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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards and Watza

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Beth Brock

Chairperson Capello asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda?

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the Agenda to add OST zoning under Matters for Discussion as item 2.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza

No: None

Chairperson Capello announced that Public Hearings 1 and 2 regarding the rezonings would be postponed to a future meeting. He asked if there were any comments on these items that they be made during the Audience Participation portion of the meeting.

Ramon Garcia, 28250 Dixon asked what "any other appropriate zoning district" meant in the description of the rezoning? To him, this meant that there would possibly be some other use.

Chairperson Capello explained that the language was put in to be a catch all phrase in the event that the Commission determines to make a recommendation to City Council for rezoning it to something other than R-1. He stated it is to the benefit of the community so that they are aware that it could be rezoned to R-1 or something else. He suggested that Mr. Garcia come back to the meeting on March 15, 2000 and address his concerns if he wanted to discuss it further.

Mr. Garcia asked if it would be easier to zone the entire area along Dixon Road the same?

Chairperson Capello noted that Mr. Garcia was speaking of the City initiated rezoning and suggested that he take the issue up with City Council to see if they want to direct the Planning Commission to research whether or not Dixon Road should be rezoned.

John Sherwood, 39626 Nine Mile Road declined to speak. He would address his concerns at the meeting of March 15, 2000.

None

Chairperson Capello announced there were two items on the Consent Agenda. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 02, 2000 and approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 16, 2000. He asked if there were any corrections to either set of minutes.

Seeing none he entertained a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Consent Agenda.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza

No: None

The proposed rezoning of a 0.73 acre parcel in Section 25, on the northwest corner of Nine Mile and Haggerty Roads. The applicant is seeking rezoning from Low-Density Multiple Family Residential District (RM-1) to Office Service District (OS-1) or any other appropriate zoning district. The applicant requests that the proposed rezoning map amendment be postponed until the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Capello announced that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be postponed until the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED (8-1): To postpone Rezoning Map Amendment 18.589 to the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza

No: Koneda

The proposed rezoning of a 3.82 acre parcel in Section 10, on the east side of Dixon Road and north of Twelve Mile Road. The applicant is seeking rezoning from Residential Acreage (RA) to One-Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate zoning district. The applicant requests that the proposed rezoning map amendment be postponed until the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Capello announced that the applicant has requested that the Public Hearing be postponed until the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Cassis, CARRIED (8-1): To postpone Rezoning Map Amendment 18.590 to the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission Meeting.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza

No: Koneda

This project is located in Section 12, on Meadowbrook Road between Twelve and Thirteen Mile Roads. The forty acre site is zoned RA. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Special Land Use and Woodland Permit approvals.

Matt Quinn introduced himself as well as Mark McPherson the architect for the project. Mr. Quinn stated approximately half of the acreage was wetlands. He stated the applicant is honoring the wetland buffer of 25’. Mr. Quinn gave an overview of the plan. He stated the church was to be built in five phases. There are two entrances off of Meadowbrook Road. In the future, the northerly entrance will serve as an entrance road to the rear. There is a possible future plan for 4-6 homes to be built in that area.

Mr. Quinn stated the plan meets all of the requirements with the exception of some minor ZBA variances. He stated a Section 9 waiver was required from the Planning Commission because 2% more glass block is being proposed than allowed. He stated the glass block was part of the architectural feature as well as assisting the gymnasium by allowing light to flow inside. The second variance deals with the retention of the natural vegetation along Meadowbrook Road. He stated instead of putting in a berm, they will maintain the existing vegetation and trees which requires a waiver. There are three variances required from the ZBA, the first dealing with the future extension of the driveway access. The Ordinance requires a 75’ setback and a 45’ is proposed. He stated the driveway would be built in the future. The second variance deals with the building height. He stated from the south elevation, the ground level is fairly constant but then dips down. The Ordinance states to take the lowest grade elevation to the highest point of the building, because of this, the variance is needed for 13’. Lastly, a third variance is required for the 4’ 6" berm. He stated extensive plantings would be done instead of a berm.

Mark McPherson reviewed the site plans. He stated there were two entrances off of Meadowbrook Road with the northerly entrance being scheduled for a future entry drive into the potential future development of residential at the back of the site. He stated the building has been moved as far up from the wetlands as possible, while still leaving the site fully developable which in part contributes to the need for the variance of the 75’ setback. In Phase I, the entire parking lot was proposed to be developed which consisted of 212 spaces. Phase II was a gymnasium, Phase III was an office expansion, Phase IV was classrooms and Phase V was the sanctuary. He stated the necessary parking was being accommodated in Phase I. There are seven parking spaces proposed as part of Phase III which would be primarily for private parking for staff. The proposed detention basin has been shifted north out of the woodlands while still retaining some development of the site to the north. There are berms in the front as well as one wrapping around the north side of the parking lot and north to the adjacent school property. Mr. McPherson stated the overall height of the building would be 48’ as measured from the walk-out basement to the highest point. The north elevation meets the 35’ height requirement. The building is primarily a brick structure with bands of various brick, there are some glass openings throughout all of the classrooms. He stated glass block was being used for the gymnasium so it would be more durable and avoid any problems with breakage.

Mr. McPherson stated they would require a variance for the noise analysis. He explained because of the location on the site they are approximately 600’ from the school, they are about 900’ to 1200’ away from any adjacent neighbor. The mechanical units are located on the roof and they are screened in their entirety from view.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval of the Special Land Use nor the Site Plan due to the need for certain ZBA variances. He stated if the variances were to be granted, then they would be in a position to recommend approval. Height is an issue, he stated the building was fairly complex to evaluate height on as there were changes in the grade as well as the building height itself. It was Mr. Arroyo’s opinion that the only area in question was the area in front facing Meadowbrook. There is also the issue of the setback of the parking. The applicant plans on dedicating a public road that would eventually serve residential in the back. Mr. Arroyo stated the parking would need to be setback 75’ and 45’ are proposed. The applicant is seeking a variance to address the issue. Mr. Arroyo noted that the phasing plan does not include the lots in the rear, he stated there would have to be a later approval of the actual lots. Mr. Arroyo stated all Special Land Uses are required to provide a noise analysis. The applicant has indicated why they feel a noise study is not necessary. They will have to present this to the ZBA and if they agree, then there should be no problem with it. If the ZBA does not agree, the applicant will have to come back with the study to address the issue.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. He stated the applicant has provided all of the necessary information. There are some additional details on the Final. Mr. Arroyo stated when Meadowbrook Road is widened for the center turn lane and right turn lanes, the applicant needs to make sure that they maintain a minimum 5’ separation from the back of the curb to where the bikepath starts.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval. He stated there were a number of comments that could be addressed at the time of Final. He stated the church site was fully served by utilities, water and sewer. The applicant proposes to extend storm sewers through the site and would be sent to the southeast into a detention basin which releases into the large wetland complex to the south. As the wetland moves to the east, it turns into a county drain. There is retention on site and restricted rate outlet to the Sealy Drain. Mr. Bluhm stated the applicant was proposing widenings on the east side to facilitate deceleration/acceleration lanes. They are proposing to move the sidewalk in that area.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect referred to her letter dated February 14, 2000. She recommended approval. The landscaping required one variance from the ZBA for the berm along the north property line. It also required a waiver from the Planning Commission for using the existing woodlands on site, along the south property line and along the eastern property line. In regard to the woodlands, Ms. Lemke stated that there is approximately 9.6 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. Approximately 1.8 acres of woodlands are being removed for the church construction Phases I through V. The quality of the woodlands is good but is edge vegetation. The applicant is only removing 44 trees in the 1.8 acres and will be replacing 61 replacement trees on the site. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodlands Permit based on the edge vegetation and the fact that the applicant is saving a large area of wooded wetlands on the site. Ms. Lemke stated she would like the applicant to explore saving one tree and she recommended the Woodlands Permit with her standard four (4) conditions which are outlined in her letter.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) The proposed hydrant located east of Phase IV will be obstructed by parked cars. Relocate this hydrant to the corner parking island northeast of Phase IV. 2) Provide the following notations on the plans: a) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. B) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. C) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3" high on a contrasting background.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK which states that he has reviewed the elevations to see if they comply with the Façade Ordinance. The glass block does not. Mr. Necci recommended that a Section 9 Waiver be granted.

Mr. Bluhm stated there were wetlands located on the site. He stated an Administrative Permit was required. Mr. Bluhm stated there was a single outfall from the detention basin. He stated this was the only impact to the wetland. There were a number of comments in his letter and he expected them to be addressed at the time of Final.

Chairperson Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda asked if there was a timeline for the Phasing Plan?

Mr. Arroyo stated there was not a specific timeline indicated.

Member Koneda asked if it was typical for the Commission to approve setbacks based on a road that does not exist?

Mr. Arroyo stated it was not that usual. He thought the issue was being raised at this time because of the applicant’s intention for full development of the site. He thought it was good business practice because they were in a position of having an understanding of what is being required by the City.

Member Koneda asked if the road were a private road would it be required to meet the same setback?

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He noted that the definitions section of the Ordinance refers to an exterior sideyard as one that abuts a street and the definition of a street says it is a dedicated public right-of-way. He stated if it is a private road with an easement, based upon the definitions, the setback would only have to be 20’ from the easement versus 75’

Member Koneda stated as a condition of a motion, he did not think the need for a public roadway should be tied in as part of the Site Plan approval. He stated the applicant has the option of making a private road. He did not think it should be made a condition of a motion.

Member Mutch asked if there was a comparison study done for a Special Land Use between the proposed use and the underlying zoning in terms of traffic generation?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He stated according to the documents that were provided to him, the church development portion constitutes 8 acres of total site. If the 8 acres were developed according to existing zoning, potentially there could be 6 single-family homes which would give 78 daily trips and 9 p.m. peak hour trips. As proposed, a church is estimated to generate 577average weekday trips and 42 trips during the p.m. peak hour. He stated these were approximate comparisons between the two.

Member Mutch asked what kinds of long-term traffic levels were expected on Meadowbrook Road?

Mr. Arroyo stated stated it would increase, however, he did not anticipate that it would be much higher than before M-5 was completed. He estimated that it would be in the range of 7,000 to 9,000 at the highest because the alternative of using the M-5 exists.

In regard to the issue of sidewalk distance between the curbs, Member Mutch asked what would be recommended in terms of the applicant providing additional distance?

Mr. Bluhm preferred to see 12’ between the back curb and the sidewalk as an additional margin of safety.

Member Mutch asked how much spacing was provided between the curb and the sidewalk in a typical subdivision?

Mr. Bluhm answered usually 10 feet.

Member Mutch asked how Mr. Bluhm came up with 12 feet?

Mr. Bluhm stated 12’ was required if the road is uncurbed, a curbed road requires 5’ as a minimum.

In regard to the road improvements, Member Mutch asked if they were running into trouble with the bikepaths with the wider width?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes, in this case. He stated if there is room, he would like to see the applicant push it back further.

Member Mutch asked if the street trees would be removed?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated they would have to be removed and replaced.

Member Mutch asked if the replacement of those trees was a condition on the project?

Ms. Lemke answered, it was not a current condition, however, it could be made a condition.

Member Mutch asked if the landscape waiver on the north property line was being driven by the road for the future development?

Ms. Lemke stated it was for the road but it was also for the current use. She stated it was primarily being driven by the road.

The applicant is getting credit for preserving the landscaping south of the southern access, Member Mutch asked how the permitting process guarantees that it is not disrupted?

Ms. Lemke stated if it is disrupted, the applicant will have to replace it. She stated there are so many trees required for the R.O.W. plantings at one per 35 linear feet along the frontage. If more are removed, the applicant will have to increase the number of trees along the R.O.W.

Member Churella asked if a retirement village were to be built in the rear could more units be built than houses?

Mr. Arroyo stated there would be a problem with the maximum density allowed in the RA district.

In regard to the building height, Member Richards asked if the height of the skydome was causing difficulty in meeting the 35’ requirement.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes, it was one of the problems.

Member Richards asked if there was a reason for the skydome?

Mr. McPherson stated it was an architectural feature to let natural light in.

Member Richards asked if the skydome could be smaller in order to meet the height variance?

Mr. McPherson stated the skydome was also being used to accentuate that area. Aesthetically he would like to keep it if possible, he stated it could be engineered in such a way to lower it.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (8-1): To grant Preliminary Site for Redford Baptist Church SP99-35 subject to a ZBA variance for the building height, the 4’ berm, the noise variance or the alternative to submit a noise analysis and the Commission waiver for the 4’ berm along Meadowbrook Road and to grant a Section 9 Waiver and to grant Special Land Use for the reasons set forth on Page 4 of Mr. Arroyo’s letter and subject to all of the conditions set forth in the Consultants letters and in the letter from the Fire Marshal.

Member Richards asked if the motion included the replacement of the City planted trees.

Ms. Lemke stated she could make it a part of her conditions.

Member Richards asked if the ZBA does not grant a height variance, would the applicant have to come back with a redesigned dome profile?

Chairperson Capello thought it was more than the dome that required a variance. He understood it to also include the portion of the building behind the building and a 5’ variance in the lower elevation.

Mr. Arroyo answered, it could just be the dome, subject to additional drawings being verified.

Member Richards asked if the ZBA does not grant the waiver, would the applicant would have to come back to the Commission with a redesign of the dome.

David Fried, City Attorney stated the design of the building would have to be changed to meet the Ordinance. If the plan were to be changed, the applicant would need to come back before the Commission.

Member Churella asked if it could be an Administrative decision?

Mr. Arroyo stated because it is a Special Land Use, normally they would go back to the Planning Commission for action. He stated if the only change to be made was the elimination of the dome, maybe it could be done Administratively while any other changes would need to come back to the Commission.

Member Mutch asked if the motion included providing the 12’ setbacks from the street for the sidewalks? He stated these sidewalks were going to be used by children walking to and from school, he did not think 5’ was adequate.

Mr. Quinn stated only if it meant that they would not be going into the wetlands.

Member Mutch stated he would not support the motion because of the location of the use. He stated Meadowbrook Road was intended to be a scenic road. He stated the comparisons of this project versus the underlying zoning and the impact on the road as a whole, this location does not make sense. He thought the Master Plan should be revisited to remove that designation and require a full 120’ R.O.W. He stated what is developing along the roadway was not consistent with what he views as a scenic road.

Chairperson Capello clarified that Member Mutch offered a friendly amendment to the motion to require the 12’ setback for the safetypath.

Member Koneda accepted the friendly amendment as the maker of the motion.

Member Churella accepted the friendly amendment as the seconder to the motion.

Member Cassis asked if the name of the church would remain Redford Baptist Church?

The applicant stated they would be using a new name that represents something of the area.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Piccinini, Richards, Watza, Canup

No: Mutch

This site condominium development project is located in Section 18, 19 and 20, on the north side of Ten Mile Road between Napier and Wixom Roads. The 901 acre site is zoned Residential Acreage District (RA) and is being developed using the Residential Unit Development option. The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland and Wetland Permit approvals.

Steve Robinson of Toll Brothers updated the Commission on Phase IIA.

Mary Jukuri presented Preliminary Site Plans for Phase IIB, Phases IIIA, IIIB, IIIC and Phase VI for Island Lake of Novi. The overall site area is 298 acres, a total of 365 homes are proposed consisting of 123 single-family lots, 242 attached cluster condominiums. The average site density is 0.81 units per acre. The site layout follows the RUD area plan layout. The majority of roads will be public R.O.W.’s with three roads proposed as private roads in the northwest area for the condo development. An updated traffic study was conducted. The traffic study recommended that a center left turn lane be included for the entrance off of Wixom Road and also acceleration and deceleration lanes for Springwood and Braeburn. With these improvements, Wixom Road should still be able to operate to acceptable design standards. All pedestrian sidewalks and safety paths have been provided per the RUD. Phase IIA includes 8’ wide safety paths along Wixom Road which was requested by Council, Ms. Jukuri stated they were continuing with this commitment for the next series of Phases moving down Wixom Road. There are approximately 75 acres of regulated and non-regulated wetlands on the site. Approximately 1.84 acres of regulated wetlands are impacted due to the road crossings. The sidewalks were brought in to about 5’ back of curb in order to further minimize wetland impacts. There are two wetland mitigation areas for a minimum total of 2.5 acres which is the required mitigation ratio needed to offset the loss of regulated wetland habitat. There are approximately 166 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. Over 1,100 trees are impacted while over 1,700 woodland replacement trees are shown on the Preliminary Site Plan. Several storm water detention basins are shown, each are sized to hold the 100 year storm event. They have been designed with a forebay system in order to treat the first flush of run-off and to help protect the long-term water quality for Island Lake. In addition, there are two drain crossings. All of the amenities are shown as promised in the RUD. There are a series of nature paths and boardwalks, over 37 linear feet of nature trail and approximately 2,800 to 3,000 linear feet of boardwalk. The required perimeter buffering is provided on the north side by preserving existing woods and by supplemental plantings. The required screening and landscape buffering is shown adjacent to the mobile home park. The required perimeter buffering is shown along Napier and Wixom with the screening berm along Wixom Road. She stated there is a 3.5 acre waterfront park, an excess of 1.5 acres as required. There will be a sand beach with the majority of the frontage along the park. Parking is provided for 28 to 30 vehicles. A park pavilion, overlook and gazebo, sidewalks and a large play structure are provided as part of the preliminary design for the waterfront park.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval subject to some minor items being addressed on the Final Site Plan.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to a number of issues being resolved on the Final Site Plan.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated there were a number of comments and most of them would need to be addressed at the time of Final. He stated the site is fully served by utilities, water main and sanitary sewer. The sanitary sewer will utilize two lift stations to try to keep the sewers as shallow as possible due to the higher ground waters. The utilities are being proposed to extend and service the two existing mobile home parks at the northwest corner of the site. The water main will be extended throughout the site, the applicant is proposing a booster station with Phase IIA. The booster station is intended to serve the entire development. An enclosed storm sewer system is proposed. Sixteen detention basins are located throughout the site. The applicant is proposing to relocate the western portion of the Tributary "C" drain which will need a DEQ Permit. They have also indicated that they will be maintenance cleaning the eastern part of the drain. There is a flood plane associated with the Novi Lyon County Drain. Mr. Bluhm stated the applicant is proposing to get a conditional letter of map revision from FEMA to solve the inaccuracies. They will also be utilizing the improvements that they are making to Tributary "C" in the areas of flow to help reduce the flow, this should allow the applicant to satisfy the flood plane requirements and remove them from the lots. There are a number of other comments which Mr. Bluhm felt could be addressed at the time of Final. He felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of both plans with a number of items that could be worked out at the time of Final. She stated there were a number of items on the landscape plan that could be addressed at final, she stated they have addressed all of the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the woodlands plan with a number of items that could be addressed at the time of Final. She stated there were some conditions outlined in her letter dated February 07, 2000. She stated the applicant has done some exceptional saving of trees, they have moved detention basins and saved additional trees. Ms. Lemke briefly reviewed her conditional items as outlined in her letter. She stated the exact number of replacement trees have not yet been determined and would be determined at the time of Final. Additional areas of protective fencing would be required and the stream will be cleaned out as part of the maintenance of the project. In regard to the center area of the project which is the area of the attached clusters, Ms. Lemke stated she has tried to minimize the impact into that area. The applicant has removed a detention basin that was proposed in that area by redoing the grading. The applicant has managed to save an additional 20 trees in that area of high quality woodlands. Ms. Lemke has also asked the applicant to explore the option of looking at reducing the building setbacks and going to the ZBA for relief. This would bring the cluster units closer to the road, by doing this would save an additional 20 to 30 trees. Ms. Lemke recommended approval with her standard four conditions.

Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist recommended approval of the plan. She stated there were approximately 70 acres of wetlands on the site which includes a 57 acre wetland area of very high quality. She stated the majority of the impacts were approved as part of the RUD agreement.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) Hydrants shall be provided along the water mains at 500’ spacing on Wixom Road and Delmont Drive.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Douglas R. Necci of JCK in regard to the Section 9 Façade Waiver recommendation and consideration of the fact that the percentage of wood siding exceeds the Ordinance maximum by a comparatively small amount. He stated this only occurs on the rear facades and in consideration of the fact that the use of asphalt shingles is consistent with the style of architecture used in residential. It was the recommendation of Mr. Necci that the design was consistent with the intent and purposes of the Ordinance. A Section 9 Waiver was therefore recommended.

Member Churella announced he has received correspondence from Mr. Jeffrey Haller, 48845 Delmont which states that he objects to the project. He feels that there is too much congestion on Ten Mile and Wixom Roads and that the highway exit at Wixom Road is already overly congested.

Debra and John Carbott, 25490 Birchwoods Drive stated other neighbors as well as themselves object to building in the area south of Eleven Mile Road, east of Wixom Road and north of Birchwoods Drive. They stated they were told that the area would be left undeveloped and labeled as a wetland. If the area is to be developed, they would like to have 100’ strip of trees placed in front of it to protect the north property line from Wixom Road eastward.

Chairperson Capello announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

In regard to Phase IIIB at the Eleven Mile and Wixom intersection, Member Mutch asked if there was going to be a perimeter setback from the R.O.W.?

Ms. Jukuri stated that a 25’ landscape buffer was shown along that edge but a specific dimension was not shown. She stated this would be looked at as they moved toward Final Site Plan submittal to be sure that the perimeter area could be included and still maintain the lot depth.

Member Mutch stated he did not see a sidewalk shown along the Eleven Mile Road frontage.

Ms. Jukuri stated it would be shown at the time of Final.

In regard to the sidewalks, Member Mutch stated there were no crossing locations shown on the plans, he asked if they would be incorporated.

Mr. Arroyo stated it was being looked at as part of the review of the plans for improvements to Wixom Road.

In regard to Phase IIIA, Member Mutch stated the only sidewalk connection to Wixom Road is at Ravine Drive. He stated one of the concerns was the need to provide additional pedestrian access to the perimeter from the interior subdivision streets to discourage a trespassing situation to the south.

Ms. Jukuri stated it could be explored. She pointed out that while the 8’ safety path was shown on Wixom Road, it is also shown to the two out parcels directly south of Phase IIIA. She stated if a safety path outlet were provided there, extensively for people who do not want to go up to Ravine Drive in order to go back south on Wixom, the safety path would end at the out parcels.

In Phase IIIC, Member Mutch stated there was no sidewalk being shown along Delmont Drive. He thought that a connection from the cul-de-sac to Delmont Drive should be explored.

Ms. Jukuri stated this issue could also be explored.

Member Mutch stated at a number of the intersections, there were situations where sidewalks on one side of the street have the crosswalk coming to the curb while on others there is no matching crosswalk.

Mr. Arroyo stated this would all be checked at the time of Final.

Member Mutch asked if the attached units had connections to the sidewalks on the streets?

Ms. Jukuri stated this was not shown as of yet.

Steve Robinson stated the front walks come to the driveway, then the driveway to the sidewalk.

Member Mutch did not think it was desirable but he felt it was acceptable.

Member Mutch asked how the private roads in Phase IIB would be maintained?

Ms. Jukuri stated they would be the responsibility of the condominium association.

Member Cassis asked for the size of the smallest unit?

Ms. Jukuri answered, 1,949 square feet.

Member Koneda asked if the storm water detention on lots 82, 188 and 119 could be done at the time of Final?

Mr. Bluhm stated there was plenty of room and it was not an issue.

In regard to the ZBA variance for the berm along the northern property Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke to clarify if it was needed or not.

Ms. Lemke clarified that a ZBA variance was not needed. She stated the applicant has met it as far as determined at this point.

Member Koneda supported the variance for reducing the building setbacks to preserve more trees. He stated he was quite satisfied with what the applicant has done thus far.

Moved by Watza, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval to Island Lake of Novi SP99-58, the Woodlands Permit, Wetlands Permit and a Section 9 Façade Waiver subject to the comments and conditions of the Consultants.

Member Cassis asked if the proportion of cluster to single-family approved by the RUD?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He stated it was all in accordance with the plan that was approved by the City Council.

In regard to the parcel to the south of Phase IIIA, Member Mutch asked if the adjoining land owner was spoken to in terms of addressing any concerns regarding buffering and existing vegetation to ensure that the development is compatible with their homes and ensuring that their space is not being intruded upon.

Mr. Robinson stated he has been in touch with both. He stated the owner of the northern parcel was contacted before any surveying was done. The property was staked and walked with her so she was on-board with what was being done. The southern homeowner lives in Virginia and he is well aware of what is being done.

Chairperson Capello asked what the applicant thought about the suggestion to move the cluster units closer to the road to preserve some more of the woodlands?

Ms. Jukuri stated it has been explored and some more detailed grading studies have been done. She stated the possibility of moving the sidewalks closer to the curb existed which would set the units 22’ behind the sidewalk and result in saving an additional 20 to 30 trees. She thought it was a worthwhile idea and it was a matter of what it would take to get the variance from the ZBA.

Yes: Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza, Canup, Capello

No: None

1. BEST WESTERN SP-00-06

This hotel project is located in Section 14, on the northwest corner of Eleven Mile Road and Town Center Drive. The 1.87 acre site is zoned Office Service Commercial District (OSC). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Mike Kahm of Singh Development Company, the underlying owner of the original 20 acres of property. Mr. Kahm gave a brief history of the property. He asked the Commission to look at the plan as a campus plan because that was how it was intended to be developed. He stated the variances were consistent with the ones that were granted for the Courtyard and Towneplace Suites. The corner 2 acre parcel is planned for a restaurant. He felt that the area fits within the Town Center concept. He felt the hotel would be a great asset to the City by providing a service to the City that would accent and supplement what Marriott has started with Towneplace Suites.

Tad Creer of Land Design Studio briefly reviewed the Site Plan. He stated vehicular circulation comes central into the site. There is pedestrian circulation around the entire building with significant landscaping on the interior which exceeds the requirements. He stated they had a difficult time providing pedestrian access out to Town Center Drive, therefore, Singh Development has allowed them to put a pedestrian easement through their property to provide adequate access. He stated they were trying to create a unified theme throughout the entire campus. Utilities are in place and set up as part of the original campus plan. The storm water is being handled in the regional pond located behind the Courtyard in Town Place. All sanitary and water mains are in place. He stated all of the variances are consistent with the previous plans. The Ordinance requires no front yard parking in an area less than 2 acres, Mr. Creer stated they were slightly less than 2 acres and they have proposed some different shifts in the property line based on earlier concepts. He stated they were deficient in some of the frontyard landscape requirements and they proposed to do some enhanced landscaping to potentially help mitigate some of that area. There is a 20’ setback on the northern property line. Mr. Creer requested a Section 9 Waiver for the façade. He stated the roof shingles were in excess.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant did not recommend approval because of the Ordinance deficiencies. He stated if the ZBA grants the variances, approval could then be recommended. There is a requirement for a loading area that they would be asking the ZBA for relief for due to the type of operation. In regard to the setback issues, there is no front yard parking permitted and parking is proposed. There are parking setback and greenbelt issues around the building that will need to be addressed at the ZBA.

In regard to the traffic review, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. He stated most of the roadway improvements were in place when the shared drive went in. There is no need for additional improvements. There were other minor comments that could be addressed at the time of Final.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval with the comments noted in his letter.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect did not recommend approval because of the variances needed, parking lot setbacks and the greenbelt planting area. She stated the 36" berm along Town Center Drive is not possible, therefore, it will be another variance required from the ZBA.

Chairperson Capello announced he has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

Mr. Bluhm reviewed the façade. He stated Mr. Necci has reviewed the plan for a Section 9 Waiver and it was recommended. The asphalt singles are slightly above the Ordinance maximum, however, they are consistent with the residential style of architecture being provided in the building. Mr. Necci recommended approval.

Chairperson Capello turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Canup stated it appeared that the applicant was trying to squeeze a lot of development onto a small piece of land. He stated there were too many variance requests.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards.

Member Cassis asked if anyone has analyzed the proportions in the original Master Plan and were they being abided by, is too much commercial going in, is there too little office going in?

Jim Wahl, Director of Planning and Community Development stated the original plan envisioned three or four office buildings clustered around the pond area with one hotel. He stated further down Eleven Mile Road was an office center and an industrial/office mixture. For the most part, the plan has developed as it was originally envisioned with the exception of the area where the office market just never seemed to be strong enough to support the original concept. Mr. Wahl recalled that the original concept was to have a multi-use complex including office, commercial, hotel and a mixed hybrid of industrial office.

Member Churella stated he would not be able to support the motion because he thought the project would be a nice added amenity. He did not see any other use for the area. He felt it would fit in perfectly with the new Expo Center going in.

Member Canup agreed with the need. However, he stated that was not the problem the problem was that the use did not fit. He stated there was a small piece of property with a large building. There were too many variances required, he stated they were all self created and felt that there was no hardship. He felt the property could be used for something else. He stated the Ordinances were written for a reason. The only reason a variance should be given is if there is a practical hardship.

Member Mutch stated from the presentation, he was less inclined to support any plan that requires the number of variances because it was a Master Planned area. He stated the use had to fit the property and the applicant needs to meet the Zoning Ordinances. He thought a lot of the problems with the landscaping and the pedestrian access were being driven by the fact that the necessary setbacks were not provided. He stated there were too many problems with the plan for the Commission to approve. He thought it needed to be reworked or look at another use.

Chairperson Capello stated in regard to the variance to the north which abuts a private drive, he thought the road and street trees was a nice look and he was satisfied with this variance. To the east, he thought it was a good use as the applicant was able to work out an agreement whereby they could access Eleven Mile Road. The abutting parking lot did not bother him. To the south, he stated the only area that bothered him was the area along Town Center Drive. In regard to the parking stalls along Town Center Drive, Chairperson Capello asked if the applicant could enter into a shared parking easement with Marriott or Town Center?

Mr. Arroyo stated potentially they could if there was sufficient parking in one of the other uses.

Chairperson Capello stated if that were the case then the parking stalls along Town Center Drive could be taken out and a berm could be built with landscaping. He asked the applicant if this was feasible?

Burt Kasaab thought it became difficult when speaking about a hotel guest who is forced to transport their car away from the premises. It would make it inconvenient for them to want to stay there.

Chairperson Capello stated he was thinking more along the line of employee parking.

Mr. Kasaab stated there would only be five.

Chairperson Capello asked the applicant if he felt it could function with 18 less spaces?

Mr. Kasaab answered it would be very difficult.

Chairperson Capello asked if there was something that could be done to rework the project and bring it back as opposed to being turned down.

Mr. Kasaab answered, yes. He stated they have looked at the project for a long time. He stated the Ordinance allows five stories and the size of the footprint could be reduced to allow for more greenbelt. However, the architects agreed that it would not look right.

Chairperson Capello suggested if the applicant could find a way to increase the landscaping on Town Center Drive and reduce some of the parking they may be able to obtain approval.

Chairperson Capello asked the applicant if there was anything that they could work with or did they feel that they had done as much as possible?

Mr. Creer stated they tried to do something with Lakepoint Office Center but it came into a lot of legal issues.

Chairperson Capello suggested moving the building up and move the front row of parking to the back of the building.

Mr. Arroyo agreed, stating that they could move the building closer to Town Center.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (8-1): To postpone Preliminary Site Plan for Best Western SP00-06.

Member Koneda clarified the reason he seconded the motion was because he feels it is too much on too small of a site. The biggest problem he had was the greenbelt area along Town Center Drive so if some effort was made to improve this, he would be willing to change his vote.

Chairperson Capello stated the area along Town Center Drive was also his main concern.

Member Koneda asked if the full 20’ greenbelt was being met by the other properties along Eleven Mile Road?

Mr. Arroyo believed that the restaurant received a variance for the front yard parking, he also believed that there may have been a variance for a berm along Eleven Mile Road.

Member Mutch stated if this comes back before the Commission, he would like to see the height issue explored. He stated if Novi Party Store could go through with only one variance, he would have problems with projects that have a lot of variances, especially if they have a clean slate. He stated he would be in support of postponing.

Yes: Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza, Canup, Capello

No: Cassis

Member Cassis asked that future submittals concerning the Town Center area be accompanied by the original agreement as well as the history behind it.

Mr. Arroyo stated it could be arranged to provide this information to the Commission.

Member Koneda provided a memorandum along with an article published in the January issue of Automotive Industries to the Commissioners. The article highlighted the Husky development in Novi. He referred to the bottom of the second page where there is a comment about Daimler Chrysler’s plan to make 5,000 hard tops for the Wrangler. It stated although the volume is not a function of outright mode capacity. With the current three minute cycle time, the company could manufacture 150,000 units if it needed to. The zoning laws of Novi only allow for only tryout manufacturing of 5,000 units.

Member Koneda stated there have been a lot of OST site plans that have come before the Commission and he thought the quality of the site plans were not what the Commission envisioned them to be as part of the OST district. He thought they were envisioned to be more high technology uses and innovative companies. Member Koneda asked if it made sense to go back and look at the OST zoning and determine if light manufacturing should be allowed to occur. He suggested making it a Special Land Use to try and entice more quality companies to come into the City.

Member Churella felt that the OST district fit the needs of Novi and did not think light manufacturing should be added to it.

Member Watza agreed with Member Churella. He thought to turn it into a manufacturing facility would change the essential characteristics that the Commission is looking for. He did not want to start attracting factories to the OST sites and he felt this was what would happen.

Chairperson Capello thought Member Koneda had a good point. He did not think the Commission realized what was going on in the manufacturing industry, especially automotive related. He thought maybe the Ordinance needed to be changed slightly to bring in new technology.

Member Koneda stated he brought the issue forward because the article showed that Husky was in the City of Novi and it did something. He stated there have been some discussions about site plans coming forward in the OST district and Novi is not attracting the technology base. He asked what the Commission needed to do to bring in the types of companies that are wanted in the City? He thought it needed to be explored.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards.

Member Mutch stated he would not vote in favor of the motion. He agreed with the comments of Member Watza. He stated 24 hour manufacturing generates impacts in the community. He stated it affects residents and infrastructure as well as neighboring businesses. He stated tech centers do not want to be located next to 24 hour operations.

Mr. Wahl clarified that industrial was not being allowed in the OST. He stated straight industrial was not allowed, it has to be under certain types of prototype arrangements. He stated he has not heard from developers or property owners that they are having a problem marketing the OST properties.

Member Watza asked if there were large companies looking at Novi and declining because they were not being permitted to manufacture at their center?

Mr. Wahl answered, not that he was aware of. He stated he would further look into it but as of now, he was not aware of any complaints that the Ordinance was too restrictive.

Based on that, Member Koneda withdrew his motion.

1. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING PROGRAM: ACRONYMS WITH ATTITUDES

Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed some of the more common acronyms and provided a handout with a number of acronyms to be used as a reference.

None

Moved by Churella, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:25 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards, Watza

No: None

________________________________

Beth Brock - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane Vimr

March 10, 2000

Date Approved: March 15, 2000