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

PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy (late arrival), Paul, Richards, Ruyle

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Shroyer (absence excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Planning Director David Evancoe, Planner Amy Golke, Planner Barbara McBeth, City Engineer Nancy McClain, Wetland Consultant David Mifsud, Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire, City Attorney Tom Schultz

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

The removal of Matters for Consideration Item #1 - Novi Promenade SP01-53 Driving Spacing Waiver as the matter has been resolved.

The addition of Matter for Discussion Item #2 - Joint meeting with the City Council.

The addition of Matter for Discussion Item #3 – Discussion regarding location and date for the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 17, 2002.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Paul, CARRIED (7-0): To approve the Agenda as amended.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Andrew Mutch, stated, "Tonight I am speaking regarding a subject that does not directly address the two development that are before you this evening. However, these two developments do help illustrate a serious crisis in southeast Novi. These projects have a direct impact on southeast Novi. Recently the Planning Commission was discussing the availability of parkland within the City and the need to evaluate and inventory potential sites for parkland. I support the Planning Commission following that study. I want to highlight tonight the impact of two of the proposed developments on that inventory in southeast Novi. The City has projected in its Parks and Recreation Master Plan a buildout population of approximately 20,000 residents in southeast Novi, the area that is east of Novi Road and south of Grand River Avenue. It is also projected with the current park inventory that we will have a deficit of over a hundred acres of City parkland and a deficit of 12-acres of neighborhood parkland with a surplus of 18-acres of District Parkland. There will be somewhere between 90-acres and 100-acres of deficit in parkland needs. Currently this area is only served by two City Parks, which I have highlighted on the map in green. One is Rotary Park and one is Brookfarm Park located adjacent to Village Oaks Elementary. We have two parks with are intended serve a buildout population of 20,000 residents. Two parks with the total acreage of 60 or 70-acres. I have highlighted the remaining vacant residential parcels in southeast Novi in orange on the map. You can see there is only a handful of parcels. In fact not only are there only a handful of parcels, but, those parcels are small in size and several of those are largely wetland, wooded or steep topography. Two of those parcels are before you tonight proposed for development, which means that inventory will shrink by two. Tomorrow night, the Master Planing & Zoning Committee will hear a proposal for a rezoning on a third parcel. That means at best that this commission has three or four small, mainly wet parcels to consider for parkland use to meet a deficit of close to one hundred acres. I will tell you right now that of those four parcels, the largest is only 14-acres half of that is wet. It will not get you to one hundred acres of parkland. There is a serious crisis in the City in meeting our parkland needs. There is a desire by this commission to have neighborhood parks and that is great. But, you will not have neighborhood parks if you do not have any land to develop it on. We are running out of time and need to act quickly. Regarding developments tonight, very minimum open space or no open space. That speaks for our Ordinances, for our process and I think that it sometimes speaks for our values of what we consider important. I know that you are limited by what you can do and you are limited by the Ordinance. But, keep this map in mind when you are talking about these developments tonight and when you are thinking about in the future designated areas for parks. We are running out of time. You need to act quickly. Thank you."

Sandy Green of the Novi Promenade development, stated, "I believe you have received a letter that we sent yesterday. We were on the agenda for Driveway Spacing Waiver for Varsity Lincoln Mercury. We have pulled that because yesterday we were able to work out an agreement with Varsity Lincoln Mercury that meets both of our needs and also meets the City’s Requirements. I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Evancoe, Mr. Schultz, Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Pearson for their efforts in getting us together, keeping us on track and making certain that we could get something done that met everybody’s needs. I just wanted to take this time to thanks them for that. Thank you."

Secretary Richards announced he had received one (1) correspondence. However, the item is a public hearing and will be read during that time.

Planning Director David Evancoe updated the Commission on a recent amendment in the process in the Planning Department. He noted the recent suggestion received via Member Shroyer. The City Manager, Rick Helwig and Mr. Evancoe review and agreed upon Member Shroyer’s suggestion to notify the Homeowner Associations of Public Hearings. In the past, a notice has been published in the newspaper and notification mailed to each resident within 500-feet of the subject parcel. The process will now include the notification of Homeowner Associations located within 500-feet of the subject parcel.

Member Paul pointed out that Greenwood Oaks Subdivision has several Homeowner Association Presidents. Therefore, she questioned if notification would be sent to all three (3) phases or only one (1).

Mr. Evancoe indicated that being a courtesy notice, not required by law, the process could be amended. He agreed with Member Paul’s comments.

Member Paul felt it would be a good change because different portions of the subdivision could be active. She noted that with notifications to each phase, if one President is out of town, then another President could notify the residents of that association. Further, she requested that the Registered Business owners be notified as well.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the matter could be left open for discussion. He informed the new commissioners of the recent policy discussion four or five months ago regarding how to handle notifications. There were many issues that arose in relation to the establishment of a policy becoming an obligation. Expectations would be raised and in the event of failure to notify, it could potentially hold up a public hearing. Therefore, caution is being taken to not expand the legal envelope too far. However, the idea of the Neighborhood Association seemed to be very "doable", especially given the fact that those names are available through Cindy Uglow, Neighborhood Service Coordinator. He felt the commission, as a whole might want to further discuss the matter prior to making any official decisions.

Member Paul questioned if the item could be added to the next Planning Commission Agenda.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Kocan summarized the Implementation Committee meeting regarding the PD-2 Option. The Staff and City Attorney have been requested to explore the alternative options for a mixed-use development without the rewriting of an ordinance. This matter will be returning at another time. Regarding the incentives for increased setbacks, (sent to the Committee from the City Council), the Staff has been requested to obtain clarification from Councilmember Capello. The Implementation Committee is looking for more specific information and hoping to start the ninety-day clock after obtaining this information. She noted the Committee’s intent to be expedient and return the matter to the City Council in a timely manner.

Consideration of the request of Gary Jonna of Whitehall Real Estate for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located within the West Market Square development.

Chairperson Churella announced were two items on the Consent Agenda. He asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Member Kocan removed Consent Agenda item - Approval of the January 23, 2002 Planning Commission minute and placed them under Matters for Consideration.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Dr. Heather Robertson and Dr. Alyson Rockett for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use Permit. The subject property is located in Section 22 on the northwest corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road in the Pine Ridge Shopping Center in the B-3 (General Business) District. The applicant is proposing an animal hospital. The subject property is 3200 square feet.

Planning Director David Evancoe stated the Future Land Use Map designates the area as local commercial, surrounded by office designation to the west and light industrial on the opposite side of Novi Road. The B-3 (General Business District) property is surrounded by OS-1 (Office Service District) properties. The petitioners Dr. Heather Robertson Werner and Dr. Alyson Rockett, desire to lease the portion of the building furthest to the south for the proposed Animal Emergency Center. The Zoning Ordinance identifies the proposed use as a Special Land Use within the B-3 zoning district. Of the twenty-three notices that were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, there were no responses. He reminded the Commission that the property is only a small portion of a larger development. Therefore, the requirements need to be proportional to the amount of the shopping center that the petitioner would occupy. He noted the several dead shrubs in the small planting area in front of their space, which the petitioner has agreed to replace. A noise analysis determined that there would not be any problems related to noise in respect to the Single-Family Residential that is located a quite a distance from the site. He outlined some of the requirements for the special use of a veterinary hospital. All of the activity must be conducted entirely within the building. All buildings must be located at least 200-feet from the abutting residential area, which is the case. No wetland or woodland reviews were necessary. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended. There are no planned changes to the exterior of the building with the exception of a change in the landscape planter. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Special Land Use Permit and the Preliminary Site Plan.

Henry Sandweiss indicated that he represented the petitioners Dr. Heather Robertson Werner and Dr. Alyson Rockett.

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

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

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Richards, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Animal Emergency Center SP02-10 to approve Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Land Use for the 3200 veterinary hospital located in the existing Pine Ridge Shopping Center.

Member Paul questioned how they would be handling an expired animal or a body part that is removed during surgery.

Dr. Heather Robertson Werner indicated that the expired animals would be picked up by a crematory located in Wixom and cremated off site. The pickups would occur one or two times per week. The site would hold the dead bodies in a freezer-type storage until they are picked up. She assured the commission that no body parts would be disposed of in the trash dumpsters. Special sharp or medical equipment will be disposed of in the special "sharps" containers and there would be a special sharps pickup.

Member Paul noted the kennel that would be located toward the northwestern corner of the site. She questioned if their proposed sound wall would provide a hundred percent sound barrier. She questioned if it would be possible to flip it to the outside corner to avoid any possible sound problems.

Dr. Robertson Werner stated that this option was discussed with the builder and designer. Being an after-hours-emergency center the operating hours would be from 5pm or 6pm until 8am or 9am. Therefore, the pets would be discharged before other leaseholders would come in for work. She noted that as an emergency hospital they would be handling sick animals that have been hit by cars, intoxicated, metabolic emergencies, etc… She stated that there would not be a barking problem because there would not be boarding the dogs. As far as relocating anything in the building, she stated that she felt comfortable with things the way that they are.

Member Paul questioned how the animal droppings would be handled upon the animals entering and exiting the site.

Dr. Robertson Werner stated that it would be picked up once or twice a day.

Member Paul questioned if the developer was present.

Mr. Sandweiss answered, no. He indicated that the developer’s agent wrote the letter regarding to the property manager. He questioned if the Commission would be granting Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Nagy stated that that was not what the request stated.

Mr. Sandweiss stated that although the agenda may have not worded Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, he noted his application was directed in that manner.

Chairperson Churella indicated to the Mr. Sandweiss that the Commission is reviewing the Site Plan for Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Special Land Use Permit. He informed the applicant that the Final Site Plan would be handled administratively by the Planning Department.

Mr. Evancoe agreed that the Final was handled administratively.

Member Paul stated that two different companies are being use for the dumpsters located in the back. She questioned if the petitioner also planned to use a dumpster.

Dr. Robertson Werner answered, yes.

Member Paul stated three dumpsters are currently located behind the proposed facility, which do not all fit in the cement-retained wall. She stated that according to the Ordinance, the dumpsters are to be located in the cement wall. Therefore, she was concerned where the fourth dumpster would be located. She also noted that there would be an increase of traffic in the back quarter with the animal check-in and checkouts. She stated that she was concerned with the entire building as a whole and the increase of traffic raises her concerns further. She noted the grease strip containers for pickup located next to the gas line behind the existing Tubby’s and another behind the China Café. She requested that the owner or developer to address this matter and have the grease traps removed.

Chairperson Churella believed the Fire Department should address the grease pan. He did not feel that matter had anything to do with the petitioner’s site.

Member Paul questioned the location of the fourth dumpster.

Mr. Sandweiss stated the shopping center is currently approximately 1/3 vacant. He did not believe any more dumpsters would be installed there. Further, he believed that the dumpsters currently there were not being utilized.

Member Paul indicated there are currently three full dumpsters in that location.

Mr. Sandweiss suggested that neighboring properties could be utilizing the dumpsters. However, he stated that he would address Member Paul’s concerns to the author of the letter, Susan Janks.

Mr. Schultz noted that the issues raised, the dumpster specifically, were enforcement issues and could be addressed as an enforcement question.

Member Paul asked that Mr. Evancoe address these issues.

Mr. Evancoe agreed to the request.

Member Canup pointed out that other veterinary clinics are typically located in centers such as the proposed location. Member Canup called for a vote on the motion.

Member Kocan added clarified if the hours of operation would be considered 24-hours or 5pm – 8am.

Dr. Robertson Werner stated the operating hours would be 5pm – 8am Monday through Thursday and Friday 5pm – Monday 8am. The clinic would be open 24-hours on holidays when all other veterinary hospitals are closed.

Member Kocan amended the motion to include the findings for the Special Land Use Approval. The proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses of land in terms of location, size, character and impact on adjacent property and based on the significant setback from residential and the sound-proofing of the interior walls, the finding that relative to other feasible uses the use complies with the Special Land Use review with respect to all activities will be conducted completely within the building and a noise analysis has been prepared by a Certified Sound Engineer in compliance with the City Ordinance.

Member Nagy and Member Richards accepted the amendment to the motion.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Animal Emergency Center SP02-10 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the 3,200 square feet Veterinarian Hospital located in the Pine Ridge Shopping Center and grant a Special Land Use Permit with the finding that the proposed use is compatible with adjacent uses of land in terms of location, size, character and impact on adjacent property and based on the significant setback from residential and the sound-proofing of the interior walls, the finding that relative to other feasible uses the use complies with the Special Land Use review with respect to all activities will be conducted completely within the building and a noise analysis has been prepared by a Certified Sound Engineer in compliance with the City Ordinance, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff recommendations and conditions.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Public Hearing on the request of Jim Barnes of The Boardwalk Investment Group to rezone property located in Section 1 south of 14 Mile Road and west of M-5 from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One Family Residential) or any other appropriate zoning district. The subject property is 3.44 acres.

Member Ruyle offered his recuse on the matter as the matter pertains to an adjoining property to the church, which he attends and supports financially. He noted that eventually the church wants to "hook into" this road with their northern property to go to Fourteen Mile Road. He stated that his did not have any problem with the situation, however, he wanted to make his vested interest public knowledge. He left his participation up to the vote of the Commission.

Tom Schultz, City Attorney, noted that Member Ruyle has brought the potential conflict to the floor. Therefore, if he wanted to recuse himself, then he should ask to do so. However, if he is pointing the situation out for the Commission’s determination, then the Commission should consider the situation and made the determination.

Chairperson Churella asked Member Ruyle if he was recusing himself.

Member Ruyle indicated that he wanted the Commission to make the determination.

Mr. Schultz suggested that the commissioner indicate whether he would like to recuse himself or continue.

Member Ruyle indicated that wanted to make his position public knowledge.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the Commission needed to vote on the matter.

Member Kocan did not see a difference between Member Ruyle’s situation and her situation of residing next to an industrial park. She stated that as long as Member Ruyle does not gain financially from the church, she did not find any reason for him to recuse himself.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Markham, FAILED (2-5), That Member Ruyle recuse himself from the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.618 as he has expressed a vested interest in the matter.

Mr. Schultz indicated that having a direct financial interest, which he did not find to be the case, could recuse one. The other situation would be if one were not comfortable with the idea that he/she could be neutral and dispassionate in his/her vote. He determined that a vote by the Commission would be proper.

Yes: Canup, Nagy

No: Churella, Kocan, Markham, Paul, Richards

Mr. Evancoe indicated the petitioner, Jim Barnes of The Boardwalk Investment Group, requests the approval to rezone the 3.44-acre parcel. He designated on a map the area to be considered for rezoning. The property, upon future development would be accessed from Fourteen Mile Road. The same developer is currently in the process of working through a Site Plan for the Brae Pointe Estates development with the intent to create a cluster option development. According to the Ordinance, this would require that fifty percent of the site to be set aside as open space. By rezoning this property and including it as part of that development, it would help the developer to be able to meet their fifty- percent open space requirement. The Master Plan for Land Use designates the area as Single-Family Residential. The other side of the M-5 is the OST (Office Service Technology). The Haverhill subdivision is located directly to the west. The church property is located directly to the south. The proposed property is currently zoned R-A (Residential Acreage). The site that would eventually provide access to it was recently rezoned by the City Council to R-2 (One-Family Residential District), which is compatible with the R-2 zoning of the Haverhill subdivision. He noted the property to the south and the area across M-5 is undeveloped. The site is not currently not served by public sanitary sewer and public water. However, upon development instillation would be required of the developers. He noted that eleven notices were sent out. He stated at the time the Summary Report was published, there were not concerns expressed. He recommended approval of the rezoning. Planning Review: The R-2 density of 2.0 dwelling units per acre is consistent with that shown on the Master Plan for Land Use residential density patterns for this property. The R-2 density is consistent with adjacent property to the west: the 19.49-acre property to the west, which is proposed to be developed with the subject property (Brae Pointe Estates), was rezoned in 2000 from R-A to R-2. Additionally, Haverhill subdivision to the west is zoned R-2. Mr. Evancoe indicated that the Applicant submitted information regarding wetlands and woodlands, which were not required. However, he noted a review was done on the information submitted. Wetlands: Two wetlands are present on the site; an evaluation of the wetlands, performed by the applicant’s consultant, was provided by the applicant but not a required submittal for the rezoning (letter attached). Woodlands: A woodland survey provided by the petitioner and field verified by City staff indicated that the entire site consists of regulated woodlands. The survey was not a required submittal for the rezoning. A Traffic Impact Study, done by the applicant’s Engineer, indicated some geometric changes that would eventually be necessary on Fourteen Mile Road in terms of left-turn lanes and possible acceleration and deceleration lanes. However, these issues would be addressed upon the submission of a Site Plan.

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

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

Member Canup stated the request appeared to be in conformance with the surrounding properties. He added that it seemed to be a formality to bring the property into conformance with the Master Plan for Land Use.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (5-3): In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.618 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for the rezoning of the 3.44-acre parcel from R-A (Residential Acreage) to R-2 (One-Family Residential District).

Member Ruyle noted the last page of the submitted traffic study referencing Deer Ridge RUD, which was part of the church. He indicated the RUD was removed and no longer exists. The church would be coming before the Master Planning & Zoning Committee tomorrow to discuss a proposal to change the northern portion of their property. He indicated the traffic pattern would be increased.

Member Nagy asked the density of RM-1.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the density for RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District), depending upon the room count and type of development, could range from 5.4 to 10.9 dwelling units per acre.

Member Nagy clarified that RM-1 (Low-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) is more dense than RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District).

Mr. Evancoe stated that RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District) is more dense.

Member Nagy stated that she would not support the rezoning. She noted the prime wetlands and prime woodlands on the site. She felt the density was too great. Member Nagy stated that she would be willing to rezone the property at a lower density but not at RM-2.

Mr. Evancoe corrected Member Nagy indicating that the rezoning request is to rezone from R-A to R-2 (One-Family Residential District) and not RM-2 (High-Density, Multiple-Family Residential District). He stated R-2 (One-Family Residential District) allows two dwelling units per acre.

Member Nagy indicated that she was continuing to not support the rezoning.

Member Markham questioned if the Cluster Option could be applied if the joint parcel did not have the same zoning. According to the literature, it was her understanding that the parcel currently zoned R-A is one hundred percent Regulated Woodlands. Therefore, she did not believe the developer was planning to construct any homes on this parcel. Instead she believed the developer might be intending to use this parcel as part of the open space calculation for the Cluster Option.

Mr. Evancoe agreed.

Member Markham questioned if the proposed parcel could remain zoned R-A and used in the calculation for the open space for the Cluster Option. She noted her concerns. Although the Preliminary Site Plan was not submitted for the intent of approval, she noted her review of the Site Plan. She found several units proposed down the straight little street, which she felt, would not make for an elegant development. Instead, she described it as a "bunch of cookie cutters slapped together" one after another down the street. She stated if the property remained R-A, then two units could be added to the overall development. If the property is rezoned to R-2, then six units could be added to the overall development. She felt that six units were a lot to squeeze into what was already "not a big space".

Mr. Evancoe noted that to his understanding, this would be possible. He noted the review was based upon if the request was compatible with the Future Land Use Map for the City of Novi. The base for the Staff recommendation for approval was based on the finding that the use was compatible with both the Land Use Plan and surrounding zoning. He stated that Member Markham might have touched upon the reasoning for the petitioner’s preference of the R-2 zoning over the current R-A zoning.

Member Markham understood a developer’s desire to place four more house to sell. However, she questioned if that option was in the best interest of the City and its future residents.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the Staff analysis did not find this to be negative. The City, through its Master Planning Process, has indicated what it desires for the area, which is two dwelling units per acre. He stated the petitioner is requesting to come into conformance with the existing plan.

Mr. Schultz noted his understanding that the Cluster Option is permitted on R-1 through R-4 zonings. He did not believe the Cluster Option was listed as a permitted use under the R-A District. Therefore, he believed that it might be difficult for the properties to be treated as one zoning lot with the effect of a Cluster Option Development.

Mr. Evancoe apologized for not having this knowledge.

Member Markham clarified that the R-A property could not be considered.

Mr. Schultz stated that he did not believe it could be considered. He explained there is a R-A "holding zoning" up against the M-5. In the long run, he believed it would have to be considered for some rezoning. He identified the question before the Commission was, "Is R-2 an appropriate ultimate zoning for the proposed property?"

Member Markham understood Mr. Schultz’ comments regarding the zoning fitting the overall Future Master Plan for Land Use. However, she found the proposal to be tight. Should the rezoning be approved, she suggested the developer spend time trying to make the plan more pleasing and not a "straight shot set of square boxes stuck on top of each other". She stated that she could not support it in concept, however, she understood the limitations of the commission’s actions.

Member Kocan clarified that rezoning to R-2 would be bringing the parcel into compliance with the Master Plan for Land Use. She noted the City Council’s precedence set to rezone to the Master Plan for Land Use. She agreed with Member Markham’s comments. She questioned if this situation was simply a "lot un-split" and a combining for the extra acreage for open space.

Mr. Schultz believed that he matter would return as a zoning lot. In reference to Member Markham’s comments, he noted the matter return would return to the commission as a discretionary option land use. If the Commission does not like the Site Plan, and reasons could be articulated for the disliking, then the developer would have to take this into consideration.

Member Kocan clarified that the motion included the matter was a recommendation to the City Council.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Richards, Ruyle

No: Markham, Nagy, Paul

Public Hearing on the request of Etkin Equities for approval of a Preliminary/Final Site Plan, Site Condominium, Section Nine Façade Waiver, Wetland and Woodland Permits. The subject property is located in Section 15 on the south side of Twelve Mile Road west of Novi Road in the OST (Office Service Technology) District. The developer proposes a two-unit site condominium. The subject property is 14.18 acres.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that the project was before the Commission previously as Fountain Park (f.k.a. Fountain West). The Site Condominium Development consists of three (3) buildings. The building furthest to the south is an office building, a Marriott Residence Inn Hotel located in the middle of the site and Telcom Credit Union would occupy a portion of the building at the north and the remainder of the building would be office for lease. The petitioner is requesting Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Site Condominium approval, Section Nine Façade Waiver, and Wetland and Woodland Permits. Preliminary Site Plan approval was received for this development on September 5, 2001 and the Planning Commission requested that the Final Site Plan return to the Commission for approval. The applicant is now requesting substantial changes to the north office building, which was originally approved; the City determined that Preliminary Site Plan review for the north parcel is warranted. Two distinct projects are proposed. SP:01-42 C is for the Telcom Credit Union and Office, located on Site A, on the north part of the subject property. This two-story office/credit union building is proposed to contain 36,670 square feet. SP:01-42 D is for the one-story office/research building and the four-story Residence Inn Hotel on Site B, located on the south part of the subject property. The office/research building is proposed to contain 43,014 square feet, with 28,542 square feet of office space, and 14, 472 square feet of research space. The proposed hotel will contain 68,417 square feet with 107 guestrooms. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the proposed area is planned for office, R-C (Regional Commercial) is designated directly to the east, Special Planning Project area to the north (designated as a result of Sandstone) and the I-96 freeway directly to the south. Site B is 7.83-acre and Site A is 5.1-acres. The site is served with public sanitary sewer and public water. Nine notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the City received no responses at the time of the Summary Report publication.

Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final Site Condominium Plans. He indicated that the planning review included both developments without separation. Three issues were identified for both Site A and Site B. He stated copies of the proposed master deed documents and cross access agreement must be reviewed by the City Attorney. The master deed must be recorded with the Register of Deeds. He noted that the detailed requirements are outlined in the Planning Review letters. Review of development SP01-42 C Telcom Credit Union and Office: Approval is not recommended for the Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan because of the required variance: A ZBA variance from Section 2507.1 for the required loading area to be located within the rear or interior side yard is needed. The loading area is shown to be within the building. However, there may be some unloading activities outside the building. If the Planning Commission makes a determination that the intent of the ordinance is met by providing loading inside the building, then no ZBA variance is needed. Overhead loading doors must also be screened from view from the public rights of way, per section 2302A.1. He noted that additional details are included in the landscape review letter. The Planning Commission’s motion for Preliminary Site Plan approval in September 2001 included a requirement that the applicant explore options to reduce parking spaces on the property. The applicant has explored options for shared parking among the uses, and found that the potential users of the property require a certain number of dedicated parking spaces in close proximity to the buildings, and therefore are not able to agree to shared parking. The applicant, however, for the Telcom office and credit union has agreed to landbank parking spaces, if the Planning Commission will approve this option. The Planning Consultant’s review letter explains that a maximum of 30 parking spaces may be landbanked, instead of the 38 spaces actually shown to be landbanked on the plans. An additional 18 spaces are shown to be landbanked adjacent to the proposed office/research building on Site B. Dumpster enclosure details must be reviewed in the final stamping set. Review of development SP01-42 D One-Story Office/Research Building and Hotel: Approval is recommended for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for SP No. 01-42D subject to minor comments. Wetland Review: Review of both developments: SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D: Approval of a revised wetland permit is recommended for the changes made to the preliminary wetland plan, originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 5, 2001. A wetland permit was issued on December 6, 2001. All wetland mitigation and environmental enhancements shall occur concurrently with Phase I of this project. Approval of the revised Preliminary Site Plan and Final Site Plan is recommended subject to revisions made to the plans as outlined in attached the Wetland Review letter. Woodland Review: Review of SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D: Approval of Preliminary Site Plans is recommended. Review of development SP01-42 C Telcom Credit Union and Office: Approval is not recommended for the Final Site Plan for SP01-42 C. The Final Site Plan must be revised such that woodland replacement trees are distinguished from landscape plant materials on the landscape plan. Review of SP01-42 D One-Story Office/Research Building and Hotel: Approval of the Final Site Plan for SP01-42 D is recommended, with changes to be made on the final stamping sets. Landscaping Review: Review of development SP:01-42 C Telcom Credit Union and Office: Approval of the Preliminary Site Plan is not recommended due to the need for a ZBA variance. Loading zones in the OST District cannot be located in the exterior side yard as this plan proposes. However, if the variance is granted, Preliminary Site Plan is recommended with approval subject to resolution of items noted in the landscape review letter. Review of SP01-42 D One-Story Office/Research Building and Hotel: Approval of the Final Site Plan is recommended with changes made on the final stamping set. Engineering Review: Review of both developments: SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D: Approval is recommended for both SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D, with certain items to be included on the final stamping sets. Traffic Review: Review of SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D: Approval of the Site Condominium Plan is recommended. The Engineering Department, in conjunction with the Department of Public Works, is not in favor of the addition of a left turn bay nor "No Left Turn" signage across the curbed and graded island, as commented on by the Traffic Engineer in his review letter. Approval of the Final Site Plan is recommended, subject to the remaining three comments made by the Traffic Engineer in his review letter being made on the final stamping sets. Façade Review: Review of development SP01-42 C Telcom Credit Union and Office: The proposed ribbed metal panels used for rooftop equipment screening exceed the percentages allowed by ordinance. Because the metal screening panels are consistent with materials used on other buildings in the area, and should not detract from the overall look of the project, the Façade Consultant recommends a Section 9 Waiver. Mr. Evancoe apologized that there was not a sample of the ribbed metal panel. However, he stated the applicant would present renderings of the building to the Commission. He suggested that the Commission’s recommend that the applicant match the color of the panel presented. Review of development SP01-42 D One-Story Office/Research Building and Hotel: No review required, as no changes are proposed to the building facade approved at preliminary site plan approval. A "No Revision Affidavit" has been included with the application form. Fire Department: Review of SP01-42 C and SP01-42 D: Approval is recommended. Mr. Evancoe recommended Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Revised Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit and Section Nine Facade Waiver for SP01-42C Telcom Credit Union and Office (Site A) subject to all City Staff and Consultant’s concerns being addressed at Final and subject to the Planning Commission approval of the requested landbanking of parking spaces, obtaining the ZBA variance from Section 2507.1 for the required loading area to be located within the rear or interior side yard, (unless the Planning Commission makes a determination that the intent of the ordinance is met by providing loading inside the building). Mr. Evancoe recommended approval is recommended for Site B, SP:01-42 D, for REVISED PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN, Revised Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit, Section 9 Waiver and the Site Condominium Plan, subject to all City Staff and Consultant’s concerns being addressed successfully on final stamping set and subject to the conditions in the attached review letters (with the exception of comment number 4 in the Birchler Arroyo Traffic Letter) and the Planning Commission’s approval of the requested landbanking of parking spaces.

Robert Bednas, Senior Vice President of Etkin Equities introduced himself as the developer of the proposed project. He recalled being before the Commission in September. He introduced the representatives for Telcom Credit Union Tom Reagan and Andy Kemp and Architect Mike Pudist from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates. At the time of the September Planning Commission meeting, there was not a definite tenant for the building to the north. However, he stated that Telcom has decided to go ahead with the project subsequent to Preliminary Site Plan Approval. He found their contribution to be a considerable upgrade in materials, finishes and architect design. He corrected Mr. Evancoe’s statement and indicated that as the owner of the property and the building, Telcom will be the only tenant in the building. He distributed a handout to the Commission regarding the loading area and overhead door. He noted the shipping and receiving area is entirely inside the building. Further, the overhead door leading to this area is recessed behind the building line. The employee entrance is recessed five or six feet back from the building façade. He felt the architect did a commendable job attempting to conceal the overhead door. He noted the landscaped island with an 18-inch boulder wall across the front as a backdrop for annual flowers and behind evergreen plantings, two deciduous trees and two deciduous trees at the driveway. He felt there was sufficient screening of the loading area entrance with the overhead door. He noted a letter from Telcom Credit Union indicating the type of deliveries: an inside currency deliver occurs twice weekly, inside delivery of paperstock by van, internal documents are shipped for security destruction twice monthly, which is also inside. The only anticipated outdoor delivery that would occur would be from UPS or Fed Ex. In regard to the landbanking parking spaces, he noted the Site Plan indicates 38-landbanked parking spaces. However the Birchler & Arroyo review letter indicates that 30 spaces could be approved. He stated the reason for the discrepancy was due to the fact that 8 additional spaces would be landbanked over what is required by ordinance. He noted his understanding that the Commission might approve the landbanking of 30 spaces on the site. He believed that the Staff indicated that the actual landbanked count could be resolved at Final. Although the overall Site Plan is similar to the plan presented to the Commission in September, he noted the parking has diminished considerably. Previously, there were 135 parking spaces proposed for the entire site. However, considerable parking was saved due to the fact Telcom has reduced the size of the building. Newly on the proposed site plan is the proposed landbanked office building Site B with 18-spaces and a reduction of the parking count by 8-spaces. Assuming the Commission agrees to the landbanking parking, the proposed Site Plan would have 97-less spaces than the Site Plan presented in September. He felt that due to everybody’s efforts the asphalt was minimized and the greenspace maximized. He anticipated the receipt of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the Telcom building as they are anxious to occupy the building by the end of the year. He hoped to be able to submit for Foundation Permits tomorrow and begin construction of their building in May.

Member Richards announced he received one (1) correspondence regarding Timber Creek SP01-42C&D. However, he indicated the letter was presented in the presentation.

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

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

Member Richards noted his understanding that Site A would not have enough parking spaces and anticipated the use of parking spaces in Site B.

Mr. Bednas clarified that all three (3) site are completely self-contained. He recalled the Commission’s suggestion to consider shared parking. However, both Telcom and Residence Inn stipulated that shared parking would not be feasible for their uses. He noted the total count exceeds the Ordinance requirement by 8 spaces. If the 38 spaces are landbanked then there would be 30 less parking spaces constructed than required by the Zoning Ordinance. However, he noted the count is based on their anticipated use of the building, occupancy and employee count. The retail portion of the building contains the amount of parking required by Ordinance. He stated they are requesting a waiver to landbank the additional spaces that are not needed and instead provide trees and grass.

Member Richards clarified further, that more than enough parking spaces on the site.

Mr. Bednas answered, yes. He explained further. Counting all the parking spaces on the site including those that are proposed to be landbanked, there are eight (8) more than the Ordinance requires. Of the 136 spaces shown on the Site Plan, Telcom has indicated that they only need 148 parking spaces.

Member Richards questioned the parking spaces for the Residence Inn and the Office building.

Mr. Bednas stated the Residence Inn did not reduce their count and need 111 parking spaces. The Office Building count was reduced by eight (8) based on the anticipated use between office and flex tech, which require different parking ratios between the two uses. Eighteen (18) parking spaces would be banked from Site B. However, if the entire building was to become office then the 18-parking spaces would be required per the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Richards clarified that the total parking spaces for Site A and Site B is in excess. Thereby, being the reason for the landbanking request.

Mr. Bednas agreed. He noted the request is to landbank thirty (30) spaces on Site A and eighteen (18) spaces on Site B.

Member Richards noted the curb cut to Twelve Mile Road and the median on Twelve Mile Road. He questioned how this would effect the traffic flow out of the proposed site.

Mr. Bednas stated that it would not effect the traffic flow. The drive through automated teller lanes are located in the northwest direction. Vehicles would enter from the south and proceed northwest through the drive through and exit onto Twelve Mile Road.

Member Richards clarified that only a right-turn would be permitted.

Mr. Bednas answered, correct. He stated that most of the Telcom traffic would be coming from the east. Therefore, the traffic would either turn in from Twelve Mile Road or coming straight across from the freeway up Fountain Walk Drive.

Member Richards questioned if Mr. Bednas felt the trees and the eighteen (18) inch wall would be sufficient to isolate the view from Cabaret Drive and Twelve Mile Road.

Mr. Bednas did not feel it would be visible from Twelve Mile Road at all. He suggested the addition of a hedgerow of another 24-inches to help screen further the view from Cabaret Drive. He noted the three to four foot differential between Cabaret Drive and the proposed site. Therefore, the view would be upward. Therefore, due to the line of sight, he felt the overhead door would not be visible from Cabaret Drive. He believed the Commission’s concern was the concealment of the overhead door more than the loading/unloading.

Member Richards questioned how often Telcom anticipated to have the overhead door open.

Mr. Bednas was not certain. He deferred the question to Mr. Kemp.

David Reagan anticipated that it would be opened once a day at the most.

Member Richards questioned the duration the door would remain open.

Mr. Reagan stated that there is enough space inside the building for the vehicle to entirely enter.

Member Richards stated once the delivery vehicle is inside, the door would be closed until the vehicle is ready to leave. He clarified that the door would not remain open the duration of the vehicle’s delivery.

Mr. Reagan agreed.

Member Richard clarified if Ms. McGuire agreed that the 18-inch wall and the four trees would isolate the door from view from Cabaret Drive.

Ms. McGuire answered, no. She agreed that the site view it is uphill from Cabaret Drive. She felt confident that the problem could be resolved easily with a hedge as a backdrop approximately 3-feet in height. She stated that it would not block the view completely, however, she did not find that to be necessary. She felt that the proposed architecture to be a creative way of disguising the loading area. The loading area is already recessed into the building and there will be evergreens. She noted that there might be a glimpse of the area while driving by, however, she did not feel it would be very visible.

Member Richards clarified if the bushes were 24-inches.

Ms. McGuire indicated that Taxus Media Hicksii can grow to six feet tall.

Member Richards clarified if the Taxus Media Hicksii would be 24-inches when originally planted.

Ms. McGuire indicated that this could be requested of the applicant. She noted that 30 inches is a typical requested size.

Member Richards clarified that this request would be part of the Site Plan. He clarified if she felt comfortable with this request.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. She clarified with the applicant if it would not ruin his plan if they were planted as a line along the back.

Mr. Reagan was agreeable to the request.

Member Nagy asked the applicant what the cylinder looking item was.

Mr. Bednas stated the new rendering shows the wall being circular whereas the plan he distributed was an earlier rendering. He stated the Architect was creative in concealing the Detroit Edison transformer and the power generator used for emergency backup for the computer systems. The Architect and Landscape Architect organized a circular screen wall placing the three "ugly" features inside of the screen wall.

Member Nagy felt six (6) were a lot of traffic to travel through. She questioned if one of the lanes should be eliminated. She suggested the removal of the lane furthest from the building.

Mr. Bednas stated the outside two lanes are ATM Machines. The remaining four lanes are teller transaction-type lanes.

Member Nagy clarified if there would be two lanes with ATM. She questioned the use of one lane with two ATMs spread out. She asked if Mr. Arroyo understood her suggestion.

Mr. Arroyo clarified if she was referring to a tandem.

Mr. Bednas stated that this would make the canopy treatment considerably larger. He did not feel a tandem would be convenient for the customers.

Mr. Arroyo noted that the ATM machine usage would typically occur when the other drive through lanes are not open.

Member Nagy felt the maneuverability around the islands would be difficult. Therefore, she clarified if Mr. Arroyo was indicating that the parking lot is a clean maneuverable parking lot.

Mr. Arroyo stated the opening into the parking lot is fairly wide. There is a lot of room and flexibility to enter. It is also a one way only. Therefore, if a customer is planning to use the ATM lanes, they have the flexibility to position themselves due to the width of the entry point. He did not find a major issue because of the type of operation and felt it was unlikely that there would be a double line ATM stack extending to the end. He noted that it would be rare to have ATM lines stacked up to the end of the island.

Member Nagy asked if Ms. McGuire felt there was enough landscaping on the property. She stressed that she wanted to know if there was enough and not an adequate amount.

Ms. McGuire stated the Site Plan meets the requirements of the Ordinance. She noted that she has been working with their Landscape Architect and is recommending additional plant materials in the northeast corner of the site. She clarified if Mr. Reagan was agreeable to this request.

Mr. Reagan answered, yes.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe the reasoning that there was not a façade sample.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the applicant was contacted and informed to bring the materials to the meeting. However, upon arrival for the meeting, the applicant was under the impression that the City had the materials. A number of phone calls were also placed to JCK and the materials were not able to be located. He accepted responsibility for the lack of the materials. He apologized to the Commission for the miscommunication.

Member Nagy questioned if the screening could be made with another material to meet the façade ordinance. She stated the artist drawings are nice, but are often not what the building would actually look like. She expressed her concern of approving a façade without the materials present. She questioned where the metal material would be applied.

Mr. Bednas indicated the roof top air conditioning unit would be screened with the ribbed metal panel, which is similar in color to the façade pieces at the parapet. He stated that he personally delivered the panel to the office months ago.

Member Nagy stated the materials do not meet the Façade Ordinance and she found it difficult to conceptualize without the sample not being present. She noted her understanding of the miscommunication. She questioned if the material could be substituted with another material that would meet the Ordinance.

Mr. Bednas stated metal panel meets the intent of the Ordinance.

Member Nagy interjected and clarified that she was not speaking to the intent of the Ordinance. She stressed that she was speaking to the "actual" Ordinance. She stated that intent is merely an interpretation.

Mr. Bednas indicated the Ordinance states that the ribbing in the panels must be vertical. However, the ribbing of the proposed material is horizontal. Thereby, being the only distinction.

Member Markham noted the phasing plan that suggests that Building A would be constructed first and the hotel second. She stated the OST District permits a height up to 65-feet for the hotel, assuming it is not adjacent to a residential district. However, if the hotel were constructed first then the development would not be in compliance with the Ordinance due to the residential on the other side of Twelve Mile Road. She clarified if her view was correct.

Chairperson Churella indicated that there is a main thoroughfare and therefore here interpretation was not correct.

Mr. Bednas stated the height is dictated by the adjacency. Site A (Telcom Building) is a separate site as the land was sold to Telcom. Therefore, the building is no longer adjacent to residential as the Telcom building is now the building adjacent to the residential area.

Member Markham questioned if Site A should be required to be constructed first to ensure the entire development is in compliance with the Ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the order of the building construction would not matter. He explained a site condominium plan splits the property into separate units with the same equivalence as a lot split or a subdivision. Once the site condominium is approved they become separate units. Therefore the hotel property would not be adjacent to residential even if the Telcom Credit Union is not constructed first. They would be on separate parcels for the purpose of the definition in the Ordinance.

Member Markham stated the Planning Commission minutes from September 5, 2001 should have been provided in the commission packets. She noted that she was not on the commission during that time and would have like to have the insight as to why the Site Plan needed to return before the Commission. She questioned why the previous Planning Commission waived the berm requirement, particularly regarding the west property line.

Mr. Evancoe requested that the Commissioners contact the Planning Department in the future for any missing information in their packets. He noted that the minutes are also available on the City’s website. He deferred the berming question to Ms. McGuire.

Ms. McGuire stated the Planning Commission has the option to waive the berm in the OST District if the property abuts another OST property, which is the case.

Mr. Bednas stated the reason the Commission requested the Site Plan return was primarily due to their request for shared parking study.

Member Markham noted her appreciation for the applicant’s attempt to reduce the number of parking spaces overall. She noted the difference in opinion between the City Staff and the Traffic Consultant regarding the no left-turn and west bound left-turn pockets/median crossover. The Traffic Consultant has indicated a need for this and the City Staff disagreed. She asked for the difference in opinion to be clarified.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that Ms. McClain and he agreed that the primary concern dealt with the review of the plans that show the median on Twelve Mile Road as uncurbed at the point the applicant’s driveway would be accessing Twelve Mile Road. There was a concern that vehicles would attempt to make an illegal left-turn across the median into that driveway. Thereby, being the reasoning for his recommendation for the posting of a no left-turn sign. He believed that it was Ms. McClain’s understanding that it would be curbed with a straight-faced-curb and landscaped to prevent the ability of a left-turn. He stated he would no longer request the posting of a "no left-turn" sign noted if the curb was in place. However, if it were to remain uncurbed, then he would continue with his recommendation. He stated it would be confirmed at Final Stamping whether or not there would be a curbed median at that location.

Member Markham questioned if Ms. McClain agreed that a "no left-turn" sign should be posted if that area is not curbed.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Paul asked Mr. Bednas if the rendering was an actual drawing or an artist rendered drawing.

Mr. Bednas indicated that the computer drawing uses the actual building elevations from the construction documents and inputs the actual building materials. He felt the drawing represented accurately the finished product.

Member Paul asked if there was any difference between the actual finished product and the rendering.

Mr. Bednas stated there could be a slight variance in the color of the brick or glass. However, he did not feel there would be any other distinction.

Mike Pudist, Architect from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates indicated that the presented rendering is a clear representation of the finished product. He stated the gray glass is tinted and not mirrored. The reflection of the light could show a variation in the color. However, he noted intent is to represent as close as one can in a drawing mode, the materials that will be placed on the building.

Member Paul asked if there would be metal over the front door.

Mr. Pudist answered, yes. He indicated there is brushed aluminum metal over the front door and the canopy over the top of the glass.

Member Paul questioned if there was another material that could be used over the front door. She found the brushed metal to be cold. She stated that the metal did not seem to flow with the building.

Mr. Pudist disagreed with her opinion. He stated the canopy accentuates the entrance. He explained the purpose for the change in material and the shape of that particular portion of the façade is to call attention to the entrance. Three doors lead into the front entrance that can be seen on either side. The metal above the door would also hold the address of the building.

Member Paul suggested having the brick come out on the same line and have a pillar. She felt the glass and the large door clearly marked it as the front entrance.

Mr. Pudist indicated that he has designed buildings for 40-years. He expressed his desire to not have the façade change.

Member Paul asked if the loading area was wide enough for those backing up to avoid hitting the building.

Mr. Pudist stated the building brick pillars would be protected by steel pipes filled with concrete.

Member Paul questioned the safety of placing a dumpster beside the powering area.

Mr. Pudist stated the garbage trucks could hit anything and damage anything. He suggested the erection of a steel structure around it. He pointed out the opening to the area is protected by steel pipes to help protect damaging from the generator and transformer.

Member Paul believed there was enough space for a turnaround for the trucks to come in and out.

Mr. Pudist agreed.

Member Paul liked the landscaping material used to block that area. However, she agreed a hedgerow would be a good idea. She agreed that the Planning Commission minutes would have been helpful. She felt it would have been easier to visualize the proposal if the materials were present. She did not support the breaking of the median on Twelve Mile Road. She agreed with Ms. McClain’s idea of placing a curb and landscaping.

Member Kocan questioned if it would be appropriate to have three (3) different motions. One for the Preliminary & Final Site Condominium Plan providing that it is a Preliminary & Final Site Condominium Plan. She understood the northern section is before the Commission for Revised Preliminary and the south section has not been revised and is before the Commission for Final Site Plan. In addition the entire Site Plan Condominium is before the Commission for approval.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the applicant hoped to have original site (Telcom) receive Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval. However, she recommended Preliminary Site Plan Approval and for the Final Approval to be handled administratively.

Member Kocan stated that she was not comfortable with the granting Preliminary & Final Site Plan with a project of this magnitude. She recalled a number of reasons for that the Site Plan was asked to return to the commission, which were not addressed. The minutes of the September meeting clearly stated that as a condition of approval a lot split approval from the Assessing Department needed to be obtained. She questioned if this was done.

Mr. Arroyo explained that a lot split can not be granted at this time because Cabaret is not a dedicated public road. In order to have a lot split approved, there has to be access on to a public road. However, a Site Condominium can be approved with access to a private road designed to public road standards, which is essentially what Cabaret Drive is. A Site Condominium approval would negate the need for a lot split because it has the same equivalence in the Ordinance and would be effectively splitting the property into two parcels. Therefore, a lot split is no longer required.

Member Kocan recalled the number of walkway connections raised at the previous meeting. There are connections between the hotel and the credit union and between the hotel and the office. She recalled the Commission’s request for a connection between the hotel and the shopping center to the east. She questioned if this was included.

Mr. Arroyo questioned if this would occur at an intersection or a mid-block location.

Ms. McClain indicated that a connection is shown at the mid-block location directly across from the hotel.

Member Kocan clarified that there is an opening through the landscape area for pedestrians to walk to the shopping area.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Kocan noted the construction access is located off of Twelve Mile Road as the Commission requested. A request to reduce driveway grades was also raised. She questioned if this was able to be done.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Kocan stated with the change of the Telcom Credit Union, she believed the shared parking request was addressed. She understood the reasoning for the each development wanting their own specified number of parking spaces. She clarified if there was still a need for a Revised Wetland Permit. She clarified if Master Deed Documents and Cross Access Agreements were secured.

David Mifsud, Wetland Consultant indicated the Planning Commission approved the Wetland Permit on September 5, 2001 and Wetland Permit was issued on December 6, 2001. Therefore, due to the changes in the Site Plan, the approval would be a revision to the permit.

Member Kocan clarified that the Commission would need to recommend a Revised Wetland Permit.

Mr. Bednas indicated the Master Deed Documents and everything associated with the Site Condominium have been submitted to the City.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Markham, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Timber Creek Office SP01-42C&D to grant approval of the Revised Preliminary and Final Site Condominium, Revised Wetland Permit subject to comments of the Commission, Consultant’s and Staff being incorporated into the Final Stamping Set.

Ms. McGuire stated the Revised Woodland Permit needed to be included.

Member Kocan questioned if the Woodland Permit applied to the entire site.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes.

Member Kocan amended her motion to include the Revised Woodland Permit. She clarified that at this time she was motioning to approve only the Site Condominium Plan.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Timber Creek Office SP01-42C&D to grant approval of the Revised Preliminary and Final Site Condominium, Revised Wetland Permit, Revised Woodland Permit subject to comments of the Commission, Consultant’s and Staff being incorporated into the Final Stamping Set.

Member Paul clarified if Member Kocan motioned to approve the Preliminary and Final.

Member Kocan stated that her motion was for the Site Condominium Plan.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Member Kocan described the new building as exceptional. She stated that she was not pleased with the previous building and did not like the way the traffic went into the area. She believed the developer fulfilled the intent of the ordinance, that the angel of the loading dock, the fact it is recessed, the fact there will be landscaping and additional landscaping to block it, caused her to make an interpretation that the loading dock meets the intent of the Ordinance. She noted the additional landscaping for the overhead doors. The Staff has recommended the landbanking of thirty (30) parking spaces, which she agreed to. Woodland Replacement trees need to be distinguished from the landscaping plant materials, which could be addressed at Final. The Section Nine Facade Waiver is consistent with the buildings in the area. Planning Commission Waiver of the berm due to the OST property abutting OST and the required additional evergreen trees along the property line for screening. She reminded the applicant that although a noise analysis is not required at this time, according to the Ordinance, the generator to be located in the area of the dumpster can not exceed 75 decibels in the daytime and 70 decibels in the nighttime. Therefore, she stated the developer needs to ensure that it is screened property and that the noise is mitigated if/when the generator turns on.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Timber Creek Office SP01-42C to grant approval of the Revised Preliminary Site Plan, a Section Nine Facade Waiver, Planning Commission Waiver of the berm which would necessitate additional screening along the western property line, subject to the loading dock placement meeting the intent of the Ordinance, Land banking of 30 parking spaces, Woodland trees to be distinguished from the landscaping, subject to the comments of the Commission, Consultants and Staff being incorporated into the Final Stamping Set.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Fountain Park SP01-42D to recommend Final Site Plan Approval with the land banking of 18 spaces.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

4. AVALON SUBDIVISION SP01-77

Public Hearing on the request of William Roskelly for recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat. The subject property is located in Section 24 on the north side of Ten Mile Road between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Roads in the R-4 (One Family Residential) District. The developer proposes a single-family subdivision with 25 lots. The subject property is 9.49 acres.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the petitioner William L. Roskelly is requesting a recommendation to City Council for the proposed Tentative Preliminary Plat. Willowbrook Farm subdivision and a church surround the property to the west, Camborne Place subdivision to the east, Leslie Park subdivision to the north, and residences to the south. Access to the subdivision would be from either drive off of Ten Mile Road. The Master Plan for Land Use designates the area as Single-Family Residential and is entirely surrounded by the same land use. The current zoning is R-4 (One-Family Residential District) and is compatible with all of the surrounding zoning districts. He noted the existing residence on the property would not remain upon development of the site. The site will be served with public sanitary sewer and public water by connecting to existing sewer and water mains at Ten Mile Road and Camborne Lane. Three hundred and thirty-three (333) notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and the City received no comments at the time of the Summary Report publication. Planning Review: Approval is recommended. There are no wetlands on the property and therefore, no review was required. There are no Woodlands on the property. One tree, to be removed, falls under the Woodlands Ordinance. Replacement trees for the removal of the tree are provided in accordance with the Woodlands Ordinance. Landscape Review: Approval is recommended subject to minor comment in the review letter. One tree, to be removed, falls under the Woodlands Ordinance. Replacement trees for the removal of the tree are provided in accordance with the Woodlands Ordinance. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended subject to minor comments included in the review letter. Traffic Review: Approval is recommended; minor comments only. The cul-de-sac length exceeds the maximum cul-de-sac length requirement of 800 feet. In this circumstance, there are four options available to the petitioner: 1) Shorten the length of the cul-de-sac to the required 800 feet. 2) Retain the length of the cul-de-sac and provide a secondary emergency access onto Ten Mile Road (as shown on the Tentative Preliminary Plat). He did not recommend this solution. He described the gates are unsightly. Since this option is not the only solution to the problem, he was not in support of it. 3) Keep the length without providing an emergency secondary access. This option requires two waivers from the Design and Construction Standard: one waiver from Section 11-194(a)(7) to allow for the length of the cul-de-sac to exceed the 800 foot maximum length requirement; and a second waiver from Section 11-194(a)(19) for the secondary emergency access requirement. 4) Eliminate the cul-de-sac and connect directly onto Ten Mile Road. He stated this option presents issues of its own on Ten Mile Road in terms of traffic conflicts. Staff recommends that the cul-de-sac length be shortened to comply with the standard and to eliminate the need for a secondary emergency access. Staff believes the secondary emergency access gate is unsightly in appearance. Also, staff is in agreement with the Fire Marshal that maintenance of such secondary access routes will be an issue in the future. Façade Review: No review required. Fire Department: Approval is recommended; also recommended is for the cul-de-sac to be shortened to the required 800 foot maximum length such that a second emergency access would not be required. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat subject to meeting the conditions on the review letters.

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

Stephan Hoffman 24519 Willowbrook stated, "I live in the corner house that would be one of the immediate accesses into the new subdivision. I am a Michigan Registered Architect and I have done a lot of work and a lot of subdivisions. I have never tried to appeal the 800-foot mark. Per Fire Department requests we have honored that. It has almost never been passed in my 15-year career. I would recommend that it be shortened. I came here tonight to see what would be in my backyard and possible see if the gate at then end of Brenda Street could be taken down to alleviate traffic congestion that is going through our street now. We have people cutting through from Grand River Avenue to Ten Mile. On many occasions we have the car dealerships bring their test drives through our subdivision. We have a number of traffic items that we would love to have eliminated from our area. We have almost 60 children between the ages of 2 years and 11 years on that street alone. I find that that plan is highly unimaginative and almost offensive to think that they can use our streets to bring in another 25 cars through our subdivision. On top of the 800-foot mark, I strongly recommend that an entrance be put onto Ten Mile, not that that would help any traffic there, but put onto Ten Mile, not that that would help any traffic there, but certainly there are not a lot of children playing on Ten Mile."

Mark Less, 24770 Willowbrook stated, "My concern is the traffic. I do not think it is fair that 25 homes are forced to go though Willowbrook Street, which is basically a single street compared to Bethany Way, which is a boulevard. If you are going to allow that, the people of Willowbrook Farms are going to go through that street and either go down our street or go down our street to Grand River Avenue. There is already a gate on Grand River Avenue to stop the traffic because the road is not constructed to take the traffic from Willowbrook Farms. If you are going to keep that two stub streets joined together to allow the traffic from Willowbrook Farms to go onto Willowbrook Street, then you have already set precedence that you have stopped the traffic from going through by putting a gate there on Brenda and Bethany Way. If a cul-de-sac is to be shortened to 800-feet and if the road is not going to Ten Mile then there needs to be a device to stop the flood gates from opening up and going through our sub. Either put a gate on that street or make it a one way street and have your police officers handing out tickets left and right. Those are the options that I see now until Joseph and Brenda ever get paved. Once those streets are paved then there is not an issue for us to stand on. As it stands now, I believe there is an issue to stop the traffic from going onto Willowbrook Street. I go to new subs and I see, when phases are stopped, signs that say no constructing traffic through. The only access would be through Brenda or Willowbrook. So, you will be tearing those two streets up. I feel that other subs prevent this from happening and here we are promoting it. It is the wrong way to go."

Michelle Nance, 24749 Joseph stated, "The gravel road was built over 40-years ago to service 15-homes. However, now it services over 45-homes without any major improvements in that time. There are 20 children on that street and not even a children at play sign. There is currently a gate that keeps traffic from Willowbrook Farms coming down to Brenda, down Joseph, to Grand River Avenue. I think we could suggest putting another gate on Camborne and Willowbrook and Avalon have its direct access to Ten Mile and also up Bethany Way. There are no sidewalks and our children have to ride their bikes in the streets. They have to walk in the street to wait for the bus. It is very hectic on the weekends. The traffic ruins the road condition and it is awful. When the road gets awful, those people have choice if they want to drive on it or now, but we have to drive on it all the time. The City needs to take into consideration all these things. It is for our quality of life."

Member Richards announced he received five (5) communications regarding the matter. Three were objections and two (2) were approvals. He noted the reasons for the objections were due to sewer/water, heavy traffic, dirt roads, dust and noise pollution.

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

William L. Roskelly stated that he was also the developer of Camborne Place to the east of his proposed Avalon project. Since that time, he noted that he obtained the warranted deed for the property. He noted his dream to build homes like those in the east. Two proposals were presented to the Planning Department. One included the road to Ten Mile and the other with a cul-de-sac. Since the traffic is so heavy on Ten Mile, he favored the plan with the cul-de-sac. He noted the exits at that time would have been two exits to Ten Mile and two exits to Grand River and one exit to Meadowbrook Road. He stated the extended cul-de-sac is 100-foot in depth in between and is similar to a court. He added that there would be a lot of landscaping. He noted his understanding of the distance of the cul-de-sac. From the center of the road to the center of the cul-de-sac, he noted that he is 26-feet short exceeding the 800-feet, which he would break down to comply with the ordinance. He felt an entrance on Ten Mile would be more detrimental and dangerous. He understood the neighbor’s concerns of added traffic; however, he felt 25-homes would not be an overburdening amount of traffic. There would be four or five exits to main roads in three directions.

Acting Chairperson Canup stated twenty-five (25) homes would generate approximately 250 trips per day. Those vehicles would end up on Ten Mile Road regardless of where they exit onto Ten Mile. He did not like the cul-de-sac and questioned why it could not exit onto Ten Mile.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that it could exit onto Ten Mile. He noted that after reviewing the extended streets that were originally stubbed into this property, which was planned as the road network. It was determined to make most sense to do what was originally planned, which was to continue those and provide access. Generally, it is not good to have any further direct accesses onto a thoroughfare than what is necessary as it is often the reason for the Driveway Spacing Waivers and an Ordinance requiring a certain amount of separation.

Acting Chairperson Canup suspected that an extension would result in left-turns being a problem. However, if it were a right-turn-only onto Ten Mile, it would alleviate some of the problems. He suggested narrowing the area and ridding of the cul-de-sac to give the lots more square footage and a more presentable appearance from Ten Mile. He stated that he would not support the plan as presented.

Member Markham noted her concern of the construction traffic. She questioned if a temporary access on Ten Mile was possible.

Ms. McClain stated temporary access onto Ten Mile Road would be possible, as there is an existing driveway onto Ten Mile that could be used.

Member Markham indicated that she would be in more of a position to support the project if there were a temporary access for the construction traffic. She liked the idea of the shorted cul-de-sac and the landscaping toward Ten Mile. Ultimately, she would prefer to have the cul-de-sac, however, during construction, she requested the temporary access be provided.

Member Nagy indicated that there would be light at the Meadowbrook Road, Cranbrook and Ten Mile and Haggerty and Ten Mile. Therefore, she believed the street should go through. She understood the concerns mentioned by Mr. Evancoe. However, her concern lied with the residents of that area. She did not feel the roads were designed to handle the traffic that would be generated. She felt more green space should be provided. She suggested removing the cul-de-sac and incorporating the land to provide more green space for the children to play. She indicated that she would not be supporting the proposed plan unless a thoroughfare to Ten Mile is provided. She questioned if the site could be served with the sewer connections that are in place.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Nagy questioned if she felt the light on Ten Mile between Haggerty and Meadowbrook Road would allow the traffic to move and the ability for the street to go through to Ten Mile.

Ms. McClain stated that while it might provide gaps in the traffic, she agreed with Mr. Arroyo’s analysis that a connection to Ten Mile is not as desirable due to connection of several roads along the way. The result would be a lot of in and out traffic that could cause more problems and accidents along Ten Mile.

Member Nagy stated that she is not aware of many accidents occurring on Ten Mile Road. She stated that she could not approve the Site Plan at the expense of the residents that already live there. She felt it was a questioned of fairness. She stated that she would not support the project unless the street goes through to Ten Mile.

Member Ruyle stated that he would not approve the Site Plan unless the street went through to Ten Mile.

Member Paul agreed that the street needed to go through to Ten Mile Road and added that it could be enhanced. She questioned if landscaping could be placed on the rear of Lots 1-5 to buffer the view of the church.

Ms. McGuire indicated it is already a requirement. She noted that it is shown on the bottom of the Site Plan.

Member Paul felt it is a safety issue for the children and therefore, she would not be supporting the Site Plan.

Chairperson Churella agreed with the commissioner’s comments and he entertained a motion.

Mr. Roskelly indicated that he had no objection and would provide the street through to Ten Mile. He agreed to landscape the entrance.

Chairperson Churella suggested a small boulevard at the entrance.

Mr. Roskelly stated if the Commission prefers a boulevard, then he would provide one. However, he felt they were unsafe in the winter.

Member Canup suggested tabling the matter to give Mr. Roskelly the opportunity to revise his Site Plan.

Mr. Roskelly noted his hope was to have the plan approved with the proviso of providing the entrance to Ten Mile. However, he appealed.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Avalon Subdivision SP01-77A to table the matter to the first Planning Commission meeting in May 2002 to give the petitioner the opportunity to revise their Site Plan.

Member Richards clarified if Avalon would be paved.

Mr. Roskelly stated it would either be concrete with curb and gutter or concrete with curb and gutter with a deep strength asphalt.

Member Kocan questioned if there were driveway spacing issues.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that he could not make that determination without reviewing the specific access. He noted that the option was not reviewed because it was not proposed.

Member Kocan questioned what the requirement would be.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would depend upon if it were an opposite-side or same-side. It is based on the speed of the roadway.

Member Kocan reminded the commission of the intent to keep Ten Mile a residential road. She suggested reducing the speed limit on Ten Mile Road to 35mph. She stated her support to table the matter.

Mr. Schultz suggested having the proponent clearly state his agreement to table the matter. Under the State Law and the Ordinance there are timing issue and the proponent could be faced with a denial if the tabling is not acceptable.

Mr. Roskelly stated that he did not object to tabling. He requested a timetable from the Commission for when he could anticipate returning.

Member Nagy stated two (2) weeks to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Roskelly indicated that he would need to resubmit the plan and have it reviewed. Therefore, he suggested four weeks.

Chairperson Churella indicated the matter would be placed on the agenda for the first meeting in May.

Mr. Evancoe questioned if the Commission desired the street to connect to Ten Mile Road and continue to connect with Camborne or a cul-de-sac.

Chairperson Churella indicated it could be a cul-de-sac.

Mr. Evancoe felt the Commission’s desire should be clear to the petitioner.

Mr. Roskelly believed the City preferred to have the one street as it is.

Chairperson Churella agreed.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

5. MEADOWBROOK-8 CONDOMINIUMS SP01-72

Public Hearing on the request of Terrasanto Development LLC, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and a Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 35 on the west side of Meadowbrook Road and north of Eight Mile Road in the R-1 (One Family Residential) District. The developer is proposing an ten-unit site condominium development. The subject property is 7.98 acres.

Mr. Evancoe stated the Petitioner requests approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit for a detached site condominium development consisting of 10 single-family units. He indicated the Master Plan for Land Use designates the area as Single-Family Residential and it is surrounded by the same land use classification. The site would be served with public sanitary sewer and public water. He noted the adjacent uses include residential to the north, south, and east and vacant land to the west. Six hundred and thirty-two (632) notices were sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. There were no neighborhood concerns received by the City at the time of Summary Report publication. Planning Review: Approval is recommended of the revised preliminary site plan, subject to revision of the plans for increased width of access stub street to 18 feet. Alternatively, the stub street width could remain at 12 feet, which would require a City Council waiver of the design standards of the Subdivision Ordinance (Section 4.04.A1b). The proposed plan meets the requirements of the site condominium, subdivision, and site plan requirements, with the exception of the access stub. Wetland Review: A small stream exists on the property. Due to the nature of the proposed impacts to the existing wetlands, the project requires a non-minor use permit. The wetlands consultant recommends approval of the wetlands permit subject to receiving the proper permits, supplying the conservation easement, and making a number of corrections and clarifications on the plans and documents. Woodland Review: The site does not fall under the Woodland Protection Ordinance and approval is recommended subject to minor comments included in the Landscape/Woodland review letter. Landscape Review: Planning Commission approval of a screen wall in lieu of a landscaped area along a right of way is acceptable if the Planning Commission determines that the right-of-way landscaped area is impractical or overly restrictive to the development of the site. A 30 inch tall brick screen wall and plantings are proposed along the Meadowbrook Road right of way. Because the stream runs through the southeast corner of the property, site conditions restrict the ability to place a berm through this area. The Landscape Review letter recommends approval of the proposed wall with some additional buffering materials to be included at Final Site Plan subject to the comments and conditions included in the Landscape/Woodland review letter. Engineering Review: Approval is recommended subject to minor comments included in the review letter being addressed at Final. Traffic Review: A Planning Commission waiver from Design and Construction Standard Figure IX.12 for opposite-side driveway spacing standards is required. Approval of the waiver is supported by staff and consultants. A City Council waiver for the width of the secondary access easement and drive is required, but not supported by staff or consultants. The recommendation for widening both the easement and pavement width will eliminate the need for the waiver of Design and Construction Figure VIII-K. Façade Review: No review required. Fire Department: Approval is recommended. The Fire Department’s review letter recommends widening the stub street to 18 feet, in agreement with the Traffic Engineer’s comments. Mr. Evancoe recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the revision of the plan for increased width of access stub street to 18 feet, or the stub street width could remain at 12 feet, which would require a City Council waiver of the design standards of the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to the Planning Commission Waiver for opposite-side driveway spacing waiver, approval of the non-minor use wetland permit, and subject to meeting the conditions included in the review letters.

Mark Young, Project Engineer of Seiber Keast & Associates introduced the developers David Hales and David Guerro of Terrasanto Development. He noted the inclusion of the emergency access stub street was provided due to the suggestion of the Staff. However, he was not in agreement of the stub street. In the several years developing in Novi, he indicated that he has never seen the Ordinance interpreted in this manner. The thirteen hundred (1300) feet referenced in the subdivision ordinance has been applied historically to control the length of blocks within single family developments and subdivisions. It is also applied to a given side of a parcel. The proposed parcel is approximately 575-feet on the east and west side and approximately 600-feet on the north and south side. He stated the calculation in the Birchler & Arroyo report is based on the total perimeter. However, three sides of the site should not be considered for a stub street. He noted Meadowbrook Road where access is gained to the development, developed single-family residences to the north do not allow a stub street connection and an existing wetland is to the south (which was considered and dismissed by Staff and Developer as impractical). Therefore, the only location for a stub street would be to the west. The length of that side is only 575-feet. The total length of the cul-de-sac is 640-feet and only ten (10) homes are proposed in the site plan. He noted the Summary Report omitted the fact that the City of Novi Fire Marshall found the proposed secondary emergency access drive as not required by Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance also specifically precludes a stub street where the requirement would locate the stub street to extend into a Regulated Woodland. Regulated Woodlands are located on the adjacent parcel to the west and extend to the proposed parcel boundary. The stub street, as shown in the plan, would terminate directly into a wood lot of 4.3-acres. For these reasons, Mr. Young requested that the Commission consider relief from that stub street. He introduced Wetland Consultant Woody Helm from King and McGreggor Associates and Landscape Architect Jacob Blu of J&C Scott & Associates.

Member Richards announced he has received thirty-five (35) communications regarding the proposed project. Twenty-nine (29) were objectionable for the reasons of crowding, congestion, heavy traffic, wetlands necessary, sewer system adequacy, over-development, noise and drain/flood plain concerns. Six (6) were an approval status for the reasons that it is not a large multi-family unit and the fact that there are condominiums existing in the area.

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

John Day 41366 Llewelyn stated, "We have lived there for seven (7) years. In that time period, we have had our backyard flood at least three occasions. The little stream that they are referring to is the recipient of the water from that flow as near as I can determine. When we have heavy rains, it is not uncommon for the detention pond to overflow in my backyard. I have already had to raise the dyke to keep my yard and landscaping safe from that. The concern of whether or not engineering has taken a look at this to make sure that that property is designed to accept the flow of the heavy rains. All I have heard tonight is that there is a minor stream and no one seems to be concerned about it. However, it is a major concern to the residents in Carriage Hill and those that back up to that detention pond. Thank you."

Ruth Mejia, 41720 Eight Mile stated, "I am in favor of this going in the direction that it is and I want to leave it up to John Young to tell you why."

John Young 41750 W. Eight Mile stated, "I am pretty much in favor of the project as proposed. However, I do have some concerns. I think the stub road is one of my major concerns because it is anticipated that the property owners Ms. Mejia and myself in the near future would be up for consideration for development for our properties as well. Our properties are each 200-feet by 1115-feet deep. Your requirement for an 800-foot long cul-de-sac road would eliminate a majority of our property from valuable development and would also limit the fire access. Presently there is fire access to Country Place Condominiums from two (2) stub roads. One serves the sewer and I believe the other serves Court B and Court C. We are in favor of the stub road that would join the easterly boundary. We think that would be of a benefit for future consideration for future developments. The second thing is that it is important to us is that sometime ago, the City with our permission chose to place a sanitary sewer across the back of our properties for the whole length of the 400-feet. That sewer should serve our properties and should be taken into consideration for that. My concern is that the addition of these 8 homes utilizing that sewer, with it’s present size and condition, would either capacitate that sewer such that we would not be able to use it or would preclude us from using it in the future. I do not want that to happen. We have had to put up with the construction from the City and the invasion of our property to create the sewer. The City cut down 50-feet by 400-feet of the woodlands. When we deal with developers, one of their concern is the ability of the woodlands, which were a pasture about 25-years ago. There are barbed wires growing right through the tree trunks. It just grew up from scrub. The only difference between the Trap property and the property that Mejia’s and I own is that we let it grow up a little bit back there so that it could be used for our children to play with. Other than that, it is not really woodlands; it is shrub trees that have grown up. My two concerns are that we would like to see the stub road at a usable width for fire safety and that we are not penalized in our access to the sewer for future use."

Andrea Worrell, 21128 E. Glen Haven Circle was not present to speak. However, in her comments on the Audience Participation she wrote, "My condo faces the land of this new proposed project. This land maintains a beautiful meadow and lush forest. One of the main reasons I bought by condo at Country Place was because of the privacy and scenic view this acreage of land provides for my and my neighbors. I would hate to see it disturbed. I would also object to the dust and dirt put in the air as a result of the proposed construction."

Marino Toccaccli, 37156 Turnberry was not present to speak. However, in his comments on the Audience Participation he wrote, "For Meadowbrook Condominiums."

Jim Roedersheimer 41721 Onaway Drive stated, "I am the President of the County Place Condominium Association. This is my first opportunity to come and address you. I appreciate the opportunity. We are a condo complex of 500 units. With a 500-foot limit could have limited the number of notices that you sent out. I think our residents on the other side of the 98-acres were confused with the notice. None the less, I have only a couple of comments. Basically, in favor of the proposed development. I didn’t catch the address of the comment from Country Place, but the probably reside in the A, B or C courts, which face the woods. I am not sure about the view of this open lot. But, I walked the property today and the concern I had before arriving this evening was the survey marks about 50-feet or so into the wooded lot. The plot plan, if accurate, clearly indicates that that is not part of this development. There is a fence line at the back of the open lot, if that is where the edge of the property is, then it is no longer a concern of mine. I asked during your recess if there was any consideration for the Wildlife Habitat Reviews. This afternoon there were seven (7) deer feeding in the field. It was a concern of mine that this might disturb them and I guess there is no specific requirement for Wildlife Habitat Reviews. However, I think that the consideration of these two wooded lots that are adjacent to this development should be considered in the future. Thank you very much for your time."

Karen Fox-Gibbs 41520 Eight Mile stated, "The small stream they talked about, I think they kind of "poo-poo" it as nothing, but it feeds my 100-acre pond, that also has duck, blue heron, muskrats, geese etc… This also feeds into another stream that goes into the rest of our property. This adds a lot of value to our property. I now hear that they want to put a small retention pond at the front corner, where Mr. Traps property is located. That would drain our pond. The retention that is needed is at the very southwest corner of the property. We border the property to the direct south. The pictures that you showed did not show our property at all. (She submitted a picture of her property to the Commission.) There was a time when they wanted to develop all of the property. We were told that our property was the only place that they could put the retention pond, which is the southwest corner. Suddenly, they do not need a retention pond, or if they do I would be off of Meadowbrook Road. I do not understand why the change occurred all of a sudden. I would like to know what they will be doing for drainage for the entire property and what it will do to our pond."

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

Member Nagy stated her biggest concern was the drainage. Ultimately it would drain into Quail Ridge, which is a concern. She asked Ms. McClain to address Ms. Gibbs’ comments regarding her pond and the retention and stream effecting her property and the other residents who spoke to the matter.

Ms. McClain clarified if her concern was that the proposed project would have flooding and impacts downstream at Quail Ridge.

Member Nagy answered, yes.

Ms. McClain indicated that the City apparently has a joint grant program with the City of Northville and Northville Township for improvements downstream to eliminate impacts upstream in Novi. The improvements are not in Novi, however Novi is helping out to avoid adverse impacts in Novi. This is one of the reasons the drainage was done on the two properties located on Eight Mile.

Member Nagy questioned if this was in place.

Ms. McClain indicated that it is to take place. She noted that she received today, from the City of Northville, an additional documentation regarding the improvements going forward.

Ms. McClain addressed Ms. Gibbs’ comments. She stated by City Ordinance, the developer is required to not provide additional runoff that is not coming off of the property already. The developer has a limitation on how much more he/she can provide due to the paving surfaces. She indicated that this is what the developer has detained. She stated the developer does not have to detain the water coming through from upstream, which would continue to move into the pond. The developer is restricted extra from what is already coming off of his property that can be let go to the pond to eliminate downstream flooding from upstream paving. She noted the developer is addressing this with the detention and the sedimentation pond upstream.

Member Nagy stated the Site Plan seemed to indicated that the direction of the stream as changing.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Nagy asked if the change in direction of the stream would effect the pond on Ms. Gibbs’ property.

Ms. McClain stated the developer is required to provide the appropriate calculations that show where the water is going and what the flow is doing. She stated these would be reviewed carefully. She indicated the wetland is important and caution is being taken to not cut off the water supplies to it or flood it.

Member Nagy questioned the impact on Mr. Day’s property on Llewelyn. She questioned if the same answer applies.

Ms. McClain stated the water that is coming downstream to him will still need to be accepted. She suggested the problem might be the crossing underneath the road and not the stream. If that were the case, she suggested having the Department of Public Works look into it.

Member Nagy stated that she did not like the stub road. She felt the streets were wide enough.

Ms. McClain indicated the issue was in anticipation of development on the back of Mr. Day’s property and other property owner’s property. She explained that they would have a restriction on their property use due to a cul-de-sac situation. However, the stub street would provide emergency access, which would eliminate a problem on the their properties with the length of access.

Member Nagy noted the placement of a stub road would remove vegetation, which would help protect the Wetlands and absorb the water. She did not agree the placement of a stub road in anticipation of future events. She agreed with the Developer with regard to the stub road.

Member Nagy stated that there did not seem to be a problem with the reverse frontage relationship with the driveway spacing.

Mr. Arroyo did not oppose the waiver due to the low volume of traffic and the fact that the offset is in the better direction. However, if it were in the other direction, he noted there would be more of a concern with left-turn issues on Meadowbrook Road.

Member Nagy noted the several subdivisions with existing stub roads. She did not find the advantage of stub road. Therefore, she questioned if he felt it was necessary.

Mr. Arroyo reminded her that the stub street would be for emergency access only. It would not be for passenger cars to travel. He noted the subject property on the graphic and the two long narrow parcels beside it. The stub street requirement has been in the City of Novi Ordinance for several years. It runs somewhat independent of the secondary access requirement. The proposed project does not require a secondary access due to the cul-de-sac. The stub street requirement is in the Ordinance to provide for potential impact on other properties as well as the property alone. The stub street will serve a benefit to the proposed project because there will potentially be a second way in for emergency vehicles. More importantly, it will potentially serve a possible problem with the parcel located directly to the west, which is long and narrow. If there was a desire to apply the Ordinance as strict as it reads, it could be required to be a full access connection to the west, which would be open to passenger vehicles and include 60-feet of right-of-way. The development would probably lose one or two lots. However, having the emergency access on an easement does not effect the lots and there is not a negative impact from the perspective of the developer losing lots. It will provide for the potential for additional emergency connections to the narrow parcel in the future and it could potentially lead away from future problems with the parcels to the west. He stated that his recommendations were based on the Ordinance.

Member Nagy agreed with his comments.

Chairperson Churella indicated that in his experience of serving on the Planning Commission, he has seen the problems created when the stub street is not put in place. He felt the stub road may not look "good" but it is required by Ordinance. He suggested that the Commission move on with the matter.

Member Markham recalled two developments located on the west side of Beck Road and north of Nine Mile where the first development was not required to put in the stub street. The second development came in with a 1300-foot cul-de-sac, which was an issue for many months. She did not feel the result was as safe from a fire standpoint as it should have been when both development went in. Therefore, although it might not appear "pretty" she felt it should be put in place. She recalled a comment regarding the use of the stub street as driveway access for units 6 and 5. She suggested considering the stub street as side entrance driveways to units 6 and 5. She questioned if the stub street will be plowed in the winter months.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it is not a public road and would have an easement. It would be the responsibility of the Condominium Association to plow.

Member Markham questioned the size of the homes and the price range.

Tony Guerro stated the homes would be 4000-square feet and larger.

Member Markham noted the front entry driveways to the homes with the driveways facing the street. She questioned the possibility of side-entry driveways.

Mr. Guerro stated he would consider this option in terms of the Final Site Plan. However, his primary concern was to come before the Commission and deal with the issues at hand.

Member Markham felt side entry driveways would be appropriate for the 4000-square feet homes and a development this size.

Mr. Guerro indicated with 120-foot wide fronts he felt that side entry garages were possible in virtually every case. He indicated that he would like to speak in regard to the stub street issue whenever the Commission would give him permission.

Member Canup felt that the issues were discussed thoroughly.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Meadowbrook Condominiums-8 SP01-72 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as submitted, Non-Minor Use Permit, Planning Commission Waiver for opposite-side Driveway Spacing Waiver, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff recommendations.

Ms. McGuire suggested incorporating Mr. Mifsud’s comments into the motion. Those comments included making the stream more natural in appearance and the detention pond.

Mr. Mifsud indicated the comments in his review letter were general enough to provide the additional plantings. He noted that he spoke with the applicant prior to the meeting, and the applicant indicated that they were willing to provide additional planting to best meet the intent of maintaining the natural area.

Member Canup suggested having the site plan return for Final approval. He indicated to the applicant that they would need to address the comments.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Meadowbrook Condominiums-8 SP01-72 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as submitted, Non-Minor Use Permit, Planning Commission Waiver for opposite-side Driveway Spacing Waiver, subject to returning the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff conditions and recommendations.

Member Kocan pointed out that the lot sizes were significantly different. For example, some lots had an excessive amount of property and lot 6 and lot 7 were "squished" against the property line. She stated the cul-de-sac was too large and used too much green space. She required a stub street and required it to be a road and the possibility of having it off of Meadowbrook Road. She questioned if it connected off of Meadowbrook Road and Lot 4 was north and south, would there then be less of an impact on the wooded area to the west of the property. She added to the motion the approval of the masonry wall in the southern portion of the property to protect the stream on the property.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Meadowbrook-8 Condominiums SP01-72 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as submitted, approval of Non-minor Use Wetland Permit, opposite-side driveway spacing waiver, approval of the masonry wall in lieu of the berm at the southern portion of the property in order to protect the stream on the property, subject to returning the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff conditions and recommendations.

Mr. Evancoe reminded the Commission the Developer would need to go to the City Council if the Commission chose to not require the 18-feet.

Member Canup reminded the commissioners that the Site Plan would return to the Commission for Final Approval. He clarified that the Developer would not have to go to the City Council if chose to make the stub street 18-feet. However, if the Developer chose to keep the 12-foot stub street, then they would need to go before the City Council for a Waiver.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct. He clarified that the Commission desired to approve the Site Plan subject to the City Council Waiver if the Developer chose to remain at 12-foot.

Member Canup stated it would be up to the Developer. He indicated that the matter would need to be resolved prior to returning to the Commission for Final Approval.

Ms. Golke clarified that the motion should stated approval of the 12-foot subject to the City Council Waiver.

Member Markham asked if the Commission wanted to consider Member Kocan’s suggestion to have the stub street connect by Lot 4 instead of Lot 6, with the road going through from Meadowbrook Road.

Chairperson Churella answered, no.

Member Markham felt it was a good idea.

Member Canup stated it was not a bad idea. However, he did not see the purpose.

Chairperson Churella stated he stub street is needed for the future developers.

Member Markham indicated that it would serve the same purpose at the Lot 4 location.

Chairperson Churella clarified how it would go down to Meadowbrook Road.

Member Markham stated it would extend across.

Member Canup asked what difference it would make.

Member Markham felt it would make more sense.

Chairperson Churella reminded her that it would be returning for Final.

Mr. Young pointed out the woodland extends along the site’s entire western boundary and beyond, which is 575-feet and another 600-feet to Eight Mile. He stated stub or access road would pier directly into the woodland.

Member Paul asked the Developer to bring façade material, Lighting Plan, Landscaping Plan and Sign Plan when they return to the Planning Commission Final.

Mr. Schultz indicated that several of the items she requested were not typically provided to the Commission in connection with this type of approval.

Member Paul questioned why not.

Mr. Evancoe stated the approval is similar to subdivisions and the buildings are not being approved.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the approval is for the lot layout and the road layout.

Member Paul clarified if she could request an actual drawing.

Mr. Schultz restated that the building/residence that would be constructed are not items that the Commission would be approving. The Commission’s approval would include lot layout and lot configuration and streets.

Member Paul clarified that it would not include lighting in the front of the entryway.

Mr. Schultz indicated that those items would be handled administratively.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, FAILS (4-4): In the matter of Meadowbrook-8 Condominiums SP01-72 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as submitted, approval of Non-minor Use Wetland Permit, opposite-side driveway spacing waiver, approval of the masonry wall in lieu of the berm at the southern portion of the property in order to protect the stream on the property, subject to returning the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff conditions and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Richards, Ruyle

No: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul

Chairperson Churella asked Mr. Schultz to advise the Commission.

Mr. Schultz indicated that another motion should be attempted.

Member Paul asked Member Kocan is she would add the one parcel and the stub street off of the rear lot of 4. She felt this might settle her comments, Member Markham’s and herself.

Member Kocan requested to hear the Staff input regarding the location.

Mr. Evancoe stated it appeared there would be more of an impact on the woodlands in the northerly location than on there would be on the southerly.

Ms. McGuire noted the located trees along the property line. However, there are not many at the current proposed location. She stated no trees would be effected where the stub street is proposed. According to Linda Lemke’s original review, the woodlands are minimal at that point and the nicer quality woodlands are located to the west.

Member Kocan asked if there was a need for a 16-foot easement or an actual road in the subdivisions that Member Markham and Chairperson Churella were speaking of earlier in the meeting. Her concern was that it should be a natural road.

Chairperson Churella recalled the Developer of a subdivision located on Beck Road having to go back and negotiate with the neighboring Developer. He stated it was difficult because of the fact that there was not an access road. He noted the Ordinances should dictate the design and not the commissioners. He felt the Commission should further their discussion at the next meeting.

Mr. Schultz stated if the proposed is denied then it would go before the Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether the Planning Commission correctly applied the Ordinances. He believed the Commission should focus on the question, "Does what is in front of you meet the Ordinance Requirements?" He stated whether or not the Commission likes the configuration of the lots is not an issue that the Planning Commission is to involve themselves in. The stub street is the only issue that the Consultants identified that has potential that merits the Commission to address. He believed Mr. Arroyo was indicating that at a minimum all that is required for the proposed to come into conformance is the question of, "Is this easement stub street at 18-feet?" If the Commission would like to determine that there are other issues, it needs to make a finding under the Ordinance. However, if the Commission were not able to make a finding, then the Commission would then need to approve the plan subject to coming into conformance with that one requirement. He restated that the only issue before the Commission is the stub street. The other areas meet Ordinance requirements.

Member Markham stated if the motion stated that the stub street needs to be 18-feet wide then she would support the motion.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Meadowbrook-8 Condominiums SP01-72 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval as submitted, approval of Non-minor Use Wetland Permit, opposite-side driveway spacing waiver, approval of the masonry wall in lieu of the berm at the southern portion of the property in order to protect the stream on the property, subject to the stub street being 18-feet wide, subject to returning the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, subject to the Consultant’s and Staff conditions and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

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

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

Moved by Richards, seconded by Ruyle, FAILS (4-4): To adopt the 2002-2008 Capital Improvements Program.

Member Kocan noted the Committee meeting minutes and clarified if the Committee truly prioritized the projects.

Member Richards and Chairperson Churella indicated the Committee prioritized the projects. They indicated that the Committee worked on the matter for two and half or three hours.

Member Kocan stated that she did not object to the 2002-2003 planned projects. However, she commented on the future projects. Item #12 Eleven Mile Road Town Center Repair – She stated the road is in considerably good condition compared to the other roads in the City. She suggested the consideration of Nine Mile for next year instead of 2006. Item #14 Crescent Boulevard Extension 3.5 million dollars for the year 2004-2005 – She questioned why the monies would be spent to move the driveway if the Expo Center is relocating. Item #17 Nine Mile Road – She did not feel the road between the railroad and Venture Drive with the truck traffic could wait four years. She commented that the traffic problems in Novi were more of a timing issue and did not feel the scat lights system was working. She note the considerable discussion about the 1.5 million gallon elevated water storage tanks. She asked if these were visible.

Chairperson Churella stated it is a water tower.

Member Kocan questioned if seven (7) were proposed.

Member Richards answered, yes. He noted that problems with lack of water with the main break on Fourteen Mile. He stated if there was adequate storage then the City could have maintained the pressure until the system was fixed.

Member Kocan questioned if there would be seven (7) water towers 150-feet up in the air. She stated seven would make Novi appear like a "mushroom city". Item #52 Meadowbrook Lake & Village Oaks Dredging Reserves scheduled for 2007 – She thought there was to be funding in two to three years.

Ms. McClain indicated that there were still budget dollars in this year’s budget for Meadowbrook Lake that were being set aside.

Member Nagy agreed with Member Kocan. She noted 2002-2003 Storm Water Master Plan Update with a budget of $40,000. She believed that there was a Storm Water Committee that was doing a great job. She also found it ludicrous to spend the money on Crescent Boulevard. Item #62 Lakeshore Park Parking Road Improvement and Item #73 Lakeshore Park Road/Parking Asphalt - She suggested asphalting the road the first time. Item #59 Adjustable basketball goals in school gym – She clarified if the school system covers their own equipment.

Member Richards indicated it is covered by the Parks and Recreation.

Member Nagy for someone to explain Item #83 Integrated Management Information Systems.

Member Richards stated it is to link the computers on a common server. Currently everyone has a separate program. He explained the monies for Item #52 are budgeted in the year 2008 because of the monies that will be spent this year. He noted the $150,000 that is reserved from 2001-2002 budget that will be use. He indicated that it was a priority item.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Richards, Ruyle

No: Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul

Moved by Kocan, MOTION RESCINDED: To approve the proposed 2002/2003Capital Improvement Program Rankings and in the future pay special attention to those projects that were raised in discussion this evening.

Member Nagy informed Member Kocan that her motion did not make sense because it is a six-year program.

Mr. Schultz indicated that under the Municipal Planning Act, the Capital Improvement Plan is a six-year plan and does not permit the approval of a one-year at a time.

Chairperson Churella indicated that the matter could be sent to Council without an approval.

Mr. Schultz stated it is the Planning Commission’s plan and not the Council’s. Therefore, the Commission has to approve a plan.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To approve the proposed Capital Improvements Program Ranking 2002/2008 with the removal of Item 14 – Crescent Boulevard Extension as a priority, moving Item #51, Item #12, Item #17, Item #62 and Item #73.

Member Kocan clarified if she was reprioritizing these items.

Member Nagy stated that items should be taken out and reprioritized.

Mr. Schultz asked her to clarify in the motion where she would like the items to be reprioritized.

Member Nagy amended her motion to remove Item 14 – Crescent Boulevard Extension as a priority, move Item 12 to the year 2007, Move Item 17 to the year 2003/2004. She believed Item 62 and Item 73 were a duplication. She moved Item 73 with Item 62 and proposed it for the year 2003/2004.

Ms. Golke clarified if Item 62 would then be removed.

Member Nagy questioned why Item 51 needed $40,000 if there is already a Committee that is doing a great job.

Ms. McClain stated there is a policy in the Storm Water Master Plan that requires on site detention for 100-year. She noted that to move away from that policy the Master Plan needs to be amended to follow the way the Storm Water Committee and the City Council are moving away from that detention.

Member Nagy indicated that she would leave in Item #51.

Ms. Golke questioned if she was striking Item 62.

Member Nagy answered, yes.

Member Kocan added that Item 73 would be moved to 2003/2004.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, MOTION AMENDED: To approve the proposed Capital Improvements Program Ranking 2002/2008 with the removal of Item 14 – Crescent Boulevard Extension as a priority, moving Item 12 to the year 2007, moving Item 17 to the year 2003/2004, removing Item 62, replacing Item 62 with Item 73 and moved to the year 2003/2004.

Member Nagy stated if the $25,000 is going to be spent then it should be done this year. She questioned if Ms. McClain agreed.

Ms. McClain believed the idea was to temporarily fix parking lot for now and pave in the future. She stated the base needs to be fixed. She suggested that Item 62 be left as it is and Item 73 be moved up.

Member Markham stated Item 34 indicates a budget as TBD and the totals do not reflect this. It lists the total for the year 2002 as $850,000. She questioned how large the TBD is. She read the comment, "Constructed by private development City to reimburse for non-developers share-Service Area Connection Charge to cover costs."

Chairperson Churella stated this might not be able to be determined until the developer attempts to develop it.

Member Markham felt the totals should reflect whether or not it would be a "soft" number.

Mr. Evancoe suggested the Commission having the Finance Director speak to the matter.

Kathy Smith-Roy, Finance Director stated the amount is "To be determined" because it is likely a payback agreement would be set up. Therefore, it would depend upon if the City will pay the funds or if the funds would be reimbursed to the Developer. She did not feel there would be a funding issue. She stated the Water/Sewer Funds were sufficient regardless of the dollar amount for that project.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan CARRIED (6-2): To approve the proposed Capital Improvements Program Ranking 2002/2008 with the removal of Item 14 – Crescent Boulevard Extension as a priority, moving Item 12 to the year 2007, moving Item 17 to the year 2003/2004, moving Item 73 to the year 2003/2004.

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

No: Canup, Churella

Chairperson Churella announced the minutes would be postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Moved by Nagy, seconded Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to continue the Planning Commission Meeting no later than 12:15 am.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

Member Paul reminded the Commission of the discussion regarding having the meeting at the Civic Center due to those that have children and time conflicts.

Chairperson Churella suggested having the meeting at his office, which is close and easy to find.

Mr. Schultz stated that he was not 100% comfortable with having it at Mr. Churella’s office yet. However, a location in close proximity to City Hall would be determined and the commissioner’s would be informed.

Chairperson Churella announced the Joint Meeting with the City Council would be postponed until after the appointment of the new commission.

Chairperson Churella stated City Council will be using the Council Chambers on April 17, 2002. Therefore, he suggested moving the meeting to another date.

Member Ruyle suggested holding the meeting in another room.

Member Nagy agreed.

Member Kocan suggested the Parks and Recreation activity room.

Chairperson Churella noted his preference to change the date.

Member Nagy indicated Member Canup would not be able to attend the Master Plan Committee Meeting on March 21, 2002. The Committee feels that he should be present for the meeting and also feel the workshop should take place prior to the Master Plan update.

Chairperson Churella clarified if the meeting would be left on the 17^th.

Member Richards indicated the workshop is on the 17^th and the Master Plan Meeting would need to be rescheduled to a date after April 17^th.

Chairperson Churella stated the Master Planning and Zoning Committee could determine this date amongst themselves.

Member Kocan requested that the items to be discussed, ordinance amendments etc… should be submitted to the Planning Department with the reasons why it should be discussed or amended. She indicated that Member Nagy, Mr. Evancoe and herself would create an agreeable agenda.

Chairperson Churella asked if she would be distributing the information to the other commissioners.

Member Kocan stated the agenda would be complied and made part of the agenda packet to be distributed to the commissioners.

None

None

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:15 a.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Paul, Richards, Ruyle

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

April 23, 2002

Date Approved: May 1, 2002