(810) 347-0475

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

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello (Arrived 7:32 p.m.), Churella,

Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

ABSENT: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda? Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated the City Administration would like to add the request for scheduling a Public Hearing on October 2, 1996 for a city initiated rezoning of Rotary Park. Chairperson Lorenzo added it as Item 4 under Matters for Consideration. Mr. Cohen asked that it be added as Item 1 because Dan Davis of the Parks & Recreation Department was present to speak regarding the rezoning. Chairperson Lorenzo then added it as Item 1 and asked if there were any other changes or additions? Seeing none she entertained a motion.

PM-96-09-185 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED WITH THE ADDITION OF ROTARY PARK REZONING REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING UNDER MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To

approve the Agenda as amended.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-185 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Jonathan Brateman, 24230 Karim Boulevard, asked the Planning Commission through the Implementation Committee to revisit the NCC Zoning Ordinance. It was his belief that changes could be made while keeping the intent of the Ordinance. He stated the hardships that developers and potential owners have to face, need to be removed. He believed the hardships were unfair and over restrictive. He stated he has submitted in the Commissioners packets, the changes he would like to see made to the Ordinance. He asked for a consideration to have 10,000 square feet of retail on one acre and an additional 2,500 square feet of retail building for each additional half acre of land.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation announcing there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Capello announced he has received two letters.

Harold and Helen Rarick, 40008 Crosswinds, asked if the approval of Ramada Limited of Novi will create additional traffic on Haggerty Road. Studio apartments are now being constructed as well as another development near Eight Mile Road, this will create more traffic tie-ups.

A copy of a letter was received from attorneys Johnson, Rosati, Galica, Labarge, Aseltyne, Sugameli and Field, P.C., representing Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association, dated August 27, 1996 and is addressed to Joseph Gerak.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any removals or approvals?

Member Weddington stated she had three minor corrections to the minutes of August 21, 1996. Page 7, first paragraph under Discussion, last line should read, "the prior plans had residence associated...", page 18, third paragraph, second line should read, "Member Weddington asked if...", page 21, paragraph seven, "...from a conference she attended." "she" refers to Member Bononi.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated on page 16, second paragraph should read, "Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was enough cueue..."

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she had one correction to the minutes of August 7, 1996, page 17, paragraph seven, last line should read,..."the Commission would lose..."

PM-96-09-186 TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA INCLUDING THE CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 7, 1996 AND AUGUST 21, 1996

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda with the amendments to the Planning Commission Meeting minutes of August 7, 1996 and August 21, 1996.

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo stated there has been a Public Hearing scheduled for the Town Center Sign Ordinance at the October 2, 1996 Regular Planning Commission meeting. She also stated the Novi Police Equipment Shelter Building, SP96-30, has received Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. RAMADA LIMITED OF NOVI, SP96-28

Property located west of Haggerty Road, between Eight Mile Road and Nine Mile Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit approvals.

Jesse Rogman, Director of Franchising for HFS introduced himself and turned the floor over to George Norberg.

George Norberg of Sieber Keast & Associates addressed a couple of errors. He stated there are 81 rooms proposed, however, the drawing shows 80. Parking calculations require 91 spaces of which are provided. There is a difference in the base elevation. In error, the plan proposes 900, it should be 800. In regard to traffic, a three lane traffic improvement is proposed to be extended as a result of meetings with Oakland County Road Commission as well as Rod Arroyo. In regard to on-site parking lot detention, JCK has mentioned seeking alternative locations, Mr. Norberg stated 30% of the detention could be placed outside of the parking lot, the remainder would either be on the surface of the parking lot or within the pipes. Gas and oil separators are provided. The disturbance to the woodlands is shown as 7 trees being removed. There has since been a re-evaluation that states 12 trees will be removed, however, 16 replacement trees will be planted on the site separate from the landscaping.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated his report dated August 27, 1996 calls out some application data that should be complied with. 1) Separate identification, 2) Size of the plans, 3) Sealing of the plans, 4) Room count. Mr. Rogers stated the building complies with the OSC District setback requirements. The five foot concrete sidewalk is shown which will link in with the sidewalk at Extended Stay of America. Building facades reflect E.I.F.S. cementitious material and face brick. Mr. Rogers stated there was certain detailing that will need to be addressed during Final Site Plan as well as the submission of a materials/design/color board for actual building materials. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the application data items being provided at the time of Final Site Plan approval.

Dave Bluhm of JCK stated the applicant is proposing a single access ingress/egress to Haggerty Road which is under the jurisdiction of the Road Commission of Oakland County. The applicant will need to meet the site distance requirements of the County which will be a condition of the permit. Water main is proposed to loop around the building, tying into the water main in Haggerty Road and the water main stub has been left off at the Extended Stay site to the south. The applicant is proposing a stubbed extension to the north for future looping, as the undeveloped areas to the north are developed. A sanitary off-site sewer extension is proposed to the southwest corner of the building with a service lead into the building. An off-site easement will need to be provided prior to Final Site Plan Approval for the extension of the utility. Catch basins and storm sewers are proposed to collect the storm water run off from the site. The water will be stored on the site, the requirements allow no more than one (1) foot of storage in the area, however, as mentioned by Mr. Norberg and JCK, the storage elevation and duration will be minimized. Mr. Bluhm also suggested the applicant oversize sewers where possible to keep as much water underground as possible. The water is discharged to the northwest corner of the site and out into a wetland area. Mr. Bluhm recommended approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated access is proposed from one driveway on Haggerty Road which is an arterial road carrying 27,888 vehicles per day. The project can be expected to generate approximately 700 trips on an average weekday. The site plan has been reviewed for conformance with parking layout standards and its’ internal circulation system is acceptable. The applicant is proposing to extend the center turn lane on Haggerty Road, there will also be a deceleration lane and an acceleration lane will be connected with this lane for full deceleration to allow right turning traffic to get out of the through traffic stream. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the site is a continuation of the area of Extended Stay America. The woodlands do not connect to any other site or woodlands, it is isolated which limits its’ quality. There will be the removal of 12 regulated trees and a small amount of under story. The area is about 1200 square feet of which 400 will be removed. Ms. Lemke stated five (5) items will need to be addressed in final engineering: 1) Preservation for a 30" Ash tree which is located in the center of the Extended Stay property, 2) Dead tree needs to be removed, 3) Top and bottom proposed wall elevations are needed, 4) Types and numbers of vegetation to be removed need to be provided. Ms. Lemke recommended approval due to the lower quality of the woodlands and subject to the six (6) standard conditions for Woodlands Permit approval recommendation.

Dave Bluhm of JCK stated Sue Tepatti has reviewed the site plan which requires an Administrative Wetlands Permit as there is only a single outfall for the restricted storm water into the wetland. At Final Site Plan, JCK will look to pull the outfall back to provide some water quality benefits prior to its’ entrance into the wetland area. The wetland will be tolerant to the waters that are released into it. Ms. Tepatti recommended approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she has received a letter from Andy Pless, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi, indicating that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. She also stated there is a memorandum from Chris Pargoff, City of Novi Forester which states the office concurs with the recommendations of the Planning Consultant, Linda Lemke. This office may require additional bonding for trees that may not survive the building process. In addition a $5,000 bond for fence maintenance will be required on the project. An environmental pre-construction meeting must be held before any clearing and grubbing takes place.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced it is a Public Hearing and opened the floor to the Public.

Richard Jurkiewicz, 22230 Edgewater had several concerns. He stated there are already three hotels in the general vicinity where semi-trucks and campers are parked and was concerned about seeing this come into Novi. He also expressed with city taxes being paid, if occupancy becomes low and a loss is shown. He felt four lanes would be ideal in regard to traffic.

Joe Shivers, 39935 Whispering Lane expressed concern with the occupancy, he stated adding the Ramada would make a total of five hotels within one half of a mile. He did not see a need for another hotel.

Patrick Conway, 40151 Whispering Lane expressed concerns regarding traffic, however, he stated no matter what kind of development is brought into the area, there is bound to be more traffic. He was also concerned about the quality of the project. He did not feel it was needed at this time.

Dave Gillam, Vice President of the Whispering Meadows Homeowners Association referred to the letter received by the Commission from Johnson, Rosati, etc., the attorneys that represent Whispering Meadows. He stated there is a clear dispute between the Association and Mr. Gerak as to exactly what the deed restrictions are regarding the zoning of the property. Whispering Meadows’ attorneys have been in contact with Mr. Gerak’s attorney in an attempt to work out a resolution. Mr. Gillam asked the Commission to table any further consideration of the Site Plan and Woodland Permit approvals.

Ken Saari, 39982 Whispering Lane encouraged the Commission to study the letter submitted from Whispering Meadows’ attorney before acting on the matter. He stated in 1984 the land was rezoned to office space and the deed restrictions specifically prohibited the construction of any free standing commercial retail or service establishment. He expressed concern with occupancy.

Dan Strausberg, 21680 Sandpoint Way stated he lives in a home that backs the parcel in question. He stated there are legal documents which place restrictions on the private property of homeowners and are enforced by the Police Department. However, it seems the covenants are being ignored when it comes to businesses.

Robert Ebenline, 40046 Whispering Lane shared some of the same concerns as Dan Strausberg. He asked the Commission to table the matter until the attorneys work out an arrangement.

Ellen Prevost, 40079 Whispering Lane stated she has been a resident of Novi since 1974. Her yard backs to the property in question. She stated before she moved into the area, she asked the City what could be built on the property behind her. She stated she was told the property was zoned for office and would not be developed for a long while because there was quite a lot of office space in Novi still undeveloped. She expressed concern regarding the value of her property.

Nancy Janik, 22340 Mill Road stated in 1984, the mistake was made by the City by putting the responsibility of the zoning restriction on the subdivision. At that time this was the only property zoned OSC, a new zoning of Office Only (OO) could have been formed to take into consideration the restrictions that were written. Instead, they were put into deed restrictions. She stated she would like to see the property rezoned considering the covenants codes and restrictions.

Kathy Hart, 21920 Sunflower stated it is disturbing that the parties of the covenant are not upholding their part. It was her feeling that the same consideration should be granted to the residents when there is a covenant with a developer or owner and they agree to certain terms, the covenant should stand. She stated this issue affects more residents than just those of the Whispering Meadows subdivision and asked the Commission to table the matter or consider denying it.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing. She asked Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney whether or not the Planning Commission has any jurisdiction regarding the covenants and restrictions for Whispering Meadows and Mr. Gerak, and also, does the Planning Commission have any discretion in terms of the request to postpone until the dispute can be mediated?

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated when the Commission is deciding on any issue that comes before it, the Commission is duty bound to make a decision based upon the Ordinance and Statutory requirements. The enforcement of private covenants and restrictions are not enforced by Ordinance. He stated consideration of the covenants and restrictions are not a basis for the Commissions’ decision. Mr. Watson stated he has received telephone calls from an attorney for Mr. Gerak as well as an attorney from Johnson, Rosati, Galica and he advised them both of the position the City takes on such covenants.

Mr. Watson stated both attorneys indicated they were going to discuss the matter between themselves. He stated whatever is decided between the attorneys will not impact the decision of the Commission. However, it may change the site plan. He stated the Commission should act on the proposal on its’ own merits based upon the criteria standards and Ordinances.

Chairperson Lorenzo turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley addressed concerns regarding the site plan. He was concerned with the traffic access/egress and thought if the building were re-arranged into a different configuration, it would allow for better flow of traffic. He stated there was no bypass shown on the plan, with several cars being parked to load and unload, there is no room for emergency vehicles to pass through. Member Hoadley was opposed to parking lot detention. He asked the applicant the reason for the location of the entrance and why there was no bypass.

Mr. Rogman stated it was his determination as well as the consultants he employed when the feasibility study was conducted, that most of the traffic would come from the

I-275 and Eight Mile Road intersection, therefore for marketing purposes they made the building more attractive. One concern during the initial site plan was the circulation of emergency vehicles. It was Mr. Rogman’s understanding that the Fire Department was in agreement that the plan was satisfactory for those purposes.

Member Hoadley reiterated his concerns regarding the bypass. He asked if the driveway could be relocated.

Mr. Rogman stated the reason the driveway is in its current location is because of the proximity to the location of the existing driveway for Extended Stay America.

Member Hoadley asked if the applicant thought about matching the driveways together, making one curb cut instead of two?

Mr. Rogman stated there wasn’t any direct consideration, however, there was some discussion of extending the lane, greatly reducing the parking, which is already in Extended Stay America. Mr. Rogman stated the height of the canopy is 14 feet to allow emergency vehicles to pass under. He also stated the width of the road is 30 feet in the area of the canopy allowing enough space for an emergency vehicle to pass a parked car. A section of the area will be marked with "No Parking" signs, allowing limited parking on one side only.

Member Hoadley asked the applicant if he had considered moving the supporting posts back 10 feet, allowing a 20 foot space for loading and unloading thus guaranteeing a passing lane.

Mr. Rogman stated it is a part of the design of the building.

Member Hoadley asked about the consideration of re-arranging the building, which would result in less circulatory problems?

Mr. Norberg stated the project is only looking to capture 81 customers during the course of a day. He stated it makes sense to present the most attractive face of the building in the direction where most of the anticipated guests would be coming from, that is why it was laid out this way.

Member Hoadley asked how long the excel/decel lanes are?

Mr. Rogman stated in this instance there would only be a decel lane because it ties to an existing third lane that is being constructed. He stated there was a 75 foot lane and a 300 foot taper for a center turn lane.

Member Hoadley stated it is a very busy lane and it should be made as safe as possible. He asked what the maximum number of staff would be at any given time?

Mr. Norberg stated the maximum number would be during a period of full occupancy which would be approximately seven.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if 91 parking spaces were efficient?

Mr. Rogers stated the applicant has provided an additional six spaces for the stated six employees. Adding up 81, plus 6 employees and 4 handicapped spaces totals 91. Mr. Rogers stated in his opinion this was sufficient. Mr. Rogers also stated not everyone driving to the hotel will be arriving by private vehicle.

Member Hoadley stated it was his observation that there may be a shortage of parking spaces at maximum capacity due to potential understatement of staff.

Member Bononi asked the applicant why a retention basin has not been proposed for the site?

Mr. Rogman stated in order to provide a large retention basin, more property must be purchased or the installation of an extremely large pipe must occur in order to keep the water off of the parking lot. According to the Storm Water Master Plan, this parcel may not require detention. A parking lot detention is a way to provide efficient cost saving detention. Pipe storage and green space was utilized where necessary, however, there will be parking lot detention approximately 8-9 inches deep.

Member Bononi asked what the residue area of the remaining area of the parcel was?

Mr. Rogman stated he does not have that information with him, he also stated he does not have a map that is large enough to show that. He estimated it to be 400-500 feet away from the residential section.

Member Bononi asked who owns the site?

It was Mr. Rogman’s belief that Mr. Gerak was involved with the exact ownership, he stated he did not know the name of the corporation.

Member Bononi asked if the corporation that owns Ramada will own the site or if it would be locally owned?

Mr. Norberg answered the property will be locally owned, Ramada is the franchisor.

Member Bononi asked how the water quality will be improved on-site during construction? Will there be any sedimentation basins?

Mr. Norberg stated it will be a part of the soil erosion control plan. There will be a small sediment basin at the outlet to the wetland area. There will also be sumps constructed in all catch basins and an elbow will be installed as a gas/oil separator to further provide some water quality.

Member Bononi asked who mapped the wetland boundary shown on the map?

Mr. Norberg answered it was mapped as a result of a meeting with Sue Tepatti and himself. He stated the map was made by himself and approved by Ms. Tepatti. He stated a wetlands expert has been retained by Haggerty Partnership to look at the entire wetland area.

Member Bononi stated the soils classifications noted per the SCS indicate the soils are not suitable for construction due to high water table and wetness. She stated concern of site drainage and the affect it will have on the wetlands. She asked where the ultimate destination will be, after the water has left the wetland?

Mr. Norberg answered the ultimate outlet is the culvert under Haggerty Road.

Mr. Bluhm stated the wetland from the northwest corner of the site traverses north and east towards Haggerty Road. He believed the wetland was another 1,000 feet to the north which connects back into Haggerty Road, the water is then carried by ditch and conveyed across Haggerty Road into Farmington Hills.

Member Bononi asked how many trees will be removed from the site during construction?

Mr. Rogman stated there were several small trees, however, he did not have an accurate count. He stated focus was put on regulated trees of which there are twelve.

Member Bononi expressed concern regarding on-site retention and consideration of water quality from the site to the wetlands. She believed there was reasonable and prudent alternatives by maxing out on the site not allowing any other space, rather than dumping the water into the wetlands without any kind of pre-treatment.

Member Vrettas stated he would be voting for approval. He stated he was disappointed with Ramada Inn. The residents feel Ramada is violating its’ covenants. Member Vrettas stated the residents of the Association feel they have honored their covenants and they expect the owner to respect the covenant as well. He advised the applicant to reach out to the residents and listen to their concerns.

Mr. Norberg stated he shares the concerns of Member Vrettas. He would like to see this property be successful. Mr. Norberg stated this was the first time he was aware of the private covenants.

Member Weddington asked who is the owner of the property immediately to the west of the property in question?

Mr. Norberg answered it is part of Eight Mile and Haggerty Two-Limited Partnership.

Member Weddington stated she saw inadequate area for landscaping on the plan. She stated the water is not under control and shares Member Bononi’s concerns regarding water management. To pave over more areas of the city with impervious materials, could create more problems rather than adequately addressing them. Member Weddington stated she might be more in support of the project if the plans showed more landscaping and better green spaces. She was not convinced that the water was being addressed and the parcel was being adequately managed in conjunction with the other developments.

Mr. Norberg asked for elaboration of inadequacy of landscaping. He stated there has not been a landscape plan completed at this time.

Member Weddington stated there is very little area to do any landscaping. She was concerned about seeing a lot of parking lot and very little landscaping of the overall development.

Member Churella stated if the building were to be turned, as Member Hoadley suggested, a boulevard could be added and landscaped. He stated it would also help the flow of traffic for emergency vehicles as well as on and off of Haggerty Road.

Mr. Arroyo stated he did not see a reason why a boulevard entrance could not be added. He stated typically it involves a ten foot island in the middle, widening the driveways. Mr. Arroyo stated the disadvantage would be the property on the east side of Haggerty Road, which is residential, could potentially redevelop in the future. If this were to occur, and there were a driveway put in opposite Ramada’s driveway, it will then present some difficulties making left turns. He stated it has not been looked into in detail at this point to determine the likelihood of a boulevard entrance.

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Churella, FAILED (2-6): To postpone Ramada Limited of Novi, SP96-28 for 60 days in order for the petitioner to address some of the concerns of the Planning Commission.

DISCUSSION

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she appreciated and shared some of the concerns raised by the public and the Commissioners. However, she did not feel the concerns dealt with meeting the requirements of the Ordinance, therefore, she stated she cannot support the motion. She stated landscaping plans are taken care of between Preliminary and Final. Chairperson Lorenzo was concerned about storing water on the parking lots, she stated she has always been opposed to this, however, it is allowed in the Ordinances. She stated the petitioner does not have any requirement to turn the building around. Chairperson Lorenzo stated there is not a valid reason to postpone the project.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-187 FAILED

Yes: Churella, Hoadley

No: Bononi, Capello, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the chair will entertain another motion.

PM-96-09-188 MOTION TO APPROVE, CONDITIONED UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, FAILED (4-4): To approve the Preliminary Site Plan for Ramada Limited of Novi, SP96-28 subject to all of the consultants written and verbal recommendations.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-188 FAILED

Yes: Capello, Churella, Lorenzo, Vrettas

No: Hoadley, Markham, Weddington, Bononi

Chairperson Lorenzo entertained another motion.

Member Churella stated a resolution needs to be met so the Commission can make a vote.

Member Hoadley explained he made the motion to postpone to give the applicant the chance to amend the plan without having to pay the fees again.

Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out the concerns of the Commissioners are concerns that have met the Ordinance requirements. She stated the Commission can require certain items within the Site Plan.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, FAILED (4-4): To approve Preliminary Site Plan for Ramada Limited of Novi, SP96-28 subject to all the consultants verbal and written recommendations and the project come back for Final.

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi stated she does not agree with Chairperson Lorenzo in that all of the Ordinance requirements have been met. Specifically with water quality during the construction phase and after the project is built as well as the affect it will have on the wetlands. She stated she is not convinced with the amount of information provided that it has been addressed according to the Ordinance. Legal council has given an opinion as to what the Commission can do. She stated she accepts that and the Commission should proceed.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated any Commissioner who objects to the plan, she would appreciate it if, in objecting they site the specific Ordinances that it is not in compliance with.

Member Hoadley stated he does not feel the parking is adequate for the project. Based on the information provided by the applicant, Member Hoadley stated he feels the plan is 2-3 spaces short and for the same reasons Member Bononi has mentioned, he will oppose the project as it currently stands.

Member Markham agreed with Member Bononi relative to water treatment and water management on the site. She did not feel the Ordinance has been adequately met specifically in terms of making sure it protects the surrounding areas and the wetland to the northeast corner. Member Markham read Ordinance 2516.2(c)3.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if that was for a Special Land Use?

Member Markham answered yes. Chairperson Lorenzo stated it does not pertain to the project and asked Mr. Watson if it was for Special Conditions. Mr. Watson answered yes.

Member Markham refered to 2B, sub-element 5 of the Ordinance, she stated nine inches of water in the parking lot during a storm is potentially a detriment to the existing land or the abutting land.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she agrees with Member Markham, however, unfortunately this has been covered in the past and Mr. Bluhm and the City Attorney states the City allows parking with water standing in the parking lots. She stated the Commission does not have the control to do anything about it unless it is taken to the Ordinance Review Committee.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-189 FAILED

Yes: Churella, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Capello

No: Hoadley, Markham, Weddington, Bononi

Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion to deny.

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (5-3): To postpone the matter for up to 60 days so the petitioner can address the concerns heard this evening.

Member Vrettas stated the Commission is being irresponsible. He stated the Assistant City Attorney has advised the Commission of what can and cannot be done, he stated the Commission has a legal responsibility which it is not doing.

Mr. Watson clarified that the question posed to him was whether the Commission could postpone the project to have the restrictive covenant issue resolved between the various property owners, and he advised since this would not impact criteria for the Commissions decision, it was not a reason to postpone the project. He stated if there were other reasons within the review that the Commission would like to be addressed, then it will be a reason to postpone.

Member Vrettas stated he misunderstood, however he will still second the motion.

Member Markham stated she takes offense to Member Vrettas’ implication that the Commissioners who voted against the previous motion were irresponsible. She stated she takes the responsibility very seriously, she reads the Ordinances, reviews the plans and because Member Vrettas was in disagreeance with her on a particular item does not mean that she is irresponsible. She stated she would appreciate if Member Vrettas would refrain from making any comments in her regard, in the future.

Member Vrettas apologized and explained he misunderstood what the Assistant City Attorney said. He stated he thought what the Commission was doing was irresponsible. Once he understood what the Assistant City Attorney said, he realized his statement was out of line and he apologized.

Yes: Hoadley, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi

No: Lorenzo, Capello, Churella

1. REQUEST TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CITY INITIATED REZONING FOR ROTARY PARK

Dan Davis gave a brief history of the project. He stated Rotary Park development is a 55 acre park development in the southeastern section of 35 in the City of Novi. Mr. Davis stated the reason he has come before the Planning Commission is to ask for a Public Hearing date in order to move forward with the city initiated rezoning that would allow the development of the parcel under the residential zoning district. Mr. Davis stated he has met with representatives from the consulting firms, a buffer is created for the adjoining residential property areas around that section of the city, there will be a park operation where a neighborhood park will be developed to service Chase Farms, Riverbridge and Meadowbrook Lakes area residents. There will be walking trails throughout nature preserve areas, tennis courts, playground area and a picnic shelter.

Member Hoadley stated in the past, the city initiated rezonings were presented to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee for approval or disapproval prior to coming to Public Hearing. He asked why this was not being done in this case?

Mr. Davis stated it is a straight forward request. He stated the Rotary Park development is a community based effort where the local Rotary Club has generated approximately $75,000 in donations matched with the Department of Natural Resources grant that is being pursued. Mr. Davis stated he was looking for consistency and a way to move forward in an expedient fashion.

Member Hoadley asked how long the property has been owned?

Mr. Davis stated the City has owned the property for many years.

Member Hoadley stated the condition must have been known long before, he asked why there was a rush all of a sudden, without going through the normal procedures?

Mr. Davis stated he was not familiar with the normal procedures of the Planning Commission. He was aware of the Public Hearing process and stated this was the reason for his appearance.

Mr. Watson stated most city initiated rezonings are for planning purposes prior to the time an applicant comes to the Commission. This project is different, it is city initiated in the sense that there is no outside applicant and it is not being rezoned for planning purposes.

Member Hoadley stated it is a zoning/land use matter and for his benefit he would like to explore why it would be better than rezoning the entire property light industrial for the same purpose.

Mr. Watson stated this is the reason for the submission of an application, review by the Planning Commission, conduct a Public Hearing and recommend it to City Council.

Mr. Rogers stated the request for rezoning follows the recommendations of the Official City Master Plan for Land Use which calls out the use of community park use.

Member Hoadley questioned if the property would be better rezoned where there was more control in the area of setbacks, site and sound requirements. He did not feel it was appropriate for the Commission to make a decision without having a chance to look into it.

Member Weddington stated the Rotary Park proposal has been in existence for quite a while.

PM-96-09-191 TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR POSSIBLE REZONING FOR ROTARY PARK AT THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 2, 1996.

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule a Public Hearing for the possible rezoning of Rotary Park for October 2, 1996.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-191 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo announced the Commission will take a brief recess.

2. TECH CENTER AT MEADOWBRIDGE PARK, SP96-21A

Property located north of Bridge Street, east of Meadowbrook Road for possible Revised Preliminary Site Plan.

John Rock of Kurmas & Associates Architects is proposing a 20,500 square foot speculative office, light industrial in the Meadowbridge Park Condominium area which is east of Meadowbrook Road and south of I-696. He stated it is zoned light industrial, there is approximately 30,000 square feet of landscape area. Mr. Rock noted a correction on the step elevation. He stated he has been working with an architectural review board of which he has complied with all of their requirements, he stated he has a letter and a revised set of plans.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the original Meadowbridge Park Condominium project indicated this as a building site. He stated the site plan shows the original footprint which has changed, it is slightly larger and the configuration has changed. The petitioner has submitted all application data, it meets the I-1 District setback requirements from the Condominium unit boundaries. The applicant has 78 of the 74 required parking spaces on the site, including handicapped. The Landscape Plan is reviewable at the time of Final Site Plan submittal and the conceptual building facade plan reflects an E.I.F.S. and split face block. Mr. Rogers recommended Revised Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Dave Bluhm of JCK stated the utilities were constructed with the roadways and the utilities as a part of the plat development. The only installation will be the service leads into the buildings. The storm water is being handled by a detention basin which exists on site and was built with the original development. Mr. Bluhm recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the access system is not proposed to change, the project will use the internal access road going out Bridge Street to Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Arroyo recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she has received a letter from Andy Pless, City of Novi Fire Marshal which states the plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following: 1) All roads to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. 2) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. 3) All water mains and fire hydrants to be installed and in service prior to construction above the foundation. 4) Building address posted facing street throughout construction, address to be at least 3 inches on a contrasting background. 5) Hydrants spaced a maximum of 300' apart in commercial, industrial areas. Show all locations on future plans. She turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

PM-96-09-192 TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Revised Preliminary Site Plan for the Tech Center at Meadowbridge Park, SP96-21A subject to all of the consultants comments.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-192 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley

No: None

3. ORDINANCE NO. 96-18 (COMMUNICATION TOWER ORDINANCE)

An Ordinance to amend Subsection 2508.1 and 2508.2 of Ordinance No. 84-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, and to add Subsection 2508.8 to said Ordinance, to revise the regulation of communication towers for possible recommendation to City Council.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant felt it was important that the Ordinance be considered and adopted as soon as possible due to the fact there are Cellular and other types of communication providers who are holding back until they are aware of what the Ordinance is going to provide.

Mr. Rogers stated the towers generally range from 100' to 200' in height and are usually monopoles. Some are able to provide access to five (5) providers. The crossbar antenna providers must be ten (10) feet apart, as more providers are added to one pole, the pole could become higher and the diameter could increase from five (5) feet to ten (10) feet at the base. It was Mr. Rogers opinion that a 1,000 foot setback would detach the tower sufficiently from residential areas. Mr. Rogers stated the Telecommunication Act of 1996 does provide for established providers to build out their system. If there is a grey area, they can supersede zoning and locate a tower either free standing or on a building. Mr. Rogers stated communication towers are currently permitted in the I-1 and I-2 Districts.

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney referred to the minutes of the last meeting at which the Communication Tower Ordinance was discussed. In regard to the 1000' setback, Mr. Rogers commented that it would be more than adequate to protect residential areas aesthetically. Mr. Rogers advised that they have used 1000 feet in other spacing criteria (ie. restaurants in the RC District) and that it is a little bit arbitrary because it could just as well be 500 feet. Mr. Rogers stated he is not uncomfortable with the 1000 feet, and it is difficult to say that there is a scientific reason for that. Mr. Watson stated these comments are what triggered his comments during that meeting. Essentially, he suggested that there be some review or study of that and do an evaluation so there is a basis for deciding that 1000 feet is what is appropriate. He was suggesting that someone look at the towers in the communities and make a recommendation as to the impact of the towers from various distances. He stated it does not look as if this has been done.

Mr. Rogers stated the towers can be disguised as a tree or painted any color. He did not feel it would be a good defensible position to limit the towers to the I-1, I-2 Districts.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers if he believed the 1000' setback was adequate in terms of visibility for the setting?

Mr. Rogers suggested looking into another Ordinance where a sliding scale of setbacks is used based upon height.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated by looking at the list of issues that were raised at the June 19, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting it does not appear that any of the suggestions were incorporated into the Ordinance, therefore, it may be a good idea for the Commission to review each item and consider incorporating or deleting, depending on the issue.

1) Part 1, Paragraph A - Mr. Rogers stated he will present some diagrams at a later date along with information regarding a sliding scale on the basis of height of the towers.

2) Part 1, Paragraph B, Sub-Paragraph 2 - Issue raised by Mr. Capote regarding Part 1, Paragraph b, Sub-paragraph 2 - Chairperson Lorenzo stated at that meeting, Mr. Capote asked why raise the issue concerning property values? She asked the Commission if they want to recommend including or excluding it?

It was Mr. Watsons belief that Mr. Capote made this suggestion because of his past experience with these issues. He believed that Mr. Capote was not suggesting that property values are not something to be concerned about but rather, why call them out.

PM-96-09-193 TO EXCLUDE "PROPERTY VALUES"

Moved by Churella, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To recommend to City Council to remove "property values" from Part 1, Paragraph B, Sub-paragraph 2

VOTE ON PM-96-09-193 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo

No: None

3) Part 1, Paragraph C - Chairperson Lorenzo stated Mr. Capote recommended that it read "required".

Mr. Rogers stated he did not see where it can be made mandatory, however, he would like to see it happen.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked why it cannot be required?

Mr. Rogers stated it may be put in, however, it may be beyond the Commission to require a co-location.

Chairperson Lorenzo read the section of the Ordinance and asked Mr. Watson to further clarify it.

Mr. Watson stated it should read that it shall be required in accordance with the following, and then lead into the next.

PM-96-09-194 TO ADD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add, in accordance with the following requirements.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley referred to Page 27, paragraph 5 and 6. He questioned the idea of inserting language similar to that of Palm Beach County regarding requirements. This would be a part of the Site Plan approval. Member Hoadley then referred to Mr. Arroyo’s memo to Mr. Cohen regarding camouflaged tree poles. He asked the Commission to consider making this a requirement in the Ordinance as an approval.

PM-96-09-195 TO CALL THE QUESTION

Moved by Capello, seconded by Markham

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the issue is to have Mr. Watson integrate the requirement into the language of Part 1, Paragraph C and look at the Palm Beach requirements.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-195 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

VOTE ON PM-96-09-194 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

4) Part 1, Paragraph C, Sub-paragraph 2 - Chairperson Lorenzo read Mr. Capote’s recommendation to use the word "feasible" instead of "practical"

PM-96-09-196 TO USE THE WORD "FEASIBLE" INSTEAD OF "PRACTICAL"

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Churella

VOTE ON PM-96-09-196 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas

No: None

5) Part 1, Paragraph C, Sub-paragraph 3 - Chairperson Lorenzo read Mr. Capote’s suggestion to replace the ending "to further minimize the impact of such facilities on City, if facilities cease to be used for transmission purposes, they shall be removed" with "in their entirety with ninety days of ceasing of such use."

Member Bononi asked if this includes the storage building as well?

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it says "facilities" and thought it would be included.

Mr. Rogers stated it would include the equipment shelter.

PM-96-09-197 TO ADD "IN THEIR ENTIRETY INCLUDING THE EQUIPMENT SHELTER BUILDING WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF CEASING OF SUCH USE"

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add "In their entirety including the equipment shelter building within ninety days of ceasing of such use".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-197

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

6) Part 1, Paragraph H - Chairperson Lorenzo read Mr. Capote’s statement that the "equipment shelter building shall comply with building setback and height standards for district in which located" and that "the" should be added before the word "district" and "its" should be added before "located".

PM-96-09-198 TO ADD "THE" BEFORE THE WORD "DISTRICT" AND "ITS" BEFORE THE WORD "LOCATED"

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To add "the" before the word "district" and "its" before the word "located".

VOTE ON PM-96-09-198 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi

No: None

Member Bononi complimented Mr. Arroyo and thanked him for furnishing the information dated July 29, 1996 in regard to Cellular Towers. She stated it was excellent information and regretted not being able to acquire the information earlier. Member Bononi had comments relating to material in the report. 1) She stated in regard to the 10,000 square foot minimum site, she feels it should remain and added that she believes the specification of the site a) it does not discriminate and b) it does not lead to a proliferation of sites by making sites too easy to find. 2) Page 2, Sub E in regard to the sufficiency of 40% fall zones. 3) Page 3, letter J, the San Diego Ordinance refers to an inspection report by a licensed engineer, where the City of Novi’s Ordinance does not call out specifically who should be conducting the inspection. 4) Establishing compliance standards as per the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electronic Engineer Standards that are universally accepted and specify these standard when there are complaints. 5) A report that would quantify the projects radio frequency exposures as per the San Diego regulation and compares them with adopted standards and a field report which provides field measurements of radio frequency, power density, radio frequency exposures and compare these with accepted standards to verify the applicant is in compliance and operating within accepted standards. 6) Page 28 of the San Diego Ordinance states if the emissions in the subsequent field report do not meet the adopted standard, permit may be revoked.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated Member Bononi’s suggestions were excellent and asked if she would make a motion to incorporate them into the Ordinance.

PM-96-09-199 TO INCORPORATE MEMBER BONONI’S SUGGESTIONS INTO THE ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: 1) 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM SITE 2) SUFFICIENCY OF 40% FALL ZONE 3) INSPECTION REPORT BY A LICENSED ENGINEER 4) ESTABLISH COMPLIANCE STANDARDS AS PER THE ANSI AND THE INSTITUTE OF ELECTRONIC ENGINEER STANDARDS 5) REPORT TO QUANTIFY THE PROJECTS RADIO FREQUENCY EXPOSURES AND COMPARES THEM WITH ADOPTED STANDARDS 6) FIELD REPORT WHICH PROVIDES FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND COMPARES THESE WITH ACCEPTED STANDARDS 7) IF THE EMISSIONS IN THE SUBSEQUENT FIELD REPORT DO NOT MEET THE ADOPTED STANDARD, PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED.

Moved by Bononi, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To incorporate Member Bononi’s suggestions into the Ordinance.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Watson clarified when speaking of accepted standards, it is referring to the standards that the FCC adopts pursuant to their regulations as opposed to standards that the Commission is adopting. He stated the Commission is requiring the applicants to demonstrate that they will meet the standards of the FCC and then testing will be done once the facility is built. In addition, inspections will be required by a licensed engineer.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-199 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: None

Member Hoadley asked Member Bononi if 10,000 square feet is adequate in all cases? He asked if the location size should be increased with the height?

Member Bononi answered 10,000 square feet is a minimum and she referred to other Ordinances she had worked with over the years. She stated that this is not to say that an applicant that is proposing a taller than average tower, it would not be in their best interest to have a lot size accordingly. She stated in practicality it would not be a problem.

Mr. Rogers commented some of the towers may be located on top of an existing building, water tower or bell tower. He stated 10,000 would include the site of the structure.

Member Hoadley asked if it should be required in the Ordinance to expand the lot if the height of the tower is higher than 125 feet?

Mr. Rogers stated the current Ordinance requires the setback to be equivalent from all four property lines to the height of the building. Mr. Rogers believed a 10,000 minimum is adequate for central areas.

PM-96-09-200 TO POSTPONE ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PLANNING CONSULTANT AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY TIME TO REVISE DOCUMENT INCORPORATING ITEMS RAISED DURING COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone action on Ordinance to allow Planning Consultant and Assistant City Attorney time to revise document incorporating items raised during Commission Discussion.

Yes: Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella

No: None

4. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE SELECTION

Chairperson Lorenzo started off with the Administrative Liaison Committee. She stated there was one vacancy which has been filled by Secretary Capello.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced the next vacancy is on the Planning Studies and Budget Committee. She asked if all the Commissioners have submitted their Planning Commissioner Committee surveys?

Member Vrettas asked if the survey was conducted for the Commissioners to pick up additional Committees? He then asked if the Commissioners who are currently on Committees want to stay on, do they need to submit anything?

Chairperson Lorenzo answered, no. She then stated there is one vacancy on the Planning Studies and Budget Committee and asked if there was anyone who would like to volunteer for that Committee?

Member Weddington stated this Committee meets once a year, the Planning Commission has its’ own budget that includes items such as conferences and consultant fees.

Member Churella volunteered to join the Planning Studies and Budget Committee.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced that Robert Churella is now a member of the Planning Studies and Budget Committee and announced there are two vacancies on the Communication and Community Liaison Committee.

Member Churella volunteered to join the Communication and Community Liaison Committee.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced there is a vacancy on the Implementation Committee and stated that Member Capello, Member Markham and Member Hoadley all wish to be nominated.

Member Hoadley stated he withdrew his name during the last Committee Selection in deference to Member Bononi who was the new member at that time. He stated if Member Markham wishes to join the Committee, he would again defer.

Member Capello also stated he would defer.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she appreciated the actions of Member Hoadley and Member Capello and welcomed Member Markham to the Implementation Committee.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced the next vacancy was on the Environmental Planning Committee and stated Member Markham was the only volunteer for the Committee. Member Markham accepted the membership.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced a vacancy on the Capital Improvements Committee and asked if anyone would like to volunteer for that Committee? Seeing no one she moved on to the Rules Committee and asked if anyone was interested in serving on this Committee? Member Churella volunteered to join the Rules Committee.

Chairperson Lorenzo announced the next vacancy is an alternate on the Town Center Steering Committee and asked if anyone was interested in serving on this Committee? Seeing no one she moved along to the Storm water Finance Committee Liaison. She announced that Member Hoadley and Member Bononi were both interested.

Member Weddington nominated Member Bononi stating that she has some background in water management, planning engineering and seems to have a great interest in it. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that an alternate is also needed because the Committee meets four (4) times a year and it would be in the Commissions best interest.

PM-96-09-201 TO NOMINATE MEMBER BONONI AS LIAISON TO THE STORM WATER FINANCE COMMITTEE

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Bononi as Liaison to the Storm Water Finance Committee

VOTE ON 96-09-201 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

PM-96-09-202 TO NOMINATE MEMBER HOADLEY AS ALTERNATE LIAISON TO THE STORM WATER FINANCE COMMITTEE

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To nominate Member Hoadley as Alternate Liaison to the Storm Water Finance Committee

VOTE ON 96-09-202 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo congratulated both Member Bononi and Member Hoadley and stated she appreciated their volunteering.

Member Hoadley asked if the alternate shows up at the meetings? Chairperson Lorenzo stated she would suggest the alternate as being an alternate in the event that Member Bononi cannot attend the meeting.

Member Capello stated the alternate to the Town Center Steering Committee meetings, shows up at the meetings but does not vote.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the meetings are all public meetings so any of the Commissioners could attend if they wanted to, they just would not be a member of the Committee unless Member Bononi was unable to attend.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

PM-96-09-203 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 10:40 P.M.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:40 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-96-09-203 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Hoadley, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

_____________________________________

Steven Cohen - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

September 11, 1996