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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Koneda (absence excuse)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Tom Schultz, Wetland Consultant Debbie Thor.

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

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

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

None

Mr. Evancoe introduced the Lauren McGuire

None

Chairperson Churella announced there was one (1) item on the Consent Agenda.

This Office Park project is in Section 12 and is located west of Haggerty Road, between Twelve and Thirteen Mile Roads. The 22.007 acre site is zoned OST, (Office Service Technology). The applicant is seeking a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant a one-year Preliminary Site Plan extension to Novaplex SP 99-32.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

This project is located in Section 15, located on the South side of Twelve Mile Road and west of Novi Road. Parcel A is a 5.6acre site and parcel B is an 8.58-acre site. The property is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland & Wetland approvals and Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Robert Bendas of Etkin Equities proposed the project located directly west of the Fountain Walk Project with the I-96 Freeway located to the south approximately five hundred (500) feet. The project consists of three (3) separate building developments. Building I is a two-story, fifty thousand (50,000) square foot office building located at the north end of the site. It has a drive through accommodation for a bank or credit union use. Building II is an one hundred seven (107) Residence Inn (limited service hotel) nestled around a wooded wetland. Building III is a forty-three thousand (43,000) office/warehouse type of building. He noted the preservation of the woodlands at the southwest corner and the wooded wetland. The remaining woodlands are of poor quality or subject to removal due to the grading and required utilities. In compliance with the issue identified by the Fire Department, the name of the project Fountain Park, would be changed due to conflict with another Fountain Park located in the City. He proposed the new project name Fountain West. There will be a phasing plan with the three (3) buildings. The intention is to proceed with the northern two-story office building along Twelve Mile Road. The hotel would be developed initially or simultaneously and the south building would be last. This order will be reversed if the market conditions change. He noted Birchler & Arroyo revised their review letter to a recommendation for approval as the issues were addressed. The loading zone issue has been resolved. The lighting photometrics have been resolved with the exception of one (1) light pole, which may need adjustments at Final Site Plan Approval. The installation of a sidewalk along the full length of Cabaret Drive was requested in a JCK review letter. He asked the Commission to approve the Site Plan without the sidewalk or allow the option to appeal to ZBA. He recalled one (1) Pre-Application meetings, which he was informed the sidewalk would be required and another meeting which he was informed that it would not. He explained that the properties are self-sustaining with little traffic. Further, the site configuration places the property elevated six (6) to seven (7) feet above Cabaret Drive. City requirements place the first six (6) feet from Cabaret Drive at a four percent (4%) slope. The slope next to the right-of-way line is not permitted any steeper than twenty-five percent (25%). Lastly, from the right-of-way line to the parking lot requires an installation of a three foot (3’) screening door. A sidewalk is typically at the right-of-way line. Therefore, it would place the sidewalk approximately six feet (6’) above the curb with a steep slope. He felt the sidewalk would be useless due to its relationship to the buildings. He noted the Fountain Walk development located to the east did not have a sidewalk. He indicated that they would not be able to comply with the consultant’s comment regarding construction access via Twelve Mile Road. He explained its difficulty due to the construction of the first building and its tenant parking. He stated providing this construction access would be detrimental to the occupancy of the first building. He explained that this would be difficult to comply with once the building is erected. He referred to the comments regarding the driveway grade reduction from the proposed five to seven percent (5%-7%) to four to five (4%-5%). He noted the driveways have been located to minimize their steepness. He stated the proposed five to seven percent was the best that they could provide. He commented on the future widening of Cabaret Drive. He noted the recommendation to post a bond or form of agreement to ensure that the developer would fund the one hundred thirteen feet (113’) portion for the widening to three (3) lanes when development occurs to the south. Mr. Bendas objected to this requirement due to the SAD Assessment that was paid at the time the property was acquired. He felt the widening information should have been included with the original development of Cabernet Drive. He requested a waiver for the berms to the west. He did not find a need to provide screening between like properties.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant indicated the Planning Review letter was revised on August 29, 2001. The proposed project is located adjacent to residential zoning located on the north side of Twelve Mile Road. The applicant has verbally indicated that they would revise the Site Plan to conform to the ordinance lighting standards. He advised the commission that the plans as submitted, continue to have an issue with the lighting levels along the property line, which would need to be resolved by means of a revision or a variance. Due to its adjacency to residential the property does not technically qualify for the additional height and additional number of stories, which is permitted in the OST District if located between Twelve Mile Road and Grand River Avenue. The hotel would be affected because it is a four-story verses a three-story. The applicant has proposed a lot split, which is permitted. The first office building along Twelve Mile Road, would be located on its own lot and the remainder of the property would be a separate lot fronting on Cabernet Drive, which is a public roadway. As a condition of approval, the applicant would need to obtain the approval of a lot split through the City Assessors office. If the split is approved, then they could qualify for the additional height on the hotel. Mr. Arroyo suggested the phasing plan clearly be delineated on the Final. He hoped to have one (1) phasing plan in place at Final. He added that many of the plans are a speculative in nature without a clear sequence of construction. Therefore, he anticipated having these details more refined at Final. He recommended the Final Site Plan to include a better-defined pedestrian connection between Building A and the Hotel Building. One condition for developing a hotel in the OST District is to make it an integral part of an overall OST Development. He recommended providing internal pedestrian connections between the different users. This provision would allow a separate pedestrian path between the uses without having to compete with vehicular traffic.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the comments in the review letter dated August 9, 2001. The parking ordinance allows the consideration of shared parking in terms of calculating the appropriate number of parking spaces. Due to the mixed uses of a hotel and office, there is a potential for reduction in parking spaces. The peak-hour trips between hotel and office occur at different times. A rough estimate of sixty (60) or more spaces could be eliminated on the Site Plan, which would continue to meet the demand that would be generated. In order for a parking waiver to be granted, the applicant would need to submit a parking study approved by the commission. He added that it is not a requirement yet an option as means to reduce some pervious surfaces.

Mr. Arroyo gave the historical background of Fountain Walk and the widening of Cabernet. Fountain Walk planned a public road network to surround the Fountain Walk project. The City Ordinance requires that non-residential collectors be built at three (3) lanes wide. The developers of Fountain Walk met with the Tony Nowicki and Mr. Arroyo questioning if it were reasonable to construct all three (3) lanes of Cabernet Drive since portions would not be needed until the west side of the property developed (including the proposed site). It was determined that the applicant would seek a Design and Construction Standards Waiver from the City Council to construct a portion of Cabernet as three (3) lanes and the remainder to the southerly portion at two (2) lanes. He added that representatives from the property located on the West Side of Cabernet Drive were also involved in this discussion. There was a concurrence that the third lane would be filled in upon the development of the property on the West Side of Cabernet Drive. Mr. Arroyo indicated that the area is a small portion of the lane. He suggested that it be extended to the southerly property line. He estimated the amount to be less than two hundred feet (200’) for the widening of the one additional lane. He added that the applicant is in the position of not having to construct full passing lanes, full center turn lanes or extensive deceleration lanes as typically seen for new projects located on major roadways.

Mr. Arroyo suggested the further exploration to reduce the driveway grades. Upon entering the site from Cabernet Drive, one is quickly faced with the decision of turning left, right or straight. He indicated the importance of clear visibility with the steeper grade as a public safety issue. He suggested stop signs be internally installed. He noted the importance of coordination with the landscape plan and the grade. He suggested a reduction in the driveway grade to help mitigate the situation. However, if the reduction was not possible, the alternative would be to work with the landscape plan to keep everything as low as possible to maintain the clear vision.

Mr. Arroyo referred to comment #14 of the review letter. He anticipated the Fountain Walk development to have a lot of restaurants. He felt it was inevitable that the office and hotel users that would utilize these restaurants. He suggested a sidewalk connection along one of the driveways to Cabernet Drive and potentially a connection into the Fountain Walk project to facilitate pedestrian movements. He recommended a five foot (5’) sidewalk on the south side of the northern most drive onto Cabernet Drive in coordination with Fountain Walk developer to provide a designated crossing area (crosswalk). He requested that the potential for these pedestrian movements to be explored to keep people from walking through landscaped areas attempting to cross over. The lot split creates the need for cross access easements between the two (2) parcels due to the internal connections between them. Minor modifications to end Islands and sidewalk widths that would need to be addressed at Final.

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated July 17, 2001. The site is fully served by public utilities water and sewer. The applicant will be extending water mains off of Cabernet Drive and Twelve Mile Road, looping systems through the site with stubs to the west for future extension and additional connection points. The sanitary will be served by lead to be extended off of existing mains. There is no need for public utility or sewer main extensions on the site. Each of the three (3) buildings can be serviced fully by lead extension off of the existing mains. From a storm water perspective and a grading perspective, falls is depressed in the Cabernet Drive area, fairly high through the middle of the site and drops three lobes of wetland areas in the western edge. Two (2) detention basins are proposed for the site. One basin is proposed at the northwest corner along the western edge to serve the northern half of the development. Storm sewers will be extended and release storm water into this basin. The second detention basin is proposed at the southwest corner of the site. These basins will be detention basins and water quality basins designed with sedimentation control (temporary sedimentation controls during construction). The release points for both basins is an existing storm sewer back toward Cabernet Drive, which will be released at a restricted rate. These sewers flow to the south, (Cabernet Drive falls to the south), extending to I-96 through the previously constructed Fountain Walk basins and then to the south and east. He referred to comments included in the review letter. 1) The five foot (5’) concrete sidewalk requirements along Cabernet Drive. He noted to his knowledge, Fountain Walk secured a variance or a waiver to place sidewalk on the East Side of Cabernet Drive. However, this variance did not include the West Side of Cabernet. He stated that this comment would remain as a requirement. He added that this would need a Council Variance. Mr. Bluhm believed that the provision of a sidewalk was feasible with the use of short/decorative retaining walls yet would still allow the required berming to be addressed properly with the site. 2) Construction Access Routing. Cabernet Drive is a new roadway and does not have the all weather construction thickness as with Twelve Mile Road. He noted the preference to have the applicant utilize Twelve Mile Road for construction access because it is an all weather route and more substantial roadway. He noted the willingness to work with the applicant. However, he stressed that if construction access is necessary along Cabernet Drive that it be minimized as much as possible. He suggested the mechanism of a right-of-way permit that would need to be secured from the City of Novi prior to Final Site Plan Approval. Ordinance does not require Cabernet Drive to be the access point. However, he felt confident that this could be addressed through the right-of-way permit and minimized if construction access is necessary.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscaping with the items in her review letter dated July 18, 2001 being addressed at Final. The Planning Commission may waive the berm requirement since this OST zoned site is abutting an OST zoned property to the west. Ms. Lemke noted her support of the waiver with the provision of additional evergreen trees in place of some of the deciduous plant material along the west property line to screen the loading and unloading doors of Building B, loading areas west of Building A and hotel loading area. She noted a number of items to be addressed at Final. At this point, it appears the berm height has been met both along Cabernet Drive and Twelve Mile Road. However, if it is determined that the height can not be met, a ZBA variance would be required. A combination of a retaining wall to provide a flat area for a sidewalk or a combination of a retaining wall and berm to provide the berming or a Planning Commission Waiver for a wall could be used to meet the berm height and provide the sidewalk. She felt this could be met with a combination of a retaining wall and a berm or a berm only. She noted her support of the sidewalk connections to the adjacent commercial area(s).

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke recommended approval in her review letter dated July 18, 2001. There are a total of 1.75 acres of Regulated Woodlands on the site. In the Northwestern portion of this site is a Light Woodlands with approximately 0.62 acres on this property. There is a variable mixture of species in this portion, some of which may have been previously planted. All 0.62 acres are proposed to be removed. The quality of this area is low based on the species. The highest quality area is the west central portion of the Site. The west-central portion of the site is a Medium woodlands of approximately 0.77 acres associated with wetlands. This Woodlands extends off the property to the west. Species in this area are mostly silver and red maple, boxelder, willow and elm. Applicant is proposing to remove 0.04 acres. In the southwest portion of this site, and along the south property line is a Light woodlands of approximately 0.36 acres. There is a substantial amount of swamp white oak in this area and several poplar. Tree #290 in this woodlands is a 37" swamp white oak in good condition. This woodlands extends only slightly to the west and the south. Applicant is proposing to remove approximately 0.07 acres. She noted the approximate number of regulated woodland trees that are 8" d.b.h. (diameter at breast height) or greater proposed to be removed are eighty-two (82) with a replacement of one hundred twenty-four (124). However the exact numbers of woodland replacement trees would be determined at Final. She noted there are a number of items in her July 18, 2001 to be addressed at Final. She recommended that the two (2) areas being saved be placed into a Preservation Easement.

Debbie Thor, Wetland Consultant indicated the site has four (4) wetlands on the site. Two (2) wetlands have been declared non-essential. A small wetland in the southwest corner and one in the center portion of the site are essential. There is no impact proposed for the southwest wetland. Proposed impact to Wetland B - Fill portion of wetland for construction of three (3) of the buildings, grading and parking 22,268 square foot (0.511 acres). She noted that although it is not included on the agenda, the Planning Commission would need to grant a Minor Use Permit. Ms. Thor recommended approval subject to the conditions of the review letter dated July 19, 2001. She recommended a Conservation Easement to be placed over the remaining wetlands areas and the mitigation area. The applicant has agreed to provide the recommended five foot (5’) Wildlife Corridor connecting the center wetlands to the southwest corner wetland. Mitigation is proposed at a 1:1 ratio. She added the two (2) "fingers" proposed for impact, which extend from the center wetland to the building area are of a lower quality. She noted they would be staying away from the mature forested portion of the wetland with the open water, which is the higher quality portion. Ms. Thor recommended additional native plantings provided in the mitigation area and wildlife corridor. She recommended that a native wetland seed mix in the detention basins above the high water mark to provide for water quality filtration. If there is insufficient hydrology provided to the mitigation, which is north of the center wetland, she recommended that the applicant provide a clay liner to hold the sheet flow into that area. This would be a construction note to be assessed when the grading is completed for that mitigation area. A DEQ permit and a letter of no jurisdiction are required prior to the issuance of a Wetland Permit.

In regard to the façade, David Bluhm referred to the letter dated July 23, 2001. A Section Nine Facade Waiver is required as the asphalt singles have not met the twenty-five percent (25%) ordinance requirement. The north, south and west façades of the Residence Inn Hotel are each slightly over the permitted percent. A Section Nine Facade Waiver has been recommended in the review letter dated July 23, 2001.

Chairperson Churella announced he has received a letter dated July 2, 2001 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 submittal. 1) The project name shall be changed. Applicant shall submit to the Street Naming Committee. 2) Proposed Site A, two story office building – A. Relocate the F.D.C. to the front/address side of the building within 100 feet of a hydrant. B. Separate water mains shall be provided for the domestic and fires systems. A gate valve in a well or a post indicator valve shall be provided for fire main. C. Replace the hydrant that was located on the north east corner of the building. 3) Proposed Site B, four-story inn – A. Comments A & B for Note #2 are typical for this site. B. Add a hydrant to the southwest corner of the building. 5) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans.

Chairperson Churella 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 Piccinini referred to comment #14 on the Traffic Review letter and asked Mr. Arroyo if the sidewalk is a different sidewalk than the one along Cabernet Drive discussed by Mr. Bluhm.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. The sidewalk he referenced in his review letter would connect the internal network of the proposed site out to Cabernet Drive. The sidewalk would run along the south side of the northern most drive. As indicated in his letter, the walk should be placed at the back of the curb (starting at the first parking stall and wrapping around to at least 5 feet past) to minimize disruption to the landscape berm. The sidewalk would enable pedestrians to walk from the proposed site along the drive and separate from the traffic to Cabernet Drive to cross.

Member Piccinini referred to the Preliminary Site Plan indicating the landscape planting/buffering abutting the right-of-way and questioned if the applicant confirmed that they would provide the 36" berm height requirement along Cabernet Drive.

Ms. Lemke stated that based on the information provided, it appeared the applicant would meet this requirement. She clarified that they are required to meet this.

Member Piccinini wanted to make sure the applicant understood this requirement.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Mutch, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Fountain Park SP 01-42 (fka Fountain West) to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver and Wetland Permit with phasing that the applicant would conform with end islands, Planning Commission Waiver for berm requirement abutting OST to the west with additional evergreens, sidewalk to connect between office and hotels as recommended in comment #14 of Birchler Arroyo’s Traffic letter, the five foot (5’) sidewalk width along Cabernet Drive as recommended in the JCK letter, applicant to meet lighting standards, applicant to Bond for the widening of the road and contingent upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.

Member Landry clarified if the Cross Access Easement was included in the motion.

Member Piccinini stated that this would be included in the portion, which stated the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Nagy referred to the applicant’s comments regarding the sequence of the phasing plan being dependent upon the economy. She clarified if this is what the applicant stated.

Mr. Bendas indicated the north building initially be the first phase however, if the economy changed and a market demand created for the south building, then the south building would be the first phase.

Member Nagy clarified that the phasing plan would not begin with the hotel.

Mr. Bendas stated the hotel would be either simultaneous or after.

Member Nagy questioned when the lot split would occur.

Mr. Arroyo noted the lot split would occur before the development. He stated it would be a condition of the approval and would need to be incorporated into the motion. In order to build the Site Plan as proposed, the applicant need to have the lot split approved.

Member Nagy questioned how many hotels exist in the City of Novi and their occupancy rate.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he did not know the occupancy rate, however he estimated ten (10) existing hotels and one (1) that has Site Plan Approval and not yet built in the City of Novi.

Member Nagy asked if the occupant(s) of the office buildings were known at this time.

Mr. Bendas stated that he currently has a client with a Credit Union for the north building. He added that there is not a signed agreement at this time.

Member Nagy explained that she was questioning the usage of the building and the surrounding area with regard to the sidewalk.

Mr. Bendas indicated one building is an office use. The hotel is a limited service extended stay Residence Inn with Marriott. The guests may stay as long as three days to three months.

Member Nagy asked if the applicant submitted a sample board.

Mr. Bendas stated their packet information indicates the building materials.

Member Nagy clarified further if the applicant brought a sample board to the meeting indicating the colors.

Mr. Bendas assured Member Nagy that the sample board was submitted with the application.

Member Nagy deferred to Mr. Evancoe to address the matter.

Chairperson Churella interjected indicating the approval is not for the building(s). He clarified that the approval is for the site only. He noted the building(s) and materials would be approved with the Site Plan(s) for the building(s).

Member Nagy noted the request for a Façade Waiver.

Mr. Evancoe agreed with the request for a Façade Waiver.

Member Nagy noted her concern of the safety and welfare of those utilizing the driveways. She questioned if it was possible to reduce the driveway grades.

Mr. Arroyo indicated JCK, the applicant and himself could examine further the possibilities of a reduction in the driveway grades. He stated the determination could be made after Final Engineering is complete due to the needed details.

Member Nagy clarified that one (1) lighting issue remains non-conforming.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the applicant has indicated verbally to revise the lights to bring the light level down to meet the ordinance requirements. He stated this would need to be shown on the Revised Lighting Plan.

Member Nagy questioned the reduction of the sixty (60) parking spaces. She felt this could reduce impervious material. She questioned where the reductions would occur.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the reduction(s) would likely occur between the hotel and office areas. He explained the hotel and office uses allow the shared parking potential. It would not be wise to reduce spaces located at the south and north end of the site, because those spaces servicing only office uses. The spaces would be reduced in between the hotel and the two (2) office uses, because these would have the greatest potential for sharing.

Member Canup felt the shared parking would create a negative situation, which would be enhanced with a lot split. Hypothetically, the hotel and office building could have different ownership and construct dividing fences.

Mr. Arroyo stated the condition would be an easement granting the use of the shared parking. This easement would prohibit the parties from doing such actions.

Member Canup clarified if there was no possibility that this situation could become a conflict in the future.

Mr. Arroyo stated there would not be a conflict if the appropriate documents were in place to ensure an easement to runs with the land.

Member Canup questioned if the easement is a requirement that could be placed on the Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Arroyo indicated if the commission is approving shared parking then a shared access easement is required to obtain access to both parcels. An easement would be required regardless of whether or not there is shared parking.

Member Canup suggested having an easement in place for the shared parking as a condition to the approval. Although the current owners may be agreeable, the property might be sold in the future the conflict could arise.

Mr. Bendas pointed out the areas with the majority of the parking for the Residence Inn. He preferred to have the shared parking at the buildings at the south.

Member Canup stated the bulk of the parking appeared to be at the building to the north and a scarce commodity going to the south. He clarified that the building to the south would be an office/warehouse type of use.

Mr. Bendas stated it is currently a flex-tech building and he was not certain of the use.

Member Canup added to Mr. Bendas’ comment that the use could go into the hours of the evening. The building to the north would be an office building, with typical hours ending at 5 p.m. He requested that this be addressed and worked out prior to the granting of Site Plan Approval.

Chairperson Churella asked the City Attorney if the matter could be handled in that timing.

Mr. Schultz stated that based on his review of the requirements for shared parking approval, the applicant has not submitted the documentation required under the ordinance to obtain the reduction that Mr. Arroyo made reference to. Therefore, if the commission preferred a reduction of the amount of pervious surface by reducing the number of parking spaces, then the applicant needs to complete the steps that he has not yet done. Therefore, Mr. Schultz was not certain this issue could be resolved at this meeting. However, the cross access easement (to and through the sites), aside from shared parking, is already part of Mr. Arroyo’s review letter and should be provided.

Chairperson Churella clarified if the motion could be amended to include the condition.

Mr. Bendas stated his preference to leave the situation "status quo" and address shared parking issue(s) as the site plan becomes refined with the knowledge of tenants and occupancy. He stated that the hotel is well defined and requires a certain number of spaces. The possible credit union building may require less parking depending upon the retail function.

Mr. Schultz explained the Ordinance stated that in order to receive the reduction in parking, the applicant is required to submit a traffic study that meets the requirements of the City Publication on Shared Parking. He suggested the applicant return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval as opposed to an administrative approval to address the issue.

Member Canup agreed with this suggestion and amended the motion to have the applicant return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Piccinini clarified how many issues would be addressed.

Member Canup stated that there were several issues included in the motion that were in relation to the sidewalk. He stated that he would not support the alleviating of any ordinance-required sidewalk(s). He did not feel there were any exception(s) due to the foot traffic that could be generated in the proposed area.

Member Piccinini accepted the amendment to her motion to have the project return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Douglas Etkin, 29100 Northwestern Hwy Southfield asked permission to address the shared parking issues that were raised. He noted the several building they have established around Metropolitan Detroit. He stated that he agreed with the shared parking concept, which would be implemented if possible. He indicated shared parking requires a reciprocal parking agreement, which he would require. However, the determination could not be made until the knowledge of the occupants of the office buildings is available. He stated his liking to the less impervious surfaces. He assured the commission that his goals and the commission’s goals are aligned in this matter. He stated his concern was the amount of work that was taken to reach this stage of approval. Therefore, he requested that the commission not require the Site Plan return for Final Site Plan Approval. Mr. Etkin gave his verbal commitment on the record to have shared parking if the uses allow it and obtain as much land banked area as could mutually be done in working with the Planning Staff.

Member Canup continued to request the amendment to the motion.

Member Piccinini asked Mr. Arroyo to define land banking.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Ordinance allows for shared parking, which requires a Planning Commission approval. Land Banking provision was primarily put in place to address users, such as furniture stores and warehouse uses, which do not require a lot of parking. There are provision in the Ordinance that deal with Land Banking. Mr. Arroyo expressed concern that both options require the Planning Commission to approve either the shared parking or the Land Banking. The Ordinance is explicit that this is a Planning Commission action. Therefore, having the applicant return for Final Site Plan Approval would allow the Commission to act on the particular component. He did not interpret the Ordinance as allowing this approval to be handled administratively.

Member Piccinini restated her acceptance of Member Canup’s amendment.

Member Mutch referred to Section 2505, which refers to land banking and shared parking. Section 2505(7) – "Two (2) or more building or uses within one or more buildings may collectively provide the required off-street parking in which case the required number of parking spaces shall not be less than the sum of the requirements…However, the Planning Commission may permit land banking of parking area according to the following…" He noted that Section 8 refers to the dual function of off-street parking spaces by one or more land use and the shared parking study. He asked the City Attorney if these were separate sections. He asked if the verbiage under Section 7 and its reference to Standards for Land Banking 2505(16)(b-h) would be a separate provision from the shared parking study discussed earlier in Section 8.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes. It is a separate concept.

Member Mutch asked if number 7 could be done and avoid the shared parking study issue. He suggested the real issue might be the land banking. Hypothetically, the site could build their uses and need/build all of the parking spots. Possibly the they would not have to use fifty (50) or sixty (60) parking spaces and land bank them, never using but having the spaces available. However, the shared parking would create a hypothetical situation with the sixty (60) spots never being available with a dependency on the shared parking.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Member Mutch stated Section 7 allows the land banking and accomplishes the commission’s goal. It also would give the flexibility to allow additional spaces should the need arise. He questioned if Section 7 could be reviewed administratively with the intent to have the excess spots land banked.

Mr. Arroyo stated that subject to Mr. Schultz’ concurrence, if the Planning Commission felt comfortable accepting the concept of land banking subject to administrative review, then it could be possible. He believed that the commission would be the one to authorize this action. He stated that potentially Section 7 could be applied. It would require sufficient land area for all of the parking spaces as shown on the Site Plan and a portion would be left in green space, which could eventually be converted to parking if there was a need. It is different from shared parking because the area is more limited and would need to be in a position that could be converted at a later date. He stated this could be evaluated administratively if the Planning Commission felt this was feasible.

Member Mutch stated the difference between shared parking and land banking. He stated the shared parking would envision never using "X" number of spaces. However, the reality is that there may not be much gained through a shared parking study. He noted the potential of a shared parking study that could find not much of an overlap between the uses and a need for all of the parking spaces.

Mr. Arroyo felt confident that situation would have at least fifty (50) spaces that could be reduced.

Member Mutch stated that the site proposes five hundred thirty-five (535) parking spaces and Ordinance requires four hundred ninety-seven (497). He clarified if a land banking alternative would have 497 spaces and the remainder would be land banked for future conversion.

Mr. Arroyo stated this was one potential situation. The applicant could build what the Ordinance requires and land banking the addition, which could be handled administratively.

Member Mutch clarified if the use changed if a re-submittal would be required.

Mr. Arroyo stated if the use changes, then they would have to resubmit. He stated if the use mix changes and there is more office and less high tech, then more parking would be required. This would trigger the construction of the additional parking spaces.

Member Mutch stated that he was attempting to retain the flexibility. However, he shared Member Nagy’s desire to have more green space if possible. He questioned if his focus was in line with the other commissioners. He questioned if there would be a benefit to interconnect developments off-site to the west or south.

Mr. Arroyo referred to his review letter condition to interconnect the hotel with the office uses.

Member Mutch noted that he was referring to the vacant property adjacent to the west and the south.

Mr. Arroyo questioned if he was referring to vehicular connections.

Member Mutch answered, yes.

Mr. Arroyo stated this would depend upon how the land to south was assembled and if there was enough frontage to have two (2) points of access. A potential emergency type connection at a minimum across the property that could be gated to allow a second point of access to a deep piece of property located off of Twelve Mile Road to the west. He noted that this option could be explored, providing that it does not go into woodland or wetland areas.

Member Mutch noted the location of Husky to the west of the vacant property. He felt that Husky might have intended to have a large piece of property. He estimated the vacant property between Husky and the proposed development to be 40-acres or 50-acres. Member Mutch noted that he was looking into the future’s potential need.

Mr. Arroyo stated that if the property were assembled/developed into the one piece then there would likely be a two (2) points of access to Twelve Mile Road. However, if the property is developed into long narrow strips, the secondary access could become an issue. In this case, the connection could help. He indicated the difficulty in making this determination because there of the lack of knowledge of how the land would be assembled/developed.

Member Kocan referred to the drive through banking area. She questioned the reasoning for the access from Twelve Mile Road. She felt this access would create a hazard to have back up banking traffic using the drive through lane parking lot. She questioned if the development could survive without the Twelve Mile Road access.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the proposed sufficient stacking room to meet Ordinance Requirements. There remains significant additional room before "spilling" back onto Twelve Mile Road. He added that a credit union use tends to have less of a traffic impact than a standard bank. He stated there is sufficient stacking on the site. An elimination of the Twelve Mile Road access raises the concern of a blocked access. He explained if there was an accident at the intersection of Twelve Mile Road and Cabernet Drive access would severely be restricted to the proposed property. The proposed property is long and deep, thereby making it advantageous for emergency vehicles to have an additional access. He suggested asking the Fire Department’s opinion to the elimination of this access. He stated from a traffic perspective, the site could probably function without the access. Mr. Arroyo felt the request for the Twelve Mile Road access was reasonable and felt it was supportable.

Member Kocan clarified if there was a lane designated as a drive through to enter into the parking.

Mr. Arroyo indicated a bypass lane within the drive through lanes themselves. The outer most lane is designated as a bypass lane and would not conduct business.

Member Kocan was concerned with the amount of traffic cutting through attempting to avoid the intersection. She added the traffic might increase with the widening of Twelve Mile Road. She questioned if the lane should be wider.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that this could be addressed at Final to ensure the extra width on the outside lane to provide for this concern.

Member Kocan referred to the loading and unloading area. She questioned if the only loading zone for the two-story office building was the loading area that is not connected to the office building (just south of the northerly most detention pond).

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the area is not connected and is located across the drive.

Member Kocan asked if this was typical.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He stated its location would require a sidewalk ramping system to allow UPS deliveries to access the building entrances. The access to this loading area would need to be resolved at Final.

Member Kocan stated that currently the only access to the building is located at the east and south ends of the building.

Mr. Arroyo stated her comment was correct as it is shown on the Site Plan drawing.

Member Kocan felt this was a considerable distance away from the building to have loading and unloading. She noted the proposed waiver for the berming. She questioned if there was any screening of the loading area and the dumpster.

Ms. Lemke noted the evergreen screening to screen the areas for the hotel, Building A and Building B.

Member Kocan clarified if this would include the area around the dumpster.

Ms. Lemke stated it would include the area around the dumpster. The dumpster would have the required wall that is the same material as the façade. In addition, due to the loading area, there would be required evergreen trees to screen along the western property line.

Member Kocan clarified the Site Plan would be returning to the commission for Final Site Plan Approval. She asked if the motion is requiring shared parking or if the commission is requesting that the applicant explore the different options.

Member Canup stated the he understood it as a requirement to have easements in place with the shared parking. He stated the documents would need to be in place prior to the approval of the shared parking.

Mr. Schultz stated if the Commission requires shared parking, then the document would have to be in place. As to Member Kocan’s question if the Commission is requiring shared parking or asking the proponent to explore the option and present a proposal. He indicated the Planning Commission would need to make a determination at the next meeting whether or not the shared parking would be required.

Member Kocan asked for the motion to be clarified.

Member Piccinini stated that she accepted the amendment requesting the applicant to explore the option(s) and bring their finding(s) when they return for Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Kocan stated if shared parking is decided upon, then the appropriate documents would need to be in place.

Member Piccinini answered, correct.

Member Canup stated when the applicant returns to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, all the appropriate documents would need to be in place.

Member Kocan clarified this would be the case if they proposed to have shared parking.

Member Canup answered, correct.

Member Piccinini indicated that her acceptance of the amendment was with the focus to explore options to reduce the number of parking spaces through shared parking, land banking or alternative options.

Member Landry clarified that that the applicant would need to return with their alternative finding.

Member Canup added the matter must be addressed and a final avenue established to resolve the issue.

Mr. Schultz indicated land banking would avoid having to return to the commission. Instead the Commission could give Mr. Arroyo the authority in Administrative Final Review to determine if the land banking is acceptable. However, dual function shared parking in Section 8 is required to come before the Commission.

Member Kocan felt that the project should return to the commission due to the several issues that would need to be addressed.

Member Canup agreed. He noted the number of items on the Site Plan that have not been resolved. Therefore, he felt the Site Plan needed to return for Final Approval.

Member Kocan stated over half of Wetland B was being removed. She noted that over fifty (50%) of the wetland would be filled. A number of areas would have buffer disturbance and the amount is not provided. She asked if the consultant felt confident that the answers would be provided as to how much buffer would be impacted and this matter addressed at Final.

Ms. Thor indicated that numbers were provided for the amount of buffer disturbance since the writing of the review letter. She noted this number to be approximately twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. She explained the wetland is not only what is represented on the Site Plan. Wetland B extends off to the west and is two (2) or more acres in size. Therefore, proportionately the removal is not as dire as it sounds. She noted the applicant has included the areas that would be filled as part of their buffer disturbance. She added the proposed replanting of a twenty-five (25) foot buffer along the mitigation as well as the remaining forested wetland. Thereby reestablishing one, creating an even exchange.

Moved by Piccinini, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED (7-1): In the matter of Fountain Park SP 01-42 (fka Fountain West) to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver and Wetland Permit with phasing that the applicant would conform with end islands, Planning Commission Waiver for berm requirement abutting OST to the west with additional evergreens, sidewalk to connect between office and hotels as recommended in comment #14 of Birchler Arroyo’s Traffic letter, the five foot (5’) sidewalk width along Cabernet Drive as recommended in the JCK letter, applicant to meet lighting standards, applicant to Bond for the widening of the road subject to the applicant exploring the options to reduce parking and contingent upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions and the Site Plan returning to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Nagy

This project is located in Section 4, located east of Beck Road and north of West Road in Beck North Corporate Park. The property is 1.590 acres and is zoned I-1 (light industrial). The applicant is seeking approval of Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use approvals.

Lee Mamola architect of the proposed project, introduced the owner John Gauruder. The proposed project is part of the Beck North Industrial Development. He stated the site borders residential on one side to the west and the remaining sides abut industrial. The site diagram indicates the unusual required berm that is not actually part of the proposed project. The berm was previously designed and previously approved by the City as a part of the overall industrial sub-development. The consultants requested that the berm and its plantings be designated on the Site Plan. The nature of Coordinated Measurement Specialists is to measure in a highly specified and highly accurate manner primarily automotive components to assure quality testing in the manufacturing process. Coordinated Measurements also acts as a consultant to other automotive suppliers to allow the suppliers to test through the manufacturing process else where on site. The current staff consists of nine (9) employees. The Site Plan indicates the site to build out to accommodate approximately twenty (20) employees. Although the staff would double, adequate parking would be provided. The building and floor plan is designed in manner to allow the growth internally. He stated that the site location at the end of the courtyard presented peculiar access arrangements with only one alternative to construct a road. Upon entering the site, the office area is approximately thirty-five hundred (3,500) to four thousand (4,000) square feet with the balance of the area being a high bay area. The occasional large trucks will enter the site through the lane and back into the loading area. He indicated the only reason for the occasional trucks would be due a large component requiring this type of transportation. He assured the Commission that there is no intent to have any trucks siting on the site and that the truck well is solely for this purpose. The secondary access to the rear joins another proposed project, which is currently in the planning/approval process. The dumpster is located in the rear to minimize its visibility and maximize the traffic arrangements from Courtyard Drive access and secondary access. He responded to the landscaping consultant’s request to relocate the dumpster further to the opposite side (the west corner) of the property. He explained this relocation would be detrimental to the effect to the development of the industrial park and it would create traffic access concerns with dumpster trucks. In conversation with his Acoustical Consultant it was anticipated there might be a one (1) decibel rating increase. Due to the nature of the office use the access to the dumpster would be minimal with the exception to an occasional pallet or two (2) placed in the dumpster. He noted the required variance for the screening for the parking entering off of Peary Court. Mr. Mamola did not intend to seek a variance. Instead he proposed to grade the area to accommodate the landscaping and berm requirements and/or a combination of a screened wall to provide the required screening. He indicated a subsequent lighting plan, complying with the Ordinance, was submitted to address Mr. Arroyo’s comments.

Chairperson Churella questioned if the property was located in Novi or Wixom.

Mr. Mamola indicated that the property is located in Novi.

Chairperson Churella clarified if the property was located west of Beck Road.

Member Canup stated the advertisement indicated the property was located west of Beck Road and north of West Road, which is the City of Wixom. Therefore, he questioned if the project was advertised properly and if was not, would it be appropriate to continue the meeting.

David Evancoe, Planning Director indicated the advertisement also included a map depicting the location of the property.

Ms. Brock stated the public hearing notice was correct indicating the property location east of Beck Road. She apologized for the typo on the agenda.

Mr. Evancoe stated the notices sent out and the notice published in the newspaper was correct, which are the legal notices required.

Mr. Arroyo noted the location of the subject site in relation to the surrounding area. The proposed Coordinated Measurement Specialists is located directly north of Design Research and directly east of Peary Court A & B. Mr. Arroyo indicated the Lighting Plan was revised to address the standards of the Ordinance. The proposed use is a Special Land Use as it is an industrial use adjacent to residential. Therefore, the Special Land Use provisions and the Site Plans provisions apply. He noted that the noise analysis was submitted as required. There are specific recommendations on page 2 and page 3 of the submitted noise study, which address the type of barrier and the type of construction. He recommended that they be incorporated into the motion. The City architectural consultant should review these recommendations to ensure that they are being installed in accordance. He stated the application and proposal meet the setback requirements. Many of the setback requirements are measured from the residential district and not necessarily from the eastern property boundary (as seen with some of the other proposed sites). A fifty-foot (50’) wide area exists directly east of the property between the residential and the subject’s site, which is zoned light industrial. However, it can be counted as part of the setback because many of the setbacks are measured from the residential district. A cross access agreement will need to be submitted as they will share access with the Peary Court development located immediately adjacent to the proposed property. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated August 10, 2001. Due to the cul-de-sac bulb and the location of the access in limited frontage, the drive radius encroaches upon the adjacent property. Per the design of Construction Standards, a letter needs to be obtained from the owner of the property accepting the encroachment. This needs to be included as part of the overall approval package. There are two (2) points of access. He restated the second point of access requires a cross access easement, which is required to be reviewed by the City Attorney. He stated the remaining comments are minor in nature and could be addressed at Final.

Mr. Bluhm recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to the comments of the review letter dated July 26, 2001 being addressed at Final. The site is served by existing utilities and existing roads that were developed with the industrial site condominium. Service leads will service the site for the building. Storm sewers will be collected in proposed on-site storm sewer and routed to the existing storm sewer at the southeast corner of the site. The proposed storm sewer will contain an oil/gas separator. Unrestricted storm water flows will then be routed to an existing sedimentation/permanent water quality basin, which was constructed as part of the overall Beck North development prior to discharge off site. The storm water is then conveyed and detained in the North Novi Regional Detention Basin.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan subject to the conditions in her review letter dated July 24, 2001. She noted the four items. 1) Additional evergreens to be located along the eastern side of the building in between the berm and building and to screen the parking area along the expanse. As a Special Land Use, she has consistently requested additional plant materials above what is required in the berm being provided by the developer of the overall Beck North development. 2) To change the type of plant material proposed to screen the loading areas, which is too small to provide adequate screening. 3) To provide the thirty inch (30") berm. She indicated that this could be provided by a berm or a combination of a berm retaining wall. 4) The relocation of the dumpster away from the eastern property line. She noted her comment was based on audio concern(s) verses visual.

In regard to façade, Mr. Bluhm indicated that plan is in full compliance and a Section Nine Facade Waiver is not required.

Chairperson Churella announced he has received a letter dated July 2, 2001 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 gate valve for the fire line shall be located in a gate well and indicated on the plan. 2) Locate a fire hydrant at the southwest drive.

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

Brad Bach, noted the lengths of effort that were taken to deal with the issue of the berming and its planting in the Beck North Development. He was under the impression that this would have been taken care of at an early stage in the project. At this point in time, there is nothing that has been done to build the berm. He noted his surprise of the application submission for a building permit prior to the project being finished or the berm being installed. He questioned if there was a way to urge the developer to work on the berm. He stated as a neighboring resident, he would better enjoy residing next to the proposed project if there was a berm to deflect the dust and sound. He asked which elevation would face residential and the façade materials would be used. He noted the neighborhood concern with the equipment to be placed on the roof of the building. Screening of the visual was one concern and the other is the noise abatement issue. The residential property is a higher grade elevation looking down onto the industrial site. He believed this placed the neighborhood at greater exposure to the equipment placed on the roof. He asked if there were restrictions on the hours of operation.

Mr. Mamola indicated the façade material are in compliance with the Ordinance and no waiver was being sought. He displayed the sample board. It is a masonry wall and the east elevation top portion is textured masonry. Another texture masonry creates a lighter horizontal banding with a vertical pattern and 8 X 8 grid type pattern. A 4" limestone type material is used to accent between the two (2) material. He understood the sensitivity to the residents on the other side and was not seeking a waiver. He indicated that the mechanical engineers and the mechanical contractor initially reviewed the rooftop units. The acoustical engineer analyzed the data of the apparatuses to be placed on the roof. Typically a rooftop screening would have a cheap metal surface attached to steel framing. However, the proposed material is a more expensive insulated metal panel with perforations on the interior side, which will be extended to the high bay wall. The connection will prevent the sound from escaping from between the rooftop units and the high bay wall. He stated that he was not aware of any residents who would have to look down on the rooftop screen. However, if necessary, he would extend the screen up a foot or two for additional screening to the extent it would not be a visually "sore thumb". The rooftop screen wall is higher than the top of the mechanical unit due to acoustical reasons.

Mr. Bach questioned the five or six parking spaces that appeared to be facing directly toward the berm. He questioned if the parking should be contained on the side of the building to prevent parking against the residential side. He indicated the neighbor to the south of him would not have the berm screening due to the grade elevation. His neighbor’s visual would look directly down on the roof.

Mr. Mamola expressed his shared desire to have the berm in place as part of the overall park development before the construction of his project.

Chairperson Churella asked if there were any others audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Kocan indicated that she lives in a subdivision, which abuts industrial development. Therefore, she understood the resident’s concerns. Being familiar with the location of the proposed project, she was aware of the view looking down on the building. She felt that any attempt to mitigate noise would be greatly appreciated. Member Kocan indicated that a copy of the noise analysis was not included in the packet. She questioned if Kolano and Saha Engineers, Inc. did the noise analysis.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Kocan indicated her familiarity with the organization. She clarified if the level at the property lines of the residents goes down when noise is projected because the residents are located up on a hill. She questioned if the sound measurements are from the bottom of the hill to take in account the twelve foot (12’) berm. She stated the noise analysis should be performed from the line of site. She asked Mr. Arroyo briefly outline the findings.

Mr. Arroyo indicated Kolano and Saha Engineers, Inc. performed the sound analysis on June 26, 2001. The prediction of sound levels from the property line with the consideration of truck noise levels, HVAC equipment and the physical characteristics of the building on the site. The finding was fifty-two (52) decibels for the east property line, where the receiving land use is residential. Ordinance allows for a maximum of (sixty) 60 decibels during the daytime and fifty-five (55). The west is sixty-five (65) decibels, north is fifty-six (56) and the south is sixty (60). He noted that these findings all meet the City standards for Industrial classification receiving zones. The sound levels are reported are based upon meeting the following: 1) The East face of the sound barrier surrounding the office area rooftop HVAC and air cooled condensers should extend to the warehouse wall. Final contact with the wall should be in the form of an elastomeric seal. 2) Both sound barriers should have a surface weight of not less than one (1) pound per square foot. Consequently, if made of steel, panels should be no thinner than No.24 US Standard Gauge. If made of aluminum, panels should be a thickness not less than 0.07 inch No.13 B&S Gauge. 3) Barrier surfaces facing the surrounded rooftop equipment should be covered with sound absorptive panels such as Kinetics Noise Control "Model KNP Panel Absorbers", Eckel Noise Control Technologies, "Eckoustic Functional Panels" or Industrial Acoustics Company "Noisefoil". 4) To prevent interference with proper roof drainage, the sound barriers need not make contact with the building roof. However, the bottom edges of the barriers should extend below the plane of the top of the parapet.

Member Kocan questioned if there was discussion for placement of the HVAC on the ground.

Mr. Arroyo stated the study did not indicate any discussion regarding placing the HVAC on the ground. He suggested that the applicant address the question.

Mr. Mamola indicated that there was a lot of discussion of this possibility prior to involvement of the acoustical consultant. However, the mechanical engineers and mechanical contractors determined that it would not be feasible. Locating the HVAC devices on the ground would not allow the operation of the building to produce efficiently. It was also their opinion that the devices would need to be located behind the building toward the easterly side. The location could allow the sound to bounce off of the hard surface of the masonry wall and over the berm. For these reasons, he also did not feel it would be a good location.

Member Kocan stated the building is located one hundred feet (100’) from the residential to the east. She questioned if the HVAC is placed as far west as possible.

Mr. Mamola indicated its location in the middle. He explained that in order to keep the unit low, it has been located in the area of the roof that slopes down for drainage purposes. He added that this allows a further dimension to extend the bottom level of the sound screen wall closer to the roof.

Member Kocan questioned if the HVAC (located higher than the actual building) is considered part of the building height.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the Ordinance states if it is set back from the edge then it would not be technically calculated as building height. However, there are restrictions on how high it could be. He explained that it would depend upon its placement.

Member Kocan recalled the applicant’s comments to add additional height around the HVAC. She clarified if the applicant would be working with the acoustical engineer to ensure the height would not allow more bouncing of noise.

Mr. Mamola answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated that although the hours of operation was discussed, it is not included in the Ordinance. However, she noted her support of placing hours of operation on the Special Land Use. She questioned if the building could be identified as an office building with the hours of operation not to exceed 7 p.m. She asked the applicant if he was aware of the hours of operation.

Mr. Mamola stated with an office use, there is always a "last guy in the building" until 8 p.m. or 9 p.m.

Member Kocan questioned if he anticipated truck traffic.

Mr. Mamola answered, no. He added that there would not be any trucks after 5 p.m.

Member Kocan suggested identifying this stipulation.

Mr. Mamola explained that it would be difficult to indicate that no one could be working in the building after a certain hour. He understood the concerns of truck traffic and indicated his compliance with the 5 p.m. stipulation.

Member Kocan questioned if lighting was proposed for the east side for the building and if it is noted on the plans.

Mr. Arroyo stated to his knowledge that is correct.

Member Kocan clarified that the light projecting into the parking lot on the south side of the building would meet the Ordinance. She stated that there should not be any light projecting out of the top or the sides, especially if residents are looking down at it.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would have to be a shielded fixture.

Member Kocan stated being an industrial park, she had expected to see the berm developed first. She explained that the berm is in place prior to grading because once the building is in place, construction of the berm becomes difficult. She questioned when the berm would be in place, who would construct it and who would be responsible for maintaining it. She questioned this is the responsibility of the developer of the industrial park.

Ms. Lemke stated Northern Equities, the developer of the park, would be planting the berm. According to the legal document drawn up, all the owners in the park are responsible for maintenance of the berm. The Building Department and the Planning Department have been advised on the financial guarantees for the berm and the plantings, which were required to be done up front.

Member Kocan clarified if the developers of the park would maintenance the berm on the east and west side.

Ms. Lemke indicated that it is initially by the developers. However, according the maintenance agreement, it would be according to all of the people in the Beck North Park.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Canup, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Coordinated Measurement Specialists SP 01-43 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use subject to all consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Member Canup noted the berm has been a contentious point that has not been addressed by the developer of the property, Northern Equities. He amended the motion to include that no building permit will be issued by the Building Department until the berm is in place.

Member Landry suggested amending the motion to restrict deliveries between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as part of the Special Land Use Permit.

Member Richards questioned if this could legally be included in the motion.

Mr. Schultz indicated that because he was not involved with the maintenance agreement he was not comfortable. However, his inclination was that it would not be appropriate. He stated the issue is covered. Being a site condominium development the areas may to an extent be common areas.

Member Richards interjected stating that he was referring to the inclusion of operation hours in the motion. He questioned if this was permissible.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes.

Member Piccinini amended the motion to include the provision of additional evergreens along the eastern property line, the provision of the thirty inch (30") berm and the relocation of the dumpster to the west side of the parking lot away from residential.

Member Richards and Member Canup accepted the amendments to the motion.

Member Canup addressed the berm issue. He suggested alternatives would be to have the project go through the process, which would give the developer the time to get the berm in place prior to the building permit being pulled. Alternatively, the Commission could turn the project down based on the fact that the berm is not in place.

Mr. Schultz clarified that it is a Special Land Use and he was not indicating that it could not be added to the motion. The Commission has the ability to impose conditions that relate to the proposed development. It would be the Commission’s determination to make the finding whether or not the development is not appropriate until the berm is in place. He clarified his point was that the berm has already been addressed and dealt with and the responsibilities exist by other agreements in other approvals. However, beyond this, he could not add.

Mr. Mamola indicated that the project is prepared to submit for Final Site Plan approval as soon as next week. He noted his plan to submit for a Building Permit in two (2) weeks. He stated it is his intent to begin construction as soon as possible and have the block walls up before winter. He added that the petitioner is currently located in Wixom and their lease expires July 2002. The project would not likely be completed by July 2002 if required to wait for the berm to be in place. He understood their concept to push the developer. He suggested having the certificate of occupancy as a condition in the event the berm does not go forward.

Mr. Mamola stated that he was not opposed to the requested additional evergreens on the easterly property. However, he was concern with the practicality due to the sewer easement. He was not certain that the additional trees could be fit into the area. However, he indicated the willingness to explore the option as part of the Final Site Plan submittal.

Mr. Mamola felt the proposed dumpster location was the most practical for proper planning procedures. He stated any other location would be deleterious effect on the site.

Member Nagy asked if the berm in question was the responsibility of the applicant or the corporate park.

Mr. Schultz stated that the berm is the responsibility of the developer of the overall site condominium corporate park development. It is the responsibility of Northern Equities.

Member Nagy clarified that the Commission could not "punish" the applicant because Northern Equities did not put the berm in place.

Mr. Schultz stated the berm has to exist. The applicant is before the Commission with a plan and a use that is permitted. To impose the condition "no building until the berm exists" there would need to be specific finding(s) with specific reason indicating the berm has to be in place for the use to at all exist. This would also include during construction. He stated the certificate of occupancy was a preferred alternative to address the situation. The berm would need to exist to make it a useable site.

Member Nagy agreed with Mr. Schultz. She noted her disappointment that the noise analysis was not submitted sooner for the Commission’s review. She understood the dilemma with the addition of evergreens to the easterly property. She questioned if the Ordinance required seven (7) foot evergreen trees.

Ms. Lemke indicated she would be looking for seven (7) foot trees.

Member Nagy stated evergreen trees take time to grow. Therefore, she noted her preference to have ten (10) to twelve (12) foot evergreen trees to accommodate the residents. She stated the cost would not be much greater. She stated that she would not support a motion that could "punish" the applicant. She assumed Northern Equities would plant the berm in the fall because fall is the best time to plant berms.

Member Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke to address the comments made regarding the evergreen tress and the location of the dumpster. She indicated her reasoning for including these in the motion were due to the inclusion of the conditions in her letter.

Ms. Lemke indicated that it appeared that there would be room to plant additional evergreens. The planting of the berm are located at the top along the crest leaving room on the outside of the sewer easement to plant evergreens along the toe of the berm.

Mr. Mamola indicated his motive was to avoid being tied into a motion that he could not be able to technically live with.

Member Piccinini questioned the dumpster location.

Mr. Mamola indicated the acoustical consultant confirmed that there would not be a perceivable difference from the loading and unloading of the dumpster in the location to the westerly edge or in the corner. If the dumpster were located to the westerly corner of the parking lot, the residents at the higher elevation would be more likely to view the dumpster. However, if the dumpster were tucked as close as possible at the toe of the berm it would keep it from the resident’s view. He stated it was a visibility issue and aesthetics.

Member Piccinini withdrew her request for the dumpster location change. She agreed with Member Nagy’s comments. She would not support the motion with the condition the berm being in place prior to the granting of a building permit because it is not the responsibility of the applicant. She asked when the industrial park was approved.

Ms. Brock stated Final Site Plan Approval was granted approximately late Spring.

Member Piccinini commented that there has been plenty of time to put the berm in place.

Ms. Brock explained that the maintenance agreement was recently approved by City Council approximately a month ago.

Member Piccinini asked about the time line the maintenance agreement indicated.

Ms. Lemke did not recall a time line.

Member Piccinini indicated that she would support the motion if that amendment were withdrawn.

Member Canup indicated his amendment was that no building permit would be issued until the berm was constructed. He rephrased his amendment to include that no certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy be issued until the berm is constructed. This would give the applicant time to begin construction with his project and to have the berm constructed.

Member Mutch understood that the berm is generally located off of the site. However, he questioned if the applicant would be required to have berming as a condition of the Site Plan. The ordinance requires a berm, whether located on or off the property. Therefore, at some point in the process, if the berm is not existing, there will not be an approval.

Mr. Schultz agreed. He added that it would typically be either at the point of certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, which was clarified in the motion.

Member Mutch asked where in the Site Plan Process an applicant would be stopped if they do not meet the conditions/requirements.

Mr. Evancoe agreed the C of O would be a logical point to stop the process because once there is occupancy, it would be difficult to have compliance.

Member Mutch asked what would be typical City practice.

Mr. Bluhm stated that typical City practice would be to have the bond established at TCO or C of O before any unfinished work.

Member Mutch stated whether or not the Commission makes a condition, the berm would either have to be completed or a bond in place to have it completed before the applicant could obtain a certificate of occupancy.

Mr. Bluhm answered, correct.

Member Mutch clarified that the City and Northern Equities signed a long-term maintenance of the berm. He asked if changing the condition to a TCO would allow the applicant to move forward without unduly dragging the process.

Mr. Mamola hoped that if unusual circumstances arose such as those related to weather, etc… that the Planning Commission would give a lean for a few weeks if needed.

Member Mutch noted his main concern was to have a situation consistent with City practices. He did not want to have a situation with an operating building without the berm in place.

Member Kocan questioned if findings needed to be attached because of it being a Special Land Use.

Mr. Schultz indicated the Special Land Use requires the Commission to make the finding of the requirements in Section 2516 of the Ordinance, which are listed in Mr. Arroyo’s review letter. The maker of the motion would typically cite these.

Member Richards questioned if the inclusion of the verbiage "subject to the consultant’s comments and findings" would be appropriate.

Member Kocan indicated that the commission has been directed in the past to make specific findings. She felt that the findings should be attached to the motion.

Member Kocan made the following findings as an additional amendment to the motion. 1) Relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use would not cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares as the development is in a corporate park with approved traffic from Hudson Drive to Peary Court. 2) The proposed use will not cause any detrimental impact on the capabilities of public services and utilities as the improvements to the site are specified and have been accepted by the City engineering consultant. 3) The proposed use is compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land as no woodlands or wetlands are impacted. 4) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses of land as it is mostly office with very little truck traffic, which traffic will be limited to hours of delivery. 5) The proposed use is consistent with the goals and the objectives of the Master Plan of the corporate park, which is zoned Light Industrial. 6) The proposed use will promote the use of the land in a socially and an economic manner as it is in a planned corporate park. 7) The proposed use is listed among the provision of uses and is in harmony with the applicable site design regulations as it is proposed and the petitioner will be held responsible for compliance with the noise ordinance, the lighting ordinance, setback and landscaping requirements.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Coordinated Measurement Specialists SP 01-43 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use Approval with the following findings - 1) Relative to other feasible uses of the site, the proposed use would not cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares as the development is in a corporate park with approved traffic from Hudson Drive to Peary Court. 2) The proposed use will not cause any detrimental impact on the capabilities of public services and utilities as the improvements to the site are specified and have been accepted by the City engineering consultant. 3) The proposed use is compatible with the natural features and characteristics of the land as no woodlands or wetlands are impacted. 4) The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses of land as it is mostly office with very little truck traffic, which traffic will be limited to hours of delivery. 5) The proposed use is consistent with the goals and the objectives of the Master Plan of the corporate park, which is zoned Light Industrial. 6) The proposed use will promote the use of the land in a socially and an economic manner as it is in a planned corporate park. 7) The proposed use is listed among the provision of uses and is in harmony with the applicable site design regulations as it is proposed and the petitioner will be held responsible for compliance with the noise ordinance, the lighting ordinance, setback and landscaping requirements. Restricted deliveries hours to be between the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as part of the Special Land Use Permit, no certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy be issued until the berm is constructed, subject to the provision of additional evergreens along the eastern property line, the provision of the thirty inch (30") berm, and subject to all consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

The proposed rezoning of 4.57 acres is located along the north side of Twelve Mile Road and west of Novi Road. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation to City Council from RA, Residential Acreage, to OS-1, Office Service District.

William McMachan represented the owners of the property George Bloom, Mary Bloom and Georgiana Bringman. He noted the proposed rezoning would bring the property into compliance with the Master Plan. The consultant report indicates the property is bordered by zoning of equal intensity with the exception of the northern side. He pointed out the regional shopping center to the south, OS-1 (Office Service District) on both sides and a residential development to the north. The property has wetlands, which would be addressed at the time of Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Arroyo gave an overall perspective of the subject’s site and the surrounding area. The subject’s property is surrounded to the east and the north by Carlton Forest (a multiple-family development), OS-1 zoning across the frontage on Twelve Mile Road immediately to the east of the site, R-A zoning is predominant to the west of the site and R-C zoning is to the south with Fountain Walk and West Oaks projects. The Master Plan for Land Use designates the frontage along the north side of Twelve Mile Road between Dixon and Novi Road for office use. The City Woodland Map indicates light covered Woodlands covering a significant portion of the property. The City Wetland Map indicates wetlands to the north. The Carlton Forest Site has access along the very easterly edge of the site due to the desire to minimize intrusion to the same wetland area. He noted the additional information provided indicating the further delineated wetlands as part of the Twelve Mile Road widening project. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the rezoning application in the review letter dated June 29, 2001 because it is consistent with the Master Plan for Land Use. It also provides for an extension of an existing OS-1 Zoning classification located to the east. There are significant natural features on the site including wetlands, woodlands and Core Reserve Habitat. He noted #4 of his summary of findings: The site is designated as a proposed Regional Detention Basin, located North Oaks District, based on the Novi Regional Detention Basin District Map. The site may have been abandoned by the City, therefore he suggested that Mr. Bluhm comment on the status regarding the regional detention basin.

In regard to Traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated June 25, 2001. The existing R-A zoning has the potential for four (4) homes. The review letter indicates the trip generation potential compared to an OS-1 zoning. He explained the difficulty in determining how large the office building would be on the site until the regulated and protected features were defined. He noted the calculations of are based upon an assumed maximum of approximately forty-three thousand (43,000) square feet.

Mr. Bluhm indicated a proposed Regional Basin for a small district to the north of Twelve Mile Road. From an administrative view, the Regional Basin has been abandoned for consideration of construction. Currently, easements are not being pursued for this basin because of the downstream improvements. The Regional Basin located downstream has already been built.

Chairperson Churella 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.

Soloman Group, 32605 W. Twelve Mile Road Suite 290, Farmington Hills, wrote "I am in receipt of the attached Public Hearing Notice for a request a Zoning Map Amendment 18.611. As the owner of adjacent properties known as the Society Hills Development, I am writing to ensure the installation of proper berming, landscaping and fencing under the required Ordinances between the two (2) properties. Sincerely, Henry Sassoon."

Member Piccinini noted Mr. Arroyo’s review letter(s) indicating 4.457-acres and also 4.57-acres. She asked him to clarify the acres of the site.

Mr. Arroyo explained the application submitted by the applicant identifies the area to be 4.457-acres. A survey sketch, provided by the applicant’s engineer, indicates the gross area of the site to be 5-acres with an existing right-of-way of 0.35-acres and a take area of 0.89-acres (for the Twelve Mile Road widening), which calculates to 4.457-acres. Therefore, 4.457-acres is the area of the site after the take for the widening of Twelve Mile Road.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.611 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning from R-A (Residential Acreage) to OS-1 (Office Service District) as it is consistent with the Master Plan and office use will provide transitional use between the Multi-Family Development to the north and Twelve Mile Road and the Regional Commercial Development south of the property.

Member Canup indicated he seconded the motion because of its compliance with the Master Plan. Therefore, he called for a vote.

Member Nagy stated the parcel is 4.457-acres with approximately eighty percent (80%) is designated as a Core Reserve Area with Type B Habitat Designation along the parcel’s frontage. She questioned if the 4.457-acres included the Wildlife Habitat and Wetlands or if it was the buildable amount of acreage.

Mr. Arroyo stated the 4.457-acres is the site after the right-of-way "take" for the Twelve Mile Road.

Member Mutch indicated the option to recommend an alternative land use or zoning designation. The OS-1 zoning tends to be spread out and single-story. The OS-2 allows for a slightly higher building with more setbacks. He questioned if an OS-2 zoning would potentially allow more preservation on the property as opposed to an OS-1 zoning. Member Mutch suggested amending the motion to include OS-1 or OS-2 to allow City Council to consider if OS-2 would be a better option.

Mr. Arroyo indicated OS-1 allows a maximum building height of thirty (30) feet. There is potential for a two-story office development, depending upon the style of development. He stated OS-1 zoning would be consistent with the office uses to the east, which would create a consistent "look" and consistent setback.

Member Mutch questioned if this was developed.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the office buildings located to the east were built.

Member Mutch stated one (1) building is not an office use.

Mr. Arroyo disagreed with Member Mutch.

Member Mutch indicated one (1) building along the stretch, which he felt broke the pattern Mr. Arroyo was referring to.

Mr. Arroyo stated that all of the property to the east of the proposed area is zoned OS-1, with the exception of the property located at the corner of Novi Road and Twelve Mile Road. Therefore, as it develops, it will create a consistent pattern. He did not feel changing the proposed property to OS-2 would provide the "look" the commission was seeking. He reiterated that the OS-1 designation would be consistent with the current established zoning pattern.

Member Mutch felt that the Commission should provide City Council with options as opposed to having a focus on one (1) zoning. He compared the two zonings and felt an OS-2 with higher setbacks would look better than the OS-1. He added the increased height would give more flexibility. He understood Mr. Arroyo’s point of view. However, there is not any development along that area. He encouraged the Commission to look forward and not be tied into what is currently existing there.

Chairperson Churella stated Council has the ability to zone as they chose.

Member Mutch agreed. However, he felt they might not consider other options unless presented.

Member Piccinini agreed with Member Mutch to send option(s) to Council. She stated she would amend her motion with the support of the commission. She asked Member Canup if he would accept the amendment.

Member Canup did not accept the amendment. He questioned if it was in conformance with the Master Plan.

Member Piccinini indicated that both zonings are in conformance with the Master Plan because it is office.

Member Canup did not find it necessary to make a recommendation to Council. He stated Council could entertain a different option if they chose.

Member Nagy clarified that the motion was not amended.

Member Piccinini answered, correct.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Kocan asked if background was available to indicate more specifics. She questioned the history, which placed the item on the agenda.

Chairperson Churella indicated that he placed the matter on the agenda based on comment(s) made by the Commissioners.

Member Piccinini indicated the Bylaws require notification of items to be added to the agenda for discussion should be received prior to 6 p.m. the night of the Planning Commission meeting. Currently, issues raised have been added to Matters for Discussion because not all commissioners have purview to the information. She suggested having the issue sent to the Rules Committee to determine recommendations for handling the matter.

PM-01-09-260 TO SEND TO THE RULES COMMITTEE THE MATTER OF ADOPTING POLICIES OR PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ON THE NIGHT OF THE MEETING WITH NEW ISSUES OR MATTERS.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Piccinini, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send to the Rules Committee the matter of adopting policies or procedures for amending the Planning Commission Agenda on the night of the meeting with new issues or matters.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Kocan referenced the letter regarding discussion with the Communication and Community Liaison Committee, which was held last month. She recommended directing the Rules Committee to discuss the addition of the title heading "Committee Reports" to the agenda. The Bylaws indicate a specific order to conduct the Planning Commission meeting. The addition of the "Committee Reports" to the agenda would prevent additions the night of the meeting, which are related to follow up reports on matters previously sent to Committees. She clarified that the intent was not to have all Committees speak at each meeting.

Member Kocan indicated she was not certain of the difference between Correspondence and Communication. She questioned the need for both needed on the agenda.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send to the Rules Committee "Committee Reports" to be reviewed to be determine if it should be added to the Planning Commission Agenda and to clarify Communications and Correspondence.

Chairperson Churella questioned if this would be conducted at the end of each meeting after the Committee meeting.

Member Landry explained that the agenda would have a standard item of "Committee Reports". The Chairperson would ask each meeting if there were Committee Reports to be included on the agenda. He stated the addition would not require anyone formally.

Chairperson Churella noted his support of this addition.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Member Kocan commented on items under Matters for Consideration. For example, items requiring a motion to send matters to the committees. She felt it would be easier if the commissioners had the information included in their packets summarizing the background and substantiated proposal. She questioned if the Rules Committee would address the matter with the motion voted on or if there should be a Bylaw amendment.

Member Piccinini suggested making a motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the issue of Matters for Consideration background requirement to the Rules Committee for consideration in the Bylaws.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

Mr. Evancoe referred to the memo dated September 5, 2001, which was distributed to the commissioners at the beginning of the meeting. Each year, the City produces a calendar with the scheduled meetings. It has been discussed at the Consultant Review Committee to explore the possibility of holding Planning Commission meetings on a different week than City Council meetings. His letter outlines the reasons for this suggestion. The staff could serve the Commission better processing only one (1) major event at a time. City Council is held on Monday and therefore the days preceding are consumed with preparation for the meeting. He added that City Council meetings typically carry into the late hours. He stated the heavy focus on City Council preparation falls on the City Attorney and City Planning Staff. Planning Commissioners have also expressed the desire to attend City Council meetings, however need to review materials and prepare for the Wednesday, Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Evancoe noted the possibility of considering an earlier start time, such as 7:00 p.m. He noted the possibility of establishing an end time for the meeting to conclude.

Member Piccinini recalled two (2) correspondences from City Manager, Rick Helwig regarding the changing of meeting dates, which was not included in the packet. She noted the rational for the change was related to the City Attorney attending at both City Council and Planning Commission meetings. She recalled the recommendation/suggestion at Consultant Review Committee was made one (1) member of City Council during the time when Gerald Fisher (City Attorney) was attending both meetings. The idea was to alleviate when Mr. Fisher was not attending both meetings because it would be a Bylaw change. She stated it is a different issue if the Planning Staff is having a difficult time. She felt that the Consultants should be able to meet the job and its responsibilities. She stated her schedule and long term plans as a commissioner conform to the Bylaws. She understood the Staff issues.

Member Piccinini commented on the suggestion for a 7:00 p.m. start time. She indicated that her schedule and family life is oriented around the 7:30 p.m. start time.

Member Piccinini noted that no committee meetings are scheduled over the next month. Implementation Committee meetings have historically been standard prior to the Planning Commission meetings. She stated Implementation Committee typically met at 6:30 p.m. followed by the 7:30 p.m. Planning Commission meeting. She indicated if the Planning Commission start time was changed, the Implementation Committee start time would also change.

Member Piccinini stated the Bylaws indicate an ending time of 11:30 p.m. She stated she would not support an absolute end time because everyone that comes to the meeting has the right to be heard.

Member Landry supported the idea of alternating the weeks between City Council and Planning Commission meetings. He felt the commission should support the Staff the change would make them more efficient. He indicated that he had no particular preference of a start time. He opposed to a definite end time because the matter is already addressed in the Bylaws.

Member Nagy felt it was important for the Staff to have the time to prepare. However, she noted her other commitment(s) every second Wednesday of the month until June of 2002. Therefore, if the change in date(s) involves the second Wednesday of the month, she would not be available. She was not opposed to changing the start time, although she preferred the 7:30 p.m. due to her employment. She agreed that it was not necessary to change the end time as it is already indicated in the Bylaws. She commented Mr. Fisher’s lack of attendance at the meeting. She felt it should be consistent by having the same attorney to attend Planning Commission meetings and likewise the same attorney should consistently attend City Council meetings.

Member Richards stated if the start time is changed to 7:00 p.m. then the end time should be changed to 11:00 p.m. He felt that four (4) hours was an adequate amount of time to handle the agenda. He suggested changing the meeting day from Wednesday to Monday to alternate with the City Council meetings.

Member Canup agreed that Monday would theoretically be a good idea. However, it could become the least desirable day because of vacations, etc…

Member Kocan indicated she was amenable to any of the options. However, if the meeting day is changed Monday, she suggested having the PC packet prior to 5:00 p.m. on the Friday prior.

Member Piccinini added that the City Council often holds their Special Meetings on Mondays. This would create a conflict.

Mr. Evancoe indicated City Council considers other commission meetings when scheduling Special meetings.

Member Piccinini clarified if the City Council typically holds their meetings on Monday.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Piccinini questioned what the conflict existed with Wednesday.

Member Nagy restated that she could not attend a Planning Commission meeting if it is scheduled on the second Wednesday of the month.

Member Canup questioned if a decision needed to be made or if it could be placed under Matters for Consideration to be voted on at the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated this would give the commissioners the time to review the options with their schedules.

Mr. Evancoe clarified that the driving force of the changes is not for Staff convenience or comfort. However, it is due to the desire to service the Commission better and the close proximity of the two (2) meetings makes that difficult.

Member Piccinini shared the suggestion made by Member Kocan to make the changes at the fiscal year. This would allow those with previous commitments to make the appropriate changes to accommodate schedules.

Chairperson Churella questioned if she was suggesting making changes in July instead of January.

Member Piccinini restated it would be at the fiscal year.

Chairperson Churella explained the reason for suggesting the changes in January. He explained that because the City Calendar is printed prior to January, any decision on these matters needs to be made quickly. Therefore, he suggested making the decision at the next meeting. He requested placing the item under Matters for Consideration to be voted on at the next Planning Commission meeting. He stated his support of the change because he felt it would be good for the Staff. He stated the reason for the end time was due to the late hour meetings. He felt if the meeting had the end time, the meeting would be held more promptly.

Member Mutch clarified the items to be voted on at the next meeting - alternate weeks, meeting start time and end time.

Chairperson Churella indicated the vote for an end time would be to change the time because there is already an established end time in the Bylaws.

Member Mutch agreed with Member Richards’ comment to change the end time in the Bylaws if the start time was changed.

Presentation by Planning Director David Evancoe

Mr. Evancoe indicated the distribution of a list of information received from the Communications Committee. He hoped the items would improve the communication between the Commission and City Council. He clarified that no action was required.

Member Mutch commented that the information provided was excellent. He requested a list of the most recently submitted site plans and rezonings on a monthly basis. He felt this would assist the commission to have advanced knowledge of cases coming before them. He stated this would also assist the commissioners when confronted with public questions.

Member Piccinini requested the packet inclusion of summary update information from the Planning Commission Committees and the City Council Committees.

Mr. Evancoe indicated these materials would be included in the packets providing the commission was agreeable to the request.

Mr. Evancoe recalled the review of a site plan with potential impacts on adjacent residential property owners, which is not uncommon. As a result, Member Kocan identified the need to possibly provide a "good neighbor" notification. The Staff explored to find what could be entailed in providing such notifications and its impacts. He stated the colored map indicates the adjacencies in terms of residential properties in the community next to non residential. The map indicates property, which directly abuts residential, properties within 300 feet and 500 feet. The numbers are arbitrary, which were needed to derive the map. However, the distances could be amended. The intent is to demonstrate to the Commission how many properties potentially could be affected. He added the map references existing situations and the number of properties would change over time. If the large parcels become subdivided, then more parcels would be effected by notifications. In contrast, the parcels could be reduced if consolidated. He stated there are approximately 485 parcels directly adjacent, 176 would be added at 300 feet and another 416 would be added at 500 feet.

Mr. Evancoe listed the current notification procedures. The Planning Commission Agenda is posted on the City’s Cable Access, the City Website; the Public Library, City Hall and notices are published in the Novi News (for matters requiring Public Hearings). He believed Member Kocan’s concern(s) was that the notification process requires the adjacent property owner to take the means to find the information or come across it accidental. The only way to guarantee the residential owner would be notified would be to mail a notice to their residence or place a sign on the subject’s property. He indicated the willingness of the Staff to do whatever the commission desires. Written notifications could be provided or require signs to be posted. If the commission chose this direction, he noted the legal considerations. The established practice of providing courtesy notices raises expectations and the community will expect to receive the notices. Therefore, the question arises "What would occur if there were a failure to provide the courtesy notice?" He noted previous situations in which a notice was not sent to one (1) resident within 300 feet of a rezoning hearing. The failure to provide this notice has resulted in a delay of the case in order to provide the appropriate notice. He recalled the recent Singh development, which was delayed due to lack of notifying all the appropriate residents. Although, the courtesy notice would not be legally required, it would become an established practice. Over time the established practice could run the risk of failing to provide the courtesy notice and the community could have a basis for claiming a lack of proper procedure. A retroactive situation could be a granted approval and the finding thereafter of improper notification. He felt this was a gray area to be found legally. He reminded the Commission of the already established notification procedure. The required notification radius is 300 feet from the proposal, however the City notifies within 500 feet. The residents have come to expect this distance. He referenced Mr. Fisher’s notation(s) of the Michigan Legislature’s determination that Public Notices should only be provided for rezonings and Special Land Uses. The Michigan Legislature specifically declined to include Site Plans for permitted uses as a required notice, because if they adhere to all codes, right permits them. Other possibilities include requiring the petitioner to place a sign on the subject property and provide the City with an Affidavit to confirm its placement. The burden to send out notifications could be placed on the petitioner with a required Affidavit to confirm the notification(s). The Homeowner Association could be notified and asked to take on the burden to notify their membership. (Keeping in mind that not everyone belongs to a Homeowners Association.)

Mr. Evancoe outlined his policy considerations, which were intended to generate discussion. 1) Is it the goal of the Commission to guarantee that residents are notified or is the goal to make a reasonable effort to notify residents? 2) If notices are mailed to the residents, would they be mandatory (by ordinance) or courtesy notices? 3) Is a resident entitled to receive a courtesy notice? What might be the consequences of a resident not receiving a courtesy notice? He stated at his previous employment, he dealt with annexations. It was not sufficient to send a notification. If it was not received by certified mail, a processor was required to serve the papers. 4) If a parcel is properly zoned and the site plan meets or exceed all ordinance requirements, can the objection(s) of neighboring residents be used as a basis for denying a site plan? In other words, how would the Commission intent to make use of the input of notified residents? 5) Would an alternative means of notification be preferable that places the responsibility with the petitioner?

Member Kocan thanked the Planning Department for their time and effort(s) in the exploration of her request. She summarized her concern was with a particular development that was not Public Hearing and therefore the resident was not notified. She was not aware, (at the time raising her concern) that the same resident was notified and involved during the rezoning of the property. The particular development also had variances and waivers requested. She noted her preference was to have the developer take the initiative to notify, if and when waivers and/or variances are requested, which directly impact abutting residential properties. She suggested including the verbiage in a review letter - the Planning Commission looks favorably upon your notification of your resident if your development does not comply with all of the Ordinance requirements. She requested the provision of a color photograph of the proposed project buildings and façade board indicating the proposed materials. She stated those items assist the Commission in making a decision. She added that she would not approve a waiver or a variance for a development abutting a resident, which has not been discussed.

Chairperson Churella stated typically a good developer would contact the association and interact with the neighbors when a problem arises. Therefore, he felt the current procedure of notification was sufficient. He did not feel that more burden should be placed upon the Staff.

Member Nagy commended Mr. Evancoe and the Staff for addressing the Member Kocan’s concern. She suggested adjourning all discussion regarding the matter due to the late hour. She felt the Commission should review their materials and further discussion on the matter at another meeting.

Chairperson Churella agreed.

None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:10 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

October 31, 2001

Date Approved: Approved November 7, 2001