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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, Planner Amy Golke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick

Chairperson Churella asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Member Ruyle added Matters for Discussion Item #1 – Notices.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

None

None

None

David Evancoe, Planning Director thanked the commissioners who were able to attend the Plan Review Center Open House. He indicated that those who were unable to attend were welcome to come by for a tour at any time.

None

Public Hearing on the request of Josephine Jackson to rezone property located in Section 10 south of Pleasant Cove Road and west of Old Novi Road from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-4 (One Family Residential) or any other appropriate zoning. The subject property is 2.48 acres.

Planning Director, David Evancoe introduced the request of Josephine Jackson to rezone the proposed property from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-4 (One Family Residential). The Master Plan for Land Use indicates the site and the surrounding area as Single-Family Residential, with the exception of the northeast corner, which is designated for Local Commercial. He noted the surrounding zonings such as R-A (Residential Acreage) to the west and south, R-4 (One-Family Residential District) to the north and across Old Novi Road and B-3 General Business District at the corner. The City’s Woodland Map indicates medium density woodlands present on the site. The City’s Wetland Map indicates the proposed property has no wetlands present. Adjacent uses include residential uses to the north, west and east of the property. Property to the south is undeveloped. A vacant office-type building is located at the northwest corner of Old Novi Road/Pleasant Cove Drive; an auto service shop is located at the southwest corner of Old Novi Road/Pleasant Cove Drive. Sewer is available along Pleasant Cove Drive. A thirty-six inch (36") City transmission water main is located along Old Novi Road. However, there is not a smaller main available into which a connection could be tied. He indicated that City Engineer Nancy McClain could address questions regarding this matter. The proposed use is residential. A total of 89 notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the request. Nearby Homeowner’s Associations were also notified. The City received one (1) letter in favor of the rezoning at the time of the Summary Report publication. Planning Review: The current R-A zoning classification has a density of 0.8 dwelling units per acre, which means that one dwelling unit would be permitted on the 2.48-acre site. The proposed zoning classification of R-4 has a density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre, which means that 8 dwelling units would be permitted on the 2.48-acre site. The R-4 density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre is consistent with that shown for this property on the Master Plan for Land Use Residential Density Patterns map. The R-4 density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre is consistent with adjacent property to the north and east, across from Old Novi Road. Property to the south is currently zoned R-A, however it is given an R-4 Density on the Master Plan for Land Use Residential Density Patterns map. He recommended approval from a planning perspective based on its conformance to the Master Plan. Traffic Review: The traffic study required was found to be acceptable by the traffic consultant.

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

Laverne Reinke, 165 Pleasant Cove Drive stated, "Understanding what Mrs. Jackson wants to do I have no problem supporting the request. I have a problem with the R-4 zoning. They would like to place a second home on Pleasant Cove. They have a deficiency in frontage. They do not have a deficiency in acreage. I would like to see it possibly changed to an R-1, which would accommodate what they would do. Then we would not end up with an R-4 spot on the corner since the whole street on the south side of Pleasant Cove is R-A zoned. It is not going to change and I would hate to see that corner go to a high density. I could foresee a stub road coming in off of Novi Road, a bunch of houses built, the developer walks off and the residents are stuck with it. Thank you."

Bob Thompson (participant stated no address and did not complete a green card) stated, "I am a friend of the Jackson’s. This whole project started approximately two years ago when the late Mr. Jackson suggested that he would like to build a house for his bride who is sitting there in the last row. Unfortunately, he passed last summer and will not see the completion of this. One of the problems that I have is that the parcel on the corner is grandfathered as B-3 because of the radiator shop. The balance of it is that there are 2.48-acres. It is just a chunk of land sitting there with one little house on the western end of it, which is David’s personal home. One of the problems that I have as a friend of the family, but more important as realtor in this case, is that if David ever aspired to move up and move on and take a bride himself and build a bigger house, then the little house that he lives in is not sellable because it is all one parcel of land. From my standpoint we are trying to do a clean up at the same time. We are trying to separate the radiator shop from the residential property and wind up with three building sites, one of which already has the home on it. The parcel that you saw on the diagram that fronts on Novi Road is kind of like expansion property for David. If he did want to build a bigger house for himself then he would still be next to his business that he operates every day and next to his mom who would be living next door, if his plan came to be. That is the history in a nutshell. I can not speak for David. R-4 was recommended to us by Mr. Lemmon. In all good faith, he felt that because everything around it was basically R-4 that perhaps that is the way that we should make the request. I frankly do not think that it makes any difference presumptuously speaking for the Jackson family, as long as we can build Mrs. Jackson a house. The extra lot on Novi Road is basically just an extra lot. Thank you."

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

Member Richards announced that he has received one (1) correspondence. Jerry and Christina Kotrech wrote, "I approve the above zoning change. Dave Jackson is an asset to our neighborhood. We know that he would not do anything undesirable."

Member Richards noted the 36" City transmission water main and the lack of a 10"-22" main into which a connection could be tied. He asked what this would mean in terms of developing that area.

Ms. McClain indicated that there were a couple of options. The applicant could use a well or they could arrange for a water main to be connected. Small taps are not allowed into the water transmission mains due to the higher pressure and the fact is it is a larger main.

Member Richards clarified that it would be an additional cost to the developer.

Ms. McClain answered, yes. She indicated that in that area, most of the houses have wells.

Member Richards stated Pleasant Cove Drive is an unimproved local street carrying an unknown traffic volume. He asked if road improvements were necessary to carry the proposed traffic volume of the eight units.

Kathy Wyrosdick Planning/Traffic Consultant felt it was premature to guess what improvements would be needed. She noted the frontage on Novi Road. She explained that without a Site Plan of the eight units, it would be difficult to determine what improvement would be necessary on Novi Road or any other road. Although improvements are difficult to assess at a rezoning stage, they would be reviewed with a Site Plan submittal during the Preliminary Site Plan Approval Process.

Member Richards questioned if they would have the option to present a plan with a curb cut at Novi Road.

Mr. Thompson indicated that this was already done on the Novi parcel.

Ms. Wyrosdick restated that there is frontage on Novi Road.

Member Nagy described the site as odd-shaped. She asked Ms. McClain to comment on the storm water runoff.

Ms. McClain stated if the rezoning was granted and the property developed as single-family residential with eight (8) units, then the Site Plan would be required to follow all of the storm water detention requirements. This would also apply to all road improvement, water main improvements, sewer, etc…

Member Nagy questioned if the petitioner, as the owner of the radiator shop, would also be required at site plan approval to place a wall or screening between the residential use and the radiator shop.

Ms. McClain explained there would be a wall or screening requirement if more than one or two single-family homes were built. If a lot is split four or more times, it is no longer a single family and the Subdivision Ordinance standards are applied.

Member Nagy stated if the Commission was to grant R-1 zoning verses R-4 zoning, then Ms. McClain’s comments would not apply.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked her to comment on the storm water in R-1 zoning.

Ms. McClain stated if there were less than four lot splits to make the houses and no individual storm water, the building requirement would still apply.

Member Nagy indicated that with odd-shaped lot, she could not determine a road layout that would give access to the homes. She suggested a Cluster Option if there were three or four. She noted the surrounding area is R-1 and not R-4. She was not in support of R-4 zoning because she felt it was too much for that area.

Member Markham clarified if Mr. Thompson stated the Jackson family would be satisfied if a zoning were granted to allow the splitting of the property into three parcels.

Mr. Thompson answered, yes. He stated that although the Old Novi lot was to be considered, it was not really a factor because there was no intention to use the lot. He added that the Road Commission might not opt to put another cut off of Old Novi Road due to sight clearances. He found it more appropriate for the Road Commission to grant an easement off of a lot. He stated the Jackson’s goal is to set the middle parcel (between the radiator shop and David’s home) as a building lot for a new home for Mrs. Jackson. The B-3 parcel was grandfathered and the petitioner is attempting to separate the use from the residential parcels. Another focus is to separate David’s home to make it more marketable, should it be sold in the future.

Member Markham asked if the family members were present.

Mr. Thompson indicated both Mrs. Jackson and David were in the audience.

Member Markham asked the family members if they agreed with Mr. Thompson’s comments.

Mrs. Jackson and David agreed.

Member Canup stated in light of the testimony heard and the fact that the petitioner would like to build possibly three lots, he believed R-1 to be suitable. He noted the Zoning Amendment request states R-4 or any other appropriate zoning.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.619 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the 2.48-acre parcel to R-1 (One-Family Residential District).

Member Kocan questioned if R-1 would allow for the development or if R-2 should be considered.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that according to the Table prepared by the Planners, it seemed that based on density R-1 would accommodate four dwelling units. However, the layout on the site has not been investigated.

Member Kocan stated that she supported the motion.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

David Evancoe, Planning Director stated that according to the Master Plan for Land Use, the proposed area is planned for Office with EXO Overlay, which was accomplished with the Planning Commission’s approval of the Grand River Avenue Corridor Plan. The site is currently zoned OST (Office Service Technology) with the remainder of the corridor to Beck Road is also zoned OST (Office Service Technology). I-1 (Light Industrial District) is located to the south along with R-A (Residential Acreage) lots that are locate across the highway, which have access from Twelve Mile Road. Along I-96 a portion of the property is known as the Rest Area. There are Wetlands and Light Density Woodlands on the site. There are sufficient water and sewer facilities that would serve the proposed site. In addition, the City will be working with the developer to provide a location along the western property line for the site for the City’s proposed 24" watermain connection from Grand River Avenue to Twelve Mile Road. If this can be accomplished, it would enhance water pressure for the western portion of the City. The proposed use is an Exposition and Conference Center. Fifty-one (51) notices were sent to all property owners within 500-feet of the proposed rezoning request. He indicated the City had not received any neighborhood concerns at the time of the Summary Report publication. He restated that the property is currently zoned with the OST (Office Service Technology) to allow the Exposition Overlay zoning (EXO). The MDOT (Michigan Department of Transportation) parcel assumes the OST zoning of the adjacent parcel of the land per Section 204.8 of the Ordinance. He noted the list of criteria established in the Zoning Ordinance when the EXO District was created, which need to be met to qualify to make an application request. The property is currently zoned with the appropriate Office Service Technology (OST) zoning to allow the Exposition Overlay zoning (EXO). The MDOT parcel assumes the OST zoning of the adjacent parcel of the land per Section 204.8 of the ordinance: The Master Plan for Land Use designates this property as Office with EXO Overlay. At 52.611 acres, the site falls between the minimum 45-acre and maximum 55 acre size requirements of the EXO district. The proposed location meets the intent of the EXO district, by being located within one mile of the City’s Town Center (TC) District, as shown on the Master Plan for Land Use. The proposed location has visual exposure to the I-96 freeway, and is directly contiguous with the I-96 freeway, as required by ordinance. The site is directly accessible from Grand River, which is considered a major thoroughfare, and therefore meets the requirement of the ordinance for vehicular access. The property is not adjacent to residential zoning districts, as required by the EXO Exposition Overlay District ordinance. He indicated that the proposed parcel meets these various criteria. Traffic Review: The traffic consultant’s review of the developer’s traffic impact study finds that projection of the traffic generation under the existing zoning and the proposed overlay zoning are reasonable forecasts. Further review and comment will be provided at submittal of preliminary site plan. Please note the full traffic study prepared by the applicant has not been provided to the Commissioners. The first 15 pages, which includes the findings and recommendations of the applicant’s traffic consultant, has been provided, but the technical review and traffic counts are not attached. If anyone would like to review the entire 100 page report, including the computer generated traffic analysis, level of service, and raw traffic counts, please contact the Planning Department. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the request to rezone the subject property from OST (Office Service Technology) to OST with EXO Overlay (Exposition Overlay).

John Bowen represented Blair Bowman of TBON L.L.C. He requested that the Commission make a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning request. He noted that the request was different from the typical rezoning application. He noted his awareness of the many issues that would need to be worked out and addressed during the Site Planning process.

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

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

Member Paul asked if the 24" watermain would be completed ahead of time.

Nancy McClain, City Engineer indicated that the City has been working with Mr. Bowman to generate an easement along the West Side of the property that would connect across the expressway and up to Twelve Mile Road. The City would construct it prior to the petitioner’s construction. The improvement to the watermain would be tied in with the Grand River Avenue improvements at the same time.

Member Paul asked if Mr. Bowman’s property would be supplied by the watermain.

Ms. McClain indicated that the watermain was not a supply for Mr. Bowman. Instead, it is a second connection to the West Side of the City, which is for the entire City. Mr. Bowman would connect to the Grand River Avenue watermain and the other transition main would be across Mr. Bowman’s property.

Member Paul asked if she felt this was a future water pressure issue for the West Side of Novi.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Paul questioned where the storm water would drain. She noted the amount of pavement on the site.

Lauren McGuire, Landscape Architect indicated that the Site Plan review is early in the process. She stated there is detention on the site, which would be worked out in further detail when the Site Plan is submitted.

Member Paul questioned if the City or the Developer would be responsible.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the Developer would be responsibility for the detention.

Mr. Evancoe explained that the Commission would have the same input with the Site Plan as they would with any other Preliminary Site Plan. In the past the Commission requested to be provided with several options. Thereby, being the reason for the provision of the alternative options. However, he did not recommend the exploration of the EXPO District, although it is an option listed. He stated the Commission wanted to establish the EXO District in order to properly accommodate the OST (Office Service Technology) site, which he felt was suited for the site more than any other designation.

Member Paul noted her concerns of the indoor/outdoor recreational facilities. She recalled the approval of the Site Plan for the north side of Eleven Mile, which is not far from the proposed. She noted her support to locate the EXPO Center on Grand River Avenue verses Novi Road. She asked Mr. Bowen to explain his anticipated intent of the indoor/outdoor recreational facilities.

Mr. Bowen indicated that it would be a compilation of what exists in the current Exposition Ordinance. The noise issues were addressed with the development of the EXO Overlay District and incorporated into the Ordinance. He noted the residential subdivisions, which are located within a hearing distance of an outdoor event. Currently, the only outdoor event is the Motor City Music Festival. However, at this point, he indicated that there were no other intentions for outdoor activities and the primarily focus would be the indoor Exposition and Conference Center.

Member Paul asked if he anticipated the possibility of concerts.

Mr. Bowen indicated that the Expo had its experience with concerts and did not anticipate any further experiences.

Member Paul questioned the possibility for outside exhibits.

Mr. Bowen stated that outside exhibits occur from time to time at the Expo Center’s current location. Currently, if there is a need to display heavy equipment outdoors, such as a crane for a construction exhibit, then the Expo Center requests permission from the City. He noted the new facility would have higher ceilings to accommodate more of these situations. However, he anticipated the possibility of one to two day outdoor exhibits.

Member Paul asked if the hotel would be one hundred feet or nine stories.

Mr. Bowen indicated that the convention style hotel, which is up to nine-stories, was negotiated in the EXO Overlay District. The hotel would be a Phase II portion of the project. He noted that after the September 11, 2001 events, the hotel market became "soft". Therefore, the focus would be primarily on the development of the Exposition and Conference Center.

Member Paul felt the buffer appeared to be small. She noted that thirty (30) feet is permitted from I-96 if certain conditions are met.

Mr. Bowen stated that in reality it is quite a bit larger. The right-of-way from the expressway is 50-feet. However, the Conservation Easement with MDOT will provide an additional 50-feet plus the 30-foot setback. Therefore, the distance from the expressway would be more than the 30-feet that it appears to be. Instead the distance from the expressway would be close to 120-feet or 130-feet.

Member Paul noted the three (3) access drives to Grand River Avenue. She questioned how they would be located on the site.

Mr. Bowen designated the access drives as eastbound, center and westerly.

Member Paul asked if the main traffic flow would flow toward the West Side of the property.

Mr. Bowen anticipated that the easterly access would be the primary entrance with the signalization. The westerly access would be an outlet service entrance. The center access is still being determined. He noted the possibility that the center access might remain closed and used during peak times.

Member Paul noted the background and the numerous recommendations for future signalization. She questioned if he anticipated utilizing any of this information.

Mr. Bowen answered, yes. He noted that there was a lot of work to be done with the traffic management issue. He liked the opportunity to improve the traffic conditions. He recognized the current Expo Center location has traffic congestion problems. In this regard, he felt the new site would operate better.

Member Paul stated that she was pleased to hear that the traffic would flow to the west due to the numerous schools down Taft Road. She added that Taft Road stops at Eight Mile and Beck Road would allow for more freedom.

Mr. Bowen indicated the desire to keep Taft Road a residential thoroughfare and de-emphasize its use as access to the facility. He believed the Grand River improvements of widening to five (5) lanes would help the issues that exist at Ten Mile Road. He restated the anticipated access to the facility to be located off of Grand River Avenue.

Member Paul described the current Expo Center as a "sea of black pavement" and requested that landscaping be shown on the proposed Site Plan.

Mr. Bowen expressed his intention to provide landscaping, particularly at the perimeter. He noted their lack of experience with the first facility. However, he assured the Commission that the new Expo Center would be very pleasant from the thoroughfares.

Member Kocan referenced the past notion that if one did not support the EXO District then they also did not support the relocation of the Expo Center. However, she made clear to the Commission and the applicant that the decision was not based on whether or not she supported the relocation of the of the Expo Center. Member Kocan supported the relocation of the Expo Center. Instead, the real issue is how the proposed relocation site would be developed. Numerous discussions took place at the Planning Commission level and changes were made at the City Council level. Member Kocan indicated that she was not comfortable with the EXO Overlay District. She felt there was a lack of planning input. Specifically the Commission’s input with regard to the buildout of the site. She pointed out that as long as the proposal complies with the verbiage of the EXO District, the Commission would not have the authority to deny it. Member Kocan felt the current standards were "watered down" with respect to building height, building materials, parking, screening, setbacks, parking setbacks, landscape and berming. She questioned if the ancillary uses would compete with the future Downtown Area. Member Kocan did not agree with the lack of a Special Land Use, which received considerable discussion at the Planning Commission level. Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council has any discretionary on the hours of operation, limitation/duration of events or any other matters that the Commission or the Council might deem inappropriate for this development. She stated that she would not support a positive recommendation to the City Council for a rezoning to EXO. Although the Planning Department Staff advised to not recommend approval of EXPO. She believed the development could be developed under the current EXPO Ordinance with variances and allow for a quality development.

Member Shroyer agreed with Member Kocan’s comments. He asked Mr. Bowen what could not be done under the current EXPO Ordinance with the possible variances. He asked Mr. Bowen to clarify the difference.

Mr. Bowen indicated that there were not a lot of differences with regard to the uses. He noted the thought process, after many meetings at the Implementation Committee level, was to develop a flexible ordinance that would allow for the underlying OST (Office Service Technology) with the EXO Overlay District. He noted the intention is to upgrade and not to do anything different. The current Expo Center does not have the capability to hold conferences and banquets and the new facility would offer this possibility. He noted the process and efforts that were made to gather information on what the customers would like to have as part of "their" Expo Center. These ideas have been incorporated into the design and the EXO Overlay District. He stated that the Center would look more attractive to those wanting to hold conventions.

Member Shroyer agreed that the keyword was "flexibility". Member Shroyer felt that the flexibility fell to the developer and not the Council or the Commission. Consequently, he stated that he would support EXPO zoning and would not support the EXO Overlay District.

Member Ruyle agreed with the commissioners’ comments. He indicated that he would support EXPO zoning.

Member Nagy recalled that previously she was not in favor of the change to EXO due to the existing EXPO. In addition, the Site Plan is applicable under the OST (Office Service Technology) zoning. She agreed with the comments made by the other commissioners. Member Nagy indicated that she would not support the rezoning to EXO Overlay District.

Member Richards stated Taft Road is located to the east of the proposed property. He questioned if there were any plans for a curb cut into Taft Road for the Expo Center.

Mr. Bowen indicated the issue has been looked at and is currently being reviewed for its feasibility. Currently, the three primary entrances are to be located on Grand River Avenue. Although Taft Road could be a potential, he did not anticipate it would start out as an access to the site.

Member Richards referenced the Traffic Report indicating Level B, which seemed to indicate that they would not be coming down Taft Road north to south. He clarified that if they were intending to use Taft, then it should be indicated in the traffic report.

Mr. Bowen answered, correct.

Chairperson Churella indicated that he has diligently worked on the EXO Overlay District. He stated that the City Council made the changes. He stated the Ordinance is there and was made specifically for the proposed project. He noted his support of the project. He felt it was a shame that the Developer spent a large amount of money on a project that is only an asset to the community and then has to hear the remarks of dislike from the commission. He stated if the Council did not want the matter passed, then they would not have given the ordinance to pass it with. He noted his astonishment of the commissioners’ behavior. He requested a motion be made.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Paul, MOTION FAILS (4-5): In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 18.620 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council.

Tom Schultz, City Attorney stated the initial motion was appropriate.

Yes: Kocan, Nagy, Paul, Shroyer

No: Canup, Churella, Markham, Richards, Ruyle

Moved by Richards, seconded by Canup, MOTION FAILS (4-5):In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 18.620 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from OST (Office Service Technology) to OST (Office Service Technology) with EXO Overlay.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Markham, Richards

No: Kocan, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer,

Moved by Canup, seconded by Shroyer, MOTION WITHDRAWN: In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 18.620 to send no recommendation to the City Council.

Chairperson Churella questioned if the Commission could motion to send no recommendation.

Mr. Schultz stated that it would not be necessary. He stated both possible motions that could be made were made. The matter could go to the City Council with no recommendation.

Member Canup withdrew his motion.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (5-4),:In the matter of Zoning Text Amendment 18.620 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council to rezone the property from OST (Office Service Technology) to EXPO.

Chairperson Churella questioned why so much time and effort was put into deriving the proper zoning and language for the District if the commissioners were going to act as if the former planning commissioners and City Council do not know what they are doing. He called for the vote.

Yes: Kocan, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: Canup, Churella, Markham, Richards

Public Hearing on the request of Wibel Restaurant Group for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 15 at West Oaks Drive and Novi Road in the West Oaks Shopping Center in the RC (Regional Center) District. The developer proposes a sit down restaurant. The facility is 6,339 square feet.

Mr. Evancoe indicated Carrabba’s Restaurant is the current site of the Pizza Hut Restaurant location. The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Site Plan Approval of the proposed 6,339 square foot sit-down restaurant located on 0.99-acres. According to the City’s Master Plan for Land Use the site is Regional Commercial and is entirely surrounded by the same proposed land uses. The property falls within the R-C Zoning (Regional Center District) with C Zoning (Conference District) is located to the south. The site is served with public sanitary sewer and public water. Adjacent uses include the West Oaks I Shopping Center to the north and west, Too Chez restaurant is located to the south, across Novi Road to the east is Red Lobster, Denny’s Restaurant and the Twelve Oaks Mall. A total of 21 notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and there were no responses received by the City at the time of the Summary Report publication. Due to the required variances, he did not recommend approval. However, if the waivers/variances were granted, then he would be in a position to recommend approval. Additionally, he noted that City Council approval is required of the proposed Site Plan after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Planning Review: A ZBA variance from the required building setback of 100 feet for all property lines is requested. The following setbacks have been provided: 93.7 feet from the front side, 62.1 feet from the north side, 44.2 feet from the south side and 30 feet from the rear side. The site plan must be revised or the Zoning Board of Appeals must grant the requested variances. He suggested that the Commission keep in mind its context as a larger shopping center and that the set backs would be viewed differently. He thought the petitioner might present this as a case to the Zoning Board of Appeals in attempt to justify their variance request. A Planning Commission waiver from the 10-foot parking setback requirement to allow for the parking spaces along the rear (west) property line is requested. The Planning Commission may approve a modification of this requirement if it is shown that the modification results in improved use of the site and equal landscaped setback is provided elsewhere. If the Planning Commission does not choose to approve this modification, the plan must be revised. He indicated the 8-foot dimension highlighted on the Site Plan would be amended to 10-feet. Mr. Evancoe indicted the site is forty-six (46) spaces short of parking for the total shopping center. Therefore, A ZBA variance of the required parking for the West Oaks I Shopping Center is being requested. The applicant has indicated that a waiver will be sought for the expansion of the size of the restaurant, as well as to bring the West Oaks Shopping Center into compliance with current ordinance standards for parking. No wetland review was required. The site does not fall under the Woodland Protection Ordinance. Landscaping Review: Approval of the Preliminary Site Plan was not recommended due to the required Planning Commission waiver of the parking/landscape setback on the north property line. However, he believed this issue would be resolved with the amended Site Plan providing the 10-foot setback. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended with minor comments being addressed at Final. Traffic Review: The proposed bumper blocks shown on site plan should be removed for ease of maintenance and elimination of potential trip hazard. The traffic engineer’s review recommends the parking spaces be shortened to 17-feet abutting the sidewalks, and taking the additional two feet to widen the sidewalks to 8 feet. Approval is recommended. He stated that ultimately there would be the same parking length and more sidewalk. Façade Review: Approval is recommended. Mr. Evancoe noted the design incorporates landscaping above the patio area. Fire Department: Approval is recommended. Mr. Evancoe did not recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan due to the required Zoning Board of Appeals Variances and Planning Commission Waiver. However, if the variances and waiver were granted then approval would be recommended subject to the conditions and comments included in the review letters.

Joe Sutschek of Ramco-Gershenson, owner of West Oaks I Shopping Center indicated that he would have a ground leasing with Carrabba’s Italian Grill. He introduced Mark Wibel, the joint venture partner with Carrabba’s. He recalled the first phase of the revitalization of West Oaks I, the conversion of the old Kroger grocery store, which is the existing Circuit City. In 1996 a group of small retailer shops were converted to the existing Office Max, DSW and Great Party store. The proposed Carrabba’s would be the third phase of the revitalization. He anticipated more phases with the Service Merchandise and K-Mart building. He asked that the commission review the proposed in the context of the overall shopping center. The one-acre parcel is a separate parcel within the overall shopping center. He noted the reasoning being due to the State Sub-division Regulations that treat ground leases the same as a property sale, which means that it has to be a separate defined parcel of property. In order to have a separate tax parcel, there would need to be a separate tax parcel. He noted his intention to continue to own both parcels. He stated that Carrabba’s would be a developed completely integrated with the overall shopping center. There are not curb cuts being changed, added or deleted. He commented on the variances. He stated the current site with the Pizza Hut building currently does not meet any of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. When the center was built, the setbacks were 77-foot from the interior property line, 27-foot from the rear property line, 77-foot south setback, 75-foot east setback. The Carrabba’s Restaurant is located in the same location with the exception of a slight enlargement of the site. He noted the red line on the drawing represented the current boundaries of the Pizza Hut site and the black line is the proposed Carrabba’s site boundaries. The setback from Novi Road would be increased to 93-feet, the setback to the north would be 62-feet, the setback to the west would be 30-feet and the setback to the south would be 44-feet. He believed Carrabba’s would bring an increase in quality from the Pizza Hut. He stated there are significant improvements to the overall traffic circulation plan. The existing Pizza Hut building has parking spaces directly in the major access way. The proposed Site Plan creates a 10-foot wide landscape buffer to eliminate that non-conformance, meeting the setback requirement. He stated the yellow areas represent the portions of the site that are currently landscaped. The green areas are the portions of the site that are currently blacktop and are proposed to be landscaped. Seventy-eight percent (78%) increase of the amount of landscaping that would be within the confines of the 0.99-acre site. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval of the proposed plan. He felt the setback variances were technical by nature. He stated a Commission approval would enable the continued reinvestment in West Oaks I. He noted the parking survey, which indicated the overall site during peak shopping times was parked at fifty-four percent (54%) capacity. Parking counts four years ago were exactly the same. The International Transportation Engineers and Urban Lane Institute studies were conducted during the 70’s and 80’s and concluded that shopping centers between 25,000 square feet and 400,000 square feet should have a parking ratio of four parking spaces per thousand. He indicated the overall shopping center will have a parking ratio of 4.6 per thousand upon completion, which is in excess of the recommendation of independent traffic association. He requested approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to obtaining to the required waivers.

Mark Wibel, co-owner of Carrabba’s Italian Grill indicted that historically Carrabba’s and its authentic 100-year-old family recipes were bought by Outback Steakhouse. He described Carrabba’s as a unique operation to the Italian Market. He explained that he is 50% owner of the restaurant and Outback is the other 50%. Every store would be uniquely designed for the community it is proposed. Carrabba’s is a dinner only operation and will serve alcoholic beverages. He noted other restaurant locations near Grand Rapids and also in Lansing. The building design is all a red colored brick with slight characteristics to create a unique appearance. He noted the stone along the planters. He stated the pictures indicated plantings at 180 degrees. However, the Novi location would have plants on 90 to 100 degrees of the rectangle, which would be partial. He agreed with the plan review comments. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval contingent upon obtaining the waivers and variances.

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

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

Member Ruyle asked if there were plantings on top of the restaurant at those locations.

Mr. Wibel, answered, yes.

Member Ruyle asked if the trees are okay in the winter.

Mr. Wibel answered, great.

Member Ruyle indicated that the past winter was mild.

Mr. Wibel agreed. He noted that Grand Rapids had 8-10 inch snow falls this past winter. He favored the appearance of the trees in the winter.

Member Ruyle asked if the trees survived.

Mr. Wibel answered, yes. The trees of the Cleveland location have been through two winters and are doing great. He ensured the Commission that as with the landscaping, the dead trees are replaced immediately.

Member Ruyle found the proposed Carrabba’s a vast improvement over the existing site.

Member Paul questioned how the dumpster situation was being handled.

Ms. McGuire indicated she spoke with the applicant regarding the provision of a brick wall around the dumpster area. A brick wall is not required and it could be a fence or landscaped screening. However, the applicant has agreed to provide the brick wall.

Member Paul asked the brick wall would enclose the utility area.

Ms. McGuire stated the transformers are required to be screened with landscaping. She indicated that the applicant is aware of this requirement.

Member Paul asked how the roof plantings would be watered.

Mr. Wibel indicated the roof plantings are self-irrigate. The irrigation system is bled out in the winter months and turned on from the end of April until September.

Member Paul counted 30 to 31 areas where the site did not meet the requirements. She asked the staff to address this.

Ms. McGuire clarified if she was referring to her chart.

Member Paul answered, yes.

Ms. McGuire explained that her chart is detailed to ensure that all details are included to coincide with the Commission’s motion that is typically conditional upon the comments of the review letters. The issues are bolded to point out to the applicant that he/she needs to address them. Most of the comments are minor and the major issues are described in the letter on the front of the packet.

Member Paul indicated that there were not a lot of major items. She clarified that Ms. McGuire would approve the plan with the specification that the landscaping meet all of her comments.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct. She pointed out the areas of difficulty. The north side has an eight (8) foot setback that becomes wider at the top where the additional island would be placed. The parking stalls could be shortened to 17-feet and allow the gain of the additional 2-feet. Due to the configuration of the site, the West Side does not have any landscaping due to the need for a driveway. The applicant has provided additional landscaping on the south end of the building, which was pavement. She noted the recommendation to shorten the parking stalls that would be located on the East Side of the parking (facing Novi Road) to gain an additional 2-feet of landscape space. She stated the site will more than satisfy the requirement by placing landscaping at other locations on the site. The four-foot landscape interior space has been met. The only interpretation the Commission would need to make involved the planting located at the edge of the porch for irrigation purposes, which is 8 to 10 feet from the building. Therefore, the plantings are not against the building. However, the plantings are around the entire building and wider than four feet.

Mr. Wibel indicated that he already agreed to the conditions in the report. Specifically the increase of the one landscape island to 10-feet.

Member Paul asked why the one side elevation did not have any windows.

Mr. Sutschek believed that part of the reason was due to the kitchen operation.

Member Paul clarified if the kitchen was central.

Mr. Sutschek indicated that it is located in the back.

Member Paul recalled the comment that the kitchen would be located in the center.

Mr. Sutschek stated the kitchen faces the dining room. The kitchen is an open cooking area and the prep area is located in the dining room.

Member Kocan noted the walkway through the ten-foot island area separating the parking lot to the north. However, the walkway leads through a parking space. She stated the parking space should be either be eliminated or items adjusted. She felt strongly that a stripped area should be provided for pedestrians to walk through the landscaped area. She asked for clarification on the location of the carryout door. She believed it was located on the south side of the building.

Mr. Sutschek answered, correct.

Member Kocan pointed out that there is no parking on the south side of the building. Therefore, she questioned how one would access the carryout door.

Mr. Sutschek indicated the carryout orders are delivered to the car. The vehicle waits outside the door.

Member Kocan asked where he anticipated the vehicle would wait. She stated the customer(s) would have to go across the loading dock area to the cars that are on the West Side of the building.

Ms. McGuire directed her attention to the southeast corner of the building, where a couple short-term parking spaces would be designated for pick-up.

Member Kocan believed the door exiting the building was located at the southwest corner of the building. She asked if the door for carryout was located at the southeast corner near the parking.

Mr. Sutschek pointed out the location of the carryout door.

Member Kocan noted the location in the center. She clarified if there would be walkway area.

Mr. Sutschek answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated her concern was to avoid having customers parking in the loading dock area to pick up their carryout. Member Kocan described the traffic turning left off of Novi Road onto West Oaks Drive and left onto the Service Drive as a "health hazard". She did not find any comments in the Traffic Review that addressed this issue. She stated the situation is already a problem with the hotel events and she felt the restaurant would generate more traffic. Member Kocan questioned if there was a better way to mark West Oaks Drive to ensure that traffic leaves the area open. She questioned if this could be done as part of the proposed development.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated that the issue was not address for a number of reasons. One reason was that it is an existing condition. She noted the other developments along the Service Drive included Too Chez and the hotel. It was not a major consideration. She noted the other drive located to the north into the parking lot. She stated the drive further west would be used to access Carrabba’s. She stated that it is basically an existing condition that could not be fixed simply with a change in use of the restaurant.

Member Kocan asked if stripping was an option to help the area. Additionally, she asked if the petitioner would do this stripping voluntarily to assist the traffic that would be turning into their development.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated this was a possibility that was uncertain at this point, however, the option could be explored at Final.

Member Kocan felt the stripping would be beneficial. She asked Ms. Wyrosdick to entertain discussion with the applicant regarding the option.

Ms. Wyrosdick agreed.

Member Kocan found the parking study and the survey helpful. She questioned if the lack of parking was due to the expansion of the restaurant or if there was always a lack of parking. She also questioned if any of the parking was under the shared parking. If at maximum usage the parking is only 54% full, then she found fault with the percentages.

Mr. Sutschek stated the entire shopping center is under a shared parking agreement, which is typical of any shopping center. He felt the vacancies were a combination of many factors such as the parking ratio of 4 spaces per thousand was more than adequate.

Member Kocan clarified if the 4 spaces per 1000 square feet were abided by then there would be more than enough parking.

Mr. Sutschek answered, yes. He applied the ratio and calculated less than one thousand parking spaces. He noted the site has over 1100 parking spaces. He felt the demands of the real world were less than what the Ordinance requires. He explained a redevelopment of the existing site already has the major perimeters, building location and circulation established. Therefore, it is limited what can be done to alter the overall configuration of the project. He stated the lifeblood of any community is the ability to reinvest and redevelop to keep pace with the changing times.

Member Kocan recalled the comment that if the restaurant was attached to Circuit City then a number of variances could be eliminated. She noted that it was the petitioner’s preference to have the building separate. If it were attached there could be problems with regard to deliveries, etc… She believed the petitioner’s preference to not attach the building, bringing it into compliance, needed to be discussed for the matter to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Sutschek stated it would continue to require a separate tax parcel because it is a ground lease. As a separate tax parcel, it would continue to have setback variances. He stated the Pizza Hut is an existing non-conforming building. Two of the setbacks that result from the development would be greater than its current condition. Thereby, making the site less non-conforming. The proposed Site Plan eliminates one parking setback variance.

Member Nagy found the proposed project to be "too much building for too little land". She did not feel the character of the restaurant fit the City of Novi. She did not find the site compatible with the center or the center across the street. She indicated that she would not be supporting the proposed project.

Member Markham noted her shared concerns of the Service Drive and the traffic situation. She questioned if signage was a possibility to direct traffic further west before turning.

Ms. McClain indicated the option of a no left-turn sign.

Member Markham was not agreeable to her suggestion.

Ms. McClain suggested the exploration of having the signage point out of other entrances because it is not regulated under the Signage Ordinance as it would be a traffic sign. She noted that stripping would be another options to explore.

Member Markham felt the shopping center had plenty of parking. Therefore, the shortage of 46 parking spaces did not concern her. She did not feel they were truly short in the context of the total development. She noted that she was not in support of creating more parking spaces. She questioned the lighting of the walkway should a customer need to walk through the landscaped area to their vehicle at night.

Mr. Sutschek stated the photometrics lighting plan indicates the lighting would light up the entire parking lot. For security reasons, the lighting would be left "on" for the safety of the employees. He agreed to place a directional sign or a certain curb cut should the Commission desire this.

Member Markham stated that she was not necessarily recommending a curb cut. She did want something in place that would draw people away.

Member Shroyer asked if the backing radius for the loading area was adequate with the bumper from Circuit City.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the on site circulation was reviewed and there were not any problems found with the circulation of truck on the site in connection with the loading area.

Member Shroyer clarified that the trucks would be able to back in without obstruction, unload and pull back out.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Member Shroyer stated the fact that Pizza Hut is out of compliance did not make it right for the proposed site to be out of compliance. Member Shroyer liked the look of the restaurant.

Member Canup indicated that there was a lot of insight upon development of the center as to how things should fit and their façades. He felt the proposed façade did not fit the intent of that area, not insinuating that Pizza Hut did. He recalled Bob Evans going through the Site Plan process and the efforts made to keep it from appearing as a red barn. He encouraged the commissioners to maintain the intent of the area upon its development.

Chairperson Churella asked if the proposed Site Plan would fit the Façade Ordinance if there were no trees on the rooftop.

Barbara McBeth, Planner stated the Façade Consultant indicated that the trees were not reviewed as part of the façade and it was a separate issue.

Chairperson Churella stated the trees do not detract from the façade. They have added perennials, annuals and trees to the rooftop.

Mr. Schultz reminded the commissioners that the Façade Ordinance is a materials ordinance and not an architectural ordinance. The Commission is to review the materials to ensure that the materials are what they should be. The architecture remains with the property owner/developer, which in this case the shopping center owner is essentially the petitioner.

Chairperson Churella considered the proposed project as an improvement. He indicated that he would be supporting the project.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of Carrabba’s Restaurant SP02-06B to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Planning Commission Waiver for the rear yard setback requirement, subject to obtaining ZBA Variances, subject to the agreements made by the City and Developer and subject to the conditions and recommendations of the Staff and Consultants.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: Canup, Nagy

Public Hearing on the request of Albert Haddad for recommendation to City Council for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is located in Section 15 in the Fountain Walk Development at Twelve Mile Road and Donelson Drive in the RC (Regional Center) District. The developer proposes an indoor/outdoor skating park and ramp. The subject property is 48,000 square feet.

Mr. Evancoe introduced the five thousand (5,000) square foot outdoor component of a skate park to be located in the service court of Fountain Walk Building D. The overall site is planned for RC (Regional Commercial) with office designations to the west. The petitioner requests a recommendation to the City Council for Special Land Use Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Twenty-five (25) notices were sent to property owners within 500-feet and with no comments received back. Planning Review: In terms of the Planning Review, he recommended approval subject to compliance with items such as the Exterior Lighting Standards at Final. A Noise Analysis is required for all Special Land Uses. According to the noise analysis and curriculum vitae performed by the Board Certified Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering, the project will comply with the City’s standards. Loading spaces, trash compactors and a transformer are located in the service court for Building D. The outdoor area will not interfere with truck maneuvering in this area. He noted the requirements for the Special Land Use s are listed in the planning review letter. Traffic Review: Approval is recommended; the outdoor skate area should not interfere with truck maneuvering in the service court. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Special Land Use Permit and the Preliminary Site Plan subject to meeting the conditions of the review letters. He showed the Commission the proposed façade materials. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the façade. He requested that the developer clarify whether or not the color presented at tonight’s meeting is the same color, which was submitted and reviewed by the City’s Façade Consultant. He indicated that he was not convinced that it was the same color. He did not recall seeing the material presented at tonight’s meeting. He advised the Commission to explore this matter.

David Harrison of Van’s addressed the façade issue raised by Mr. Evancoe. He verified that the color of both the material submitted for review and the material presented at tonight’s meeting are the same. He stated the difference in appearance might be due to the fact the material was painted making it appear glossier than the material submitted for façade review. He assured the commission that it would be the same color. He proposed a C.M.U. wall that would be plaster coated to match the brick wall in the background and rod iron fence. He agreed with the Staff report and requested a positive recommendation.

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

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

Member Paul expressed her concern that the sound would be in a very busy area that she considered "already" loud. She asked the engineer to address her concern.

Ms. McClain deferred the question to the Planners as the Sound Ordinance is part of the Planning Review.

Barbara McBeth, Planner, stated the sound analysis indicates the noise that would be generated outside activities would be well within the Ordinance Standards for the zoning district. She noted the proposed project would be located in the courtyard area, which is basically the loading dock area. The noise would not necessarily carry over the building and toward the property line as indicated in the noise analysis report.

Member Paul questioned the safety issue with the location in a loading area. She asked how this was addressed.

Ms. McBeth stated the access is entirely within the building. The fence is there to contain the skaters using the outside area and to keep others from entering from this direction. Therefore, no pedestrian activity is anticipated outside the fenced in area.

Member Paul noted that she was pleased that there would be an outdoor fence because she would not support a chain-linked fence. She asked the applicant if there were more façade materials.

Mr. Harrison indicated the walls would consist of seaming blocks with the white cement plaster covering over the blocks. He noted that the materials would be consistent with the material of the existing building. The material would be painted and if the Commission preferred another color, he was willing to negotiate.

Mr. Evancoe indicated to Member Paul that the other materials were for the Island Lake project.

Member Paul clarified that the only materials, being viewed by the Commission, are the fence and the red square.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Paul asked Mr. Harrison to comment on the difference in the color of the façade material presented from that which was submitted for review.

Mr. Harrison indicated that the façade material sample was made this week. However, he stated the color called out has always been on the same as that on the Site Plan.

Member Paul asked to view the materials. Member Paul questioned how the fence would be finished on the top.

Mr. Harrison indicated that it would be a rod iron fence and the bar would be straight across. He stated there would not be any spikes or areas that one could hurt themselves if they were climbing over the fence.

Member Paul questioned if the large bar would be located on the top.

Mr. Harrison answered, yes.

Member Nagy noted the materials to be attached to concrete block and questioned the anticipated "life". She compared it to brick veneer, which wears down eventually. She indicated that she could chip it off with her fingernail.

Mr. Harrison stated that he did not have specifications with him regarding the lifetime. Therefore, he was not able to give her an exact time. He indicated that the piece of material she held in her hand was created this morning. Therefore, there was the possibility the material was still moist.

Member Nagy stated that the material seemed hard to her. She expressed her concern that the material would deteriorate in a few years.

Mr. Harrison indicated that Van’s contracts with maintenance companies. Therefore, any cracks or graffiti are taken care of immediately. He assured Member Nagy that if for any reason the materials cracked, peeled or scraped off then repairs would be made immediately.

Member Richards asked for the name of the façade material.

Mr. Harrison identified the material as a cement plaster.

Member Richards questioned what the base is.

Mr. Harrison believed the base was simply the baseboard used to apply the sample.

Chairperson Churella questioned if the material was similar to stucco.

Mr. Harrison answered, correct.

Chairperson Churella asked if the die would be embedded into the material.

Mr. Harrison answered, no. He indicated that the material is white and would be painted.

Chairperson Churella indicated that there is stucco that could be purchased with the color embedded.

Van’s Skate Park Representative stated the façade sample was put together and painted this morning. However, the actual finished product would be the interval color. Therefore, if it were damaged in any way, it would be the same color all though and would not be white.

Chairperson Churella clarified that the color would be placed into the stucco.

Van’s Skate Park Representative answered, yes.

Member Markham questioned the total height of the fence and the wall on top of it. She noted her concern from a security point of view. She noted her anticipation of teenagers attempting to climb out or climb in.

Mr. Harrison indicated that the total height would be ten (10) feet all the way around. He noted that personnel would be constantly be walking around the site for security.

Member Markham questioned what would prevent those attempting to enter if it were the middle of the night.

Mr. Harrison indicated there would be a security system with motion sensors.

Member Markham noted her support of projects that bring recreation to the community for the youth. She did not feel that there was enough in the community. She noted her support of the project.

Member Kocan stated the delivery zone appeared to be close to the northwest corner of the park. She questioned if there were other skate parks throughout the nation that have truck traffic this close.

Mr. Harrison indicated that the proposed skate park would be the 12^th throughout the nation. Six of those 12 have outdoor areas, each being unique. Some of the skate parks have the outdoor area abutting the sidewalk to the parking lot. He stated that some of the other skate parks are located adjacent to parking lots and parking centers with traffic.

Member Kocan clarified that he did not find a problem with it being close to a loading area.

Mr. Harrison answered, correct.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to in the matter of Van’s Skate Park SP01-56A to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for Special Land Use Approval and the Preliminary Site Plan based on the finding that the park is located in a R-C Zoned District (Regional Center District), that the use is allowed with Special Land Use Approval and conforms to the applicable Site Plan regulations, noting that the outdoor recreation space is in an interior service court, is fenced properly and complies with the Noise Ordinance as evidence in a report from a Certified Acoustical Consultant and subject to the Consultant’s and Staff recommendations and conditions.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Toll Brothers, Incorporated for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, and a Wetland and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 19 south of Eleven Mile Road, north of Ten Mile Road, west of Wixom Road and east of Napier Road in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District. The developer is proposing a residential subdivision including single family homes and detached condominiums. The total subject property is 260.52 acres, Phases 4A and 5A consist of 81.75 acres.

Mr. Evancoe introduced Island Lake Phases 4A and 5A located at the south side of the existing lake with access off of Wixom Road. The Future Land Use Map indicates the area as Single-Family Residential area and surrounded with the same with the exception of the multiple family residential to the north. The proposed property is zoned R-A (Residential Acreage) and subject to the Harvest Lake RUD Agreement. The surrounding zoning districts are compatible. Adjacent uses include residential uses located to the north, south, west and east of the property. Surrounding uses include Novi elementary and secondary schools to the northeast, and Oak Pointe Church is proposed to be located the south. The Petitioner is requesting Preliminary Site Plan approval for Phases 4A and 5A of the Island Lake Development and approval of a woodland and wetland permit. The site will be served with public sanitary sewer and public water. Phases 4A and 5A are part of the overall master plan development approved under the RUD residential option. This proposal contains 26 residential lots in Phase 4A and 28 residential lots in Phase 5A. The community recreation area with clubhouse and recreational facilities is proposed on the island in Island Lake. An additional lake park is proposed at the southeast side of the lake. A total of 38 notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, including notification to the president of the Birchwood Subdivision homeowner’s association. There were no responses received by the City at the time of Summary Report publication. Planning Review: Approval is recommended of the submitted preliminary site plan subject to Planning Commission consideration of the number of parking spaces provided at the community recreation area with clubhouse and recreational facilities. A variance from the required number of parking spaces may be needed, dependent on the determination of the Planning Commission regarding appropriate parking for this area. The preliminary site plan is consistent with the approved Harvest Lake RUD Area plan. Other plan review comments include: Section 402.5.c of the Zoning Ordinance states that off-street parking for private noncommercial recreational areas shall be provided so as to accommodate not less than one-half the member families or individual members. The ordinance does allow the Planning Commission to modify the requirements in instances where it is specified that users will originate from the immediately adjacent areas, and will walk to the facility. He stated the number of parking spaces provided adjacent to the clubhouse/pool park area are discussed in the Planning Consultant’s review letter. There are additional parking possibilities along the roadway. The road is a city standard 28-foot road, which accommodates parking on one side. Initially, in working with the developer, the Staff reviewed a Site Plan that only eliminated one lot. Very little setback was provided between the parking lot and the two adjacent residential lots as a result. The more recent proposal eliminates two lots and assists the site to meet all of its required setbacks. It provides for at least 80-feet on each side as well as 30-feet, which is 5-feet more than the minimum. He did not feel there would be a serious problem. It is anticipated that if a vehicle is backing in or out of the two or three parking spaces then they might have to wait as the other vehicle drops off passengers who are accessing the clubhouse area. He pointed out the access to the parking lot and the drop off point for pedestrians who are accessing the clubhouse area. Wetland Review: A non-minor use wetland permit is required. Approval of the non-minor use wetland permit is recommended. Woodland Review: Approval is recommended, with minor items to be addressed at Final Site Plan approval. Landscaping Review: Approval is recommended, with minor items to be addressed at Final Site Plan approval. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended, with minor items to be addressed at Final Site Plan approval. He showed the Commission a sketch of the entire recreational area. The applicant is proposing dredging material to create an island from what is now the peninsula. Traffic Review: Comment 18 by the Traffic Engineer references a redesign of the parking lot at the community recreation area with clubhouse site, which has eliminated the unobstructed pedestrian access to a sidewalk convenient for dropping people off on the east side of the parking lot. The traffic engineer preferred an earlier version of the site plan because of a better pedestrian drop-off design. The applicant modified the site plan to allow for additional parking spaces. An earlier version and the current proposal for this parking lot have been provided in this package for Planning Commission review as recommended by the Traffic Consultant. Traffic speeds along Drakes Bay needs to be addressed. "Traffic calming" measures need to be provided as recommended by the Traffic Engineer. Approval is recommended, with items to be addressed at Final Site Plan approval. Façade Review: Review of the clubhouse is consistent with the requirements of the Façade Ordinance. Approval is recommended. Fire Department: Approval is recommended, with additional information to be submitted on the next plan submittal. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, non-minor use wetland permit and woodland permit, subject to the Planning Commission’s determination regarding the number of parking spaces at the community recreation area with clubhouse and subject to meeting the conditions of the review letters.

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

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

Member Nagy clarified if the clubhouse would be for the use of the entire development and not limited to those residing on the lake.

Mike Noles, Regional Director of Land Development answered, correct. He indicated that there were 867 units approved in the RUD.

Member Nagy did not find a problem with the clubhouse and its parking.

Member Markham asked if the park area was the only substantial size park area in the entire development.

Mr. Noles indicated his parking calculation was based upon the occupancy of the building. There are other amenities on the site that could raise argument to increase the parking. However, he felt the mitigating factor was the distribution of the amenities on the site. The RUD provides locations for five water front parks. Two are included in the proposed submittal; one located at the center island; one passive park further to the east near Wixom Road. One has been previously approved on the North Shore and two more are to be proposed. Additionally, there are two areas of Woodland Trail networks that could be considered parks. He felt the lake itself could be considered a recreational destination. He stated there were five different settings that could appeal to the different market age segments. He anticipated that some of the residents would prefer a nature walk as opposed to a tennis match or a picnic as opposed to a swim at the club. He pointed out that the proposed park is only one of seven recreational areas within the overall community.

Member Markham clarified if the island would be created only for the purpose of fitting the name "Island Lake". She stated the parking lot is located over a couple hundred feet from the clubhouse. She felt this was a distance to walk. Creating the island has created need for a walkway. However, if there was not an island, the parking could be located closer to the clubhouse building. She asked the applicant to elaborate on the matter.

Mr. Noles indicated that there were a number of reasons for the addition of the channel across the peninsula to make it an island. One reason was to create an island to suit the name "Island Lake". There is also a concrete span bridge that crosses and existing tributary that displaces some floodplain. The floodplain volume needs to be replaced. Therefore, the dredging would involve in creating the lake would have been required. Another reason is the water quality issue. He explained a peninsula with an isolated area would not allow for water movement and there would be a tendency to grow algae. The creation of the channel would allow the water to flow and improve the water quality of the shoreline. There were also environmental habitat considerations. The Site Plan identifies a turtle nesting area to encourage habitat. He felt the channel would offer the habitat the perfect opportunity. He stated the parking lot could be relocated slightly north to create a shorter walk from the parking to the clubhouse. However, he stressed that it is a walking community. He explained that when the RUD was approved as a Cluster Development there were a number of amenities that resulted in alternate means of transportation throughout the site with walking being a primary source. The Zoning Ordinance allows the Commission to modify the parking requirements in instances where the users could walk to the facility. He indicated that the development includes 90,000 linear feet of roadside sidewalks, 11,000 linear feet of woodchip nature trails and wetland boulevards and 12,000 feet of asphalt safety path along the perimeter. All totaled, there is over 20 miles of walkway within the square mile Island Lake community. The households on the south side of the lake are within a one-half mile walking-radius, which is equal to a ten-minute walk. While the walk could be shortened if the island was not created, he reminded the Commission the community was developed around the sense of being part of the natural features of the site.

Member Markham questioned the size of the swimming pool.

Mr. Noles indicated the pool is 4,800 square feet.

Member Markham asked if the pool would based on membership or open to all the residents.

Mr. Noles indicated that there would not be a membership and it would be open to all Island Lake Residents. He stated the club is not intended to attract people from outside the neighborhood, which is part of the RUD Agreement.

Member Markham felt that one pool to serve over 800 homes would attract a large number of people at one time. She did not support the configuration of the park as submitted. She suggested the consideration of a covered walkway and possibly some level parking closer to the building.

Member Shroyer asked the Staff to elaborate on their recommendations regarding traffic slow downs.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated the concern was the length of the road and putting something in place for traffic calming purposes. Since the Preliminary Site Plan submittal, another plan was submitted with bike lanes to help narrow the road and slow the traffic down. Due to the long stretch, the concern is to prevent the increasing speeds from Wixom to the west. There area roundabouts, bulb-out, chokers and other items that would narrow the roadway and hence slow traffic down.

Member Shroyer asked her to explain the term choker.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated it would narrow the roadway in certain areas along the road and then come back out again. Landscaping and lighting would be needed for shielding. A bike lane would have a similar effect as a choker or bulb-out without bringing the curb out into the roadway.

Member Shroyer asked if this would be noted on the Final Site Plan.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, yes. She indicated that it has been submitted and the applicant is already attempting to address this matter.

Member Shroyer clarified that there are currently no plans to widen Wixom Road.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated a center-left-turn lane is being considered for their intersection at Drakes Bay. However, it is not a full widening.

Member Shroyer clarified if it was only for the entrance.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Member Shroyer noted his disappointment of the two-lane road to serve the 867 units.

Mr. Noles stated the Final Engineering is being reviewed simultaneously with the Preliminary Site Plan. The bike paths on both sides of the road are included on the Final Engineering Site Plan. Drakes Bay Drive is 36-feet wide verses the standard 28-feet, which allows for the 8-foot stripped pathway on each side of the road. This would provide the calming effect and 100 on-street parking spaces within 500-feet of the entrance of the parking lot.

Member Shroyer asked the number of parking spaces available at the park and recreational areas.

Islands Lake Representative indicated one other park provides parking that is consistent with the approved amenities matrix. North Shore Park has twenty-six (26) to twenty-seven (27) spaces. The parking for the Napier Road Park, which is not part of the submittal, has not been determined at this time.

Member Shroyer clarified if the Site Plan designation "Future Park" was referring to the Napier Road Park.

Mr. Noles answered, yes.

Member Shroyer clarified his anticipation for off-road parking at the future Napier Road Park.

Islands Lake Representative answered, yes.

Member Shroyer noted his concern of the 219 parking spots maximum for the swim club. He noted that the calculated 12 parking spaces for tennis and 32 parking spaces for volleyball did not include the other outside activity areas such as walking, beach, marina, boat dock or fishers. Therefore, due to the shortage of parking, he would not be supporting the Site Plan.

Mr. Noles indicated the bike racks for those residents who would travel by bicycle. He supported the suggestion of additional bike racks. He believed that some residents might canoe to the clubhouse, where boat parking would be provided. He noted that the chart refers to a number of similar type uses and the parking that would be required under those uses. He believed the correct calculation should be based on the occupancy of the building, which would be 67 lots. This calculation considers the other modes of transportation, other distributed amenities in the site and the fact that the requirement for the number of spaces is calculated under the private non-commercial recreational area standard. The City Consultants have indicated the standard would be excessive in this case. The Ordinance defines a private non-commercial recreational area as parks intended to serve areas beyond the immediate neighborhood. He added this standard does not apply.

Member Shroyer interjected and stated that he understood the position of the applicant. However, the parking areas would be exceeded if there were a party at the facility, such as a graduation party etc… He did not feel that sufficient parking was available.

Member Canup agreed with the petitioner in that the residents would travel by means of bicycle or walking. He noted the development on Novi Road and Grand River Avenue as an example of the Planning Commission’s and the City Council’s attempt to do design work, which went bankrupt. In that case, he believed the applicant allowed the Commission and the Council to design a center. He noted the investment the petitioner(s) have made on the property. He felt confident that the petitioner did his/her homework and agreed with their interpretation with regard to the parking. There could never be too much parking, however, he also understood the limit as to what is provided.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (5-4): In the matter of Island Lake (Phases 4A & 5A Only) SP01-03 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit subject to the recommendation and conditions of the Consultants and Staff.

Member Kocan agreed with Member Shroyer’s comments. She believed a design of 81 parking spaces excluded those that lived on the other side of the lake. She stated the 46 lots around the lake were not anywhere near the 867 homes that would be permitted to use the amenities on the island. She recalled the RUD approval of 43 units for the area around the lake. Therefore, there is an excess of three additional lots that were not part of the RUD. She suggested the petitioner review the plan and provide additional parking for the amenities. She did not recall reference to other pools or beaches. Therefore, she assumed there was only one. She recalled the petitioner’s comment identifying the 8-foot area along the street as a parking lot for overflow and also as a bike lane. She stated that it could not be both. She indicated that she would not be supporting the motion. She suggested taking the entire development into consideration and not the only those that will reside in the immediate area.

Member Paul questioned the percentage of completion to date.

Mr. Noles indicated 150 to 160 homes sold on the other side of the lake that are under some form of construction.

Member Paul noted 26 residential lots in Phase 4A and 28 lots in Phase 5A.

Mr. Noles indicated the lake is located approximately in the middle of the property. There is an approximate break down of 350 and 375 in the north and the same number to the south. He stated the numbers do not add to 867. Currently, the Site Plan has a reduced number, while the RUD allows for the total number of units. He indicated there are five distinct product lines that came about at various times. For example, The Masters on the Lake may only have five or six sold because they just came about. Whereas the 126 townhomes at the northwest corner of the site have been on line for some time and there is a fear that they will sell out quickly. The lakefront homes and some of the waterfront parks have beaches. He noted the number of lakefront units complies with the RUD Agreement.

Member Paul indicated that not many homes were completed and there was a lot of mud. She questioned the water quality and the flooding issues. She asked him to comment on the flooding in the area and the storm water drainage. She noted that she was aware of one particular instance. She felt the final phase would take away the existing life that could absorb the water.

Mr. Noles indicated the Grading Permit, F.E.M.A. Permit, Soil Erosion Control Permit and Wetland Permit control these factors. He noted the monitoring on a regular basis.

Member Paul asked him to comment on the flooding incident.

Mr. Noles indicated that he was not aware of the flooding situation.

Kevin Sullivan, Land Development Manager stated that he no knowledge of a flooding incident.

Member Paul asked what types of boat were anticipated other than sail boats.

Mr. Noles indicated that gas motors are not permitted on the lake as it is restricted by the Deed Restriction. Electric motors boats, fishing boats, canoes, rafts and sailboats would be permitted on the lake.

Member Paul asked if the horsepower would be limited. She noted that some fishing boats have a significant engine. She asked if there would be a mph limit.

Mr. Noles was not aware of any deed restriction that addressed the horsepower.

Mr. Sullivan indicated that the deed restrictions include the size of the boat.

Member Paul reiterated the parking deficiency and the three extra lots as mentioned by Member Kocan. She asked if the petitioner would be willing to give up either Lot 213 or Lot 214 to provide more parking and widen the space.

Mr. Noles deferred to Mary Jukuri who was the land planner for the original RUD.

Mary Jukuri stated there was a phasing diagram that was provided with the Original RUD Agreement in 1997. Within each phase of development and within each housing type (including the waterfront homes) the total numbers was expressed as a range to give the developer flexibility in determining final lot count within each phase. The 43 homes proposed on the waterfront were an average. According to the phasing chart the range for the waterfront area is a range from 35 to 51 homes. Therefore, she noted that the proposed 43 homes are within the permitted development for waterfront homes.

Member Paul asked if they would be willing to give up a lot due to the number of commissioners who were not in support of the project because of the parking situation.

Mr. Noles indicated that two lots were already removed for the requirement. Therefore, he stated he was opposed to losing another lot. He felt that it might place him in jeopardy of not being able to meet the minimum number of lots along the shoreline. In looking at the Ordinance, if it is not a private non-commercial recreational area (that does not serve outside users) then the 80-foot setback on the parking lot does not apply. The original plan had a 10-foot setback, which was increased to 80-foot to comply with the standards. However, if the standards do not apply, then the setback could be reduced and the parking could be increased without the loss of any additional lots.

Member Canup called for the vote.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Nagy, Richards, Ruyle

No: Kocan, Markham, Paul, Shroyer

Member Nagy made corrections to January 23, 2002 minutes:

Page 9 added the word "stated" to 10^th line, Page 14, 5^th paragraph – change the verbiage from "if were never approved" to "if the agreements were never approved", Page 19, 3^rd paragraph – change the verbiage from "that his just staff" to "just his staff", Page 25, add the word "be" to the motion, Page 32, 15^th paragraph - change the word "believe" to "believed", Page 34, 3^rd paragraph – change the verbiage "capacity to received and send e-mail other councilmembers" to "capacity to received and send e-mail to other councilmembers", Page 37, 4^th paragraph – remove the word "did", Page 39, change the verbiage "Clay Pearson is the head over the CIP…" to "Clay Pearson is the head of the CIP…", and Page 39, change the word "here" to "there".

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting minutes of January 23, 2002 as amended.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Member Nagy made corrections to February 20, 2002 minutes:

Page 8, the addition of the word "to", Page 12, "felt that" and Page 13 change "provide" to "provided".

Member Kocan made corrections: Page 15 "Liter" should read "Leader", Page 17 "materials" should read "conference materials".

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 20, 2002 as amended.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Member Ruyle commented on the recent City Council meeting where Council voted to send an item back to the Planning Commission due to a discrepancy with the notification procedure(s) to surrounding residents. The Council voted to have a rehearing of the Public Hearing before the item could return to City Council. He asked Mr. Evancoe for the status of the situation. He noted this situation to be the second incident related improper notification process. He held Mr. Evancoe responsible.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that fortunately, the petitioner’s project would not be delayed as a result of the incident. The petitioner will return to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing on May 1, 2002. On May 6, 2002, the petitioner will proceed to the City Council. The Site Plan was tentatively scheduled to come before the Commission on May 15, 2002, which is still the case. He indicated that it remains uncertain whether or not the notices were sent. He supported the Council’s decision to have the matter return to the Commission. He found the incident as an opportunity of observing the shortcoming of the handling of notices and to create a better process. A new procedure of mailing a notice to the City will begin, which will ensure the record of a postmarked notification. Additionally, the sender of the notice(s) will sign an affidavit as a testimony that the notices were sent. A copy of the notice will be attached to the affidavit. A copy of the Novi News will be delivered to the staff member handling notifications, who will then clip the notices for record purposes. He noted the many possibilities for one not receiving a notification. He agreed with the possibility that the notice was not sent. However, it is also possible the notice was sent and a family member threw away the notice or that the resident might not recall reading the notice. He noted in past experiences, he found incidents of those that used the situation as a technique to cause delay in projects. He stated with the new procedural changes, a determination could be made quickly. He recalled one project that required 1400 notices. However, he stressed that the Planning Department is committed to doing its best.

Member Ruyle identified the situation is a problem. He understood the possibilities of the situation reoccurring and was pleased to hear Mr. Evancoe’s solution(s) to lessen its reoccurrence.

None

None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:23 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

May 06, 2002

Date Approved: May 15, 2002