View Agenda for this meeting

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.582

Proposed rezoning of 18.65 acre property located in Section 23, at the southwest corner of Meadowbrook and Cherry Hill, from Single-Family Residential District (R-4) to Low-Density Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential (RM-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Al Tuomaala of Siegal Tuomaala Associates Architects and Planners presented the zoning request. He stated the parcel is bounded by land that is zoned Office, the west is bounded by an existing subdivision, to the south is an existing church and across Meadowbrook is a proposed single family development. He requested rezoning of the parcel from R-4 to RM-1 to be used for a senior citizen housing development for the City. The proposal envisions a development that consists of 199 units, the central building is a three story building surrounded by one story ranch buildings. A portion of the site is a landfill, it has been investigated by the DEQ and Mr. Tuomaala reported that he is not permitted to build any structures in the landfill area, therefore, he is avoiding it entirely.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the requested rezoning. In looking at the surrounding area, the property located to the north is vacant OS-1, there is a catholic church to the south, an existing single family subdivision to the west and across the street Willowbrook Farms II and III. The project could provide for the ultimate extension of an existing Multiple Family District. The request is not consistent with the current Master Plan for Land Use which calls for Single Family Residential at a density consistent with the R-4 zoning. Utilities are available or near the site. Mr. Arroyo believed that the landfill presented difficulty in marketing the site for single family development, he thought the uses proposed seemed to work well giving the site feature. Mr. Arroyo recommended that the Planning Commission send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the request. Another alternative would be to defer action until the Master Plan is updated and another alternative would be to recommend denial of the zioning request.

In regard to traffic review of the proposed rezoning, the applicant has provided a trip generation comparison. Mr. Arroyo stated Meadowbrook Road is designated as a minor arterial, he provided information including the most recent traffic count of 16,798 vehicles per day from 1995.

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

Debbie Bundoff asked what other uses could eventually be put on the site if the senior housing development was not built.

Chairperson Weddington clarified that there was a Site Plan approval request on the Agenda later this evening.

Mr. Arroyo stated the uses between R-4 and RM-1 were very similar. The RM-1 District allows all uses that are permitted in the R-1 through R-4 Districts. Principal uses include single family dwellings, parks, cemetery’s, churches, schools, child care centers and private recreation uses. Additional uses under the RM-1 would include two family dwellings and multiple family dwellings. Under Special Land Use, included are convalescent homes and child care centers.

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

PM-99-01-009 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.582 TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM R-4 TO RM-1

Moved by Capllo, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council on Zoning Map Amendment 18.582 to rezone the property from R-4 to RM-1.

VOTE ON PM-99-01-009 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington

No: None

2. RAINBOW RASCALS SP98-10C

Project is located in Section 28, at the southeast corner of 10 Mile Road and Beck Road. The 7,500 square-foot child care facility is zoned Single Family Residential (R-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Special Land Use Permit approval.

Doug Budden of Rainbow Rascals gave his presentation. (Nothing was recorded on the tape, therefore, unable to transcribe comments.)

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use and Revised Preliminary Site Plan. He stated due to the need for a noise analysis which is required by the Ordinance, he stated the applicant will either need to provide the analysis or go to the ZBA to request a waiver. Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant has made substantial improvements to the Site Plan. There are some Special Land Use requirements that are specific to daycare facilities. The applicant has provided for the amount of adequate play area and the site provides access to a major thoroughfare.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo stated one point of access is proposed to Ten Mile Road. Ten Mile Road carries approximately 16,300 vehicles per day. The applicant proposes acceleration/deceleration lanes at their driveway. There is an existing center turn lane on Ten Mile Road. A 75 student daycare center can be expected to generate approximately 330 trips per day during the a.m. peak hour and approximately 61 during the p.m. peak hour. There is no drop off area, therefore, parents will be required to park their cars and bring the children into the facility. The dumpster has been shifted around during the review process to try to minimize the impact as much as possible. Trafalgar, an internal local residential street abuts the property. Since the proposed use is not a residential use, he did not recommend access to Trafalgar. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated public utilities are proposed by extension off of Trafalgar Court. Storm sewers are provided which will collect storm water, discharge it to the existing storm sewers, it will then be diverted to the existing regional basin downstream. The applicant proposes to provide an 8’ pathway along the Ten Mile Road R.O.W. and a 5’ concrete sidewalk along Beck Road R.O.W. In regard to the approach along Ten Mile Road, Mr. Bluhm stated coming from eastbound Ten Mile Road, the approach does not meet the City’s site distance standards of 510’, approximately 360’ are provided. It is due to the elevated intersection of the Beck Road/Ten Mile Road area. Based on the Special Land Use consideration, Mr. Bluhm felt that the developer has alternatives in the residential area that can be explored. He felt there was the possibility of up to 2 lots that could be developed. He would like to see the applicant expore it further. Mr. Bluhm felt that the applicant was not meeting the engineering requirements at this time and was not in a position to recommend approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Woodlands Permit. She stated woodlands on the site are primarily black locust, it has some value for screening from the roadways. The site immediately to the north contains the same type of vegetation as on the site. Ms. Lemke was looking to save more of the understory where the isolated trees are located. She recommended that the play area not be a part of the woodlands area due to the fact that black locust trees have a lot of thorns. She suggested slightly trimming up the trees or put the fence outside of the area and save the understory. There are 96 regulated trees of 8" dbh or greater that are to be removed from the site, replacement trees total 122. The applicant indicates that they will place 15 on site,15 on another site owned by the applicant and the remainder in the tree fund. They indicate some trees on the adjacent area in the subdivision to the east and they need documentation from that subdivision giving them permission to do so. Ms. Lemke recommended approval with four conditions; 1) the payment of the replacement and fence maintenance financial guarantees and inspection fees to be determined at the time of Final; 2) the remaining regulated woodlands are placed into a preservation easement; 3) no construction, including clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved and an environmental pre-con meeting is held; 4) review of the Final Engineering Plans per comments in her letter dated November 20, 1998.

In regard to the Conceptual Landscape Plan, Ms. Lemke recommended approval. The applicant has changed the green vinyl fence to a black aluminum decorative fencing. She requested that detail be provided. More woodland area and trees have been saved by the current layout. Evergreen trees have been provided to provide winter screening. The applicant is required to put in a 4’ 6" planted berm on the site, adjacent to residential. On the east side of the site, a 4’ masonry screen wall with evergreen plantings is shown and meets the requirement. The wall needs to be a face brick with suitable cap of masonry or reinforced concrete with brick, not poured concrete with brick patterned as shown. On the southern property line, the applicant shows a timber retaining wall, the applicant is saving the woodlands in that area. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the wall and the woodlands buffer instead of the berm. The applicant is required to put in a 30" screening adjacent to the R.O.W. and a masonry screen wall and plantings are proposed adjacent to the parking. A variance from the ZBA is necessary for the elimination of the berm without a wall. The landscaping buffering along Beck Road consists of existing woodland trees preserved in the northwest corner, additional landscape trees have been added with 28 juniper shrubs, additional shrubs need to be added to meet the opacity requirement south of the woodlands. She suggested that the fence be moved away from the sidewalk to allow shrub plantings on the outside of the fence. The fence is being used in place of a berm. There were some items to be reviewed at the time of Final, Ms. Lemke recommended approval.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states that the application has been reviewed for compliance with the Novi Ordinance 2520 Façade Ordinance requirements and the percentage of materials on each façade has been calculated. It has been found that the drawings are consistent with the Ordinance requirements and a Section 4 Waiver is not required.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) all weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire aparatus prior to construction above the foundation; 2) the building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3" high on a contrasting background.

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

Michael Rajkovic, 47330 Baker Street stated there were numerous issues with the landscape proposal which require numerous variances, he recommended that they not be approved. Mr. Rajkovic stated there were alternatives for the daycare center and the proposed site, he strongly recommended that the Planning Commission not approve the project.

Gene Dougherty, 47349 Baker Street shared the comments of Mr. Rajkovic. He expressed concern regarding safety and market value of his house. He looked to the Commission to keep the parcel zoned Residential. He thought there was a large amount of variances being requested for such a marginal project, one that was really not needed in Novi. He urged the Commission to not approve the project.

Frank Brennan, 23876 Heartwood announced that the Agenda and Public Notice both referred to the subject site as being the southwest corner when in fact that is an error and should be the southeast corner. He suggested that the Commission table the project because the adjoining neighbors were only notified yesterday. He stated the Commission has had other projects that have proposed rezoning Commercial in a Residential district and it was turned down, he stated it was not fair. The residents own half a million dollar homes, the corner has been zoned Residential for a long time, again he stated it was not fair.

Judy Plasencia, 24142 Trafalgar Court encouraged the Commission to keep the area Residential. She thought it was important to the quality of life in the area that the area remain a community area rather than encouraging commercial properties. She stated the traffic is currently a problem. She would like the Commission to consider changing the area to limit the truck traffic. The majority of the properties in that area are Residential and she would like it to remain.

Michael Pesendorfer spoke on behalf of Virginia Lauinger-Klaserner, 23973 Beck Road which is located across that street from the proposed site. He expressed concern regarding the traffic patterns on Beck Road. He expressed concern that additional pick up and drop off traffic would create a very dangerous situation. He would like to see the area remain Residential and continue to hold the natural beauty that has provided that area for a long time.

Judy Lofgren, 23640 Wintergreen Circle believed the proposed project was very wrong. She stated there are few trees left in the City. She urged the Commission to find a location where trees do not have to be destroyed. She did not see why the trees needed to be taken down when there were alternatives.

John Goady, 47527 Grenwich Drive urged the Commission to review the project from a Master Plan perspective and stay with the plan. He stated the ingress/egress for the site is extremely poor. He asked the Commission to keep it residential.

Reagan Schwartzlos, 23937 Beck Road stated the major concerns regarding traffic address traffic on Beck Road. He stated the traffic on Ten Mile Road has been neglected. He stated access would be difficult, if not impossible, given the current traffic flow, without adding some additional 300 trips during the peak hours. The increased risk to safety is enough that it should be addressed.

Dick McCarthy, 23898 Broadmore Park did not believe there was any benefit by adding the proposed project at the intersection of Ten Mile and Beck Roads.

Chairperson Weddington stated the Counsel would like to address the matter of Public Notice.

On the issue of the timliness, Paul Weisberger reported that the Planning Department did submit the Notices on time. He explained that one of the purposes of a Public Notice is to properly identify the subject site, he recommended tabling the Matter before closing the Public Hearing so that anyone who was not provided with information regarding what site was before the Commission would be able to speak at the next meeting.

Chairperson Weddington asked if the Commission should go ahead with Discussion and hold open the Public Hearing or defer all Discussion until after the Public Hearing closes if the Commission does choose to carry it over to the next meeting?

Mr. Weisberger suggested deferring Discussion until the Public Hearing is complete and then go forward from there.

Member Capello asked Mr. Wahl to tell the Commission what the Notice was and then maybe a decision could be made.

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development stated the Notice was incorrect and referred to the subject are as being the southwest corner when in fact it should have been the southeast corner.

Member Capello asked if the Notice went out to the proper residents?

Mr. Wahl stated the map was correct, however, the description was incorrect.

Kelly Schuler, Planning Assistant reported that the mailings did go out within the proper time period and they were mailed to the proper residents.

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

DISCUSSION

PM-99-01-010 TO DENY RAINBOW RASCALS SP98-10C PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL LAND USE BASED ON THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND NEGATIVE ISSUES REGARDING SAFETY, TRAFFIC AND WOODLANDS

Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny Rainbow Rascals SP98-10C Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use based on the negative recommendations of the Planning and Engineering Consultants as well as the public comments and negative issues regarding safety, traffic and woodlands.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello clarified that the motion was based on the comments of JCK relative to the 363’ proposed distance from Ten Mile Road, comments of the residents regarding safety hazards, location of the site and trees on the site.

Member Canup stated he would be in support of the motion because of the safety issues.

Member Mutch pointed out that one thing the Commission has to determine regarding a Special Land Use is that this use is not detrimental in comparison to other proposed uses. Unfortunately the applicant did not bring forward any alternatives for the Commission to compare it to. He stated he felt uncomfortable voting on the Matter tonight with the error in the Notice.

Member Koneda stated compared to other residential uses that could be built on the site, if two homes were put on the site, what impact would they have on the woodlands?

Ms. Lemke answered the impact would be less due to the fact that they would not have to provide the buffers along the R.O.W.

In regard to the site distance for a driveway, Member Koneda asked if there was a driveway access off of Beck Road, would it be an issue for sight distance for a residential driveway?

Mr. Bluhm answered the sight distance would be the same for residential as it would for commercial.

Member Koneda asked what the distance was between the driveway and the center of Beck Road?

Mr. Bluhm answered, it was approximately 240’.

Member Koneda asked if the intent of the variance on the berm was to protect the woodlands?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

In regard to traffic along the roads, he stated there was a plan to widen Beck Road to five lanes and this woud probably happen long before Ten Mile Road is widened. He asked what impact this would have on property values?

Mr. Arroyo stated the timing of the widening of either road was one that was difficult to comment on because neither one are actually programmed. He stated there has been discussion because of the coming Beck Road interchange improvement, that Beck Road may increase in priority, however, there is also a demand to widen Ten Mile Road. He could not speak to which one would come first.

Member Koneda thought safety was the paramount concern with the development.

Member Csordas clarified that the Thoroughfare Plan forecasts five lanes for Beck Road and Ten Mile Roads.

Member Mutch appreciated the value of the trees. He stated the City does not own the property, therefore, the trees are not absolutely protected. He stated single family homes could be built there and a lot of the trees would still be lost. Therefore, by the Commission voting against the project does not guarantee that the trees will remain.

VOTE ON PM-99-01-010 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Wataza, Weddington, Canup

No: None

3. CARLTON FOREST CONDOMINIUMS SP98-40A

Project is located in Section 10, between 12 Mile and 12 ½ Mile Roads, and Novi and Dixon Roads. The 33 acre-site is zoned Low Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-1) in the northern portion, while the southern portion is Office Service District (OS-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Woodland and Wetland Permit approvals.

Lorne Zalesin of Biltmore Properties introduced David Stollman also of Biltmore Properties, Mary Jukuri of JJR who will conduct the presentation, Dino Lekas of JJR and Jim Jones of MCS Associates, the engineer for the site.

Mary Jukuri gave a brief overview of the project. She stated Carlton Forest will be a low density multi-amily residential community. It is approximately a 33 acre site located between 12 and 12½ Mile Roads, west of Novi Road. Approximately 28 acres of the property is zoned RM-1, the remaining portion is zoned OS-1. The property is under single ownership by Biltmore Properties who are also the developers of the project. Carlton Forest will be a residential community of homeowners. 180, 2 bedroom, 2 bath condominium units are proposed. Each will have its own 2 car attached garage with a private entry from the garage to the unit. Each will have its own laundry facility and its own patio, balcony or porch area and outdoor yard. The condominiums are predominantly brick façade with some upper siding areas. The parcel is very long and very narrow, the typical width is approximately 630’, however, because of the significant wetlands areas on the east side of the site and factoring in the side yard setbacks, there are some areas of the site that pinch down to a 220’ dimension. Therefore, there are some layout constraints regarding organizing the homes on the property. The site planning strategy has been to create a series of landscaped entrance courtyards throughout the project, orienting the homes in this way has allowed the majority of the units to have attached side entry garages so that either from an interior courtyard or along Carlton Way, you will not see a wall of garages. Carlton Way is the main access road through the site, it is a private drive. It will have street trees along both sides, it will have pedestrian lighting, landscaping and sidewalks, there are open spaces with seating areas and pads for benches. There are approximately 5.37 acres of wetlands on the site, there are two minor wetland impacts. One from the road crossing at the entrance and one to the other entrance wetland area due to road grading for the entrance boulevard. The required 25’ wetland buffer are has been preserved adjacent to the wetland systems and a retention wall has been added at the southern part to reduce the amount of grading impacts in the wetland buffer area. There are three woodlands on the site, predominantly in the northern part, that total approximately 3½ acres. About 1½ acres of woods are impacted to the lesser quality, light density woods on the eastern side of the site. There are no woodlands impacts to the higher quality medium density woodland on the northwest corner of the property. The required number of replacement trees will be planted, they are proposed to be planted along the eastern edge and along the eastern wetland edge so as to supplement the existing wood lots that remain on that side. Two storm water detention basins are provided. Ms. Jukuri noted that Carlton Forest exceeds the minimumusuable open space per unit that is required by the Ordinance and they are planting up to an additional 50 street trees and canopy trees than the required. Ms. Jukuri requested that the Planning Commission consider a waiver or variance on four items; 1) a waiver on the minimum 45 degree angle rule for sighting on three buildings, numbers 10, 12 and 21; 2) a waiver of the Ordinance requiring a screening berm between an RM-1 District and an OS-1 District. Ms. Jukuri stated because of the significant amount of wetlands in the OS-1 parcel, no office will ever be built, therefore, she requested a waiver to building a screening berm in that location; 3) a waiver for the landscape berm between the RM-1 District and the RA District. She felt that with the additional tree replacement plantings in the woodlands they would rather have that as the screening device; 4) a variance from the required 24’ width for the inbound lanes only on the entrance boulevard. She was seeking to go from 24’ to 18’ to reduce the amount of wetland impact at the entrance. She stated they would still be able to provide emergency access and still have a passing lane within the 18’ dimension.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated the property that fronts 12 Mile Road is zoned OS-1, the remainder is zoned RM-1. Consequently, because of the wetland located on the OS-1 property, the potential for development is very limited, all of the development related to structures for multiple family are on the RM-1 portion of the property. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval due to a number of outstanding issues that require waivers or variances. If they were to be granted, then he would be in a position to recommend approval. The RM-1 site has a net site of 24.8 acres, consequently it has enough net site area to support 180 units, which is the amount proposed. The RM-1 portion of the property contains 2.8 acres of wetlands. The applicant meets all of the required parking standards and the open space standards. As a part of the approval process, the applicant will be required to dedicate the appropriate R.O.W. to make up for the difference from the City’s Thoroughfare Plan.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo stated a trip generation comparison has been provided. There is one point of full access which is off of Twelve Mile Road. There is an emergency access only connecting to 12½ Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo stated the Fire Department has indicated that they will support a gate over the entryway with a chain that can be cut with bolt cutters, provided that the access point is paved. He stated this is a new requirement that will be put into the Design and Construction Standards. He stated there will be a need to go to the City Council for the Design and Construction Standards waiver. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the waiver for the boulevard entrance with shifting the entrance to the east.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated a public water extension is being proposed through the site with connections to 12 Mile and 12½ Mile Road to form a loop system. The sanitary sewer will be extended into the site along the roadway network from 12 Mile Road, extending all the way to the northern units and serving the entire site. The applicant proposes a private drive through the main part of the site. The private drive will be designed to public standards, it will be required to be 28’ in width, back to back curbed and meet all public standards. The applicant proposes storm sewer to pick up storm drainage. Two detention basins are proposed on site. The storm water basin will be constructed with temporary sedimentation controls and permanent water quality controls. The detention basin will then outlet to the large wetland complex, it will then outlet along an existing ditch along the eastern edge of the site and cross the roadway and connect to the wetland area at the southern part of the site. From that point, the stormwater outlets across 12 Mile Road and into the enclosed system in the West Oaks II development. The second basin is located at the southern end of the site. The outlet point is the southern wetland area and then ultimately off site to the south. Mr. Bluhm supported the variance to the width of the driveway, he felt it was a good addition as well as looking to shift the approach to the east to minimize the curvature. As this is a two phase project, he would like to see the applicant extend the main water main to 12½ Mile Road to form a loop system with the first phase. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of both the conceptual landscape plan and the woodlands plan. She stated the woodlands are found along the eastern property line, the highest quality is found in one corner, the remainder of the woodlands areas are more of a lower quality wooded wetland area. The woodlands continue off site to the west and to the east. It is connected to the core reserve areas which increases the value. The areas to be removed are lower in quality. Ms. Lemke did not recommend the sidewalk along 12½ Mile Road as no walk is proposed for the Society Hill development to the east. Ms. Lemke was not in favor of a stub street to the east due to the woodlands located in that area. There are a number of items that need to be submitted for Final review. She stated she needed to look at replacement tree locations and they could not be used for the landscape requirements.

In regard to landscaping, there are a number of waivers that the Planning Commission needs to provide. They are all very similar because they are saving regulated woodlands and are not putting in a berm. Ms. Lemke recommended that the Commission grant the waivers with the provision that additional evergreen plantings will be provided to provide more opacity. The remainder of the items can be provided at the time of Final.

Debbie Thor, Environmental Specialist stated there were approximately 5.38 acres of wetlands on the site. There is a large wetland system to the northeast that follows through a channelized area flowing south into another large wetland area. The wetland has open water in the center with large dead trees and scrub shrub. There are a couple of open water pockets within the area that are bordered by emergent vegetation with scrub shrub and forested vegetation surrounding that. The system is considered high quality. There is a small wetland pocket to the southeast that is not considered a part of this system. The impacts proposed are wetland fill in the amount of 435 cubic yards, which is equal to 0.17 acres, for the construction of Carlton Way. Two equalization pipes to facilitate the existing drainage patterns. There are two storm water outfalls from the proposed detention basins to the large wetland system and a third storm water outfall that catches directly to catch basins on Carlton Way and discharges it to a large wetland system on the southwest side. There is a small amount of wetland buffer disturbance proposed for the retaining wall. Ms. Thor recommended approval conditioned upon the five comments listed in her letter being addressed at the time of Final.

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal; 1) the proposed hydrant locations are not approved. The applicant shall contact the Fire Marshal’s office to discuss the proper hydrant locations.

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

Debbie Bundoff, expressed concerns against the east property line where running water currently exists. She was hopeful that the applicant would stick to the buffering of that area since it is a major part of the water flow for the area. She also expressed concern with the SAD 94 contract running through the area to service adjacent parcels to the site. She stated there were currently sewer tap stubs to the adjacent parcels and did not get put into the adjacent properties that the contract includes. She expressed concern with what would happen to the stubs and how far the road system is to it. She was disappointed in the amount of buffering between her farm and the proposed multiple housing. In regard to density, she asked if the applicant is utilizing the entire site for their density. She asked if the OS-1 property was calculated into the density or did it only include the RM-1 property? She had great concern regarding the trees and wetlands for the site. She was hopeful that the applicant was careful in the wetland ditch during construction.

In regard to the question regarding density, Mr. Arroyo clarified that the 24.8 acres of the net site area was looking at the RM-1 property on its own.

Mr. Bluhm stated the sewer was previously constructed part way up the southern part of the site, he stated the applicant would be tying into it. He stated he has been working with the engineer for the site and would continue through the Final Site Plan to provide stubs where they are needed.

In regard to screening, Ms. Lemke stated the plans shown tonight are conceptual and she would be looking for the applicant to increase the amount of screening at the time of Final.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission, seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

In regard to the boulevard along Twelve Mile Road, Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo when the boulevard goes in, what R.O.W. would be required?

Mr. Arroyo stated the planned R.O.W. for Twelve Mile Road would be 90’ from the center line versus 60’ and the applicant will need to show it on the Final.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bluhm if Carlton Way was required to be built to public street standards?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.

Member Mutch stated the turns in the road seemed to be fairly wide, he asked if it was allowable under the standards?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He clarified that they are actually considered eyebrows under the design standards.

Member Mutch asked if the distance between the curb and the sidewalk provided for a wide enough width of grass?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated he would be asking for 5’ to be shown at the time of Final, The minimum standard is 5’.

Member Mutch asked if Society Hill was required to provide a sidewalk?

Mr. Arroyo stated he was currently reviewing the Final Site Plan for Society Hill, however, he has not finished the review, therefore, he could not remember. He clarified that it is required by Ordinance and in order to get it waived, they would have to go to City Council for a Design and Construction Standards waiver. Giving the proximity of the site to the City park, he questioned if a sidewalk might be in order, giving the fact that people could potentially be walking to the park. He thought it should be explored in more detail.

Member Mutch asked if the sidewalk were to stay, would it be possible within the R.O.W. to save more trees? He asked how big of an impact it was?

Ms. Lemke stated it was a pretty considerable impact, however, it could be maneuvered around trees.

Member Mutch stated he would hate to see the sidewalk waived as he was thinking about the connection to the Novi Road bikepath and potential access to the City park. Regarding the internal sidewalk connections, he asked how many units have direct access to the main sidewalk?

Mr. Zalesin could not give an exact number.

Member Mutch asked if there was any reason that the applicant could not provide sidewalk access from all of the units to the main sidewalks through the site?

In regard to the sidewalk at 12½ Mile Road, Mr. Zalesin stated based on the tree survey, he thought it would need to be staked in the field to minimize impact.

Mr. Zalesin addressed the sidewalk issue. He stated they have tried to provide some private space in the courtyards, therefore they provided the sidewalks from the front door to hopefully discourage people from cutting through the area.

Member Mutch understood the point of privacy, however, he thought that knowing that there would be an amenity at the north end of the site, a lot of the residents would be cut off from direct access to it.

Member Koneda asked about Ms. Lemke’s comment on the deletion of the stub road, he stated it was not shown on the plans and asked if the Commission needed to discuss the stub road?

Mr. Zalesin stated the stub road was originally in the first submittal, after various Consultant reviews, it was decided that there would have been a great deal of wetland and woodland impacts, therefore, it was removed from the current submittal.

Member Koneda asked if the MDEQ had jurisdiction over it and if so, does the applicant need a permit?

Ms. Thor answered, yes. She stated the applicant does have a permit.

In regard to the OS-1 land in front, Member Koneda asked if an OS-1 use would be sought out for that piece of property in the future?

Ms. Thor doubted it seriously.

Member Koneda asked why the road that goes through to 12½ Mile Road was not a through road instead of an emergency entrance?

Mr. Arroyo answered, the reason it is not was because the DPW did an analysis of 12½ Mile Road at the time of the Society Hill project and that road is in very poor condition. It was the recommendation from that department that there not be regular access from that project to 12½ Mile Road. He stated there was no plan in the near future to upgrade 12½ Mile Road.

Member Koneda stated he could understand that, however, at some point, something will have to happen to 12½ Mile Road. He was personally opposed to having break-away gates on the developments, he would rather see them as through streets.

PM-99-01-011 TO APPROVE CARLTON FOREST CONDOMINIUMS SP98-40A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, WOODLANDS PERMIT, WETLANDS PERMIT AND TO GRANT A VARIANCE OF THE 45 DEGREE ANGLE OF BUILDINGS 10, 12 AND 21 AND TO WAIVE THE BERM ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMENTS AND CONDITIONED ON WAIVERS FROM THE ZBA FOR THE BERM BETWEEN THE RM-1 AND OS-1 PROPERTY AS WELL AS GRANTING OF THE 18’ INBOUND BOULEVARD WIDTH BY CITY COUNCIL

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve Carlton Forest Condominiums SP98-40A Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit, Wetlands Permit and to grant a variance of the 45 degree angle of buildings 10, 12 and 21 and to waive the berm on the eastern boundary of the property subject to all of the Consultants oral and written comments and conditioned on waivers from the ZBA for the berm between the RM-1 and OS-1 property as well as granting of the 18’ inbound boulevard width by City Council.

 

 

DISCUSSION

Member Mutch complimented the applicant on the proposal. He thought it did a very good job of addressing the environmental issues on the property and surrounding properties while providing an attractive alternative housing in comparison to some of the other things proposed in the area.

VOTE ON PM-99-01-011 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None

PM-99-01-012 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA ASKING THEM TO GRANT A WAIVER OF THE BERM BETWEEN THE RM-1 AND THE OS-1 PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE WETLANDS AND THE FACT THAT IT IS ALL UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to the ZBA asking them to grant a waiver of the berm between the RM-1 and the OS-1 portions of the property due to the extensive wetlands and the fact that it is all under common ownership.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello asked why the applicant needed the berm between the OS-1 and the OST?

Ms. Lemke answered it is needed because there is basically residential next to a non-residentially zoned property.

Mr. Arroyo clarified that if the OST property is a separate vacant parcel, the berming would not have to be put in. However, in this instance, it is all one parcel under the control of one developer, therefore, it is technically being developed which kicks in the requirement for the berm to be put in.

VOTE ON PM-99-01-112 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Watza, Weddington, Canup, Capello, Churella

No: None

Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a brief recess.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

4. SIEMENS SP98-47A