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

PRESENT: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague.

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

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

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

Member Kocan removed Scenic Pines Estates due to their request to be tabled because of easement issues, which they recently became aware of.

Member Paul added Matters for Discussion Item No. 1 – Site Plans Changes (both in-house and at the Table).

Member Kocan added Matters for Discussion Item No. 2 – Member Kocan’s letter regarding Roof Height.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Avdoulos, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as Amended.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy announced the Scenic Pines Estates Public Hearing has been tabled at the request of the Applicant. Those interested in speaking in regard to this matter could either do so at this time or wait until the next Public Hearing.

Gerald Cooper 155 Buffington stated, "I live across the street from this project. I have a couple of concerns with the project. The first concern that I have is that they are proposing a detention basin there. The detention basin is across the street from a pond that is in my backyard. There are three houses there and our sub-pumps work according to the height of that pond. The elevation of Buffington is 938. If you read through the documentation, you will note on Page 2, it says the property is 934 to 947, which means they will put a detention pond on top of a hill and try to convince us that the water is not going to run downhill and flood out my pond. I would like everyone to understand that the detention pond that they are proposing will be a major problem in

the future. It will flood me out. It will run the sump pumps to the point that there will be damage. The second items is that I would like to make sure the road is sloped, which is according to the lay of the land as it is. It is currently sloped south heading back to where they have a general wetland. If they do like they tired to do like with Lilley Pond Subdivision, where they basically have it coming onto Buffington, then once again I will have water in my basement on a major rainy day. I am bringing it forward so that everybody understands that if you go ahead…I read through all the documentation here and they say that everything is good on that site. I did not read one thing on the documentation that said, "What about the surrounding area?" I was wondering when we look at a proposal, do we look at the proposal just for the developer or you looking for what is actually happening around the developer’s project. I did not read anything in there that says they are putting a pond on top of a hill that will flood me out."

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Commission takes the site and its surrounding area(s) into consideration when reviewing a proposed project.

Mr. Cooper responded stating, "I have the complete package that you are going to review. Unless you guys have documentation that you have not given me, I do not know what you would be reviewing that would give you that information."

Chairperson Nagy indicated the commissioners walk the site.

Mr. Cooper continued, "If you look in the report on page 8, it talks that they would have 158 vehicles per day. I heard that they might lower it down to 24-units. So, let’s say 130-units per day. If you read your documentation here it says that you can not really pave Buffington and you can not really pave Henning because there are older houses there that are too close to the road. It makes you wonder if you can handle 100 plus vehicles down there. I did some cost analysis. Currently everybody that lives on Pembine and around the corner on Henning basically comes around that corner and travel down Lilley Pond. There is a given amount of dust that comes off the road, but, if you are going to tell me that there are going to be 130 more cars coming down there…I did a little analysis. It is about $300 a power wash and I will have to do it for seven months. I figured it out and I am wondering how I am going to recover the $63,000 because that is going to be a "dust-fest". If someone is to park their car in the street, two people, then that road is shut down. I am wondering how they are going to handle it now. If someone is going to tell me that people are going to go down Henning, I will tell you right now that the people that live at the end of Henning do not go down Henning. They come around the corner and come down Pembine and then go down Lilley Pond Sub. There is a gentleman here tonight that is going to speak on that because it is a daily thing. There is another item that was there within the package that talked about keeping an existing garage."

Chairperson Nagy interjected and indicated that it is a request.

Mr. Copper continued, "He is using the land that the garage is sitting on. Is it possible to leave a building on a piece of land? He owns the surrounding land but, yet he is leaving a building on it and counting that land, plus the wetland as a total package of property. I do not know how he does that.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that she is not able to answer for the Commission as a whole; however, she stated the commissioners share the same concern.

Mr. Cooper continued, "I am all for putting the houses in as long as they do it right. The Lilley Pond Subdivision ended up being outstanding. The people are great. I am all for it. It is how it is handled. I read in the documentation that you are planning on using Buffington as your means to get your trucks back there. I just went through three years with Lilley Pond putting Lilley Pond in. Working with JCK & Associates and the rest of the people, if you are going to put something on the road to keep the dust down…I went through it and the facts are the facts. They are going to wreck basically another three years of us potentially selling our houses. If they are going to go down Buffington and they are going to do something on it, then someone needs to come up with the means to make it so that it is friendly to people that live there. They could end up with a couple of cars parked in the road and then they would not use the road at all. I think that people need to take a look at the surrounding areas because we live there. We are all for the project, but if it is done in a way that basically destroys our houses for a couple of years, then that is not good for the community. I have a picture to show the Commission that shows my pond, the grade of the pond. There is a car at the back of the shed that shows the property level that they are proposing the basin. If a pond is placed here, then it is pretty much a pond on top of a hill."

Maggie Laurie 1127 South Lake Drive stated, "The reason I passed those pictures around is because we have two condominium buildings extending back off of South Lake Drive. The asphalt parking lot, because of high water table factors and the snow etc., we have pictures showing that there is so much water it is creating an actual swamp area. As you look at the pictures, I hope that you will see the "swamp monster" coming to attack. It exists in cold weather and in warm weather. We have had people out to check on it to see what we should do with the situation. We are at 930 and they area at 935 or 943 depending on the property. If it moves in, their drains and our drains are going to handle things, but if any problem occurs, it will be a huge problem. There are people on the first floor and the condos with their porches will be completely flooded. That is not right. I just wanted you to be aware of that. Thank you."

Michel Duchesneau 1191 South Lake Drive stated, "Good evening Planning Commissioners, I am here to discuss Scenic Pines even though the petitioner has requested to not present tonight. The proposal as submitted today is substantial incomplete. I will not go into a lot of details, but here are some of my findings. Soil borings are needed at the southern home clusters and the road prior to Preliminary Site Plan Approval. The western boundary of this site should provide adequate access for a drilling rig with a minimal intrusion into the wetlands. We need an engineering recommendation as to whether the houses in the southern clusters would need to be put on pylons instead of spread-footers. I have looked at other properties in the City very similar to this and the engineer’s recommendations were pylons. So you do not know what you are going to get. They have gone back and forth. The applicant said that they would like to not disturb the wetlands. So, rather than come up with an agreement with the City to go out there and do their borings, they have said that they would wait until after Site Plan Approval. The petitioner needs to submit an application to the MDEQ to develop on this site. The property is surrounded on three sides by storm water basins and portions of the property are in the storm water basin. The Site Plan proposal includes bridge over the wetlands; City water sewer crossing the wetlands and the Site Plan only acknowledges the bridge as requiring MDEQ involvement. The City requires either an MDEQ application or a letter from the MDEQ that they have no jurisdiction. Neither of these items has been provided. The easements are not shown on the Site Plans. The gentleman that spoke earlier has a recorded easement that exits along Buffington and the western boundary of his property. The proposal is to build in his front yard and for him to use what is currently his grass as his access. Easements probably exist for the power lines and run all the way to the back along the western property to supply water to the storm water treatment plant that we have. There is probably an easement there, if there is not, I would have thought that by now the engineers would have discussed with the applicant what he/she can and can not do along the western boundaries. I have spent many hours researching the plans with the City and what has been out there and what you are looking at tonight. I have not seen the latest and greatest that was submitted in the last couple of days, but I have a pretty good feel for where we were a week ago. They also plan on replacing trees and most of the trees that will be planted are near the power lines or under the power lines. This should be a concern to the utility company and to The City of Novi. Some of the notes on the site plan are disturbing to me. I apologize for being emotional, but I guess it has been a long day. The surveyor does not certify the elevation for the site. He only certifies his survey as to the property lines. Multiply adjustments have been made to the elevations as a result of the engineers questioning of specific areas. For example, the comparing of the 82101 on topographical survey page C-2 to the page 41802 page C-2, it appears that the entire site elevation was changed by one-tenth of a foot. If you compare the elevations near the rear of the site in the area next Tree No. 579 you will see that it started with an elevation of 944 and on 41802, revised elevation became 941. The survey elevations were changed by three feet. There are notes in the correspondence between engineers, the City and the Developer explaining the reasons. The bottom line is that the package you have today, does not include a certification that the elevations are correct and yet this is the largest wetland/woodland floor area in the City of Novi, even though it is only 9-acres.

Chairperson Nagy interjected to indicate to the resident that he reached the three-minute time limit. She asked him to conclude his comments.

Mr. Duchesneay continued, "The drawing states that wetlands flagged and surveyed by others, however, there is not a certified map by the group doing the wetlands map. I only saw JCK’s memo stated that they agreed with the statement. The Site Plan includes a note that a small berm is to be constructed around the wetlands area located to the west of the proposed road crossing for the purpose of limiting wetland expansion. We have an interest limiting the wetland expansion to the rear yards along Henning. We need an environmental impact study to ensure us that our backyards will not flood more than they do now. Thank you."

Dorothy Duchesneau 125 Henning stated, "I also live at 1191 South Lake Drive, but we also own 125 Henning. My comments have to do with some other information on the site. According to the records, when the Developer purchased this parcel from Mr. Singer back in 1998, it included what is known as "Lot 64". That is a 50-foot lake access lot that abuts Walled Lake. This lot was considered under the heading the Pembine street property. Even though Pembine is all the way at the other end of the subdivision. Pembine property as it pertains to the 8-acres is not part of the original Lakewood Subdivision was. So, Lot 64 is actually a different subdivision from the acreage lot. When Mr. Singer bought the property, he bought the property from KNS Enterprises. That was Koffman and Singer enterprises who were the developers of South Point Condos, which was done in the late 80’s or early 90’s. Prior to that the property was brought from the Shyloff estate. My husband and I looked at this 8-acres when Mr. Singer first put it up for sale back in 1996, thinking it would be nice to have the 50-foot lot outside our front window. In my conversations with Mr. Singer back in 1996, he had proposed to the City of Novi a 14-unit detached condo with boat access for 14 boats. Thanks to some ordinances that were passed about that time period, his 14 boats did not fly and neither did his condo complex. This developer does seem to have bought off the houses left and right to make the 8-acres more viable. He still owns the 50-foot lake access lot and is still considered under the heading Pembine street property. Nowhere in all of the papers that I have been able to discover at the city has that lot ever been mentioned. To me, that is not considered full disclosure if you consider it part of that property. I would like to know exactly what his intentions are to this little sliver of property out there. What he intends to do with it and what the City could hold him to? I believed that we have a keyhole ordinance now in effect that limits what you can do with that. That particular little gully happens to be the home of herrings, snapping turtles, muskrats and is a pretty important 50-feet. At this point in time he owns it and that needs to be disclosed as part of this subdivision and that property ends up part of this community of those 27 or 24 homes. I want this brought up front and now and do not want a surprise later. Thank you."

Charles Azzouz 29805 Lilley Trail stated, "I represent the Lilley Pond Subdivision and wanted to voice the some of the concerns that our subdivision has along some of the same one that Mr. Cooper touched on, which is the traffic would more than double with the amount of residents. Lilley Trail is the only ingress/egress road to this new development and to the residents there as well. Lilley Trail is currently used as a cut through. With the doubling of residents, we are going to have twice as many cars coming through. It is very difficult with the amount of cut through traffic and the children playing in the street. The residents are very concerned. We like the fact that the development is going in. We like the development provided that it is done right. It just seems like there are a lot of concerns here. I would like to state these concerns for the record. I do not want to get into proposed solutions such as paving or cul-de-sac, however it should be considered. Thank you."

Barbe Bair 207 Henning stated, "I am very concerned about the water drainage that he has proposed. We are flooded now. We have a shed in our back yard and we are on our fourth cinder block up. We will probably have to put a fifth by fall because we do not have anywhere else to put our shed. Secondly, when I bought my house in 1979, my papers indicate that I have legal rights to the southerly shore of Walled Lake. I do not see anyone addressing the fact that we do have this. There is another person present that also has that paper. We have never had the use of that little cut out. We have tried to get it many years ago and got no where. No one could find out who was the owner. Thirdly, I am concerned with the usage of our road. If you ever had a 20-foot frontage and a dirt road with cars zipping by, you would understand that it was absolutely horrible when they constructed Lilley Pond. The neighbors were calling the police nearly every day to keep the trucks off of our road. Our houses, you could pick the dust up from the sand. There are a lot of issues that have to be addressed before any of us will say this project is a good idea. Thank you."

Margo Bosca 203 Henning stated, "I have the same concerns as many people with the displacement of water. I lived there for 9-years. In that time they have added onto South Point Condominiums and the water in my backyard increases when it rains. If I have much more water, it will be coming up to the back of my garage and then to my house. I cannot afford that to happen. Thank you."

Lois Neff 217 Henning stated, "My husband and I live next door to the proposed development. I have concerns with the wetlands issue. I have concerns with the road and the fact that a hard rain creates serious potholes. I also have issues with the Wildlife in the area. There are constantly deer and one has to be careful or you will hit a deer. I would ask that the Commission consider my comments. Thank you."

Anna Kruvallas, resides at the corner of South Lake Drive and Henning stated, "I have lived here since 1969. When I moved out there the easement was for the people of Henning. My husband was alive then and he went down and tried to buy the easement because we have the property right next door to it. They told him that the property could never be sold because it belonged to that block period and there was no way that we could buy it. Now, this man or contractor bought it. How did he do this?

Chairperson Nagy stated the property was purchased and the deed was transferred.

Ms. Kruvallas continued, "Well, we could not buy it at that time. I understand that they propose a road and sidewalks. I will not be able to get out my side door. All of us feel the same way because we have been living out there for years. My daughter lives on Buffington and they took that easement away from her. They had to hire lawyers to fight it. I do not know what to think, but, I have lived out here a long time and I do not like what I see."

Reuben Levy 208 Henning stated, "A lot of the concerns the fellow neighbors have around there, such as water is a huge issue. I bought my house in 1997. Across the street on Henning, those back houses might as well have swimming pools. They all need to pull permits from the City to have swimming pools back there because the water that comes there is outrageous. Mr. Cooper resides right behind me. The pond in which he referred to, there are a couple of houses that are part of that. I am on part of that too. The water level is up and down throughout the year. In the spring, it comes to Mr. Cooper’s house as times. The condos behind Henning were built up and where did that water go? They have water issues too. All of that water is built up, probably about three to four feet above the houses that are right there. An immense amount of water comes down there. That is a big concern with everybody that is here. I do not think that anybody is saying to stop anyone from a way of making a way of living. This gentleman worked, purchased and had some ideas. I do not find anything wrong with this, but there is a quality of life to that people that live there already need to have. Twenty-eight additional houses? I looked at this piece of property in 1996 and considered 9-condos for the property. Coming into the City, all the talk was about the wetlands. How many protected wetlands there are there and that you could not do anything. I am a little curious as to where the wetlands go. I do not know if anyone has walked back there at all, but there are a lot of wetlands. Are you going to destroy that wetlands area? This City is huge on protecting the environment. The City of Novi is very well known for protecting the environment and increasing it with the Citizens of the City. I am perplexed on how 28-units could be placed here. I have not been as involved as those people who are looking at the plans or things along those lines. It is just from living there and being in the area. Dust was another mention. My cleaning bill is out of control with the amount of dust from the road there. So, adding additionally onto that? The City water is not on Buffington. It would be nice to have these units incur the addition of City water, but what level is this necessary. I think there are a number of concerns that really need to be taken in. I do not think anyone here is saying to not build anything, but I think they are asking for you to take a look at something that would be reasonable and beneficial. Thank you."

William Baldwin 131 Buffington stated, "I live on that 1½ dirt lane road. We go out of our way to avoid parking across from each other so that people can get by. It is not real wide the way it is laid out and that is fine, we love it. In the houses three down and three up from me together we have 14 kids. If they are going to have 150 trips down the road then I would be concerned with what we would do. There are no sidewalks and there is not a lot of room to play. We are always walking down to the end of the street anyway to jump into the lake. My concern is traffic and where we would put the pedestrians under such a circumstance. Everyone has the right to have a place to live, but why do they need to be excessive about it? Twenty-seven seems to be quite a bit high for such a road. Maybe storm sewers or sidewalks and half the number of houses would be a little more reasonable. I am also very concerned about the water because I am the lowest house outside of Henning. The back of my yard is actually lower than the road. The waterfall that might come down that road concerns me greatly. Thank you."

Peggy Walk 210 Buffington stated, "My concern is the encroachment on my easement that is at the front of my house. I passed out the survey from my property showing what size my easement is supposed to be. I believe my house is the reason that he took his name off of the agenda tonight because there is a terrible encroachment. He also has that retention pond in my front yard where we park. It is right on the gravel, he shows it right in the front yard and he is cutting our easement down to eight foot so we would not be able to use our property to get in and out of our house. Thank you."

Chairperson Nagy indicated to the audience that their comments would be taken into consideration when the Commission is reviewing the new Site Plan. She stated the residents would be notified of the next Public Hearing and are welcome to return to reiterate their comments if they chose.

Resident stated that although the City’s requirement is only 500-feet from the development, she requested that all homeowners on Lilley Pond, Henning, Buffington and the corner of South Lake Drive receive notification of the Public Hearing. She asked that the mailing notification be increased to accommodate all the areas mentioned.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that 300-feet is the proper notification distance, however, the Planning Department exceeds this requirement to 500-feet as a courtesy. She stated the Planning Department would send out the proper notification, notify the Homeowners Association and publish the matter in the Novi News. In addition, the residents could contact the Planning Department for information. She asked residents who feel they were not properly notified, to leave their information with Ms. Brock to ensure proper notification of the next Public Hearing.

None

None

None

None

Public Hearing on the request of Toll Brothers for approval of a Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 19, west of Wixom Road between Eleven and Ten Mile Roads. The developer is proposing to fill a non-essential wetland, approximately 1.26 acres.

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the request of Toll Brothers for Island Lake for approval of a Wetland Permit only. The property is located in Section 19, north of Ten Mile Road, and between Wixom and Napier Roads. The developer is proposing to fill a non-essential wetland containing approximately 1.26 acres. The site is currently undeveloped land, and is part of the approved Residential Unit Development plan for Island Lake. The area proposed to be filled is in Phase 4 B of this development, just north of Ten Mile Road and located approximately ½ way between Wixom Road and Napier Road. The properties to the north, west and east are also part of Phase 4-B of the Island Lake RUD. To the south, across Ten Mile Road are a single family home and the Links of Novi Golf course (ask Nancy). The Master Plan designation for the parcel and surrounding parcels to the north, west and east is single family. To the south, the Master Plan designates this property for a golf course. The site is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as are the properties to the north, southeast and west. The request of the petitioner this evening is only for approval of a Wetlands Permit from the Planning Commission to fill the existing wetland. The Wetlands consultants have recommended approval of the Wetland Permit as the wetland has been classified as non-essential under the City of Novi Wetland and Watercourse Protection Ordinance. None of the other disciplines had issues that would require review of this plan. JCK’s Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay is present this evening to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Additionally, the applicants are present this evening to answer any questions the commission may have regarding the proposed request.

Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay designated to the Commission the area of Phase 4B proposed to be filled.

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

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Douglas M. McDowell indicated he is the environmental consultant associated with the clean up of a former orchard located in a portion of the area identified as Phase 4B. He indicated he was available to address the Commission’s questions.

Member Paul asked what level of contamination was found when the soil boring analysis was done.

Mr. McDowell stated it would be relative to what would be considered as mild or significant. He indicated the findings were typical to what is found when analyzing an orchard.

Member Paul recalled the City Council minutes of June 7, 1999, which referred to a Phase I clean up. She asked the process used for arsenic cleanup.

Mr. McDowell indicated that "Phase I cleanup" is a mix of terminology and is not correct.

Member Paul stated to her understanding, it is the removal of the soil that is contaminated.

Member Paul asked where the soil is transferred.

Mr. McDowell stated it is hauled to a Type II landfill, which is a landfill for residential waste. The remediation portion of the work was completed by the previous owner, who is owned by Levy. Companies. Levy owns trucks and landfills. Therefore, a contractor was paid to do the excavation work and the mediation was directed by the previous owner and the soil placed in their landfill located in Taylor Michigan.

Member Paul asked what type of soil remains. She stated a wetland close to her neighbor’s home was filled and now the back of her neighbor’s house is sinking. She wanted to ensure the safety of those residents who would abut this wetland area.

Ms. Kay indicated that she is not able to answer Member Paul’s question. She stated the soil boring information is likely from a previous commissioner’s packet when the RUD went forward. McDowell & Associates provided this information as part of the RUD approval process for Island Lake, which likely includes base soil foundation. In regard to the bog, she stated according to JCK’s inspections there are no "bog-like" wetland conditions. The only reason the wetland fill issue is before the Commission is because it was not back-filled after the contaminated soils were excavated. She indicated that there is not a concern with wetland conditions.

Member Paul clarified that Ms. Kay was okay with filling the area even though the water has been sitting and the area has not been filled.

Ms. Kay indicated that the area is holding water as a function of the elevation. She was not aware of the applicant’s reason for not filling the area in immediately.

Mr. McDowell indicated that another company managed the removal work. He stated McDowell & Associates is a geo-technical engineering firm as well as environmental. When there is an excavation that needs to be back-filled and could potentially have homes in it, it is back-filled in a manner known as "engineered fill". It is a process, which involves bringing in soil and placing it in lifts. The soil is then compacted usually at one-foot or eight-inch lifts and then testing the compaction to ensure that the soil is compacted enough to support building footings, roads in the future or sewers if utilities will go through the area. To his understanding, this is Toll Brothers intention because they asked for this testing to be done during the back-filling effort.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Markham, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Island Lake of Novi (Phase 4B Only) SP02-33 to approve a Wetland Permit.

Member Kocan asked if the Petitioner is requesting an extension or if the Wetland Permit expired. She noted a Wetland Permit was approved previously.

Ms. Kay indicated that it is not an extension. Generally speaking, the matter would have come before the Commission during the review of the site plan for Phase 4B, however, the applicant has chosen to come ahead of time as part of possible preparatory work. The Wetland Ordinance allows the option to request a specific Wetland Permit for non-essential wetlands.

Member Shroyer noted his understanding that one thousand two-hundred-fifty (1250) cubic yards of soil was removed. Six thousand seven-hundred-seventy-eight (6778) cubic yards of landfill would be brought in for back-fill. He stated the area is expanding substantially.

Mr. McDowell indicated eighty-five thousand (85,000) cubic yards were removed. There was so much soil that a Mining Permit was obtained from the City. He stated that he was not certain who provided the information the Commission was referring to, but it was not correct.

Member Shroyer read from the information, "the wetland had already been deemed non-essential to the RUD and Wetland verification process, however, a Wetlands Permit had to be obtained per the Ordinance therefore a Wetland Permit was issued for the removal of 1250 cubic yards of soil." He asked if a second Wetland Permit is needed to remove the additional soil.

Mr. McDowell answered, no.

Ms. Kay indicated that to her understanding a Mining Filling Permit was issued for the removal of soils itself. It was an administrative discretionary decision that was made by the City Planning Staff at the time. Currently, there is only a request for a Wetland Permit for fill. She noted the blue area on the map is the 1.26-acres of wetland fill area. There are excess soils outside that area that were excavated as part of the arsenic clean up and have nothing to do with the Wetland, which Mr. McDowell is referring to. These areas are not wetland areas.

Member Shroyer stated the soil was not cleansed and brought back and it was sent to another landfill. The proposed is a new clean fill and there was a confirmation that the wetland is non-essential. He indicated with these comments he supported the motion.

Member Papp asked if he anticipated an issue with water when digging basements after the wetland is filled. He indicated that his home is next to a wetland and the sump pump runs every 12-minutes. He asked the depth of the wetland.

Mr. McDowell stated the elevation on the site is high. The water table through the entire site varies with most of the soils being clay, sand and gravel. There are no wetland-material-types of soils left in that area. He indicated that sump pumps are provided for in the houses. Normally it is found on the site that once the sanitary and water is run through it would naturally de-water itself to a point where the water table drops.

Chairperson Nagy reiterated Mr. McDowell’s comments regarding the naturally de-watering process that would occur with the sanitary sewers. She asked if he anticipated de-watering outside of the installation of sanitary sewers. She believed de-watering in other areas of the site caused problems in the surrounding areas.

Mr. McDowell agreed with her comments. He noted de-watering is expensive and time consuming. He stated the elevation in that area is rather high. He anticipated a proposal for some de-watering down along the Wixom area where the last lift station was placed (feeding to the south and eastern sections of the City). Normally throughout the site, there is a desire to not de-water.

Chairperson Nagy asked if he could guarantee that his anticipated de-watering would not cause additional problems in the city as it did in the past.

Mr. McDowell indicated that he could not give a guarantee. Minimal issues arose with the last de-watering and it was determined that the cause was well failures. The wells had deteriorated and rusted over time. He stated there are no wells further south and west of the project.

Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Consideration of the request of Amson Dembs Development for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 9 on the west side of Magellan Drive, at the south end of the Beck West Corporate Park and is in the I-2 (General Industrial) District. The developer proposes a building for offices and research/development uses. The subject site is 3.85 acres.

Request of Amson Dembs Development for preliminary site plan approval for a speculative office building proposed to be located on lots 30-32 near the south end of the Beck West Corporate Park. The 47.2 acre corporate park is located east of Beck Road and south of West Road in Section 9 of the City. The subject parcel contains 3.85 acres. The site is currently vacant land. To the northeast, the property is currently under construction with the Magellan Commerce Center. To the east are vacant parcels within the Beck West Corporate Park. To the north is vacant land with a proposal for another preliminary site plan for Amson Dembs being considered by the Planning Commission this evening. To the south, is the Novi Crushed Concrete development, fronting on Twelve Mile Road. To the west, within the City of Wixom, are various light industrial buildings. The Master Plan designation for the parcel is heavy industrial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. The site is zoned I-2 General Industrial, as are the properties to the north, east and south. To the west, within the city of Wixom, the land is zoned Light Industry. The request of the petitioner is to a speculative office/ warehouse building consisting of either 51,203 square feet or 61,703 square feet. The smaller number represents a building with a one-story office, and an equal mixture off office and warehouse uses. The larger square footage represented (61,703 sq ft) will be constructed if the applicant finds a tenant who wishes to have a two-story office, which will result in a building being 34 percent office and 66 percent warehouse. The applicant has indicated that the plans can accommodate the second story within the footprint and building elevation as shown on the plans. If windows or other modifications are needed for the second story, revised building elevations must be submitted to the Façade consultant for review. The plans show two driveways from Magellan Drive and one secondary access connection to the proposed development to the north. The staff and consultant review revealed minor comments, which can be addressed at the time of final site plan. No major issues were found and the review letters recommend approval of the preliminary site plan. The proposed building materials consist of primarily of brick on the east façade facing Magellan Drive. On the other three sides the building consists primarily of split-faced block, with some striated scored block. Ribbed metal panels are proposed for the rooftop screening. The proposed building façades are in compliance with the Façade Ordinance and a Section 9 waiver is NOT required. The applicant and his representatives are present this evening to answer any questions the commission may have regarding the proposed development.

Discussion: Reconstructed due to audio taping difficulties.

Insert from Member Kocan:

Commissioner Kocan questioned why it looked like the site had been cleared recently when no clearing is to take place prior to plan approval.

Response: The industrial park was approved as a whole and that was when the clearing was probably done.

Commissioner Kocan stated that on some of the paperwork in the packet, there is a statement that the zoning is "I-2 with deed restrictions to develop with I-1 standards." There is no discussion/explanation about how this came about and what it means. Are they allowed to develop as I-1? If so, there would be no setback variances required, as the setback is less for I-1 than I-2.

Ms. McBeth or Attorney stated that the property is zoned I-2, General Industrial, but apparently there are deed restrictions in the Corporate Park that limit the uses to the I-1, Light Industrial uses; therefore the actual development itself must comply with I-2 standards. Also, the applicant stated to the City that he owns additional property to the north and will be able to move that buildings accordingly to allow for the proper setbacks between buildings.

Commissioner Kocan noted on the plan that there was significant elevation change at the West side where lots 30 and 31 meet. She questioned whether there was a reason for this drop, perhaps sunken by a wetland.

Response: Lauren and Barb went to the site and everything is level now. There is no indication of wetland in that area.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of the request of Amson Dembs Development, for Lot 30 of the Beck West Corporate Park, SP02-29 motion to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to spacing reduced as recommended for the loading area, screening of the arborvitae, increasing the number of plantings along Magellan Drive and trees along the northern and western property line, subject to parking space requirements and the possible addition of a second-story to be reviewed by the City, subject to all traffic flow recommendations for change and subject to City and Consultant recommendations as stated in the review being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review if not before.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Consideration of the request of Amson Dembs Development for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 9 on the west side of Magellan Drive, at the south end of the Beck West Corporate Park and is in the I-2 (General Industrial) District. The developer proposes a building for offices and research/development uses. The subject site is 1.92 acres.

Request of Amson Dembs Development for preliminary site plan approval for a speculative office building proposed to be located on lots 33, and part of lots 32 and 34 near the south end of the Beck West Corporate Park. The 47.2-acre corporate park is located east of Beck Road and south of West Road in Section 9 of the City. The site comprises 1.92 acres of land. The site is currently vacant land. To the northeast, the property is currently under construction with the Magellan Commerce Center. To the east are vacant parcels within the Beck West Corporate Park. To the south is vacant land with a proposal for another preliminary site plan for Ansom Dembs being considered by the Planning Commission this evening. To the north are vacant parcels within the corporate park and the Dantom development. To the west, within the City of Wixom, are various light industrial buildings. The Master Plan designation for the parcel is heavy industrial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. The site is zoned I-2 General Industrial, as are the properties to the north, east and south. To the west, within the city of Wixom, the land is zoned Light Industry. The request of the petitioner is for a speculative office/ warehouse building consisting of either 24,752 square feet or 29,252 square feet. The smaller number represents a building with a one-story office, and a 47 percent office and 53 percent warehouse mix of uses. The larger square footage represented (29,252 sq ft) will be constructed if the applicant finds a tenant who wishes to have a two-story office, which will result in a building being 31 percent office and 69 percent warehouse. The applicant has indicated that the plans can accommodate the second story within the footprint and building elevation as shown on the plans. If windows or other modifications are needed for the second story, revised building elevations must be submitted to the Façade consultant for review. The plans show one driveway from Magellan Drive and two secondary access connections to the proposed development to the south and a future development to the north. During review of the submitted plans, staff and consultants found a number of important items for the Planning Commission to consider: The Planning review showed that there is insufficient side yard building setback along the south property line. 30 feet of building setback is required and 20 feet is provided. This matter was brought to the attention of the applicant and the applicant has indicated that because the property owner also owns additional land to the north, the property lines can be adjusted to meet the required setback. The applicant proposes to move the property line 10 feet to the north and provide an additional 10 feet of landscaping along the south property line. In the Planning Commission’s motion this evening, we suggest that this setback deficiency be noted, with the requirement that the applicant adjust the plans as indicated in the letter from the architect at the time of Final Site Plan review. The wetlands and woodlands indicated that there would be no impact to any existing woodlands or wetlands. The Traffic Engineering review indicated that a Planning Commission waiver of opposite side driveway spacing would be required to allow the driveway location on Magellan Drive. As a point of clarification, the City Engineer at the request of the applicant has reviewed the separation discussed in the traffic consultant’s letter. It was determined that as the plans are drawn no driveway spacing waiver would be needed. However, in order for the applicant to comply with the building setback required on the south side, the building and driveways will be shifted 10 feet, and an waiver of approximately 10 feet of driveway separation will be required to be granted by the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission makes a motion to approve the preliminary site plan this evening, a note should be made that 150 feet of separation is required and approximately 10 feet is provided between this driveway and the approved driveway for the Magellan Commerce Center to the north. The landscaping, and engineering reviews revealed minor comments to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Façade and Fire reviews indicate that the plan meets ordinance requirements. The proposed building materials consist of primarily of split faced block, with striated scored block and ribbed metal panels for the rooftop screening. The proposed façade is in compliance with the Façade Ordinance and a Section 9 waiver is NOT required. The applicant and his representatives are present this evening to answer any questions the commission may have regarding the proposed development.

Ms. McClain indicated that the seventy-seven (77) feet in the letter was a typo. She found the situation to be acceptable.

Member Kocan indicated that either a waiver or a variance is needed. Therefore, she asked if it is better for the Commission to waive the additional ten (10) foot setback and have the driveways line up or if it was better to have the additional ten (10) foot setback and off set driveways.

Ms. McBeth felt it would be better to have the property line shifted and not have the waiver request. She did not anticipate an interlock problem. She stated it is more important to provide adequate setback for the property now as well as in the future if the property were to change owners. The property should meet ordinance standards as much as possible.

Member Kocan clarified if Ms. McBeth recommended the waiver for the opposite-side driveway spacing as opposed to the variance. She asked the applicant if he intended to comply with the setback requirement, eliminating the variance request.

Petitioner indicated a typo. It was previously thought that the property was located in the I-1 District (Light Industrial District) with a setback of 28-feet, however, it has been adjusted.

Member Kocan asked if he was willing to move the property north ten (10) feet.

Petitioner answered, yes.

Petitioner stated the property to the north requires a 200-feet from the centerline of Humbolt. He indicated there is 202-feet from Humbolt, which exceeds the requirement.

Member Kocan asked if it is also 125-feet away from Amson Dembs.

Petitioner indicated he was told the setback needed was 105-feet.

Ms. McClain indicated the future driveway separation is met as shown on the drawing.

Member Kocan noted her support of the proposal.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Amson Dembs Lot 33 SP02-31 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Planning Commission Waiver of opposite-side driveway spacing for approximately 10-feet, subject to the plans being modified to move the development north to comply with the side yard setback requirements per Kevin Biddison’s letter dated July 19, 2002, and if the two-story building became substantially different then it would return to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval, subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

Mr. Schultz suggested including the ZBA Variance in the motion unless it is the intent of the Motion maker to take away the option ZBA Variance to resolve the setback problem. In the event there is a lot split issue as to how to accomplish providing the ten (10) feet.

Member Kocan asked if a ZBA Variance was necessary. To her understanding, the ZBA Variance is for the side yard setback and there is not a side yard setback.

Mr. Schultz indicated that if there is an issue with moving the lot line a ZBA Variance would be necessary. He suggested leaving the option open for the Petitioner.

Chairperson Nagy recalled the Applicant’s indication that he would modify the property line, thereby, meeting the side yard setback.

Mr. Schultz explained that a detailed discussion has not taken place, as to what it would entail to move the property line. It is possible that the Applicant might not agree with the answer he is given and it might be wise to leave him the option of the ZBA Variance. If the Commission does not want to consider the ZBA Variance, then the motion should not be amended.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the applicant would go before the ZBA for the side yard setback and not the Planning Commission.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the motion did not indicate "ZBA Variance or move the lot line". Instead it the motion states, "move the lot line".

Member Kocan indicated that her intention is not to grant two "maybe" options.

Chairperson Nagy stated the driveway would be put back in place because it could not be both.

Member Kocan understood Mr. Schultz intention to anticipate the ten (10) foot problem.

Mr. Evancoe stated one’s statement of willingness to move a lot line is often easier than actually doing it. He suggested having the applicant explain how he proposes to accomplish the movement of the lot line.

Chairperson Nagy agreed. She recalled the Petitioner’s comments indicating that he had already spoken to the owner of the property.

Petitioner indicated that he is the owner of the property. There are no plotted boundary lines, thereby making it possible to shift and move lot lines to accommodate the building.

Mr. Schultz indicated that a Site Condominium Site Plan has been approved with the proposed lot line. The applicant is before the Commission either for a variance or to leave the building where it is and move the lot line. If either of these solutions would be permissible with the Commission, the motion should reflect that, however, the motion currently states that the Commission prefers the building to stay where it is and for the lot line to be moved.

Member Kocan stated the building is not staying where it is.

Mr. Schultz corrected his statement to indicate: if the Commission prefers the building to move and the lot line to move with it.

Petitioner indicated the lot line has already been moved.

Member Kocan noted Hickory Corporate Park developments do not stay within specific lots but take for example Lot 17 and twelve feet of Lot 27 and are able to do their development.

Mr. Schultz withdrew comment, "if the Applicant did not have any concerns with the ability to formalize the moving of the lot line".

Member Kocan restated, if the Applicant is confident that there is not a problem with moving the lot line, and then it is not necessary to amend the motion. She asked the Applicant if he was confident with the motion as stated.

Petitioner answered, yes.

Member Markham stated in a hypothetical situation, if there were a problem with moving of the lot line, then the matter would return to the Commission for the replacement of the driveway.

Petitioner agreed that if there was problem with the moving of the lot line then he would return to the Commission, however, he did not anticipate a problem. He stated if there was a problem, he asked if it was his choice to technically take away the lot line and consider it as one site.

Mr. Schultz believed the Petitioner answered his own question. He suggested that the Commission vote on the motion on the floor.

Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Consideration of the request of Certified Management Company for approval of a Revised Final Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 23 on the west side of Meadowbrook Road and south of Eleven Mile Road. The applicant is proposing a façade change and a reduction in the size of Building A from 37,252 square feet to 18,000 square feet.

The request of Certified Management Company for the Revised Final Site Plan approval for an 18,000 square foot building to be considered as Phase II of the Marque Corporate Park development of buildings. The preliminary site plan had included five office/research buildings and the applicant proposes to eliminate two of the original buildings consisting of 37,252 square feet, and construct one 18,000 square foot building. The subject property is currently under construction with the first phase of the Marque Corporate Center development. The property to the east is used for industrial buildings on Vincenti Court and vacant land on the east side of Meadowbrook Road. To the north, is the Novi business park. To the south is the Soccer Zone fronting on Grand River and the Dibo Building fronting on Meadowbrook Road. The subject property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the north, east and west. To the south, the properties are zoned I-1, Light Industrial and NCC, Non-Center Commercial. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Light Industrial use for the property and the other properties in the surrounding area. The Revised Final Site Plan proposes a one-story office/research building with a total of 18,000 square feet. The Preliminary Site Plan for the Marque Corporate Center proposed a total of five buildings. The revised final site plan shows the elimination of two of the proposed buildings containing 37,252 square feet closest to the Meadowbrook Road frontage, and the construction of one 18,000 square foot building in it’s place. The parking areas are remaining substantially the same, with a relocated loading area along the back of the building. Additional landscaping space is provided on the site plan, and may be reserved for a future expansion. The proposed tenant will operate a dynamometer research and development lab for acoustical testing of automotive components. The proposed occupant of the building is TRI Technical Center USA. During review of the proposed site plan the staff and consultants determined the following items should be brought to the Planning Commission’s attention. Planning review revealed that Planning Commission approval of the revised final site plan is needed if it is determined that the proposed revisions constitute a substantial change from the approved preliminary site plan. It is the Planning Department’s opinion that the proposed changes do constitute a substantial change, and that is why this matter is brought back to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Other Planning Concerns may be addressed at the time of Final Stamping sets if the Planning Commission approves these revised Final Site Plans. The Woodlands review indicated that a Woodlands permit has already been granted by the Planning Commission at the time of preliminary site plan approval. The Wetlands review indicated that the Planning Commission granted a Wetlands Permit at the time of Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Nothing has changed to affect either the Woodland or Wetland permits originally granted. The landscaping review indicated that there should be a Planning Commission finding that the south face of the building is not visible from the Meadowbrook Road right-of-way and therefore this side of the building does not require foundation plantings. A review of the preliminary site plan shows that the setback area along the Meadowbrook Road frontage contains wetland areas. A site visit revealed that there are a number of large trees existing in this area that will be preserved as part of the plan. The Traffic Engineer’s review revealed minor items that may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Engineering and Fire Review indicated that the plans meet ordinance requirements. The Façade review revealed that the request is in compliance with the Façade Ordinance and that a Section 9 waiver is not required. The building is proposed to be constructed primarily of brick, with cast stone along the base and top of the building, and with metal screening around the roof top equipment. The requested action this evening, is that the Commission either approve or deny the Revised Final Site Plan.

Dave Teluchi represented the tenant TRI Technical Center USA. He introduced Mr. Nazowa from Japan to make a brief presentation to the Commission.

Nazowa indicated their study with Ford Motor Companies began two years ago to build a new technician center in Michigan. He requested the Commission’s approval.

Member Paul asked the reasons for changing the size of the building and making it smaller.

Mr. Teluchi indicated that the Developer of Certified Management originally proposed two speculative buildings, both totally approximately 37,000 square feet. TRI Technical Center USA does not require the 37,000 square feet. Therefore the proposed is an owner occupied use as opposed to a speculative development use.

Member Paul commended the Applicant on the Site Plan. She asked Ms. McGuire to comment on the fact that the landscaping does not have foundation plantings to the rear.

Ms. McGuire indicated that she did not have a problem with the plantings at the south side of the building, because of the amount of woodlands in the front. She indicated the plan was previously approved, however, she preferred to have it enhanced considerably. She requested that the Commission make this provision part of their motion.

Member Paul asked the Petitioner if he is comfortable enhancing the landscaping according to the recommendation of the Landscape Architect.

Mr. Teluchi answered, yes, however, he asked to see the recommendations.

Ms. McGuire showed Mr. Teluchi the views along Meadowbrook Road and the trees that would remain south. She did not feel it would be a problem.

Member Paul clarified that the trees are to the south portion of the property.

Ms. McGuire answered, no. She explained the southeast portion of the building is grass due to the Applicant’s desire for a potential expansion. The plantings are on the perimeter of the expansion envelope for the future, which is also located at the south end. The front natural area will remain to buffer. The Ordinance states 60% of the visible sides in the front phase have to be in a landscaped planting bed: referring to a type of shrub or trees and not only ground cover such as grass. She asked the Commission to make a finding that the south face of the building is not visible from the Meadowbrook Road right-of-way based on the setback and the amount of Woodlands in that area and does not require foundation plantings.

Member Paul asked if plantings would be placed at the southern portion of the building at the time of Phase II.

Mr. Teluchi answered, yes. He indicated it would be submitted in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Member Kocan recalled one reference indicating that the future expansion area should be removed from the Final Site Plan and another reference indicating that there would be a future expansion area. She asked the Petitioner if it is his intent to expand. If the Petitioner is planning to expand then she did not find a problem with waiving the landscaping at the south side of the building because to put in plantings and removed them would not make sense. If there is not an intention to expand, then she felt the building should comply with the requirements. She asked his anticipated timeline for these expansion plans. She suggested requiring the additional shrubs to the south side of the building if the expansion does not take place during the intended timeline.

Mr. Teluchi indicated the planning for the building was developed over a three and five year timeline. The expansion and the purchase of new equipment are intended along this timeline and the site was selected for its ability to expand. Although, he could not predict the future, he restated that future expansion is a purpose for developing the proposed site.

Member Kocan stated that although the expansion plan would come before the Commission, she wanted the motion to include a timeline requiring the provision of the four-foot green space around the back of the building if the expansion does not take place.

Mr. Teluchi stated he would embrace any requirement for plantings on the south face of the building.

Member Kocan asked if the dumpster was relocated.

Mr. Teluchi answered, yes. He stated the traffic signage issues were also addressed.

Member Kocan pointed out there are twelve (12) parking spaces close to the only building entrance and the remainder of the parking is located a distance from the entrance. She asked if sidewalks were discussed or the possibility of another entrance.

Mr. Teluchi stated a sidewalk fronts the entire front of the property.

Member Kocan clarified if this is the northern portion.

Mr. Teluchi answered, no. He stated the front of the building is the eastern portion, which is the location of the building entrance.

Member Kocan noted the parking located on the south and west side. She asked if he anticipated visitors parking on the west side would be coming into the building.

Mr. Teluchi indicated that the parking was developed for the previous speculative buildings. The calculations and the layouts were based upon a speculative capacity for the building. The parking in front of the building is adequate for the entire occupancy of the building.

Member Kocan asked if too many parking spaces were added.

Ms. McClain stated the parking spaces and the circulation layout did not changed from the previous. As the circulation would need to remain for emergency access, the impervious surface has not changed from the previous approval. The detention basin system has not changed. She indicated the impervious surface is less due to the grass area.

Member Kocan asked if it would be in the Petitioner’s best interest to not develop the area at this time and instead landbank the additional parking spaces.

Ms. McBeth indicated that the parking standards are based on general requirements for an industrial-type use. She believed the parking provided on the Site Plan would be adequate with the addition of a future expansion. She noted the possibility that the tenant could change and the parking might be needed if there is more of an office-type of use.

Member Kocan asked for commissioner’s comments regarding the need for an additional door or sidewalk. She asked the Applicant to comment on the entrance and the number of employees that would park there.

Mr. Teluchi stated twenty-three (23) parking spaces front the east of the building and the initial occupancy is not anticipated over twenty (20).

Ms. McClain indicated that there are a couple of man-doors located at the sides that meet the codes for emergency access.

Mr. Teluchi indicated that because it is a test facility and is access controlled, a multitude of entrances is not desirable.

Member Kocan stated the parking is located next to the Soccer Zone and asked if a sidewalk from east to west would be appropriate.

Mr. Teluchi stated it would be convenient to locate a sidewalk because there is an exit door and an emergency exit door on the south side of the building. He explained a walk could be provided from the man-door and "T" into a walk in the front of the building, which runs north and south on the east face of the building.

Member Kocan stated there appeared to be some type of sidewalk on the south side of the proposed Building B and proposed Building C. She asked if there is a sidewalk across the parking lot from these two areas.

Mr. Evancoe answered, no. The Site Plan is showing sidewalks for the proposed building entrances, which are limited and not continuous. He noted the only building with a continuous sidewalk along the one side. There are stipple patterns of small dots for the locations of the concrete sidewalks.

Member Kocan expressed her concern with the safety of pedestrians walking through the parking lot.

Mr. Teluchi felt confident that his client would not anticipate the use of parking space located on the west or south side of the building, however, the parking on the east side of the building is adequate for their use.

Member Kocan indicated that she would like a sidewalk provided with the future expansion.

Mr. Teluchi assumed the client and the development would require a sidewalk as well.

Member Kocan asked if it is necessary to place a timeline on the expansion. Further, she asked if a five (5) year limit or a seven (7) year limit is reasonable.

Chairperson Nagy recalled the Applicant’s comments indicated a three (3) to five (5) year phase.

Mr. Teluchi stated the tenant intends to bring in a variety of test equipment with the next phase in three years followed by a phase at five-years.

Member Avdoulos did not support the idea of placing a timeline because it would create a hardship for any possible new owners. He felt the Commission should handle the site with the information presented.

Mr. Teluchi agreed to go back and revisit the idea, however, the issue is at the south face of the building, per the Novi Ordinance, is not required to have plantings. He indicated that he was already in conformance with the Ordinance.

Member Sprague asked if the parking calculation is the total for all three (3) buildings. He asked if there is a parking calculation for the occupancy for the proposed building itself.

Ms. McBeth stated the calculations shown on the plan indicate that the entire development would be one-half office and one-half warehouse. She did not feel the proposed use was either of these. There are offices located at the front of the building with the remainder of the building as a test facility. Therefore, it is not truly half and half.

Member Avdoulos asked for the parking data for Building A.

Mr. Teluchi indicated that no changes were made to the parking. The parking calculations are based on the entire development.

Member Avdoulos asked there is a specific occupant for Building A, as opposed to the previous situation with speculative buildings. He asked if the building conforms to its occupant in respect to the parking spaces. He supported the idea of landbanking spaces. He did not have a problem with the entrance location or sidewalks.

Chairperson Nagy verified with the Applicant, his comments regarding the need for twenty-three (23) parking spaces.

Mr. Teluchi disagreed. He stated the approximate occupancy of the building is twenty (20), however, there are twenty-three (23) spaces located in the front of the building.

Member Avdoulos calculated ninety (90) parking spaces. He stated the parking is more than adequate. If the building is smaller than what was proposed, he agreed with the opportunity to landbank spaces.

Mr. Teluchi expressed his concern of the impact on the Ordinance due to the parking calculations for the site in composition given on the plans.

Member Avdoulos indicated that hypothetically a plan for a building with allowable occupancy would need a way to provide the extra parking.

Mr. Teluchi agreed.

Member Markham did not support the building of unneeded parking spaces. If the building is expanded in the future, she felt is would be appropriate to construct the spaces at that time. The original parking calculation is based on three (3) specific building footprints and types of buildings, however, the building footprint has changed and therefore she assumed that the site did not need as many spaces. She asked the requirement for a building of the proposed size.

Mr. Teluchi indicated that a parking data calculation is included on the Engineering sheets.

Ms. McBeth indicated a total of 71,178 square feet for the entire development of Phase I and Phase II is being proposed, which includes the 18,000 square foot building. If the property uses were half office and half warehouse, then 212 parking spaces would be required. As currently proposed, and with the assumption that the mix of uses is approximately correct, then the site is sixty (60) spaces over the required amount. The spaces for the future expansion could be building at this time or the spaces could be landbanked.

Member Markham was concerned with the spaces located at the southwest portion of the development and the walk that would be involved in the winter months. She suggested moving the spaces closer to the building and then moving them in the future with the expansion. She recalled Ms. McClain’s comments regarding providing fire access completely around the building. She did not feel it made sense to have the large amount of grass and unneeded parking spaces far away.

Ms. McClain suggested land banking the sixteen (16) spaces farthest to the southwest corner. She did not advise the banking of the nine spaces at the southeast because it would change the characteristics of the drainage of the area.

Member Markham asked if she is referring to the area with the "2" symbol on the plan.

Mr. Evancoe answered, correct. He asked Ms. McClain if it would then be appropriate to have a curb built along this southern edge.

Ms. McClain stated a continuous curb would be built straight across and then the installation of the catch basin. The catch basin would be located at the edge of a curb. The curb would connect the two islands that stick out and the area behind it would be grass. If the spaces were needed during an expansion, then at that time, the land would be re-graded.

Member Markham stated the building use changed from half office/half warehouse to a technical lab use. She asked for the parking requirement for a technical lab use.

Mr. Evancoe stated the Ordinance requires industrial or research establishments or related accessory office to have one (1) space for each seven hundred (700) square feet of usable floor area or five (5) plus one (1) for each one and one-half (1 ½) employees in the largest working shift, whichever is greater.

Ms. McBeth agree with Mr. Evancoe’s comments, however, in addition, if there is more than 15% or 20% office, then a separate office standard for the office space is applied because it requires more parking than a general industrial use. In the past the 1:700 ratio has been used and the 1:222 is used for the office space if it exceeds a certain portion.

Member Markham clarified that the site is more than sixty (60) spaces over what is needed for the entire development.

Ms. McBeth stated it would also depend upon the tenants for the other three buildings on the site. The few additional spaces would allow them the flexibility for an office tenant.

Member Markham asked if the entire site is being reviewed or only Building A.

Ms. McBeth stated only Phase II – Building A is being considered, however, the parking is discussed for the entire site because there are possibly shared parking agreements.

Member Markham asked what areas additional parking could be removed. She suggested the removal of some parking at the south end of the development as a whole.

Ms. McBeth stated the Commission could consider the spaces located on the west side of the building, however, those spaces might serve the front of Building B.

Member Markham wanted to keep the spaces that are located near the front door.

Ms. McBeth stated the spaces located on the south side, which area not as desirable, are part of the already approve Phase I.

Ms. McGuire indicated that the applicant did not seem to have a problem with moving the twenty-four (24) spaces on the west side.

Mr. Schultz advised having the proponent address whether he is prepared to land bank properties and specifically state which one he is prepared to acquiesce.

Member Markham asked the Petitioner if he had any comments or suggestions to reduce the overall parking.

Mr. Teluchi stated the parking in the front of the building and the small portion to the southwest is adequate parking for the proposed portion of the development. There are five (5) buildings in the light industrial complex with the remaining buildings being office/warehouse type uses. Therefore, he stated the parking spaces would be utilized. He and the tenant were amenable to delete the sixteen (16) parking spaces on the south side of the building; however, he could not speak on behalf of Certified Management. Certified Management was granted the approval for these spaces, which are permitted and under construction at this time. He anticipated the concrete for these spaces would be poured next spring.

Member Avdoulos calculated forty-seven (47) spaces and two (2) handicap spaces. He agreed that it did not make sense to pave more parking spaces than what is needed. He asked if the Site Plan submitted to the Commission depicted the actual location of the dumpster.

Mr. Teluchi answered, yes. He stated it shows the revised approved dumpster location, which shows the opening of the dumpster oriented to the west.

Member Papp suggested keeping the flow of the entire building area instead of chopping and adding later.

Chairperson Nagy clarified if the spaces were removed then a dead end would be created.

Member Papp answered, yes. He stated it would not be aesthetically pleasing.

Member Markham indicated there would be driveways without parking spaces attached.

Member Papp clarified that there would not be any dead ends.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Sprague did not feel the removal of the sixteen (16) spaces on the south end would address the problem of the seventy (70) excessive parking spaces. He asked for advice on how to address the issue with the developer not present at the meeting.

Mr. Schultz struggled with the determination if the Commission has the authority to take away parking spaces on a non-voluntary basis.

Chairperson Nagy interjected and stated the Commission’s desire is to land bank the spaces.

Mr. Schultz stated the Ordinance defines the land banking provisions as essentially voluntary. It contemplates that the Petitioner would come to the Commission indicating that they are not in need of the parking spaces and would like to save money instead of constructing the spaces. He stated the requirements in the Ordinance relate to what can be done in that area.

Chairperson Nagy agreed, however, there is too much unnecessary impervious surface. At this point, the Applicant is amenable to landbanking.

Mr. Schultz advised that the Applicant should state what he is amenable to with regard to landbanking and what he is not.

Chairperson Nagy clarified if the Applicant was not able to make this determination until there is an addition to the building.

Mr. Teluchi stated he represented the tenant of the space. The Developer is the one who received the Site Plan approval for the parking spaces. To his understanding, he is before the Commission for a public hearing because of the Façade Review and reduction in building size.

Ms. McGuire asked if the Commission found it appropriate to allow the Staff to work out the land banking issues with the Developer.

Mr. Schultz agreed with her suggestion.

Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Mr. Teluchi felt the Developer would be amenable to remove the sixteen (16) spaces on the south side and the entire row on the back portion, which is approximately twenty-five (25) additional spaces.

Member Kocan stated based on Member Avdoulos’ calculations of two-thirds engineering and one-third office, a parking calculation of forty-seven (47) near parking spaces would be required for a building of the proposed size. It is not allowable for a developer to build a building and have only parking spaces for a situation with ten employees. There is a minimum per the Ordinance that needs to be met. She noted the similar problem with the larger buildings such as furniture buildings. If it is a stand along building then the Ordinance requires 47 parking spaces. There are 48 parking spaces along the east and south side.

Mr. Schultz indicated that the Applicant would not receive an Occupancy Permit if the number of parking spaces were not available for his use.

Member Kocan asked if he is required to indicate the number of employees.

Chairperson Nagy answered, yes. Further, she indicated that they could be required to provide additional parking spaces at that time.

Mr. Schultz agreed. He added that they could also allocate the spaces among the entire site to ensure that each of the occupants has the appropriate number required under the Ordinance.

Chairperson Nagy understood that the Applicant is before the Commission for a façade change and a reduction in the size of Building A. She noted her understanding that the Site Plan, with parking spaces, was approved previously however, she felt the reduction of parking spaces should logically follow the reduction of a building size. Therefore, she suggested the motion include Ms. McGuire’s comments. She entertained a motion.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Marque Corporate Center Phase II SP00-17E to grant approval of the Revised Final Site Plan with the Planning Commission finding that the south face of the building is not visible from the Meadowbrook Road right-of-way based on setback and the amount of Woodlands in that area, therefore does not require foundation plantings, subject to additional landscaping per comments by the Developer and the Landscape Architect, subject to land banking of parking spaces as determined appropriate by the Consultants and Traffic Engineer and subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Final Stamping Set Review.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend By-Laws and Rules of Procedure Section 2.4(b) Planning Commission Sub-committees to remove the one-year commission membership requirement to be eligible for appointment to the Rules Committee.

Member Markham asked the rational for the amendment to be stated on the record.

Member Ruyle noted that to his understanding, without the amendment, only three officers would be eligible to serve on the Rules Committee. The amendment would relieve the three officers from having to serve on an extra committee.

Member Markham added further that the issue arose because of the way the appointments occurred creating six members on the Commission with less than one-year of service.

Member Ruyle indicated that Member Shroyer and himself do not have a full year term.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Chairperson Nagy asked the commissioners to indicate if they are interested in serving on the Rules Committee.

Member Shroyer expressed interest to serve on the Committee.

Member Kocan indicated that with the Rules Committee, she is serving on five (5) committees. Therefore, she volunteered to step down from the Rules Committee if another commissioner is interested.

Member Ruyle expressed interest to serve on the Committee.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Shroyer to the Rules Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Ruyle to the Rules Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Moved by Markham, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To appoint Member Kocan to the Rules Committee

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Paul indicated the seminars could be broken into two one-hour segments or one two-hour segment. The seminar would be free of cost. She outlined the list of seminar topics. She advised the commissioners to consider topics that best apply to the planning issues verses the more technical engineering topics.

Mr. Evancoe agreed that some of the material was very technical and that the Commission should discern which topics are most beneficial to their position. He indicated that he would ensure the firm gave an appropriate seminars geared toward commissioners and not a grad class. He encouraged the Commission to create a more comprehensive list of areas they would like to have more training. For example, basic Site Plan review, Zoning, State Planning Law, etc… At that point, the Staff could research and find the appropriate trainers and programs.

Chairperson Nagy found it very generous of the firm to offer their service with no cost. She noted the new Storm Water Ordinance, which would need to be applied at some point in the future. She felt it should be one of the topics selected because it would become very important in the site plan review process.

Member Paul agreed. In addition, she suggested that transportation and urban planning and development. She suggested dividing the time between two meetings held prior to Planning Commission meetings. She suggested inviting the City Council and the storm water management group. She requested a list of the topics that Councilmember Bononi indicated she could obtain training on. She found it ideal to have a seminar every three or four months. She asked the Commission for comments.

Member Markham agreed with having storm water management as a priority topic. In addition, she found transportation a priority as depicted in the results from the conducted resident survey. The City of Novi has traffic flow problems and turn signal and parking problems. She stated it would be beneficial to hear ideas of how other communities have dealt with these issues.

Chairperson Nagy felt the storm water ordinance was important. She suggested it would be ideal for the seminar to hypothetically apply the new storm water ordinance to a previous site. It is not appropriate for those who worked on the storm water ordinance to attend a lecture on their own work. She felt it is appropriate to keep the topic within the framework of the commissioners. She suggested that the Commission determine a topic of interest, hold the seminar and then vote on whether or not it would be beneficial to have additional seminars.

Member Kocan agreed. She stated everyone is aware of the traffic problems in Novi and there is not a lot the Commission can do to change the timing on the traffic signals. Additionally, she did not find topics such as traffic lights and parking lot maintenance beneficial. Instead, she wanted ideas as to what considerations to have when reviewing a Site Plan or legal issues.

Member Markham indicated her interest in the topic is referring to areas such as possibilities to consider while redoing Grand River. For example, different considerations for access into sites that are located on Grand River and the advantages and disadvantages of the service drives that are being used by other communities. Although she is not concerned with pothole reporting, she is concerned with traffic planning.

Member Kocan preferred a two-hour training seminar on a different night from the Planning Commission meeting, which would give flexibility and allow time for questions. She suggested selecting a period of time where there are three (3) weeks between Planning Commission meetings.

Member Shroyer agreed with Member Kocan’s comments. He also agreed that the New Storm Water Ordinance should be a priority. He suggested having a sub-committee, such as the Planning Studies & Budget Committee; create the list of the desired topics for future training.

Chairperson Nagy agreed with his suggestion. She asked if the commissioners agreed.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Paul, MOTION AMENDED: To have the topic "Storm Water Management" as the first training session with the training provided by Heirs, Lewis, Norris & May Incorporated and pass everything off on to the Planning Studies & Budget Committee for review.

Mr. Evancoe found it beneficial for either Ms. McClain or David Maurice to provide the Storm Water Ordinance because the Ann Arbor firm does not have the knowledge its development.

Chairperson Nagy disagreed. She stressed that the staff involved in the development of the Ordinance are overworked. The time capacity needed for a staff to put together an hour presentation is not available. She explained that it is not her intention to take away the competency of the Staff, however, they are overworked and underpaid. The Commission is able to read and interpret the ordinance, however, she felt the real issue is the physical ability to apply it to make changes to a Site Plan. She stated the Staff is overbooked and the Commission would like to have the training in the next month.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that there is a lot of detail in the ordinance and the Ann Arbor firm was not involved in its development. He hoped the firm could absorb the details and explain it to the Commission.

Chairperson Nagy stated the firm did not need to be completely accurate because the Commission it would not be taken as "God’s Law". It is incumbent upon the commissioners to read the Ordinance prior to attending the seminar.

Mr. Schultz indicated that Don Tilton is a knowledgeable speaker and it is an excellent opportunity for the Commission to have him as a guest speaker. He indicated that Mr. Tilton is familiar with the form of Ordinance that Novi ultimately adopted.

Chairperson Nagy stated the focus is the idea of being able to take a Site Plan and apply the storm water ordinance management to it. She stated a site plan is a flat piece of paper and she felt storm water and traffic were the hardest to visualize.

Member Paul stated the firm would help the Commission understand the ordinance only if that is the desire of the Commission. The firm’s GIS Specialist and Engineer will cater the seminar to the Commission’s criteria. She indicated that she will be contacting the firm tomorrow with the topics and dates.

Member Kocan suggested meeting on a Tuesday after a Planning Commission meeting, such as August 27^th or October 22^nd.

Chairperson Nagy stated August is too soon to meet.

Member Paul stated the firm has been prepared since June and have all of the needed information to prepare for the training seminar.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the firm has the new Storm Water Ordinance.

Member Paul indicated that the firm has a portion of it. She stated Oakland County is behind in the storm water management area. She suggested considering the two dates suggested by Member Kocan.

Member Shroyer amended his motion to include the two dates.

Member Paul agreed to the amendment.

Chairperson Nagy called for the vote.

Moved by Shroyer, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To have the topic "Storm Water Management" as the first training session with the training provided by Heirs, Lewis, Norris & May Incorporated on either August 27, 2002 or October 22, 2002 and pass everything off on to the Planning Studies & Budget Committee for review.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

Member Paul recalled situations where a developer chooses to bring a site plan, requiring several variances, forward to the Commission. The developer might agree to at the meeting to comply and make changes recommended at the meeting, however, the there has been no review of the changes. She felt it is more appropriate to table the matter or deny it. She asked the legality of the situation.

Mr. Schultz stated if a petitioner is before the Commission stating their willingness to meet ordinance requirements and the Commission is not willing to allow the staff to follow up on the matter, then it is appropriate for the Commission to table the matter. In this situation, the petitioner is essentially indicating that with more time, the site plan would be in compliance. Therefore, it would be difficult to argue an action of denial at this point.

Member Paul asked why it is not appropriate for the Commission to deny the request.

Mr. Schultz indicated that technically, the Commission could deny the site plan, however he questioned the reason for the denial if a petitioner is stating on the record that he/she is willing to resolve the problem. A denial would force the applicant to start at step one of the process, pay additional fees and have additional reviews. At some point, it is typical to accept the representation that the plan will change; the plan will conform and come back with an appropriate plan.

Member Paul recalled Scenic Pines Estates, which came forward with many variances due to the request of the Applicant. She found it inappropriate for a Site Plan to come forward in those conditions because she felt the issues should have been addressed. She found it to be an unreasonable use of time.

Mr. Schultz stated if a petitioner represents to the Commission that he/she will not adjust the plan too no longer need the required variance(s) or waiver(s), then it is within the Commission’s authority to state, "Based upon the Site Plan and my review, I do not think it is a good Site Plan and it does not meet ordinance requirements. I am not going to send it on the ZBA with my stamp of approval. We will deny the plan and if the ZBA grants a variance, the you could return to the Commission as meeting ordinance requirements". In contrast, it is a different situation when a petitioner is stating that he can fix all the problems.

Member Ruyle recalled previous instances where the developer changed the site plan at the meeting, however, there is no paperwork. He asked if the Commission has the authority to table the matter at that point as opposed to continuing discussion on the matter.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes. He stated the Commission would exercise a judgement call on each case as to the significance of each case.

Member Ruyle recalled the recent situation in which a developer presented major changes. He agreed with Member Paul statements that these situations take up valuable time.

Mr. Schultz stated if significant changes are made to the site plan between the times the item is placed on the agenda to the time the hearing begins, then the Commission has the right to table the matter.

Member Kocan stated if a matter is tabled immediately without discussion, then the staff would have no record as to what items the Commission will look for when the matter returns. Although, the Commission spends additional time reviewing the item twice, it gives additional direction to the staff and the developer as to what is expected. She suggested stopping that situation from happening by addressing it with a By-Laws and Rules of Procedure change or policy change. She stated when a site plan has a number of variances; a letter from the developer should be included in the commissioners’ packet addressing the requested variances/waivers. It is not appropriate for the Commission should review a Site Plan that the developer has not responded to. She asked the legality involved to remove an item from the agenda if the Developer does not respond to it by Thursday afternoon prior to the Planning Commission meeting. She asked if there is an established procedure for removing items or making changes to the agenda.

Mr. Schultz indicated that typically once the agenda is set, it is changed only at the time the meeting is convened and the agenda is amended. The Developer should be informed that since the agenda is set and distributed, it is the developer’s responsibility to appear at the meeting to insure the Commission votes as a whole to adjourn or table his item. He stated it could be codified in the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure that once the public hearing is noticed, that a hearing will be held, a presentation should be given and the Commission would likely not voted on the matter at that meeting. He noted other communities that have this practice do not have audience participation.

Member Papp asked if it is possible for an applicant to be required to return to step one of the process if he does not show up to the meeting and is on the agenda.

Mr. Evancoe stated an applicant’s presence is not required with a public hearing and he has the right to chose.

Member Markham asked if the Commission has the authority to vote on a request with the Petitioner not present. For example, tonight’s meeting in which the developer for Scenic Pines withdrew his item at the last minute and then did not show up for the meeting.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes, however, he explained that the due process also means fair process. He advised the Commission to consider if it would be fair for the Commission to vote when the Applicant has written a letter requesting time to fix a situation. The Petitioner could appeal to the Circuit Court to be placed back on the agenda without having to pay an additional $1500 in fees. He questioned if the City Attorney would be able to represent to the Court that the Commission’s actions were fair. Therefore, he advised the Commission to consider what is fair in each instance.

Member Markham stated the By-Laws and Rules of Procedure indicate that the Commission should not consider a Site Plan unless the following conditions have been met by the Thursday preceding the meeting during which it would normally be considered. It indicates states, "The site plan meets all of the required conditions of Section 2516 of the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance".

Mr. Schultz explained that this text is referring to whether or not the applicant has submitted all the required materials/items. It cannot be determined prior to the meeting whether or not he meets ordinance requirements.

Member Markham anticipated situations where the work would be done and items would change. She found it frustrating that she took the time to prepare for the meeting and the petitioner requests to be pulled from the agenda thirty-minutes prior to the start of the meeting. In addition, she found it frustrating for the many residents that came to speak in regard to the matter and a representative is not present to hear the comments. It did not seem fair that there is no recourse for these actions.

Member Shroyer also found it frustrating. He stated every commissioner spent at least two or three hours preparing for Scenic Pines, without including the time taken to go to the site to survey the area. He agreed that there should be some type of recourse.

Chairperson Nagy recalled a rule made at one point. There is a property owner on the north side who would present project repeatedly and then table the projects continuously. She recalled the Commission making some determinations limiting the number of times a matter could be tabled. She understood that these situations would occur. She asked if the developer withdraws his request, does he have the right to dictate to the Commission or the department which future date he would like to be rescheduled on the agenda. She did not find it fair to push other developers back or for the Staff to work overtime to accommodate the petitioner’s request. It would be appropriate response to inform the developer that he would be on the next available agenda per the Planning Department.

Member Paul indicated that Scenic Pines has requested to return for Preliminary/Final Site Plan Approval. She asked if the Commission would face legal ramifications if the matter were not placed on an agenda until September.

Mr. Schultz advised Mr. Evancoe, Chairperson Nagy and the Planning Department to follow the rules and procedures that are normally followed when fitting a tabled item onto the next available agenda. It would not be right for the Commission to punish and applicant by placing him on a later agenda than they normally would.

Member Paul indicated that she is not referring to deliberately placing the item on a later agenda. She suggested creating a By-Laws and Rules of Procedure to penalize the applicant by placing them on the next available agenda and agenda immediately following. For example if there are thirty projects prepared and waiting to be placed on the agenda, the applicant’s item would be placed as thirty-one as opposed to bumping all the other items down.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Chairperson Nagy suggested sending the matter to the Rules Committee. She stated there is a process in the Site Plan review and a process by which the consultant’s have x-number of days to respond, however at this point, she did not feel the x-number of days is not applicable. She stressed that it is not the Commission’s goal to punish a developer, however, the developer should understand that the Commission will not "fast-track" a tabled item.

Member Kocan thanked the Planning Department for responding quickly to her request. She explained that the roof height might meet ordinance requirements, however it appears higher than the maximum height. Sample verbiage might include, " the hip-roof ordinance states it is half of the height, therefore, the 14-foot roof is technically only 7-feet".

None

None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:35 p.m.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham, Nagy, Papp, Paul, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

August 12, 2002

Date Approved: September 25, 2002