Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Vice-Chair Csordas

PRESENT: Members Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, and Mutch

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Canup, Piccinini, Watza and Chairperson Weddington

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Architectural/ Façade Consultant Doug Necci, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler

Vice-Chair Csordas asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Member Churella stated that he would like to move the third Matter for Consideration, Society Hill,

to number one (1). He would then like to move number one (1) and two (2) to two (2) and three

(3). He would also like to add the nominations for Planning Commission under Matters for

Discussion.

Vice-Chair Csordas asked if there were any other additions to the Agenda? Seeing none, he

entertained a motion to approve the agenda as amended.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda and Mutch

No: None

None

Member Capello announced he had received a letter from Carol Higley, 30180 Orchard Lake Road regarding Regency Industrial Centre. She approved because the request was consistent with the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan. She felt that the results of the development would add substantially to the City of Novi’s tax base and create jobs.

Richard Herbel owns four parcels of land on the east side of Beck Road, north of Eleven Mile Road and wished to indicate his support for the Zoning Map Amendment 18.585. His only concern was what will be done with the water runoff once the project was built.

None

None

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.585

 

Zoning Map Amendment 18.585 for possible rezoning of 1.0 acre parcel from Residential Acreage (R-A) to Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-1) and possible rezoning of 0.744 acres parcel from Low-Density Multiple-Family Residential (RM-1) to High-Density Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-2) or any other appropriate zoning district. Properties are located on the east side of Beck Road between Eleven Mile Road and Grand River.

 

Blair Bowman, NOBE Property Group, 43700 Expo Center Drive, was before the Commission for two actual rezoning requests. The first of which was the one-acre (1.0) parcel that fronts on Beck Road. It allows them to be consistent in our treatment of the frontage of Beck Road and the overall design of the project is much better off and we were able to come to an amicable terms on that. They requested to rezone consistent with all the property that has been rezoned previously around it to RM-1. The second request was to reconfigure the RM-2 property, which is the congregate housing portion of the project. There is a drain that is of interest and concern to the Consultants to protect which, if they were able to they would do. The consultants looked at redesigning the project and moved it, the entire facility and the plans, to the north. They were able to do so in concert with the townhouse apartment project and blend the two together to make it work. However, the building overlapped onto a portion of what would be RM-1 zoned property. It was Mr. Arroyo’s suggestion that they would have to modify that parcel to configure it and allow it to be zoned RM-2, consistent with the balance of the Congregate project. After doing that and submitting the site plans based upon the requested rezoning, they have identified another small area of wetlands that they are now looking at with the Consultants trying to maneuver around. It is a small one in nature, but it is one that if they could work around they would attempt to do so. After a design session, it appeared that they could do so, but it may even necessitate a slight modification to the request. They requested a tabling until they decided what they could do it within the area or have to come in for a modified and readvertising for the future parcel that the congregate will sit on.

 

Mr. Bowman requested that the matter be tabled.

 

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney stated if the Planning Commission tabled it, they needed to table it to a date certain because it is a public hearing. If Mr. Bowman wishes to table it, he should pick a meeting in which he was going to bring it back up.

 

Member Capello understood that Mr. Bowman might need to have different properties rezoned in these .744 acres.

 

Mr. Bowman stated that he might need to come a little bit further north in a very oddly configured way because the building has "legs".

 

Member Capello stated that the Planning Commission would have to re-notice it since it is a different parcel of property. He does not know if it will serve Mr. Bowman’s purpose to table it. The Planning Commission could act on it tonight. It could get a recommendation from them and then if he does not need to change it he would be ready to go. If he does need to change it, he would still have to re-notice so he might be saving time just to let them make a recommendation tonight.

 

Mr. Bowman asked Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant, if they do not have any building or parking area and a small sliver is zoned R-A of the project site to meet setbacks, do they still have the same issue?

 

Rod Arroyo stated that he would have to see what part of the site is going to be in what zone and he would want to confer with the city attorney to make a final determination. There have been some cases of split zoning on property where there has been some type of sharing. It’s really addressed on a case by case basis depending upon exactly what is going on in the different districts. He would have to look at it and confer with the city attorney to give Mr. Bowman a final answer.

 

Mr. Bowman said that he would take this advice and move forward with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He can determine through the redesign process whether they need to readjust it.

 

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant started by saying that the applicant had explained the reason for the request. He is recommending approval of both of the requests that the Planning Commission has before them. He finds the request consistent with the newly adopted Master Plan. He has also provided the Commission with a comparison of the different districts in terms of what might be permitted and an overview of issues. He is recommending approval of both rezoning requests.

 

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant had no comments.

 

Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist had no comments.

 

Vice-Chair Csordas announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

 

Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Capello stated the purpose of rezoning from RM-1 to RM-2 was to avoid a drainage swale. Rather than moving the building, couldn’t Mr. Bowman just relocate the drainage swale or fill in a cul-de-sac? Is that feasible?

 

Mr. Bowman stated that he would like to work with the environmental features to the extent that he could, and he thought that from a design perspective he would be able to do it. If he were able to accommodate a move, he guessed that it would be consistent with feasible and prudent alternative approaches that were built into the ordinance. There may be some arguable issues to fill the drain and build the building over it but if they were able to move it, they would like to do that. It has an ansolary benefit although it is probably not enough to solicit Ms. Lemke’s approval of the project from a woodland standpoint. It does move outside of the woodlands and saves about 70 additional trees by the move north so it had some positive effects. Unfortunately, he found that by moving north he has now affected on other small swale and potential wetland pocket. He had several competing factors but is working with the consultants and their engineers to make sure that they can propose what is the least intrusive and still works from their perspective.

 

 

 

PM-99-06-187 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE THE ONE ACRE (1.0) DESIGNATED LAND FROM R-A TO RM-1 AND THE 0.744 ACRES OF DESIGNATED LAND FROM RM-1 TO RM-2.

 

Moved by Capello, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To send a positive recommendation to City Council to rezone the one acre (1.0) designated land from R-A to RM-1 and the 0.744 acres of designated land from RM-1 to RM-2.

 

VOTE ON PM-99-06-187 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda and Mutch

No: None

 

2. REGENCY INDUSTRIAL CENTRE SP 98-62B

This project is located in Section 24 on the west side of Haggerty Road, north of Grand River. The 7-unit condominium development is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Special Land Use Permit approval, and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.

Matt Quinn was appearing on behalf of the owners of the Regency Industrial Centre. It was his pleasure to bring to the Planning Commission a very exciting, Light-Industrially zoned development. He is asking for Preliminary Site Plan approval, Special Land Use Permit approval, and Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals. He gave past history of the property. It is a thirty-acre (30.0) site, which has the capacity to bring up to thirteen (13) Light-Industrial buildings that would bring approximately four hundred eighty (480) jobs to the city. It would bring about four and half million dollars worth of tax revenue into the city of Novi. The location is on the west side of Haggerty Road and right on the north side is I-96. There is a proposed city regional detention basin that sits just to the north of the property. As a sidelight, the developer of that property is working diligently with the city to construct the detention facility at the same time that the park is being done. There would be a contract with the developers of the park to actually build that facility with the permission and under the supervision of the city. The first thing that he is looking for is the special land use. Why do they need a special land use? Out of the entire thirty-acre (30.0) they have three hundred eighteen (318) feet on this northerly corner that abuts the mobile home park. Since it is a Light-Industrial complex that abuts a residential district, he needs to obtain Special Land Use approval. All of the documents have been submitted. Mr. Arroyo is recommending approval of the Special Land Use because of the great protection for the residential area. The whole northwesterly portion of the industrial park is going to become a conservation easement and it is where the wetland mitigation is going to be. The natural, expansive area is going to be made more mature and larger by their wetland mitigation. The three hundred eighteen (318) feet of common boundary with the mobile home park will be protected better than any other residential area that abuts a Light-Industrial park in the city of Novi. That is the only reason why he needs the Special Land Use and he has met all of the other requirements. As far as the wetlands permit is concerned, some fill is going to occur in the area. The wetland consultant has addressed that and has recommended approval of the mitigation. Ms. Lemke gave positive recommendation to the woodlands permit. There is an excess of four hundred (400) trees that will be removed and transplanted on site as much as possible. The city’s procedure will be followed and, if in fact, he can not put in new trees on site they will follow the ordinance and 1) put up a letter of credit and/or 2) plant the trees on the other land that they might own in the city. As far as the Preliminary Site Plan is concerned, he has the original park being set up as seven (7) units. Unit two (2) is going to be under private ownership. The developer would continue to own unit two (2) that will later be sub-divided into possibly six (6) or seven (7) independent buildings that he would continue to own and lease out. The other units, one, three, four, five, six, and seven would be for sale units. The park is addressed for its entrance on Regency Drive, which is a cul-de-sac. There is a private drive that runs north and south which is a part of the secondary access. There is also a drive that runs off the cul-de-sac and connects to it. An arrangement has been worked out with the Oakland County Road Commission for fire access that will be off of Haggerty Road and then down the ditch line coming into an area. There is a secondary access site for emergency vehicles. One of the main problems with the development was the access to Haggerty Road because there is only one access point to the entire development. An extra large entrance driveway has been created since there is no other way to reconfigure it in any other manner. This is the best way to handle the problem and it’s really going to be handled by the striping. There is going to be very large turn arrows going in each direction for people to readily identify which way they are going to come in or out of Regency Drive. The various turn lanes along Haggerty will be extended. He believes that taking a very difficult piece of land and making something out of it will be of it will be a benefit to the city and the other industrial users in the area. Haggerty Road is going to be an extremely beneficial road to the city with the OST office zonings to the north. This area will give a location to people who truly need I-1 zoning to construct buildings and run their businesses. The front of the building is all brick, a low-profile building and meets the city’s requirements for the combination of brick and other materials. He described the drainage ditch and how it is not very attractive right now, but will be upgraded.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant described the Regency Industrial Centre as the dictionary definition of difficult. He is satisfied with the proposal that was given. He is recommending approval of the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan for the site condominium development. The Special Land Use permit is subject to the Planning Commission’s waiver of the required berm along the north side of the property adjacent to the mobile home park. The basis for the waiver request is the screening being provided by the existing vegetation. From a planning perspective, the applicant meets the criteria for the site plan approval and Special Land Use approval. From a Special Land Use standpoint, it is unusual because at this point he is only looking at the site condominium itself, which does not include any buildings. There are some components of the Special Land Use review that can not be addressed at the level that they normally would where you actually have a building and a use associated with it. In summary, he is recommending approval from the planning standpoint.

Mr. Arroyo moved on to the traffic review, which is where much of the time was spent trying to address access. If the access were to be brought straight out to Haggerty Road, it would create some serious potential left turn conflicts for left turns into the project. By lining it up with Sam’s Club those left turn conflicts are removed from the picture. The other issue was the secondary access, which is needed because the property is so large. It is very difficult to get a second point of access because the grade changes dramatically from the foot of the bridge going over the freeway system. North of the accepted parcel, the grade of Haggerty Road goes up and the parcel lies down. The location has been picked and runs along some existing county easements and right-of-ways to get a second point of access. If the main access point were ever blocked, there would be a second way into the property. This helped to provide and meet the secondary access requirements that are found within the design and construction standards. He has some minor refinements to the entryway that he is going to be looking for at final. In addition, a Light-Industrial project such as the one being proposed is forecasted to generate approximately seven hundred sixty (760) trips during a typical weekday. Two hundred forty (240) trips during the morning peak-hour, and approximately two hundred fifty (250) trips during the PM peak hour. From a traffic standpoint, he is recommending approval of the site condominium preliminary site plans subject to the comments that are in his letter.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant stated that she reviewed the plan for engineering feasibility. Some of the proposed improvements that are going to be made with the development are extensions of the water main that will be looped internally within the development. There will be two points of connection for this. One will line to the west and the other to the south. Also proposed is the sanitary sewer service that will be tied into existing sanitary located just west of the property. A publicly maintained lift station will convey the flows to the existing sanitary sewer. Storm water for this site will be collected in on-site storm sewers and will be routed to two different detention basins. The storm sewer system will also collect off-site flows from the west and the majority of the flows for this site will be routed to a proposed regional detention basin which is located to the north of this development. As Mr. Quinn indicated the city is concurrently working with the developer to basically come up with plans for this basin. The second basin lies on a portion of what is considered unit two (2) and it’s purpose it to detain flows for a very small portion of the site. There is an existing manhole located south of the site, in front of Burger King, which is located at Grand River and Haggerty. She had a chance to look at it and it appeared to have sufficient depth to have gravity flows from the sewer tie-in to this point. This is something that she would like to have an engineer look at final site plan and implement this if it is feasible. She asked that the storm water pre-treatment system be required on-site for this development. She is requesting that an access easement is provided along the portion to the basin. She is requiring a local floodplain permit, which means prior to final site plan approval a conditional Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) based on fill, that involves a filling of the floodplain, be secured. The plan does properly show that the buildings are one foot above the base foot elevation that will protect the buildings and is part of the flood plain ordinance of the city. The applicant is requesting a design and construction standards variance for excess cul-de-sac length. The ordinance requires eight hundred (800) foot maximum and the measure is about seventeen hundred (1700) feet. She supported this variance because of the limitations of the fronting access along Haggerty. The applicant will need to seek City Council approval for placement of the basin, in accordance with the design and construction standards. Placements of detention basins are not allowed on lots. It must be shown too, that the unit is oversized for this use and that construction on the unit is prohibited until the basin is eliminated. The Townline Drain runs north/south along the Haggerty Road frontage and a permit will be required for work within that and for a discharge of any storm water to this drain. She is recommending approval. However, added the woodlands intrusion should be minimized as much as possible.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect indicated that there are two areas of woodlands and they total about 10.27 acres. This is the higher quality woodland area which is pretty much going to be preserved in its entirety with exceptions of some intrusion and she will be looking at this as they come in on an individual basis. She has been working on this since last fall and there has been an intense analysis of the vegetation, looking at preserving different areas. The problem with both of the woodlands is that they are isolated. One of the areas is isolated totally on the side and the higher quality woodlands goes off the site for a little ways, but it is also isolated. The basic species of the lower one are primarily Poplar, Elm, Cottonwood, and some Blacklochus. It is a disturbed site in various portions, it follows a drain and is relatively new woodlands. The isolation factor is really the biggest factor that allowed her to look at removing it. The applicant was willing to pull the cul-de-sac back, which provides a design option and saves more of the woodlands, which Ms. Lemke is in favor of. They will be replacing the trees that they are removing. They are removing four hundred thirty five (435) trees that are eight (8) inch dbh and greater. They will be replacing them with six hundred twenty nine (629) trees. She will be looking at placing them in areas that have nothing there at all within regulated woodlands. Another area will be disturbed eventually by the storm drains and the storm water that will be coming. She is approving it but she will need some additional information at final and she will be looking specifically at grading in these areas. She will also be reviewing these individually as they come in for a woodland permit on a lot basis. She is recommending approval with four conditions. One, the payment of Replacement and Fence Maintenance Financial Guarantee and payment of Woodlands Inspection Fee with the amount to be determined at the time of Final Woodlands Engineering review. Two, the Remaining Regulated Woodlands are placed into a Preservation Easement. Three, no construction including clearing or grubbing can begin until her office has approved the protective fencing and an environmental pre-construction meeting is held. Finally, the review of the Final Engineering Plans per the comments in her letter.

In regards to the landscape plan, she can not recommend approval due to the Zoning Board of Appeals variances that are required. One is seeking a variance for the berm adjacent to the right-of-way and she would support this variance. The Environmental Committee is looking for some relief from the requirement from the berm for some variation in heights or variation in flexibility. Due to the excessive grade that is along Haggerty Road and the additional screening that is within the industrial subdivision, she would look favorable to this. Screening between the MH Zoning district is requiring a ten-foot high berm by Section 19054 (e), and a variance would be needed for this. This area is 150-300 feet in width of woodlands and vegetation and is being preserved. In addition, they are putting supplemental vegetation in as part of the replacement planting. She would also support this as a variance for the ZBA. In summary, she is recommending approval and she will be reviewing the details of the landscape plan at final.

Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist states that primarily she concurs with a woodlands concerning the higher quality wooded wetland. The larger system goes north and is part of the proposed regional detention basin. The small interior wetland is regulated due to its proximity to the watercourse along Haggerty Road. It is a little over ½ an acre in size. There was considerable discussion and cooperation with the applicant about trying to preserve the wetland if possible. They were unable to avoid the impacts due to the access road that was necessary to get to the interior portion of the property for the other lots. She agreed with the location for the wetland mitigation site. Other impacts are smaller and have to do with extending some culverts on Haggerty.

Vice-Chair announced he 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.

Mr. Arroyo added that there would be a need for a waiver of the driveway spacing standards for the drive to the south and across the street to the north. He wanted to make sure that the waiver is included in the motion.

Vice-Chair Csordas announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Paul Weisberger observed page 3232 (e) and stated that for I-1 districts adjacent to any residential district, an earth berm and plantings are required, except that no additional berm shall be required along a street, road, highway or freeway that lies between said use and on abutting residential district. The requirements supersede standards at Sections 2509. He asked Ms. Lemke if the standards set forth in this paragraph are higher than the ones in 2509?

Ms. Lemke explained that they go back and forth. She was reading it that you couldn’t go back to it for the waiver.

Mr. Arroyo asked if the screening that is provided by the woodland area is of equivalency to the ten-foot berm would that effectively be providing the same screening that the waiver would be consistent with because you wouldn’t be providing something less than what the standards in 2509 is calling for?

Mr. Weisberger asked if it is more lenient in some cases?

Ms. Lemke included that section e refers to the ten-foot berm.

Mr. Weisberger interpreted it as the intent of e is to be more restrictive than your general berm requirement because of industrial next to residential, but where he has the equivalency such as this case then he will allow the Planning Commission to waive the berming requirement.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo regarding the driveway access, off of Haggerty Road, what is the particular driving factor that’s driving that particular location as opposed to some other location in that area?

Mr. Arroyo indicated that there are two things. One, the location of the Sam’s Club drive, which is directly across the street and happens to be an entry that will allow trucks to use as well as passenger cars. Because of the close proximity of these two there would be a high potential incidents of a head-on collision the through lane which could lead to more rear-end collisions. It would be a very poor location and if moved farther north then it is basically outside of the property because there is an out-parcel. Then if moved even farther north then there is a grade differential and that’s the reason for the unusual shape of the secondary access. It is really the only place where access can be reasonably provided to the property in his opinion.

Member Mutch asked if there is some possible coordination between the current developments and future developments that might be able to take place? He noticed that there are going to be four entrances within close proximity. Possibly, two could provide access to all of the properties.

Mr. Arroyo stated that this is going to happen because the accepted parcel on the west side will have access to a public road and Regency Drive will be dedicated as planned to be a public road. Therefore, there is no reason why the property would have to have access to Haggerty Road since that conflict will be eliminated. The other piece of property across the street has a driveway that is no longer there in use.

Member Mutch asked if there has been any exploration of providing the secondary access through one of the adjoining developments? The one that he thought was most feasible was the industrial development on the west side.

Mr. Quinn explained that his clients have gone to all of the property owners on the west and south side in attempt to buy an access point from them but they did not have any success. What they ended up with was the least best alternative but the only alternative.

Member Mutch asked if there has been any exploration of developing some sort of collector road from Haggerty Road west to Seely that would serve these parcels as well as some of the undeveloped parcels?

Mr. Arroyo explained the problem in this particular instance is the property surrounding this property is essentially developed and as they have indicated they have attempted to contact, the property owners for secondary access situation. Because of this situation it makes it very difficult if not impossible to have that type of roadway connection so it has not been persued for this reason.

Member Mutch asked if there would be any benefit that, he could see in terms of a city project where the city’s involvement might be able to facilitate the development of an industrial collector? The property that extends from Seely to the south of the mobile home park and the back half of the Novi Technology property are both vacant.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the Novi Technology property has all approved site plans that are developing in phases so it is spoken for. He does not think that access could get through here. He also added that the cul-de-sac might not require a waiver from the City Council because there are two entrances.

Mr. Weisberger added they would not need a waiver from City Council for the cul-de-sac length.

Member Mutch asked if the emergency access is going to be paved?

Mr. Quinn stated that the road would be paved.

Member Mutch asked if the applicant is required to provide a bike path along the frontage?

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is a bike path installed already. He does not know how it will be handled.

Ms. Weber stated that in some of her previous letters she requested that the bike path be extended to the south property line. The problem has to do with the drain and the grade limitations as well as, trying to get some sort of easement from the property owner that is wedged in between. It is not something that she can force to provide, it is only something that they can request.

Member Mutch asked if the right-of-way is an extra wide right-of-way along the entire length?

Mr. Arroyo stated that yes it is, but the problem is that their property does not front all of it.

Member Mutch asked where the easement issue would come up if there were existing right-of-ways?

Ms. Weber stated that there is not sufficient right-of-way across the parcel that is not owned by them. In other words, it would entail forcing an easement on the property owner, which she cannot do.

Mr. Arroyo commented that there are two things going on. There is the right-of-way for the roadway but there is also the drainage. He is not sure if this is a right-of-way or an easement. If the drainage is right-of-way, which is actually owned by the Drain Commission, it may be available for installation subject to the approval by the Drain Commission.

Member Mutch asked if the lift station, that may be required, is going to service the site or is it intended to serve a larger area?

Ms. Weber clarified that it would only service this site.

Member Mutch asked where the cost for the lift station would fall under?

Ms. Weber stated that it would fall upon the developer but it would be publicly maintained.

Member Mutch asked if the on-going cost would fall to the users of the sanitary system as a whole?

Ms. Weber responded yes.

Member Mutch asked if it would only serve this development?

Ms. Weber responded yes.

Member Mutch asked if there has been practice in the past where an on-going maintenance cost of this nature, benefiting only one user, do they require some sort of agreement where they pay these charges?

Ms. Weber commented that up front the maintenance cost and possibly any other cost, such as abandonment of the lift station, should other means come available in the future to route those sanitary flows in another direction.

Member Mutch asked whose responsibility would it be for the legal agreements? Where would this requirement come in for the sanitary sewer maintenance agreement?

Mr. Weisberger commented that he does not know if Dennis Watson, City Attorney, is drafting one.

Member Mutch commented that they should have some clarification because obviously if this was benefiting a larger area he could see the benefit to the system as a whole, however, in this case, it is only serving the one property. This may be an incentive for the property owner to explore the other alternative. If he doesn’t, the system users as a whole have to pay higher cost to serve the one development.

Ms. Weber stressed that as far as the gravity sewer they want them to explore that, see if it is feasible, which they feel it is, then that would be the first way to go in terms of the sewer. This would eliminate the need for trying to maintain a lift station, would have the potential for providing some of the other properties, in need be, sewer service.

Member Mutch asked if the detention basin #2 is going to be a permanent basin or temporary?

Ms. Weber stated that the basin picks up a small area in terms of drainage. It is actually picking up part of the drainage from the emergency access drive as well as some to the north. Yes, it would have to be permanent. The reason it is being placed there is due to some of the grade limitations of not being able to route all of the storm water to the Regional basin.

Member Mutch asked for clarification on some issues. One, is the location within a lot, is that permitted?

Ms. Weber explains that it is not permitted. They would have to get City Council approval and they would have to show that the lot is oversized for this use and any type of construction on this lot would be prohibited until this basin is eliminated.

Regency’s engineer, stated the main reason the basin is there is because all of the wetland and woodland and access limitations that the site has. It also has a Townline Drain, which is a county drain, and there is a hundred (100) year flood plan associated with it. The drainage area is less than two (2) square miles so technically they don’t need a MDEQ cut and fill compensation permit but the city still requires it. Without getting too technical into the engineering information regarding elevations of what the Regional detention basin would be as far as high water level. They needed to create a low area to compensate for this fill. In order to do this, they needed to create a separate drainage district whose catch basin’s rims would be lower than the high water level of the Regional basin. If they connected those catch basins to the Regional basin, those areas would always be under water, in a flood event.

Member Mutch asked what the long term, health and viability of the area where the city is going to do quite extensive removal of woodlands to construct a detention basin is going to be?

Ms. Lemke commented that long-term it is not going to be good for the woodlands. Particularly, to the northeast of the woodlands.

Member Mutch asked what the impact in terms of the screening that that provides for the mobile home park from the freeway?

Ms. Lemke commented that they are entertaining the idea of putting the replacement trees in this area.

Member Mutch asked if the city project is going to have to obtain a woodlands permit?

Ms. Lemke stated that it would get woodlands permit from the city.

Member Mutch asked in terms of the mitigation that they are doing in their area, what impact will that have on the woodland area where they are proposing to do the wetlands?

Ms. Lemke stated that it would be long-term.

Member Mutch asked about the short-term?

Ms. Lemke stated that it is real loose woodlands, it has many open areas in it and the mitigation is in some of the more open areas. They are looking at putting the replacement trees for the woodlands back in this area in concert with the wetland mitigation.

Member Mutch asked about the waiver of the landscaping along the Haggerty Road frontage, which was indicated that Ms. Lemke would entertain because of the existing vegetation.

Ms. Lemke said that she would entertain this because there is a steep slop. Within the park, they have added additional evergreen plantings for the units.

Member Mutch asked if rooftops are going to be seen along Haggerty Road?

Ms. Lemke said that some rooftops may be seen.

Member Mutch asked if any screening could be introduced to alleviate this?

Ms. Lemke stated that they are still going to have plantings but, they are asking for a berm variance because of the grade problems they have. There will still be some screening from the larger trees.

Member Koneda asked if any thought has been given to perhaps tying the road in further down so it essentially becomes a single point of access but it T’s right at the entrance? Is it feasible to have it T right into the main entrance? He is concerned that the emergency entrance is going to be a paved road and cause some confusion getting into the site.

Mr. Arroyo clarified that it is going to be gated and it is going to be signed.

Member Koneda asked if the gating will be interior to the site?

Mr. Arroyo states that he may look at this at final and make some changes. Certainly some signs will be there to identify that it is not an access point. If it were shifted to connect to the south then there would be no benefit of the secondary access to the cul-de-sac. It has to go around to the north in order to relieve the cul-de-sac issue.

Member Koneda asked if the cul-de-sac is no longer a cul-de-sac because it has two points of access?

Regency’s engineer stated that it is still a cul-de-sac, it just does not exceed the eight hundred (800) foot requirement.

Member Koneda asked if the comment about the road and changing the radius from forty (40) feet to sixty (60) feet has been incorporated into the design?

Mr. Arroyo stated that yes, it is a condition of his recommendation, which he will look into on the final.

Member Koneda asked if the landscape plans that would normally be placed along the right-of-way will be put in but somewhere else on site?

Ms. Lemke clarified that they are just looking for a variance for the berm. They are putting in the plant materials. On the interior streets, they will be putting evergreen trees to provide screening.

Member Koneda asked when a site plan proposal comes in will it have to include the entire site development or could it come in stages?

Mr. Arroyo stated that it could come in phases but the road network must go in at once because of the emergency access issues.

Member Capello asked if there is a time period for phased plans?

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is no time period.

Member Capello stated his concern for Special Land Use since they are not putting a building on unit two (2) or three (3) right now. He questioned how they could ask for Special Land Use without a use of the land?

Mr. Arroyo stated that the project being an industrial project next to a residential district they must do it this way so that later if questions were asked then they would be covered.

Member Capello asked if the Ingersoll Creek was a man-made drainage ditch?

Ms. Weber stated not to her knowledge.

Member Capello asked if the wetland F, as referred to in Ms. Kay’s letter, is a man-made swale or a natural creek?

Ms. Kay responded that she believes it was probably ditching to drain the wetlands originally. It happens to have a lot of wetland vegetation so they have to consider it an impact. The only concern that she would have would be if it was originally some upstream headwater, original natural watercourse and she does not believe that it is.

Member Capello recalled that the watercourse running by the Mercedes dealership was in fact a wetland and it was vehemently argued that it was a drainage ditch designed to carry stormwater. It was not a wetland because some growth had come up and brought it to the stage of a wetland. Why would there be a difference if the creek up north of ninety six (96) being a creek and now in Grand River it is a ditch opposed to a creek?

Ms. Weber stated that she agreed from an engineering perspective. She also felt that it is a ditch for conveyance of storm water flow. There is a flood-way located within the ditch, which conveys hundred (100) year storm water flows.

Member Capello asked why there is a ditch that flows into a ditch and they are going to control it as a wetland?

Ms. Lemke stated that they can serve dual purposes, can convey storm water and be called a ditch. It can also be a stream to provide habitat value and flow if they have to right vegetation.

Ms. Kay stated that she used to work for the Drain Commission so she has an understanding of the Drain Code. It does in some cases supersede the stream act because it was around a long time before the state went out and inventoried what was a natural watercourse. There is a lot of dual jurisdiction, especially within the city limits. It does have the appearance of the ditch, they think it also functions as a ditch but it also functions as a stream by contributing water from one water shed to the next. Legally, this is why they go to this extent. She questioned why they want to regulate it as a wetland. She thought that Member Capello was referring to the interior man-made ditch.

Member Capello stated that this is the one he was referring to.

Ms. Kay clarified that they are not considering the interior one as a stream.

Member Mutch asked about the mobile home park. If there is not an adjacency what level of uses could go into unit two (2) and three (3)? Could two (2) or three (3) I-1 uses be put in there? What level of use could they get in there without special land use approval?

Mr. Arroyo stated that he must look at the information.

Member Mutch asked if there was a tier three use would the conservation area provide the necessary level of screening to mitigate this type of use?

Ms. Lemke stated that yes, you are looking at one hundred fifty (150) to three hundred (300) feet of vegetation and they will be supplementing it. She will be using evergreens as part of the supplementation.

Member Mutch expressed concern that not all of the mobile home units received notification, just the owner of the mobile park. He had a concern of the Special Land Use approval because he felt that the people who should have been notified were not.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To approve Special Land Use permit for Regency Industrial Centre, SP 98-62B to include a waiver of the berming along the north property, in exchange for placing the 3.7 acres site into a preservation easement--the wooded wetland site; to include preliminary site plan approval for a seven (7) unit condominium development, including driveway spacing waiver, conditional on the ZBA waiving the berming requirements along the right-of-ways for Haggerty Road and Regency Drive, with landscaping that meets the requirements as outlined by Ms. Lemke, and that the site plan approval be conditional upon redesigning site two (2) to exclude the retention basin (putting that in a common area), and if possible the lift station should be gravity sewer feed with maintenance provided. Also, to grant woodlands and wetlands permits.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch

No: None

Moved by Capello, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To have Rod Arroyo

clean up the language regarding the Planning Commission’s ability to waive the berming

requirements when woodlands are present. Also, the site conditions should be reviewed when

considering berming along Haggerty Road, to see if there is any sense to the proposal and to

see if that could come to the Planning Commission instead of making the applicant go to the ZBA

for a waiver.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch

No: None

This project is located in Section 24 on the west side of Haggerty Road, north of Grand River. The project, located within a 7-unit site condominium development, is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Member Csordas commented that Unit five (5) and six (6) are very similar. He asked Mr. Quinn if he would like to address both at the same time and then the Planning Commission can vote on them separately?

Mr. Quinn stated that would be fine.

Mr. Quinn described the buildings as slightly over 24,000 square feet each. He met all of the requirements for site plan approval with one exception, the interior thirty (30) inch berm along Regency Drive. He requested approval of the site plan subject to the variance being received for the interior berm that would have to be placed on Regency Drive. He would be going to the Zoning Board of Appeals and asking for a waiver for the entire Regency Centre for all berming on the interior roads at one time.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he has reviewed both units five (5) and six (6) and the comments apply to both. From a planning standpoint, he is recommending approval of the preliminary site plan subject to the berm issue being resolved either by 1) putting it on or 2) getting satisfactory resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals. From a traffic standpoint, he wanted to see some adjustments for the truck circulation and they are now reflected in the plan from the applicant. He is recommending approval from a traffic standpoint.

Ms. Weber stated that leads to the overall utilities for the Regency development plan would tie in the utilities from both sites. Her main comment is that the overall industrial center has to be approved or constructed before or concurrently with these units. The lift station is located at the corner of unit six (6) and as discussed with the overall plan, she does not find it acceptable as currently designed. She does want the gravity sewer option to be looked at first. This might result in some sort of service connection relocations for these units. Specifically for unit five (5), the applicant will need to secure an off-site easement from unit six (6) since these are falling under separate ownership. They are actually tying their storm sewer connection into the master drainage through unit six (6). They will require this before final site plan approval for unit five (5). An off-site easement from unit seven (7) to unit six (6) will be required for installation of the water main stub before final site plan approval. She is recommending approval for both of the units.

Ms. Lemke stated at this stage for both units five (5) and six (6) she would recommend approval per comments in the May 26 letters.

Mr. Necci stated that the facade review indicated full compliance on both buildings. On the renderings, it is a very nicely designed building. The issue of roof screening is important especially because of the relative topography of Haggerty Road. Right now, the drawings did not show any roof screening but he anticipates that there will be some. As long as the roof screening is consistent with other façade materials that are already proposed there would be an administrative approval of a revision. In addition, units five (5) and six (6) are both in façade region three (3), which is the lowest category of façade requirements. When they come in for unit two (2) that is going to be in façade region one (1) because it will be within five hundred (500) feet of major thoroughfare. The level of requirements is going to change significantly for the other units. At this point, both units are being recommended for approval.

Ms. Kay had no comments.

Vice-Chair announced he 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 for both units.

Member Mutch asks if the waiver is only for the berm, are they still going to have the landscaping that would normally be required?

Ms. Lemke responds that she has been working with land design. She will make sure that there is lots of plant material on the site being proposed.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To grant preliminary

site plan approval for Regency Industrial Centre Unit 5, SP 99-06A subject to all of the

Consultants letters and recommendations, addressing the screening on the roof consistent with

Mr. Necci’s comments. Subject to ZBA approval for a variance of the internal berming and final

approval of the overall site condominium plan, SP 98-62B.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch

No: None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To grant preliminary

site plan approval for Regency Industrial Centre Unit 6, SP 99-07A subject to all of the consultants letters and recommendations, addressing the screening on the roof consistent with Mr. Necci’s comments. Subject to ZBA approval for a variance of the internal berming and final approval of the overall site condominium plan, SP 98-62B.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch

No: None

1. Nominate and vote for officers of the Planning Commission

Member Capello stated that there is a vacancy for the chairperson and they need to vote for officers at the first meeting in July. He would like to fill the vacancy for chairperson tonight. He nominated Lou Csordas for chairperson until the next election.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To vote for the

chair pending confirmation of Lou Csordas’ reappointment.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch

No: None

None

None

Moved by Csordas, seconded by everyone, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0): To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:00 p.m.

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda and Mutch

No: None

________________________________

Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Sarah Marchioni

June 28, 1999

Date Approved: July 07, 1999