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

PRESENT: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Paul (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay

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

Member Kocan indicated the Section 2402.3 of the Open Space Ordinance requires approval of a Conceptual Development Plan prior to Preliminary Site Plan. The Conceptual Development Plan needs a recommendation from the Planning Commission to go to the City Council and then the matter would return to the Commission for Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Therefore, she amended the agenda to reflect her comments: Asbury Park Estates SP01-82 requests a recommendation to City Council for a Conceptual Development Plan.

Chairperson Nagy restated that the Conceptual Plan would forward to the City Council and then return to the Commission for a Public Hearing of the Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit. She asked Mr. Fisher if this is correct.

City Attorney Gerald Fisher agreed. The Developer might address the Commission in terms of the scope of the presentation, which would be made at the time the item is called forward.

Chairperson Nagy assumed the presentation would be limited.

Mr. Fisher assumed the Developer would like to address the issue, however, he questioned if it is appropriate to address the issue at this time or at the time the item is called forward.

Chairperson Nagy stated if it is okay with Public Hearing Item No.1, KM Investments SP02-34, then Asbury Park Estates could make their comments at this time.

Member Kocan clarified is she was suggesting moving Asbury Park Estates SP01-82 as Public Hearing Item No.1 and place KM Investments SP02-34 as Public Hearing Item No. 2.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes.

Member Kocan opposed. She stated the City Attorney could address the matter at the time of the presentation.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Avdoulos, CARRIED (7-1): To approve the agenda as amended with the verbiage correction to Asbury Park Estates SP01-82 to indicate the request for a recommendation to City Council for a Conceptual Development Plan.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Shroyer, Sprague

No: Ruyle

None

None

Member Kocan commented on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee and the items that were approved and those that were not approved. She requested the City Staff give the Commission a presentation on the budget with regard to items that were proposed and what items were approved. She particularly noted that the Capital Improvement Program did not incorporate the Commission’s changes. In her research, she did not find any City Council minutes indicating changing the Commission’s changes back to the originally proposal of the Capital Improvement Committee. She felt it would be beneficial for the commissioners to have the knowledge of the budget and what items were approved. She suggested inviting Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy to aid with the presentation.

None

None

Public Hearing on the request of Brad Klintworth for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 4, north of West Road and east of Beck Road in the Beck North Corporate Park. The developer is proposing a 29,000 square foot light industrial building in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.80 acres

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Member Ruyle asked if a representative from the Detroit News is present.

Brad Klintworth answered, no.

Member Ruyle asked if the anticipated peak traffic times were 4:00 am or 5:00 am on the weekdays or the weekends.

Nancy McClain, City Engineer indicated the Detroit News submitted a letter to the Commission.

Mr. Klintworth anticipated that the truck would deliver newspapers around two or three o’clock in the morning. Typically the carriers are present at that time to wrap and deliver the newspapers.

Member Ruyle asked at what time the carriers would vacate the property.

Mr. Klintworth stated the carriers would typically vacate within fifteen to twenty minutes after the delivery.

Member Ruyle expressed his concern with the waivers for the driveway setbacks. He verified that the driveways would not be used during normal business hours.

Mr. Klintworth answered, correct. The driveway issues were originally agreed upon, however, the second plan addresses the recommended one-way driveway. He agreed that when the Detroit News’ fifteen-year commitment expires, there could be other uses. In regard to the second delivery, he indicated that it is approximately two o’clock in the afternoon, however it is smaller than the Free Press delivery.

Member Ruyle asked him to elaborate on the weekend schedule.

Mr. Klintworth stated the weekend hours would encompass a morning delivery for both the Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press, which would be approximately 2:00 am.

Member Sprague asked why a large building is necessary if it is used so little.

Mr. Klintworth indicated the location is a Regional Distribution Facility, which requires storage racks and other items involved in the process. For example, approximately ten thousand (10,000) square feet is used to store the carts that the newspapers are carried on. There is also an office for the Regional Collections and the Regional Manager. There are currently seventy-one (71) carriers in the Novi area requiring the space to organize the papers for distribution. For example, the carriers need benches to insert and assemble the coupons and different sections of the newspaper, which are from different locations.

Member Sprague asked if the inserts are delivered at various times throughout the day.

Mr. Klintworth stated the inserts are delivered on the same truck.

Member Sprague clarified that the assembly is completed within the same fifteen to twenty minute timeframe.

Mr. Klintworth answered, yes.

Member Sprague asked if the building would remain empty most of the time or if it would be filled with empty racks.

Mr. Klintworth stated fifty percent (50%) of the building is empty most of the time, however, the office functions during normal business hours.

Member Papp asked how many office staff occupy the building.

Mr. Klintworth indicated there is a Regional Manager, Assistant to the Regional Manager, three District Collections employees and their assistant.

Member Kocan noted the recommendation to remove six (6) parking spaces and save nine (9) trees, however, there is also a recommendation from the Traffic Engineer for a secondary access. She stated the access is for a potential future development and not the proposed development. She asked if the Ordinance requires all developments to have secondary access to the north and south or east and west. She asked if the Commission should require a second secondary access or if landbanking is an option.

Lauren McGuire, Landscape Architect stated the access is adequate. The third access is to help the unit to the south. The access located at the north is a result of the Traffic Consultant’s determination that there would potentially not be enough space to develop two driveways on the lot. Many of Mr. Klintworth’s developments have two lots because the lots are not very large. There is potential for the development of a single lot because no plans have been submitted or reviewed for the other lot. She stated Mr. Klintworth has agreed to provide an access agreement for the other lot, however, the question remains: whether or not "something" should be put in place in anticipation for "something" that might or might not take place. If a developer bought two lots for the property to the north, then it is likely that there would not be a need for the access.

Member Kocan stated the potential north lot could also have a secondary access to the north of the lot being discussed.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Kocan stated the potential future development to the north might not be wide enough for two driveways and likewise the proposed development is technically not wide enough for two driveways.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the proposed is a two-lot development. Therefore, half of the proposed site is the approximate size of the lot located to the north, which is Lot 27.

Mr. Klintworth indicated it is one hundred eighty (180) feet wide.

Member Kocan felt this future need should be taken into consideration; however, she did not want to tear up the trees at this point.

Ms. McGuire agreed.

Ms. McClain recommended the provision of an access agreement across that space and a construction easement so that when the lot to the north came in they would provide the construction across there. In the mean time, the trees would be in place and if the access were needed, then it would be available. If it were not needed, then it would remain wooded.

Member Kocan asked if another location along the north property line would allow for the secondary access without going through the trees. She indicated that the development could lose six (6) parking spaces and still have adequate parking. If the six (6) parking spaces are removed and the trees remain then there might not be room for a secondary access. She asked if it is necessary to have two drives. She noted that two Planning Commission waivers are required for the opposite-side and one for the same-side.

Ms. McClain indicated that individually the two original empty lots would not allow for the northern lot to have a place for a drive without requiring a Driveway Spacing Waiver. In the proposed case, the drive was placed as far to the north as it could be placed on the north lot and it still requires a Driveway Spacing Waiver from the Peary Court site. The southern lot only allows for a drive directly across from Hudson, however, the placement of the Suntec Drive to the south might still require a Spacing Waiver. Therefore, she stated it was not possible to develop the lots without a waiver. In discussions with the Traffic Consultant and Mr. Klintworth, it was determined to provide a left-turn-in-only on the southern drive, which Mr. Klintworth agreed to. This option would provide the best route for the trucks’ turning radius. If the trucks were moved back to the northern side of the building, it would not provide adequate maneuvering space.

Member Kocan asked if there are driveway encroachments.

Mr. Klintworth indicated a driveway encroachment to the north on Unit 27, which is owned by Northern Equities. He stated a letter has been obtained regarding the encroachment. The southern driveway no longer encroaches as shown on the Site Plan submitted in the Commissioners’ packets. It is one way; the radius is reduced and falls at the property line. The southern driveway, from the northbound direction, is also "No Right Turn". The southern driveway would only be a left-hand-turn in, which eliminates the need for a wavier from Peary Court.

Ms. McClain indicated the "In Only" drive eliminates the possibility of interlock. Technically, there is still a requirement for a spacing waiver; however, there is not a problem with interlock.

Member Kocan clarified that the Planning Commission Waivers are still necessary.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Kocan noted her appreciation of the Petitioner’s letters in response to the Consultant’s and Staff comments. It aids the Commission in understanding the Petitioner’s willingness and/or ability to meet the requirements or accommodate the suggestions. Additionally, it has indicated his compliance with the Façade Ordinance. She asked if the comments regarding the preservation of additional Woodlands refer only to the parking area located at the northwest corner of the site, which is the location of the potential secondary access.

Ms. McGuire indicated that consideration is being given to the area to the west of the building; however, there is a dramatic grade change from the parking lot down into that area. Therefore, it would require additional retaining walls around the perimeter and possibly a drain to prevent the holding of water, which would drown the trees. She indicated Mr. Klintworth has agreed to explore these options with the Staff.

Member Kocan asked if the Applicant agreed to provide the 36-inch berm located at the north and south.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Kocan asked for suggestions regarding the secondary access. She asked if landbanking should be required.

Ms. McGuire did not feel landbanking was appropriate. Instead she suggested the removal of the parking spaces with the provision that the Applicant provides the construction and access easement.

Member Kocan looked to the other commissioners for additional suggestions regarding the Driveway Spacing. She stated the 2:00pm timeframe could become a problem, however, the "One way in" and the "two way out" might resolve some of the interlock problems.

Mr. Klintworth stated Unit 21 is backed into a corner because it is not possible to make it work. He stated after three hours of working on possible driveway scenarios he found it impossible. He felt Peary Court and Ryan Court should have lined up instead of off set. In wanting to accommodate the preservation of the trees and grant the construction and easement on the back section he proposed connecting the curb down. There are two large trees in that area, which the driveway would be pulled away from. The whole area would be an easement that the possible future development to the north could utilize if necessary.

Member Kocan recalled the mention of a possible future addition to the proposed building. Although it is not being reviewed this evening, she asked if this was the reason for the space at the end of the building.

Mr. Klintworth answered, yes. He indicated the possibility of seven thousand (7000) square feet that could be developed. He noted the three trees, however, he was not certain how the construction activities would effect the trees due to their condition.

Ms. McGuire indicated that more than three trees are in the area along with understory, which should be preserved. Although the trees along the perimeter cannot be saved (due to the grade difference and their closeness to the parking lot), she stated it would be worth it if the three trees in the center and the entire understory around it could be preserved.

Member Markham did not have a problem with the waivers required for the driveways due to the configuration of the lot. She did not support the idea of "one way in" and "one way out", which she described as a "pork chop". Unless this measure is necessary for high volume traffic, she did not prefer this type of restriction. Furthermore, if that location is the best route for the trucks to enter the site then they will enter there regardless of a restriction. Therefore, she did not support the additional restriction to the south end of the development. She noted that there might be different tenants in the future. She commented on the preservation of the trees between the building and the driveway. She noted her concern with the drainage and the possible situation of dead trees. If the trees will likely die, then she preferred to deal with the situation with landscaping, however if the trees can be saved, then she supported the preservation.

Ms. McGuire voiced her effort to save the trees. She suggested placing a culvert under the road because the grade falls off from that point. This would remove the water from that area.

Member Markham was pleased to find that a driveway would not be placed to the north for a development that does not exist. She noted the numerous subdivisions in the community with stub streets that do not match up with the adjacent development. She preferred an easement in the future if deemed necessary.

Member Sprague asked Ms. McGuire to explain the process for working with the Developer to provide the retaining wall and culvert.

Ms. McGuire explained that at this point the engineering and grading is preliminary, however, when the detailed grading is submitted, then feasibility could be determined. A change in the grade around the trees can not be greater than six-inches without the trees dying in three to four years.

Member Sprague asked if the Tree No. 40 referred to in the review letter, as one of the three trees proposed to be saved, is the same Tree No. 40 that is also referred to as being removed.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the Landscape Plan shows the tree as being preserved and the Woodland Plan the tree is shown as being removed. She indicated the tree would be reviewed further.

Member Sprague felt it appeared that all the developments in this area seem to require waivers for their driveways. He requested the Staff to present an overall picture to the Commission for the future developments in the area.

Member Avdoulos concurred with the comments of the other commissioners. He liked the idea of curving the road for the access road to the north. He recommended that the curb swing toward the east as opposed to a "straight-shot", removing three parking spaces to create a twenty-five (25) foot wide access and accommodate as much of the Woodlands as possible. He did not support making provisions for an anticipated future development. He realized the hardship created by the layout of the lots and the road is not the applicant’s fault. He noted his support of the proposed project.

Chairperson Nagy stated the Applicant and the Staff worked well together to accommodate the Ordinance. She realized the waivers were necessary due to the layout of the roads. She asked Ms. McClain to comment on Member Markham’s comments regarding the one way in and one way out proposal.

Ms. McClain stated the Original Site Plan proposed a two-way drive. Initially the proposal seemed okay, however, further review by the Traffic Consultant determined it would be best to have it designed as one way. At one point, consideration was giving to eliminate the drive, however, this option did not work for the traffic on site or the Fire Department access. There will not be a triangular island and instead it will have a small radius on the north side. Currently, there are not a lot of traffic patterns available because the area is growing. She anticipated that there would be a connection through to Wixom at some point in the future. At that time if a request change is requested an evaluation could be made based on where traffic is currently going in the development.

Chairperson Nagy assumed the layout would be conducive to any future change.

Ms. McClain stated it does not preclude any future changes.

Chairperson Nagy entertained a motion.

Member Kocan noted her preference to have one-way signage and minor modification of the entryway to make it one way, however, she did not want these preferences to defeat the motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of KM Investments SP02-34 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Planning Commission Waiver of minimum same-side Driveway Spacing Standards for the south driveway, Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side Driveway Spacing Standard for the south driveway, Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side Driveway Spacing Standard for the north driveway, subject to modification of the Final Site Plan to preserve additional woodlands on the west side of the site, subject to modification of the Final Site Plan to include a 36-inch tall berm on the north and south ends of the site to screen the parking lot along the right-of-way, subject to providing signage and making the south driveway one way into the site, subject to the Developer obtaining the written consent of the adjoining property owners to allow driveway encroachment (which the Applicant stated he already possesses), subject to the removal of the six parking spaces with the Applicant providing construction easement and cross easement access and subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Mr. Fisher amended the motion to include that the documents should be provided upon Final Site Plan Approval and before Building Permits.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of KM Investments SP02-34 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Planning Commission Waiver of minimum same-side Driveway Spacing Standards for the south driveway, Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side Driveway Spacing Standard for the south driveway, Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side Driveway Spacing Standard for the north driveway, subject to modification of the Final Site Plan to preserve additional woodlands on the west side of the site, subject to modification of the Final Site Plan to include a 36-inch tall berm on the north and south ends of the site to screen the parking lot along the right-of-way, subject to providing signage and making the south driveway one way into the site, subject to the Developer obtaining the written consent of the adjoining property owners to allow driveway encroachment (which the Applicant stated he already possesses), subject to the removal of the six parking spaces with the Applicant providing construction easement and cross easement access, subject to all documents being recorded upon Final Site Plan Approval and before Building Permits and subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Member Ruyle asked if it is necessary to restrict the number of parking spaces to seventy-five (75).

Chairperson Nagy indicated that it is part of the motion. She explained the removal of the six (6) spaces from the proposed eighty-one (81) spaces is seventy-five (75) parking spaces.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Joe Rokicsak for a recommendation to City Council for a Conceptual Development Plan. The subject property is located in Section 16 on the north side Eleven Mile Road between Taft and Beck Roads. The developer proposes a 45-unit condominium under the Open Space Option in the R-1 (One Family Residential) District. The subject property is 53.78 acres.

Chairperson Nagy called the applicant forward to address the Commission.

Matt Quinn represented Asbury Park Estates. The Developer requested the Commission to amend the agenda again to consider a dual approval of the Conceptual Development Plan, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit. The Developer acknowledges that it is for his benefit that he hear input from both the City Council and the Planning Commission, however, they believe the plan is in a position to move forward on a parallel since the Consultant’s and Staff completed their reviews. He requested that Commission make this consideration. He stated there is no prejudice to the public because it has been properly noticed for all of the Public Hearings. He felt the Commission comments on the Preliminary Site Plan and the Conceptual Development Plan would be the same. He stated the Site Plan could be approved contingent upon the City Council approving the Conceptual Site Plan.

Chairperson Nagy stated the agenda has already been amended. She asked Mr. Fisher to direct the Commission as to how it should proceed.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney confirmed that the agenda was amended, however, the petitioner is requesting the Commission to vote on another motion allowing full consideration of both the Conceptual and the Preliminary Site Plan. He indicated that the decision is at the Planning Commission’s discretion.

Chairperson Nagy asked the Commission to comment.

Member Kocan indicated that there are a number of concerns and questions as to whether or not the development complies with the Open Space Ordinance, which the Commission needs to consider prior to the review of the Preliminary Site Plan. Therefore, she found considerable discussion a necessity prior to sending the matter forward to Council. She did not support sending a Preliminary Site Plan Approval contingent upon the City Council approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. She noted her appreciation of the developer’s time and effort put into the Site Plan. She felt it should first be determined whether or not the site complies with the Open Space Ordinance prior to any further steps in the process.

Member Markham stated the development is complex and she commended the Staff and the Developer on the time spent to comply with the ordinance. She wanted to have the commissioner’s comments on record and hear the comments from the public, however, she agreed with Member Kocan in that she is not prepared to make a decision tonight. She asked how to proceed to satisfy the needs of the Commission and the Applicant to the greatest extent possible.

Mr. Fisher stated the first issue is whether or not the Commission is entertaining a recommendation of the conceptual plan. The second issues involve the scope of the presentation that the Commission will permit. The Commission could allow the Petitioner to make a presentation beyond the typical conceptual presentation, which would allow for a fuller public input. He recapped that it is at the discretion of the Commission to determine what will be considered at this meeting and the scope of the hearing. In any event, the matter is a public hearing.

Chairperson Nagy noted that to her understanding the matter was removed from the public hearing and that it is a conceptual plan.

Mr. Fisher stated Section 2402 of the Ordinance, which provides the approval of the Conceptual plan is a public hearing. Since the matter has already been noticed as a public hearing, he found the critical decision deserving a public hearing.

Chairperson Nagy stated the agenda was amended to follow the process per the Ordinance. First the Commission reviews the Conceptual plan and sends a positive or negative recommendation to the City Council, after the matter is before the City Council it returns to the Commission for the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit. She requested the Applicant to address the conceptual plan. She did not find great detail necessary, however, she found it appropriate for the applicant to have the ability to address the concept of their Conceptual plan. She requested that the scope of the presentation not go beyond the conceptual details. Therefore, the presentation should not include woodlands or wetlands information.

Member Markham asked if a second public hearing would be held for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes.

Mr. Fisher agreed. He advised that the public hearing would also include Woodlands/Wetland Permit.

Member Markham presumed the public hearing for the Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit would be held at the same meeting.

Chairperson Nagy and Mr. Fisher agreed.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the Commission had any objection to her comments.

Member Sprague asked the timeframe involved for the matter to return to the Commission for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Chairperson Nagy indicated the matter would first need to go before the City Council. She anticipated the matter would not return to the Commission until September.

Member Avdoulos noted the vast amount of work involved. He did not want to create any hardship for the Applicant; however, he found it appropriate to follow the correct process.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the Commission were to assume that the Conceptual plan is the plan before the Commission as opposed to the blueprint drawings. She asked if the conceptual plan is acceptable for the Commission and the City Council without the blueprints.

Mr. Fisher stated the Conceptual plan only needs the amount of detail necessary to satisfy the criteria for meeting a conceptual approval. In this situation there is additional criteria that relates to some of the natural features, however, more detail has been prepared.

Ms. McGuire explained the plans are detailed due to the sensitivity of the environmental issues. It was difficult to support the site plan conceptually if the issues were not addressed. The Staff requested more detail on the plan to allow a substantiated determination of the woodlands and wetlands that could be preserved and the feasibility of the development.

Chairperson Nagy recalled the issues with trucks going out to work on the site prior to having authorization.

Ms. McGuire stated the Applicant followed the proper procedures to move soil onto the site. A permit was issued by the Building Department for engineered fill. Building Official, Don Saven visited the site as the soil was being moved to ensure it was substantially engineered fill. Mr. Saven observed asphalt and ordered a stop on the work, which the applicant complied with. She noted the activity took place at the southwest corner of the site. No further movement of soil has taken place since that event.

Chairperson Nagy permitted the applicant to give a conceptual overview of the Site Plan. She asked if the Commission agreed with her comments.

Member Markham referenced Section 2401 subsection 3 of the Ordinance, which states that the applicant must submit a bonafide plan depicting the use of the property as a conventional sub or site condominium. She asked if the verbiage applied only to the Preservation Option.

Mr. Fisher indicated it is a different section. The applicant is relying on Section 2402.

Member Markham clarified that the Applicant is not required to submit an alternative plan that is conventional.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct.

Chairperson Nagy referenced the Ordinance, which states, "The review of a conceptual development plan shall be made by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council". She entertained a motion.

Member Shroyer noted that to his understanding, the Commission amended the agenda to allow the applicant to give a presentation of the conceptual plan. Therefore, he found a motion appropriate only if the Commission decided to take another action.

Chairperson Nagy agreed, however since the applicant made a request for reconsideration to the Commission she found it appropriate for the Commission to respond to the applicant as to whether or not the amended agenda would be followed or his request granted. She asked Mr. Quinn if he agreed.

Mr. Quinn agreed.

Chairperson Nagy entertained a motion.

Member Kocan felt the Applicant needed to make a presentation to quantify and qualify the open space areas. Due to the amount of detail needed, she supported allowing the Chair to discern the point at which the discussion becomes too detailed.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Markham, CARRIED (6-2): To confirm the agenda as amended.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Sprague

No: Ruyle, Shroyer

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Joseph Rokicsak for a recommendation to City Council on the conceptual development plan for 45 condominiums to be reviewed under the Subdivision Open Space Option of the Zoning Ordinance. The parcel is located on the north side of Eleven Mile Road between Taft and Beck Roads in Section 16 of the City. The subject property contains 53.78 acres. The site is outlined in blue on the displayed aerial photo. To the west of the site are single-family homes and the Central Park Estates multiple family development fronting on Beck Road. To the east are single-family homes fronting on Eleven Mile Road and vacant Industrial land. To the south are single family homes fronting on Eleven Mile Road and homes in the Lochmoor Village, Abbey Hills Condominiums, and Waldon Woods Subdivisions. To the north are industrial developments with access from Grand River and vacant land. The Master Plan designation for the parcel is single family, as are the properties to the east. To the south, across Eleven Mile Road, the master plan designates these properties as neighborhood park and single family residential. To the northwest the master plan designates the properties for multiple family residential. To the north, the master plan designation is for office and light industrial uses. The site is zoned R-1, One Family Residential. To the south and east and southwest, the properties are zoned R-A, Residential Acreage. To the northwest the properties are zoned RM-1, Low density multiple family. To the north, the properties are zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The request of the petitioner is to develop a 45 unit detached condominium project reviewed under the Subdivision Open Space Option. The site plan does provide a loop road system connection to Eleven Mile Road with two cul-de-sacs leading off the main road. The majority of the middle part of the site is regulated wetlands and is according to the woodlands map is moderately to lightly wooded. A total of 45 homes are proposed, while the Subdivision Open Space ordinance would allow 57 units. The Subdivision Open Space option requires the Planning Commission to review and make a recommendation to City Council of a conceptual development plan. Because of a number of complicated issues with this site, including woodlands and wetlands covering large parts of the site, a concurrent review of the conceptual plan and the preliminary site plan were worked through with the applicant. During an extensive review of the layout of homes on the site, the review of the woodlands, wetlands and engineering issues, a detailed preliminary site plan has been prepared for review. She indicated that her presentation does not include the deficiencies of the preliminary site plan in detail because the request this evening is only for a recommendation to City Council for conceptual development plan. After the City Council approves or denies the Conceptual Development plan it is expected that the applicant will return to the Planning Commission for approval or denial of the preliminary site plan.

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Edward Vedro 46800 Eleven Mile Road stated, "I live next door to the proposed property. My only concern is the encroachment on the Wetlands. I believed the wetlands have a definite bearing on the state of my well and my neighbors' wells. I do not want to have any encroachment into it and I do not want to see any flooding coming out of the subdivision. I saw a plan before that shows at least three lots that are encroaching on the wetlands. I do not believe those lots should be allowed. I believe that you are putting my well and my neighbors’ wells into jeopardy. Thank you."

Will Siembor 46500 Eleven Mile Road stated, "We have two common boundaries with the proposed development. I have been in discussion with the developer for the past year since the development was conceptualized. I have been in that area for 17-years. I knew the property would be developed since Eleven Mile Road was paved and other subdivisions were developed. It is a very difficult piece of property to develop. I truly believed that the developers are sincere in trying to maintain the quality of the wetlands, woodlands and wildlife as well as make everyone happy at the City. I am in favor of the proposed project. I hope that the City Council and the Planning Commission could work with the developer to work all these things out. Thank you."

Fong Chow, resides in Lockmoor Village stated, "I am concerned about the traffic. Right now there is a 30mph zone in that area. How much will the traffic be increased with this development? The Parkview School is located there also. It seems to me that the new exit would be facing the exit of my subdivision. Will the City place a traffic light here?"

Jannis War 47190 Eleven Mile Road stated, "What is the price of the condos? I want to more or less keep the control of the traffic down and keep the speed limit low. It would like the speed limit to be kept around 30mph."

Mr. Quinn indicated it would be approximately between six hundred and nine hundred thousand.

Mike Wing 47215 Eleven Mile Road wrote, "The area aesthetics has been maintained with the other single family homes to allow condos with open spaces as options and allowing encroachment into wetlands and woodlands is unacceptable. They bought the land, knew what they had and need to deal with it as per existing standards."

Diana and John Skrobe, 25911 Abbey Drive, wrote, "Yes. It is better than low housing and apartments."

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

Brian Devlin of Construction Management presented the conceptual plan to the Commission. Essentially there are 45-lots at 19,600 square foot minimum with 110-foot minimum width. The entry is from the east and west with the circular road going around the entire development. A major wetland is located in the central portion of the site, which measures approximately 18-acres. Approximately ¾-acre of the wetlands would be disturbed with the road on the east side of the site and 1 1/3–acre will be filled, which is a 1.79:1 ratio. The woodland portion of the site coincides with the major wetland and is a major wooded upland on the east portion of the site and the southwest portion of the site. According to the Ordinance the active areas of open space should be provided equivalent to what is gained with the reduction of lot sizes. He indicated that the proposed conceptual plan provides 5-acres as compared to the requirement of 4-acres. The open space areas are located at the southwest corner, along the south property line and on the east adjacent to Asbury Park Circle. Due to the central wetland, he indicated it is difficult to provide the open space where it meets the majority of lots, however, the intent of the ordinance is met. He stated over 50% of the lots abut open space. The active area is concentrated on the south property line with a playground and fitness stations. There is also a trail located at the southwest portion and passive open space area is located on Asbury Park Circle. There are numerous open spaces area throughout the site. The storm water runoff will be sent through two sedimentation basins, which are included with the open space on the south portion. He noted the attempt to provide micro pools at the northern portion of the site for runoff to go between lots. It would provide many lower runoff flows so that the flow is not concentrated in any one area. The overall increase in water elevation to the existing wetland is less than 6-inches for 100-year storm. He did not feel the storm water would impact the quality of the wetland or the adjacent area. He stated the geometrically for the west entry have been worked out. Based on Consultant review, the best location is across from the Lochmoor Village entry. Replacement trees are provided. He noted an agreement with the industrial neighbor to the north for the provision of a ten-foot berm on their property. He explained that due to the wetland and the road, it is not feasible to provide the required berm on the Asbury property.

Member Markham asked Ms. McClain for an assessment of the proposed micro pool drainage concept because it has not been used in the City in the past.

Ms. McClain indicated the City has not used the micro pool system in the past, however it has been used successfully in other areas. It would allow the drainage to be moved to the wetland in smaller volumes. The wetland is serving as the detention basin because the drainage already flows there due to the lay of the land. She deferred the matter to Aimee Kay of JCK to comment on the environmental impacts.

Member Markham stated it is not necessary to have details because she is only looking for feedback as to whether or not Ms. McClain supported the concept for this development and other future developments.

Ms. McClain stated it makes sense for the proposed development. The use of the concept in the proposed development would determine whether or not it should be carried through into other areas of the City.

Member Markham stated in general the site plan preserves the natural features of the parcel, especially the wetland area. She advised the Developer to take the comments into consideration with regard to the lots that are encroaching into the wetlands. If possible, she preferred for these issues to be dealt with prior to presenting a site plan to the Commission. She did not want the development to be treated like a subdivision with the use of pesticides or herbicides. She stated with the number of lots in the development she found it inevitable that one of the residents will attempt a lawn treatment, etc. Therefore, she requested the establishment of some type of communication to potential buyers/owners that the property is special due to the natural features and pesticides etc… are not desired. She felt the natural features should be capitalized.

Ms. McGuire stated the development is not clear cutting the area for the lots. The Developer is not the builder. It will be brought in on an individual lot-by-lot basis and the trees will be taken down as needed. She commended the applicant for this.

Member Markham commended the Applicant. She added that too much clear cutting is done in the community. She referenced the comment regarding eliminating a sidewalk on the side of the road where there is no house. The ordinance requires the sidewalk, however, it makes sense to eliminate it. She asked if this should be specified.

Ms. McGuire stated the plan has been reviewed under both options. The area to the east is the most sensitive. She indicated that because they are filling for the road, it is a "toss up" as to whether or not it should be filled all the way for the roadway.

Mr. Devlin indicated the dilemma is the watermain, which is located on that side. He indicated that it was filled according to the watermain and the sidewalk could be put in without additional damage to the wetlands. The sidewalk comes along the right-of-way and at the wetland it jets back immediately adjacent to the paved road.

Member Markham stated the intent of the open space requirement has been met, although technically it has not. She recognized the hardship of preserving the wetland located in the center of the site. She supported the waivers needed to develop the site under the open space option.

Member Shroyer stated he was prepared to discuss the Preliminary Site Plan. Although he liked the concept, however, he found it questionable to claim open space for areas three, four, six and seven. He described these areas as nothing more than "an exaggerated landscaping area". He did not agree that one play structure and a five-station Par Course were considered active recreation areas. He suggested that the Developer consider open space five for active recreation and relocating the three lots in the wetlands. The layout of the site creates an island of the residential properties between the two entrances surrounded by multiple-family. Instead he suggested designing the properties at the entryways similar in size to the RA development then the flow would continue with the abutting multiple-family, followed by multiple family and then industrial developments. He felt that in the concept stage and as the development moved forward the property owners and the residents across the street would be more receptive.

Ms. McBeth indicated that the proposal is for a single-family development option. The entire parcel is considered a single-family development option with multiple-family located to the west.

Member Avdoulos stated the applicant has gone above and beyond the definition of a conceptual development plan. The site plan meets the open space criteria as it provides a more desirable living environment and the preservation of the natural character of the site. Member Avdoulos indicated that he liked concept overall.

Member Kocan asked the reason for an open space development instead of different preservation option. She noted the required Planning Commission waivers and ZBA Variances. She asked if the Developer or the City considered alternative options.

Ms. McBeth deferred to the Applicant to comment because her employment began after the project was in the process. She noted there might have been discussion for alternative options that she was personally not aware of.

Mr. Devlin recalled discussion only related to the Preservation Option, however, that option did not include wetlands. The majority of the proposed site is wetlands. The Preservation Option is geared toward woodlands. He noted that it is possible to use the Preservation Option, however, the preference is to create a single-family appearance as opposed to the traditional condominium appearance.

Member Kocan noted her concern that the largest open space area for recreation is a dedicated play area. The area is bordered on both sides for the sedimentation basin. She asked if the basins would be dry or filled water the majority of the time. She asked the location of the walkways and the recreation area is accessed. She noted the lake next to the park in the Meadowbrook Subdivision is a liability issue. There is no fence because it creates more liability as it would acknowledge the problem, however everyone is aware of the safety issue. She asked the Developer if any consideration has been given to these issues.

Mr. Devlin stated a split-rail fence is proposed around the entire wetland to identify/restrict the area from pedestrians. The boundary line varies from the wetland buffer and the wetland line itself. Mr. Devlin stated he is willing to place additional fencing around the sedimentation basin within the open space area if the Commission desired.

Member Kocan asked if it would be a split-rail fence.

Mr. Devlin answered, yes.

Member Kocan asked him to comment on the access locations.

Mr. Devlin stated the access is located off of both sides of the subdivision. He identified the larger access point and the access for trail located on the east side with the path winding through.

Member Kocan asked if this area is planned for active recreation.

Mr. Devlin answered, yes.

Member Kocan clarified that this area may or may not be active.

Mr. Devlin asked what the Commission deemed as active. He noted that a school is ¾ of a mile down the street provides the traditional athletic-type recreations facilities such as basketball courts, baseball fields, etc.

Member Kocan indicated that she is not looking to have more impervious area in a development that is environmentally sensitive. She asked Member Shroyer to make additional suggestions of more options for active recreation.

Member Papp agreed with Member Shroyer’s comments. He commended the Developer for not clear cutting the site. He assumed an orange fence would be put in place to protect the wetland from debris during the building process. He supported the Conceptual Site Plan.

Chairperson Nagy stated she understood the difficulty in developing the site, however, the plan does not technically meet the ordinance. She appreciated the efforts made to preserve the wetlands and the woodlands. She is not in favor of the three lots that would be filled in on the wetlands. She found it an interesting concept to have an area landscape and deemed natural landscaping, which would be a unique feature for Novi. It would save a lot of the features and the natural character, which would give the site a unique appearance. She did not believe the plan met the open space option criteria. Chairperson Nagy stated the intent of the ordinance should be met differently and the design of the road revised. She supported the conceptual plan due to the lay of the land, however, she requested the applicant to take the Commission’s comments into consideration. She entertained a motion.

Moved by Papp, seconded by Markham, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Asbury Park Estates SP01-82 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council of the Conceptual Development Plan with subsequent return of the site Plan to the Planning Commission for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Wetland Permit and Woodland Permits at which time the Planning Commission would consider all of the recommendations in the Staff and Consultant’s review letters.

Ms. McGuire requested more input from the Commission in regard to passive verses active recreation. She indicated the Staff is leading the Developer in a non-pavement-type of recreation due to the nature of the site. The Staff recommended only a pathway for Open space No. 2 located at the eastern side. Open Space No. 1 is the location of the play area, which she did not feel is an appropriate location for tennis courts since it abuts the neighbors.

Member Markham stated page 30 of the Master Plan for Land Use identifies active recreation. It references capital-types of facilities, such as auditoriums, gymnasiums, soccer fields, sand volleyball courts, 18-hole golf course and basketball courts. She believed the intent of the active recreation in the Ordinance is to facilitate more neighborhood types of family activity other than walks, however she agreed that an outdoor tennis court or 18-hole golf course is not ideal in this case.

Member Shroyer suggested shuffleboard, which is a small paved area. Additional options could include a putting green or disc golf. A fitness trail or Par Course is an activity that was popular 15-years ago, however today there are a lot of indoor facilities that people use. He found the playground area appropriate for the specific homeowners. He added that a sandbox would invite numerous critters.

Mr. Fisher advised that the motion include reasons. He recommended that the Commission include the following items: reasons that the conceptual lot layout conforms with the requirements of Section 2402 but reserving on the issue concerning the lots within wetlands, the street configuration conforms with Section 2402 and that the location size and overall layout of open space areas meets the intent of Section 2402 but does not technically comply with the requirements of Subsection 2(d) and that Planning Commission grants a modification of those technical requirements and that the approval subject to consideration of all consultant’s comments presented to date.

Member Papp and Member Markham amended the motion to include Mr. Fisher’s comments.

Moved by Papp, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Asbury Park Estates SP01-82 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council of the Conceptual Development Plan with subsequent return of the site Plan to the Planning Commission for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Wetland Permit and Woodland Permits at which time the Planning Commission would consider all of the recommendations in the Staff and Consultant’s review letters with the reasons that the conceptual lot layout conforms with the requirements of Section 2402 but reserving on the issue concerning the lots within wetlands, the street configuration conforms with Section 2402 and that the location size and overall layout of open space areas meets the intent of Section 2402 but does not technically comply with the requirements of Subsection 2(d) and that Planning Commission grants a modification of those technical requirements and that the approval subject to consideration of all consultant’s comments presented to date.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Singh IV Limited Partnership is to rezone property located south of Twelve Mile Road sand west of Meadowbrook Road in section 14 of the City. The Planning Commission heard a similar rezoning request last year, both at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee as well as in front of the entire Commission at two Planning Commission meetings. The request for Master Plan amendment was denied and the Commission at that time recommended rezoning to RM-2 for denial. The applicant has spent time addressing some of the neighborhood concerns by requesting text amendments relating to building height in OST zoning districts and buffering requirements heard by the Planning commission earlier this year and by eliminating from the rezoning request the two so-called pigtail parcels (the parcels that connect the main part of the parcel to Meadowbrook Road). The subject property contains 38.62 acres and is currently vacant of buildings. The property to the north contains the DMC medical building, the Meadowbrook Office building in the preliminary site plan review process and vacant land. To the east, and fronting on Meadowbrook Road are single-family homes, the Trane Corporation office/research building, the approval of a site plan for Beechforest Park, and vacant land. To the south are vacant land and the I-96 expressway. To the west is Crescent Lake and the Waltonwood senior citizen housing, the Enclave Condominiums, and further to the west is the Twelve Oaks Mall. The subject property is currently zoned OST, Office, Service Technology and RM-1 with a PD1 option. To the north, and south, the property is zoned OST, Office Service Technology. To the west, across Crescent Lake, the property is zoned RM-1with the PD-1 option and RC (Regional Center) to the west. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends office for the majority of this property, with the PD-1 option for the northwest part of this property. To the north, east and south, the Master Plan for Land Use recommends office uses. To the west the Master Plan for Land Use recommends multiple family with the PD-1 option for those parcels. She reviewed the findings made by the planner. 1) The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the current Master Plan recommendation for density and use of the site, as the Planning Commission denied it on June 6, 2001. 2) The proposal to develop the property, excluding the pig-tail parcels, would create a multiple family use and density consistent with the land uses to the west. 3) The applicant has indicated the intention to develop the site with a density equivalent to the RM-1 zoning with approximately 250 units, but due to the conditions of the site, the applicant is requesting the RM-2 zoning to permit taller buildings than the RM-1 district allows. The RM-2 zoning of the site could result in approximately 667 units as an estimated maximum number of units possible under the RM-2 permitted density. The Planning Consultant has advised that the City Council and City Attorney may wish to enter into a Development Agreement for this property to ensure that the RM-1 density is constructed on the site if the Planning Commission and City Council are looking favorably toward this request. 4) The applicant has indicated that the site lacks suitable building areas for OST types of development because of poor soils and topography of the site, which were included in the report provided by the applicant. The City Engineer has reviewed the detailed report and indicates there should not be a problem building either multiple- family residential or office/research type developments given proper foundation supports. Findings of the Traffic Engineer revealed that it is estimated that the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the property would not result in the generation of more traffic on the external road network than the underlying zoning. The Traffic Engineer has also made recommendations for access and circulation throughout this area if a site plan is to be reviewed. The Commission is asked to hold a public hearing on this matter and make a recommendation so that this matter may now proceed to the City Council.

Member Kocan announced that she received one (1) correspondence from Katzman Development Company who wrote, "As owners of the property on the east side of Meadowbrook Road between Twelve Mile Road and I-96, we have no objection to the request for rezoning to RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District)."

Chairperson Nagy announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the matter to the Public.

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Khanh Pham of Singh Development indicated the proposed rezoning process began late August 2000. The matter was before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee in March. He noted the location of the 38.621-acres for which he requested the rezoning. He indicated that originally submittal included the "pig-tail" parcels, which have been removed from the current request. He indicated that the rezoning was first submitted as a unified development for an uptown development as Singh also owns the outlot located on Twelve Mile Road. He indicated that some of the commissioners already saw Singh’s uptown place and rendered their recommendation to the City Council. The City does not have a vehicle to address developments with multiple zoning districts. Therefore, Singh is forced to bring the request forward in the form of two separate applications. Singh is also the owner of the Waltonwoods development, which was previously zoned RC (Regional Center District). The matter went before the City Council and was approved to rezone the property from RC to RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) with a PD-1 Option for 245-units for senior housing. Singh was aware of what they were getting into when the property was purchased in 1999, however, there were questions and reservations as to what the property could be used for. Twelve Oaks Mall was developed by the Taubman Company and constructed by the Dayton Hudson Company. It was believed that in order to build the mall, the peat needed to be removed and moved off site. At that time, the peat was taken off the Twelve Oaks Mall site, however it was dumped on the subject property. As a result, there is a large amount of a fill made of peat and foreign materials that is on the subject property. The overall site has been severely disturbed. Documents were submitted to the Commission to demonstrate the historical disturbance from 1970 to present. Singh determined that the Waltonwoods/Twelve Oaks would maximize the use of a lake and that the Enclave is a prime residential use with the mall and lake features. A report has been created to demonstrate the reasons Singh merits a rezoning from OST (Office Service Technology) to RM-2 (Low –Density Multiple Family) as a reasonable use. In addition, Singh has supplied a lot of information on how the property was zoned from R-A (Residential Acreage) to OST (Office Service Technology). Mr. Pham indicated that he was part of the City of Novi Planning Staff during that rezoning. The rezoning occurred after the City, in January of 1998, reviewed the overall city to introduce a new high tech ordinance, the OST. He stated the published OST Study was included in the commissioners’ packets. Certain areas were targeted and deemed appropriate for an OST (Office Service Technology) development. The proposed site is one of the targeted areas. The report also mentions that due to the environmental conditions, the proposed site may not be appropriate for OST and that an alternatively use could have been multiple family. Singh has worked with the City Staff since August 1^st to initiate the text amendments to address some of the neighbors’ concerns. He introduced Carmen Avanti to present the land use data, Jeff Hersey to present the office market and the need for luxury multi-family and Jack Hozmer to present the revenue impact.

Chairperson Nagy stated a tremendous amount of information has already been given and the commissioners have reviewed the information submitted. Therefore, she found some of the information presented redundant. She preferred the petitioner to only present issues related to the Zoning Map Amendment. She stated the commission is not interested in the market studies and therefore, she asked the petitioner to exclude it from the presentation.

Mr. Pham stated the presentation would be refined to a land use and a fiscal impact to give the Commission an understanding of the context of the proposal.

Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Carmen Aventi addressed the rezoning criteria included in the Consultant’s review letter. At the Master Planning and Zoning Meeting there was discussion as to how the area was designated as OST (Office Service Technology). A portion of the property has a change in topography, which significantly drops off. The site also contains significant Woodland and Wetland areas. Based on the existing development on Meadowbrook Road, he did not anticipate the area would be developed into one site. Although the market aspect is not included in the presentation, he indicated that it relates to the background of the land use. The poor soil conditions and lack of prime visibility from the road effect the ability to economically develop OST uses. In addition, and OST development will have a greater impact on the Woodlands and Wetlands on the site as opposed to residential use. He stated a residential development would allow for a smaller footprint and the ability to work around the natural features of the site. The Consultants’ review letter indicates that all the rezoning criteria has been met with the exception of Master Plan Amendment, which refers the discussion back to the OST Study. The zoning is based on the Master Plan for Land Use and the Master Plan for Land Use is based upon well-reasoned educated studies to support the future land use proposals. The OST Study recognized that the site challenges of the proposed property and determined that further study was needed. Information was provided to the Commission to support the study’s determination that the OST zoning for the site is unreasonable. The conditions of the Master Plan have changed and therefore give the Commission the reason to reexamine the Master Plan for Land Use or make a recommendation contrary to it. He stated there are new facts and new information leading to that conclusion. He found proposed use appropriate for the site and indicated that the State of Michigan requirements for a rezoning have been met.

Jack Hozmer Vice President of J. Mills Consulting Company presented the scope and results of the Financial Impact Study for Uptown Park. The study compares the City financial impact as a result of the Uptown Park Development. The Uptown Development is referred to as the "Proposed Development". The results are compared to an office science technology development, which is referred to in the study as the "Alternate Development". The study also analyzes the financial impact of the current vacant land. The study assumes that each development, the Proposed and the Alternate, would be fully occupied and constructed. Existing comparable developments were used in the study to project certain city revenues and costs. The existing Singh Development Main Street Village (apartment complex) was used as the Proposed Development because it was thought to be similar in size and style to the proposed development. Jim Gierman, former City of Novi Industrial Appraiser, found three (3) existing City of Novi OST buildings that were good comparables for the Alternate Development. The three buildings include Trinity Health, Siemens and Tower Automotives, which are referred to in the study as the OST Comparables. Main Street Village and the three OST comparables were used to a estimate the assessed evaluations of each, the projected number of fire/police/rescue runs to each development, water consumption, number of residents to reside in the Uptown Development and Building Department fees for the proposed alternate development. He showed the Commission a schedule representing the estimated assessed value for the Proposed and Alternate developments. Currently, the land is assessed at $1,944,500, however the estimated assessed value with the Proposed Development is approximately $8.5 million and the Alternate Development would place the value at $6.9 million. The State Shared Revenues are a large portion of the revenues for the Proposed Development, which is the key to revenue impact between the two developments. The City receives approximately $115 per person in State Shared Revenue. The Alternate Development does not receive State Shared Revenue because it does not have residents. He showed the Commission information on the cost impact of the two developments and the subject property. City of Novi Fire Chief Art Lenaghan supplied Singh Development with cost information and various statistics that were used in the cost analysis of the Fire/Medical/Rescue runs. The cost calculations were completed and sent to Chief Lenaghan for verification. Chief Lenaghan made changes to the calculations, which were incorporated into the final copy of the study. Police services were handled in the same manner with the cooperation of Deputy Police Chief Al Rasmussen and Police Chief Doug Shaeffer. Their changes were also incorporated into the final study. He showed the Commission the net financial impact of each of the developments. The City currently receives approximately $16,000 annually in excess revenues from the property. It is estimated that the City would receive approximately $700,000 annually in excess revenues from the Uptown Park Development. The estimated net financial impact of the Alternate OST Development would be approximately $31,000 a year. The one-time fees are based on Building Department fees that were collected from Main Street Village and the three OST Comparables. Based on these figures and the square footage of each development proposed, the building department fees were estimated at approximately $142,000 for the Proposed Development and approximately $40,000 for the Alternate Development. The water sewer tap fees were calculated and provided by Senior Clerk Zora Singer of the Water & Sewer Department. The total one-time fees for the Proposed Development were calculated at $1,145,000 and the Alternate Development was $323,000.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the presentation time limit has been exceeded. Therefore, she requested the Petitioner to make their final comments.

Mr. Pham indicated that much effort was made to address the concerns of the commissioners and staff. He stated reasonable information has been presented supporting why the rezoning is plausible for the RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) zoning. For more than twenty-years, Singh Development has developed projects in the City of Novi, while attempting to successfully address neighborhood and city concerns and enhance the City of Novi. He stated the Traffic Consultant, Market Analysis Consultant and Wetlands Consultant are present to answer any questions.

Chairperson Nagy concurred that Singh Development has been a good partner and Citizen of Novi.

Mr. Fisher recalled the Petitioner’s comments indicating that the property had been used for fill when the area under the mall was "mucked out".

Mr. Pham answered, correct.

Mr. Fisher asked if the property was part of the mall property at the time or did the mall lease the property.

Mr. Pham indicated it was the property of the mall.

Member Ruyle clarified that the property was purchased in 1999.

Mr. Pham answered, yes.

Member Ruyle believed himself to be the longest Novi resident on the present Commission. His residency began in January of 1980. Since 1985 the area along Meadowbrook Road from I-96 to Twelve Mile Road has been designated, as it exists today. He stated the purchaser of property had the knowledge of its zoning. The Staff pulled records regarding 27400 Meadowbrook Road, located across the street from the proposed property, which was the first piece of property to come before the City Council for an OS-1 zoning. The request caused great debate at the City Council in 1991, which resulted in a denial of the request. The City Council voted to make Meadowbrook Road OS zoning and since then, the area has been developed in this manner. He supported the OST zoning and therefore did not support the rezoning request. He identified the area as a corridor of the City of Novi and felt it should remain office or similar designation.

Member Papp asked the City Engineer to elaborate on the review letter comment, which states, "The Applicant has indicated that the site lacks suitable building areas for OST type development due to poor soil and topography."

Ms. McClain stated the topography drops off at the back and it would be more difficult to see from the road. She could not address whether or not the site is suitable for an OST Development from a planning perspective. She stated from an engineering standpoint there are appropriate soils to build upon for any development. Regardless of the type of building, some of the over soils that are not suitable for structures have to be removed and there are options to base a foundation. She deferred to the City Planner to comment on the feasibility from a planning perspective.

Member Shroyer stated according to the review, it appears that the land might not be conducive to a very good business development. He was not concerned about its visibility from the main road because that situation could be resolved with a nicely signed entrance. He was concerned with the size of the building and the parking areas that could take up the wetlands and the woodlands. He stated it is easier to construct multi-family units around the various trees and it is more consistent with the surrounding properties. Member Shroyer noted his concern that the request is not consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. It common knowledge that the Master Plan for Land Use is outdated and needs to be revised, however since it has not been revised, he indicated this is not the appropriate time to act on this type of a rezoning request. He deemed the removal of the Meadowbrook pigtail parcels appropriate and indicated that it made the request more feasible. The request is for RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) or any other appropriate zoning. Member Shroyer recommended a RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) zoning with a PD-1 Option. The RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) zoning permits up to 667-units. He realized that it might not be possible to construct this many units due to the configuration of the wetlands and woodlands. He noted the applicant indication of the 250-unit limit. He stated if the limit is 250-units, then he suggested the RM-1 with the PD-1 Option because it is consistent with the other property and give the City more control over the assurances that are verbally given. He did not support a RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) zoning, however, he might consider a RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) with a PD-1 Option.

Member Avdoulos thanked the Petitioner for the vast amount of information supplied to the Commission. He stated a "sliver" of residential with no "elbow room" would be created with the existing mall, lake, two residential properties around the lake and office. Member Avdoulos stated that typically he is not a fan of going against the Master Plan for Land Use, however he concurred with Member Shroyer’s comments and did not opposed a residential development. He felt the zoning should be more specific to allow the Developer and the City to attain what is wanted at both ends. He did not deem the proposal unreasonable, however more consideration should be given as to how to handle a more specific zoning.

Member Sprague agreed with Member Avdoulos’ comments. He was also reluctant to move forward with a rezoning when the Master Plan for Land Use is under consideration. Member Sprague supported OST zoning for the City and was reluctant to give it up. He suggested considering another location in the City to replace the OST zoning to avoid a net loss.

Member Kocan agreed with some of the commissioners’ comments particularly the net loss of OST in the City. There needs to be a mix of the residential, industrial and office in the City. If the presented financial data were applied to all areas, then the City would no longer build commercial, industrial or office; only high-end residential developments would be built. She noted the loss of the OST (Office Service Technology) zoning with the development of Fountain Park. She would not give up an OST zoning until another location in the City has been determined for its replacement. She disagreed with the argument that office buildings require visibility. She stated office buildings have specific locations, world headquarters and office parks with companies located in the back of the development. The vacancy calculations were more office than OST. She agreed that there is a saturation of office, however OST is high-end research development. She stated that although no one has come forward with a plan Singh Development has only owned the property for a couple of years. Member Kocan agreed with Ms. McClain in that if condominiums can be constructed than likewise OST is feasible. Options could include removing soils, engineer fill and mitigation. The options might be costly, however, it is not the Commission’s burden. One half of the area is office and other half is residential, therefore, the argument of compatibility with the surrounding properties could be used to benefit ether side. It meets residential on the west side and OST on the east side. Consistently, the previous and the present Planning Commission felt Master Plan for Land Use should be amended first, however that is not request before the Commission this evening. There is no recommendation from the present Master Planning and Zoning Committee, however there is a negative recommendation from the previous Committee given in April 2001. She explained to the Petitioner that the Commission cannot consider the proposed development when considering a rezoning. The Commission must assume that the maximum amount of residential of the proposed zoning could be developed. In this case, the maximum possibility is 667 two-bedroom units or 499 three-bedroom units. There are a lot of variables. She understood that there are market studies, however, she was not prepared to go against the Master Plan for Land Use. Nor could she support a positive recommendation for a rezoning of the property to RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District).

Member Markham agreed that the Master Plan for Land Use and impact to the area should be assessed prior to the consideration of a rezoning. She agreed with the comments regarding the loss of the OST zoning with the Fountain Park development. The Expo Center will be relocated to an area that was planned for OST. Therefore, she is concerned with the loss of any further OST zonings. The 1999 Master Plan for Land Use depicts that the numbers could be worked either way. At the time the Master Plan for Land Use was updated, there was too little office, which was the reason for the development and application of the OST Ordinance. She agreed that an office building does not require high visibility. A nice sign appropriately addresses that situation. Member Markham did not support the rezoning.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that she was serving on the Planning Commission when the matter was denied. She did not support the rezoning, as it is not consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. She did not recall a residential development that was entered upon through an OST. She agreed that the OST zoning is important to the City and that there is not enough of it. She disagreed with the figures presented and that there is not a lot of money coming into Novi with regard to the road, which is a large problem with the City. Chairperson Nagy noted her disappointment that the matter did not go through the Master Planning and Zoning Committee as it could have saved the Petitioner time to know the Master Plan for Land Use is in the process of being updated. Chairperson Nagy entertained a motion.

Mr. Pham requested permission to respond to the commissioner’s comments.

Chairperson Nagy answered, no. She clarified to the Petitioner that a dialog is not taking place. The matter has been turned over to the Commission and the Petitioner was already given the opportunity to give a presentation.

Mr. Pham stated there were questions regarding the height and the reason for selecting a RM-2 zoning. He requested permission to briefly comment on those issues.

Chairperson Nagy restated to the Petitioner that the Commission will not engage in a dialog. In addition, the Commission has clearly stated that the Master Plan for Land Use is currently in the process of being updated. She pointed out to the Petitioner that he would have been given the same information had he taken the time to come before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee prior to spending time and money to come before the Commission. She stated his request is inconsistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. She indicated to Mr. Pham that her intention is not to be rude, however, there are other cases on the agenda. She felt sufficient material was provided to give the Commission a clear understanding. Chairperson Nagy gave Mr. Pham permission to comment on the height issue only.

Mr. Pham stated an RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) density was livable, which Singh previously offered to settle in an agreement with the City. The RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) is requested due to the height and the soil conditions. Due to the environmental conditions, the goal is to make the footprint narrower and the building higher.

Chairperson Nagy thanked Mr. Pham for his comments. She called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Markham stated the last topic was sent to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee to be considered as part of the review.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that there are already two items on the list to be studied. She also found it more appropriate for the applicant to make a request and not the Commission.

Ms. Brock indicated there are twelve items on the list already.

Member Markham asked if the item is one of the twelve.

Ms. Brock answered, no. She indicated that the item was reviewed in 2001.

Mr. Evancoe stated the City conducted a Citizen Survey to assess the perceptions of the community with regard to the growth of the community, City Services and myriad topics, which would be helpful information for updating the Master Plan for Land Use. A contract was derived with Eastern Michigan University and the Institute for Community and Regional Development to interpret the results of the survey. He introduced Laura Shoe to give the presentation. He indicated the tabulations included results from the Random Scientific Survey and the Internet survey.

Laura Shoe of Eastern Michigan University Institute for Community and Regional Development indicated the program is a community outreach entity that assists local governments and other agencies in strategic planning, municipal planning, citizen participation, community development, planning, budgeting and financial management. The survey was conducted under the Umbrella of Public Service Programs, which is one of the five outreach areas. The survey conducted is part of the five-year Master Plan for Land Use updates. It is designed to give citizen expectations and satisfactions. A sample question would engage expectations such as "Do the stores nearby your home satisfy your shopping needs or should the regional bus service be made available within the City of Novi?" A sample question would engage perceptions such as "Is the City growing at a proper rate?" and "Is traveling by bike easy in Novi. The use of relatively small numbers and small amounts of resources can create data to generalize the population as a whole. Two groups of people were surveyed: the randomly selected, who chose to complete the mail survey and the non-randomly selected which included the City Council, the Planning Commission and those who chose to download a survey from the website or requested a copy from the City. The result was 207 random responses and 48 non-random responses. There were 500 property owners and 200 renters drawn from the sample to reflect the City’s proportion of owners and renters of approximately 70% to 30%. The total sample size was 700 with the response rate at 30%. A second mailing typically can gather a response of 20% - 40%, however, a good response was gathered with one mailing. She compared the results to the 2000 US Census demographics for the City of Novi. The Survey found the average age of Novi Residents is 31.3 years and the median age of Novi residents is 35.2 years plus or minus 5-years. The Novi survey median income bracket was between $75,000 and $100,000 compared to the median income bracket US Census was $91, 369. The average work travel time determined from the City Survey was 28 minutes compared to the US Census average of 26.6 minutes. Other finding were that the largest percentage of respondents have lived in Novi for 10 or more years; almost 60% plan to live in Novi in 3-years; more have children than not. The annual household income mode showed 30% of the respondents fell between $100,000 and $150,000. Results from perceptions of the community indicated that as much as 90% of the respondents rated between four (good) and five (excellent), which included the traffic flow on residential streets. Traffic flow in the City, street lighting, sidewalks and road maintenance on major streets were not as high. The survey showed the that 90% of the respondents felt the quality of their neighborhood was very important, sense of safety, educational opportunities for children, preservation of natural resources. City services rated well with the areas of landscaping, attractiveness of new developments and recreation. The screening of industrial business uses from the residential area were found to be important and along with the preservation of open space by allowing homes on smaller lots. One respondent was not aware that there was an ice arena. Other areas of concern included the quality of public services keeping pace with the rate of growth in general. It is an even divide as to whether or not features are being adequately preserved in new developments. The City of Novi does a good job at meeting Citizen Service needs with the exception of entertainment and culture. Approximately 60% of the respondents do not regard the Main Street development as Novi’s downtown. She presented findings from the non-random responses in comparison to the random respondents. She stated the ratings follow the same patterns, however, they are harsh in their criticism and less enthusiastic with praise. The average age of the non-random respondent was 45-years, 10-years or more residing in Novi, the proportion is reversed for those that have children and those that do not, incomes are slightly higher than the random respondents and all are homeowners with longer travel times. She indicated that overall the rating follow the same pattern, however the good ratings are not as high. The non-random respondents felt that public services have not kept the pace with the rate of growth. She indicated that their needs are pretty well met. She stated that often one’s response cannot be categorized in an A-B-C response. The respondents were given an opportunity to respond in an open-ended response. She indicated that the transcript show their written responses ranging from roads to Staff, Boards and Commissions. She found it useful to compare the 1999 survey results to the current survey to found how attitudes have changed over the years. She found that people are starting to live in Novi longer. She found the 81% rating for quality of the neighborhood an improvement when compared to the 45% rating because people think it is the same. She stated fewer people think it is worse, fewer people think it is better, however, those people now think it is the same. She compared other ratings. Respondents were happy with the shopping facilities; sense of safety and feeling of security was identical to what it was, although fewer people think it is worse now; job and employment opportunities were nearly unchanged; and feeling or sense of community were the same. Only 34% rated the preservation of Woodlands, Wetlands and Wildlife Habitat as worse as compared to the ratings from 4-years ago, which were 49%, 45% and 53%.

Ms. Brock indicated that the Master Planning and Zoning Committee could use this survey information to update the Master Plan for Land Use. Therefore, if the Commission had any recommendations for the Committee to consider as a result of the survey, then it would be appropriate to make a motion at this time.

Member Kocan made corrections to the minutes.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission of the July 10, 2002 meeting as amended.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Shroyer requested that the staff send a courtesy correspondence to notify the surrounding community of a zoning change or specific business approval.

Ms. Brock indicated that currently a public hearing correspondence is sent to the surrounding municipalities.

Member Shroyer indicated that he was referring to the after the approval or adoption.

Ms. Brock stated she would check with the Clerks Department because she believed that they might have a procedure established. The Clerks Department publishes the adoption notice in the newspaper.

Member Shroyer requested that the sub committees, particularly the Master Planning and Zoning Committee, receive copies of all similar correspondences from other communities.

Mr. Evancoe asked if he was referring to both Site Plans and rezonings.

Member Shroyer answered, yes. After a specific use is determine, then the adjacent community should be notified with the details.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that point in the process would not be until a Building Permit is issued.

Member Shroyer stated after the final decisions are made and the matter is moving forward, then it would be appropriate to notify the adjacent community.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that it might be necessary to defer Member Shroyer’s request to the Building Department because they have the knowledge of the permits issued. He suggested that it might be appropriate to have the Inspection Department handle the notification.

Chairperson Nagy suggested allowing the Staff to research the details of the request and report back to the Commission with the findings.

Mr. Evancoe announced that the City of Novi hired Planner Timothy Schmitt who will begin employment on September 3, 2002. Mr. Schmitt has a Masters Degree in Planning from Ohio State.

Ms. McClain announced the hiring of Brian Coburn, a graduate from Michigan Tech, to the Engineering Division.

None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:00 p.m.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

August 16, 2002

Date Approved: September 11, 2002