(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

ABSENT: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Susan Tepatti, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Steven Cohen

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any changes or additions to the agenda? Member Hodges asked if the Commission has to make comment about the change in the Consent Agenda at the earlier Special Meeting? Chairperson Lorenzo advised it could be addressed once they get to the Consent Agenda. Member Hodges made a motion to approve the agenda as amended. Member Vrettas seconded the motion.

PM 96-07-146 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it has been moved and seconded to approve the agenda as amended during the Special Planning Commission Meeting at 6:00 p.m. and asked all those in favor to say aye, those opposed say no. Chairperson Lorenzo advised the motion passed unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-146 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Debbie Meyers Fagan - 1275 E. Lake Drive, advised she doesn’t have a problem with the Andris-Romain restaurant, but she does have a problem with the passing lane. Ms. Fagan did not realize there was going to be one toward Fourteen Mile on East Lake Drive traveling north and that there would be another one in the south direction starting in Walled Lake. Ms. Fagan said they have been coming before Council for at least ten years trying to get the traffic and speed controlled on East Lake Drive. She further stated they have succeeded by adding stop signs, lowering the speed limit to twenty five, and a police enforcement of zero tolerance. In addition, they are now getting their long awaited bike path. Ms. Fagan feels the bike path may give people a false sense of security. Ms Fagan advised when patrons pull out of a restaurant like Key Largo, they are looking for a break in traffic and not a break in pedestrian traffic. Ms. Fagan believes Andris-Romain will create a pedestrian hazard.

Ms. Fagan also thinks there is more frontage on Fourteen Mile Road as opposed to East Lake Drive, which is strictly residential and she would like the Fourteen Mile Road access studied as an option instead of constructing passing lanes. Ms. Fagan further noted people usually accelerate in passing lanes. In addition, Ms. Fagan stated if the reason for these is to eliminate traffic backups, she advised traffic is already backed up and they have worked to try to discourage traffic and this will only encourage more. Ms. Fagan asked the Commission to look closely at this issue because it can create a big problem.

Seeing no one else, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the first Audience Participation. She then advised there will be a second after the midpoint break and a third prior to adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Capello reported they received correspondence from Marcia Boynton and Karl T. Wizinsky offering comments about Zoning Map Amendment 18.554. Their comments included concerns about planning, density of the west end, school considerations, and traffic.

Member Capello further reported Richard Herbel, 27171 Wixom Road, wrote in support of the rezoning because it will revitalize the area. Mr. Herbel also feels high-priced homes on one acre lots are inappropriate.

Member Capello stated The City of Wixom wrote a letter about the proposed Amendment 18.554 and their concern is about how the size and intensity of the proposed multiple rezoning will impact the Novi/Wixom areas. They see the current zoning as appropriate because each community currently provides its fair share of various housing types for all income levels. The City of Wixom based their position on the following additional reasons: Infrastructure improvements for both utilities and the street system will have a significant impact on both Novi and Wixom, the negative traffic impact, and developments in both cities on their common borders have consistently followed their respective Master Plans for the area. Member Capello noted they also attached several newspaper clippings.

Member Capello advised they received a copy of a letter from HEFCO Limited Partnership, written by Howard Friedlaender, Trustee that was addressed to David Bluhm of JCK & Associates concerning the Sinai Medical Center, SP 96-06 site. Member Capello reported Mr. Friedlaender advised that they are generally in favor of the proposed project, but he has some concerns about the drainage. Mr. Friedlaender concluded his letter by stating based upon the information the City has provided, he is confident it will not create any problems that they cannot resolve.

Member Capello stated David Bouren of 1391 East Lake Drive wrote in opposition of the East Lake Drive entrance, sediment basin, and any rezoning to residential property. Mr. Bouren further stated he opposes any further extensions for Mr. Andris’ restaurant on East Lake Drive and Fourteen Mile Road.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo advised there were originally three Consent Agenda items, but the June 5 and June 19, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes were approved during the 6:00 P.M. July 17, 1996 Special Planning Commission meeting.

3. SIKH TEMPLE, SP 89-05C

Property located north of Eight Mile Road, between Taft Road and Garfield Road for possible three (3) month extension of Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan, and Phasing Plan approval.

Member Hoadley requested removal of this item. Chairperson Lorenzo advised they will then discuss it after the Public Hearings.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.554

Property located south of Grand River Avenue, west of Wixom Road for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property from Residential Acreage District (R-A), One-Family Residential District (R-1), and General Industrial District (I-2) to Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District (RM-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Gary Shapiro, Ivanhoe Development stated he attended several work sessions and was before the Commission several months ago. Since then, Mr. Shapiro reported they have worked exhaustively to answer the questions from that meeting. Mr. Shapiro reported the major difference in the plan is that the overall density has been cut by half and they are now proposing four units per acre with forty one acres of open space on the property. In their view, they are proposing a down zoning. Mr. Shapiro advised thirty one acres are zoned industrial and the rest is master planned as high-tech. Although Mr. Shapiro also supports the need for high-tech in Novi, he also believes their studies have shown the sight is not the proper site for high-tech and Novi has hundreds and hundreds of acres available where that type of zoning belongs. Mr. Shapiro stated they will show in their presentation the proximity to residential which conflicts with the Planning Commission’s goals. Mr. Shapiro also stated they will display a traffic decrease three to four times less during peak hours and they will substantially save the environmental features. Mr. Shapiro added they have received tremendous support from various professionals who also concur that high-tech is not appropriate for this property.

Member Hodges stated she is concerned this presentation is going to turn into a site plan review and she objects to that. Member Hodges advised if the applicant wishes to defend his right to a zone change, she is willing to listen. However, if the applicant presents site plans, she is not willing to listen because it is not a site plan review and it is not a part of their rezoning process. Chairperson Lorenzo replied Member Hodges point is well taken and they will ask the petitioner to refrain from doing that.

In the past, Member Capello advised the Commission has asked those coming forward to have an idea of what they are going to do with the property, even if they cannot hold them to it. Member Capello agrees it should not be a site plan review, but he would like to see what the petitioner intends to do with the property before he makes his decision. Member Capello reminded the Commission they have asked for it consistently and historically in the past.

Member Hodges replied it is one thing to ask. . . .Chairperson Lorenzo interjected and stated she will ask either Commissioner to make a motion to resolve this issue.

Member Hodges said she does not know how to properly word it so this matter does not become a site plan review. Member Hodges would like the applicant to present the Commission with the information necessary to support his request for rezoning and she would not like to see any proposed plan or development issues. Chairperson Lorenzo said simply stated, the petitioner should not present site plans or other development plans.

Mr. Watson stated as a matter of clarification, any demonstrative aids, such as plans or other aids, would pertain to why they believe the rezoning they request is an appropriate zoning for the property. Mr. Watson stated they may show a plan not for the purpose of that is how the property is going to be developed or that is the plan they‘re seeking approval of, but rather a plan which in some way shows or helps them explain why the zoning they seek is an appropriate zoning.

Member Hodges understands what Mr. Watson is saying. However, Mr. Shapiro has been before the Commission with a plan and Member Hodges objected to it the last time. Member Hodges objects to Mr. Shapiro proposing site plan review to the Commission and she does not know where Member Capello was. Member Hodges reminded the Commission it is not a public hearing and it is not a site plan review, it is a rezoning.

Member Bononi asked if the motion is on the floor? Chairperson Lorenzo advised they have not seconded it. Member Bononi seconded the motion.

PM-96-07-147 TO PRECLUDE THE PETITIONER FROM PRESENTING A SITE PLAN OR DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE COMMISSION

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED (7-2): To preclude the petitioner from presenting a site plan or development plan to the Commission.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised it has been moved and seconded to preclude the petitioner from presenting a site plan or development plan to the Commission. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is any discussion on the motion?

DISCUSSION

Member Vrettas thinks Member Hodges is concerned the petitioner will give an in depth presentation and he also objects to that. Member Vrettas thinks this needs to be clarified and although the Commission will look at a general philosophical approach, they do not want to see any detail.

Member Hoadley asked if Society Hill gave a presentation during a rezoning request?

Chairperson Lorenzo would appreciate it if Member Hoadley would maintain the point. Member Hoadley argued this is the point and asked if the Commission has already set a precedence with Society Hill? Member Hodges advised she objected to Society Hill also. Member Hoadley said it was then allowed by the Commission and Council for Society Hill and he would ask the Commission to be consistent on these matters.

Mr. Watson does not think consistency is the problem. Mr. Watson asked the Commission to recall when Society Hill was before them it was for a proposed rezoning, a PD-1 Option, and preliminary site plan approval. Therefore, Mr. Watson said it was appropriate for a plan to be before them for actual consideration.

Member Bononi supports Member Hodges because zoning issues should be looked at only as land use issues. Member Bononi explained the moment numbers are brought into the question and diminishing numbers are brought in as a positive point in terms of how the Commission will look at a particular project, they then go beyond a land use issue. Member Bononi advised from the standpoint of the Commission approving or sending a recommendation to Council to approve a zone change, they should talk about the zone change and not anything site specific. Member Bononi explained if the Commission agreed to recommend a positive zone change, the applicant is not bound by anything that he has said in terms of the project he wishes to develop. Member Bononi further explained at the point the matter goes to Council, is approved, and they make the zone change, an entirely different concept could come before both bodies. In Member Bononi’s experience, that is the main reason why site specific projects should not be discussed. Member Bononi said they should only talk about land use issues and how that particular piece of land would lend itself to the most desirable zone.

Chairperson Lorenzo would appreciate it if the Commission would not get into a lengthy debate about this matter.

Member Markham said when Mr. Shapiro came before the Commission three months ago, the Commission told him they felt his project was too dense. Member Markham thinks Mr. Shapiro came back in good faith with a concept which is not too dense. Member Markham can support Member Hodges’ proposal and thinks Mr. Shapiro has heard what the Commission had to say, but in his defense, she believes he acted in good faith. Member Markham reminded the Commission they had told Mr. Shapiro to bring back a new proposal the next time he came back before them.

Chairperson Lorenzo clarified by explaining it was certain members of the Commission that may have told Mr. Shapiro that and it was not a Commission decision.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll and the motion is to preclude the applicant from presenting a site plan or development plan.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-147 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Bononi, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington No: Capello, Markham

Mr. Shapiro advised their plan was intended to demonstrate their commitment that they are prepared to deed restrict this property to four units per acre. Mr. Shapiro further advised when they look at concepts, although multi-family zoned, it is their commitment to take this dense piece of property and commit it to only four units per acre and their goal was to illustrate that. Mr. Shapiro repeated it is not a typical multi-family district, it is only four units per acre.

Member Hodges asked Mr. Greene to remove his concept plan, but he can leave the aerial plan.

Alan Greene advised they had no intent to engage in a site plan discussion. He added in the rezonings he has participated in, most of the communities liked to see a concept plan of how the land use interrelates to the topography of the property. Mr. Greene intended to speak only one minute about the features of their proposal. Mr. Greene explained in a rezoning of this size and because of the magnitude of the property of this type, it is essentially a project specific site plan and that is the only purpose of putting it there. Mr. Greene had little intention of going through site planning with the Commission and his plan does not illustrate anything the Commission could approve. Mr. Greene is concerned about why the Commission is limiting them in terms of even taking a minute to describe what they propose to do.

Member Hodges would like to go on the record as objecting to the applicant’s actions. She added there is a motion and they have asked the petitioner to remove their plan.

Chairperson Lorenzo said as a point of order, unless the Commission’s pleasure is different, she has to ask the applicant to remove the plan. Mr. Greene agreed.

Mr. Greene said the reason they have discussed this when they came in with a concept and a rezoning for discussion before they formally submitted it, was because it was rezoning for an RM-1 with a PD-1 Option and commercial rezoning, as well as some light industrial. Mr. Greene explained they are trying to show the Commission they are coming in with a completely different plan, calling for all residential in this district along with a fair amount of open space and natural areas. Mr. Greene said the reason they talk about this is because in some respects it is an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Greene advised there is a substantial amount of wetlands and there is a substantial amount of woodlands. Mr. Greene believes the preservation should take place in a way that is usable to the community, as opposed to the light industrial zoning which the Master Plan calls for.

Mr. Greene advised the property is a problem piece and they have surrounded it by a variety of land uses. Mr. Greene referred to the aerial photograph and advised Wixom Road is located at the top and there is also a mobile home park with approximately six to seven units per acre. Mr. Greene further stated the property at the bottom of the photograph is a residentially zoned piece which he believes is the piece that is in litigation with Paragon. Mr. Greene advised two apartment complexes are on the left side; a senior citizen’s apartment complex in Wixom and another apartment complex with subsidized housing. Mr. Greene then pointed out the new Meijers and across Wixom Road from the proposed site is a car dealership. Mr. Greene said light industrial is along the expressway in Wixom and Cadillac Asphalt juts into their property. The portion of the property along Wixom Road is zoned for general or heavy industrial and the rest of the property is zoned for residential use.

Mr. Greene described the City’s history and how they dealt with this property as a land use reflects some of the difficulty this property faces with the variety of surrounding land uses. Prior to 1990, Mr. Greene explained it was master planned for low density residential use. Prior to 1990 and as part of the Grand Plan, the entire property was master planned for heavy industrial land use. For those who might not have been on the Commission, the Grand Plan was a comprehensive plan to move to this area many other industrial uses that were not conforming uses throughout the City. Mr. Greene advised the City was going to move the DPW here, there was talk about constructing a waste transfer and recycling facility, and this was also the same property where they originally proposed the Meijers. Mr. Greene said it was an ambitious and intense plan which had the full support of the City’s consultants, as well as the City’s administration.

According to Mr. Greene, three things came out of the Grand Plan that are true today. The first is that the property is not appropriate for low density residential as it is presently zoned based upon the surrounding uses and it has not been master planned for that since 1990. In addition, there was a sense that this was not necessarily a desirable area and it would be a good area to put negative sounding uses. The final item that came out of the Grand Plan is that this is an appropriate area for a high-tech, light industrial usage. At that time, Mr. Greene advised many residents opposed the plan and asked why something different cannot be done. The City’s response was that they have a lot of light industrial land located in better areas in the City. Mr. Greene said the Planning Commission Newsletter touted the removal of the DPW facility to free up some more desirable high-tech land. Mr. Greene said at least back in 1990, this property was not desirable for that purpose.

Mr. Greene advised City Council turned down the Grand Plan, but he was not sure if they turned it down because heavy industrial isn’t an appropriate land use for this piece of property, or because of the public outcry. Mr. Greene said they have carried that theme forward in the City in many other contexts. It has been carried forward by members of the Planning Commission and by City Council that putting industrial use next to residential should be avoided whenever possible. Mr. Greene is not here to argue about that, but it is a desire of the residents of the community and a desire of many representatives of this community. Mr. Greene said they amended the Master Plan again for light industrial with a PD-4 overlay option when they turned down the Grand Plan and in a four year period, this property changed on the Master Plan three times from low density residential to intense industrial and back to a light industrial, high-tech type of use. From that alone, they can conclude that this is a problem piece.

Mr. Greene said the property has been on the market for several years. . . . (end of tape). . . . and it is not a world headquarters or high-tech site because the visibility is poor from the expressway and it is chopped up and surrounded by less than desirable land uses. Mr. Greene said they suggested creating a mixed use residential project that interlinks the wetlands and woodlands so that they would better enjoy the natural environment than having woodlands or wetlands preserved in between industrial warehouses or light industrial facilities and offices. Mr. Greene believes the most appropriate classification for this transition area would be RM-1 because they design it to provide sites for multiple family dwelling structures and related uses which will generally serve as zones of transition between non-residential districts and lower residential districts. Mr. Greene explained by rezoning the property to a low rise, lower density multiple classification would serve as an appropriate transitional district. Mr. Greene stated if the property were to be developed for an industrial use, then the transitional district would move over and typically the neighbors with vacant residential property would come in and say they’re next to industrial or high-tech. These residents should be entitled to have a transitional use before they get to the low density residential. Mr. Greene explained by creating this area as a transitional use, it helps the neighboring property and doesn’t expand the zone of transition beyond this property.

Mr. Greene added there have been a lot of traffic studies for this area and they believe the studies show that the type of use which they are proposing here will result in much less traffic than what the community several years ago deemed acceptable. Mr. Greene advised the traffic consultant has done some calculations which would indicate that a development of this property for the residential use vs. the high-tech light industrial use would create in the worse p.m. peak times three to four times less traffic. Mr. Greene explained that traffic would consist of mostly automobiles vs. the trucks which would be associated with the light industrial development.

Mr. Greene stated their planner will explain that there is an abundance of other property in the community in better locations which are zoned for light industrial high-tech use. Mr. Greene added that their brokers will say there is a twenty year supply for these types of uses. In terms of environmental issues, Mr. Greene added this property has about thirty to forty acres of wetlands and they would better preserve and utilize woodlands as part of a residential development than as part of an industrial development. Mr. Greene said they would also better utilize and preserve it as part of an overall plan for the whole site by a developer who has a track record of environmentally sensitive projects.

Finally, Mr. Greene noted the Master Plan is a living document and it needs to be changed to reflect what is a reality for this site. In this case where it is somewhat unique, the Master Plan seems to change every couple of years with respect to this difficult piece of property, therefore, Mr. Greene thinks this is the appropriate use and transition for this property. Mr. Greene thinks it will be a great statement for this area because when he looked at this property as a land use attorney who has done a lot of projects, he looked at warehouses, he looked at self-storage units, he looked at light industrial, and he looked at a mobile home park. Mr. Greene could argue any one of those things, but he doesn’t see a high class office or high-tech world headquarters on this property. Frankly, Mr. Greene did not see residential property either and he thinks it takes a developer with vision to do a project that can turn a property like this around.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the petitioner can make the introductions, but she believes they have used their allotted time for this evening.

Mr. Greene said he has never seen this Planning Commission ever limit anyone from presenting a concept plan on a rezoning. He has never seen a limitation of the time that they are placing on them vs. other developments that he sat through to such an extent.

Chairperson Lorenzo said he may be correct about the concept plan, but that was a body decision made this evening to preclude that. Chairperson Lorenzo further stated in terms of limitations, that is consistent since she has been a Chairperson and they have that right on their agenda. Chairperson Lorenzo explained she tries to be fair to everyone.

Mr. Greene said in other words, the Commission does not want to listen to anyone else that is present tonight. Unfortunately, Chairperson Lorenzo said the petitioner has utilized more than the ten minutes. Mr. Greene assumed they have an absolute right to use what an individual might get as part of the Public Hearing? Chairperson Lorenzo replied he was correct.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant agreed they have studied the property for many years and recalls all the events Mr. Greene listed. In his July 2, 1996 report, Mr. Rogers said the request is to rezone from RA, R-1, and I-2 Districts to RM-1 for the purposes he has listed on Page 1.

Mr. Rogers advised he made his conclusions before he received Mr. Green’s packet which they delivered on the last day of the deadline for packets and he had no chance to benefit by it. In summary, Mr. Rogers does not recommend the proposed rezoning to RM-1 District owing to: (1) Conflict with the Master Plan for Land Use. ; (2) Lack of showing there is a need for a substantial number of multiple housing units. (e.g., they would permit 1,312 units based on RM-1 maximum density of 7.3 units/acre) City has a high percentage of multiple housing units and more are in the planning stages elsewhere. ; (3) Traffic implications on Twelve Mile Road and Wixom Road with substantial increase in vehicular trips. Mr. Rogers added Mr. Arroyo has not rendered a report at this time, but perhaps zoning questions could be referred to him in the future. Therefore, Mr. Rogers will not site the petitioner for excessive traffic and further noted, traffic is a concern of the City of Wixom. ; (4) It is the Planning Consultant’s opinion the subject property has future potential as a high-tech, R&D Park. ; and (5) The gerrymandered boundary of the proposed rezoning raises serious questions on impact on the RA and R-1 zoned parcels remaining ad the relationship of RM-1 zoning surrounding Cadillac Asphalt’s I-2 zoned property.

Mr. Rogers agrees the property is not suitable to low density residential. Mr. Rogers remembered that the Grand Plan did get a majority approval by the Council, but it needed five votes because of protests. Mr. Rogers explained if it goes to an OS-2, PD-4 or OS-T District, they will have ample and strong screening requirements. Mr. Rogers disagreed there is a twenty year supply of high-tech space in Novi and advised whim does not change the Master Plan. In 1988, Mr. Rogers stated the Grand Plan started out recommending residential. In 1989 or so, they recommended it for an I-2 planned industrial park which he supported and in the 1993 Master Plan it went to an office with a PD-4 overlay or high-tech. Mr. Rogers said they haven’t flipped flopped and he thinks Novi is a good neighbor to its sister city.

Chairperson Lorenzo said she will open the floor to the public for the Public Hearing.

Ken Anderson - 27047 Wixom Rd., said his property is adjacent to the lower access on Wixom Road. Mr. Anderson said the problem with that small piece of property that it is only 79' wide and does not constitute a roadway according to Novi zoning. This property would need a variance and he was here not too long ago to get a variance of his own. Mr. Anderson said this area, according to this plan or anybody’s plan, would not make a suitable access road because it is too close to the two houses which are there. Mr. Anderson believes if they want to change it to something that they can change in a whim, they should construct apartments. However, he wants to see something someone is going to take a little more pride in. Mr. Anderson said there is a lot of wildlife that should be considered and he agrees Novi is becoming over residential.

Andrew Mutch - 24541 Hampton Court, stated he spoke the last time Mr. Shapiro was before the Commission and he continues to oppose this proposal. Mr. Mutch thinks some of the assumptions are flawed and apparently some of the Commissioners were buying into some of those assumptions. Mr. Mutch would like to address some of those points that they brought forward.

To digress, Mr. Mutch stated he has always been concerned about showing a concept plan because too many people want to play planner on rezoning petitions which he thinks is inappropriate. On the other hand, Mr. Mutch thinks one thing a concept plan can bring out are some of the environmental features on the property and when considering a rezoning, sometimes what is existing on the property is neglected. Mr. Mutch thinks if they could require that in the future, it would make rezoning decisions more informed.

Mr. Mutch said it is a fact that most of the multiple family zoning has been used up. Mr. Mutch looked at several communities similar to Novi in size and development. Mr. Mutch examined the land use statistics for Rochester Hills, West Bloomfield, and Canton Township which were all similar in size to Novi. In 1990, the City of Novi had 698 acres of multiple family and 289 acres of mobile home development. Rochester Hills in 1990, had 787 acres of multiple family, West Bloomfield had 766 acres of multiple family, and Canton Township had 492 acres of multiple family and 250 acres of mobile home development. Mr. Mutch said Novi is just about consistent with those communities give or take 15 acres. Mr. Mutch stated the difference is the level of development in these communities. Mr. Mutch reported Rochester Hills has only 22% of its land vacant, West Bloomfield has only 23%, and Canton Township has 46%. Mr. Mutch advised all three of those communities were in excess of 54,000 people which means Novi, in 1990 with a population of approximately 33,000 and 60% vacant land had as much multiple family development as those other three communities which are more advanced and developed. Mr. Mutch advised since then the Vista’s project, Main Street Village, Crescent Oaks, the Springs II Apartments, Portsmouth Place West, and Society Hill have all been approved, are under construction, or constructed since the 1990 land use survey. Mr. Mutch explained Novi has had a significant increase in its multiple family and at build out it is expected to grow to over 8,700 multiple family units, which is quite significant and adequate.

Mr. Mutch would recommend that the Commission either rezone the area to OS-2 as the Master Plan recommends or rezone it to I-1 because he thinks it would make an excellent light industrial which provides excellent buffers for surrounding residential. At the very least, Mr. Mutch would recommend that they eliminate the I-2 zoning which surrounds Cadillac Asphalt. Mr. Mutch believes there is a potential problem if the developer decides to sell his land and then someone would come in for an I-2 use. (end of tape)

Mr. Wortman - Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc., feels as a site planner, as a community planner, and as a landscape architect that the opportunities for natural resource preservation is much greater in a residential type development than it would be for a high-tech or an industrial park. Mr. Wortman advised typical industrial parks often have one to two acres of land per lot with cookie cutter designs and there is not as much opportunity for such things as length open space, recreation opportunities, pathways, boardwalks, opportunities for cluster housing, etc. Mr. Wortman also said the original plan emphasizes the maintenance and the preservation of open space woodlands, etc. and these opportunities are greater with residential development than they would be with a high tech or an industrial park type scheme.

Although Mr. Wortman respects Mr. Rogers’ comments, he calls the Commission’s attention to a few things he has noticed. Mr. Wortman stated in terms of the Master Plan, although it is only a few years old, there is a lot of development occurring, a lot of changes have made and there have been some conditions which may have already made this portion out of date. For example, Mr. Wortman said the Meijers has gone in, the Levy property to the south should also be considered, and the market conditions have also changed this area. Mr. Wortman advised they have real estate brokers and experts who will testify regarding the lack of viability for high-tech and the strength of the market for multi-family development. From that aspect, Mr. Wortman thinks the Master Plan is out of date and some of the aspects could be revised.

In terms of the gerrymandering, Mr. Wortman feels there are some residential out parcels along Wixom Road and if this were residential that would actually be brought further into compliance. If it were high-tech, certainly those boundaries are irregular. Mr. Wortman concluded by asking the Commission to consider the facts that it is basically a down zoning. Mr. Wortman added the low visibility from I-96 makes it unsuitable for a high-tech park and the Commission should consider the transitional use especially to the south in consideration of the Levy property that this is a logical boundary. Furthermore, the woodlands and wetlands would form a logical boundary. In addition, the differention point from single family residential to a higher density residential to the north would allow opportunities for natural resource protection and preservation on this property.

Robert Cartwright - Neighbors Against Poor Planning, 49988 Helfer Blvd., Wixom, was hoping by now there would be a program which would have eliminated the potential of industrial and gotten it so taxes could have come from regular homes or multiple housing or whatever. Evidently, Mr. Cartwright stated it looks as though it is not to be up until now. Mr. Cartwright hopes the Commission will reconsider to make sure that they don’t put industrial in because he would hate to come back and fight it over again to defeat it again.

Jeff Green - President of the Green Group Retail and Land Use Feasibility Consultants, Troy, Michigan, does not want to belabor the point about the current zoning of light industrial, high-tech. Mr. Green concurs with the first Mr. Greene that historically high-tech companies have developed along major freeways because they need highway visibility. Mr. Green thinks the parcels currently master planned for high-tech along I-96 between Beck and Dixon Roads are optimal sites for high-tech. Also, Mr. Green thinks historically, many high-tech firms have located close to the auto makers such as Dearborn, Romulus, Plymouth, and Auburn Hills.

Mr. Green said the market need for residential under the $300,000 range and 4 units per acre is not the typical multi-family. Mr. Green disagrees with Mr. Rogers because he thinks the trading area in and around the parcel is about a 5% increase in population. Mr. Green added the trend is expected to continue until the year 2000. However, Mr. Green said there are only those 100 acres remaining that are master planned for multi-family. Mr. Green does not think the parcel on Novi Road and Twelve ½ Mile Road is an optimal parcel because many residents must pass through the Twelve Oaks area to get to the expressway.

Mr. Green reported the median household income for the trading area right now is $54,000. At those income levels, Mr. Green said a typical family can support a $130,000 home. Many areas that are currently designated for single family units are of a higher price and Mr. Green’s concern is there may be people in Novi who wish to move into new units, but can’t because they can’t afford to. Mr. Green said there may be others who wish to live in Novi because they want to live closer to their employment, but there are very few economically feasible alternatives for them. As a quick aside, before knowing Mr. Shapiro, Mr. Green commissioned Ivanhoe Huntley to build him a home in West Bloomfield. Mr. Green advised it was a wooded lot and he was understandably concerned about whether the woodlands would remain as they were. They promised Mr. Green they would and to his amazement they saved more trees than he thought. Mr. Green believes his experience is typical of Ivanhoe’s commitment to environmental sensibility, which is preserving wetlands and woodlands.

Todd Smith - Thompson Brown Realtors, said he is not here to argue for multiple family. Mr. Smith reported Thompson Brown has been actively occupied within the City of Novi for the last thirteen to fifteen years and they account for more than 65% of the land that has sold over the past fifteen years. Mr. Smith would like to ask what should this piece of land be? Mr. Smith said they have argued previously before the Commission during the master planning and continue to argue with potential purchasers that this might not be the appropriate spot for high-tech. Thompson Brown has been involved with this property since 1985, and they have yet to find one user that has expressed any interest in locating in this area due to the concerns that were mentioned earlier. One area Thompson Brown has actively been involved in is the Grand River Corridor between Beck and Taft. Mr. Smith further advised Thompson Brown was also responsible for the Providence Hospital sale. Mr. Smith said some of the functional problems have occurred there were because of the high-tech and adjoining uses, and that site does have freeway visibility. Mr. Smith said they were also involved in Farmington Hills park which has been developed for twelve years and it still is not fully developed. Mr. Smith would like to be able to justify that at least in twenty years that property in excess of 200 acres cannot and will not be developed for office high-tech. Mr. Smith explained office high-tech that is based on market conditions, and the research that Thompson Brown has done, users will not locate on this site. Mr. Smith then asked what use does fit there? Mr. Smith asked if it should sit idle and vacant with an asphalt plant or does it get developed as heavy industrial? When Mr. Shapiro approached Thompson Brown he proposed that they consider multiple family and Mr. Smith originally responded no. However, Mr. Shapiro then asked if a planned development with deed restrictions and a limit of 4 units per acre made sense? Mr. Smith said given the choice between heavy industrial or high-tech, he believes the multiple family is one of the only uses that could be considered at this time.

Chairperson Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley said he has seen the site and he doesn’t agree with the petitioner. Member Hoadley thinks there are alternate uses which would work and he would refer the petitioner to Page 2 of Todd Smith’s report which reads, ". . . .able to demonstrate that a higher density residential use or an extensive light/heavy industrial would be appropriate for this unique parcel. . . ." Mr. Hoadley said even their own expert reported light industrial might be an appropriate use. Mr. Hoadley agrees heavy industrial should be removed and hopefully they will accomplish that in the future. Mr. Hoadley also agrees the residential rezoned land isn’t going to work as it is now configured. He would support rezoning the entire parcel to light industrial and he noticed in the public hearing petition, they wish to rezone it to low density multiple family residential district or any other appropriate zoning district. Perhaps, the Commission can consider an alternative appropriate zoning district and if they do, Member Hoadley thinks the OS-T would be the most desirable. Member Hoadley reiterated he would not hesitate rezoning the entire parcel to I-1. Member Hoadley added if the OS-T is available they could then rezone part of it to OS-T to accommodate both light industrial and high-tech. In addition, Member Hoadley said on Page 6, Section 2 of the petitioner’s own demographics it indicates under Vacant Units there are 1462 vacant units of which 59% are currently for rent which means there are about 800 vacant units available for rent. Member Hoadley explained this means the demand has not yet been fully used. Member Hoadley added because this is in addition to the apartments which they are currently building along Pontiac Trail, Society Hill, the Vistas, the Maples, and a Senior Citizen Housing Authority who will soon be addressing senior housing needs he cannot see where the petitioner makes a good case that there is an economic need for more multiple housing. In fact, Member Hoadley said the current population is somewhere around 45,000 of which 50% is currently high density, multiple housing. Member Hoadley said if Novi never rezones any property for multiple housing and they build Novi out the way it is currently master planned, they may reduce multiple housing to 25%. Member Hoadley added 25% is still more than what any of Novi’s surrounding communities have. It seems to Member Hoadley, Novi has done more than their share to supply mix use type housing for the area and he would like to see some of the multiple housing go to other areas before Novi. Member Hoadley thinks Novi needs more land available for high-tech office and light industrial zoning to protect the tax base. Member Hoadley is not prepared to grant a rezoning petition and he intends to make a motion to rezone this parcel to I-1 as an alternate appropriate zoning district.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if this is a recommendation to City Council? Member Hoadley replied it is a motion. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if this is a motion for a recommendation to City Council? Member Hoadley replied she was correct. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it is to rezone the entire parcels to I-1? Member Hoadley said yes, to I-1. There was no second made and Chairperson Lorenzo advised the motion died due to lack of support.

Member Hodges commended Mr. Alan Greene for his presentation and she thinks it should be exemplified that this is what a rezone presentation is. Secondly, Member Hodges agrees with Member Hoadley. They do not convince Member Hodges and she takes exception with their reasons in Items 4 and 5. Member Hodges is not convinced Novi does not have a demand for industrial use and she is not convinced there is no other property suitable for future multi-family development. Member Hodges asked for help to make a motion because she is going to ask for an action item and asked the Chair and Mr. Watson to correct her if she is incorrect. Member Hodges moved to send a negative recommendation regarding Zoning Map Amendment 18.554 the property located south of Grand River Avenue and west of Wixom Road. Member Hodges would also like to recommend that the Commission refer Section 18 to the Economic Development Corporation forum to study and evaluate the property for proposed land as for economic development. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges is referring to the EDC? Member Hodges replied she is referring to the in-house staff, with Mr. Capote specifically to evaluate and if they feel necessary to make a recommendation for proposed land use. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if she meant Mr. Capote and his staff? Member Hodges replied Mr. Capote and his staff should evaluate Section 18 and determine if they deem it necessary to make a recommendation for a zoning changed based upon economic development.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to send a negative recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.554 and to refer Section 18 to Mr. Capote for further study. Member Hoadley seconded the motion.

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED (8-1): To send a negative recommendation to city Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.554 and to refer Section 18 to Mr. Capote for further study.

Member Vrettas advised he will support the motion and would also like to commend the petitioner’s presentation. Member Vrettas stated if it were not for a philosophy he has, the petitioner would have sold him on the plan. Member Vrettas’ philosophy is there is a purpose for the Master Plan which should not be changed unless it is very important. Member Vrettas liked Wixom’s comment about neighboring communities working together to coordinate Master Plans.

Member Vrettas also commented on the statement about rules changing. He apologized for that, but explained the Commission is young and learning. Member Vrettas further explained the Commission is trying to serve the community in the best way that it can and when someone is new at it, they can make mistakes. Member Vrettas added that new members also tend to grow and change things and the Commission is hoping that what they are doing is in the communities best interest. Member Vrettas advised there are some things he cannot philosophically agree on and he hopes this area will turn into something good for everybody.

Member Markham is voting against the motion because she believes tonight’s group has presented a nice proposal for a piece of property that has a lot of problems associated with it. Member Markham believes if there is going to be transition to large lot residential to the south of this parcel, they need something for the future residents to be comfortable with. Member Markham is not convinced light industrial or office is as good a use in that regard as multi-family as it’s presently proposed. Member Markham thinks the potential to preserve a lot of the natural resources is better served with a residential community than some of the other uses that might be used and it is important. Member Markham advised the aerial topography view depicts a lot of wooded area and she would like to see as much of that preserved as possible. Member Markham also thinks they should tamper with the Master Plan very carefully, if at all. However, Member Markham stated she has been on the Commission long enough to see the Master Plan changed where convenient and when it served certain purposes and not others. Member Markham said if it makes sense for a certain parcel to seriously be considered for rezoning, then the Master Plan can be considered changed.

Member Capello agrees this is a difficult parcel and he thinks he was here with Chairperson Lorenzo and Member Weddington when they revamped the Master Plan and Member Capello has the same concerns. Member Capello stated he rarely disagrees with Mr. Rogers or Mr. Arroyo, but he would have to say he agrees with Todd Smith because he cannot see an OS-2 park going into this area. From personal experience, Member Capello advised when business owners are looking for a single lot to construct their building, they’re not going to go off a major thoroughfare or freeway unless there is really something to attract them to that park or as a last recourse in a certain community. Member Capello said there was a certain park which is vacant that was just off the beaten track and offered nothing to attract a business owner to build his building there. Member Capello said they can see from the development across the street from the Ford factory, that the Ford plant isn’t the type of plant which brings suppliers and purveyors to that area to service that factory. Therefore, that property is not going to develop as a result of Ford bringing the business in.

Member Capello said the first time he was quoted and the first and last time he was misquoted in the Novi News, he had said he saw the need in Novi for reasonably priced housing. Member Capello was misquoted as saying, $150,000 houses were substandard houses. Given that particular property, Member Capello does not want to see apartments there. Member Capello does think the property lends itself to a higher density, lower priced housing to allow somebody to move into Novi and purchase a new house. From personal experience, Member Capello knows that finding new housing (less than $300,000 is very difficult) used housing less than $150,000 also does not exist. Member Capello thinks that parcel may lend itself to that type of development, but he still does not have an opinion about what it should be although he is inclined to think that type of housing fits there.

Member Weddington also has mixed feelings, but thinks there are a couple of attractive features about the plan. Member Weddington primarily thinks there is an opportunity to preserve some natural resources and she knows Ivanhoe does have a good reputation in that regard. However, Member Weddington feels she will support the motion because she does not feel the Commission should go against the Master Plan at this time. In addition, Member Weddington thinks they should explore the possibility of office more thoroughly and she is not convinced this is not developable as office. Member Weddington feels an office use of some sort, OS-2, OS-T when completed, or even some limited types of I-1 might be better transitions in this situation. Member Weddington agrees with all of the points made in Mr. Rogers’ report and feels there is more than an adequate amount of multi-family which is also documented in Section 1, Page 7 of the petitioner’s own document. Member Weddington thinks there are some other potential uses such as recreation facilities. (end of tape) At this time, Member Weddington is not in favor of rezoning and although the area needs some attention to spur it along, she does not believe multiple family is appropriate in this case at this time.

Member Hoadley asked Linda Lemke to provide some information about some of the previous statements made about whether light industrial, OS-T, or high-tech can be done so that it addresses sensitive lands as well as high density housing could? Ms. Lemke replied it would depend upon the density and how they lay out the plan. Ms. Lemke advised they could lay out an industrial park and still save open spaces. Member Hoadley asked if she is familiar with this parcel? Ms. Lemke replied she is very familiar with this parcel. Member Hoadley asked if it could be done properly and still save the ecological sensitivity of the land? Ms. Lemke replied again, it depends upon how much they would plan to put on the piece of land. She added it could be done, but typically industrial uses take a lot of parking, multiple takes a lot of parking, and single family residential would take less. Ms. Lemke stressed it would depend upon how many units they would try to put on the piece of property. Member Hoadley asked if they can develop that way? Ms. Lemke replied it can. Member Hoadley asked if they could preserve the regulated wetlands and woodlands? Ms. Lemke replied he was correct.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated if there is nothing further she will ask Mr. Cohen to call the roll stating the motion is to send a negative recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.554 and refer the matter of Section 18 to Mr. Capote for further study.

VOTE ON 96-07-148- MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi

No: Markham

Chairperson Lorenzo advised the Commission will take a brief recess.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

James Korte - Shawood Lake, said he is referencing the Walled Lake Sector Study in his comments about Andris Romain. Mr. Korte reported they tried to do a lot to improve the area and they have not really addressed it since 1991. Since 1991, a major situation has changed and that is the flow of traffic. Mr. Korte advised there is a sign on Thirteen Mile Road near Helen’s Hide-Away across from the City property that says, "Through Traffic, Take Decker." There is also a sign on East Lake which says, "No Through Trucks." Mr. Korte said to allow the curb cuts on East Lake will totally tear apart everything that everyone has tried to do with the flow of traffic in the past. Mr. Korte advised he is not anti "the restaurant" and feels it is a beautiful piece of property. Mr. Korte said the curb cut will be totally regressive and there is nothing positive about allowing the through traffic back onto East Lake. Mr. Korte stated when everything is functioning, East Lake is going to survive and this is all that can ever be done for East Lake and there isn’t any reason that the man does not build his lovely establishment with ingress and egress on Fourteen Mile Road. Mr. Korte thinks it is a major concern because they fought to get TCO’s to get the signs up so this residential street becomes safe for adults as well as children. Mr. Korte asked the Commission to please look closely at the curb cut because it is not necessary in the residential subdivision.

Patricia Hughes - 1241 East Lake Drive has two concerns and one is about the main entrance to Andris Romain. Ms. Hughes would like to preface her comments by stating she understands Mr. Andris has a right to build a restaurant and she accepted it if he follows the City’s ordinances. However, Ms. Hughes advised East Lake is the only commercial cut out on a residential road in the City of Novi. Ms. Hughes further advised since there is a Fourteen Mile Road address on his restaurant and there is ample space for an entrance and exit on that commercial road, she feels that should be the alternative. In addition, since the entrance to Frigate’s is almost like an open parking lot, she wonders where the traffic would end up on the access lanes.

Ms. Hughes’ second concern is environmental. Ms. Hughes stated the building of a sediment basin on residential lake front property as is proposed in the plan is against the City’s ordinance. Ms. Hughes is concerned the developer could use the installation of the lake front property as an issue now or later in an attempt to rezone the lake front by claiming hardship and she would like protection from that happening. Ms. Hughes believes just because the Planning Commission of 1991 gave preliminary approval of the site plan, it doesn’t mean this body shouldn’t look more seriously at the situation. As Mr. Rogers had mentioned, site plans or the master plan is subject to change and the perspective should be in the best interest of the community that they really care so much about.

Unidentified Speaker - 1129 East Lake Drive, read from Article 5, Section 11, 121 of the Novi Code for Design and Construction Standards which clearly states all new development shall provide an on site storm water holding facility in accordance with the City of Novi’s Storm Water Management Master Plan. The speaker stressed "on site" storm water holding facility. It is inconceivable to the speaker that this lovely lake front residential property could be construed as being a site for a commercial development. She was under the impression that residential property could not be used for commercial purposes, particularly in a case like this where the residential property is in such an environmentally sensitive area. The speaker said the most recent site plan she saw put the sediment basin only 11' from the shore. In addition, just this Spring, the speaker said more than half of Mr. Clark’s front yard (the property just north of the speaker) flooded when the culvert on the north side of his property over flowed with a heavy rain. The speaker asked what will happen to their lake after a heavy rain when the basin over flows as it most assuredly will. She anticipates a heavy film of oil and grease floating on the water which is not a pretty site. This is not conducive to any wildlife and most definitely, not desirable for the many boaters who dock their boats in this prime swimming location. It is the speaker’s opinion that locating this basin on this residential property is but another ploy by Mr. Andris and his associates to have this lake front property rezoned to commercial. This is a fight the speaker has already thought they have won. The speaker reported by putting this sediment basin on the residentially zoned lake front lot, Mr. Andris has effectively eliminated most of the possibilities of using this property for its intended residential purpose and thereby, created for himself just cause to eventually claim hardship and ask for a zoning change. The speaker reported they have all fought for so long and so hard to keep this residential property zoned residential that she cannot believe the Planning Commission would allow this to happen. She feels confident the Commission will insist that this residential property remain residential and be used solely for residential purposes as it was intended.

Sarah Gray - 133 Maudlin, is speaking as President of South East Shawood Homeowners Association concerning the Andris Romain project. Ms. Gray asked the Commission to understand that they have never been against Mr. Andris’ building his restaurant on the approved and commercially zoned site on East Lake Drive. Ms. Gray advised when she was president of LARA five years ago, they were not opposed to construction of the restaurant on the east side of East Lake Drive. She further advised whether it is SES or LARA, they have been consistently opposed to the rezoning of the residential property to commercial and the cul-de-sac and rerouting proposals on East Lake Drive at taxpayer expense to benefit one developer. Ms. Gray advised those efforts were not successful. Ms. Gray explained the Commission needs to know SES has asked to meet with Mr. Andris twice. Ms. Gray advised they sent a letter on May 15, 1996 and via another source he replied he did not receive the letter. They sent a second letter to him inviting him to their August meeting on June 28, 1996 with a return receipt requested with another invitation to their July 9, 1996 meeting. Ms. Gray advised they have not received any response from Mr. Andris and they would like to work with him, rather than be in an adversarial position. Ms. Gray advised she feels many of them have been forced into this adversarial position.

With that being said, Ms. Gray said the SES has provided a booklet to the Commission and she hopes they have taken the time to review it and will address their concerns. Some of their concerns are: the road right of way and the East Lake curb cut. Ms. Gray said this has been their first chance since 1991 or possibly 1992 to address the project and it is their last chance to make this the best project it can be for the area and asked the Commission to remember this is a two lane residential road.

Ruth Hamilton - 1245 East Lake Drive, is also speaking on behalf of SES and referring to the booklet they submitted for the Commission packet on July 12. Ms. Hamilton wishes to repeat it is not the SES’s position to stop the project, but they ask the Commission to seriously address their concerns trying to make this project the best it can be for everybody involved, especially the residents of the community in which this is intruding on. Ms. Hamilton advised they have stated before that this is the only residential road in Novi which will have commercial property adjacent with a driveway or a curb cut on that street. Ms. Hamilton advised there is already one, certainly two are not needed.

Ms. Hamilton said the site plan is actually Lots 17, 19, and 20. Ms. Hamilton reported since the whole process began in the late 1980's, the site plan has always been all of his property which includes the north half of 13, the north half of 14, all of 15, all of 16, all of 17, all of 18, all of 19, and all of 20. Ms. Hamilton advised as late as July 11, she looked at SP 90-48G. Ms. Hamilton reported the SES packet the Commission has is directly taken from site plan G and Greg Capote will verify that. Ms. Hamilton asked the Commission to notice that the legal description has not changed on Page 2 and she believes she specified that in the packet. Ms. Hamilton said that knowing that the sediment basin they are talking about is sitting on the lot line and encroaching upon Lot 16 is important for the Commission, which is R-4 as well as Lot 18 which is R-4 and that is a major concern.

Ms. Hamilton advised she has just handed the Commission two graphs regarding parking. Ms. Hamilton reported in all of the consultants’ reviews, the Planning Commission and Council agendas and on Page 21 of Mr. Andris’ liquor license the project is referred to as a 250 seat establishment. Ms. Hamilton advised only when they directly address the question of parking, does this project become a 250 occupancy establishment which causes a great concern. Where they site total occupancy, parking seems adequate. However, when they site 250 seats, it is inadequate. Mr. Andris stated on Page 21 of the liquor license packet provided to the Council that he proposed to 70-85 employees which include wait staff, hosts, bartenders, cooks, kitchen employees, and managers. Mr. Andris further stated this would help to stimulate the economy. Ms. Hamilton said they are not questioning that statement, but they are questioning the change when it comes to his plan where Mr. Andris states 12 employees. Ms. Hamilton is not presuming to tell him how to run his business, but based on their survey, it doesn’t look like it is going to be very successful.

Ms. Hamilton reiterated there will be a copy of the survey in the packet. The first graph depicts the 8 surveyed restaurants with the number of seats graphed in red, the number of employees graphed in green. Ms. Hamilton said the only restaurant this project is comparable with is Fuddruckers, which is a hamburger cafeteria style establishment on Grand River. The second graph shows the number of seats in red, the number parking spaces in green, and the amount of overflow parking available to each restaurant in blue. Ms. Hamilton said there are 7 restaurants which show 100% overflow availability within one block of that establishment. Based on their survey and the nature of the establishment having a lake view, Ms. Hamilton reported it is their position that this project is deficient by approximately ten spaces. Ms. Hamilton urges the Commission to seriously look at the parking situation so as not to end up with parking on the road right of way or worse, in the adjacent residential neighbor’s front yards. Ms. Hamilton further asked the Commission to address the legal description now and although it is only a technicality, they would hate for it to become a future issue should Mr. Andris attempt to rezone the residential property he owns.

As one last thought, Ms. Hamilton said the Commission can tell by the pictures they have submitted that there is major stacking on East Lake Drive already and per Mr. Arroyo’s statements in the Novi News on July 11 that gives even more concern to them. Ms. Hamilton also asked the Commission to keep in mind that this is a residential area.

Asa Smith - 1294 East Lake Drive, President of East Lake Drive and Member of SES Homeowners Association, stated he is concerned about the sediment basin for the Andris-Romain project. Mr. Smith reported the sediment basin’s proposed location is unacceptable at this time because it is on R-4 frontage and it is not a part of the proposed building site. According to the Novi Construction and Design Standards, Sections 11, 121 it states, "storm water holding facilities shall be on the site." Mr. Smith advised this has been touched on briefly by the other members. Mr. Smith advised they will build the proposed sediment basin on already low lying land with a high ground water level as it is. Mr. Smith is not quite sure of the proposed lining of the basin, but if it is of the geo-textile fabric, they are concerned about ruptures, splits, or other damage causing hydrostatic water pressures from the lake level and existing ground waters to constantly keep this basin filled if they should destroy them in any manner through cleaning or whatever and it cannot function properly as they engineer it at this time. Mr. Smith would like a total engineering explanation about the proposal and what is to be there at this time. Mr. Smith stated if the recommended basin stays at this location, they recommend that a reinforced concrete system be used for the construction of the basin including the base, the sidewalls, and so forth. Mr. Smith further stated all spillways should also be of concrete and not asphalt. Mr. Smith added they should utilize gas oil separators to the maximum and they should also engineer a step cleaner system into this system to help filter the pollutants from the run off water. Mr. Smith stated the sediment basin in the proposed location would also be an eye sore on the shores of Walled Lake unless properly landscaped protected. Mr. Smith suggested that they shouldn’t use an unsightly high cyclone fence that usually seen around some of those ponds. SES recommends that a retention pond with beautiful landscaping, a pretty aeration fountain with lighting could be installed on the proposed building site and leave the shores of the lake unspoiled. Mr. Smith added the retention basin should have all the engineering data required by City ordinances and utilize evaporation, leeching, percolation, over spill capabilities, some swales and landscaping to help dissipate the water before reaching Walled Lake. It should also be well designed to handle deluge type rains and so not to cause flooding on the surrounding properties. Mr. Smith asked the Commission to refer to the SES packets and especially note the information on the sediment basins, retention ponds, and so forth. Mr. Smith reiterated the SES has never been against this project, but they would like the best they can have for the community they live in.

Chairperson Lorenzo closed Audience Participation and advised there will be a third before adjournment.

Member Capello asked to move Sikh Temple, SP 89-05C on the Agenda above the Sinai Park Development. Seconded by Member Weddington.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To move Sikh Temple, SP 89-05C before Sinai Park Development, SP 96-06B under Public Hearings.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked all those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. Chairperson Lorenzo advised the motion is carried.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-149 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. SIKH TEMPLE, SP 89-05C

Property located north of Eight Mile Road, between Taft Road and Garfield Road for possible three (3) month extension of Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan, and Phasing Plan approval.

In trying to be consistent and although he will approve the extension, Member Hoadley moves this should be the last extension because this project is 6-7 years old. In addition, Member Hoadley suggested that the Commission should look at their policies for limitations about how often projects come back for extensions. (end of tape) Seconded by Member Capello.

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve a three month extension for Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan, and Phasing Plan for Sikh Temple, SP 89-05C.

Member Weddington advised as a member of the Rules Committee they did not meet to discuss this. Member Weddington suggested when they make reappointments to committees, the new Rules Committee could make this the first order of business because she shares Member Hoadley’s concerns about this issue and some sort of sunset should be put on these extensions.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked as a point of clarification if they have ever referred this to the Rules Committee? Mr. Watson replied he does not know what the Rules Committee has done, but there appears to be a summary of a Rules Committee meeting of August 9, 1995 where site plan extensions/time limits were on the agenda. The summary indicates there was a discussion about possibly amending the zoning ordinance to limit the number of site plan extensions. The summary goes on to say the consensus was to leave site plan extensions to the discretion of the Planning Commission and not to change the ordinance, no formal vote was taken. Mr. Watson advised it appears it was before the Committee about a year ago.

Member Hodges asked Mr. Cohen if the applicant is tentatively on the August 21, 1996 agenda? Mr. Cohen replied it would be realistic. Member Hodges does not understand why they need a three month extension because they have already submitted their materials, and the consultants and staff made their recommendations based upon certain conditions. Member Hodges said even if the conditions are not met prior to the August 21, 1996 meeting, they can be something that they could agree upon at the August 21 meeting. Member Hodges said if there is a concern or a change in the agenda, they would give them consideration and an extension until August 21 would be sufficient.

Member Hoadley would be willing to amend his motion to change the extension to the August 21 meeting and it would be the last extension. Member Capello will not approve the amendment. Chairperson Lorenzo advised Member Hoadley that he may make a formal amendment. Member Hoadley advised he amends his motion to change the extension to the August 21 meeting and it will be the last extension. Member Weddington seconded the amendment to the main motion.

PM-96-07-151 TO AMEND MAIN MOTION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION UNTIL AUGUST 21, 1996 FOR SPECIAL LAND USE, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, AND PHASING PLAN FOR SIKH TEMPLE, SP 89-05C

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend main motion to approve an extension until August 21, 1996 for Special Land Use, Preliminary Site Plan, and Phasing Plan for Sikh Temple, SP 89-05C.

Member Vrettas said the Commission has been following a practice when they give a final extension it is for three months and he would like to maintain that process. Chairperson Lorenzo advised the last extension was for thirty days and the one prior to that was three months.

Member Hoadley asked to call the question. Chairperson Lorenzo advised it has been moved and seconded to call the question and the question is to amend the main motion to approve the extension until August 21, 1996.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-151 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo advised they must now vote on the main motion which is to approve Sikh Temple SP 89-05C for an extension until August 21, 1996.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-150 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella

No: None

3. SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP 96-06B

Property located at the southeast corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road for possible Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan, Revised Woodland Permit, and Revised Wetland Permit approvals.

Norman Hyman - 2290 First National Building, Detroit , advised this site plan was before the Commission in May 1996 and they rejected it. Mr. Hyman said some concerns were expressed and they have gone back to the drawing board to try to meet some of the concerns expressed.

Gino Rossetti - Rossetti and Associates, 280 N. Woodward, Birmingham, said they have reduced the bed count in the third phase from 300 to 200 beds and reduced the building from five stories to a four story facility. In addition, 436 spaces which continue to meet the City’s standards have reduced the total parking. By reducing the parking, Mr. Rossetti advised it increased the preserved wetland’s area, it increased the overall green space, it reduced the site coverage, and they have maintained more of the existing trees. Mr. Rossetti said their changes have also eliminated the need for a pumping station increase by reducing the overall capacity and the overall size. Mr. Rossetti presented a brief graphic to show and to tally how much land coverage which they are speaking of. Mr. Rossetti explained the light gray area represents the first phase, the second phase, and then the total phase which is approximately 10% or if it were just in the first phase it is only 3.8% of actual building coverage on the total land. The parking and the roads are 32.4% or in the first phase only 19%. The total development green space left over is approximately 57% or 76% in the first phase with 63% in the continuing phasing. Mr. Rossetti said they have made a great deal of effort to come back with more care for green space. Mr. Rossetti said it is the hospital’s desire to have a campus setting. Mr. Rossetti directed the Commission’s attention to Phase I and advised they would like to begin immediately. He pointed to the parking and two connecting buildings. Mr. Rossetti advised the additional amount of Phase I work relates to the retention of the overall wetland’s configuration and woodlands. Mr. Rossetti pointed to an area which they would actually see in a way of green areas supported by the building area.

Mr. Rossetti advised Phase II would begin in 3-5 years and would complete the diagnostic treatment and building services area. Mr. Rossetti stated if there were ever to be a short stay bed, there would be an additional 200 bed configuration and pointed to the total amount of parking which would leave all the green space in tact. Mr. Rossetti said this summarizes the whole intent and he knows that reading drawings is often difficult. Mr. Rossetti displayed a scale model and thought a model does a lot more in representation to what they have. Mr. Rossetti said the Commission can now see they have reduced the building.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant summarized his report of July 1, 1996 and advised he recommends preliminary site plan and phasing plan approval.

David Bluhm, JCK & Associates summarized Victoria Weber’s report of July 11, 1996 and advised except for the items which they can address at the time of final site plan preparation, the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and they therefore recommend approval. Mr. Bluhm advised there was one change that the applicant noted is the reduction of the buildings has allowed a reduction in the amount of flows through the sewer system. Mr. Bluhm reported they are still about 0.03 cfs above the projected capacity, but due to the configuration of the pump station it is almost certain that the station as it exists can handle the increase. Mr. Bluhm further advised it is almost certain as they get to Phase III, the sewerage capacity and requirement will be less than that. Mr. Bluhm said they would like to reserve the right to evaluate that as the phases come forward.

Mr. Bluhm reported from a storm water point of view, there are some constructed wetlands east of the building which they intend to be used for storm water detention. As before, Mr. Bluhm said out letting through the wetlands at the southeast corner and then out to an existing well-defined ditch south of that point. Mr. Bluhm added there is some additional storm water storage proposed in the south western existing wetland also being conveyed through a ditch system. Mr. Bluhm reiterated the plan is very similar to the prior plan and the reductions in parking will allow some reductions in how much storage will be required for storm water.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant said there is a slight reduction in trip generation and he has outlined that information in his report of July 11, 1996. Mr. Arroyo advised they recommend approval subject to the following items being resolved on the final site plan:

(1) Applicant has indicated that they do not warrant a passing lane at the Meadowbrook Road entrance. As noted in a previous review, we recommend that this issue be reevaluated as each phase is submitted to verify that they do not meet warrants (this was done for Providence Park). ; (2) The phasing plan is acceptable. The revised plan continues to include a road around the entire building area in Phase 2. ; (3) They should provide an acceleration taper for the Meadowbrook driveway. They should show this on the final site plan. Also, the exiting radius for the Meadowbrook driveway cannot extend beyond the property line of Diversified Recruiters. This will also have to be revised on the final site plan. Further review of the driveway approaches will take place at the final site plan review stage.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated that her June 27, 1996 report notes the revised plan saves an additional 33 trees which is approximately 0.5 acre of woodland. Ms. Lemke advised the applicant will be required to replace 99 trees for woodlands replacement and they are showing an additional 161 trees on the site. The landscape concept for that is to use successional colonies of trees and ecosystems to guide one around the site. Ms. Lemke believes it will be an interesting landscape plan. In summary, Ms. Lemke recommends approval for a Woodlands Permit with the following conditions: (1) Payment of a Performance Bond of either cash or Letter of Credit with the amount to be determined at the time of Final Site Plan Review as determined by Mr. Pargoff’s office. Ms. Lemke’s office will do inspections. ; (2) No construction including clearing or grubbing can begin until the City has approved the protective fencing and they hold an environmental preconstruction meeting. ; (3) Review of Final Engineering Plans by Ms. Lemke’s office for woodland impact. ; and (4) Protective fencing information be provided on Final Engineering Plans.

Sue Tepatti, Senior Environmental Specialist briefly summarized the impacts and revisions made in her July 10, 1996. Ms. Tepatti advised the primary impacts were involving the southwestern wetland which has the eastern lobe of it proposed for some fill. Ms. Tepatti said the major changes that affect this includes the decrease in internal hospital uses which impacts the parking. Ms. Tepatti said the area where it affects the wetlands are in the northwest corner. Previously Wetland A was proposed to be impacted by the large parking area. Now, most of that wetland is outside the parking where they are now just filling a small portion of it for the parking lot. In the southwestern corner, Ms. Tepatti has included two maps on the drawing on the easel. Ms. Tepatti said the colored version on the right is a photocopy of the previous plan and the pink area is the previously requested wetland fill. Ms. Tepatti said the fill involved the construction of the ring road and the parking lot at the southern end. Ms. Tepatti advised the drawing on the left depicts the new pink area as the revised fill that the reduction in parking has allowed. Ms. Tepatti advised the original fill was 0.70 acres and it is now at 0.47 acres.

Ms. Tepatti advised they have looked at alternatives to decrease the wetland impacts from the original submittal. One alternative was to shift the entire building to the north to try and avoid additional impacts at the southern end. However, this would require the elimination or great reduction in parking along the north side of this Phase. The applicant has stated this would cause serious problems with accessibility for the building and rejected the alternative.

The DEQ, in their review of their wetland permit, initially expressed concerns about the fill on Wetland G because of the high quality of the wetland. They have submitted these revisions to the DEQ and they were issued a wetland permit on June 28, 1996.

Ms. Tepatti advised the storm water impacts remain the same and there may be some reduction in storage in the wetland based on the reduction in the parking. However, the applicant is still proposing to fill the small wetland pockets on the site, which she previously had not objected to. Ms. Tepatti added the applicant is still proposing to have some enhancement and incorporation of the northeastern wetland into their mitigation and storm water plan.

Ms. Tepatti said the Commission had previously expressed concern about the proposed scope of the development in the wetland impact and through this plan, the applicant has addressed a part of that in the reduction of the fill. In addition, they have also revised the mitigation area. They had initially shown it between the lobes of Wetland G and were incorporated with the sedimentation basin. Ms. Tepatti reported that has been changed and now the mitigation area is along the southeastern boundary of that wetland adjacent to the parking so it is not involved with the sedimentation basin. Based on these revisions, Ms. Tepatti reported her office has recommended approval of the wetland permit.

Chairperson Lorenzo reported they have received a letter from Chris Pargoff, City Forester which states his office has reviewed the plan for the proposed woodland replacement for Sinai Hospital and concurs with Linda Lemke’s recommendation.

Chairperson Lorenzo further reported they have received a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised this is a public hearing and opened the floor to the members of the public.

Andrew Mutch - 24541 Hampton Court, reiterated an earlier request to Sinai Hospital that the 5' concrete sidewalk along Meadowbrook is replaced or supplemented by an 8' asphalt bike path as is proposed along Twelve Mile Road. Mr. Mutch would like to maintain a continuity with an existing bike path along I-96 which will extend north. Mr. Mutch advised there is also a proposal that would go east toward the M-5 connector. Mr. Mutch said if there could be a bike path on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, there would be an integrated network of bike paths in that area.

Mr. Mutch further stated he would like to see additional landscaping added such as street trees on both sides of the bike path or sidewalks along Meadowbrook and Twelve Mile Roads. Mr. Mutch said since the boulevard proposed along Twelve Mile Road is expected to be a gateway off M-5, improvements on Meadowbrook would present an excellent image for the hospital and for the City.

Howard Friedlaender - owns the property immediately south of the proposed project, advised he had raised some concerns earlier about the handling of storm water flowing off the property onto his. As indicated in his letter, Mr. Friedlaender is fully satisfied that they will handle these issues properly. Beyond that, Mr. Friedlaender stated he thinks Sinai is a great project and is a good use of the land. Mr. Friedlaender will be glad to have them as a neighbor, it is consistent with the Master Plan, he thinks it will be good for the community, and he thinks they should approve it.

Seeing no one else, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi (end of tape) asked if the 60,000 square feet consist of the area of the 100 beds that are reducing? The applicant replied it does. Member Bononi asked if the

footprint of the building has been changed? The applicant replied they have not changed it. Member Bononi stated the only thing changed is the impervious area in the parking spaces which the applicant would have reduced the parking requirement by as a result of reducing the 100 beds. The applicant replied Member Bononi was correct. Member Bononi said from the standpoint of the applicant’s certificate of need, she asked the applicant if he supposed what the likelihood of getting it is? Richard Moed, Executive Vice President of Sinai Hospital replied right now there is no certificate of need processed for short stay beds. Mr. Moed advised it is something which they are discussing in Lansing and they are asking for this as part of their plan in the eventuality that short stay beds become a reality. Mr. Moed added right now they do not know the requirements and they do not know whether it will be two years from now, five years from now, or never that they will be allowed to build Phase III. Member Bononi said it would then be within the developer’s realm of choices to eliminate that phase entirely if he desired. Member Bononi said if the developer does not get a certificate of need down the road for the short term stay facility, she asked if they would come forward to propose something else? Mr. Moed said if there is no ability to get short stay beds, he could not say what the economics or the state of health care will be of whether they will be asking for some additional construction or not. Member Bononi is trying to get an idea about how much leeway the developer would have in terms of utilizing this site in a different and/or alternative way since that is an unknown to the developer at this point. Member Bononi is questioning the fact that the only reduction on this site from the standpoint of construction activity is the parking. Member Bononi said they have taken a building from five stories to four stories and have based the reduction upon the fact that it is a permit that may or may not be given. Member Bononi is trying to bottom line what the use of the site can potentially be, as opposed to what they have proposed.

Member Bononi asked if Phase I is also determined by a certificate of need? She then asked if that would bring the project to some undetermined start date. Mr. Moed replied they already have the certificate.

Member Bononi said Ms. Tepatti has given the developer the alternative to move the buildings forward to lessen the impact on the wetlands. Member Bononi asked the developer why they have decided not to follow Ms. Tepatti’s suggestion. Mr. Rossetti replied that they did not try to arbitrarily throw everything out, but a lot of thought went into how the configuration of the diagnostic treatment medical office building worked. Mr. Rossetti said basically they need an immediate parking ratio to them. Mr. Rossetti said they could not achieve a good ratio in the north quadrant for parking to the short stay hospital. Mr. Rossetti advised there would be too much linkage.

Member Bononi said as Mr. Rogers suggested, if each phase could stand alone she asked couldn’t there be a more succinct relationship between Phase I and the proposed parking? She further asked if they could move the buildings forward to some degree? Mr. Rossetti replied some degree is the problem because to move it some degree is probable, to go beyond ten feet and once the magic number of feet or spaces is lost for parking there is no longer the capacity to be there. Member Bononi said to be fair to her point of view, Mr. Rossetti is predicating that on a building that may or may never exist.

Member Bononi asked if they have reconsidered the idea of going forward with a parking deck or something that would get some of the parking spaces up, instead of out? Mr. Rossetti replied it would defeat the whole concept of the park like campus setting, the cost is prohibitive by almost ten to one, and there is a safety factor that is often associated with parking decks. Member Bononi said alternatively it would take an environmentally more sensitive view to the wetlands on the property. Mr. Rossetti understands that and it is kind of a give and take. But again, he refers back to the site application and he thinks the good boundaries of the probable building and there is still two thirds of the land retaining green space.

Member Bononi said there is a statement about the hydrological conditions in the engineering report referring to current hydrologic conditions in the wetlands and what the ten year storm would promulgate. Member Bononi asked if he could estimate what would happen to the elevation during a twenty five year storm? An unidentified representative for the applicant stated there is not a relationship where the storm is even doubled. The speaker added the magnitude is not ten times the ten year storm. He said off the top of his head, the twenty five year storm would not result in a significant increase in the base elevation of the detention basins. He would have to stress, by the City’s local standards, they design all the detention basins to retain the ten year storm. Member Bononi is not questioning that. The reason she is asking the question is because she sees a discrepancy between the engineering information given by the applicant and the report that Mr. Bluhm gave. Member Bononi was trying to get to some happy medium so she would have an understanding of what the difference in elevation would be. The speaker said he is not sure there was a discrepancy because he read Mr. Bluhm’s report and he thought it was dead on. Member Bononi thought she read the estimation of four inches and then she though she read something significantly greater than that. Member Bononi was looking for a ball park figure of what he thought that would be in a ten year storm and then if that information is available for a twenty five year storm.

Mr. Bluhm said he thinks what they typically would do is run a hydro-graph to determine what type of elevation they would see above a ten year storm. Mr. Bluhm said the engineer is correct and to go from a ten to a twenty five year storm, it would be a matter of an inch or two above that to get to a twenty five year storm level. Mr. Bluhm added it decreases as the storm intensifies. Member Bononi asked as long as the holding capacity is there, that is the case? Mr. Bluhm replied yes and he does not believe their detention layout has been changed significantly and there is less impervious area than before. The applicant said he agrees with Mr. Bluhm and added they actually have more free board. Mr. Bluhm said one thing they can do with the decrease in impervious area is it gives them a little more flexibility to optimize the impact and especially in the southwest wetland. Mr. Bluhm said they can decrease by the design of it and they can probably lessen the impact in that area due to the need to store less water. Mr. Bluhm said they could evaluate that at the final and use it as a plus.

Member Capello would like to move to approve the revised preliminary site plan SP 96-06B, revised phasing plan, revised woodland permit, and revised wetland permit subject to all the conditions and recommendations of the consultants. Member Vrettas seconded the motion.

PM-96-07-152 TO APPROVE THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP 96-06B FOR REVISED PHASING PLAN, REVISED WOODLAND PERMIT, REVISED WETLAND PERMIT SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, FAILED (4-5): To approve the revised preliminary site plan for Sinai Park Development, SP 96-06B for revised phasing plan, revised woodland permit, revised wetland permit subject to all the conditions and recommendations of the consultants.

Chairperson Lorenzo said it has been moved and seconded to approve the revised preliminary site plan, revised phasing plan, revised woodland permit, revised wetland permit for Sinai Park SP 96-06B subject to all the conditions and recommendations of the consultants. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is discussion on the motion.

Member Hoadley asked how many parking and handicapped spaces are provided at the current Sinai Hospital? Mr. Moed replied there are 27 different locations. Member Hoadley replied the one on Outer Drive. Mr. Moed said he does not know the amount and it is a totally different site with 600 beds, an office building, and a large out patient facility. Member Hoadley asked if he could supply the number of parking spaces at one of the other hospitals and the amount of square feet that it is servicing? Mr. Moed replied they meet the requirements of the zoning and that is how they build it. Mr. Moed added he does not know the number of spaces in each of their locations. Member Hoadley is concerned whether the parking is adequate. Member Hoadley asked if Mr. Moed thinks twenty handicapped parking spaces are adequate for a 200 bed hospital and an office complex? Mr. Moed replied he does.

Member Hoadley asked if the visitation hours are more flexible than they were fifteen to twenty years ago? Mr. Moed replied short stay beds are quite different from a traditional hospital and the vast majority of the patients would be there around twelve to fourteen hours. Mr. Moed some may be there twenty three hours, but it is not the traditional four or five day stay and therefore, it is not the same sort of visitation. Member Hoadley said Providence has the same scenario and they’ve already got a request for 200 beds. Member Hoadley asked what he thinks the chances are for Sinai getting 200 beds when Providence is already ahead of them. Mr. Moed replied it is not a question of who gets there first, it is a question of the law. It is a question of what the regulations are and if they meet them. Mr. Moed added the Providence project is independent of theirs. Member Hoadley’s concern is the number of spaces that they are providing for this size of facility. Member Hoadley knows Providence is providing 900 spaces for just 196,000 square feet of office type care and Sinai is providing considerably less for the same amount of space, not including any beds.

Member Hoadley asked if there has to be a cut on Meadowbrook Road or could both be put on Twelve Mile Road? Mr. Arroyo thinks it would be difficult to provide two access points to Twelve Mile Road because they do not own property to the east of the driveway proposed on Twelve Mile. Mr. Arroyo added it would not be desirable to place it to the west at the Meadowbrook intersection. Given the size of the facility, Mr. Arroyo also thinks two points of access is necessary. Furthermore, by providing the second point of access on another roadway, they provide flexibility in the event there is a catastrophe on Twelve Mile Road and there are emergencies vehicles that need to get to the facility. Member Hoadley asked how many feet do they have on Twelve Mile Road? Mr. Arroyo does not know exactly. The applicant replied, just under 600 feet. Member Hoadley asked if putting two access points on 600 feet is possible? Mr. Arroyo replied it is possible, but it puts two points of access in a location that is not proximate to where their parking and where people are going to be wanting to go. In addition, Mr. Arroyo reiterated it doesn’t help in a situation where there is some type of major accident on Twelve Mile in the eastbound lanes and emergency vehicles are trying to get to the facility. Mr. Arroyo said they could put two points of access on Twelve Mile Road, but he thinks it would be more beneficial to have a point access on Meadowbrook. Member Hoadley could not agree with Mr. Arroyo more normally, but Meadowbrook is not a developed road like Twelve Mile Road.

Member Hoadley said he expressed his concerns the last time and he cannot support this project as it is currently configured unless he could get the petitioner and everybody agreed to make the accel/decel lanes longer and add a lane for passing. Member Hoadley said it should be done now and guaranteed by a bond. Member Hoadley advised there is a stacking problem there in the morning and making left hand turns in is difficult. Mr. Arroyo believed when Member Hoadley raised this issue before, he thought the applicant agreed to post the bond for that. Member Hoadley said it is not in their packet. Chairperson Lorenzo thought it was going to be reviewed as warranted in future phasing. Mr. Arroyo agreed that was their recommendation, but he seemed to recall that they agreed to do something about that. Member Hoadley said he would support it if they would agree to add a passing lane and increase the accel/decel lanes to 100 feet. Member Hoadley is not certain the parking is good enough, but he could support it. Member Hoadley thinks the worse thing they could do is to create accidents where they are able to change it.

Member Hoadley asked if there is a provision for bonding for the storm water management if the City has to increase the capacity for them? Member Hoadley asked who would pay for it? Mr. Bluhm asked Member Hoadley to clarify his question. Member Hoadley asked who would pay for it if the capacity of the pumping stations that are off premises has to be increased because of the project? Mr. Bluhm replied the developer would pay for the improvement. Mr. Bluhm stressed it is almost a certainty that there will be no need to increase the pump station based upon past experience with this kind of situation and the proximity of where their flows are to what they allow into that system. Member Hoadley said the last time they were in they indicated the capacity would have to be increased in the future. Member Hoadley said they should require a bond so the developer will pay their fair share. Mr. Bluhm replied it could be done when it becomes apparent that it is necessary. Mr. Bluhm advised the developer must come back in because this is a phased plan and evaluate the system at each phase to determine what the actual use is for the system. Mr. Bluhm added if they require a bond or cash at any particular phase, then they will recommend that it be put in place. Mr. Bluhm said if they determine improvements are necessary, the improvements have to be constructed with either the phase. Mr. Bluhm added that they may allow a bond if the City would allow that to cover any improvements as they become necessary. Member Hoadley would like to preclude the possibility of the taxpayer dollars to do this, when it should be the developer that has the responsibility.

Mr. Watson said they will make the improvements at the time if there is a particular phase that necessitates the improvements, otherwise it won’t get final site plan approval.

Member Hoadley asked if the petitioner is willing to bond for the road situation and change their site plan to increase the accel/decel lanes and add a passing lane? The applicant replied no. He further stated this is purely "if come" and all the evidence before the Commission is that it is extremely unlikely anything like that is going to happen. The applicant said to require the posting of a bond at this time when there is no reasonable suggestion that there will ever be a need for the improvement, is really unfair. Member Hoadley said is talking about a bond for the access on Meadowbrook Road. The applicant thought they asked them if they would agree to put a bond now to make road improvements that they might need in the future? The applicant said the answer to that was no. Member Hoadley personally thinks they need it now. The applicant will not agree to that. Member Hoadley said he will not support the project.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised the Commission that they do not have final site plan coming back to them for this project.

Member Hodges cannot support Member Hoadley’s comments about the second access on Twelve Mile Road because she thinks they will end up stacking vehicles into the intersection because of the turn around. She further stated vehicles getting over to turn right to go south onto Meadowbrook Road and then trying to manipulate to the accel/decel lane to make a quick cut onto Twelve Mile would be cutting into the very land which she commends them on for protecting. Member Hodges said the only place an access to the parking lot would be through Wetland A and the developer has managed to minimize the impact on Wetland A. Member Hoadley said he withdrew that.

Member Hodges further stated they cannot ask people to bond for something that has not even been approved. She added if it negates being bonded, there are ordinances and the process in which to do that which has to be done by law.

Member Hodges is one of the proponents for this hospital. In addition, she knows there are people in the community, if given a choice, would go to no one outside of Mission Health and she thinks there are other people in the community, if given a choice, would go to Sinai. Member Hodges would like to make that available to the community that would choose to use Sinai Hospital.

In addition, Member Hodges is somewhat torn over the wetlands that have been invaded. Member Hodges thinks the petitioner has done an excellent job of working with the Commission’s earlier comments.

Member Hodges is also concerned about the one area where they could move the parking lot and the petitioner has determined that they have chosen not to. Member Hodges said she cannot take away all of the good parts by one "rather have," so she will support the motion as given.

Member Bononi said it has been difficult for her to make a decision about this project. Member Bononi advised she will not support the motion and she does not take the fact that she is not supporting it lightly. Member Bononi said the applicant’s proposal sounds like a marvelous project because of the facilities they offer the community that don’t exist. The big problem Member Bononi has is the fact that she disagrees with Member Hodges when she feels the areas of the wetlands have been much more sensitively dealt with in this application, because she does not believe they have. Member Bononi thinks it is a common sense approach that an applicant looks for a site and that is his business and job. However, from the standpoint, if a marginal site has been chose like this one, that is also the applicant’s choice. Member Bononi does not think it is the Commission’s job to design the project, but it is the Commission’s job to review it. Member Bononi did not see what could be considered as any significant movement in reaction to the alternatives that the consultants have come up with. Member Bononi is not comfortable that the amount of intrusion into the wetlands has been significantly reduced and is the main reason she will not support the motion. (end of tape)

Member Capello stated since it seems as though the Commission knows what they are going to vote about, he moved the question to be called and a vote taken. Member Vrettas seconded.

PM -96-07-153 TO CALL THE QUESTION

Moved by Churella, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED (7-2): To call the question.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-153 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Capello, Churella

No: Bononi, Hoadley

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to approve the revised preliminary site plan, revised phasing plan, revised woodland permit, and revised wetland permit approvals for Sinai Development, SP 96-06B.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-152 - MOTION FAILED

Yes: Lorenzo, Capello, Churella, Hodges

No: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Hoadley

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. PRAYER MAUSOLEUM BY THE POND, SP 95-47C

Property located north of Twelve Mile Road, east of Novi Road for possible approval of Section 2520.4 Facade Waiver.

Roberto Sanchez - Architect, 38300 Garfield Road, Clinton Township, stated he is before the Commission because he is preparing to propose not to use the strict application of the facade materials according to Section 2520, Paragraph 4 on the R-4 zoning. Mr. Sanchez reported the immediate surrounding buildings to the mausoleum have 100% use of granite or marble. In addition, the cemetery promotes the concept of "forever and everlasting" which is communicated by nature made materials versus man made materials and the public expects this feeling. In Mr. Sanchez’s opinion, R-4 seems to be more directed to the residential flavor, rather than this type of community.

Mr. Sanchez said the R-4 limits the use of granite or marble to 25% of the facade and he is requesting a 75% use, leaving the rest to be made of a glass material for the entrance doors. Mr. Sanchez described the glass as "faceted glass" which is basically a color tinted glass. Mr. Sanchez advised they would construct the remaining 10% of a cementatious material which they permit in the R-4. Mr. Sanchez reported he has discussed this matter with Mr. Rogers and Mr. Necci of JCK.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated he asked Mr. Cohen to get the materials board because it conveys the richness of the facade. Mr. Rogers advised he reviewed the preliminary and the final site plan in his June 10, 1996 letter although the lead in paragraph only states review of revised preliminary site plans. Mr. Rogers advised this is a non residential building in a residential zone (R-4) and the amount and types of materials are limited in that district. Mr. Rogers stated he met with Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Necci. At that time, Mr. Necci took measurements and wrote a comprehensive letter which speaks for itself. Mr. Rogers advised they do not want just plain concrete block in a residential district. However, Mr. Rogers explained this is buried within 160 acre site that unless someone has business there, they won’t see it. Mr. Rogers stated the building is architecturally well done. The technique Mr. Necci suggested was to instead of having a running bond (on brick lays over a joint of two other bricks) that they stack them so it does not look like a concrete wall. Mr. Rogers advised it is split face blocks and has a coloring system in it. Mr. Rogers concurs with Mr. Necci’s July 11, 1996 letter and would recommend that the Commission approve the preliminary site plan and if done, he will approve the final site plan.

DISCUSSION

Member Weddington moved to approve the Section 2520.4 Facade Waiver for Prayer Mausoleum by the Pond, SP 95-47C. The motion was seconded by Member Vrettas.

PM-96-07-154 TO APPROVE THE SECTION 2520.4 FACADE WAIVER FOR PRAYER MAUSOLEUM BY THE POND, SP 95-47C.

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Section 2520.4 Facade Waiver for Prayer Mausoleum by the Pond, SP 95-47C.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Rogers if the Commission also has to approve the preliminary site plan? Mr. Rogers is not certain whether the Commission has already done that, but they revised the plan. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it is just the facade waiver to review? Mr. Cohen replied they approved the preliminary site plan on November 15, 1995. Mr. Rogers said all the Commission has to do is a Section 4 waiver tonight.

Member Hoadley said it looks beautiful to him and as a matter of information, a lot of money is spent on constructing the side with marble, but that is not the side people will look at. Member Hoadley asked if there was some reason for having less marble on the front. Mr. Sanchez replied there are four points which are marble and pointed to the niches for the fascia. Mr. Sanchez said there is then the entrance, which will leave a small portion they call the blind side of the crypt and that is not expected to be granite or marble. Mr. Sanchez believes it should have a sense of strength in block or concrete, rather than brick which is allowed according to the R-4.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to approve the facade waiver for Prayer Mausoleum by the Pond, SP 95-47C and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-154 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo

No: None

2. ANDRIS-ROMAIN, SP 90-48G

Property located at the southeast corner of Fourteen Mile Road and East Lake Drive for possible Final Site Plan approval.

Terence K. Jolly said they are seeking final site plan approval. Mr. Jolly reported they withdrew their law suit about whether or not the lake front property could be rezoned for a restaurant so they could move forward and save Novi citizens a tremendous amount of expense. Mr. Jolly advised Laura Lorenzo suggested in 1994 that they try to resolve the law suit and they took her suggestion. When Mr. Jolly was before the Commission last month, the residents wanted to get the building going and they are getting tired of being accused of delaying the project. Mr. Jolly advised they are not delaying the project and they want to get it done also. Mr. Jolly reported they got a one month extension and they are back. Mr. Jolly stated they settled the law suit and all of the consultants’ letters recommend final site plan approval. In regard to the homeowners’ concern about the detention site being 11' from the lake, Mr. Jolly advised it is not a detention site, but is a temporary sedimentation basin for construction. Therefore, Section 5 in the Ordinance has nothing to do with a sediment basin and that lot will not be used as a detention basin. Mr. Jolly reported they are ready to proceed. Mr. Jolly added the passing lanes are included and advised they need the cuts on Fourteen Mile Road and East Lake Drive because it is a restaurant. Mr. Jolly said they are not disturbing the neighborhood and reemphasized they will gladly take suggestions, but they cannot finesse it any longer because as each year goes by they lose another season for the restaurant business.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant advised his July 10, 1996 report reviews a revised final site plan of the Andris Romain Restaurant and he recommends approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Dave Bluhm to include a description of the sedimentation basin situation in his report.

Dave Bluhm, JCK & Associates advised they have reviewed this plan numerous times and would like to address some of the audience comments. Mr. Bluhm advised retention and detention are essentially the same thing, it is the holding of the storm water on the site. Mr. Bluhm reported they do not require that the site retain their storm water because Walled Lake is a regional detention basin. Therefore, the restaurant’s storm water is being directed into storm sewers on site underneath East Lake Drive near their East Lake Drive approach and through a created swale to Walled Lake. One of the concerns they had based on the proximity of the site to Walled Lake is in addition to oil and gas separators’s, they wanted an extra measure provided to remove oils and gasses to protect Walled Lake. In addition to providing temporary sediment control, Mr. Bluhm advised the applicant is providing a meandering swale to contain the sediment on a temporary basis. Mr. Bluhm said the sediment problem is only a temporary problem during construction. Mr. Bluhm explained once they construct the site, the problem comes more of containing the oils and gasses. Mr. Bluhm stated the intent with the sediment basin or the sediment meandering swale just on the west side of East Lake Drive is to turn that into a grass swale to help contain the oils and gasses before they are released into Walled Lake. Mr. Bluhm said the applicant will need to provide an easement across that property as an off-site easement.

Mr. Bluhm said the applicant has acknowledged in order to construct a passing lane on East Lake Drive, they will need to dedicate an additional right of way to the City which will also have to be accepted by City Council. Mr. Bluhm further noted there is a minor discrepancy in the legal description. Mr. Bluhm explained the actual lay out of the legal description contains only the site as they illustrate it on the plan in blue. Mr. Bluhm advised that the legal description can be corrected to properly indicate that area with a minor administrative approval of the site plan. In addition, Mr. Bluhm suggested if the applicant is going to provide the administrative resubmittal, they should also include the issues with the easement’s swale to the lake and the right of way. Beyond that, Mr. Bluhm advised they have reviewed the project and they recommend its approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant said they have also reviewed the final site plan in their report of July 10, 1996. Mr. Arroyo added they have reviewed the package of information submitted by SES Homeowners Association and they have also received earlier input from Member Hoadley. Mr. Arroyo thinks the Commission has a memorandum before them from him to Steve Cohen, dated July 17, 1996 which addresses some additional issues. Mr. Arroyo explained those additional issues are: (1) Mr. Arroyo confirmed that the existing right of way is 50' for Fourteen Mile and East Lake Drive and advised they reflect it on the site plan. Mr. Arroyo further advised the proposed right of way is also shown on the site plan and referenced in his letter. Mr. Arroyo does not see any conflict here because one is existing right of way, one is proposed right of way, and they are both properly shown on the site plan. ; (2) In regard to the concerns about the proposed East Lake Drive driveway, the passing lanes, and the accel/decel tapers Mr. Arroyo offered the following comments: (a) The passing lanes and the accel/decel tapers were originally approved in January 1991 on SP 90-48D. Since traffic volumes on East Lake Drive have dropped since then and requirements are based on the volume on the major road and on the driveway, Mr. Arroyo advised they may no longer warrant some of these improvements. Mr. Arroyo suggested they amend the original traffic study to evaluate whether or not they still need these improvements. Mr. Arroyo thinks they will need the ones on Fourteen Mile Road because those volumes have not dropped to his knowledge and the need for a passing lane and deceleration taper and lanes would hold. However, for East Lake Drive, the potential exists that they may not need those improvements any longer. , (b) Addresses concerns about tapers extending across the Frigate’s property. Mr. Arroyo reported this property is unusual in that it doesn’t meet the current layout configuration if it were a new development with the way the pavement meets the roadway. Mr. Arroyo said another alternative exists to improve the situation which would be to reduce the length of the tapers within what is permitted in the City’s Design and Construction Standards. For example, Mr. Arroyo stated they could reduce the deceleration taper from 100' to 75' and they could reduce the acceleration taper from 75' to 50' and still be within both city and county standards. Mr. Arroyo explained it would provide less intrusion into the adjacent residential property and into the Frigate’s property. Mr. Arroyo advised they have attached some sketches which indicate conceptually how that might work and then described the sketches to the Commission. Mr. Arroyo stated the first sketch shows East Lake Drive with a line drawn showing the acceleration taper going toward the Frigates, labeled 50' taper which comes out just past the property line. Mr. Arroyo explained this taper would have much less intrusion than the one that they show on the plan which is shown as a squiggle line. Mr. Arroyo said the 75' taper alternative is shown as they approach the driveway and the proposed 100' taper is shown as a squiggle line. The second sketch shows a similar situation for Fourteen Mile Road, where it would be a reduction in the deceleration taper lane to 75' to minimize the impact. , (c) Another alternative was the potential to eliminate the East Lake Drive access and replace it by a second Fourteen Mile Road access. Mr. Arroyo said this alternative would not be consistent with the preliminary site plan. ; (3) Mr. Arroyo advised this is just an informational item regarding a quote and a minor correction.

In conclusion, Mr. Arroyo believes Item 2 merits some additional discussion. Mr. Arroyo particularly believes alternatives 2 (a) and (b) offers some reasonable alternatives to address some concerns and could be handled through an administrative final site plan submittal.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised they have received a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department which states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. In addition, Chairperson Lorenzo advised they have a letter from Dave Wickens, JCK & Associates which indicates they have an administrative wetland permit review which they have approved with certain conditions: (1) A 4' deep sump with an oil gas separator will be required at the last catch basin prior to discharge to Walled Lake. and (2) A DEQ Inland Lakes & Streams Permit or a DEQ letter of no jurisdiction must be sent to their office.

Chairperson Lorenzo turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Vrettas moved to approve the final site plan, SP 90-48G. Motion seconded by Member Capello. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it is subject to all of the consultants’ recommendations and conditions? Member Vrettas apologized and said yes it would be the standard.

PM-96-07-155 TO APPROVE THE FINAL SITE PLAN, SP 90-48G SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONSULTANTS’ RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (8-1): To approve the final site plan, SP 90-48G subject to all the consultants’ recommendations and conditions.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it has been moved and seconded to approve the final site plan for Andris Romain, SP 90-48G subject to all the conditions and recommendations of the consultants. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is any discussion on the motion.

Member Hoadley stated according to the minutes, it appears that Mr. Andris has asked for extension for the preliminary more than once. Member Hoadley said regrettably, a lot animosity has built up. Member Hoadley happens to live in that area and he drives that street daily. Member Hoadley agrees there is a stack up problem that occurs between 4:30 and 6:00 p.m. which is the prime time Mr. Andris’ business would start. (end of tape) It seems to Member Hoadley that Mr. Andris’ neighbors could and should be his best customers. Member Hoadley agrees the closing of the East Lake Drive cut would be advantageous. In addition, turning in will be difficult, so he would never agree to eliminating the passing lane. Member Hoadley said it is a fact the traffic will stack up as much as ½ mile between 4:30 and 6:00, which makes the cut irrelevant. In addition, Member Hoadley said a lot of money is being spent in putting in accel, decel, and passing lanes and asked if adding the cut on Fourteen Mile Road toward the top end of the property would be better? Member Hoadley suggested that the applicant make the other cut which is already there and use a pork chop to improve the flow in the parking lot. Member Hoadley explained the applicant would still have the same exposure on East Lake Drive.

Member Hoadley added he also believes the applicant may be under estimating the parking requirements based upon his personal experience in the restaurant business and his survey of several restaurants in the area. Member Hoadley thinks the applicant may be 10-15 spots short and wondered if he considered rezoning 15-25' of his adjacent property to P-1 as a compromise to close the one cut? Mr. Andris said they suggested this to him in a meeting with one of the neighborhood organizations and as Mr. Jolly stated, it has been a long history and he is apprehensive about starting to change at this juncture. Mr. Andris fears one thing will trigger another and when he has attempted to work things out, it has caused delays in the past. He further stated even though the delays were beneficial in that they discontinued a law suit and saved a lot of money, he then was accused of dragging his feet. The applicant said it sounds like a good idea and he would like to consider it, but he would like to continue and get approved to complete the project to get a sense of progress.

Member Hoadley thinks the main issue is the cut because of the stacking and asked if they could postpone the matter for 60 days and come back with that change? Member Hoadley said he cannot guarantee how everyone else would vote for a rezoning only part of a little lot, but perhaps that would be something that could work. Mr. Andris appreciates the suggestion and with a special zoning being coupled with it, it sounds like something that he wouldn’t mind considering. However, at this juncture, he would like to proceed. Mr. Andris thinks he has complied with everything required by the ordinances and he would agree to consider it. He also thinks there is some appeal to it, but without knowing any of the technicalities he may lose time, effort, and expense. Mr. Andris would rather not ask for anything, go with the master plan, and just get going.

Member Hoadley would like to be able to vote for this, but he has a difficult time voting for this because of the cut. Member Hoadley thinks the cut will be a detriment to the applicant and will cause more trouble than it is worth. Member Hoadley repeated he thinks two cuts on Fourteen Mile would improve the traffic flow.

Member Hodges asked what would the scenario be if they made the cut onto East Lake, exit only? Mr. Arroyo replied they would not require a decel lane because traffic would not be allowed to turn in. As Mr. Arroyo stated earlier, they may not require the accel lane at all.

Member Hodges is concerned about the stacking of traffic and feels it would be a smoother flow if it were an exit only. Member Hoadley would not propose to add a second cut to the restaurant on Fourteen Mile Road. However, it would be similar to Chili’s at Eight Mile and Haggerty. Member Hodges said there are occasionally people who enter the exit, but it controls the back up and stacking. Member Hodges can appreciate Mr. Andris’ concerns about further changes on the plan, but she thinks a second access is necessary to keep the East Lake traffic flowing and a good compromise would be if it were an exit only.

Mr. Jolly replied from the plan’s perspective, they first have to get final site plan approval. Otherwise, he stated the preliminary plan expires. The second issue is, they could always make a compromise after the plans are done. Mr. Jolly stated if they follow Mr. Arroyo’s suggestion of redoing a traffic pattern, Mr. Andris has no objections to whether or not they delete the acceleration or deceleration lanes. Obviously, Mr. Jolly said they would like to keep on good terms with the neighbors and will gladly take a closer look at the cut, but they need final site plan approval without any strings attached to move forward. Mr. Jolly agreed that the suggestions are good, but they need final site plan approval first.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked to have Mr. Watson clarify the law suit and discuss what latitude the Commission has in terms of making changes at this point in time.

Mr. Watson said there have been a couple references made to the plaintiff dismissing the law suit, implying that it was part of the resolution of getting the site plan approved. Mr. Watson explained the preliminary site plan was approved just like any other preliminary site plan, on its own merits. Mr. Watson reported the law suit was dismissed by the Circuit Court on what has become known as the Final Decision Doctrine. That is, before they can make a zoning challenge as to the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance, there is a requirement that a final decision be obtained from the governmental entity. Mr. Watson explained in this case that would have entailed seeking a variance from the ZBA as to those residential properties prior to maintaining those challenges in a suit. Mr. Watson reported that is the reason the suit was dismissed and it wasn’t as a part of any voluntary dismissal.

In regard to the Commission’s latitude, Mr. Watson advised there is an approved preliminary site plan. Mr. Watson stated one of the things they are doing pursuant to the preliminary site plan check list is determining the locations of ingress and egress. Mr. Watson advised that has been determined and has been approved. Mr. Watson further stated what they have before them on the final site plan are the final details of the site plan, including the engineering of those access points. Mr. Watson said what the Commission really has before them for their determination is how to do those ingress and egress. Mr. Watson thinks Mr. Arroyo has made a number of design suggestions and that is the parameter of the decisions before the Commission.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they have the latitude, as Member Hodges is suggesting, to make one of those access points right in or right out only. Mr. Watson said yes, if it is a matter of how to design that ingress and egress point.

Mr. Watson asked Mr. Arroyo if there is any merit to that design from a traffic standpoint? Mr. Arroyo reiterated that it appears that it may be some of the East Lake Drive improvements are no longer warranted. Mr. Arroyo indicated in his letter that if gets to the point where they delete some of the improvements, he would prefer the standard procedure be followed. Mr. Arroyo advised this is a minor amendment by the applicant’s traffic consultant. Mr. Arroyo stated in terms of modifying the driveway to turning movements, a right turn in and a right turn out has not been evaluated to this point. Mr. Arroyo added if in fact, they don’t meet the warrants for a passing lane, then the only issue he would see is potential conflicts with Frigates. Mr. Arroyo advised he would have a difficult time saying right turns in or right turns out would be appropriate without a detailed evaluation. Mr. Arroyo advised he indicated in his memo that there are some things which could be done that are a little more simplistic. Mr. Arroyo also knows the final has to come back for an administrative change and perhaps the shortening some of the tapers could be done at an administrative final and should be considered. Mr. Arroyo said the whole question of the improvements would require more information, so he is not able to give a final recommendation on whether or not they can drop those improvements on East Lake. Mr. Arroyo suggested perhaps the Commission would want to make a decision on this independently, but he would feel more comfortable having the documentation in front of him before he would make a final recommendation about dropping any of the East Lake Drive improvements.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges modifications could be handled administratively for Mr. Arroyo to explore in the mean time before everyone signs off? Member Hodges advised she specifically said "exit only" on East Lake Drive. Mr. Arroyo said he could look at that, but because of the layout of the site with the parking close to East Lake Drive, someone driving up East Lake Drive cannot turn in when they see the parking spaces right there. Mr. Arroyo said they could design it with a tight turning radius to make it difficult to get in, but it’s going to be an attraction to turn in there and he is concerned about violations of the one way out provision just because of the uniqueness of the sight.

Member Vrettas has a concern with that exit being excluded. Member Vrettas almost got blind sided by someone at Frigates when he traveled up East Lake Drive to view the Andris-Romain site. Member Vrettas stated given the choice, he would rather turn right in than go up to the intersection and possibly get blind sided again.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised the motion that is currently on the floor is to approve the final site plan subject to the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Hodges would like to amend the motion to have Mr. Arroyo explore the option of having the East Lake entrance an "exit only." Mr. Watson thinks the condition would be to direct the applicant to provide that information to Mr. Arroyo for his evaluation. Member Hodges concurred.

PM-96-07-156 AMENDMENT TO REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO MR. ARROYO ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF MAKING THE EAST LAKE CURB CUT AN "EXIT ONLY."

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED (5-4): Amendment to request the applicant to provide information to Mr. Arroyo about the possibility of making the East Lake Drive curb cut an "exit only."

Chairperson Lorenzo advised it has been moved and seconded to request the applicant to provide additional information to Mr. Arroyo regarding the possibility of making the East Lake Drive curb cut an "exit only." Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-156 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Weddington, Bononi, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham No: Vrettas, Capello, Churella, Hoadley

Chairperson Lorenzo advised the full motion is to approve final site plan subject to the consultants’ conditions and recommendations with the proviso that they request that the applicant provide additional information to Mr. Arroyo regarding the possibility of making the East Lake curb cut an "exit only" and Mr. Arroyo is to evaluate that. Chairperson Lorenzo further advised that would be approved administratively.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-155 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Markham, Vrettas, Weddington, Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hodges, Lorenzo

No: Hoadley

Member Capello moved to postpone under Matters for Discussion the discussion of Proposed Ordinance No. 96-18 (Cellular Tower Ordinance) to a future meeting. Motion seconded by Member Vrettas.

PM-96-07-157 TO POSTPONE UNDER MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION THE DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 96-18 (CELLULAR TOWER ORDINANCE) TO A FUTURE MEETING.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone under Matters for Discussion the Discussion of Proposed Ordinance No. 96-18 (Cellular Tower Ordinance) to a future meeting.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised it has been moved and seconded to postpone Item (1) under Matters for Discussion until a future agenda. Chairperson Lorenzo asked all those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. Chairperson Lorenzo advised motion passed unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-157 - CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo stated there is no audience, so there is no Audience Participation.

Member Capello moved to adjourn. Member Weddington seconded.

PM-96-07-158 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 12:00 P.M.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:00 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-96-07-158 - CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bononi, Capello, Churella, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

No: None

Steve Cohen - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Barbara A. Holmes

July 26, 1996