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

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Canup

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay and Staff Planner Beth Brock

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

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

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Capello announced there was 1 item on the Consent Agenda.

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2000. He asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Seeing none he entertained a motion to approve the minutes.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 19, 2000.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

1. MARQUE CORPORATE CENTER SP 00-17A

This office / warehouse project is located in Section 23, on the west side of Meadowbrook Road and north of Grand River Avenue. The 9.12 acre site is zoned Light Industrial District (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit approvals.

Paul Finkel of Equity Ventures II, LLC proposed five (5) Light Industrial buildings designed with brick primarily for high tech research use. It would be split between tenants, warehouse and storage. He stated industrial traffic would consist of vans and no large trucks. He stated the owner of the project has added additional funds into the design of the building. He felt the wetlands on the site, were dealt with. The front wetlands were considered to be essential, and therefore have been developed to be maintained and utilized. The area was able to be expanded with the elimination of the nonessential wetlands. He stated the trees associated with the front of the property were maintained and additional landscaping was provided per the Ordinance requirements. He felt his proposed project satisfied and exceeded the requirements of the ordinance.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant reviewed the location of the property. He explained the unusual difficulties of the drive in from Meadowbrook Road and the parking located on the subject’s property. He stated it may have previously been one parcel and was split as the developments occurred. Therefore, there were issues related to easements that would need to be clarified and resolved as part of the Final Review. He stated a Planning Commission action was necessary because the applicant was not providing the required side yard setbacks. The parking area is directly up to the side yard, leaving it impossible to provided a side yard setback. He stated on the other side there is eight (8) feet of a side yard setback being proposed instead of the ten (10) feet requirement. The applicant has provided an additional setback in the front of the property. The Zoning Ordinance states the Planning Commission has the ability to allow the applicant to reduce setbacks as long as the total setback, area around the entire project, equaled what would be required by the Ordinance. If there was excess setback in one area it could be reduced it in another area and therefore, the Commission has the ability to grant the action as part of the Site Plan Approval. Mr. Arroyo stated this project is a phase project and the Commission would technically be approving the Preliminary Site Plan and the Phasing Plan. He stated the applicant proposed to build the two (2) building structures located to the west first, and the one closest to Meadowbrook Road would come last. He pointed out the phase line. He added there were minor adjustments to be made with the phase line that would incorporate parking. He stated he would like to see this as well as some other minor items addressed in the Final. Mr. Arroyo stated some parking spaces on the property appeared to be being used by the project to the north. He stated this project would have to access Eleven Mile Road through the existing development to the north. Therefore, cross access easements needed to be clarified and resolved on the Final and reviewed by Dennis Watson. In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo felt the site distance and corner modifications on the building for circulation could be addressed on the Final. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval for the Preliminary Site Plan and the Phasing Plan.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant recommended approval. She stated the applicant should evaluate requirements for on site detention. An existing regional detention basin is located at the northeast corner of Grand River and Meadowbrook Road. She recommended the applicant evaluate whether conveyance existed to route the storm water to that basin. Although this was not a requirement, it would allow the applicant to down size a basin. However, onsite sedimentation still needed to be provided. Ms. Weber added a condition of the approval; that if the applicant chose to utilize the front area for detention and sedimentation, it would be included as part of the phase one construction.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of landscaping with one Zoning Board of Appeals Variance of a parking lot setback and two (2) Planning Commission Waivers. Ms. Lemke recommended a waiver of the extra square footage of island space, having been provided throughout the site. She also recommended a waiver for the high berm along Meadowbrook Road, with additional plantings, trees and shrubs to be provided along the wall per the diagram in Section 2509 entitled Obscuring Wall. She stated there were two (2) areas of woodlands on the site. The first area, approximately one (1) acre and smaller area to the west in the middle of the first two (2) buildings. Both of the areas of woodland consist of new growth Pioneer Woodland species Poplar, Silver Maple, Red Maple and Elm. She stated both areas have a lower quality woodland area due to the species, isolation and little under story and small sized trees. Both sites are not on the City’s Wildlife Habitat Master Plan. She stated thirteen (13) woodland replacement trees would be required with the removal of the half (1/2) acre site and the edge areas of the larger acre site. Ms. Lemke recommended approval for the Woodlands Permit. She stated there were a number of items she would be looking for at the Final Engineering Plan Submittal. Ms. Lemke did not recommend Woodlands Preservation easement due to the low quality of the woodlands on the site. She stated there were three (3) conditions with her July letter to go with her recommendation.

Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist recommended approval. Wetlands are located along the eastern side of the property and the Bishop Creek along the ditch line of Meadowbrook Road. This portion of the Bishop Creek water shed and the upper stream reaches the Rouge River. She stated the wetland in the area is somewhat diverse and not of high quality. The applicant filled a small portion, at the center of the site, for mitigation. Ms. Kay stated there was an alternative analysis done to determine whether some of the wetland could be preserved. She recommended approval for filling of .30 acre wetland, which would be compensated for at the western edge of the wetland system. She stated this might increase the overall value of the wetland. She stated there were two (2) nonessential wetlands on the property. The first wetland would be an advantage to rid of and the other is nonessential and did not require mitigation.

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: the hydro spacing shall be reduced to a maximum three hundred (300) feet hose laying distance.

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 Nagy asked if gas and oil separators are being provided and maintained on a regular basis by JCK?

Ms. Weber answered, yes. She stated it would be looked at during the Final Site Plan submittal as a requirement of the Design and Construction Standards. She stated the storm system is a private system and it would be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the oil and gas separator structures.

Member Nagy asked Ms. Weber to explain the reasoning for the required easement over one hundred (100) year flood plane?

Ms. Weber stated the applicant had an easement over Bishop Creek; there was a hundred (100) year flood plain as well as flood way. Therefore, she requested the applicant to verify the location of the easement based on the hundred (100) year flood elevation. This would maintain the area for flood flows.

Member Nagy asked, regarding Circulation Section 9, if building A will be shortened four (4) feet with regard to the corner side distance?

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He explained it would have to be shortened or modified to provide for the required site distance around the corner.

Member Nagy asked the ratio for replacement?

Ms. Kay answered the City ordinance has a minimum requirement of one (1) to one (1). She gave the example of the .30 wetland the applicant proposed to fill. She stated the applicant has voluntarily chosen to create an excess than the requirement along the quarter west of the existing wetland. The applicant has attempted to create a mitigation area with some treatment for the storm water. Therefore, it has a combined detention and mitigation area.

Member Nagy explained the letter stated it to be a regulated contiguous wetland and yet, now it showed labeled wetland areas A and B as regulated nonessential on wetland plain. An essential nonessential determination was not performed on these wetland areas. Therefore, Member Nagy asked Ms. Kay if she has, since the report, performed one to draw this conclusion?

Ms. Kay answered, yes. She stated prior to the review there was an essential nonessential determination done. She explained wetlands contiguous means the property is located within five hundred (500) feet of Bishop Creek, therefore, made them regulated regardless of size. Ms. Kay stated it was regulated without regard to an actual essential determination. Areas C and D were under two (2) acres, therefore an essential determination was done, due to the ordinance, to determine if they were worthy of regulation. She explained this being the reasoning for those not being mitigated.

Member Nagy asked how the letter from the Department Environmental Quality, dated August 7, 2000, relate to Ms. Kay just statement?

Ms. Kay stated the State regulates wetlands that are five (5) acres and greater. Local wetlands are regulated stricter, at less than five (5) acres. The state denied the permit for the center wetland proposed to be filled. However, the letter stated the applicant could rectify the situation by adding sedimentation removal structure prior to storm water discharge into the mitigation area. Therefore, the needed structure would be added prior to approval from the state. Ms. Kay stated this would give both a State and a Local Permit.

Member Mutch referred to the Engineering letter stating it seemed to indicate the preferred handling of the storm water was to send it to the regional basin without on site detention. He asked if this was correct?

Ms. Weber answered, correct. She explained they could not require applicant send the water to the regional basin. She referenced the recent ruling of the Bolt Case and asked Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney to explain.

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney, explained the case of the Supreme Court, which gave the distinction of providing fees and taxation. He stated he would like to provide the analysis to the commission due to the length of the discussion.

Member Mutch restated Ms. Weber’s recommendation to have the discharge directly to the Creek and then to the region basin seemed to conflict with treatment terms given by the DEQ. Member Mutch asked Ms. Weber if she would be revising her letters or recommendations?

Ms. Weber stated her recommendations and letter are from an engineering perspective regarding the storage of storm water on site. Therefore, she would be leaving that in the letter and still giving recommendation. She again restated it was an allowance for the applicant to downsize the basin and they could not require it. However, the applicant would have to provide sedimentation, possibly in the form of a sedimentation basin, on the site to provide for water quality before the water discharged to Bishop Creek. Therefore, this was a requirement whether or not they chose to detain on site.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo regarding the side yard setback, where the entire ten (10) feet were not shown, if there were layout issues with parking spaces, access lanes, etc… as the reason why the it could not be provided?

Mr. Arroyo responded if they were to widen that to ten (10) feet with the current configuration, there would be a problem of having to shorten the stall or widen an isle to a nonstandard dimension. The only option would be to make the buildings smaller to meet that requirement.

Member Mutch stated considering the proximity development to some of the proposed Gateway developments, he would like to see a sidewalk connection from the southern drive, the exterior sidewalk into the interior.

Mr. Arroyo pointed out the southern driveway was only partially the applicant’s property. It would be possible to put it on the northern side.

Member Mutch clarified it would be on the southern drive on the northern side of the drive.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: to grant the Woodlands Permit and Wetlands Permit subject to the consultants’ comments and recommendations. to grant Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the Phasing Plan conditioned on the consultants recommendations except for the recommendations requiring discharge into the Regional Detention Basin, subject to the ZBA Variance for the ten (10) side yard setback, subject the Planning Commission Waiver for the side yard setback and erecting the wall along Meadowbrook Road in place of the berm, granting the Section 9 Façade Waiver as to buildings A and B as set forth in JCK’s letter dated March 28^th and the sidewalk connection on the north side of the south drive

Member Koneda asked if the berm was four (4) foot or three (3) foot and how high the wall was in place of the berm? He understood the Commission was waiving a three (3) foot berm and replacing it with a higher wall. He would like it to be stated at the Final. He stated he understood the waiver granted for the side yard setback, however, he did not understand why a ZBA waiver was needed for the same thing.

Ms. Lemke stated she called for a side yard setback of ten (10) feet.

Member Koneda thought it should be changed in the motion, because the Planning Commission’s action did not require ZBA.

Mr. Arroyo stated the setbacks could be relaxed, and Ms. Lemke has already found they meet the test.

Ms. Lemke stated this would be removed from her letter.

Chairperson Capello asked Ms. Lemke if the Planning Commission Waiver was sufficient and if ZBA Variance was not required?

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda commented on the Wetlands Mitigation. He clarified the ratio of 1.4 was offered and was not required. He stated the requirement is one (1) to two (2) dependent upon if it is essential or nonessential and the quality of the wetlands. Since the petitioner offered 1.4 he asked if that was acceptable?

Ms. Kay answered, yes.

Member Nagy asked if there was any way to vary the number of White Pine and Austrian Pine, due to the diseases and high numbers in Novi?

Ms. Lemke stated they have discouraged Austrian Pine due to the diseases. They have requested a variety of plant materials, such as Spruce and Hemlock in wet areas. She would take Member Nagy’s comments into consideration at Final.

Member Nagy questioned if the Plan should be approved by the Commission. She stated she researched on the internet, under the Rouge Program Office, and found Bishop Creek, downstream of the site, has an excellent rating for fish and aquatic life. Therefore, she asked if there would there be continuous monitoring of the erosion and the sedimentation control?

Ms. Kay answered yes. She stated a Soil Erosion permit is a condition of the permits. She stated the local soil erosion inspector is in the community. She believed the applicant’s Soil Erosion Permit was already approved locally. She added as part of the mitigation, this issue is addressed by the DEQ and Local Wetland Permit, to ensure there would not be any further sedimentation into Bishop Creek.

Chairman Capello asked in regard to the Regional Storm Water Basin, if there would be a fee for the applicant to be should they tie into that?

Ms. Weber answered, yes.

Chairman Capello clarified if they do not tie in; they would not have to pay the fee?

Ms. Weber answered, yes.

Chairman Capello asked if this was the maintenance fee?

Ms. Weber answered yes. It would go into the storm water maintenance fund.

Chairman Capello asked if this rate was calculated the same as the residential fee in the area?

Ms. Weber answered, yes.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

This office building project is located in Section 12, on the west side of Haggerty Road and north of Twelve Mile Road. The 22 acre site is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Matthew Quinn spoke on behalf of Aztec the developers of Novaplex. He stated Novaplex was a twenty-two (22) acre site just south of the Magna parcel. Aztec has proposed two (2) three (3) story buildings of sixty-eight thousand five hundred (68,500) square feet each, and two (2) one (1) story buildings of fifty-four thousand (54,000) square feet. The three (3) story buildings are fronted along Haggerty Road. The one (1) story office research building would be constructed in the rear of the parcel. He stated the project was previously presented at the Public Hearing for the woodlands and the wetland review. The Wetlands Permit was issued and the Woodland Permit was issued by City Council. He stated it was agreed to preserve the 4.51 acres of woodlands to the west of the property. The permit was issued on the basis that those woodland would be maintained. He referred to the diagram that showed the stacking areas along the bank south of the project. He stated ZBA Waivers and a Planning Commission waiver were needed. A berm would be placed along Haggerty Road on the south side of the entrance way. The detention basin had to be specially constructed due to the need to move the whole site toward Haggerty Road to save the trees. Mr. Quinn stated the detention basin needed to be pushed forward as much as possible, therefore, he did not feel there was enough room for the berm between the detention basin and the right-of-way line. He stated there would be a sufficient amount of landscaping in that area. He proposed the idea of creating the basin to be more of a landscape feature. A Planning Commission Waiver would be necessary due to the lack of berms on the side of the adjacent property. He referred to the portion of the Woodlands Permit that stated the Planning Commission and the ZBA should look favorable to any variance that was specifically addressed to save the woodlands. He felt this was what the berm waiver requested. Mr. Quinn addressed Mr. Arroyo’s letter regarding the ZBA variance on height. He stated the building height is lower than required, however, with the roof top, the height is over by 2’10". He explained the stacking at the bank. He proposed a bank on the first floor of the building located on the southern portion of the property. The original plan did not show the required six (6) vehicle stacking for each drive up bank window. He stated the they were able to provide the six (6) vehicle stacking for the first two (2) drive up windows. He questioned the ordinance; if the third (3) window, designated as an ATM drive up, was really a drive up window. The importance being they would need a ZBA variance for the stacking of one vehicle in the one lane. However, if the ATM were not considered a drive up window, there would be no need to go to the ZBA. He asked for Dennis Watson’s opinion on this issue. He asked the Planning Commission to waiver the side yard setbacks. There was a twenty (20) foot side yard set back pertaining to the two buildings located in the rear of the property. However, the setback was only ten (10) foot. He stated the reason being this was negotiated for the permit intended to preserve the wetlands. He requested a Section 9 Waiver. Mr. Quinn explained the traffic situation. The main entrance was located in the center of the project. On the south edge, they have proposed a one way out exit with a right turn only. The traffic review letter proposed to have a one way out with traffic turning in both directions. In order to meet this requirement, a twenty-four (24) foot wide drive way verses a twenty (20) foot driveway would need to be provided. He stated the twenty-four (24) foot drive way was a Design and Construction Variance they would need to obtain from the City Council. Mr. Quinn referred to the Traffic and Review Letter Item 10, in which they requested a portion to be stubbed and certain parking spaces to be lost with the possibility of a future stub from the site located the south. He stated the parking was tight and he felt they could not lose the parking spaces. He felt it was not in the best interest of the project, being unaware when the project to the south would be completed. He responded to item 20, regarding the height of curbs. The City has a four (4) inch curb requirement throughout the site. Typically the City required a nineteen (19) foot parking space, however a seventeen (17) foot space would be allowed if a four (4) inch curb was provided. The idea being the vehicle would overlap the curb by the two (2) feet. He stated his client prefers a six (6) inch curb due to future resurfacing. He felt this could be addressed at Final.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant, stated the project has been through a significant amount of review and modification primarily in attempt to save as many woodlands as possible. A number of changes reflect the agreements of the City Council and Concept during the appeal of the Woodlands Permit. Mr. Arroyo stated with these changes there would be some waivers and variances needed. He gave the example of the side yard setback changes that were made in order to preserve woodlands. He stated his agreement in concept with the overall intent of the proposed. Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval due to the number of variances required. However, he stated if the variances were granted, they would be in a position to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Arroyo listed the variances: the building height issue, the variance for the right-of-way and the drive through lanes (the ordinance did not distinguish whether the six (6) car stacking was required for an ATM lane).

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney, agreed with Mr. Arroyo regarding the ordinance section that dealt with drive through lanes without distinguishing whether it would be to a live person at a window or an ATM. He quoted the ordinance as "drive through lane shall have minimum stacking space in accordance with the following standards". He stated in regard to the financial institutions, he quoted "six (6) vehicles inclusive of the vehicle at the window". Mr. Watson felt the language at the beginning of the section was referring to drive through lanes therefore felt both types were considered drive through lanes. He felt there was nothing functionally different between the two (2) types. He stated there was a section referring to other uses that would give allowance to the Planning Commission to make a determination based upon analysis of the City Traffic Engineering Consultant.

Mr. Arroyo stated there were some different characteristics. He stated due to the nature there are different hours of operation. He felt before a final decision was rendered, he felt more research should be provided and possibly presented to the ZBA. He suggested the Planning Commission have the research included and incorporated with the Final.

Mr. Watson added the determination needed to be made prior to the deadline, otherwise the applicant would have to go before the ZBA.

Mr. Arroyo spoke in regard to traffic. He gave options in regard to the City Council Waiver and the Design and Construction Standards for the width of the driveway. He stated they could make the driveway less wide with only one lane out. With this option, the applicant would not be required to go to City Council. Mr. Arroyo understood the applicant desired to have two (2) lanes out. He stated due to the volume of traffic on Haggerty, two outbound lanes would be ideal to prevent the blocking of those turning right. He felt the two (2) outbound lanes made sense, because it would line up with the boulevard driveway on the other side. In the future it could be widened into a boulevard benefiting both properties. He stated there was no guarantee of this happening, however he felt it should be planned in a manner that would have a minimum amount of disruption in the future. He stated there were a number of circulation issues to improve the truck circulation through the site. He felt the applicant was comfortable modifying to accommodate these. In regard to the stub section to the south, he stated it was offered as a suggestion not a requirement. He stated the property might be separated on the out piece therefore, it would be difficult to make the interconnection work on the Haggerty Road / M-5 corridor. He stated they would like to see the developments connected if possible.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant, recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. She stated there were a number of issues she felt could be addressed at the time of the Final.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect, recommended approval. She restated the request for the ZBA variance for the berm at the north end of the site by the detention basin and the need for the Planning Commission Waiver for a berm where OST loading abuts another OST area. She stated there were high quality woodlands in the area and she recommends the waiver. She stated they were providing Evergreen trees in the area to provide the screening. The exact species and variety would be reviewed at the Final. A number of items listed on her July 26, 2000 letter would also be reviewed at Final. In regard to woodlands, she referred to her letter, dated July 26,2000, which summarized the Council’s actions of May 1, 2000 and their four (4) conditions. Ms. Lemke spelled out, for reference in the future, the land banking procedures. In addition, Ms. Lemke required a number of items to be provided on Final Engineering and Final Site Plan Submittal. She stated bullets in her letter indicated the conditioned items. They required financial guarantees and inspections to be determined at Final Site Plan.

Chairperson Capello clarified if the two (2) variances included one possible variance from the ZBA, the berm, and also a Waiver from the Planning Commission?

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

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 hydrant shown in the proposed driveway at the southeast corner of the site shall be relocated, 2) the fire department connections for each building shall be shown. The FDC shall be located on the front address side of the building within one hundred (100) feet of a hydrant. 3) the fire suppression water main shall be shown and shall be controlled by either PIV or a gate valve and a well. 4) the following note shall be provided on the plans; all weather access roads capable of supporting twenty-five (25) tons are to be provided fire apparatus; all water mains and water hydrants are to be installed and in service before above ground construction; building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction.

Ms. Kay stated the overall value of the wetland being preserved on the western portion of the property has increased in value due to the efforts to protect the woodlands.

Chairperson Capello felt that issue was resolved previously.

Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke in regard to the design alternatives, if there was consideration given to underground parking or increasing the height of the rear buildings to decrease the building footprint?

Ms. Lemke stated the applicant was not in favor of providing with those options when she suggested them.

Member Mutch stated he would not support the project even though City Council had dealt with granting the Woodland Permit with given recommendations. He stated did not feel the applicant was creative enough nor have the alternatives been explored. He stated there are office developments in Novi have underground parking and multi story building to reduce the footprint. He stated these changes would reduce or eliminated the variances and still protects the woodlands. He felt the site was being overbuilt. He stated there were too many variances for his support.

Chairperson Capello brought to the attention of the Commission a Recommendation of Action in the motion from City Council. He read "revised Woodlands Permit shall be granted based upon the conceptual plan presented to the City Council…it is further moved that the City Council recommends that the Planning Commission and ZBA look favorably and grant necessary variances in regard of the applicant Site Plan so that it may correspond to the attached conceptual Site Plan". He then asked if the plan submitted to the Commission complied with the conceptual site plan submitted to City Council?

Mr. Arroyo stated in concept, it was the same plan.

Member Koneda spoke in regard to woodlands. He recalled the Planning Commission denied the woodlands permit with the old plan because the applicant was only saving one (1) of the ten (10) acres. He credited the applicant for their efforts to save half of the woodlands with their new plan. He did not feel the Commission needed to question the action of City Council and their only required action was to find if the plan met the requirements of Site Plan. He agreed with Member Mutch with regard to saving more of the woodlands. Member Koneda addressed the ZBA variance regarding the building height. He stated it was modified so they may build higher by five (5) feet and provide a five (5) foot of setback for each additional foot above the height. He asked how far form the sides of the building they proposed to have the equipment? He stated the ordinance would require forty-five (45) feet. He asked what they would be requesting from the ZBA?

David Gass Architect of Norma Yamasaki, stated the general layout of the roof plan and screening for mechanical equipment was typically 1/3 of the building. The column spacing with this particular building has the spacing greater than that, therefore, the overall area was less than 1/3 of the building.

Member Koneda restated his question to Mr. Gass. He asked if he would be able to see the equipment if he stood on the property line and looked up at the roof?

Mr. Gass answered, no. He stated the equipment screen would be visible from the property line. However, the equipment would not be visible nor would it be visible from any adjoining property.

Member Koneda asked if the southern driveway would be one (1) lane with a right out only or if they planned to seek a variance for a Design and Construction Standard?

Mr. Gass stated the project was changed according to the suggestions made by the Traffic and Plan Review letter propose to continue with the two (2).

Member Koneda asked what the applicant would be giving up if he were to change the driveway to twenty-four (24) foot to meet the City standard.

Mr. Arroyo stated the one way drive standard did not contemplate two (2) lanes, therefore they would require a waiver.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: To Grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Novaplex SP 99-32B including a Planning Commission Waiver of the side yard setbacks. The waiver granted to preserve the woodlands as agreed with by City Council. Section 9 waiver of the sod ordinance and a waiver for the berming along the property lines except for the Haggerty Road conditioned upon a ZBA variance for the berming along Haggerty Road and building height and lane stacking if necessary.

Chairperson Capello asked if Member Koneda motioned to have the ZBA variance for the berms thirty-six (36) inch high by parking thirty (30) inch high by detention?

Member Koneda stated he suggested they provide the berms per Ms. Lemke’s requirements.

Mr. Quinn clarified the issue of the berm on the west side of the detention basin. He stated the detention basin deeper than normal. He pointed out the parking necessity came up to the edge and the adjacent hedgerow. He felt there was not enough room for a berm without losing the parking. He explained if his client lost the parking, the parking would have to be placed in the land bank area, therefore defeating the purpose of the woodlands permit. He stated this was the reason they put a landscape feature in place of providing a thirty (30) inch high berm.

Member Koneda asked if the Commission could grant the variance for the berm or if they had to go the ZBA?

Ms. Lemke answered yes they would need to go to the ZBA.

Member Koneda stated this condition needed to be added to the motion.

Chairperson Capello restated the condition of the berm along the eastern side of building A, western side of detention parking subject to the ZBA.

Member Koneda encouraged additional planting in place of the berm with the plan approved by Ms. Lemke.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: To Grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Novaplex SP 99-32B including a Planning Commission Waiver of the side yard setbacks. The waiver granted to preserve the woodlands as agreed with by City Council. Section 9 waiver of the sod ordinance and a waiver for the berming along the property lines except for the Haggerty Road conditioned upon a ZBA variance for the berming along Haggerty Road and building height and lane stacking if necessary condition of the berm along the eastern side of building A, western side of detention parking subject to the ZBA.

Member Churella agreed with Mr. Quinn regarding providing the stub road, however in the future this may be needed.

Mr. Quinn restated the difficulty with parking on the site.

Member Churella felt if the applicant needed the stub, they would be able to provide it. He stated he could designated it off at the service area south of building C.

Ms. Lemke stated the adjacent property has about the same acreage of woodlands.

Mark Sturring of Best Act added he felt it did not make sense to design stub roads for a future development that may or may not come. He stated if property to the south was developed with a logical reason to hook up a stub road due to a connecting light, this adjustment would be made and the parking spots removed. He stated likewise, they would work with the property to the north.

Member Koneda asked if this could be added to the record incase of a future sale of the property?

Mr. Arroyo commented on signalization. He stated the potential existed with the southern connection of the outbound connection being built as a boulevard and served two (2) developments. There would be the possibility it would qualify for a signal.

Mr. Watson asked if this was the assumed logical location, it would fabricate the need to make the connection serving as a joint access point?

Mr. Arroyo stated there was a potential to connect at two (2) locations. One connection would be at the boulevard, the other connection could be made further back or both could be done.

Chairperson Capello asked if they could also designate the connection with Magna, the development to the north?

Member Koneda again asked if the decision could be secured to insure it would be taken care of in the future?

Mr. Watson answered the Site Plan could be modified to do that and he felt it may be an Administrative Site Plan change. He stated one of the Site Plan requirements was that traffic features within the site, including the location automobile parking areas, be designed to ensure safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian access. This referred to traffic both within the site and with relation to access streets. Therefore, he felt this could be used as a basis to make it a condition if future plans were developed on the north or the south properties to make a safer internal and safer external access. Mr. Watson stated the point at which this would happen would be when the property to the south came in and had the point to make that access.

Member Nagy asked if the same requirement was asked of the property to the north?

Mr. Arroyo explained the property to the north split off their frontage piece where the connection would logically be made to this piece. They did not have a lot of room on the portion they developed due to the woodlands coming in further. The connection was not shown on the Magna Plan, but he stated it could be shown on the portion located in front of the Magna Site adjacent to Haggerty. He stated there was still the potential to make the connection.

Member Nagy asked how many feet wide the connection would be?

Mr. Arroyo answered it was normally enough for two (2) lanes being between twenty-four (24) and thirty (30) feet wide.

Member Nagy did not understood why the berm was being removed at detention pond and being replaced with hedges. She asked the width of that? She asked it to be clarified if the reason for the three (3) or two (2) foot width at detention center was due to the included six parking spaces?

Mr. Quinn Stated they were unrelated issues. In order to decrease the area by three (3) folds, he stated they pushed everything by the land banking.

Member Nagy asked if the boulevard entrance three (3) lane section was related to this or if the April 27^th letter was outdated?

Mr. Arroyo stated the April 27^th letter referred to previous review, which was the concept plan that went before the City Council as part of the woodlands. He felt the location of the entrance drive was sufficiently spaced to meet city standards.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (6-2): To Grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Novaplex SP 99-32B including a Planning Commission Waiver of the side yard setbacks. The waiver granted to preserve the woodlands as agreed with by City Council. Section 9 waiver of the sod ordinance and a waiver for the berming along the property lines except for the Haggerty Road conditioned upon a ZBA variance for the berming along Haggerty Road and building height and lane stacking if necessary condition of the berm along the eastern side of building A, western side of detention parking subject to the ZBA. To allow for future connections to the northerly property and southerly property through existing parking spaces.

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

No: Mutch, Nagy

2. GUERNSEY DAIRY FARMS SP 00-16A

This building addition project is located in Section 35, on Novi Road and north of Eight Mile Road. The 2.97 acre site is zoned General Business District (B-3). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Leroy Stevens of Steven’s Architect introduced himself representing Guernsey Farm Dairy. He proposed and addition to side of the building. This would be a freezer for ice cream. The freezer would be low temp storage of ice cream and distribution of ice cream. There would be a loading area beside the freezer. The building would be made of brick façade with partial insulation metal panels. The parking and the site contours would not be changed. The building height is similar to the existing building. He stated the reason for the addition was they have non contiguous freezers within the building. They felt this freezer storage addition would improve the processing flow of the ice cream. The existing building has a restaurant on the south side. He stated the parking would be restripped.

Mr. Arroyo felt the variance regarding the amount of loading area could be eliminated if all the specific areas for all of the loading for the entire site were designated on the Plan. The applicant would need to go to the ZBA for the loading area and side yard, it is required to be in the rear yard. He agreed it would be difficult to have loading in the rear of the project due to the configuration of the site. In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. He stated the signage recommendations to clarify the one way in and one way out. He stated there were some internal circulation modifications he would like to see on the Final Site Plan.

Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. In regard to flood plain use, she requested the finished floor elevation and the finished grades around the building be set at one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. She required under Section 3403 a firewall between the existing building. Ms. Weber stated she would like to see a MDEQ Flood Plain Permit or a letter of no jurisdiction prior to Final Site Plan Approval.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval. She requested additional Evergreen plantings to screen the loading area, depending upon the extent of the existing Evergreens already on the right-of-way.

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. Also a letter from Douglas Necci of JCK recommending a Section 9 Façade Waiver.

Member Mutch stated because this is an existing site, it did not meet the current requirements for parking and landscaping. He asked what would be the standard for requesting these improvements?

Mr. Arroyo answered if they were rebuilding, they would be able to take a fresh look at these standards. However, with this situation, they were requesting approval for a freezer addition. He stated they would address the things being modified, such as parking lot modifications, to standard. They also address minor modifications to improve the areas that are not at city standards. Mr. Arroyo stated he reviewed each case individually.

Member Mutch asked if the billboard was located on the Guernsey property? Is this billboard permitted and at B-3 zoning and what point should it be requested to have it removed?

Mr. Stevens answered this is not Guernsey property.

Mr. Watson stated the sign might have been grandfathered in before the sign regulations were effect. The sign ordinance did not state a nonconforming sign had to be eliminated after a number of years.

Chairperson Capello clarified if Member Mutch was asking if the Commission had the authority to grant Preliminary Site Plan approval and not approve the part of the sign?

Member Mutch answered yes.

Member Cassis asked if the freezer would substitute for two (2) or three (3) other freezers?

Mr. Arroyo answered it was explained to him that these changes would consolidated and they would allow the trucks to come into the building to load, therefore improving the loading operation.

Member Cassis what the space with the existing freezers would be used for after the addition is built?

Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant planned to consolidate the freezers to allow for an internal loading. He did not believe there would be a substantial expansion.

Member Cassis asked again what the applicant would be doing with the space with the existing freezer?

Mr. Stevens stated the space with the existing freezer would be used for storing four (4) of the trucks. He stated the other small existing freezer space would provide room for interior loading.

Chairperson Capello asked if it was possible to load on the north side of the old building as opposed to the north side of the addition?

Mr. Stevens stated the current loading done inside was for the unloading and loading of the milk trucks. The floor is slopped to aid the process. To load the ice cream, the truck would need to be level, therefore, it would need to be loaded outside.

Member Mutch stated he would like to see the sidewalk continued allowing residents to walk to Guernsey. He understood this was not an easy request to incorporate and was uncertain with the best way to handle his request.

Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo if the only waiver needing to be granted was the Section 9 Façade Waiver?

Mr. Arroyo stated to his knowledge, this was correct.

Member Koneda asked if the ZBA Variances would be the loading area and the side yard and off street parking setbacks?

Mr. Arroyo answered the area was not being modified and therefore would not require a variance.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval for Guernsey Dairy Farm addition SP 00-16A including a Section 9 Waiver of the façade ordinance conditional upon getting a ZBA Variance for the side yard loading

Member Nagy asked if the addition would create more truck traffic than presently?

Mr. Stevens answered no.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None.

This medical and dental office building project is located in Section 11, north of Twelve Mile Road and east of Novi Road. The 1.01 acre site is zoned Office Service District (OS-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Joe Hammond of Brivar Construction introduced himself.

Chairperson Capello asked Mr. Hammond regarding his cover letter. It stated they are willing to comply with all of the items except those that require a variance?

Mr. Hammond stated they would to comply with every issue on the consultant’s reviews that could be complied with, without having to go before ZBA. He stated they are scheduled for ZBA on September 12, 2000.

Chairperson Capello clarified the applicant was not asking the Planning Commission for any waivers and needed to go to ZBA for the variances?

Mr. Hammond answered they can not require access for the property owners to the east and west. He thought the rear yard obscuring berm and the preapplication meeting with Linda Lemke was resolved. For the height of the retaining wall and the landscape screening above it, they would require a Façade Waiver as requested. They requested a variance for the rear yard setback.

Mr. Hammond introduced Dr. John Toupin and Dr. Joel Toupin who are both a partner and an occupant of the proposed development. The structure is designed with a two (2) story front and a single story to the rear to facilitate the grade difference on the site. The building is constructed of wood frame and steel and Masonry Exterior. The front has split rock and structure timber framing extended inside to approximate a building in the Upper Peninsula. The site was designed to accommodate thirty-one (31) feet of fall from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. This was by utilizing some of the retaining wall along west side and across the north elevation as well as most of the east elevation. The parking was designed for eighty-four hundred and seventy (8,470) square feet gross area. The applicant asked for Site Plan approval for Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval due to the variances needed. However, should the ZBA grant the variances, he would be able to give his recommendation. According to the plan provided and the traffic review, the site is short two (2) spaces. This would need to be addressed by the ZBA. He stated the rear yard setback did not meet the requirement. The rear yard ordinance states no parking shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet from a residential district. The property abuts a residential district, however it is close proximity to a cemetery use. Although the property is zoned residential, it is not likely it would be developed residential. In previous potential ZBA cases some relief was granted. In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant does not have a realistic opportunity to do anything else to get access to the site. Therefore, he strongly encouraged the applicant to contact the property owners to the east and the west. However, these attempts to arrange a shared access point were unsuccessful. He stated their plan for a point of access seemed to be their only option. Mr. Arroyo suggested some minor adjustments be made to the end island to provide clearer vision and to meet he end island standards. He stated he would be looking for another space to be "X" in the rear to specify delivery loading and unloading. This would allow the proper circulation, however, with this change, the site would be short two (2) parking spaces. Mr. Arroyo stated with these changes, modifications and the granting of the variances, he could recommend approval.

Ms. Weber recommended approval. She stated there was no requirement for detention, however, there was conveyance to the Twelve Oaks Lake (a regional detention basin). She stated because the site was less than two (2) acres there was not a requirement for a sedimentation basin. She requested oil and gas separators be provided before the storm water discharges from the site.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval with the variance for the berm for the north. She stated the wall was being provided and there was a drop of nine (9) feet. The applicant was providing the screening; she felt the drop provided the berm. She stated although there were a number of items she would be looking for at Final she recommended approval.

Member Richards asked if the location on Twelve Mile Road was where it was still narrow?

Mr. Arroyo answered it was. He understood the City was moving toward establishing the funding for that, and the Taubman Corp. has agreed to pick up the match that would be necessary to fill in the gap. It was likely the entire stretch would become a boulevard section. Mr. Arroyo stated there would be future right-of-way line approximately ninety (90) feet from the center line. The current road would be shifted farther north and closer into the (90) feet with the boulevard.

Member Richards asked if access located off the new Twelve Mile would be possible? He asked if there was a light far enough away?

Mr. Arroyo stated the advantage was the boulevard would make the road adjacent to the property a one way drive, therefore it would be only right turns in and out. He stated assuming the project was approved, it would operate without the boulevard for a few years.

Moved by Cassis, seconded by Richards: To approve Novi Medical Dental Center SP 00-36 subject to the consultant letters and all the variances that are supposed to be approved by the ZBA and the Planning Commission

Member Mutch stated the sidewalk being proposed was in the future right-of-way of the boulevard would the applicant then be open to placing the sidewalk at the future right-of-way line?

Mr. Hammond stated that was what he understood they were doing.

Member Mutch stated the sidewalk was shown at sixty (60) not ninety (90).

Mr. Hammond stated this no problem.

Member Mutch stated he would like this included at the ninety (90) foot line.

Moved by Cassis, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (7-1): To approve Novi Medical Dental Center SP 00-36 subject to the consultant letters and all the variances that are supposed to be approved by the ZBA and the Planning Commission and a sidewalk at the ninety (90) foot right-of-way

Member Koneda asked Mr. Arroyo regarding the deficiency of parking spaces. He asked if it was feasible to have the loading area stripped and a sign to designate parking allowed between certain hours?

Mr. Arroyo answered it was not practical. He gave the example: if a UPS truck were to arrive it would be difficult to monitor when a vehicle would be parking in this space. He stated he has not seen a successful attempt of this situation.

Member Koneda stated the possibility of the medical building regulating the traffic building/traffic flow, to avoid it being during peak business hours.

Mr. Arroyo stated this was not possible with the UPS and overnight delivery services.

Member Koneda stated he was simply attempting to find relief for the deficiency in the parking spaces.

Member Nagy was concerned with the driveway. She stated although Twelve Mile would be changing in the future, she did not feel a deceleration or acceleration lane would present.

Mr. Arroyo stated Twelve Mile would be extended across therefore it would be a continuation of what currently exists. He stated it would be straight from Haggerty Road into Farmington.

Member Nagy felt if she was driving on the M-5 with traffic flow behind her, would she be turning directly into the applicant’s driveway?

Mr. Arroyo stated configuration has two (2) lanes and allows the traffic to go around the driver turning. However, if it were one (1) lane, he would request a deceleration lane.

Member Koneda clarified if this situation would only occur after the boulevard is established, and the interim would still be two (2) lanes with traffic making right and left turns in.

Mr. Hammond added currently east of the property, exists a deceleration lane that extends across.

Mr. Arroyo stated they are covered under current conditions with a deceleration lane, and when the boulevard is established, they would be covered either way.

Chairperson Capello stated the plan indicated an eight (8) foot asphalt bike path, that should be at ninety (90) feet. He stated he thought the waiver in Mr. Arroyo’s letter was referring to five (5) foot wide concrete path. He understood this was the waiver Member Koneda was granting in his motion. He asked if this has been addressed?

Mr. Arroyo stated the five (5) foot wide concrete continuation was recommended for the applicant to resolve by constructing an end island. Therefore, this waiver would no longer be necessary if the traffic recommendation.

Chairperson Capello restated it was not a request for a waiver for the sidewalk along Twelve Mile Road, however was agreed to move it back to the ninety-foot right-of-way line?

Mr. Arroyo answered yes.

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

No: Nagy

None.

Presentation by Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo.

Mr. Arroyo briefly described the basic responsibilities of the Planning Commission. He gave a summary of the responsibilities. Most importantly to create, maintain and update the Master Plan. The Master Plan is a policy guide not an ordinance. It is intended by the State Legislature that it be adopted by the Planning Commission and not by the governing body. It was intended to have the Planning Commission be more of a specialty board concentrating on planning issues who could make and adopt the Master Plan. However, the Master Plan is not an Ordinance or law nor is it required or anticipated by the legislature to be adopted by the City Council or Township Board.

He stated another principle responsibility was the creating, updating and maintaining the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission acts as an advisory capacity in this responsibility. The Zoning Ordinance is a law. Laws can not be made nor can laws be changed. However, recommendations can be made to the governing body, in this case being the City Council. He quoted the Ordinance "The Planning Commission shall make the recommendations for the Zoning Text and Zoning Map Amendments and shall hold a public hearing and send a recommendation on to the City Council". Therefore, the Planning Commission has a specific role in this particular case.

Mr. Arroyo covered Special Land Use Review. In many cases the Planning Commission is given the authority to make review or give the approval for special land uses. In order for a case to be a special land use, the ordinance must specify it is a special land use and it must identify the standards. A special land use is something that may not be permitted at all in every area within a certain district, but only in certain locations depending upon if it meets the standards.

He reviewed Capital Improvements Programming. He stated the Commission does well with updating and maintaining their Capital Improvements Programming Component. The statute states the Planning Commission shall annually prepare a program of public structures and improvements to be undertaken over the next six (6) years. There making it a six (6) year Capital Improvements Program. It specifically states the City Departments are to provide the Planning Commission with detailed information on their needs for capital programs, time and cost estimates. The Planning Commission is then to bring all of this information together in a comprehensive package for Capital Improvements.

Finally Mr. Arroyo spoke on Development Review. These are items other than Special Land Uses, such as Site Plans, Condominium Plans and Subdivision Plats. The Planning Commission makes recommendations on the tentative preliminary plat before it is passed to City Council. However with the Site Plans and Site Condominiums, the approval is given, in most cases, by the Planning Commission. Exceptions to this approval may include projects over five (5) acres in a T-C District or projects in a R-C District. As indicated, procedures can change. For example in some communities, the Planning Commission approves lot splits, where as in other communities, the Assessors may do this responsibility.

None

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:46 p.m.

Yes: Capello, Cassis, Churella, Koneda, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

August 7, 2000

Date Approved: October 4, 2000