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

Present: Members, Victor Cassis, David Lipski, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson

Absent: John Avdoulos (excused), Andrew Gutman (excused), Lynn Kocan (excused), Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Jason Myers, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director; Doris Hill Hills, Landscape and Woodland Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

Attendees of the meeting recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth referred to a memo that was included in the Planning Commission packet. The Planning Commission’s CIP Committee (Members Gutman, Pehrson and Kocan) met with Finance Director Kathy Smith-Roy. The intent is for the Planning Commission CIP members to meet with the City Council CIP members sometime near the end of February to discuss the rankings of the various CIP projects.

Member Pehrson is the Chair of the Planning Commission CIP Committee. He explained to the Planning Commission that the Committee went through the rankings as they were presented by Ms. Smith-Roy and were already reviewed by the City’s various department heads. Not all department comments have been collected as of yet for review by the City Manager. The Committee did make a few suggestions regarding the ranking of the items, none of which changed the balance as proposed by the department heads. The suggestions were made based on reasons of practicality.

Member Pehrson said that the next step would be for the Planning Commission to collectively review the information and provide input. The CIP members will then carry the information forward to the joint CIP meeting.

Chair Cassis said that some of the suggestions were:

1. A discussion about left turns in the area of Meadowbrook Commons.

2. Various sidewalk issues.

3. A discussion of Lakeshore Park’s asphalt.

Member Meyer said that he was concerned that a no left turn at Meadowbrook Commons could create a challenge for senior citizens. He suggested that a dialogue be opened with some of the Meadowbrook Commons seniors about this matter. He did not know whether he agreed that the traffic was so busy in the area that left turns should be prohibited. He thought the new light at Cherry Hill would help control the area’s traffic to some extent.

Chair Cassis further commented that he wondered whether the Cherry Hill light was really even warranted. Chair Cassis thought that traffic lights was a topic that City Council had mentioned could be discussed between the two bodies, and Chair Cassis suggested that the City should be very deliberate in their review of traffic light needs. He did cite the traffic light at the post office as a great addition to the City.

Member Lynch asked about the "No Left Turn" comment regarding the West Market Square Beck Road entrance. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that as part of the Beck Road interchange project, the approved "No Left Turn" sign was removed and not replaced. The pork chop island prohibits left turns, and there is a concrete center median that is in the way. Mr. Coburn said that the sign should be replaced because the intent is to forewarn drivers that they will not be able to make a left turn.

The Planning Commission and City Council CIP members will meet in February, and the matter will be brought back to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing on March 8, 2006.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that at the last City Council meeting, the second readings were approved for both the Subdivision text amendment and the Landbanking text amendment.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Jeff James of SMJ Marketing for recommendation to City Council of the Preservation Option Concept Plan, and Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approvals. The subject property is located in Section 35, west of Meadowbrook and north of Eight Mile, in the R-1, One-Family Residential District. The Applicant proposes a 13-lot single-family development on 9.3 acres.

Planner Mark Spencer described the property as being 600 feet west of Meadowbrook Road adjacent to the north side of Eight Mile. This is a revised Preliminary Site Plan and Concept Plan proposing the Preservation Option. To the north and west are Country Place Condominiums, zoned RM-1, Multi Family Residential. To the north is the Pine Hollow Subdivision, zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. To the east are Mirabella Estates (formally Meadowbrook 8) site condominium and one home, zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. To the south are single family homes zoned R-1 and R-2 in Northville Township. The subject property currently has two homes that are slated for removal. The Master Plan recommends Single Family Residential for the area, and Multiple Family Residential to the west.

There are regulated wetlands on the southerly portion of the site, though they are not identified on the City’s wetland map. There are regulated woodlands on the site as well. The review of this plan was postponed from an earlier Planning Commission meeting in order to give the Applicant time to address his connectivity options with his neighbors. There is a cross access easement in place on the Mirabella property. This Applicant has now relocated his access to meet Mirabella’s easement.

With the Preservation Option, the Applicant is permitted to reduce lot areas and widths. The Applicant is proposing to save 5% of the site’s natural features in exchange for lot reductions equaling 5%. The Planning Commission would typically make their recommendation on the Concept Plan before taking action on a Preliminary Site Plan. Since this plan is a revised plan and has been previously reviewed by the Planning Commission, and given the fact that this Applicant has been working extensively with the City to address concerns relating to this project, the Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission make a positive recommendation on the Concept Plan and, if they find the site plan to be acceptable, take action on the Preliminary Site Plan as well, subject to City Council’s approval of the Concept Plan. The City Attorney’s office has agreed that this course of action would be acceptable. This would expedite the Applicant’s process.

Several of the reviews do not recommend approval, but Staff would recommend approval if the Applicant is granted waivers and he corrects several outstanding items.

The intent of the Preservation Option is to offer an incentive to preserve regulated woodlands and locally important plant or animal habitat. It is the further intent of the option not to increase the number of lots permitted. The Preservation Option in R-1 permits a reduction in minimum lot area of 18,000 square feet, with a minimum lot width of 110 feet, subject to a maximum reduction equal to the calculated Preservation Credit Percentage. The Preservation credit areas can be regulated woodlands, wetland buffers, quality wetlands of less than 2 acres, or locally important plant or animal habitat; Credit areas do not include lot areas, storm water retention or detention areas.

The Applicant proposes preserving 0.53 acres (5.69% of site) of regulated woodland in the northwest corner and wetland buffer areas located in common element areas. This entitles him to reduce the lot areas and lot widths by 5.69% for a minimum lot area of 20,541 square feet and lot width of 113.17 feet

There was an initial concern that the buffer may be in a drainage easement, but it has been determined that the buffer is not in an easement at this time.

Other preservation areas proposed include a 35-foot strip along the west property line and a 15-foot strip along the east property line. These are non-qualifying areas because they are in individual lots. The Planning Department has suggested that a Conservation Easement be placed on the triangle in the corner because it is an open space area proposed to remain open anyway.

Mr. Spencer said that the Preservation Option requires submittal of a Bona Fide Plan using conventional requirements. The Planning Department believes the original submittals of this plan could be used as the Bona Fide Plan. With some tweaking, that plan was approvable. The Bona Fide Plan is used to determine the number of lots. This proposal is designed with the same number of lots as the previously submitted plans.

The Planning Commission could recommend approval to the City Council of the Concept Plan with a finding that all of the following requirements of Section 2401.4 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Mr. Spencer briefly described these requirements. The use of the Option will result in a more pleasing and desirable layout than could be obtained with conventional development means. The use will not cause a detrimental impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The project is not a continuation or phase of another development. The use of the Option will result in a substantial preservation of regulated woodlands, locally important small wetlands or animal/plant habitat than would not be possible with bona fide conventional requirements. Use of the Option would be subject to the Applicant providing a mechanism to permanently preserve the preservation areas and obtaining all necessary environmental permits. The Applicant has indicated he would place the easements on the conservation areas.

Mr. Spencer said that while most Ordinance requirements are met, there are some deficiencies. A City Council Variance is necessary for the lack of stub streets to all neighboring properties. Staff supports this request for a variance because none of the neighboring properties provided a place for that stub street. The Applicant must provide more than one point of access to the development unless access to each lot is less than 800 feet from the access point of the development. Lots 7 and 8 are over 900 feet from Eight Mile. The emergency access connection proposed through an access easement to Mirabella Estates should satisfy that requirement. The Applicant must provide paving details for this access. The Applicant will also be submitting the proposed Conservation Easement with the next submittal.

Staff also supports the Applicant’s request for a Planning Commission Waiver of the landscaped berm on the west boundary, provided that opacity requirements are met with supplemental screening.

A Planning Commission Waiver of the landscaped berm on the north boundary is supported by Staff if opacity is met without interfering with the City’s sanitary sewer. There may be some tweaking of the plan that could further improve the opacity.

A Planning Commission Waiver of the Eight Mile ROW berm and street tree requirements east of entrance is also requested, supported by Staff due to grade changes and wetlands in the area. The site goes down into a deep hole along the right-of-way. A Planning Commission Waiver to permit additional planting along the Eight Mile ROW is also supported by Staff, but is subject to Wayne County approval.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for comment:

Jim Roedersheimer, 41721 Onaway Drive: Represented Country Place. He has been following the approval process of this project. He was pleased with the review. He recalled that the stub road was not a requirement on the Mirabella property. He thought that the plan would be better if the road was only 800 feet long. The Preservation Option would then provide a significant amount of credit space. This is the most densely treed area. He thought some of the westerly screening was questionable. He thought that the screening along the northerly property line would be a challenge in light of the sanitary sewer easement.

Jeff James addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Dino Lekas from JJR, Landscape Architects, and Andy Schripsema from Warner, Cantrell and Padmos Engineering. The site has been re-engineered to address the access drive connection. The new plan provides more open space, as requested by the Planning Commission.

Mr. James said that the Ordinance calls for a berm between this property and Country Place, which would strip this area of its trees. This plan preserves these trees, some of which are of great value. The area will be supplemented. The plan is to create a boundary of plantings and preservation area. This would include the area between lots 6 and 7. Mr. James thought this was the best possible plan and he agreed to continue to work with the City on the plan for the minor adjustments necessary for Final Site Plan submittal.

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

Sopia Hokawala, 20840 East Glen Haven: Thought the plan would increase her property value.

Harry Robins, 20958 East Glen Haven: Approved of the plan.

Linda Clausen, 20844 East Glen Haven: Objected because she thought the City was becoming overdeveloped. It would increase population, density, and would decrease the character of the City. Too many trees are being torn down.

Sandra Steffke, 41757 Onaway Drive: Objected because the site is recognized as woodlands. She did not think the increase in density warranted the removal of these trees.

Philip Laar, 21051 East Glen Haven: Objected because he would prefer the land to remain undeveloped.

Joanne and Arden McClure, 41765 Onaway: Objected because the woods need to be saved.

Amelia Griffin, 21136 East Glen Haven: Objected because of the proximity to Country Place, and the trees and woodlands would be stripped.

Diana Klawitter, 41767 Onaway: Objected because she thought the area was protected. Natural features are part of the natural water management system.

Baul Bauman, Vistal Homes, 46870 Seven Mile, Northville: Stated that the access easement placement north of lot 6 was acceptable to them (they are the adjacent landowner). He was not in a position to grant a water easement at this time but agreed to continue negotiations.

Chair Cassis asked about the negotiations between these two landowners. Mr. James replied that he has not reentered negotiations with them. He redesigned his plan to meet the City-approved Mirabella plan specifications for the emergency access easement. Mr. James said that he has not negotiated any water easements with Vistal. He was leery about negotiating this aspect with them. Mr. James was prepared to run the line under the access drive and stub it at the property line. If they want to tie into the line there, and if the City wants to enter into negotiations at that time, it would be fine with Mr. James. The subject plan proposes a different loop from Eight Mile that comes in under 800 feet. This, and the stub to the property line, are the two options Mr. James was willing to consider. Mr. James said that he did not want to get involved in extravagant negotiations with this landowner again. He did not think he should have to be involved with getting an easement on their property. They had an approved access drive, and Mr. James did not know if there was also an approved plan for a stubbed water main for that property.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch asked if the land was a protected wetland. Mr. Spencer said there are some City- and State-regulated wetlands on the site. It is not the entire site. The area that runs along the creek and a finger that runs into the first lot onto the east side are the protected areas. That finger is a drainage area coming from the driveways into the finger. Member Lynch thought that the various comments about the land being protected were coming from the northwesterly neighbors. Member Lynch wished to have the record set straight for the community as to whether this land is protected. Member Lynch did not think that the neighbors were correct in their comments. Mr. Spencer said that the City’s wetland consultant did field verify the wetlands on the site. There are regulated woodlands on the site, but this does not mean it is a protected area, per se. The land use would have to meet the terms of the Woodland Ordinance, and Vilican Leman, the City’s Woodland Consultant, was at the meeting and would be available to comment further. The portion along the north property line was not part of the regulated woodland, because that is where the sewer line was placed in the 1960s. There are no woods there to protect. There is a regulated woodland in the central area. The Planning Commission had a map that gave its approximate boundary.

Member Lynch concluded that the land is not protected, and that the plan is legal and does not violate any wetland or stormwater management laws. Mr. Spencer said he could defer to the City Attorney, but he said that everything that the Applicant is proposing is a permitted use. The Applicant is following the Ordinance. He is providing mitigation where required. City Attorney David Gillam explained that a large part of the property is a regulated woodland. This is different than that a protected wetland. The City’s Woodland Ordinance essentially states that the property can be developed within limitations. Any trees removed for development would have to be replaced. What the Applicant is proposing to do is consistent with all of the Ordinances, provided the waivers and variances are granted.

Member Lynch reiterated that since the claim was made that the land is protected, he wanted the record to confirm or reject this statement. He looked at the proposal and he thought it was a beautiful plan. He did not think that too much development was being proposed. He wanted to ensure that no natural feature violations were being approved.

Member Lynch asked if another home would be allowed in the open area. He learned that this area would remain as woods and no home would be allowed.

Member Lynch asked about the cross access easement. Chair Cassis said that while nothing is provided that states the connection would be paved, the Applicant has given his assurance that the access would be paved. Mr. Spencer interjected that the Applicant has said that he would address this at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are some options available to him. He could request a waiver from City Council for the paving. Mr. Spencer also explained that the agreement with Mirabella Estates was that they were required to put in their cross access easement when the subject property develops. This language is in their Master Deed. There is a mechanism in the Master Deed to set up a Special Assessment District if the developer does not want to pay for it.

Member Lynch said that he understood the need for emergency access. He knew the hope is to keep as much green space as possible. He understood that the developer will submit more information at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn said that the Design and Construction Standards require that this access be paved. This is echoed in the Fire Prevention Ordinance. If the Applicant proposes something other than pavement (asphalt or concrete), the Applicant would need a variance from City Council. City Council would seek input and support from the Fire Marshal. The Ordinance states the road must be paved and able to support 35 tons.

Chair Cassis said that he has seen a Novi apartment design where the support is underneath, but the top is green. Mr. Coburn said this is really a Fire Department call because it is a safety issue. Member Lynch asked if this was a Novi Fire Department issue because he does not know of other communities’ requirement for emergency access like this. Mr. Gillam said that long cul-de-sac developments were probably built before this requirement went on the books. From his experience, this requirement is pretty standard now. Any Oakland County Fire Chief will agree that sufficient access must be available for a pumper truck or a ladder truck for instances where the main entrance is blocked or closed.

Member Meyer complimented the developer on the effort he has put forth. He liked the conservation/preservation aspect. He liked the buffer between this site and Country Place, noting that it preserved as many trees as possible. He appreciated the Planning Department’s recommendations. He was concerned about the letter submitted by Vistal Homes. He felt it inferred that there is a need to negotiate; he just didn’t know who should be involved.

Mr. Gillam explained that in an ideal world, these issues could be worked out between landowners. There is a history between these two sites. The City is not in a position to require a water easement on the alternate site. The City is not in a position to require the easement onto the other property, especially if there is an alternative that is available. The looped water system, which is an option here, would serve the development just as well as a water line running into the development. There is also the option of a City Council waiver. Whether City Council will agree to this must be determined by them. Mr. Gillam said that the City will have to accept the fact that these two landowners have not worked anything out, and City Council will have to weigh what’s on the table with that in mind.

Mr. Coburn said that without the connection to Mirabella, there is no looped connection through the site. The City would require the extension to the property line, and then the Applicant would be encouraged to get an easement from the adjacent property to make that connection. If they are unable to get the easement, they will still have to connect to the property line. Member Meyer asked for clarification – does this Applicant still have to negotiate with the adjacent land owner? Mr. Coburn said that the Ordinance requires the water main to be extended to the property lines. A loop must be provided wherever possible to provide reliable service for water. The City would encourage the Applicant to work something out with the adjacent property owner, but he understood that the City cannot require them to obtain the easement. It makes common sense to have the connection so there is another loop in the system. Then, if something breaks, there is another outlet for getting water to the people on the other side of the break. Without this connection the Applicant can probably still demonstrate that they can meet the required flows that the Fire Department has specified as their need in fighting fires. It is probably not crucial for this design to have the loop. The City would just like to see it for liability reasons.

Mr. Spencer added that if an easement does become available, the City will ask them to connect. Mr. Coburn agreed with that statement. Mr. Spencer said there is a chance that an easement will become available. Mr. Coburn said the burden remains on the Applicant that he must be able to provide the necessary flows.

Chair Cassis thought the developer had mentioned a second option. Mr. Coburn said there is a second proposal which is a parallel water main – a "boulevard" water main. The City finds this to be an unacceptable design. The two mains serve no purpose and confuse the Water Department Staff when they have to go service a main.

Member Meyer was willing to support the project; he was just worried about whether the design would still work without the water connection. Chair Cassis said that the plan would not have been brought to the Planning Commission if the Planning Department did not think the plan would work.

Member Pehrson asked whether the Preliminary Site Plan motion needed to state the need for a looped system or a City Council waiver. Mr. Gillam answered affirmatively.

Member Pehrson asked about the stormwater sewer comment regarding the catch basin being relocated further east. Mr. Spencer said that there is a catch basin on one of the lots that is not in a desirable location. The Applicant has responded that they would work on the possibility of moving it. The City’s Engineer has commented that there is enough grade to do that. The Woodland Consultant has also suggested the same thing to help save more trees. Member Pehrson said that the words being bantered about were not definitive – would the Applicant be willing to do this? Mr. James responded that he would if the request was feasible.

Member Pehrson said he appreciated the use of the Concept Plan and Preservation Option. He understood the berm along Eight Mile is pretty much the County’s call. Mr. Spencer said that the berming is adjacent to the right-of-way, which is where the Applicant is requesting a waiver of some plantings. It is off the right-of-way where the berming is required east of the entrance. The Wayne County Road Commission involvement is for extra trees in the right-of-way. Member Pehrson asked if it was likely that Wayne County would have a favorable answer. Mr. Coburn responded that the City only works with Wayne County on a two-mile section of Eight Mile. He had a very limited history of working with Wayne County.

Member Pehrson asked about the opacity requirements and the proposal. Doris Hill, acting as the City’s Landscape Architect, responded that the plan proposes even more plantings than what other projects provide. This is an improvement over the original plans.

Member Pehrson asked about the length of the cul-de-sac, and whether there was a precedent in Novi that this less than 800-foot requirement is typically waived. Mr. Gillam responded that there have been instances where City Council has waived that limitation in the past.

Member Pehrson had no objection with the plan, outside of the fact that he would like to see the easement happen. He encouraged these landowners to get together and discuss this issue.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Chair Cassis thought that the Applicant has come through with many adjustments that positively impact the plan. Chair Cassis felt that the Planning Commission’s request for additional preservation of the natural features was met. He felt that the development was synchronized as best as possible for the benefit of the community. He complimented the developer for his hard work. He also complimented the Planning Department on their work on this plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of the City of Novi for Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approval. The subject property is located on the west side of Beck Road, south of Grand River Avenue, in the R-3, Single Family Residential District. The City is proposing a generator building associated with a new sanitary sewer pump station on the Providence Hospital property.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the project. This pump station will be placed on the Providence Hospital site. The station will be south of most all of the Providence development, somewhat across from Central Park Estates. The site is master planned for Office, but is currently zoned R-3, Single Family Residential. This classification therefore requires a Public Hearing, as utility buildings are considered Special Land Uses in this district.

There are no wetland impacts from this project. There is a wetland to the northwest. There are floodplains to the south of this site. There are no regulated woodlands being affected by this proposal.

The building is proposed to be made of brick that matches Providence Hospital. The accent band is meant to complement the accents on the Providence site. The building was designed in conjunction with Providence.

The plan proposes a driveway, generator building, wet well, valve vault, and other items that will be at grade level. The only thing above grade is the building. The generator will be inside the building for many reasons. This will help with noise attenuation and aesthetics. The generator will run once per week for thirty minutes, for required testing to confirm that the system is operational. Otherwise, it will only run for emergencies.

The specific requirements for a Special Land Use such as this for residential properties are:

The main Planning concern is that with the Special Land Use, a noise analysis is required. The manufacturer’s cut sheets were provided for the Planning Commission to review. Therein the noise expectancy is described. The Planning Department felt that they should provide real world data for review. A noise analysis was performed on the generator at Meadowbrook Road and I-96. There were several readings provided. Given the ambient noise at the testing site, there was very little extra noise provided by the generator. One actually must stand next to the open louvres in order to register a generator reading. Beyond thirty feet, any generator noise evaporates into the white noise. The ambient noise at Beck Road is already at 60-70 decibels. The Planning Department does not anticipate a noise problem with the placement of this generator.

The Engineering Review had no comments.

The Landscape Review is interesting. This is a large piece of property, and this project would require berming. The City is asking for waivers for three berms (the north, west and south), and a one-foot waiver of the easterly berm. The site is limited by the fact that the future right-of-way for Beck Road is at one point, and the wet well and valve vault need to go in another point. Within that space, three feet of berm have been provided. A fourth foot that maintains the correct slope does not fit. The landscape material meets the Ordinance requirements. This building will be obscured and will not been seen from Beck Road. The south berm is adjacent to a flood plain and the sanitary easement is in place. To the west, there are wetlands and a sanitary easement. Woodlands are in the area to the north. Providence is not interested in providing a larger easement for the purpose of berm placement. The Providence landscaping concept has been worked into this plan. The north easement is constrained, and Providence didn’t want a berm on their property. Given that this building is so far away from residential and hospital, these berm waivers are being sought.

Mr. Schmitt noted that the City owns the land for the other pump stations that have come before the Planning Commission. In this case, the size of the easement is being limited in an effort to work with the land owner.

Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that he was in charge of all public infrastructure projects in the City. Mr. Coburn showed a map with a green area representing the Lanny’s Sanitary Sewer District. This district is quite large. The main trunk sewer follows south of Grand River and north of Eleven Mile. It serves from Lanny’s Road all the way west to Island Lake. The original segments of that sewer were designed in the early 1980s. At that time the Master Plan called for agricultural uses west of Beck Road. Therefore, the sewer was designed to service east of Beck Road. In the late 1980s, the district was increased to service east of Wixom Road, and was funded through Special Assessment District #83. In the late 1990s the district was extended past Wixom Road through a payback agreement with Island Lake. While no capacity problems exist currently, it is anticipated that the system downstream of Beck Road will be over capacity at the time of build out. If the relief sewer is not built, it is possible that the capacity needed for Providence and the other participants of the SAD may not exist. In order to serve all of the approved and anticipated developments within the district, this project was included in the Capital Improvement Program.

Mr. Coburn showed the route of the proposal. The pump station and force main were depicted. The main extends north up Beck Road through the Beck Road interchange along I-96, and then to the interceptor. City Council authorized the consultant, Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, to design a solution on April 18, 2005. The project consists of the construction of the diversion chamber, pump station and force mains to deliver excess flows from the main trunk sewer (shown in red on Mr. Coburn’s overhead) to the Oakland County interceptor. The diversion chamber and pump station will be located in the easement on Providence Hospital property. The force main will be installed in the easement along the right-of-way.

The location of the pump station is fixed by the location of the trunk sewer. The need for access from Beck Road also plays a role. Providence has also asked the City to minimize the size of the easement. The cost of this project is about 2.1 million dollars, and it is expected to be completed by the end of this construction season.

A portion of this project includes the building and the associated landscaping. The generator is required to ensure that the flow of sewage continues in the event of a power failure. The City has chosen to enclose the generator for aesthetic reasons. The façade will match Providence and the landscape plan will also match what Providence has planned. Providence has approved of the plan.

Mr. Coburn said that because this is a non-standard site plan involving a public infrastructure project located within an easement, there are some issues that need waivers.

There was no Public Hearing correspondence and no one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch asked who was paying for this. The response was that the City is paying for this, and Mr. Coburn said that the funds come from the Water and Sewer Fund. Chair Cassis interjected that over the years the City has taken in money from the developers and placed them into a fund that has reached considerable portions. Every time someone taps into the system, a connection charge is collected. This fund maintains the system and pays for upgrades when necessary.

Member Lynch said that the system was needed, especially in light of the anticipated growth. Chair Cassis said that this fund helps give the City an excellent bond rating.

Member Meyer asked about the weekly testing. While it has been stated that the noise level would be low, the greatest concern noted was the weekly testing feature of this generator. Mr. Schmitt said there isn’t a specific time listed for the half-hour testing. He did meet with the DPW at an existing site to listen to its weekly testing. Mr. Schmitt also said that this testing will be performed during normal working hours. Member Meyer said that if the test is going to bother someone, the City should be sure to do it during the weekday rather than in the evening.

Member Pehrson thought this was an appropriate use. He didn’t think that the noise would be an issue based on the location of this building. Mr. Schmitt also said that the generator was originally designed as a hospital-grade generator to maintain a low sound, but Providence said there was no need for that. Sound dampening louvres were added to the building so the air movement is not constrained but the noise is reduced. The highest grade muffler will be added to the generator.

Member Pehrson said that this project meets the criteria of the Special Land Use. He liked the way the City worked with Providence to get the brick to match their development. He had no problem with the waiver requests.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lynch:

Chair Cassis said he appreciated how the City is meeting the highest quality in its development, just like what is required from all other developers. This sets a great example.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include provisions for animal boarding facilities in the I-1, Light Industrial Zoning District.

Planner Tim Schmitt explained to the Planning Commission that this amendment has been in the Implementation Committee for review for quite some time. The genesis of this issue came from a 2003 request from Terry Brennan, the owner of the pet care business now housed on Heslip Drive. It was determined that the City’s Ordinance did not have a district designated for animal boarding facilities. At the time, Ms. Brennan went to the ZBA for a determination that this use could be placed in I-1, as it was no more objectionable than the other uses allowed in that district.

Mr. Schmitt said that the City has since been approached by Dr. Phil Smyka for the same request. He called his proposal a "resort." The City then felt that the Ordinance should be reviewed and provisions should be made for this use, as the concept doesn’t seem to be a novelty, but a trend.

The Implementation Committee and the City Attorney have reviewed this information. One improvement to the language was the descriptive name has been changed from "dog boarding" to "animal boarding." The language does not allow livestock boarding.

The Committee discussed waste products, and language was added that gives the City the right to tell a business to clean up its site.

The Committee added language prohibiting overnight outdoor stay.

The "for-profit" language was softened to allow for "may be maybe-for-profit" business. Humane Society may some day wish to locate to Novi, and this would allow them to do so.

The use would be a Special Land Use if the land is adjacent to residential. It is intended for the use to be in a free-standing building. An allowance was made for accessory uses – because incidental retail sales are expected. Outdoor runs must meet the setback of 500 feet adjacent to residential. There must be an obscuring fence or berm. 500 feet was chosen based on the review of several different Ordinances. The problem in Novi is most likely to occur along Grand River, and those properties would accommodate the 500-foot setback, and most of the southerly yards are wetlands anyway.

Mr. Schmitt noted that he has been in contact with another animal boarding operator out of Troy, who is keeping tabs on the outcome of this review by the City.

Chair Cassis asked about the noise problem. Mr. Schmitt said that the noise of all the animals would be considered no differently than the noise of one dog. Other Ordinances specifically address the soundproofing of the building. The City’s Ordinance already addresses barking dogs.

Chair Cassis confirmed there was no correspondence and no one from the audience wished to speak so he closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch complimented the Implementation Committee for their work on this issue. He agreed that pet resorts/pet spas have become big business. The fact that Novi is an upscale community lends itself to this use being added to the Ordinance.

Member Lynch’s concern was that this amendment potentially sets the City’s businesses up for violation of Section 5.4, which refers to noisy dogs and cats. Does granting a Special Land Use for this use give a false impression to the business owner, that he has an exemption from the Noise Ordinance? Mr. Schmitt said that the concern was valid, though he stated that all Ordinances apply to everyone, regardless of how approvals were granted. These ancillary issues are specifically looked at when a Planning Commission considers granting a Special Land Use. If the Planning Commission feels that an Applicant has not provided an appropriate business model or design such that the issues wouldn’t be mitigated, then they would be in the right to request more mitigating factors from the Applicant. It wouldn’t set the business owner up to violate another Ordinance, it would make clear that the other Ordinances stand and his request must address potential issues.

City Attorney David Gillam added that all Ordinances apply. The City probably has more control over a Special Land Use request than any other circumstance. This is because the Planning Commission has the ability to place certain conditions on a Special Land Use approval.

Member Lynch wished to confirm that this Ordinance addressed the situation of exotic reptiles. The City Attorney said that Ordinance addresses pets that are otherwise considered a dangerous animal. It would be entirely appropriate for the City to reject such an application.

Member Lynch concluded that this type of business could be very lucrative in the City of Novi, and he just wanted to ensure that the City was not shooting itself in the foot by violating other sections of the Ordinance. He was satisfied that this was not the case. He supported the text amendment.

Member Pehrson acknowledged the hard work that the Implementation Committee put into this amendment and he was satisfied that the best solution has been put forward.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lipski:

Planner Tim Schmitt said the Planning Department has been working with Triangle Development and McKenna and Associates regarding some proposed text amendments for the Town Center District. He named Alicia Heideman as his main contact during this process. John Jackson from McKenna was also involved.

The Planning Department has not reviewed the specifics of this request in any depth. Internally, they have been discussing the general notion. They looked at the initial proposal. A thorough analysis has not yet been performed. The request this evening is to seek one of two things from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission can set a Public Hearing for the first available date, or they can recommend sending this issue to the Implementation Committee for review.

This request if for three Ordinance amendments. They are requesting a height amendment to increase the building height in the TC-1 District. They are requesting a modification of how density is calculated in the TC-1 District. This complicated formula based on room count will be described in detail later, but essentially, the request is to change the factor for the room count. Their third request revolves around a "flexible floor plan." In order to provide different types of units than perhaps what has been presented before, this request would allow for an "equivalent room count" for certain floor areas. This is different from what has been done in the past.

The Planning Department’s view, these requests are not technically amendments. These requests basically amend three numbers in the Ordinance. At its core, this is a large policy decision for the Planning Commission and City Council. The Planning Department therefore suggests that the Planning Commission hear this request as a whole, rather than just as a Committee. It is a policy decision, which is more appropriately held in a larger forum with the majority of the Planning Commission available for an easier venue for information exchange. This proposal crosses the boundary of several Committees. Sending it to one Committee could bog the request down because it could result in the request bouncing between all of the applicable Committees Committee. Bringing it to the table all at once makes more sense than having the Main Street Committee and the Implementation Committee completing separate reviews.

Timing is critical as well. Triangle is hoping to begin construction on their project this year. These amendments may not affect the construction taking place this year, but they clearly have a major impact on the development itself. The Planning Department has seen conceptual plans of Triangle’s proposal. They have proceeded, perhaps at great risk, with the engineering plans for their project.

The Applicant, John Jackson of McKenna Associates, spoke to the Planning Commission. He said that their proposal will make the Ordinance more viable as it relates to their Main Street project. The Town Center concept had to do with creating an architectural feeling, as well as hiding the parking that is based on the uses proposed. Hopefully, the decision is policy-based, and the Planning Commission feels the requests are consistent with the TC-1 District.

Mr. Jackson said that there are a number of phases in this project. The first phase would be a medical office building, which is not directly impacted by the proposed text amendment. It falls within the zoning requirements of the existing TC-1 District. It would be helpful to them if they knew how the rest of the project would lay out, and what constraints would be applied.

Dave Nona of Triangle Development introduced himself. This is a substantial project that Triangle will be proposing. It will have 10-15 buildings and will take five to seven years to complete. Their conceptual plan is underway, and it would help them if they had a better idea of the City’s position on these text amendment requests. He asked whether the Preliminary Site Plan could be reviewed by the Planning Commission while the policy decisions were being made.

Chair Cassis confirmed that for this evening, the Planning Commission’s role was to determine whether the text amendments should be sent to committee or discussed at the Planning Commission table.

Member Meyer recommended that the language come before the entire Planning Commission. Particularly, the key issues of building height, density and assignment of room counts can be addressed directly. He thought it was important for this to be accomplished by the Planning Commission as a whole.

Member Lipski asked about the density issue. Mr. Jackson said that this relates to the residential component. The request allows for higher density in mixed use buildings, which can be applied to the entire site. Member Lipski said that density is a hot spot, and while he understood that the Applicant was hoping to apply the density of an entire site to the portions of that site which would be developed residentially, he told Mr. Jackson to be prepared for the discussion. Mr. Jackson said they approached this issue from an urban standpoint. They want to create a town center with the right number of buildings to create the necessary pedestrian spaces. Also, there needs to be a balance between the commercial and residential components. They did not start out with a preconceived number. They designed the site plan based on component balancing. They had two or three firms helping them and they met with the City.

Mr. Nona explained that the density is based on room counts. They wish to ensure that they are getting the right density based on the different types of units they are designing. They would prefer to see the density based on units rather than on rooms. Member Lipski responded that the more information provided, the better understood the issue. It would behoove the Applicant to be adequately prepared to discuss all of the aspects. This would make the meeting far more productive. He agreed that the review should be handled by the full commission.

Member Pehrson noted that this developer has actually moved forward on what the Planning Commission hoped to do last year when they held the roundtable discussions with the developers. He wondered what the impact of this consideration has on other districts. Mr. Schmitt responded that the main impact would be to the TC Districts. Setbacks are the major difference between TC and TC-1. The impact on these districts, since there isn’t really any land left, would occur if, for instance, the Novi Town Center were to redevelop. Mr. Schmitt said that the mixed use district, PD-2, has already been amended and that this wouldn’t really affect that district. The Gateway District has its own set of standards and provisions. Mr. Schmitt didn’t think that the impact would be much at all. If someone bought a vacant piece of land he could then propose something similar. The Staff wouldn’t be that supportive, though, because this is more pertinent to the mixed use concept.

Member Pehrson would like the Planning Commission to discuss the text amendments before the Applicant brought in his site plans. He supported the Planning Commission doing the review.

Chair Cassis saw two issues. Main Street is a unique development. Mixed use has been tackled with Gateway. Chair Cassis said this is a development that will utilize its property to the maximum, thus contributing to the income of the City.

Chair Cassis thought the Applicant was also looking to work constructively with the City to reduce redundant time frames. He supported the idea of having the Planning Commission review the text amendment.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

Mr. Schmitt said that the first available date was March 8. Mr. Jackson said they had concept plans and they were working on the conceptual elevations. Mr. Nona said that they have many plans that they could bring to share with the Planning Commission.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that each of the Planning Commission Committees were asked to provide their requests for the budget. She provided the Planning Commission with a memo that outlined the requests of the Implementation Committee, Master Plan and Zoning Committee and Administrative Liaison Committee. Prior to the Planning Commission meeting tonight, the Environmental Committee met and they have now turned in their request. Ms. McBeth said that she would like to bring the entire budget back on February 22, 2006 for finalization. Once this is done, the budget requests will be forwarded to the Finance Department.

Member Lipski said that at the Environmental Committee meeting, the members reviewed photos of the City. What they realized was the disparity between the City’s actual natural features and what the maps depict. They have put in an $8,000 request to update the natural features maps. This would be a cost-saving measure in the long run. Woodlands must be addressed first.

Ms. McBeth noted that this Committee is working on the Greenways Plan, and that their next focus would be on these map upgrades. She said that if the consensus is that the Planning Commission requests are complete, she will move forward with preparing the budget package for the February 22, 2006 meeting.

Member Meyer told the Planning Commission that he recently attended a workshop regarding land use and Ordinances. He said it was very helpful. It was presented by four attorneys. The topics were land use, master plans, Ordinances and Special Land Uses. He recommended that all future Planning Commission volunteers take a class such as this.

Chair Cassis said that he has been speaking with Ms. McBeth regarding the possibility of designing an instructional booklet for the Planning Commission. He said he would be suggesting this to City Council. He discussed how future Applicants could receive this booklet ahead of their interviews so that they can become familiar with the Planning Commission process prior to being put on the board.

Member Meyer commented that he has been an educator for over 35 years, and since he has taken the training class, he feels he has a level of confidence now when sitting at the Planning Commission table.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that Chair Cassis asked for this item to be placed on the Agenda. This is a follow-up discussion from the joint meeting held a few weeks ago.

Chair Cassis said that he thought the meeting was very productive. They have now requested a more casual meeting with more time available. He thought there was a lot of excitement about that prospect.

Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Commission’s choices for meeting dates were forwarded forward to City Council in their off-week packet.

Chair Cassis said that this Planning Commission has never met casually, and perhaps they could do this prior to the next joint meeting, so they can iron out their thoughts. Chair Cassis asked the City Attorney whether this would be a problem. City Attorney David Gillam responded that in order to avoid a potential violation of the Open Meetings Act, the meeting should be publicly noticed. He would be surprised if anyone from the public attended. It does not have to be televised.

Member Lipski understood what the intent of the meeting was, but he wondered if there were provisions in the Open Meetings Act that outlined which topics could be discussed. He hoped to make the meeting a bit more efficient. He thought that holding the meeting "off-line" would be most effective. Mr. Gillam said that there was not a problem with Planning Commission members discussing processes or substantive questions. The important thing is that any decisions made need to be made at the open meeting. Mr. Gillam said that the Planning Commission must be sure not to do any "polling" prior to the meeting. This is a problematic area.

Member Lipski suggested that the meeting be a meet and greet and be a social gathering. He offered his home for the meeting. He felt it was a great idea for Planning Commission members to know one another.

Ms. McBeth reminded the Planning Commission of their meetings at the City Attorney’s office, and she said that they could consider holding the meetings there again. Chair Cassis liked those training sessions, and would like to do them again. But, he felt that what they needed to be planning for at this time was a more informal meeting.

Mr. Gillam said that his office enjoys meeting with the Planning Commission and would be willing do so whenever they would like to. Mr. Gillam suggested that about six weeks after new Planning Commission members are chosen each year, a regular training session should be added to the Planning Commission calendar. This would be for the benefit of the new members as well as the existing members. Mr. Gillam said that a social gathering does not fall within the scope of the Open Meetings Act.

Member Meyer said there should be a balance between adhering to the Open Meetings Act and allowing the Planning Commission member to meet and know one another. He has always been cognizant of the Open Meetings Act, from his years on the school board and ZBA.

The date most agreed upon was March 4 for the joint meeting with City Council. Chair Cassis asked the Planning Commission to check their calendars for a date on which they can meet informally amongst themselves.

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson:

The meeting adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

MON 02/13/06 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

MON 02/20/06 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 02/22/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 03/06/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 03/07/06 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 03/08/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 03/20/06 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/22/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, February 17, 2006 Signature on File

Date Approved: February 22, 2006 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date