| View Agenda for this meeting NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION The proceedings had in the above-entitled matter were taken before me, Glenn Miller, CSR-2593, Notary Public in and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, January 29, 2003. PRESENT: Antonia Nagy, Chairperson Lynn Kocan, Commissioner Gwen Markham, Commissioner Lynne Paul, Commissioner Lowell Sprague, Commissioner Tim Shroyer, Commissioner David Ruyle, Commissioner John Avdoulos, Commissioner David Evancoe, Director of Planning Thomas Schultz, City Attorney Timothy Schmitt, Planner Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer Michael McGinnis, Architect
1 Novi, Michigan 2 Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3 Approximately 7:30 p.m. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I'd like 5 to call the meeting to order. 6 Mr. Schmitt, if you could please 7 call roll. 8 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 9 Commissioner Avdoulos? 10 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Here. 11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan? 12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Here. 13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Here. 15 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy? 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here. 17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp? 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent, excused. 19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 20 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Here. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle? 22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Here. 23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer? 24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Here. 25 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Sprague?
3 1 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Here. 2 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 4 If we could have Commissioner 5 Markham lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. 6 (The Planning Commissioner and the 7 Audience were lead by Commissioner 8 Markham in the reciting of The 9 Pledge of Allegiance.) 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we have 11 an approval of the agenda, any additions or deletions or 12 anything? 13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Move for approval. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second? 15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Second. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member 17 Kocan. 18 All in favor say aye. 19 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 21 We are at our first audience 22 participation. If there is anyone that would like to 23 address the Commission on anything other than the Public 24 Hearing, please come forward. 25 Seeing no one, I will close the
4 1 audience participation. 2 Madam secretary, do we have any 3 correspondence? 4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I have none, Madam 5 Chair. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 7 Do we have any communications 8 and/or committee reports, Mr. Evancoe? 9 MR. EVANCOE: No, Ma'am, I do not. I 10 believe Commissioner Shroyer may though. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why? Mr. Shroyer. 12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you, Madam 13 Chair. 14 I just wanted to mention that our 15 Implementation Committee met on 1-25. 16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Implementation? 17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I can't read my own 18 note. No, the Capital Improvements Committee met on 19 1-25 and ranked recommendations for the capital 20 improvement items. The report must come to the Planning 21 Commission for review before the first meeting in March. 22 Is that correct, Mr. Evancoe? 23 MR. EVANCOE: We are planning to schedule 24 it for the first meeting in March. 25 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. So that has
5 1 to have the entire Commission's review and approval. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, ma'am. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no other 5 reports, Mr. Evancoe, do we have any presentations? 6 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do. I'd 7 like to do a staff introduction. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 9 MR. EVANCOE: Good evening, Madam Chair 10 and Members of the Commission. I'm very happy, as I 11 announced last week, we have a new planner on staff. 12 This is Darcy Schmitt. I know several of you have had 13 an opportunity to meet with Darcy and we're very 14 fortunate to have Darcy join our staff. 15 Darcy is a graduate of Michigan 16 State University where she got her Master's Degree in 17 Urban Planning and also a Bachelor's Degree in Landscape 18 Architecture. And so those are skills that we think 19 will be very useful and very helpful to our department 20 and for providing service to the Commission. 21 Before joining the City of Novi, 22 Darcy worked in several venues in the private sector for 23 a development company that actually did some work 24 related to Island Lake and also she worked for a 25 consulting firm out of Lansing.
6 1 And so, again, I just wanted to 2 introduce Darcy. Anything you want to share, Darcy? 3 DARCY SCHMITT: Thank you. I'm really 4 glad to be with you here. I really love this community 5 and it was very nice to meet you tonight, looking 6 forward to working with you. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 8 Is that with two T's or one T? 9 DARCY SCHMITT: Two T's, no D. 10 MR. EVANCOE: Same as Tim. 11 DARCY SCHMITT: Just like my little 12 brother Tim. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Same as Mr. Schmitt. 14 Thank you. 15 DARCY SCHMITT: Thank you. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this point we do not 17 have anything on our consent agenda, or do we? What do 18 we have? Oh, I'm sorry. We have the approval of the 19 November 20th, 2002 Planning Commission minutes. 20 Commissioner Kocan. 21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I didn't 22 have a chance to read all the minutes, but I still see a 23 change or two that needs to be made and I'm also 24 requesting that I get my copy back that I marked up so 25 that I can double-check the minutes. So I ask it be
7 1 pulled and redone one more time. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I happen to 3 agree. I have some corrections on that set of minutes 4 myself. We can give it to the court reporter and they 5 can give it to their firm and they can give us the final 6 copy, and we will request that the final copy be 7 submitted to Member Kocan. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 10 There are no other items on the 11 consent agenda. We are going to begin the Public 12 Hearing. I would like to remind the members of the 13 audience that we have a court reporter present. When 14 you come before us and speak at the podium, please state 15 your name and spell your last name for the court 16 reporter. And, of course, I would like to remind 17 everyone to speak at a decent pace. Don't speak too 18 fast. Okay. With that, we are at Public Hearing. 19 The first Public Hearing is Zoning 20 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.174. The Public Hearing 21 to amend Ordinance No. 97-18 as amended, the City of 22 Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of the City of Novi 23 Code of Ordinances, to create Section 2514, "Additional 24 road design, building setback and parking setback 25 requirements for One-Family Clustering Option,
8 1 Two-Family uses, Multiple Family uses and certain 2 non-residential uses and developments," and to amend 3 Section 2403, "One-Family Clustering Option," for 4 related purposes. 5 Is this Mr. Arroyo? 6 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Madam Chair, we've 7 asked Rod Arroyo to attend for this case. Rod, as you 8 know, has been very instrumental in drafting initially 9 the interim road policy, as we've called it, and he 10 along with Attorney Schultz have come up with the actual 11 ordinance language, and so I will allow Rod to make the 12 presentation. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 14 Mr. Arroyo, if you would spell your 15 name for the court reporter, please. 16 MR. ARROYO: A-r-r-o-y-o. 17 Good evening. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening, Mr. 19 Arroyo. 20 MR. ARROYO: Nice to see everyone. As you 21 know, there has been in place for several months what 22 we've been calling an interim policy regarding certain 23 applications of road and setback standards. And as we 24 discussed when that interim policy was first brought 25 before you for consideration, we had some projects come
9 1 forward and we started to look at the ordinance and we 2 found that it was unclear as to which standards applied 3 to certain types of projects, particularly when we were 4 dealing with general condominium developments, that's 5 where the concept first came up, because if you look at 6 many of your standards they're based upon the type of 7 development. 8 You have standards for plats, you 9 have standards for site condominiums, but it was unclear 10 how we treat general condominiums and some other types 11 of development. So we came up with this interim policy, 12 which you accepted and have been applying, as a way of 13 interpreting the zoning ordinance in an interim basis. 14 Obviously, whenever you're doing something like that on 15 an interim basis, it's best to actually amend the 16 ordinance eventually so that you can clarify and make 17 part of the city code what your interpretation is so 18 that it's understandable to applicants coming before 19 you, and that's what you have before you this evening. 20 It's intended to apply to certain 21 situations and it's primarily one-family clustering 22 option situations, two-family development, which you 23 don't see very often but you may see in the future, 24 multiple family uses and certain non-residential 25 development. The non-residential generally depends upon
10 1 the type of situation. It primarily applies when you 2 have more than one principal structure and you've got a 3 distance of one of those structures from a public 4 roadway so it becomes -- essentially what's happened is, 5 we've had some projects over the years, some 6 non-residential projects, that get fairly deep off the 7 roadway and if you don't have any standards other than 8 your parking standards what happens is it becomes a very 9 -- it has in some instances become a very circuitous 10 route to get from a public road to the building in the 11 very back, you've been meandering through parking lots. 12 It's made it challenging for the 13 fire department and other officials to make their way 14 through a parking lot situation when it really was never 15 intended typically to go for an extended distance. You 16 really want to have a more clearly designated emergency 17 route and even primary route for vehicular traffic to 18 circulate within a larger project. And this would 19 accomplish some standards for that. 20 It also, in evaluating how this 21 works with certain types of projects, and in particular 22 cluster projects and two-family projects, we also found 23 that there was an issue with parking in the very front 24 of a cluster project for example. Right now, there's a 25 25 foot setback that's measured from the back of the
11 1 curb, if you're doing one-family clustering, to where 2 the garage and the structure can begin. 3 Well, that's really a problem 4 because a typical length for parking on the apron of a 5 garage is about 20 feet for a vehicle. And then you're 6 supposed to have a sidewalk and your sidewalk is 7 supposed to be placed five feet off the curb. So if you 8 have a five-foot sidewalk and it's supposed to be five 9 feet off the back of your curb, plus you have to allow 10 for 20 feet for the parking stall, you really need 30 11 feet setback from the structure from the back of the 12 curb, and right now you have a 25-foot setback. 13 So that's another amendment that 14 you see that's running parallel to the standards, is 15 increasing the setback requirement for one-family 16 clustering and two-family in order to provide for that 17 so that we can fit everything in within the space. 18 I think that's all I'll say at this 19 point. There are some illustrations at the back to show 20 how this applies and I'm available for questions. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much, 22 Mr. Arroyo. 23 Do we have anything else from the 24 staff? 25 MR. EVANCOE: No, Madam Chair, we do not.
12 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 2 Is there anyone that would like to 3 address the Commission regarding this Public Hearing? 4 Seeing none, I will turn it over to 5 the Commission. Do we have any comments? 6 Member Kocan. 7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, then, I'll 8 speak just a little bit because when I read through the 9 minutes that we received this week I'm not sure if they 10 were more help or confused people more, but you probably 11 saw that I kept referring to changing of zoning, that I 12 considered it a rezoning. And that was my problem with 13 the version until it was clarified that -- or my concern 14 was addressed with what Mr. Arroyo just stated. 15 My main concern was the setback of 16 the building from the road in the RT-2 family 17 residential district, and it was only 25 feet but this 18 has now been changed to 30 feet, which does allow room 19 for the sidewalk with allowance for a 20-foot drive. 20 And I felt this was especially important because there 21 are reduced driveways and many times limited parking in 22 these types of developments. So it was important to 23 have the length of the driveway. 24 Hopefully the Implementation 25 Committee has addressed and anticipated all the
13 1 scenarios and we believe that this ordinance will assist 2 the City and the developers with site plan reviews of 3 general condominiums. 4 If there's no other discussion, I 5 can propose a motion. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I believe this is 8 a recommendation to City Council. 9 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I also believe 11 there's one other thing, before I make the motion, in 12 our packet. We're creating Section 2514, we're amending 13 Section 2403 but we're also amending Section 2400. So 14 we need to put that in the motion also; is that correct? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct. 16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Then I will 17 add that. 18 Motion. In the matter of -- and 19 I'm going to follow the verbiage on our agenda -- in the 20 matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.174, 21 motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council 22 to amend Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of 23 Ordinances, to create Section 2514, "Additional road 24 design building setback, and parking setback 25 requirements for One-Family Clustering Option,
14 1 Two-Family uses, Multiple Family uses, and certain 2 non-residential uses and developments, and to amend 3 Section 2403, One-Family Clustering Option for related 4 purposes, and to amend Section 2400, Schedule of 5 Regulations, for related purposes." 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do I have a second to 7 that motion? 8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Second. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member 10 Paul. 11 Is there any further discussion? 12 Member Paul. 13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: There are several 14 corrections I think we should get clarified on the 15 January 27th, 2003 packet, the minutes to our 16 Implementation meeting, before this continues forward. 17 It's the November 4th, 2002 meeting, Page 2, the very 18 bottom it says Rod -- it's his comments, the first 19 sentence, "that what it is". So it should be "that's 20 what it is", an apostrophe s. And then it says "but 21 they're difficult to do". "But it is difficult to do" 22 is what I think we were trying to get across. 23 Page 6, middle of the page under 24 Rod's comment, "this could be alight industrial 25 project". There just needs to be a space between "a"
15 1 and "light". 2 Under Lynn's comment three sections 3 later, third line, "and that's what I have a real 4 problem with," it says "and that and that it". I think 5 we have to just eliminate some of these. I think it 6 should read "with, that and it became obvious". 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think this is -- is 8 this the one -- excuse me, I don't mean to interject, 9 but is this the one that we had -- this was a draft that 10 was not done by a regular person, it was done by 11 Juanita, the person who does the minutes. Could we make 12 the corrections and then just give them to her? 13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Sure. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Because I think she 15 really did a good job and this is the first she's ever 16 done anything like this. 17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I just didn't want 18 this to go forward to another committee, the Council, 19 without having some of these looked at. Do you want me 20 to pass them to Mr. Evancoe? 21 MR. EVANCOE: That would be great. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 23 MR. EVANCOE: I'd be glad to pass those on 24 and get those amended. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And if anybody else has
16 1 any corrections that they would like to put in, please 2 make the corrections and give them to Mr. Evancoe. I 3 think -- and then I think also contained in those 4 minutes is the word "aye" we know is spelled a-y-e. 5 Is there any further discussion? 6 Yes, Member Markham. 7 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I just wanted to 8 commend everybody that's worked on this. It's only been 9 a year, and I say that nicely. I mean, I really mean 10 it. It seems like everybody worked on this and worked 11 to clarify something that was very murky and I 12 appreciate all the work that went into it. 13 MR. EVANCOE: Hear! Hear! 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no further 15 comments, the Chair will request that Mr. Schmitt call 16 the roll. 17 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 18 Commissioner Kocan? 19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 22 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.
17 1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle? 2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes. 3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer? 4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes. 5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague? 6 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes. 7 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Avdoulos? 8 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes. 9 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 11 Our next item for Public Hearing is 12 Zoning Map Amendment 18.621. The Public Hearing is at 13 the request of Leonard G. Siegal of Siegal/Tuomaala 14 Associates to rezone the subject property located in 15 Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and west of M-5 16 from RA (Residential Acreage) to RM-1 (Low Density, Low 17 Rise Multiple Family) or any other appropriate zoning. 18 The subject property is approximately 62.5 acres. 19 Mr. Schmitt. 20 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Madam Chair. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle. 22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: For reasons already 23 stated on the record, I ask to be recused. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Motion to recuse Mr.
18 1 Ruyle. 2 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Mr. 4 Shroyer. 5 All in favor say aye. 6 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 8 Now to you, Mr. Schmitt. 9 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 10 The request before you this evening 11 is concerning the rear half of the Brightmoor Christian 12 Church parcel that I'm sure you're all familiar with at 13 the corner of M-5 and Thirteen Mile Road. Although this 14 isn't the exact dimension of the parcel, we received the 15 written description and our GIS Department hasn't even 16 had time to update it yet. So, it is roughly this area 17 to the rear of the church that you can see here. 18 If I can zoom out a little bit, M-5 19 is located directly adjacent to the east and Thirteen 20 Mile is located directly adjacent to the south. The 21 current land use for the parcel is Single-Family for the 22 actual Brightmoor parcel and Multiple-Family for the 23 rear parcel, which we are discussing this evening. That 24 designation was changed at the December 4th Planning 25 Commission meeting per the recommendation of the
19 1 Planning Commission, with the intent that a development 2 agreement will be formed for the site at the time of 3 rezoning. 4 Zooming out a little further, 5 you'll see to the north is a Single-Family parcel, 6 quasi-public neighborhood park, which is part of the 7 Haverhill Farms Subdivision, to the west is 8 Multiple-Family designation with a PD-1 option, which 9 I'm sure you're aware of is the Erikson development, and 10 to the south along Thirteen Mile Road are several small 11 Single-Family lots. 12 The zoning map reflects which was 13 just stated in terms of land use. To the west is zoned 14 RM-1, to the north is zoned R-2, to the south is RA, 15 across Thirteen Mile Road, and on the other side of the 16 M-5 Connector is the OST Corridor. 17 The request this evening is to 18 rezone the parcel from RA, it's current designation, to 19 RM-1, (low density, low rise multiple-family). The 20 property will -- the Planning Department is 21 recommending, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee 22 recommended and when the Planning Commission voted on 23 the actual Master Plan changes suggested a development 24 agreement will be formed for the site if City Council so 25 approves. The developer is quite amenable to this and
20 1 feels it is probably the best way to develop the site in 2 the long run. 3 Some of the terms of the 4 development agreement will include setbacks between 5 buildings and rear yard setbacks and a maximum building 6 height. It will essentially conform to the standards of 7 the RT District but will be developed as a general 8 condominium project without lot lines. 9 As you just voted on the interim 10 road policy, when it becomes -- depending on the timing 11 of when it becomes active, this may be one of the first 12 projects that falls under it with the 30-foot front yard 13 setback, but that is something that will be a part of 14 the development agreement should City Council approve 15 its formation. 16 The traffic review indicated that 17 the Rezoning Impact Study was adequate and acceptable 18 and comments on the full Traffic Impact Study will be 19 provided at the time of Preliminary Site Plan. 20 Just to go through a few of the 21 options the Planning Commission has here this evening. 22 The preferred alternative would be to rezone the parcel 23 to RM-1, subject to the development agreement, with the 24 terms that were attached at the Master Plan Zoning 25 Committee and at the Master Plan change and any other
21 1 terms that may be recommended by the Planning Commission 2 or City Council. 3 One alternative would be rezone the 4 parcel to RT, two-family residential development, and 5 the other alternative would be to deny the request at 6 this time. 7 As I mentioned, the RM-1 is the 8 preferred alternative. Given the density of the Erikson 9 property to the west and the proximity of the M-5 10 Connector to the east, the fact that there's a large 11 amount of open space to the north, this parcel seems to 12 fit in line with the RM-1 and mobile home park density 13 that is traveling eastward towards the M-5 Connector in 14 the north side of the corridor. 15 The south side of the corridor is 16 predominantly Single-Family Residential; however, with 17 the Brightmoor Christian Church in front of this parcel 18 the impact of this parcel on these single-family homes 19 will be lessened and will probably not change from the 20 current impact from the church itself. 21 The major alternative of rezoning 22 the property to RT has several other items that would be 23 needed to be addressed. A parallel plan would be 24 submitted as part of the Preliminary Site Plan review 25 given the fact that the project will be developed as a
22
1 condominium. We will need to see the lot lines on one 2 plan; however, the formally approved plan will not 3 actually have the lot lines on it. This is similar to 4 the situation that we ran into recently with the 5 Trillium Village project, that a parallel plan will need 6 to be submitted at this point. 7 The other drawback to the RT zoning 8 is, in order to have lot lines on a project of this 9 nature you would have to split a building in half and 10 it's fairly impractical to do so. So a condominium is 11 the best way to go on this project and the best way to 12 do the condominium would be R-1 zoning, which does not 13 have the lot lines between buildings. 14 The applicant is here this evening 15 and representatives from Brightmoor Christian Church and 16 they would be happy to answer any questions you might 17 have. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 19 Would the applicant like to address 20 the Commission for any reason? 21 MR. FOLINO: Hello. My name is Reverend 22 Thomas Folino, F-o-l-i-n-o. I represent Brightmoor 23 Christian Church. We don't have any issues that we 24 really are concerned about. We felt we've discussed 25 everything at the committee level and the Planning --
23 1 the previous Planning Commission meeting. I would like 2 to give the floor to Mr. Jim Galbraith of PT Commerce, 3 who is the developer. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could spell your 5 last name for the court reporter. 6 MR. GALBRAITH: Yes, I will. 7 Good evening. My name is Jim 8 Galbraith, and it's G-a-l-b-r-a-i-t-h. 9 PT Commerce, LLC, which I am a 10 principal of, has entered into a purchase agreement with 11 Brightmoor Church to acquire the 60 northerly acres or, 12 as we call it, the residual parcel and we have appeared 13 before the full Planning Commission in December of this 14 past year seeking a Master Plan amendment that would 15 reflect the multi-family development. This would be as 16 discussed at that time and as discussed at the Master 17 Plan Amendment Committee meetings prior to that. 18 It is our intention to pair this 19 rezoning request up with a development agreement to be 20 negotiated between our offices and the City Council, 21 probably our respective attorneys I would suppose, that 22 would incorporate all of the development standards that 23 we have embodied in our very conceptual plan that has 24 been presented to you. 25 This is a fairly sensitive site.
24 1 We feel that it's appropriate to be developed under a 2 development agreement because it has some extensive 3 woodlands on it and some extensive wetlands that we are 4 very sensitive to, and we know from a site plan 5 standpoint with our development team we can respect 6 those natural features of the site. We are aware of the 7 new standards that you've just recommended adoption of. 8 We'll be reflecting those and incorporating those into 9 our new plan. For the most part, with the exception of 10 the front yard setback, we had already incorporated all 11 of those. 12 We are proposing to build a duplex 13 condominium ranch product, under the development 14 agreement not to exceed 200 units, perhaps at the end of 15 the day it may even be a few units less than that once 16 we've reached final engineering and dealt with staff on 17 wetlands and woodlands. 18 I don't have a great deal to add 19 over what your Planning staff has set forth in their 20 reports. They've done a very thorough job. I'd be 21 happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission 22 might have. We feel, as we've stated before when we 23 appeared regarding the Master Plan amendment, in our 24 view there's some very compelling reasons to look at a 25 moderately higher density than the current RA zoning.
25 1 And not to be redundant but I will reiterate briefly. 2 With the Erikson community to the west, we feel that 3 this is a natural step-down in density to the east, to 4 the M-5, and it provides a good transition to the north 5 as well, to the Haverhill community. There's a large 6 natural buffer to Haverhill and we feel that from a land 7 use standpoint the residential owner-occupied 8 condominiums at this density are compatible with the 9 area. 10 As I said, we'd be happy to answer 11 any specific questions that the Commission might have. 12 Thank you very much. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 14 Is there anyone in the audience 15 that would like to address the Commission regarding this 16 Public Hearing? 17 Seeing no one, I will close the 18 Public Hearing and turn it over to the Commission. 19 Member Paul. 20 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I want to comment to 21 the Planning staff that I really appreciate you giving 22 us all the options for what we can zone this as, and I 23 appreciate that in the future I really think that's a 24 good way for us to have a meat and wrap our arms around 25 the project, some real meat and potatoes to work with.
26 1 So thank you. 2 In the matter of Zoning Map 3 Amendment 18.621 for Brightmoor Christian Church, 4 recommend approval to the City Council to rezone from RA 5 to RM-1 (low density, low rise, multiple-family 6 residential) with a development agreement attached to 7 the site. 8 Number 1. Limiting the density to 9 a total 100 dwellings, which is 200 units, on the site, 10 which is approximately 3.25 units per acre. 11 Number 2. Front yard setback of 25 12 feet, measured from the edge of the right-of-way for the 13 street. 14 Number 3. Setback between 15 buildings of at least 20 feet side to side and 70 feet 16 back to back, for a maximum building height of 17 two-and-a-half stories or 35 feet, and to preserve -- 18 the natural wetlands and woodlands on the site shall be 19 permanently preserved by way of the appropriate 20 conservation easements. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a second to 22 the motion? Member Kocan. 23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll second the 24 motion, but can I also add something and ask a question. 25 I would also like to add for the following reason that
27 1 the zoning is consistent with the Master Plan and it 2 also provides transitional use between the high density 3 Fox Run Village and M-5. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you accept that? 5 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes, I do. 6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I have a question 7 for the staff or the attorney. 8 When the Master Plan Committee 9 talked about the front yard setback, it was resolved 10 that there would be a development agreement that stated 11 the setback would be 25 feet from the right-of-way. 12 What we just approved for the front yard setback in the 13 previous ordinance, in the new ordinance, is a front 14 yard setback 30 feet from the curb. 15 Essentially the setback ends up 16 being about the same if you measure one from the curb 17 and one from the right-of-way; is that correct? 18 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. If there are 19 property lines on the project, it would be done from the 20 right-of-way. However, without the property lines it 21 can be done from the back of curb under the interim 22 policy. 23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So the 25 feet from 24 the right-of-way as stated in the motion, that would be
25 correct?
28 1 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. It will -- once 2 it's worked out with the attorneys, the attorneys may 3 choose to go with the 30 feet from back of curb 4 depending on how the language is worked out, but it will 5 essentially be the same setback. 6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: As long as we're 7 consistent and the developer understands what we're 8 talking about. I think it's going to end up being the 9 same setback. I just want that to be clarified. 10 I have no other discussion. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further 12 discussion? Member Markham. 13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I have a few items. 14 I've been working on this from -- at the committee level 15 forward and I still think it's the right thing to do. I 16 think it's absolutely going in the right direction, but 17 I'm a little bit concerned about recommending rezoning 18 without having seen anything that resembles a 19 development agreement. And maybe I'm just not clear in 20 how -- the sequence by which that's done, but my concern 21 is we recommend rezoning to RM-1 and we have all these 22 things that we want to make sure get included and then 23 it gets up to council level and for whatever reason our 24 recommendations of restrictions don't get included, and 25 I have a real concern with that.
29 1 So I'm wondering what we can do to 2 tie all of these requirements to our recommendations 3 such that they're not taken apart at the Council level. 4 Similar to what we did with Catholic Central, 5 potentially putting some sort of proviso in there that 6 says that if it's not built to -- rezoned and built to 7 these standards it reverts back to the RA zoning. 8 Is there some way we can handle 9 that? 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, would you 11 like to answer that question? 12 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. Every development 13 agreement that we do, since it's not specifically 14 provided for in the ordinance, has that last language 15 that you talked about. That's really the only remedy -- 16 if a developer or property owner wants to violate our 17 agreement, that's our remedy and that's written in, sort 18 of cast in stone in every agreement that we do. So 19 that's in there. 20 The items that are being 21 enumerated, or were enumerated by Commissioner Paul, and 22 any amendments to that are also tied to your 23 recommendation to the City Council. The City Council 24 can either accept those recommendations when it 25 addresses the rezoning or not. So you can't have a
30 1 guarantee sitting here tonight that the Council will 2 find all of those to be something they desire, but 3 you've put your recommendation on the record with those 4 conditions and that will be your record recommendation. 5 So what you need to do here tonight 6 is make sure that the list of things that you want to 7 see in the development agreement is complete because 8 this is your chance and it will now go to Council and 9 they'll either accept those, add to them, delete from 10 them and come up with the agreement that Council wants. 11 It's a little hard for us to give 12 you a draft agreement because we don't even know if 13 we're going to be directed by Council to prepare one and 14 to spend the time and effort to sit down, negotiate with 15 the property owner's attorney until Council says we're 16 interested. So we've had preliminary discussions on a 17 staff level but there's been no expenditure of that kind 18 of time and effort, which will come later. 19 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Thank you, Mr. 20 Schultz. 21 Okay. Did we include the 22 conservation easements as part of the motion? I didn't 23 hear that. 24 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, that was 25 included.
31 1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. Thank you. 2 There was a note in the traffic report at the very end 3 that said the existing New Life Drive will have to be 4 extended through the site, either as a public road or a 5 private road built to public road standards, north to a 6 stub aligned with the proposed Benson Drive. 7 I took that to mean that we need to 8 send this road through the development up to the 9 development north of that and I don't think that's what 10 we want to do. Did I read that in error? It was on the 11 last -- it was on the last page of the Birchler Arroyo 12 report dated May 15, 2002. 13 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, or go ahead, Tim, 14 if you're ready. 15 I was just going to add, I mean, 16 you certainly are reading it correctly and I think 17 that's the recommendation we're receiving from Birchler 18 Arroyo. I think they're proposing that there be 19 interconnection between this parcel and the one to the 20 north and that is their recommendation. It's not 21 something that you're bound to follow, but it is their 22 professional recommendation. 23 MR. SCHMITT: I believe the suggestion is 24 being made to connect up to the long, skinny development 25 to the north, which would have run a road all the way
32 1 down through it under a proposed plan previously. I'm 2 not aware of the status of those plans; however, should 3 the two developments both occur, it would be 4 advantageous to link them up. 5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: But I thought we 6 decided it wouldn't be advantageous because we don't 7 want to put a road through the woodlands up in that part 8 of the property. 9 MR. EVANCOE: And it is important to note 10 the date of this review from Birchler Arroyo because the 11 Bray Point Development that we're referring to has been 12 withdraw by that developer. They're not proceeding with 13 those residential plans at this point. So there is not 14 a road likely to be connected to from that site. 15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't want this 16 development to be required to do that, and I know we 17 talked about it at the Master Plan level because we 18 talked about putting in an alternate fire access that 19 was actually grass pavers, which comes up in the 20 landscape ordinance discussion we're going to have 21 shortly, but, you know, that was to be the second access 22 to this piece of property from a safety standpoint. I 23 thought the only traffic access was to be through the -- 24 I forget the name of the -- well, it's New Life 25 Boulevard. It would be on the west side of the parcel,
33 1 right, north of the church -- northwest of the church 2 was going to be the only access into this development. 3 MR. SCHMITT: I believe that's how it's 4 currently laid out in the concept plan. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. 6 Mr. Schultz, I don't know if you 7 were here, but I thought when they put in Fox Run, I 8 thought there was supposed to be a connection. 9 MR. SCHMITT: There is one shown on the 10 concept plan. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: There are. There's 13 this one and this one. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay, and we talked 16 about that. And they also were talking about putting 17 grass pavers in here as additional fire access. What I 18 don't want to have happen is for them to have to put a 19 road up here, which is what I believe that 20 recommendation -- 21 MR. SCHMITT: The recommendation I believe 22 would be lining up on the far northeastern corner of the 23 site where there are minimal woodlands. I believe that 24 was where the proposed Bray Point property would have 25 lined up. However, with that not occurring -- with that
34 1 having been withdrawn or abandoned, we really don't know 2 what connection will occur. So I think that's something 3 that certainly we'll look at at the time of the site 4 plan review, but at this time no connection is proposed 5 given that there's no road to the north. 6 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I guess I'm not 7 clear. Our consultant is recommending that that needs 8 to happen. It is a site plan question. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 10 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. 11 And it is partly site plan but it's 12 also relevant to discuss tonight, and I think one thing 13 I didn't hear in the motion or the amendments was any 14 reference to the concept plan. And if the Commission is 15 generally -- finds that the concept plan before you 16 tonight to be generally acceptable, then that may be 17 something you would consider attaching to your motion 18 and when it comes back for site plan review, or before 19 then if this issue is developed in front of Council, 20 then that can maybe be made part of the development 21 agreement. If you have strong feelings or if a majority 22 has strong feelings of no connection, make that part of 23 your motion tonight as well, but it will all be resolved 24 finally at the site plan review. If you have 25 suggestions or concerns, put them as part of the motion
35 1 as a reference to the concept plan. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. 3 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: If stating that the 4 concept plan is generally acceptable as part of the 5 motion will clarify this, then I would suggest we do 6 that. 7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Can we also -- we do 8 not want rural Benson Drive to connect to the north 9 property? 10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: We haven't had all 11 that discussion yet though, you know, because I think 12 there are other members who don't necessarily agree with 13 that. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, do you want that 15 as an amendment to the motion, Member Markham, the 16 concept plan? 17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: The concept plan, 18 yes. I don't think necessarily it's necessary to the 19 road. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you amenable to 21 that? 22 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I am. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan. 24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Before I approve 25 that, a concept plan is flexible. I mean, it's a
36 1 concept. My concern is, I don't know if the City fire 2 department has looked at this concept plan and I have a 3 real concern about the meandering throughout this, and 4 the fire department may require a road and I would want 5 the health, safety and welfare to be addressed. 6 So I did read throughout the 7 minutes that the concept plan would be attached to the 8 development agreement if we so chose, but I also want 9 the flexibility that should the -- should we get 10 recommendations and requirements for health, safety and 11 welfare to have a road there, I don't want to say no, 12 we're not, absolutely not going to put one in. So as 13 long as that's open, I would second the amendment. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 15 MR. SCHULTZ: And it would be open. The 16 development agreement typically attaches a concept plan 17 but will also say meet ordinance requirements except 18 where we deviate in this document. So, it will identify 19 it as a flexible thing. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Coburn. 21 MR. COBURN: And I think the intent of 22 what the traffic review letter was saying is very 23 similar to what Member Kocan was saying, is that if 24 you're having trouble with the 800 foot rule for the 25 length of streets with two points of access, and I think
37 1 that's what he was getting at, was that emergency access 2 point to the north, because, according to Mr. Schmitt, 3 past the wetlands you're exceeding your 800 foot from 4 two points of access. So I think that that's where 5 we're going with that. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 7 Do we have any further comments? 8 Mr. Shroyer. 9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you. I just 10 have one for quick clarification, and this will go to 11 Mr. Schmitt. 12 The motion as read, or as made I 13 should say, and amended, does that cover all the parts 14 of the development agreement that you recommended from 15 the City? I don't want to leave something out. 16 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, it does. 17 Attaching the concept plan would be the last thing that 18 really needs to happen. 19 MR. SHROYER: Including the parallel 20 plans? 21 MR. SCHMITT: The parallel plan is not 22 necessary if you rezone it to RM-1. The parallel plan 23 would be required if you went to the RT district. 24 MR. SHROYER: Okay, but the plan we have 25 will show property lines.
38 1 MR. SCHMITT: No. The plan you will get 2 will be considered an apartment building, if that helps 3 you clarify it. There will be distances between 4 buildings as opposed to distances off of property lines. 5 MR. SHROYER: But for planning purposes
6 you would be looking at invisible property lines. 7 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you can look at it that 8 way. 9 MR. SHROYER: Okay. I just wanted to make 10 sure I understood it correctly. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan. 12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm sorry, one more 13 clarification. Does the development agreement run with 14 the land or with the developer? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: It governs -- it does run 16 with the land to the extent that its terms are complied 17 with. The remedy in the development agreement if there 18 is noncompliance before the property is finaled out and 19 actually built is to revert back to original zoning, 20 which in this case would be RA. 21 So it governs the land, it runs 22 with the land, not the developer. It typically says -- 23 we could write it so it only went with the developer but 24 we would typically say heirs, successors and assigns. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Heirs?
39 1 MR. SCHULTZ: The heirs of the property 2 owner. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I see. I didn't 4 hear what you said. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: So in reality it runs with 6 the land until it becomes an issue and we want to revert 7 back. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further 10 comments? Member Paul. 11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One point when this 12 does come back towards the Commission, I think it would 13 be helpful if we knew what the acreage was through the 14 woodlands if we were going to connect that drive. So if 15 we could be very specific, because it looks like it's 16 already a point that might need to be clarified in the 17 future and a maybe there's some disagreement already 18 about that drive extending. So it would have that from 19 the fire marshal and, second, it would have the acreage 20 that would be lost to support that road. Maybe even 21 some soil borings need to be done if we're going to 22 extend that road. 23 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly that's something 24 that we'll require at site plan review. 25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Thank you.
40 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 2 Do we have any other comments? I'd 3 like to make one comment. 4 Since I was on the Master Plan and 5 Zoning Committee, I think -- did you say in your motion 6 200 units? I think, our recommendation was -- 7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One hundred dwellings, 8 200 hundred units. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One hundred dwellings, 10 200 units. That was our max according to our 11 recommendation. 12 MR. EVANCOE: I think it might be most 13 appropriate to say 100 buildings, 200 dwelling units. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it was not to 15 exceed 200 dwelling units. 16 MR. EVANCOE: Right. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did we put that in the 18 motion, not to exceed said 200 dwelling units? 19 COMMISSIONER PAUL: What I stated was 20 limiting the density to a total of 100 dwellings, 200 21 units, on the site approximately 3.25 units per acre. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's not right. 23 COMMISSIONER PAUL: So how would you like 24 to word that? 25 MR. EVANCOE: I think 100 buildings, 200
41 1 dwelling units would be appropriate. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Not more than. 3 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Not to exceed a total 4 -- not to exceed 100 buildings, 200 dwellings on the 5 site -- 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Dwelling units. 7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Dwelling units? 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Good enough for me, 10 3.25 units per acre. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. If there's no 12 further -- 13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we need to second 14 that? I will. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, you do. 16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. I do. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Member 18 Kocan, and thank you, Member Paul, for that amendment. 19 If there's no further discussion, 20 could you call the roll, Mr. Schmitt. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 22 Chairperson Nagy? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.
42 1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer? 2 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes. 3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague? 4 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes. 5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos? 6 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes. 7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan? 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 11 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 7 to 0. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Good luck, 13 gentlemen. 14 MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you very much and 15 we'll look forward to working with the City Council on a 16 development agreement. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 18 At this point it is early, but we 19 will probably have a long discussion. Would the 20 Commission like to entertain taking a ten minute break 21 now? We will take a ten minute break. 22 (A brief recess was held during 23 the meeting.) 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call the 25 meeting back to order.
43 1 Our next Public Hearing is Zoning 2 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.172. Public Hearing to 3 amend Ordinance No. 97-18 as Amended, The City of Novi 4 Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of The City of Novi Code of 5 Ordinances, to revise Section 2509, "Landscape 6 Standards: Obscuring Earth Berms And Walls, 7 Rights-of-Way Buffers, And Interior And Exterior 8 Landscape Plantings", in order to update and revise the 9 entire Section. 10 Do we have anybody that would like 11 to present? 12 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Thank you, Madam 13 Chair. I've chosen to remain here at my station because 14 I do have quite a bit to present this evening, but 15 before I do that I obviously will defer to the Chair as 16 to how you would like to conduct the process this 17 evening. But in terms of history, I think it's very 18 appropriate to give credit to the members of our 19 Ordinance Review Committee, that included Mayor Clark, 20 Council Member Bononi and Council Member Lorenzo who 21 worked -- 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's Mayor Pro-Tem, 23 Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi. 24 MR. EVANCOE: Mayor Pro-Tem, Excuse me, 25 who worked very extensively with our former landscape
44 1 Architect Lauren McGuire on preparing this ordinance, 2 and the ordinance that we've supplied to you comes 3 basically as it was forwarded from the Ordinance Review 4 Committee. And this evening you have in your packet 5 obviously the ordinance itself. You also have several 6 exhibits, some of which are intended to be a part of the 7 ordinance and others are kind of side documents that we 8 would like to receive a recommendation on but they would 9 not actually be a part of the ordinance. Specifically 10 the street tree list and the planting details would be a 11 part of the ordinance, whereas the suggested plant 12 material list, which could be changed from time to time, 13 would not actually be within the ordinance, nor would 14 the proposed site maintenance agreement. 15 And with that I have done a very 16 extensive review and Member Kocan was quite helpful on 17 two occasions. Recently she provided some excellent 18 comments, many of which I had seen and many of which I 19 had not seen, and I'm prepared, if the Commission 20 wishes, I can go through the document really on a 21 page-by-page basis and provide you with some reactions 22 and suggestions for some things that are fairly 23 substantive and some things that are more grammatical 24 oriented. 25 So I think that if you were willing
45 1 to indulge me on that I think it might be a time-saver 2 to do that because my belief is that most of what I will 3 present you will want to go along with and then some of 4 those items would obviously require some discussion. So 5 I would defer to you as to how you would like to 6 proceed. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm going to ask the 8 members of the Commission. 9 Member Kocan, what is your 10 pleasure? 11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My only concern is 12 your suggestions this evening, we would probably have to 13 vote on them individually if you're making any changes 14 to the copy that we have in front of us. 15 MR. EVANCOE: Right. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you kindly repeat 17 that? 18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I was going to say my 19 only concern is that -- I believe that if there's any 20 changes to what is in the actual ordinance as it's 21 written, would we have to have separate motions on those 22 or, Mr. Schultz, we could probably state changes as 23 discussed -- I mean some of the things that I brought 24 forward are probably going to require some discussion by 25 the Commission.
46 1 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the answer to that 4 question is, it depends if you want to vote on it 5 tonight or if you intend to open it for public comment, 6 hold a Public Hearing, close the Public Hearing and then 7 continue to work on the ordinance both at this meeting 8 and at some subsequent meeting. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think the plan is we 10 have the Public Hearing, I think there is correspondence 11 we have here so if somebody does want to come and say 12 something to us. I would encourage the Commission to be 13 able to vote on it this evening. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm hopeful we can do 15 that. I'm sorry, Madam Chair. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, if you'd like 17 to do a quick presentation of the overall and once we 18 get to page-by-page after we -- that would work because 19 I know Member Kocan is -- I understand what she's saying 20 and I tend to agree. 21 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, I really don't 22 have an overall presentation. I think, as you know, 23 this amendment is really intended to address various 24 inconsistencies and shortcomings that have been 25 discovered over the years with the present ordinance.
47 1 It's really not, per se, a whole new approach to 2 regulating landscaping. It's really more a tightening 3 up and clarification of the existing ordinance. So 4 there is not a lot of new, very bold approaches, which 5 is okay, because I think we have an ordinance that's 6 creating a fairly good community. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good. Okay. I'd like 8 to continue with the Public Hearing then before we get 9 into any further discussion. 10 Do we have any members of the 11 audience that would like to address the Commission 12 regarding this Public Hearing of our landscape 13 ordinance? 14 Yes, sir. If you would please step 15 forward, state your name and spell it for the court 16 reporter. And please keep your -- if you represent a 17 group, you are entitled to five minutes, if not, three 18 minutes. 19 MR. CONROY: Okay. Thank you. 20 My name is Pat Conroy, C-o-n-r-o-y, 21 and I'm the president of Conroy Associates. We are 22 landscape architects. 23 I've come before this Council, or 24 the Planning Commission, before on various projects that 25 we've worked on within the city and we have looked at
48 1 the ordinance as it's put together, and I have also 2 talked to Lauren when she was here on staff and so on 3 and there's a couple points I would like to bring up 4 from those of us who work with this ordinance on a 5 day-to-day basis or in many cases weeks-to-weeks or 6 month-to-month, depending upon the project. 7 One of the things, if I can, in 8 your intent, and I'm just going to quote real briefly, 9 "is to achieve significant visually attractive 10 landscapes which reflect the City's interest in lush 11 green landscaped areas throughout Novi. These 12 landscapes shall be fashioned by creative placement and 13 distinctive design that emphasizes the preservation of 14 existing natural resources and the use of native plant 15 materials, and provides a changing palate of color and 16 texture throughout the season by utilizing a diversity 17 of plant species." 18 That is an excellent intent. The 19 reality is, as we start to work with this ordinance we 20 find that it becomes very restrictive in certain ways of 21 trying to create a creative, attractive landscape. You 22 know, there are many elements that make up the landscape 23 in any given site. There's trees, evergreen and 24 deciduous, there's ornamentals, there's shrubbery, 25 there's perennials, there's annuals, there's
49 1 groundcovers, there's grasses. There's also additional 2 types. There's landscape items. There are various 3 kinds of screening walls that can be used, there's other 4 kinds of retaining walls that can be used to add 5 interest and character to the landscape. Different 6 paving patterns, textures, brick, textured concrete and 7 so on. These all go into creating a pleasing palate. 8 Water features, there are other examples of items that 9 can be used to help, you know, address and create a very 10 pleasant looking landscaping. 11 Again, as someone who's worked with 12 the City on various projects, we find that the past 13 ordinance, and this has addressed some of the issues, 14 but the main emphasis seems to be on tree replacement 15 and, you know, trees for frontage requirements, trees 16 for units, parking lot trees, screening trees. The 17 emphasis in the ordinance is very much loaded towards 18 trees and the quantities that we can put on a piece of 19 paper. 20 What we'd like to see is that they 21 look at some of the other aspects of landscaping that go 22 into creating, you know, again a pleasant palate. Just 23 to keep it brief there's a couple things we'd like to 24 see. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you just slow
50 1 down just a little bit and speak up? I don't know. 2 Maybe I'm going deaf or something. I don't know. 3 MR. CONROY: No, I get told that 4 occasionally. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thanks. 6 MR. CONROY: You know, under the tree 7 replacement ordinance right now we have to -- there's 8 the formula and so on for doing tree replacement. The 9 tree replacements have to stand alone by themselves. 10 There's no consideration given to using them for any 11 other part of the landscape ordinance. Okay. 12 What happens with that with the 13 clients that we work with and the developers that we 14 work with over in the city is that we laugh and we say 15 we're not doing a landscape architecture project, 16 we're doing a reforestation project. It's how many 17 trees can you get on site, because most of our clients 18 would rather spend the money on their site than give the 19 City 325 or 375 dollars to use it elsewhere. 20 So that becomes somewhat 21 restrictive and we find ourselves, like I said, not 22 doing architecture but just putting as many trees on the 23 site to satisfy the ordinance. 24 The other thing I'd like to see, if 25 possible, and we work with a lot of other cities and
51 1 townships, and almost every one that we work with there 2 is a clause that the Planning Commission has the 3 authority to look at the landscape and to see if it has 4 met the intent that you're looking for. 5 I know in -- at least it's my 6 impression under the Novi ordinance, unless you can get 7 specific requirements it then becomes a zoning issue and 8 it's got to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance on 9 some of these. I think that's something -- and, again, 10 I've worked with this Planning Commission and past ones. 11 I mean, you should have the ability 12 to look at a landscape project that comes before you and 13 to make minor modifications to see if it has met the 14 intent without forcing the client to then get a denial, 15 go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then come on back 16 for a variance on this issue. Okay. 17 I'm trying to think what else we've 18 had. Those are pretty much the main elements and I know 19 I'm probably pretty close to my time on that. 20 You know, the other issue that we 21 talk about, too, and there's other people that may 22 address it, is the emphasis on sizing. I did see Lauren 23 did put in there and we did talk quite a bit with her on 24 allowing credit for additional upsizing of material. 25 The way the past ordinance was
52 1 written, if you put in an eight-foot Evergreen you got 2 no more credit -- or if you put in a 15-foot Evergreen, 3 there was no more credit than if you put in a 4 eight-footer. So, again, our clients are going, well, 5 what's my incentive if I'm not getting any benefit out 6 of it. So we end up with in my case, or I feel a lot of 7 cases, a very boring type of palate. You get a lot of 8 trees that are the same size and, you know, all-in-all 9 it's kind of like, you know, somewhat boring. 10 So those are a few of the items 11 that I wanted to address today. I appreciate your time 12 and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to 13 answer them. Thank you. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 15 Is there anyone else that would 16 like to address the Commission regarding this issue? 17 Sir, if you would come forward, 18 state your name and spell it for the court reporter. 19 MR. SCHUTZKI: Good evening. My name is 20 Dr. Robert Schutzki from Michigan State University. 21 It's S-c-h-u-t-z-k-i. I'm also speaking on behalf of 22 Amy Frankmann, an Executive Director of the Michigan 23 Nursery Association. I believe you have a letter that 24 we sent earlier this week. And basically the intent of 25 the letter is just to make you aware of what the status
53 1 of the nursery industry is in terms of the shortage of 2 caliper sized stock. 3 Over the last three to five years 4 we've been faced by drought, we've been faced by 5 increased demands in not only the number of projects 6 that we have but also the number of trees per project. 7 And it seems that we were doing okay and we would have 8 been out of the shortage in about two years until 9 emerald ash borer hit. 10 And, based on the estimate, we have 11 about 25,000 trees that are used in the general Michigan 12 area that have to be replaced by other species. As a 13 result, the landscape industry is scrambling to try to 14 find these trees and the people we spoke to, the nursery 15 suppliers, the brokers, are not having anywhere near the 16 numbers to meet the current demands. And so the 17 Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association and Michigan 18 State University, we're working together to try to find 19 possible solutions to this and trying to keep people 20 updated with the seriousness of the situation. 21 And so, again, our intent in the 22 letter is to let you know what's happening out there in 23 the industry and if there's any way that there could be 24 temporary variances or considerations given to some of 25 these projects for the amount of three-inch caliper
54 1 trees that -- there's two-and-a-half inch caliper trees 2 on the market, there's two inch. Now certainly going 3 from a three inch to two inch is a reduction quite a bit 4 in crown size, but there may be slight situations from 5 project to project that may warrant some consideration. 6 The other thing is that, again, 7 we're keeping abreast of this situation. If there's 8 anything we can do either as the Association or through 9 Michigan State, please give us a call and we'd be more 10 than happy to work with you. Thank you. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Doctor, if I could ask 12 you just one question. With regard to the ash borer, is 13 that all ashes, green ashes, mountain ash, purple ash, 14 is it all the ash species or just certain ones? 15 MR. SCHUTZKI: Okay. It's all the 16 fraxinus ash. Mountain ash is a different genus and 17 species. And so when we talk about all the fraxinus, 18 it's white ash, green ash, black ash, there's a European 19 ash, several of the Asian ashes are also affected with 20 it. 21 One of the things that we have 22 started is a collection of ash species and cultivars to 23 try to look at selectivity of this. And because of the 24 situation we're accumulating these things and actually 25 we're hoping to get that project planted next spring.
55 1 This spring we have a project going 2 in at our Tollgate Center in Novi where so far we have 3 67 different alternative species that we'll be planting 4 out and use that in educational programs for the 5 developing industry, for municipalities, for the 6 landscape industry to start to look at alternative 7 species that may start to fill some of these voids 8 created by ash. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Just to clarify, the 10 ash borer disease affects the white ash, the green ash, 11 the black ash, the European ash and the Asian ash. 12 Correct? 13 MR. SCHUTZKI: Yes. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So if we have those 15 within our tree inventory supply list, then we should 16 remove those. Correct? 17 MR. SCHUTZKI: At this particular time 18 we're suggesting that. Until we have more information 19 on the specificity of all of them, that's what would be 20 the recommendation. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 22 MR. SCHUTZKI: Thank you. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there anyone else 24 who would like to address the Commission with regard to 25 this Public Hearing?
56
1 Sir, if you would please step 2 forward, state your name and spell it for the court 3 reporter. 4 MR. ROBERTS: My name is Gary Roberts, 5 R-o-b-e-r-t-s. I'm the owner and president of Great 6 Oaks Landscaping. I'm also a landscape architect. I've 7 done a great deal of work in the city of Novi. I worked 8 with Lauren McGuire on reviewing the old ordinance, so I 9 had an understanding of it and made some recommendations 10 at that time to her. 11 And I haven't read the new 12 ordinance so I'm not sure what things have been 13 addressed, but just as a point of reference, Dr. 14 Schutzki mentions some of the diversity problems, some 15 of the availability of nursery stock, so from a 16 practical standpoint acquiring of nursery stock has been 17 extremely difficult. It's not just a matter of the ash 18 borer but the sizes that are available and the species 19 that are allowed to be planted in the city and some of 20 the recommendations are that you broaden that palate a
21 little bit. 22 It might help with some diversity 23 but not let any one species start to dominate to such a 24 great extent that another problem can arise. So it 25 might even open up to other species that have been
57 1 looked down upon for one reason or another, Norway 2 maples possibly, even some of the Poplar varieties, some 3 of the other pear varieties and things like that, to add 4 a little bit more diversity. In small quantities I 5 think they would do very well. 6 But also, you know, in some 7 communities we work in, they'll take the quantity of 8 caliper inches that are required and allow it to be 9 counted a larger tree of a five inch caliper or a 12 10 foot Evergreen or a 20 foot Evergreen and will start 11 counting toward that caliper inch in a proportionate 12 manner. And what I found in designing is that that will 13 give you a more complete, a fuller landscaping, one that 14 doesn't look so static, that does give maturity to it. 15 Some of the better developments will have a variety of 16 sizes which can change the proportions and the density 17 of the site. 18 Some of the regulations we looked 19 at within the ordinance, the way it was written before, 20 was so specific that it tied the hands of the creative 21 designer. It sometimes brings it down to the lowest 22 common denominator that it says at a minimum this is 23 what you must do, so anybody could be a designer. You 24 know, one tree, five bushes, two Evergreens, all right, 25 repeat it here, here and here. That started -- it went
58 1 contrary to what your intent was. 2 So what we're recommending is that 3 it might be a minimum that needs to be done but now, you 4 know, it might or with reviewing the ordinance is it 5 more flexibility to say did we achieve the main broad 6 concept of intent and at least have a minimum that you 7 hold people to but realizing that sometimes it's better 8 not to have those percentages; that sometimes design 9 means changing those proportions, changing the 10 arrangement of those trees and that there should be some 11 flexibility within reviewing the plans that the intent 12 of the ordinance is kept without trying to be a cookie 13 cutter on some of the other items. 14 Hoping that make sense, and I'm not 15 sure what's been addressed yet in the ordinance, I have 16 not read that, and I know talking to Lauren these were 17 issues that did come up and we're hoping that they were 18 met. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 20 Do we have anyone else that would 21 like to address the Commission? 22 Yes, sir, if you would come 23 forward, please. If you could state your name and spell 24 your last name for the court reporter. 25 MR. WEINDORF: Paul Weindorf,
59 1 W-e-i-n-d-o-r-f. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 3 MR. WEINDORF: I come before you this 4 evening because I'd like to protest the wording under I 5 guess it's Paragraph 5, Landscape Plan Requirements, in 6 this document. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you tell me what 8 page you're on? That would be quicker. There's a page 9 number at the bottom. 10 MR. WEINDORF: 20. 11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Sir, could you speak 12 up? 13 MR. WEINDORF: Okay. It says in there 14 that "a landscape plan must be submitted for any new 15 commercial and residential developments and" -- and this 16 is where I have a problem -- "any addition to an 17 existing building that is a 25 percent increase in the 18 overall square footage of the building or 400 square 19 feet, whichever is less," and then there are 20 some odd 20 items that are required if you have a 25 percent 21 increase or 400 square feet or less. 22 What I am protesting is that this, 23 as I read it, applies even to old residential properties 24 that may exist in the city of Novi and it would, if you 25 go through these items, and I'll touch on a couple of
60 1 them, I think in my opinion it puts an undue financial 2 burden on any person that's trying to improve his 3 property and add on to it. 4 So for the common -- the way this 5 whole thing reads, it reads like commercial development 6 requirements and you're now applying to Single-Family 7 residential, old residential properties and trying to 8 bring them up to current standards when no one else in 9 the neighborhood is required to do so. 10 So, for instance, it's not clear 11 whether this applies to 400 square feet or 25 percent if 12 you're talking about a second floor addition or is this 13 the base, base floor property. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. It's the 15 increase of the building, 25 percent out. 16 MR. WEINDORF: It doesn't say that. It 17 says 25 percent in the overall square footage of the 18 building. So a residential property is measured in 19 interior square foot. If there's a second story, that's 20 additional square feet. 21 MR. AVDOULOS: Madam Chair. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Avdoulos. 23 MR. AVDOULOS: The way I understand it, 24 and the way it's read, the existing building that has 25 the increase is either a commercial building or a
61 1 residential development. To me it doesn't pertain to an 2 actual residential neighborhood -- an actual residence. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Single, like one house 4 in the whole subdivision. 5 MR. WEINDORF: Right, but if you read it 6 from my point of view, I think it could apply to that. 7 MR. AVDOULOS: And that may be something 8 that right now we look at correcting or putting a 9 clarification to indicate that it's only for commercial 10 or residential development properties, not individual 11 residences. 12 MR. WEINDORF: That would satisfy me, 13 because if you read through this it would cost more to 14 just update my house than for all these requirements 15 than what the addition would cost. 16 MR. AVDOULOS: I agree. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's a good point. 18 MR. WEINDORF: Thank you very much. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anything else? 20 MR. WEINDORF: That's it. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much for 22 your time. 23 Do we have anyone else that would 24 like to come forward and address the Commission with 25 regard to this Public Hearing?
62 1 Mr. McGinnis, do you have anything 2 that you would like to add while we're here? 3 MR. McGINNIS: Not at this point. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 5 With that, I'll close the Public 6 Hearing and turn it over to the Commission. 7 I think it would be almost 8 appropriate for Member Kocan to start. Well, aren't you 9 the one that has all the -- 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My suggestion is, why 11 don't we look at this ordinance page-by-page and as 12 people have questions on that page we can address them 13 and maybe come to an agreement as to what the ordinance 14 should say. That's my suggestion. So whoever wants to 15 take lead, whether it's Mr. Evancoe or you, Madam Chair. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I kind of think 17 it would be okay to go through it. I personally don't 18 have a lot of things to point out. 19 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But I think if Mr. 21 Evancoe -- I don't want to start, Mr. Evancoe, with Page 22 1 and go line by line by line. 23 MR. EVANCOE: No, that's not my intention 24 at all. In fact, I'm on Page 4 already. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Let's go to Page
63 1 4 and then we can start with there and then the 2 Commission add on to anything else you're saying. 3 MR. EVANCOE: Excellent. Thanks very much 4 and I will try to be as quick as possible. 5 Page 4, the only change that I was 6 recommending there is in the second to last line it says 7 "as indicated in the below berm requirement chart," I 8 would put in "following berm requirement chart" instead 9 of "below". 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "Following" instead of 11 "below ". 12 MR. EVANCOE: Then going to Page 5, I 13 would like to expand on the title of that chart and call 14 it "The Residential adjacent to Non-residential Berm 15 Requirement Chart". 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "Residential adjacent 17 to Non-residential Chart". Okay. 18 MR. EVANCOE: Then in the chart itself, 19 under No. 7, Industrial, there's an item that needs to 20 be lined up, this was pointed out by Member Kocan, 21 halfway through in the "berm height" column it starts 22 with 15 foot height berm. From there down that belongs 23 with I-2. So that's just an adjustment that we need to 24 make on the chart to have that align with I-2 and the 25 text above it align with I-1.
64 1 Then on item No. 4, Placement, the 2 last line of that paragraph says "from adjacent property 3 owner," that should say "from the adjacent property 4 owner". 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. Where 6 -- 7 MR. AVDOULOS: Page 5, item 4. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh. 9 MR. EVANCOE: Page 6, the top of the page, 10 A. Now, this item I'd like to kind of breeze through 11 for the moment but I think it may require more 12 discussion later. 13 What I would suggest adding to A is 14 the following. To read the whole thing it would say, 15 "The first floor elevation of the closest adjacent 16 principal structures; within 200 feet of the subject 17 site's property line." So, again, I would add "within 18 200 feet of the subject site's property line." And that 19 is because if you go down to the double I in parentheses 20 just below that it says -- it mentions 200 feet. So 21 it's just to make that consistent. 22 Item No. 3, directly below that, 23 the 3 I's in parentheses, the last line says "per item 24 11 below," I've not been able to find item 11 below so I 25 would probably propose, unless somebody can locate that,
65 1 that we take that reference out. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I couldn't 3 find that either. 4 MR. EVANCOE: No. 5 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Section 2519. 6 MR. EVANCOE: Right. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why don't we just 8 delete "visual screening", period. 9 MR. EVANCOE: Right, right. 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Member Kocan. 12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll defer to Mr. 13 Schultz first. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to comment since we're 15 on this paragraph now, at the Ordinance Review the 16 reference to extreme or extraordinary existing 17 conditions was added I think to what Ms. McGuire had 18 originally proposed or, in any event, it came from a 19 discussion with Ordinance Review and I guess from our 20 perspective I wonder if that's what the Planning 21 Commission -- I wonder if that's what the Planning 22 Commission really wants to happen. 23 I think what this is doing is sort 24 of limiting the discretion that the Planning Commission 25 has to deviate from the berm requirements, which while
66 1 it may sound good really forces the issues to a 2 different body, the ZBA, which would have the ability to 3 deviate from this section and the berm requirements. 4 And I wonder if that's where you'd rather have these 5 dealt with or would you rather retain the discretion to 6 be the one to make determinations on berm size. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I would think the 8 Planning Commission, which is always working with this 9 and this is not something that the ZBA always works 10 with, would prefer to have the discretion. 11 MR. SCHULTZ: So I think the phrase 12 "extreme or extraordinary circumstances" probably limits 13 your use of discretion and puts it into the ZBA's ball 14 park, and I raise it as kind of a policy issue than a 15 language issue. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: How would you change it? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I would take out extreme or 18 extraordinary and just say where existing conditions 19 warrant. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But, you know, I 21 understand what you're saying with regard to those two 22 words, but where existing conditions warrant, that's too 23 general. I mean, I think what they're trying to imply 24 here is if there's something unusual going on then we 25 would have more discretion.
67 1 MR. SCHULTZ: We could probably use then a 2 standard that would be familiar like practical 3 difficulty or exceptional circumstance or something like 4 that that is not quite so limiting and wouldn't cause a 5 petitioner to throw up his hands and just take it to the 6 ZBA. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, that's where I 8 would like to go. I don't know what the other 9 commissioners have to say. 10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Well we had -- 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Markham. 12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I'm sorry. We had 13 a condition two weeks ago where a building came forward 14 and asked to have the berm waived because of the way 15 that the building was set on the property, and it was 16 going to be very nice, and all of us said yeah, we don't 17 want them to have to put a berm there. They were able 18 to put the parking behind the building, it was a 19 beautiful facade. 20 And, you know, that ties in with 21 what a couple of the gentlemen that came forward tonight 22 said. How do we -- where do we have the discretion to 23 allow some flexibility when we have a design that makes 24 sense and looks better than the cookie cutter, lined up 25 trees, you know?
68 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It would be this 2 paragraph. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. I want to be clear. 4 This was discussed kind of at least at Ordinance Review 5 and the idea was put it in, make it restrictive, make it 6 exceptional circumstances and I guess this is kind of a 7 further reflection from our office that all that does, 8 it's a feel-good kind of thing in one way but it really 9 causes people to go to another venue and that's the 10 policy question. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Well, I think 12 the Commission wants to, I'm sort of mind reading here, 13 but I would assume that the Commission would want to 14 keep the discretion within this body because they are 15 the ones that are always reviewing the landscape plans. 16 I think that maybe you could come up with a -- we could 17 come up with a verbiage to make sure that it stays 18 within this body. 19 Member Kocan. 20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My concern is when we 21 remove or when we add considerable discretion, and I'm 22 going to address that in another section, is the 23 confidence that I have in this particular Planning 24 Commission with the amount of landscaping and 25 architectural knowledge that we have I think we can
69 1 design some really nice landscapes; however, we have to 2 think about future Planning Commissions and is there 3 going to be consistency throughout the city, are we 4 going to be removing things and now it's going to end up 5 like our facade ordinance and we're waiving everything 6 that comes through. That's a concern to me. If we want 7 to take it out I can support that, but I think it's on 8 the record that we are taking it out and City Council 9 can put it back in, but I do have a concern about us 10 having so much discretion that we don't even have to 11 enforce our ordinances anymore. 12 MR. SCHULTZ: And in that respect, Madam 13 Chair, I think if we identify kind of terms of art, 14 practical difficulty, exceptional circumstances instead 15 of extreme and extraordinary, those are familiar terms 16 that relate to the exercise of discretion, kind of limit 17 it, kind of allow it. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And I think it has to 19 have something beside practical difficulty because I 20 think the case in point made by Commissioner Markham was 21 well taken. At Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook, the 22 building was beautiful, the parking was in the back and 23 I think it was like eight out of nine people thought it 24 would be okay to waive the berm in that instance. 25 I personally, just my personal
70 1 thought, I don't think that every site in the world 2 requires a berm. As a matter of fact, in some areas 3 berming I think has actually caused more harm than good, 4 especially when it's a tall berm with Evergreens on top 5 and the water rolls down the hill.
6 Mr. Avdoulos. 7 MR. AVDOULOS: The question I had was with 8 the words "existing conditions". The way I was reading 9 it was that if there was a site that had existing 10 conditions that needed to have some delineation towards 11 creativity and deviate from the landscape ordinance. Or 12 does this mean a project that's already up and then 13 there's something going on new with it and then it comes 14 in and has to require the Planning Commission to, you 15 know, state their case or give direction or say yea or 16 nay? 17 I guess to me that was like, okay, 18 this building already exists, this project already 19 exists, and I don't know if that meant existing site 20 conditions or grading conditions. I'm not exactly sure 21 how I was reading that. 22 I do agree, though, and I'm trying 23 to figure out if this is the point where we can provide 24 some flexibility for the Planning Commission to review 25 designs that, you know, may follow the intent of the
71 1 City and how they want to do things. 2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the language as 3 written is a little bit difficult to apply. I guess if 4 you want to go on and I'll try to work out some typical 5 language and come back with it. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't think that's a 7 bad idea because I think the whole sentence, even if you 8 take out extreme or extraordinary, it says where 9 existing conditions warrant, and I think Mr. Avdoulos' 10 point is well taken, there's no definition of existing 11 conditions. So I think the whole sentence is poor. 12 I'm sorry. I forgot to look down 13 here. I apologize. Member Paul. 14 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One thing that I think 15 we need to mention about the Meadowbrook site is 16 although they weren't doing the berm they put additional 17 landscaping that would be in the berm to the rear of the 18 building, which is the south portion. So they weren't 19 eliminating the landscaping, they were moving the 20 landscaping and pushing the property into a more visual 21 component so you could see the facade of the building, 22 but the actual landscaping, the quantity, was still the 23 same. 24 So maybe it has to do with quantity 25 that we put in here and if there is an existing
72 1 condition that maybe they take the quantity of 2 landscaping that would be in that area, such as a 3 wetland buffer and they had to infringe on the wetland 4 buffer, so they didn't want to encroach in that area, 5 that's where the berm would be, we don't want to put 6 more soil in that condition, let's move that landscaping 7 to another portion of the site. 8 So although I agree with the 9 Planning Commission keeping as much discretion here on 10 the actual site plan because that's what we are doing on 11 a regular basis, I do think we should have some 12 discretion for the applicant. And I do think that when 13 they show us the intent, which is exactly what these 14 three speakers eloquently put, they are putting the 15 right amount of landscaping forward. They're just 16 moving it in the site to be more creative. 17 It might be a change in the actual 18 content of the landscaping, it might be in not as many 19 tall trees, maybe there's more small deciduous trees, it 20 doesn't matter. I just think that we have to consider 21 their statement and remember what we were just doing 22 last -- two weeks ago at this Meadowbrook site. 23 We were looking at the landscaping, 24 realizing they had met the intent and we were very happy 25 with the facade, so that we were pleasantly pleased that
73 1 they were moving landscaping to the rear and still 2 keeping the quantity on that portion and on that site. 3 And also looking at the existing conditions, that it was 4 a corner location and we weren't going to be breaking up 5 a berm in the middle of Twelve Mile. We were on a
6 corner site, which was Meadowbrook and Twelve Mile, 7 therefore, we could break up the berm. 8 So I think somehow we have to get 9 that in context and I don't know quite how to do that. 10 I think Mr. Schultz will help us there. 11 Thank you, Madam Chair. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham. 13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I like the word 14 "intent" if you can tie in this paragraph back to the 15 section on intent in the front. That may help. Also, I
16 like the one gentleman's suggestion of total tree 17 diameter. You know, if you take a site and it's 18 supposed to have a hundred trees of two-and-a-half inch 19 caliper diameter, you multiply two-and-a-half by a 20 hundred and then maybe he wants to put in one bigger 21 tree which counts for less. You know, to allow some 22 flexibility to meet the overall big number but give some 23 creative license to meet it in some different ways and 24 then we would have the ability to review that and see if 25 the way they did it did in fact meet that.
74 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan. 2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: With regard to that 3 paragraph we're talking about, as I read it and re-read 4 it, it looks to me that they're talking about noise 5 attenuation. This is with regard to noise attenuation 6 and not just a broad you can throw out the ordinance if 7 you want to. 8 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the intent, from 9 being at that Ordinance Review meeting and talking with 10 Lauren about it, there probably ought to be a comma 11 after the word "proposal", the idea being two separate 12 thoughts. Number one, you can exercise discretion with 13 regard to the berm but you should be taking into 14 consideration the idea of noise attenuation and whatever 15 that reference was to -- I think this is ultimately a 16 reference to the opacity issue. I think the numbers got 17 twisted around but I think it's an opacity reference. 18 MR. EVANCOE: Actually, I think I just 19 found that. It's item K farther down on that list. 20 That's what Lauren had called item 11. So we can 21 substitute K for 11 there. 22 MR. SCHULTZ: Which is the opacity. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 24 MR. EVANCOE: Right, which is the opacity. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you want that
75 1 paragraph, the last sentence to read "subject to 2 Planning Commission approval that meets the screening 3 requirement with regard to noise attenuation Section 4 2519 and visual screening per item K below." 5 MR. EVANCOE: Correct. 6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Or why don't we just 7 say opacity because I'm proposing you move K and H. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. You 9 know what, we're going to be here all night. Let's work 10 on one thing and one thing only. Okay, now you -- 11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I just want to take 12 out "per item 11 below". I just think it would make 13 more sense just to say "and opacity requirements". 14 MR. SCHULTZ: With the Chair's indulgence, 15 I was just going to kind of rewrite right now, while 16 you're working on other things, this whole paragraph and 17 I'll read it. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Would you like 19 to -- 20 MR. SCHULTZ: If you want to move on to 21 the next and I'll sort of -- 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you done? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: I've got all your comments. 24 I'm going to try and write something right now. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer.
76 1 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. We heard from 2 three professionals in the audience and we also have 3 three professionals in the landscaping background on our 4 staff. I would like their opinions because I think it's 5 important to take that into consideration if Mr. Schultz 6 is going to rewrite this as well. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. McGinnis. 8 MR. McGINNIS: This is the body of the 9 City that is the front line in landscaping and you do 10 have, or you did have, a qualified, talented landscape 11 architect on staff and that position was replaced, and 12 it will be equally talented I'm sure, and you should 13 have some discretion in the decision in landscaping 14 because you're the most involved with it and I think the 15 Meadowbrook example is a great example right there. 16 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Mr. Evancoe, do you 17 or Mr. Schmitt have anything to add to that? 18 MR. EVANCOE: I would just be glad to work 19 with Tom on some language. There's a -- I don't know if 20 you all know, well, I won't go into that, but I 21 worked on a landscape ordinance in Illinois that ended 22 up getting an award from the Illinois APA there and we 23 had a section in that ordinance called Alternative 24 Compliance and we were -- and it gave us the ability to 25 have -- to allow developers to come forward with
77 1 something that complied in an alternative way and for 2 that to be reviewed and considered seriously. And it 3 didn't limit it to one aspect of the project like plant 4 size or plant quantity or berm, it was -- generally it 5 gave the city the ability to look at an alternative plan 6 and determine whether it complied, and so there's the 7 possibility of an approach like that. 8 MR. SHROYER: I really like that idea. 9 That would also fit directly into Mr. Conroy and Mr. 10 Roberts' activities and discussion items as well. I 11 think that's an excellent idea. I'd like to see us 12 pursue that further. 13 Thank you, Madam Chair. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos, did you 15 want to say something? 16 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, the text that we're 17 looking at in this little paragraph is under "berm 18 requirements" and I guess that's -- you know, we're 19 going to rephrase it, but is it going to be stipulated 20 under each heading such as parking area landscape 21 requirements, and adjacent to public right-of-ways. 22 Under there we have a waiver that the Planning 23 Commission may waive or reduce right-of-way 24 requirements, da-da-da-da-da-da. We have an intent and 25 we want to provide flexibility, but right now if we
78 1 squeeze it into the little paragraph under berms then I 2 don't want the designers and the applicants to think 3 that the flexibility is only here and is not throughout 4 the whole ordinance, and I think that's what the idea 5 was in the first place. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I was reading the 7 minutes of the Ordinance Review Committee, and maybe I'm 8 incorrect, but I read it as that that was their intent, 9 for only berming. I thought that they were not -- where 10 they wanted the flexibility to be given to the -- in the 11 ordinance was with regard to the berming. That was my 12 understanding. Did I misread that? So that's why I 13 want to keep it in the berming part because that's where 14 they want the flexibility and that's I think where the 15 greatest flexibility probably should be. 16 MR. AVDOULOS: Right, but in adjacent to 17 public right-of-way there is a waiver that the Planning 18 Commission, you know, so as you go through the whole 19 ordinance there's bits and pieces where there's Planning 20 Commission discretion that's available at each one of 21 these subheadings. But I think based on what some of 22 the landscape architects and professionals had stated is 23 there should be an overall essence that this is a 24 minimum and this is what we want people to start with 25 and then from that point let's get creative and let's
79 1 challenge the designers, similar to what we have with 2 the facade ordinance. This is what a minimum is but if 3 you want to enhance it and do a little better then 4 present it and then if there's a waiver then, fine, 5 we'll give it to you so long as there's some creativity 6 put forth behind it. 7 But a lot of times what happens, 8 and, you know, I'm a professional, too, and a developer 9 or an owner comes up to me and says, "John, I want the 10 minimum," and, okay, you got one tree, three bushes, 11 five flowers and that's it, we meet all the 12 requirements, done deal. So I think we want to be a 13 little more proactive. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I agree with you and I 15 think in reading the minutes of the Ordinance Review 16 Committee that was their intent, that this is the 17 minimum requirement and we are looking for more but this 18 is the minimum you have to have. And I think giving the 19 landscape architects flexibility, especially since we 20 really did have a good one and she did have -- in the 21 short time she was here she had a great impact. 22 I think we need to give that 23 flexibility and I also think that in looking at some of 24 the, you know, designs it's not the same old thing all 25 the time. The minimum list would be Ten Mile and Beck
80 1 -- is it Ten Mile and Beck? -- Kroger, Grand River, that 2 to me is like the bear minimum. 3 Member Kocan. 4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, if 5 you'll indulge me. Can we back up to the top of the 6 page with the insertion of the first floor elevation of 7 the closest adjacent principal structure within 200 feet 8 of the subject site property line, and I'm thinking Karl 9 Wisinski's property where the elevation goes down 10 considerably and you've got a berm requirement and the 11 residents need some protection. 12 Can I ask Mr. Wisinski how far his 13 house is away from the berm? My concern is, if his 14 house is more than 200 feet away, now we go to the 15 elevation of the nearest property line. Well, his 16 property line is a ditch and so the berm starts down so 17 low that it provides absolutely no screening. 18 So without having something that 19 states the first floor elevation of the closest property 20 within 200 feet or the elevation of the property and 21 maybe we need a particular distance, something that's 22 reasonable, something that -- I don't know that we can 23 state, you know, 200, 300 feet away, because if 24 something is on a hill you'll never get a berm high 25 enough, but we need --
81 1 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, maybe this is where 2 this comes in where it does say extreme or extraordinary 3 existing conditions, then the applicant comes in and 4 says, look, my property line is, you know, 30 feet into 5 a ditch, this is what I propose. 6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, the applicant 7 is not going to say that but... 8 MR. AVDOULOS: But I think this is where 9 those situations are covered. We can't put a generality 10 on it because every site is not flat and every piece of 11 property is not a square or rectangle. So I think this 12 helps out and if the intent was to provide that 13 flexibility I think it's a good spot, but it's very hard 14 to predict each site. 15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: But my concern is 16 then there's not a requirement. It's strictly the 17 developer, the applicant may present an alternative. 18 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, you put in the 19 requirement and if they can't meet it then that's when 20 they come in. 21 MR. EVANCOE: I believe the 200 feet was 22 suggested because you need to have something, otherwise 23 you could have a building that's a quarter mile away 24 from the property line and that would be kind of a 25 ridiculous way to, you know, determine this. So it
82 1 could be 300 feet, it could be 400 feet, it could be 100 2 feet but some minimum standard and then like 3 Commissioner Avdoulos said then you can get into the 4 discretionary aspects that we've been talking about, but 5 there needs to be some minimum standard that the 6 developer knows they have to achieve. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. McGinnis. 8 MR. McGINNIS: I have a problem with that 9 sentence, too, because if you look at a typical 10 situation that happened with the Avalon development, in 11 Lot No. 3 that I think it's a church that it's adjacent 12 to. If you applied the new rule of taking the highest 13 elevation, or it says whichever is greater, the first 14 floor elevation of the building envelope of the 15 residence, if you use that as the greater elevation you 16 would double the size of the berm and the berm would 17 extend into the building envelope and he wouldn't have 18 been able to develop that lot. So that restriction 19 right there is pretty severe for a developer in some 20 situations. So you have to have an out so they can 21 present that to the committee. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have any 23 suggestion? I'm open. 24 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, that's really 25 the function of Paragraph 3 and that's kind of the
83 1 language or the concept that we're working on. I think 2 if you -- you got to break it into two thoughts. 3 Number one, if you got practical 4 difficulty because of site configuration or topography, 5 some physical characteristic, that's sort of one thing 6 you have to deal with. I think you are going to -- with 7 this provision it can be pretty harsh. 8 The other thought is the other 9 situation you were talking about. If there's just some 10 kind of design characteristic that gives you an 11 alternative compliance, those are really -- the idea 12 would be allow the Planning Commission, rather than the 13 ZBA, to be the one to decide, okay, is the lot 14 configuration so much of a problem we need to waive or 15 is there a design excellence reason we would waive for, 16 leave that with you in Paragraph 3 rather than sending 17 it on to the ZBA. That's kind of the thought I was -- 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And I think if I 19 understand you correctly, you and Mr. Avdoulos are 20 really basically saying the same thing. 21 MR. SCHULTZ: Right. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it's in that 23 paragraph. 24 You know, we have been spending on 25 this paragraph quite an amount of time. May I make one
84 1 suggestion, that we get something from you in writing on 2 this paragraph and then we can approve that because I 3 think that you're getting the gist of everything that 4 we're talking about and I think the Commissioners kind 5 of agree as to where we're going with this and it is to 6 keep the control in here. 7 Yes, Member Kocan. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just to finish back 9 with A and Mr. McGinnis, what he said. I personally 10 would like to remove the "within the 200 feet of the 11 subject site property line" because I would like to 12 leave it "first floor elevation of the closest adjacent 13 principal structure" because then at least it takes into 14 consideration what is out there. 15 If there is a hardship it can be 16 stated and I just think I'd rather take the within 200 17 feet out. Same thing with the Avalon subdivision, the 18 developer will come in and say, you know, the hardship 19 is if we did that we can't do the berm because now it's 20 200 feet wide and 30 feet tall. I really want the 21 closest adjacent principal structure to be considered in 22 a berm plan. That's my suggestion. So I would like to 23 see this table discuss whether to leave the 200 in or to 24 take it out. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any other
85 1 thoughts on that from any of the other Commissioners? 2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Then can I propose 3 removing it and leaving it the way it is? 4 MR. EVANCOE: I think that works fine. 5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we have support 6 for that? 7 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I'll support it. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So under A you are 9 taking within 200 feet -- 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just leave it the way 11 as written. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 13 Yes, Member Markham. 14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I'd like to go back 15 to Mr. Avdoulos' comment that maybe we need a broader 16 statement for the whole document relative to flexibility 17 and not just in the berm section. If you had something 18 more at the beginning -- 19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Or at the end. 20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or at the end that 21 referenced, for example, Mr. Evancoe's paragraph. 22 MR. EVANCOE: That's how we did it. We 23 had a whole section at the end of the ordinance that 24 discussed alternative compliance. 25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Something like that
86 1 that then would then give the overall flexibility to 2 someone who wanted to come in with something nice, then 3 we wouldn't have to necessarily have it piecemeal all 4 the way through the document. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you provide us with 6 something like that, Mr. Evancoe? 7 MR. EVANCOE: Absolutely. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And let the Commission 9 look at it and we can go from there. Thank you. 10 Can we move on to another page? 11 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Well, I have two 12 quick ones on this page and I think they will be quick. 13 Item C. I would like to suggest 14 adding to the end of that sentence -- crossing out "are 15 required" and adding "without compromising the minimum 16 height requirement of the berm". So the total sentence 17 would read: "The berm shall have overlapping and 18 undulating changes in elevation both horizontally and 19 vertically without compromising the minimum height 20 requirement of the berm." That's to avoid allowing them 21 to dip down and stay down with the berm for a long 22 period of time and to avoid basically doing the berm and 23 saying we're undulating. And, again, with the 24 alternative compliance, if that's what they felt was 25 best for the site and you agreed, you would have that
87 1 ability to approve it, but this just holds to the 2 standard height. 3 And then going down to H below, 4 Commissioner Kocan suggested that we switch that with K. 5 So if we do that -- and the reason for that is to have K 6 come into this spot so that we have both of our opacity 7 requirements together instead of separated. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. That makes 9 sense. 10 MR. EVANCOE: If we do that, then we bump 11 back up to item 11 where we changed that to K and we 12 make that H, but I had to wait to tell you about that. 13 And with that I would be prepared to move on to Page 9. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wonderful. 15 MR. EVANCOE: And at the very top I would 16 just put a period after Novi and cross out the word 17 "and". 18 And then going down to number 1 19 "Intent" under Adjacent Public Right-Of-Way, the end of 20 that sentence I would suggest just crossing out "and to 21 create a sense of place". I think that's too vague for 22 ordinance language. There's no way to define what that 23 means. So I would put the period after "highlighted". 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So I think that makes 25 sense. "Views of natural resources or vistas to be
88 1 highlighted." 2 MR. EVANCOE: Right, period. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That is kind of 4 strange. Okay. 5 Does anybody have disagreement with 6 that sentence, those words being taken out? 7 MR. EVANCOE: I think we would argue 8 endlessly with somebody about what it means to have a 9 sense of place. 10 Moving then to item C, below that, 11 number 2, Requirements, item C, second line starts "with 12 a minimum of a 25 foot wide," I would suggest crossing 13 that out and having the sentence then read as follows, 14 starting at C: "There shall be provided adjacent to the 15 abutting right-of-way or private road a landscape area," 16 -- and here's the new language -- "of sufficient width 17 to accommodate a required berm as indicated in the 18 right-of-way landscape screening requirement chart," and 19 then continue on with the language that's there. 20 Because what you'll find is in the chart 25 foot is not 21 necessarily the requirement throughout that chart. 22 There are some instances -- one instance where it goes 23 all the way down to ten feet because there's no berm 24 actually required. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody have any
89 1 disagreement with that? 2 MR. EVANCOE: Then moving to the top of 3 Page 10, there is -- the second -- the first full 4 sentence at the top of the page starts with "Berms shall 5 comply with Section" and it lists a bunch of sections. 6 Those are all wrong because they all refer back to 7 Lauren's previous document. So that needs to be -- all 8 those references need to be changed to 4, well, 9 actually, 2509.4.A and then parentheses 5 B, C, D, F, G, 10 H and L and that would just replace those references one 11 for one. 12 Then H, going down from there, 13 there's a paragraph that starts with "shopping centers". 14 My only comment there was I felt that that whole 15 paragraph was very vague. It talks about shopping 16 centers and sites being adjacent to freeways are highly 17 visible, therefore a strong emphasis shall be placed on 18 the design of landscaping that affords a positive and 19 pleasant visual experience along these corridors. 20 Impacts of paving and parking need to be diminished. 21 We could leave it, but I just 22 thought it was kind of vague and hard to get your hands 23 around. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, it is a little -- 25 you know, it is subjective when you say positive and
90 1 pleasant visual experience, that is a subjective thing. 2 MR. EVANCOE: It could remain, though. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that -- there's 4 other sections of the ordinance that would kind of 5 define that. 6 MR. EVANCOE: Right. I mean, basically 7 there's nothing there that -- it doesn't sound like 8 ordinance language because there's nothing that we can 9 require there. 10 MR. AVDOULOS: It sounded more as an 11 emphasis that you have an ordinance, but at these 12 locations we want it to be a little more emphasized, you 13 know, that landscape is going to be an important issue. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: You're saying leave 15 it. 16 MR. AVDOULOS: I would just leave it in. 17 MR. EVANCOE: That's fine. It does no 18 harm. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It doesn't hurt. 20 MR. EVANCOE: No, it doesn't. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Anything else? 22 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Then going on to I 23 there's a reference to building requirements, Section 5, 24 and I would change that to -- instead of Section 5 it 25 would be 2509.4 E.
91 1 And then on number 3, Waiver, I 2 would just add the word "the" in front of Planning 3 Commission, "the Planning Commission may waive". 4 E, under Waiver, there is a 5 reference to berm per Section 3Aa.6. That should read 6 footnote 8 of the right-of-way landscape screening 7 requirements chart. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Say that again slowly. 9 MR. EVANCOE: Sure. I'm sorry. Instead 10 of what it says about Section 3Aa.6, it should say 11 footnote 8 of the right-of-way landscape screening 12 requirements chart. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I will just put on 15 the record that this waiver is new. From the previous 16 ordinance, at least the way I read the previous 17 ordinance, was things had to go to ZBA and this does 18 talk about right-of-way and I know that we talked about 19 Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook. 20 If that's what the majority of this 21 Planning Commission wants to do, is have that much 22 discretion, again my concern is, and maybe it gets 23 boring if you have everything look the same, but this 24 paragraph talks about specific areas that would allow us 25 to give a waiver but it doesn't state that it has to
92 1 meet these specific areas in order to get a waiver. So 2 again our discretion -- it's very, very discretionary. 3 I'm not as comfortable with that, but if the City 4 Council is comfortable with that, and it seems like most 5 of this Planning Commission is comfortable with it, I 6 just wanted to point it out. I just think it's very 7 loose. Thank you. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I can 9 understand what you're saying, but as I read this when 10 it talks about the chart and then when you determine the 11 parcel size, the configuration or the design of this 12 site would be better met by the proposed change or 13 existing conditions would warrant the change, I think 14 that gives more discretion for creativity than I do for 15 us messing it up. 16 In other words, I cannot imagine a 17 Planning Commission not asking a landscape designer or 18 landscape architect who's designing a site for a 19 developer not to -- not only to meet the minimum 20 requirements but that we would waive the minimum 21 requirements and allow him or her to do something less 22 than required. I'm not making sense, am I? 23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I know what you're 24 saying. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Know what I'm saying?
93 1 Does anybody else have any comment 2 on that one? Member Markham. 3 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I think we should 4 leave some room for flexibility and these are the kinds 5 of things that would be something that you might want to 6 make adjustment for. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I don't disagree, 9 because I believe that the things that are listed you 10 should be able to make adjustments for, and I was going 11 to suggest adding a sentence that said instead of "such 12 items may include" I was going to state "one of the 13 following conditions would warrant a waiver". Any other 14 aesthetic condition would require a ZBA waiver but then 15 that takes away -- I mean, then I'm sending people to 16 the ZBA and that's not what... 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We don't want to send 18 things to the ZBA. 19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I'm shut down. 20 I accept that. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're not shut down. 22 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: It's okay. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They complain all the 24 time. 25 MR. AVDOULOS: I just wanted to make a
94 1 comment to Member Kocan's concerns. I don't know if 2 you're concerned with all of a sudden you allow 3 flexibility and every project that comes in from now on 4 has no berms, has no this, has no that. I think that if 5 the applicant and the designer cannot come up with 6 something that is aesthetically challenging and sort of 7 meets the intent of what the berm is supposed to meet, 8 then the minimum is to provide the berm. So I think we 9 have that flexibility. 10 Also, with the planners coming 11 before the landscape architect and our Planning 12 Department, I think there could be a judgment call 13 there, too, whether they're meeting an intent or not. 14 So I know we don't want to design the sites but I think 15 we -- we don't have that issue with buildings either. 16 You know, we say that these are the 17 minimum materials you use on a building, but we don't 18 tell them how to put it together and we don't tell them 19 where to put the windows and where to put the brick. We 20 just say this is a percentage that you're going to use. 21 So, actually, buildings are more flexible than the sites 22 and the sites -- they have constraints on building 23 location, on parking location, on our islands that we 24 require, on amount of landscape. 25 So I think we're creating a very
95 1 good palate for the designers to use and I think right 2 now we're just going to see some interesting sites come 3 up because as Mr. Evancoe stated before, you know, all 4 the easy stuff in Novi is taken over. So now we're 5 going to have some difficult situations with woodlands, 6 wetlands, so there's going to be constraints on the 7 sites right there. 8 So I think the way this was stated 9 with indicating preservation of regulated woodlands, the 10 grading, the significant architecture, historical 11 buildings, these things are very important and I think 12 those are going to be markers on the site anyway. So 13 we'll keep an eye on it just to ease your concerns. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have a correction to 15 make on that page. 16 Under F, the second sentence is 17 "(30) inch tall berm". There should be a period after 18 the word "berm". 19 And I also think, why are we always 20 using that magical number 30. That's not even three 21 feet. It really doesn't do anything. 22 MR. EVANCOE: It's allowed in those areas 23 where you don't have parking, a situation like the 24 Meadowbrook office. That's what they would have been 25 required along Twelve Mile, is a 30 inch berm, which
96 1 would have given just a little topographic relief but 2 not to really screen anything. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect, I 4 think 30 inches is not very aesthetically pleasing when 5 you go along -- I personally despise those junipers that 6 spread out, I think they're junipers, creepy-crawly 7 things, and all they look like is kind of like weeds. 8 Why can't we put at least 36 inches, I mean three feet. 9 I mean, you can see something. I don't think you can 10 see a whole lot with 30 inches. All right. I'm not 11 going to belabor the point. Let's move on. 12 MR. EVANCOE: Number 4 at the bottom of 13 the page, I'm suggesting that we remove the last 14 sentence that says, "These shall be of similar plant 15 material as that already existing." The reason for that 16 is that what if that plant material is in poor 17 condition? We certainly don't want to require them to 18 match up to something that's undesirable. I don't think 19 the paragraph needs that to work. 20 Going on to the table on Page 11, 21 now here's where I'm proposing -- Mike McGinnis and I 22 talked at some length about this and I'm going to 23 propose something quite different, but before I do that, 24 first of all, I would like to add to the title of this 25 chart the words "right-of-way", Right-of-Way Landscape
97 1 Screening Requirements Chart, so as not to confuse it 2 with any other type of screening that we require. 3 In the column that's called Green 4 Belt Width, under Right-of-Way Requirements, there are 5 numbers such as 41 feet, 37 feet, 29 feet. Mike and I 6 are suggesting that those figures be increased by 25 7 percent in order to accommodate the kind of undulating 8 berms that are recommended in the ordinance that vary 9 horizontally and vertically. If we stick with the 10 figures that are already in there, it will only allow 11 for a straight berm, meeting its slope requirements on 12 the side and its crest and there would be no ability for 13 them to achieve this other recommendation. 14 So I'm proposing two things here. 15 A footnote 11 would be added on Page 12, which would 16 read as follows: "The width of the required green belt 17 buffer area shall be increased by 25 percent to provide 18 sufficient area to meet the requirements of Section 19 2509.4.a.5.c." And then in the chart itself, the 20 figures, here's how the numbers would change based on 21 calculations that Mike and I did. Going down the list, 22 41 feet would become 51 feet, 37 feet would become 46 23 feet, and going down we go to 36 feet, 36 feet, 31 feet, 24 36 feet, 25, 25 and ten remain as they are because 25 there's no berm required there, 33 becomes 41 feet and
98 1 25 feet becomes 31 feet. So this is a change. This is 2 more green belt. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that makes 4 sense. Does anybody have any problem with that? 5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Can I just ask, has 6 that been applied to any site plans that you've looked 7 at to see if it changes either setbacks or anything? I 8 mean, if this is new. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. McGinnis, have you 10 applied this? 11 MR. McGINNIS: No, not yet we haven't. It 12 probably will change some site plans. 13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Again a concern is, 14 if it considerably changes something I think we would 15 need to know that. I like the idea but I'd like to know 16 if there's any ramifications that we haven't taken into 17 consideration. 18 MR. EVANCOE: I think it probably would be 19 good for us to double-check this against building 20 setbacks and make sure that we're not creating a problem 21 there. So we can study that and bring that back. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a good 23 idea. Maybe also, too, I don't know about the rest of 24 the commissioners, but visual aids are very important 25 and maybe you could make a drawing where you have it at
99 1 this amount and then the flexibility with the added 25 2 percent as long as it doesn't change the right-of-way. 3 MR. EVANCOE: Great idea. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: May I ask you a 5 question? Do we have much more on this page? 6 MR. EVANCOE: No, I'm done with that page. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could we give this 8 court reporter like a break. 9 MR. EVANCOE: He's indicating he's okay. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd be dying if I were 11 in your place. 12 MR. EVANCOE: Going to Page 12 under C, 13 transformer, utility boxes -- 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Member 15 Kocan. 16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: With regard to the 17 column for the three foot wall, even though you 18 reference 4 about the Planning Commission Waiver is 19 required to use a wall, and 7, what they have to be 20 constructed of, when you -- when I was looking at it and 21 I saw the three foot wall's required, required, required 22 I was confused as to why we're saying required. If you 23 have a berm, a waiver would be required for the three 24 foot wall. 25 MR. EVANCOE: Good point. I think you're
100 1 right. 2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So, I'm wondering -- 3 MR. EVANCOE: So we could require -- 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You shouldn't put that 5 in there at all. 6 MR. EVANCOE: Maybe that's just a blank
7 column. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The only one where 9 you can't put in a wall, it looks like, is in single 10 family residential. 11 MR. EVANCOE: Right. 12 MR. AVDOULOS: Or does that say allowed or 13 allowable? 14 MR. EVANCOE: Allowed with waiver perhaps. 15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: That's what your 16 footnote says, waiver required. You may want to look at 17 that and see if that column is even necessary. 18 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. It may not be. Okay. 19 I'll circle that. Okay. 20 Under transformers, utility boxes 21 on Page 12, that's number C, the word "manor" needs to 22 be re-spelled under the Intents section to m-a-n-n-e-r. 23 And going on to Page 13, item B 24 talks about islands and in the second line there's a 25 reference to round 32 foot diameter islands. We've
101 1 looked at that, Mike and I've both looked at that, and 2 we know where that came from. We know at the city of 3 Southfield at their city hall building they did that, 4 but just looking at the drawings I think you could get 5 more bang for your buck if you were to make those more 6 squarish with appropriate radiuses. I think the four 7 trees that are shown on the diagram that Lauren has 8 drawn, it would work better that way both from a traffic 9 point of view and a landscaping point of view. I think 10 the circles look interesting in plan view but not 11 necessarily at eye level. So I would suggest then in 12 that particular just crossing out the words "round 32 13 foot diameter islands or" so that it reads "such as 14 island between rows of parking." 15 Then going down to D -- no, that 16 was okay. Never mind. 17 Item E, in the second line it says, 18 "All clear site distances shall be maintained" and then 19 in the final line of E it says, "That the City of Novi 20 is not responsible for any accidents caused by the lack 21 of clear site distance." So it seems to me if they have 22 achieved the first part of this paragraph then there's 23 no need to be talking about what we're going to do if 24 there's an accident from not doing that. So I guess I 25 would want to change that.
102 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, wait a minute. 2 Wait just a second there. What if they don't trim their 3 trees? Why should we be responsible? 4 MR. SCHULTZ: We aren't responsible. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why not leave that in, 6 "The City of Novi is not responsible for any accidents." 7 Why don't you want to leave that in there? 8 MR. EVANCOE: I don't think this is a 9 major issue at all, we could go either way, but I felt 10 that above it says, "That all clear site distances shall 11 be maintained" and that's the standard they have to 12 achieve. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think we should leave 14 it in there. Mr. Schultz, what do you think? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm neutral. It's a note on 16 the plan. I think the concept must have been that 17 you're giving notice to the property owner that you're 18 taking the position as a matter of law. So I'm neutral 19 on it. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The more you tell 21 someone, the more they know. Leave it in there, unless 22 somebody else disagrees. I'd like to leave it in there 23 and put a period after "distance ". 24 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Very good. The 25 following paragraph, F, speaks of reduced in length to
103 1 18 feet. I believe that could be 17 based on past 2 practice. That was one that Member Kocan caught, one of 3 the many she caught. 4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we need the word 5 "seventeen" and then 17 in parentheses like we did 6 throughout the rest of ordinance? 7 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Then on Page 14 the 8 chart, I'd like to change the name of that chart as well 9 to Parking Area Canopy Tree Chart instead of Landscaping 10 Chart because the only topic that is discussed in that 11 chart is canopy trees. 12 MR. McGINNIS: May I make a comment? 13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 14 MR. McGINNIS: This may be another 15 instance where we might want to test this out on some 16 plans to see how this changes the ordinance, because I 17 did a preliminary check and just on the one instance I 18 checked it increased the number of trees required by 35 19 percent. So, I don't know, maybe that's the goal, but 20 it is a significant change. 21 MR. EVANCOE: I do recall that Lauren had 22 done quite a bit of testing of this, but I think it 23 can't hurt to do some more. I can't disagree with Mike 24 about that. 25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's fine.
104 1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Below the chart 2 there's a reference in the first line under number 1 -- 3 by the way, there's a list of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I'd 4 like to remove those numbers and just replace them with 5 bullets because they appear to be footnotes that are not 6 referenced above in the chart. 7 But with the very first one that 8 says, "A minimum square footage as set forth in 4 c," 9 that should be changed to say 2509.4.D.(2).(C), with the 10 2 and the C being parenthesized, if that's a word. 11 Okay. Going to the top of Page 15 12 under Intent, just some grammatical problems with those 13 sentences, or that sentence. It should read, "The 14 intent of this subsection is to provide green, landscape 15 space around" -- I would cross out "the" -- "around 16 buildings", with an s, "in order to help integrate 17 buildings". Take out "the" and add an s. That's all I 18 would change there. 19 Going down to Requirements. Number 20 2, b, it starts with "For the front and any other 21 facades visible from a public street a minimum of 60 22 percent of the building facade," I would like to change 23 that to exterior building perimeter instead of building 24 facade. So this would read then, "For the front and any 25 other facades visible from a public street a minimum 60
105 1 percent of the exterior building perimeter will be 2 greenspace planted with trees," etcetera. 3 At the bottom of the page under b, 4 Requirements Adjacent to Major Thoroughfares, third line 5 should read, "Marginal access streets are not desirable 6 or possible to attain." Should be "not possible" 7 instead of "possible". 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can I make a 9 suggestion? Is it possible that for some of these sorts 10 of changes that we could just put them in red and then 11 give it back to us? In other words, if we're going to 12 read stuff like -- do you know what I'm saying? 13 MR. EVANCOE: We'll bring all of this back 14 most certainly changed, but I wanted to make sure that 15 you were okay with these changes before we do that. 16 The second to last line there, 17 Section 2509.3 should be .4. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think before we can 19 even say okay, I think the Commission is probably going 20 to read the whole thing again. 21 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. That's fine. Okay. 22 That's great. Now, under the top of Page 16 we have 23 Additional Requirements for Street Trees and Boulevard 24 Planting. I would like, with your concurrence, to study 25 this a little further. This is some new language that
106 1 was added at the suggestion of our Parks and Recreation 2 Department subsequent to it having gone to the ORC. So 3 this is language -- well, some of this language is new 4 is what I'm saying. And particularly what I'm concerned 5 about is the sixth line down that starts with "no". It 6 says, "No final plat approval will be given until the 7 trees have been planted." I don't think that's what we 8 want to do there. I think we might want to say "no 9 temporary certificate of occupancy or final certificate 10 of occupancy will be given," because if you go with 11 final plat that's the point at which the developer is 12 allowed to sell lots and I don't think we want to have 13 trees -- in fact, I confirmed with this Steve Printz. 14 He does not want to have trees planted in the 15 subdivisions before home construction even begins. 16 Those needs to go in towards the end of the construction 17 process. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you want no 19 final -- you want -- 20 MR. EVANCOE: I would take out "final 21 approval" and replace it with, I'll just abbreviate for 22 now, TCO or final C of O, but that means Temporary 23 Certificate of Occupancy or final certificate. 24 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: But that's not the 25 way it's done in the city today. If you buy a house in
107 1 a subdivision, you move in, you live there -- you can 2 live there a year before the street trees are planted in 3 front of your house. 4 MR. EVANCOE: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: And, you know, 6 that's way beyond the temporary occupancy permit. 7 MR. EVANCOE: And we don't want that to 8 occur. We want to say that no TCO or final C of O will 9 be issued until they are planted. So they've got to be 10 planted before they are issued. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We want to make sure 12 they're planted. We have a subdivision, I think it's 13 Autumn Park, that never got all its trees to this day. 14 MR. SCHULTZ: The issue then is the 15 property doesn't get a say in where it goes, which is 16 one of the things -- 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But when you're talking 18 street trees you're talking between the sidewalk, the 19 strip right there, and the street. 20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's a big change 21 from what's done right now because many homes get their 22 yards landscaped then the City comes in and puts a 23 street tree in after, you know, in regard to where the 24 fire hydrants are and everything else. That can be as 25 much as a whole season later because you have -- I think
108
1 you have six months after occupancy or the next season 2 to do your landscaping and then the street trees many 3 times don't come in until after that. 4 MR. EVANCOE: And I think Steve's idea is 5 to put the burden of planting the street trees on the 6 developer instead of forcing that on to the City to do. 7 I think that's why you see those delays, is because the 8 developer has gotten out of having to do that. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We understand that. We 10 understand that it has been a big problem. 11 Member Paul. 12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: That's exactly what 13 the problem and what's happening is there's no finances 14 to pay the person to actually do the plantings, the 15 maintenance and the removals. So if the developer has 16 that as part of their costs, then it's removed from the 17 City. They maintain them for two years then it can be 18 turned over to the City. 19 Right now they have an escrow where 20 they can place money into a fund and it's not covering 21 all the costs. It's not covering the plantings, the 22 removal and so it's very skewed and it's very, you know, 23 it's unfair to the actual residents because they can't 24 get trees replaced that have been dying. 25 With that, would we be able to
109 1 possibly have these amendments that Member Kocan and Mr. 2 Evancoe are making in writing and at the next meeting we 3 can go over this because we're not even halfway through, 4 we have a long way to go? And I really think there's a 5 lot of points that are very well taken, but your 6 suggestions can be applied and read and we can read them 7 again and maybe in brackets how it was read before, 8 however you think it's necessary, but we're not going to 9 be done with this meeting if we continue on with every 10 page. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I personally tend to 12 agree, but it is very time consuming also, too. I 13 wouldn't mind getting the corrections up to Page 16 and 14 then from Page 17 forward getting the -- what Member 15 Kocan and you had suggested in red because I want to 16 take what we just did and I want to absorb that and I'd 17 like you to give us that wonderful paragraph that you're 18 going to give us. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm done. My only comment 20 relates to the procedure. I would consider some of 21 these to be substantive and I think we either need to 22 give the public present here tonight, who got notice of 23 the meeting here tonight, opportunity to comment on what 24 has been said so far or the next meeting probably ought 25 to be set up as another Public Hearing. Either way
110 1 would work. If Mr. Evancoe isn't done, we probably 2 ought to do another hearing. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then let's do it now. 4 Let's just continue. 5 Mr. Shroyer, did you have 6 something? 7 MR. SHROYER: Yeah, just quickly. I'd 8 recommend that we not discuss the grammatical errors and 9 punctuation and just hit on the highlights and I think 10 that would satisfy the Public Hearing. 11 MR. EVANCOE: Would you like me to 12 continue then? 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 14 Did you have something, Member 15 Kocan? 16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Mr. Schultz just 17 stated he had his paragraph, but if we're not ready for 18 that right now -- 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have your 20 paragraph? 21 MR. SCHULTZ: I can wait till the end. 22 MR. EVANCOE: That would probably be best. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll wait for the end. 24 We'll keep going. 25 MR. EVANCOE: So I guess to sum up that
111 1 paragraph then, this is language that was reviewed by 2 Randy Auler and Steve Printz. It's the language that 3 they feel comfortable at this time would take care of 4 their needs for street trees. One thing you'll notice 5 that is new also is that the guarantee on street trees 6 is two years from when it's planted, then if any of 7 those trees die then the replacements are guaranteed for 8 another two years. So in essence you have a four-year 9 guarantee and that's a new requirement. 10 I have no other things on that page 11 and let me look for -- I'll skip the grammar ones. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Paul. 13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One comment that might 14 need to be inserted in here that I can think of, and 15 maybe it would be someone in Ordinance Review. I think 16 we really have to think about the type and species of 17 trees so that we don't have ash for a hundred trees and 18 then they all get removed and we have a problem with 19 this ash borer. If we can look at the variation of 20 these trees so that we don't slice down one whole strip 21 of a road like Christina Drive, across from the police 22 station. That's a perfect example. 23 They had, I'm not sure, 150, 200 24 ash borer trees that needed to be removed. Now it looks 25 like a completely different subdivision because those
112 1 trees were of mature nature and now they're gone. 2 MR. EVANCOE: That's a point very well 3 taken. 4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Some variation here. 5 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. That is actually 6 addressed on Page 17. Near the top of the page there's 7 a double I in parentheses that says "tree species" and 8 it speaks about that subject. It identifies some 9 percentages and to address that. That's a good point. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I just want to make 11 another point. Member Kocan just pointed out something 12 to me. 13 Mr. Schultz, on Page 16 under c 14 (i), the word continually comes up, "inspected by the 15 subdivider". Do you think that is a common enough 16 phrase that everybody would understand? 17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. Actually, I think we 18 probably are going to recommended that that be changed 19 to applicant or something similar to that. It's a 20 carryover from the subdivision ordinance. This language 21 used to be in the subdivision ordinance. We now in the 22 ordinance we're looking at tend to use applicant or 23 something but I wouldn't call it substantive. 24 MR. AVDOULOS: I don't even know what the 25 word means.
113 1 MR. EVANCOE: We can change that. I think 2 "developer" is a more common term we tend to use. 3 Then the bottom of 17 there's a 4 chart there called Tree Lawn Size. I think that phrase 5 doesn't really make a lot of sense. I'm suggesting it 6 be changed to Minimum Planting Area Width would be the 7 title of that table. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. Minimum 9 what? 10 MR. EVANCOE: Minimum Planting Area Width. 11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I have a question 12 on Page 17. In b, right up from the bottom. "If an 13 island is to be re-landscaped by the subdivision 14 association, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the 15 City for approval of plant and landscape materials." Is 16 that a new requirement? 17 MR. EVANCOE: I believe that is and, 18 actually, I was going to make a suggestion that we say 19 "administrative approval" because it seems to give it -- 20 you don't want to -- I wouldn't think that the Planning 21 Commission wants to review these circles when they get 22 redesigned within a subdivision in a cul de sac. 23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's true. I 24 don't know how the subdivisions know that they have that 25 requirement.
114 1 MR. EVANCOE: That may be a communications 2 issue. 3 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Sure. If it's a 4 new requirement and I live in a subdivision that's 15 5 years old and we want to re-plant the island, how do I 6 know I have to go to the City to get approval. 7 MR. AVDOULOS: You get arrested. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: We got cited. 9 MR. EVANCOE: I guess that's at the 10 discretion of the Commission as to whether you feel that 11 this is something that needs City review or not. You do 12 get into some site distance issues. I think that's the 13 only health, safety and welfare issue that there could 14 be. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos. 16 MR. AVDOULOS: I had one question 17 regarding I believe it was Section 4, Island and 18 Boulevard Planting. We are requiring "All islands, 19 boulevards and easements shall be landscaped and 20 irrigated." 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You can't require that 22 of everyone, can you, on existing ones? 23 MR. AVDOULOS: I think this is for all new 24 stuff, but in some instances I would think it would be 25 difficult to irrigate islands because of where the lines
115 1 have to go and what's in the island. Sometimes you 2 don't have landscaping, you'll have a light pole that's 3 in an island and maybe you can get a hardy type of plant 4 material, such as like a Sumac or something that doesn't 5 require watering all the time and gives the island a 6 little bit of height. But I know there's cities that do 7 require everything to be irrigated but sometimes, I 8 don't know, that becomes costly and can create a 9 hardship and maybe even doesn't even do what it's 10 supposed to do. I don't know what you have to think 11 about that, Mr. McGinnis. 12 MR. McGINNIS: I know that the city of 13 Canton requires that all their islands be irrigated and 14 it's very expensive for the developer. And when they -- 15 and water that the association has to pay for when they 16 take over, you know, a lot of times that just adds to 17 the billing and they complain a lot about the added 18 irrigation bill. So if the island is planted with 19 species, you know, that can withstand a little bit of 20 drought, I think that would be adequate. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I disagree. I 22 think there should be irrigation because unless the 23 association members take care of the island -- I mean, 24 we are an old subdivision. We put in irrigation 25 because -- I don't care what you put in there, when we
116 1 had drought everything was dying. I think it should be 2 irrigated and I think it that -- it's the first thing 3 people see. It should look nice. Just leave it. 4 MR. AVDOULOS: I'm thinking more of a 5 large office complex with parking islands and, you know, 6 a large parking surface and then you have all these 7 islands that are, you know, interconnected so they can 8 get irrigated. At least that's the way I was looking at 9 what an island is. I didn't look at it as part of a 10 residential. You know, this is under subdivision 11 planting. 12 MR. EVANCOE: This is actually referring 13 to like a residential subdivision because there is 14 another part of the ordinance when we get to the parking 15 lot landscaping where it requires I believe either 16 irrigation for parking lot islands or a sandy loam soil 17 that will take in the water and hold it. 18 MR. AVDOULOS: Okay. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Are we clear? 20 Can we move on? 21 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. I don't know if this 22 falls into the range of important or not, but I've taken 23 off the asterisks on table four to six foot, I've taken 24 that asterisk off as well as the following sentence at 25 the top of Page 18. There's no need to say that they --
117 1 to have that four foot requirement when it's already in 2 the table. 3 Going down to 3, to the three I's 4 in parentheses, I don't know what you call that, under 5 Multi-Family/Attached Dwelling Units, halfway down the 6 page. It says, "A mixture off shrubs and subcanopy 7 trees and groundcover, perennials, annuals, and 8 ornamental grasses shall be provided," -- and I would 9 add "as foundation plantings" -- "at the front of each 10 ground floor unit." I would cross out the rest and 11 replace it with "covering at least 60 percent of the 12 front building facade". Mostly that's just 13 clarification language. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you're just adding 15 the three words "shall be provided as foundational 16 plantings at the front of each ground floor unit", 17 etcetera. 18 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. It's not a real 19 substantial change. 20 Skipping over a few section numbers 21 I fixed, I would go down to Page 19, fourth item from 22 the top says "Grass species that go dormant in" -- now 23 this is speaking of the kinds of landscaping that would 24 be required around detention basins. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you on item d?
118 1 MR. EVANCOE: I'm on 4 b iv, Page 19. And 2 so keeping in mind that this is talking about detention 3 basins/landscaping, it says, "Grass species that go 4 dormant in winter such as fescue or groundcover such as 5 pachysandra, Vinca minor, and Euonymus fortunei are 6 suggested." I would not -- I don't agree with that. 7 Those are not native species. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They're not. 9 MR. EVANCOE: They can be invasive into 10 woodlands, particularly Vinca minor, and so I just -- 11 oftentimes these detention basis are adjacent to 12 woodlands. I just don't think that it's necessary to 13 permit those plants. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I totally agree with 15 you, Mr. Evancoe. So what would you suggest? 16 MR. EVANCOE: I would suggest taking 17 that -- 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The whole sentence out. 19 MR. EVANCOE: No. I would suggest leaving 20 it with "Grass species that go dormant in winter such as 21 fescue are suggested" and take out the rest of that. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 23 MR. EVANCOE: Number 5, Landscape Plan 24 Requirements, Page 20. The first paragraph says, "A 25 landscape plan must be submitted for any new commercial"
119 1 and I would say "or residential development excluding 2 Single-Family homes." Now, what I mean there is not a 3 development. I'm getting to the gentleman's concern 4 that was voiced, that he didn't want this to apply to 5 his home. So some kind of language that would clarify 6 that we're talking about subdivisions, big developments. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I think that also 8 would be confusing, too, to put "or excluding 9 Single-Family homes" because you're building 10 subdivisions with Single-Family homes. 11 MR. EVANCOE: How about individual 12 existing homes? 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Parentheses subdivision 14 developments. Why can't you put subdivision 15 developments? 16 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or down where it 17 talks about any addition to an existing building you can 18 say "to an existing commercial or industrial building" 19 and that would make the distinction that it was... 20 MR. EVANCOE: I'm sorry, where is that? 21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Well, it's in the 22 second line of that same paragraph. You'd say "any new 23 commercial or residential developments and any addition 24 to an industrial or commercial building." 25 MR. SCHULTZ: Non-residential.
120 1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or non-residential 2 building, right. That would cover everything but 3 houses. 4 MR. EVANCOE: Great. 5 MR. SCHULTZ: You might even want to say 6 non-single family residential to cover multiple family 7 in case they do a -- 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, I think you need 9 to add that, non-single family residential. 10 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One point of 11 clarification before we move on, Chairperson Nagy. 12 I'd like to ask if a subdivision 13 comes in a second phase and it's just an extension on 14 their site, that still applies here and the verbiage 15 isn't -- if we just exclude that it won't be a problem. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: Right. 17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Just checking. Thank 18 you. 19 MR. EVANCOE: I'd like to add a sentence 20 to this first paragraph that we've been looking at. So 21 right after it says "400 square feet, whichever is 22 less," I would add a sentence -- and this is going to -- 23 I'm proposing somewhat substantial changes here. There 24 would be a sentence that says, "The following items 25 shall be included on all preliminary and final landscape
121 1 plans unless otherwise noted." And the reason I say 2 that, if I can find a good example, well, before I get 3 to that, just going down to e. E starts out with, "A 4 plan of the site at a scale," I would add a sentence
5 there that says, "Variations from this scale requirement 6 shall be approved by the City's landscape architect." I 7 think that limiting this to one inch equals 20 is too 8 restrictive. There are sites that are so large that 9 it's not practical to do site plans at that scale. We 10 may have to go to one inch equals 30 or 40, but I just 11 think there needs to be some flexibility in there. 12 Now, number 3, e 3, starts with 13 "location". I'm suggest we remove the sentence that 14 says, "For preliminary submittal, plants shall be 15 indicated with actual plant material names." What I'm 16 going to say here is that we say, "Final landscape plans 17 shall indicate actual plant material names." We don't 18 find, and I talked with Mike about this, we don't find 19 it necessary at the Preliminary Site Plan stage to know 20 the botanical names and the common names. What we 21 really need to know is it an Evergreen tree, a deciduous 22 canopy tree. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I want to know. I want 24 to know what the name of the plant is. You know I 25 always read that and I want to know. I'm sorry. That's
122 1 my thing. 2 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: She's the boss. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You may not have to 4 give the Latin, but I want to know what it is because 5 when I'm looking at that landscape plan and I'm reading 6 it I want to know what's going in there, A, and two, it 7 gives me -- allows me to visualize, too. 8 MR. EVANCOE: Not to be argumentative at 9 all, but I think the developer at that stage has a very 10 hard time knowing exactly what specific plants they're 11 going to use because they don't even know at that stage 12 what's available out there and they're -- and this is 13 not really new. We've allowed what we call conceptual 14 landscape plans all along. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll have a conceptual 16 landscape plan that includes the name of the species 17 that are being planted. It's been like that ever since 18 I've been on here. I'd like to continue it. That 19 doesn't mean you can't vary from that or say you can't 20 get this, but he has to have an idea. As a landscape 21 architect when you're designing this, you have to have 22 an idea of what you're going to put here, there and 23 everywhere. I'd like to continue doing that. You can 24 forget the Latin, but I'd really appreciate the regular 25 name.
123 1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 3 MR. EVANCOE: Moving on then to, let's 4 see, the bottom of the page. We have f. It says, "A 5 planting" -- this is going to be the same thing again. 6 Here I was going to suggest that we cross out the 7 botanical and common names and say "final landscape plan 8 shall also include," but we won't go there. We've been 9 there, haven't we? Okay. Let's see. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe, I just 11 would like to point something out. You see, there have 12 been a lot of these Austrian pines that were going in 13 and because I was reading them they weren't allowed to 14 go in, and think of all the diseases that we prevented. 15 So there is a point to my madness. Thanks. 16 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. That's great. I'm 17 sorry. I didn't mean it that way. Its late. I'm 18 getting kind of silly. No, all due respect. 19 Okay. Page 21, top of the page, 20 number g, final landscape plans shall include all of 21 these items is what I was going to suggest there. 22 "Final landscape plans shall include planting 23 details" -- 24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: He said g. That's 25 not what he's reading.
124 1 MR. EVANCOE: Top of the page. I'm trying 2 to find the important ones here. Oh, there was one 3 point somehow I've missed here. 4 If we could momentarily go back to 5 Page 15. Oh, no, I've already made that change. I'm 6 sorry. Never mind. I'm losing it here. 7 MR. McGINNIS: Madam Chair. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. McGinnis. 9 MR. McGINNIS: While Mr. Evancoe is 10 looking for another topic, I just wanted to point out 11 that the current ordinance does not require that the 12 landscape architect put the plant names down for the 13 Preliminary Site Plan. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right, Mr. 15 McGinnis, but precedent has been set, they've been doing 16 it for years. So I don't think that it's really hurt 17 them and they can also make those changes as necessary, 18 but I think it's important. I think for me as a 19 Planning Commissioner reviewing that, yes, plus I think 20 it's also an educational thing for the Planning 21 Commissioners as well to understand species and know 22 what's going in and be able to identify them as they 23 drive around town. 24 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Now I've got one of 25 some substance here. This is some language I had
125 1 drafted to address the concerns of the Michigan 2 Nurseryman's Association, the gentlemen that were here. 3 At the top of Page 24, I've added 4 another asterisk under that chart that would have five 5 asterisks and it would read as follows, it would say: 6 "The City landscape architect may permit smaller sizes 7 upon receipt and review of sufficient documentation that 8 larger sizes are not readily available," and that would 9 allow for allowing these smaller plants but they have 10 to... 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Paul. 12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Is there where we can 13 also put an asterisk to state if there's larger trees in 14 diameter that maybe they'd get credit for a 15-foot tree 15 versus an eight-foot tree? 16 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. That's actually in the 17 table just below that under number 2. You'll see that 18 there's a chart that has size and then total tree 19 credits. This is where we've proposed to give credit 20 for planting larger plant materials. 21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Thank you. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Markham. 23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't understand 24 these funny little things here, these weird X's and -- 25 MR. SCHULTZ: E-mail transmission issues.
126 1 MR. EVANCOE: Those should say like eight 2 foot to ten foot, ten foot to 12 foot and so on. We'll 3 fix that. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We thought it was a 5 secrete landscape architect code. 6 MR. EVANCOE: Actually, it is. Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: And the same thing 8 is on Page 25 in your footnotes. You have some funny 9 looking Greek, weird things. I don't know what it is. 10 Those should be fixed too. 11 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. I think with that 12 what I want to quickly do -- that's all I have for the 13 ordinance. I'd like to point you to some of the charts, 14 to these berm charts that look like this in the 15 ordinance. Member Kocan rightly pointed out that these 16 numbers are in error, and I don't really know where 17 these came from, but the figures should say, looking at 18 the first one that has a -- that has a 100 foot width 19 and a 12 foot high berm, that should say 77 feet instead 20 of 100, and the one below should say 109 feet instead of 21 130 feet. 22 And then the next page also has two 23 berms. They should say 95 feet for 15 foot height and 24 77 feet for 12 foot height on that top drawing. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. You're
127 1 confusing us. 2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: The top one is 77? 3 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. You'll notice the top 4 one has two vertical dimensions, 12 foot on the right, 5 15 foot on the left. So in the case of the 15 foot, 6 it's 95 feet length, 12 foot height, would be 77 feet. 7 Then the berm below it should say 125 feet for 15 foot
8 height and 109 feet for 13 foot height and then the 9 final, third page, should be 95 feet and 125 feet. 10 And then going to this chart, which 11 has these parking lot islands with the big circles that 12 I talked about earlier, I would like to amend those 13 drawings to make them more square-ish in size instead of 14 round, and then -- we're almost done here. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let me ask you a 16 question. 17 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: What is wrong with the 19 round ones? 20 MR. EVANCOE: Well, if you take a close 21 look, there would be a great temptation to park at an 22 angle. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I see. That first 24 little -- 25 MR. EVANCOE: Right.
128 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Got it. Thank you. 2 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. You get more 3 landscape the other way as well. 4 Moving all the way to the suggested 5 plant material list, which is this spread sheet with the 6 tiny little words on it, that looks like this, we need 7 to cross out all the fraxinus, which are the white, 8 green and pumpkin ash that are listed there, about just 9 not quite halfway down the page, Fraxinus Americana 10 through Fraxinus Profunda. Those need to be taken out. 11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Is that the Latin? 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's the Latin. 13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Can we go back to 14 these street tree chart? 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. I want 16 to first of all spell for the court reporter. Fraxinus 17 is spelled F-r-a-x-i-n-u-s. 18 So we're going to take out all the 19 white ash, the green ash, black ash, European ash and 20 the Asian ash. 21 MR. EVANCOE: Not all of those were listed 22 there but if they were we would take them out. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And pumpkin ash. 24 MR. EVANCOE: There's actually a blue ash 25 called Fraxinus Quadrangulatta that is not listed either
129
1 but we would take that out. 2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Did you learn all 3 these big words in college? 4 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah, University of 5 Illinois. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's why we pay him 7 the big bucks. 8 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: In the City of Novi 11 street tree list, which was the chart before, some trees 12 are called out as recommended, others are called as 13 special circumstances. Do we say anywhere in the 14 ordinance what constitutes a special circumstance? 15 MR. EVANCOE: I don't -- can you help me 16 understand where you see that? 17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: It's over on the 18 right, it's over on the right. 19 MR. EVANCOE: Oh, okay, I see what you 20 mean. 21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Some of them are 22 recommended and some are special circumstances. What 23 made me think about it was I was looking at this for the 24 one that's in front of my house, which happens to be a 25 special circumstance tree, and I don't know what -- I
130 1 didn't see anything in the document that referenced 2 that. 3 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. We could certainly 4 add a footnote to this chart that discusses that. 5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Is it necessary? 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, it is. Do you 7 know why, if you don't mind? 8 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yeah, sure. 9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's because like it 10 depends where you plant it, a dogwood, how much heat it 11 gets, how much wind it gets, it depends on soil 12 conditions. So depending what tree you put where, 13 that's why it would be special circumstances. Like you 14 would not necessarily want to put a dawn redwood -- 15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't want to 16 argue with you. 17 MR. EVANCOE: Here's a perfect example, 18 here's a real good example. The top of the second page 19 has thornless cockspur Hawthorn. That, you know, 20 thornless is not always thornless and so you don't -- 21 you wouldn't want to have that necessarily right next to 22 a walkway where it could harm somebody. If you wish, we 23 can try to find out more about that. Steve created this 24 list. 25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I just wondered
131 1 where do we tell them what special circumstances means. 2 And, you know, we tell them they have to have a wide 3 variety and we give percentages for that and then you 4 come along and you make distinctions here and you don't 5 really say why they can or can't use something so... I 6 don't know what's so special about my front yard that it 7 has to have a special circumstance tree. 8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's because it's your 9 front yard. 10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: No, it's my whole 11 street. Actually, I kind of like it. It's unusual. 12 MR. EVANCOE: Other than just some -- a 13 few things that were grammatical, I'm done. That's all 14 I had. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 16 Commission Kocan, do you have 17 anything to add? 18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm very pleased with 19 all the progress we've made. My only other question -- 20 I guess we're not going to make a recommendation to 21 Council today. It sounds like it's going to come back 22 to us. 23 In your cover letter you stated, 24 and it's something we're going to have to talk about, is 25 when we do implement this how is it going to be
132 1 implemented and who's it going to apply to? We can 2 leave that for another day. 3 But the other thing you talked 4 about was the site maintenance agreement and how that 5 had to go to Implementation and then come back. And my 6 question is, why does that have to go to Implementation? 7 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think it does. But 8 I think if the Commission has reviewed it and thinks 9 it's a good idea, when we go back and revise this 10 ordinance we're going to add a specific reference to it 11 in the ordinance. So if you've reviewed it and you 12 think it's a good idea, we'll just make a reference to 13 it. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Is this new, never 15 had it before? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: It's a new concept. And it 17 wouldn't -- the way it's written, it doesn't relate only 18 to landscaping and that's part of the reason why we 19 didn't put it in yet, but we would find a separate 20 section, we would put it in and that would sort of go 21 along with it. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We definitely need to 23 get this back and vote on it at our next meeting. I 24 think that's very important. 25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair, I do
133
1 have one other item that I would like discussed briefly 2 and that is the question of grass pavers. I don't 3 remember where it was in the document but it was in the 4 comparison chart. It says we used to allow grass pavers 5 for secondary fire truck access but the new document 6 does not allow it. I'd like to understand why and then 7 if this is really true then the development that we 8 talked about tonight, Brightmoor, is talking about using 9 grass pavers for a secondary access and so that needs to 10 be dealt with. 11 But my question is, why are we not 12 using them conceptually especially as we get to 13 developments that are on more and more unusual parcels
14 of land? 15 MR. EVANCOE: I can't speak -- I think it 16 may be a fire department thing, having the ability to 17 support the load of their equipment, but I can say one 18 thing and then let Tim chime in, too. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Coburn, do you know 20 the answer to that, by any chance? 21 MR. EVANCOE: If I could just add the 22 point that I was starting to say, that snowplowing is a 23 problem with these. Because they're invisible the 24 snowplows don't pick up that they need to be plowed and 25 so they become impassible. That's just one reason.
134 1 MR. COBURN: The fire department has issue 2 with the pavers for that very reason and they've not 3 allowed them in the past. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. 5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's a very good 6 point. And, Mr. Schmitt, you're going to talk to the 7 Brightmoor people as we look at their development going 8 forward? 9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I think they're in a 10 unique situation that Mike actually might be amenable to 11 it in that location because they have so many other 12 points of access, but obviously it's something that will 13 be looked at. 14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Thanks. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have anything 16 else? Mr. Evancoe. 17 MR. EVANCOE: Just one thing about 18 scheduling the next review of this. Right now the next 19 meeting scheduled for the 12th is looking very full. 20 That's the one that will have the Catholic Central site 21 plan on and several other things that are already on 22 there. We can certainly bring this back if you want to 23 but I'm afraid it would probably result in a pretty 24 lengthy meeting. Could we leave it a little bit more 25 open as to when it would come back to you?
135 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I thought I still 2 had a little bit of control over the agenda. 3 MR. EVANCOE: You do, but... 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Paul. 5 COMMISSIONER PAUL: As long as whenever we 6 bring this back I want to make sure whatever site plans 7 come forward that we think about when they're going to 8 apply, and I've been -- this is probably what I put the 9 most thought into, is when we're going to apply these to 10 all the previous sites. And the front page was very 11 nice in explanation, I really appreciated that, and I 12 looked at this back in June 17th, 2002, that's a long 13 time ago, and we have a lot of sites that this may 14 change and we're going to have some very unhappy 15 developers. 16 So I would like to make sure that 17 anything that comes through the Planning Department that 18 they look at this ordinance as what we're probably going 19 to put forward and it gets applied anything coming 20 forward. 21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is it not, Mr. Schultz, 22 when City Council adopts it? 23 MR. SCHULTZ: Unless the ordinance says 24 otherwise, and that's a very important point. I think 25 it's hard -- even though that makes logical sense, I
136 1 think it's hard to tell people they have to comply with 2 it now, because it hasn't been adopted by Council and it 3 may change. 4 But I think it's possible for the 5 Commission to suggest that we put in the ordinance what 6 Council had to do by resolution for storm water, which 7 is, say right in it which plans it applies to, those 8 that don't have Final Site Plan approval or even if they 9 have Preliminary Site Plan approval where there's been 10 substantial funds spent and it would take substantially 11 more funds to change the plan. That's the compromise 12 Council came up with. It would be better if it were 13 right in this ordinance and then with an absolute 14 cut-off date where it applies to everything after such 15 and such a date. We propose that language to come back 16 to you. 17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Member Avdoulos and I 18 were speaking in the back and one of our comments was 19 anything that has not had final site approval really 20 should be the ones that we apply this to. 21 If there's some circumstances that 22 we need to know about, that they've spent copious 23 amounts of developer dollars already, it's going to be a 24 hardship, then I think we need to be aware of that and 25 maybe make it cognizant right up front when we adopt
137 1 this. But I really think something has to be in here 2 concrete as it moves forward because it might be another 3 two months or three months before this is actually 4 adopted and I don't want anything else to slip through 5 the cracks. We're trying to improve our landscape 6 ordinance. Thank you. 7 MR. EVANCOE: I think in terms of this 8 memo the paragraph that I've circled here is the one 9 that would be the basis of our recommendation at this 10 point, subject to your discussion and decision. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It says, "In the event 12 the development has received Preliminary Site Plan 13 approval prior to the effective date." Isn't that what 14 we're trying to put in here, is the effective date? 15 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we make today the 17 effective date, does it matter? 18 MR. SCHULTZ: The date that Council passes it. 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. All right. Can 20 we move -- does anybody have anything else to add? 21 MR. EVANCOE: I guess I just want to ask 22 again would there be some flexibility as to the 23 scheduling of this as opposed to saying that it will be 24 the next meeting? 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think we can discuss
138 1 this between the officers. 2 MR. AVDOULOS: It would be a Public 3 Hearing. 4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It would be a Public 5 Hearing or would -- 6 MR. SCHULTZ: I would suggest this: Open 7 the floor to public comments again tonight. If it turns 8 out there's time to advertise this as another Public 9 Hearing, I think it would be a courtesy to do that, but 10 if you open the Public Hearing now you probably wouldn't 11 have to do that. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why can't I just 13 continue it? 14 MR. SCHULTZ: Exactly. That's a good 15 point. You could continue it to a date certain if we 16 set a date certain tonight. If you skipped a meeting, 17 you could continue this hearing to the next scheduled 18 meeting. If you do that, you have to pick a date 19 though. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: How long does the staff 21 need? Mr. Evancoe, Mr. Schmitt, how long do you need to 22 make these changes? 23 MR. EVANCOE: Well, I think that we could 24 make the changes quickly enough to bring it back on the 25 12th. My concern is just that that may not be an ideal
139 1 meeting. Perhaps the following one would be better. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect, 3 the Council has asked for this more than once. To me 4 this would become a priority and I think we can discuss 5 that but we can continue Public Hearing. I don't know 6 how much more the Commissioners have to add to what 7 we've discussed tonight. It doesn't seem to me that 8 there's a lot of -- are you going to have a lot? 9 COMMISSIONER PAUL: No. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And Commissioner Kocan 11 has already put her changes in, so all the important 12 ones are in. 13 MR. EVANCOE: In terms of minutes, that 14 can be a challenge, too, in terms of our court reporting 15 firm as to whether they could get the minutes from this 16 pretty lengthy discussion back. Do you think you need 17 those do you feel? 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't think we need 19 the minutes from the court reporter. I think that 20 everybody has been writing on their stuff and maybe 21 everyone has a good idea. 22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: It should come back 23 and be a slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am. 24 MR. SHROYER: Your changes are in red. 25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yeah.
140 1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a final comment. Since 4 the Public Hearing was closed, I'd ask that there be a 5 motion to reopen it and continue it to the next meeting. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do I hear a 7 motion to reopen the -- 8 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: So moved. 9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Second. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. It was a motion 11 made by Mr. Ruyle to reopen the Public Hearing, the 12 motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham, that we 13 continue to the next date. 14 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: February 12th. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: February 12th. 16 MR. EVANCOE: That's fine. 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmitt, if you 18 would please call the roll. 19 MR. SCHMITT: Just so I'm calling a 20 correct roll, we are taking a vote on the motion to 21 reopen the Public Hearing and continue it until February 22 the 12th? 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Correct. 24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.
141 1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle? 2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes. 3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer. 4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes. 5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague? 6 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes. 7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos? 8 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes. 9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan? 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 13 MR. SCHMITT: And Chairperson Nagy? 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 15 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Now we take 17 a five minute break. We're taking a five minute break. 18 (A brief recess was held during 19 the meeting.) 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ladies and gentlemen, 21 I'd like to call the meeting back to order. 22 Our next matter is Matters for 23 Consideration, Hickory Corporate Park, Site Plan Number 24 02-45. Consideration of the request of Bennett 25 Donaldson of J.B. Donaldson Company for approval of a
142 1 Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located 2 in Section 26 on the west side of Venture Drive and 3 north of Nine Mile Road in the I-1 (light industrial) 4 District. The developer is proposing two speculative 5 industrial buildings. The subject property is 1.99 6 acres. 7 Mr. Schmitt. 8 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair. 9 As you mentioned, this is two 10 speculative industrial buildings off of Venture Drive 11 just north of Nine Mile. The location can be seen here. 12 To the north is the J.H. Bennett development and across 13 the street to the east Jansar. You may remember this 14 property, this is the Venture Drive B that was in front 15 of you several months ago for a parking lot expansion. 16 The entire area is Master Planned 17 for light industrial uses. On that other side of the 18 park there's a Single-Family subdivision abutting it; 19 however, this property does not abut Single-Family. And 20 the property is zoned I-1, light industrial, as are the 21 surrounding properties in all directions. 22 The review of this site plan was 23 fairly clean. There are minor issues that need to be 24 resolved at this time. The first item that I will 25 mention is under the Planning Review. It indicates that
143 1 a ZBA variance is required to allow for the parking in 2 the front yard on a site less than two acres in size. 3 After further discussions with the 4 applicant, and the applicant will speak to this further, 5 there seems to be no problem in making the site two 6 acres in size and eliminating that variance. 7 In addition, the Planning 8 Commission will need to make a finding that the parking 9 and lighting are compatible with the surrounding 10 development as a requirement to allow parking in the 11 front yard. The parking and site plan layout are 12 generally similar to other developments in the Venture 13 Drive area. Most notably the Jansar development across 14 the street has parking in the front yard and will use a 15 similar layout as do the Venture Drive A and B spec 16 buildings to the north. 17 There were no wetlands and 18 woodlands on the site. The Landscaping Review indicated 19 minor comments that will be addressed at Final Site Plan 20 submittal as will the engineering review and the fire 21 review. 22 The traffic review indicated that a 23 Planning Commission waiver of an opposite side driveway 24 spacing will be required. I will let Mr. Coburn, the 25 engineer, discuss this further, but it is a fairly minor
144 1 issue involving a southbound left-hand turn into Jansar. 2 The facade review indicated the 3 application is not consistent with the intent of the 4 ordinance and a Section 9 waiver was not recommended for 5 approval. The applicant will need to make revisions to 6 his facades to bring them into compliance with the 7 ordinance. Most notably, reducing the amount of 8 split-faced block on all facades to meet the ordinance 9 maximum of 75 percent. 10 Just to give you an idea of the 11 site, this is a color rendering of the landscape plan. 12 As you can see, there are two buildings. Loading is 13 located in the rear of the site and it's properly 14 screened. Mr. McGinnis indicated that they may want to 15 consider changing one of the plant species as it is 16 somewhat hard to find, but he feels the screening of 17 both of the loading areas is appropriate. 18 And those are all the comments I 19 have at this time. Thank you very much. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 21 Mr. Coburn, would you like to add 22 anything? 23 MR. COBURN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I 24 just wanted to add on the driveway spacing waiver, this 25 is a similar situation that we had with the Venture
145 1 Drive spec building B where the left turn conflict would 2 be with traffic traveling southbound on Venture Drive 3 and making the left turn into Jansar, which probably 4 would happen very rarely, so that's why the traffic 5 consultants recommending approval of that waiver. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 7 Would the applicant like to add 8 anything? If you could state your name for the court 9 reporter, please. 10 MR. DONALDSON: Hi. I'm Bennett Donaldson 11 with J.B. Donaldson Company and we're here obviously to 12 seek Preliminary Site Plan approval. 13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what? There's 14 no way this poor man can write this. Please, normal. 15 MR. DONALDSON: Obviously we're here to 16 seek Preliminary Site Plan approval for these two 17 buildings. Tim was correct in saying that we do have 18 the ability to gain an extra two feet or whatever is 19 required to the south of the property to make the site 20 an even two acres to come in compliance with our front 21 yard parking. 22 The facade is a non-issue. We'll 23 certainly bring the buildings into compliance as far as 24 the facade is concerned on the, you know, on the 25 upcoming revisions.
146 1 And also to piggyback on Tim's 2 other statement about the left-hand turn, as far as 3 making a left-hand turn into Jansar's driveway, I don't 4 think that's going to be happening. So, that was all. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Nothing 6 further from the staff. With that I'll turn it over to 7 the Commission. Member Paul. 8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have a question for 9 Mr. Schmitt. 10 When I was configuring the parking, 11 I was looking at the data that is provided and when I 12 was looking at building 2 I was concerned. I had a 13 little bit different numbers than what's provided. 14 For building number 2 I had a total 15 of 16 office spaces that would be provided and 16 manufacturing would be seven spaces. So I would have 23 17 spaces and there's some change so if you wanted to say 18 24 spaces because of the manufacturing site is like 19 7.67. I can understand that. 20 For building 3, for the office 21 space I have 15 spaces that are provided and for 22 manufacturing I have seven spaces. So, again, for 23 building 3 I have 22 spaces, yielding 45 total, and the 24 applicant has 29 and 29 for each building, which is 58, 25 so there's a discrepancy of 13. And you had a different
147 1 number altogether, you had 53. So I'd like you to 2 explain that. 3 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Member Paul. 4 Since we're dealing with a 5 speculative building we don't have interior partitions, 6 we don't have interior walls, etcetera. So essentially 7 you have a clear span that you're doing a gross floor 8 area on. Assuming the 40 percent office, 60 percent 9 industrial is what Mr. Donaldson is doing, and that 10 seems like a perfectly appropriate number, that gives 11 you a very -- not a worse case scenario but a very 12 liberal parking calculation to allow you to have some 13 flexibility in the amount of office the user actually 14 needs. I'm sure the market will dictate what actually 15 happens.
16 To give you some perspective, 17 Venture Drive B, when Sunglow came in, was roughly 30 18 percent office, 70 percent warehouse. So 40/60 is a 19 reasonable split. Now, to get to the actual 20 requirements, the four office spaces is based on gross 21 leasable area. Under our code gross leasable area is 22 essentially everything inside the walls, for all intents 23 and purposes since we're on a one-story building. 24 Based on that, you would need 25 roughly 28 spaces for building 2 and 25 spaces for
148 1 building 3, based on everything inside the wall. That's 2 a total of 53 for the site, and Mr. Donaldson is 3 providing 58. So the site does balance regardless of 4 how you actually do the calculations. 5 The reason we come to this is the 6 calculations that are commonly used in some of the plans 7 that we see is 80 percent gross leasable area. It's an 8 industry standard is my understanding. It's sort of how 9 you do office leasing. However, under our code there's 10 no allowance for us to assume 80 percent. We have to 11 take -- go by the definition of gross leasable area and 12 that's how we get to the standard that we use. 13 So without having interior 14 partitions in the actual layout of the building on the 15 inside we can't -- we're fairly stringent on what we can 16 actually apply it to. However, for a building where we 17 had an interior layout, it would probably reduce the 18 number of parking spaces that are actually required, but 19 in this situation he is providing for virtually any user 20 he could think of for the site. 21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: If we had brought this 22 back at final so we have total square footage, would 23 that be more appropriate because then it might change 24 our parking requirements? 25 I have one idea also and I already
149 1 had shared it with the developer. Parking lots, no 2 matter what way we try to put an island there, they're 3 not attractive. The railroad tracks, no matter what we 4 try to do, they're not attractive. I thought that it 5 would be a possibility that maybe you could continue the 6 split drive between building 2 and 3 and take all the 7 parking and put it to the rear of the site, and that to 8 me would be a better use of the land and it would be 9 more attractive to the front and maybe get a tenant in 10 there and still have parking in the middle. Maybe the 11 applicant can make a comment to that effect. 12 But we have -- we're looking at 13 this as a Preliminary Site Plan and we're completely 14 guessing on the parking spaces that are required. If we 15 do not need 58 parking spaces, I'd rather not have it as 16 a pervious surface. That's my comment. 17 MR. SCHMITT: In terms of bringing it back 18 at Final Site Plan, while it's a good idea it may not 19 necessarily help in this situation. Because it's a 20 speculative building, there's no guarantee at the time 21 of Final Site Plan we'll actually know how the interior 22 renovations are going to look. So we may have the exact 23 same situation of clear span interior still hitting the 24 53 number with everything inside the walls. 25 By providing for the maximum -- by
150 1 providing for sort of a higher end scenario of the 2 needed parking, we're avoiding a situation much like 3 another site in Venture Drive where they have overflow 4 parking and oftentimes have trucks parking on the actual 5 road because there's not enough parking on their site. 6 As we saw several months ago at Venture Drive B, he 7 actually had to come back in for an additional parking 8 lot because the original site wasn't parked high enough. 9 So from a planning perspective, 10 while we want to reduce the amount of impervious 11 surface, it makes sense, given the history of this 12 subdivision, to provide for a higher end number of 13 parking given the type of users that have come in here. 14 In terms of flipping the site, it 15 actually -- if I can go over to the podium real quick -- 16 if I can get the overhead briefly, given the geography 17 of the site, it would be fairly simple, and this is just 18 a rough sketch, to flip the parking, to put it all in 19 the rear. The benefit of that, certainly it's 20 aesthetic, however, the landscape requirements would 21 then change for the front so you may be losing something 22 by trying to gain it by putting the parking in the rear. 23 There are other developments along 24 Venture Drive that have parking in the front, most 25 notably right across the street at Jansar. They have
151 1 parking in the front, they've done the required berm and 2 landscaping along the right-of-way. So given that the 3 character of the corridor -- given the character of this 4 road is an industrial park, flipping the building isn't 5 necessarily a make or break item. I think certainly the 6 applicant can respond to this, but it's not something 7 that the Planning Department would absolutely require in 8 order to get approval. 9 COMMISSIONER PAUL: It was just a comment. 10 Thank you, Madam Chair. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. 12 Do we have any other comments by 13 any other Commissioners? Member Kocan. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. And I'll 15 just continue with that, what was that diagram of 16 putting all the parking in the front because my question 17 is I don't like the fact that there isn't a rear 18 entrance behind this loading dock. If you added all the 19 parking to the back, not all the parking but the front 20 parking to the back, it increases the situation. 21 And I would like to ask the 22 developer if -- I don't think it's a requirement but it 23 might be something to consider for safety purposes to 24 have a back entrance to these buildings because of where 25 the loading dock is. Is that something that is -- may I
152 1 ask the developer, Madam Chair? 2 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah, we're not opposed to 3 putting a back door entrance, you know, a small sidewalk 4 into the back of the building so people can have access 5 instead of walking through a maneuvering area or 6 something. 7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I would appreciate 8 that. I think for health, safety and welfare of the 9 employees. 10 The parking calculation, you know, 11 we did just have a situation where we had to increase 12 parking and then we had setback issues because it is a 13 spec building and it was underestimated how much 14 parking. I drove down Venture Drive today and the 15 parking that is in front of the buildings is screened. 16 As a matter of fact, one of the buildings I didn't even 17 know there was parking in the front because it was 18 screened so well. So I'm hopeful that the screening 19 will be effective and it is consistent with the rest of 20 the parking in the area. 21 Just to clarify, some of the 22 narrative that we received states that the berm along 23 the right-of-way needs to be two-and-a-half feet when in 24 fact the ordinance states it needs to be three feet. 25 And if I read the landscape plan correctly, it is a
153 1 three foot berm along the right-of-way? 2 MR. McGINNIS: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: There was a note from 4 the landscaper that said additional plantings around the 5 loading zone on the north and west would help 6 additionally screen the loading zone. Is that a 7 request, is that a suggestion, is that a requirement? 8 MR. McGINNIS: That wasn't my note. What 9 I said was it was a change in the plant material because 10 they have a plant specified that I think is going to be 11 difficult to get and might not do too well in that 12 situation anyway. But as far as the loading zone being 13 screened, I think it's adequately screened right now the 14 way he has it proposed. 15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Because loading zone 16 screening, required yes, proposed yes, meets requirement 17 yes, but the comments additional planting on the north 18 and west side will further screen the loading, on the 19 second to the last page of your chart. 20 MR. McGINNIS: I think that was a typo 21 that was a carryover from a previous report. 22 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, because it's 23 not highlighted. So he's fine with regard to the 24 requirements. 25 MR. McGINNIS: Yeah.
154 1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I wonder if there's 2 any flexibility -- never mind. We won't go there. 3 With the development size going 4 from 1.99 acre to 2 acres, does that change -- are there 5 any implications with regard to drainage requirements? 6 MR. COBURN: There's a requirement in the 7 existing design and construction standards that if the 8 site is over two acres in size a temporary sedimentation 9 basin is required on the site. What we can do is work 10 with the applicant to set up drainage areas that would 11 work with a sedimentation chamber and then that would 12 probably solve the problem with that. We would have no 13 problem with that going to two acres, that would not be 14 a problem. 15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, does that 16 require a design change on the developer's part? 17 MR. COBURN: He's already proposing a 18 stormwater chamber and what we would do is just work 19 with him to move it up to serve this site only. We 20 don't -- what we don't want is a chamber that's down 21 here on the south side of the site serving the south 22 site that's not developed or not part of the site plan 23 and the north part of the site plan. So we'll work with 24 him at final moving that up just to serve the site that 25 you're discussing tonight.
155 1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So there shouldn't be 2 considerable cost implications for acquiring 1/100th of 3 an acre to make it two acres? 4 MR. COBURN: No, no. 5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. And I don't 6 believe you'll have an ingress-egress easement problem 7 because you own the property to the north. Correct? Or 8 you developed the company to the north. 9 MR. DONALDSON: To the north we developed 10 it, we don't own it, but as far as getting the 11 ingress-egress easement, I believe we already have it. 12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: You already have it. 13 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Facade, we 15 haven't talked about facade, and it's not recommended to 16 have a waiver and so I guess I'd like -- 17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: He's reducing it. 18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Oh, was that stated 19 that you're going to comply with the facade ordinance? 20 MR. DONALDSON: Yes. 21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I missed that. Okay. 22 In that case I'm willing to make a 23 motion in the matter of Hickory Corporate Park West, 24 site plan 02-45, motion to grant approval of the 25 Preliminary Site Plan with the following conditions:
156 1 Planning Commission waiver of the minimum opposite side 2 driveway spacing standard, 58 feet proposed, 200 feet 3 required, for the access on Venture Drive given that 4 southbound left turns are expected to be minimal. 5 Applicant will make revisions to 6 come into compliance with our facade ordinance number 7 2520. 8 As stated, the developer will 9 acquire additional property to the south to increase 10 site to two acres, therefore, no ZBA variance is 11 required for front yard parking. Subject to comments on 12 the attached review letters being addressed on the Final 13 Site Plan. 14 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Second. 15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The motion was 16 made by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Paul. 17 Is there any further discussion? 18 Mr. Schultz. 19 MR. SCHULTZ: Just with regard to the last 20 requirement of changing the lot line. I guess just a 21 clarification. In the event for some reason the 22 proponent isn't able to do that, either through 23 acquisition or if Mr. Lemmon, the city assessor, doesn't 24 permit a splint of that existing lot line, is it the 25 intention it would have to come back here or would a ZBA
157 1 variance be an acceptable alternative? 2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Paul. 3 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I would recommend that 4 it comes back here because right now we're giving him 5 all these waivers based on that. We're saying that the 6 planning requirement and the facade requirement, mainly 7 the planning requirement for a ZBA, is going to be 8 waived because he's purchased the two acres in size to 9 make this two acres total. So I think it's two feet 10 that you acquired? 11 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah, I think -- we own 12 the site to the south. 13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: So it doesn't sound 14 like it's going to be a big deal, but if for whatever 15 reason it doesn't go through I think we have to look at 16 this in a whole 'nother way. 17 MR. SCHULTZ: I just wanted clarification. 18 I don't think it's a policy decision. 19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I was originally 20 going to make a motion, and if I'm the maker of the 21 motion I -- and I may not get a second -- but I was -- 22 because this is a 1/100th of an acre deficiency, I was 23 going to -- I mean, I would appreciate that the 24 developer is going to acquire to make it two acres, 25 that's our desire and the intent of the City.
158 1 If for some reason there are 2 unforeseen circumstances that negate you acquiring this 3 property, I would be willing to recommend a ZBA variance 4 to allow parking in the front yard, recognizing that the 5 site is only 1/100th of an acre deficient in size. 6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you making that as 7 part of your motion? 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I would add that to 9 the motion. 10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you accept that? 11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I'd like to make a 12 comment first. 13 We always try to, you know, uphold 14 the ordinances and parking is not allowed in the front 15 of this building. I know it's only two feet, but in 16 point of the ordinance this isn't how it's written. And 17 there's an alternative to put this parking in the rear, 18 which is something that makes perfect sense to me. So 19 I'm not willing to do that. So maybe someone else will 20 be. 21 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I'll second the 22 motion. 23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, then, maybe we 24 need to vote on my amendment and to see if the amendment 25 is acceptable and then go back to the main motion. But
159 1 we've got a second for the amendment? 2 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I agree on the main 3 motion for second and I'd like to hear the vote on the 4 amendment. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So we have the 6 motion for the amendment made by Member Kocan, seconded 7 by Mr. Ruyle. And the amendment is that should the 8 applicant not acquire the 1/100th of an acre, which is 9 equivalent to what, two feet? 10 MR. DONALDSON: It might be less, it could 11 be a foot. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then instead of coming 13 back to the Planning Commission they would be able to go 14 to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be able to have the 15 parking in the front. 16 MR. SCHULTZ: If he doesn't acquire or if 17 for some reason the split is not permitted. 18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, okay. Let's put 19 that in there. I'm sorry. 20 If for some reason he does not 21 acquire or the split is not given. Okay. Could we call 22 for the vote, Mr. Schmitt. 23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle? 24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes. 25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?
160 1 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No. 2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague? 3 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: No. 4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos? 5 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: No. 6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan? 7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy? 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. 12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: No. 14 MR. SCHMITT: Motion fails 3 to 5 -- 5 to 15 3. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now, would we like to 17 vote on the first motion which is -- we still have a 18 motion on the table. 19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: We do but we need to 20 address that if he doesn't acquire the two acres that it 21 he needs to come back. We need a motion and amendment. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you want to amend 23 your motion to indicate that, your first motion, that 24 with those conditions predicated upon him acquiring the 25 1/100th acre and, if not, then he has to come back to
161 1 the Planning Commission. That's an altogether different 2 motion. 3 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, right now the 4 motion as it was initially made did not reference a ZBA 5 variance. It indicated that it was predicated upon the 6 acquisition of the property and the split being 7 approved. That's how I heard the first motion. That's 8 the one that's still on the table if Member Kocan 9 doesn't withdraw. 10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I just wondered if we 11 needed to address if he can't get that extra. My motion 12 says he will get that extra so no ZBA variances are 13 required. Then can we assume the next step if he 14 doesn't acquire the two acres he has no choice but to 15 come back to us? 16 MR. SCHULTZ: He no longer has site plan 17 approval. 18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: He no longer has site 19 plan approval. So is that -- then we'll just vote. 20 MR. SCHULTZ: You can vote as is. 21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I don't have a 22 problem with that. 23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sprague, would you 24 like to say something? 25 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: I just wanted to
162 1 know what that means. Does that mean for the developer 2 where he gets in line to be able to come back? Does he 3 go back to the end of the line if he doesn't get the 4 foot? 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sprague's question 6 is, where would he fall in -- 7 MR. SCHMITT: Given that the site has 8 already been reviewed, generally we try to bring those 9 projects back quicker. I don't foresee it being 10 problem; however, if it does becomes a problem certainly 11 we can expedite the process. 12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would imagine with 13 everything that if it came back it would come back on 14 the next available agenda. This is not a difficult site 15 plan. I don't think we would be spending as much time 16 with it as we are now. 17 MR. DONALDSON: And just to add to that, I 18 don't believe the lot has been split off yet, you know, 19 I don't think the split is complete. So I think it's 20 going to be a function of us moving the line and then 21 turning it in for the split, you know, because we were 22 waiting for site plan approval before we make the formal 23 application for the split. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Now, we have a 25 motion on the table. Does everyone understand the
163 1 motion? Okay. 2 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please 3 call for the vote. 4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer? 5 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes. 6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague? 7 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes. 8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos? 9 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes. 10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan? 11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham? 13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes. 14 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy -- 15 Chairperson Nagy? I'm sorry. 16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. 17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul? 18 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes. 19 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Ruyle? 20 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes. 21 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0. 22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much. 23 Good luck. 24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Madam Chair, I move 25 we extend the meeting for 15 minutes.
164 1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's been moved by Mr. 2 Ruyle to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. Do we 3 have a second? 4 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Second. 5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member 6 Markham. 7 The next item on the agenda is 8 approval of the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission 9 minutes. If we could just take our corrections and give 10 them to the department. Instead of at 11:31 everyone 11 reading their corrections into the record, why don't we 12 all take it and give them to the court reporter. 13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I was 14 not at this meeting. I did see it on tape. I do have 15 corrections, most of them are spelling changes. The few 16 changes that I do have I'll run by you to see if you 17 approve of them first. There's like two word changes 18 that -- 19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sure. Go ahead, Member 20 Kocan. 21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The city attorney 22 made one. Actually, it was Matt McClain. On Page 59, 23 line 6, she's talking about installation of individual 24 left turn it says heads for that intersection. I 25 suspect it should be getting ready to do the
165 1 installation of individual left turn lanes for that 2 intersection. I don't want to change what somebody 3 means, but is there left turn heads? 4 MR. COBURN: Were they talking about 5 traffic signals by chance? 6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes. 7 MR. COBURN: That would be heads. 8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: It would be heads. 9 See, that's why we had to correct that. Never heard 10 that term before. Okay. 11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's it? 12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: That's the only major 13 ones. 14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Whatever else needs to 15 be we can give it to the reporter. Since there are 16 minor corrections, they can come back to us for our next 17 meeting. Okay. 18 MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify, there's 19 been no motion to approve them? 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, there has not been 21 a motion to approve them. Or do you want to make to 22 approve with the changes? It's up to all of you. 23 MR. SHROYER: That's fine with me. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The Chair will 25 entertain a motion to approve with the changes.
166 1 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: So moved. 2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE. Second. 3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So moved by Mr. 4 Avdoulos, seconded by Mr. Ruyle. 5 All in favor? 6 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes 8-0. 8 The next item on the agenda is 9 Matters for Discussion. We have nothing to discuss. 10 The next item is Special Reports. 11 We have none. 12 We have audience participation. Is 13 there anybody in the audience that would like to address 14 the Commission on any subject? Seeing no participants, 15 I will close the audience participation. 16 Mr. Ruyle, would you like to move 17 to adjourn? 18 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Move to adjourn. 19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Second. 20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Mr. 21 Shroyer. 22 All in favor say aye. 23 COMMISSION MEMBERS: Aye. 24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Meeting adjourned at 25 11:34.
167 1 (The January 29, 2003 Regular 2 Meeting of the Novi Planning 3 Commission was adjourned at 4 11:34 p.m.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
168 1 2 3 C E RT I F I C A T E 4 5 I, Glenn Miller, do hereby certify that I 6 have recorded stenographically the proceedings had in 7 the above-entitled matter at the time and place 8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that 9 the foregoing transcript, consisting of one hundred 10 sixty-eight (168) typewritten pages, is a true and 11 correct transcript of my said stenograph notes. 12 13 14 Signature on File 15 Glenn Miller 16 Certified Shorthand Reporter 17 18 19 February 10, 2003 20 (Date) 21 Signature on File Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant 22 23 Date Approved: April 9, 2003 24 25
|