about the driveway being to the south and he would prefer not to do that primarily so that the building's entry was viewed once a person drives off of Nine Mile onto Roethel Drive, which was a small elevation there.

CONSULTANTS' REVIEWS

Mr. Rogers reviewed his report of March 1, 1995 and he indicated there were a couple of minor items on the location map and the extension of topo beyond the site a full 100 feet and the tieing in of property line dimensions to a section corner or a quarter corner and all of those could be done at the time of Final site plan submittal.

Mr. Rogers indicated the building complies with I-1 District setbacks and the required parking of 51 spaces were provided on site along with 3 handicapped. He said the loading and unloading docks were at the north side of the building, 3 of them and only 2 were required, and there was no adjacent residential to this site.

Mr. Rogers said all perimeter greenspace was provided per the Ordinance, and the landscape plan and building facade plan would be reviewed at Final site plan submittal and it would appear that the mix of materials would comply with Section 2520. He indicated he recommended Preliminary site plan approval subject to the application data issues.

Mr. Bluhm said he has also reviewed the Preliminary site plan and it was part of an industrial complex and the development was proposing water and sewer service into the building from an existing main in Roethel Drive. He said the applicant was further proposing that a storm sewer system would collect the storm water drainage and as indicated on his plans, it would be detained on site and then directed to the storm sewer that exists in Roethel Drive.

Mr. Bluhm said he had some comments with regard to the plan and it appears that the north approach radius encroaches into the adjacent parcel, however, they have indicated a note that an easement was proposed, which must be obtained before the Final was approved.

Mr. Bluhm said they had some other comments which he believed Mr. Arroyo would be addressing with respect to the drive width being less than 30 feet. He said he had a third comment which was that if the location were relocated to the south side of the lot, there would be no need to relocate the existing hydrant that was in place in that location right now.

Mr. Bluhm indicated beyond that, he recommended engineering approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated he has reviewed the Preliminary site plan and as has been mentioned, access was proposed to Roethel Drive which was a local street with a 60 foot right-of-way and that was properly shown on the plan.

Mr. Arroyo said the access issue has been raised and there were some City standards that need to be addressed in terms of the width and also they wanted to see the driveway shifted to the south so that the full 20 foot minimum entering radius would not extend beyond the property boundaries which was generally required.

Mr. Arroyo said it appears that the applicant does not have a problem with that and they would address it as part of the Final site plan submittal and they have also found additional parking which also was a benefit so that if they lose a few spaces by shifting the drive to the south a little, it looks like they would probably end up with a surplus over what was proposed in the plan that was before the Commission.

Mr. Arroyo said a 35,000 sq. ft. light industrial building could be expected to generate somewhere between 196 and 246 average daily trips and they have also provided some peak hour information, such as no deceleration tapers or passing lanes were necessary on Roethel and the only internal circulation item they have was that the turning radius at the northwest corner of the dumpster location needs to be increased to improve turning movements around that area and that was a minor item that could be taken care of at Final, so he was recommending approval.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo indicated there was a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the Novi Fire Department, that states the above plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the following: (1) Provide a Hazardous Chemical Survey for the construction project.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Member Bonaventura indicated he would make a motion.

It was,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hoadley

None.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously.

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

Mr. Rogers indicated he and Mr. Bluhm would have a few comments together on this item. He said they were asked by DPS, Mr. Heim Schlick in particular, to look at the criteria for siting sanitary landfills and as they may effect communities in Oakland County, particularly the City of Novi.

Mr. Rogers said attached to this packet at the end were the various criteria and there was also an opinion from Fried, Watson and Bugbee and also a report from Mr. Mike Csapo, but basically all this means was that if there wasn't sufficient capacity perceived to exist for the next 5-6 years in Oakland County, an applicant could completely by-pass the City of Novi or Lyon Township and go to the Oakland County Solid Waste Committee, Director Roger Smith, and get an approval for a site with no review by the locality if they meet the criteria.

Mr. Rogers said in the letter of March 1st on JCK's letterhead, they have looked at the primary and secondary criteria and some of them were applicable and some of them were not applicable, but when completing the review of all of them, there was a matrix at the end and the sections that were identified were Sections 1, 9, 10, 12, 19, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32, and for the most part, they were all R-A Districts. He felt they have Section 9 because one of the areas eligible to locate it in would be industrial, heavy commercial or agriculture or residential agriculture. He also indicated they have done ownership checks on all of the blocks.

Mr. Rogers said Item 1 was that new landfills proposed for inclusion in the Plan must have a minimum site size of 130 acres. He said they found out they don't have to have a sidwell or an individual parcel of exactly 130 acres or more and a developer could come in and buy up 2-3 of the properties such as around Delta Trucking to get his 130 acres.

Mr. Rogers said Item 2 was that new landfill proposals shall contain buffer areas measuring at least 300 feet from the property line to the perimeter of the disposal area footprint. He said that would be a matter of site plan review.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 3 was the site must provide staging and parking areas for trucks, employees and visitors such that off-site access roads remain free of waiting vehicles. He said that would also be a matter of site plan review.

Mr. Rogers said Item 4 was no disposal facility was to be sited in the 100 year flood plain and he asked Mr. Bluhm if he wished to address that item. Mr. Bluhm explained they just really looked at the areas on the FEMA maps that were identified by 100 year flood plains and eliminated sections based on that.

Mr. Rogers said Item 3 was natural areas inventory of Oakland County and that was a big map of Oakland County and there was nothing anywhere near Novi. He said it would be large pieces of land, 300-400-500 acres such as Kensington Park.

Mr. Rogers said Item 6 was that no landfills may be constructed within 5,000 feet of the runway of an airport licensed to handle piston powered aircraft nor within 10,000 feet of a runway of an airport and he indicated there was no airport in or near the City.

Mr. Rogers explained this criteria was required because of the potential hazards to air navigation presented by birds which may be attracted to the landfill site.

Mr. Rogers said Item 7 was that disposal facilities were barred from wetlands and he asked Mr. Bluhm to comment on that item and Mr. Bluhm indicated they really handled it the same as floodplains and they looked at the maps and eliminated sections based on that.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 8 was no disposal area shall be located within the boundaries of an identified wellhead protection area. He asked Mr. Bluhm what was a wellhead. Mr. Bluhm replied he really got that from their environmental specialist and he wasn't really sure, but he checked and there was an official map that identifies wellhead protection areas and they looked at that and determined that there were none in the City at all.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 9 was that no site shall be located in areas delineated as lying above a U.S. E.P.A. designated unprotected Sole or Principal Source Aquifer. He said there was no such designation in the County.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 10 was that all landfills must have paved access by "All Weather" roads. He said he didn't realize there were three roads in the City that were all weather roads without any load restrictions, seasonal or otherwise, and those were 12 Mile Road, Grand River and Novi Road. He said they have to have direct access to an all weather no limit type roadway so that took away a lot of the spaces on the map.

Mr. Rogers said Item 11 was that all proposed new sites and expansions of existing sites must control drainage of storm water from the disposal area of the site and he said that would be a site plan review issue.

Mr. Rogers next reviewed the Secondary Criteria. He said Item 12 was that the site must be located in an industry, heavy commercial, agriculture or agriculture/residentially zoned areas. He indicated that was their vulnerable point, and he was recommending that the Commission suggest to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee that they address this and come up with a new name and he suggested a new letter such as the R District.

Mr. Rogers said Item 13 was that the exterior boundaries of the disposal area footprint of a landfill may not be located within 1,000 feet of an historic site, district or structure. He said he had a copy of the Historic District Report which was very interesting and there was none on the official register of the state or the federal government, except a lady who at one time served on the Historic Committee. He said they talked about the Samuel Whitehouse on 9 Mile Road which was close to being nominated if it hasn't already.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 14 was that exterior boundaries of the disposal area footprint of a landfill may not be located within 1,000 feet of inlake lakes and streams. Mr. Bluhm explained this was an interesting one and they state 1,000 foot isolation distance was required in areas defined as island lakes and streams as defined by Act 346, but go on to eliminate or basically say other than drains as defined by Act 40.

Mr. Bluhm said in conversations with Ms. Tepatti, it appears that all of the drains in Novi have some conditions associated with Act 40, thereby what they have said was that all of the drains in Novi would not qualify as being a limiting factor in this case and they basically couldn't eliminate any areas because of inland lakes and streams, so that was where that led them to.

Mr. Rogers indicated Item 15 was that exterior boundaries of the proposed site must be not less than 1,000 feet from a school, public or private, a church or an established outdoor recreational land use. He said he noted certain churches and schools.

Mr. Rogers said the only section they would see in the matrix was Section 12 which meets enough of the criteria that something might come in. He said in Section 12 they have a few feet from Haggerty into Farmington Hills, so the only place someone could come in and assembly 130 acres would be in that area of R-A area, which he pointed out to everyone, and noted that would be only if the zoning R-A stays in place. He said if they change it to R, then they could throw this away and they would be completely clean.

Mr. Rogers said he would recommend that they pass this on to the Committee for Ordinance amendment and there was no immediate rush to do it and there was a lot of capacity and they should read Mr. Csapo's letter, but it was a piece of housekeeping to be done. He said they could hold off actually having the hearing on this as part of a series of Zoning Text Amendments, which they were doing right now.

Mr. Rogers said he was rewriting some of the Statements of Intent and he has already done the R-A District and taking out that holding zone nomenclature, but he did feel this should be forwarded to the Master Plan Committee and within the next month or two the Commission would see it back.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo said she would entertain a motion to forward this to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee as recommended.

It was,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Hodges

To forward the Oakland County Act 641 Plan to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for review and future recommendation to the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Rogers as far as renaming it, were there other communities that use Residential/Agricultural and do they call it R-A.

Mr. Rogers discussed Brighton Township. He indicated that there were such Zoning Map designations as Country Estates Residential, Rural Estates Residential and in those districts, oil and gas drilling has been able to come in, but if they change it to Residential-County Estates, Residential-Rural Estates with the "R" designation up front, then a degree of protection was possible. He said he recently changed the Zoning Map to go with the R-districts.

Member Bonaventura said in other words, would it be too confusing to keep the R-A designation but just rename the Agriculture to something else. Mr. Rogers said they could call it Estate Residential, but in the Zoning Ordinance, the subtitles for all of those districts R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 he believed, just calls out One-Family Residential - R-1, One-Family Residential - R-2, etc.

Member Bonaventura said all he was getting at was that it might save them some reprinting of their maps.

Mr. Rogers asked if he could think of a word and Member Bonaventura said it could be Residential Acres and then Rural Acres was also mentioned, and Mr. Rogers asked if they could take that under advisement and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said they would forward that to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Member Bonaventura said it was just a thought to save them from reprinting all of the maps and Mr. Rogers said they were reprinted every 3-4 months anyway and he just prints 100 at a time.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers limiting Agriculture to a zoning, would that have any tax implication on people that own that property as far as increasing their taxes. Mr. Rogers indicated they were not changing any of the permitted uses and a person could still have horses, still have farms. He said that was not really a function of Planning to determine assessments but he didn't think it would, but he just didn't know.

Member Hoadley said he wondered if they should just recommend it on the parcel that might be impacted, just Section 12, rather than everything else, if it would have some kind of a tax implication. He said he would hate to see them do it and then everyone get an increase in assessment.

Mr. Rogers said the Master Plan of Land Use doesn't make reference to Agriculture anyplace, but it talks about land use or residential density and it was all residential, no agriculture, so they were already on record and then there was one farm left in the City. He just couldn't tell him further and Mr. Watson indicated he would provide him with a written opinion on that issue.

Member Hodges then called the question and a vote was taken.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously

2. Eleven Mile Road Zoning Issues - Report by Brandon Rogers, Land Use/Planning Consultant Regarding the Zoning on Eleven Mile Road Adjacent to the Town Center.

Mr. Rogers said they have his report of March 2, 1995 which he did at the request of Mr. Wahl. He said this started with people being concerned about Eleven Mile Road and that it was a nice paved road, but for the most part, it was zoned Industrial, and they have the DPW complex located there. He said really it was in the shadow of the Town Center and it was thought they should think about upgrading the restrictions and protecting that area.

Mr. Rogers referred everyone to the second page of his packet where he discussed the TC, OSC, and I-1 and where the I-1 symbol appears, that was the City's property off of Delwal Drive.

Mr. Rogers referred to a dotted line and said that was a generalization coming down to Grand River through the black area of Crescent Drive. He said there was divided opinion on the Council whether they should, as a Planning Commission, look at the Master Plan recommendation and then implement it with a Zoning Map change for the area all the way to Meadowbrook. He said as it turned out, the Council's majority opinion was to direct this Planning Commission to look at the proper zoning westerly of the Crescent Blvd. extension. He then referred them to the I-1 there going over to the OSC, on the north and south side of Eleven Mile.

Mr. Rogers thought the Council felt that that property should be considered for OSC zoning possibly and that for the City property and the DPW garage site where the I-1 was, it was felt to leave that for the time being as I-1 and it has an I-1 type building on it. He said the Meadowbridge Park Office Complex was to the east of it over where the Walsh College was, which was developed as an I-1 Industrial Park at one time and then there was the Novi Business Park on the southwest corner of Eleven Mile and Meadowbrook Road, and that was developed as an I-1 warehouse office park and it has become now an office park and then Federal Express was across Meadowbrook.

Mr. Rogers said so the Council referred this matter to the Commission to consider both a Master Plan and a Zoning Amendment for that area west of the future extension of Crescent Blvd.

Member Bonaventura asked if this should go to the Implementation Committee for them to review and Mr. Rogers suggested possibly the Master Plan & Zoning Committee. He said when that Crescent Blvd. was put through, it was going to open up some development parcels on both sides, including the City's property. He said it was going to be very strategic property, but he was sure the motion was to draw it where the dotted line was and go westerly, but regarding that area, there was talk of the DPW moving to another site in the City because this was prime office development when Crescent Blvd. goes in.

Mr. Rogers said with Eleven Mile being well paved and taking a person to Meadowbrook, then they could go up to 12 Mile and they were on M-5 and this was very strategic property. He said he brought out in his report that many of the uses were permitted in all three districts, and retail was limited greatly in the I-1 district, but all three districts permit offices and all three districts one way or the another permit hotels, transient accommodations, and restaurants to a degree in an I-1 District. He added a restaurant would have to be at the corner of Meadowbrook and Eleven Mile so restaurants wouldn't really be too related.

Mr. Rogers said City construction standards would apply on roads and drainage easements for all utilities.

Mr. Rogers asked Mr. Cohen if they have a rezoning coming up shortly on Town Center Drive, the west side, between Crescent Blvd. and Eleven Mile, and Mr. Cohen thought they were holding off right now on that.

Mr. Rogers said he was just thinking that they shouldn't wrap the two together because he couldn't give them enough definitiveness on the Crescent Blvd. alignment but they could define it pretty much now he thought and he asked Mr. Bluhm did he know where it was going.

Mr. Bluhm said he has seen some conceptual plans but nothing in detail but the general locations.

Mr. Rogers then said they need to get a more precise alignment with Crescent Blvd., and Member Bonaventura asked with what and Mr. Rogers explained from where it now deadends down to Grand River, and then use that as a zoning district line.

Member Hoadley asked from an infrastructure and tax revenue standpoint, between OSC and I-1, which would generate the greatest tax benefit to them and which one would also generate the least amount of infrastructure cost and problems as far as traffic, etc.

Mr. Rogers replied they could get variations in each district. He referred to the Lakepoint Office Building, which has 3 stories and 99% occupancy and probably a lot of services were provided, and it was probably a good tax base. He said the Meadowbridge Park office development, a one story building where Walsh College was, was probably less tax producing, if it even pays taxes, which it probably doesn't. He added it was really difficult to say.

Mr. Rogers said looking at the building heights, they could go five stories in TC and OSC and possibly 2-3 stories in I-1, and he felt they were probably going to look at a greater tax base in a TC and OSC District.

Member Hoadley asked about the infrastructure and Mr. Rogers said it would depend on the building.

Mr. Bluhm commented as far as utilities go, industrial usually has less of an impact than an office/commercial type use.

Member Hoadley said he was thinking about a traffic generator more than anything else and Mr. Bluhm said he didn't know about that and it would be a question more for Mr. Arroyo.

Mr. Rogers then said they would review those under site plan review and he would want the buildings attractive as they face the freeway in many cases.

Member Hoadley said he would like to have those questions answered and Vice-Chair Lorenzo said if there was a consensus, she felt what they should do was to forward this to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. A motion was then made.

It was,

Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Weddington

To send this matter to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to come back with recommendations and a report to the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION ON MOTION

Mr. Wahl indicated that one of the Work Program items this year was the Master Plan 1995 to the year 2000 which was suppose to be an outline of where they were at and where they were going for the next five years and he would like to propose that. He said obviously the fiscal year would run out at the end of June, so no later than that, he would come back to the Commission with a rather comprehensive report of what the needs were.

Mr. Wahl felt part of that was this was only one of probably a half dozen Master Plan issues, which have come up over the last 18 months to 2 years. He said Member Bonaventura has raised some questions regarding the overall Master Plan, and there were other pending issues about the Town Center District zoning.

Mr. Wahl said he would suggest that that Committee would work and package those together and bring them back to the Commission at the end of that program that they have been working on and have an overview then so that it wasn't looked at in isolation as one particular Master Plan potential amendment.

Mr. Wahl said he would concur with the recommendation that it go back to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and then just indicate that there were a number of other items that fit together and he would expect that a final report would be issued no later than the end of the fiscal year.

Member Mutch said since she wasn't a member of that Committee, the Committee members may already be aware of this, but at the Council meeting where this was brought up, the area that was zoned I-1 from Meadowbrook west to the Town Center, has developed a little differently in actuality than what was expected.

Member Mutch said so the result was that they have buildings such as low well-landscaped office and the Walsh College for example as a tenant and then the DPW was squeezed in there with the abandoned antennas and other things.

Member Mutch then asked about the Anglin property and where exactly was that property and Mr. Rogers referred her to the OSC on the Zoning Map, and then pointed out the property to her.

Member Mutch said that was well within an existing OSC so at some point, that would change and Mr. Rogers said the OSC was on the south side of Eleven Mile and the Grand River frontage was OS-1.

Member Mutch said she was just looking at what was currently more industrial than office just to see which side of the line that was on. Mr. Rogers said the black area just to the east of Anglin, he thought was the Cort Furniture Rentals going in there.

There was no further discussion and a vote was taken.

(voice vote) Motion Carried Unanimously.

3. Updating of the Woodlands Map - Bonaventura.

Member Bonaventura said during one of their Budget meetings they had a few weeks ago, he wondered why their update of the Woodlands Map was not included, and he was told that last year or two years ago, it was moved to the DPS.

Mr. Wahl explained several years ago when the Planning Commission brought that proposal forward, he believed the Council/Administration said that would be taken care of by the Department of Public Services.

Member Bonaventura asked if it was being taken care of this year and Mr. Wahl said not that he was aware of.

Member Bonaventura said that was his problem and they were coming up to ten years now and he was pretty sure the map was made by infra-red photography/aerial photography, and he thought that was done in the fall.

Mr. Rogers commented that JCK did it in 1985 with infra-red photography.

Member Bonaventura said so it has been basically ten years and he felt it was very important to update this particular map, not only because of the fact that the City Forester would tell them that what was once light woodlands, could become medium to dense woodlands and the quality of woodlands could change in ten years, but also it would be like a benchmark for them as far as seeing where they have been and where they were going as far as they would be able to overlay one onto the other and see how great their Ordinances were working in preserving or not working in preserving.

Member Bonaventura felt they would see definitely homes where there was once trees and he could guarantee that, but he hated having this in limbo by having it in DPS and they were not going to put that on the top of their Agenda to push that through and he would like someone to come up with an idea to address that to Council and to either bring it back to them or give it back to them so that they could have that in the Budget or address it in some way.

Member Bonaventura asked if anyone had any ideas on how to get that through and he would like to get it through this year because he felt ten years was way too long.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if it was possible for the Commission to put together a Position Statement on that issue if there was a consensus and present it to the Council when their Budget was being presented.

Mr. Wahl said if they would recall, the Environmental Planning Committee has quite a list of studies and environmental needs that it was looking at and they were looking at existing environmental studies, what was accomplished, what wasn't accomplished and the idea was to do a comprehensive review of all those studies and determine what the needs were so this would be just one of the issues that would be looked at by that Committee between now and the end of the current fiscal year.

Mr. Wahl said Member Bonaventura's point was well taken and he felt it was merited, but until the Committee comes back and says there were those other six needs and the priority would be Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, he didn't know where it fits in there and he felt that the full Commission needs to take a look at all of that.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo indicated she shared Member Bonaventura's concerns and disappointment that it hasn't been looked at thus far.

Member Bonaventura asked if Mr. Wahl could schedule an Environmental Committee Meeting for next Wednesday even if it overrides the Implementation Committee meeting and Mr. Wahl said yes and he felt that would be timely because he had requested that their Consultants several months ago, proceed to report back to him with what they found and he hasn't heard anything recently.

Member Bonaventura said that would be 6:00 PM on the next Wednesday of a Planning Commission meeting instead of an Implementation Committee meeting.

Member Hoadley asked before they do that, this Budget was going to be looked at prior to that and was that correct and Mr. Wahl said this was not something that was going to be added to or otherwise be dealt with in their next Budget and he said this would have to be something that would be dealt with in subsequent Budgets.

Member Hoadley said if they don't get it in the Budget this year, they would have to wait a whole year and Mr. Wahl said yes unless someone went to the Council with a Budget Amendment and said in the middle of the year, they have determined that there was immediate need for this and they were requesting a Budget Amendment.

Member Hoadley felt Member Bonaventura had a very good point and he would suggest that they get this into the current Budget if they want to do it this year, otherwise they would be out of luck. Mr. Wahl indicated the Budget has already been submitted.

Member Bonaventura said he did understand that, but like he said, he just had bad feelings because two years ago it was shoved off to the DPS and he felt it was being given low priority obviously and he felt it was a major planning tool.

Mr. Wahl said in recalling what was discussed at the time, there was a feeling that there were various alternatives for paying for that, that did not necessarily involve Planning Commission Budget Funds or even General Funds, and there might be an opportunity for a grant or for student assistance, or somehow the City Forester was going to find a way that it could be done at a bargain price compared to what the estimate was so it may not be necessary to be doing any Budget Amendments or other changes in the Work Program to accomplish that work.

Mr. Wahl felt what they might do was to send a request to Mr. Chris Pargoff the City Forester and ask him what could be done about this, outside of worrying about all the Budgets and things, because it had been identified as a need several years ago.

Member Hoadley asked if they could send a request to the DPS to prioritize this matter.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked the Commission if there was a consensus to do that at this point. Mr. Wahl added or at least to get a report back.

Member Mutch said whether it comes out of their Budget or not, does anyone have a ballpark idea of what such a thing would cost and Mr. Rogers replied he would guess about $5,000-$7,500. He said they would have to get a plane and they would have a lot of negatives and they would have a lot of interpretation.

Member Mutch said she wondered because she wasn't sure how big a request it would be of the DPS or the Council to find an extra amount of money, not knowing how much that might be.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo asked if there was a consensus to forward a request to Mr. Pargoff regarding this item and it was stated yes.

Vice-Chair Lorenzo requested the Administration to do that on the Commission's behalf.

Mr. Mutch had a brief comment concerning the Oakland County Act 641 Plan and he felt what they shouldn't forget was that landfills could be next door neighbors such as Six Mile and Napier. He also said Lyon Township would be his concern because there were a lot of large acre parcels out there that were all zoned residential/agriculture and it was specifically designed to predict agriculture uses and they already have problems on Napier from the Six Mile Landfill, so they don't want another one right next door so maybe they could give them a little encouragement along the lines of possibly making some changes to their Zoning Ordinances.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business before the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:25 P.M.

_______________________________

Steven Cohen

Planning Clerk

Transcribed by Sharon Hendrian

March 28, 1995