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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Director of Planning and Community Development and Staff Planner Beth Brock, Façade Review Consultant Doug Necci

Chairperson Capello asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Moved by Churella, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

None

None

None

1. OAKLAND BAPTIST CHURCH SP 00-41

This church project is located in Section 29, on the west side of Beck Road between Nine and Ten Mile Roads. The 6.9 acre site is zoned One-Family Residential District (R-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit approvals and Section 9 Façade Waiver.

Reverend Whyte requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval due to the expiration of his previous approval granted three (3) years ago. He stated the difficulties he experienced with engineers and architects that have since been resolved and they are ready to move forward with the project.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated this church was relocated from Grand River Avenue and Novi Road to its current location. He explained the applicant needed approval for the Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan Approval due to the expiration of the previous approval. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval for the Special Land Use and the Site Plan due to the ZBA Variances required. He stated if the ZBA variances were granted, he could recommend approval. Special Land Use requires a prepared noise study. He stated although this type of project may have not been envisioned as being subject to a noise study, it is an ordinance requirement. Therefore, the applicant would need to provide the noise study or request the ZBA to waive this. He asked to have the Floor Plan submitted for review at Final Site Plan.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in his letter dated August 14, 2000. He stated the Final Site Plan was in need of additional modification prior to approval. He explained in the previously plan submitted, there was a large open area of asphalt in the middle of the parking lot. He did not feel this was the most efficient use of the lot. He felt the new proposal demonstrated a more efficient use of the circulation system. He stated there were some necessary changes to meet the ordinance requirements. He recommended a different type of curbing to allow fire trucks to make a tight turn. He felt the remaining comments in his letter could be addressed on a Revised Final Site Plan.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the project proposed to be serviced by sanitary services. He stated the original intention was to bring in a public sewer to serve both the existing home and the new church. However, the applicant expressed the desire to keep the existing building on a septic field as functioning properly and provide a service lead to the proposed building. Mr. Bluhm noted in his review letter that a variance would be required because the sewer extended across Beck Road and was considered out of the district. The district limits for the sewers on the east side of the Beck Road are down the middle of Beck Road. He stated a council variance would be required to allow a public sewer extension serving multiple sites. He did not feel it was extensive if they were going to provide a service lead to the building. He suggested the possibility of handling this Administratively. He added there were a number of comments he to be addressed on the Final Site Plan and he recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated the site was R-1 with a Special Land Use. She stated there is a R-1 occurring adjacent and a four foot six inch (4’6") berm is required on the north, west and the south property lines. She stated a Planning Commission Waiver could be granted for the west and the southern property lines due to the regulated woodlands that occur in those areas. The woodlands occur at a depth of one thousand feet (1000’) and seven hundred and fifty feet (750’). A ZBA variance would be required for the four foot six inch (4’6") berm if it were not provided. Ms. Lemke recommended approval conditioned upon the granting of the Planning Commission Waiver and the granting of the ZBA Variance. She stated there were a number of items included in her letter dated August 8, 2000 to be addressed at Final to meet the buffering along the right-of-way and parking requirements.

Doug Necci, of JCK stated he did not understand the request for Waiver recommendation. He explained the building had not changed from the approved plan in 1997. Therefore, he did not find it necessary to change the recommendation. He stated the outside of the building was already renovated. He explained it was originally considered a historic building and he did not find reason to change it.

Chairperson Capello 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.

Member Churella stated he had a communication from Mr. and Mrs. James McGuire requesting the approval of the project.

Chairperson Capello 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.

Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke if there had been an application submitted for a Woodland Permit?

Ms. Lemke stated the applicant did not need a Woodland Permit.

Member Koneda clarified that action was not required on the Woodland Permit?

Ms. Lemke stated correct.

Member Koneda asked regarding the four foot six inch (4’6") berming along the property lines. He asked if the applicant could explain why the berm along the north property line was not being provided?

Reverend Whyte stated there currently exists a five-foot (5’) hill at that location. He explained if a four (4) foot berm was placed on top of the five-foot (5’) hill, it would create a nine-foot (9’) hill next to the neighbor’s driveway. He felt the four-foot (4’) berm was excessive. However, if they were requiring the berm, he stated he would provide it.

Member Koneda asked if Ms. Lemke supported the deletion of the berm on the north side?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Koneda explained the applicant would need to request a ZBA variance for the berm on the north side and the noise analysis waiver. He was in support of the plan and felt the consultants did a good job addressing the issues.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: To grant Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permits, Section Nine Waiver of the Facade Ordinance, Planning Commission Waiver for the berms along the western and southern property lines conditional upon you obtaining a ZBA Variance for the Noise Analysis, for the berming along the northern property line and a variance from the City Council for the sewer connection.

Member Cassis asked Reverend Whyte how confident he was that the relocated church would be in good condition? He asked how many people currently attend the church?

Reverend Whyte answered approximately sixty (60) on Sunday.

Member Cassis asked if this would be enough room?

Reverend Whyte answered yes. He stated seating capacity is greater than the current church location. He stated they had been at the site for twenty-one (21) years. The church had been meeting at the ranch house with walk out basement and at the Elementary School at Ten Mile and Meadowbrook Road.

Member Cassis asked if the applicant would proceed this time and ensure the job would be completed?

Reverend Whyte stated that as soon as they obtain the building permit they would begin construction.

Member Cassis clarified if they had the building sources?

Member Canup asked that the information regarding the sewer be repeated?

Mr. Bluhm stated the location of the proposed sewer access is within another sewer district.

Although the access location is across the street, it is outside the existing sewer district. He stated it was originally proposed to have a public sewer serve both buildings. However, because the septic field is functioning properly, it was not necessary to provide service to the existing building. Therefore, the applicant proposed to provide a service lead into the sewer on the east side for the church.

Member Canup asked if this was possible? He recalled a previous instance with a daycare, near the same location, which there was a plan to bring a sewer down.

Mr. Bluhm stated it was possible to extend the sewer up. It is approximately eight hundred (800) to one thousand (1000) feet away. He stated that there was significant cost involved to bring the sewer to the site, similar to the situation the daycare dealt with. Therefore, expense was the reason for the requested variance. He stated the variance would allow the site to tie into the district and not have to extend the one thousand (1000) feet of sewer.

Member Canup asked if this was a prudent thing for the city to do?

Mr. Bluhm felt when the city had the ability to extend its infrastructure, it was a good idea. He stated when factoring the cost element it was also a good decision. He explained the variance that would be acquired, if granted, would likely include a provision that would require the applicant to tie into the District sewer when it becomes available.

Member Canup clarified if Mr. Bluhm was indicating the applicant could "tie in" on a temporary basis until the main sewer is extended?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.

Member Canup asked who would be doing this extension?

Mr. Bluhm stated it would be the cost of the applicant to "tie in" the temporary service lead. He stated the future extension could be done through the further development of that area or potentially by the City.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo if there was parking lot lighting or lighting on the buildings that would be a potential concern?

Mr. Arroyo stated this was an item raised in his letter. He stated they would be looking for details on specific locations, fixture types and etc… on the Final Site Plan.

Member Mutch asked if Mr. Arroyo’s report was recommending an extension of the sidewalk from the church building to the site path?

Mr. Arroyo stated it was a suggestion consistent with the past Planning Commission recommendation. It was a recommendation to have a connection from the external sidewalks to the internal network.

Member Mutch requested a friendly amendment on the motion for that.

Member Koneda answered, yes.

Member Mutch the opportunity to preserve a Historic Building in the community was seldom. He felt there were even fewer opportunities to preserve a church as a church. He commented that he was looking forward to the completion of the project. He felt that it benefited the area and community.

Chairperson Capello asked Ms. Lemke if a Woodland Permit was needed to place a bike path through the woodlands to the south?

Ms. Lemke stated the location of the bike path was "edged vegetation". It was not woodlands.

Chairperson Capello asked regarding the berm to the north?

Ms. Lemke stated there was some decrease in topography. She stated the edge of the site went off slightly.

Chairperson Capello asked if the applicant were not required to build a berm, would the vegetation be required that would normally be on top of the berm?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She stated it would be a recommendation to the ZBA.

Chairperson Capello agreed with Member Mutch in that it is nice to see the project completed. He stated he would not vote against the motion. However, the plan was lacking the information it needed to have it approved. He did not feel there was enough information provided to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval or Special Land Use. He gave the example of the height of the building, the Floor Plan and the inability to determine the parking spaces.

Moved by Koneda, Seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Land Use Permit to Site Plan 00-41 subject to Planning Commission waivers for construction of the berm on the southern edge of the property and western edge of the property due to the existing vegetation, ZBA Variance for the north side berm, ZBA Variance for the noise analysis, City Council Variance for the sewer access from the east side of Beck Road temporarily, City Council Variance for the extension for the sewer across the frontage of the property on the west side of Beck Road and to grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver consistent with the consultant’s previous recommendation of 1997 and to extend internal sidewalks to the bike path.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None.

1. TIMER MEADOWS SP 99-15

This multiple family project is located in Section 16, on the east side of Beck Road and north of Eleven Mile Road. The 45 acre site is zoned Low-Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-1) and High-Density, Mid-Rise Multiple-Family Residential District. The applicant is seeking a Section 9 Façade Waiver.

Blair Bowman represented Timber Meadows L.L.C. He stated the additional information requested by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting had been provided in the packets. This information included the division line between Region 1 and Region 2. He also displayed a colored rendered version to describe the five (5) residential structure buildings and two (2) frontage buildings affected in Region 1. Mr. Bowman stated that internal issues had also been resolved since the last meeting. He explained the five (5) buildings that fell within Region 1 were able to be resolved with an internal floor plan issue. He stated the plans that have been submitted have all the building within Region 1 meeting the Region 1 standards and the all the buildings in Region 2 meeting the Region 2 standards. Mr. Bowman stated the only exception was the issue of the asphalt shingles. He requested that the commission provide a waiver for the purpose of allowing residential character of the buildings. He introduced a representative of Alexander Bogart to answer question related to the architectural process. Mr. Bowman requested a façade waiver.

Doug Necci of JCK stated the ordinance calculated the façade area occupied by asphalt shingles, as being the same as the rest of the façade. He felt that for the review of residential architecture, this area of the ordinance needed some adjustments. He stated it was typical of residential architecture to have a substantial percentage of shingled area. He stated area other than the roof of the gatehouse and clubhouse was either brick or stone. Therefore, the high percentage of asphalt shingles pushed them below the thirty percent (30%) minimum for brick in Region 1. He stated that he strongly felt the applicant had met the intent of the ordinance. He felt all of the area that could be brick or stone were brick or stone. He noted the excess wood, 17% and 22% as opposed to 15%. He understood that these were a result of the decorative wood columns, which were considered assets to the building. Mr. Necci recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver. He explained the previous version of the façade ordinance exempted anything more than a one (1) on one (1) slope. He stated they were trying to regulate the use of asphalt as a wall siding material, not for roof areas.

Chairperson Capello stated the possibility of asphalt shingles of a certain pitch not qualifying as part of the façade.

Member Piccinini stated that she has researched the project and had spoken with the applicant. She asked Mr. Bogart if there was a reason why the stone was not used on the clubhouse this time?

Mr. Bogart stated they only wanted stone on the entrance as an identifier. He did not feel it was necessary to carry it over to the remainder of the buildings. He stated he integrated the architecture of the entrance, clubhouse and the buildings. This was not done in the prior design.

Member Piccinini asked Mr. Bogart to elaborate on the changes in design on the apartments?

Mr. Bogart stated the previous design had many areas as three (3) stories. However, he felt the three (3) stories with a walk up eliminated some of the market. He stated there are limited areas that have three (3) stories in the new design. With the new design, he felt they were at a lower residential scale. He stated the detailing on the buildings, entrance and the clubhouse were all of a similar material. Mr. Bogart stated the interior of the buildings were changed to accommodate the market.

Member Piccinini commented on the balanced look the architect created by adding brick to the back of the buildings. She asked Mr. Necci if the excess wood on the clubhouse was also part of the façade waiver?

Mr. Necci thought the wood on the clubhouse was a result of the columns and other decorative elements. He stated they were counted as wood, but he felt it was an asset as opposed to a liability. Therefore, he gave recommendation. He stated there was not a separate category for wood columns or wood siding.

Moved by Cassis, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver to Timber Meadows SP 99-15.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Necci to review the material types in detail and point out the detail elements in the elevation?

Mr. Necci explained the percentages of brick: front twenty-one (21%), rear thirty (30%), left thirty-two (32%) and right twenty-four (24%). One percent (1%) limestone window surrounds. Wood siding: front one (1%), rear ten (10%), left twelve (12%) and right five (5%). He stated the wood trim is located where the columns fall in. The front has thirty-four percent (34%) wood trim and the maximum allowed is fifteen percent (15%). He stated this percent included the double round columns, the wood capital to the columns and wood trim at the base of the column.

Member Mutch asked if these were the elements placing the percent over the allowed fifteen percent (15%)?

Mr. Necci stated it would be factored with the other façades and breaklines.

Member Mutch felt the gatehouse set a nice standard. He expressed the disappointment of the clubhouse, being the main building, not being designed more distinct from the other façades. He felt this area was a gateway into the city. He was hoping to see more brick and stone facing Beck Road. He felt the wood was at a higher level than what he was comfortable with.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

2. NOVI CROSSINGS SP 99-31

This commercial building project is located in Section 15, on the northwest corner of Novi Road and Grand River. The .833 acre site is zoned Town Center (TC-1). The applicant is seeking a landscape waiver.

Brad Byarski requested a Landscape Waiver for the proposed building to serve retail tenants. He stated it was unlikely that the tenants would remain his tenants through the life of the building. Therefore, he felt faced with the challenge of the four (4) foot landscape area around the building. He felt that as the tenants changed, the entrances might change, possibly leading to an entrance opening into a landscape area. Mr. Byarski stated he has worked with Ms. Lemke in attempt to provide additional landscape amenities throughout the site.

Ms. Lemke stated the project was granted approval by the commission in July 21, 1999. She explained the language to provide extra greenspace areas and extra amenities, (such as brick paving), for the four (4) foot greenspace was under review. She explained the applicant thought they had received approval from the Planning Commission in July 1999. The applicant went before ZBA and received another variance, however did not receive the Landscape Waiver. Ms. Lemke recommended approval supporting the variance in July 1999 and currently with some reworking for the Final Site Plan currently approved. She stated the plans provided additional brick paving and planting areas under the street trees along Grand River Avenue and Novi Road in a low circular planter. They also propose a raised planted at the southwest corner of the building along the Grand River Avenue. She stated the Town Center amenities were provided according to the ordinance. She listed those: eight (8) pedestrian lights, four (4) trash receptacles and four (4) benches. She stated the applicant proposed to provide four (4) Town Center monuments, which were previously proposed across the street for the renovation of the Town Center Shopping Area. The monuments are low brick monuments with a Town Center logo. She stated all of the necessary plantings have been provided. Because this is a review of the Final Site Plan, she stated she would be looking for a change in species, one (1) additional canopy tree and the specifications to be provided on the revised plans before Final Stamping. Ms. Lemke recommended approval for the Landscape Waiver.

Chairperson Capello recalled the plan being processed. He recalled the census to move the building right up to the road creating the downtown look. He questioned if a variance was granted already?

Ms. Lemke stated the waiver could not have been granted, because the language was not approved.

Chairperson Capello asked how the plan was approved to have the buildings up to the front of the road and still have a four (4) foot landscape?

Ms. Lemke stated certain setback waivers were granted by the ZBA. She stated the specific motion for the four (4) foot greenspace was not part of the ZBA Variance.

Member Mutch asked if the Landscape Waiver was to cover the entire site?

Mr. Arroyo stated the requested waiver was for the landscaping against the building. He stated the applicant was requesting to use streetscape and the planters in place of the four (4) foot berm.

Member Mutch asked how the site would be affected by the future improvement to Novi Road and Grand River Avenue? He asked it to be specified how close the road edge would be to the area proposed as a streetscape?

Mr. Arroyo stated there would not be much of a change for the Grand River portion because it is a five (5) lane section. He requested the curb be moved back a few feet to provide standard lane width. In regard to Novi Road, he anticipated the possible addition of one (1) lane, being an exclusive right turn lane for southbound traffic on Novi Road. He stated this was planned into the site, bringing the curb twelve (12) feet closer than it currently exists. He explained the setback of the streetscape would accommodate this possible lane addition.

Member Mutch asked for the actual distance between the edge of the sidewalk and the curb?

Mr. Arroyo stated the back of the curb would be shifted over approximately twelve (12) feet from how it is shown on the plan.

Member Mutch asked how wide the strip was?

Mr. Arroyo answered four (4) foot.

Member Mutch clarified this would be approximately fourteen (14) feet from the edge and a four (4) foot separation?

Mr. Arroyo stated possible three (3).

Member Mutch asked if this area would be filled with the brick?

Mr. Arroyo stated the splash strip would be moved back to that location.

Member Mutch supported the concept. However, he expressed difficulties with the implementation. He felt the proposed monument was too close to the road. He asked Ms. Lemke if this was correct?

Ms. Lemke stated yes. It is four (4) feet away.

Member Mutch asked if the Road Commission would be in support of this?

Mr. Arroyo stated generally if there is the four (4) feet off the back of a curbed road, yes.

Member Mutch asked how far the benches were from the edge of the sidewalk? Should the waiver include the streetscaping, Member Mutch felt the benches should be moved closer to the building. He asked Ms. Lemke if she could comment on this matter?

Ms. Lemke agreed she would be concerned if there was enough room for people to get by.

Member Mutch mentioned the six (6) feet wide sidewalk area along the elevated planter. He questioned if this was wide enough to allow for safe pedestrian traffic?

Mr. Arroyo felt six (6) feet would be fine. He explained that generally in an urban setting a wider sidewalk would be recommended. However he stated there were many examples in which the sidewalk would narrow at certain locations. He gave the examples of outdoor dining, displays and planter boxes.

Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke if the planter width was not flexible?

Ms. Lemke stated they usually look for eight (8) feet, but would go down to six (6) feet in an area like this site.

Member Mutch gave the example of a bike rider. He felt six (6) feet was not wide enough.

Mr. Byarski added there was also a ramp on one (1) side of the planter and steps on the other side of the planter. He stated that a bike path existed along Grand River Avenue that was not shown on the plan.

Member Mutch asked if there was enough lighting in the entrance area to illuminate the area of pedestrians crossing?

Ms. Lemke stated the area would be illuminated with more than pedestrian lighting.

Member Mutch asked if this would be overhead lighting?

Ms. Lemke answered yes.

Member Mutch referred to Ms. Lemke’s desire to see buffering along the screen wall of Novi Road. He asked if this would be accommodated?

Ms. Lemke preferred to have the wall by the trash receptacle extended further north as opposed to plantings.

Member Mutch stated his concerns involved the future. He felt when the turn lane was constructed on Novi Road, the proposed arrangement might not be practical. He asked Ms. Lemke if these were details that could be worked out?

Ms. Lemke answered yes. She added the benches could be moved to the north of the two (2) trees providing enough room to walk around. She stated there were solutions she could work out with the applicant to accommodate pedestrian flow.

Mr. Arroyo suggested incorporating a modest vertical element into the streetscape adjacent to the location of the benches to provide a barrier between the road and the benches? He felt this would provide a visual barrier between the two (2).

Ms. Lemke referred to Milford. She stated they used rod iron fencing to create a barrier. She felt this may be a good idea for the wall extension to provide a mental separation.

Member Mutch asked if the trees on the sidewalk would be the same concept as on Main Street?

Ms. Lemke stated the trees are into the hole and planted because there is not tree grate. She stated the trees on Main Street have tree grate.

Member Mutch asked if this was a sufficient area to allow for healthy trees?

Ms. Lemke explained urbanism was not healthy for any tree. She explained that placing a tree under the paving vs. placing a tree in a planter allows the soil to be loose enough to allow root growth. However, the soil would need to be compact enough to place the pavers in. Therefore it would need to be a high quality soil with a sand mixture to prevent sitting water. She explained there were no barriers under the root trees and they could go out if it was not compacted tightly. She stated a planter encases the tree in concrete, which is worse than planting in the paving.

Member Mutch felt despite all of the details, this location was currently one (1) of the most visible corners of the city. He stated he was looking forward to the progression of the improvements at this corner.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Arroyo if the applicant would have to go to Oakland County for the right-of-way at the corner?

Mr. Arroyo stated there were improvements being made which they will be obtaining a Road Commission Permit. He stated they would be improving the turning radius. He explained they would increase the radius allowing the trucks to turn without entering the left turn lane.

Member Cassis asked if there was another location for the dumpster instead of at the edge of the road?

Mr. Arroyo stated the tight circulation within the site and the need to allow the trucks to maneuver, left few choices for the placement of the dumpster. He mentioned the site across Novi Road, not yet built, will have their dumpster in the same position. He suggested the possibility of the applicant screening the dumpster.

Member Nagy asked for additional suggestions, other than screening, for the dumpster? She did not feel screening would be adequate.

Mr. Arroyo stated the wall was required to be higher than the dumpster.

Ms. Lemke stated the wall was eight (8) feet in height. She stated the dumpster would be completely enclosed with the exception of the west side to allow the trucks to back in.

Mr. Byarski stated the west side would be gated.

Member Nagy stated that some cities require the benches to be positioned so that the back of the bench faces to the street. She felt likewise that they should address the height and railings, similar to Milford. Member Nagy felt the plan was feasible outside of those items.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Landscape Waiver to Novi Crossings SP 99-31 subject to the consultant’s comments and recommendations, subject to the possible relocation of benches, subject to a wall going up to the northwest corner of the dumpster along the parking lot which faces Novi Road.

Member Koneda recalled a discussion of the possibilities of the site extending the proposed amenities to the front of the Roman Plaza due to the shared parking spaces and driveway access. He understood Roman Plaza was not part of their development and asked that they would consider the possibility. Member Koneda was concerned of the possibility of Roman Plaza submitting a revision and the themes of the two sites not matching.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

Member Mutch asked what the time line was and when would the improvements be visible?

Mr. Byarski stated they are scheduled for a Foundation Permit meeting at 9:00 a.m. the following day. He stated the Landscape Waiver was the last issue to address.

3. TED ANDRIS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SP 00-33

This retail building project is located in Section 3, south of Fourteen Mile Road and east of East Lake Drive. The 2.07 acre site is zoned General Business District (B-3). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Chairperson Capello announced he had a letter, received by Beth Brock on November 1, 2000 at 5:17 p.m. via facsimile, from Mr. Ted Andris requesting another adjournment of action on his Preliminary Site Plan. The letter stated there was a "mix-up" on whether he or the architect was to effectuate the postponement. Mr. Andris requested an adjournment to address questions regarding the rear doors of the building facing residential.

Member Nagy asked how many times an applicant was permitted to bring a matter before the commission and withdraw it at the last minute?

Chairperson Capello did not recall any specific time period. He stated the commission could take an action on the situation or grant the adjournment. He stated in the past, they have required the applicant to appear at the hearing and give the reason for the adjournment. He explained the commission had the option to move forward and approve or deny or grant an adjournment.

Member Nagy clarified if they could approve or deny the Preliminary Site Plan?

Chairperson Capello stated they could take action on it because it is on the agenda or the commission could agree to adjourn it. Chairperson Capello read from Mr. Ted Andris’ letter "Mr. Andris discussed with his architect certain possible variations being considered in regard to the question regarding the rear doors of the building." Chairperson Capello stated he might be trying to address the biggest concern of the rear doors facing the residential.

Member Nagy understood the history of the developer. She recalled several instances in which this project was adjourned.

Moved by Nagy, MOTION FAILS: To deny Preliminary Site Plan Approval for Ted Andris Retail Development SP 00-33

Member Koneda stated the applicant had three (3) issues that needed to be resolved. One (1) issue being a driveway spacing waiver. He felt the commission would conclude the driveway spacing was the best alternative. He stated the issue of the loading doors on the residential side was significant. He stated the third (3^rd) waiver was for a wall along the front. He felt the granting the postponement was appropriate since Mr. Andris has recognized the loading doors on the residential boundary was a significant issue. Member Koneda felt it was appropriate to give Mr. Andris the opportunity to address the issues. However, he did not feel it should be prolonged much longer.

Moved by Koneda, MOTION FAILS: To postpone action on this matter until a date in the future to be determined.

Chairperson Capello suggested sending the issue to Implementation to discuss how to handle adjournments. He felt the petitioner should be required to give a certain period of time notice or they should come before the commission and explain their situation.

Member Churella stated the commission approved Mr. Andris’ restaurant. He stated the commission explained to Mr. Andris that he would need to close the east drive to be able to open the restaurant and he did not agree.

PM-00-11-158 TO DENY TED ANDRIS RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SP 00-33 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Cassis: To deny Ted Andris Retail Development SP 00-33 Preliminary Site Plan

Member Mutch stated that he would not support the motion. Although he agreed with everyone that when an applicant submitted plans and was placed on the agenda, some type of advanced notice should be given. He stated the project has a long history. However, he felt they often reviewed projects with several problems that seemed like they will never be completed. However, he did not feel this was one (1) of those projects. He felt if they denied the plan, the applicant would resubmit and they would be in the same situation again in the future. He felt the applicant was making an effort to address the issues.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED: To postpone Ted Andris Retail Development SP 00-33 to the next meeting.

Member Cassis shared the frustration of the commission with the fifteen (15) to seventeen (17) year development. He stated the applicant had cut trees, moved and antagonized the surrounding population/residents. Member Cassis expressed the frustration of when or if the development would be completed. He agreed with Member Mutch to postpone.

Member Nagy visited the site and did not think the plan was very good. She stated she observed several problems on the site and was concerned for the residents in the area. She felt the situation was beyond asking the Planning Commission to be patient and it created more work for the building department. She felt the site was terrible, not cut, filthy and did not feel that Mr. Andris was contributing much to the city. Therefore, she did not support Member Mutch’s motion.

Member Koneda understood the frustration relating to the site. He stated the subject site is zoned B-3. He recalled the petitioner coming before the commission a year ago to rezone his parcel to the south to B-3 to construct a larger development. He stated the request was denied. He felt this plan could be workable. He felt if the applicant could meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance. He agreed that the applicant may never develop the site, however, he did not feel there was any foundation to deny the site plan at this time. He stated the only appropriate action was to postpone.

Chairperson Capello agreed with Member Mutch in that denying the site plan would only lead to a situation of Mr. Andris reapplying and eventually they would be in the same position. He felt that it was the responsibility of the commission to grant Mr. Andris an adjournment. Chairperson Capello stated that procedures needed to be established specifying when an adjournment would be granted and when an applicant would need to appear before the commission to request an adjournment. He felt regardless of the project or the past, it was fair to grant Mr. Andris the adjournment.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, and Richards

No: Canup, Churella, and Nagy

1. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING PROGRAM

Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo

Mr. Arroyo introduced the topic of Crime Prevention Through Design in the Safer Cities Program, in relation to Site Planning and Public Safety. He addressed the potential for crime and outlined an approach to control crime. He stated there are generally three (3) schools of primary thought:

• Law and Order- increasing the number of police. Strengthening the sentencing guidelines, etc…
• Root Causes-addresses certain social causes behind crime.
• Safer Cities-program which takes Crime Prevention Design and Program Elements with specific programs through Police Departments to address particular Crime Issues.

He stated one (1) item mentioned by police officers when discussing potential for crime and the impact of Site Plan Review, was C.P.T.E.D. (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) He stated this program was developed in the 1970’s to deal with public housing. They ensured that the public housing would be developed in a safe manner to minimize the potential for crime. Mr. Arroyo explained the program has evolved to apply to several different types of land uses, and also if a site plan addresses the potential to minimize crime. For example, lighting. Is the area illuminated? Will they be used at night at a reasonable level? He stated the Illumination Engineering Society of North America suggests a minimum level of .2 foot candles for parking areas. He stated studies have shown that lighting up to three (3) foot candles gave a general perception of public safety. However, anything above this level caused problems. He gave the example of an area being brightly lit beside an area dimly lit. He stated it would be difficult for the eyes to adjust between the two (2), thus, decreasing the safety. He stated it was important to review the cumulative impact of lighting of adjacent properties.

Mr. Arroyo stated another area was Site Line. One (1) concept in C.P.T.E.D., is to maximize visual permeability (allowing people to see public places. The idea of having public parks and being able to see what is going on at the park out the front door. This increased the public eye on open spaces and created a less inviting environment for criminal activity. Other areas included the use of convex mirrors and the minimizing of blind spots in the design of the building. He stated avoiding buildings designed with three (3) sides to prevent entrapment situations. Other influencing factors to minimize crime were related to lighting and landscaping. He stated these factors influenced the ability to see into a site and be able to address it. He explained the balance of having an open view for patrol by police and having a well-screened area for uses that might have more of an impact.

1. MSPO CONFERENCE REPORT

Mr. Arroyo shared the New Coordinated Planning Act topic with the commission. He stated currently counties, townships, cities and villages are under different state statues. He explained the attempt to bring all of these under one (1) coordinated Planning Act. Mr. Arroyo stated the Planning Act would change the way comprehensive plans were prepared. The Planning Act would establish three (3) different types of plans. It also states a community would have to have a Master Plan to retain the validity for their zoning ordinance. He explained this would give validity to the zoning ordinance. Therefore this would require the person(s) to prove something was wrong versus the commission having to prove the ordinance is correct. He stated this suggested if a community did not have a Master Plan along with a zoning ordinance, they could lose the validity if the ordinance was challenged in court. The communities would be allowed seven (7) years to readopt a Master Plan after the Planning Act was adopted. He stated after five (5) years, the Master Plan would need to be evaluated. The Planning Act would require that a Capital Improvements Program prepared annually. Currently there is no statutory authority for a City Council or Township Board to adopt a Master Plan. However, the Planning Act would states "in the act that the Planning Commission shall make and adopt a plan". Therefore, if this change occurs, the Planning Commission would be required to act upon the plan and send it to the governing body for action. He felt this was important because of the strong linkage between planning, programming and budgeting. The Planning Act specifies when preparing long range plans, Capital Implications needed to be considered, and how this would effect the budget. He stated the Planning Act would have a Future Land Use Plan (most basic), a Comprehensive Plan (all of the elements of the Future Land Use Plan plus additional elements) and a Growth Management/Redevelopment Plan (addressed the pace and location of growth, targeting growth to certain area of the city on a time schedule). Mr. Arroyo explained the Capital Improvements requirements would be more intensive. He stated at the Future Land Use Plan level there would be a plan for a network of electronic communication facilities. He stated this would go beyond the cities current wireless communication plan. He stated they would study the act in more detail at a future meeting. However, he encouraged the members of the commission to contact the state legislature if they felt this was important.

Member Cassis felt one (1) of the benefits of a conference was the opportunity to meet others and the exchange of ideas. He stated the people encountered at the conference are from different types of cities/townships and seemed to face a variety of different challenges. He suggested the possibility of have a county conference with more issues in common.

Mr. Arroyo agreed with Member Cassis. He stated the Metropolitan area had unique issues. He stated he would forward Member Cassis’ idea to the Professional Society.

Member Nagy found it valuable and interesting to hear what other cities were doing. She would like to see a theme or character for the city.

Chairperson Capello suggested having marketing as part of the theme.

1. CITY OF WIXOM RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE INSTALLATION OF A SAFETY PATH

Discussion on the installation of a safety path as part of the I-96/Wixom Road/Beck Road Interchange Project

Member Mutch introduced Resolution passed by the City of Wixom City Council supporting this safety path concept. He stated Beck Road and Wixom Road are the two (2) of major north/south roads through Wixom, both, which are involved with the interchange projects. He felt the City of Wixom was moving forward with bicycle paths and sidewalks similar to the City of Novi. Member Mutch explained the City of Wixom became aware that Michigan Department of Transportation (M.D.O.T.) would not be addressing bike and safety paths with the Interchange Project design and contacted State Representative, Nancy Cassis. Ms. Cassis had since encouraged M.D.O.T. to incorporate safety paths into the Interchange Project. She is also attempting to make it a Design Standard for future projects, to assist other communities in the future with similar situations. He felt the Planning Commission should pass a measure in support in of the City of Wixom’s City Council’s Resolution and forward it to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Senator Bullard, State Representative Nancy Cassis and surrounding communities.

Member Churella felt a motion needed to be sent to the City Council to join with the Planning Commission, similar to the City of Wixom’s process. He stated his support and also felt bike paths were important. Member Churella commented that he would like to see the bike path in Novi, along the I-96, continue to Wixom Road.

Member Mutch stated his concern was that the issue would get "lost" with City Council with all of the other issues. He stated that although he had no problem sending a Recommendation to Council, he also felt it was proper for the Planning Commission as a body to voice their support for the Resolution.

Member Churella stated that they should make a resolution and a recommendation.

Chairperson Capello agreed with Member Mutch in that the issue could be lost at Council. However, he questioned the Planning Commission’s authority to send Resolutions out to other agencies.

Tom Schultz agreed that it was an unusual situation for the Planning Commission to direct a Resolution out to other agencies. He felt the best approach would be to go through Council and have the Planning Commission’s Resolution on record. He stated at this point, it could be sent out beyond the City as a Recommendation or a notation of the Recommendation of Council. He felt they should act in the scope of their responsibilities and needed to review the code. He did not feel there was anything in the State Law that would preclude a Resolution from being passed. Therefore, the question remained of whether it would have effect or if it would be recognized as a Recommendation from the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Capello stated if there was a majority, they should adopt a Recommendation to the Stated Agency, pass it up to Council and ask Council if it could be sent out.

Member Cassis stated the City Manager, Rick Helwig, was present at one (1) of the meetings with Michigan Department of Transportation and the City of Wixom. He stated Mr. Helwig expressed his support for the project. Therefore, he felt it was also good for the Planning Commission to forward their Recommendation to the Council. He felt he Council would be amenable because the City Manager was also in support.

Member Koneda interpreted the Resolution from the City of Wixom as asking for a safety path being added to the overpasses. He felt Member Churella was suggesting to have the safety path along the freeway extended. Therefore, he asked it to be clarified if it should be one (1) Recommendation, or if it should be broken into two (2). He clarified one (1) was recommending if a new highway was being provided, that a safety path should also be provided along the right-of-way, such as along the south side of 275. The second recommendation was for public safety, to provide safety passes over the Interchange. He stated he was in support of both of the Recommendations. Therefore, he was in support of whatever was appropriate to have the issue sent to Council and through to the State.

Member Mutch agreed that Recommendation was a better choice of language.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Planning Commission send a Recommendation to the Novi City Council supporting the inclusion of safety paths as part of the overall Wixom Road / Beck Road Interchange Projects and so convey that to the M.D.O.T. and other appropriate agencies.

Chairperson Capello clarified if the motion was for safety paths across the freeways or along the freeways?

Member Mutch stated he preferred to keep it general because M.D.O.T. would need to provide the best way. He felt the goal of the City of Wixom and City of Novi was to not allow M.D.O.T. to exclude this item when designing the Interchange. He was not concerned with the particulars such as location.

Member Churella felt because it was a Recommendation, it would be a good idea to give guidelines and direction. He stated they should also suggest to M.D.O.T. to extend the bike path along the I-96.

Member Koneda felt the Recommendation was appropriate, however, he asked that the process and recipient of the Recommendation be clarified.

Chairperson Capello stated the Planning Commission was requesting that City Council send Resolution the Michigan Department of Transportation.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

Sarah Grey, 133 Maudlin, spoke regarding the Ted Andris proposal. She recalled there being a twenty (20) year history with the developer and the project. She stated the location of the site was a gateway into the city. She did not think it was possible for Mr. Andris to direct the loading doors away from the residential because the site has three (3) sides of residential property. Therefore, the only possibility would be to face the loading doors to Fourteen Mile Road. She stated Mr. Andris would need an easement across his residential property for unrestricted storm water discharge into the lake. She stated the R-4 seventy-five (75) feet to the south of the project was planned to be used for grating for a berm. She stated this was not part of the site. She questioned why he was being allowed to include this residential portion as part of his project. She felt Mr. Andris should have a six (6) to eight (8) foot wall. She stated to her knowledge, the existing zoning is B-3 and no request was made to have it downgraded to residential. She felt the surrounding residents would support the rezoning, a cluster option and the property could be used as residential. She felt that Mr. Andris had chosen not to explore the options. She stated he should have on site drainage and the lake should not be used as a detention basin.

James Korte, 40 Shawood Lake, stated his direction came from ex-chair of the Walled Lake Sector study. In brief, he stated JCK was paid approximately twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.) to conduct research options to bring the north end of Novi up to the standards of the rest of the city. He stated through this research, a committee was to facilitate a process to update. He stated letters have been sent to Ted Andris indicating that no body opposed the B-3, however, he needed to follow all of the ordinances. Mr. Korte stated Mr. Andris chose on his own to be a bad neighbor and "trash" the property. He could not believe the commission could possibly support the proposed plan. He stated Mr. Andris was turned down at ZBA and Council. He told the commission that if they approved Mr. Andris’ plan, they would ensure he was "shut down" at ZBA. He did not feel the commission could truly understand living next to his property. He stated a resident moved out of the area due to his property. He felt because the city refused to take the action to make the north end of Novi respectable and viable, more residents would continue to relocate. He felt that unless Mr. Andris made changes, the commission should deny the project.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:18 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, and Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

November 29, 2000

Date Approved: December 6, 2000