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

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Markham (absence excused)

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

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

Member Paul added Matters for Discussion Item #2 - Opposite Meetings from City Council and Matters for Discussion Item #3 – Upcoming Wetlands Seminar

Member Kocan recalled a Public Hearing Notice published in the Novi News for Asbury Park for tonight’s meeting; however, she notified the audience that the item is not included on the agenda.

Chairperson Nagy announced the item will be published in the newspaper and the surrounding residents will be notified when the item is prepared to come forward.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the agenda as amended.

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

No: None

Robert Bondy stated, "My name is Robert Bondy and I am running for district court judge in Novi. I wanted to come over and introduce myself to the Commission. Those of you commissioners that do not know me, I wanted to give you a little bit of my background. There is always an issue or concern that people at the District Court maybe sometimes are not cognizant of zoning issues or ordinances. I have spoken to city and township officials and I know how important zoning issues are when they go to the court that they be treated appropriately because of the impact that they have on the various communities. I want to give you a little background on myself because I was a planning commissioner ten years in Milford. I spent five years on the Village of Milford Planning Commission and I spent five years on the Township of Milford Planning Commission, so I have spent a total of ten years. After I left those boards, I was invited to sit on their Brownfield Redevelopment Authority Board, (the municipal board). I am currently serving in that capacity as

a Board Member. I know the hard work that goes into planning by planning commissioners. I know what is involved in shaping a Master Plan and trying to follow a master plan. I know what is involved in zoning and the enforcement of zoning ordinances. I believe that in this race I am the only candidate with that breath of experience that knows zoning law and knows what is involved with zoning. I know first hand the frustration there is for Building and Planning Departments when you have zoning ordinances that can either not be enforced or are not given the importance that they are given for non compliance with site plans or non compliance with other aspects of zoning laws that may be enforced because the emphasis put on it because it is not criminal. I am here today to let you know that if I am elected Judge that I will be cognizant of that and I will bring my experience to the court. I am also available by phone."

None

Member Kocan announced that as a memo item to the other commissioners, the Implementation Committee determined at tonight’s meeting to send three items to the Planning Commission. The items are related to window signs permitted for home occupations, garage sale signs and sign violations. Although small changes, they will close the loopholes in the ordinance.

Chairperson Nagy presented Lauren McGuire Landscape Architect with an appreciation award for her dedicated service to the City.

None

Public Hearing on the request of Marvin Daitch of Danovi LLC, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 3 and south of Pembine between Buffington and Henning. The developer proposes a 24-unit condominium under the Subdivision Single-Family Cluster Option in the R-4 (One Family Residential) District. The subject property is 8.93 acres.

Barbara McBeth, Planner introduced the request of Marvin Daitch of Danovi LLC for preliminary site plan approval, Woodland and Wetland permits. The site predominantly undeveloped however does contain two single-family homes and associated garages and outbuildings. The properties to the west are developed with single-family homes and there are some vacant parcels of land to the west. To the north are single-family homes that are within in the Lakewoods Subdivision. To the northwest is the Lilley Pond Subdivision. To the east are the South Point Condominiums. To the south is vacant land, which is designated for a community park. The Master Plan designation for the parcel is single-family. To the south and southwest, the land uses are designated as Community Park. The remaining surrounding land uses are designated for Single-Family Residential. The site is zoned R-4, One Family Residential, as are the properties to the north, east and west. To the south, the properties are zoned R-1 and R-A. The proposed site plan shows a 27 unit site condominium development proposed to be reviewed under the One-Family clustering option. Each home is proposed to be detached and clustered into three or four on each side of the proposed While Pine Trail and Pine Cone Court. The site plan shows that slightly more than 50% of the site would consist of Woodlands and Wetlands preserved in their natural state as it is one of the requirements for approval under the One-Family Clustering Option. Currently, 67% of the site consists of regulated woodlands and wetlands. The two homes currently on the site would be removed to allow for the development. The existing garage, located at the south end of Henning Street would be retained to allow for additional storage for the homes on the property. The garage is proposed to be renovated in a material consistent with the style of the homes that will be constructed on the property. The Planning Commission will need to make a finding that the proposed development meets the intent of the One-Family Clustering Option. City Staff and Consultants have worked with the applicant to assure that a minimum of 50 percent of the site will be preserved in existing woodlands and wetlands as this is one of the conditions which must be present to qualify for the One-Family Clustering Option. The Planning review also indicated that a Zoning Board of Appeals variance will be required to retain the existing garage at the northeast portion of the site in its current location. The ordinance states that accessory structures are not permitted to be located in any required front or exterior side yard. This existing garage does not meet the setback requirements of the Ordinance. The Wetland Review indicated that a Planning Commission approval of a non-minor use Wetland Permit is required. The applicant has worked extensively with the Wetlands consultant to refine the plan to minimize wetland impacts and maintain the contiguity of the wetland system. A short bridge is proposed to span the wetland and the effects of this have been reviewed by the wetlands consultant. The Woodlands review indicated that approval of the Woodland Permit and Plan is recommended with minor items to be addressed at the next submittal of plans. The Landscaping review stated that Planning Commission approval for a brick screen wall in lieu of a landscaped berm abutting the Pembine Road will be required if the plans are approved. Additionally a Zoning Board of Appeals variance will be needed for the proposed planting of street trees within 10-feet of driveways in many locations throughout the site or the plans must be modified to accomplish the separation that is required by the Ordinance. Landscape Architect Lauren McGuire can address this in further detail if the Commission needs additional information. The Traffic review revealed that a Planning Commission waiver of minimum opposite-side driveway spacing is required, with only 117-feet of separation provided between the proposed driveway and existing Henning Street, and 200 feet required. The review indicated that the site lacks adequate frontage to meet the minimum spacing requirement to the east, as well to the west. Engineering and Fire Department reviews indicated only items that may be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review. No façade review is required of this proposal as it falls under the One-Family Clustering Option, however the applicant did provide elevations, as required by Ordinance, of the proposed style of homes, which will be reviewed under the Similar/Dissimilar Ordinance. The applicant has also submitted a plan indicating how they propose to renovate the existing garage.

Robert Carson appeared on behalf of the applicant. He reiterated the proposed development. He noted the efforts made by the applicant to work with the City Staff to work with the layout of the site. Originally, the proposal was for 27-units; however, after working with the City 24-units were agreed upon. Two variances are required. One variance is related to the accessory building (garage/storage units), which he agreed to remove if the variance is not granted. The second variance is related to the planting of street trees within 10-feet of driveways in various location of the site. He found merit in having the trees along the driveway. He requested approval contingent upon obtaining this variance, however, if the variance is not granted, he agreed to relocate the trees. He felt the Staff and the City would prefer to see the trees between the driveways as it is a better planning technique. He commented on the required Planning Commission waiver of minimum opposite-side driveway spacing. He stated there is not 400-feet of frontage, which leaves the site landlocked without the ability to install the road. The property cannot be developed without the installation of the road. City construction guidelines allow the Commission to make a finding based on the site configuration and not require the 200-feet in either direction.

Mr. Robinson stated there is an easement for the Wetland Detention Regional Basin, which does not impact the design. Another easement is located at the northwest corner of the site; however, the situation was resolved with the purchase of the property which the easement was tied. A drive design has been created into this property for future use. He indicated its design benefits the current neighbors.

Mr. Carson stated the easements that may have been mentioned do not affect the site.

Mr. Robinson stated the building elevations are in the 3500 square feet range. The road has been raised as a result of working with the Planners. In the process, the buildings were raised with an open back for some of the units with the height requirements still being met.

Mr. Carson stated the development is in keeping with the park-like atmosphere located to the south and maintains a large area of undeveloped property. In the event ZBA Variances are not obtained, the site plan will be modified to comply with the Ordinance. He reminded the Commission that the site is undevelopable without the Planning Commission Waiver.

Member Kocan announced she received one approval and considerable objections to the site.

Michael Chobak, West Warren Detroit, would like to sell property nearby and therefore approves of the proposed development.

Member Kocan read a portion of the letter from the South Pointe Condominiums Association, "We are quite concerned about the possible effect on South Pointe Condominiums of the proposal. According to the present site plan for scenic pines, they have a planned elevation of 935-feet. South Pointe has a much lower level of 932-feet, per the as-built diagram obtained from the City this week. The water level here is already causing a problem at the southern side of the property with seepage up though "fissures" in our parking lot. Any additional drainage in our direction may very well compound this condition. What steps can be taken to ensure this does not happen and who will be responsible if it does. We know that South Lake is scheduled to be resurfaced late fall this year or early spring. There is currently construction on West Road near Pontiac Trail and Bristol Corners at West Road and South Lake Drive. In short we will be surrounded by construction if this project goes forward. The construction of 27-condominium will mean approximately 50 plus or minus more vehicles using South Lake Drive every day. We are a senior complex of 72-units and have several residents with limited mobility. The increase in traffic will have quite an impact especially when our residents are trying to cross a street. Can scheduling be arranged so if Scenic Pines is approved, construction does not begin until after South Lake Drive has been finished. Already deer are being driven out by other construction in the area, even onto South Lake Drive. We can not do additional building in a wetland area behind our buildings because it is protected. Is not the intended site not also protected. In the Master Plan of Novi, the proposed area was designated to be woodland/wetland. When did that change? Please consider our comments."

Member Kocan announced there are a number of other responses. She indicated the responses reference the previously proposed 27-units; however, the proposal is for 24-units.

Jessie Madina objects due to the value of her property, wetlands and traffic. She is located in a senior condominium complex; wonders about the impact on the usage of Walled Lake; believes the wetlands provide a natural sound barrier and concerned with the possibility of fences being placed around the subdivision. She also mentions that East Bay Condominiums have filled-in with a lot of dirt and the condos are very high and have caused flooding situations with potential lawsuits. There is a large traffic problem.

Thomas Scrobecky objects due to traffic on a dirt road, drainage.

Charlie Azus Lilley Pond Homeowner Association President, wrote "The residents of Lilley Pond Subdivision object to the above request as it will more than double the amount of traffic using Lilley Trail Drive. Since Lilley Trail Drive is the only paved street leading in and out of the area, it is currently frequently traveled by residents living on Buffington and Henning, which are dirt roads. The proposed development would more than double the amount of traffic, however, we would agree with the development if Buffington and Henning were paved as part of the project."

Yasuko Duke objects due to increased traffic and drainage.

Phil Moldowney objects.

Marilyn Hannan objects due to drainage. She felt it was previously stated that it was not permissible to build in the wetlands.

Elizabeth Casemore objects due to the elevation of the site being higher than South Pointe Condominiums, increased traffic and the stress on the lake.

Ira Fisher objects because the ground water levels could flood the condominiums.

Patricial and Allen Kounten object due to additional traffic and the safety of the children in the area.

Marilyn Kouts objects due to traffic and sewers.

Marilyn Hickman objects due to drainage. The access to the site has already been denied once. Residential streets were not designed for additional traffic.

Barbara Tobias objects due to the traffic and elevations.

Dolores Malhout objects due to traffic and drainage.

Mr. & Mrs. Burt Wilmont object because it is bad for the lake.

Elizabeth Casemoor objects because of the runoff on the water. She thought the wetlands were protected.

Catherine Bodone objects due to the runoff of water and traffic on South Lake Drive.

Beverly Specier objects due to concerns of being flooded and excess traffic.

Lois Newgent objects because of fear of being flooded and traffic congestion.

Diane Hamilton objects due to the elevations and the traffic.

David Miller objects because it is a wetland, concerns of runoff and questions if the Department of Natural Resources approved the site plan.

Carol Smith objects due to drainage and additional traffic.

Margaret Carl Lori objects because the area is a designated wetland area to be protected. if it was deemed unacceptable for building 14-homes in 1996 then why is it now okay to build condos there now.

Emmit and Marilyn Hammond objects due to flooding concerns.

Rich Perroka objects due to traffic.

Patricia Allen Counter objects due to traffic. Suggests the lowering of speeds for the safety of the children.

William Baldwin objects due to access, feels the number of units should be reduced to 10 or 12 and the road should be improved with concrete curbs and storm sewers at the developer’s expense, water runoff in the area is of great importance. The land will be higher and water problems will result.

Jennifer Tagels object due to traffic, unsafe driving, disruption in the Woodlands and Wetlands, questions where the drainage will go.

Dorothy Ducheno objects due to flooding, traffic and access. Suggests no approval unless the City will guarantee the lots on Henning will not be subject to increased flooding.

Dorothy Dickens objects due to a poor selection of property and increased traffic.

Precise Incorporated wrote, "We are writing to clarify any misunderstandings about the access easement for 210 Buffington located at the northwest corner of the property. The DeNobe L.L.C., currently has a purchase agreement for the acquisition of 210 Buffington. The newest site plan indicates a proposed new drive for 210 Buffington also indicated as room for 208 Buffington to access their property. We will be happy to create revised access easements for both of these pieces of property."

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

Michael Artash 208 Buffinginton stated, "I am still opposed to the drive because when I bought my house in 1983 the plot map indicated it was 11.5-feet to the gravel. This curve is still using up the 11.5-feet."

Chairperson Nagy interjected and asked for a map to put up for the resident to utilize.

Mr. Artash continued, "There is only 25 to 26-feet to my house. The cars come around the turn pretty fast and occasionally my house is pelted with a stone. There is a telephone pole on the corner. If a car were to hit the telephone pole, the wires would land on my houses. The pole is much higher than 26-feet. There is too much traffic now. The curve will effect my parking and the 18-foot pine tree will need to be removed. Additionally, it will take away the curb appeal of my house, which there is not a lot to start with. The man says that he has a lot of land. Why can’t we just move it over another 11-feet and I could keep what is on my plot map. The pond appears to be 600-feet long. What will keep it from becoming a mosquito pit? Is there a fountain that goes in there? Today is the first time I have seen the site plan. Where will the shoveled snow go? On my front yard? After you take away 11-feet, are you going to let him plow his snow on my front yard? I don’t think so. This wall is keeping it from going any other direction. I do not understand. There is too much traffic. If you stand in my driveway and you look down that road, they line up. According to this, Pembine, is way over here and my driveway is way over here. It is not really like that. I put this pine tree here to soften the headlights and maybe slow that car down before it hits my house because it will end up in my living room. I can not see how this can happen here. I bought my place like this as it states in the mortgage survey, I have a copy of the deed stating I have an access there. Why does it have to change? It is pretty comfortable the way it is now. The neighbors can get by and my house has a little more curb appeal. This is the way I bought it. The grass is where it was when I bought it in 1983. I was told that I could not park on Buffington. What happens when it is Christmas time? Where will the people park? You will find out that the traffic is too much for the roads and you will end up putting up NO PARKING signs. There will be a lot of upset people. The way it flies now, no one will have a mirror on their car. I just don’t see this working. I am opposed to the whole thing. The pond, the elevation, my driveway is at 935 and there are drains going into his pond there. What will keep the water in there? Everything else is higher. My place is the highest point in that area, however soon it will be the lowest point. What safety is that brick wall going to offer me? I do not see my property surviving a 100-year flood. I thank you commissioners for coming out Sunday. I think we should take a hard look at this before it is approved."

Chairperson Nagy asked that comments be kept to a maximum of three-minutes.

Jerry Cooper 155 Buffington stated, "They are looking to slope Pembine. The current slope, everything runs to the south. They are proposing to slope the road toward Pembine. The water comes down on the other side of the road that is higher than that. I am being told that they are putting in a type of pump or some type of means to flow the water over to the detention pond. I am concerned because Lilley Pond attempted to do the same thing. The road started out really high sloping toward my house and JCK came to the rescue. The developer eventually sloped it back and dropped the last 10-feet down to the grade of Buffington. I am wondering why this can not be done in the same fashion. Their houses are elevated also, so I think there could still be walkouts and the road would be sloped away from Pembine where the water has no place to go. Secondly, the detention pond is at 931.5 and steps up to 936. Pembine is at 936, the other side of the road is 939 and the pond in my backyard is located within 50-yards. The water level, per their documentation, is at 931. The pond they are putting in is at this level and will be filled higher. My pond is downhill from that location. My sub pump runs all year long and in the winter it runs every eight minutes. I am not sure that it would keep up if it runs beyond that. If something is placed in there and I can not keep up, then we are going to have to talk. The water currently runs from Pembine, onto their land heading south. They have built that level up where they are putting in the wall. The water that actually ends up on Pembine will no longer run onto their lot, which means Pembine will become an ice-skating rink in the winter and be flooded out in the spring and fall. This is per their information. Obviously, the gentleman from Lilley Pond pointed out that the driver come around the corner and travel down Lilley Pond. We are on dirt. Basically, I will be looking at 42 more cars. I will be dusted-out. I am looking for who I talk to about that because basically it will put me into a role where I am going to have to power wash. The City does a good job. They actually oil the roads, however there are durations where they are not out there and the dust comes off the road. You can live with it with what we have now, but if you are basically going to triple the dust. My house is going to be a disaster. I talked to some people in the City and they said that there is nothing that we could do. The City claimed that they could not make them pave the road. Well, then it does not leave me any recourse of action other than to come to talk to the city about how I get my money or who I have to talk to legally about the matter. I own that major portion there. If there is some arrangement that could be make where we could pave from his road around to Lilley Pond, which you are going to use. If you already have someone in there putting in the road, then the burden for the cost to get them out there already is going to be in the cost. Maybe we could work out something where we could pave it around to Lilley Pond and I will not incur all the dust. I have these documents and I am confused with this one. It states the majority of the net site area is composed of regulated woodland and/or wetland. So, 50% of the net site should be this. Then it states that the land will not be disrupted. Then when determining the number of houses that they will place on the site, they refer to Section 2403.3 which states, the maximum permitted density is 3.3 dwelling units per acre of net site area. I am really confused with the term net site area. The documents seem to stated the net site area is outside of the wetland and obviously the woodland was included in it when it made the cluster homes. Why is the woodland not included here? That would only allow 14 houses on the site. I do not understand how they can use the net site in one area, then again and calculate 24-homes."

Chairperson Nagy informed Mr. Cooper that he had exceeded the three minute time limit. She ensured that the question, regarding net site area and various ordinances, would be addressed during the Commission’s Discussion.

Dave Slaven 202 Buffington stated, "My property is located at the northwest corner of Buffington and Pembine. I am opposed to 24 of anything being built there on that small piece of property. The traffic will be herendous at that corner. They keep saying that the road is 30-feet wide; however, if you measure in front of my house from the driveway to the other side of the street, it is 22-feet. The corner of Pembine and Buffington appears a curve as it is now, it is actually a corner. The streets over there are not what they are supposed to be. I have an older house that is built approximately 25-feet from a gravel road and approximately 15-feet from the ten-foot easement. I am not sure, but I do not think there are 24-houses on Henning and Buffington combined. If it is, then it is pretty close. I am going to end up with at least twice the traffic 25-feet from my front door. Come around that corner, headlights and everything else. The huge detention pond. I read in one packet how they think it would enhance my property value. I think it would devalue my property. Lilley Pond has a wetland on the side of my house. I have a wetland behind my garage behind my house and there is the original wetlands behind the Lilley Pond wetlands that has been there forever. There is a pond on Mr. Cooper’s property that is a detention pond. I am looking at a house that is there. Right now I am looking at a house that is there and I would like to look at another house there instead of a big pond. Lilley Pond subdivision is located on approximately 15-acres with fourteen homes. It is a beautiful subdivision. Why can’t he build seven homes on these eight acres instead of 24. it is ridiculous that he is considering 24 condos or houses on 8-acres. I think over half of it is wetlands. It is very wet property back there. When the construction starts, we will have the same problem that we had at Lilley Pond. What are they going to do with the gravel trains? I see some of the elevations there are up four or five feet with a the road in the back. It is a 22-foot gravel road. If I park in the front of my house, they will not have any 18-wheelers coming down our street. The school buses will not be able to get around the gravel trains parked on the side of the road. The road are inadequate for what they are planning on doing. I would like you to consider the impact it will have on the residents."

Jerry Newman 135 Henning stated, "I am concerned with traffic. After the homes are built out and occupied, there will be at least 48 cars twice a day. There will be a lot of traffic on Henning and Buffington. When Lilley Pond was constructed, Henning was destroyed by the double bottom gravel trains that came looping through. Our windows rattled and the whole house shook. Every time I called the City to complain about it, I was just laughed at and ignored. The same thing will happen now if you let this project go through. The streets will be worse than they area now. The streets are too narrow for the gravel trains to come down. The plans indicated construction traffic will ingress and egress down Buffington, however I do not think there will be anyone out there policing that. If you look at the U-shaped of Pembine and Buffington, the trucks will go down one direction, dump and go out the other direction. There is no way that two trucks could pass each other. It is difficult enough for two cars to pass each other on either of those two streets. There is a safety regarding the bus stop. I was just informed by the Walled Lake Schools that my six year old has to walk to the corner of Lilley Pond and Buffington. I think it is rather unsafe for her and any other children on the streets that to have to walk around during construction. I followed the bus from Buffington around Pembine onto Henning and the eastern glare of the morning sun makes it difficult to see. There is no way a gravel train will be able to stop in time to not strike my child or any other child on the street. It is unsafe. These streets need to be paved and need to have sewers because there will be flooding conditions regardless."

Margo Bosca 203 Henning stated "I live on Henning. My backyard backs up to South Pointe Condominiums. I lived there while they were building the second portion of it. I had small problem with water retention once in a while in my backyard. After they added on, it increased. I am very concerned as they build more buildings and take away where the water would naturally go to and soak in. Obviously, my yard is lower and the water would be reaching my house. I am concerned that the chemicals from the grass they will be growing will be washing into the wetland. What effect will this have?"

Phil O’Downey 130 Henning stated, "I have only heard comments regarding selling the property to the City or approving easement. The artist rendering should indicate that the water is green an not blue. I have lived here for a year now. Upon the purchase of my home I received a seller’s disclosure form noting that I have deeded access to the lake. My deed specifies lots 30 and 31 as recorded in Liever 49 page 20, the Lakewoods Subdivision extends to the southerly shore of Walled Lake. The streets as shown on the said plat are hereby dedicated to the use of the public and the lake to the use of the lot owners said plat. I have sent mailing as to whether I approve or object. I have not been filled in on any plans for Lot 64, which I have heard is owned by the developer. Until I am made aware of the effect of this plan onto my lake access and can consider it satisfactory, I object. Until I have any further information, I can do nothing, but object. I am willing to participate in whatever means necessary to ensure that things turn out the best for he residents of Henning."

Asa Smith 1294 East Lake Drive stated, "I am here again to speak about the Scenic Pines project. I am also her to represent the homeowners association as the president. Most of the things that have been talked about or discussed, you already have knowledge of or are in your packets. A couple of items that I would like to reiterate on and bring them forward. The issue related to the lake front property has been raised before. I hope that you would take into consideration and possibly get the intent of the developers as to what will be done with the lake front area. As we are looking at no marina operation or boat docking, should be placed in some type of conservation or preservation easement or something that would prohibit the use of turning that into more than just a park or recreation beach areas. I believe some of the ordinances in place could pertain to this property and should be looked into. It is just now that people should be aware that this is a part of this project at some point and will need to be addressed accordingly. I hope that you would remember the first public hearing when this group was to come before you and postponed. There were quite a number of people that spoke their thoughts regarding this project. I hope that these comments are in the minutes and some of you could recall and remember some of the statements and concepts made at that time. I hope that you will honor the requests of the residents who expressed their thoughts at that time. I do believe that most of the residents through the mailing and the letters that you have received from those that could not be here tonight, have expressed their concerns and desires. All of our concerns are that you would look closely at this project and make sure that it is constructed to the standards that this area requires. The residents would be more than happy to have a project like this if it is done properly. I leave it in your hands to make the best decision with the information and the feedback from the residents to make the best decision regarding the residents, their concerns and the benefits of the City."

Anna Provellas 1201 South Lake Drive stated "I have live here since 1969. My husband tried to buy the easement on Henning. He was told that it could never be sold to anyone because it was for the people on the block. I was told they found a deed. What does that mean?"

Chairperson Nagy indicated that her questions would be addressed during the Commission’s discussion.

Ms. Provellas continued, "When I open my side door to go outside, I will probably slap someone in the face opening my door if they put the cement road and sidewalks in. Another thing, the contractors that bought it is I wish they would clean it up once in awhile."

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing.

Chairperson Nagy referenced the Lakefront Protection Ordinance and asked the Applicant if he planned to do anything with the lakefront area.

Mr. Robinson stated he was not sure. He desired to have the lakefront available to the association and was aware of how it could be used. Any issues would be approached after Preliminary Site Plan approval. The minimum use would be a beach and park area.

Chairperson Nagy asked if he was privy to the Lakefront Protection Ordinance Article IV.

Mr. Robinson was not sure.

Mr. Carson stated the lot located on the lake is not part of the site plan. He noted his understanding that prior to any incorporation of any attempt to utilize the property in any manner in connection with the proposed development, the appropriate steps would need to be taken and it would need to comply with all applicable valid ordinances. Currently, no use is being requested for the site. He assured the Commission that no plan or theory would be taken without the appropriate steps.

Chairperson Nagy informed Mr. Carson that the concern was raised at the last public hearing and again at tonight’s meeting. Thereby being the reason for the request for clarification.

Mr. Carson made known his knowledge of the ordinances. There is no plan before the Planning Commission for the use of that space.

Mr. Newman noted the title on the lake lot and indicated it could be the reason the lake lot is not part of the site plan. The lot is 350 or 400 feet away from the lake lot. There seems to be a problem with title to the property. He stated that matter needs to be addressed by the City Attorney.

Chairperson Nagy stated she visited the lake access area. Article IV Lakefront Protection Section 3262, section 4 states, "a lakefront recreational park shall include at least 25 lineal feet of lake frontage and 150-square-feet of area for each lot or dwelling unit served by the park. Irrespective of the number of lots or dwelling units served, no lake front recreational park shall have less than 200-lineal-feet of lake frontage or less than 20,000-square-feet of area for purposes of this subsection the natural lake frontage existing prior to any proposed development alteration shall be considered." She stated it has been measured at 50-feet wide. She asked if the applicant has the ability to return with a request to make a beach out of the 50-foot width lot and how the Ordinance applies with regard to the dwelling units.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney stated the issue of utilizing nearby property for the purpose of lake access is not unique to this evening’s discussion. It is something that is an issue throughout the state of Michigan. This type of provision that is contained in the Ordinance that establishes minimum perimeters for this type of lot is designed to ensure that any type of area utilized for these purposes is adequate and does not result in an overuse of the lake either from a practical standpoint or from a natural resource standpoint. By all appearances, at this point, it would be very difficult for the property owner to meet these criteria. The property owner has indicated that they are not asking for an approval to utilize this parcel at the present time, they will comply with all ordinances that require compliance before using it and they recognize that they might not be able to utilize it. Since the approval of this development will not carry with the approval to utilize this lot, he recommended a footnote or a provision in the approval that merely indicates that approving the subdivision or site plan does not carry with it an approval for the utilization of this lake lot and that the property owner has acknowledged that they must comply with all applicable ordinances in order to use that parcel for lake access purposes.

Chairperson Nagy turned the matter over to the Commission for discussion.

Member Paul asked if the building standard is 200-feet on each side of a road.

Ms. McClain indicated the Design and Construction Standards require the distances between roads to be 200-feet. Although there is not 400-feet of access, there is still access to the site. The Planning Commission has the ability to waive this Design and Construction Standard as they have in past cases for drives that have less than the required amount. Based on the geometry of the site, it is the only way a drive could be placed on the property.

Member Paul supported the removal of the accessory building. She asked Mr. Arroyo to share his perspective on the removal of the accessory building.

Traffic/Planning Consultant Rod Arroyo stated the accessory building is not permitted. As indicated by the applicant, a ZBA Variance is required for the accessory building. The applicant has also indicated if the variance is not obtained, the accessory building will be removed. This non-compliance has been noted in the review letter.

Member Paul asked how much of the site is wetlands, the amount required to be saved and the remaining net space to work with.

Chairperson Nagy asked Mr. Arroyo to define the term net site area and address Member Paul’s questions.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the Ordinance gives two different definitions for net site area, which apply in different situations. Net site area (related to density) – takes the area of the land and subtracts regulated wetlands that are in excess of 2-acres. In this case, there is a large wetland over 300-acres, however only 1.61-acres appear to reside on this piece of property. Since it is part of a larger wetland (that is over 2-acres), the 1.61-acres is subtracted from the site area to obtain the net site area for the purposes of determining the density of units allowed on the property. Net site area (related to preservation) – Under the Cluster Option, it is for the purposes of determining how much wetlands and woodlands have to be preserved on the site. The wetlands are not subtracted and instead, the right-of-way is subtracted from the site. It states there needs to be a majority (over 50%) of the net site area that has to remain regulated wetlands or woodlands when the plan is built and the project is in ground.

Member Paul asked for the net site area.

Mr. Arroyo stated for the purposes of the cluster option, over 4.4-acres of woodlands and wetlands must be preserved, which has been met.

Member Paul noted the resident’s concern of traffic patterns. She asked how the safety of the children can be ensured and if construction traffic could be limited around the bus schedules.

Mr. Arroyo stated in his experience, bus routes change from year to year and require ongoing monitoring. As the project approaches construction, the current information could be obtained in hope to coordinate with the developer and possibly limit construction traffic in that short window. Typically, this can be done without imposing a significant restriction. Additionally, it might be possible to ensure designated construction routes are properly enforced and coordinated with the bus routes in attempt to conflict at the least practical extent.

Member Paul asked the Developer if he was amenable to eliminate construction traffic during bus route times of younger children.

Mr. Carson agreed with Mr. Arroyo’s suggestion to determine the routing and work with the City as the time of construction approaches. He did not have any objection to working with the City in the attempt to coordinate.

Member Paul asked if City water/sewer will be offered to the residents on the site as well as residents on Pembine and Buffington.

Ms. McClain stated City sewer will serve the site. Currently, City water does not exist; however, a SAD in process. If the SAD is completed, then the Developer will be required to bring water to the site. A payback agreement will be determined upon the completion of the SAD. At that point, the residents will be able to "hook-in" with a payback-type of agreement.

Member Paul recalled the reference that 210 Buffington was been sold, however there is no record indicating the completion of this transaction. She asked the impact of the easement of 210 Buffington and 208 Buffington on the proposed site and the detention basin.

Mr. Arroyo noted that to his understanding, the Applicant proposes to address the access easement to 210 Buffington. Buffington comes down and terminates. There is a drive in this location and another drive that extends to serve 208 Buffington. He pointed out the shift that would occur with the proposed realignment. He noted the modification to the previously proposed detention basin. One issue that has been raised, through coordination with Nancy McClain, is that the treatment is appropriate to ensure that can vehicles can safely pass through. He suggested requiring the Applicant to provide enlarged detail of the area at the time of Final.

Member Paul asked if there is a separate owner for the southern portion of the easement.

Mr. Carson indicated it is the same owner.

Mr. Arroyo noted that to his understanding, the entire easement is attached to the home.

Member Paul was concerned that the property was unusable.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that to his understanding 208 Buffington might have rights to the easement.

Member Paul stated the detention basin appears to be encroaching on the easement. She asked if it is feasible to move the detention basin 11-feet.

Mr. Arroyo stated these options could be explored after a detailed drawing and detailed plan are submitted. He noted that there are opportunities to address the concerns; however, it is difficult to do at this time at the table.

Member Paul stated the detention basin is long and no screening materials are provided. She asked the feasibility of having two smaller detention basins; one further south and the other at the northeast corner. She suggested adjusting Lot 20 to 24 forward.

Ms. McClain pointed out the proposed screening of additional plantings. The storm water detention basins are required to maintain a certain volume as set by the Ordinance. If the detention basin is split, then the volume level will be reduced. The impact to obtain the remainder of the volume will come from the woodland and wetland areas. The option would require the removing of trees from the woodland to gain the additional space from making the basin smaller. The removal of trees to provide additional detention was not found an acceptable solution by JCK, Lauren McGuire or herself.

Ms. McGuire encouraged the applicant to not split the basin. The goal is to preserve the woodlands located behind the units.

Member Paul asked if it could be deeper than the site and smaller to retain more water.

Ms. McClain stated soil borings indicate the ground water is at 131 elevation, which is the location of the base of the detention basin. Once the basin is deeper, additional storage is no longer provided because water will be there. Additionally, the basin would need to be widened in this area, which would create more of an impact to the side.

Member Paul felt more screening should be provided at the northwest corner.

Ms. McGuire indicated the item was addressed in her review letter. She recommended additional screening be provided for the residents. The detention pond will need to be reconfigured to allow for the additional screening.

Member Paul asked how two detention basins would be feasible, without removing any trees and placing the basins away from 210 and 208.

Ms. McGuire recommended removing the garage and for the wall reflected on the west side to be reflected on the east side, as opposed to the half wall and half berm, with the appropriate landscape plantings. If it were feasible from an engineering viewpoint, she felt it would create a nice entry to have the ponds on either side. She explained that it is only an option if it functions from a detention point. Therefore, she suggested working out the details at Final.

Member Paul asked if the fill will cause the water to reach the rear yards behind Lot 1 and Lot 3.

Ms. McClain asked her to clarify from which direction.

Member Paul indicated from the South Pointe Condo site located to the northeast.

Ms. McClain stated currently the low area comes down along Henning. She assumed it was filled for use as a yard at the time that the other house was constructed.

Member Paul asked a berm is necessary to keep the water flow heading in the southern direction.

Ms. McClain stated the water will flow in approximately the same direction that it currently flows. The water off the non-paved area is not as large of an impact as it would be off the same area if it were paved. She did not recommend a berm because it could impact the normal flow of the water coming down.

Member Paul wanted to ensure the water flow would not flood the property on the northern site on Henning or Buffington. Additionally she wanted to ensure that the woodlands and uplands were not made so wet that they would die.

Ms. McClain designated the area where current elevation is approximately 932 and the existing South Pointe Condo storm sewer has an outlet of 930. Due to the lay of the land, the flow travels north to come south in this area. The water then turns and comes back down and enters the large area that has the easement for a regional detention basin and into the large 300-acre wetlands.

Member Paul clarified if she was confident with the stormwater management and water flow issues.

Ms. McClain answered, at this time. She indicated that due to the fact this is a preliminary site plan further investigation is necessary. If there are believed to be further problems, then there will be further remedies asked of the applicant to move the water toward the south.

Member Paul asked if a MDEQ Permit is required.

Ms. Kay indicated a permit is required for the road crossing, utility construction and the storm water impacts.

Member Paul stated she did not receive a copy of the MDEQ Permit letter.

Ms. Kay stated typically it is the applicant’s decision as to whether or not they will file State and Local jointly. She did not have any discussion with State Personal in this regard to the site; however, she suggested asking the Applicant.

Member Paul asked the Applicant if he planned to file for a MDEQ Permit.

Mr. Carson indicated he would secure every permit and approval required. He indicated that in working with the City for the last 2-years, the detention basin has been moved back and forth. In order to know where the permits will be required, the layout needs to be established through this preliminary site plan approval. A great deal of effort has been put into this project over the past two years.

Chairperson Nagy indicated his request for approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit.

Ms. Kay indicated that the Applicant is not required under the Local Ordinance to have a letter from the State prior to local proceedings. Therefore, it is a condition of the letter and would need to be provided prior to the issuance of a Wetland Permit.

Member Paul commended the applicant for his efforts and work over the past two years. She was not certain if she would be able to approve a preliminary site plan without this information. She asked the Developer if he planned to remove the garage if the ZBA Variance is not granted.

Mr. Carson understood that the approval would be conditioned upon either obtaining the required ZBA Variance or the removal of the structure.

Member Paul asked him to answer directly yes or no.

Mr. Carson answered, yes.

Member Paul did not feel a lot of creativity went into the artist rendering drawing. She requested more enhancements be given to the front.

Ms. McBeth presented the Commission with the façade board.

Member Paul stated that although it helps depict the façade, she still wanted more variation.

Member Avdoulos stated the site meets the intent of the One-Family Clustering Option. He preferred the removal of the existing garage as the garage would not be in character with the homes and instead would appear as a garage at the end of the road. He agreed that the brick wall should continue across the entire face of the road. It appears that the site itself with the detention pond is stressing itself out in the upper hand corner. He was concerned that the stress would stress the adjacent properties. He suggested the elimination of one or two units to make the detention pond more comfortable appears to be the only solution. The slope of the road is from the back of the property toward Pembine. Although there are sewers along the way, he was concerned area at the approach from Pembine onto the private drive. A heavy rainfall could cause a washboard condition and stress on Buffington, Pembine and Henning. He questioned if these roads were included in the CIP paving program.

Ms. McClain stated paving the unpaved roads in the City is a Council goal; however, it has not been determined how it would be done. In this case, the developer could volunteer to pave the offsite road or the residents could pave the roads under a SAD.

Member Avdoulos asked if there is a concern with drainage onto Pembine from the developed property.

Ms. McClain stated the area to the west of White Pine Trail (along where the sidewalk is located), will need to be evaluated to determine if water in the ditch would cause a problem. The drainage along the frontage of the wall will be determined and how it would come back into the detention basin. This issue has been identified and will be reviewed further at Final.

Member Avdoulos asked the maximum extension if future property owners were to place decks on the back of their home.

Ms. McGuire noted there are several areas, particularly in the southeast corner and the woodland is very close to the edge of the units. She suggested consideration be given to the possibility of making some of the outdoor space under the building. Alternatively, they would need to go through the Woodland Review Board for the placement of a deck.

Member Avdoulos understood the resident concerns with regard to traffic. He requested the enlarged detail plan of the area at Final as suggested by Mr. Arroyo.

Member Shroyer apologized to the citizens for the commissioner’s foot traffic on the property. He indicated that the owner has the right to develop the property according to the Ordinance. He asked why the 30-inch berm is not being provided along Pembine.

Ms. McGuire indicated that there is not enough room with the detention pond to accommodate the berm. It could be pulled back with the elimination of a unit, allowing room for the berm. She noted the many attractive developments in the City, such as Bellagio, where walls are used.

Member Shroyer agreed. He also agreed with Ms. McGuire’s comments regarding the wall on the east side. He did not agree with the combination of a wall/berm. He encouraged the exploration of the possibility of splitting the detention basin. He did not find the entrance attractive. He preferred the removal of the garage. He stated the road is not 30-feet wide in some areas. He recalled other situations where a schedule has been worked out with the developer, City and School. He recalled the resident’s comment and asked if records reflect that the area was ever designated 100% woodlands/wetlands.

Ms. McGuire indicated that she was not able to give information past the maps available. The Woodland Map and Wetland Map distinctly indicate the lines, which have been verified on the site plan per the city maps.

Member Shroyer indicated the plan will be reviewed with the information that is on record at the current time. He noted the proposed woodland path dead-ends at Pembine at the north end. He asked if the homeowner association will open the picnic area to other residents in the area. If not, he questioned why the path dead ends into Pembine.

Mr. Carson stated it is an amenity shown on the preliminary site plan. The internal condominium association will be governed by the members who will be residents.

Member Shroyer stated due to insurance reasons, he did not feel the area should be open to other people’s use. He questioned why it dead-ends on a public street.

Mr. Carson stated at the preliminary stage, he suggested that it could be an area for the children to be picked up by the bus or just part of the amenity package. He stated either way it is considered a private amenity of the condominium association.

Member Shroyer requested that the site plan return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Review. He noted the numerous unresolved issues such as façade concerns, the retention pond area, ZBA Variance for garage etc.

Member Ruyle agreed that the garage should be removed. He asked if the Commission chooses to move forward with an approval, could D be removed upfront or does the Commission give the applicant permission to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Mr. Fisher stated the property owner has the right to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated the Commission is determining that the building would have to be removed in order to be lawful. On the other hand, the determination of what is lawful can be modified by the ZBA. He had every assumption that the ZBA would consider the Commission’s recommendation.

Member Ruyle asked the projected cost of the condominiums.

Mr. Newman estimated $350,000 to $400,000.

Mr. Carson clarified if Member Ruyle was referring to the selling cost.

Member Ruyle answered, yes. In response to a resident’s written request, Member Ruyle asked the Developer if he were willing to pave Henning and Buffington. He realized that the Commission could not place this request on the Applicant; however, he asked if he was amenable to such as request.

Mr. Carson was not willing to commit to pave the streets on his own cost; however, he was willing to cooperate with the City in reviewing a SAD based on lineal footage. He indicated that he was willing to at least discuss it with the City based upon use. He did not find it appropriate to ask the Developer to pave two public dedicated roads within the City, which are the City’s obligation to maintain. Additionally, it is not appropriate for the City to condition approval of a site plan for what otherwise would have been a landlocked parcel, on the paving of roads that are within the City’s jurisdiction.

Member Ruyle asked if he was aware of the precedence set in the City by other developers who have taken on the cost on their own because the City could not afford to or would not widen a major thoroughfare.

Mr. Carson indicated if the development was for a regional shopping center, it might be affordable.

Member Ruyle wanted to see the City pursue this option.

Mr. Carson stated in all fairness to his client, he could not commit on behalf of his client to comply with the request or accept the conditioning of the site plan approval. He stated it is not an appropriate condition. He stated the Applicant would make every effort to discuss with City Administration how to best allocate in a fair manner any burden in the future, however he would not accept the condition of a site plan approval on such as request.

Member Ruyle agreed that the Commission could not place this request on the Applicant.

Mr. Carson indicated he and his client have tried to be very cooperative with the City in the other activities with the proposed development and other developments.

Member Ruyle clarified that he was not directing Mr. Carson to pave the streets. He merely wanted the request on the record.

Mr. Carson felt a number of the concerns raised were already satisfied through the City Staff and City Consultants. These included retaining the water, the establishment of the internal site, and attempting to save as much of the woodland and wetland as possible.

Member Ruyle requested the site plan return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval.

Member Sprague asked if the Applicant was in agreement with numerous comments and revisions recommended in the review letters.

Mr. Carson indicated many of the suggestions were incorporated. He was not clear as to which items Member Sprague was referring. He indicated in past practices, the attempt to accommodate the suggestions. There are some items that are not able to be addressed until Final, such as whether or not to remove the berm and provide more wall or to accommodate the landscaping in the corner with additional trees. He indicated the Final site plan will show the area in detail and in working with the staff and consultants, the items will be brought to something more agreeable. He committed to continue to work together with the Staff and Consultants.

Member Sprague asked if the impact on drainage is a variable in the attempt to balance the preservation of woodlands and adequate detention capacity.

Ms. McClain answered, yes. She explained that to take drainage to the northeast corner of the site and bring it back across to the southeast corner of the site or to take it to the northeast corner and the southeast corner without connecting them is not an efficient way to handle the drainage. Water that is moved a lot it does not necessarily help the detention.

Member Sprague asked if there are additional options for the placement of the detention pond with 210 Buffington.

Ms. McClain stated to utilize the property for detention would acerbate the impact to 208 Buffington. The impact would be in the front and along the side piece of his property. She stated that she could not speak to the elevations in that area throughout the whole site. The Applicant is not seeking to add that into the site plan at this time.

Member Sprague asked Mr. Carson to address the resident’s comment regarding the snow removal.

Mr. Carson stated the snow will not be plowed onto his property.

Member Sprague asked where he anticipated the plowed snow would be placed.

Ms. McClain indicated as in the past, the snow will continue to be plowed into the ditch area between the proposed sidewalk and the roadway.

Member Sprague indicated he was referring to the area up in the corner, not on Pembine.

Ms. McClain indicated this issue would be handled further in the final site plan process.

Member Sprague wanted to know the resident’s concern would be addressed.

Mr. Newman proposed a wall for both sides of the proposed drive of 210 Buffington (the purchased property). Therefore, when the snow is plowed, it would be plowed back into the property on 210 Buffington. The area designated on the drawing in white is actually a larger area than the 11-feet requested by the resident at 208 Buffington. The 5-foot of grass, located on Scenic Pines property, will be left along with the 15-feet to the wall.

Member Papp asked who owns the lot on the lower portion of the Scenic Pines Aerial photo.

Ms. McClain stated the property is owned by Michael Chobak of West Warren Detroit who wrote in favor of the proposed development.

Member Papp indicated South Point Drive has a speed limit of 25mph. Since the trucks weigh more than the bridge’s 5-ton limit, all construction traffic would need to route to the west.

Ms. McClain recommended that all construction traffic route to the west. She indicated the road is a thoroughfare and there is currently construction traffic and other traffic crossing the bridge. The City’s Weighmaster intercepts the traffic as much as possible. Improvements to the bridge are being considered with the South Lake Drive project.

Member Papp assumed construction traffic routed west would utilize Lilley Pond Road because it is wider than Buffington and Henning.

Ms. McClain stated the applicant is required to submit a proposed construction route, which will be approved based on conditions at the time of construction. She indicated this stage is part of the right-of-way permit process and Final Construction.

Member Papp noted page C-2 of the site plan was not sealed or signed. He asked if this was common.

Ms. McClain stated the Engineering Firm indicated their awareness that it needed to be provided. She stated although it is not signed and sealed, it does not necessarily mean that it is not correct. She stated it will be provided in the future.

Member Papp pointed out the 14 trees located in the detention pond listed on Chart WP-1. He asked if these would be removed.

Ms. McGuire clarified that he was referring to the northwest corner.

Member Papp answered, yes.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Papp asked if soil boring was done.

Ms. McClain stated some soil borings were done at the northern portion of the site. Additional soil borings need to be done to the south. Discussion as to how it should be handled with a minimum impact across the wetland is included in the engineering and wetland review letters.

Member Papp noted the trees proposed located under the power lines. He asked if there is an easement at this location.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. The landscape review letter indicates the requirement to remain 15-feet from the power lines.

Member Papp asked if the City is responsible for grading the gravel road.

Ms. McClain answered, yes.

Member Papp asked if it would be necessary to grade the road more often with the addition of construction traffic. Additionally, would it be at the expense of the City.

Ms. McClain answered, not necessarily. She stated the Developer and the Contractor during construction will be responsible for maintaining dust control on that road.

Member Papp clarified that the Developer is responsible to grade the road once a week if necessary.

Ms. McClain answered, correct.

Member Kocan indicated letters from the residents were included in the commissioner’s packets that were not read into the record as they are already part of the record. She noted some of the concerns mentioned and request the Staff to address their concerns. The easement records were not shown on the site plans. Member Kocan stated the site plan proposed a detention basin in the location of the easement.

Ms. McClain indicated that Staff has informed the Applicant that the easements for the access and the regional detention basin need to be shown on the site plan.

Member Kocan asked the setback from the easement.

Ms. McClain indicated that a setback is not required from the easement. The City has an easement across the area in the southeast corner for a Retention Basin that is part of the North Novi Retention Basin (a large basin that covers most of the wetland area up in that location). The Regional Detention Basin easement is located completely located within the wetlands and there will be no impact. The applicant is abiding by the requirements of the easement to the City for Regional Detention Basin. Concerning the access easement, the Applicant has worked out with Mr. Wok as to how it would be handled with the purchase of the property. There remains an issue with the access, which will need to be worked out between the two property owners. An easement is necessary that would still have access; however, the two property owners can change the easement.

Member Kocan asked if it would require a lot split or Board approval.

Ms. McClain answered, no. It will need to be recorded with Oakland County. She explained that it is not a lot split and it is an easement for access across the corner of the parcel.

Member Kocan stated the fact that the lakefront lot is not part of the proposed development will be included in the motion. A resident stated half of the homes would exceed the 2½-story limitation per City Code. She asked if this was correct.

Ms. McGuire stated there are walkout units located in the southeast corner, which are a three-story unit. She deferred to Mr. Arroyo to address the measurement of height.

Mr. Arroyo indicated it would be difficult to make a final determination at this point with the information provided. He explained that the height is measured based upon the average grade around all four sides. The Ordinance defines what constitutes a basement versus a story based upon how much of the grade is above grade versus below grade. Therefore, it would be difficult to make a final determination until the final plans for the buildings are submitted to determine if they meet the definition of a basement or a story. He noted the site has a lot of changing topography and it is in a preliminary stage. In the event there it does not meet ordinance either requirement, then a story will need to be removed or a ZBA Variance obtained. If there is a case of practical difficulty due to something unusual with the property, then they could have a good case for the variance.

Member Kocan asked who is responsible for monitoring this.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Building Department issues the permits on the homes and will ensure that it is being done properly.

Member Kocan asked if the Commission has any discretion with respect to the number of lots under the Cluster Option. If the developer meets the findings that it is an unsubdivided area; the conventional approach would destroy the unique environmental significance; and the majority of the net site area is composed of lands that are within jurisdiction of the woodlands protection ordinance, then does the Commission have any discretion. The site just barely meets the requirement at 50.01%.

Mr. Fisher stated the Commission makes the determination as to whether or not the qualifications are met. Since the ordinance specifies the density. Therefore, if the qualifications are met then it is a calculation thereafter.

Member Kocan clarified that the developer’s removal of three units was due to the Ordinance calculation and not the "goodness of their hearts".

Mr. Fisher did not find it appropriate for him to address her question.

Member Avdoulos stated the existing site size is 8.93-acres. He calculated 24.156 units allowed. The Applicant has indicated 29 units allowed, proposed 27 and have now reduced the number to 24 units, however 24 is the maximum number allowed. Member Avdoulos restated his concern with the stress to the upper corner. He suggested the removal of lot 23 and lot 24, the extension of the detention basin, provide the property owner an easement with more elbowroom on the side and thereby resolve some of the issues.

Member Kocan concurred with Member Avdoulos’ calculations. Concerning the wall around the detention basin, she stated the 2½-foot berm (with the 2½-feet, 3-foot slope and 2-foot plateau) would allow an additional setback of 17-feet. She asked if the wall would be located 17-feet from the road.

Ms. McGuire asked if she was referring to the curb.

Member Kocan asked where the berm would end.

Ms. McGuire stated the berm is placed on the right-of-way. The property owner has to place the berm on his or her own property.

Member Kocan asked how far the berm would be located from the road. The detention basin appears to be very close to the road. She hoped if there was a berm, then the detention basin would be located farther from the roadway. She asked where the berm starts.

Ms. McGuire stated the berm starts at the right-of-way.

Member Kocan clarified that the berm would be located 17-feet from the right-of-way.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct. The detention basin is currently located plus or minus 5-feet from the right-of-way.

Member Kocan clarified that if there was a berm, then the detention basin would be located farther from the roadway.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Kocan was in support of this option. She felt its current location in the corner was very imposing. In order to support a waiver for the berm in lieu of a fence, she required it be located 17-feet from the right-of-way. The fence is a wall; therefore, she asked how drainage could continue to drain.

Ms. McGuire indicated that drainage can be accommodated through a wall.

Member Kocan stated the garage does not meet the current setback ordinance, it is in the most visible area of the development and it occupies park space. In her opinion, the garage served absolutely no purpose to beautification of the site. She did not deem find any hardship and hoped the ZBA made these considerations. The construction vehicles using South Lake Drive that should not be should be handled in a more aggressive manner. She requested the posting of additional signs for construction traffic limits. She requested the Developer to pass on the information that truck traffic will not violate the City weight loads on South Lake Drive. Buffington and/or Henning may require major reconstruction after the construction is completed. Therefore, she proposed the videotaping of the roads both before and after construction. Further, the roads shall be return to at least the same condition that they were prior to the beginning of construction. She recalled the response to the issues at the northwest corner, "We can try to address that at Final Site Plan". Hypothetically, she asked what would happen if site plan approval was granted and serious problems arose. She was concerned with the numerous water problems in the area that were anticipated to be addressed later.

Mr. Fisher interpreted later as referring to between now and Final Site Plan review when the Engineering is done. Based upon the Ordinance definition, he assumed that Preliminary Site Plan Approval did not approve engineering. Therefore, if engineering later discloses unfeasibility, then the grant of Preliminary Site Plan Approval is not standing in the way of changing that position.

Member Kocan clarified that the Preliminary Site Plan Approval would become null and void.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Kocan stated Lot 7 and Lot 10 that appear to be encroaching into the wetland buffer. She asked if the lots sizes are required to be a minimum because she did not support an encroachment into the wetland buffer. She asked Ms. Kay to clarify.

Ms. Kay was not certain if the lot sizes or the building envelope was at a minimum therefore, her comments were deferred otherwise. She stated overall the buffer impact to the site is miniscule, however, any effort to stay out of the buffer is recommended. The options would be explored at Final, which she agreed to as a condition of approval if it is feasible. She noted her understanding that most of the buffer disturbance was related to the construction of the bridge and some of the grading at the end of the cul-de-sac, which she believed was corrected since the original submittal. Therefore, the impact could be less than what was referred to as conditions of the plan. She noticed an error for buffer in cubic yards, which should be corrected. She deferred to the applicant.

Member Kocan clarified that the possible buffer disturbance on Lot 4 is related to bridge work as opposed to the lot.

Ms. Kay answered, yes.

Member Kocan restated that she would not approve encroaching into the wetland buffer for numerous reasons. The wetland buffers need to be protected. She agreed with the resident’s comment that there will be chemical. Filling in part of a wetland here and there has a cumulative effect that changes everything. She required that the approval be conditional upon no lots encroaching into the buffer area. Member Kocan explained that the new letters the Staff provided to the Commission were due to the need to have letters with correct information on file since the approval often indicates compliance with the consultant’s letters. In essence, the lot numbers, as referenced in the landscape review letter, were revised. Concerning the trees located within 10-feet of the driveway, it is better to leave the trees as there is not much room between the driveways. In discussion with the Landscape Architect, it was determined that in order to leave the trees within 10-feet of the driveway they will need to be at least 13-feet back away from the road. Although the matter will need be addressed by the ZBA, she did not find a problem with the request. Concerning the opposite-side driveway, she preferred to have Henning continue into White Pine Trail and curve around. She thought that option could assist with the detention basin situation; however, units would likely be lost. Member Kocan asked the Developer to be open to the allowed number of units and allowing additional area around the detention basin to help ensure the existing residents, as well as future residents, in the area would not be flooded out.

Chairperson Nagy stated there was a large response from the residents involved. She recalled the resident’s letter which stated, "Back in 1994 and 1996 the developer proposed a fourteen unit subdivision and was denied by the City due to the wetland issues". She asked Mr. Arroyo if the statement was true. She indicated to Mr. Carson that the new commission was not involved in the historical information that he is privy. The questions might sound redundant; however, the Commission asks because they do not have the answer.

Mr. Carson indicated that he was not present during that time either and neither was his client.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that he was not aware of a project submit and acted upon during the given timeframe. He indicated that he could check the Projects Map for record of the submittal.

Chairperson Nagy requested him to do so. She walked the property, Henning, Buffington, Pembine and South Pointe. She shared the concern(s) related to drainage as it drains into the Middle Rouge. She noted the stress placed on the corner by units 23 and 24. She pointed out that she was not privy to anything that occurring prior to the matter coming before the present Commission. Additionally, she was not privy to all of the changes that might have been made on the site plan. She asked how the flow into the Middle Rouge would be affected. She noted her concern that the trees would be killed.

Ms. McClain showed the Commission the drainage pattern of the current undeveloped site. Showing the direction of the water flow and its redirected route, she indicated that it is not a major change. The function of the detention basin is to slow the water down and allow it to come out at a controlled rate of runoff, which for this site is .02 cfs per second, (known as the standard agricultural runoff). She explained that South Pointe Condominiums does not have a detention basin, which is the reason it flows fast into the back ends of the lots creating a problem.

Chairperson Nagy asked if the proposed site plan is under the jurisdiction of the new Stormwater Management Ordinance.

Ms. McClain answered, no. The plan falls under the old Ordinance due to its site plan number issued prior to the beginning of June.

Chairperson Nagy inquired with Mr. Arroyo regarding his finding to the earlier question.

Mr. Arroyo showed the Commission the 1995-1998 Projects Map showing projects in process between 1995 and 1998. He pointed out the subject property and that no submittal was in the process in 1996.

Chairperson Nagy read from the review letter dated September 18, 2002, we recommend, instead that the returns be positioned to match the future construction of a 28-foot local street section located a minimum distance from the new south right-of-way line. She asked if this has been addressed.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the comment is a condition that would be addressed on the Final Engineering plans. It sets the curbs back for the entry at the location where the roads would match up if ultimately the road were to be paved to City Standards. Additional gravel would be added in the interim to provide a taper to match it up to the existing gravel road base.

Chairperson Nagy asked him to comment on the driveway spacing.

Mr. Arroyo stated that technically it does not meet the Ordinance. Typically, the Commission review projects that have access directly onto a major thoroughfare. Spacing is very critical, because typically, speeds are higher and there is more activity. He did not have any specific objections to granting a waiver in this case because of its location. It is not located in a heavily traveled area. He agreed that there are no alternatives and the roadway cannot be placed at a location without requiring a waiver. The Ordinance provides for situations with no alternatives; placement in a reasonable location with the granting of a waiver.

Chairperson Nagy noted her concern that the traffic from Buffington could run into the utility pole. She noted the location of the detention pond. She stated the maximum units allowed by Ordinance is 24. Therefore, she questioned if two units could be removed and everything pushed back to make the development safer.

Mr. Arroyo addressed the issue of the roadside safety in his review letter requesting more information. He was informed additional information was submitted to the Planning Department in response to the review letter; however, it was not forwarded. These issues would be addressed as part of the Final Site Plan Review. In cooperation with the Department of Public Works (DPW), a review to determine what could be done in a practical standpoint by the Applicant or the City to address existing safety concerns in that area. Typically, this would address issues within right-of-way. The removal of units would not necessarily help in this situation; however, there are items that could be addressed that could improve some of the situations.

Mr. Evancoe stated he received a call today from a representative from Aprecis indicating that they provided additional information beyond the aerial photo referred to in Mr. Arroyo’s review letter; however, Mr. Arroyo or he had not seen the information. He stated it was a verbal indication from the representative. Concerning the utility pole, he suggested reflective signage.

Chairperson Nagy felt the corner was unsafe. She asked if the Sign Ordinance addresses retail signs for condominiums.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. The Sign Ordinance addresses homes/units for sale. A variance is required if the applicant desires to place a sign offsite.

Chairperson Nagy asked if there were alternative options to improve the safety of traffic flow on Pembine, Henning and Buffington.

Mr. Arroyo stated the biggest challenge is determining what to do when the conditions are off the site need correction. He explained that it is very limited in terms of what can be required off site. He noted the best alternatives have been outlined in the various recommendations. He felt what could be done within the given limits has been done.

Member Paul asked the Developer if he was amenable to have a group come in and remove whatever they are permitted to remove for beautification in the City.

Mr. Carson assumed his client would work with the City Administrations to save any plant life that would be attractive to the City. He was not aware of the plans. He assumed the garage would end up being removed. At that point, he stated something could be worked out though the City Manager Rick Helwig or through the Commission. He agreed to make an effort.

Member Paul found it an appropriate project for the City’s Beautification Commission.

Mr. Carson explained that there was a disagreement between the Developer and the City as to whether to remove the 1.76-acres in the calculation of the number of units. Typically, the 1.76-acres would not be removed from the calculation. There was uncertainty of the net site area because the 1.67-acres might attach to something offsite. The matter was resolved in the City’s favor; otherwise, there could have been 29-units. The onsite wetland would not typically reduce the site for the calculation.

Mr. Fisher stated the independent lot south of 210 Buffington. He confirmed that the lot was not being landlocked.

Mr. Carson stated the treatment of that lot is not being changed.

Mr. Fisher clarified that the lot was already landlocked.

Ms. McClain agreed.

Member Kocan stressed that no disrespect was intended to the Developer when she stated he reduced the number of lots out of the goodness of his heart.

Mr. Carson indicated that he took no offense to her comments.

Member Kocan noted her concern with the numerous open issues; however, there are Ordinance requirement and the Developer meets the Clustering Option and the number of sites. She hoped that he would be open to additional flexibility. She indicated that there were a number of items discussed that she would attempt to include in the motion. She clarified if she could include in the motion that the Developer would provide appropriate access to the resident at 208 Buffington.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes.

Concerning maintenance and reconstruction of the roads, Member Kocan asked if it is appropriate for the motion to include a request to consider videotaping the conditions of the road before and after the construction.

Mr. Fisher indicated a request could be made.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Scenic Pines Estates SP01-63B to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and non-minor use wetland permit finding that the proposed Cluster Development meets the intent of the One-Family Clustering Option (Section 2403.1) as conventional development would destroy environmental significance of the site and majority of the net site area are under the jurisdiction of the Woodlands and Wetlands Protection Ordinance, a Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side driveway spacing due to the unique location of the landlocked parcel, Planning Commission approval for a brick screened wall in lieu of the required 30-inch tall landscaped berm abutting Pembine Road providing the detention basin is setback the distance of a required berm, subject to the granting of a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the accessory building in the current location as it is not in compliance with the Ordinance, Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the proposed planting of street trees within 10-feet of a driveway providing the trees are 13-feet from the road, subject to the understanding that the site plan does not carry with it an approval of the lake access lot, subject to the maintenance and reconstruction of the roads during and after construction, dust maintenance control and the stipulation that the roads be video taped before and after construction to determine reconstruction requirements, limit construction times with respect to elementary school bus schedule, construction traffic to comply with the City load limits, conditional on no lots encroaching into the wetlands buffer, Final Site Plan requires additional significant detail of the northwest corner, engineering issues being satisfied as well as DEQ Permit being obtained, the Developer shall provide appropriate access for 208 Buffington, the site plan shall return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval and subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Final Site Plan Review, the review letter of the Fire Marshall will be included.

Member Shroyer asked if the motion should include comments regarding the Developer working with the City in reviewing the possible multiple locations for the basin or splitting to ease the problem with the lots and the surrounding communities.

Mr. Fisher stated there is adequate commentary in the dialog of the minutes.

Member Shroyer clarified that it did not need to be included in the motion.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Shroyer asked if the accessory structure (garage) should be part of the motion.

Mr. Fisher recommended including it in the motion to avoid any implication that the Commission is approving the garage as part of the site plan approval.

Member Shroyer asked if it was worded correctly.

Member Kocan indicated her motion stated, subject to the granting of a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the accessory building in the current location as it is not in compliance with the Ordinance

Mr. Fisher stated additionally, the motion could clarify further, if the ZBA Variance is not granted then the accessory building shall be removed.

Member Shroyer amended the motion.

Member Kocan accepted the amendment.

Member Shroyer asked why there is not an extended paved area for ingress or egress into the road.

Ms. McClain asked if he was referring to a taper.

Member Shroyer answered, yes.

Ms. McClain stated Ordinance requirements for tapers are based on the amount of volume of traffic. Neither road is a major road and would not meet Ordinance requirements to have a taper.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED (5-3): In the matter of Scenic Pines Estates SP01-63B to grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit and non-minor use wetland permit finding that the proposed Cluster Development meets the intent of the One-Family Clustering Option (Section 2403.1) as conventional development would destroy environmental significance of the site and majority of the net site area are under the jurisdiction of the Woodlands and Wetlands Protection Ordinance, a Planning Commission Waiver of minimum opposite-side driveway spacing due to the unique location of the landlocked parcel, Planning Commission approval for a brick screened wall in lieu of the required 30-inch tall landscaped berm abutting Pembine Road providing the detention basin is setback the distance of a required berm, subject to the granting of a Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the accessory building in the current location as it is not in compliance with the Ordinance and if the ZBA Variance is not granted then the accessory building shall be removed, Zoning Board of Appeals Variance for the proposed planting of street trees within 10-feet of a driveway providing the trees are 13-feet from the road, subject to the understanding that the site plan does not carry with it an approval of the lake access lot, subject to the maintenance and reconstruction of the roads during and after construction, dust maintenance control and the stipulation that the roads be video taped before and after construction to determine reconstruction requirements, limit construction times with respect to elementary school bus schedule, construction traffic to comply with the City load limits, conditional on no lots encroaching into the wetlands buffer, Final Site Plan requires additional significant detail of the northwest corner, engineering issues being satisfied as well as DEQ Permit being obtained, the Developer shall provide appropriate access for 208 Buffington, the site plan shall return to the Commission for Final Site Plan Approval and subject to the comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of the Final Site Plan Review, the review letter of the Fire Marshall will be included.

Yes: Avdoulos, Kocan, Papp, Shroyer, Sprague.

No: Nagy, Paul, Ruyle

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

Dave Hales represented Terrasanto Development LLC thanked everyone for their hard work to bring the project to this point in the site plan process. Terrasanto Development LLC requested the Commission to determine the necessity of an emergency access stub road for the Meadowbrook Eight Development. Is the stub road required by Ordinance? If it is not, he requested the permission to remove it from the Final Site Plan. If the Commission feels the stub would normally be mandated in a development of ten units, with a road not exceeding 650-lineal foot of length, then he asked the Commission to grant Terrasanto Development a wavier or variance to remove the stub road from the site plan. The basis is Subdivision Ordinance Section 404 Streets subparagraph B item 1 – Justification for removal is the extension of the stub road is found impractical because of the dimensions of the property subdivided and/or natural features exist including regulated woodland or wetlands. He requested Final site plan approval contingent on Terrasanto Development’s ability to accommodate the engineering traffic and landscape review letters prior to Stamping Sets.

Member Ruyle asked Mr. Arroyo to comment on the Ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Subdivision Ordinance requires stub locations or stub streets depending upon different situations. An excessively long cul-de-sac (longer than 800-feet) requires two points of access, which is not the case here. Stub locations must be provided along every 1300-feet of property boundary frontage. In this case, it is not necessarily needed for the length of the cul-de-sac; however, it is needed for adjacent property. There are two long narrow parcels adjacent to the proposed property that will likely develop. He recalled two representatives at a previous meeting who indicated their intention(s) to develop the properties. Due to the long narrow dimensions of the parcels and the likelihood of their development together with one cul-de-sac, they would likely end up with a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum length allowed in the Ordinance. One way to make that occur is to have some type of stub connection where there would be an emergency access connection or full connection. In this particular case, there was a choice to be made. A full access stub or an emergency access connection could be required. He recommended the emergency access connection for many reasons. It has the least impact on the applicant as they would not lose any lots, they would not have provide for the 60-feet of right-of-way and dedicate an actual road thereby having to deal with potential traffic from the each other’s project. The option will provide the emergency access benefits by creating a gated emergency access connection to allow the emergency vehicles to pass back and forth. He noted the woodland area, which was previously evaluated by the former Woodland Consultant who determined they were not high quality woodlands. The former consultant determined it was a reasonable location for a connection from the adjacent property. Mr. Arroyo recommended the construction of the emergency access stub and the easement be put into place from the beginning. In the event the development comes forward and can find another point of access, (from Country Place or another point), and the connection is not needed for the development to continue forward then the emergency access stub could be removed at some point in the future upon approval by the Council. Finally, the Commission does not have the authority to grant a waiver as the City Council is the body authorized to grant waivers or variances from the Subdivision Ordinance.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To extend the Commission meeting until all of the items on the agenda have been satisfied.

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

No: None

Member Ruyle commended the Developer for addressing the basic requests of the Commission. He noted his concern with the stub road.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, MOTION AMENDED: In the matter of Meadowbrook-8 Condominiums SP01-72 to grant Final Site Plan Approval subject to the comments of the attached review letters being addressed prior to Stamping Set approval, the Developer's request not to improve the emergency access stub at this time shall be granted upon the condition that all documents required by the City Attorney for dedicating the emergency access stub shall be executed and delivered to the City to hold and record at the appropriate time and that the Master Deed to contain language approved by the City Attorney providing for the assessment of the units in the development for all costs of improving the emergency access stub at such time.

Member Kocan clarified that the developer will be responsible for paying for and developing the emergency access should the need arise.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He stated the developer would be paying for it indirectly by having the obligation on the lots. Anyone buying the lots or the units would be buying them with the understanding that they may or may not have to spend the money in the future.

Member Kocan supported the motion.

Chairperson Nagy clarified if Ms. McGuire indicated she wanted the stream to flow in the same direction it always has.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. She indicated she is working with the Applicant and Ms. Kay to keep the flow as close as possible to the same direction to achieve the preservation of several trees. She indicated that the applicant has agreed to work with Staff to accomplish this.

Member Paul referenced Mr. Arroyo’s review letter, the exterior side yard needs to be a minimum of 30-feet setback on lots 1 and 10 because they abut Meadowbrook Road. She asked if the current design of the Site Plan meets the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Arroyo stated in this instance, he recommended approval of the lot of the condominium unit. The structures, when placed, will have to meet the 30-foot requirement for that particular area. He noted that the structures are not being approved at this time. His comments were intended as a point of clarification that would need to be reflected on the Stamping Sets to ensure that it is taken care of.

Member Paul noted his comment regarding the labeling of the 20-foot greenbelt easement along Meadowbrook Road and a Non-access Greenbelt Easement.

Mr. Arroyo indicated he would look for these items on the Stamping Sets.

Member Paul clarified if Ms. McGuire continued to support the waiver for the berm and use of a screen wall.

Ms. McGuire answered, correct.

Member Paul asked if the Applicant has agreed to provide the screen wall.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. She explained that there is not enough room for the berm due to the reconfiguration of the stream.

Member Paul asked Ms. McGuire if she was still working with the Applicant to resolve the many items that need to be addressed prior to Stamping Set Approval.

Ms. McGuire answered, yes. She indicated that the landscape plan has not changed from the original preliminary at this point. They desire feedback from the Planning Commission with regard to the stub street prior to investing additional funds.

Member Paul clarified that she was please with the landscaping at this point.

Ms. McGuire stated there is work that remains to be done.

Member Paul noted her concern that all the landscape comments would be met since Ms. McGuire would no longer be employed with the City.

Ms. McGuire stated she did not approve the Final Site Plan for landscaping, as indicated in the review letter. The issue needed to be addressed. She stated the items are not major; however, they have not been addressed yet.

Member Paul asked the Applicant if he was willing to meet all of the requirements that Ms. McGuire has listed in the landscaping review.

Mr. Hales answered, yes. He indicated that his agreement to comply is in writing.

Concerning the access road, Member Avdoulos noted the recommendation for a 20-foot radius on the north and a 10-foot on the south. He asked if this should be indicated on a Master Deed to give the buyers of Lot 5 and Lot 6 the knowledge that there will be a radius on their property.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would be need on the Final Site Plan. Should the Commission chose to move forward, he suggested they approve the Final Site Plan subject to a further administrative review of some of the minor issues, to allow the Site Plan to be cleaned up prior to stamping.

Member Avdoulos amended the motion.

Member Ruyle and Member Shroyer accepted the amendment.

Member Kocan stated it appears that the items that need to be addressed to bring the site plan up to where it needs to be are included in the consultant and staff letters. The developer has stated on the record as well as by letter that he would comply with everything. Member Kocan indicated this is her reasoning for accepting the package although the site plan itself is not finalized.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Meadowbrook-8 Condominiums SP01-72 to grant Final Site Plan Approval subject to the comments of the attached review letters being addressed prior to Stamping Set approval, the Developer's request not to improve the emergency access stub at this time shall be granted upon the condition that all documents required by the City Attorney for dedicating the emergency access stub shall be executed and delivered to the City to hold and record at the appropriate time and that the Master Deed to contain language approved by the City Attorney providing for the assessment of the units in the development for all costs of improving the emergency access stub at such time, subject to further administrative review prior to Stamping Set Approval.

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

No: None

Consideration of the request of Singh Development to amend the Zoning Ordinance:

Ms. McBeth introduced the request of Singh Development is to amend text of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to the Planned Development Number 2 Option (commonly referred to as the PD2 option). The intent of the amendment is to allow for mixed use developments: essentially, to add a residential component to the existing PD2 Option ordinance which already allows for a variety of retail and service uses. The PD2 option is available only in certain areas of the City of Novi, as designated on the Master Plan for Land Use. This was taken from the report that was prepared by Singh Development the last time the Commission considered the request and it describes the area with the PD-2 Option around the Twelve Oaks Mall. The PD-2 Option currently allows for the following types of development: convention centers including motels, auditoriums, theaters, assembly halls; planned commercial centers containing at least 150,000 square feet, entertainment centers such as theaters, health clubs, racket clubs; retail commercial uses containing at least 50,000 square feet banquet halls, limited types of restaurants and accessory uses related to those permitted uses. The request of Singh Development is to amend the PD-2 Option that would allow a mixed-used development that would include the residential component within the same building as commercial and/or office uses. Singh Development has also provided the nice aerial photo. Singh Development’s initial request in March of 2001 was to rezone the property from RC, Regional Center to TC, Town Center to allow a mixed-use development on the property with retail and office on the first floor, and residential use above that. Since the March 2001, rezoning request and text amendments relating to this property have been reviewed by the Master Planning and Zoning Committee, Implementation Committee and the Planning Commission as a whole on several occasions. Minutes from those meeting as well as a memo summarizing the highlights of those meetings were included in the commission’s packets. As a reminder, on June 19, 2002 Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding the Text Amendment. City Council considered the matter on August 12, 2002 and approved the first reading of the Text Amendment, however they sent a request that the Planning Commission provide additional input for the council to consider, particularly in terms of the Commission’s review of the Master Plan. The Commission is asked to consider providing the Council with any additional input the Commission would find necessary to assist the City Council with the decision to approve or deny the Text Amendment.

Member Paul stated that although she supported the concept of mixed-use developments, she did not support the possibility of a gas station, which would be permitted if the property were rezoned.

Member Ruyle felt the issue had been extensively discussed. The Commission has repeatedly given negative recommendations of the proposal. He continued to feel that the proposed location is not the appropriate area for a mixed-use development. Town Center is a more appropriate location. He did not support the Zoning Text Amendment.

Member Kocan stated unless the matter goes before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee and receives a recommendation, then her comments remain the same as the June 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Although the addition of mixed-use development to the Ordinance could be considered, the proposal for a minimum of 20% commercial with the rest residential is considered a zoning to residential as opposed to remaining commercial. Member Kocan did not support the proposal. The Developer has not requested a Master Plan Change, however she questioned the possibility of having the Master Planning and Zoning Committee review the request. She asked the Staff to comment.

Mr. Evancoe indicated the Council requested for the matter to return in 60-days from their review. He noted that the Commission seemed to indicate that the matter has been reviewed thoroughly and continues to hold the same opinion(s). Therefore, he suggested that the Commission send the matter back to Council for its second reading.

Chairperson Nagy stated the Commission’s comments were explicit in its concerns and reasons as to why the request was found not appropriate. She questioned what the Council did not understand when they sent the matter back to the Commission. The previous Planning Commission had the matter before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee. She asked if the Ordinance is being changed on a Council level.

Mr. Fisher stated if the Planning Commission sends a negative recommendation then City Council has the option of following the Commission’s recommendation or not following it.

Chairperson Nagy questioned if the Council already approved the first reading, then what would be the purpose of sending it back to the Commission.

Mr. Fisher stated in some instances, the first reading is a formality to move the matter forward. He indicated his impression at the City Council meeting was that there was intent to not delay processing of the Ordinance one way or the other. He was not certain that there was a firm understanding of whether it would be approved or not approved ultimately. There was a definite feeling that the Council did not want the matter delayed. The Council did first reading so that when the matter returned, it could be disposed of with finality.

Chairperson Nagy reiterated her comments from the past meeting. She stated the Master Planning and Zoning Committee is working on the Master Plan for Land Use. The matter has not been before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee. She would appreciate the opportunity to place the matter before the Committee, however not be forced into a period of 60-days. She was not opposed to a mixed-use development; however, she shared the same concerns expressed by other commissioners regarding the 20% and residential, proposed location etc.

Ms. Brock indicated that the matter went before the previous Master Planning and Zoning Committee in October 2001.

Chairperson Nagy pointed out that the matter has received all negative recommendations. She asked if it would be appropriate for the current Master Planning and Zoning Committee to make a determination. She did not feel anything would change.

Mr. Fisher agreed that it did not sound like it would be productive.

Chairperson Nagy did not feel it would be a productive step in terms of the Commission, Applicant, Council and those involved. She advised the Council to read the Commission’s minutes because the Commission has no further comments beyond those that were included in the minutes. She indicated that some of the current Councilmembers previously voted "no" on the proposal when they served on the Commission as Planning Commissioners.

Member Shroyer stated he was in favor of the mixed-use development concept however opposed the location. He felt the matter should go before the Master Planning and Zoning Committee for review. He stated the 60-day timeframe was ludicrous as the Committee is far from a Master Plan for Land Use recommendation. He stated no request of similarity could be done with justice with a "fair shake" for everybody in the City. He did not find it appropriate for the full Commission to be reviewing the request at this time. The full history, the reports, etc., are not available that are necessary to move forward to make the final Master Plan for Land Use recommendation, which has not been updated for five-years. He anticipated another year prior to having a good Master Plan in place. The Committee currently meets twice a month in attempt to catch up to be able to begin work on the Master Plan. In this case, he asked if no action is an action.

Mr. Fisher stated no action would be an action; however, his impression was that Council was seeking a reaffirmation or further reasoning.

Member Shroyer believed the majority of the Commission held its negative recommendation. He indicated that he would support a referral of the matter to the Master Planning and Zoning Committee with adequate time for review.

Member Kocan stated because of the comments from the City Council meeting and the time needed to review matters, she was preparing a letter to the City Council with regard to where the Implementation Committee stands on Council’s request to review an Ordinance issue. The letter will address the reason(s) the matter has not been review, where the item sits on the agenda and the need for time to review.

Member Ruyle continued to support the Commission’s comments from the January 23, 2002 Planning Commission meeting and the negative recommendation.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Paul, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 18.171 to send a negative recommendation to the City Council based on the Planning Commission’s discussion found in the minutes of January 23, 2002 and any other Commission minutes pertaining to the proposal.

Chairperson Nagy stated if the Master Planning and Zoning Committee is not able to work sufficiently on the Master Plan for Land Use, while meeting twice a month the result will be spot zoning.

Khanh Pham of Singh Development requested permission to comment.

Chairperson Nagy indicated his comments are limited to three-minutes.

Mr. Pham asked the Commission to reconsider their motion as the Council was asking for additional comments.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that the Commission clearly understands the Council’s request and the Commission made all of their comments.

Mr. Pham indicated that Singh Development did not speak at City Council.

Chairperson Nagy understood and clarified that the Commission was not placing blame to the applicant.

Mr. Pham stated B-1 and B-2 is already allowed the PD-2 Option and is not a change proposed by Singh Development. He noted Singh Development’s agreement with Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi in that there would need to be a greater restriction to keep the integrity of a mixed-use development building.

Chairperson Nagy indicated that she shared Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi’s concern.

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

No: None

Member Kocan made minor corrections to the minutes.

Chairperson Nagy made minor corrections to the minutes.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Ruyle, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes as amended.

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

No: None

Member Kocan made minor changes to the minutes.

Member Avdoulos made minor change to the minutes.

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the July 24, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes as amended.

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

No: None

Mr. Fisher recommended meeting on a Saturday morning.

Chairperson Nagy noted that many of the commissioners are "burning out" from meeting five times a month for Planning Commission related matters. She suggested starting with a tour of the Plan Review Center to demonstrate the Plan Review Process. The legal training could follow the tour, which might be in November. She suggested adjourning the matter until after the tour.

Mr. Evancoe agreed with her suggestion. He suggested holding the tour prior to a regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Nagy agreed. She advised having a light agenda on the night of the tour. She stated the corresponding legal session topics with the commissioners’ questions, which could be submitted after the tour session.

Mr. Fisher agreed.

Member Ruyle found the last legal training session very beneficial. He encouraged another Saturday session or day that would allow at least two or three hours to meet.

Chairperson Nagy announced the Commission will postpone the scheduling of the legal training session.

Member Paul requested meeting opposite weeks from the City Council as it would help the Staff more efficiently prepare for the Planning Commission meetings. She asked Mr. Evancoe to share the meeting calendar depicting 22 meetings versus 24 meetings.

Mr. Evancoe thanked the Commission for being considerate of the Staff’s needs. He shared two calendars with the Commission; the previously approved calendar and a calendar attempting to alternate from the City Council meetings. August and December will only have one meeting with the new calendar. He requested flexibility and the ability to "tweak" the meeting schedule as further coordination is necessary.

Member Kocan noted her concern with public hearing notices for the Planning Commission meetings scheduled after Memorial Day and Labor Day. She wanted the residents to have access to the library and Staff to view materials prior to the public hearing. She requested the Staff and Chair consider minimizing and/or eliminating public hearings from those meetings.

Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Member Paul asked if the commissioners supported meeting opposite weeks from the City Council Meetings and meeting no more than twice a month.

Planning Commission unanimously agreed.

Mr. Evancoe recalled previous discussion regarding a start time of 7:00 pm. He asked if the Commission desired a 7:00 pm start time on the new calendar.

Chairperson Nagy reminded the Commission of Member Markham’s schedule conflict with a meeting starting at 7:00 pm.

Mr. Evancoe suggested placing the item under Matters for Discussion on the next agenda.

Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Member Kocan reminded the commissioners that a 7:00 pm start time could eliminate the ability for Committees to meet prior to the Commission meeting.

Chairperson Nagy agreed.

Member Paul announced she needed name of those interested in attending the Superior Introduction to Wetland Values seminar on 9:30am-4:30 pm on October 5, 2002.

None

None

Moved by Ruyle, seconded by Shroyer, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:35 a.m.

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

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

October 18, 2002

Date Approved: November 6, 2002