| View Agenda for this meeting View Action Summary for this meeting PLANNING
COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM. ROLL CALL Present: Members Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, David Greco, Andrew Gutman, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel Absent: Brian Larson (excused), Michael Lynch (excused) Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Deputy Director of Community Development; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Kristin Kolb, City Attorney PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Member Meyer led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Gutman: voice vote on the agenda approval motion: Motion to approve the July 30, 2008 Planning Commission Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. Chair Pehrson suspended the Agenda for a moment to acknowledge the passing of David Lipski, a Novi Planning Commission member from 2004-2007. Member Cassis remembered Mr. Lipski as a bright, highly-educated young lawyer. He was warm and considerate. He wished to give back to his community and did so by serving on the Planning Commission. Mr. Lipski will be missed by his own family, his children and the family of Novi. Member Meyer remembered Mr. Lipski as being a quiet man who, when moved to speak, did so with eloquence, awareness of the issues and a certain sense of humor, which Member Meyer appreciated. Member Meyer quoted Longfellow, stating, "…Lives of great men all remind us we can make our lives sublime and departing, leave behind footprints in the sand of time." Mr. Lipski’s passing teaches all of us that we may not get the full three or four score life, and that we should use our own time wisely. Member Gutman was also a friend of Mr. Lipski’s. He was one of the most charismatic people Member Gutman could recall. His comments were on point and never offensive. He actually engaged people, even if he disagreed with an Applicant’s position. Mr. Lipski was the force behind Member Gutman’s joining the Planning Commission. He was a great mentor, friend and colleague who will be missed. Member Burke remembered that when Mr. Lipski spoke at the Planning Commission, he was direct and to the point. He had a unique ability to bring the issues down to some very simple terms. Mr. Lipski’s loss is significant to this City. Member Wrobel appreciated Mr. Lipski’s observations, which were always right on. He was very friendly and will be missed. Member Wrobel offered the family his condolences. Member Greco did not serve at the same time as Mr. Lipski, but he was very moved to hear the nice things said about Mr. Lipski. Chair Pehrson’s heart went out to Mr. Lipski’s family. He said that everyone would be a better person if they learned from Mr. Lipski’s example. He called for a moment of silence. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION No one from the audience wished to speak. CORRESPONDENCE Member Gutman said that the Planning Commission received a letter from John Kuenzel regarding the recently submitted the Singh proposal for the Links of Novi property. He reminded the Planning Commission of the lengthy Master Plan update that the City had just completed, the result of which included the City affirming the residential nature of the southwest quadrant. COMMITTEE REPORTS There were no Committee Reports COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR REPORT Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth said the Planning Commission members received new Projects maps. She also said that City Council recently approved the second reading of the text amendment regarding to Light Industrial outside storage of recreational vehicles. The revised phasing and plan was approved for Main Street, with additional conditions. The Façade Waiver was also approved for Main Street. The first reading was approved regarding the administrative review text amendment; additional language was added to this proposal as well. CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVALS AND APPROVAL 1. ISLAND LAKE 5C, SITE PLAN NUMBER 04-65A Moved by Member Gutman, seconded by Member Wrobel: roll call vote on consent agenda approval motion made by Member Gutman and seconded by Member Wrobel: Motion to approve the July 30, 2008 Consent Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MAYBURY PARK ESTATES ENTRY GATES PHASES 1 & 2, SITE PLAN NUMBER 08-14A The Public Hearing was opened of the request of Maybury Park, LLC, for a recommendation to City Council on a revised Preliminary site Plan and an amendment to the RUD, Residential Unit Development Plan. The subject property is located in Section 32, north of Eight Mile, between Garfield Road and Beck Road in the RA, Residential Acreage District. The subject property is approximately 133.72 acres and the Applicant is proposing to add gated accesses and change the existing, approved RUD plan to permit the roads to be private rather than public. Planner Kristen Kapelanski described the two gated access points that Maybury proposes to add to their Eight Mile entrances. They also propose to make the roads private instead of public. The Planning Commission can approve the site plan if they so choose, and then they must make a recommendation to City Council for the amendment to the RUD plan. The Planning Review noted no major problems with the plan, though it will request a City Council Waiver from the Fire Protection Code to allow gated access. The Master Deed will also have to be updated. All the other disciplines recommended approval with minor items to be addressed on the next submittal. John Babcock addressed the Planning Commission. He said he has three reasons to make this request for gated access. The addition will allow Maybury to compete with the neighboring subdivisions – Tuscany and Bellagio. The gates will improve the value of the existing homes, which will improve the City’s tax base. Security will be improved as the gates will deter vandals from coming into the subdivision. No one from the audience wished to speak. Chair Pehrson asked Member Gutman to read the received correspondence.
Chair Pehrson closed the Public Hearing and asked for Planning Commission comments. Member Wrobel asked the Applicant how developed the site was. Mr. Babcock said about 35% is built. He said the association held a meeting, and the vote was unanimous to seek this approval. He was surprised there were two objections in the correspondence. Member Wrobel was not a fan of gated entry, but it is in line with the neighboring sites, and there is support from the residents. There is adequate turning space in case someone has to pull back out. Mr. Babcock gave a deeper description of the gate design. The gate is arched. Both sides of the gate operate. The monuments have already been built. Member Burke thought it was a beautiful subdivision. He confirmed with the Applicant that there has been some vandalism on the new construction and even an occupied home. Member Burke asked if there was a guard shack. Mr. Babcock said no. There would be key pad for coded entry, or a key fob could be used to open the gates. The emergency vehicles will have a knox key. A failure of power can be addressed by providing a mechanical battery back-up system, or there can be a pump system that is operated with foot power. Mr. Babcock preferred the mechanical system. Homeowners hosting parties can be assigned an eight-hour temporary code for their guests to use for entry. There can also be a call box at the entry, on which the driver can call the resident he wishes to see. The association management company will be in charge of these decisions. The subdivision can decide to self-manage. Mr. Babcock said that it is intrinsic that gates will improve property value. He said that prospective owners’ curiosity is piqued when the concept of a gated entry is mentioned. Member Burke noted that the Fire Marshal approved the plan. Moved by Member Burke, seconded by Member Cassis: In the matter of Maybury Park Estates – Entry Gates Phase 1 and 2, Site Plan 08-14A, a recommendation of approval to City Council of the amended RUD Plan subject to: 1) The Applicant addressing the outstanding issues noted in the Planning Review below and on the attached Planning Summary Chart on the Final RUD Plan; 2) The Applicant addressing all outstanding issues in the Engineering, Fire, and Traffic Reviews on the Final RUD Plan; 3) Approval of the third amendment to the RUD Agreement by City Council, including a City Council Waiver from Section 15-21(g) of the Fire Prevention and Protection Code, which prohibits gated access, and City Council approval of the change to the existing, approved RUD plan to permit the roads to be private rather than public; 4) The Applicant amending the Master Deed to address all outstanding issues in the City Attorney’s May 27, 2008 review, and resubmitting it to the City for review and approval prior to recordation. In addition, this includes approval of the revised Preliminary Site Plan and Phasing Plan, subject to addressing the outstanding issues noted above on the Final Site Plan and the City Council granting approval as noted in the recommendation above. DISCUSSION Member Cassis confirmed with Mr. Babcock that he was the developer. Mr. Babcock said that the homes’ average prices range between high $800,000s to low $900,000s. This gate will add to the association fees. Mr. Babcock said that the association fees will increase from $700 to $1,000 per year. They will have to put money aside for road repair, since the roads will have to become private now. They are built to City standards for public roads. Member Cassis supports gated entries, especially for a development in this price point. Gates will deter most security problems. He thought the rendering looked classy. ROLL CALL VOTE ON maybury park estates entry gates, sp08-14a, recommendation for approval MOTION MADE BY Member Burke AND SECONDED BY Member Cassis: In the matter of Maybury Park Estates – Entry Gates Phase 1 and 2, Site Plan 08-14A, a recommendation of approval to City Council of the amended RUD Plan subject to: 1) The Applicant addressing the outstanding issues noted in the Planning Review below and on the attached Planning Summary Chart on the Final RUD Plan; 2) The Applicant addressing all outstanding issues in the Engineering, Fire, and Traffic Reviews on the Final RUD Plan; 3) Approval of the third amendment to the RUD Agreement by City Council, including a City Council Waiver from Section 15-21(g) of the Fire Prevention and Protection Code, which prohibits gated access, and City Council approval of the change to the existing, approved RUD plan to permit the roads to be private rather than public; 4) The Applicant amending the Master Deed to address all outstanding issues in the City Attorney’s May 27, 2008 review, and resubmitting it to the City for review and approval prior to recordation. In addition, this includes approval of the revised Preliminary Site Plan and Phasing Plan, subject to addressing the outstanding issues noted above on the Final Site Plan and the City Council granting approval as noted in the recommendation above. Motion carried 7-0. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 16, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Moved by Member Wrobel, seconded by Member Gutman: voice vote on minutes approval motion made by Member Wrobel and seconded by Member Gutman: Motion to approve the July 16, 2008 Planning Commission minutes. Motion carried 7-0. MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION 1. PRESENTATION BY ENGINEERING DIVISION Engineer Ben Croy discussed the Engineering review process with the Planning Commission. He provided the Planning Commission with an outline of the Engineering Review. Mr. Croy reviews the design and construction standards (Ordinance Chapter 11 – utilities, water main, sanitary and storm sewer, roads, sidewalks, parking lots, bike paths, grading and surface drainage) and the stormwater management (Ordinance Chapter 12 and also part of the Engineering Design Manual). The design manual provides a vehicle to update the information as codes change until such time as an amendment is prepared for the Ordinance. This review looks at pre-treatment of the stormwater, detention, volumes, outlet release rates, downstream routing, and low impact development techniques. The latter is a new interest of the Engineering Department. Engineering works with the Traffic Consultant on issues and Ordinance interpretation, and with the Wetland Consultant on stormwater discharge issues relating to the wetlands. Mr. Croy works with the Fire Marshal on watermain or drive layouts. Mr. Croy provides an analysis of utility capacity for rezoning requests. He compares the density of the existing zoning to the future zoning. Mr. Croy’s Preliminary Site Plan review’s main goal is to confirm the feasibility of the proposal’s engineering. The fine details are required after the plan received Preliminary Site Plan approval. Comments are provided to the Applicant regarding utility availability, length and layout of existing utilities, need for looped connections, etc. Mr. Croy confirms that the sanitary district will not be burdened. He also reviews utility easements, which can be cumbersome when another landowner is involved. Mr. Croy reviews road layout, drive approaches, traffic circulation, sidewalks, parking lots, etc. A change to any of these items can affect building size or placement. Mr. Croy confirms that the grading plan is within the tolerance of what the City allows. This is typically more of an issue on residential sites, because the land is more rolling rather than flat. Mr. Croy will provide Ordinance comments and common sense advice. Mr. Croy’s Stormwater Management Plan review requires volume calculations and routing. Sometimes the plan can be a major component of a plan. Other times, it is not, such as when a regional detention basin is in place and all that is necessary are additional catch basins. Mr. Croy determines whether off-site easements are required for drainage issues. Mr. Croy reviews underground basins (only recommended for the smaller sites or a constrained site). At the time of Final Site Plan review, Mr. Croy reviews the heavy details. All requirements of the Ordinance and design manual must be provided. Utility profiles, calculations, detailed grading, etc., are all necessary. Mr. Croy approves soil erosion permits and he also helps process the MDEQ water main and sanitary construction permits. Mr. Croy told Member Wrobel that franchise utilities are asked to attend the pre-con meetings so that they can give their input. These utilities work with the developer. Their engineers also work with the City to determine what is already in place. They work within the City’s rights-of-way too. Member Wrobel asked when the City mandates what a utility company can do. Mr. Croy said some standards are in the Ordinance. The City tries not to design the franchise utility plans. Member Meyer was glad to hear that the Engineering Department is so friendly in providing information to the Applicant. He applauded the City’s work in this direction. Mr. Croy responded that he hopes that his reviews remove the element of surprise from the Applicant’s workload. Member Cassis noted that the City does have control over the utility placement, and it has sometimes acted in contradiction to the State’s request. Member Cassis asked what Mr. Croy’s studies were. Chair Pehrson asked for a "30-second Ben Croy commercial." Mr. Croy responded that he graduated from 1996 from University of Michigan with a Civil Engineering degree. Early on he performed environmental and field work. He took the job in Novi and has since greatly expanded his understanding of civil engineering. He said that he learns from other communities, especially regarding stormwater. Novi sits upon clay, so stormwater is an issue here. Member Cassis was assured that Mr. Croy reads his industry journals to keep up with technology. Mr. Croy said that Novi was one of the first communities to implement the 100-year stormwater volume standard. Novi is cutting edge or close to it. He establishes relationships with all of the Novi developers because of the many levels of work they perform together. Chair Pehrson thanked Mr. Croy for his time. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Member Wrobel: Motion to Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM. SCHEDULED AND ANTICIPATED MEETINGS MON 08/11/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM TUE 08/12/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM WED 08/13/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM MON 08/25/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM WED 08/27/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM MON 09/01/08 CITY OFFICES CLOSED MON 09/08/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM TUE 09/09/08 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:00 PM WED 09/10/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM MON 09/22/08 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM WED 09/24/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM
Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf Signature on File Customer Service Representative Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date August 6, 2008 Date Approved: August 13, 2008
|