The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members Cassis, Gaul, Kocan, Markham, Pehrson, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

Absent: Member Avdoulos (Excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Nancy McClain, City Engineer; Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director; Matt Wiktorowski, Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department; Tom Schultz, City Attorney; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultant

The meeting attendants recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Shroyer asked that "Applicant Response Letters" be placed under Matters for Discussion. Member Ruyle asked that "White Signs" (Change of Zoning Signs) be placed under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share during this portion of the meeting.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports. Chair Markham thanked everyone who came out for the Citizen Input Meeting held on January 24, 2004. She encouraged anyone who still had comments to share regarding the Master Plan update to forward them to Darcy Schmitt.

There were no Presentations.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of REMAX 100 for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property in Section 16 located south of Grand River Avenue east of Beck Road from R-A (Residential Acreage) to OS-1 (Office Service). The subject property is 3.48 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. To the south is Central Park Estates, which is currently under development. Providence Park is to the northwest of this site. A variety of zonings exist in the area; the subject property is currently zoned R-A, as is the parcel directly to the northwest. To the northeast and east the properties are zoned I-1, Light Industrial. To the south is RM-1, Low density Multiple Residential, and OS-1, Office/Service (Visions Spa). To the west, across Beck Road, is OSC, Office/Service/Commercial. The predominant land uses in the area are multiple family and office.

The rear two-thirds of the site is wetlands. Their condition will be determined and they be delineated at the time of site plan submittal. There are light woodlands in the front of the property and medium woodlands in the rear half of the property.

Mr. Schmitt said that Crystal Halley of Remax 100 is requesting this rezoning so that they can move their offices to Novi. This request is in compliance with the Master Plan and conforms to the property use to the south. The OS-1 zoning provides a good transitional use between the ultimate development along Grand River Avenue and the residential to the south and southeast. Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Commission may recommend approval or denial of this plan to City Council; they may also recommend a different zoning, which would then require another Public Hearing.

Typical developments in the OS-1 District include small office buildings, banks, personal service establishments and churches. Special Land Uses include mortuaries, nursery schools and accessory uses related to the principal uses in some way (a pharmacy inside of a medical office building). The intent of the OS-1 zoning is to provide a transition between residential and commercial districts and between major thoroughfares and residential districts. The Planning Department believes this is an appropriate transitional use for this property, given the amount of traffic and the intensity of uses along Grand River Avenue and the residential uses to the south.

The Traffic Review offered comments that should be taken into consideration at the time of Site Plan submittal. The Applicant has submitted a letter from the current owner of the property that states their permission for this rezoning request to occur as well as their reasoning for supporting the request.

Lee Mamola, Lee Mamola & Associates Architects, 44700 W. Nine Mile, represented the Petitioner. He said that the intent of Crystal Halley and Remax 100 is to build an 8,000-10,000 square foot office building to be located at the front end of the property. The rear portion is undevelopable due to the wetlands, the exact boundaries of which are yet to be determined. Mr. Mamola said that the key point of this request is how this transitional use will work with the other land uses in the area. It will relieve the industrial properties to the north from having to comply with many restrictions generally associated with adjacency to residential. It will offer an approximate 200-yard natural-state buffer between it and the residential use to the south. He said the request is consistent with the Master Plan. He offered to answer any questions.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Cassis said this is an easy rezoning to consider as it complies with the Master Plan and it fits with the neighboring parcels.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Shroyer supported the motion and asked how far into the property the development would be in comparison to the property to the south (Visions Spa). Mr. Mamola responded that the optimal location for the building, in order to comply with zoning and the features of the land, would be where the existing house stands, which is about equal to the middle of the Visions Spa property. The development to the rear would be parking. Pending further field investigations, a more accurate determination of how far the building can be set back will be made. He stated that 50-65% of the rear property will remain in its natural state, and that less than half of this property is developable.

Member Kocan stated that buffering the area adjacent to the condo property is important to her, as the condos were built with the understanding that this property was zoned residential. She supported the plan.

Chair Markham supported the plan. She expects that the Applicant will be sensitive to the environmental features on the property. She hoped that the Applicant would also be sensitive to the Traffic Engineer’s comments about driveway spacing. Chair Markham also noted that the designation for the Visions Spa property needs to be updated on the new Master Plan.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of David Gumenick of Novi Developments for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland, and Woodland Permits. The subject property is located in Section 10, northeast corner of Twelve Mile and Donaldson Drive in the OS-1 (Office Service) District. The subject property is approximately 5.0 acres. The Applicant is proposing a two-story 51,000 square foot office building.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property fronts on Twelve Mile. Further east is Novi Road and to the north is Carlton Forest Condominiums – their main entrance wraps around the subject property and encircles a large wetland. This property is zoned OS-1, Office Service, as are the properties directly to the east. The property to the west is zoned OS-1 as a result of a consent judgment. To the south is RC zoning, and to the north is RM-1. The Land Use Map shows this property and the western properties master planned for office uses. Property to the north is master planned multiple residential with a PD-1 option. To the northwest the property is master planned single family residential. To the south is the Regional Commercial Master Plan designation with the PD-2 Option.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant’s proposal is for a two-story building with a main entrance on Twelve Mile. A secondary access stub will be provided to the west. The Planning Review indicated that the plan meets requirements with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal, including revisions to the lighting plan. The Wetlands Review (as well as Engineering Review) indicated there is no outlet for the stormwater to leave the wetland. This has already been revised and can be addressed by John Freeland of Tilton & Associates, the City’s Wetland Consultants, or Ben Croy, the Civil Engineer. The Woodlands Review indicated there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat can address any questions regarding the woodlands.

Mr. Schmitt said the Landscape Review indicated the need for three waivers and one ZBA variance, although the ZBA issue was minor and the Applicant has already addressed that deficiency. The waivers are for:

The Traffic Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. A Traffic Impact Study was submitted and the City’s Traffic Consultant (Birchler Arroyo) is working on the details. This waiver is therefore not required.

The Façade Review indicates the building meets requirements and the Fire Department had minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Michael Thomas, Architect, 885 East Auburn, East Rochester Hills, represented David Gumenick. He clarified that the request for the island landscape waiver is because the Applicant began designing this building under the old landscape Ordinance. They feel this is a reasonable request in light of how much of this property is not being developed.

Mr. Thomas said that the north end of the property is much lower than Carlton Forest and a berm in that area would not serve any purpose. There are also 140 feet of wetland and woodlands acting as a buffer. These same comments apply to the southeast berm requirement.

Chair Markham asked for public comments:

Tom Zurowski, 28105 Carlton Way: Represented Board of Directors of the Carlton Homeowners Association. Concerned that wetland will be destroyed and some homeowners paid premiums for their lots. These neighbors are concerned that they will be looking at a parking lot and its lighting. Chair Markham told Mr. Zurowski that his question would be answered.

Don Bullen, Carlton Forest: Concerned about the lighting in the evening. He paid a premium for his lot’s adjacency to the woodlands on the subject property. He fears that the parking lot runoff will ultimately kill off the trees in the wetlands. He was concerned that the building only has a 140-foot rear yard setback. He believes his property is losing value.

Debbie Bundoff, Twelve Mile: Concerned about the wetlands. Asked that the buffering be extended to protect the wetlands and woodlands, especially during the construction phase.

Member Shroyer read the correspondence relating to this Public Hearing:

Angela Wade, 28373 Carlton Way: Objected because traffic, noise and pollution will increase. She thinks there will be additional sewer costs to the residents. She will have a loss of privacy and increase in taxes.

Catherine Gallagher, 28292 Carlton Way: Objects for reasons of destruction to wetlands and woodlands, congestion, too much office space, too much concrete.

Cynthia Stern, 28335 Carlton Way: Objects because it will destroy the landscape, increase traffic, noise and dirt and will remove the neighborhood atmosphere.

Gary Findlay, 28089 Carlton Way: Objected because he bought his home based on the premise that it would be surrounded by wetlands.

Robert Draper, 28277 Carlton Way: Objects to an office being built close to residential and to the possible impact to the wetlands.

Jeffrey Stevens, 28273 Carlton Way: Also objects to an office being built close to residential and to the possible impact to the wetlands.

Muriel Cleary, 28251 Carlton Way: Thought the wetlands and woodlands were protected.

Barbara Anderson, 28139 Carlton Way: Objects because of impact to wetlands, property devaluation, parking lot light standards.

Dorothy Mily, 28147 Carlton Way: Thought subject property was residential, and her property value will decrease.

Raymond and Elisabeth Yanok, 28243 Carlton Way: Objects due to wetland impacts and traffic.

Louis Pilotto, 28349 Carlton Way: Objects due to wetland impacts, parking lot is too big and there is no agreement between Gumenick and Carlton Forest for the drainage easement and maintenance. He said lighting does not meet standards. He said that traffic will increase. He said that the tree replacement is short and the landscaping square footage is short.

Mr. Evancoe recommended that the two parcels be combined if the Planning Commission decides to approve this plan.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Sprague asked about the lighting. Mr. Schmitt said that the current plan does not meet requirements because the Applicant did not provide three notations on their plan. The levels of illumination are correct. The angling of the lights is correct. The properties to the east and west are both zoned OS-1, and therefore there are no homes in those areas. The distance between the parking lot and the property line is 140-145 feet. The light fixtures in that area are angled at ninety degrees – an Ordinance requirement. The light goes down and out but not forward. The other lighting on the site is on parking islands and given their location from the homeowners, the light impact at the property line will be zero footcandles. The residents will not be able to see the bulbs. If the lights were lowered the spread would be reduced and the Applicant would have to add more light poles. They have designed their lighting plan with the poles in the center to reduce the number of poles necessary. He said this is the optimal plan for the subject property.

Member Sprague asked about the stormwater easement. Mr. Schmitt said that Carlton Forest is willing to grant the easement once the City has approved the stormwater plan.

Member Sprague asked about the replacement trees. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat said that 223 replacement trees are required, and only 86 have been proposed. This is a deficit of 137 trees. Mr. DeBrincat said that the Planning Commission also needs to determine whether birch trees are acceptable. He said that the Applicant could decide not to add the deficit trees and instead contribute to the City’s tree fund.

Wetland Consultant John Freeland addressed Member Sprague’s questions about the wetlands. He said that initially he was concerned that the water runoff might affect the scrub shrub and the other forested components of the wetland. He asked the Applicant to provide some mechanism that would drain the wetland if the water got too high. The Applicant has proposed an outlet standpipe at an elevation of 942.75, and that appears to be sufficient to prevent the wetland from flooding. The wetland consists of an open water area in the southern portion and there are emergent water plants, shrub and woodland components. Mr. Freeland said that at the northern end of the parking lot there is a proposal to fill in 4,000 square feet of wetland – about 1/10 of an acre. They received an MDEQ permit for filling in 3,000 square feet, so a new permit must be secured.

Mr. Freeland said he suggested moving the parking to the northwest, but it created a hardship and safety issue. He noted that it is very heavily vegetated on the north end. Mr. Freeland said that the request for the elevation being shown on the plan has been satisfied.

Mr. Freeland also said that he requested the remaining wetland be protected by a conservation easement. Mr. Schmitt said that would be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan. City Attorney Tom Schultz said that is an issue that needs to be discussed with the property owner, and the motion could suggest that the City and Applicant work together on a potential conservation easement.

Member Sprague thought that the entrance location might be a safety issue. Civil Engineer Ben Croy stated the consultant was concerned that a driver would have to cross several lanes in a short amount of space to get to the turn-around designation on the Twelve Mile boulevard. He suggested that the driveway be pushed east and lined up with the parking aisle. There is a wetland impact if that movement is made. The Oakland Country Road Commission requires a spacing of 100 feet between the crossover and the driveway, which explains why the driveway is currently shown where it is.

Member Sprague asked about the parking lot islands. David Evancoe, Director of Planning, said that the requirement has been changed to 300 feet in the new Ordinance. The purpose of this increase was to provide more landscaping and break up large expanses of parking lot. The Applicant gains parking spaces by providing 200-foot islands versus 300-foot islands. He said it is a reasonable waiver request from the standpoint that the larger islands will result in a larger parking lot, which will further impact the environmentally sensitive areas. There is an Ordinance provision that allows the Planning Commission to grant this waiver if they find that one or more of four conditions exist. One condition is the preservation of existing natural features. Mr. Evancoe said that the Applicant has said if he is held to the standard of 300 feet, he will cause more encroachment (this will require a revised MDEQ permit, which may or may not be possible).

Member Sprague asked about the consent judgment. Mr. Schmitt responded that the judgment applies to the westerly site, not the subject property.

Member Cassis asked how many parking spaces are required of the Applicant. Mr. Schmitt responded that conservatively, they need 182 spaces. This is based solely on the interior layout of the building. The Applicant is proposing a cross-shaped common area for the first and second floors, in addition to the lobbies, elevators, etc. Under the Planning Department’s calculations of Gross Leasable Area (GLA) those areas are removed. The Applicant could remove those hallways, and therefore the conservative number of 182 parking spaces has been stated. Mr. Schmitt said they have provided 207 spaces. If they were to turn some spaces into landscaping, less landscaping will be necessary as it is a sliding scale. Member Cassis asked if the MDEQ does not allow for more wetland encroachment, what will the Applicant do. Mr. Schmitt responded that the middle bay of parking in the rear will likely be dropped.

Mr. Freeland clarified that the wetland encroachment measurement is 8/100 of an acre that the MDEQ has already permitted; the Applicant will now seek the permit for 1/10 of an acre – an increase of 2/100 of an acre.

Member Shroyer asked for a colored rendering and a materials board. He asked if a dumpster could be the break in contiguous parking spaces not exceeding 15. Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission would ultimately make that determination. Mr. Evancoe did not think that a dumpster should be able to function in that manner.

Member Shroyer did not have a problem with the Twelve Mile berm waiver. He was concerned about the driveway spacing, but he understood the situation. Member Shroyer thought that perhaps some of the westerly condos may be able to see the subject property, but the more central condos are situated at a very dense portion of the wetland. He thought the northern berm waiver was an issue that could be discussed.

Member Shroyer asked if 26 parking spaces could be removed so that the building could be moved further away from the residents. He thought it would also reduce the wetland impact. He said if the building were smaller then fewer parking spaces would be required and perhaps there would be no need for these waivers. Mr. Schmitt responded that only two berm waivers and a parking lot island waiver remain. The southeastern berm is within a wetland. The northernmost berm is also in a wetland. To eliminate that waiver there would have to be a substantial redesign to this property. There is enough leeway in the site that the parking lot island waiver may not be necessary with or without the Applicant reducing the building footprint.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that reducing the northern parking spaces would also reduce the parking lot landscaping. He said it would also reduce the wetland impact in that area. Member Shroyer encouraged a reduction of the sea of asphalt and asked to hear from the other Planning Commissioners.

Member Kocan asked how much of the wetland was being removed for the northernmost row of parking. Mr. Freeland said the proposed fill area was depicted in grey on the plan. He said that 4,415 square feet (1/10 of an acre) is proposed for wetland fill – 685 cubic yards. There is a buffer impact of 18,685 square feet. Member Kocan was more amenable to replacing wetlands along Twelve Mile and making the road safer up front and saving the wetlands in the back of the property to the advantage of the homeowners. She asked if the back row of parking was alleviated, would the Applicant meet the MDEQ fill number. Mr. Freeland expected that they would. The MDEQ would allow 250 cubic yards. The Applicant would likely be able to do that.

Mr. Schultz explained that the Ordinance does not allow the Planning Commission to request a minimum amount of parking. He said that the Wetland Ordinance gives them a small amount of discretion in that area, but they must keep in mind that there are substantial wetlands on this property (Mr. Schultz’s estimate is that 25% of the property is wetlands) that are being preserved. He said that the fact the MDEQ has already approved the filling in of some 3,900 cubic feet is important, in terms of someone reviewing the decision made by this Planning Commission.

Member Kocan said the Planning Commission should not be redesigning the Applicant’s plan at the table. She thought that perhaps they should postpone the review to give the Applicant time to take in the comments made at this meeting.

Member Cassis asked to clarify Member Kocan’s comment about moving the driveway further east. He asked if the traffic engineer could address that and explain what would happen in that scenario. How would that affect ingress, egress and maneuverability of traffic?

Member Kocan said that she felt the engineers accepted that idea from a standpoint of health, safety and welfare; it was the wetland consultant who did not. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department’s recommendation is not to move it but to look at the feasibility of moving it. At this point the drive is as far east as possible without further impacting the wetlands.

Member Kocan said there is at least a ten-foot drop between the condo complex. She was concerned that people sitting at their dining table will be looking directly at the 25-feet high lights. She said this was more detrimental than having a higher number of lights with a lower elevation with everything on the same level. This Planning Commission has sent the lighting issue (in cases where office or industrial abut residential) to Implementation Committee to review.

Member Kocan said the lighting Ordinance does not require that every inch of the parking lot be lit; it only requires that the Applicant provide adequate vision and comfort in parking areas. She asked that the Planning Department and Applicant look at that issue and determine whether every space has to be lit up. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Ordinance does require 2/10 footcandle of every square inch of parking lot. The catch is the 4:1 average to minimum, and in working with the professionals in the field, that is really the issue that must be considered in designing lighting plans. In other words, the requirement is more likely 4/10 footcandle. Member Kocan said that Member Avdoulos (an architect) has previously told her that in every instance of his designing projects, 18-foot lighting (versus 25 feet) has been acceptable.

Member Kocan did not see any pine trees proposed along the northern parking lot. She suggested pines for opacity.

Member Kocan said the amount of rear wetland impact was considered okay, although it wasn’t considered okay near the ingress and egress area. She would like that readdressed.

Member Kocan said it is a significant concern that the wetland trees are going to die. She asked if a retaining wall would help between the parking lot and the wetland. She also asked if the Ordinance standard of a two-year warranty period could be extended to five years to address this issue.

Member Kocan said that the two small delivery locations meet the intent of the Ordinance, but they are not large enough to service a building of this size. She said it is important that they are large enough and that they don’t impede pedestrian traffic. The traffic engineer recommended relocating these locations and making them the size of four parking spaces; she asked that this be considered as the current plan does not meet the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.

Member Kocan said that she wanted to ensure that none of the replacement trees are counted in the landscaping requirements, and that the deficit of replacement trees is also addressed.

Member Kocan said that it is not the Planning Commission’s responsibility to grant the most amount of building and parking possible on a parcel that has environmentally sensitive features. It is their charge to allow reasonable development. She thought this plan could be better.

Member Kocan said that although a noise analysis was not required, there is an Ordinance that says the noise cannot exceed 55 decibels at night.

Member Kocan asked to hear from the other Planning Commissioners whether this project should be postponed.

Member Ruyle asked whether this parking lot had to be lit all night long. Mr. Schmitt responded that one of the statements that must be listed on their plans is, "Only necessary lighting for security purposes and limited operation shall be permitted after a site’s hours of operation." Most lights will be turned off by 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.

Member Ruyle asked if the Applicant would be willing to remove the back row of parking to eliminate the need for the wetland impact. Mr. Thomas responded that he was once asked to put the parking on the "good" land which would be only forty feet away from the residents. In the end, and the MDEQ concurred, the decision to put the parking lot where it is made more sense and is user-friendly. If the parking were to be placed in the northwest corner, the Applicant could actually build a larger building. He said they have only proposed development on three of the five acres.

Mr. Thomas also said that lighting heights are based on adjacent properties being level with one another. The neighboring property is actually higher by ten feet. He is confident that they have provided a balanced plan and said the wetland impact is miniscule. He said the entrance has been moved on this site four times.

Member Ruyle’s only concern was the parking. He said that perhaps those parking spots could be banked for future development. Member Ruyle supported the plan. Mr. Thomas said they could do it but he wouldn’t say they would do it; it only moves the development from 140 feet to 160 feet away.

Member Pehrson thought that it was worthwhile to ask the Applicant to consider reducing his parking lot. He would also agree to postpone this review to give the Applicant time to consider this evening’s comments.

Member Gaul stated that it was wrong for the builder of Carlton Forest to charge premiums for homes that abut the woodlands and wetlands on someone else’s property. He felt that the Applicant had reasonably limited his environmental impacts to this property. He supported the plan.

Chair Markham asked how the wetlands and woodlands would be protected during the construction phase. Mr. Shipman responded that two forms of protection are put in place. One is a silt fence that protects runoff of sediment during construction. A tree protection fence will also be put in place to protect the trees from machinery and construction traffic. These items are inspected and approved prior to any construction taking place. They are also inspected routinely throughout the construction phase by City personnel.

Chair Markham asked about the easement. Mr. Schmitt said that the easement will be required to allow for the use of the wetland as part of the stormwater management system. Biltmore Homes has indicated that they will provide an easement once the City approves of the plan to use the wetland. The City is comfortable with getting the easement at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The plan cannot proceed without the easement being in place. Mr. Schmitt said the easement will come from Biltmore Homes, given the fact that they are the developer and they hold the permit for the wetland. He was not aware that the project had been turned over to the Homeowners Association, and therefore Biltmore Homes is the entity that the Applicant is working with. Chair Markham confirmed that the Homeowners might wish to contact Biltmore Homes if they have a problem with this issue. Mr. Schultz said that each Master Deed is written differently, and the City Attorney will confirm that the easement has been procured from the right entity. Chair Markham also confirmed that the purpose of this easement is to ensure that this property has proper drainage. Mr. Schmitt also said that there will be an easement that allows the draining to occur and a conservation easement.

Chair Markham confirmed that there will not be onsite detention. Mr. Croy said that the Applicant is using the wetland system for the fill detention for the site, and the wetland spans the property line. He said that their supplying the stand pipe removed the need for onsite detention.

Chair Markham was concerned that the MDEQ permit does not match this site plan. She asked if the approval of this plan could be made contingent upon the MDEQ permit being updated. Mr. Schultz said that the Applicant would need the approval of both the Planning Commission and the MDEQ even if it wasn’t stated in the motion.

Chair Markham thought there were too many parking spaces. Extra parking brings problems like excess impervious surface, needing more landscaping, more lighting, closer proximity to the residents, etc.

Member Cassis said that moving the drive further east would cause maneuverability issues for this plan. He suggested that a condition of the motion could state that the MDEQ permit must be updated. He thought the lighting issue was allayed because the Applicant was providing less light than what would have otherwise been provided with the lower lights. The height of the condo property precludes this property’s lights from being intrusive on the neighboring homeowners. Member Cassis said that this property is on Twelve Mile which has traffic. He questioned whether property values would diminish because of this building. He pointed out several areas where well-priced homes co-exist with office, retail, expressways, etc.

Member Cassis said that the Applicant has worked hard to satisfy the various professionals that have reviewed this plan. None of those professionals has stated that this plan does not abide by the rules.

Moved by Member Cassis, supported by Member Gaul:

Member Sprague asked whether the conservation easement should be noted in the motion. Mr. Schultz suggested that it be stated that, "Staff working with the property owner with regard to a conservation easement for the northern wetland area." Member Cassis agreed as did Member Gaul.

Member Sprague asked whether the parking lot stipulation was acceptable. Mr. Schmitt said that he thought the Planning Commission’s concern was that the parking lot as currently designed required more wetland fill. He suggested that this is such a minor detail that it could be worked out at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. He thought that an additional three-foot width, 250 linear feet, would suffice. There are a variety of options that make the need to request the gravel parking lot unnecessary, even if the MDEQ refuses to update the permit.

Member Sprague felt that the gravel required more effort than the asphalt. He agreed with Mr. Schmitt that the amount of change the Applicant is going to request from the MDEQ was minimal. He felt that the Applicant had shown a lot of consideration for this property and he hopes that the residents have witnessed how the Ordinance has protected them on the various issues.

Member Sprague’s issue was the 200 versus 300 square foot landscaped parking islands. He thought this waiver provided for excess parking. He thought that removing the 26 parking spaces along the rear wouldn’t impact the wetlands much less. He wanted to know how many more parking spaces are feasible with this 200/300 square foot waiver.

Mr. Schmitt said that gravel is not permitted, therefore the motion would have to call for formal landbanking or reconciling the MDEQ numbers. Mr. Schmitt said that if the islands were all upgraded to be at least 300 square feet, somewhere between six and twelve parking spaces would be eliminated. However, that would reduce the amount of landscaping. Certain islands would be eliminated and more parking spaces would be added. Member Sprague confirmed that if the islands were enlarged the Applicant could still meet the parking requirement. Mr. Schmitt reiterated that if they were to get creative they could redesign the lot and still keep the same amount of parking.

Mr. Shipman was not in favor of the waiver because 300 square feet is the Ordinance. He said the Applicant has suggested that the reason why the waiver should be acceptable is the preservation of the natural features on the site. He said that it is up to the Planning Commission to decide if they agree.

Member Sprague asked the Applicant what his design may look like if the waiver isn’t granted. Mr. Thomas asked if the Planning Commission would prefer to restate the stipulation as such: "The Applicant will work with the Planning Department to effectuate 300 square feet exactly per island." He said that was possible to do without encroaching the wetlands.

Member Cassis said that his request for the gravel was not for parking but to act as a purifier of the water runoff from the parking lot.

Chair Markham clarified that the waiver for the islands will be removed from the motion. Member Cassis and Member Gaul agreed.

Member Kocan asked if Member Cassis would agree to adding a stipulation for a row of pines trees along the wetland. Member Cassis said he would. Mr. Evancoe asked the Planning Commission to consider that evergreens are not typically part of a wetland ecosystem. They are by nature dry land plants. The proximity of these trees to the wetland may interfere with their survivability. There is a pine tree called a larch that might work, but they lose their needles in the winter as well. Mr. Evancoe suggested that the motion state, "The Applicant working with the Landscape Architect to achieve better screening that is compatible with the wetland ecosystem." Member Cassis and Member Gaul agreed to the change.

Member Kocan reminded the Planning Commission that they were asked to make the determination that, "The twelve- to fourteen-foot birch trees are deemed acceptable as 2 ½" caliper replacements." Member Cassis and Member Gaul both accepted.

Mr. Shipman reminded the Planning Commission that the current screening trees are replacement trees and are provided at a 1:1 ratio. Pine trees would be at a 2:1 ratio.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the gravel that the Applicant would likely lay down would be sub-base gravel that does not offer much percolation. He suggested that perhaps the area could be left as grass. Mr. Schultz said that the gravel would likely be parked on anyway, which would become an enforcement issue. If the spaces are removed the Applicant becomes deficient in their parking. Landbanking is only allowed in the industrial districts. Mr. Schultz suggested that a more generally-stated stipulation be put in the motion, such as, "The Applicant will work with the staff to limit the rear parking while staying within the Ordinance standards." He said that he cannot find an Ordinance that supports the Planning Commission’s request. Member Cassis said that perhaps the experts should be allowed to work this issue out. Member Cassis restated the gravel stipulation as, "The Applicant and Staff working out the parking issue to provide the most amount of parking while remaining cognizant of the environmental features." Member Gaul accepted. Mr. Croy clarified that there will be a curb line on the north end of the property line and all storm water will be directed to a positive slope to the south and all stormwater will exit at a single point on the property down on the southeast corner. The water wouldn’t pass through the gravel area even if it were provided.

Member Kocan asked Mr. Schmitt to comment on the loading area. He said that the comment that the design should be reconsidered came from the traffic consultant. The Applicant has proposed two elongated parallel parking spaces near a lesser-used entry. It meets the requirements of the Ordinance, though he understands Member Kocan’s comment that it may not meet the spirit of the Ordinance. Member Kocan asked Member Cassis if he would consider adding a stipulation of moving the loading area to four parking spaces to the north. Member Cassis confirmed that this change would remove four more parking spaces. Member Cassis felt that the current design provides for easier maneuverability than the traffic consultant’s suggestion. Chair Markham said that the change would require shifting the traffic island south. Member Cassis agreed. Member Gaul was concerned that the Planning Commission was starting to completely redesign the site. Mr. Schmitt described on the overhead how the traffic consultant’s design would be laid out. Member Cassis decided to leave the design as is. Member Gaul agreed.

Chair Markham called for the vote.

Chair Markham called for a ten minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Scott A. Riddle to rezone the subject property located in Section 24 north of Grand River Avenue and east of Meadowbrook Road, from B-3 (General Business) to GE (Gateway East). The subject property is approximately 6.721acres.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial photo. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road and is currently vacant of buildings. To the east is the Bishop Creek regional detention basin. To the north are industrial buildings on Vincenti Court. To the west is the Gateway mixed-use development currently under construction. To the south, on the south side of Grand River, is vacant land.

The subject property was rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial, to B-3, General Business, by City Council last fall, subject to the conditions contained in a Development Agreement. One of the conditions of that Development Agreement was that the Applicant would request rezoning from B-3 to GE in order to allow construction of a vehicle dealership on the property. The properties to the north, east, and northwest are all zoned light industrial. To the west, on the west side of Meadowbrook Road, the properties are zoned NCC (Non-Center Commercial), and I-1(Light Industrial). To the south, on the south side of Grand River, the properties are zoned OS-1, (Office Service).

Ms. McBeth said the Applicant is requesting the zoning change in compliance with the provisions of the Development Agreement and in order to submit a site plan for a vehicle dealership on this property under the Gateway East provisions. The Applicant provided a site plan showing a proposed showroom, offices and outside display areas; comparable exhibits were attached to the approved Development Agreement.

A Planning Review, Traffic Review, Gateway East Ordinance and Development Agreement were all included in the packets for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The Planning Review indicated that the Applicant’s request is consistent with the provision of the Development Agreement between Hummer of Novi and the City of Novi. Additionally, the Gateway East qualifying district map recommends this parcel for the Gateway East District. The Novi 2020 Master Plan for Land Use recommends a "four corners" commercial development pattern for the intersection of Grand River Avenue and Meadowbrook Road. If this rezoning request is approved, the Applicant will submit a plan for review under the GE District’s Special Development Option (SDO). This section of the Ordinance anticipates possible non-residential uses on the four corners of Grand River and Meadowbrook Roads as an "entry" into the GE District. An SDO is reviewed first by the Planning Commission then the Applicant seeks approval from City Council.

Ms. McBeth also said that public water and sanitary sewer are both available to serve the future development of the subject property.

The woodlands map indicates that the site does not appear to contain regulated woodlands. The city’s wetlands map shows that there are wetlands on the north and east sides of the property. Additional information will be reviewed at the time of Site Plan submittal for the location and treatment of the wetlands on site.

The Traffic Review letter indicated a rezoning traffic study was submitted and reviewed. A Comparison of traffic patterns under different zoning classifications was provided to the Planning Commission for review.

Ms. McBeth gave the history of this project and the GE District. She said the Applicant first came in with conceptual plans for a building that were not at all like the plans presented to the Planning Commission, City Council and the exhibits of the Development Agreement. The first building elevations presented were the standard style for all new Hummer Dealerships. The Planning Department informed the Applicant that those elevations would not comply with the City’s Façade Ordinance.

The Planning Department also told the Applicant about the pending GE District Ordinance. He took a copy of that draft Ordinance and returned with a preliminary site plan and building elevations that he believed would comply with that new Ordinance. The Applicant indicated his willingness to seek approval under the B-3 zoning that allows vehicle dealerships and outside sales with Special Land Use approval, or the Gateway East District, which has its own criteria for approval.

The Applicant applied for a rezoning request to B-3, General Business, and this request was processed for review by the Planning Commission and City Council at the same time the Gateway East Ordinance was being finalized last fall. During discussion at the City Council meetings, this parcel was deemed eligible for Gateway East zoning. City Council ultimately approved the B-3 Zoning request with a Development Agreement. With additional discussion it was recommended that this parcel be included in the GE District and comply with standards of the GE District. Although a vehicle dealership is not a principal permitted use in the GE district, it would be provided in light of the Development Agreement.

Ms. McBeth gave examples of permitted GE uses:

Several types of offices uses, including executive, administrative and professional office uses, medical offices, financial institutions, and real estate establishments.

Limited sit-down types of restaurants

Publicly owned and operated parks

A lengthy list of retail business uses, and retail business service uses

Funeral homes

Post offices and mailing centers

Uses customarily accessory to the above uses.

Ms. McBeth said the uses permitted under the Special Development Option (SDO) are:

The uses listed previously, in addition to multiple family residential dwellings, including senior, age-qualified independent housing,

Developments which include a single use, a mixed use building and/or a mixed use development may be proposed and approved as an SDO project.

And, importantly, for the project now under consideration, and just for the four corners of the GE District, City Council may approve an SDO project which includes a non-residential use permitted elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance, but not otherwise permitted in the GE District, such as a vehicle dealership, subject to these criteria:

The proposed use exemplifies the intent of the GE District as stated in Section 900, and the intent of the SDO as stated in Section 904A.

The proposed use incorporates, as a predominant physical component of the development that provides a unique entry feature along Grand River for the GE district, characterized by a distinct high profile appearance.

The proposed use is compatible with, and will promote, the uses permitted with the GE District and SDO.

The proposed use will not create an inconsistency with the City’s Master Plan for Land Use in terms of the general activities on the site and the impacts upon the surrounding area.

The proposed use is designed in a manner that will result in traffic and pedestrian safety, consistent with the adjoining pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfares.

The proposed use is designed with exceptional aesthetic quality, including building design, building materials, and landscaping design, not likely to be achieved except based on this authorization.

Ms. McBeth said that these standards allow an extra level of discretion in the review and approval of plans, and are designed to assure developments of the best quality that will be compatible with surrounding land uses and be designed for traffic and pedestrian safety.

By way of comparison, Ms. McBeth said the current B-3 zoning may allow the vehicle dealership as proposed, with the outside sales as a Special Land Use. The Commission has reviewed the Section 2516.2.c. standards under which a Special Land Use is approved. Issues considered for a Special Land Use approval include:

Impact on thoroughfares

Ability to provide public services

Compatibility with natural features and adjacent land uses

Consistency with Master Plan for Land Use

Use of land in a socially and economically desirable manner

Conformance to the site design regulations of the Zoning Ordinance

Ms. McBeth said it is the Planning Department’s opinion that these standards of a Special Development Option in the Gateway East Ordinance are higher than the standards that are typically applied to a Special Land Use request. She said that the intent Section of the Gateway East Ordinance was carefully worded to provide a clear objective to the uses that would be reviewed within this District. She read this portion of the Ordinance:

"The intent of the GE, Gateway East District is to encourage high-quality and distinctive development that will complement and support the City’s Main Street/Town Center area. The Gateway East District will reflect an inviting and vibrant identity for the easterly gateway to the City’s Town Center area while requiring land use planning and development techniques that result in a pleasing, compatible, visual presence. Assembly of small lots is encouraged. Also encouraged is shared parking and vehicular and pedestrian connections. Setbacks are reduced commensurate with traditional town development patterns. Community-oriented uses are encouraged, as opposed to the regional uses permitted in the Main Street and Town Center areas.

"Quality of life issues shall be addressed and demonstrated in development proposals. Quality of life issues may include, but are not limited to, open space, sense of place considerations, land use adjacency, traffic flow and access management, building mass, building placement, siting and compatibility, architectural features, environmental resource protection and landscape design, lighting, and review findings by the Planning Commission and City Council that a development plan creates an environment that adequately considers those impacted by the development,

"It is the further intent of this Article to create a Special Development Option to provide greater flexibility for the achievement of the objectives of the GE District by authorizing use of Special Development regulations with the view of: permitting residential development and facilitated mixed use developments including multiple family residential, office and limited commercial; encouraging the use of land in accordance with its character and adaptability; conserving natural resources and natural features; encouraging innovation in land use planning; providing enhanced housing, cultural, and recreational opportunities for the people of the City; and bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between and among neighboring properties. Applicants using the Special Development Option shall adequately demonstrate the intent of this district, including the quality of life issues and special design features noted herein."

Ms. McBeth said that If the rezoning is approved, the Applicant will likely submit plans for a Hummer Dealership under the Special Development Option section of the GE District, as indicated in the approved Development Agreement. The intent of Section 904A is to "authorize the use of Special Development regulations in GE Districts for the purpose of:

Permitting quality residential development and facilitating mixed use developments, including multiple-family residential, office and limited size commercial;

Encouraging a mixture of uses in accordance with character and adaptability of the land;

Conserving natural resources and natural features and energy; encouraging innovation in land use planning; providing enhanced housing, employment, shopping, traffic circulation and open space opportunities for the people of this City;

Bringing about a greater compatibility of design and use between neighboring properties and the downtown district of Novi; and

Making provision for unique "entry" developments at the intersection of Grand River and Meadowbrook, as specified in subsection 904.C.1.b."

Ms. McBeth said that in this case, the Planning Commission knows the proposed use of the site, as indicated in the Development Agreement that was approved by City Council. Many of the quality and aesthetic issues listed in the Ordinance will be addressed at the time of plan review, and will be considered by the Planning Commission in its recommendation to City Council if the rezoning is approved.

Ms. McBeth explained that the Applicant’s conceptual plans comply as such:

Provides a limited size commercial development (22,000 square feet)

The plan is in accordance with character and adaptability of the land, as the large wetland areas on the north and east sides of the site are for the most part, shown as preserved, and the City has been told that the building is proposed to be placed in a position on the site with the best soil characteristics

The Applicant plans on preserving natural resources and natural features on the land, especially on the north and east sides of the site,

The design of the site may be able to be seen as compatible with the approved drug store and retail uses on the northwest corner of Meadowbrook and Grand River, and the expected future development on the other corners of this intersection.

Ms. McBeth said that the GE District requires the buildings to be located in close proximity to the right of way, with a minimum of 70 feet from the centerline of the thoroughfare ROW, and a maximum of 90 feet from the centerline of the thoroughfare. This is representative of traditional town development patterns. The B-3 District requires minimum front yard setbacks of 20 feet, with no maximum on how far the building may be set back, other than the constraints of the site. She said the proposed development will provide a unique entry into the Gateway East and Town Center.

Chair Markham thanked Ms. McBeth for her thorough explanation of the new GE Ordinance. She asked the Applicant to address the Planning Commission.

Scott Riddle represented the Applicant. He said he has been collaborating with the Planning Department for this project. He has made every effort to comply with the Development Agreement and the Ordinance requirements. He offered to answer any questions.

Chair Markham asked for public comments:

Devon Anderson, 41635 Tera Lane, Gateway Village: Concerned that plans weren’t available for review at the meeting. He said the quality of life of his residents will be affected by yet another dealership whose lights will blare all night long as a security measure. He did not find a dealership to be a compatible use. He cited lack of shoppers, traffic issues, and minimal employment opportunities as reasons. (City Attorney Tom Schultz responded to Mr. Anderson that no plans are available because this is a rezoning request, not a site plan review. He also explained that a Hummer Dealership has already been approved for this site; this evening’s review is for the Gateway East District rezoning request.)

Chair Markham asked Member Shroyer to read the correspondence relating to the Public Hearing:

Member Shroyer acknowledged the letters of support that were from the Applicant’s previous appearance before the Planning Commission.

Robert L. Fenton, 31800 Northwestern Hwy, Farmington Hills: Project will enhance the area.

Robert M. Anderson, 41635 Tera Lane: Concerned about lighting, infrastructure problems and traffic issues. He said the use is not pedestrian friendly.

John P. O’Brien, O’Brien Sullivan Funeral Home, 41555 Grand River Avenue: Objects to precedent being set. He said that a dealership was never a considered use for this corridor.

John J. O’Brien, 39933 Jason Ct., Novi: Objects to the dealership use. (Not read at meeting)

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson thought that the use was acceptable. He appreciated the Applicant responding to the City’s Ordinance by improving his façade and building plan. He thought this was a unique and special concept that meets the intent of the GE Ordinance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, supported by Member Ruyle:

Member Kocan agreed that the City has more discretion because of the GE zoning. She cited Section 904D.2.e, "…whatever development goes in shall not result in an unreasonable, negative, economic impact upon surrounding properties." She was concerned about the lighting issue raised by the nearby residents, but she feels that the building being moved forward and the parking being placed behind the building will mitigate some of the light issues. She confirmed with the Applicant that he was aware of the City’s noise standards. Member Kocan then confirmed with Mr. Schultz that the Planning Commission would review a (more detailed) concept plan and that City Council would review the Preliminary Site Plan.

Member Kocan asked whether the motion maker would include, "Recommend the updating of the Master Plan to show Town Center Gateway uses for this parcel as part of the Master Plan update." Member Pehrson and Member Ruyle agreed to the change.

Member Ruyle was thrilled that something beautiful would be built on this property. He noted that the land was contaminated. He encouraged the Planning Commission to take the vote because it is only on the rezoning and is not an approval of a site plan.

Member Sprague agreed that the decision tonight is whether Hummer should be in the B-3 or the GE. He supported the motion.

Chair Markham was disappointed in the process of the GE Ordinance. She said that in order to make this plan work the Applicant needed a Development Agreement and the Special Development Option. She said that this was not a straightforward process. She appreciated the Applicant’s efforts. She did not think that a car dealer is a unique presence for this property. She will support the rezoning request because it actually makes the guidelines more restrictive.

Mr. Schultz responded that the need for a Development Agreement is because of timing issues. The process should not be as convoluted in the future.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Robert J. Halso of Terra Libra, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council for a Residential Unit Development (RUD) Plan. The subject property is located in Section 30, on the north side of Nine Mile and east of Napier Road. The developer is proposing a 70 unit single family development. The subject property is 111.280 acres.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial photo. She noted that there are some existing homes in the area. The subject property is undeveloped. To the west are single family homes and vacant land. To the south are single family homes in the Park Place development. To the east the land is vacant and a large portion is owned by the City. To the north is the anticipated Quail Hollow subdivision. The properties are all zoned Residential. In Lyon Township the land is zoned R1.0 (Residential Agricultural). To the north the land is zoned R-1. The other properties are zoned R-A. The Master Plan recommends single family residential for the area, and the Quail Hollow property is shown as a golf course.

There are wetlands on the west and east sides of the property. There are light and medium density woodlands throughout the site. The Applicant provided an RUD Plan that details a detached, single family residential development with seventy homes. The Planning Commission must first forward their recommendation on the RUD to City Council. A Preliminary Site Plan will be submitted for review if City Council approves of the RUD. The RUD proposes a road system with several cul-de-sacs and connection to Quail Hollow. A temporary emergency access road entering Napier Road is planned until the connection can be made with Quail Hollow.

Ms. McBeth said that 61% of the property is proposed to be maintained as open space. This includes parks, wetlands and woodlands. The lots range in size from 15,523 to 47,578 square feet. The Applicant has offered to connect a trail to the proposed Singh trail.

The Planning Review indicated that most requirements have been achieved, except that lots 14 and 15 are deficient in width because of an adjacent wetland. The Applicant will have to provide a system for crossing the wetland, and they will need to seek variances for these lots. The lots are buildable, but the homes will sit back further than what is typical.

In reviewing an RUD, the Planning Commission and City Council must consider:

The appropriateness of the proposed use.

The effects of the proposed use on the adjacent properties in the community.

The demonstrable need for the proposed use.

The caretaking and maintenance of the site’s naturalness and the blending of the use with its surroundings.

Existence of clear, explicit, substantial and ascertainable benefits to the City from the RUD.

Ms. McBeth said the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission use the evaluation issues in their motion made this evening in their recommendation.

The Wetlands Review and Woodlands Review both indicated that additional information will need to be forthcoming with the Preliminary Site Plan submittal. The Landscape Review provided comments to assist in the preparation of a landscape plan which will be required at Preliminary Site Plan submittal.

The Traffic Review identified the need for two Design and Construction Standard waivers. Because the City wants a collector road along the quarter-section lines in the City, a waiver is necessary for the lack of a 43-foot half ROW line along the north property line. This is acceptable by City standards because there is a large wetland in the area. The second waiver for the length of Tracy Lane is also unnecessary because the R-A District actually allows for a measurement up to 1,500 feet.

The Engineering Review noted a necessary waiver for lack of access stubs every 1,300 feet. The Ordinance states that these stubs are required along the perimeter of the property.

The Fire Department Review approved of the plan with additional comments to be addressed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal.

Bob Halso, 6 Alger Place, Grosse Pointe, is the Applicant. He brought Cliff Seiber from Seiber Keast & Associates. He said that Mr. Seiber would make some comments and then they would be prepared to answer any questions.

Mr. Seiber said that the neighboring subdivision, Quail Hollow, will offer "R-3" type lots – ninety-foot widths equaling 12,000 square feet. He said that under the RUD, this Applicant could have proposed the same thing, but recognizing that there are one-acre lots to their south, they are proposing a plan that works as a transition between these two designs. The northerly lots are a minimum of 100 feet wide encompassing 15,000 square feet. The middle of the site will measure as half-acre lots. The southerly lots will be half-acre or larger with a minimum width of 120 feet. Lots 3 and 14 are full one-acre lots.

Mr. Seiber said that the RUD would have provided for 85 lots but they are only asking for 70. There are 68 acres of open space/park land, which is 61% of the project. There are 45 acres proposed to be donated to the City as part of the parks project in this quadrant. The Applicant is also proposing 1,500 lineal feet of trail to connect into the Quail Hollow project, bringing together a 1.57 mile trail.

Mr. Seiber said the first lot in the development is 450 feet away from Nine Mile. The entrance will be very open. There are two homes at the end of the cul-de-sac that are 200 feet away from Nine Mile. With the existing vegetation, it is likely that the homes won’t be visible from the road.

There are forty acres of wetlands on the site. The Applicant is proposing 2/10 of an acre of wetland fill, primarily because of four roadway crossings that cross narrow swales. The Applicant will be asking for a variance for lots 14 and 15 for crossing that wetland. They looked at several alternatives, but the design that they have now proposes less impact to the wetland than the other plans.

Mr. Seiber said that because of the wetlands on the property, there is no good place to put the required 1,300-foot spaced stub streets. They will connect to Quail Hollow. There are wetlands and woodlands and traffic issues along the west side of the property that preclude the placement of a stub street in that area.

Chair Markham asked for public comments:

David Barr, 22600 Napier: His property is adjacent to "lot 3." He said the biggest problem with the quality of life in this area is the traffic. He suggested that Napier Road be paved down to Ten Mile. He considers Napier Road to be dangerous, dirty and scary. He was pleased with the water and sewer stubs that this developer is proposing; otherwise about twelve Novi households will be blocked off from ever having these City services.

Bill Zer, 51000 Nine Mile: His property is surrounded by this project. His concern is what effect will there be to his property if the Applicant changes the drain field or drainage flow or elevation of the property. He said the west side of his property will abut six or seven lots. He is concerned that some old-growth trees in the area may be hurt in the construction process. He noted that there are many ribbons on trees that he thought were on his property. He hopes that his neighbors and he can tap into the proposed water system.

Al Letourneau, 50666 West Nine Mile: Concerned about the drainage. The trail will be behind his house where there is a wetland. He doesn’t want the wetland to fill any higher. He is not happy about the trail from a safety standpoint; he has been broken into four times already.

John Salomberger, 22350 Waterland (lot 92 in Park Place Estates): Concerned that traffic will come down Nine Mile because there are no entrances onto Napier Road from The Preserve or Quail Hollow. All of the dirt and dust will be affecting his rear yard.

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road: Concerned that the RUD does not provide enough benefit to the City. He thought that too much environmentally sensitive area will be destroyed by this development. He was concerned that this will affect the wildlife habitat. He supported some features of the plan but encouraged the Applicant to do better.

M. Ahmed, 50750 Nine Mile: Concerned that the trail system abuts his property and safety and privacy is an issue.

Member Shroyer read one letter into the record:

Charles M. Young, 1968 NW 5^th Circle, Ocala, FL: Approves of the plan, the path, and the potential for water and sewer for his property. Appreciates the donation of the parkland.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan felt this was a superior plan to Quail Hollow. She approved of the lot-size variation: 41% R-1, 24% R-2, 31% R-3. She said that an RUD must be treated like a site plan, because this plan will be attached to the Agreement, and therefore few changes will be allowed after City Council approves the RUD. She didn’t think that the setbacks coincided with the lot sizes. She asked if this was a concern. Ms. McBeth responded that the lots were acceptable and meet the Ordinance, and that the variations were spelled out for the Planning Commission’s review.

Member Kocan asked if any plans have been determined for lots 14 and 15. Wetland Consultant John Freeland responded that the configuration of the lots minimizes the impact to the wetlands. Typically the wetland would be crossed by a clear-span bridge or a culvert. Member Kocan noted that Lots 37, 40 and 41 were noted in the wetland review for encroaching the wetland buffer. She came up with 21 lots. Mr. Freeland said that two sets of plans have been reviewed. The lots were re-numbered, and his numbers may not reflect the updated plan. He said the most sensitive lots are along the east side adjacent to the forested wetland. He said that the northeast corner of 41 should be avoided because the buffer is a steep slope.

Member Kocan said the following lots affect the buffer: 37, 38, 39, 40, 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 17, 18, 27, 28, 46, 58, 55, 61, 62, 66, 67, and 70. She preferred that the lot lines stay out of the wetlands so that future residents don’t think they can go back there and plant or disrupt the buffer. Mr. Freeland responded that the western wetlands and wetlands Y and R are not as complex or special as the eastside wetland.

Member Kocan asked if a request has been made to refrain from using chemicals near the wetlands. Mr. Freeland responded that something could be added to the property deed that would require that residents stay out of the wetland buffer. He yielded the legal aspect of this comment to Mr. Schultz.

Member Kocan said that the RUD language calls for both active and passive recreation areas. She wondered whether there is any plan for active recreation. Mr. Halso responded that the construction of the pathway was their active recreation feature for the community. There is significant upland area on the west side of the project but he was not sure that further activity was warranted.

Member Kocan questioned the location of the trail, and how it borders properties along the Nine Mile homes. She wondered why the trail didn’t meander. She did not think it should be within fifty feet of anyone’s property line. Mr. Halso said that Dr. Tilton has already been making modifications to the full trail. This Applicant has tried to keep their portion of the trail on upland ground which is close to the property line. He said that as long as the MDEQ will cooperate, they will try to move the trail further north. He said that the trail has not been finalized. Member Kocan asked that they work with the Wetland Consultant to be more creative in the trail design.

Member Kocan asked if the emergency access will also serve as a construction entrance. She asked why it was temporary. Ms. McBeth responded that it is required until another connection is made north through Quail Hollow. It is actually located in lot 29. She said it could be used as a construction access.

Member Kocan was concerned about Preserve Drive running directly next to a property that is on the corner of Napier Road and Nine Mile. She hoped it could be moved further east.

Member Kocan said there have been many comments made about the drainage and that problems already exist. She asked what could be done to ensure that the residents would not be further impacted and that the trees would be protected. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the drainage issues would be handled through the use of detention basins. The runoff rate might actually be reduced and could help existing problems. He also said that if problems already exist it will be difficult to gauge what the effect of this project is on the drainage. He said that the resident who spoke earlier may need a culvert under his driveway now. Mr. Croy said that the basins will be designed to the discharge rates required by the Ordinance.

Member Kocan said that it appears that woodlands will be maintained on lots 63 through 69. She asked if that will help alleviate additional water problems. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat said that the plan is not detailed enough to garner such information. He did not see any reason why the woodlands wouldn’t remain, unless there is a drainage problem that requires a utility line to run through that area. Member Kocan asked if removing the trees would increase the possibility of flooding problems. Mr. DeBrincat responded affirmatively.

Member Kocan asked if the current residents will have the ability to tap into the water and sewer. City Attorney Tom Schultz responded that if the water and sewer is available in their area, those residents could pay the water and sewer tap-in fees and connection fees. If an easement is required then the City would have to work on that from an engineering standpoint to see if that issue could be resolved.

Member Kocan said she would be considering whether the City is gaining enough to allow this Applicant to apply for an RUD.

Member Ruyle did not have a problem with the number of lots proposed. He was concerned about the proximity of the trail system to the existing homes. He agreed that if the trail can be moved north it should be. Member Ruyle asked the Applicant if he would consider paving 2,800 feet of Nine Mile, from the entrance to Napier Road. Mr. Halso responded that he would entertain that concept.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Seiber if the drainage problem is solvable. He responded that to the best of his knowledge it is solvable. Member Cassis confirmed that modifications will be made to the trail, and the Applicant will try to move the trail further north. Member Cassis confirmed that the Applicant would consider the paving of Nine Mile. Member Cassis liked the plan, the parcel sizes and the setback of the lots from Nine Mile. He commended the Applicant for weaving the lots around the wetlands. He said the preservation of the woodlands and parkland is important to Novi’s City Council.

Moved by Member Cassis, supported by Member Ruyle:

Mr. Evancoe suggested that the road paving stipulation state that it is the entire width of the road. Mr. Schultz suggested that the stipulation state that the paving is done to the public standards determined by the City at a time determined by the City. Both Member Cassis and Member Ruyle accepted those changes.

Member Shroyer asked whether the Applicant should have to contribute to the maintenance fund of the trail. Ms. McBeth stated that the Director of Parks, Recreation and Forestry, Randy Auler, did not mention this stipulation. Mr. Halso said there was not a maintenance fund in perpetuity. Mr. Auler did not ask Mr. Halso to contribute. Member Shroyer was concerned that if the seed money of $45,000 runs out the maintenance of this trail will fall to the taxpayers of Novi.

Member Shroyer was concerned about the active recreation. He said there is not a direct connection from this subdivision to the trail. The residents would have to go down to Nine Mile to access the trail. He asked whether the Applicant tried to put a tie-in at Tracy Lane. Mr. Halso said it was discussed but Parks and Rec had no interest in doing so. Member Shroyer asked what active recreation the Applicant was willing to provide on the upland areas. Mr. Halso said that at the present time they felt the trail met the requirements of the active recreation. He said that the intent of this design reflects the name they chose for the subdivision: The Preserve. He did not believe that his demographic would be swayed to buy in this subdivision because of provided recreation. Member Shroyer said that perhaps the homeowners association will put in a disc golf course or stock the detention pond with fish.

Member Shroyer’s greatest concern is the fact that all of this subdivision traffic will funnel out onto Nine Mile or Ten Mile. He wondered how the Planning Commissioners felt about a westerly stub road that may someday be able to connect to Napier Road.

Member Cassis asked to clarify for Member Shroyer that this subdivision is located very close to Tim Pope Park and that there is active recreation available at that park.

Member Sprague thought the Applicant was very sensitive to the environmental features on the property. He thought the lot sizes and layout were good. He supported the motion.

Chair Markham said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee was concerned about the traffic on the main roads. They had hoped that Quail Hollow and The Preserve would connect so that local traffic could be contained within the subdivisions. She was concerned that there is no access to Napier Road. She supported the development, but she asked the Applicant to consider making their temporary road permanent.

Chair Markham said the density of the project is .67 per acre, and .8 per acre is master planned. She commended the Applicant for this design.

Chair Markham said that she considers the trail to be active recreation. She also believes that the protection of the core preservation area, with the assistance of the Quail Hollow and Preserve subdivisions, is very important. She did not want the City to lose sight of that fact. The preservation that this subdivision provides is a benefit to the entire community. She commended the Applicant.

Chair Markham thought that the motion should mention the fact that the RUD must include the details of the dedication of the park land: When will the donation occur, when will the trail be completed, etc. Both Member Cassis and Member Ruyle agreed.

Chair Markham asked about lots 63 through 69. She wondered if the Applicant had a strategy for handling these parcels that abut existing residents. Mr. Halso emphatically stated that his interests were the same as the City’s. Preserving the trees and minimizing the destruction is of value to him and his future residents.

Member Kocan asked whether the maker of the motion would include in his motion the consideration of a berm along the west side of Preserve Drive as it abuts the residential properties, with the Applicant working with the Landscape Architect to create a buffer to protect those residents. Member Cassis and Member Ruyle agreed. Mr. Halso said there is a fair-sized park area along the boulevard but it does scoot a little closer to the property line. They were trying to avoid a wetland pocket. They will see if the road can be moved just enough to allow for a berm and some plantings.

The Planning Commission took a ten minute break.

Chair Markham said that there were openings on the various Committees that the new Planning Commission members have expressed interest in. Member Pehrson stated his interest in the CIP, Implementation and Communication and Community Liaison Committees. Member Gaul stated his interest in the CIP. Member Cassis stated his interest in the Implementation and Main Street Committees. Member Ruyle offered to relinquish his position on the CIP so that the new Planning Commission members could have a place on the Committee. Member Sprague offered to relinquish his position on the Implementation Committee.

Chair Markham told Member Cassis that his placement on the Main Street Committee might require his recusing himself because of the many properties he owns in the area. Member Cassis responded that his properties in the area are already developed.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Kocan:

CIP: Members Lou Csordas, Toni Nagy, Lowell Sprague, Richard Gaul, Mark Pehrson (alternate)

Implementation: Members John Avdoulos, Lynn Kocan, Victor Cassis, Mark Pehrson

Main Street: Members David Landry, Kim Capello, Toni Nagy, John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis

Communication and Community Liaison: Members Tim Shroyer, John Avdoulos, Mark Pehrson

Planning Studies and Budget: Members John Avdoulos, Lowell Sprague, Lynn Kocan, Vacancy

Environmental: Members Lowell Sprague, Gwen Markham, Vacancy

Master Plan and Zoning: David Ruyle, Tim Shroyer, Gwen Markham, Lowell Sprague, John Avdoulos – Alternate

Administrative Liaison: Members Gwen Markham, Lynn Kocan, John Avdoulos

Mr. Evancoe thanked the Budget Committee members for their input. The Committee determined the following key factors for the FY 2004-2005 budget:

Complete and Publish the Master Plan: The carryover is the printing and distribution of the plan.

Develop a Comprehensive and Greenways and Trails Plan: Envisioned as an Action Plan on how to achieve the goals stated in the Master Plan. This will look at funding sources and coordination with surrounding communities. $8,000, includes printing.

Update and Revise Zoning Ordinance: Important because the Zoning Ordinance is the tool to implement the new Master Plan. In FY 2004-2005 the content will be reviewed. In FY 2005-2006 the format will be reviewed and the product will be printed and distributed. Mr. Evancoe said that Peoria, IL spent $200,000 updating their Ordinance and Detroit spent over $1,000,000. $45,000/$20,000 two-year project. An alternative would be to hire part-time in house help: $15,000/$15,000 two-year project.

Update Environmental Maps: Utilizing the City’s GIS Department, Oakland County and aerial maps, this project could be done in house. $8,000, includes printing.

Training and Development of Planning Commissioners: State (MSOP), National (APA) and Local (Citizen Planner) Conferences and seminars are included in this figure. $11,400.

Public Outreach: The Communication and Community Liaison Committee has expressed interest in embarking on a public education campaign designed to highlight important planning issues for Novi. $1,023.

Mr. Evancoe said that some of the increases from the current budget to this budget represent a 2.3% consumer’s index hike. Other Operating Budget line items are:

Magazines/Periodicals: $373

Printing and Publishing: $22,046 (Includes the $20,000 Master Plan printing)

Emerging Issues: $11,765. None has been spent from this year’s budget but this line item is meant for issues that are not predictable.

Memberships and Dues: $845

Member Sprague said he was the Chair of the Budget Committee. He said the Committee has reviewed this budget and they recommend that the Planning Commission approve this document. He felt that the input from the Committee goals helped determine the budgetary needs. He thought the process worked better.

Member Cassis said that Novi is in a state of austerity on both the City and State levels. City Council will tell the Planning Commission that they need to be prudent. He suggested that the Planning Commission delete the line item for attending national conferences. He said that the State Conference applies more to what is experienced here in Novi.

Member Gaul agreed with Member Cassis’ comments. He also asked how the Zoning Ordinance update number was developed. Mr. Evancoe replied that he received assistance from Rod Arroyo, Birchler Arroyo (the City’s previous Planning Consultant), in determining that number. He suggested $50,000-$100,000 for a project that did not include throwing out what already existed. The Budget Committee actually scaled this number down to $45,000, and represents a consultant working with the Implementation Committee to review the Ordinance.

Member Gaul asked how many hours the $45,000 represented. Mr. Evancoe said that the figure is an overall project estimate which covers time and materials.

Member Pehrson asked what a temporary employee would do for the Ordinance update, and what the impact would be on the City’s employees. Mr. Evancoe responded that the alternate choice is for a half-time temporary employee for the entire fiscal year. This employee would likely assist Barbara McBeth. This will make Ms. McBeth less available for reviewing projects, but Darcy Schmitt will become more available for reviewing projects once the Master Plan is complete.

Member Pehrson asked about the printing of the materials, and whether they are mass-copied. Mr. Evancoe said that some Zoning Ordinances are text only. Others are rich with graphics and charts (a performance-based Zoning Ordinance). This would be a call made by the Implementation Committee. The document could become pretty expensive if it were a graphics-heavy document. Member Pehrson suggested that the more efficient manner of printing be considered during these economic times. He agreed with the other Planning Commissioners regarding cost cutting. He felt that the Planning Commission should do the same.

Member Ruyle said that the National Conference is asked for every year, and it’s the first thing that City Council axes. He said that it continues to be placed on the budget even though the Planning Commission knows that it will not be approved.

Member Ruyle agreed that the budget for Emerging Issues could be cut back but since this year’s money hasn’t been used, it’s really not a request for additional money.

Member Ruyle defended the Citizen Planner Program and said it was invaluable. This is an 18-hour course that is well-spent time. There are six Planning Commission members who still need to attend. There is talk that attending this course will eventually become State law for incoming Planning Commission members – as it is in Tennessee and Kentucky. He encouraged Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy and Mr. Evancoe to emphasize the importance of this line item during the budget sessions.

Mr. Evancoe said that this program actually provides the attendee with a credential – a Certified Citizen Planner. Member Ruyle said that aside from himself, Members Shroyer and Kocan are also certified. It will also be important to the Members when they go for re-appointment, as the City has already spent this money on them.

Member Sprague said this is the one opportunity the Planning Commission has to communicate with City Council what the Commission needs are to carry out their objectives for the year. He said that the Emerging Issues line sticks out on the Planning Commission budget because there isn’t much to the Commission Budget; it was a relatively small line item on the Planning Department when it was listed in their budget. Member Sprague said this is also the only time that the Planning Commission communicates to City Council what their plans are for the year. There is no further discussion. This is the way the Planning Commission lets their priorities be known.

Member Kocan said that the Budget Committee did discuss whether the conference line should be pared down. They ultimately decided that they should ask for the maximum because the Planning Commission is trying to demonstrate that training is critical. If the Commission stays cocooned in Novi they are not finding out what is out in the real world. If the Planning Commission doesn’t ask for it, the City Council won’t know it’s a primary concern. She would agree to reduce the number if the rest of the Planning Commission wanted to do so.

Chair Markham thought that regarding the Greenways and Trails Plan, it must be emphasized that the City cannot apply for grants without this plan. Now this City has started a trail system, and in order to get the grant money that’s out there, this plan must be established.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Pehrson:

Motion to send the budget to City Council as written.

Chair Markham appreciated everyone’s hard work.

Mr. Evancoe introduced Matt Wiktorowski from the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy, and City Engineer Nancy McClain. He thanked the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and Budget Committee for their efforts in reviewing this CIP Budget.

Chair Markham said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed the budget to determine how it agreed with the Master Plan and Thoroughfare Plan. She noted that the Parks, Recreation and Forestry component was provided by that department.

Member Sprague explained that the CIP comes to the Planning Commission for its recommendation to City Council. It will go to the CIP Committee for review. He said the first list was prioritized by Administration. The changes recommended by Master Plan and Zoning Committee were outlined and included in the Planning Commission packet for review. The Budget Committee recommends that the Planning Commission positively recommend the CIP budget with the changes suggested by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Member Ruyle asked where the City stands on a grant writer. Nancy McClain said that City Council awarded a contract to McKenna and Associates for grant writing services for the City for all departments.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Sprague:

Member Kocan asked about the Meadowbrook Lake dredging. Ms. McClain said that it is on the current year’s fiscal calendar, as is the work on Meadowbrook Road.

Member Kocan confirmed the subdivision names of Shawood, Walled Lake Heights and Gray’s Subdivision (regarding #4, page 5 – chip sealing).

Member Kocan asked about Beck Road being widened to four lanes. Ms. McClain said that at this time the City is showing that to be a four-lane design, and the costs are based on that scenario. The actual design and the actual allocation of those funds won’t occur until 2005-2006 budget. At this point the CIP is showing it as a planning tool. The Engineering Department anticipates getting further direction from City Council on this project.

Member Kocan confirmed that the Beck Road rehabilitation, Nine Mile to City limits, went in a southerly direction. The Hudson Drive project is extending west and the Taft Road project is extending south. Ms. McClain said that each of those was meant to infer "to the nearest city limit."

Chair Markham noted that one of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee changes (#75) states, "List a funding amount in all fiscal years, even if it is to be determined." This relates to acquiring park land, and one of the Planning Commissioners recommended that something be put in there every year to acquire park land. Chair Markham said that she has since spoken with Randy Auler of the Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department, and he said that this line relates to a specific item and there is not a dollar figure associated with it at this time. She said that this note should be removed from the Planning Commission recommendations.

Chair Markham also said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee request for chip sealing and road repair on Flint Street, Sixth Gate and Paul Bunyan Drive was meant to address the increased traffic during the Novi Road repairs.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

1. Applicant Response Letters.

Because Member Shroyer had already left, this item was moved to the next Agenda.

Member Ruyle asked when "Change of Zoning" signs are removed from the property, and whose responsibility is it to remove them. Mr. Evancoe replied that the Applicant removes those signs. Donna Jernigan of the Planning Department contacts the Applicant if they haven’t removed their signs. Mr. Schultz said that if there are signs that are up improperly the City will take the steps to have them removed. Chair Markham noted that in some instances the signs may be appropriate because a plan is still going through the process. Member Kocan suggested that the sign should note what date the Public Hearing is scheduled for.

Member Kocan said that the Implementation Committee is meeting on Thursday, February 19, 2004. They will typically try to hold their meetings on the third Thursday of the month.

The Rules Committee is meeting on Wednesday, February 25, 2004 at 6:00 p.m.

The Master Plan and Zoning Committee is meeting on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 at 7:00 p.m.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Ruyle:

Motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 1:44 a.m.

SAT 01/24/04 MASTER PLAN PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 10:30 AM

MON 01/26/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 01/28/04 RULES COMMITTEE MEETING 5:00 PM

WED 01/28/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 02/02/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 02/03/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 02/11/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 02/16/04 PRESIDENT’S DAY, CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 02/25/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf, February 4, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: February 11, 2004 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant