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

Present: Members Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: John Avdoulos (excused), Michael Meyer (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Dr. John Freeland Wetland Consultant; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultant; Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

Chair Cassis led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

The Implementation Committee met the previous week, and Member Kocan stated that the doggie daycare language was discussed.

The Master Plan and Zoning Committee will meet on September 29, 2005.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth informed the Planning Commission of the outcomes from the most recent City Council meeting. The Sign Ordinance text amendment was introduced, changing the language for advertising a special event for thirty days. City Council would like the Planning Commission to hold the Public Hearing and turn this item back around as soon as possible. A brief discussion amongst the Planning Commission members indicated that no one was adverse to Staff setting the Public Hearing date and getting the issue publicly noticed. A text amendment introducing a change in the language relating to mobile homes and construction equipment storage on residential lots will also come to the Planning Commission for review and a Public Hearing.

Previously, the Planning Commission had requested that Administration be notified of the potential need for information being sent to residents adjacent to road projects, so they can be aware of issues such as timing. Ms. McBeth informed the Planning Commission that prior to any larger scale project, the area residents are invited to a meeting with the Engineering Department to discuss the parameters of each project. Community members directly impacted are invited to the meeting and are also notified of the construction schedule once the contract has been awarded. Additionally, A Road Communication Report is available for residents (a copy of which was provided to the Planning Commission), and messages are put on the City’s website. The "Update Novi" flyer outlines the projects. Channel 13 lists the project. Neighborhood associations are informed of projects. Novi News writes about these projects.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Todd Rosenzweig for possible recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.656, rezoning of property in Section 1, south of Fourteen Mile Road, between the M-5 connector and Novi Road, from RA, Residential Acreage, to R-4, One Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 10 ten acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property for the Planning Commission. The request is for two five acre parcels that front Fourteen Mile. They are zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential – 4.0 dwelling units per acre, consistent with The Maples to the west. To the north is Commerce Township. To the west is the Maples of Novi development, zoned R-A and developed under a PUD and master planned for single Family Residential. To the south and east is Haverhill Farms subdivision, zoned R-2 and developed with a preservation option (for woodlands on the southern portion of the site) and master planned for Single Family Residential.- 2.0 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with its zoning.

Mr. Schmitt said that this change in density for the subject parcels occurred with the most recent Master Plan update. Mr. Schmitt was unable to locate the specific minutes wherein this topic is discussed, however, he contacted Ms. Darcy Schmitt who specifically remembered this discussion and decision to change the density. Perhaps the only reason that this change was not listed on the Modification Map was that it was a last minute change and was unfortunately dropped off.

There is a wetland in the southwest corner that may or may not encroach onto the properties in question. This would be determined at the time of site plan review. There are several woodlands on the property. Both of these items will be mitigated at the time of site plan review. The Applicant has not chosen to use the Planned Rezoning Overlay at this time. There is no site plan submitted at this time.

Mr. Schmitt said that this request meets the intent of the Master Plan for Land Use, and the Planning Department recommends positive consideration of this request. Fourteen Mile in this area is virtually completely residential in character. This change would be consistent with the character of the corridor. It would be consistent in density to The Maples to the west, and would provide something of a transition buffer between Haverhill and Fourteen Mile. The Applicant will be required to do several site improvements at the time Preliminary Site Plan submittal, including the sidewalk connection between Haverhill and The Maples. The City will continue to work on this intersection, requiring this Applicant to align their drive with the existing intersection. Any necessary road improvements will be discussed at the time of Preliminary Site Plan review.

Mr. Schmitt said that the proposed uses of R-4 are consistent with the existing zoning. The difference is the lot size – R-4 requires 10,000 square foot lots with eighty-foot widths; R-A requires one acre lots with 150-foot widths. The R-4 setbacks are also slightly smaller. The maximum density is actually 3.3 dwelling units.

Water is readily available for this site. Sanitary sewer will be something of a challenge. The Applicant can pull it from the Haverhill Farms entryway, or they can find an alternate route with the use of an easement. Under the current zoning the property would yield eight dwelling units. Under the proposed zoning, the land would yield 33 dwelling units. The other zoning options that could be considered are R-1, R-2 and R-3.

The Traffic Review provided some comparative trip generations. They had no concern regarding this rezoning request.

Terry Sanford of Nederveld Associates addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. The request is consistent with the Master Plan. They have completed a lot of their due diligence work. Their goal is to develop single family residences consistent with the surrounding area. The rezoning is a necessary step. They have spoken to the Road Commission about the intersection at Welch Road. They are aware of the water main connection. They are working on the sanitary sewer connection. They are completing their wetland and woodland study. Their intention is to build homes consistent with the surrounding area.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Donna McWirter: Concerned that the development was going to be attached condos, not single family. She also wanted the sidewalks connected.

Jeff Nersesson, Haverhill Homeowners Association: Stated that Fourteen Mile is a parking lot at certain times of the day, and he felt that this development would also be an impact on the traffic. He wanted the buffer of trees to remain, but felt that a design connecting to Welch Road would result in the Applicant building amongst the trees.

Milton Dunn, Walden Pond: Said the area is congested, and the traffic will only get worse if this property is developed.

Rita Gayon, Haverhill: Paid $23,000 premium to abut this undeveloped property. The City made her pay $900 to ensure the health of two trees on her property, and now the City is entertaining this request which will result in the trees and animals all being removed. Traffic is also an issue.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing, and asked Member Wrobel to read the correspondence into the record:

Helen Suero, 40604 Kingsley Lane: Objected because there is too much R-4 zoning already and this will cause more congestion.

Lauren Vander, 31088 Columbia Drive: Concerned about the loss of woodland.

Irene Lapinski, 40592 Kingsley Lane: Paid a premium to abut this natural area.

Raymond Little, 303 Shorebrook Lane: Approved as long as appropriate road improvements are provided on Fourteen Mile and Welch Road.

Louis Berlin, 31163 Seneca Lane: Approved of the request.

Brian Carney, 30979 Centennial: Approved of the request.

Phyllis Katz, 31050 Seneca Lane: Approved of a request for single family residences.

Albert Hamel, 30858 Collingdale Drive: Approved of the request.

Fred Boehle, 30764 Tanglewood Drive: Approved because good single family residences are needed in this area.

Alexander Reese, 40699 Kingsley Lane: Objected for traffic and loss of natural features reasons.

Kirstie Brooks, 32935 Copper Lane: Objected for traffic reasons.

Tobie Kuppe, 222 Winding Brook: Objected for traffic reasons.

Kenneth Kuzdak, 41662 Kenilworth Lane: Objected for density and traffic reasons.

Peter Hoadley, 31084 Arlington Circle: Objected for density and traffic reasons.

Jules Goldean, 237 Winslow Circle: Objected because the road should be expanded before this request is considered.

Rick Montes, 41410 Cornell: Objected because he paid a $3000 premium to be near these wetlands.

Georgia Klask, 138 Shorebrook Lane (two letters): Objected for traffic reasons.

George Kalinowski, 40636 Paisley Circle: Objected because the zoning should be the same as his subdivision, which is R-2.

Thomas Nihra, 31211 Kingswood Blvd: Objected and preferred that the land, if rezoned to a higher density, went to R-2.

Alice Kourtjian, 41494 Cypress Way: Objected for traffic and noise reasons.

Steven R. Gabel, 40595 Kingsley Lane: Approved, but suggested that the developer commit to keeping the southerly trees, connecting the sidewalk, cleaning up the property and keeping the design single family homes.

Member Kocan reviewed the Master Plan update from 2004, and found that this change in density on this site was not indicated as a change during the Master Plan review process. She was surprised to see that this property was upgraded in density, from 2.0 to 4.0, from the 1999 Master Plan to the 2004 Master Plan. This concerned her, and now a request has come forward, and she wanted to do the right thing, but she did not agree with the 4.0 density for this site. In order to make use of the Cluster Option, the land must be zoned other than R-A. R-2, like Haverhill, would still allow the use of the Cluster Option.

Member Kocan said that there are considerable woodlands. Though she has not seen a plan, she would expect that these woodlands would be preserved. She was not familiar with the traffic in the area, though a rezoning request to R-2 (not R-4) would cut the amount of traffic in half, from 375 cars per day, to 185 cars per day.

Member Kocan said that the City cannot control what the developer promises to the residents, with regard to adjacent property, but she said that residents do rely on the Master Plan to understand the future use of a property. Member Kocan said this was a very difficult thing to accept. In her opinion, she could not support the R-4, because she did not believe the R-4 was ever discussed at the Planning Commission table when the Master Plan was approved. It may be on the map, but it was not individually discussed. She said some changes to density were made to the Master Plan during the update, with the understanding that the City was trying to minimize density. The boundary of this 4.0 density change actually alters a rectangle of 2.0 density. She could not support the R-4 request.

Member Pehrson asked how R-4 zoning allowed for greater flexibility than R-A. Mr. Schmitt responded that certain development options cannot be applied to R-A. R-A, a product of the 1980s, was intended to create acreage developments. The development options were not applied to this classification. Mr. Schmitt cautioned that these are only "options" and do not necessarily have to be used by the developer. Mr. Schmitt said he could hammer away at why this request makes sense, but if a developer comes in with something that meets the Ordinance under the straight zoning, unfortunately, the higher density had no effect. The other part is that the environmental factors on the site may contribute to the developer’s inability to use the Cluster Option. He did not know whether the site meets the 50% mark. He did not know whether the woodlands could be preserved on this site. Until the actual site plan is underway, Mr. Schmitt said he chose to use soft language.

Mr. Schmitt said he has spoken to Mr. Sanford regarding their siteplanning, but he could not say that an option will be used in his design. He did not know if it was a viable alternative. However, it is not available with the R-A zoning.

Member Pehrson did not support the request, for the reason that he hoped the natural features would be saved, and there is no assurance of this. The Master Plan clearly indicated that this land would someday be used for residential. This debate is on the density. He was troubled because there is no guarantee that preservation of the site is part of this property’s future. Further, he was concerned about adding 375 vehicle trips versus 102 trips. This is a significant change. He has been up and down Fourteen Mile, and questioned whether a signal has ever been considered for this area. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that he knew of no such plan.

Member Pehrson said that the request comes down to density, and he could not support it.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Schmitt to explain the Master Plan process. Mr. Schmitt said that the Master Plan is the vision for the City’s future. It outlines what the City would like to see, at the densities they would like to see it. In reviewing a rezoning request, the Planning Department’s main focus is whether the request compares favorably to the Master Plan. If the Master Plan is not followed, then the Master Plan is weakened over time, and is more subject to questioning and further weakening. In the City’s review of the request, compliance with the Master Plan is the first thing looked at. Mr. Schmitt said that the City reviewed the Master Plan over a span of two years. Mr. Schmitt said that Public Hearings were held at least twice. It went to City Council at least twice. Everyone took a look at it. Changes were made. Ultimately it was adopted by a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission. Notice was sent to every surrounding community. A notice was published in the newspaper several times. Notice was put on the City’s website. There is a website called Novimasterplan.org. It was on the cable access channel as well.

Member Gutman asked Mr. Schmitt to reiterate the zoning information on the property. Mr. Schmitt responded that the land is zoned R-A and is master planned for residential at a density higher than what this Applicant is requesting. Member Gutman asked whether there are requirements before the Planning Commission that, prior to receiving any form of planning, they must approve this request for rezoning. City Attorney David Gillam responded that the issue before the Planning Commission is the request for the rezoning. The Applicant had the option to submit a conceptual plan along with a Planned Rezoning Overlay application if they so chose. Mr. Gillam said that even if a simple concept plan was turned in with this request, the Planning Commission would have to be cautious on how much they relied on that plan when making their decision, because there would be nothing to bind the Applicant to that conceptual plan. The rezoning request needs to be looked at tonight. There are a number of variables associated with development, but those would have to be addressed at a later time.

Member Gutman shared some of his colleagues’ concerns. The request alters the area greater and adds to the congestion. He understood that it was part of the Master Plan. The Planning Commission has obligations with respect to that. He was leaning toward not supporting the request at this time, but wished to hear from the other Planning Commission members.

Member Lipski was struggling with certain issues regarding this request. Planning Commission members have a duty to enforce the zoning laws and to stick with their Master Plan once it is made. The argument against not going with the Master Plan is the City becomes a target for potential causes of action when it is not followed. What Member Lipski was looking for was whether there was anything about this request that is not within the ambits of the Master Plan. Member Lipski said the frustration is that there were Public Hearings on the Master Plan and there was time for input. Everyone is busy, and not every detail is paid attention to – until the detail directly affects the City. The developer’s argument would be that there were chances to object to what was happening on the Master Plan in the past.

Member Lipski thought that everyone on the Planning Commission would like to find a way to alleviate the concerns about the trees. Member Lipski was curious to understand more about the woman’s comment about her bonding two trees for $900. He would consider supporting this request if the Planning Commission is left with no other choice. He did not want to dilute the effectiveness of the Master Plan. His support would be with great hesitation. He would look for a reason not to support the request, if it is at all advisable.

Mr. Gillam responded that the primary factor that should be looked at is what the Master Plan dictates. With that said, the Master Plan is not in and of itself dispositive. He would discourage the Planning Commission against following a course that is entirely at odds with the Master Plan, even if there is a Master Plan designation that is in place with a proposed rezoning. Then, the Planning Commission members should ask themselves, is this the appropriate time? Recognizing that the Master Plan is a vision for the future, as Mr. Schmitt had described, the Planning Commission should consider whether the future is now in terms of this particular request. Are there other things that need to fall into place before this request is considered? Are there infrastructure needs that need to be met? If there are things out there that a Planning Commission member thinks should be in place before a rezoning that is consistent with the Master Plan is justified, then the Planning Commission is justified in going against the Master Plan. Again, the Planning Commission is not saying no, they are saying not yet or not right now.

Member Wrobel thanked Mr. Gillam for his input. He said it helped clarify his position.

Chair Cassis commented to the Applicant that it was obvious what position the Planning Commission was taking. He asked whether the Applicant would accept R-2 zoning. Mr. Sanford responded that because of the acreage of the site, it is not a significant parcel. He looked at the PRO Ordinance. He has discussed different options with Mr. Schmitt. Given the lot sizes, it is physically impossible to develop the site with four units per acre. 3.3 density is not even possible. The smaller lot size gives them the flexibility to get to a density that is compatible with the surrounding area. He is trying to design a cluster. He is evaluating the wetlands and woodlands right now. Those options are available and he is not throwing any of them out. The goal is to develop single family homes that are consistent with the surrounding area. In order to do that, it must be done at a different density. At this time he is in a due diligence period. They knew R-4 is needed so that is what he requested.

Chair Cassis suggested that the Applicant consider R-2, which is compatible with Haverhill. It will keep with the pattern. Mr. Sanford responded that it is compatible but they did use an RUD so it is not compatible. They are not built to the strict R-2. It is not an apple to apple comparison. Mr. Schmitt said it is not a RUD or PUD, it was somewhat of an interim Ordinance. Haverhill has lots between eighty and ninety foot wide, by and large. That makes them about an R-3 or R-4 density. Mr. Schmitt thought the Ordinance had been repealed, and he did not know what option was used.

Member Kocan asked if the density was R-3/R-4, or the lot sizes were R-3/R-4. Mr. Schmitt said the lot sizes were R-3/R-4. Mr. Schmitt thought the density was R-2. Chair Cassis said that is what was reported in his review.

Mr. Sanford said the request before the Planning Commission is R-4, consistent with the Master Plan. They still have a mountain of a site plan process ahead of them. With assurance, he told the Planning Commission that the property would not yield 3.3 units per acre. It would likely yield a number between two and three. With a site of this size, the utility and sidewalk issues must be taken into consideration. Staying consistent with the Master Plan is in their best interest.

Chair Cassis concurred with the other Planning Commission members. He cited the same reasons that the Applicant cited. There are road and traffic issues. There are sidewalk issues. The natural features must be considered. Although there are no site plan issues to discuss at this time, it seemed to Chair Cassis that if Haverhill is two dwellings per acre, then he would lean toward supporting a similar density for this property. He did not support the request.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Claudio Rossi of Mirage Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 26, south of Ten Mile Road, between Meadowbrook Road and the CSX Rrailroad tTracks, in the R-4, One Family Residential District. The Aapplicant is proposing to develop the 9.1 acre parcel for 12 twelve single-family residential site condominiums.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property for the Planning Commission. To the north is Meadowbrook Glens, zoned, zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the south is Orchard Hills Elementary School, zoned R-4 and master planned for an Educational Facility. To the west are the Novi Ridge Townhouses, zoned RM-1 and master planned for Multiple Family Residential. To the east is the rest of the Orchard Hills Subdivision, zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential.

There are regulated woodlands on the property that are being mitigated. There is a large wetland on the property.

The Planning Review recommends approval, subject to a City Council Waiver for the lack of a sidewalk on the south sidewalk on the south side of Doncaster Drive. The Planning Department remains consistent in review of this issue: For a single loaded road the Planning Department will recommend a waiver for the second sidewalk. The Applicant will provide a sidewalk connection to the south, to the schools, consistent with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Applicant is providing sidewalks along each of the single family lots proposed.

The Wetland Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant has virtually avoided all impacts to the wetland. The major impact is for the construction of the boardwalk along Ten Mile. They are avoiding that to the extent that they can.

The Woodland Review does not recommend approval. They have asked for an alternative plan to be considered. They would also like additional grading information.

The Landscape Review indicated there are several waivers, most are due to existing conditions. Along Ten Mile there are three waivers for the Planning Commission to consider. The first is for the berm in the area of the wetland. Secondly, the street tree waiver should be considered. Third, there is a request for a waiver for the plantings in those portions where the wetland is located. The Applicant will put the berm and plantings where he can. A berm waiver is required for the area between this property and the apartment complex. There is a wall in place in part of the area, on the Novi Ridge property. The Applicant is supplementing that wall with screening. A Planning Commission Waiver could be granted for the lack of a berm along the Orchard Hills Elementary School. The Applicant has indicated he will comply with that requirement.

The Traffic Review also noted the need for the sidewalk waiver. This review, The Fire Department Review and the Engineering Review all noted the need for a City Council Waiver for the lack of a secondary point of access, with the cul-de-sac exceeding 800 feet in length. It is noted that only twelve homes, not 24, will be on this road, since it is a single-loaded road.

Claudio Rossi addressed the Planning Commission for Mirage Development. He introduced Rick Hirth of Warner Cantrell, the engineers for the project.

Mr. Rossi said that access to this subdivision is off of Quince Drive, off of Ten Mile, part of the existing Orchard Hills project. This will minimize the impacts to Ten Mile.

No one from the audience wished to speak. Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Susan and Josh Segerstrom, 24277 Kings Pointe: Objected for traffic, wetland, and habitat displacement reasons. There could be flooding of her neighborhood.

Louise A Gregory, 24210 Kings Pointe: Objected for congestion reasons.

Brian White, 41921 Tamara: Objected for the loss of natural features reason.

Walter and Marcella Sobczak, 24248 Hampton Hill: Objected because of the wetland and natural features. It will increase traffic.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Pehrson asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman to comment on the berm waiver requests. Mr. Shipman responded that the waiver around the wetland is a wetland protection measure. The westerly berm could be waived at the desire of the Planning Commission, as the Ordinance allows for existing walls to be used in lieu of the berm. The Applicant has also agreed to landscape the wall area. The southerly berm is required to be a minimum of four feet, six inches. The plan has twenty feet between the road and the property line. They can only provide a three-foot berm. The alternative would be to push the road north, but that encroaches into the wetland. The Planning Department’s position is that it would be more prudent to save the wetland, especially since the road is single loaded. The reduced berm is acceptable, and the Applicant can plant additional material to reach the opacity requirements.

Member Pehrson asked about the woodlands. Woodland Consultant Larry DeBrincat responded that there are some high quality sugar maples in the woodland area, primarily on lots 2, 3 and 4. The highest concentration of the eight-inch trees is on lot 3. The elimination of that lot would preserve some of the higher quality trees.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. DeBrincat about the other lots. Mr. DeBrincat responded that they would like to see the preservation of lots 2, 3 and 4. But, they thought that request went beyond the scope of a reasonable request. If the Applicant is willing to also relinquish the other two lots, that would be desirable.

Member Pehrson said that this represents a savings of 53%, which is significant. Mr. DeBrincat said the 53% is based on the construction of the roads and utilities. Once the homes are built, the percentage will drop. At this point, the Applicant does not have to indicate which trees will be removed for the building of the homes.

Member Pehrson asked whether there were other woodland concerns. Mr. DeBrincat said no. This woodland is rather isolated. Normally, they would look for ways to connect this woodland to another woodland, but the school is already built, as are the neighboring homes and apartments.

Member Pehrson asked Dr. John Freeland, Wetland Consultant, about the wetland. He thought that due care was used in placing the boardwalk. Dr. Freeland responded that the boardwalk will require only minor fill for the pilings. This is the preferred way to cross a wetland. The stormwater calculations indicate that a 100-year event will raise the wetland level 2.5 inches. This is not a significant increase. The hydrology and wetland complex of the area will be maintained. There is a groundwater component that supports the pond. Dr. Freeland did not know if the wetland was excavated during the construction of the road. It is a high quality wetland – with submerged aquatics, water fowl and nice natural features.

Member Pehrson asked about restricting the neighbors’ use of fertilizer. Mr. Schmitt responded that there is an Ordinance in place already. The Master Deed will detail this information. This is a standard City practice.

Member Pehrson asked if the developer has to produce soil borings to ensure that the homes won’t "float." Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the Building Department would review this issue. They review the soil borings from the plan review process, and determine whether there is a need for additional borings. Will special waterproof measures be necessary for the basements? Will subgrade fill have to be replaced?

Member Pehrson was troubled by lots 2, 3 and 4, and he would like to see lot 3 become open space to preserve the sugar maples.

Member Kocan looked at the plan prior to reading the reviews. She looked at lots 3 and 12 and hoped that both of these lots would come off the plan. However, she was more interested in the preservation of lot 3. The Woodland Consultant has commented that with the grading of the site, all woodland areas within the building envelope area will be removed. There is no woodland preservation on these properties at all. If lot 3 is removed, lot 12 gains access to the wetland. That enhances the entire development. She was looking for woodland preservation, and lot 3 is where she would like it.

Member Kocan asked about lot 11. There is a wall rather than a 4.5-foot berm. She calculated that a berm would have a horizontal measurement of thirty-some feet…at least 32 feet. However, there are now only twenty feet between the lot line and the wall. She felt that the same distance of land should still be used in the design of this site. Mr. Shipman responded that the Ordinance states if a wall with effective noise attenuation and opacity exists, to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the waiver can be granted, and there is no mention of the width. The other Ordinance, which refers to natural feature preservation, does mention the width that would be in place with a berm. The Applicant is asking for a waiver from a slightly different section of the Ordinance that does not pertain to the width. It does speak of noise attenuation and opacity. Mr. Shipman said that Member Kocan’s comment was correct, but those are typically due to preservation of the existing woodlands in that area. In this case there is an existing wall that was placed by the multiple family development and it meets the obligation.

Member Kocan asked if Mr. Shipman was comfortable with the landscaping up against the wall. Mr. Shipman said the he Applicant has proposed evergreens. He said he can continue to work with the Applicant. The wall has been there for quite some time. This is a "buyer beware" situation, wherein the people who buy these homes will see the wall and know that it exists prior to their purchase of the lot. Member Kocan’s position was that she wanted the setback area to remain, as though a berm were still there.

Member Kocan appreciated that the woodland preservation percentage previously discussed was further clarified that it did not include the number of trees that would be removed within the building envelopes. She said there is a feasible alternative for the site; it just needs to be tweaked a bit more.

Member Kocan said the Fire Marshal had a question about the length of the cul-de-sac, and whether there should be an emergency access. She understood it was a single-loaded road. She asked that the motion be phrased in such a manner that the Fire Marshal gets the last say on an emergency access added to the plan. Mr. Schmitt responded that an emergency access would require a hole through the aforementioned wall. Ultimately the decision is with City Council. The Fire Marshal is always going to say an emergency access is required for an oversized cul-de-sac. The site is within 200 feet of Ten Mile, and the fact that there are fewer houses on this street than what is typical, does give the Fire Marshal some assurance. The Planning Department would like to continue to review the plan prior to the Applicant going to City Council for the waiver. It would be helpful if the apartment complex would write a letter stating that they do no want this access, and it should be determined whether there are engineering or structural issues that make the emergency access less than feasible. Mr. Schmitt said that the cul-de-sac is very tight.

Member Kocan confirmed that there will be some berming along Ten Mile. Mr. Shipman recommended that the motion indicate that the Applicant must continue working with Staff on the design, to the extent feasible.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Rossi to comment on the issues that were raised at the table. Mr. Rossi said this proposed plan strictly conforms to R-4 zoning – no options were used in its design. The plan is less than half the density of what would be allowed on an R-4 site. This plan has the least amount of impact on the natural features – woodlands and wetlands. If the Planning Commission would like to see other conceptual plans, there are examples prepared by Warner Cantrell, the site engineers. Those plans were too congested. Mr. Rossi was not requesting any more density. They have lost about half of the acreage already, and he would like the approval for twelve home sites.

Chair Cassis said that this Applicant is always trying to accommodate the City’s requests. He asked Mr. Rossi how many trees might be lost because of the lot 3 envelope. Mr. Rossi responded that he is not pre-clearing the lots, he is only clearing for the infrastructure. The number of trees affected by a home depends on which home is selected for lot 3 – or lots 2 or 4, for that matter. Rather than clear-cut, Mr. Rossi is leaving the trees in tact. The future homeowners will pay a lot premium for the woodland privacy. It is to Mr. Rossi’s advantage to leave as many trees as possible to screen off the traffic from Ten Mile. Mr. Rossi said reviewing each site on its own merit is a better plan than clear-cutting.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. DeBrincat about lot 3. Mr. DeBrincat said that lot 3 has the highest quality trees in the woodland. That is why they have suggested the preservation of the site. A preliminary grading plan for that lot indicates that the woodlands would be removed. The grading may be able to be adjusted. Mr. DeBrincat said that the trees on lot 3 seem to be concentrated within the building envelope. There is a five-foot overdig on the basements alone. There must be room for the builders to move their materials around. This results in about a fifteen-foot area of influence beyond the walls of the building.

Chair Cassis said this was a difficult site. The Applicant has tried very hard to work out a way to construct this subdivision in the spirit of a single family home development. He is only proposing twelve homes. He said the plan was compatible to the surrounding area although the multiple to the west isn’t necessarily complementary. Chair Cassis encouraged the Applicant to re-plant trees in exchange for the proposed tree removal. Chair Cassis was inclined to support this configuration.

Member Kocan said that the Applicant was not developing to the total density, because it can’t be done. It is impossible because of the wetlands and natural features. She said that is not an argument. She said the preservation he is proposing is required. She said that the intent and integrity of the Woodland Ordinance must be addressed.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Kocan confirmed with Civil Engineer Ben Croy that the site will be watched closely to ensure that there is no impact on the surrounding development. Mr. Croy responded that the slopes are pretty steep, with the exception of the easterly portion of the site. The increase of the water level by 2.5 inches did not concern Mr. Croy that the neighboring houses would be flooded out during a storm event. Member Kocan asked whether the homes would have walkout basements because of the slopes in the area, but Mr. Schmitt responded that the individual blueprints are not reviewed by the Planning Department. Member Kocan said that the City has to be really careful with walkout basements because of the wetland.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Cassis called for a fifteen minute break.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Bob Porteous of Novi Investment Company for recommendation to City Council for a revised Residential Unit Development plan and phasing plan. The subject property is located in Section 32, north of Eight Mile Road, east of Garfield Road in the R-A, Residential Acreage District. The subject property is approximately 77.37 acres.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth described the ell-shaped property for the Planning Commission. This plan was reviewed on August 21, 2002 at a meeting in which the Planning Commission recommended approval to City Council of the RUD Plan subject to a number of conditions. City Council reviewed the Plan on September 23, 2002 and approved the RUD Plan subject to a number of conditions. Council subsequently approved the RUD Agreement on December 16, 2002, and an Amendment to the Agreement in 2003 for changes relating primarily to a Special Assessment District for sanitary sewer. The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Site Plan for the development in December 2003. The Applicant is now requesting changes to the plan that are considered "major changes" and need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council.

The property is located on the north side of Eight Mile and east of Garfield Road in the southwest corner of the City in Section 32. The property is vacant land once used for farming. There is a large woodland area at the northeast part of the site. To the west is vacant land owned by the Northville School District. To the east is the approved Maybury Park Estates, currently under construction. To the north are single family homes fronting on Garfield Road. To the south, in Northville Township, are single-family homes off of Eight Mile and Westview Rd.

The subject property is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as are the surrounding properties. To the south, in Northville Township, the land is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends residential uses of the site. To the southwest, the property is Master Planned for public uses and is owned by the Northville School District. To the north, the property is Master Planned for public uses.

The approved plan shows the proposed development of a detached Single Family Residential project containing 58 homes. All of the homes are proposed to be detached, non-clustered homes on lots ranging in size from 21,780 square feet to 44,298 square feet, as allowed in the R-A zoning district approved under the RUD section of the Ordinance. Two entrances are proposed on the public street systems: one on Eight Mile and one on Garfield Road. Several parks and recreation areas are proposed for the benefit of the residents, including a large wooded preserve on the north side of the site and natural wetlands area on the east side of the property.

The following four changes are proposed at this time:

A request for gated entrances on both Eight Mile and Garfield Road. The Applicant indicates the subdivision streets will be private.

A request to change Castello Drive to a cul-de-sac court, rather than the full road connection to the adjacent Maybury Park Estates.

A request to break the development into two phases

A request to change the landscaping plan to conform with the above changes.

The Planning Review indicates that The revised RUD and Phasing Plan cannot be recommended, due to the two City Council waivers required for approval:

A City Council Waiver of Subdivision Ordinance Section 4.04.A is required for the lack of an access stub to the Maybury Park Estates stub connection. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends that these street connections be made wherever feasible.

Also, the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to the City Council on the factors and determinations listed in the Ordinance regarding whether the revised RUD plan meets the intent of the RUD ordinance.

The Wetland Review indicates that the non-minor use wetlands permit which was issued previously will not need to be modified based on the proposed changes.

The Woodland Review indicates that the woodland disturbance could be avoided, and modification to the plans is requested at the time of Preliminary Site Plan submittal

The Landscaping Review indicates that there will be items to be addressed on the next submittal of plans.

The Engineering Review also indicated that the Phase One roadway exceeds 1000 feet in length. There is also a need for a City Council Waiver for the required access stubs every 1300 feet around the perimeter of the site, and especially for the lack of the connection with the stub street to the east in Maybury Park Estates.

The Fire Department Review indicates that a City Council Waiver is needed for the access control gates at both access drives.

The Planning Commission is charged with holding the Public Hearing and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for the proposed changes to the RUD plan.

Mr. Joe Galvan addressed the Planning Commission. He said that this plan seeks to change the connection between Tuscany and Maybury into a cul-de-sac. This would eliminate access to this subdivision. The two public access points are now proposed to be gated. This would create a gated community. A phasing plan has also been submitted. They are aware of the engineering comment and they are prepared to put in a temporary access point to Garfield until Phase Two is constructed. Any of the problems cited in the Consultant reviews will be worked on by the Applicant. The two entrance points will be redesigned to provide adequate turning space for vehicles, as would be necessary.

Mr. Galvan said that the issue before the Planning Commission is whether they should recommend favorably or unfavorably to City Council, the granting of the waivers that have been requested. One waiver is from the Subdivision Ordinance for the closure of the access to Maybury. The other waiver is from the Fire Protection Ordinance with respect to the installation of the two gates. This question does not revolve around the five criteria that have already been acknowledged by the approval of the RUD. This request is for modifications to the RUD.

Mr. Galvan has asked the Planning Commission to consider that there a number of gated communities in the City. Bellagio is an example. These Tuscany homes will be of similar quality as Bellagio. The ambience of this subdivision dictates that a gate is a desirable characteristic.

Mr. Galvan cited Churchill Crossing as a subdivision where there is no cross access, approved by City Council at the request of the homeowners who live in that area. His point was the notion of a gated community is not foreign to the policy of the City of Novi. In this particular case, there is an extensive woodland area that would remain a single natural feature if the connection was removed. He said that was an important notion to consider.

Mr. Galvan said he would not bore the Planning Commission with marketing comments regarding the gated community aspect. There are people who wish to purchase homes in gated communities. That demand is a niche that the City, in the past, has recognized, and Mr. Galvan wished for the City to recognize it in this case.

Mr. Galvan said that by making the streets private, the cost of maintenance of those streets is removed from the citizenry as a whole. There are good and sufficient reasons for this approval to be recommended. If the two waivers are granted, the plan could be recommended. Mr. Galvan said that this Planning Commission either believes the City Council should grant the waivers, or they believe that they should not. That is the issue before the Planning Commission. He respectfully asked them to tell City Council that the waivers should be granted.

Chair Cassis turned the matter over to the Planning Commission, closing the Public Hearing, after determining that no one from the audience wished to speak, and there was no correspondence to share. Later in the meeting, an oversight was noted, that a letter from Rick Genrich, developer of Maybury Park Estates, was received by the City. Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Rick Genrich, 1330 Goldsmith: Stated that they, too, expressed interest in having a gated entry for Maybury Park Estates but the City did not approve that plan. Many of their potential buyers have expressed interest in having a gated entrance. He said that if this request is approved for Tuscany, they would like to move as quickly as possible with the Planning Department and Engineering Department on a plan for a Maybury Park Estates gated access.

Member Kocan sat on the Planning Commission when the plan was first reviewed in 2002. There was considerable discussion about the gates and the connection at that time. The Planning Commission’s rationale at that time is still applicable today. The RUD is an option that allows for variations such as lot size reduction for increased preservation. There are decreased costs due to preservation, because there is no payment for the removal of trees. The Applicant is allowed to design smaller lots. There were a number of considerations with regard to the number of lots, but the underlying rationale is that the intent of the Ordinance, which is to preserve the rural community character. That is something that the Planning Commission has tried to do. There is also supposed to be a benefit to the City of Novi, not just to Tuscany Reserve. Member Kocan said with that the gated entrance, there is no longer the feel of the rural community. That is one of the main reasons, but is not the only reason, that Member Kocan cannot support the request.

Member Kocan said that this position was agreed by the Planning Commission and echoed by the City Council. Integrity of the Ordinances was very important to Planning Commission City Council. In December 2002 this Applicant also asked for a change to the RUD, on which the City Council ruled unanimously. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Preliminary Site Plan in December 2003, without the gated entrance and with the connection to the adjacent property. Going to back to the gated access, there is a Fire Protection Ordinance. It requires that there not be gated accesses. With regard for health, safety and welfare, the connection to Maybury is required by Section 4.04a of the Subdivision Ordinance. This is a considerably deep property. The RUD was meant to provide a benefit to the City, not just Tuscany, and therefore the access between Maybury and Tuscany was considered important. The Design and Construction Standards, 11-194, states that a secondary access point shall be provided for an R-A development with an RUD.

Member Kocan said that the Planning Commission’s charge is to uphold the Ordinance as much as possible, and to make recommendations to City Council on the Ordinances. That is what drives Member Kocan’s position. She disapproved of the gated access and the secondary access in 2002, and she saw no reason to change her position.

Member Kocan said that with regard to the Maybury stub, the change is not supported by Engineering. They also require emergency access connection. Maybury subdivision has shown on their plans this same roadway network. They are also an RUD. The other examples presented by Mr. Galvan were not RUDs. They do not have secondary access because the subdivisions around them are thirty and forty years old. These two subdivisions are being developed at the same time.

Member Kocan appreciated the argument regarding the designation of private roads, which the City does not take lightly. Again, she was more driven by the Ordinance which, in this case, the items are specifically for health, safety and welfare. If the Planning Commission recommends denial to City Council, there would be no landscaping changes that would need to be made at this time. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman agreed. The subject plan proposes a cul-de-sac island. There are no changes in the gate area. There is already a structure on the outside, and they are inserting a median piece to which the gates would be attached.

Member Kocan asked about the phasing plan and whether it was as important if the stub road request was denied. Ms. McBeth said those requests were independent of each other.

Member Kocan saw no reason to change the plan from its already approved plan. She cautioned that a number of items would need to be changed if City Council approved the gate and the stub.

Member Lipski was in favor of property owners’ rights to privacy, whether it is based on a delusion of persecution or their need for privacy in light of their status as a public figure. Member Lipski asked Mr. Galvan to discuss the possible treatments that could be provided on a gated access that might satisfy the concerns of the Fire Marshal. He called upon Member Pehrson to share comment as well, acknowledging his experience as a fireman.

Mr. Galvan said that all safety issues could be worked out in the design and mechanisms of the gates. The basic notion in the Fire Marshal’s letter cites the need for the waiver from City Council. This Applicant has to design a system that provides for immediate access for emergency vehicles – either a key system or system that responds to alarms. There are a panoply of needs to do what is necessary to make the access points work. The Applicant will address all of the comments in the review letters. The Applicant has no desire to create a monster.

Mr. Galvan said that the temporary road will be built to accommodate the phasing plan. That will not be an issue. Mr. Galvan continued that the votes on the gated entries were split at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels.

Mr. Galvan said that the Master Plan to connect streets between subdivisions has not been followed.

Mr. Galvan reiterated that they would design a gated access that answered any safety concerns. The Planning Commission needs to let City Council know what their position is on the request.

Member Pehrson said that the idea for stub roads makes sense to address congestion and they provide for traffic flow throughout the City. This is a safety issue. The Planning Commission ensures with Applicants that their plans provide for some type of interconnection. He was unwilling to back down from that position. He would not care whether this was a mobile home site or a Bellagio-style subdivision, the access points serve a purpose.

Member Pehrson will never be in favor of a gated entry. He said that there are things that will help the emergency vehicles gain access, but remembering a key or password or finding a hidden button, all within the critical response time, eats up crucial time. He was not a big believer of gated communities. He would not support this request.

Chair Cassis loves gated communities. He admires the look of a gated development. He has yet to hear of safety problems at Bellagio. The Applicant has expressed his willingness to work with the Fire Marshal to ensure easy access. He is willing to change with the times, though he considers himself conservative. When there is demand, and a change to the way people live and what they ask for, he asked who he was, to deny this request. He agreed, there is a standing Ordinance. Is it time to change it? Maybe. These are homes in a development that is a pinnacle of this community. The homeowners pay big taxes.

Chair Cassis noted that Mayor Csordas also loves gated communities, and on page four of the City Council minutes from 2002, there are some of the Mayor’s words of wisdom, explaining his support for that design. This is an issue of preference. Chair Cassis respected his colleagues and their opinions. These homeowners will be paying big taxes. If people don’t want to be in a gated community, they will not be forced to live there. If the subdivision changes its mind later on, they can hire a handyman to remove them.

Chair Cassis liked the idea that the City would be relieved from maintaining those streets. Their responsibility would fall upon those homeowners. Chair Cassis acknowledged the problems associated with Novi’s public streets.

Chair Cassis said that there are several access points into Maybury Park Estates. Those access points are for the benefit of those homeowners. This concept could make the situation worse – having one subdivision’s homeowners driving through another subdivision to gain access to the surface streets. That is more complicated.

Chair Cassis said that Mr. Galvan has committed the Applicant to putting the access in place as the phasing goes on. Phasing does not alter the entire plan. It is a logistical thing. The end result will be the same.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Ms. McBeth informed the Planning Commission about that the Fire Marshal’s comment regarding this road. It should be an all-weather road base capable of supporting 35 tons, connecting to Garfield Road in Phase Two during Phase One construction and that a bond be established to pay an amount equal to the remaining construction, in case, for some reason the road doesn’t get constructed, the bond would be available to complete that project. Member Kocan and Member Pehrson agreed to the language.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of John Houser of Singh Development for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property located in section 20, south of Eleven Mile Road and west of Beck Road, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to R-1, One Family Residential, with a Planned Rezoning Overlay. The site is approximately 38.86 acres and the aApplicant is proposing 58 dwelling units.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project for the Planning Commission. It is approximately a quarter mile west of the Beck Road intersection. It is zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the south and east is the former Bosco Farm, which is currently owned by the Novi Community schools (zoned R-A and master planned for Educational Facilities consistent with their ownership). Further south is Kirkway Place, which is zoned R-1. To the west are the International Transmission Company’s high tension lines, master planned as a Utility Corridor. To the north are the proposed Pontifical Institute for Foreign Missions and several single family homes that front Eleven Mile, zoned R-3 and master planned for Single Family Residential. The Master Plan density for these residential sites is 1.65, consistent with the R-1 zoning.

There are wetlands on the site, and a large amount of floodplain on the property. There are a large amount of woodlands on the property, mostly on the southern portion of the site.

The Applicant is requesting to rezone the property to R-1, which is consistent towith the surrounding character. The Planning Department supports this request, as it is in compliance with the Master Plan. Mr. Schmitt noted that Eleven Mile was redesignated in the 2004 Master Plan as a Residential Collector Road. The uses allowed in R-A and R-1 are similar; the main difference is lot size (one acre vs. one-half acre, respectively) and lot width (150 feet vs. 120 feet, respectively). Setbacks are also slightly different. R-A is a density of .8, with which this property would yield up to 28 dwelling units. R-1 would allow a density of 1.65 units per acre, or 58 dwelling units.

The Engineering Review and Traffic Review have comments that they see no real problems with the requested rezoning.

The Planned Rezoning Overlay was also reviewed. The Wetland, Woodland, Landscaping, Traffic and Engineering Reviews do not recommend approval of the concept site plan at this time. A Preliminary Site Plan will be subject to additional review.

The Planning Review does not recommend approval for three reasons. Section 3402 requires the Applicant to show an enhanced land development compared to the underlying zoning (R-1). In this case, the land will not be enhanced, in comparison to a typical R-1 project. Second, the Applicant is required to show a substantial public benefit. At this time the Planning Department does not feel that one has been demonstrated, that would address the needs of the third issue - the substantial Ordinance deviations being requested. The Applicant has asked to be reviewed under the Cluster Option. As part of this Option, there are several deviations that would need to be written into the PRO. The Applicant has not maintained over 50% of the site in its natural state, to qualify under Section 2403.2. After development and restoration, the Applicant will have attained the 50%, but that is counting areas that would not otherwise be counted toward the Cluster requirement. The Planning Department questions whether the site even qualifies for the Cluster Option.

There is also a setback issue. The Applicant is proposing 15 feet of setback between buildings. Typically, one would find fifty feet between buildings of four-unit clusters. There is no clustering of the units. The variance the Applicant is seeking eliminates the side yard setback issue.

Staff would recommend the waiving of stub streets to the neighboring parcels, in light of the floodplains on the site. This would preserve more wetlands and woodlands.

The Applicant originally had plans to impact the woodlands in the southwest portion of the site. Subsequently, the Applicant removed the problematic cul-de-sac and submitted this plan.

The Planning Commission must decide whether the PRO is acceptable in its current state. The Applicant, in their proposal, has indicated that they have limited their impact to the core habitat area, which is located on this property as well as the Providence property and the Bosco Ppropertiesy. They state that they are preserving more than 50% of the open space, although the Planning Department cannot substantiate this statement.

The Applicant proposes to create 3.5 acres of wetlands to compensate the wetland impacts that they have planned. This is a 35:1 ratio. There is very little wetland impact at this time. They are proposing strategically located woodland replacements and stream bank enhancement plantings throughout the preserved area. They are providing a compensatory cut for the floodplain fill that they are proposing. The layman’s explanation of this is, there are floodplains on the site that they are filling to provide areas to build houses. The Applicant is now proposing to overexcavate the wetland area that already exists on the site, which will provide some floodwater attenuation and stormwater management for upstream properties. As it exists, it is just a floodplain. There is no stormwater management. In some ways, the Applicant is providing additional cubic feet of water volume storage on the site.

The Applicant is proposing private roadways throughout the development. The Applicant has stated that they are proposing a density below the Master Plan density, though the Planning Department sees where they are proposing the same as the Master Plan.

The Applicant would have to assemble three parcels for this project. There is a twenty acre parcel, a ten acre parcel and an 8.3 acre parcel.

Section 3402.d.2 requiresdiscusses the "Applicant Burden;" the language is very specific. The Applicant must demonstrate that the project is substantially better than what could otherwise be otherwise developed in the R-1 zoning, and that there is a public benefit being provided.

John Houser from Singh Development addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the current owners of the three parcels are long term residents of the City. Ms. Kalousny has been a resident here for eighty years. The other two owners – the Gannons and the Chapels – have each been here for forty plus years.

Singh began their due diligence on this site in November of 2004. The woodland and wetland surveys indicated that the site is burdened quite heavily with natural features and floodplains and floodways. Additionally the area is considered a Priority Two natural habitat, though a majority of this area is south of the property.

Mr. Houser said that they met with the City in February and went through the pre-application process. They went to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting. That meeting was favorable. They discussed the PRO concept at that time, though they hadn’t focused on that at the time. They were looking for direction from the City. The City Manager’s Office made it clear to them that traditional Development Agreements would not be considered any longer. The PRO was the direction that the Applicant should take.

Singh’s desire is to develop the property and preserve as many of the natural features as possible. The plan is surrounded by the natural features. The area of development may have been a pasture, grazed by animals. The open area is in the center, which controlled the design.

Singh felt that it was important to have a frame of reference for this proposal. By starting with the Cluster Option, the philosophical direction of which is preservation, they had a point from which to begin. Singh then used it as a loose framework. A qualifying condition is for the Applicant to preserve existing natural features. Their deviation is that a portion of impacted woodlands and wetlands would be recreated in areas where they currently do not exist, above and beyond what would traditionally be required. The end result would be 54% natural features. They would put this land in a conservation easement to secure the land.

Another deviation that Singh is requesting is how they are choosing to relate the units to each other. Classic Cluster Option would be attached units with a certain space between buildings. Or, the units could be detached, with as little as six feet from each other. Singh felt that it was better to centralize the development area on the site for maximum preservation.

Since their plan does not meet the Cluster Option exactly, they are seeking the PRO as well. There is some flexibility in the PRO to grant deviations. These deviations are reasonably offset by the benefits proposed.

Mr. Houser said he met with Doris Hill of Vilican Leman, the City’s Woodland Consultant, and subsequently they eliminated a cul-de-sac. Ms. Hill felt the road was intrusive.

Mr. Houser indicated that the land should yield 59.75 units, and they are proposing 58. He also said that in five or ten years the additional wetlands and woodlands will have blended into the site. He reiterated their willingness to put the land in a conservation easement.

Mr. Houser explained that they are proposing 3.5 additional acres of high-quality wetland east of the Tributary C Novi-Lyon Drain. Their floodplain compensation will be on this side, and they will also enhance the plantings along the newer stream. The stormwater will be wiggled around in the area to increase its time of flow to improve the water quality. There is a thirty-inch pipe that runs along Eleven Mile, which has a drainage area of seventy acres. The extra volume that Singh is proposing meets the 100-year flood event for thatthose seventy acres.

Mr. Houser reminded the Planning Commission that the roads would be private. Mr. Houser said that Singh would also be willing to put the sidewalk in along the ITC Corridor.

Chair Cassis asked what would happen to the site’s density if the homes were clustered traditionally. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Applicant would lose twelve homes. Mr. Houser said that with a true Cluster Option, they would not be able to centralize the design to minimize natural feature impact.

Chair Cassis asked Member Wrobel to read the correspondence into the record:

Ronald Odenwald, 25825 Sierra: Objected for reasons of density and loss of natural features.

Gertrude Free, 25885 Sierra Drive: Approved of project.

Barbara Gannon, 47515 W. Eleven Mile: Approved of project, citing the natural feature preservation and use of the land for residential.

Robert Gannon, 47515 Eleven Mile: Approved of the layout.

Lois LeBlanc, 48801 W. Eleven Mile: Approved of Singh’s quality work.

Chris King, 48600 Eleven Mile: Approved of the development as an enhancement to the community.

Michele King, 48600 Eleven Mile: Approved of the residential use of the property.

Martin LeBlanc, 48801 W. Eleven Mile: Approved and felt that the City should not interfere with plans.

Edith Roszak, 25750 Beck Road: Approved of the plan.

Mohamad Hage, 24333 Woodham: Objected for density reasons.

Greg Gallo, 48000 Eleven Mile: Objected for the reason that project could affect drainage and wells on neighboring parcels. The area is too congested.

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

Member Kocan asked about the setbacks and "lot sizes." Mr. Schmitt responded that the proposed configuration would be akin to "R-6" – 70 foot wide lots, 90-110 feet deep. The Cluster Option allows for setback measurement to be at back of curb instead of center of ROW. This plan meets the Cluster Option front yard setbacks. There is a benefit of about eleven feet by measuring setbacks in this manner. The caveat is that they must be private streets.

Member Kocan said that a PRO allows the developer to write a development agreement. She has a problem with any developer that comes forward thinking that they can develop every inch of a piece of property. She is looking for reasonable development. She must apply the Ordinance consistently on all project reviews. She said that the Applicant only meets the number of lots. The Applicant does not meet with any of the Ordinance stipulations for the Cluster Option. The Cluster Option provides for a visual break. This subdivision doesn’t do that. She said it looked like the Applicant tried to force in the number of the lots.

Member Kocan said that the Cluster Option requires 50% preservation of natural features, and she said the Applicant’s plan does not preserve natural features. Their plan creates some, and she applauds them for that, but that is not the intent of the Ordinance. Member Kocan asked if it is possible to create something as impressive as
what is being removed. Dr. John Freeland, Wetland Consultant, responded that the proposed impact to two small isolated scrub shrub wetlands – less than 4/100ths of an acre – would be mitigated by creating a wetland in the floodplain. This would provide compensatory cut and storage volume. If the mitigation is done well, it is a big plus for the wetlands.

XXXXX

Doris Hill, Woodland Consultant, responded that the easterly finger of woodlands that is being impacted is an old planted hedgerow. It is nice and consists of is mature trees, however this site contains one of the City’s two Priority Two Habitats. This means that the area has open space, woodlands, wetlands, etc. It allows for a diverse flora and fauna. She applauded the Applicant for removing the cul-de-sac that would have obliterated this core habitat area. The westerly woodlands cannot be recreated by replanting. It would take a long time to bring a woodland to fruition. The trees along the west are really nice. She would prefer to leave the trees in place until such time that the actual building would take place. She also hesitated to comment further until an actual Preliminary Site Plan (not a concept plan) with grading and utility information was submitted. She said that the Applicant has been diligently working with them on this plan.

Member Kocan said that the intent and integrity of the Ordinance must be upheld. Without being consistent in the application of the Ordinance, the City is losing control over what it is being requested by the next Applicant. The density does fall under the maximum density, but the number provided is not a guaranteed number. No property yields a guaranteed number – it depends on the natural features. Based on these issues, and the lack of distance between homes, Member Kocan could not support this concept plan. She could support an actual Cluster Option design. She looked at the Kirkway Place development and noted that on that site there is considerable preservation. There is more space between homes.

Member Pehrson had an issue with the traffic study. Mr. Schmitt responded that the date on the study is April 2005. Member Pehrson said that Eleven Mile is a two-lane 30 mph road, now deemed a Residential Collector Road. It has been rated a "C" for traffic Level Of Service, which represents an average wait time and annoyance factor. As he read further into the study, he noted that Section 4.3 reduces the LOS to a "D" level. At this time, Catholic Central was not even open. Now Member Pehrson must also consider Sam’s Club and the Providence expansion. He said that residents of this subdivision will not be able to traverse freely during a.m. and p.m. peak traffic period times without a signal. Member Pehrson said that Eleven Mile backs up for those drivers trying to get onto Beck Road. He felt the Traffic Study was outdated, and he couldn’t support that.

Member Pehrson also remembered talking to Ms. Hill, the Woodland Consultant, about the core habitat. He recalled that this land is part of the habitat’s migration pattern. He appreciated that the Applicant is trying to preserve the existing woods, but the condition is not helped with all of those homes proposed on the west side. He also didn’t think that the Applicant could add trees to the site and call it a forest. He felt that more work was necessary for this review – more traffic information especially. He also didn’t think the City should deviate from the Ordinance. He would likely prefer a Cluster Option.

Member Wrobel echoed Member Pehrson’s comments. He felt the traffic study should include the hospital and the new high school.

Chair Cassis confirmed that these lots are designed at about seventy feet wide. George Norberg of Atwell Hicks said they are detached condos. The rear setbacks are 35 feet minimum. He said that the houses are 55 feet deep, and the front yard setback is about thirty feet, so the depth is about 120 feet deep.

Chair Cassis asked what the Applicant would do if this plan was not approved. Mr. Houser said that Singh would have to review the economics of the site before going forward. He said that some of the benefits that this plan provides would be removed on a new plan. He said a new plan would sprawl the houses over more land, pushing them into the woodlands.

Chair Cassis asked Mr. Schmitt to respond. Mr. Schmitt said that he would not design this site with a Cluster Option, because this site does not qualify for the Cluster Option. He said a new plan using one of the other options would yield less homes. He agreed with Mr. Houser that developing this site becomes a question of economics. The property, without variances, cannot be developed using the Cluster Option, unless the Applicant can demonstrate that over half of the site consists of unbuildable soils. The Applicant could look at the Open Space Preservation Option. The Applicant would have to introduce lots with dimensional requirements.

Mr. Schmitt continued that although he did not know how extensive the floodplain was on this site, there is a lot of floodplain. The Applicant will have to raise the site a lot to fill in the floodplain. Mr. Schmitt said that 58 lots is the maximum density for this site, factoring out the wetlands and right of ways. The struggle here is whether the Ordinance deviations are appropriate in order to meet the Master Plan density. Mr. Schmitt said that a traditional development with the Preservation Option is a viable alternative. He would need to know a lot more information before he could ascertain what this option might yield in terms of homesites.

Chair Cassis struggled with whether this plan should be considered in light of the Wetland and Woodland Consultants expressing thanks to the Applicant for their design. In terms of traffic, Chair Cassis questioned whether everyone else should be allowed to come into this area, yet this Applicant is questioned about his traffic. He conceded that this plan would increase traffic, and traveling would become more complicated.

Chair Cassis said the PRO could be used to design a plan to improve the wetlands and woodlands – even improve them – thereby improving the community. This is a benefit. Chair Cassis wondered if a traditional development would yield the same number of homesites, but destroy more of the natural features.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Kocan wondered whether the Applicant would prefer to have this request postponed in order to give more time to the planning of the site. Mr. Houser said that they would prefer that the Planning Commission action be taken this evening.

There were no Matters for Consideration.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained to the Planning Commission that Citizen’s Bank recently opened. The Planning Commission granted two waivers, and the ZBA granted a variance for the loading zone. Mr. Schmitt noted that the Ordinance has been updated such that banks will no longer be required to provide a loading zone. Mr. Schmitt continued that the Planning Commission granted a Section Nine Façade Waiver, and he showed the Planning Commission pictures of the new building. A waiver for the berm was approved in light of the existing grades. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department will periodically bring updates to the table on various projects.

Member Wrobel noted that this building does not blend with the other buildings in the area, and this should be considered when approving buildings in the future. He said this building looked like a White Castle.

Member Kocan added that white buildings do jump out, and that perhaps tan would be a better choice.

Member Gutman said that he liked this building, and he commended Citizen’s on their design.

Chair Cassis thought that it was the bank’s position to make their building white in order to stand out and attract business. Chair Cassis said that the area would be monotonous to have strictly red brick buildings. He also said that more developers are adding more glass to their architectural designs.

Member Lipski suggested that future Planning Commission meetings should not be scheduled on the eves of Jewish holidays, noting that the October 12, 2005 falls on the eve of Yom Kippur.

Member Kocan confirmed that there is a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting scheduled for September 29, 2005 at 6:30 p.m.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson,

The meeting adjourned at 11:26 p.m.

WED 10/04/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 10/10/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/12/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 10/17/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 10/17/05 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

MON 10/24/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/26/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 11/1/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 11/09/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

FRI 11/11/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

* Actual language of motions subject to review.

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, October 12, 2005 Signature on File

Approved: October 26, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date