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

PRESENT: Members Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Canup (absence excused), Churella (absence excused), Richards (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Planning Director David Evancoe, Planner Amy Golke, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, City Attorney Tom Schultz

City Attorney Tom Schultz indicated the proper procedure under Roberts Rules requires a commissioner to nominate an individual to serve as Chairperson. The motion requires a second and a vote.

PM-02-03-042 MOTION TO NOMINATE MEMBER NAGY AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBER KOCAN AS ACTING SECRETARY FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 6, 2001.

Moved by Paul, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to nominate Member Nagy as Acting Chairperson and Member Kocan as Acting Secretary for the Regular Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 2001.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

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

Member Shroyer added under Matters for Discussion Training Workshop and removed the Regular Planning Commission minutes of January 09, 2001 from the Consent agenda and placed them under Matters for Consideration.

Member Paul added Legal Workshop under Matters for Discussion.

Member Shroyer indicated it is the same workshop. Therefore, only one item would be added under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

None

Acting Secretary Kocan indicated the only correspondence is related to the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan indicated an Implementation Committee Meeting has been scheduled for a date two weeks from now to discuss a request from a developer. She noted the Gateway Ordinance, as well as other Ordinance requests, are being sent from the City Council to the Implementation Committee. She questioned if City Council requests should have higher priority than the request from the developer. She stated her preference to cover the Ordinances that are in the revision stage and asked the Planning Department to consider her comments and the "timing" of the items. She indicated that the other Implementation Committee members were not present at tonight’s meeting.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified the date of the upcoming Master Plan & Zoning Committee Meeting.

Planner Amy Golke stated the meeting is scheduled for 7:30 p.m. Thursday, March 21, 2002.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified that a Public Hearing was scheduled for April 03, 2002 regarding an update for Master Plan for Land Use Map.

Director of Planning David Evancoe answered, correct.

Acting Chairperson Nagy expressed her concern that the Commissioner’s Workshop should take place first, followed by the Master Plan Committee meeting, followed by the Master Plan for Land Use Map update.

Mr. Evancoe stated the Master Plan for Land Use Map could be brought before the Commission at any point because there is not urgency for its re-approval. He indicated there were no new proposals. Instead it was simply document amendments made by the Commission over the recent year. Examples include Erickson and Expo Center.

None

Acting Chairperson Nagy announced the item Approval of January 9, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes were placed under Matters for Consideration.

Public hearing on the request of Windmill Investment LLC, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit. The Subject property is located in Section 20 and west of Beck Road between Ten and Eleven Mile Roads. The developer proposes a 30-unit condominium under the One Family Cluster Option in the R-1 (One Family Residential) District. The subject property is 40.43 acres.

Planning Director David Evancoe stated the Master Plan for Land Use for the proposed property indicates Single-Family Residential, which is consistent with the land uses directly around the property. Last year, the property was rezoned from R-A (Residential Acreage) R-1 (One Family Residential District) with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission. This indicates that the surrounding zonings to the south would be R-1 and to the west, north and east R-A. A photograph indicates the site is currently undeveloped with the exception of a small existing house on the property. Most of the property is wetlands with the exception of the area along the Beck Road frontage, the little area to the north and the area in the northwest corner of the site. He noted the entry to the project with two cul-de-sacs North Kirkway and South Kirkway. Public sanitary sewer and public water will serve the site. Seventy-five (75) notices were sent to the property owners within 500-feet of the subject property. No correspondence or concerns had been received from neighboring residents at the time of the Summary Report publication. The developer proposes thirty (30) homes on the site, which is the calculation that came about as a result of utilizing gross acreage. He explained the property boundary goes to the center of Beck Road and the developer is using this additional property (approximately 1-acre), which is typically not allowed to be included in the density calculation. As a result, they have calculated thirty homes. Typically it would be calculated from the proposed right-of-way, which is twenty-nine (29). The difference is one (1) unit. Based on past practice and reading of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff believes that the net site area and net density should be used in calculating the number of homes to be located on a site. Therefore, the Staff recommends that a ZBA Variance be obtained if thirty homes are to remain on the Site Plan. He suggested that it might be appropriate for the ZBA to make an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as to whether or not the thirty-three (33) foot of the statutory right-of-way should be included. Due to it being contrary to past practice, the Staff is concerned with the implications for future projects’ calculations. A ZBA Variance is required from the front yard setback, which is required to be seventy-five (75) feet. He noted the areas involved as unit #30 and unit #1 and possibly unit #2. The buildings are required to be setback seventy-five (75) feet. However, only sixty-three (63) feet is proposed. It is necessary for the Planning Commission to make a finding as to whether the proposed site possesses certain site characteristics to qualify for the Cluster Option. He suggested the Commission review the list of criteria listed in Mr. Arroyo’s review letter prior to making a motion. He noted the concern of the Conservation Easement for the Woodlands, Wetlands and Open Space, which is a requirement. If the Commission is inclined to approve the proposed, then he suggested that the motion explicitly state that the Conservation Easement is required. A Non-minor Wetland Use Permit is required and is recommended. A Woodland Permit is required and is recommended. A majority of the site is wetland. He explained that much of the density that could have been placed on the entire property under normal conditions is placed in the upland area of the site. He stated if a calculation were done of the total site, between sixty and seventy dwelling units could have been placed on the site if it were not for the wetland. He noted the reduced density due to that particular condition. Landscape Review: The Planning Commission must approve the brick screen wall in lieu of the landscape berm abutting the right-of-way (Section 2509.7c and d). The details of the wall will need to be submitted prior to Final Site Plan approval. Mr. Evancoe noted the wetlands and woodlands along the Beck Road frontage and the developers desire to not destroy them. He noted the requirement for a six (6) foot high berm along this frontage. However, if the berm were to be constructed, it would require substantial removal of these woodlands and wetlands. Therefore, the developer has proposed a solution of a suspended brick wall supported by a beam (allowing water flow back and forth) and a keystone wall below. It will be necessary to fill along Beck Road to build the required five (5) foot sidewalk. Although at this time monies are not budgeted, it is likely that there would be a Beck Road widening project in the future. Mr. Evancoe showed the Commission a photo of another project. Piers support the stepped brick wall with 8-10 foot centers allowing water to flow underneath as opposed to creating a damn. He clarified the purpose of showing the photograph was to provide the Commission with information and not a promotion of the idea. The applicant has provided sketches of the possible elevations and sections with a six-foot brick wall. It appears that the brick wall would be located behind the keystone wall leaving the possibility for plantings in the retained area in front of the brick wall. The median must be redesigned so as to maintain a clear line of sight for exiting vehicles (See Corner Clearance Section 2513). He indicated that Ms. McGuire is working with the developer to resolve this issue at Final. He noted that the developer seemed cooperative to increase the plantings along Beck Road to provide more screening for the homes that would be located within the development. Approval of the Landscape Plan is recommended. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended with certain items to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. Please refer to the attached engineering review letter. A City Council variance from Design and Construction Standard Section 11-194(b)(2), which requires a 230 foot centerline radius; a 100-foot radius along the southern portion of Kirkway Court is proposed. A City Council variance from Design and Construction Standard Section 11-276(b), which requires the placement of sidewalks on both sides of the street; a sidewalk is not proposed between Units 22 and 23. Traffic Review: Approval is recommended with certain items to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. Please refer to the attached traffic review letter. City Council variance from Design and Construction Standard Section Figure VIII-F, which requires a maximum cul-de-sac length of 800 feet, to allow for a cul-de-sac length of 803 feet. Mr. Evancoe made a correction to the Summary Report, indicating the cul-de-sac length is 813 feet long. Comment #13 in the Traffic Review Letter dated February 1, 2002, notes that a Council variance of Design and Construction Standard (DCS) Section 11-278 would be required to place the sidewalks less than 10 feet back of curb. In discussions with the Traffic Consultant regarding this comment, it was apparent that the waiver would actually apply to the placement of the pathway relative to the right-of-way line. The requirement in DCS Section 278 is one (1) foot from the right-of-way line and a minimum of 5 feet from the curb. As shown on the plans, the pathway along the boulevard entrance is located 5 feet from the curb, which meets the minimum under DCS Section 278, and approximately 13 feet from the right-of-way line, which does not meet the ordinance requirement. To eliminate the need for this waiver, the proposed right-of-way at the boulevard could be reduced to the City standard of 86 feet, thus placing the right-of-way line 1 foot behind the pathway. This adjustment can be made to the Final Site Plan. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, the non-minor use wetland permit and the woodland permit, subject to obtaining the required variances and meeting the conditions of the review letters.

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

Mark Prey, 24519 Nantucket stated, "There are a number of us here. I think we are of a consensus that we would like to hear the developer speak first. We would like to find out some more information about the project prior to speaking."

Acting Chairperson Nagy found this request amenable and indicated the audience participation would take place after the Developer made his/her comments.

Kevin Coles of Windmill Investment, L.L.C. introduced Michael Shappairo and Roger Sheer of Sheer Development, Landscape Architect Jim Scott, Sami Harb and Stewart Michaelson of Windmill Investment Group and Mr. Mahajan of Boss Engineering. He thanked the consultants and planners for their help and input with the Site Plan. He estimated 67% of the proposed site would be permanently preserved as a result of the Cluster Option. He noted the 5-acres of Woodlands at the northwest corner of the site would remain untouched as a recreational amenity for the residents. Due to the large wetland comprising over fifty percent of the site, the site has a unique configuration. This unique factor would make a conventional development impractical and cause an impact on the woodland. He pointed out that the 67% preservation did not include the pockets of woodland that would be preserved throughout the site with the unique building envelope grading approach. Each building envelope will be individually graded. He introduced Stewart Michaelson to present the homes and the unique market being addressed.

Stewart Michaelson, Director of the National Association of Home Builders showed the Commission photographs of the proposed homes. He first apologized to the homeowners of Greenwood Oaks Subdivision. He noted that typically they meet with the Homeowner Associations. He described the site as unique and yet perfect for the type of community they are attempting to develop. As this is his fourth community of site condos, he found that of the market for this type of product works best near a high-end community such as Novi. He described the buyer as one with grown children who would like to remain living in the area in a high-end detached condominium. He felt that Novi had a great need for this type of development. Mr. Michaelson showed the Commission and audience examples of the detached condominium development interior and exterior constructed in Farmington Hills.

Jim Scott, Kirkway Place’s Landscape Architect, indicated the key items the landscape plan were predicated upon. One item being the protection of the existing trees, which are located around the entire site at the west. He stated the walls would run along the entire front of the parcel with the exception of the area of the woodlands, which would be the boardwalk. He indicated that there is one evergreen on the entire site. He suggested additional rows of Evergreens "back planted" along the brick wall to further enhance the buffering along Beck Road for the homes facing Beck Road. He noted the selection for the proposed landscaping was derived from working with Ms. McGuire. He noted the possibilities of building a bridge or boardwalk.

Mr. Coles addressed the required ZBA Variances. He felt that the issues were applications of the Ordinance and were not ZBA questions. After researching City records, he stated that he was unable to locate his development, with or without the Cluster Option, in which the road right-of-way was excluded. In his review of the Ordinance he found the density for R-1 to be 1.65 dwelling units to the gross acre. He noted the uniqueness of the proposed site with 1300-feet of frontage. He found the result of acreage to amount to "something" in regard to "unit count". He stated the Ordinance does not exclude the road right-of-way in the context of one family clustering option in the calculation density. He commented on the variance for the 75-foot perimeter setback. Referencing Section 2403 (d) he read, setbacks with respect to a Cluster are 25-feet from interior private streets, 30-feet from public right-of-way, 75-feet from peripheral property lines. His interpretation of the language was that the peripheral property lines are not located on the public right-of-way. Therefore, he stated the 93-foot setback from the center line of Beck Road and the two units effected are approximately 93-feet from Beck Road. The balance of the units is in the range of 140-feet from the center line. Assuming the 75-foot perimeter property line definition applies, he stated that they are 93-feet away from the property line, which is the center line of Beck Road. Therefore, he stated the proposed plan meets the language of a 75-foot perimeter property line setback. He noted his opinion that the Commission’s has the authority to apply the Ordinance and approve 30 units (unit #1 and unit #30) as shown in the Site Plan. He did not find it necessary to have an interpretation or a variance from the ZBA. He agreed to report a Conservation Easement as part of the development and a Master Deed that would perpetually preserve the Wetlands and Woodlands. He stated the Master Deed and the various documents associated with it would be disclosed to each owner to indicate their obligations collectively with respect to the perpetually protected areas. He requested approval as presented or alternatively conditional upon obtaining the ZBA Variance/interpretation of the 75-foot perimeter property line setback.

Acting Chairperson Nagy opened the Matter to the Public.

Mark Prey, 24519 Nantucket stated, "Based on what I have seen on the maps, my property is the closest to the location where homes would be developed. My primary concern is the significant degree of Wetlands located directly behind my property, including the back end of my property. It appears that some of the homes appear to be placed in the wetland area."

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Prey to indicated the Lot number near his home.

Mr. Prey continued, "I believe it would be Lot #7 and Lot #8. I am interested to learn if they are planning to fill in wetlands to build in that area. Living there and walking in the backyard, it seems to me that the wetlands are pretty extensive. I would be opposed to any construction that incorporated filling in the Wetland directly behind my home. I am not sure if they could tell me off hand or if you could tell me if this is the case or not."

Acting Chairperson Nagy directed the resident to continue with his comments. She indicated that his questions would be answered later in the meeting.

Mr. Prey continued, "I did not hear anything about the values of the property that they are expecting to build here. Of course, as a resident in one of the higher-end subdivisions and this property abutting my property it is a major concern of mine. Ideally I would like to see the home values in this development be equal to the home values of my development. I am also concerned with the fact that they are condominiums that are basically the same, although they are detached. I am living in a single-family residence with various different home styles. This is a concern. Ideally I would like to see this develop in a similar manner. Lastly, I am concerned that, to my recollection or the recollection of others in the subdivision, I did not receive notice of the earlier meeting in June when the zoning was approved. This does not surprise me that the developer, although he claims to contact the subdivisions near him, never contacted us to discuss this development at all. These are my primary concerns, with the number one issue being the wetlands concern. I am opposed to any construction that incorporates the wetlands that are located directly behind my property as well as my neighbors’ properties. Thank you."

Member Kocan interjected. She noted that a number of people were claiming that they were not notified of the Public Hearing held last June for the rezoning of the proposed property. She requested that the City Attorney address the matter and determine if the meeting should be stopped.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe if he had any verification of the notifications.

David Evancoe, Planning Director indicated that he had a list of the notification mailing labels sent out to the neighboring residents. He stated that Mr. Prey’s name is on the list along with several other pages with names of those who were sent notifications for the rezoning. He indicated he also had a copy of the notice published in the newspaper.

Tom Schultz, City Attorney, stated that the City Council held a hearing, the Ordinance was published in the newspaper and is presumed to be valid. Therefore, he felt the property owner had the right to rely on the zoning as it has been published and adopted by the Council. He believed that it might take a form of court order to state otherwise.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified if Mr. Prey understood these comments.

Mr. Prey agreed.

Paul Gurizzian, 47588 Wellesley Court, stated "I am the President of the Greenwood Oaks Subdivision III and IV, which abuts the property in question. I am representing 58 homeowners in that subdivision. In preparation for this evenings meeting, over the last several days, I have talked to roughly ten to twelve of my neighbors directly. Several of our Board Members are represented here this evening. There is roughly another five to six homeowners present also. I have lived in Novi for 6-years and 4 children. The quality of life in Novi is very important to my family and myself. I would like to start broadly and then specifically raise some issues. I understand the comments of the notification. I did call the Planning offices earlier this week and I was advised that homeowners were notified for the June Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed. However, I do not understand how this meeting caught all of my neighbors by surprise. We were not aware of the June meeting. We now have adequate representation this evening. Although I understand that I think the letters went out, I am puzzled as to why we have excellent representation now and not before. Therefore, I am not fully satisfied that we were adequately notified of the June meeting. My understanding is that this complies with the Master Plan, which is good. Where I have objections are specifically on the variances. I have to tell you that I do not understand all of the details, but frankly, I do not agree with the Variance measuring to the middle of Beck Road verses what I understand as the normal standard. Consistent with Mr. Prey’s comments, I would like to ensure that the wetlands will not be disturbed."

Steve Gracz, 24502 Nantucket, stated, "It has been a long day so I will be brief. I have a couple of issues. First, I think there is something broken with the notification process. It seems that all these people at the same time claim that they did not receive notifications. I am not sure what the process is, but someone should look at it because this stuff is important. We are talking about my home value. I paid a site premium. I question the value of each individual unit that is going in. It simply comes down to dollars and cents. This is where my concern lies. I have an investment. How is this going to impact my investment? If it is within 500-feet, because I did get the notification this time, then I would suggest to you that it would have an impact on it. This is what my concern is. Thank you."

Bruce Haffey, 24490 Nantucket Drive, stated, "I live in Greenwood Oaks Subdivision. Like my neighbors and maybe more strongly, I will tell you flat out that we did not get notices of the meeting in June. If we had, it would have been the subject of a lot of conversation amongst our neighbors as it is now. We would have shown up at the prior meeting. A lot of my comments are really questions. For the attorney, if it is true that we did not receive these did not receive these notices, then is this a valid zoning change. The zoning change apparently is in conformance with our Master Plan. One of the pictures that I saw up here showed R-A zoning surrounding this parcel. I do not understand how the change of this parcel to R-1 with the surrounding area R-A can be called consistent with the treatment of the surrounding area. I have a number of questions. I do not understand what the Cluster Option is. I understand that it seems to cut a break for the developer and the property owner to allow them to produce a development with a much greater density. But, I do not understand what the City or the surrounding property owners get out of this. I heard a number of comments about how woodlands and wetlands are going to be preserved forever. But is that suggesting that those woodlands and wetlands would not be preserved if we did a normal subdivision development? I notice that there is talk about whether this density is computed based upon going to the center of Beck Road or not. But I also assume that the density includes this whole big area at the northwest part of that parcel, which allows in effect a very dense development area. Like everyone, the bottom line of our concern is that this development be consistent with what we have in our subdivision. I would like to remind all of you that the proposed development by the Aspen Group on the corner of Ten Mile and Beck Road, which was much less dense than this. A variance from the R-1 was rejected because there was no good reason that it could be developed in a manner consistent with the R-1 zoning. Again a number of questions of what exactly the quality, size and value of the homes would be. I do not know the square footage would be."

Paulette Shaeffer, 24507 Nantucket, stated, "A lot of the issues that have already been spoke about are concerns. I just wanted to reiterate the concern that the homes on Nantucket and Wellseley back up against the woodland and wetland. Each one of the homeowners paid additional monies for their property in order to back up to this site. Our concern is that it would be filled in and taken away from us. Thank you."

Dorothy Gazette, 47518 Greenwich Drive, stated "My house does not back up to the property. All of these people are my neighbors. I am concerned that if they build this development that the wetlands would be filled in. We all know this would change the water tabling somehow, which would flow into our subdivision and effect my neighbors. They talk about the setback on Beck Road. If Beck Road expands to the five lanes eventually, then it would be that much closer. What is the requirement after the expansion? Would it be right along Beck Road and not meet the requirements for the setback? How would they buffer this wall? We had to have a natural berm along our Beck Road frontage. How are they allowed to put a lovely looking brick wall? I do not know how that looks so natural. I know they mentioned that they would plant trees on the other side, but will they be placing more on Beck Road also?"

Jim Crisstoff, 47631 Greenwich Drive, stated "I have heard here tonight that 67% would be preserved. I was wondering, is there ever any look to see what is already protected by the State of Michigan that people would not necessarily be double-dipping on because they could not take credit for it anyway."

Acting Chairperson Nagy requested that Mr. Schultz address the resident’s concern regarding the consequences if there was not proper notification given in June for the rezoning. She requested that Mr. Evancoe explain the notification process to the audience.

Mr. Evancoe stated that notices are mailed to the property owners that are located within 500-feet of the property to be rezoned. A notice is also published in the newspaper. He noted the Ordinance requires a notification of 300-feet. However the practice of a courtesy of 500- feet has been established.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified that the 300-feet, required by Ordinance is exceeded.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Mr. Schultz indicated the State Statute does not require individual notices to be mailed at all. The City and Village Zoning Act simply says that a hearing is to be held before the commission and it is to be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation, which clearly happened. The specific provision of the City’s Ordinance that deals with amending the Ordinance says that it is to be done pursuant to the State Statute. There is an indirect issue of this notice because the adopted Site Plan Review Manual, which he indicated he was not clear as to how it was adopted as an ordinance, that is a reference that there be notice within 300-feet. He stated this is an indirect requirement "after the fact". He felt that it was not clearly an obligation. However, assuming it were an obligation, he stated that legislation has been passed by City Council and published in the newspaper. The property owner is entitled to relay upon that in the absence of something over turning that. Whether it is reconsideration by the City Council, a lawsuit asking the court to declare that it is not the appropriate classification. However, he stated today, the presumption of today is that it had been done and done correctly.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified Mr. Schultz’ comments. She reiterated that there is not a real requirement other than the 300-feet the City uses to send out notices. The City exceeds this amount by notifying up to 500-feet. A notice is also published in the newspaper. She stated a City Council public hearing was held on the matter, which was published in the newspaper. At this point the matter would proceed with the site plan review because the proper notification has been in from the Legal view. She felt many of the questions would be addressed in the commission discussion.

Acting Secretary Kocan announced she received correspondence

Paulette Shaeffer, 24507 Nantucket, objects to the development.

Jingwen Ji and Dong Shou, 24527 Nantucket Drive, objects because there are all single-family homes at the corner.

Nancy Powell, 47446 Greenwich Drive wrote, "I object. This is the first we have heard about his project and I object that we were never notified (none of us in Greenwood Oaks) about this change to the Master Plan. We now understand that the commission has already allowed rezoning from R-1 to R-A. How could this have happened without us knowing about it? What will happen tot he wetlands? How much more destruction of our natural areas will Novi allow? How much more traffic can Beck Road handle?"

Linda Margrave, 24526 Nantucket wrote, "While I am not entirely, opposed to the concept of clustering. I am concerned that the density is too high for the property and that the units are too close together to preserve the overall aesthetic impression we sought when we purchased our single-family ½-acre lot in Greenwood Oaks. We purchased west of Beck Road because of the ½-acre lots and expect the City planners will preserved the reduced density. I have heard discussion in other meetings relating to Beck Road. Letter dated 1/29/02 from Birchler Arroyo cited variances and waivers needed before approval. I do not support approval of those variances and am pleased they were not approved in our prior meeting. FYI- Although we are listed as having received notification of the June rezoning from R-A to R-1 we did not know or receive it. Wouldn’t this be a nice site for a city park? I’d been told by someone in your parks department this was considered at one time."

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Markham agreed with the developer’s comments regarding reasoning for the Cluster Option Ordinance. She felt that the preservation of the wetland was the primary concern of the residents, which the Cluster Option was designed to do. She stated with the understanding that the property is zoned R-1 and would be developed as residential, she felt this was the best approach. However, she clarified that she was not happy with the development itself as proposed. She found the idea of evergreen screening to be creative. She addressed Mr. Haffey’s comments. She stated the Master Plan indicates the area to be Single-Family homes. She stated the Master Plan is different than the Zoning Map and explained that the single-family homes could have different densities.

Mr. Evancoe stated that additionally the Master Plan proposes maximum densities. The R-1 zoning is consistent with the 1.65 dwelling units per acre, as proposed by the Master Plan for Land Use.

Member Markham noted the Planning Department’s interpretation of the density requirements of the Ordinance. Specifically the matter of twenty-nine units verses thirty. She noted her resentment that the developer would come before the Commission to place "ten pounds in a five pound bag". She noted her liking of the Cluster Option. However, she pointed out that the City informed the applicant that the proposed 30 units was more than the proposed property would allow. Therefore, she did not find it possible that the applicant would be able to go before the ZBA and claim any hardship. She did not feel it was necessary to place this number of units on the property. She referenced the definition of a Cluster, which indicates a cluster shall be no less than two homes and no more than four homes. An interpretation was included in the documentation submitted to the commission, which indicated that it did not apply because the units are detached. Member Markham disagreed. She felt the Ordinance applied whether the units are attached or detached. Therefore, with this interpretation, she found three (3) units that were not in clusters. She designated these units as Unit #13 - at the southern portion close to a detention area, Unit #23 at the northern portion of the property and Unit #22. She felt those three needed to become part of a cluster or be removed. She stated with the removal of these units the density questions would also be removed. She stated the removal of units 22 or unit 23 would eliminate the sidewalk issue. Therefore, she felt that some work could be done to bring the Site Plan into compliance without compromising the integrity of the development. She asked why the development has private roads.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the roads could have been public. However, he believed that the developer should speak to the matter since it was their desire.

Member Markham questioned why there would be a desire for private roads.

Mr. Evancoe indicated it is unlikely that there would be connectability to a larger public street system. If a cul-de-sac is to serve only one development, then it presents itself as good to use a private street. Additionally the burden to maintain the streets is lifted off of the City.

Member Markham questioned if there were plans to shorten the cul-de-sac, which is 813-feet long, to bring it into compliance with the Ordinance.

Mr. Coles answered, yes.

Member Markham referenced the issue of the peripheral setback. She requested the reasoning be clarified as to why it needs to be 63-feet instead of the 75-feet.

Mr. Evancoe designated the center line of the existing Beck Road, the existing right-of-way line for Beck Road and the proposed right-of-way line for Beck Road. To his understanding, the measurement is being taken from the existing right-of-way line to the unit.

Rod Arroyo, Planning/Traffic Consultant agreed.

Mr. Evancoe noted that this is the distance, which is required to be 75-feet. However, in this case it is only 63-feet.

Member Markham felt that Unit #1 and Unit #30 were potential units to be removed to meet the density requirements. She restated that she did not feel the variances were necessary and therefore, she would not support the variances. Member Markham stated that there was not a requirement in the Ordinance, however, she suggested having a common area in the development. She noted her understanding that the developer’s demographics was not for families with small children. Therefore, she was not looking for playgrounds. However, she stated that she did not find a common area/gathering area for the community. Thirty homes would have approximately 60 to 120 people. She noted the development lacked the "community" appearance and instead had many garages and a lot of concrete. She questioned if the developer could create more neighborhood community sense to their development. Member Markham expressed her gratitude that they developed on the upland property. She felt that they did a good job staying out of the wetlands with the exception of the incursion at the north end of the property. However, she was pleased that the incursion is relatively minor and did not touch the vast majority of what is located on the property.

Member Paul questioned how long the large wetland has been on the Wetland Map.

Ms. McGuire assumed that it could be when the Wetland Map was made.

Member Paul questioned when the developer purchased the 40-acre parcel.

Mr. Coles indicated that the purchase was closed in December.

Member Paul clarified if it was this past December.

Mr. Coles answered, correct.

Member Paul clarified that he knew the property was zoned R- A (Residential Acreage).

Mr. Coles interjected and stated the property was zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential District). The property was purchased as zoned by the City Council.

Member Paul continued, that he purchased the property with the knowledge that is was zoned

R-1 with 22-acres of wetland.

Mr. Coles stated that it created unique site features that need to be addressed and presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Member Paul questioned if he had the knowledge of the 22-acres of wetland that he would have to work around.

Mr. Coles answered, correct.

Member Paul questioned if the presented rendering was an actual drawing.

Mr. Coles indicated that it was an elevation of a home they built in another community. He stated the homes for this community would be similar. The actual designs have not been finalized.

Member Paul recalled Member Canup’s comment(s) indicating that there were not to be any more conceptual artist renderings. Instead renderings need to be actual site drawings. She felt strongly that Member Canup’s request should be upheld. She stated the façade material(s) and an actual drawing should be present for the Preliminary Site Plan. She noted her concern of the northwest corner that several residents referenced. She stated that 22-acres of the 40-acre parcel are wetlands. Twenty-nine (29) lots are calculated when multiplying the remaining 18-acres by 1.65 dwelling units. She questioned if the northwest corner, which was not being developed due to the wetland and the setback on the property, was being included in the density calculation. She questioned if this was making it more dense at the front of the property.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the area that is upland and not considered to be part of the wetland is eligible for calculation for density. In reference to the northwest corner, he stated whatever portion of this is upland is eligible for density and he believed that it was included in the 17.7-acre total.

Member Paul stated in reading the June Planning Commission meeting minutes she found that Member Canup commented that the density was a large concern with the R-A to R-1 because it would pose the Cluster Option. She pointed out that Member Canup’s concerns are exactly what is being brought forward. Since the parcel is not usable in the eyes of what the Commission is reviewing, she did not feel it should be included in the density calculation. She asked Mr. Arroyo to comment.

Mr. Arroyo stated the petitioner is asking for the Commission’s approval of an option. The underlying zoning classification of R-1 would provide for ½-acre lots. The petitioner is asking for the Commission’s permission as a discretionary decision to allow for clustering of units on a smaller area. He noted that there are specific findings that need to be made under the Cluster Option in order to determine whether or not the proposed project meets those findings. If the Commission finds that it meets the findings then it could be approved. Otherwise, they could reject the plan and suggest that they build conventional lots.

Member Paul stated in an overview of the site from Ten Mile to Eleven Mile and Beck Road west, she found that all of the sites in Greenwood Oaks Subdivision are ½-acre lots and approximately a half million dollar homes. These residents purchased their home with the anticipation that the surrounding area would be developed the same because of its zoning. She did not find that the proposed was in agreement with the lay of the land and the remainder of the community. Therefore, she would not be supporting an approval.

Member Kocan compared the Conventional Lots and the Clustering Option. She questioned if he could recall a Site Plan that was rejected because conventional lots would have destroyed the unique environmental significance of a site.

Mr. Arroyo did not recall seeing a Conventional Plan. He stated a parallel plan is not required under the Cluster Option.

Member Kocan clarified that the commission needed to make a determination that the Conventional Approach would destroy the environmental characteristics of the lot. She clarified if the wetlands were regulated by the DEQ.

Mr. Arroyo stated that to his understanding the City of Novi and the DEQ regulated these wetlands.

Member Kocan clarified that no body could build in these wetlands.

Mr. Arroyo stated that they could not build without a permit.

Member Kocan clarified that one could obtain a DEQ Permit.

Mr. Schultz believed the issue was whether or not the commission would like to avoid the possibility of a developer proposing ½-acre sites that intrude into the wetlands. He noted the possibility of a City of Novi Permit and a DEQ Permit being granted. He noted that the wetlands take up a substantial percentage of the property as whole.

Member Kocan questioned if in his experience he would guess that the MDEQ could possibly grant a permit to destroy wetlands of this size.

Mr. Schultz stated that he could not predict what they would do on any particular site. However, he stated the MDEQ, if presented with an application, would determine if the Developer would be able to make a reasonable and economically viable use of that property without a permit if limited ½-acre lots on a largely wetland site. The MDEQ would have a hearing, hear testimony and make a determination. "Yes, there can be a use of just of the uplands and therefore, we would deny the permit", or the MDEQ might determine "We think there needs to be some use of the wetland and we are going to permit the fill of x-number of feet or acreage".

Member Kocan recalled the petitioner’s statement indicating that there was nothing in the Ordinance with regard to excluding the right-of-way when calculating site area. However, she noted Section 2403(b)(4), which clearly states that the right-of-way is excluded when calculating the site area. Therefore, she stated the number of lots is twenty-nine (29). She was not convinced that twenty-nine (29) conventional lots could not be constructed on the proposed parcel of property. She suggested the use of the northwest corner. She stated the houses are 15-feet apart from each other, concrete from the sidewalk to the front door and there is no room for landscaping. She questioned if the setback of the house is thirty (30) feet for a Cluster Option.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would depend upon if it were a private or a public road situation. It is twenty-five (25) feet for a private road system.

Member Kocan clarified if a 25-foot setback was proposed.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated that it appeared on the Site Plan that there was room behind the houses for a 35-foot setback. She indicated that she would not support the "stand alones" because the Clustering Option does not permit "stand alones". Therefore, three (3) houses would be eliminated. She noted that two (2) other houses would be eliminated because they are not setback property from the right-of-way, which is 75-feet. She stated that she would not approve the side entry garages because it does not allow landscaping to be done in the front of the houses as they are all concrete. She felt this would negatively impact the wetlands considerably. When the parcel was rezoned to bring it in conformance with the Master Plan for Land Use, density was added to the area with the R-A to R-1. She noted that she was not pleased with the density of the proposed project. She stated that she would not support any variances.

Member Shroyer questioned Mr. Arroyo changed his mind after hearing the information and answers in the discussion.

Mr. Arroyo clarified if Member Shroyer was asking if he was changing his recommendation.

Member Shroyer answered, correct.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he did not recommend approval.

Member Shroyer clarified that Mr. Arroyo has not changed his mind after the conversation that had taken place.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no.

Member Shroyer asked the developer to address Mr. Prey’s comments regarding the units backing up to his property.

Mr. Mahajan indicated the units backing up to Mr. Prey’s home are on high land. He indicated that they would not be touching the wetland. The homes are located 75-feet from the property line and the wetland line is further beyond that. He stated less than ¼-acre of the 22-acres of wetland would be impacted. The remainder of the wetland would be preserved.

Member Shroyer clarified that it does not back up into the existing residences.

Mr. Mahajan answered, correct.

Member Shroyer questioned the distance between the back property and the end of the property. He noted that the parkland/wetland from the Greenwood Oaks.

Mr. Mahajan indicated the homes are seventy-five (75) feet from the property line. In addition, there is a wetland on the Greenwood Oaks Subdivision property. He noted there was a large distance between the homes.

Member Shroyer questioned the sale prices of the homes.

Mr. Mahajan stated the anticipated range would be in the $500,000’s. The homes would be approximately 2800 to 3000 square feet.

Member Shroyer clarified that if he was in agreement to extend the sidewalk at the northwest area if the plan were approved. He stated that he was opposed to sidewalks that "go nowhere".

Mr. Mahajan clarified which sidewalk he was speaking of.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that he was referring to the Greenwood Oaks sidewalk.

Mr. Mahajan answered, yes. He stated it would be extended as a boardwalk to tie into Greenwood Oaks. He indicated that it is shown on the Site Plan as a boardwalk.

Member Shroyer stated that it was obvious that the boardwalk would be continued at the south end to connect onto Greenwood Oaks.

Mr. Mahajan stated that Greenwood Oaks put their boardwalk in place last month, which Kirkway Place would be tied into.

Member Shroyer questioned where the visitors would park.

Mr. Mahajan stated the original Site Plan proposed a parking base. However, it was removed according to the Staff recommendations.

Member Shroyer questioned if the road was wide enough to allow for parking on both sides.

Mr. Mahajan stated the distance is twenty-eight (28) feet.

Member Shroyer clarified that it would only permit parking on one side.

Mr. Coles interjected to address the parking situation. He stated the projects are typically done as private communities, providing the landscaping, snowplowing and maintenance. He indicated that generally off-street parking could be done with more narrow roads. However, Novi requires 28-feet, which is a typical subdivision. He stated the parking would then be comparable to the parking of any typical platted subdivision. He stated he would like to address some of the other comments.

Acting Chairperson Nagy interjected and informed the applicant that the Commission is asking the questions. She directed him to only speak when asked a question by the commission and to not add any further comments.

Member Shroyer counted seventeen different areas of concern regarding the landscaping issues. He questioned if all or only a portion of the issues were resolved.

Ms. McGuire indicated that she is working with the applicant and the issues would be addressed.

Member Shroyer questioned if she was satisfied.

Ms. McGuire stated that she was not satisfied with this Site Plan. However, she would be with the Final.

Member Shroyer questioned if the Commission could request that the road could be widened.

Mr. Schultz stated that the proposed project is a Cluster Option and in the nature of a Special Land Use or a PUD. A new development would typically have regulations that require stubbing and connections to the extent that it makes sense to do so. As a general proposition, he stated this would be the answer. He questioned if Member Shroyer was referring to a particular extension.

Member Shroyer indicated it would be as opposed to an ingress/egress. The road would be widened the entire length of the property.

Mr. Schultz clarified that he was speaking to the off-site Beck Road issue.

Member Shroyer answered, correct. He stated the cost would then be placed on those purchasing a house instead of the taxpayer.

Mr. Schultz stated that typically in this type of situation, the Commission probably could not require this unless evidence was found indicating that the development had a traffic impact that needed to be remedied by improvements to be done by the developer. Otherwise, he stated it could be considered as an exaction stating "We will give you this development if you give us this right-of-way". He indicated that that would be difficult to sustain.

Member Shroyer stated that he was confused with the answer.

Mr. Schultz stated that the answer would depend upon the development, traffic issues, whether there are recommendations indicating an impact to the area that would mandate traffic improvements or lane improvements. In that situation, it would not be impossible for the City to say, "If you want this discretionary land use decision, then we are going to require land improvements". He stated that he did not recall any recommendation from the Traffic Consultant indicating that this particular development is mandating lane improvements as a public safety matter. He suggested if the Commission chose they could have the Traffic Consultant to explore the matter.

Member Shroyer questioned if the City plans to widen the road in the future would constitute this request.

Mr. Schultz stated not in every situation. He stated there needed to be a nexus between the two.

Member Shroyer requested that the Site Plan return to the Commission for Final Approval, should it receive approval at this meeting.

Member Ruyle stated that many of his concerns/questions were answered. He addressed the man in the beige coat and indicated that the land to the north is zoned R-A (Residential Acreage) and not Industrial.

Acting Chairperson Nagy noted that she resides in a condominium complex and found it inconceivable to anticipate that people would not have parking issues. She stated that condominiums have issues with parking cuts and people. She agreed with the prior commissioner’s comments regarding the Ordinance reading as two to four. She believed that the units that do not meet this requirement should be removed. She commented on the large amount of concrete and did not find it necessary to create more impervious surface. Member Nagy questioned whether or not the 33-foot statutory right-of-way could be used for density purposes. She asked Mr. Schultz to comment.

Mr. Schultz deferred the matter to Mr. Arroyo.

Mr. Arroyo stated that to his understanding, the City has in the past applied that if the statutory right-of-way would be excluded from the net site area for the purposes of determining density calculations. One recent example is the Islands Lake Development, which is zoned R-A and R-1. The total acreage of the Island Lake project was 899-acres with over 11-acres of right-of-way that was excluded for the purpose of determining density. Bellagio did not receive density credit for the right-of-way. Mr. Arroyo indicated that a project would need to be "maxing out" its density for there to be an issue. There are not many projects that max out their density. He indicated that to his knowledge, this is how the City has generally applied. He stated the applicant is challenging this in claiming that the definition of net site area is not explicit in terms of whether right-of-way is included or not included. The Ordinance states, "an area of land less the wetland area". Therefore, the question is "Does ‘that area’ include the statutory right-of-way or is it excluded?" He noted his position in working with the City, Commission and the Council he felt that it was their desire to exclude the statutory right-of-way from density calculations. He noted the provision of the Ordinance, which provides the option for the matter to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for an interpretation. Since the dispute has been brought by the applicant and has been raised as a potential issue, it could be sent to the ZBA. He stated that it is not a requirement but a possibility that was raised because it had become an issue with the proposed project. The Cluster Option refers to the definition of density. The definition of density refers to net site area and not gross area. Therefore, the dispute is what should be included in the net site area.

Mr. Schultz stated the Ordinance is ambiguous and there is not a definition of gross acreage, which he felt the proponent relied upon. He felt that there was enough in the Ordinance to justify Mr. Arroyo’s interpretation and the interpretation the City has made over the course of time. He advised the Commission should determine whether or not they would be include the right-of-way instead of what the ZBA will determine. He noted if the Commission chooses to not include the right-of-way, then it should be approved subject to the removal of the unit or relief from the ZBA by interpretation or appeal. Therefore, he advised the Commission that they are to make the initial interpretation, apply the Ordinance and allow the proponent to move from there.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified her question was addressing specific past practice. She noted that she was satisfied with Mr. Arroyo’s response.

Mr. Arroyo noted the reference in the Schedule of Regulations referring to gross area, which the applicant pointed out. Applications within the RUD Option were the only applications that he was aware of that gross area "came into play" when determining density. The RUD Option allows it to go beyond the density per net site area based on a bonus schedule on preserved open space. However, there can not be more than the density applied to the density of the gross area of the site less the right-of-way. He believed net site area was the rule of density for all other applications.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the proposed site as deep. He asked her to envision how the development would appear if it were not a deep site and the density that would be achieved if that amount of statutory right-of-way were included.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked Ms. McGuire what the changes were made to the entrance island.

Ms. McGuire stated the entrance island itself would remain the same. However, there will be Chanticleer Pears all the way down the island and the Chanticleer Pears that would block the clear sight corner would be removed. She noted that there would be nothing over two feet at that corner.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that she would not be supporting the Site Plan. She believed the Commission had the ability to interpret the Cluster Option Ordinance in the same way as always. She stated the wall with the wood in front did not appear attractive. She asked the Staff to comment.

Ms. McGuire showed the Commission an overhead. She noted there would not be a wall where the entire wetland is preserved. The wall begins at the green with a standard brick six-foot wall with the 42-inch footing.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned why a berm was not placed there.

Ms. McGuire indicated that there is no room for a berm. She continued that the next segment would be the same. After that point, she noted the trees that are to be protected. Therefore, that segment would have the loading wall on the structural steel beam. She noted the area that would be filled along the roadway. In order to protect the trees and not cut the roots with the 42" footing, the walls were placed on grade beams. She noted another segment that where the trees were to be protected. She noted the area where the wall returns to a full trench footing. She stated the wall would be a versalock wall, which would be on the resident’s side and would not be seen from the street.

Member Markham recalled the resident who questioned why the site would be permitted to use a wall verses the required berm. She asked Ms. McGuire to address this concern.

Ms. McGuire stated the Cluster Option has a six-foot wall or berm requirement. She noted the large amount of site that is being preserved. The Clustering Option is allowing the preservation of a lot of woods, which they could have developed. She noted that the site plan has greatly improved from their first submittal. She stated that there was not the space for a berm. She noted that if and when the road is expanded, the berm would then be removed regardless.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned if Ms. McClain was okay with the wall.

Ms. McClain answered, yes. She stated that it is not unusual to float a wall between two piers in certain areas where there might be a footing problem or similar issue. She noted her discussion with the applicant regarding the type of materials to use for the wall to ensure there would not be any problems.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned if the wall would be stabilized.

Ms. McClain stated the wall is basically two piers with a beam in between. The small section wall is held on the beam and supported by two piers.

Ms. McGuire indicated that Ken Elphinstone, Plan Examiner, was also involved with the review of the Site Plan.

Mr. Coles requested to comment.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that his comments needed to be brief.

Mr. Coles commented on the two methods of notice were sent out with regard to the Zoning. He stated the property has had a sign posted regarding the zoning, which is still there today. He noted that he purchased the property as currently zoned and did not have involvement with the rezoning process. Due to the configuration of the wetlands and the protection woodlands, he felt this was a classic case of a Cluster situation under the Novi Ordinance. He stated the upland woodland would be a recreational amenity for the residents. In contrast he noted that units could be developed here under the cluster option or under the Conventional form of development. If it were a conventional development then the peripheral units would be set back thirty-five (35) feet verses the proposed seventy-five (75) foot. The ½-acre layouts would require significant more destruction of the property and would undoubtedly include the intrusion into the upland woodland. He noted 5-acres of woodland, which he described as entirely developable today that the proposed project would instead be preserving. Mr. Coles requested the option to take in the comments from the commission and then return with a Revised Site Plan.

Acting Chairperson Nagy thanked Mr. Coles for his comments however; she stated that the commission was not done with their discussion.

Member Paul questioned if any lower lighting was addressed for the landscaping or signage in front of the island area.

Ms. McGuire indicated that there is not any lighting shown at this point because it is not required. She pointed out that the sign is actually located on the wall. The placement of the sign in the right-of-way was an error on one of the Site Plans.

Member Paul referenced the enhancement plan and Ms. McGuire’s comments. She questioned if she had any feedback from the developer regarding the accomplishment a batbox in the wetland area, woodduck box and plantings in the detention area.

Ms. McGuire stated that although those matters were handled by the Wetlands Consultants, she noted that there is an attempt to make all of the detention areas appear more natural. She indicated the goal to make all the detention areas more of an amenable to the site verses appearing as a detention pond.

Member Paul clarified if the Final would include more specifics and the materials.

Ms. McGuire indicated that this information would be listed separately on the Site Plan.

Member Paul stated that this would be okay if the Site Plan were to return for Final Approval. She noted the sewage connection through the wetland that would be hooking up to the southern portion of the property to Greenwood Oaks. She asked the wetland consultant to address the quality of the wetlands and the boring effect it would have on the front of the wetland. She clarified further the furthest east point of the site.

Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay stated that it would depend upon the type of boring that she was speaking of. She noted it could be directional boring or the alternative of open trenching. She referenced the review letter, which indicated the preference of boring under the wetland and not open cut trench. She was not certain if it would be directional boring or open cut jack. However, from the length, she guessed that it would be directional boring. She stated her only concern from a wetland perspective was that the wetland not be drained. She noted that this could often occur with underground utilities. Ms. Kay noted that the provisions would be taken care of at Final to ensure that no draining of the wetland or alteration of the water took place.

Member Paul asked Ms. McClain which type of boring would be used.

Ms. McClain stated either directional boring or bore and the jack method could be used. She noted her preference for directional boring. However, either option would not have the impacts of a traditional trenching method. There would be a requirement to dig a large hole at either end for the boring. However, the boring could be done over a significant length and would not be a problem.

Member Paul asked her to describe the two different styles of boring and the impact to the wetlands.

Ms. McClain stated a bore and jack would consist of "jacking" a tube through and then the main would follow. A directional bore would follow along the pipe that would be used. She stated the impacts would depend upon the size of the pipe and which method is used.

Member Paul noted the Broadmoor Park development, which does not have a like dislike pattern to the rear of the homes. She found it unsightly that every house was exactly the same and asked that the Developer not repeat this mistake. Therefore, she suggested that when the Site Plan returns for Final that it have some variation of the rear elevation.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Kirkway Place SP01-68A&B to table to the next logical Planning Commission meeting timeframe based on a when the petitioner can revise the Site Plan.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Public hearing on the request of J.B. Donaldson for approvals of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use. The subject property is located in Section 26 on Venture Drive between Novi and Meadowbrook Roads. The developer proposes a 10,000 square foot light industrial office building in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is 2.79 acres.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the petitioner is requesting Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan approval of a one-story, 10,005 square foot building. A light industrial use is a Special Land Use in the I-1 District when it is adjacent to residential. Approximately 80% of the building will be used for office, 20% for warehousing. Approval of a Section 9 Façade Waiver is also requested. He noted the entrance on the Site Plan located midway into the site. He noted that there are no spacing issues with the location of the driveway. The proposed front yard landscaping complies with the Ordinance. He note on the Site Plan the area shown in the lighter green, located to the north would be for future expansion. The utilities would need to be brought in to this area of the property from the right-of-way and through the currently proposed area. Therefore, at this time the only the proposed building area is proposed to be planted and the other plantings would be completed after future construction. He noted the amount of landscaping is in accordance with the Ordinance. However, Ms. McGuire is seeking additional Evergreen plantings to improve the buffering for the residents. He noted his understanding that the petitioner is agreeable to working with Ms. McGuire to enhance the landscaping. Public sanitary sewer and public water will serve the 2.79-acre property. Of the 49 notices mailed, there was no response at the time of the Summary Report publication. A Noise Analysis is required for all Special Land Uses. According to the noise analysis and curriculum vitae of the Certified Industrial Hygienist who prepared the report, the project will comply with the City’s standards. The requirements for Special Land Uses and for uses within the I-1 District were provided in Birchler Arroyo Associates, Inc.’s planning review letter. No disturbance to the light woodlands on eastern property line is proposed. Landscaping Review: Approval is recommended with outstanding items to be addressed at Final Site Plan. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended with outstanding items to be addressed at Final Site Plan. Traffic Review: Approval is recommended with outstanding items to be addressed on the Final Site Plan. Façade Review: A Section 9 Waiver is recommended. The west elevation, which would be visible from the Venture Drive, would have brick pattern with a running bond as well as solider course at certain window elevations, E.F.I.S. on the front. The E.F.I.S. is intended to simulate stone, which is the basis for JCK’s recommendation of the waiver. The east elevation would face the residential property. He pointed out the service door visible from the north elevation, which would grant truck access to the building. He noted that to his understanding of the area with the pitched elevation that they would be able to hide the mechanical equipment. He pointed out that this unique flat portion of the pitched roof enables this feature. Fire Department: Approval is recommended. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Special Land Use Permit and Preliminary Site Plan subject to obtaining the Section 9 Façade waiver and meeting the conditions of the review letters.

Bennett Donaldson, Developer with J.B. Donaldson Company represented the owner. He stated Jan Sar is the developmental firm and Artis is the name of the company that would be on the proposed site. Artis, a sensor development company, develops sensors to monitor tooling. For example, it would monitor the speed, heat, of the drill press drilling into a block of aluminum. There would be a little designing at the facility and a lot of training. Most of the testing is performed on site in the actual environment of which they are testing on. Therefore, there are not a lot of deliveries. There will be shipping of light materials back and forth with Germany. There will not be any semi-trailer traffic. The operating hours are 8am-5pm, five days a week with a maximum of 30-35 employees. In the event of a training session, he noted there could be as many as 40.

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

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

Member Kocan informed the commission of her residence at the Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision, which abuts the proposed property. However, she did not find herself in any position of a conflict of interest.

Member Kocan thanked Mr. Donaldson for providing the information. She asked that he would clarify the spelling of the anticipated company.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that it would be Artis.

Member Kocan clarified that Artis is a sensor development firm that would design, train and test on site. She clarified if the testing would be on the Artis site.

Mr. Donaldson indicated the testing of the sensors are done on the site. However, the testing of the sensors on the actual equipment is done in the environment where the sensors will be used.

Member Kocan clarified that there would not be any machine shop noise or an assembly line operation.

Mr. Donaldson answered, correct.

Member Kocan noted her appreciation that the development did not have any variance requests. She noted the berm would be tapped into two existing berms and taken across the entire development, which she felt would be excellent for the residents. She noted the concern of the ponding and questioned if he was willing to put in the drain tile as recommended.

Mr. Donaldson answered, yes.

Member Kocan noted the possibility of a retaining wall, which was noted on one plan and not another. She questioned if the retaining wall was part of the berm.

Ms. McGuire stated that option was still being explored. It has not been determined if it would be needed to save the trees or not. However, at this point, they are anticipating that they would be able to do the grading and the whole berm without it.

Member Kocan thanked the developer for maintaining the existing trees. She stated the cross access easement for the secondary access is a requirement. Therefore, she questioned how to handle the comments pertaining to "if" the cross access can be obtained.

Mr. Arroyo stated if the adjacent property owner does not want to allow full traffic back and forth, then he pointed out the option to gate the area. Thereby, serving the ordinance intent for a secondary access for emergency vehicles. However, it would not allow for passenger vehicles to go back and forth on a regular basis. He noted the preference to have the access open, which would make it easier for emergency vehicles. He pointed out that the owner of the other property can not be forced do provide the access easement. Therefore, if the cross access easement can not be obtained, then it would be constructed to the property line and gated. This would allow the emergency vehicles to have access to the property.

Member Kocan clarified that there currently is not a stub from Quiksend.

Mr. Arroyo stated that was his understanding. However, he believed that it was being extended. He found it fortunate that the same developer was involved.

Member Kocan clarified that he did not anticipate a problem.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that he spoke to the owner, who gave him a positive indication that he would sign the easement. He noted that Jan Sar has already signed the agreement.

Member Kocan questioned if the property was already actually sold to Quiksend.

Mr. Donaldson answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated the lighting at Carpet Works, located to the north on Venture Drive, is not in compliance with the Ordinance. She felt it distressing that it has been over a year and yet the $25 lights could not be replaced.

Mr. Evancoe asked for further clarification with the lighting situation.

Member Kocan stated the lights on the building are not shielded and therefore, the light shines into the resident’s houses. She believed the City Attorney office was following up on this matter.

Mr. Schultz noted that his office requested that Birchler & Arroyo review the lighting pursuant to the Ordinance. It was determined that the lighting was in compliance with the Ordinance.

Member Kocan stated that she would double check with the neighbors. She stated that when she drove past the site yesterday, there were not shields on the lighting fixtures.

Member Kocan noted the loading dock area on the north side of the building and the driveway in between the proposed building and the future building. She questioned if there was enough room in between the two buildings to allow UPS type of truck to pull in and not have to back up at 82-feet when exiting from the loading dock area.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that there were a couple of options. He pointed out on the diagram the location of the drop off if it were a standard office-type delivery of office supplies. He noted the area with a larger radius. At Final, it would be determined if there were enough depth to make the backing maneuvering component possible.

Member Kocan stated it is not allowable to place a road in back of the development in between the residential and the building. If there were parking and handicap parking in front of the building, she questioned if there was truly a desire to have trucks backing in and out of that area. She questioned if there were other light industrial areas that would be backing in and out that far without having a turn around. She questioned if there were more distance between the buildings, would it allow the trucks to maneuver in between the buildings.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He noted that to his understanding there would be a low volume truck delivery. Therefore, it would not be a situation with trucks all the time. If any, he noted that at the most there could be one or two trucks a day.

Member Kocan stated that although it is located a significant distance from the residential; she was concerned with the "beeping" as the truck backs out. She noted the difficult the trash truck would have. She pointed out the possibility of having the truck go through the Quiksend development.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Member Kocan noted that there are several trucks on the Quiksend property and she did not feel a trash truck would be able to access through that site.

Mr. Donaldson stated the idea is that the trash truck would back up into the access area and then pull straight up forward.

Acting Chairperson Nagy interjected and requested that petitioner not speak unless asked a question.

Member Kocan indicated that she directed her comments to the petitioner. She questioned if there was an alternative location for the berm.

Mr. Arroyo stated there would be a maneuverability problem if the dumpster were relocated in the parking lot. There would be a number of parking spaces lost and difficulty having the appropriate radius. The Ordinance states that the dumpster shall be located in the rear yard. Therefore, the proposed location is complying with the Ordinance. He indicated that there were no other options.

Member Kocan stated if there was a stub, the garbage truck could back up and then go straight out. However, it would not be possible for the garbage truck to do this in the future proposed development. Instead, the truck would have to back up along the entire area.

Mr. Arroyo agreed. He noted the attachment to his traffic review letter indicates a modification would need to be made to make this backing up maneuvering possible.

Member Kocan felt this was a large area for a garbage truck to have to back out of. She was not pleased with this. She noted the request for the Façade Waiver. She described the hotel, located on Eleven Mile Road between the Town Center and Meadowbrook Road, as plain. She questioned if the proposed building would have a solid stone look or if it would be broken up.

Mr. Donaldson stated the building would not be broken up. It would be scored to give the appearance of individual panels.

Member Kocan questioned if it would be similar to the size of the windows.

Mr. Donaldson answered, yes.

Member Kocan clarified that the building would not be flat and there would be scoring to give detail.

Mr. Donaldson answered, correct. He stated that it is basically board insulation that could be scored with a motor and color motor placed on top. He stated it was flexible.

Member Kocan noted that the percentages are exceeded on the north and south façade, which abut light industrial developments and not the residential. Member Kocan stated the Ordinance clearly states that a Certified Sound Engineer is to make the determination of the noise. However, a Certified Industrial Hygienist performed the submitted sound analysis. She noted that his resume indicates only one place that he has a noise background. She found this to be a concern. She felt it was a bad precedence to accept a report done by a Certified Industrial Hygienist. She pointed out the consideration taken for truck traffic. However, truck traffic is not regulated by the Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the numbers of maximum decibel level of noise seemed to include truck traffic noise. Based on the design of the building, berm, setback, location of the air conditioning units and the fact the dba’s come in below standard, she did not feel there would be a problem with the proposed development. However, she restated her concern of it being acceptable to have a Certified Industrial Hygienist perform the noise analysis verses a Certified Sound Engineer. She did not want the Ordinance to be diluted. She requested that the City uphold the Ordinance standard in the future and not accept those noise studies unless performed by a Certified Sound Engineer. She clarified if the Preliminary Site Plan Approval is being requested for SP01-58A & B. She clarified if there was Building A and Building B or if the development is considered A&B.

Ms. McGuire stated the Commission is only approving the building to the south. She explained the original landscape plan the tree protection fence was not very visible. Therefore, the applicant submitted another plan as "B".

Member Kocan clarified that the Commission was not approving Building A and Building B.

Mr. Evancoe added that it would be Site Plan A&B.

Member Kocan clarified that it would be ½ of the proposed property.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Shroyer noted the large training facility located in the building. He recalled the petitioner’s comment that the training sessions could have up to 40 people in training plus the employees.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that there would be 40 total and not an additional 40.

Member Shroyer clarified that the 40 people would be employees of the building.

Mr. Donaldson answered, correct. He noted that there could be an additional five in training. Therefore, there would be the 30-35 standard employees and there could be an additional five in the event of a training session.

Member Shroyer counted thirty-nine (39) parking spaces with the exclusion of the handicap parking spaces. Therefore, he questioned how he planned to accommodate these 40 people.

Mr. Donaldson stated the parking was provided as it relates to the Ordinance. The owner felt that the 39 spaces were plenty for the type of business. He noted the training classes are held every six months and are typically very small. He believed that 40 would be the worse case scenario.

Member Shroyer asked if Mr. Arroyo had any comments to add to the matter. He noted his concern that one may park in the secondary access or turn around area. He clarified if street parking was permitted.

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is on street parking unless there are signs that specifically prohibited it. He stated this would be an additional area for overflow parking.

Member Shroyer questioned if it would be recommended that signage be placed in the pass throughs and the turn arounds restricting parking in these areas.

Mr. Arroyo found this to be a good suggestion and did not find any problems with placing signage in these areas. He indicated that he would follow up on this request at Final.

Member Shroyer noted that the entire eastern portion of the all the developments have a continuous chain-liked fence behind all of the areas. However, the property is owned from six to ten feet beyond the chain-linked fence. He questioned how this is maintained when there is no access to the other side.

Member Kocan stated the residents maintain it. She believed that many of them have plantings in that area, which technically they should not. However, the developer has been amenable to the residents and allowed them to continue to have their plantings. She noted that complaints are usually regarding the other side of the berm when it is not "manicured". The residents feel that it is the developer’s responsibility because it is on the other side of the fence.

Ms. McGuire noted her assumption that this would be a Code issue.

Member Shroyer questioned if the City would be liable if one elects to trim a tree and is injured.

Mr. Schultz did not feel there would be a good basis to make an argument that the City would be liable. He noted that it obviously presented a Code Enforcement issue. He indicated that somebody should maintain it and the responsibility might fall to the developer.

Member Shroyer stated that although the chain-linked fence appears to be structurally sound, it is all rusted. He noted that it would be nice to have it painted.

Mr. Schultz stated the Code Enforcement Offices could go out and look at the fence if it is being raised as an issue.

Member Shroyer clarified that the City has not received any complaints with regard to this property.

Mr. Schultz indicated that he did not have knowledge of any complaints.

Member Paul questioned the toxic air contaminant analysis and chemical release analysis and what type of exposure the area would have.

Mr. Donaldson clarified if she was referring to the process.

Member Paul stated she was referring to the process and the air contamination. Further what would happen in the event of a spillage.

Mr. Donaldson stated that no chemicals of liquid or gas form have been indicated to him. He noted that he was generally familiar with the activity of Artis and it was more of a circuitry nature and programming nature. He noted that there will be some light assembly as far as putting circuit boards together.

Member Paul questioned if the "handlings" would be disposed of properly.

Mr. Donaldson clarified what she meant by "handlings".

Member Paul stated that she was referring to any chemical components.

Mr. Donaldson stated that to his knowledge, there was not a significant amount of any handling of any sort of chemical that would be deemed unsafe. He noted that Artis is most research.

Member Paul felt the site fit the area. However, she suggested a high colored shingle in the same fashion. She believed that it was available in an industrial design.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that the owner of the building has the preference to have the building match the building built by Northern Equities. Therefore, any changes to the design would need to defer to the owner.

Member Paul indicated that the change is not mandatory and it was merely her preference.

Mr. Donaldson noted that the owner was adamant about the design of the building.

Member Kocan informed Member Paul that the petitioner is required to complete a Hazardous Materials Checklist form.

Acting Chairperson Nagy seeing no further discussion on the matter, she entertained a motion.

Member Kocan stated she would entertain a motion for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a separate one for the Special Land Use.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Jan Sar SP01-58A&B to approve Special Land Use finding that the proposed use is compatible with the adjacent uses of land in terms of location, size, character and impact on adjacent property or surrounding neighborhood as noise levels will be below the level stated in the ordinance and a ten foot plus landscape berm will separate the development from the neighboring subdivision, finding the proposed use is consistent with the goal, objectives and recommendations of the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use as the use of the building is in fact Light Industrial, that the proposed use is in harmony with the purposes and conforms to the applicable site design regulations of the zoning district in which it is located as there are no variances required for the development.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

Member Kocan clarified if the area north of the drive along the roadway of Venture Drive should be completely landscaped and that the developer is requesting that it not be landscaped at this time to allow for future development.

Ms. McGuire believed that a time frame could be established requiring the landscaping to be done after a period of time regardless if the future development is completed.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Kocan questioned what the Planning Department would recommend as an appropriate time frame.

Ms. McGuire asked the petitioner if he knew the anticipated time frame to complete the remainder of the site.

Mr. Donaldson stated that it could be one-year or five-years. He indicated that he was agreeable to two-years. He clarified if then after two-years landscaping would need to be placed here.

Ms. McGuire indicated that landscaping would need to be provided at the street. She stated that it would then be a requirement to provide what is proposed on the Site Plan. She stated that the entire berm, grading and seeding of the area to the north, the provision of additional evergreens on the berm and the provision of additional evergreens at the southwest corner to screen the parking would need to be provided now.

Mr. Donaldson clarified that she was referring to the rear berm.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct. She recommended that the Commission include these in their motion.

Member Kocan clarified that these comments are included in her review letter.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct. However, she stated there is not a time period included in her letter.

Mr. Evancoe clarified if the two-years would be from tonight’s meeting or if it would be two-years from when they occupy the building.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that he was agreeable to two-years from Certificate of Occupancy.

Member Kocan stated that she would include this in the motion. She noted that two-years from

C of O could result in 3½-years. Therefore, she questioned if the developer would be permitted to request an extension at the end of the two-year period.

Mr. Donaldson indicated that the area would be seeded and maintained. He pointed out that there would be nothing to screen if the building were not constructed. He stated there would not be any loading or parking.

Member Kocan noted that additional landscaping would need to be done after the two-years.

Mr. Donaldson questioned what should be screened and why. He stated if the area is seeded then there would not be an issue from the soil erosion standpoint.

Mr. Evancoe suggested that the future development "behaves" as a separate parcel to be developed at a later date.

Member Kocan noted it is not a lot split and the Ordinance requirement for landscaping along the entire parcel. She stated that she did not want to supercede any of the Ordinances.

Mr. Schultz stated the developer has offered to provide the required landscaping after the two-year time period. Although, he is questioning the reasoning, he believed it was the recommendation of the Landscape Architect. He noted the petitioner could come back and request an extension from the commission, which the commission could or could not grant. However, the petitioner could come back and make his arguments at that time.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned if Mr. Donaldson was satisfied with the response.

Mr. Donaldson stated the property owner of the building would also occupy the property to the north. Therefore, there would only be one owner to hold accountable for maintenance of the other side.

Member Kocan indicated that it would be record that the time period is two-years from Certificate of Occupancy.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Jan Sar SP01-58A&B to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Section Nine Facade Waiver, subject to all of the comments of the Planning Commission and recommendations of the Planning Department and Consultants, subject to landscaping along the roadway north of the drive to be deferred until time of future development or within two (2) years of Certificate of Occupancy whichever comes first.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer,

No: None

Mr. Donaldson requested to clarify the Industrial Hygienist issue. He stated other buildings would be coming forward and he wanted to ensure that he had a clear understanding for the sound study proceedings. He noted that the Industrial Hygienist is able to perform sound studies. Therefore, he questioned how he would make the argument that he is not qualified to perform these studies.

Acting Chairperson Nagy stated the Ordinance requires that the study be performed by a Certified Sound Engineer. Therefore, she stated his/her vitae curriculum should indicate this criteria.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked Planning Director David Evancoe to give a brief summary of the information and then the commissioners would ask any detailed questions.

Mr. Evancoe directed the Commission’s attention to the bottom line number of the spreadsheet. He noted the Proposed 2002-2003 Based Budget with the indicated the figure $36,496, which should be reduced to $24,496. He explained that when the matter went before the Planning Studies & Budget Committee, the Staff proposed a figure for all nine (9) Planning Commission to attend the National American Planning Association Conference. The Planning Studies & Budget Committee recommended that three (3) of the nine (9) commissioners should be budgeted to attend the APA Conference. Therefore, bring the new budgeted total to $24,496. He stated these monies are then reprogrammed into other priorities as recommended by the Committee. The third column from the left titled "Amended" shows a comparison to the amended budget for the current year. The figure $15,810 indicates an increase from $15,000 to $24,000 for the Planning Commission Budget. The Service Improvement Forms included various studies. Mr. Evancoe indicated the Planning Commission identified certain studies to have performed to keep pace with the update of the five-year Master Plan Update. In order to stay on schedule, it requires that certain studies be conducted each year. Economic Based Study: Review of the tax base and analysis the economy. A budget of $6,000 has been suggested for this study. Thoroughfare Plan Update-Existing Data: The gathering of existing data regarding thoroughfares. Currently a lot of data has been gathered, however, more is needed. The data would be the basis for an actual Thoroughfare Plan Update. A budget of $7,500 is proposed for this study. Goals & Objectives Formulation: To determine the goals and the objectives for several various elements such as transportation, environment, economy, public facilities, infrastructure and other basic elements of a Master Plan. A budget of $2,500 is proposed for this study. A study of this nature does not require as much technical analysis, therefore, the proposed budget amount is less. The Planning Studies & Budget Committee suggested additional studies that were not funded by the City Council last year. Mr. Evancoe and the Committee felt the importance of these studies was not lost, however, the funding was not available. Those being reintroduced include: Ranking of Environmental Areas with a proposed budget of $6,000; Beck Road Corridor Study: based on the input of the Planning Studies & Budget Committee there is a proposed budget of $13,000. If these additional studies can be done along with those that would have been scheduled for this year then it would place "things" on schedule for the updating of the Master Plan. Conferences and Workshops: All Planning Commissioners have been budgeted to attend the 2002 Michigan Society of Planning Officials, which would be held in Kalamazoo. He noted that he and City Manager Rick Helwig were in agreement with the importance of training for the new Commission and it was not a good time to "skimp" on training. Based on this detail, a budget for nine (9) commissioners was proposed. However, the Planning Studies & Budget Committee determined that it was highly unlikely that all nine (9) commissioners would be able to attend. Therefore, the budgeted amount was reduced to accommodate three (3) commissioners. He added that monies were also budgeted for the numerous local workshops. The proposed budget for Conferences & Workshops is $13,200. Mr. Evancoe noted the included Planning Studies & Budget Committee Meeting minutes and a spreadsheet, which lays out the updates as previously, requested by the Commission.

Member Ruyle commented on the Planning Studies & Budget Committee’s request to budget $13,000 for the Beck Road Corridor Study. He felt the City Council might approve the study because the monies were derived from reducing the monies spent on conference travel expenses. He stated the Planning Studies & Budget Committee determined three (3) commissioners should attend the conference and present/share the learned information with the members.

Member Markham indicated the importance of the Beck Road Corridor Study. She stated that "time passes" and projects are coming forward. The fact that it would carry more traffic could not be ignored and needed to be dealt with. She expressed her desired to avoid another situation like Haggerty Road. Member Markham did not feel the issue of neighborhood parkland was addressed. She recalled the park questions raised with the Sandstone issue. There is more parkland than needed; however it is not located in the correct areas. There are not as many neighborhood parks as needed or District Parks. She suggested that this issue should be studied. Creative thought should be given as to how to place a type of City-owned/managed amenity in the older subdivisions. The possibility of revising the Ordinances to include this amenity in the new developments. She requested some type recognition of this issue in study form to be considered for future studies if not the present year. She questioned the proper procedure(s).

Mr. Evancoe questioned if Member Markham felt the Planning Commission was the appropriate Body to address this issue as opposed to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Member Markham felt that the both the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission should work together to a degree. She stated that the planning aspect was the responsibility of the Planning Commission. Therefore, if it is determined that there should be a different arrangement of parkland in the community then she felt the Commission should take that role in making it happen. However, the details of what type of parkland or where should be handled by the Parks and Recreation Commission due to their expertise in that area. She stated the Planning Commission has an obligation, as part of the Master Plan, to determine if there is or is not adequate park land and then take the appropriate action(s). She suggested including the matter with the Ranking of Environmental Areas to "plant the seed". Considering the financial position the City of Novi, she felt the budget was well done.

Member Ruyle indicated that after the January 09, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, he introduced himself to the new Parks and Recreation Director. At that time, he noted their discussion, which involved the function(s) of the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission is not a policy making commission. Instead, it is an advisory commission only. The Parks and Recreation Department make the policies and obtain approvals through the City Council. He stated the Parks and Recreation Director expressed to him that he did not want to get involved with neighborhood parks. The Director made note to Member Ruyle the maintenance issues. Therefore, Member Ruyle felt it would behooves the Planning Commission if they wanted to follow the direction Member Markham has indicated. The Planning Commission is a policy making body. Therefore, the Planning Commission could go the direction if need be. He suggested making this consideration to a degree.

Member Nagy noted her appreciation of Member Ruyle’s comments. She suggested placing the issue as part of the work session. She felt it was a good topic.

Member Shroyer agreed with Member Markham and Member Ruyle. He agreed that the matter should be pursued separately and not hidden under Environmental Impact. He suggested the matter "stand on its own". If monies could not be budgeted this year, then he suggested that it definitely be approached the following year. He suggested that consideration be given to a citywide bikeway or a plan, which should be included in the Master Plan. It should have community tie-ins to afford continuity between the surrounding communities. Member Shroyer raised the idea of bring forth the possibility of Trolley-type transportation for the City, which could tie-in the mall, Expo Center, all hotels in the area, etc… He stated the Commission would need to determine when and where the monies could be budgeting on these comments. He understood the timeliness and questioned the date when everything would need to be finalized. He questioned if there would be time to pursue these additional interests for the 2002-2003 budget year.

Planner Beth Brock indicated that there was time to allow for some adjustments. However, she was not certain if there would be enough time to make adjustments to the extent he indicated. The Budget is expected to go before the City Council in April of 2002.

Mr. Evancoe recommended the commissioners give their input at this meeting. He stated the comments regarding the parks would be able to be included.

Ms. Brock corrected her statement. She stated the Budget would go before the City Council March 25, 2002.

Member Shroyer agreed with budgeting for the Beck Road Corridor Study. However, he noted the questionable areas of the City with public communications. He expressed his concern as to the amount of monies that would be approved. He felt that if they requested $6,000 for the Environmental Study and $13,000 for the Beck Road Corridor Study and with the Planning Studies & Budget Committee having saved only $12,000 the City Council may be looked upon the request negatively. He suggested that consideration be given to the goals and objectives and determine whether or not they are the ones that should be brought forward at this time. Alternatively, he questioned if it should be a long range with certain studies done this year and others the following years.

Member Paul commented on the Beck Road Corridor Study and noted the studies already done regarding the Bond. She stated that Beck Road is an area where improvement would take place. Therefore, concerning the financial aspect, she suggested focusing on the parkland and budgeting the Beck Road Corridor for the following year. She stated the Road Bond issues are underway and coming forward. Recently a meeting was held at City Hall regarding moving forward the Bonds and the manner to transport traffic, etc… Therefore, she suggested investing the monies into the parkland area, as it seems to be a passionate issue. Member Paul believed that this may have been the Friends of the Park’s main issue.

Member Kocan stated the purpose of bring the matter to the Commission is to generate discussion regarding priorities. She questioned if the studies for the Master Plan are included in Planning Department Budget. She clarified that the figures $6,000 and $7,500 and $2,500 (totaling $16,000) were not under the Planning Commission Budget.

Ms. Brock indicated that the figures have been included in the Planning Commission Budget in the past.

Member Kocan noted her understanding that information was sent to the City Council Friday, March 1, 2002. Therefore, she questioned if study figures were budgeted to Council last week.

Ms. Brock indicated the information sent to the City Council was the Draft Capital Improvements Plan (CIP).

Member Kocan clarified that the base budget 2002-2003 does not include the Beck Road Corridor study or the $16,000 for the other three (3) studies.

Ms. Brock stated the Service Improvement Form generated is a request and is not anticipated in the Base Budget. The Base Budget includes carry-over line items from the previous year(s). Therefore, at this time there is not a category for these items because they have not yet been approved.

Member Kocan asked how the request is presented. She clarified if the form submitted in the commissioner’s packets was the same form that would be submitted to the City Council for the request.

Ms. Brock answered, correct.

Member Kocan clarified that the Commission would need to prioritize the requests.

Ms. Brock indicated prioritizing the requests would be helpful.

Member Kocan noted her understanding that the top three (3) are required for continuation of the Master Plan. Therefore, they should remain one, two and three. She felt the remainder of the items should be discussed and ranked by importance. She suggested not leaving any items unrequested. She stated the City Council should be aware that the Commission is interested in conducting all of the studies and allow City Council to "pick and chose". However, she felt it was important that the Commission rank the items. She suggested the ranking of #1 Beck Road; #2 Parks; and #3 Ranking of Environmental Areas.

City Engineer Nancy McClain informed the Commission of the Beck Road interchange schedule. Currently the Beck Road Interchange is anticipated to begin construction in March 2003 for the bridge component, which would not require a closing of the intersection. Road closures and ramp closures are not anticipated to occur until March 2004 and would take a year to complete. There is a possibility of moving the anticipated completion time to the end of 2003 (six months earlier). She stated the construction would not begin for a year and would not finish for 2½ years after that.

Member Ruyle noted the remaining agenda items and the time of night. Therefore, he made a motion to continue the meeting.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to continue the meeting and not to exceed any later than midnight.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer,

No: None

Member Paul referenced the area under Planning Community Briefing Education. She noted an acquaintance in her neighborhood is employed with Heirs and Lewis, a firm that provides seminars. She stated the gentleman has expressed an interest in giving seminars free of cost. Therefore, she questioned if the proposed budget of $6,500 was accurate or if some of the monies could be dispersed over other areas. She suggested that the Landscape Architect, City Engineer and several of the Planners could give informative seminars as well. Member Paul felt the Commission should express their interest to conduct the studies and continue education to the Council with the use of creativeness to conserve money. She felt the 2002-2003 increase request was very high. She noted the benefit of getting to know one another. She felt that the City Council would be appreciative of seeing the Commission act responsibly and respectfully of the little finances available.

Member Nagy requested the document from the previous year be redistributed to the new commission, which indicated all of the studies conducted, the dates commissioned, the study itself, the amount…

Ms. Brock interjected and indicated the document was included.

Member Nagy restated that she felt it was important that all commissioners have this document as it is important for decision-making. She agreed that the requests needed to be prioritized. She thanked Ms. McClain for her comments because it "eased the pain" with regard to the Beck Corridor Study. She agreed with Member Paul’s comments and the inclusion of the park issue. She indicated that she found the 2001 Michigan Society of Planning Conference to be interesting. However, she did not find it to be valuable. Therefore, she did not feel that all nine (9) commissioners should attend the MSOP Conference. She suggested that the newest commissioners have this opportunity to attend. Member Nagy stated three (3) commissioners should attend the MSOP Annual Conference and three (3) commissioners should attend the APA National Annual Conference.

Member Kocan was not certain if it would be a good idea to limit the MSOP Annual Conference to three (3) people. She stated there are currently four (4) new commissioners plus potential three (3) new members in June 2003. Therefore, with the possibility of seven (7) new commissioners, she preferred to limit the MSOP to six (6) members. This would allow for three (3) commissioners to attend the APA National Conference and six (6) to attend the MSOP Conference. She noted her understanding of Member Nagy’s concern of the requested amount. She recalled $10,000 was requested the previous year and $6,000 was approved. She suggested making a comment at the top of their study sheets indicating that it was taken into consideration that only some members would be able to attend the conferences. She requested that the Planning Department be up-front with bullets/highlights to stress the need for the studies to the City Council. She felt the City Council would be looking at these items closely and would not be willing to spend a lot of money on different studies.

Member Kocan referenced Member Paul’s comments regarding the Briefing & Education Budget. She questioned if this budgeted figure should be reduced by $3,000 or kept at the figured $6,000. To date $645 has been spent on Briefing & Education Budget.

Acting Chairperson Nagy interjected and questioned when the materials needed to be submitted.

Member Kocan answered, yesterday.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned why the matter came before the Commission late.

Ms. Brock indicated that within the current budget cycle the Administration and the Department handled matters.

Acting Chairperson Nagy stated that the Planning Studies & Budget Committee should be earlier and the materials should come before the Commission earlier. She did not feel the Commission was provided with the adequate time with the amount of information and ideas to discuss. She suggested prioritizing what the commissioners felt was important and then working with the amount of monies to allocate.

Member Ruyle stressed that the Staff was not to blame.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified that she was not blaming the Staff.

Member Ruyle indicated that due to political matters the new commissioners were not on the Commission until December 2001. Therefore, the committees were not set. He reminded Acting Chairperson Nagy that any attempts made to set the committees were delayed. Thereby being the reasoning for the lateness in the process. The Planning Studies & Budget Committee meeting was scheduled two weeks after the committee was set.

Acting Chairperson Nagy clarified that she was not reprimanding anybody.

Member Ruyle felt it was important that the Staff was clearly aware that the Commission was not blaming them.

Acting Chairperson Nagy hoped that the difficulties the Commission faced in the past would not be faced in the future.

Member Shroyer clarified that the information would need to be submitted by March 23, 2002.

Ms. Brock indicated that March 23, 2002 the materials would go to print.

Member Shroyer asked the date the approval was needed.

Ms. Brock stated it would need to be submitted to Administration within the next week.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that City Manager Rick Helwig laid out a detailed schedule. Although he did not have the schedule with him, he was certain the deadline was soon.

Member Shroyer clarified that there was not enough time for the Planning Studies & Budget Committee to meet to discuss the comments made and return for an approval on March 20, 2002. Therefore, he stated a dollar figure would need to be set for the issue of the park activity and voted on at this meeting.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct.

Member Shroyer clarified if the activities were reduced from $13,000 to $11,100. The first three figures are set. Therefore, the Commission needed to derive a dollar figure for the park review, land search etc… He suggested that the Planning Briefing & Education could be reduced substantially or eliminated.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated it should be reduced.

Member Shroyer suggested reducing the Planning Briefing & Education to $3,000 and the additional $3,500 be dispersed to the Parks Activity. He questioned if this would be an adequate budgeted amount.

Member Ruyle informed the Commission that the all the requested monies would not be approved. Therefore, he felt the Commission should be realistic.

Moved by Ruyle, MOTION FAILS LACK OF SUPPORT: To adopt the 2002-2003 Budget as written, submit it to the City Council and allow the City Council to cut it as they deem appropriate.

Member Paul asked Ms. Brock for a general amount for a study in regard to parkland. She suggested $2,500.

Ms. Brock indicated the Environmental Ranking itself is $6,000. Therefore, she felt $2,500 was a low estimation.

Member Markham questioned if all the monies had to be in one year or would it be possible to divide the monies over two years.

Ms. Brock indicated that the monies are typically broken down into an account when it is budgeted. Therefore, she was not aware how to address her question.

Member Markham noted the figures from 1999-2000 were not rounded numbers.

Ms. Brock indicated those figures represent the actual dollars spent.

Acing Chairperson Nagy asked if there was to be an Ordinance requiring green space.

Ms. Brock indicated that Ordinance would be coming back before the Commission.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked if this green space ordinance could be used as the Neighborhood Park.

Member Markham stated that this may be possible for a new development. However, it would not address the older subdivisions.

Member Paul suggested that the motion include a designation of a specific section on the map to have a certain amount of money allocated for 2002-2003 for a study.

Mr. Evancoe advised the Commission to consider the entire corridor in a comprehensive manner. He did not feel that dividing the area into sections would entertain a good planning practice.

Member Paul clarified if it would be wise to request $6,000.

Mr. Evancoe asked the amount that was proposed.

Member Paul questioned if the amount could be $7,500.

Moved by Paul, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: Under the General Fund Planning Budget to reduce the Planning Community Briefing Education from $6,030 to $3,000, under the Michigan Society of Planning Officials to reduce the quantity from nine (9) to six (6) with a proposed budget of $4,200 and a total of $11,100, to add a Park land Study in existing neighborhoods with a proposed budget of $7,500, to place the Beck Road Corridor Study on the 2003-2004 Budget,

Mr. Evancoe clarified if the Parkland Study would look for vacant land within existing neighborhoods that could potentially become neighborhood parks.

Acting Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Member Paul agreed.

Mr. Evancoe clarified if this study would lead into strategies for acquiring the parks, their design or development.

Member Paul stated the ideas were to create a focus on what is actually "out there" to allow the possible zoning on the Master Plan.

Mr. Evancoe clarified further that the study would essentially be an inventory.

Member Paul agreed with Mr. Evancoe for this year. She added that the following year would bring the strategizing.

Member Markham stated in addition to the inventory, there should be interaction with the Neighborhood Associations. She stated there should be an effort to decide what the residents would like to have. She stated that Master Plan indicates a shortage, however no one knows if the residents would like to have neighborhood parks.

Member Paul noted that Neighborhood Service Coordinator Cindy Uglow meets with the Associations quarterly. She suggested having Ms. Uglow focus on the matter and include the information as part of the study.

Member Markham continued stating the study should include how much land is currently available for parks, the cost to acquire the land, what size parcel should be considered, etc…

Acting Chairperson Nagy added the liability issues.

Member Shroyer added matter of development of existing facilities.

Member Paul suggested sending out a questionnaire survey the residents and have the information be communicated to the Presidents of the Association and then have the Association convey the information through Ms. Uglow to the Commission.

Acting Chairperson Nagy felt the commissioners had clarified what they wanted from the parkland. She asked if there was a second to the motion. She asked Mr. Schultz if it would be appropriate for the motion to include only the amount of the proposed budget for the Parkland study. She clarified that it was not necessary for the motion to include every detail.

Mr. Schultz suggested that the motion be comprehensive and begin with the statement that the "budget is approved with the following amendments #1 $7,500 for the Park land Study base don the comments, #2 etc…"

Moved by Paul, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To modify the Budget for the year 2002-2003 under the general fund to have the Planning Community Briefing Education from $6,030 to $3,000, under the 2002-2003 Proposed Budget to reduce the Michigan Society of Planning Officials quantity from nine (9) to six (6) with a proposed budget of $4,200 and a total of $11,100, to add $7,500 to the budget for the Neighborhood Parks Survey to look at actual green space available, surveys to the Association Presidents and communicate this information to their Association and report the information to the Neighborhood Service Coordinator and then to the Commission, to place the Beck Road Corridor Study on the 2003-2004 Budget,

Mr. Schultz noted that the three (3) open items would need to be prioritized.

Moved by Paul, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To modify the Budget for the year 2002-2003 under the general fund to have the Planning Community Briefing Education from $6,030 to $3,000, under the 2002-2003 Proposed Budget to reduce the Michigan Society of Planning Officials quantity from nine (9) to six (6) with a proposed budget of $4,200 and a total of $11,100, to add $7,500 to the budget for the Neighborhood Parks Survey to look at actual green space available, surveys to the Association Presidents and communicate this information to their Association and report the information to the Neighborhood Service Coordinator and then to the Commission, to prioritize the spending to the Economic Base Study as the first priority, Thoroughfare Plan Update as the second priority, Goals and Objectives as the third priority, Environmental Studies as the fourth priority, Park Land Study as the fifth priority and the Beck Road Corridor Study as the sixth priority.

Mr. Evancoe clarified if the Commission removed the Beck Road Corridor Study.

Member Shroyer asked if the City Council would consider the priority given by the Commission or could the Council "pick and chose".

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Council could chose whatever they want.

Member Shroyer recommended that the Beck Road Corridor Study be place on the 2003-2004 Budget.

Member Paul amended her motion to remove the Beck Road Corridor Study to 2003-2004 and move the Park land Study up in priority.

Moved by Paul, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To modify the Budget for the year 2002-2003 under the general fund to have the Planning Community Briefing Education from $6,030 to $3,000, under the 2002-2003 Proposed Budget to reduce the Michigan Society of Planning Officials quantity from nine (9) to six (6) with a proposed budget of $4,200 and a total of $11,100, to add $7,500 to the budget for the Neighborhood Parks Survey to look at actual green space available, surveys to the Association Presidents and communicate this information to their Association and report the information to the Neighborhood Service Coordinator and then to the Commission, to prioritize the spending to the Economic Base Study as the first priority, Thoroughfare Plan Update as the second priority, Goals and Objectives as the third priority, Environmental Studies as the fourth priority and Park Land Study as the fifth priority.

Member Kocan felt that it was in the best interest of the Commission to continue to indicate the Beck Road Corridor Study as a priority. She suggested that the Budget might not be the best area to depict this, however, it indicates that the Commission is still committed. She did not feel that 2003 was far off. It would take 18-months to begin the study, therefore, she preferred to leave it in the budget.

Member Markham agreed with leaving it in the budget. She felt that the Commission should keep the issue in a position to be thought about.

Acting Chairperson Nagy asked Member Paul if she would amend her motion.

Member Paul amended her motion to place the Beck Road Corridor Study as #6.

Member Kocan accepted the amendment.

Acting Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Moved by Paul, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED (5-1): To modify the Budget for the year 2002-2003 under the general fund to have the Planning Community Briefing Education from $6,030 to $3,000, under the 2002-2003 Proposed Budget to reduce the Michigan Society of Planning Officials quantity from nine (9) to six (6) with a proposed budget of $4,200 and a total of $11,100, to add $7,500 to the budget for the Neighborhood Parks Survey to look at actual green space available, surveys to the Association Presidents and communicate this information to their Association and report the information to the Neighborhood Service Coordinator and then to the Commission, to prioritize the spending to the Economic Base Study as the first priority, Thoroughfare Plan Update as the second priority, Goals and Objectives as the third priority, Environmental Studies as the fourth priority, Park Land Study as the fifth priority and the Beck Road Corridor Study as the sixth priority.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Shroyer,

No: Ruyle

Member Shroyer stated motion PM-01-01-005 page 33 was not carried unanimously.

Member Kocan stated page 4, second to last paragraph should read "compiled"; page 5 third paragraph the date should read "September 11, 2001"; page 7 third line down should ready "an additional $20,000 a day in interest"; and page 12 should second to last paragraph should read "pawns".

Member Rulye stated page 15, Mr. Bonaventura’s comments should include the wording "expect maybe one of you and maybe two"; and page 22 should identify Member Ruyle making the first comment under the discussion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 09, 2001 as amended.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer,

No: None

Member Paul requested that the legal workshop be moved to the City Hall.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the workshop could be held at wherever location the Commission prefers. However in past experiences, he has found the different environment can result in a different kind of meeting and often more successful. He explained that often having an environment that is less formal could allow for a different type of meeting. Mr. Schultz indicated that he would work with the Commission’s request for a different location.

Acting Chairperson Nagy questioned if any commissioners had a problem with meeting at the City Attorney’s office.

Member Markham noted her preference to meet at City Hall due to the traveling distance.

Member Shroyer requested a detailed copy of the agenda prior to the meeting.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that she spoke with City Attorney Gerald Fisher and he was amenable to change the meeting location. Therefore, she stated if the Commission preferred, the meeting could be held at City Hall.

Member Kocan stated there is a conference room located in the Managers Office that could accommodate the meeting.

Acting Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Managers Conference Room is a small conference room.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the meeting is not until the 6^th. Therefore, it would allow for discussion at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Acting Chairperson Nagy announced the Legal Training Workshop will be added to the March 29, 2002 Planning Commission meeting for further discussion. She recalled hearing of a meeting for Capital Improvements Committee. She questioned the years that have been proposed for this.

Ms. Brock indicated the matter would be coming forward on March 20, 2002.

None

None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:50 p.m.

Yes: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

April 17, 2002

Date Approved: May 1, 2002