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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Potter, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, Façade Consultant Chris Fox, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Tom Schultz

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

Member Kocan added under Matters for Discussion Item #2 - Review of the itinerary of Scheduled and Anticipated Meetings.

Member Nagy added under Matters for Discussion Item #3 - Committee Reports.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as AMENDED.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Piccinini announced there was one (1) item on the Consent Agenda.

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2001. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the minutes.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 21, 2001 as submitted.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.609

The proposed rezoning of 4.2 acres in Section 9, located on the south side of West Road, west of West Park Drive and adjacent to the CSX Railroad. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation from General Industrial (I-2) to Light Industrial (I-1) or any other appropriate district.

(Tape begins)

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the rezoning in a letter dated April 2, 2001 due to its consistency with the Master Plan in the proposed area, which is Light Industrial District (I-1). He suggested that the one (1) remaining General Industrial (I-2) parcel to the east be referred to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to be addressed. Mr. Arroyo indicated the uses that could occur under the proposed I-1 zoning: Principle Permitted Uses – offices, laboratories, office support function and Special Land Uses – R&D, warehousing, manufacturing, compounding, assembly of various materials, trade schools and industrial sales.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo referred to item No. 6 in the review letter dated April 5, 2001. The parcel has 530 feet of frontage on West Road. Since Hudson Drive will carry more than 300 peak-hour trips, the City’s Design and Construction Standards precludes another driveway within 400 feet to the west of Hudson. Hence, further industrial or commercial access to West Road for this parcel will be restricted to a point directly opposite the northbound roadway of the Hudson boulevard and/or another point at least 400 feet to the west (where the proximity and crossing angle of the railroad may prove challenging). Access opposite Hudson would take advantage of a potential future traffic signal at this location. A westbound left-turn lane would likely be needed for a new site driveway, with or without a signal. He stated it appeared that the access to the site would be toward the eastern end of the property to line up with the access into Beck North. He noted the possibility of this becoming a signal location in the future. He anticipated Beck North to generate enough development to warrant a traffic signal. He stated the proposed development could take advantage of the traffic signal by lining up the driveway.

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

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

Member Canup felt I-2 Zoning was typically less desirable.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.609 to send a positive recommendation to City Council from I-2 to I-1.

Member Landry asked if there was currently any use of rectangular parcel immediately to the east of the proposed parcel.

Mr. Arroyo recalled a single family home.

Member Landry clarified that there was not a currently an I-2 use.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Nagy noted the review letter indicating that sewer and water did not currently serve the site. She asked if the water and sewer anticipated with future development would be at the developer’s expense.

Mr. Arroyo made a correction to item No. 5 in his review letter dated April 2, 2001. He stated that within the last year the water/sewer was brought to the area. Although it is not recorded on the water/sewer map, he referred to Dave Potter of JCK, who noted the service to the area.

Dave Potter of JCK indicated that water and sewer service the area.

Member Nagy asked if the future signalization would be at the City’s expense or the developer’s expense.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it could not be determined at this stage because it would depend upon when it is warranted and the conditions in place at the time of being warranted. He noted that typically when the City or the County installs a traffic signal, attempts are made for cost sharing from all of the parties that approach the intersection. He depicted the possible scenario that they may ask for a twenty-five percent (25%) share minimum from the development to the north and twenty-five percent (25%) from the development to the south and the City would pay fifty percent (50%).

Member Nagy clarified that the full cost for the ancillary item would not be the City’s expense.

Mr. Arroyo restated the difficulty to provide an answer at this point. He noted in the past, the City has attempted cost sharing.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

PM-01-04-085 TO DIRECT THE MASTER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE PARCEL TO THE EAST OF THE PROPOSED REZONING, FOR A POSSIBLE REZONING FROM I-2 TO I-1 AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To direct the Master Planning and Zoning Committee to review the parcel to the east of the proposed rezoning, for a possible rezoning from I-2 to I-1 and return to the Planning Commission with a recommendation.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

2. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.610

The proposed rezoning of 46.3 acres in Section 16, located on the north side of Eleven Mile Road and east of Beck Road. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation from Residential Acreage (RA) to One Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Joe Rokicsak of Asbury Park Associates proposed a rezoning from RA to R-1. He stated the purpose for rezoning the site was for the preservation of the diverse wetland existing on the site, with the intention to develop it by clustering homes closer together. He felt this could allow for the preservation of 25-acres of wetlands and woodlands.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the proposed rezoning in his letter dated April 13, 2001 due to its consistency with the Master Plan. He referred to the Projects Map noting the existing single-family to the south. He stated two (2) of the residential developments are in a R-1 development pattern. The Lochmoor Village, zoned R-A, was developed under a consent judgement with a denser pattern than an R-A. Timber Meadows and Congregate Care Facility are multiple-family located to the west of the subject property. Industrial development is located along Grand River Avenue. He stated the proposed property and property along the north side of Eleven Mile Road were previously Master Planned for 0.8 dwelling units per acre or one-acre lots. In 1999 the Master Planning and Zoning Committee found the corridor to have a R-1 (1.65 dwelling units per acre) as the predominant feature to the south with the multiple-family to the west and industrial to the north. This led the Committee to the conclusion that the one-acre lot zoning was not appropriate for the corridor and the Master Plan adopted the designation of 1.65 dwelling units per acre. He stated this provided a consistent density on both sides of Eleven Mile Road and adjacent to the industrial and multiple-family designations. He referred to the Residential Density Map of the Master Plan, which the Planning Commission designated the 1.65 dwelling unit corridor along Eleven Mile Road to approximately ½ mile west of Beck Road and over to Taft Road. He stated this created a consistent density pattern planned for the area. Mr. Arroyo noted the environmental features on the site. He referred to the Regulated Woodlands Map noting the substantial portion of woodlands on the site. He indicated the large wetland located at the center of the site that would need to be addressed as part of the overall development pattern. The current Master Plan designates adjacent densities of 7.3 d/u per acre, 20.7 d/u per acre, 1.65 along the southern corridor and the industrial master planned area to the north. Mr. Arroyo stated from a planning perspective, the rezoning was appropriate and consistent with the Master Plan.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo explained that with a rezoning from R-A to R-1, there would be more units. However, he stated that a conceptual plan from the applicant suggested the site to have under forty (40) units. He added that the environmental restrictions on the site would impact the ultimate density. The Zoning Ordinance states all regulated wetlands are to be subtracted from the gross acreage to calculate density, therefore impacting the net yield of the site. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.

Scotty L. Hunt, 46790 West Eleven Mile Road, wrote: "I will approve as long as the lots are ½ acre. I’m under the assumption that these will be single home units that are up to Novi’s high standards."

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

Will Symboria, 46500 Eleven Mile Road, stated his residency there since 1986. He stated upon the purchase of his property, he assumed the surround farmland property and meadows would be developed. He only requested that the City develop it consistent with the high quality standard. He stated he was in support of the rezoning. He felt if the rezoning was not granted the property would not be feasible to develop. He did not want the industrial to encroach closer to the residential as opposed to high quality homes with the saving of wetlands and woodlands.

Edward Veedro, 46800 Eleven Mile Road, stated he resided adjacent to the proposed property. He noted his 28-year residency. He stated the properties along Eleven Mile Road are lot of acreage. He was not opposed to the idea of a subdivision development, but he was opposed to the idea of adding more density.

Glen Bonaventura, 47126 Cider Mill, stated the residential rezonings increased the number of housing units and have a direct effect on the City’s ultimate population. He noted the importance of a consistent approach to maintain current zoning in residential areas. He felt when the City increases the number of housing units above the current zoning, it decreases the ability to plan for the future. He stated the result would place an additional burden on the community in over crowded schools, congested roads and a need for improvements to fire departments and police departments. He felt in this stage of build out, Novi should be focused on the quality of development verses volume to increase the tax base. He stated when a property taxed at a lower level then rezoned and developed, the City will have lost years of revenue that they could have used for the future needs of the community. He stated the result of this would be a tax abatement. He felt that using R-A as a holding pattern was wrong and should be avoided. He felt the site would be a challenge to develop due to the natural features. He stated the City has spent thousands of dollars on studies designed to protect small woodland creatures. He preferred to hear discussion of the protection of existing residence. He stated the residents have built homes and not dwelling units. He felt it was fair for the resident to expect adjacent properties to be developed as zoned. He requested that the Planning Commission send a negative recommendation to the City Council on the zoning request.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any other audience participants to speak on the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Nagy stated that the applicant had not demonstrated the need for a zoning change. She felt the change in zoning would greatly impact the wetland, the runoff and the traffic in the area.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (5-4): In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.610 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council from R-A to R-1.

Member Mutch referred Mr. Arroyo’s letter which indicated a zoning of R-A with twenty-six (26) dwelling units and R-1 with thirty-five (35) dwelling units. He asked if this number was based on information the applicant provided in a concept plan.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Mutch stated in his review, he found that forty-six (46) acres would generate thirty-seven (37) dwelling units in R-A zoning and seventy-six (76) dwelling units in a R-1 zoning. After subtracting the regulated wetlands, he calculated R-A with twenty-two (22) units and R-1 with forty-six (46) units. Therefore, he asked if the twenty-six (26) and the thirty-five (35) were accurate based on the land use and the conditions.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he was not aware of field verification of the wetland boundaries. However, according to the applicant’s plan, the development would be limited to approximately 23-acres of the site. He stated when the density is calculated with this figure, R-1 zoning has thirty-eight (38) dwelling units and R-A has eighteen (18). He stated the ability to fit the lots on the property would be a challenge, possibility resulting in less of a difference between the different zoning classifications and how the lots fit on the property. He explained because they are working with concepts and unapproved plans it is difficult to determine those figures at this level. He stated hypothetically with the numbers, the 23-acre, buildable, less the wetlands would total thirty-eight (38) dwelling units if the zoning was approved verses eighteen (18) dwelling units if it was not approved.

Member Koneda stated that he was not in support of the motion. He stated the Master Plan is the guide to make planning decisions. He agreed that the developer would be challenged with the site’s natural features. However, he reminded the commission that the current decision should be if the density should be increased from R-A to R-1. He stated it should be rezoned, because it would bring it into compliance with the Master Plan, which is the guide.

Member Canup stated he was involved on the Master Planning & Zoning Committee when this corridor was discussed. He stated the area was fragmented section of Novi. He felt that the 45-acre piece was overlooked. He asked Ms. Lemke for the quality of the Woodland.

Ms. Lemke stated it is a good quality Woodland. She described it as a mixed wetlands/woodlands system with high wildlife habitat encompassing the entire parcel. She added in its current zoning of R-A, all of the preservation options could be explored with the exception of the cluster option.

Member Canup felt the small piece of property between Taft and Beck (north of Eleven Mile Road), on the map then seemed like the only piece to be developable. Therefore, he felt it was overlooked on the Master Plan. He stated with Ms. Lemke’s comments and the wetland issues he would support the motion.

Member Mutch stated that the goal is to bring the districts into compliance with the Master Plan. However, he did not feel that the time was appropriate for the rezoning. He stated the corridor is not a collection of vacant parcels. He viewed this rezoning as an intrusion into an established neighborhood with an established character, in which the proposed home sizes would not be consistent with the remainder of the homes in the area. Therefore, he felt it would have a negative effect on the neighborhood to introduce the zoning.

Member Kocan stated her support of the motion. She noted the abutting Light Industrial (I-1) property to the north. She felt that the more distance and between the two properties would result in the least amount of problems in the City.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: Churella, Koneda, Landry, Piccinini

This condominium project is located in Section 3, on the east side of West Park Drive between Pontiac Trail and South Lake Drive. The 15.89 acre site is zoned One Family Residential (R-4). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit approvals.

Andrew Milia, president of Franklin Property Corporation, introduced Rick Hearth, civil engineer with Warner, Cantrell & Padmos. He noted his property location adjacent the recently approved North Haven Woods Subdivision development. He proposed the thirty-seven (37) lot site condominium residential development. He indicated the proposed eighty-five feet (85’) and eighty feet (80’) lot sizes. He noted they exceed the current zoning minimum of eighty feet (80’). He stated the property does not have wetlands. He indicated the original submittal contained a forty (40) lot development and based upon the City consultant’s recommendations changes were made. He stated these include the shifting of the entrance down West Park Drive to align with the development across the street; the creation of a boulevard entrance; the reduction of the number of lots; and the creation of more open space area at the center of the development. He added that they have made an agreement with the adjacent developer to align the street and have shared storm water retention. He stated the proposed storm water plan exceeds the requirement. He felt the plan was in compliance with the ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated March 6, 2001. He explained the differences of the original submittal and the plan proposed. He stated the previous plan did not have the driveway aligned with the drive across the street. The lots were longer and extended into the center area. During the pre-application process, suggestions of open space were made to the applicant. Mr. Arroyo stated that he was pleased that the applicant incorporated the suggestions into the proposed plan. The open space is approximately ¾ of an acre of green area, not included within the platted lots, extending to the internal loop road. He felt this would be a positive feature for the project. He stated the site, zoned R-4 has a maximum density of 3.3 d/u per acre and the proposed plan is 2.3 d/u per acre. Therefore, he noted this project to be permitted under the maximum density. He noted the two (2) of the lots (fronting along West Park Drive) that do not meet the ordinance requirement of one hundred forty feet (140’) depth. The ordinance indicates that a lot fronting a major arterial requires a lot depth of one hundred forty feet (140’). He suggested that this requirement be met by slightly shifting the road alignment, which needed to be addressed on the final site plan. He stated a proposed Master Deed would need to be submitted and reviewed by the City Attorney office. He noted Ms. Lemke would address the minor discrepancy regarding a right-of-way berm that needed to be resolved. Mr. Arroyo indicated that the project has frontage on West Lake, a roadway not built to current City standards. Therefore, he recommended a ten foot (10’) wide non-access greenbelt easement be included along the frontage to prevent access to the roadway. He did not recommend additional traffic to that road system. He stated the easement would allow the traffic from the project to flow out at West Park Drive (anticipated for most of the traffic) or potential through the North Haven Woods Subdivision to West Park Drive.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the items in the review letter dated March 21, 2001 being resolved at final. He stated a center left-turn lane on West Park Drive is warranted. The applicant indicated they would be providing the center left-turn lane. He added that the details of the engineering drawings needed to be provided meeting city standards. He noted the secondary access will be provided by connecting an internal street (Lagoon Street) to the proposed North Haven Woods Subdivision. He stated the right-turn acceleration and deceleration tapers are warranted for Summerlin Blvd., the access point onto West Park Drive. He noted the applicant agreed to make provision at final.

Mr. Potter recommended approval of the preliminary site plan in the review letter dated March 21, 2001. Water service would be provided with connection to the future water main in West Park Drive and extended across the Summerlin property frontage with a stub left to the north. He noted that the applicant was informed that if their construction began prior to the effect of the city plans for the 24" water main, then the applicant would be responsible to extend the water main across their property. Sanitary sewer service will be provided by an extension of sanitary sewer within the development and connection to the existing 36" sanitary sewer along the southeast property line. He stated North Haven Woods Subdivision and Summerlin would be working together to address the storm water management issues in the area. He noted the residents located downstream by Walled Lake had concerns of the storm water discharge, especially during the storm water events. He recalled the two (2) major events last year. He stated the property owners created a Master Plan drainage for the area and providing a 100-year storm water detention basin and on the site. He stated the minor issues could be addressed at final.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan with the comments of her review letter dated March 7, 2001. She stated the conditions of her letter involved additional evergreen trees, a particular species of shrub, the moving of some plant materials from the corner clearance and a number of additional items to be addressed at final. She reviewed the berm height along West Park Drive at three feet (3’) in height as required. She stated this could be resolved at final.

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke stated that the site is not listed on the City Wildlife Habitat Map and the entire site is a woodland area on the City Woodland Map. She did not find any historic or specimen trees on the site. The site is primarily pioneer species, consisting mostly of Elm and Cottonwood, some silver maple, willow, box elder and a few white ash. She noted these to be a poor quality of woodland due to the species of the trees, which make up the majority of the canopy of the Woodland. She described the woodland to be weak wooded, short-lived, prone to disease and insect infestation. She noted smaller good quality trees on the eastern and central portions of the site that are less than 8" d.b.h. (oak and sugar maple). She stated that the understory had good quality trees coming up, however, the overstory canopy trees are of lower quality. She stated the applicant proposed to preserve several smaller areas of either individual trees or groupings of trees. She added they have also proposed the preservation of the central area of the site. Ms. Lemke stated the applicant is currently replacing approximately one hundred eighty-eight (188) regulated trees and would be required to replace two hundred twenty-two (222) woodland replacement trees on-site. She stated in addition to the number of items she would be reviewing for at final and the standard four (4) conditions, she recommended approval.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated March 2, 2001 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 announced there were six (6) correspondences regarding Summerlin SP 01-11.

Chung Amsung approves of the project.

Scott Robeson, wrote that there are too many condos in Novi already. He felt there was too much development, not enough preservation and there should be more left available for citizens to use for recreation. He wrote his neighborhood is still waiting for the paved roads and city water. He felt the traffic volume have increased dramatically recently on West Road in an area people regularly use this property for walking, biking, hiking and other recreational items.

Tracy France, wrote that there are enough apartments and condos in our area. She wrote that at the rush hour, West Park Drive looks like a parking lot and she can not drive on or off at her street. She felt that Novi is becoming over built, over populated and there are not many wooded areas remaining for the wildlife. She continued that condos would push the wildlife out and there would be an increase car and deer accidents. She felt the development would lower property values. She wrote that condos also mean there will be more people and more boats on Walled Lake. She questioned where the storm water runoff would go. She added that the wetlands on the property are breeding grounds for the ducks.

Steve M. Mayork, Pickford, wrote of the concerned of the water runoff on his property.

David Tallman, 156 Penhill Street, wrote "1) The areas is already saturated with apartments and condos. 2) Will increase traffic volume which is already a problem especially around the lake.

Charles M. Cornum, wrote that he did not want the permit approved for the condo development because it would reduce the property values and there is an apartment complex already started.

Wayne Dean, 148 Penhill, wrote "The property values of y home decrease. Too much traffic in the area. No place for the wildlife to go. Already too many apartments and condominiums in Novi. Eyesore to the area. We need to preserve wetlands in this area. Who wants to see condominiums in their back yard? I would have never purchased this home if I had known of this.

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

Jim Bauls, Harbor Cove Condominiums, stated he directly abuts the proposed project. He was concerned with the traffic volume. He stated that it is currently difficult to enter onto to West Park Drive and difficulty for children crossing the street. He felt the road needed more attention than a left-turn lane. He suggested that a light be placed at this intersection. He felt the development would create a traffic backup on Ludlow. He was concerned with the retention pond that would abut the complex at the northeast end of the project and where it would drain. He stated the location of his residency is at a lower elevation and felt the existing water issue will be aggravated by the project. He was not in agreement of a large retention pond within visibility of the Harbor Cove Condominiums and he asked if there would be a buffer. He asked if there would be an access or walk for the pedestrians to travel from the south area to the north area.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bauls to reference on the map the location of the north area he was referring to with the access request.

Mr. Bauls stated explained the North Haven Woods Subdivision is located to the north and the Harbor Cove Condominiums are located to the south. He stated that the development will make it impossible for the children to travel through to school, without traveling out to West Park Drive or cutting through backyards.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bauls to indicate where he thought a pedestrian walk would be appropriate.

Mr. Bauls stated currently one would come from the Lake Road, cross up a hill and return back to the Lake Road. He stated the road is the normal line of traffic flow for the kids. He stated if there was an option to utilize the road as a walkway, it would allow access and not break up the neighborhood.

Member Mutch asked what Mr. Bauls thought about traveling south off of the street toward the complex, at the end of West Lake. He asked if it would be appropriate to have access provided from Harbor Cove going north into the subdivision.

Mr. Bauls answered this would be helpful with the pedestrian traffic.

D. Bennett, withdrew her desire to comment on the matter.

William and Mary Brennan, 126 Penhill, stated her concern with the traffic. She stated the are numerous apartments, condominiums and single family homes. She stated the area is very populated as it is exists. She stated the proposed parcel is the only parcel undeveloped. She calculated 2700 apartment units along Pontiac Trail between West Park Drive and Beck Road. She felt that all of the traffic travels West Park Drive. She noted the Task Force in the City of Novi to address the large volume of traffic on South Lake Drive. She questioned what would happen to the wildlife. She added that this was one of last areas the wildlife can access the lake. She stated the ecological concerns of acid rain and ozone damage would increase with the multiple dwellings. She understood that the land would be developed, however, she questioned if the land needed to be developed as dense as the proposed project.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any other audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Mutch asked if the applicant explored or presented any options in addition to the standard subdivision plat. He gave the example of the cluster option.

Ms. Lemke stated that her letter raised the options that were available for the property. She stated that she was not aware of the applicant pursuing these avenues.

Member Mutch clarified if the applicant chose to not explore the cluster option.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Mutch stated that typically he would deny the project and request that the applicant explore additional options in attempt to preserve some of the natural features on the property. He understood that the woodlands on the site were not of high quality, however he felt they were still an asset to the property. He stated that according to Ms. Lemke’s review letter, it appeared that most of the trees would be removed. However, he recalled City Council approving the waivers for the North Haven Woods Subdivision in spite of the negative recommendation given by the Planning Commission. He did not have the expectation of the support from the City Council. Therefore, he felt if the Planning Commission denied the request, the applicant could appeal to the City Council for the permits and have them granted. He stated there was not point in having the applicant exploring the option, that may be in the best interest of the property, because of the lack of support from the City Council. He stated it is unfortunate that the City did not find the wisdom in acquiring some of the area for a neighborhood park. He stated since this is almost the last piece of property in the area, he felt this option was lost. He felt their option was to do the best that they could with the plan. He stated the proposed project has the amenity of open space. He suggested as part of the motion that there be pedestrian access provided from West Lake into the development. He asked for an indication from Ms. Lemke of where additional replacement trees could be placed.

Member Koneda referred to Mr. Arroyo’s suggestions to bring Lot 2 and Lot 23 into compliance. He asked if this could be handled easily and is an issue.

Mr. Arroyo felt that the lot lines could be adjusted and the road moved down to bring them into compliance.

Member Koneda stated a condition of the motion would be that the requirement of the minimum lot depth be achieved. Therefore, he stated the two (2) non conforming lots would need to be brought into compliance as a condition to the motion. Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo to clarify to the audience the difference between a site condominium, a subdivision and a condominium development.

Mr. Arroyo explained that a condominium is a form of ownership. He stated the development could take many shapes and be a condominium. This could be a high-rise development with condominium ownership of the units within the large building. There is also a condominium ownership of land with single-family development. He stated the proposed project is a site condominium due to the form of ownership being used. He stated the lay out and design needs to meet the plat recommendations/subdivision recommendations. He explained further that if the site were platted as a subdivision, it would be appear identical as a site condominium. He stated the term site condominium would mean the unit would be owned instead of ownership of the lot. He noted this is done through the Condominium Act. He stated the common areas would be owned by the condominium unit owners and there would be a Condominium Association to maintain these areas. Mr. Arroyo indicated a benefit is the mandated condominium association that must be in place, where as there is not a mandated association in place to maintain subdivision open space.

Member Koneda clarified the project would have a mechanism in place to maintain the common area.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He added that a Master Deed would need to be submitted, along with the condominium documents, to the City Attorney. He stated this could be "spot checked" to ensure that the maintenance mechanisms are established.

Member Koneda asked if the internal roadway would be dedicated to the City or would it remain under private ownership.

Mr. Arroyo stated there is the option of either a public or private road. Both options would need to be designed according to the public road standards. He suggested asking the applicant.

Member Koneda stated his concern for the maintenance. He asked the applicant if they intended to maintain ownership of the roadway.

Andrew Milia answered that they intended to dedicate them to the City.

Member Koneda asked if this would be done at build-out.

Andrew Milia stated it is typically done after the final course of asphalt is placed.

Member Koneda asked if Mr. Milia was the owner of the property, which the storm water basin would be shared.

Andrew Milia stated he is the owner of the proposed development. He explained that he shares the same engineer, however he does not own the adjacent property.

Member Koneda asked if there would be a cross access agreement.

Andrew Milia answered, yes.

Member Koneda recalled Ms. Lemke making the same stipulations as the North Haven Woods Subdivision. He asked Ms. Lemke if this was correct.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She added that it is specifically for the species there. She stated they are weak wooded, not long lived and could provide several problems.

Member Koneda asked if the reason for her recommendation of a Woodland Permit was due to the better quality of the replacement trees that would provide a better asset to the City than what is currently there.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: In the matter of Summerlin of Novi SP 01-11 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval contingent upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Richards asked if the motion included the condition of the pedestrian walkway. He suggested the option of constructing the walkway on the far east end, on the other side of the trees. He agreed with the audience participant’s comments and concerns.

Mr. Arroyo stated that sidewalks would be constructed along the roadway with the development. He suggested the construction of a five foot (5’) wide path between any two (2) of the lots fronting on West Lake to provide for a path for pedestrians from West Lake continuing to North Haven Woods. He noted this would be a minimum amount of path connecting into a system.

Andrew Milia agreed that this would be a good idea. He recommended a wood chip path to create a natural tone verses a sidewalk beside the homes. He stated he was in favor of the suggestion.

Member Koneda noted he accepted this amendment to his motion.

Member Landry agreed with the preservation of the open space. In contrast, he stated the developer has the right to develop the property within the guidelines of the ordinance. He stated the proposed project meets the ordinance requirements. He agreed that the traffic conditions are bad in the area of the proposed project, however, he did not find this to be the applicant’s responsibility or fault. He stated the applicant is proposing less than the maximum density allowed is 3.3 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, if they chose, they have the right to construct more homes, which would generate less traffic than the site potential could. He stated his support of the motion.

Member Nagy asked the consultants to address the audience comment(s) regarding berming and water drainage.

Ms. Lemke stated there is no ordinance requirement to place berming between the same zoning. She noted the trees (gray cast) on the landscape plan to be the replacement trees, which would be located on the primarily on the exterior of the site. She continued that there would be additional plant materials due to the removal of the woodlands. She added that this would provide a screening, however a berm is not required.

Mr. Potter stated the applicant is proposing a 100-year detention basin at the northeast corner of the site, which would also go off site. He stated the property is higher than the property to the east. He stated the top of the ground would appear as it exists today, however, it would have a detention basin installed. He stated the basin would be coordinated with North Haven Woods Subdivision. The water directed into the basin from both subdivisions would flow in an enclosed pipe, which would connect to an existing 48" running across the property east/west and southerly, and discharge into the basin. He stated in the event of a rain storm exceeding the 100-year detention basin the residents to the south may be impacted because the flow would continue to flow south. He stated this is called the overland flow route.

Member Churella asked if the detention basin would be landscaped.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She stated there would be shrub massings around the top elevation of the basin.

Member Kocan stated that West Road is twenty feet (20’) higher than West Lake. She indicated that the southeast corner is six feet (6’) higher than the northeast corner. She asked if there was a guarantee that the residents would not be flooded out.

Mr. Potter stated the same issue was raised repeatedly by the residents requesting S.A.D.’s. He indicated the existing storm drain on the west side of West Park Drive, which flows in an existing 48" storm drain southerly. He explained that the applicant would be connecting to the storm drain from the detention basin. He restated the storm drain is existing and currently in operation.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Summerlin of Novi SP 01-11 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval subject to the construction of a five foot (5’) wide pedestrian path between the lots fronting on West Lake to provide for a path for pedestrians from West Lake continuing to North Haven Woods Subdivision and contingent upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

This project is located in Section 19, on Ten Mile Road between Napier and Wixom Roads. The 27.23 acre site is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit and Phasing Plan approvals.

Ken Neumann, of Neumann Smith & Associates Architects, introduced the two hundred thousand (200,000) square foot building to be built in phases. He designated the heavy dotted black line on the rendering to represent Phase I. He added this represented a little under half (½) of the entire building. He noted that the colors on the drawings represent the different uses on the main floor. A balcony was required to allow the large number of people to see, hence added height; a multi-purpose component (shown in pink); and classrooms (shown in green). He noted these are all connected to the "gathering place". The "gathering place" is designed to face toward the south to allow the sunshine. He pointed out the slope on the site; therefore, one component has an entry adjacent to the auditorium at the low level of the site. The educational components expand to the Administrative Center. A chapel is located at the far opposite side of the auditorium space with an upper level entrance. He noted this to be one-story above the height of the entrance beside the auditorium. At the second level, these will connect with bridges overlooking the "gathering space" below. He noted the fundamental concepts that were involved with placing the building on the site. He stated the tallest portion of the building is located on the lowest part of the site. Therefore, they have integrated the building to decrease its bulk and a flat roof would enable the lowest profile to the building. Mr. Neumann explained the desire to have a "green front door" to the site. He stated this component would be to have the interface between the public road, Ten Mile, and the site to be greenspace. He expressed with a building of this size the goal was to isolate the large parking lot completely from all views. He hoped the drawings accurately represented the success of meeting their goals. In effort to best locate the building on the site in relationship to the adjacent properties, parking entrance drives and lights are located at the center of the site, creating a U-shaped component. He stated this U-shape suggested two (2) entrances. He explained the different options and series of locations. He stated the building would be eight feet (8’) taller on the land than in its proposed position. In the scheme with the building perpendicular to the proposed, the building would be twelve feet (12’) higher. He stated the proposed scheme allows the largest component of the site, the athletic, to arise out of the components. The building is entered by a major drive, which would be a boulevard past the baseball field and terminated at a driveway at the center of the entrance of the building adjacent to the auditorium. (Auditorium is noted as darker color on drawing.) A soccer component is adjacent to the secondary drive, which leads back to Ten Mile Road. In a cross section, he explained the topography of the site as having one corner of the site at zero (0) elevation and in contrast the diagonal corner at fifty-five feet (55’) below that. He noted the nineteen foot eight inches (19’8") differential elevation from the front door to the street. (Noted by a red horizontal line.) He felt due to the topography of the site and the natural flow of water, the proposed location for the detention pond was appropriately placed. He stated this would also be a feature that could be seen through the side windows of the auditorium. He noted the number of arrows represented the computer-generated images to demonstrate the different views. Mr. Neumann noted the required variance needed for the parking. However, he felt the notion of the placement of the building positively justified itself. He stated that a green buffer space exists on the Island Lake property between the back of the lots and the top of the site plan. He added that the site plan demonstrates the landscape plan to completely buffer the site in addition to the Island Lake buffer. He noted the edges and the front edge of the site along Ten Mile to have a double edge of plantings consisting of deciduous and conifer trees planted on an earth berm. The extensive length plantings of deciduous and ornamental trees would to create an important feature of the entrance drive to the entrance plaza. He stated they planned additional plantings in the parking areas. He noted the retention components in the rear of the building to be an artistic feature of the project. Due to the dramatic drop in elevation on the site, a boulder retaining wall is needed around the designated edge of the site. He noted this to be approximately sixteen and one half feet (16½’) from the grade of the designated point to the top of the berm. This area would have additional plantings to define the parking away and prevent a visual of its existence from any point. He indicated that in discussion with Toll Brothers, they have agreed to increase the height of the trees from the required eight feet (8’) to twelve feet (12’) to created additional buffering for the residential. Mr. Neumann showed the Commission a visual that would indicated the Evergreen tree growth in five (5) years. Along Ten Mile, he designated the entrance/exit drive and boulevard with plantings on either side. He compared the boulder wall with an automobile in the picture. He noted the Evergreen trees to be located behind the row of deciduous trees. Therefore, there would be no view of the parking upon entering or from the street. In addition to the trees, he stated the 19’8" differential elevation in the site diminish the scale of the building. He indicated the brown line represented the top of the loft component of the auditorium. He pointed out the tree plantings and the outlook in five (5) years would remove the building from site. He explained that they used a flat roof to bring the rooms to the lowest point they could exist. Red lines represented the existing grade, which demonstrated that the large portion of the building is designed to be buried in the earth to reduce the bulk. He noted that the site plan indicates the further reduction of the scope of the building with the use of earth berms adjacent to the sides of the building. He felt the site plan was in compliance with the façade ordinance. He indicated the majority of the proposed building is designed with soft shaped dark and light brick poised against each other to create the residential appearance.

Lee Mammola concluded the presentation stating the presented project raises the bar for all future projects to come to the City of Novi. He gave recognition to the quality in the design and the content of the application. He noted the formal portions of the presentation were included in the commissioner’s packets along with data, booklets and letters. He noted the two (2) ZBA variances required for building height and front yard parking. However, Mr. Mammola disagreed with Ms. Lemke’s statement in the review letter dated April 9, 2001, referring to the 4’6" berm located on the northern property line, which she interpreted as not met. However, he felt this requirement is met when measuring from the higher out lot residential property. He explained if one was standing at the perimeter of the property, a 4’6" berm with plantings could be measured. He requested that the Planning Commission grant Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and the Phasing Plan contingent upon obtaining the ZBA Variances.

Mr. Arroyo commended the applicant for their excellent submittal. He added that he was pleased to find that the Lighting Plan submittal met the new ordinance standard. In his review letter dated April 13, 2001, he did not recommend approval due to the required ZBA variances. He stated if the ZBA variances were granted he would be in a position to recommend approval. Any additional items of the review letter, he felt could be resolved at final. Mr. Arroyo indicated a ZBA variance would be required for the front yard parking. He noted the ordinance specifically indicates front yard parking is not permitted for the churches and houses of worship. He noted the applicant would need to explain to the ZBA the positioning of the site. He noted the advantage of the ball fields to separate the parking from the roadway. He indicated that the ballpark would be part of the later phase and therefore it would be critical for the screening to be in place prior to the parking lot construction to provide screening from the roadway. The second ZBA variance is for the building height. He noted a complex building analysis indicated the average height of the building height to be at thirty-four (34’), which is one foot (1’) below the ordinance standard. He stated the definition of building height indicates a flat roof building to be measured at the top of the highest point of the roof. He noted the highest point of the proposed building at fifty-four (54) feet above the grade and approximately forty percent (40%) of the building exceeds the thirty-five foot (35’) height. He stated the remainder of items could be addressed at final.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the letter dated April 16, 2001. He explained that a road network would need to be designed to handle the amount of vehicular traffic generated from the twenty-eight hundred (2800) people. He indicated the advantage that most of the traffic would be generated on Sunday when the roads are not at their peaks. He requested changes to the Access to include two (2) outbound lanes from the westerly access point, to minimize the stacking onto the site and provide a separation between the left turns out and the right turns out. Due to the ordinance, he suggested that the final site plan for each phase to be done administratively if the commission granted approval and the phasing plan. He suggested the monitoring of the traffic at each phase to determine which improvements would be the most appropriate with construction of the boulevard at the eastern drive. He felt that because the project is a Special Land Use, with an impact greater than a single-family home, a condition of approval should include that the applicant provide for the installation of a traffic signal at the eastern entry onto Ten Mile Road. He stated this would likely operate only on Sundays during the peak flow conditions and would not operate on a daily basis. He felt this would be necessary to safely provide for the maneuvering in and out of the site due to the volume of anticipated traffic exiting the site. He stated another benefit of this traffic signal would provide gaps upstream and downstream. Mr. Arroyo stated the driveway spacing meets the ordinance standards. He noted the easterly drive at approximately 1/3 of a mile west of Wixom Road. He stated this would provide a reasonable location for traffic signal spacing along Wixom Road. He recommended that a center left turn lane be provided between the two (2) driveways as opposed to a passing lane. He indicated this would allow for safer operation, through traffic could shift over approximately six (6’) and allow the center turn lane to be available for both driveways. He stated the actual length of the turn lane would need to be determined later with the gathering of the final information of the traffic study projections. He added that he is currently working with the applicant with this. He noted the need for a deceleration lane to continue and connect between the two (2) project driveways onto Ten Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo explained the connection and access issues with the Island Lake development’s planned stub street at the east of the site. He pointed out the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the maximum length of the City standards that was approved due to the stub connection. (The excessive length would have been resolved with the second point of access.) Mr. Arroyo recommended that this connection be made through an emergency access into the parking area, to allow an alternate access to Island Lake. He noted it would be an eighteen foot (18’) wide gated entryway to be used by emergency vehicles only. He felt this was a public safety and welfare issues that should be incorporated on the final site plan. He suggested in his review letter that the applicant facilitate pedestrian access to and from the church grounds for the neighboring Island Lake development, the Applicant and the Island Lake developer should incorporate to include up to three paths at convenient location. The access discussed in comment #11 will provide a natural location for one such pedestrian access (assuming a pedestrian passage is built on one side of the gate). Two other potential paths exist along the north property line, one to an Island Lake cul-de-sac near the northwest corner of the church site and one to Drakes Bay Drive near the northeast corner of the church site. He indicated that the intersection of Ten Mile and Wixom is recommended for left-turn signal phasing and the City is pursuing this as part of the City’s Fire Station to be located on the south side. He noted the need for signal modifications to the Wixom/Ten Mile traffic signal and he requested the left-turn signal phasing be added at this time to address the capacity problems raised in the traffic study. Additional items indicated in his review letter were Item #26) The final site plan should include a note indicating that all the work in the Ten Mile Road right-of-way requires a permit from the City of Novi as well as the Road Commission for Oakland County. Item #27) The preliminary site plan shows a Future R.O.W. Line along the north side of Ten Mile that measures 65 foot north of the section line. This line should be shifted south 5 feet to reflect the 60 foot half right-of-way called for by the City’s Thoroughfare Plan.

Ms. Lemke indicated the difficulty with the site despite the fact there are no existing wetlands or woodlands. She commended the applicant for an excellent submittal. She was pleased with the numerous proposed plant materials and the green door approach. She stated the residential zoning adjacent to the Special Land Use made the site difficult to review from a landscape architectural standpoint. She noted the 4’6" berm required on the three sides (north, east and west) and on the northeast and west sides on the accepted parcel, which is a residential home. She stated the applicant has met all of the berm requirements with the exception of the northern portion of the accepted parcel. She explained her interpretation of the berm included examining the elevation of the home and determining the height of the berm. Therefore, although the applicant has proposed the 4’6" berm, it does not compute to the required 4’6" berm when measured from the home. Ms. Lemke noted changes to her review letter dated April 9, 2001. She stated her support of the ZBA Variance based on the physical limitations of the site. She indicated the Planning Commission Waiver is not possible due to the fact a wall already exists at the northern edge. She noted the wall would help create the berm and then "fall off". Ms. Lemke felt the intent to provide a physical barrier has been met. She stated the parking lot is lower than the property and the distance from the house to the property line would allow the sound screening to be achieved. She indicated the heavy plantings on the northern property line of the accepted parcel and around the site. She stated in her final review, she would be looking for the specification of the types of plant materials, a variety of Evergreen heights (ranging from 7’ to 12’) and additional shrubs under deciduous canopy and subcanopy trees. She highlighted some of the additional items including the interior requirements for the 60% plantings, ensuring the opacity requirements are met from the viewing of the parking lot from Ten Mile Road, interior pedestrian connections from the exterior and to the interior of the site and shrub plantings around the detention basins.

Dave Potter of JCK, indicated the applicant’s proposal to construct a five foot (5’) concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road. He recommended approval in the review letter dated April 10, 2001. He referred to the review letter which stated that water service would be provided to the site by a connection of a proposed 8" water main to the future water main in the future Island Lake development located to the north. Water main is proposed to be looped internally on the site with a stub left to the south along the Ten Mile Road frontage. He indicated the coordinating issues that exist due to the current the water being extended along Wixom to Ten Mile. The applicant proposed to provide a 10-year storm water detention. He stated the storm water would be pretreated into two (2) sedimentation basins, which are upstream by the detention basin. He requested that the applicant coordinated with Island Lake to utilize the lake should a storm exceed the 10-year flow. He designated the frontages that the ordinance requires the applicant to construct a 12" water main along Ten Mile Road. He requested an Escrow account be established for the segment of the water main. He did not recommend that the water main to be constructed dry. Mr. Potter indicated comments of the review letter dated April 10, 2001, regarding water main, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. 1) The water main will need to be stubbed to the western property line near the northernmost parking area. In addition, the water main (12") will need to be extended across the entire southeast frontage along Ten Mile. 2) The proposed 8" sanitary sewer will need to be extended to the northeast corner of the middle parcel; extension down to Ten Mile Road will need to be eliminated. 3) Storm sewer will need to be established on the north side of the building to pick up storm water flows in this area. Mr. Potter indicated that Oak Pointe Church would need to extend utilities to service their site in the event that the Island Lake development did go forward. Mr. Potter recommended approval.

Mr. Fox identified the site as R-A Façade Region 2 because the building is located more than five hundred feet (500’) from the road. He noted that the building is primarily brick, with the lowest percentage at eight-two percent (82%) and flat metal panels. He stated that all of the materials are in full compliance with the Façade Ordinance and a Section Nine Facade Waiver is not required.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) The fire protection and domestic water mains shall be separated. 2) The fire protection water main shall be controlled with a gate valve in a well. 3) The fire department connection shall be located on the front of the building near the main entrance.

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

Mary Fraser, 25810 Groveland, noted her twelve (12) year residency in Novi. She stated that she regularly attends Oak Pointe Church. She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to voice her support of the project.

Jim Bahbah, 47548 Beckenham Boulevard, stated his fifteen (15) year residency in Novi. He stated his appreciation of the community involvement of the Oak Pointe Church. He stated his support of the proposed project.

Jay Lodwick, 23701 Heartwood, stated he was a resident of Novi for 12 years and since has resided in EchoValley. He stated his family began attending Oak Pointe Church 2 years ago to take part in a church in his community. He stated his support of the project.

Steve Skaglin, 24466 Riverview Lane, resident of Novi for 13 years. He stated he attends Oak Pointe Church and appreciates the impact it has had on his family. He noted that they are very involved in the community. He stated his support of the proposed project.

Dave Johnson, 22314 Wooster, resident in Novi for 18 years, expressed his support of the Oak Pointe Church project.

Dan Carr, resident of Novi since 1985, stated his attendance at Oak Pointe Church. He added that he is the treasurer of the church. He supported the positive community involvement including healing to relationships/families and community contributions. He noted the church has made medical contributions to members of the community, some whom they have never had the opportunity to meet. He expressed his support.

Tom Crowley, 24826 White Plains Drive, stated he has been a resident of Novi for 21 years. He expressed his love and support of the community. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to express his support of the Oak Pointe Church project.

Tom Kerr, 45437 Irvine Court, stated he began attending Oak Pointe Church 6 months ago. He stated the church is doing "fantastic things" for those coming to the church. He enjoyed watching the church grow and expressed his support of the project.

Mark Pehrson, 24724 Fairway Hills, a resident of Novi for 15 years. He asked the Commission to consider a positive recommendation of the site plan to allow the church to move forward. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to show his support.

Trina Nestle, 22739 Cranbrooke, stated her support of the Oak Pointe Church project.

Gary Ehlers, 23912 Broadmoor Park Lane, felt the Oak Pointe Church project would be a fantastic project for the community. He felt this project would raise the "bar". He stated that people move into a community for several reasons such as schools, shopping and places of worship. He supported the project.

Bethany Crowley, stated she has attended Oak Pointe Church for over 3 years. She expressed her support of the project.

Larry Kipp, Yorkshire Subdivision, stated he was proud to be part of a project that could serve and part of the community. He asked for the support of the Commission for the Oak Pointe Church project.

Cary Wilson, 22495 Southwyck Court, noted the many friends and neighbors that have joined the church. He added that the church has given a positive alternative for his 5 children in terms of activity.

Judy Johnson, 22314 Wooster, a resident for 18 years. She stated that she was one of the original families that began the church and that it was a "dream come true" to have the opportunity to build a church facility. She expressed the love that she and her family have for the church. She stated that her children invite their friends to church and they can dress casual. She hoped that the Commission would recognize the positive things that the church would do for the community.

Paul and Tracy Gurrizzian, 47588 Wellesley Court, stated his family has attended Oak Pointe Church for over 2 years. He stated his relocation to Novi was due to the schools and church. He stated the positive impact Oak Pointe has had on his family. He urged the Commission to support the project.

Mike Meng, 24416 Surfside Drive, felt the goals of Oak Pointe Church to serve the community were great. He stated the Church has an excellent reputation in Novi, surrounding communities and internationally. He commended the architectural design of the project.

Paul and Sheila Jenkinson, stated their 2 year residence in Novi. He stated if he was not a member of the Oak Pointe Church, he would still support the project. He noted the demonstration that Oak Pointe of commitment to its community.

Mark Caverly, an owner of the Links of Novi, noted that he and his wife are members of Oak Pointe Church. He commended Mr. Neumann and Mr. Mammola for the excellent presentation. He stated Lee Mammola was involved with the Links of Novi and he felt confident that he would meet all of the ordinances. He commented to the concerned resident that the traffic was a major concern when The Links of Novi was built. He stated that 11 years ago the traffic study for the Links of Novi anticipated 10,000 cars per day. By recommendation, he stated that they added a traffic signal. He stated the traffic has not been a problem and there is no history of accidents. He assured her that the consultants and architects were very knowledgeable.

Phil Starr, 23676 Wintergreen Circle, a member of Oak Pointe Church stated his support of the project. He expressed his love for the community and the church. He felt the structure was an outstanding example of a structure that could be built and glorify God and minister to the community.

Gwenn Leapheart, 22844 Cottage Court, a Novi resident for 13 years. She invited the Commission to come to Oak Pointe Church. She stated it represents "church like it ought to be". She stated that Oak Pointe is a community oriented church.

Daniel Schrader, 50155 West Ten Mile, stated her home is directly across the street from the proposed project. She expressed her concern about the location of the traffic signal. She questioned where the traffic would be placed due to the incline of the property and how it would help the amount of traffic that would be generated. She expressed her concerns of the view she would have because her home is located forty-five feet (45’) off of Ten Mile. She asked how this development would effect the value of her property. She felt the Commission needed to consider more residents than those of the Island Lake development.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there was any further audience participation. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda suggested breaking down the discussion into Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use due to the complexity of the site and the several conditions involved. Member Koneda explained that a Special Land Use is a permit to allow a church to operate in a residential district. In order for this to occur, he stated certain conditions would need to be met. He added that many of those conditions have been met. He indicated the submittal of the noise analysis and its demonstration that the site is in compliance with the Ordinance requirements. He stated that the site was in compliance with the new lighting plan. He noted the ZBA Variance required for the for the 4’6" berm. He asked if the owner of the "excluded property" was present. He continued that Special Land Use requires the intended use to be in harmony with the residential area, not causing any detrimental impact to the infrastructure of the City or the residential developments. He felt there were several conditions that should be attached to the Special Land Use Permit. Such as: Ten Mile Road improvements - the left-turn lane is required in place of the proposed passing lane; the applicant must fund the installation of the future traffic light for the east driveway; the applicant should provide the emergency access to the stub street (the adjoining property is residential in nature and were required to install a stub street connection); and provide pedestrian access to the site.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of Oak Pointe Church SP 01-18 to grant Special Land Use Permit conditioned upon the left-turn lane being required, funding of the future traffic light, providing the emergency access to Island Lake and providing pedestrian access to Island Lake conditioned upon ZBA variance approvals and conditioned upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.

Member Landry commended Pastor Shirock in creating a "wow" facility. He stated that the testimonials of the flock spoke volumes of his church. He noted the facility designed with the 2,850 seat auditorium, banquet facilities and 1,200 seat gathering space. He asked Pastor Shirock what uses he anticipated for the facility in addition to Sunday services.

Pastor Shirock stated the vision for the auditorium would be primarily for Sunday morning. He noted the possibilities of special events such as a Christian concert on a Friday night. He welcomed the community to use a state of the art auditorium for community events. The banquet facility would be for conferences, similar to Ward Church in which groups are invited to hold conferences at the site. He described it to be an open glass galleria with food services over looking the Island Lake Community. He continued that they could facilitate weddings and graduation ceremonies. He stated currently there are cell groups (small groups meeting in homes) consisting of a total of approximately three hundred (300) people, that he would like to have utilize the galleria during the week in groups of ten (10) or twelve (12). He stated that the area would primarily be used on Sunday between 8:00 a.m. to approximately 1:00 p.m. as a connection space for those people coming out of the various services.

Member Landry stated that it appeared to be a magnificent facility. He asked if they planned to lease the building for weddings or speakers on Saturday. His stated that he was concerned with the traffic.

Pastor Shirock stated he did not anticipate leasing. He explained that currently to conduct a wedding, they rent a church or conduct the ceremony outdoors in a public space. Therefore, he did anticipate weddings and special ceremonies for the church members. He noted the church might hold conferences on parenting or marriages. Pastor Shirock specified that the church would not be a conference center to be leased to "just anyone". He stated the events would fit the purpose, mission, ministry and would be events that truly benefit the community.

Member Landry clarified that the facilities would not be income producing.

Pastor Shirock answered no. He also clarified that there would not be a school. He noted the classrooms are for Sunday morning. He stated the Adventure Land (children ministry) has four hundred (400) to five hundred (500) children. He stated the church currently uses twenty (20) classrooms at Northville High School. Possible additional events may include Youth Group, Singles Group, Junior & Senior Groups during the week. He stated that Sunday would be the only day that they anticipated to house a thousand (1,000) people, with the exception to a religious celebration such as Good Friday. He restated that Oak Pointe Church is a ministry and a mission not an income producing facility.

Member Landry asked if the facility was used for additional uses other than Sunday, would the suggested traffic conditions be sufficient to accomplish this.

Mr. Arroyo stated the events described that would occur during the week such as conferences, weddings, concerts or small group meetings would typically take place in off peak times. He interpreted this as positive and added that the off peak traffic is critical. He stated the improvements would be sufficient to handle the traffic turning in and out. He noted the types of activities mentioned would generate less traffic than that on Sunday. He stated as the congregation grows and the project develops through its phases, he requested the monitoring of traffic. The applicant would submit additional data as necessary on a phase basis to ensure this is being checked. Mr. Arroyo stated this is a common request for the phased developments to ensure it is in keeping with the surrounding network.

Member Landry asked if each of the phases would come before the Commission.

Mr. Arroyo answered no. He stated this is typically handled administratively.

Member Landry asked if the City could administratively attached additional traffic conditions if the phases warranted.

Mr. Arroyo stated if significant changes were found, differing from what has been presented to the Commission, he would recommend that they come before the Commission again. He stated the Planning Director and the Staff have the ability to send the applicant back to the Commission if the change is dramatic enough and/or beyond the scope of what was originally envisioned.

Member Nagy described the architectural design and layout as beautiful. She noted the testimony of those that came to support the project and that minister, Pastor Shirock, seemed wonderful. She wanted to make the point clear that there was not a decision being made about the Oak Pointe Church, yet the decision was based on land, land usage and the Zoning Ordinances. Therefore, she asked that they keep that in mind. She was concerned with the traffic report. She asked if there was an established agreement with Island Lake Toll Brothers for placement of the stub road.

Mr. Arroyo was not certain if that was executed.

Mr. Neumann referenced to the comments that have been made. He stated that the church was in agreement to comply with suggestions and changes in methodology to handle the traffic.

Member Nagy asked if this was an "actual" agreement.

Mr. Neumann answered, no. He stated Oak Pointe has agreed to allow the connection on the property to Toll Brother’s road.

Member Nagy understood. She questioned if Oak Pointe and Toll Brothers had established a written agreement for a stub road between the two (2) properties.

Mr. Neumann answered, no.

Member Koneda stated that this was included as a condition in the motion.

Member Nagy apologized to the applicant. She continued with her concern of the detention pond and the runoff. She asked if a 10-year storm was sufficient.

Mr. Potter stated the 10-year storm is the minimum requirement. He stated that they would continue to examine as the project proceeds into final. He explained that all of the drainage from the site flows downhill into the lake. The building is essentially being built "in the way" of the flow. He noted the request of additional drainage to be extended from the proposed detention basin along the eastern site to "pick up" the drainage. He noted that they would be requesting additional information be requested for the 100-year overland flow routes.

Member Nagy asked for the zoning of the vacant property.

Mr. Arroyo answered, R-A.

Member Koneda reminded the commissioners that the discussion should be related to the motion on the floor for Special Land Use as opposed to Site Plan matters. He stated if the Special Land Use was not approved, then there would be not need to further any discussion.

Member Kocan reiterated Member Nagy’s comment to focus on the ordinance. She described the structure as beautiful. However, she wanted to see complete compliance with the ordinance. In research, she found that the ZBA granted a variance for the Brightmoor Tabernacle Church for building height, because there was no place on the building was it more than thirty-five feet (35’) from the adjacent grade. Therefore, she questioned if there was any location that the building is thirty-five feet (35’) overt the adjacent grade.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He referred to the review letter, which noted sections at fifty-four feet (54’) above grade.

Member Kocan clarified if this was fifty-four feet (54’) from the residential development.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the measurements were obtained from the adjacent grade, which is according to the ordinance. He stated they were not obtained from the residential development.

Member Kocan stated this was important information. She stated her goal was to protect the future property owners of the Island Lake development and that the Commission should take this into consideration. She noted that there was no address made to the truck wells. She stated there are three (3) loading docks/truck wells facing Island Lake development.

Chairperson Piccinini restated that the discussion is for Special Land Use matters and not site plan.

Member Kocan stated this was a Special Land Use issue. She stated No. 24 of section 2516.2 (c) indicates the Commission needs to determine whether the development is compatible with adjacent uses of land regarding location, size, character and impact on the adjacent property or surrounding neighborhood. She corrected Mr. Arroyo’s review letter and clarified that there were seven (7) items that needed to be referred to when determining Special Land Use approval. She noted #4 was left out of the letter. She did not feel that the truck wells adjacent to a residential neighborhood defined a compatible use. She asked Mr. Arroyo which ordinance he referenced and how he justified the truck well location one hundred seventeen feet (117’) from residential property to the east.

(Tape ends)

Member Kocan addressed the building size of 206,000 square feet not being compatible with residential property located just 77 feet from the north side of the building and 117 feet east of the building.

Member Kocan stated that the proposed use does not meet Section 2519.10.c. of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a noise study to be prepared by a "certified sound engineer". Certain noise levels were based on assumptions rather than actual models. The study submitted was completed by a PE and, therefore, does not appear to be valid in terms of compliance with the ordinance.

Member Kocan questioned the banquet facility operation. Rod Arroyo stated that was not the primary use of the building.

Member Kocan stated the particular use is more intense than the intent and purpose of the ordinance and adversely affects the quality of life of abutting residents and, therefore, she could not support the Special Land Use for Oak Pointe Church.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Kocan, Nagy

Moved by Churella, seconded by Canup, CARRIED (8-1): In the matter of Oak Pointe Church SP 01-18 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Phasing Plan Approval conditioned upon the granting of ZBA Variance for front yard parking, ZBA Variance for building height, pedestrian connection access, an escrow account created for the eastern segment of the water main along Ten Mile Road, contingent upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.

(Tape begins)

Member Landry clarified if the water main escrow should be included in the motion.

Chairperson Piccinini stated this would be included with the contingent upon the consultant’s recommendations and conditions. She asked Mr. Potter if he would like this to be part of the motion.

Mr. Potter stated his letter did not reflect this request and he would like the water main escrow to become part of the record.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Potter to restate his request.

Mr. Potter stated recommended that an Escrow account be created for the eastern segment of the water main along Ten Mile Road.

Member Churella accepted this amendment to the motion.

Member Kocan expressed her support of the front yard parking because she felt that it fit the plan well. She noted that it made sense to push the building back due to it being at the lower point. She agreed that it appeared the parking would be screened from the residential and did not feel it would not be viewed from Ten Mile Road. She asked if the ordinance required the ballpark fields to be located eighty feet (80’) from the property line. She noted Section 4025(b) of the ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo stated the ball park use is an accessory to the larger use. He did not feel the standard applied.

Member Mutch requested that the pedestrian path connection also be referenced in the site plan.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the Mr. Neumann if he would comply with this request.

Mr. Neumann answered, yes.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Nagy

This townhome project is located in Section 23, on the north side of Trans-X and east of Novi Road. The 9.769 acre site is zoned High Density Multiple Family Residential District (RM-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit approvals.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in his letter dated April 19, 2001. He indicated the location of the site in relation to the surrounding area. He noted the lack of the forty-five (45) degree angling of the buildings, instead, it is in a grid pattern. The applicant proposed to maintain the same type of building placement and orientation with the new phase, which is consistent with Main Street and the anticipated overall Main Street Concept. Mr. Arroyo felt it would be out of character to angle the buildings at forty-five (45) degrees to the property line. Therefore, he stated under the circumstances with the proposed site, he supported the waiver. He indicated the ordinance standard which speaks of a minimum twenty-five (25) foot separation from drives and parking area to building faces that have openings. He recalled the Planning Commission’s interpretation that as long as the openings were not on the first floor, it would satisfy that requirement of the ordinance, but would allow openings on the second or third floors. He stated the applicant is proposing to maintain the same type of separation, in which any structure that is closer than twenty-five (25) feet to a drive or parking would not have any opening adjacent to that parking area or driveway area on the first floor, but would have them above. He pointed out that the applicant would be maintaining a consistent treatment. Mr. Arroyo indicated that a complete lighting plan would be required at final.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in his letter dated April 19, 2001. He felt that although there were a number of issues, they could be resolved at final.

Ms. Lemke noted the variance for the thirty-six (36) inch berm verses the wall due to the lack of provision to substitute a wall for a berm. She was in support of this variance. She noted the location of the decorative fencing and the addition of the base of three (3) feet. She indicated the required Planning Commission waiver for no berm or wall due to the existing woodlands that are being sought for the eastern property line, where a six (6) foot berm TC-1 zoning/adjacent Main Street Village is required and north western tip (75’ length) where wetland mitigation will occur adjacent to the entrance off of Potomac Drive. A Planning Commission waiver for a 10-15’ berm required for the I-1 zoning adjacent to the southeast property line by the proposed detention basin and substitution of a 6’ height masonry wall and plantings. A Planning Commission waiver for the 10-15’ berm required adjacent to I-1 zoning along the western property line and substitution of a 6’ height due to the existing woodlands and wetlands. Ms. Lemke noted her support of the Planning Commission waivers with additional evergreen trees in some areas and more substantial height (8’) along the western property line. In regard to the landscape review, Ms. Lemke recommended approval with the ZBA variance and a number of items being addressed final.

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke noted that the applicant had made several revisions. The highest quality woodland is located at the property line and continues into the Main Street One preservation area, which was required to be preserved with Phase I. She stated that she has been working with the applicant on a "tree by tree" basis in attempt to preserve the higher trees and higher quality woodland areas on the site. She noted the vegetation being removed and the adjustments made on the grading and adjustments of buildings. She changed her negative recommendation in her review letter dated April 17, 2001 to a positive recommendation. She stated the applicant has addressed all of the items that she had requested. She noted the areas being removed from the plan are now the fringe vegetation on the edge of the woodlands, which are the lower species of trees and understory (popular and elm). She added they are proposing to preserve the higher species. Therefore, she recommended approval with the conditions in her letter.

Mr. Potter recommended approval in the letter dated April 11, 2001. He stated the roadway consists of internal private interval concrete curb roads. A series of internal roads with 5’ wide concrete sidewalk along the road frontages. In addition, 5’ wide concrete sidewalk along Trans-X Drive frontage is proposed. Looped water main system is proposed which ties into existing 12" water mains along Trans-X and Potomac Drives. Proposed sanitary sewer which ties into the existing 8" sanitary sewer in Trans-X Drive (along the southern boundary). Storm water will be collected in proposed on-site storm sewer and routed to a proposed permanent sedimentation/water quality basin located at the southeast corner of the site. Storm water will then discharge unrestricted from the basin and will be routed by way of conveyance to the existing C & O Regional Detention Basin located southeast of the proposed development. Mr. Potter indicated that no detention would be provided due to the existing downstream regional flood control detention basin. He added that the water would be pre-treated prior to discharge and a tap fee would be required.

Ms. Kay recommended approval in the review letter dated April 13, 2001. She stated Regulated Wetland A (1.380-acres) is connected to Regulated Wetland B (0.250-acres) southward through a spillway. Non-essential Wetland C (0.047-acres) is located around the center of the parcel. Regulated Wetland D (0.094-acres). Regulated Wetland E (0.200-acres) is referred to as a mitigation area. She noted they are recommending to fill a portion for the entrance and access road, which is an unavoidable impact. She indicated the recommendation for approval was based primarily on this along with the overall wetland fill is quite low. She stated the wetland mitigation area would be impacted, (as shown in the darker blue portion) which they would be re-grading. She noted there are a number of conditions in the letter. She added that the applicant had given full cooperation. She indicated the areas with a reduction of the buffer. She stated the areas along the eastern edge are higher in quality, however further north, they become of lower value. She added that the vegetation was not doing well. She referred to the recommendation in the review letter requesting complete re-vegetation along with other conditions.

Mr. Fox stated the trim and the asphalt shingles exceed the maximum allowed by the ordinance by a small amount. He indicated that this excess was due to the steep pitch on the roof and the style of the architecture. Therefore, for these items he recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver. He commented on the conversation between Mr. Necci and Singh Development in which they discussed the option for the 3" exposure or triple nine vinyl siding. Mr. Fox indicated the Planning Commission previously approved this for Pointe Park Condos as an allowable alternative for wood siding. Based on this particular brand of siding, he recommended approval based on the Planning Commission’s prior acceptance of the material. Based on materials he had seen in the past, he stated the materials shown on the board did not represent the triple exposure siding. Mr. Fox recommended a Section Nine Facade Waiver for the vinyl siding contingent upon it being the triple exposure vinyl.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated April 18, 2001, from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) This applicant shall replace the hydrant in front of Building #13 that was on the previous submittal.

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

Nate Simpson, representing Evergreen III (adjoining property owner), stated his agreement of the proposal. However, he objected to the access on Potomac Drive. He stated the access arose as a result of an easement granted originally to the Phase I portion of the development. He felt the easement did not contemplate or permit access to Phase II. Therefore, he objected to any additional access to Potomac Drive and to the proposal providing for that access. He understood that it was not the Planning Commission’s job to resolve the dispute, which has been the subject of extensive communications between the parties. He hoped this could be resolved. He stated that he would continue to assert his position with respect to the easement. He stated if that involved litigation, then it would be. He stated that the matter would be resolved either by the parties directly or through the court system. He ensured the commission that this information was no surprise to the developer. He believed that the proposed access to Potomac Drive was improper.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak on the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Canup felt the issues raised by Mr. Simpson could seriously impact the project if property owners did not prevail. He asked if there was the possibility of a litigation.

Lawrence Kilgor, attorney representing Singh Development discussed the area in question. He stated the entry is to the existing Potomac Drive, a divided boulevard from Market Street to Phase I of the apartments. The site plan would bring the new roadway up to and through the existing Main Street Village property and into and area owned by Vic’s Market, with which they have an easement. He pointed out the area in question, approximately 150’ long and 50’ or 60’ wide. He noted in this area they have an easement for Phase I of the apartments and not for Phase II. Mr. Kilgor stated that they have constructed and maintained the road and it is open to the public. He added it is not a restricted roadway only for the use by of Phase I residents, Vic’s Market customers, etc… therefore, the question exists if it is their right to utilize it for the Phase II residents. He noted that the construction is within the areas that they have the right to build. He explained the roadway is entirely on their own property or on property that is owned by Vic’s Market, which has an easement. Therefore, he stated there would be nothing done to the property owned by Evergreen III. He believed the question would be resolved over the next few months. Mr. Kilgor stated these projects would have access to Grand River Avenue through Phase I. He stated if Evergreen III objects, they would restrict the entry out to Trans-X Drive or out of Phase I. He stated this would provide two (2) means of ingress/egress. He hoped this would not be necessary, because it would be a detriment to the Main Street Development.

Tom Schultz stated this was the first time the conflict was heard of. He stated the petitioner has presented a plan to the Planning Commission that represents the access. He stated if the applicant does not have the access and they are unable to resolve the issue or he loses the court case, then he would come before the commission for an amended site plan. He felt the petitioner’s representation should be taken as presented and if he has misinformed the commission, then he will have to work with it. He did feel the commission would be responsible for a misrepresentation. Therefore, he advised the Planning Commission to act on the case as presented.

Member Canup referred to the comment on page no. 4 of Mr. Arroyo’s review letter, which states Access is to Trans-X, which is a non-residential collector. He asked Mr. Arroyo to define "collector".

Mr. Arroyo stated Trans-X is defined as a collector because it collects traffic from a number of different industrial developments and brings it out to a major thoroughfare. Due to its length, the number of developments it serves and the fact of the additional pavement of a collector roadway were the reasons he gave for the "collector". He stressed the main reason was because of its function of carrying traffic to the many developments.

Member Canup asked if this would be developments or businesses.

Mr. Arroyo answered, either. He stated that in this situation, it would be the pads and lots within the industrial subdivision.

Member Canup asked regarding the building orientation comments on page no. 3. Buildings along perimeter property line shall be oriented on site with at least 45 degree angle.

Mr. Arroyo stated they would not be providing this.

Member Canup asked why not.

Mr. Arroyo stated it is mainly due to the attempt to orient the buildings in a similar manner to Main Street One, which is not oriented at 45 degrees. He explained that the idea behind the proposed concept, which was started in Main Street One, is a grid street pattern. He felt if the buildings were oriented at a 45 degree angle it would be out of character for the area. He explained the idea behind the 45 degree angle was to have the longer buildings fit into the suburban setting to keep the bulk of the building from facing the property line, where there may be single-family residential or a use that would be sensitive to a long wall. He stated in this situation, there is an industrial development across the street, future Town Center development on one side and an existing development with a similar orientation to the proposed. Therefore, a 45 degree angle would not make sense and he felt there was a good case for a waiver.

Member Canup asked if the masonry wall would be brick to match.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Canup asked about the planting along the six foot (6’) high wall.

Ms. Lemke stated there would be a three foot (3’) wall with a fence on the top along Trans-X Drive. She stated they proposed a six foot (6’) wall on the southeast and western.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if she was suggesting eight foot (8’) for both.

Ms. Lemke answered, no. She indicated her request was only for the side abutting the industrial in the Town Center.

Member Canup felt the six foot (6’) tall would look blank. He suggested a three foot (3’) wall similar to the one on Trans-X Drive.

Ms. Lemke stated the required is a ten to fifteen foot (10’-15’) high wall with industrial and six foot (6’) with Town Center. She asked Mr. Kahm to designate on the chart.

Mr. Kahm indicated the point at which the property is zoned TC-1, which there is not a requirement, however, he stated they would continue it for conformity along the perimeter of the property. He stated the area zoned I-2 and Master Planned TC would require a buffer. Therefore, he proposed a six foot (6’) wall. He stated there would be a substantial buffer of a wall in landscaping on that property line. He proposed this in place of the large berm.

Member Canup felt this would be an attractive feature to have on the other side as well instead of the wall.

Mr. Kahm agreed. He stated he would be willing to do this.

Member Canup asked what would be required by the Commission to make this happen.

Ms. Lemke stated it would need to go before the ZBA, due to the requirement of the six foot (6’) wall next to TC due to the RM zoning.

Member Canup clarified if they would have to go before the ZBA if the Planning Commission asks for the placement of the three foot (3’) wall with the three foot (3’) fence.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if the wall was three foot (3’) with the three foot (3’) cap would be considered a six foot (6’) wall.

Member Koneda asked if they were wanting to extent the fence around the front of the property as it is around the side, only with more plantings.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, no. She explained the question was if they could have a three foot (3’) plus the pillars with a cap to create the six foot (6’) wall, although it would not truly be a wall.

Member Canup stated it would have three foot (3’) of masonry wall and three foot (3’) rod iron fencing.

Member Koneda asked if this would look similar to the frontage along Trans-X Drive.

Member Canup answered, yes.

Member Nagy clarified if it would be all around the property.

Member Canup answered, yes.

Member Koneda continued that he would like it extended around in lieu of. He clarified if Member Canup’s question was if the Planning Commission had the authority to grant this waiver.

Member Canup answered, yes.

Ms. Lemke deferred to the City Attorney, because it did not specifically give a height for a wall in that section.

Tom Schultz stated the Planning Commission is the initial interpreter of the ordinance. Therefore, if they interpret this to be appropriate. He stated the petitioner or the commission would not appealed it to the ZBA. Therefore, in this sense, it could be done. He understood a wall with a fence on top was being described and he did not feel this appeared to meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance.

Member Canup stated the importance in the area to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible. He felt this feature would enhance this. He felt a six foot (6’) brick wall would look stark and sterile even with the landscaping. He commended the developer on the selection for the fence on the Trans-X side.

Chairperson Piccinini asked what material would make the structure to not be considered to be a wall by definition of the ordinance.

Tom Schultz stated he presumed this would not be okay, because it is not screening.

Ms. Lemke stated the need for audio and visual screening from the industrial zoning.

Dave Evancoe added that the common understanding of a wall would be that it is not transparent. He cautioned the commission of their attempt to develop a new definition of a wall at this meeting because it would set a precedence.

Member Richards asked if there was a physical reason for why a 10’-15’ berm could not be located between the I-2 properties.

Ms. Lemke stated it was based on the design of the site with the 3 to 1 slopes, etc…

Member Richards asked if they could have redesigned the site at that time the site was rezoned to allow for the 10’-15’ berm.

Ms. Lemke answered yes they could have. However, she added the ordinance allows the Planning Commission to grant a waiver in regard to the wall.

Member Richards felt the three foot (3’) wall with the three foot (3’) bars appeared institutional and prison-like. In contrast, he felt the berm offer a flowing-look. He added that the industrial uses are further down the street and very well landscaped. He felt the brick would make the proposed development standout as if in a different area.

Ms. Lemke felt the reason they were proposing the wall and the rod iron was to create a more urban-look in the industrial zoned property. She felt because they are different, they may want to look different and represent the fact that they are a residential community in an urban setting.

Mr. Kahm did not feel the area would remain industrial and instead would be transformed into a Town Center area. He viewed this project as "the pioneer" in the area to have the industrial property rezoned to multiple-family, a component to Main Street Development. He explained they are in a situation trying to meet the ordinance while abutting a light industrial property, which he did not feel would develop as industrial. He stated if the abutting property was TC, they would not be required to provide anything. However, because they are required by ordinance to provide a buffer, they have attempted to provide a buffer in character with the future outlook. He did not feel that a 10’-15’ berm would be in the character of the Main Street development.

Member Richards asked if the wall would be removed if the area abutting became TC.

Mr. Kahm answered, no. He indicated that the wall also added to the exclusivity character of the development. He noted the substantial amount of landscaping in front of the walls, which would add to the urban character and the exclusivity.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if he would be complying with the eight foot (8’) wall on the western side. She also asked if both of the areas would be heavily landscaped in front.

Mr. Kahm stated they would be heavily landscaped. He stated if it was preferred for them to install the eight (8) foot wall, they would. However, he expressed his concern of the "institutional-look".

Member Mutch stated the real issue was that this area is part of the Town Center and Main Street district. Although it does not have TC zoning, it is intended to be part of Main Street. He stated it was unfortunate that a comprehensive zoning was not done and left out a couple parcels were left out due to oppositions from property owners, the two (2) parcels are not zoned TC. He did not recall the parcel next to Mr. Kahm’s being used for a use other than storage. He stated that issues with berms and masonry walls would not exist in the future. He continued that the result would be ugly impediments. He felt the commission should be ensuring that as the TC-1 develops in the future, that the everything would work together. He did not feel the discussions were in the spirit and intent of the Master Plan and of the Main Street district. He agreed the direction that Member Canup was going. He stated the building orientation, setback and berming issues were driven by the policy decision made by the City Council to not have a form of TC zoning on this property, which was due to the concern that a TC zoning could bring a commercial development. He felt if it was zoned TC, 90% of the issues being discussed would not exist. He encouraged the Commission to look at the spirit and intent of what is being achieved in the area. Member Mutch felt the remedy was to be cognitive of the issues that the RM-2 is driving, that are not truly applicable in the area. He stated the western property line should have what is along Trans-X Drive.

Member Mutch asked how much distance existed between the curb of the street and the actual sidewalk along Trans-X Drive.

Mr. Kahm stated he did not know the exact distance, but it is greater than 5’.

Member Mutch added that the wall is setback approximately fifteen feet (15’) and with a utility easement. He asked if this was for overhead or underground.

Mr. Kahm answered it was for underground.

Member Mutch clarified that the side could not be move.

Mr. Kahm answered, no.

Member Mutch stated since the property is not zoned TC-1 the applicant is not required to meet the TC-1 requirements. He asked Ms. Lemke how close the project is to meeting the TC-1 in terms of amenities usually seen with a TC-1 project. He asked if she felt it was consistent with what has been done elsewhere in the Main Street Development.

Ms. Lemke believed the project has pedestrian lighting. She did not recall any benches, trash receptacles or brick paving, which are requirements of the TC zoning. She noted the brick wall with the fence on top is an amenity that has been seen in Town Center.

Member Mutch asked if the open space was less than what a TC zoning would require.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She stated it is 15% in TC.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Kahm if he would be willing to work with Ms. Lemke to incorporate some of the TC-1 amenities, existing in Main Street Village One, into the proposed project.

Mr. Kahm stated it was his intent to mirror the two projects. He noted the decorative street lighting and street trees throughout the project. He stated the garbage pick-up is curbside. Every resident would have a garage and a trash receptacle and no dumpsters. He questioned if there were specific items being requested.

Ms. Lemke suggested benches and brick paving would be appropriate.

Mr. Kahm asked if she was referring to brick paving throughout.

Ms. Lemke answered, no. She stated in certain areas.

Mr. Kahm stated he was willing to do accent paving and add benches.

Member Mutch suggested working with Ms. Lemke to incorporated these items. He stated although this would not be done to meet an ordinance requirement, he felt in working together to meet the spirit and intent of the area it would be a half way point.

Mr. Kahm agreed.

Member Koneda recalled the vision of rezoning of the property to RM-2 was to bring more residents into the Town Center area to help the Main Street Development become viable. He expressed his disappointment with the reluctance of the provision of the road access to Potomac Drive. He did not feel it was in the spirit of the Town Center.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (8-1): In the matter of Main Street Village II SP 01-12A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit Approvals conditioned upon ZBA variance for the berm along Trans-X Drive, Planning Commission Waiver for the 45-degree building orientation, Planning Commission Waiver for the berm or wall to the eastern and northwestern tip of the property line with the added evergreen plantings and Planning Commission Waiver for the berm for the southeast and western property line with the 6’ wall and plantings instead unless the railing and 3’ wall can be continued, Section Nine Facade Waiver and contingent upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.

Member Koneda asked if the two (2) ZBA variances were for the abutments against the I-2 zoning.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the berm along Trans-X Drive.

Member Koneda stated the Planning Commission could not grant this. He asked Ms. Lemke to clarify.

Ms. Lemke stated the Planning Commission could waive the berm for the wall with the exception of Trans-X Drive.

Member Koneda clarified further that the variance could not be granted to use the decorative component along the industrial zoning. However, the Planning Commission could encourage the petitioner to seek that variance from the ZBA to make the wall a continuance of what is already there. He stated the option would be up to the petitioner.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

Member Nagy understood the façade waiver was granted for the vinyl siding in Phase I. She asked if the 1/8 gage or the 1/16 was used in Phase I.

Mr. Kahm stated that he did not recall which was used. However, he was willing to do whatever the waiver has required of the project.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Fox why the 1/8 was not being used.

Mr. Fox recalled Phase I being reviewed under the old façade ordinance verses the current ordinance. He stated there was not a stipulation for 1/8" vinyl siding in the old ordinance. He stated it was requested as a waiver recommendation, however, the use of the 1/8" vinyl siding did not make it acceptable as a wood siding alternative.

Member Nagy stated the applicant proposed to use 1/16". She preferred that they use the 1/8".

Mr. Fox stated an 1/8" gage vinyl siding could no longer be purchased. He stated the façade amendments are attempting to alleviate this issue. He explained in a previous approval of another project, the applicant presented examples to the previous Planning Commission, who chose a siding they felt was acceptable. He explained the siding he called out in the ordinance was the siding that they had chosen for another project.

Member Nagy stated that Phase I has the 1/8" and does not meet the current ordinance. She stated they can not meet the ordinance because 1/8" gage is not made in this type of siding.

Mr. Fox answered, correct. He added they would not be able to provide the vinyl siding at that level. He explained that the previous Planning Commission chose a vinyl siding considered equivalent to the 1/8" gage (that can not be purchased). Therefore, he stated this is the reasoning for his recommendation.

Member Nagy asked how the determinations are made with the woodlands. She gave the example of Section 37-1(b)(1) - demonstration that no better feasible and prudent alternative location for location of structures or improvements can be provided which preserves more of the quality of the woodlands on the site.

Ms. Lemke stated the quality of the woodlands if reviewed first to determine where changes could be made to the plan submitted. She stated the request of changes to the plan would be made. She noted this could vary from exploring different alternatives such as a cluster option or a preservation option, relocating building, dropping out different buildings, dropping out parking areas, etc… She stated in this project, it was a matter of repositioning.

Member Kocan did not recall a sign on Trans-X Drive indicating the location of the project. She stated if it was the area she thought, she would prefer a fifteen foot wall (15’). She asked what I-2 development would the residents be looking at. She felt the wall across Meadowbrook Country Club would be an appropriate wall to consider. She wanted to know what development were direct abutting the property prior to her support of a 3’ high wall in an I-2 zoned area.

Mr. Arroyo noted the abutting developments: Steven’s Industries, outdoor storage, the rust colored items noted on the drawing are on the subject’s property and would be removed.

Member Kocan asked what the timing would be for the properties to convert from I-2 to TC zoning.

Mr. Arroyo stated it could be twenty (20) years.

Member Kocan stated she would not support a 3’ high fence with a rod iron gate on top.

Member Koneda explained that the motion was to put in a wall and it gave the applicant the option to go to the ZBA.

Member Kocan stated she understood this. However, she wanted it to be on record that she was not in support of this.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini

No: Richards

Mr. Kahm asked if it would be possible to work out the fence/wall issues with staff, because he did not think he would need to go before the ZBA. He asked for the opportunity to review the ordinance.

Planning Commission agreed that this would be appropriate.

Moved by Nagy, MOTION DIES LACK OF SUPPORT: Motion to adjourn and reschedule remaining items to the next Planning Commission Meeting.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to continue the Planning Commission meeting to complete Public Hearing Item #6 and Matters for Consideration Item #1 and reschedule the remaining items to the next available Planning Commission Agenda.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None.

This project is located in Sections 18 and 19, on the north side of Ten Mile Road between Napier and Wixom Roads. The 901 acre site is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). The applicant is seeking to amend the Residential Unit Development (RUD) plan to delete pedestrian paths at certain locations.

Kevin Sullivan requested a reduction of sidewalks within the Island Lake development. He stated the reduction was based on need, safety, cost, impacts and maintenance. (tape ends)

Kevin Sullivan noted pond issues and the need to maintain a distance for safety reasons. He pointed out an open space area along Wixom Road with no houses, which borders a wetland and woodland. He designated the sidewalks that are maintained throughout the site. He stated the need and placement locations for the sidewalks were determined as related to the post home sites, amenities and destinations. He stated it was determined to divert the pedestrian traffic away from the ponds, wetland area and side slopes for safety. He added the possibility of pedestrian traffic leaving the walk area in exploration. Cost factors included issues of the initial cost to construct the walk, future maintenance (snow removal and repairs). Impact factors of filling and constructing a concrete walk through a wetland/woodland buffer. Kevin Sullivan felt that in keeping with the intent of the R.U.D. a pedestrian network could be reviewed subject to environmental constraints. He noted the attempt to preserve the open space in its natural state. He restated that in their review, it was determined which sidewalks should be eliminated and if the safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic were assured within the site in relation to the access streets.

Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval in the review letter dated April 18, 2001. He noted his report to include the graphics of the City Council approved pedestrian network as part of the R.U.D. agreement. He indicated the north portion segment, which there is no requirement for a path to be built. However, he explained on the north side, it would need to be built adjacent to the location of the single-family attached cluster area. He stated at this point, the applicant indicated they would not be providing this. Mr. Arroyo did not believe the ordinance would require its construction until the units of that phase were developed. Therefore, he did not find the need to amend the R.U.D. Plan with this removal if the units would be constructed in the future.

Kevin Sullivan informed Mr. Arroyo that the proposal was for the removal of another segment on the north side.

Mr. Arroyo stated if there would be units constructed at this location, then the connection should be made along the north side.

Kevin Sullivan asked when this would need to be done.

Mr. Arroyo answered upon the construction of the units. He added this would not require an amendment of the plan. He pointed out the section along the north side, which the applicant also proposed to remove. He stated that he was not in support of this removal. He explained that children walking to the middle school and elementary school would need to cross over the street once, walk along the path, cross over the street and cross over to the school. He stated if the sidewalk was constructed on the north side, the children would only need to cross the street once at Wixom Road. Mr. Arroyo did not support the amendment and felt the original plan was more appropriate. The ordinance allows for minor or major changes to the R.U.D. Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission would need to identify the request as a major change or a minor change. A major change would require City Council approval with an amendment to the R.U.D. Plan. A minor change would be approved by the Planning Commission as part of the site plan and City Council would need to approve a Subdivision Ordinance Waiver. (The Subdivision Ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street.) He stated the R.U.D. allows the flexibility to delete sidewalks in appropriate areas. However, if the R.U.D. is not amended, he stated the ordinance would need to be met. If the Planning Commission gave an approval with the determination of a major change, then a recommendation on the R.U.D. Plan would be made to City Council. In a determination of a minor change, the Planning Commission approves the site plan with the removal of the sidewalks. However, he believed there would exist the need for a Subdivision Ordinance Waiver from the City Council. Mr. Arroyo stated if the Planning Commission denied the minor change, it would not be necessary for the applicant to go before the City Council.

Tom Schultz stated the petition could go to the City Council to amend the contract for the R.U.D.

Mr. Potter stated there were no objections from an engineering perspective. However, he suggested if the amendment was granted, the Planning Commission needed to consider the location of the proposed sidewalk. He stated if the location was providing cross coverage to the utilities, the earthwork would need to be completed or the utility revised in its location to prevent frost damage.

Ms. Lemke indicated her letters, both dated March 28, 2001 for Woodland and Landscaping show no objections. However, she stated at the time of her review, she was not aware of any exclusions in front of the units. Therefore, she recommended that the sidewalk be included in front of the units. She was not in objection of areas where there are no units and the property abuts a natural area. She stated the location of the utilities and the elimination of a sidewalk would allow for additional plantings. She added this would be an opportunity to restore some of the buffer.

Member Churella announced there was one (1) correspondence.

John and Debra Carbott, 25490 Birchwoods Drive, wrote "We do not want any pedestrian paths to be deleted. We expect all pedestrian paths will be built according to the plan. We expect that all pedestrian paths will be maintained for the years to come. Thank you. We need people to be able to move around safely form neighborhood to neighborhood."

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

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

Member Canup recalled previous discussions of the importance of the pedestrian walkways. He felt it would be an atrocity to relieve what was approved as an overall site plan with the walkways and the amenities shown.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Island Lake SP 99-58C to deny the applicant’s request of the minor change.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: None.

This project is located in Section 35, on the west side of Meadowbrook Road between Eight Mile and Nine Mile Roads. The 6.39 acre site is zoned One Family Residential District (R-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, Wetland Permit and Section Nine Façade Waiver approvals.

Member Landry announced that he is a member of the Meadowbrook Congregational Church. He stated that he did not feel his position would be a conflict of interest, because he did not have any financial interest in the happenings. He stated that in conversation with Mr. Fisher, he agreed. He asked that if any member of the commission felt it would be a conflict of interest for him to participate.

The commission did not feel his participation would be a conflict of interest.

Ken Sunden, Chair of the Building Committee for Meadowbrook Congregational Church noted the simplicity of their project. He thanked the commission for allowing him the time to have the opportunity to understand the items identified by the City Consultants. He stated that during a site meeting with the City, they were able to find cost effective ways to resolve the concerns and understand both positions. As a result, he felt they have a better plan to present to the commission. He stated the revisions to the plan include what the City stated was important, recommendations to improve the safety of the grounds in consideration to the neighbors. He stated there were items that may need a waiver or variance. Ken Sunden viewed the project as critical and urgent, therefore, he was hoping that this meeting would allow the project to get back on schedule. He stated the goal of Meadowbrook Congregational Church is to provide a better environment to teach values to the youth of the community. He asked the commission to recognize what how much progress they have made.

Ron Cieslak noted the changes made to the site plan. The site plan indicated a change to have the 8’ wide concrete walk along Meadowbrook Road constructed. Regarding the landscape islands and the parking. He designated the areas in which they, in working with Ms. Lemke, would be adding the islands. This would bring the site plan in compliance with the ordinance for islands, parking and drive area. He stated the concerns regarding landscaping along Meadowbrook Road, along the existing berm and issues of opacity to the west were all enhanced. Additionally, he noted they in-filled with evergreens to the west property line where it abuts residential. He stated the tree requirement was also met with the plantings of additional trees on the site. A traffic island was added to the north end of the existing parking lot, to address the concern of traffic circulation on the site. He indicated that the floor plan and buildings elevations remained unchanged. He understood the required ZBA variance for the seventy-five foot (75’) set back requirement along Broquet and a ZBA variance for the three foot (3’) berm on Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Cieslak explained that the site naturally drains to the detention basin, which would be constructed with the sedimentation basin for final. He requested a waiver to allow the to continue to sheet draining. He also noted the need for a waiver for the curb and gutter.

Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval in his letter dated March 29, 2001 due to the required variances. He added if the variances were granted by the ZBA, he would be able to recommend approval and the remaining items in his review letter could be addressed at final. He stated the lighting plan would need to be submitted at final and would need to meet the ordinance requirement. He noted the variances for the seventy-five (75’) setback and the noise analysis.

In regard to traffic, recommended approval in his letter dated April 11, 2001. He stated he was pleased that they added the path along Meadowbrook Road, which would benefit the overall area. He stated there were Planning Commission Waivers required for the parking lot island issues. The applicant proposed a painted island in one location and no island in another location. Mr. Arroyo stated they are located in a remote portion of the parking lot, which would have less circulation and less traffic. Therefore, he felt this was the best location for this type of treatment. He noted the other minor comments could be addressed at final.

Ms. Lemke gave her recommendation contingent upon the two (2) ZBA Variances and one (1)

Planning Commission Waiver. She was in support of the ZBA Variance for the Parking Lot Setback on Broquet road. She noted that the parking lot already exists and is screened by a berm and evergreen plantings. Additional parking would extend easterly from the existing parking. This is screened by additional evergreen trees. A second ZBA Variance is required for the landscape buffering for the 36" berm along Meadowbrook Road. She noted they have existing plant materials, which they would be preserving along with additional plant materials per her request. She was in support of this waiver. Ms. Lemke stated that although there are woodlands on the western property line, they would not be disturbed and therefore, no Woodland Permit would be required. She stated the applicant proposed to preserve plant material and seek a Planning Commission Waiver in place of providing the required 4’6" berm on the south and west property line. Existing woods and evergreens occur along the western property line. The southern property line is providing screening at this stage of review and they have added additional evergreens and shrubs to meet the opacity. She stated there were a number of items in her review letter that she would be reviewing at final.

Mr. Potter recommended approval of the revised Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated April 2, 2001. He stated water service would be provided from the same source to the existing building. In addition, a water hydrant lead is proposed for along the west side and adjacent to the new development parking lot. Sanitary sewer would be disposed of through leads connected to the existing sanitary sewer lead near the east side of the building. An on-site detention pond located at the southwest corner of the site, with restricted discharge into an existing eighteen inch (18") storm sewer of the site, will handle storm runoff. He would be looking for additional details regarding pretreatment and sedimentation issues at final. A City Council Design and Construction Waiver is required for concrete curb and gutter around the entire parking lot. A Design and Construction Waiver is required for enclosed storm sewer to collect storm water runoff from impervious areas prior to discharging into the basin.

Mr. Fox indicated the building did not have any changes from the last review. Therefore, he referred to his letter dated January 26, 2001. He recommended a Section Nine Façade Waiver for excessive asphalt shingles on the north and south façades. He noted the continuation of the existing elevation with the same profile and materials to be extended out off of the end of the building. He noted due to the consistency of the existing building, he recommended a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated April 2, 2001, 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 Nagy stated that because the site will drain into Quail Ridge, she asked Mr. Potter if there was a 10-year storm or 100-year storm.

Mr. Potter indicated it is a 10-year. He stated the issue was raised to determine if additional would be more appropriate. He explained the site would discharge sheet flow through a lawn, thus providing additional inflow ration.

Member Nagy stated she was concerned and asked Mr. Potter what he felt an appropriate solution would be.

Mr. Potter indicated the berm issue would effect this evaluation. He explained the site lends itself for additional excavation and would need earth for the berming. He noted he would be looking into this matter more closely at final.

Member Nagy clarified if Mr. Potter would give his recommendation of approval of the 10-year at final.

Mr. Potter stated that prior to final, he would be evaluating if a 100-year would provide help to Quail Ridge due to the timing issue.

Member Nagy stated that due to her concern with the runoff and drainage into Quail Ridge, she would not support the project until she could be assured if the area needed to be improved. She explained that the trees on the site are small, the front of the church is expansive without a lot of vegetation. She stated that she was very familiar with the site and would need a determination prior to her approval of the project.

Mr. Potter stated the proposed detention basin, mitigates the impacts of the additions of the parking lot and building. He stressed that they are not making the situation worse with the 10-year. He explained that he would like to evaluate if a 100-year would provide any reduction of the discharge into Quail Ridge. He stated there is a timing issue/hydraulic issue because the flow travels through the condominiums, Eight Mile Road and then back to Quail Ridge.

Member Nagy asked if he was intending to conduct this evaluation.

Mr. Potter answered, yes.

Member Nagy asked why he did not already conduct this review.

Mr. Potter explained that the review evaluates the impacts proposed, the mitigation and the required 10-year detention.

Member Nagy asked if Ms. Lemke was suggesting that the Planning Commission waive the berms.

Ms. Lemke stated that the Planning Commission could waive the berms on the west property line and a small portion of the south property line, where the detention basin is located. She noted it was still natural in this area. She added that the applicant proposed to provide the berm and planting along the remainder of the southern property line.

Member Nagy asked if she could address the front portion facing Meadowbrook Road.

Ms. Lemke stated there is a 36" berm required, which would need a ZBA Variance. She explained the applicant proposed to leave the plantings and request the ZBA Variance.

Member Koneda asked if the applicant has met all of the detention ordinance requirements in terms of the storm water discharge at this stage. He clarified if the applicant has provided the required detention basin per the current ordinance requirement.

Mr. Potter answered, yes.

Member Koneda indicated that most of the issues raised seemed to be addressed. However, he did not find information indicating that the concern for secondary access was addressed. He referred to the Fire Marshall letter of approval without notation of the secondary access. Therefore, he questioned if the Fire Marshall was aware of the concern for secondary access.

Mr. Arroyo believed that the Fire Marshall was aware of the concern and was satisfied with the access as proposed.

Member Kocan stated she was also concerned if the secondary access. She commented on the ZBA Variance request for the noise analysis. She recapped that the parking was in excess of one hundred fifty feet (150’) from the residential property to the west and the new addition is contained within the center of the development. She stated her support of the ZBA Variance for extension of an existing parking lot. She added that she is satisfied with the additional plantings being provided along the Meadowbrook Road/eastern property line.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the Matter of Meadowbrook Congregational Church SP 00-01B to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use Permit, Wetland Permit, Section Nine Façade Waiver conditional upon the ZBA Variance for the reduced exterior side parking setback, ZBA Variance for no right-of-way berm on Meadowbrook Road, Planning Commission Waiver of the berm on the western property line and a portion of the berm on the south property line, Planning Commission Waiver for the painted islands near the northwest corner of the new parking area, conditional upon City Council Design and Construction Waiver to provide curb and gutter around the entire parking lot and City Council Design and Construction Waiver to enclose storm sewer to collect storm runoff from impervious areas prior to discharging into the basin.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Postponed to the next Planning Commission Meeting. (Motion PM-01-04-093)

None

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:41 a.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

May 23, 2001

Date Approved: July 11, 2001