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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan (arrived at 8:30 p.m.), David Lipski, Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Member Richard Gaul

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Darcy Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Dr. Don Tilton, Wetland Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; Steve Dearing, Traffic Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

Member Gutman led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Robert Churella, 43564 Scenic Lane: Wished Mr. Rod Arroyo the best, and acknowledged the fine work that Mr. Arroyo produced for the City.

There was no Correspondence to share.

The Budget Committee is working on the FY2005-06 Planning Commission budget, which is due to the City on February 1, 2005.

The Implementation Committee may meet on December 13, 2005, and if not, they will meet in January.

Presentation of service award for Rod Arroyo of Birchler Arroyo & Associates.

Member Avdoulos, acting as Chair in the absence of Lynn Kocan, addressed the Planning Commission. He read a statement prepared by Member Kocan, stating that Mr. Arroyo served the City as both a Traffic Consultant and as Planning Consultant. He helped the City design its Ordinance. He conducted seminars for the benefit of the Community.

Chair Avdoulos said that the City has been very fortunate to have had the services of Mr. Arroyo.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that Mr. Arroyo has helped in a planning capacity for 13 years and in a traffic planning capacity for 18 years. She said he was a dedicated professional. He worked on the 1999 Master Plan for Land Use, the Novi Road and Grand River Avenue Corridor studies, the site plan manual, etc. Ms. McBeth presented Mr. Arroyo with a street sign of Arroyo Avenue.

Mr. Arroyo said he first started working for Novi in 1986. He appreciated the friends and colleagues he has met over the years. Mr. Arroyo was most proud of his accomplishments in helping secure state and federal money for roads for this City – the Twelve Mile boulevard, the widening of Grand River, the SCAT signalization on Novi Road. He was proud of his work around East Lake and South Lake Drives. He was honored by the City’s recognition of him.

Mr. Arroyo gave the City a copy of the original City of Novi charter printed in the Novi News back in 1969. He gave the City an original brochure for Twelve Oaks from 1977.

Member Cassis considered himself a friend of Mr. Arroyo. He spoke highly of the Mr. Arroyo’s meticulous analysis of an issue. He said that Mr. Arroyo’s presentations were impeccable. He said that Mr. Arroyo is courteous and helpful. He wished him well.

Chair Avdoulos wished Mr. Arroyo the best of luck.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the supplemental tape recorder may beep but that the Planning Commission should just continue as usual.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of J. Bennett Donaldson for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property in Section 23 north of Ten Mile and east of Novi Road, behind the Speedway gas station located on the northeast corner of Ten Mile and Novi roads, from I-1, Light Industrial to B-3, General Business. The subject property is 1.920 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt said that Novi Road is to the west of the property, and Ten Mile is to the south. The Speedway is on the corner, and the subject property wraps around it. To the north is Henderson Glass and an industrial building is to the east. Across Novi Road is the MetroCell site.

Mr. Schmitt said that the property is zoned I-1, as are the properties to the north and east. To the west is B-3, general business. To the south is both OS-1 and B-1 (Walgreen’s).

The Master Plan for Land Use designates the property for local business, the same as the properties to the south and west. To the north and east are light industrial zoning classifications. To the south is the Special Planning Project Area; its landowner recently has been before the Planning Commission to request a commercial zoning.

Mr. Schmitt said that there were no wetlands or woodlands on the subject property.

Mr. Schmitt said that the property is master planned for local commercial uses. The designation comes from the 2001 Novi Road Corridor Plan, wherein the subject property was recommended for local commercial. Initially it was master planned for light industrial. But, as the area developed, it became clear that this property would not become part of the Catherine Industrial Park. This property would not be needed for a connection to Novi Road, as there was thought of developing a ring road. It made a certain amount of planning sense to master plan the land for commercial, which would give the land an opportunity to develop.

The Planning Review recommended approval of this request. It would be consistent with the Master Plan. It would also be consistent with the Speedway and the commercial uses on each of the corners. There is very little likelihood of this property developing in conjunction with the existing light industrial. It would have to be a stand alone site, and this would pose some developmental difficulties, given the shape of the site.

There are no major infrastructure concerns with the rezoning request. I-1 to B-3 is somewhat of a lateral move in terms of sewer and water capacity. There are lines adjacent to the site. The intersection is undergoing upgrades; therefore the road network will have been improved along the frontage of this property at the time of its development.

A conceptual site plan was included for the Planning Commission to review. It was designed by Parsons Brinkerhoff. The Planning Department did not review this plan. The Applicant is also considering other concepts for the site. Therefore, the Planning Commission should only review the concept plan as that – a concept.

The Traffic Review indicated that the B-3 zoning would increase the traffic substantially during a 24-hour day. The a.m. peak hour would be much less (about half) than the light industrial. The p.m. peak hour would be greater than light industrial. There would be some differentiation in the traffic.

The types of commercial uses that could be proposed include general retail, restaurants, car wash. Special Land Uses would include drive-up and drive-through windows, nurseries, quick-lube establishments, oil change places and private indoor/outdoor recreation facilities.

Steve Sorensen of JB Donaldson Company, 41850 West Eleven Mile, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that they met with Mr. Schmitt back in July of 2004 to discuss this project. One of the driving forces of this project is Starbucks. This company is moving away from merchandising to the sit down customer and is now going after the drive-through market. Mr. Schmitt therefore suggested that they seek a B-3 zoning.

Mr. Sorensen said that they are also speaking with a national bank chain. He said that they would not be looking to add another gas station to this corner, especially in light of the Speedway adjacent to this property. They are also not looking to add any automotive use, e.g., an oil/lube business, to their site.

Chair Avdoulos determined that there was no correspondence received in response to the Public Notice. He opened the floor for public comment. Seeing no one, he closed the Public Hearing.

Chair Avdoulos reminded the Planning Commission that they were being asked to determine a recommendation to send forward to City Council. There is no particular project associated with a rezoning.

Member Wrobel asked about the utility hut on the eastern edge of the property. Mr. Sorensen said that the hut would remain in place, and there was an easement in place. The hut is an SBC substation.

Member Cassis had reservations about rezoning this land to B-3. He would not be supporting a motion recommending approval of the request. He said that B-3 is the most intensive commercial use. The community has been reluctant to rezone to B-3 in the last few years. The City has reserved very few places for this zoning. Member Cassis has seen many battles at the Planning Commission and City Council levels regarding this request, and in particular, this section.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Review shows the adjacent uses. Henderson Glass is light industrial. Speedway Gas has been there a long time. The Walgreen’s property was once a battle at City Council, as a restaurant wanted to be there. Walgreen’s was less intense of a use for the corner.

Member Cassis said that the MetroCell site never has any customers. He remembered the statements made at City Council when MetroCell was approved for that corner. He said that many applicants wanted to reestablish a gas station on that corner. MetroCell was approved because of its light intensity. The southwest corner, which Member Cassis thought was a Marathon, came before City Council to expand and they were told that they could not do so.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission is being asked to set a new precedent. He asked what impact to the Weiss property is the Planning Commission allowing by approving this request. He asked what the implication was. If B-3 is allowed on this site, how will the Planning Commission tackle the Weiss site?

Member Cassis said that there is no site plan attached to a rezoning request. The Applicant has made mention of a drive-through Starbucks and a bank. Member Cassis said that banks also have pick-up windows. Member Cassis asked how many windows can be allowed in one strip center. Member Cassis said that the Applicant can put in a car wash or a lube, or a trailer, or a hotel or a nursery. He said that City will have no control over what is put on that land if it is rezoned to B-3.

Member Cassis said that the Traffic Review did not make a recommendation. He said that the Planning Department did not provide a positive statement about the Traffic Study. He said that all they did was mention the difference between the industrial and commercial.

Member Cassis said that Birchler Arroyo issued a caution about the traffic generation and the location of the curb cuts. With Walgreen’s across the street, the Speedway and now this property, there will be a problem with people going in and out. There will be a problem because of the narrowness of this property. He said this property will create a little bit of a traffic problem.

Member Cassis said that cars love gasoline and people love Starbucks. He said that people are going to come get their mocha and latte and then they will want to get gas. Then they may want to get a carwash. He said he was not being cynical, just realistic. He said this is not a pass-by destination. People will come from all over to reach that destination.

Member Cassis said that he did not know if he could go along with the Steve Sorensen comment on Page Five, where JB Donaldson concludes that a Starbucks would generate less traffic than an office building.

Member Cassis said that the he voiced his objections about this request at the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting. He said he was overruled at the time. He wished to caution the Planning Commission about this matter.

Member Cassis said for these reasons - traffic, the close proximity of this lot to the Speedway and the other gas station, the incomplete development of Novi Road and Ten Mile, stacking problems associated with pick-up windows – the Planning Commission should rethink about the rezoning of this parcel. There are other possibilities and other commercial classifications to consider. He cited B-1 as a more favorable zoning. He reiterated that he would not support the request.

Member Gutman asked what the Planning Department’s recommendation was on this request. Mr. Schmitt said that the Staff is recommending approval of the B-3 zoning.

Member Gutman said that this request was consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use zoning. He asked City Attorney David Gillam if the City would be exposed to anything if the Planning Commission was to deny this request. Mr. Gillam said that the Master Plan is but one issue the court would look at. It is not dispositive but it does carry weight.

Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Lipski:

Member Pehrson said that in his mind, this is a pretty congested area to begin with. Property that is to be developed reminds him of Ten Mile and Meadowbrook (Peachtree Plaza), where a strip mall is behind a strip mall and it is basically hidden from the general public. Things come and go out of there. He appreciated the challenge represented by trying to develop this property, but he agreed with Member Cassis, that B-3 is too intense for this area. He said he had similar traffic concerns for this property as he does for the property east of Walgreen’s. Member Pehrson said that the intersection is being upgraded, but Ten Mile is not – it will still be a two-lane road for all practical purposes.

Member Pehrson said that the Traffic Review discusses how people make silly choices when they are going to drive in and out, east and west, on Ten Mile. They will try to cut through traffic and the potential for accidents is greater; he reiterated that he did not think it was the right spot for B-3 zoning. He would prefer to see it remain as is. He did not support the motion.

Member Sprague asked if the property on the west side of Novi Road, north of Pine Ridge, was coming forward to ask for a reconsideration of their business designation. Mr. Schmitt said that the landowner has expressed a desire to get a rezoning, but their initial discussions were of rezoning to a high-density multiple family classification. He said they will be coming before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee at some point in time. They are two or three properties north of what was provided on the map. They are closer to the post office than to Pine Ridge.

Member Sprague asked why B-3 was being considered over the other business zonings. Mr. Schmitt said that any of the three business uses could be considered. He said that B-2 requires two acres, so that would be an issue for this request. The Planning Department would not support B-2 because it creates the need for a variance. From the Applicant’s perspective, the need for B-3 to accommodate the drive-through, led them to this request. From the Planning Department’s perspective, if this is the south side of the road adjacent to Walgreen’s, B-1 is more appropriate because it would be adjacent to B-1 at Walgreen’s. In this case, there is a B-3 at the corner, so the Planning Department recommended B-3 for this site to remain consistent with the adjacent property. Either B-1 or B-3 would be consistent with the Master Plan.

Member Sprague asked what MetroCell was zoned. Mr. Schmitt said it was zoned B-3. The property is vacant. Both Speedways are also B-3. Only Walgreen’s is B-1.

Member Sprague referred to the Traffic Review and he looked at the a.m. traffic numbers. The review said that the a.m. numbers would be less, but the p.m. numbers would be greater. He asked if the numbers provided were based on the average type of store, as opposed to a Starbucks. He estimated that Starbucks would be busier in the morning than on the way home. Member Sprague said that if Starbucks were placed on this property, there would be more traffic at this corner than what there is now. Mr. Schmitt said that trip generations are based on standards in the ITE (International Transportation Engineers) handbook. What is implied by these numbers is the traffic generated by a typical shopping center. He was not aware of a specific code that is for a coffee shop. This is a standard that is well accepted in the industry. This review was based on a standard shopping center and a standard office/light industrial use.

Member Sprague said he once raised the question in a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting why a shopping center strip mall be considered for this site if the one across the street continues not to do particularly well. He said the answer he received was that Starbucks was great at traffic studies and they actually know where the most volume can be generated. Member Sprague said, then, that he must consider that Starbucks even has expectations that the traffic would exceed what is considered the general average.

Member Sprague said that the thought of cars trying to turn left into this property sounds like more than one accident waiting to happen. He asked what traffic flow constraints could be put in that would actually work. Member Sprague said he travels through this intersection quite often. He said that getting in and out of the gas station at the southwest corner should be used by right-turners only; others have no business accessing that station. Member Sprague said that Walgreen’s is similar. As long as the traffic is turning right to exit, the other drivers are just kidding themselves. Member Sprague never frequented MetroCell so he could not comment on that corner. Mr. Schmitt responded that he did express this concern to Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Bennett. He said he told them that they would have some major traffic concerns.

Mr. Schmitt said that if one were to read the minutes pertaining to the McDonalds back when the land was I-1, there was discussion about Speedway combining the curb cut with the proposed McDonalds. He said that the Planning Department was going to recommend that this Applicant look into this idea. The likelihood of that happening now is probably less because Speedway already exists. Back then the two Applicants were coming in at roughly the same time, so the request would have been more realistic. Mr. Schmitt said that one of the two curb cuts would clearly not be a full time access. Much like City Center Plaza, there will be turn restrictions for right-in/right-out on one of the two curb cuts. This issue would be discussed at the time of site plan submittal. He said the discussion would be worthy because of the proximity of the cuts to the existing curb cuts in the area. He said there would be an opportunity to line the Ten Mile entrance up to the Walgreen’s drive, which would at least alleviate some concerns that are associated with driveway spacing. Certainly, along Novi Road, Mr. Schmitt said it would be a difficult proposition. Mr. Schmitt said that there are several issues for review when a site plan is submitted, and he thought the Applicant realized that their design is going to be driven in large part by how the site can be accessed and what restrictions will be placed on them. He said that the Applicant seemed receptive at the time, to looking into a right-in/right-out entrance on one of the entrance ways. He thought they realized that it is a problem. He did not think that the Applicant wanted to make the traffic situation worse, because it will hurt their business. He concluded that the topic has presented itself, and will be discussed at great length once a site plan has been submitted. He said the Planning Commission concerns expressed at this meeting will help reinforce the position of the Planning Department at the time of site plan review.

Member Sprague asked if this land could be used for a McDonalds after all, if in fact the property was rezoned to B-3. Mr. Schmitt responded affirmatively, any B-3 use would be permitted. Ms. McBeth added that any use with a drive-through would be a Special Land Use, which is a discretionary approval.

Chair Avdoulos understood the concept of requesting B-3 to make the zoning contiguous with the gas station. He said the major concern is definitely traffic. He said that anything that goes on this property should require right turns in, and right turns out. He said it is very close to the intersection. He could see where drivers would want to make left hand turns to go south on Novi Road, and there may be some concerns. Traffic is a major concern. Chair Avdoulos said that if he were to see anything go on here, he would like to see traffic controls like a one-way in, having right turns in and right turns out. He said that the car wash north of Grand River only allows right-turn outs. He said that the development at Beck Road and Grand River requires a right-turn out onto Beck Road, but unfortunately the sign sits so far back that many drivers don’t see it.

Chair Avdoulos said that when he heard that this developer was interested in the site, he thought the name Starbucks was instantly recognizable and the site immediately became a destination. Everything else feeds off that traffic. He would like to see something happen on this site, but he did not know whether B-1 would help with any plan. Chair Avdoulos did not know whether this site could be considered for a Planned Rezoning Overlay, whereby the site is developed with restrictions.

Chair Avdoulos said that Novi Road north of Ten Mile is beginning to have a commercial flair, in light of Pine Ridge across the street. He said that the strip is leaving the residential area and heading toward the expressway. If the land is not B-3, he wondered again whether B-1 would be productive for the Applicant, in any particular way. Mr. Schmitt said that in terms of the Master Plan, B-1 would work. In terms of trip generations, the numbers will be similar because the generations are based on a typical shopping center. An Applicant will not be able to bring forward a restaurant as a tenant in B-1. B-1 does not allow for food to be prepared on site. B-1 would require a use variance for a restaurant, and the City has been hesitant in granting that in the past. B-1 would yield a typical shopping center similar to, he said, Briarwood at Ten Mile and Beck Road.

Chair Avdoulos said this was a rezoning request and the Planning Commission has been asked to give their recommendation to City Council. He said the Planning Commission is not looking at a site plan, even though the Applicant has indicated what their intentions are. He said they must look at the zoning request, and things may change that the Planning Commission may not want to see. He asked whether an agreement can be reached with the Applicant and the City. Mr. Schmitt said that in terms of a PRO or development agreement, it has to be offered by the Applicant. The PRO is an optional form of development. It is an option of the property owner, not of the Planning Commission or the City.

Member Kocan arrived at or about this segment of the meeting. The motion on the table was reiterated for her benefit. Member Kocan said that as the Planning Commission went through the Master Plan process, she asked whether the choices of B-1, B-2, B-3 could be designated for those properties zoned for commercial. She said that there is a significant difference between the use of the properties at B-1 and those of B-3. This particular property, she said, has a lot of history relative to being zoned B-3, back in 1995. It was very evident at that time that B-3 was much too intensive of a use. If the City rezoned flatly to a B-3, although there may be a plan that is being considered, the Planning Commission is not supposed to be considering that plan. They are supposed to be looking at whether all of the uses allowed in B-3 would fit compatibly with this particular parcel. The problem with this parcel is traffic. She understood that this has been discussed at great length this evening.

Member Kocan said that the setback from the intersection creates the biggest problem - cross turns, getting in, getting out. She said that she looked at the most intense use of the B-3, and one of things brought up in 1995 (with the McDonalds) by the Traffic Consultant was the fact that the use would generate about 1,900 cars on a daily basis. Member Kocan cannot recommend that. She would not support that kind of intensity at that intersection. She was unable to support the motion.

Member Kocan said that traffic consideration was a health and safety issues. It is one of her primary concerns. She would be more comfortable with a smaller commercial use, but she could not support a request for B-3.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission needs to realize that when a property is zoned to B-3, it is for eternity. There is no return. If Starbucks leaves the site, no one knows who would come in to replace them. He said the Planning Commission has to be very careful. He said there is no control over what kind of use will go in to this development. The Applicant may promise anything. He reiterated that his colleagues should be careful, as they don’t know what will go into the center, or who in the future will be using the site.

Chair Avdoulos called for the vote.

Mr. Gillam suggested that the Planning Commission seek another motion, perhaps a motion for recommendation for denial.

Mr. Sorensen said that it was likely that his company would be willing to work with the City on a plan that would be acceptable. He said that the specifics of this plan, i.e., Starbucks, should probably have not been discussed. Mr. Sorensen said that they would be willing to review items such as right-in/right-out, pork chop islands, etc., in order to make the site more appealing to the Planning Commission. He said that he, himself, was the designer, and that he has listened to their comments and understands what they would like to see incorporated into the plan.

Mr. Sorensen reiterated that there were positives associated with this plan. For example, he said, there would be less traffic generated during the peak hours with this use. He maintained that Starbucks is interested in this property but would require the drive-through lane.

Chair Avdoulos appreciated that Mr. Donaldson has worked well with the City in the past and expected that he would do so with this plan.

Ms. McBeth suggested that the Applicant could come back with a Planned Rezoning Overlay. This matter could be postponed until such time that a PRO was submitted and reviewed by the appropriate disciplines. Mr. Sorensen said they would be amenable to that possibility.

Moved by Member Lipski,

Chair Avdoulos asked how the Planning Commission should proceed. Mr. Schmitt responded that if the Planning Commission made a negative recommendation to send forward to City Council, then the Applicant can take his case before them. If the request is postponed, then the Applicant would have to return to the Planning Commission to get a motion on the rezoning. The Applicant can also come back to the Planning Commission with a PRO.

Member Sprague asked if a PRO is applicable on a lot of this size. He thought the PRO was an exchange of things, such as the City granting a zoning classification in exchange for the Applicant preserving natural features. In this case, there aren’t any features to save, so Member Sprague did not see its applicability. He said it seemed to him that the City would be using the PRO to say, in essence, that it’s happy with Starbucks but not with anything else.

Mr. Gillam said that the site could be developed under the PRO. He said that it is a method of approval that allows not the blanket zoning, but the zoning in conjunction with a specific use. The City would have the ability to include certain restrictions, like traffic, into the agreement. The agreement would be binding and apply to the property forever.

Member Sprague asked the City Attorney to weigh in on the options – encouraging a PRO, recommending a denial, or recommending B-1. Mr. Schmitt said that he did not believe that the concept plan that was provided as a courtesy was worked up enough to be submitted for a PRO plan. He said that it was the purview of the Planning Commission to decide which option they wished to pursue. If the Planning Commission wanted to continue discussing the site in terms of an optional development, then the proper course would be to postpone the matter at this time. If the Planning Commission is not comfortable with B-3, either way would be appropriate.

Member Sprague asked if the Planning Commission should recommend denial on the B-3 zoning, but allow the Applicant to approach a PRO directly with City Council. Mr. Schmitt responded that the PRO would come first to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. Mr. Schmitt said that the motion could reflect the Planning Commission’s position, though he didn’t see it as a binding measure.

Chair Avdoulos asked if the PRO replaces the development agreement. Mr. Schmitt responded that the PRO is a floating zone that is not attached to a property until it is approved by the governing body, i.e., City Council.

Mr. Gillam said that if the Applicant wants to return with a PRO, it is a separate application that must follow its own process. There would have to be a separate Public Hearing for the proposed development. The general discussion on the B-3 zoning that was held tonight will not suffice. He suggested that if the Planning Commission has a stance on a flat B-3 rezoning, they should make that motion which, he understood that in this case, would be a denial. The Applicant then, has the option to come back with a PRO or they can go directly to City Council with their B-3 rezoning request.

Member Cassis said he thought the Planning Commission should move forward with a negative recommendation to City Council on the B-3 zoning. He was sure there was a way for the Applicant and the City to work together on a resolution to this situation.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Lipski asked if this motion affects timing in any way for the Applicant. Mr. Schmitt responded that this approach is more typical of the process. He described a previous plan that went through the same process after their rezoning request was not embraced by the Planning Commission. He said this motion would allow the Applicant to choose between returning to the drawing board to create a PRO or going before the City Council with their rezoning request.

Member Kocan asked whether the City replaced the development agreement with the PRO. Mr. Gillam responded that the intent of the PRO was to replace development agreements. Chair Kocan supported the motion.

Member Lipski asked if the Applicant returns with a PRO, would the Planning Commission make a motion on a B-3 zoning with conditions? Mr. Schmitt explained that the land has to be rezoned to a classification that would permit the use. In other words, the use must be permitted in the underlying zoning of the property (the discussed use could not be allowed on this site if it were to remain I-1).

Member Lipski thought that it would be more expedient to postpone this request so that the Applicant could come back with a PRO and then move forward to City Council with the complete request. Mr. Schmitt said that it could be done either way. He encouraged the Applicant to look into the PRO, with or without a recommendation. Mr. Schmitt said that there is a land use issue and a site plan issue. If the intention of the Planning Commission is to look at a PRO, then tabling may be more appropriate. If the land use question is essentially decided, then it may not be an issue at this point.

Chair Avdoulos said that with a negative recommendation, the Applicant can either go to City Council or return with the PRO. The Applicant would have the choice. If the Planning Commission postpones this matter, then the Applicant must return to the Planning Commission.

Member Lipski asked the Applicant for their input. Mr. Sorensen replied that if the negative recommendation is offered by the Planning Commission, then he can go to City Council and seek approval there. If the request is turned down, then they can return under a different process, such as the PRO. Mr. Gillam said that if the Applicant wants to go with the PRO, they will have to start the process over anyway. There would be no way to postpone this request and come back in a month, and pick it up again as a PRO request. Mr. Sorensen then requested that the Planning Commission make their recommendation to City Council.

Member Avdoulos asked Ms. McBeth to comment on Planner Tim Schmitt’s recent accomplishments. Ms. McBeth explained that Mr. Schmitt recently passed the American Institute of Certified Planners qualifying test. This is a prestigious accomplishment because of the rigorous quality of that test. There is a fairly low passing rate on this. Mr. Schmitt passed it on his first attempt. He will now be adding AICP after his moniker. The Planning Commission applauded Mr. Schmitt for his accomplishment. Chair Avdoulos called for a ten minute break. Upon return, Member Kocan presided as Chair.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Providence Hospital and Medical Centers for Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is in Section 17 on the southwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Beck Road and is zoned OSC, Office Service Commercial, and R-3, One Family Residential. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new roadway and utilities to serve a future expansion to the hospital campus. The subject property is approximately 198.46 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth located the plan on an aerial map. She said that the subject property is currently developed with Providence Park medical buildings containing 240,000 square feet, an 18 hole golf course, and vacant land containing natural woodlands and wetlands.

Ms. McBeth said that to the north is the 52-1 District Court and West Market Square Shopping Center. To the east are vacant land, single family homes, Vision Spa and Salon and Central Park Estates. To the south are single family homes and vacant land fronting on Eleven Mile. To the west are a Utility corridor and vacant industrial land fronting on Grand River Avenue.

The subject property is zoned OSC, Office Service Commercial, and R-3, One Family Residential; to the north is B-2, Community Business; to the east, B-3, General Business, R-A Residential Acreage, OS-1 Office Service, RM-1, Low Density Multiple Family and RM-2, High Density Multiple Family, and R-1, One Family Residential; to the south is R-3, One Family Residential; and to the west, R-A, Residential Acreage, I-1, Light Industrial.

Ms. McBeth said that the Woodland map shows light and medium woodlands on the site. The City’s wetland map shows regulated wetlands throughout the site, but predominantly on the south side of the site.

In addition to the development of buildings and parking lots shown on Exhibit 1, and other development just described, the plans show a linear north-south green space in the center of the campus, which has been referred to as the "greensward" throughout the application materials. While the plans are conceptual at this time, the plans indicate this green space will act as an extension of the natural woodland and wetland environment to the south, and will provide a variety of gardens, meadows, woodlands, pathways and recreation areas. The Planning Department compliments the Applicant on this Master Plan approach and the efforts to ensure retention of these significant areas of green space on the Providence Park Campus.

Ms. McBeth said the northwest corner of the site shows a possible future mixed use development including services complementary to the medical uses of the site, including retail and restaurant uses, and medical office uses. A hotel is also planned for this area. Retail, office and restaurant uses are all permitted uses, or uses allowed with Special Land Use approval with the current OSC zoning of the property. The Applicant has indicated that a mixed-use development including residential uses is also being considered by Providence for the northwest part of the property. The OSC District does not allow residential uses, either as principal uses permitted or as Special Land Uses. This aspect of the development was considered by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and the Applicant may pursue this request for a possible rezoning for approximately 16 acres of the site to Town Center Zoning with a Planned Rezoning Overlay at a future time. Ms. McBeth reiterated that no buildings are proposed at this time, only the ring road and utilities are proposed for this submittal.

The Applicant has met with the professional staff and consultants on several occasions to resolve a number of concerns on the previous plans. The Plans before the Planning Commission this evening represent a resolution of a number of issues that have been already been addressed. However, there are a few items the professional staff and consultants wish to bring to the Planning Commission’s attention.

The Planning Department does have significant concerns regarding one section of the road as it is proposed to be located within regulated woodlands on the southwest part of the site, as detailed in the Woodland and Traffic Reviews.

The Wetland Review indicates that the plan meets the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan review, and the wetlands permit is recommended for approval, with a number of items to be addressed on the next submittal of plans.

The Woodland Review indicates that the woodlands permit is not recommended due to the location of the section of the proposed roadway through the regulated woodlands on the southwest part of the site. The reasons for not recommending approval are listed on page six the Woodland Review and indicate the following:

The burden of demonstrating that no feasible and prudent alternative locations for structures or improvements without undue hardship remains upon the Applicant. The Woodland Consultant believes that viable alternatives do exist and hove have not been presented.

If approved as currently proposed, and without explicit comment on the part of the Applicant to protect from future development all regulated woodland areas south of the proposed ring road, the pressure to develop those upland wooded areas may very well result in the loss of all remaining core wildlife habitat in Section 17 of the City.

Long-range potential impacts to the flora within the wooded wetlands from anticipated additions of impervious surface to this site cannot be fully understood at this time. The Woodland Consultant explains that wooded wetlands are vulnerable to even subtle water level changes over a long period of time. Increases in permanent water levels in these wooded wetlands could result in the death of not only the wetland trees and understory flora, but the parameter upland trees and flora as well.

Ms. McBeth said that the Woodland Consultant, Doris Hill, was present to answer questions. The Planning Department has had numerous conversations with the Applicant’s representatives regarding this matter in the last two weeks, and the Applicant has additional information to present this evening regarding the woodlands issue.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval due to the need for a Planning Commission Waiver of the required berms adjacent to the rights-of-way. Some of the lack of berming is needed because of existing ponds in the areas adjacent to the public roads. The Landscape review letter indicates that there is a desire to work with the Applicant further on the Final Site Plan to reduce the extent of the needed waiver in certain areas.

The Traffic Review recommends approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. However, the Traffic Impact Study needs revision prior to the time of Final Site Plan Review. The Traffic Consultant, Steve Dearing, was present to answer questions.

The Engineering Review recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and approval of the Storm Water Management Plan as presented.

There is no Façade Review for this application, since no buildings are proposed at this time.

The Fire Marshal’s review indicated that the proposed plan meets requirements.

Member Cassis told the Planning Commission that he sits on the Foundation Board of Providence Hospital. He spoke to the City Attorney regarding whether he should excuse himself from this Public Hearing. City Attorney David Gillam said that Mr. Cassis’ participation is not a conflict. The Foundation is a philanthropic arm of the Daughters of Charity Network. Mr. Cassis does not receive any compensation for serving in his capacity. He has no financial interest in the issue before the Planning Commission, or any of the Providence endeavors.

Rob Casselou, President of Providence, addressed the Planning Commission. He told the Planning Commission that he has been working with Providence for fifteen years on bringing a full service hospital to Novi. He said this Providence campus is built upon the partnership they have forged with this community and the City of Novi. He said this was one of the finer examples of public-private partnerships. He said that his hope is for Providence to be considered as a valuable healthcare resource and as a valued corporate citizen.

Mr. Casselou told the Planning Commission that Providence donated land for the Beck Road interchange. He said that there is a cement factory on their site, helping to fix roads within the community. He said that Providence will continue to partake in these community efforts.

Mr. Casselou said that their vision is to make this a premiere campus that is held as an example throughout the country. There are five principles that comprise their vision:

Innovation: A green field ability to build a hospital in Michigan is very rare. Most hospitals are placed in renovated facilities.

Healing: The Assyrian Center brings the entire healing process together.

Wellness: Providence seeks to provide wellness programs.

Education and learning: Providence seeks to educate the community.

Celebration of Life and Life Enhancement: The final principle of the vision.

Mr. Casselou said that the proposed ring road embraces the interior of the campus. It allows the visitor to begin his experience upon entering the site. He said that Providence is the steward of their 200 acres and they seek to retain the beauty.

Mr. Casselou said that this proposal is a significant request. He understands that there will be continued discussion about the southern part of the loop road. Providence seeks to have their patients interact with the beauty of the site.

Mr. Casselou said that Providence is prepared to put the southerly twenty acres into a conservation easement. They do not have plans to clear those trees. He said that Providence is partnering with Novi Schools to provide a conference and education center. They will offer the land for horticultural study as well.

Mr. Casselou said that their timing is important. They hope to open their hospital in early 2008. The loop road and utilities are in a critical path. He said that the difference between a good and great project is the attention to detail. He said he they reviewed the location of the loop road in excruciating detail. He believes that it is located in the appropriate position.

Larry Helman, NBBJ architect, addressed the Planning Commission. He told the Planning Commission that there is a new way for development to take place, namely, that it does not replace nature, it co-exists with nature. Nothing is more critical to healthcare than for it to be associated with nature. Nature is a key aspect to the celebration of life.

Mr. Helman said that it isn’t that the north side of the site is developed in typical fashion, and the south part is ignored. Rather, there should be a sense of wholeness about the piece of ground. First, there is an open space center. This, and the areas to the south, form a very unique path and ability to congregate buildings to the north. This also means that there is a huge pedestrian area that is car-free. People will be able to walk to the retail area, the fitness center, the office area, the ponds, the amphitheater or to the woods – all without crossing a road. He said that was an essential ingredient – and enduring quality.

Mr. Helman said that the inside is for people, and the outside is for the car. However, the roads are tailored and fit into the development, becoming one with the campus. They co-exist.

Mr. Helman said that the concept for the hospital is that it is of the land, not on the land. The shape of the building flows with the land.

The new facility will be the inpatient facility; the old building will be for outpatients. The pond becomes a focal point for the cancer center. There is an arrival garden. The emergency entrance will be to the south with its own parking and direction. Other entries will be placed on the north side. In the interim, the existing emergency will be serviced through the north or the side.

There will be a state-of-the-art fitness center on the west side. There will be some medical offices, as part of the therapeutic program. Mr. Helman did not think their proposed location for the loop road will lead to a 100% loss of the core habitat. The point of bringing the road through the woods is to improve the experience for everyone. The plan calls for 83 replacements trees that will be used to re-vegetate portions of the greensward. In essence, they will be re-foresting the area.

Mr. Helman said that they do not have definitive plans for the southerly property. The development that is ultimately designed for that area will work with the environment. They will be consistent in their approach.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for public comment. She asked Member Sprague to read the correspondence into the record:

Allan and Helen Burton, 48100 Eleven Mile: Concerned about the water drainage from the Providence property. The Burtons stated that Eleven Mile has had draining issues over the years, including some caused by the paving of Eleven Mile. They stated that many in the area have wells.

Elaine Clifford, 39500 Orchard Hills Place, Ste. 200, Novi: Objected because she said she didn’t have enough information on the project.

Gregory Gallo, 48000 Eleven Mile: Objected for reasons listed in his letter. There will be a long term impact on the neighboring properties. There are retention problems that could impact the wells. There will be noise during construction and upon completion. Trash will accumulate. The wetland water levels will rise and cause damage. Construction noise begins before 7:00 a.m. without reproach. The plan will impact wildlife. The Eleven Mile project was a fiasco.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing. She asked City Attorney David Gillam whether the Planning Commission should proceed in a certain manner. He responded that from a legal standpoint they could look at the issues in any order. He said that Chair Kocan’s suggested order seemed to make sense. The Planning Commission then proceeded to consider the request, first considering the Woodland Permit, then the Stormwater Management Plan, Wetland Permit and the plan itself.

Member Avdoulos discussed that section of the road that was planned to go into the woodland. He read all of the response letters and considered the site as a whole. He thought there was a sincere concern for the site and its natural features. He understood how Providence was trying to provide a natural feature setting against the wellness center. He appreciated Mr. Helman’s comments. He thought that through the use of a conservation easement, Providence could proceed without great harm to the site, in order to attain the feeling of "one with nature." He thought that any plan of this size would bring some kind of controversy. He was not opposed to the proposed location of the ring road. There are times Member Avdoulos would approve of a road being placed on the edge of the woodlands in order to provide better sight distance, but on this occasion this plan is part of the integrated concept. He said that hospitals want to move away from being considered as being in the "sick business" and integrating the natural environment into their concept is part of their plan.

Member Avdoulos was impressed that Providence sent their president to speak to the Planning Commission. He concurred that it is important for a business to establish other corporation relationships throughout the community. Member Avdoulos said that if the building and the road were moved further north there would be issues with parking, and all the other elements of the plan start to get displaced. Member Avdoulos liked having the vehicular traffic on the outside of the site. Everything on the plan is dictated by the location of that road. He thought the City and the Planning Commission should be comfortable with this plan, which has been brought forward by a very effective team who has been working with the City. He supported the plan.

Member Wrobel liked the project. He liked the road going through the wooded area. Member Wrobel accesses Providence from the south. He knew about the construction on Beck Road that may be causing a traffic problem. He said that people coming from the south, on their way to the retail center or the wellness center, will not go to Beck Road to Grand River. Those people are going to cut through the ring road. That cuts one light out and seems potentially faster. His concern is the volume of traffic that will be going through the wooded area.

Member Sprague asked if the Detroit Edison right-of-way is providing additional buffer; he was pointing to west side of the property. Woodland Consultant Doris Hill said that the Detroit Edison corridor functions as a natural feature in that it does allow wildlife movement. It does not work as wildlife buffer. Forested birds are apprehensive to cross an area that they don’t feel is forested. That corridor is wide enough to deter a lot of birds from moving from the park over to the Providence area. Her concern was cloistering the birds by impacting the areas outside of the woods, to where there are so many areas to cross, they won’t.

Ms. Hill said that if the road was moved to the north, there would be enough core within the wooded area. A core habitat is protected from external uses. There is a 300-foot buffer. There are fifteen or sixteen acres of core habitat. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory says this type of land is conducive to forest songbirds. A lot of species of woods and sizes of trees exist in this area. Some species of birds require a lot of acreage. Another reason that the buffer is important, is that it allows the birds to feel safe so they can reproduce. Ms. Hill showed the Planning Commission a map of the woods with the road shown. A road also requires grading. They The road would require a fifty-foot swath. The plan would remove a 4.5 acre woodland from the core habitat. Her concern is not for Providence’s intent with this site plan. She was concerned about what could happen. The ring road does not consider the core habitat. She said that the buffer would have to move if the road were moved.

Member Sprague asked if she was saying that by moving the road south, the area is shrunken to accommodate the buffer. Ms. Hill replied affirmatively. He asked if the road is pushed in that area because of the tennis courts on the south side of the wellness center. Ms. Hill said it was her understanding that the tennis courts would be built on the south side of the wellness center. Member Sprague asked how much of the road should be moved north. Ms. Hill said that would depend on how much of the core habitat is to be retained. It appeared to her that the easiest solution would be to stay out of the upland wood area to the south.

Ms. Hill has spoken with the Traffic Consultant about bringing the road straight across. Providence’s concern with their idea is that it ruins the driving experience. It also could create a speeding issue. She thought that was a valid comment. She said it was difficult to put any road in that area without affecting the core habitat.

Member Sprague was thrilled about Providence coming to the area. But, he did have concern about the area to the south of the road. Eleven Mile is south, with residents adjacent to the Providence property. He was afraid that this project will somehow impact the Eleven Mile residents. He said that the Master Plan for Land Use calls for Eleven Mile to remain residential. Therefore it is the intention to keep Providence out of that area – keeping their area north. He heard their good intentions, but he doesn’t have a good understanding of commitments. He wants to hear what those will be, so that the natural features are going to stay the same. He said that the wooded area should be kept as the buffer between the main campus and the residential area.

Mr. Helman responded that they don’t want to develop the woods. They will place a conservation easement on all the areas marked in red on the map shown to the Planning Commission. That will preserve almost all of the core habitat area. Mr. Helman said that they would not commit to never developing the south area. There are many concepts that are just as workable for that area as the area they have already designed. One example is their partnership with the Board of Education. They will be able to take advantage of the area. He said this represents a twenty-acre commitment. Mr. Helman said that they could show some design alternatives, but none are very pretty. Mr. Helman said that they are not against wildlife, and their design works alongside nature. He does not understand the logic of birds, but he really doesn’t understand how the displacement of just two acres would be ruinous.

Mr. Helman said that they have committed to never placing a connection between Eleven Mile and the ring road. Another feature of the loop road is that it is designed with looped, controlled curves. The design is deliberate. A straighter road would create a greater likelihood of the road being used for a bypass.

Member Sprague was glad that there is no connection to Eleven Mile. He asked if there is anything in place to moderate what will be built on the southerly property. Mr. Helman said they could work with language of some intent statement that makes that very clear. They are interested in a partnership. This is a major piece of civic structure for the Community.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission is entrusted with the responsibility to ensure the residents. He said that they are sitting on the opportunity to create a monument for our children and grandchildren. He said that this edifice will serve the community for generations to come. He took the responsibility seriously. He said it was a celebration of bringing life to the neighborhood. He said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity for the architect, to participate in developing this campus. He said Mr. Helman has been visiting hospitals all over and taking notes. He is part of the future, not just as how a hospital should look or feel today, but the future.

Member Cassis said that he has seen big concrete buildings for hospitals. He did not see where this development would be that kind of campus, because of the great pain the architect has gone through to design this land. He said that the shape of the building proves it’s not just a concrete building. They have taken the relationship between the building and nature to help create the design. Member Cassis said that building this campus is done for our posterity. This design feels like a symphony written by a musician.

Member Cassis said that the Applicant is going to give birth to new trees that will be there on site for a long time. He can see that trees will be woven throughout the campus. The hospital patients will be nourished with a little bit of life and vigor that nature offers. Member Cassis reminded the Planning Commission that Catholic Central was allowed to come into the City and they took down a lot of trees. He was not trying to legitimize the removal of trees, but as Catholic Central is intended to nourish the minds of the children, this is a wellness center meant to preserve life and to give our bodies and our souls life. He thought it was just as important in this process that one considers that they are giving life to those who need it.

Member Cassis said that Providence is preserving twenty acres of woodlands and maintaining 50% open space. The Planning Commission must be cognizant of the enormity of this campus. He was sure that Providence has gone through trials and tribulations – the trial to put in the different buildings that are needed to be associated with a campus like this. It is very hard to make a road and buildings into a design – it’s like playing chess. The Planning Commission must realize the challenges that face an architect in trying to put all of these things together.

Member Cassis liked where the road is. It does go through the woodlands, but it offers people a promenade of some sort. The patients and the visitors can try to interact with nature and bring nourishment to their souls. He supported the road location.

Member Pehrson applauded the things that have been done. He did not question their sincerity or stewardship of the land. He said they needed to find the best balance between the woodlands and the patients whose wellness is at stake. Member Pehrson asked what other possibilities have been considered. He knew one option was south of the wellness center, having the road take a 90-degree angle to go straight to the top of the entire parcel of woodlands. He asked whether a discussion has taken place on the westernmost property, specifically, taking the curvilinear nature of the road and placing it toward the south so that the road still ends up as a non-straight straightaway to deter speeders. The ring road has been described as a short cut. Therefore the term short cut says to Member Pehrson that no matter what is approved here, this is not a 25 mph road. It is a 30-35 mph road when people want to do their thing and go from Point A to point B. Straightening out that part of the road may not be that detrimental. When Member Pehrson took the sketch and redesigned the road, taking the same curvilinear portion from the west portion and placing it in the southern area, he wound up with a nice little curve just to the very top of the woodland section and moves the entire road up north. He thought his design reached the kind of balance he thought was necessary. He asked what this idea would do to the core habitat.

Ms. Hill said that depending on what the future of the property south of the road would be, it could save a great deal of the core habitat. Member Pehrson said that the southern part of which they spoke is the connection point to the further west toward the school and parkland. He said he thought this would address any of the migration further west of the Providence and near the residences. He did not think wildlife would migrate across Eleven Mile. Ms. Hill said that some may migrate in that area. She said that it was interesting that the core habitat is contained entirely within this site. She said there was a small core area in another location that was about twenty feet wide and forty feet long. She did not see that as a substantial piece. Smaller core areas tend to hold species in and they end up becoming sink areas and the species eventually become extinct in those areas because they can’t get out and they can’t reproduce.

Member Pehrson asked what would happen if the road were moved even further south to the bisector between the wetlands and the woodlands. He asked which has a greater negative impact – affecting the woodlands or affecting the wetlands. Ms. Hill said that she would have to measure the area. The important thing about a core habitat is that the buffer area remains around the entire area. If the road looped down, 300 feet would have to be offset. This would result in a very small core area. Going south, she said, does not really do much for the core habitat. Buffers that are required range between 200 and 600 feet. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory uses 300 feet to locate the areas of priority in Oakland County, because the majority of animals fall within that range. Some are going to be pushed out at absolute best. The worst case scenario is that all of the animals are pushed out.

Member Pehrson asked Ms. Hill where she would put the road. She said that she thought it would be possible to back the wellness center up to the woods so that people could walk directly into the woods from the center. The road could be put through in another location she pointed to on the map. She said this idea would constrain the greensward and she liked the greensward. She has also expressed concerns about the scale of that greensward. She thought the site would be far more flexible if the greensward is flexible from a size standpoint.

Member Pehrson asked the Applicant what they thought of Ms. Hill’s idea of rearranging the wellness center. Mr. Helman responded that a great deal of effort and money went into the precise alignment that is shown on the plan. There have been several options considered. A total tree survey has been completed – size, type, condition of the tree. He said that there is already a path through a large part of this alignment – not as wide but it does exist. They surgically tailored the road to minimize significant tree loss and maintain the best variety (quality) of trees. In their own process they did consider staying out of the wood altogether. They did not like that idea. He questioned whether this idea would preserve any of the woods. It would create a 1,000 foot straightaway, and what could be a pleasant drive now becomes a bit of an issue. Mr. Helman said that they appreciate design help because everyone has design issues. Bringing the road up as suggested, in their minds, obliterates their concept. They would wind up with something that does not meet their needs. Mr. Helman reiterated that they have considered alternatives. They have brought forward this plan in a very thoughtful, gentle and clear way.

Member Pehrson said that he was trying to rationalize between creating an aesthetically pleasing roadway and wellness aspect versus a roadway from Point A to Point B. He sees that the majority of the promotion for the wellness issue is in the greensward space. That has more value, because it is everything that Providence is trying to get away from in a city environment, medical setting. He said that when someone is driving through a campus such as this, they are talking on a cell phone, listening to the radio, arguing with the kids in the back seat; they are going to pass by those trees and probably not even see them. He felt that the greensward is where the focus should be.

Mr. Helman said that was exactly his point. The difference is this is not just a driving experience. A person who is a patient or someone wanting to take a respite walk should not have to walk to the other side of the road. With this plan, they are not on the other side of the road. The woods are as much a part of the experience as walking through the open space and garden spaces. It is a practical part of the plan. When the road splits the plan, it makes the statement that the woods don’t belong to the "peoples’ side of the house." It draws a line and says, "This is development as we know it and these are woods as we’ve always known it." He understood Member Pehrson’s issue, and Ms. Hill’s issue, but those are the cruxes of the decision, and in Providence’s mind, they made a design intent decision about how development and nature come together. That is the core issue before the Planning Commission at this meeting.

Member Lipski thought Ms. Hill had a really tough job and he respected what she was trying to accomplish. He felt as though she was not advocating a position but telling the facts. The burden falls on the Planning Commission’s lap, to perform a balancing act. Knowing what will happen to the various song birds and other natural inhabitants, they must determine if the value of the center outweighs the value of the integrated forest. From Member Lipski’s perspective, it’s an extremely difficult decision to make, except that he was willing, as a member of the Planning Commission, to take the risk with the natural habitat component. It is incumbent upon the Planning Commission to continue to view all of the developments that come before them with nature in mind, assuming there is nature left to protect.

Member Lipski thought that the theme of this development was extraordinary – not only the public and private partnership concept, but also the synergy between man and nature and the organic and inorganic components of the site. He asked Ms. Hill if the 10% conservation easement alleviates any of her concerns for the woodlands. Ms. Hill said that a similar offer was previously expressed by Gary Jonna. She appreciated the offer. She appreciated the entire design; she thought it was gorgeous. She said she has a design background and she found their concept to be easy to see and grasp. As far as its effect on the core habitat, she stood firm on her position. She said that was a very high risk. As the City continues to build out, every parcel that is left with any amount of core habitat is going to become higher and higher in value from a wildlife standpoint. She said that trees can always be planted, but man cannot recreate forests. Just the topsoil takes eighty years minimum. A forest is a living entity. With this plan, some of the core habitat will be lost. The driving experience will be nice.

Ms. Hill said that she has worked with the Applicant’s woodland consultant, Mr. Lawrence. She said that he has tried to save which trees could be saved. He said that extraordinary building practices have been offered to minimize the impact to the trees that are being saved. Ms. Hill said it is the Planning Commission’s call on this plan. She said that it is a wonderful project and the City is losing its trees, and this is a priority 3 area.

Member Lipski said it is important to acknowledge how much research Ms. Hill has put into this plan. On a personal level, the idea of incorporating nature as much as possible into the various wellness and recovery components in a hospital environment, touches very close to home. This is an experience Member Lipski would have liked to have had when he had a sick relative. He said that Planning Commission is caught between a rock and hard place – balancing the act of losing nature to probably the most optimal development one could ask for in a community. This isn’t a Starbucks or a carwash. This is the best kind of development one can have. More and more studies have shown that the psychological and environmental components of recovery from illness are extremely important.

Member Lipski is a big fan of this project. He thought the design could win national awards. He was willing to gamble, with great regret, on the wildlife habitat. There is no better way to make the development optimal. The separation of the wellness center would ruin the continuity and synergy that Providence is seeking. He thought that perhaps the ring road could be moved down to the property border, but 25% of the core habitat looks to loop down below to the neighboring property. Moving the road down doesn’t accomplish a thing. Ms. Hill said it creates the same scenario in a different area. Ms. Hill said that two corridors could be created but each needs a 300 foot buffer. Member Lipski thanked Ms. Hill and said he would be supporting the project.

Chair Kocan thought that the Planning Commission was very professional in their reviews. It was respectful of the developer and the development. It is a difficult decision for Chair Kocan as it is for everyone on the Planning Commission. She said they had to balance the benefits of the development, which has a concept, against the detriments to the reality of the woodlands and the core area. She formally sat on the Woodland Review Board and she has told people that they could not build their houses where they wanted to build them because they knew the woodlands were there when they bought the property. They knew they couldn’t put the largest house on the most beautiful piece of property and take down all of the trees.

Chair Kocan said that the maintenance road that the development is following is an eight-foot bike path. It is not a road. One need only look at the devastation for the creation of the road for Orchard Hills West off of Meadowbrook Road. City Council was told it would be a 24-foot road; the clearing is at least 55-65 feet wide. It is flooded. More trees are being removed than ever imagined. Curves have been reversed. The Planning Department has told her that it is a 24-foot road with two 7-foot easements. Minimally, that is 38 feet. If there is a third lane, which in this case some areas will definitely have three lanes - that requires 50 feet of clearing. Reverse curves require more space – one has to be able to see around the curve. There has to be an additional 13 feet for that. To claim that this is just a road following a maintenance road, it is not. It is building a highway over a bike path.

Chair Kocan could not support the development so close to the most prestigious core habitat area – not only in Novi but in Oakland County, possibly in the state. She said that the concept is wonderful, and while the Applicant commented that a straight road was not beneficial to the development which is true, the City does have traffic calming measures. Stop signs can be used. She did not see a problem with supplying a crossing area for pedestrians who want to enter the woodland area. She thought the greensward area would draw more people than the woodland area.

Chair Kocan knew that the Master Plan for Providence has been on the books for a long time. Now the City is getting the comments from the various disciplines – wetland, woodland and traffic. She believes that the integrity of the hospital can be maintained without devastating this particular woodland.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam what would happen if the woodland permit was denied. Mr. Gillam responded that the Applicant could appeal to City Council. Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission is in charge of enforcing the Ordinance, and this includes the Woodland Ordinance. The language discusses feasible and prudent alternatives. While they may not be Providence’s most feasible and prudent alternatives, she believed that they are somewhat feasible and prudent. In the very least, she wanted the woodland permit motion to acknowledge and request the reduction and minimizing of reversed curves. This could potentially be done, Chair Kocan was told. It would reduce the width of destruction for the road. Chair Kocan appreciated the conservation easement, which she said the Planning Commission cannot require an Applicant to provide.

Member Pehrson said that he would like to review the road again. He asked the Planning Commission to look at road where it enters the core habitat, specifically that same feature on the western side. If this was applied to the southernmost dip, and the road was moved up completely out of the core, and just to the east, slightly, of the wellness center, and an underground walkway 10-20 feet wide to continue the greensward space right down into the forested area was built, there would be no pedestrian traffic across the road. Then, the road is out of the core habitat and both the Applicant and the Woodland Consultant have achieved their goals. Member Pehrson asked what the downside to this idea would be, aside from the cost.

Mr. Helman said that not even an acre of core habitat has been lost on this site thus far. Mr. Helman said that the Planning Commission is talking about things that may happen, not will happen. He did not see why this plan should cause people to think that a whole area had just gone to the dogs.

Member Pehrson said that Mr. Helman misunderstood the point. He said he hasn’t heard an argument yet that says that he didn’t propose a feasible solution to solve the core habitat problem and to get the pedestrian traffic across the vehicular access point.

Mr. Helman responded that the plan has morphed into something they don’t want. Member Pehrson went to a map and showed how a curvilinear sector of the road could be attached to another point. He would then connect the greenbelt with the greensward. This plan would still impact the side of the woodland. Member Pehrson said that a plan could not get completely away from impacting the woods. This plan would maintain the intent of the curved road. He then suggested that the road dip and the pedestrian ramp go over the road. There would be an avenue of grass and plantings that would meld into the greensward space.

Chair Kocan reiterated that Member Pehrson’s intent was to stay out of the middle of the woodland. She said there was feasibility. She said that the Applicant could possibly get the support of the Planning Commission if they chose not to go so deeply into the woodland and if they reduced their reverse curves. She asked that the Traffic Consultant weigh in on this type of design. She said that the Planning Commission does not want to tell the Applicant exactly how it has to be designed.

Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing from OHM addressed the Planning Commission. She asked him to comment on reversed curves as she didn’t know what they were. Mr. Dearing said that there was some merit to Member Pehrson’s idea. Mr. Dearing said it was never his intent to request a perfectly straight road through the woods. He wanted to them to know that when curvature is introduced into the road, the designer must provide a safe recovery area. Mr. Dearing said that a roadway could be designed that has a similar curvature as the western property line, and work its way through the woods, just not penetrating so deeply to the south. The clear zone is a function of how sharp the curves are. A gently undulating road could be designed that didn’t require very substantial clear zones. Traffic calming features could be introduced, though he didn’t agree with the idea that there were potential speeding problems for this area.

Mr. Casselou from Providence addressed the Planning Commission. He said that Providence would re-review the location of their road. He said they spent a lot of time trying to minimize the number of quality trees lost to construction. He concurred that what they are following is a path and not a road, but it still provides some air space already. As the road goes north to the wellness center, there are more trees. Being respectful of the Planning Commission’s opinion, the Applicant said they would continue to work with the Planning Department Staff on the design for what might be a more suitable route. It would now be moved further north. Mr. Casselou said they do not want a straight line by the wellness center. He was concerned about going down as he wondered about water problems. He said that he liked the idea but some exploration is necessary.

Mr. Casselou said it seemed to him that the Planning Commission had issues with what the plan was for the site beyond the twenty-acre conservation easement. He did not know what assurances he could offer to them. He said they wanted to be able to bring forward a plan between the school system and themselves for the conference and education place. He offered to do anything else that would make the Planning Commission comfortable.

Earlier in the meeting, Chair Kocan asked if there would be any residential to the south, and Mr. Casselou said no. Then she said that Mr. Helman said that perhaps, yes, they were considering residential development for the area. Mr. Casselou said that Mr. Helman was a representative of their company and that Providence always keeps their options open. However, in this case, it is not a priority to put residential in that area. Keeping the area as natural as possible is important to the whole concept that has been discussed at the meeting. That is more important to Mr. Casselou, and giving up the residential capabilities is an easy thing for Mr. Casselou to do, in order to work with the City and accomplish what they mutually want to accomplish.

Chair Kocan said she was not telling the Applicant that he couldn’t build residential there, because it is zoned residential, and that part of the discussion hasn’t even transpired. She just wanted to clarify it on the record.

Member Sprague appreciated the fact that the road has been modeled after the already existing path. If the road moves up north, he wondered what would happen to the path. Would it be recovered into the core and eventually it will look like the rest of the forest? Would that take 150 years to happen? Ms. Hill said that she didn’t see a problem with the path being used in the future, if the road is moved to the north. Paths are not intrinsically a problem in a woodland, because the canopy of the trees remain intact. Moving the road north would provide more buffer and preserve more of the core, Member Sprague said. Ms. Hill responded that the road could be moved north and straightened out somewhat, and then more trees could be saved.

Member Sprague said that staying out of the core is a higher priority than saving x number of high quality trees. Ms. Hill agreed.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan said the loop road doesn’t go through the core right now, it is strictly through the woodlands. Member Avdoulos said he didn’t know if the road touches any part of the core. Chair Kocan asked if the core was south of the woodlands. She thought there were woodlands and then the core areas. Ms. Hill replied that the core area, as it is right now, includes the area that the proposed road is. When the road comes in, the core area will move south. She said that you can’t have a road going through a core area.

Chair Kocan asked whether the motion needed to be more specific about removing the road out of the center of the woodlands, further north to a location to be mutually agreed upon by the Woodland Consultant and the Applicant. Member Avdoulos said that he stated in the motion already that the must continue to work with the City and its consultants as it relates to the final location, shape and rout of the southern portion of the loop road, through the core habitat area by moving it north.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Gillam whether the motion contained everything that was necessary. He responded that if the Planning Commission was comfortable with the language designating the location of the roadway, then he said yes. He said that was the key issue. The other condition that has been addressed is the offer of the twenty-acre conservation easement.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Chair Kocan asked if she could add the following to the motion, "…as stated by one of the residents of the Eleven Mile area, that particular attention will be paid to the water drainage to groundwater retention, water levels and underground wells of the surrounding residential areas. Member Avdoulos and Member Wrobel both agreed.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Mr. Gillam said that the Wetland Consultant, Dr. Tilton, has stated if the road is going to be physically relocated, then the Permit Application on file with the MDEQ is also going to have to be amended. Dr. Tilton said that the plan as proposed impacts the wetland in specific areas. The new alignments don’t have any more wetland impacts to speak of, but they’re going to be different areas. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the motion, and then the City will deal with the new revision and actual permit that is issued with the new areas identified. Mr. Gillam suggested that it be made a condition of the motion. Chair Kocan restated it as, "…a new Wetland Permit will be filed and requires approval." Member Avdoulos and Member Sprague agreed to the language.

Chair Kocan said that several waivers are required for this site plan. There is a request for a City Council Waiver for the required sidewalk along both sides of the road and a Planning Commission Waiver for some required berms, which should be discussed with Landscape Architect Lance Shipman. There is also a request for a revised Traffic Impact Study. The Planning Commission can also re-discuss the alignment of the road and traffic safety concerns with the Woodland Consultant and Traffic Engineer.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Shipman about the landscape berms. He responded that his review referenced berms adjacent to public rights-of-way. He confirmed with the Applicant that his architect only provided preliminary plans. Mr. Helman said that they provided what they thought was necessary based on the Ordinance. Mr. Shipman said that the plan struck him as very preliminary, and he was sure that the Applicant would massage the design before the plan is resubmitted.

Mr. Shipman said that there are two aspects relating to the discussion he had in his letter. The ponds and detention basins are within the zone where the City would typically see berms occur. In those areas, it is self-evident that a berm cannot be put in a pond, so there is a creative aspect to addressing the screening aspect of the berm, the intent of the berm. The waiver is also addressed in terms of those pond areas. There are some other areas that appeared to Mr. Shipman that more application of the berm can be put in. Specifically, there is the westernmost entry – no berm is proposed west of the west entry drive. As this is developed, there should be a berm that can be put in there. The City never tries to encourage a straight berm, rather undulation in shape and height. He said that it could be accomplished. Mr. Shipman said he would like to see a motion more to the effect of a waiver with respect to the pond and basin areas, and that the Applicant continue to work with a creative approach on how solve those areas. He said he would refrain a bit from giving a blanket waiver of the berm across the frontage. He would encourage the Planning Commission to be very specific on where they would like to apply that waiver.

Member Pehrson repeated that if they went through and did exactly that for where the ponds are, and he said he also heard the Applicant say they would work with the City on the westernmost entrance to adapt that side. Mr. Helman said that would be fine. Mr. Helman then said that this could be unusual, that there is an entire buffer yard that is between Grand River, Beck and the ring road. So, he said, it is not as if there is public right-of-way, and berm to hide parking. That notwithstanding, he said they were fine with the berm because the berm and the undulate is part of the natural character of the area. In the area of the pond, it just can’t be done because there is no room.

Member Pehrson asked if that was along Beck Road and/or Grand River. He said there are more natural features along Grand River than Beck Road. Mr. Shipman said that it appears the Applicant has shown intent to put a berm along Beck Road, at least within their development zone. He said the City would not encourage them to push that berm further south. He said it was focusing on the Grand River aspect. He also said that he did not want to necessarily restrict another issue because he was interested in hearing the design concept. At the actual point of intersection of Beck Road and Grand River, there is an orchard approach where the berm hasn’t been applied. He’d like to see further development of the area, and this proposal may exist because of the design approach – that it may be appropriate to leave a small gap in that area for visibility and in light of their orchard grove approach. It sounded to Mr. Shipman as if they intended to provide a berm along both frontages to the full extent, with exception of the basins and potentially this grove area in the corner. At minimum, they have 100 feet to work with. There is a lot of room for them to be creative.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Helman what his intent is for the corner. He responded that he thought what they were discussing was great, but that it raised a very good point. The corner was always discussed as being a gateway statement. Again, that is something proposed by the City and it made sense to them. They don’t know what the exact design would be, and that is something they will have to look at intensively. That may impact the use of berms in that area – that may not be what the City wants done. Mr. Helman said that might be the only other location where a waiver may be required.

Member Pehrson said to Member Avdoulos, the maker of the motion, that Mr. Shipman just spoke about some issues, and the developer is looking to take advantage of what the natural berms are and not destroy what’s there with the ponds, and work with the City. He said he thought that should be included as part of the motion. Member Avdoulos agreed. He said he understood where it was coming from, and he knew that this is just a perimeter look at what the City has. Once the City gets more detailed pieces of the puzzle in, then the City can take a look at it. He was sure there was going to be a master plan of landscaping that will be presented. Mr. Helman said that was correct – single vocabulary, single approach.

Chair Kocan said to Member Avdoulos, that what Mr. Shipman is asking is that the motion designate specifically that, "…the waiver is only for those areas where there are ponds, and consideration is given to the corner." Mr. Helman said that the corner language is necessary, if in fact the gateway concept is such that the berms don’t quite work - it’s just some design latitude for that area. Member Avdoulos and Member Sprague agreed.

Chair Kocan said that the number of entries must also be discussed. She did not think that the Planning Commission could determine tonight that there would only ever be four entrances, and the Traffic Consultant thinks that five is excessive. She did not think the plan was at that point. There is a request in the motion for the Applicant to submit an additional Traffic Impact Study. There is also the fact that with each proposed development, there will be additional traffic review studies that will come forward that will address the situation. What could possibly happen, and maybe what the Planning Commission needs on the record this evening, is that at some point the most eastern entrance off of Grand River Road could become a right-in/right-out only, or could potentially be removed from the plan completely based on future traffic studies. She asked Civil Engineer Ben Croy if she understood the Traffic Consultant. He responded that she was correct – the two scenarios she mentioned are possibilities based on a new traffic study. She said if the motion could include, "A review of the number of entry ways is an issue that will be considered in the future based on Traffic Impact Studies and future development, to address the final number of entrances allowed for this development." Member Avdoulos and Member Sprague agreed.

Chair Kocan said that the more entrances there are to a hospital, the more confusing it is for her. She said that people like to have one entrance to trust, and they don’t want to have to read signs.

Chair Kocan asked for clarification about people who enter from Grand River and want to get to the emergency room. Mr. Helman said one option would be to take the ring road to the east. They can stay on the major road and take another option that he pointed to on a map. Chair Kocan said she just wanted to make clear that the only way to get to the emergency room is from the south.

Chair Kocan asked about the emergency road that is about 1,200 feet south of Grand River and runs along the west leg of the loop road. This road goes next to the wellness center. She asked to where that road led. Mr. Croy said that the road anticipates a future connection to what is now vacant. Chair Kocan confirmed that it is the location of Profile Steel. She asked if this emergency access road was a requirement of this plan, or will it serve a future purpose. She suspected the answer was yes to both. Mr. Croy said it was requested for the benefit of the neighboring property. They are going to have trouble providing a secondary access to their property. This is an additional benefit to this property as well – for emergency access. Chair Kocan stated that this Applicant has agreed to provide this emergency access and she complimented the Applicant for taking into consideration future developments as that is very important to the City to have access between properties.

Mr. Helman said that when those other plans come forward, they wish to continue this partnership concept. He noted that their plan took into consideration how open space works, how connections work, etc., so it’s not just a road thing, but there are other things done so that the whole could be painted. Chair Kocan said that what the Applicant just said was that it was possible then, that there could be considerable traffic that could use this road from Wixom, to come across to get into the hospital. She did not want that to happen. Mr. Helman said that they don’t want that either. She said that it might end up, or is planned as, a gated emergency. Ms. McBeth agreed that it would likely be a gated entry. Chair Kocan said that she knew the City didn’t want it to go down to Eleven Mile to the residential area.

Member Cassis said that Chair Kocan mentioned the multiplicity of access roads. While he is not an engineer, he has entered that campus so many times, and to him he thinks that the existing roads offer accessibility to certain areas of the campus to where the patient or visitor is going. Secondly, in cases of emergencies, no one is relying on one or two access points for the ambulance. It would function if a road is closed or there is congestion. On the other hand, what is being sacrificed by eliminating certain access points? He would like that to be analyzed by the engineer. Mr. Croy responded that the general thinking is the fewer curb cuts the better – the less ingress/egress onto major roads causes less traffic confusion. In the easternmost drive on Grand River is relatively close to the other drive, so in proximity to the things inside the park, this may not be an actual benefit. Having at least two entrances on each major road could be a benefit, especially if there is congestion or a traffic block.

Member Cassis said this is a campus that has a retail aspect removed from the health element. He asked whether the City wouldn’t rather see that access to the emergency area be there aside from the access area to the commercial element. He was trying to say that there are functions that should be accommodated by accessibility, maneuverability, proximity, etc. Member Cassis said that Chair Kocan asked the architect what the direction would be for the emergency room. He showed an option of going all the way around the park. Member Cassis thought that people who are unfamiliar with the campus who are trying to get to the emergency room will want to find the closest route. Mr. Croy thought if one or two drives were eliminated, there would still be plenty of entryways to get people where they need to go. He agreed with the comment that the number of entries adds to the level of confusion. He said it was also sufficient to have signage at the entry that tells the driver to go left or right.

Mr. Helman said that they want to do what’s right. They want to be cautious, because they have an awful lot of frontage. If this were a normal development, there would three times as many curb cuts. He said they want to provide the right number, and would consider a right-in/right-out entry, but they don’t want to under-do it. Nothing will hurt the campus more than removing the ease and convenience from the plan.

Mr. Croy said that most of this discussion is speculation only. Once the Traffic Study is reviewed, the City will get the direction they need. Member Cassis said that seconds are very important to a patient with a heart attack.

Member Sprague asked about the emergency access road was being approved for that exact location or whether its location on the plan was just approximate. He thought that it looked like it went right into a wetland. Mr. Helman said it was between the wetland and the woodlands. Member Sprague said there was a wetland straight ahead on the next property. Mr. Croy said that if the area is actually two parcels, this access should ultimately function for both of them. The Applicant was asked to meet a certain point with their road location. Other than that, he said, it was not critical where the road went, as long as the parcel in general will be able to access it. Member Sprague said he was comfortable thinking that the road is shown in its general location, not in its exact location. He also said that if this is to accommodate Wixom, then that requires driving through the Target store, which he did not know whether that’s what the City wants to work, or whether it would work. Mr. Croy agreed that the "approximate" location should be what is being approved right now.

Mr. Helman said that hopefully there will be a location that the road can go that does not go through a wetland or a woodland.

Member Pehrson asked if the intent of the Applicant is to build the road and the bike paths all in one phase. Mr. Gary Tressel of Hubbell Roth and Clark responded that the intent is to build the road in its entirety as one project. It will go forward in stages, as the construction makes its way around the active operations of the hospital. It will start on the west side and make its way south, east, north and back to the northwest corner. The pedestrian pathways would be built with the site plans that would accommodate them. It would be a waste to go in and build them and then have them torn up by the construction equipment building that particular site.

Chair Kocan called for a ten minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Mike Kahm of Singh Development Company for a recommendation to City Council of a Final RUD Plan, Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit, and for Planning Commission approval of a Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 30, south of Ten Mile, west of Wixom Road in the R-1, One Family Residential District with a Development Agreement. The Applicant is proposing 439 unit single family site condominiums.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth located the subject property on an aerial map. It is currently developed with The Links of Novi Golf Course, which is approximately 197 acres. To the west of that site are two parcels of land, referred to as parcels owned by the Ciotta family, a ten acre parcel fronting on Ten Mile, and a twenty acre parcel fronting on Napier Road. Both of these parcels appear to be vacant of buildings. To the east of the golf course are two more vacant parcels, referred to as the Norman Steel properties. The entire site consists of approximately 325 acres of land.

To the north are the Island Lake of Novi Residential Unit Development, the land with a site plan approved for Oak Pointe Church, a single family home, and vacant land. Also to the north, but on the south side of Ten Mile, are two single family homes fronting on Ten Mile. To the east are the Fire Station and vacant land. To the south are the development referred to as The Preserve and the City parkland. To the west are single family homes fronting on Napier Road and Lyon Township.

The recently adopted Master Plan for Land Use recommends residential uses for the site and all of the surrounding properties. The Zoning Map indicates that the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The surrounding property to the north, west east and south is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage.

The woodland map shows light, medium and dense woodlands on the site. The City’s wetland map shows regulated wetlands throughout the site, but predominantly on the east, west and south borders of the property.

The plans show 13 parks throughout the development. The Applicant is donating property on the east side of the development to the City that will create a contiguous parkland. This donation is in conformance with an earlier offer made by Applicant, and is now required by the Development Agreement. All of this area is within the designated Core Reserve Area and is adjacent to the City-owned property to the east.

The City’s professional Staff and Consultants reviewed a Preliminary Site Plan for the property earlier this fall, and provided a number of comments and concerns for the Applicant to address. The Applicant resubmitted a revised Preliminary Site Plan and addressed a number of those concerns, as indicated in the associated review letters. Many of the environmental concerns have been resolved on this resubmittal. As a result, the high quality, old-growth woodlands found during the review of this plan will be saved. They are located on the west side of the site.

The Planning Commission will be asked to review the plans and make a recommendation to City Council on the submitted Final RUD Plan and revised Preliminary Site Plan. If City Council approves the submitted plans, the Applicant will submit Final Site Plans for review and approval by the City’s professional Staff and Consultants.

Second, the Applicant seeks deferral of the required photometric plan and exterior lighting information until the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant indicated his intent to comply fully with the City’s standards.

Third, The Planning Commission is asked to consider modifying the parking requirements for the clubhouse, based on the Applicant’s representations regarding the building’s use. A total of 25 parking spaces are shown on the plan. The Applicant has indicated that there are approximately 46 additional on-street parking spaces within 300 feet of the clubhouse for a total of 71 parking spaces in the area. For this use, the Ordinance requires off-street parking to accommodate not less than one-half of the member families. The Planning Commission may modify the parking requirements where it is specifically determined that the users will originate from the immediately adjacent areas, and will, therefore, be pedestrian. The Applicant has indicated that, while all families or individuals that are part of the condominium association will have access to the clubhouse, the maximum building occupancy will be 70 persons. Additionally, the Applicant indicated that, in their experience, parking for only 25% of the building’s maximum occupancy (18 spaces) is necessary.

The Wetlands Review indicates that the plan meets the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan review, and the Wetland Permit is recommended for approval, with a number of items to be addressed on the next submittal of plans.

The Woodlands Review indicates that the plan meets the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan review, and the Woodland Permit is recommended for approval, with a number of items to be addressed on the next submittal of plans.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval due to the need for a ZBA variance for the perimeter landscaping around the proposed clubhouse. There is a pool behind the clubhouse. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman was available to answer questions regarding this aspect of the plan review.

The Traffic Review does not recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan/ Final RUD Plan without additional details on the secondary access that will service the first phase. The current design provides a narrow gated emergency access between two lots. Additional information on that access has been requested.

The Engineering Review recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan and Final RUD Plan. It recommended approval of the Storm Water Management Plan as well.

The Fire Marshal’s review indicated that the proposed plan meets requirements, with additional items to be addressed on the next submittal of plans, including the additional detail on the emergency access drive onto Ten Mile. This access is essential for the first phase of development.

The Façade Consultant indicated that a Section Nine Waiver is recommended for the proposed Clubhouse, as the design ethic is appropriate for the residential character of the development, and there will be minimal visual impact of the proposed building from Ten Mile. The façade board was at the meeting and was shown to the Planning Commission.

Mike Kahm represented his company, Singh Development, 7125 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield. Mr. Kahm said that the Agreement with City Council was reached on December 13, 2003. The important elements of those Agreements were the development of 439 lots, 90-foot wide, 12,000 square foot lots, the trail construction through the park, and dedication of park land. Legacy Parc will preserve 139 acres of open space, about 43% of the overall 325 acres. Mr. Kahm said the current plan dedicates 73.3 acres to the City for the park land.

Mr. Kahm said their December 3, 2004 letter responded to the issues raised in the reviews. He said that improving the traffic circulation was a goal in their redesigning the roads. They tried to preserve more land as well. The original RUD Plan proposed two points of connection from the subdivision to the 1.5 mile trail. There is now a third connection at the southeast portion of the subdivision. There is an existing golf course boardwalk in that area that will become part of the trail system.

Mr. Kahm said that they are seeking the clubhouse Setback Waiver from the ZBA. The clubhouse and swimming pool are at least eighty feet from the street and adjacent lots. The improvements that are in the setback are the volleyball court, basketball courts, tennis courts and the tot lot. The synergy of this area justifies this design, Mr. Kahm said. They propose a decorative fence with landscaping along the lot lines.

Mr. Kahm said they are seeking a Greenbelt Waiver for the rear of the clubhouse. There is a deck to the swimming pool in that area, and they don’t believe that a greenbelt belongs there.

Mr. Kahm said that they are extending their sidewalk along Ten Mile, along the City’s frontage. The bike path is along the east side of the Fire Department entrance, and they wish to place a sidewalk on the City property to complete the extension to the trail head. There will be a parking lot constructed in that area.

Mr. Kahm showed a concept plan of their 3,500 square foot clubhouse. It will contain a party area, an exercise room accessible by resident key cards, changing rooms, bathrooms, etc. The clubhouse is modeled after some of Singh’s higher-end apartment clubhouses. The pitch of the roof brings about the need for a Section Nine Waiver, but the design is in keeping in character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Kahm said that the occupancy level of the building is set at seventy. There are 25 on-site parking spaces, and adjacent onstreet parking. Mr. Kahm said there is ample parking for the nature of the building and the anticipated number of guests. He said the subdivision is designed to provide an easy pathway to the clubhouse.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record:

Danielle Schroeder, 50155 West Ten Mile: Concerned about drainage since her home sits in front of this development. She would like to see berming done.

David and Elizabeth Barr, 22600 Napier Road: Stated that Napier Road is in terrible condition, and additional traffic from Legacy Parc will further deteriorate the road. The letter stated that Napier Road needs to be paved. He asked why the Applicant does not have to install sewer and pave the roads. He asked why so many houses were approved for the site. He said that the longtime residents are being punished with this development.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson thought the proximity of the clubhouse to the main entrance was a problem. Expected onstreet parking may hinder emergency vehicle access. He thought that most residents would drive their cars. He did not think there was enough parking to accommodate swimmers and a party at the same time.

Member Pehrson asked whether the decorative fence on the south side of the clubhouse was designed according to code. Mr. Kahm said that the plan does not yet show the fence. There is a fence around the pool.

Member Pehrson did not have a problem with the setback issue.

Member Pehrson confirmed that the temporary access near lot 70 will have to be built to City standards. The access will be removed after a future phase is constructed and the access is no longer necessary.

The Photometric Plan was not provided for the clubhouse. Ms. McBeth said it will have to be submitted. Mr. Kahm said that it would comply.

Member Pehrson had no problem with the Section Nine Waiver request. He concluded that his greatest problem is with the traffic around the clubhouse.

Member Sprague thought the parking around the clubhouse was wholly insufficient. He felt that the plan as proposed would frustrate the residents.

Member Sprague asked about the tree replacements. Woodland Consultant Doris Hill responded that the first submittal noted trees that the Applicant felt were exempt. Ms. Hill said those trees need to be recalculated. She also said that there is a stand of trees near the Stalkwood Park area that is being saved by the relocation of a detention area. She did not have the updated replacement numbers for that area. She said that her current number seems to be very close to the Applicant’s number. She felt that it could be narrowed down to 5,500- 6,000 credits required. Ms. Hill said that the Applicant has committed to replanting 3,000 on site, but a substantial number will be credited through the tree fund.

Member Sprague asked about the southern swamp, and Ms. Hill’s request for the Applicant to remove lots 48 and 51 or place a conservation easement on that wetland area. Ms. Hill explained that her request was meant to protect an upland site where some black gum trees are located. The Michigan Natural Features Inventory categorizes this area as a Priority One area. The core habitat and vegetation of that area are of high quality. Some of these black gum trees measure up to 24 inches, which is pretty rare. The southern swamp category was tagged on this area because of the soil description and the tree locations. Because the trees follow a certain topography, the trees should be considered sensitive. There may be as few as 23 woodland communities such as this in the entire state. Ms. Hill asked that the area be safeguarded from the homeowners in that area – no mowing, no chemicals, etc. to allow the existing buffer to be put into an easement would further safeguard that area and make the buffer wider.

Member Sprague asked why the Applicant didn’t want to do that. Mr. Kahm responded that Singh has committed to identify, on the Exhibit B of the Site Condominium, the location of the buffer areas by crosshatching or shading. They would clearly label these areas, and provide use restrictions per the Ordinance in the Master Deed and By-Laws. The Applicant thought they had accomplished the same thing as what Ms. Hill had requested. The point is that those nearby residents must understand that the rears of their lots are already restricted per the City Ordinance. This would be narrated in the Master Deed and By-laws.

Member Cassis asked why Singh wasn’t keeping the current clubhouse on the property. Mr. Kahm said that geometrically it didn’t work well. The clubhouse is not in that great of shape. Singh would prefer to build a higher quality clubhouse.

Member Cassis asked about the clubhouse parking. Mr. Kahm said that their research into clubhouses led them to this proposed design. Not every resident will come to the clubhouse at the same time. Mr. Kahm said there is no banquet facility, but the residents can rent the clubhouse for special events. Mr. Kahm said that by showing that many cars on the street, they were showing what they believed was an extreme case. Ordinarily there would not be so many cars. Mr. Kahm said he would remove the volleyball court and put in more parking. He did not want the parking lot to be as large as a Kmart parking lot.

George Norberg of Seiber Keast said that 12-15 parking spaces could be added. Member Cassis asked if this number would satisfy the Planning Commission.

Member Pehrson said that the western onstreet parking would be in front other homes. Northerly parking would also be right in front of other homes. He suggested that "No Parking" signage be placed in that area. He said those adjacent homeowners may have trouble mowing their yards or having parking available for their own guests.

Mr. Kahm said that parking is not allowed where there are fire hydrants. He thought that the fire hydrants could be placed in those areas to minimize the burden on those homeowners. The roads are 28 feet wide. This allows for parking on one side of the road and two-way traffic to pass.

Mr. Kahm said that this change would make forty on-site parking spaces. He said that it would be bad for Singh if there wasn’t enough parking. He was very comfortable with the number of forty.

Member Cassis said that this is a nice amenity for the subdivision. The Planning Commission would like to help Singh attain their goal. They have been granted a certain amount of lots under the RUD Agreement. Member Cassis did not know if he could force more parking if it meant that the Applicant would lose a lot.

Mr. Kahm said he could lose other amenity space to put in more parking. The clubhouse and swimming pool are the primary amenities.

Member Lipski asked if the tennis courts could be switched and used as occasional event parking. Mr. Kahm said that there is typically a fence around the tennis court. Member Lipski asked whether they could use the basketball court for occasional parking. He did not think the volleyball court should be lost. Mr. Kahm said he could flip the courts.

Member Cassis was satisfied that more parking spaces can be gleaned from the area and they would be able to accommodate anticipated guests.

Member Wrobel, a homeowners’ association president, said that he receives many calls from neighbors with complaints about parked cars on the subdivision streets. He appreciated the Applicant’s willingness to provide more parking.

Member Avdoulos asked about the additional homes added at Brown Jug Lake. There are three homes that are placed in an area that still allows for the trail to pass through and take advantage of some existing walkways. These homes are in this area now because of the added clubhouse. Mr. Kahm said the total is still 439. Mr. Kahm said that the individual homeowners would maintain their own lots.

Member Avdoulos said the clubhouse’s proximity to the entrance is a problem for him. When there is an event the traffic in that area may be very thick. He would expect the clubhouse to be more centrally located for the benefit of all homes in the subdivision.

Member Avdoulos asked about the wetland comments. Dr. Don Tilton, the Wetland Consultant, explained the wetlands and the trails. He studied the wetland impacts on this site, The Preserve (Provincial Glades), and on down to Nine Mile. He said the trail cuts right across a forested wetland. It may cause more of an impact than expected, as a road will have to be built so that the boardwalk can be built. Dr. Tilton recommended that the path stay with the original alignment, which hugs the edge and come down to Nine Mile.

Dr. Tilton said that the areas adjacent to the buffers must be considered. The function of the buffer is meant to be an upland area adjacent to the wetland that, in some cases, filters runoff from the adjacent area. It might provide habitat for wildlife. There is not much buffer lost around the wetland that Dr. Tilton discussed. This wetland type is resistant to nutrient loading. It is not an open water area, but a forested system. It is sensitive to hydrologic modifications. These have been addressed during the stormwater review. Again, Dr. Tilton was not concerned about the buffer because the wetland is so huge.

Member Avdoulos liked the clubhouse. He felt that Singh has put forth effort in their research and they have come up with the proper calculations.

Chair Kocan asked about the fence along Ten Mile. Mr. Shipman responded that a six-foot tall fence is proposed for the Ten Mile frontage, with the exception of entry features that will contain more masonry structures. Mr. Shipman has discussed this with the Applicant, and he is willing to consider reducing that height. Mr. Shipman said that decorative fencing has become more popular.

Chair Kocan said that one year ago the Planning Commission discussed their intention for this property, and that included additional setback from Ten Mile to shield the density of this subdivision from view. The fence more or less advertises the fact that this land is a subdivision. Mr. Kahm responded that this fence was proposed as a decorative element to provide character. Chair Kocan said this needs to be brought to City Council’s attention, because the fence is completely opposite of what was envisioned last year. The Ten Mile stretch was meant to preserve the natural features. She was not in favor of the fence.

Ms. McBeth said that the fence is almost one mile long, and that this consistency (of the developer installing the same fence) may provide a better view.

Chair Kocan said that this is an R-1 development that requires 10% of the homes to have R-1 lots. This proposal offers zero homes on an R-1 lot. That disturbed Chair Kocan. Her purpose at this meeting was to ensure these issues were brought up prior to City Council’s review.

Chair Kocan said this plan does not meet the intent of the RUD. She felt the clubhouse was being squeezed in. The parking was being squeezed in. She would not want any onstreet parking at the entrance. She felt that the clubhouse should be centrally located.

Chair Kocan said that 58 homes, over 10%, encroach a wetland buffer. Dr. Tilton has stated that where the homes are proposed, the encroachment is okay, but Chair Kocan said that this has never been allowed before. Chair Kocan was disappointed in the density of this development.

Chair Kocan said that the final tree replacement number must be determined at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Chair Kocan said that the current resident near proposed lots 108 and 109 has stated that her property already floods. She said that the Planning Commission looked at this plan with her at one of the breaks, and Chair Kocan just wants to ensure that particular attention is paid to this area when the Stormwater Management Plan is discussed.

Chair Kocan said that traffic will be a nightmare. She apologized to all Ten Mile travelers because of what will become of this road. She understands that Singh is a quality developer, but she is nonetheless disappointed with the plan City Council approved.

Chair Kocan said that the Ten Mile fence was not meant to be in place of the berm. She asked if it needed to be mentioned in the motion. Mr. Shipman said he did not think so. The Ordinance refers to wall placement in that area in lieu of a berm. The Planning Commission would have to give permission to do that. A fence is a different scenario.

Chair Kocan did not support the recreational facilities being within the eighty-foot setback. She said that other developments aren’t allowed to do this. This plan is squeezed in. She asked that the motion state the permanent placement of fifteen parking spaces. She would like the motion to state that no parking is allowed in areas that could jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of the residents. Emergency vehicles need clear access. Traffic should review this issue.

City Attorney David Gillam said that there is an existing RUD Plan and a Development Agreement. He said that the motion should refer to changes to the terms of the previously agreed-upon documents. The motion should not rehash items already approved. Chair Kocan confirmed that the changes to the RUD will have to be approved by City Council.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Kahm to describe the different lot sizes. Mr. Kahm said that the smallest lot is ninety feet wide and 12,000 square feet. This small lot size is similar to the R-3 standards. There are larger lots. Member Cassis asked for a description of lots 417, 418, 419, 416, 357, 358, 50, 49, 48, 52. Mr. Kahm said that some lots may only be ninety feet at the setback but they are pie-shaped and may be 18,000 square foot lots, which is an R-1 size.

Ms. McBeth said that the breakdown of this information is shown in the Planning Review. 86% of the lots meet the minimum size of R-3 standards. A majority of those are 12,000 square feet. 7% meet R-2 standards (110 feet) and 7% have 110 feet frontage, meeting the R-1 standard.

Member Cassis asked what size house would fit on the smaller lots. Mr. Kahm said all homes will have side entry garages. Given the market conditions, the homes will be 3,000 square feet and up. Prices will begin at the mid to high $400,000s and range to $700,000. Member Cassis said that those prices are huge, and a larger lot will begin in the $500,000 - $600,000 range. Member Cassis said everyone should be cognizant of the economy. The values of the homes are getting higher and affordability is an issue. Everyone one wants larger lots and open space, but a balance of the situation must be considered.

Mr. Kahm reminded the Planning Commission that 43% of the land is open space. That land is accessible to the entire subdivision. The trail is a unique amenity for this subdivision and the City as a whole. The acreage may not be on the lot that the homeowner is maintaining, but it is still in the subdivision.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Kocan asked that, "with particular attention being given to lots 108 and 109" be added to the motion. Member Sprague and Member Gutman agreed.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Pehrson asked whether specific information should be provided in the motion regarding the restrictions that will be listed in the Master Deed. Dr. Tilton said it was not necessary. These wetlands are not that sensitive – the soil types are more capable of absorbing the nutrients.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan asked if the motion to should list Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Gillam responded that if parking and traffic are the Planning Commission concerns, the motion on the table is more than sufficient. This is just a recommendation to City Council.

Member Cassis thought that the Applicant agreed to provide more parking. Member Sprague said that they did, but he still finds it insufficient.

Member Avdoulos asked that "the plan causes great traffic concerns at the entry boulevard" be added as a reason. Member Sprague and Member Pehrson agreed to the additional language.

Chair Kocan told the Applicant that the plan can go forward to City Council for consideration. She wished him luck.

There were no Matters for Consideration.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Chair Kocan said that the next Planning Commission meeting would be held on January 12, 2005.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague,

Motion carried 8-0. The meeting adjourned at 1:21 a.m.

MON 12/06/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 12/07/04 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 12/08/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 12/20/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

THU/FRI 12/23-12/24 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

THU/FRI 12/30-12/31 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 01/12/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 01/17/05 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING 6:00 PM

WED 01/26/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 3, 2005 Signature on File

Approved on: March 9, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date