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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul (late arrival), Richards, Ruyle, Shroyer (late arrival).

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planner Amy Golke, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire

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

Per the request of Member Paul, Member Markham added Matters for Discussion Item #1 - Site Access for Site Plan Reviews. A discussion with the Planning Department in regard to obtaining permission from Developers to enter on their site.

Chairperson Churella asked City Attorney Gerald Fisher if this was necessary.

Gerald Fisher City Attorney agreed that it would be appropriate. He explained that because the property owner has the right to not allow the commissioners on his/her property, he found clarification of the matter appropriate.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (7-0)*: To approve the agenda as amended.

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

No: None

Tom McCampbell, 45000 Bayview Unit 6, stated, "I would like to talk about, Novi Express, the gas station that they would like to build on some wetlands across from us. We would like to oppose that. We are not in favor of this structure being built. With the gas and the oil so close to the lake. On top of it being a wetland. There are not very many wooded areas left around there. More of it was just mowed down for houses. It is supposed to add 2000 cars a day. To make a left from Pontiac Trail onto West Park Drive, if any of you have ever done that is difficult already. Then to turn into the condominiums, well, I am surprised there are not more accidents there. It is very congested. On top of that, Walled Lake is a nice lake. It is the third largest lake in Oakland County. There is not a gas station on there already. This is in close proximity. Plus we live across the street and we have to smell this. If they put in a car wash, in the winter time all that water on the road. I do not like the idea at all."

Planning Director David Evancoe indicated their comments important. However, he noted that the item is not on the agenda for this evening’s meeting.

Chairperson Churella stated the speakers were made aware of this information.

Jason Lebby 44900 Bayview Drive Unit 14, stated, "I would like to say the traffic problem on the corner is very serious. There is a blind intersection. I do not want to see any more traffic there then there already is. We would appreciate if you would turn Novi Express down. It is not a good idea for the community. It is all residential other than the little shopping mall. There is a gas station within a mile of that place anyway. The other issue, is the decibel level of the car wash. They never indicated what it would be. We would like to be notified when Novi Express is on the next agenda. Thank you."

Tom Pierce, Greenwood Oaks II, stated, "I am here to comment on today’s proposed development proposed by the Windmill Group. I originally moved from Timber Ridge with my family of 5. I came into Greenwood Oaks and we backed up to wetlands. Those wetlands were developed and fill dirt was brought in. It did not have any impact on the value of my home. In fact the value of my home went up. I have enjoyed my new neighbors. I would like to say that I support responsible development and I support the project that the Windmill group is proposing if it would bring value to the area. There are a lot of young families in Greenwood Oaks. Those that are not committed to living in the City of Novi are those that are often speaking opposed. I intend to be a long time resident of Novi. I would like to suggest that the City continue to support the responsible development in Novi. I am supportive to keeping the greenbelt or minimizing the development if it is done in a responsible way where the City is purchasing the land in advance so that there are no legal issues. Thank you."

None

None

None

None

Public Hearing on the request of Jim Barnes of The Boardwalk Investment Group to rezone property located in Section 1 south of 14 Mile Road and west of M-5 from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One Family Residential) or any other appropriate zoning district. The subject property is 3.44 acres.

Member Ruyle announced that when the matter was before the Commission previously, he requested recusal. At that time the Commission voted on his recusal.

Chairperson Churella asked the Mr. Fisher if it was appropriate to vote on this matter again.

Mr. Fisher did not find it necessary to have a second vote as it relates to the matter.

Amy Golke, Planner introduced the request of Jim Barnes of The Boardwalk Investment Group to rezone the 3.44-acre parcel from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One Family Residential) or any other appropriate zoning district. The density of R-A is 0.8 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for two dwelling units on the parcel. The density of R-2 is 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which would allow for six dwelling units on the parcel. The applicant has plans to develop the site under the One-Family Cluster Option with the 19.49-acre parcel that is adjacent to the west. The development is known as Brae Point Estates. The plan is not under review, yet only the rezoning request. However, some of the comments in the review letters reference Brae Point Estates as the development. The Master Plan for Land Use is Single-Family Residential to the north, west and south. The land use designation is office to the east of M-5. Referring to the Density Map, Ms. Golke indicated the proposed parcel has a residential density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which is the same as the properties to the north and to the west. To the south the residential density is 1.65 dwelling units per acre, which is R-1 density. The property is currently zoned R-A, as is the property to the north and the south. The property to the west of the proposed parcel is zoned R-2 and the property to the east of M-5 is zoned OST (Office Service Technology). Adjacent uses include a park in Commerce Township, undeveloped property to the south and the east and a Kennel and Day Care to the south of Fourteen Mile Road. Two wetlands, totaling 0.33-acres are present on the site. A woodland survey provided by the petitioner and field verified by the City Staff indicated that the entire site consists of regulated woodlands. She stated the Woodlands and Wetlands would be reviewed at the time of the Site Plan Review. Ms. Golke indicated that the rezoning is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use and the Residential Density Pattern Map. The traffic review indicated that road improvements would be necessary with the development of the property. She stated that nothing has changed from when the proposal was previously before the Commission.

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

David Hutt, 40563 Paisley Circle, stated, "I would like to read a letter that was delivered. ‘In the Planning Commission meeting March 20, 2002 it was stated that the proposed rezoning of 18.616 was required for the developer of 18600 to meet a fifty percent open space requirement. Due to the amount of wetlands on 18600, we are concerned that this is a way to allow more homes to be squeezed into the development of 18600, potentially damaging surrounding wetland tree areas during the building process and upon development completion, creating an eyesore to the adjacent property owners on Paisley Circle and Kingswood Boulevard.’ I will read the next letter, ‘When the Planning Commission meeting on March 20^th it was stated that the proposed rezoning of 18.618 is required for the developer, etc… our concerns include the existing woodlands on 18.618, 18600 and the adjacent properties. We respectfully request that all woodlands remain intact with no removal of existing trees or underbrush. Rezoning and building on this property creates concerns of water drainage, flooding to Haverhill streets. Rezoning and building on this property creates concerns of increased traffic flow both in and around Haverhill. There is concern that there is an emergency road that is being proposed that was formerly a cul-de-sac that is now an open road that would go to another large subdivision. There have been drainage issues that were brought to the attention of the City of Novi."

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 the correspondence he has received are identical to those that Mr. Hutt read aloud.

Chairperson Churella reminded the commissioners that the matter was already reviewed and voted on by the Commission and sent to the City Council. However, Council sent the matter back to the Commission because the proper notifications were not mailed to the surrounding residents.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Paul, FAILS (4-5): In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.618 to deny the request.

Member Kocan questioned if it would be more advantageous for the City to keep the proposed parcel undeveloped, which the petitioner indicated was their intention if the property rezoning were granted. However, it would allow for increased density on the attached rectangular parcel. Therefore, she questioned if it would be a significant benefit to the City to keep the woodlands and wetlands on the proposed parcel undeveloped. Granting the rezoning would allow the petitioner to add the proposed parcel to their Cluster Option. She questioned if this would benefit the City better or if it would be more beneficial for the parcel to remain R-A. She noted the possibility that two 1-acre homes could be built on the R-A zoned parcel. She asked the Staff to comment. She made it clear to the audience that the Site Plan is not being reviewed or approved as part of the rezoning process.

Ms. McGuire indicated the entire site is wooded and she described the Woodlands as excellent. She felt the wetlands located at the south end of the site were worth preserving. The Petitioner submitted a conceptual site plan, which designates the area as preserved. However, she reminded the Commission that there is no guarantee until the Site Plan is officially stamped.

Yes: Canup, Nagy, Paul, Shroyer

No: Churella, Kocan, Markham, Richards, Ruyle,

Moved by Ruyle, Member Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.618 send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the 3.44-acre parcel from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One Family Residential)

Member Shroyer asked if there would be access to Fourteen Mile. He noted that there is no knowledge of the zoning for the parcel located immediately to the north of the proposed parcel.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the actual Site Plan shows the access through the property directly to the west of the subject’s property, which would be the connection to Fourteen Mile Road. The properties located directly north of the subject’s site would not be included.

Member Shroyer asked if the parcel located to the west was zoned R-2.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Shroyer inquired if the Commission had discussed, prior to his arrival, the concerns of the advancement of 15 homes sites to 46.

Ms. Golke stated the parcel to the west is 19.49-acres. Under R-2 zoning the parcel is permitted to have 38 homes. A rezoning would allow an additional 6 homes, which would total 45 homes for the entire site.

Member Shroyer acknowledged two wetland areas located on the site. He verified whether or not the Commission discussed this matter.

Mr. Evancoe restated Ms. McGuire's comments regarding the woodlands and wetlands.

Member Shroyer recalled reading of an anticipation that the entire parcel would be set-aside for the possible purpose of open space, which would allow for higher density.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Shroyer clarified that the entire Regulated Woodlands were anticipated to be preserved.

Ms. McGuire indicated the submitted Site Plan identifies the area as "left alone". She brought to the Commission’s attention the fact that the Woodland Map does not identify the woods as regulated. However, she believed this to be an error based on the scale of the map. She stated the area is definitely wooded.

Mr. Fisher indicated that there was not a Development Agreement or any item of similar nature. Therefore, a rezoning would allow for an assumption that there could be six homes or remain vacant. He stressed that he was not intending to question the veracity of the Developer. However, it was merely a matter of reality that they could lose or sell the property. Therefore, if the property was to be rezoned, he noted the possibility of having a Development Agreement that would indicate that the parcel would be maintained as preservation land. Therefore, if a proposal is submitted to do otherwise, then the parcel would be rezoned back to the R-A zoning.

Member Shroyer asked Mr. Fisher if the Commission could pursue "true open space" for potential active recreation when the Site Plan comes before the Commission for Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Fisher indicated that private open space is considerably different from active public recreation area. He stated the property owner would have to dedicate the area or the City would have to purchase the land if it were become an active public recreation area. He indicated that he was not aware of these options being offered at this point.

Member Shroyer wanted the audience to understand that "open space" did not permit the Developer to chop down the trees to build a tennis court.

Member Markham stated the original materials provided showed the Woodland as Regulated Woodlands. Since it is not Regulated Woodlands, she asked if the applicant would be required to provide replacement trees if they decided to construct six homes on the site. She asked if the situation could be rectified.

Ms. McGuire stated the Woodland Ordinance allows the City Official the discretion to determine whether or not an area is a Woodland if it is located in the area of a Woodland Boundary. She noted the woodlands adjacent to the proposed parcel, which continue throughout the area. After making a site visit, she found it obvious that it is part of a continuation of the Woodland area. She believed the area would be considered Regulated Woodlands.

Member Markham understood that the Developer, in good faith, would like to set the area aside as an amenity for the subdivision. However, she noted that once the property is rezoned anything could happen.

Mr. Fisher stated Woodlands are living changing entities. Therefore, if a Woodland migrates as a result of growth after the map is generated, it would have to allow for discretion to make an on-site confirmation. He did not find a problem.

Member Nagy stated that she would only support the motion if it included Mr. Fisher’s comments regarding an agreement with the Developer stating their agreement to preserve the Wetlands and Woodlands. The Development Agreement would specify the condition that if they sold the land, then the property would return to its original zoning.

Mr. Fisher stated the documents would be prepared starting with the Property Owner’s representation of their intent to preserve the property as proposed with the view that if a proposal is submitted to the City to develop the land inconsistent with that, then the City would have the right and the option to rezone the property back to R-A.

Member Nagy requested to have the motion amended to incorporate this.

Member Ruyle and Member Kocan accepted the amendment to the motion.

Member Kocan asked if the Developer should respond to comments regarding the Development Agreement at this time.

Mr. Fisher found it appropriate to have the Developer indicated whether or not they were willing.

Chairperson Churella called the Developer forward.

Mark Zierlag of the Thomas Duke Company represented Jim Barnes. He indicated that a site plan was submitted, which designates the entire 3.44-acres as set aside. He noted the desire to have the buffer from the freeway, as it would benefit his development and the residents at Haverhill subdivision. He did not have a problem agreeing to leaving the area wooded. However, at Site Plan Approval, he noted that this would be the make or the break of the development.

Mr. Fisher asked the Mr. Zierlag if his client would agree to enter into a written understanding that if the zoning were granted then the entire parcel being discussed tonight would be preserved as contemplated on the Site Plan. He noted the applicant’s choice to change that Site Plan. However, under the agreement the City would have the right and the option to rezone the property back to R-A.

Mr. Zierlag did not feel comfortable with answering the question without review.

Chairperson Churella asked if the motion could stipulate that the site would be rezoned if the letter of intent were signed.

Mr. Fisher suggested that the motion could recommend the rezoning subject to the Development Agreement. Ultimately, the matter will go before the City Council and if the Applicant chose to disagree then the Council could address the matter.

Chairperson Churella clarified that the motion was appropriate.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct.

Member Nagy stated the Woodlands have been broken up by the construction, however, they start again at Erickson Development and go through. She noted that those were Regulated Woodlands, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat. She believed this to be the understanding of Linda Lemke former Landscape Architect. She supported the preservation of this area.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.618 send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the 3.44-acre parcel from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One Family Residential) conditional upon a Development Agreement preserving the Woodlands and Wetlands in total on site.

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

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Singh Development for a positive recommendation regarding the following:

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the Zoning Text Amendment to modify the Ordinance for the building height requirements in the OST (Office Service Technology) zoning district and to amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to the berm requirements. She noted the Planning Commission reviewed the matter at several meetings. The matter is now before the Commission for a Public Hearing and a recommendation to the City Council. The OST (Office Service Technology) Ordinance permits the building height to be increased from 46-feet to 65-feet for properties in a geographical area that is north of Grand River up to Twelve Mile Road providing that the property is not abutting a residential zoning district. The petitioner, Singh Development, has requested to define the residential more specifically to disallow the taller buildings abutting the One-Family Residential District and Mobile Home Districts. Thereby allowing the taller buildings up to 65-feet adjacent to residential districts zoned RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) and RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) only. The Planning Commission reviewed the matter and sent a favorable recommendation to the City Council. The City Council made an additional restriction prohibiting those taller buildings for the properties abutting the RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District). The City Council also suggested that the OST (Office Service Technology) fronting Meadowbrook Road be excluded from the height bonus. The matter returned to the Planning Commission for review of whether or not the properties fronting Meadowbrook Road should be included. The matter was then reviewed by the Implementation Committee and returned to the Planning Commission with the recommendation to include the properties along Meadowbrook Road for the additional height bonus. At the February 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners brought forward reasoning to allow the additional height along Meadowbrook Road. She outlined those reasons. When the Ordinance was originally written, there was a need within the OST (Office Service Technology) District for a height increase to accommodate additional equipment that some of the uses within the OST District might need as well as additional clear area. Thereby creating the need to have slightly taller buildings. Another reason was the City’s desire to have more of a streamlined Ordinance that would not require Special Land Use Permits or numerous trips to the Zoning Board of Appeals to waive the height requirements. Furthermore, when the Ordinance was originally written, only certain areas were targeted for the additional height bonus (properties between Twelve Mile Road and Grand River Avenue not abutting residential). Finally, the Ordinance had been in effect for 3-years, during which time the properties along the Meadowbrook Road frontage were purchased and Site Plans submitted for taller developments with heights approaching the 65-feet. The Ordinance change related to the berm requirements between the residential and the non-residential properties. Additional language was added at the Implementation Committee regarding the perpetual maintenance responsibilities. For example, damage to a wooded located on the residential property, the maintenance responsibility would fall to the original commercial property owner. As requested by the Commission at the February 20, 2002 meeting, City Attorney Tom Schultz has defined the term "property owner", which has been included in the language submitted to the Commission. She noted that City Attorney Gerald Fisher and the Petitioner were present to answer any questions. Property owners, with an interest in property along Meadowbrook Road, were properly notified of this Public Hearing.

Secretary Richards announced he has received one (1) correspondence.

James Papiak of Trinity Health who expressed agreement with the amendment with the exception of item 3, which states "the site must be located north of Grand River and south of Twelve Mile Road provided however, that the site shall not front on Meadowbrook Road".

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

Bill Bowman Sr., 30180 Orchard Lake Road Farmington Hills, indicated his representation of a couple of property owners located on the West Side of Meadowbrook Road and Burton Katzman. He thanked the Staff for the proper notification and the Implementation Committee for their efforts. On behalf of those mentioned, he relayed their agreement of the current approach being used. Particularly not discouraging the height along Meadowbrook Road.

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 Shroyer indicated that his concerns from the previous meetings were addressed. He thanked the Planning Department and the Implementation Committee for their work. Member Shroyer indicated that he would be supporting the Zoning Text Amendment.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Ruyle, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.170 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney advised the Commission to include a comment as part of the motion with regard to the zoning on Meadowbrook Road. He noted that City Council requested that it be discussed.

Chairperson Churella requested Mr. Fisher to word the verbiage for the motion.

Mr. Fisher clarified the intent of the Planning Commission was to not make the modification requested by the City Council based upon studies and analysis.

Member Nagy and Member Ruyle accepted the amendment to the motion.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.170 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council without the modification requested by the City Council based upon the Planning Commission’s studies and analyses.

Member Kocan asked if the addition of the preservation, perpetual maintenance needed to be included in the motion.

Mr. Fisher advised that those items were incorporated in the actual Ordinance language and therefore were covered.

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

No: None

Consideration of the request of Greg Dowling for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property located in Section 15 on the north side of Grand River Avenue between Taft and Novi Roads in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The developer is proposing a Phase I-Recycle Building and a Phase II-Construction Silo. The subject property is 10.03 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Greg Dowling for Preliminary Site Plan Approval of Phase I & II of the proposed steel silo and recycling unit building to be used in conjunction of a concrete operation at the existing facility. The site is shown as I-1 (Light Industrial District) as are the properties to the north, west, south and east. The property located to the northeast is Master Planned for heavy industrial. The Zoning Map identifies the properties to the north, west, south and east as I-1 (Light Industrial District). The property to the northeast is zoned general industrial. Adjacent land uses include Corrigan Storage Facility to the west, Polynorm Automotive to the east and various office/commercial uses to the south across Grand River Avenue. Phase I is a recycling building and is already constructed. Phase II is for the steel silo proposed to be located next to already existing silos on the property. The Site Plan Process has not followed the usual procedure for review and approval. She explained that the recycling building has been constructed on the east portion of the site. The recycling operation began as a result of concerns raised by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for the proper disposal of slag and other waste materials generated in the concrete business. The recycling equipment was purchased and installed and a 2,315-square foot recycling shelter was erected around it. She showed the Commission a photograph depicting the matter. The Building Department was notified of the construction taking place without a permit. The matter went before the Zoning board of Appeals and the petitioner obtained a variance to enclose the recycling operation to keep it from the weather and allow the Site Plan Review process to continue after the building was erected. She stated the planning review shows no significant issues for the existing recycling building. However, three (3) variances are required for the construction of the silo. The Ordinance requires that accessory structures must be located within the rear yard. The proposed silo would be located in the side yard and thereby requiring a ZBA Variance. Secondly, accessory structures can not exceed the maximum building height permitted in the I-1 district, which is 40-feet. The proposed silo is 64-feet and 2-inches and thereby requiring a ZBA Variance. Thirdly, outdoor storage is not permitted in the I-1 District. Above ground storage tank may be permitted under certain circumstances, however, it may not exceed six hundred (600) gallons. The proposed silo exceeds the permitted size. She advised the Commission to determine whether the proposed changes would constitute a change in use. She noted the existing concrete business is a non-conforming use in the I-1 District. She restated that the recycling effort Spartan Concrete undertook was in response to the complaints from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Due to this factor, the Staff made a preliminary decision to treat the changes as accessory uses, which would not increase the existing non-conformity of the site. She requested that the Commission review the matter and make an actual determination. Ms. McBeth noted the landscape and traffic reviews had minor comments that could be addressed at Final. There are no wetlands on site. Woodland, Engineering and Fire Reviews indicate that the site meets the requirements of those disciplines. The Façade review indicates that the accessory structure does not meet the requirements of the Ordinance and the Silo is exempt from review. The Façade Consultant requires that the accessory structure be revised to comply with the Ordinance and a Section Nine Facade Waiver is not recommended.

Lee Mamola of Mamola Associates Architects introduced Frank Guidobono and Greg Dowling as representing the owners of Spartan Concrete. Spartan Concrete has been located in Novi since 1967. The DEQ ordered Spartan Concrete to construct the recycling building approximately two year ago. He explained the process of the business. The concrete trucks are washed out after deliveries. In short, he explained that for years the slag from the trucks and waste were washed onto the ground and into standing water located in the back of the property. The construction of the recycling building began in the summer of 2000. He showed the Commission a photo of that time period. The building has four walls and a roof. However, there is no habitable space inside of the building as it is all equipment and machinery. The trucks pull up the building to be washed and the waste product then goes through a fabricated recycling arrangement, which the owners could elaborate on. The water is recycled into the concrete products. The same machines and units are built in the south, however there is protection around it due to the northern environment. Mr. Mamola noted that mid-October/November, he advised the enclosure of the building to avoid the loss of business. Up until three years ago, he noted the Façade Ordinance regulated the materials by zoning district. The previous Façade Ordinance would have permitted 75% of the 80% ribbed panel due to its location in the I-1 District. However, the most recent Façade Ordinance reviews show how close the building is to the road(s). Therefore, he felt the building was more out of conformance with the new Façade Ordinance only because the property fronts on Grand River Avenue. He recalled that an earlier JCK representative indicated a Section Nine Facade Waiver would be recommended. He was uncertain why the new JCK representative was in disagreement with that recommendation. He suggested that the Commission take into consideration the hardship that would be involved if the petitioner were to revise the building according to the recommendation. He agreed to work with the Staff to add additional evergreens or dense screening to make the site more consistent with the intent of the Ordinance. He pointed out the natural berm in the middle of the property along Grand River Avenue, which is 12-feet higher than the grade of the building location, which he felt provided the recycling building with some degree of natural screening. He indicated the need for the silo to be located in its proposed location. Due to the nature of the product, the bottom of the silo (where the material comes out) needs to be higher than a truck. He did not feel it was an expansion of their business that because it is a different product. Further, he stated one product line is being deleted and a new product is being added. Therefore, he did not feel it was an expansion.

Greg Dowling indicated the new product was called Granulated Slag, which is a by-product from coal that Detroit Edison burns for energy. Eighty percent of the product is currently buried in the environment. MDEQ has derived regulations to utilize the product in cemented conjunction with regular portland cement and flyash. He noted the intentions to help the environment and stay in competition with the other ready-mix companies that already have silos.

Mr. Mamola did not feel the silo represented an outdoor storage use. Further, he noted that he was prepared to take it before the ZBA for an interpretation if need be. He asked for the Commission’s support subject to obtaining the required ZBA Variances.

Member Markham asked Mr. Dowling if the material in silo was being stored or if it was part of the process.

Mr. Dowling indicated that the silo is part of the process and would be filled daily.

Member Markham clarified that it was not truly traditional storage.

Mr. Dowling stated that it would be production.

Member Markham clarified that it would be filling part of a production machine.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Markham asked the timeframe of the zoning change, which made the site a non-conforming use.

Mr. Mamola indicated there was significant movement in the earlier 80’s and the City’s adoption of the new Master Plan. He recalled the large amount of rezoning that occurred along Grand River Avenue to bring the Grand River Corridor into compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use. He suspected the early 80’s to be the general timeframe.

Member Markham asked if the proposed could be addressed with two separate motions. One for the recycling building and the second motion for the silo.

Mr. Fisher found her suggestion to be appropriate.

Member Markham agreed that the recycling building should match the other buildings on the site. She did not find the reasoning to revise the building. She found the petitioner’s approach of additional landscaping along the thoroughfare for screening to be the most reasonable option. She wanted the applicant to be able to operate his business and look "neat". She felt this could be accomplished if all the buildings looked alike.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Ruyle, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Spartan concrete Phase I SP01-33 to grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver with the understanding that additional screening would be put in place to minimize the impact to the public on Grand River Avenue.

Mr. Fisher advised the Commission to make the motion more specific to provide guidance to the to the Department. He suggested verbiage to indicate that the landscaping be worked out through a mutual agreement between the applicant and the Department with any disagreements to returning to the Commission.

Member Markham and Member Ruyle accepted the amendments.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Ruyle, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Spartan concrete Phase I SP01-33 to grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver with the understanding that additional screening would be put in place to minimize the impact to the public on Grand River Avenue subject to the landscaping being worked out through a mutual agreement between the applicant and the Planning Department and that any disagreements to returning to the Commission

Member Paul felt the entire site should be discussed and then both motions voted on after the discussion. She felt more discussion needed to take place. She asked the petitioner to elaborate on the MDEQ requirements and the documentation he was given.

Mr. Dowling stated a law passed in the year 2000 prohibits washout being dumped onto the ground. He noted that previously there was 3.5-acres were dumped daily. However, since the installation of the recycling unit nothing is dumped on the ground.

Member Paul asked if the by-product was reused.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Paul asked if the MDEQ submitted an order of conformity to him.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Paul asked if he could supply the letter of request to the Commission so that the Commission could verify that there is compliance with the order.

Mr. Dowling stated it was a broad document. He added that all of the storm water from the site is directed into the recycling. Everything is reused on site.

Member Paul indicated that she had several discussion with MDEQ. She was pleased with their implication regarding the environment. She asked his requirements of the trucks that go out into the community. She noted that often those trucks are rinsed out in the community in sites, which she felt were not properly equipped.

Mr. Dowling anticipated there would be laws in the future to address that matter. However, currently his trucks wash out on the site that they are delivering to.

Member Paul asked if all the trucks that go out come back to Spartan Concrete rinse out on site.

Mr. Dowling answered, no. He explained that the truck must wash down at the point after of delivery. Otherwise the concrete has set by the time it returns to the yard. No excess concrete is dumped on site. Whatever is left over in the chute after it is scraped down is washed down.

Member Paul found in her investigation that the MDEQ has specific requirements as well as the EPA and the Clear Water Act. She stated the back-flush is to be done at the plant. She noted that there are specific requirements if it is done at the construction site. She mentioned the gentlemen that she spoke to at the MDEQ regarding these procedures. If the back-flush has to be done on the site, it has to be done in buckets and returned to the site.

Mr. Dowling believed that she was speaking of a different issue. He stated the back-flush or wash-out procedure at the end of the day is conducted at the plant.

Member Paul asked if the back-wash is also handled at the plant.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Paul asked if the buckets from the wash-down at the construction site are brought back for recycling or if it was being dumped on site.

Mr. Dowling answered, no. He explained that excess concrete is not being dumped on site.

Member Paul stated in washing a chute some sledge and filament comes out.

Mr. Dowling stated that she was referring to buckets. He explained that the washing out is done on the construction site and not on someone’s property.

Member Paul stated that eventually it will be "someone’s" property. Therefore, she asked what is done after the three or four buckets are washed out onto the dirt.

Mr. Dowling stated that there is nothing done. He added that there is not a requirement to do anything at this point.

Member Paul asked if the rinsing with hydrochloric acid is only done on his site.

Mr. Dowling stated that the process does not rinse with hydrochloric acid.

Member Paul stated she has a lot of concerns with the site. She stated the silos would be located next to the Expo Center. She agreed with Member Markham in that the storage area façade should remain the same. However, she felt the silos were in the wrong location due to the area being a gateway into the community. Eventually the Grand River Corridor would be widened to five lanes making the silos closer.

Mr. Dowling noted that he had reviewed the widening plan. He indicated that they already had a deceleration lane.

Member Paul asked Ms. McClain to comment.

Nancy McClain, City Engineer pointed out the area in front of the site and the location of the two silos. She noted a hill and the location of the lane extending down. Due to the existing deceleration lane and widening, this area is approximately seven feet closer to the property line.

Member Paul clarified that it would not be any closer than 7-feet.

Ms. McClain stated it was an approximation. She noted there would also be a new sidewalk and grading in that area, which should not be detrimental to their site.

Member Paul asked if the Commission could request to have the additional landscaping placed at the location of the new berm (after the widening of Grand River Avenue) verses having it redone in a year or two if it were placed at the current location.

Ms. McClain indicted that Ms. McGuire is working with the applicant regarding this matter.

Member Paul indicated that she was not pleased with the shed area over the recycling unit. She did not understand how it was constructed without having gone to the Building Department. The ZBA approved the variance to enclose the recycling operation in July 1, 2001. She questioned why it had been a year from the granting of that variance. She asked the applicant to comment on these issues.

Mr. Mamola stated the matter was before the ZBA in November 2000. Due to the stop work order, he indicated it was an emergency to go before the ZBA to have permission to enclose building to allow business to operate through the winter months. The shell of the walls and the steel portions of the roof were already erect. Therefore, he stated the siding needed to be put in place, which was completed after the variance was granted. He recalled submitting a plan, which was reviewed by Birchler & Arroyo. After four or five months there was a request for more information. A surveyor went to the site to determine the location of the parking. The information was added to the plan and resubmitted to the City. He noted during the site plan process a change of personnel staff required a time period to allow for a "learning curve". He stated that the previous Landscape Consultant led him to believe that there were no landscape requirements for the project. However, after the review, it was determined that three pages of the landscape needed to be revised. He noted that the review "sat" for a period of time not moving forward despite of the numerous requests to move matters along.

Member Paul asked Ms. McGuire if she would recommend landscaping to the rear of the property to screen the view of the silo from the I-96.

Ms. McGuire noted the woodlands and the fact that the mature trees would not hide the silo. Therefore, she did not feel that it would do much good in the back. Plantings are proposed to the left of the driveway, which are all evergreens at this time. This amount of landscaping is equal to what would have been around the building. She noted the applicant was agreeable to place additional landscaping in the location the Commission requested. She felt the issue was moving in the right direction.

Mr. Mamola pointed out the existing 80-foot silo. The proposed silo to be located in the rear would be approximately 15-feet shorter.

Member Nagy agreed that there were two separate issues. She supported the motion. However, she requested that the screening be evergreens instead of bushes because she did not feel the bushes would provide adequate screening.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Ruyle CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Spartan concrete Phase I SP01-33 to grant a Section Nine Facade Waiver with the understanding that additional screening would be put in place to minimize the impact to the public on Grand River Avenue subject to the landscaping being worked out through a mutual agreement between the applicant and the Planning Department with the specific use of Evergreens, and that any disagreements to returning to the Commission, subject to the Staff and Consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

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

No: None

Member Richards asked if the appropriate calculations were made for the 64-foot silo to ensure that it would remain on the property and not fall into Grand River Avenue in the event that it were to fall over.

Mr. Dowling indicated the distance from the site of the silo to Grand River is two hundred fifty feet (250-feet) and approximately a quarter mile to the I-96.

Mr. Mamola stated the structure of the silo would be reviewed separately and independently by the Building Department according to the Building Structure permits.

Member Richards indicated that his concern was not focused around the structure and it was more focused on the fall calculation. He asked if the new process was inspected to determine whether or not it currently met the DEQ requirements and also with the silo addition.

Mr. Dowling indicated that the DEQ would not have anything to do with the silo. He noted the DEQ has visited the site many times since the reclaimer.

Member Richard clarified if the process was in compliance.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Shroyer asked if a cleanup was required for the northern portion of the property where the previous cement dumping took place.

Mr. Dowling stated that although there was not a requirement, the cleanup was done. He stated it is now bermed with grass and trees.

Member Shroyer asked if he paid the fine issued by the Building Department for the unapproved construction on his property.

Mr. Dowling indicated that he was not levied a fine.

Member Shroyer stated that he wanted to ensure the Community understood that this was not the "norm" and there was no anticipation of situations such as this occurring in the future. He asked if Mr. Dowling could identify any facilities within the Tri-state area with completely enclosed silos.

Mr. Dowling answered, no.

Member Shroyer asked if it was feasible to enclose the silo to taking into consideration that their products might change in the future.

Mr. Dowling stated that if the plant were designed today then it would be possible to enclose everything. However, since it was built in 1967 it would not be possible to change the process without completely rebuilding the plant.

Member Shroyer asked if the silos were filled by pipe.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Shroyer noted the possibility of a structure higher than the height of the trucks with the silos sticking out the top, similar to smokestacks, which would appear industrial.

Mr. Dowling did not feel that option would be possible.

Member Shroyer asked Ms. McClain to comment.

Ms. McClain indicated that in visiting other concrete factory sites in her career, she has never seen a silo completely enclosed. The proposed is typical.

Mr. Dowling described Spartan Concrete as one of the cleanest ready-mix plant.

Member Shroyer agreed that the other locations should be kept up better.

Member Nagy stated the height does not meet Ordinance requirements. She recognized Spartan Concrete has been at its location since 1967. However, she struggled because of the look that the City is attempting to establish at the Grand River Corridor. She asked what difference a second silo would make. Member Nagy noted the difficulty in not allowing the proposed silo especially in light of the fact that a larger silo currently exists on the site. She asked Mr. Fisher to comment.

Mr. Fisher stated the height issue must go before the Zoning Board of Appeals if the project is sent forward. In addition, the ZBA must take up the matter of the structure being located in the side yard rather than the rear yard. The Planning Commission must determine whether or not the structure is an outdoor storage facility. If the Commission determines the structure is an outdoor storage facility then the matter is required to go before ZBA because the volume of storage exceeds what Ordinance permits for outdoor storage. He advised the Commission to discuss whether or not the placement of the new silo would be expansion of a non-conforming use. He clarified that he was not suggesting that it should not be permitted. However, for purposes of precedence, merely keeping up with new products is not a basis for allowing a new structure in violation of the Ordinance. Therefore, he suggested that the matter be sent to the ZBA.

Member Nagy stated it did not meet the Ordinance.

Mr. Fisher indicated this is the reason the matter would need to go before the ZBA.

Member Nagy asked why the matter needed to go before the ZBA if the Commission was the body to interpret the Ordinance. She stated if the Commission denies the request, then the petitioner would go before the ZBA.

Mr. Fisher indicated that the matter could be approved subject to the ZBA variance or the Commission could deny the request.

Member Nagy indicated that based on the process, she did not feel the structure could be considered outdoor storage because it would be used. However, she had a problem with the fact that it does not meet the Ordinance with regard to permitted uses.

Mr. Fisher felt that it appeared to be an expansion. He felt that it would not be a good precedence.

Member Nagy clarified if she was required to make two separate motions if her motion was to include the fact that it is not a principle permitted use.

Mr. Fisher suggested making one motion. He made the Commission aware that although it is not a permitted use, the ZBA could grant a variance to allow the expansion of a non-conforming use. He stated the use of the proposed silo is consistent with the use that is already on the site. Therefore, if the ZBA granted a variance then it would be an expansion of that use.

Member Nagy stated Section 1901 of the Zoning Ordinance was referring to principle uses permitted.

Mr. Fisher agreed. He explained that Ordinance 1901 is "trumped" by the non-conforming use provisions that say, "if a use is in place and you have actual construction, etc…the property owner then has a vested right to continue that use subject to the other restrictions that a non-conforming use may not be expanded". He noted the ZBA would then have the authority to permit the expansion with the granting of a Variance.

Member Nagy clarified if Section 2503, which states accessory structures must be located in the rear yard, should be included in the motion.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He noted if it is permitted then a Variance is required.

Member Nagy stated the motion should also include the issue that the structure can not exceed a height of 40-feet.

Mr. Fisher answered, likewise.

Member Nagy continued that Section 1905 addressing the above ground storage tanks which can not exceed 600 gallons.

Mr. Fisher stated the question would be whether or not it is determined to be outdoor storage.

Member Nagy clarified Section 1905 did not have to be included in her motion.

Mr. Fisher noted that a finding needed to be made.

Member Canup stated that during his term on the ZBA and he recalled discussion as to what constitutes outdoor storage. He seemed to recall that if the structure had a roof and sides then it is considered a building and not outdoor storage. Therefore, he did not interpret the silo as outdoor storage. He stated outdoor storage would be if the flyash were dumped on the ground.

Chairperson Churella stated unless it has changed through legal ramifications, he asked for Mr. Fisher to clarify if it is outdoor storage or a building with indoor storage.

Mr. Fisher pointed out that the testimony on record that is not contradicted is that it is part of an active process that is used everyday. It is not something that is filled up and then stored for several days. It is part of the process.

Chairperson Churella clarified that he was insinuating that it is not outdoor storage.

Mr. Fisher noted to the Commission that there is a basis in the record to make that conclusion.

Chairperson Churella stated the Commission could concluded that it is not outdoor storage due to the walls and the roof.

Member Canup noted that this was his opinion.

Chairperson Churella agreed with Member Canup’s opinion.

Member Ruyle stated the gentlemen have indicated that they would not be storing in the tank. The tank will be used as a process and would be emptied daily and restored for the next day’s use. He clarified if this was correct.

Mr. Dowling answered, yes.

Member Ruyle noted that according to the applicant there is no storage. Therefore, he did not interpret the structure as outdoor storage.

Member Markham suggested that the motion include the Commission’s interpretation that it is not outdoor storage along with the approval being subject to the granting of the variances from the ZBA.

Mr. Fisher indicated that the three items to go before ZBA should be identified in the motion.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of Spartan Concrete Preliminary Site Plan Approval with the finding that there is not outdoor storage and subject to the Zoning Board of Appeals Variances for the 1) expansion of the non-conforming use, 2) accessory use not in the rear yard and 3) the silo exceeding the height requirement of 40-feet.

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

No: Nagy, Paul

Consideration of the request of Windmill Investment LLC, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 20 and west of Beck Road between Ten and Eleven Mile Roads. The developer proposes a 30-unit condominium under the One Family Cluster Option in the R-1 (One Family Residential) District. The subject property is 40.43 acres.

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Sami Harb of Windmill Investment LLC, for a 30-unit detached site condominium reviewed under the one-family clustering option, a Non-minor Use Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit. The proposed property is zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential District). Properties to the north, west, east are zoned R-A (Residential Acreage) and the property to the south is zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential District). The City Council rezoned the property last summer from R-A to R-1 after the review and recommendation made by the Planning Commission. The Greenwood Oaks subdivision is located to the south, Pioneer Meadows to the east, Bosco Properties to the north and undeveloped land to the west. The site is primarily wetlands, totaling 21.78-acres. Kirkway Place was before the Commission on March 6, 2002. There was considerable input from the applicant, public, City Staff and Consultants along with extensive discussion by the Commission. The matter was tabled to allow time for the Petitioner to consider the input and revise the Site Plan. The Site Plan has been revised and both Staff and Consultants reviewed the matter. Since the March 6^th meeting the Staff and Consultants worked with the applicant to reduce the number of waivers required. Ms. McBeth highlighted the changes. The two homes along Beck Road (#1and #30) did not meet the required setback from the perimeter property line along Beck Road. Those have been shifted slightly to the west. The setback waiver is no longer necessary because it meets the 75-foot setback requirement. The walkways did not extend on both sides of the streets on the previous Site Plan. However, the Revised Site Plan extends the walkways around the entire site on both sides of the street. The Site Plan has been amended to correct the length of the cul-de-sac for Kirkway Court South to a length of less than 800-feet to meet Ordinance requirements. The Staff and Consultants worked with the applicant to move the Boulevard entrance. It was moved from Beck Road approximately 15-feet to the south, which resulted in the shortening of the length of that road and the eliminated the City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the cul-de-sac length. She noted that although the road was moved to the south, the large Black Walnut tree on the site would continue to be preserved under the Revised Site Plan. The Site Plan was revised to eliminate the Traffic Engineer’s concern of the placement of sidewalks on either side of the boulevard entrance. She noted that Lauren McGuire has worked with the applicant’s Landscape Architect to address a number of earlier concerns. The trees have been moved and are no longer located in the corner clearance area. A number of other plant materials have been moved to comply with Ordinance requirements. There has been a reduction in the number of trees that would have to be removed. There is an enhanced park area that is shown close to the Boulevard Entrance with some amenities in that location. Although the five deficiencies have been corrected, a few issues remain for the Planning Commission to consider. The permitted density is 29 homes and the Site Plan continues to show 30 homes. If the plans are otherwise acceptable to the Planning Commission, the applicant must seek a ZBA Variance for one house. Alternatively, the petitioner could request the ZBA to make an interpretation regarding the use of statutory right-of-way on Beck Road for the density calculation. The spacing and placement of units within the cluster development was raised as a concern at the previous Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Consultant provided an additional review, which was included in the commissioner’s packets. The Site Plan has been revised to eliminate a couple of situations where there were individual homes basically sitting by themselves. The Cluster Ordinance requires that clusters of homes to be in groups of two and up to groups of four. She noted that this situation has been corrected. However, in further review by the consultants, it was found that inadequate spacing was located between the clusters in four areas on the site. The Planning Commission may modify the strict application of the Ordinance that requires a certain distance between the groups of units allowing less of a distance between the homes if it is found that a natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical or soil conditions would limit the practical dimensional separation of the clusters. She advised the Commission to make a finding regarding this matter. The centerline radius of the proposed Kirkway Court continues to require a City Council Design and Construction Waiver. The Planning Department reminds the Commission that a motion for approval requires a finding that the site possesses certain characteristics to qualify for the Cluster Option. The applicant indicated on the Site Plan that the site is composed of more than 50% wetlands. If the area designated in brown is preserved through a perpetual easement agreement that would run with the land, then the Commission could find that as a criteria necessary to qualify for the Cluster Development. She felt the Staff and Consultant’s ability to work with the Petitioner has resulted in an improved site design that is closer to meeting Ordinance Requirements. She commended the applicant for their efforts and willingness to work with the Staff and Consultants.

Kevin Coles represented Windmill Investment Group. He felt the absence of the homeowners at tonight’s meeting spoke volumes of their standing with regard to the project. He noted that he met with the surrounding homeowners and indicated that they expressed warm acceptance of the proposed plan. The extension of sewer along Beck Road to the south would remove a pump station that had caused difficulties for some residents for the community in the past through a periodic failure. He felt a lot was accomplished in meeting with the homeowners. He agreed with the Planner’s comments regarding the improvements. He noted that architectural renderings were submitted showing the courtyard entry. To his experience, he found that the market demands a courtyard entry style home, which creates a pleasing façade, verses a sea of garage doors. He note the addition of a common area park located at the entry and a trail that would provide access to the nature preserve at the northwest corner of the site. The park is located at the entry and includes a gazebo and brick pavers. The landscape trail is located at the north side of the community and connects from a sidewalk and traverses up into the five-acre woodland proposed to be preserved as part of the Cluster approval. He noted that these changes were in response to the commissioner’s comments at the previous meeting. He stated the proposed plan is designed to market to Novi Residents who have become "empty nesters" and desire to continue their residence in the Community in a condominium style of living. He felt this market need was under-served in Novi. The Cluster Request is based on the Ordinance requirements that more than 50% of the net site area will be preserved as either wetlands or woodlands. There is a 20 plus acre wetland area that would be perpetually preserved by the deed restriction on the site. He noted the upland woodland located at the northwest that would be fully protected in perpetually as a nature preserve for the benefit of the residents. The access trail would extend down into the woodland area. He noted if the site were developed conventionally then that woodland area would be platted out with lots and destroyed. Mr. Coles requested approval of the Cluster Request and Preliminary Site Plan. He identified the provision of the rear yard views as an aspect to the Cluster approach. Due to the 75-foot setback he noted the provision of the generous landscaping along Beck Road and brick wall in lieu of the berm to create buffering of Beck Road for the residents of the proposed community. He stated these features would not exist with a conventional development. He commented on the issues pertaining to the density. He stated that the Ordinance is not clear to Birchler & Arroyo who is relying on past practices with RUD Development and not with Cluster Options. He stated the 30^th unit is important to the developer and he requested an approval of the 30^th unit. He stated the request for the 30^th unit is based on the reading of the Zoning Ordinance and its application to the development. He stated the Ordinance does not exclude the right-of-way from the density calculation of a One-Family Cluster Option Development. He noted the starting of the analysis in Section 2400, which indicates the density of R-1 district as 1.65 dwelling units to the gross acre. He explained that the real estate field the term "gross acre" is inclusive of public road rights-of-way. He pointed out that the Novi Zoning Ordinance does not define the term "gross acreage". The Cluster Provisions provide that the overall permitted density within a cluster development shall not exceed the following units by district. One of which is R-1 zoning with 1.65 dwelling units per acre (Section 2403.3). Several years ago, he noted the City revised the Cluster Ordinance to exclude the counting of Wetlands for density purposes. He noted that when calculated in accordance with the definition of "density" as stated in Section 201. Section 201 defines the term density as the total number of dwelling units that may be placed on an acre of net site area. The Ordinance then defines the term "net site area" as an area of land excluding regulated wetlands or watercourses but not excluding quality wetlands. He stated the net site area does not refer to rights-of-way. He pointed out the road rights-of-way is owned by the Petitioner and included in the tax parcel. He read a portion of Section 2403.1B(4), which states, "The majority (50%) of the net site area (defined here as the area which is delineated by parcel lines, exclusive of rights-of-way as shown on the adopted master plan)". He interpreted this to mean that the net site area includes right-of-way. For the purposes of meeting the 50% requirement of Section 2403.1B(4) He noted that they are not otherwise excluded. However, the right-of-way is not otherwise excluded. He stated there was no reason to include the exclusion as part of the Clustering definition. On this basis, he requested the Commission to approve 30 units or alternatively allow the matter to go before the ZBA for an interpretation.

Chairperson Churella informed Mr. Coles that he exceeded the time allotted for presentations. He requested the presentation to be completed in two minutes.

Mr. Coles indicated that the Site Plan could meet the setback within the cluster requirements with the placement of a two-unit cluster in the woodlands. He noted his desired to preserve the woodlands, which he felt the Commission could base their approval of the setbacks as proposed. Another reason he identified was the minimum spacing between the homes within a cluster being 10-feet. The proposed Site Plan has shows between 12-feet and 15-feet and in some cases more. He stated that space has been created between the homes within a cluster. One option to meet the clustering requirements for spacing from cluster to cluster is to move the homes closer together in conformance with the minimum 10-foot setback. However, he noted his preference to not utilize this option due to the desire to preserve more of the site. There is the attachment option, which would create a "multiple feeling" on the site. He asked the Commission to look favorably upon the Site review and provide an approval of the cluster option and Preliminary Site Plan.

Member Nagy noted the comment made by JCK indicating a larger wetland complex located west of the development area, which is within the Developer’s property. It is identified as a future Regional Detention Basin pursuant to the Storm Water Master Plan. She clarified that the last Storm Water Master Plan was updated in 1983.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Nagy stated the Ordinance being contemplated refers to on-site detention and not Regional Detention. She noted that in her review of the Council minutes, she did not find anything contemplated by the City. She felt runoff in this area was important. She questioned if the property was located in a flood plain.

Ms. McClain stated that it is not located in a flood plain. However, it is a Wetland. She noted that the applicant has not been required to address the Storm Water Ordinance that is currently in process because it is not intact at this time.

Member Nagy stated they could not identify the area as a Regional Detention Basin. She noted that the basin to be located on Eight Mile was already turned down. She still felt the site had too many buildings. She suggested the elimination of Building 13. She felt Building 23 was a "stretch". She asked if there were backyards. Member Nagy stated she had a problem with some of the traffic. She clarified if the Irrigation Plan was required. She clarified that the historic specimen trees would be preserved. She asked to hear the other commissioners prior to making any further comments.

Member Paul asked if there would be directional boring in the Wetland for the east sidewalk.

Ms. McClain noted the Staff request to use directional boring for the sanitary sewer. However it is not shown at this time. She noted the request could be found on the Engineering Review and the Wetlands Review letter.

Member Paul asked if she felt the applicant would be in agreement of the directional boring.

Ms. McClain stated that she believed that it was possible for this area.

Member Paul asked if the Petitioner was willing to do the directional boring through the Wetland for the east sidewalk.

Mr. Coles stated he was never involved with a directional boring for a sanitary sewer of 300-feet. He stated he would have to verify the matter with the contractor to determine its feasibility.

Member Paul felt this was an important issue to be examined. She commented on the density. She recalled Mr. Fisher’s comments that the statutory right-of-way would not be included in the right-of-way. Therefore, the density would be 29 units and not 30 units. If this were the case, she suggested the deletion of Lot 17 and the creation of an active park between Lot 18 and Lot 16.

Mr. Fisher acknowledged, as Mr. Coles indicated, that the Ordinance is somewhat ambiguous and that the property owner is preserving an excess of 60% open space. On the other hand, he noted the applicant’s request to use land that can not be built upon to count toward density. He stated it was asking for undevelopable land to count toward the density calculation. However, due to ambiguity in the Ordinance, he recommended that the interpretation of the Ordinance be referred to the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, in the meantime, in order to avoid the necessity of having the matter return to the Planning Commission, the property owner might wish to select the unit to be deleted in the event the ZBA makes an adverse interpretation and otherwise fails to grant a variance, if the petitioner were to seek a variance with an interpretation. He suggested the matter go before the ZBA and that opportunity be given to select a unit that would be deleted in the event of an adverse decision at the ZBA.

Chairperson Churella asked Mr. Fisher if the unit should be selected at this point in time.

Mr. Fisher stated if the unit were not selected at this time, the matter would have to return to the Commission for that purpose.

Chairperson Churella clarified that if the unit was selected at this time and the ZBA declined the request, then the knowledge of the unit to be removed would be established. Therefore, the project could be approved on this basis.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Chairperson Churella asked the Petitioner if this was an option that he wanted to pursue.

Mr. Coles answered, yes. He agreed to this condition. He suggested that the Commission identify Unit 1 as the unit to be deleted. He indicated the option to move the park that is currently proposed between units 16 and 17, to the area of Unit 1.

Member Paul understood his suggestion. However, she did not agree with the relocation of the active parkland to Lot 1 due to Beck Road. She noted that any expansion would bring the area to the perimeter with regard to safety. Therefore, she suggested Lot 17 because of the open space that already existed on Kirkway Boulevard. She suggested flipping the house on Lot 13 around and to bring the garage closest to the road, which would create a short driveway.

Mr. Coles stated a brick wall and existing vegetation would separate the area from Beck Road. He stated Lot 17 backs up to the Preserved Wetland and is more desirable than a lot that backs up to a major arterial road. He stated the homes closest to Beck Road that would be approximately 100-feet from the centerline would be less desirable to market. He felt the masonry wall with the existing vegetation would be ideal for the park. He stated the park could be kept in its existing location. He continued to suggest Lot 1.

Member Paul asked Ms. McGuire if she had a preference.

Ms. McGuire stated her preference would be the removal of Lot 17. She noted her understanding of the petitioner’s comments regarding the value of the individual homes. However, she felt Lot 17 be the nicest park area and create a nice view for those driving by. She noted that the park is half done and created an opportunity for a nicer open space for residents.

Member Paul indicated that she attended a recent seminar that addressed the dilemmas that arise when non-public roads or private roads are turned over to the City and do not meet public road standards. She asked Ms. McClain to comment.

Ms. McClain stated the roads would be required to be brought up to the public road standards or the City would have to agree to accept the roads as non-standard roads. Currently, the desire is to have the private roads built to public road standards. She did not find the centerline radius variance to be a major issue in this situation because it would not be a high-speed roadway. Instead it would have low traffic and low speeds. She noted the in the future if they desired the roads to become public, then the roads would have to be in such a condition that the City could accept them. The road would have to be brought up to the standard of that time.

Member Paul asked who would be responsible for the cost.

Ms. McClain stated the cost would be the responsibility of the Condominium Association.

Member Paul stated it would be the Association Dues that would cover this expense.

Ms. McClain agreed.

Member Paul asked if these types of situations occur easily or if people are reluctant.

Ms. McClain felt that most people who like to live in an area similar to the proposed are happy with a private road system. She did not recall many requests from Condominiums. She noted that although there are some requests they are different types of situation.

Member Paul asked if the private roads would be built to the standards and setbacks of the public roads.

Ms. McClain stated the width would be built to the requested standard. Due to the type of development the setback is not required as far as it would be from public road.

Member Paul clarified that the proposed setback is twenty-five (25) feet and the public road standard is thirty (30) feet.

Ms. McClain answered, correct. She noted that there is not a typical internal right-of-way line.

Member Paul asked the Petitioner if he was willing to flip Lot 13 to bring the garage closest to the road.

Mr. Coles stated Unit 13 was designed to give residents a view of the front of the homes as they pull into their driveways. He noted his preference to keep this layout.

Member Paul asked the distance between the driveway and the front elevation that would allow for landscaping. She felt that the driveway for Lot 12 was situated "funny" due to the layout of the land and the protection of the wetlands.

Mr. Coles indicated that it would vary from unit to unit and each unit would have its own orientation and "feel". However, he stated there is generous room landscaping around each unit.

Member Markham felt the Site Plan met the intent of the Cluster Option with its preservation of the wetlands and woodlands. However, there were some issues she wanted to address. She commented on the separation between the clusters and the distance being deficient. If the Commission were to approve the smaller separations they would need to make a finding that a natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical or soil conditions would limit a practical dimension separation of clusters. In looking at the Site Plan, she understood that pushing the clusters farther apart would encroach into the wetland in three of the four cases. Those cases would include between four and five, eight and nine and seventeen and eighteen. She noted that she could support leaving these clusters at their proposed location. However, between Lot 26 and Lot 27, she suggested pushing Unit 25 and Unit 26 farther north to meet the separation requirement. Further, she suggested the elimination of Unit 29 or Unit 30 and then pushing of Unit 27 and Unit 28 farther south. She suggested eliminating the 30^th unit from the 27 to 30 cluster. She felt this would widen the separation. She asked the Petitioner if he understood the direction she was speaking of.

Mr. Coles restated her suggestion to move Lot 25 and Lot 26 further north, which would meet the separation requirement.

Member Markham stated if this option was not feasible, then she suggested the moving of Lot 27 and Lot 28 farther south and eliminate either Unit 29 or Unit 30 to create the room needed.

Mr. Coles indicated there was plenty of room at this location.

Member Markham stated if it is determined that one unit should be deleted, then she recommended that it be one of these four units. Regardless, she suggested that Unit 25 and Unit 26 be pushed farther north. She stated with these changes, she could support the reduced spacing between the clusters. She expressed her appreciation that the individual units were spaced farther apart than the standard requirement. Member Markham recommended the applicant to explore the options to rid of the 30^th unit. In her interpretation of the Ordinance she felt the calculation did not included the right-of-way. In her review of other cluster developments, she did not recall another instance where the right-of-way was included in the calculation. She felt that the Petitioner’s choice to push the 30^th unit was not helpful. She noted the good features on the site. She thanked the Petitioner for providing the park, walking trails, shortening of the street and providing the sidewalks around the site.

Member Kocan was disappointed to hear the Petitioner pushing for the 30^th unit. She felt that precedence said a lot in the City of Novi. Therefore, she hoped that the ZBA took this into consideration when reviewing the case. She recognized that a number of items were addressed. She stated that she could support a reduced reduction between the clusters because more room was provided between the houses. However, she did not support the fact that Lot 23 faced the side of another house. She noted that Lot 13 has a similar situation, as the house is not facing the road. She did not feel it was good planning to have a backyard in another’s sideyard. The purpose of the Cluster Option plan is to protect the green space. She commended the Petitioner for the green space provided on the West Side of the property. However, she did not like the amount of impervious surface and concrete from the side entry garages with the concrete up to the front porch. She stated the architectural rendering submitted to the Commission does not accurately represent the "actual thing". She noted the architectural drawing depicts a brickscape cottage walk up to the front door. However, this is not what is being proposed. Member Kocan stated the Ordinance requires the applicant to submit the architectural rendering of the building façade elevations and within a typical cluster. She noted that she has not seen this. Ordinance requires the applicant submit all proposed elevations and a typical floor plan drawn to scale, which she did not recall seeing. She was not certain if discussion took place with the Planning Department regarding the front entry garages. However, she was not pleased with the amount of proposed concrete. She did not believed there was enough area to landscape in front of the houses.

Member Shroyer agreed with Member Kocan’s and Member Markham’s comments. He recalled Member Kocan’s comments at the previous meeting regarding the side entry garages. He noted that only five homes were changed to a front entry garage. He agreed the site had a sea of concrete and a lack of green space. He recalled Member Markham’s request for green space for children. He stated that although the gazebo and park area are nice, there is no active place for children to play. He recalled the Petitioner’s comments that the development is intended for empty nesters and not for children. However, he asked where the grandchildren would play when they are visiting their grandparents. He supported the idea of reducing the site to 29 units and utilizing the extra area for a recreational area.

Member Canup concurred with the comments regarding the density. However, he had a problem with the brick fence. The remainder of Beck Road has a green country look and he felt the brick fence was "sterile-looking". He did not support the use of a brick fence in lieu of a green berm particularly to the south. He stated the school owns the property to the north.

Mr. Coles explained the options. He noted a berm would wipe out all of the existing natural growth. The intent of the brick wall was to avoid wiping out the existing trees.

Member Canup felt it would be in conformity with what is existing to the south along Beck Road.

Member Coles stated that he is a tree lover and the decision for the brick wall was based on an effort to save the trees. In his experience, he found that front entry garages were not the best market for this type of development. He indicated there would be plenty of landscaping.

Member Canup recalled the Petitioner’s comment during the rezoning process, which was the intention to build single-family homes on single family lots. He noted his disappointment of the proposed Site Plan.

Chairperson Churella asked if the Petitioner was willing to remove Lot 30.

Mr. Coles answered yes.

Moved by Canup, LACK OF SUPPORT: In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to the limit of 29 units, subject to the brick wall as shown be removed and replaced with proper landscaping according to the Zoning Ordinance, subject to moving Lot 25 and Lot 26 north.

Ms. McGuire advised the Commission to require additional plantings between the wall and the street as opposed to removing the brick wall. She stated the wall is preserving a lot of the existing vegetation and larger trees.

Member Canup felt the Commission was overlooking the fact that Beck Road would be five lanes in the future. He felt the Commission should be planning for this.

Member Nagy stated if Beck Road were five lanes, then it might make more sense to have the brick wall and vegetation for sound purposes with regard to the traffic. She asked Ms. McClain to comment.

Ms. McClain stated the brick wall and vegetation would be more beneficial for blocking sound then a shorter berm with shorter non-mature vegetation. She stated it would take longer to establish the sound protection.

Member Nagy stated she could not support Member Canup’s motion.

Chairperson Churella felt the wall would be an asset if the community desired a gate in the future. He felt this would increase the value of the property. He suggested that the Petitioner determine which lot they would be willing to remove and the Commission make a motion if they agree with the Lot selected. The Petitioner could then go before the ZBA with the understanding that the selected lot would be removed if the ZBA made the interpretation of 29 lots. He asked the petitioner if he agreed.

Mr. Coles agreed. He suggested Unit 30 and the opportunity to go to the ZBA for an interpretation. He did not feel one unit would break a population count on the West Side of the City.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Markham, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, subject to the 29 units (causing the deletion of the Unit 30), moving of Unit 25 and Unit 26 north to allow the correct spacing between clusters, the brick wall can remain because the Planning Commission has determined that it would be beneficial to the property in lieu of the landscape berm, based on the findings that the Cluster Option has met the two requirements in Section 2403.1 the majority of the net site inclusive right-of-way is composed of lands that are within jurisdictions of the Woodlands Protection Ordinance, are within jurisdiction of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance or any combination of such lands, the parcel of land consists of unsubdivided area and the conventional approach to residential development would destroy the unique environmental significance of the site and the use of the Cluster Option is a desirable course of action to follow and that one of the following conditions is also found to exist, which is the majority (50%) of the net site area (exclusive of right-of-way) is composed of wetlands that are according to the Site Plan, and the Site Plan must clearly indicate (and it does) the method for assuring the permanence and maintenance of these area in their natural state, and the separation between the clusters in three cases is allowed to be deficient on the site because the natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical soil conditions limit a practical dimensional separation of clusters and subject to obtaining a City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the center line radius.

Chairperson Churella asked Mr. Fisher if the Petitioner’s option to go to the ZBA should be included in the motion.

Mr. Fisher clarified if the Commission was granting an approval for the 29 units and allowing the Petitioner to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the 30^th unit.

Member Richard stated this was the understanding.

Mr. Fisher stated if this is the understanding, then it should be included in the motion.

Member Nagy stated the Commission’s desire is 29-units.

Chairperson Churella noted the agreement was that if the Petitioner named a lot and the ZBA told him the petitioner he had to remove the lot then he would remove Lot 30.

Member Nagy stated that she did not hear the Petitioner agree to this. She asked the Petitioner if he agreed on the record.

Mr. Coles answered, yes.

Member Shroyer stated it needed to be included in the motion.

Chairperson Churella asked Mr. Fisher to assist with the verbiage.

Mr. Fisher stated the matter would go before the ZBA and if the ZBA approved it then Lot 30 would not be removed.

Member Richards clarified that it did not need to be said.

Chairperson Churella stated the motion should include the verbiage the approval is for 30 Lots subject if the ZBA does not approve it then there will be 29 lots and Lot 30 would be deleted.

Mr. Fisher agreed. However, he suggested that the verbiage state, subject to the 29 units with the understanding that if the Zoning Board of Appeals allows for 30 units then Lot 30 would be put back in".

Member Richards and Member Markham amended the motion.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Markham, FAILS (3-6): In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, subject to the 29 units (causing the deletion of the Unit 30) with the understanding that if the Zoning Board of Appeals allows for 30 units then Lot 30 would be put back in, moving of Unit 25 and Unit 26 north to allow the correct spacing between clusters, the brick wall can remain because the Planning Commission has determined that it would be beneficial to the property in lieu of the landscape berm, based on the findings that the Cluster Option has met the two requirements in Section 2403.1 the majority of the net site inclusive right-of-way is composed of lands that are within jurisdictions of the Woodlands Protection Ordinance, are within jurisdiction of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance or any combination of such lands, the parcel of land consists of unsubdivided area and the conventional approach to residential development would destroy the unique environmental significance of the site and the use of the Cluster Option is a desirable course of action to follow and that one of the following conditions is also found to exist, which is the majority (50%) of the net site area (exclusive of right-of-way) is composed of wetlands that are according to the Site Plan, and the Site Plan must clearly indicate (and it does) the method for assuring the permanence and maintenance of these area in their natural state, and the separation between the clusters in three cases is allowed to be deficient on the site because the natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical soil conditions limit a practical dimensional separation of clusters and subject to obtaining a City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the center line radius.

Member Paul asked if there was a concern as to which lot was to be removed.

Chairperson Churella indicated that it would be Lot 30.

Member Richards stated Lot 30 (backing up to Beck Road) is not as advantageous for selling when compared to a lot such as Lot 17. He stated people traditionally do not prefer to back up to a street.

Member Paul pointed out that Lot 1 and Lot 30 are the same.

Member Richards stated the removal of Lot 30 would allow the Petitioner the flexibility of spacing for the cluster. He noted the recommendation to move Lot 25 and Lot 26 north.

Mr. Evancoe recognized that Lot 30 would benefit the Developer and would serve their interest. However, he felt the removal of Lot 17 would provide a nice park and benefit the public with a lasting impact. He felt that very little benefit would accrue from the deletion of Lot 30. He described the plan as symmetrical as the entryway appears and the street dividing in half in a north and south direction. He felt the park appeared off-center and appeared odd. He suggested that the elimination of Lot 17 would create a larger, more useful and symmetrical designed park good for the long term.

Member Nagy agreed with Mr. Evancoe. She indicated that she would not be supporting the motion because she felt Lot 30 was the wrong lot to remove. She agreed that the removal of Lot 17 would provide the green space the commissioners were looking for.

Member Shroyer asked the Petitioner if there were any thoughts as to how the area would be developed if Lot 30 were removed. He suggested tennis courts or a community center.

Mr. Coles indicated the development is an adult community. He anticipated the residents would be going to Florida or Arizona in the winter. The Association would maintain the road and landscaping. He stressed that he had the knowledge of the market. He stressed that the goal is not to build parks, yet to build a community with open space area for residents to walk and talk to their neighbors. He requested that the Commission leave the Developer with the best units to sell. He suggested the removal of Unit 1 or Unit 30 to create a park area. He noted the preservation of the additional five acres at the northwest corner where there would be a meandering path for residents to walk. He described the wetland as a dry wetland for the residents to walk around. He calculated 22-acres of open space park area. He noted the overall site is 40-acres with a proposal of 30 units.

Chairperson Churella called for the vote.

Yes: Churella, Markham, Richards,

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

Mr. Fisher advised the Commission to make another motion.

Member Nagy noted her consideration of the removal of Lot 23 due to its location abutting the wetland and the lack of space. However, she agreed with the Commission’s preference of Lot 17.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Paul, FAILS (4-5): In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, subject to the 29 units (causing the deletion of the Unit 17) with the understanding that if the Zoning Board of Appeals allows for 30 units then Lot 17 would be put back in, moving of Unit 25 and Unit 26 north to allow the correct spacing between clusters, the brick wall can remain because the Planning Commission has determined that it would be beneficial to the property in lieu of the landscape berm, based on the findings that the Cluster Option has met the two requirements in Section 2403.1 the majority of the net site inclusive right-of-way is composed of lands that are within jurisdictions of the Woodlands Protection Ordinance, are within jurisdiction of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance or any combination of such lands, the parcel of land consists of unsubdivided area and the conventional approach to residential development would destroy the unique environmental significance of the site and the use of the Cluster Option is a desirable course of action to follow and that one of the following conditions is also found to exist, which is the majority (50%) of the net site area (exclusive of right-of-way) is composed of wetlands that are according to the Site Plan, and the Site Plan must clearly indicate (and it does) the method for assuring the permanence and maintenance of these area in their natural state, and the separation between the clusters in three cases is allowed to be deficient on the site because the natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical soil conditions limit a practical dimensional separation of clusters and subject to obtaining a City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the center line radius.

Yes: Markham, Nagy, Paul, Shroyer

No: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Richards, Ruyle

Member Shroyer stated that his primary interest was to have 29 units. Therefore, he suggested not designated a lot for removal.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Paul, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, subject to the 29 units (causing the deletion of one lot) with the understanding that if the Zoning Board of Appeals allows for 30 units then the deleted Lot would be put back in, moving of Unit 25 and Unit 26 north to allow the correct spacing between clusters, the brick wall can remain because the Planning Commission has determined that it would be beneficial to the property in lieu of the landscape berm, based on the findings that the Cluster Option has met the two requirements in Section 2403.1 the majority of the net site inclusive right-of-way is composed of lands that are within jurisdictions of the Woodlands Protection Ordinance, are within jurisdiction of the Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance or any combination of such lands, the parcel of land consists of unsubdivided area and the conventional approach to residential development would destroy the unique environmental significance of the site and the use of the Cluster Option is a desirable course of action to follow and that one of the following conditions is also found to exist, which is the majority (50%) of the net site area (exclusive of right-of-way) is composed of wetlands that are according to the Site Plan, and the Site Plan must clearly indicate (and it does) the method for assuring the permanence and maintenance of these area in their natural state, and the separation between the clusters in three cases is allowed to be deficient on the site because the natural amenity would be destroyed or topographical soil conditions limit a practical dimensional separation of clusters and subject to obtaining a City Council Design and Construction Waiver for the center line radius.

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

No: Canup, Kocan

Mr. Coles noted the interim policy that was adopted for road design for general condominium develops, which allows a one-hundred (100) foot centerline radius. He asked if he had to go before the City Council since the policy was adopted.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that with the adoption of the interim policy the new standards were set. He noted that it still needed to be turned into Ordinance language.

Mr. Coles asked if there was a timeframe.

Ms. McBeth interjected and indicated that there is a nine-month limitation on the interim policy.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Consideration of the request of John Fallone for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 9 on the northeast corner of Magellan and Humbolt Drive in the Beck West Corporate Park in the I-2 (Light Industrial) District. The developer is proposing a shop/warehouse with an office. The subject property is 2.84 acres.

Member Ruyle asked if the Commission could skip the presentation and approve the Site Plan.

Member Markham stated the presentation is important for the public.

Ms. Golke introduced the Preliminary Site Plan for an office/shop building approximately 37,550 square feet. The building user has not been identified at this time. The Master Plan for Land Use indicates the property to the north, east, and south as heavy industrial. The property to the west is Master Planned light industrial. The proposed property is zoned for I-2 (General Industrial District). The surrounding property to the north, south and east are also zoned I-2 (General Industrial District). The property to the west is zoned I-1 (Light Industrial District). The proposed property and the property to the north and south are currently undeveloped. The property to the east is occupied by Owens Corning Headquarters and to the west Dantom Systems Inc. The Site Plan meets planning, engineering, traffic, fire and façade requirements. She noted that the Site Plan would meet the landscape requirements. She noted the background. The applicant first came in with an access drive going over in the southeast corner, which did not meet the Fire Department requirements. The Staff worked with the Applicant and resolved the matter with access drive to the north.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Fallone Brothers SP02-11 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for a shop warehouse with an office located in Section 9 on the northwest corner of Magellan and Humbolt Drive in the Beck West Corporate Park subject to the comments and conditions of the Consultants and Staff

Member Kocan referred to the sample board. She clarified that the glass would not be blue.

Petitioner stated the glass would not be blue and the coloring in the rendering was a reflection of the sky.

Member Kocan asked the color of the window frame.

Petitioner answered, bronze.

Member Kocan asked the color of the window color.

Petitioner answered it would be a smoked color or a bronze tint. He indicated that it has not been selected at this time. He guaranteed her that the glass would not be blue.

Member Kocan noted the requested by the consultants to relocate the transformer.

Petitioner agreed. He noted the reasoning because it is located too close to the sedimentation basin.

Member Kocan questioned if it was necessary to make it clear in the motion that the proposed is a speculative building. She described the proposed as a nice development in a beautiful corporate park.

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

No: None

(Referral from City Council)

Ms. McBeth stated the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to explore alternatives for increased beautification along major thoroughfares. She noted that Councilmember Capello initiated the requests. The three issues were the focus of the discussion with Councilmember Capello. 1) Increased area set aside at major street intersections for amenities and beautification; 2) Larger greenbelts along major roadways, especially in the residential areas; 3) The application of the similar/dissimilar Ordinance to the rear of residential buildings especially along major thoroughfares. The Implementation Committee discussed the matter briefly and also planned to discuss it further at the next Implementation Committee meeting. She asked the Commission for input on the matter.

Member Kocan asked if there was information regarding the area on Ford Road in Westland that Councilmember Capello was referring to.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that Councilmember Capello was not certain of the exact location of the area. However, he stated the staff has an understanding of what Councilmember Capello was seeking.

Chairperson Churella stated the matter would be sent to the Implementation Committee for more input and then proceed from that point.

Member Markham commented on the application of the similar/dissimilar Ordinance to the rear of residential buildings especially along major thoroughfares. She requested that consideration also be given to developments that are not residential. She noted the back of West Oaks along Twelve Mile Road, which she did not find attractive. She felt something should be done with the landscaping if the backside of a building is to be located on a major thoroughfare.

Chairperson Churella agreed.

Member Markham suggested having the Planning Department gather information from other communities that working on beautification projects of their roadways or intersections.

Member Paul agreed that the residential areas were important. However she felt the areas that abut the major thoroughfares OST, Light Industrial etc…and determine the long-term liability of that site. Member Paul agreed with the indicated that she obtained and submitted the Ordinance that Hamburg Michigan used to implemented the greenbelt. She felt the Commission should consider using this as a guide as opposed to "re-inventing the wheel". She noted the Roso Ordinance of Carmel Indiana is available for the Commission to review with regard to park space. She identified areas that she found necessary for amenities and beautification. 1) Twelve Mile Road - because that Farmington has a lush quarter of greenspace and trees that stops at the Border of Farmington and Novi. 2) Eight Mile Road - Northville Border. She felt there was enough paperwork "in the works" to bring the matter to the Implementation Committee more quickly.

Chairperson Churella suggested creating a committee to gather information and present it to the Implementation Committee.

Member Paul suggested making the matter part of the Environmental Committee because it is related to beautification.

Member Nagy pointed out that irrigation was a problem with Twelve Mile Road.

Chairperson Churella noted that the irrigation is now in place.

Member Nagy agreed. However, she suggested that Novi explore the possibility of a grant as Farmington did.

Chairperson Churella agreed.

Ms. McGuire noted that the T21 Grant allows for beautification along roads, which many communities apply for.

Member Nagy felt Novi made a mistake by not submitting an application for this grant. She suggested sending the matter to the Environmental Committee.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the matter of Strategies For Beautification of Major Thoroughfares and Intersections to the Environmental Committee who will take it to the Implementation Committee.

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

No: None

Member Kocan asked Mr. Fisher to restate his comments regarding the hypothetical situation of a four-person committee having a fifth Planning Commissioner show up at the meeting.

Mr. Fisher stated a formally created committee is a public body that should be in open session.

Chairperson Churella clarified that there could be an executive meeting with five commissioners present.

Mr. Fisher stated it would need to be noticed as meeting.

Chairperson Churella indicated that public notice is given for the meetings.

Member Nagy asked how these comments were related to the motion.

Chairperson Churella indicated that the motion was already voted on.

Mr. Fisher stated the cases in the Open Meetings Act continue to reiterate the purpose to make government open. He noted his support to have an open meeting.

Member Shroyer clarified that it would not be a violation to have an open meeting with four commissioners attending and a fifth commissioner in the audience. Therefore, it was not necessary for him to leave the Master Planning & Zoning Committee.

Mr. Fisher stated if it is noticed as a meeting then it is okay.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that all Committee meetings are publicly noticed.

Member Kocan made corrections to the minutes.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Regular Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 6, 2002 as amended.

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

No: None

Member Kocan made correction to the minutes.

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

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

No: None

Member Paul noted she recently attended a Planning Conference, which raised the importance of having legal verbiage stating that all city employees, ZBA, Council, Commissions permission to walk that site. She stated the verbiage only needed to be one or two sentences in the Site Plan Documents. It would not necessarily be the "owner" of the site because often the person bringing in the site plan is not the owner of the property yet.

Member Canup indicated that he previously served on the Zoning Board of Appeals. He recalled verbiage indicating an application to the City for a change (or something of that nature) automatically gives City Officials the legal privilege to go onto the property.

Member Paul stated that when she inquired about the matter, that was not the case. She deferred the matter to Mr. Fisher.

Mr. Fisher stated it would not hurt to have the verbiage in the application to give the applicant notice. He recommended that the application state, "making this application automatically does give the permission unless you specifically say no". However, Mr. Fisher indicated the applicant’s right to say "no".

Member Canup suggested having a box for the applicant to check indicating that they are granting their approval of permission to enter the site.

Mr. Fisher stated the application could state that the permission is automatically granted unless the applicant makes an issue of it.

Member Canup was certain the verbiage was included in the Ordinance.

Member Kocan stated the ZBA Members were given name tags to identify themselves when entering on the site. She stated that she still does not have her Planning Commissioner name tag.

Chairperson Churella requested the Planning Department to order a Planning Commissioner tag for Member Kocan.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the City does not place an expectation on the commissioners to walk the sites. He warned the commissioners that they risk the possibility of getting bit by a dog, articles of clothing ruined, broken ankles, etc… By entering into this new arrangement, he stressed to the commissioners that the City does not deem site walks as an expectation of the commissioners.

Member Nagy indicated that the commissioners enjoy going onto the sites because it gives a better visual as opposed to a photograph.

Mr. Evancoe agreed that it could be helpful. He recalled unfortunate incidents he witnessed in his past position where the person granting permission may not be the one present on the site upon the commissioner’s arrival. The people that are present on the site may not agree with what somebody else signed off on.

Member Nagy understood his point. However, she felt the name badge would clarify these matters.

Ms. McGuire pointed out that the Woodland Ordinance has a clause for property inspection. It states, "The City, its Officials, Agents and Employees may make reasonable entry upon any lands and waters that within the City for the purpose of enforcement of this Chapter or conduct any investigations, survey, study contemplated by this Chapter."

Chairperson Churella noted that 95% of the sites have some type of woodlands.

Member Kocan thanked the Planning Staff for the excellent presentations. She stated she was pleased with the packets and presentations.

The Commission agreed with Member Kocan’s comments.

None

None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:35 p.m.

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

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

June 5, 2002

Date Approved: June 19, 2002