The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m. and recessed until about 8:30 p.m. until such time that a quorum was present.

ROLL CALL

Present: Members Avdoulos, Kocan, Markham (late), Ruyle, Shroyer

Absent: Members Papp (excused), Sprague (excused)

Also Present: David Evancoe, Director of Planning; Barbara McBeth, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; Tom Schultz, City Attorney; Kelly Kelly, Wetland Consultant

Public Hearing on the request of Bob Porteous of The Novi Investment Company for Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland, Wetland Permit approvals and Storm Water Management Plan under the RUD (Residential Unit Development). The subject property is located in Section 32, on the north side of Eight Mile and east of Garfield Road in the R-A, Residential Acreage District. The developer is proposing a 58 unit single family development. The subject property is 77.37 acres.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial map. She said that the Planning Commission reviewed this matter at the August 21, 2002 Planning Commission meeting, at which time they recommended approval to City Council of the RUD Plan, subject to a number of conditions. City Council reviewed the Plan on

September 23, 2002 and approved the RUD (site) Plan subject to a number of conditions. Council subsequently approved the RUD Agreement on December 16, 2002, and approved an amendment to the Agreement on November 24, 2003. This latest amendment to the agreement reflected changes relating primarily to a Special Assessment District for sanitary sewer.

Ms. McBeth said that the property is located on the north side of Eight Mile and east of Garfield Road in the southwest corner of the City in Section 32. The property is currently vacant land, used for farming with a large woodland area at the northeast end of the site. To the west is vacant land owned by Northville Public Schools. To the east is the approved Maybury Park Estates, which is currently under construction. To the north are single family homes fronting on Garfield Road. To the south in Northville Township are single-family homes - off of Eight Mile and Westview Road. The subject property is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as are the surrounding properties. To the south, in Northville Township, the land is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends residential uses of the site. To the southwest, the property is Master Planned for public uses and is owned by the Northville School District. To the north, the property is Master Planned for public and residential uses.

Ms. McBeth said that the submitted plan shows the proposed development of a detached Single-Family Residential project containing 58 homes. The total number was reduced by three homes from the previous submittal and was approved by City Council. All of the homes are proposed to be detached, non-clustered homes on lots ranging in size from 21,780 square feet to 44,298 square feet, as allowed in the R-A zoning district approved under the RUD section of the Ordinance. Two entrances are proposed on the public street systems: one on Eight Mile and one on Garfield Road. The proposed Costello Drive will connect to the approved Maybury Park Estates to the east, as required by City Council. Seven parks/recreation areas are proposed for the benefit of the residents, including a large wooded preserve on the north side of the site and natural wetlands area on the east side of the property.

The Planning Review provided a list of the City Council conditions and an indication of whether each condition has been met. The developer indicated how water and sewage issues will be resolved, as stated in the Engineering Review.

The width and length of the Eight Mile entrance shall meet Ordinance requirements. The Traffic Engineer indicated that the Eight Mile access drive with a 24-foot width is wider than the City standard island width of ten feet. However, the City has noted that a range from eight to 24 feet is acceptable, while ten feet is the standard.

Ms. McBeth continued, stating that City Council required that the active recreation area be modified to better meet the intent of active recreation. The plan proposes a hard surface play area, lawn bowling and pedestrian paths. The Plan Review Center requested that the Parks and Recreation Director provide additional guidance for the Planning Commission on this issue. His memo was included in the Planning Commission packets.

Woodlands shall be preserved on Lots 19, lot 24 through 31 and lot 34, until the lots are purchased and the homes are designed. Then the trees may be removed on a lot by lot basis. The Planning Commission should note that the lot numbers were re-assigned since the first submittal due to the elimination of three lots.

Ms. McBeth said that additional screening shall be provided along the west property line adjacent to the school property. The Landscape Review indicates that none of the earlier requested changes were made to the plans, and this item, as well as a number of other items, will need to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

The Planning Commission should note that City Council did waive the requirement of the minimum site area of eighty acres.

Another City Council condition was that the Eight Mile entrance meet Ordinance requirements for opposite side driveway spacing. This has been accomplished on the submitted plans. City Council required that all construction access shall be via Eight Mile.

City Council approved waivers only for the length of the boulevard section. The Traffic Engineer’s Review indicated that this should be clearly dimensioned at the time of Final Site Plan Review.

Another City Council condition was that the Planning Commission be given the opportunity through their plan approval process to work out the active and passive recreation areas. City Council waived the requirement for a stub street through the woodland and a stub street to the school’s property.

All of the major concerns of the professional staff and consultants have been met. The Applicant has been asked to provide additional clarification for the record regarding items requested by the Wetlands consultant. Ms. Kelly from Dr. Tilton’s office is present this evening if the Planning Commission has any questions regarding this issue.

Mr. Joe Galvan addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He said that they have negotiated every detail of this project. He said that they would be able to satisfactorily address any remaining issues noted by the consultants. Water and sewer will be installed for the property. Site drainage issues have been addressed. He said that Pat Keast, Engineer, and Mark Guidobono are also in attendance, representing the Applicant. He asked for Preliminary Site Plan approval so that they can move this project forward. He noted that the core woodlands have been preserved, which is the underlying reason the Planning Commission originally recommended approval of this RUD Agreement.

Member Avdoulos read correspondence into the record:

Karen Mannke, 21620 Garfield: Approved of the plan but was concerned about the dewatering of the land near her two wells. She asked who would take responsibility of repairing her well problems if this project somehow affects her land.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Ruyle asked City Attorney Tom Schultz to address Ms. Mannke’s question. Mr. Schultz said that it is not the responsibility of the City to address this issue because it is not a public water system. The private relationship between this homeowner and the Applicant is addressed by the law, which essentially says that everyone has the right to develop their property, and it can be expected on occasion some temporary interference with each other’s rights. If it becomes unreasonable, the party being unreasonable will be responsible to the other. Mr. Schultz continued that the Engineering and Public Works Department works diligently on the City’s side of this work to prevent unreasonable action on the part of a developer or property owner.

Member Ruyle said the plan is a great improvement over the last plan. He said that previously he was concerned about the stub road, but now there is a connection into Maybury. He liked this new plan.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Shroyer asked about the wetlands. Kelly Kelly of Tilton & Associates (The City’s Wetland Consultant) stated that the inconsistency of numbering the wetlands on the blueprints would be corrected at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Shroyer asked where the access to North Chiati Park was. Patrick Keast, Seiber Keast and Associates, 40399 Grand River, Novi, responded that the area behind lots 33 through 36 is accessed off of Garfield Road. Member Shroyer thought that west of lot 36 would be used to handle stormwater, and therefore would not provide access. Mr. Keast said that an earlier plan did show a detention area there but that plan was abandoned because there was nowhere for that detention area to drain. Mr. Keast said there would be a three- to four-foot berm there, but that an open spot would be provided for equipment egress.

Member Shroyer said the Parks and Recreation Committee asked that the access pathway around the active recreation area be paved to allow for handicapped access and rollerblading, etc. The Applicant said that they would be discussing the recreation plan in greater detail with the Parks and Recreation Department. He said they have already made some adjustments to the plan, and he does not see this as a contentious issue. Member Shroyer said that the Parks Director is pleased with the paved basketball area and the lawn bowling area. He thought the request for the pathway paving would be advantageous to this property.

Mark Guidobono, Cambridge Homes, said that the path will be paved. They are also providing woodchip paths in other parts of the community, especially around the environmentally sensitive areas. Mr. Guidobono thought that the City wanted paving in an area other than the east-side woodchip path. It seemed apparent at the meeting that there was confusion regarding Mr. Auler’s (Parks and Recreation Director) request for a certain path to be paved. Mr. Galvan stated that they would be working with the City to determine the best course with which to proceed, and he asked the Planning Commission to allow this to happen.

Member Kocan said she wanted the east path paved because she thought there was a lack of active recreation. She thought it would make it more handicapped-accessible, and allowed for a more active recreation activity. The woodchips do maintain a more natural look but they will need to be replenished over and over. She wanted a commitment from the Applicant for the paving.

Member Kocan did not see additional landscaping provided between this property and the school property. She read the RUD statement, "The RUD allows for changes to the landscape plan as Section 18 states that landscaping shall be provided as set forth in the Final Site Plan." She said that allows the Planning Commission to require more landscaping along the western property as required in the City Council’s motion. That was something that the consultant also noted. The plan was attached to the RUD and approved by City Council; she said that the Applicant has to provide additional landscaping. She asked if this additional landscaping was a request or an amendment to the RUD. Mr. Schultz said that the plan attached to the RUD has control. The RUD Ordinance states that when an RUD comes back to the Planning Commission for approval, the members should be looking at the standards for landscaping and enforcing those standards.

David Evancoe, Director of Planning, said that the screening along that school property border is currently shown as deciduous trees, and he suggested that pine trees could be substituted. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that he anticipates reviewing the Final Site Plan with additional screening on the plan, per City Council’s motion, for the west side of the property. Member Kocan liked the idea of evergreens.

Mr. Galvan said the substitution is not a problem. He will work with the City to come up with a border treatment which meets both the letter and spirit of the City Council condition. He said that they are only asking for Preliminary Site Plan approval at this meeting; they are aware of the need to address additional items at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Kocan asked about the planned walkway to the school. She said the school district did not want a stub street entering their property. She said Berolla Park shows it is reserved for a future roadway connection. Mr. Galvan said that this issue is the result of a Planning Commission request. They understood that even though the school district doesn’t want the stub street, the City wanted it left on the plan. The Applicant does not want to do the stub street. The school walkway (asphalt) is planned between lots 48 and 49. There is also another potential location for a second walkway (not described).

Member Kocan asked about the water, sewer and water pressure. There was a request for a revised Preliminary Site Plan but it was not submitted. She said the RUD Agreement states there should be a basin on the plan approved by the Planning Commission. She said that the basin cannot affect Wetland C. There are mitigation concerns. There are buffer concerns. These concerns are usually addressed and therefore Member Kocan is not comfortable moving this plan forward.

Ben Croy, Civil Engineer, said that the Applicant’s stormwater design changes do not appear to be too difficult to achieve, and the Wetland Consultant does not believe the wetlands will be harmed by adding and discharging the stormwater from the site. He said he is not sure of the exact design but it is not a complicated one. He is comfortable that the wetlands will not be harmed.

Member Kocan said that the record should indicate that no building will take place until the sanitary is in place by either Tuscany or Maybury. Water will need to be available at the fire hydrants. She asked whether homes could be developed with wells prior to the water hookup. Mr. Croy said that homes will be developed with private wells for domestic use. At the same time, the infrastructure for the water will be put in for fire use. Homes will not be connected at this time due to low water pressure in the area. There will be no certificate of occupancy issued for any home unless there is sufficient water supply to the homes, and that includes private wells (domestic water) and the water main infrastructure (hydrants). The sanitary will be installed prior to occupancy of any homes.

Mr. Croy said that water booster stations will be used to upgrade the pressure in the area. If it is acceptable at the time of construction, homes will be able to tap into the lines.

Member Avdoulos liked the new plan without the gates. He liked that it connects with Maybury Park Estates. He thought that this community will be of high quality. He was concerned about Eight Mile traffic. He knew that the road would be widened to three lanes (center left-turn lane) but he wanted to know if the speed limit would be reduced – currently it has a 50 mph limit. He asked that it be put on record that the corner of Eight Mile and Garfield is a traffic concern for him, and that a light should be considered for the intersection.

Member Avdoulos understood the Parks and Recreation letter to be requesting the eastern pathway to be paved. He would agree with that suggestion, for the ease of maintenance and continuity purposes. He supported the project.

Chair Markham confirmed that the parks within the community are not "city-wide public" but "subdivision-wide public." The Eight Mile path is indeed eight feet wide. She asked for clarification on the wetlands. Ms. Kelly responded that the December 5, 2003 letter from her office describes how Wetland C and the stormwater management system would be integrated. They thought that some enhancements could be added to Wetland C.

Chair Markham confirmed that all tree replacement would take place on this property. She said that she would support Randy Auler’s suggestion that the east pathway be paved, as he is the expert. She said that Mr. Auler suggested more open space instead of the lawn bowling area. She continued that a two-acre open parcel in her subdivision was once planned for a park but the neighboring homes fought its construction. She said that this subdivision needs to address this now so that this open area does not get abandoned at the request of the abutting homeowners.

Chair Markham confirmed that Member Avdoulos was requesting a street light, not a traffic light, for the intersection at Garfield and Eight Mile.

Chair Markham asked who would be responding to the citizen who wrote in support of this project. Mr. Evancoe said that the Planning Department would take care of that. Chair Markham supported the project.

Member Ruyle asked whether the Planning Commission could require the paving of that path. Mr. Schultz said that he would prefer that the issue be left to the Planning Staff and the Applicant to work out.

Member Kocan asked whether Member Ruyle would consider the following additions to his motion:

Member Ruyle accepted those changes, and Member Avdoulos also agreed to them. Chair Markham called for the vote.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Ivanhoe Huntley for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning on property in Sections 22 and 11 located east of Novi Road and north of Twelve Mile and Twelve Oaks Shopping Center from RA (Residential Acreage) and OS-1 (Office Service) to RM-1 (Low-Density Multiple Family Residential). The subject property is 13.21 acres.

Chair Markham said that she received a letter on December 9, 2003 from Paul Knuth (the petitioner) requesting that this Public Hearing be postponed until such time that the Planning Commission returns to a full board of nine members. According to the Planning Commission rules, the Public Hearing must be heard on this property since the notice was published, but the Planning Commission can choose to continue the Public Hearing to a later date.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. It is split-zoned – the south is OS-1 and to the north and east it is zoned R-A. West and further north it is zoned R-4. The property is master planned for office uses to the south and for cemetery use to the north. He said that Twelve Mile and Twelve Oaks (zoned-RC) were to the south, as well as a PD-2 Option property known as Uptown Place; to the west is Oakland Hills Cemetery; to the east is the MSU Tollgate Center (master planned for quasi-public use); to the north is the cemetery.

Mr. Schmitt said that there are very little wetlands on property. The woodlands map indicates that the easternmost portion of the site is densely wooded and the north end is lightly wooded. The Applicant would be required to further delineate these woodlands throughout their planning process.

The Planning Review indicates that this rezoning request is not in compliance with the Master Plan. The Planning Commission can recommend the rezoning of the parcel to RM-1 (which is the request of the Applicant), although the staff recommends a denial. The Planning Commission can recommend rezoning the parcel to any other zoning they may find appropriate. Any other designation would require a second Public Hearing.

Mr. Schmitt said that Twelve Mile has been widened recently and a twenty-inch water main is being constructed that would provide an easy connection to this property. No other road widenings are proposed. He noted that the MSU Tollgate Center property is owned by the Americana Foundation and the land along Meadowbrook Road was donated to MSU. The Applicant has proposed a Development Agreement for the site that would limit the development of residential units to be owner-occupied units only. The staff sees no benefit in this Agreement at this time because it does not provide a material benefit to the City and it increases the density from .8 units to the acre to a theoretical maximum of over eight units to the acre under the RM-1 zoning density.

Mr. Schmitt noted that the cemetery did sell a portion of this property in the early 1990s. The City has requested that the owner create the actual parcel as soon as possible so as to clarify any issues that might arise at the time of site plan approval.

The Traffic Review was performed by Civil Engineer Ben Croy and indicates that the traffic appears to be in line with the standards of the industry.

Member Kocan confirmed that the property is 13.218 acres. Mr. Schmitt said that this will be confirmed once the actual parcel is created by the Assessor’s Office.

Member Avdoulos read correspondence pertaining to this Public Hearing:

Lou and Lauri Guerra, 42719 Sandstone Drive: Does not want multiple residential overlooking their neighborhood. They said the project will impact the woodlands and wetlands. They are concerned about the wildlife in the area – deer, coyotes, possum, raccoons and groundhogs. They paid a premium for their private lot. They would not object to a single-family rezoning.

Ernest McGregor, 28807 Hearthstone, Novi: Said the Vistas have too many apartments and condos already. He said the value of the property is declining yet his taxes are outrageous.

Patricia Goshorn, 28707 Stonewall Ct., Novi: Said the project will destroy the regulated woodlands and displace the wildlife. She did not see any benefit to rezoning the area.

Donvin Conner, 42984 Sandstone Drive, Novi: Objected to the project.

Paul Knuth, 7001 Orchard Lake Road, West Bloomfield, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. He stated that they have had some productive pre-planning meetings with Master Plan and Zoning Committee members. He said it was obvious at that time that there is no real consensus among those Planning Commission members regarding this property. His understanding was they were concerned about setting a precedent that could affect how the MSU Tollgate property is developed in later years. The Applicant has prepared information regarding this concept that they would present at a future meeting if the Planning Commission sees fit to postpone this consideration to a later date.

Chair Markham said it may be beneficial to postpone the closing of the Public Hearing so that the new Planning Commission members will have the opportunity to perhaps hear more comments on this project. Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission could choose to postpone or make a recommendation. He said that if postponement is the decision made, the staff should be directed to re-notice the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan told the Applicant that the Planning Commission only provides a recommendation to City Council. She would think the Applicant would prefer to forge ahead, but she would honor his request to wait. She herself is not prepared to recommend such an increase to the area’s density. She felt that the intent of the area was to keep it business-oriented. She understands the argument that the traffic would be lower with residential than with office space, but she believes that the six-lane-wide Twelve Mile would properly serve the office traffic. The difficulty, she said, was that this property is so deep that it obscures the fact that it sits along Twelve Mile. Member Kocan said she may consider R-1 or R-2, but she feels as though a disservice has been done to Novi by the placement of so much residential between Twelve and Thirteen Mile roads.

Member Ruyle said he does not want to give up the OST land along Twelve Mile. He said he’d like the Applicant to consider that.

Member Shroyer said that the book provided by the Applicant shows a wonderful project. He stated that he does not think however, that this is the right location for it.

Member Avdoulos agreed that the project presented in the Applicant’s book is well-done. He said that office really is the planned zoning along Twelve Mile – even going into Farmington Hills. He felt that residential on this parcel would seem out of place. He thought the Applicant should be given the opportunity to come back with the plan.

Chair Markham said that this is not an easy parcel to consider. She really would prefer to hear more. She said that the Planning Commission is only making a recommendation, and she confirmed that the Applicant would prefer a postponement over a recommendation for denial. She said she was not convinced that residential is appropriate for this property and this location.

Member Avdoulos noted that the parcel is next to the cemetery. He wondered how that would affect the marketing of the property. Mr. Knuth said that this was a split decision on the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. Member Avdoulos said that although it would be peaceful, it is also somewhat unsettling. Mr. Knuth noted that the road accessing the cemetery would be removed.

Chair Markham received a commitment from the Applicant that he would provide a timeline for the securing of an actual parcel from the Assessor’s Office.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Shroyer:

Consideration of the request of the City of Novi, for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 9, on the northeast corner of West Park Drive and Twelve Mile in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The subject property is .050 acres.

Planner Barbara McBeth located the property on an aerial map. The property is located at the northeast corner of Twelve Mile and West Park Drive. The property to the north and east is vacant land. To the west is the Great Oaks Landscaping Company on the west side of West Park Drive. To the south are single family homes fronting on Twelve Mile.

The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Light Industrial uses for the site and the surrounding properties to the north, east and west. To the south the Master Plan recommends office uses. The zoning map shows the property is currently zoned I-1 (Light Industrial) as are the properties to the north, east and west. To the south the property is zoned OST, recently rezoned from R-A.

The proposed site plan shows the construction of a new building to house the booster pumps for improved water service to this area and to the southwest parts of the City. This site was selected a couple of years ago during the land acquisition for the construction of West Park Drive. The site plans shows an emergency generator proposed to be located to the north of the building. A driveway approach is located on the West Park side, with space for a vehicle and turn-around for the occasional visit by the service person who will check the equipment inside the building. The landscape plan shows new landscaping to beautify the site.

Civil Engineer Brian Coburn represented the City. He offered to answer any questions that Planning Commission members might have.

Member Kocan clarified that this is only a Preliminary Site Plan approval. She understood that the building would be set back for sight purposes. Ms. McBeth said that the property has two front yards. Member Kocan said that a variance would be necessary for front yard parking. She asked why the drive wasn’t extended more to the north. Mr. Coburn showed an alternate drive for the property. He said he would prefer that the drive has an east-west orientation to limit the amount of asphalt adjacent to West Park Drive. He said that the DPW would access the building about once per month for a one half-hour visit to check certain diagnostic hardware. The T-turn around was designed to eliminate the need to back out onto West Park Drive.

Member Kocan asked about the eastern parcel abutting this property – and whether the City is negatively impacting that property by having little or no setback with the building. Ms. McBeth said that property is zoned light industrial and general industrial further to the north. She said they would be required to provide a twenty-foot setback for their building and a ten-foot setback for their parking lot. Ms. McBeth said that the abutting property would likely house a building that fronts Twelve Mile, although the building could be oriented differently. She said that the booster pump building is set back 49 feet from the 33-foot ROW. Member Kocan supported the waiver for the sub-canopy trees for security reasons. Member Kocan said it is important that the generator not exceed 70 decibels, which is the daytime limit in a light industrial area.

Member Shroyer asked whether the parking space would accommodate handicapped access. Ms. McBeth said the parking space is a standard size. She said she would check prior to Final Site Plan submittal whether this space needs to be ADA compliant. Member Shroyer said he would strongly suggest that the parking space be compliant – the City should be pro-active. Mr. Coburn said he would look at that request prior to Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Shroyer asked why there wasn’t a sidewalk or bike path along Twelve Mile. Mr. Coburn said that Twelve Mile will likely be widened in this area in the coming years, and the City is not sure what the County has in store for the area, so placing a sidewalk there now is not a wise investment. Member Shroyer then confirmed that if the parcel to the immediate east came forward with a site plan they would be required to put in a sidewalk. Member Shroyer felt the City should be required to do the same. Ms. McBeth noted that this was a point brought up in the Planning Review.

Member Shroyer noted that this is a secure building. Mr. Coburn said that it would not have a fence but would be locked and alarmed.

Member Avdoulos asked if the drive was situated so close to West Park Drive because of underground utilities. Mr. Coburn said that this location was chosen to minimize how much asphalt will be put on this property. Member Avdoulos asked whether an emergency vehicle would be accommodated by this drive. Mr. Coburn said that the east-west configuration for the road could be used.

Member Avdoulos asked about the two HVAC units on the building. He wondered if the City was concerned about vandalism. Mr. Coburn said that this was not previously expressed as a concern by the Consultants, but he would check with them again. Member Avdoulos supported the plan and would like to see the bike path added to the plan.

Mr. Coburn said the site was chosen because there are two major water mains (Twelve Mile and West Park). This is an optimal location for a booster station. Originally it was meant to be an underground location but because of safety concerns it is not going to be designed in that manner. That is the reason why the parcel is actually smaller than what ideally the City needs.

Member Avdoulos agreed that the parking space should be ADA compliant. He felt this was a good project for the City.

Chair Markham agreed that the bike path should be put on this site. If the City asks other Applicants to put in the path, the City should be willing to do it themselves.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Ruyle:

Consideration of the request of Superior Diversified Services Corporation for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Storm Water Management Plan. The subject property is located in Section 15, west side of Novi Road, north of Grand River Avenue in the TC (Town Center) District. The subject property is .481 acres. The developer is proposing a 3,304 square commercial building.

Mr. Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. He noted that Wendy’s is directly north and the House of Blinds site is to the south. The property abuts Novi Road and Fonda Street is to the north. Fifth-Third Bank is across Novi Road, and the Wonderland Plaza is further south from the property.

The zoning in the area is TC, and the corner of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road is zoned TC-1. Further west the property is zoned industrial. The Master Plan for the area is Town Center Commercial, with a small area of light industrial to the northwest.

The proposed building is situated on the property in a lengthwise fashion, east to west, with parking on either side. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission reviewed this project on April 3, 2003, at which time the request was postponed so that the Applicant could rework the site plan. Several variances and waivers are still needed:

Mr. Schmitt said that there are no wetlands, but a woodland permit is necessary. Clarification at the time of final site plan submittal with regard to replacements will be required.

Mr. Schmitt said that the main access should be redesigned to meet Oakland County and City standards for throat width and entering radius, although some modification has already been made.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Commission previously asked whether a shared driveway with the House of Blinds property could be considered. He said that the Cutting family, the owners of that parcel, are not interested in a shared drive.

David Evancoe, Director of Planning, stated that the Applicant was present at the meeting earlier, and he wasn’t sure why they were not present at this time. Mr. Schultz said that he spoke with their attorney, who had indicated that they had discussed amongst themselves that the plan should perhaps be postponed. They never made it clear that this would be the route they would take.

Member Kocan said that the Planning Commission can approve the request, deny the request, or postpone the hearing of the request. She said she cannot approve the plan because of the size of the building and parking lot in relation to the size of the lot. She said the lot far exceeds what she is looking for. She said it was already tabled once so that the Applicant could consider another type of building for the site. She understands that any plan for this site will require a number of variances; however she is not in favor of such a large building, especially because it is a spec building. She felt that the turnarounds could be attained. Security issues could be addressed. Parking abutting Novi Road is not necessary. Trucks shouldn’t have to back out into Novi Road to leave the site. She does not believe there are enough findings to support the building setback variance. There are stormwater issues and problems that need to be explored. Her biggest concern is safety and by overbuilding this site the City is giving up safety. Member Kocan said they need to look for reasonable development for this site. She would be willing to postpone this matter so that the Applicant can seriously look at a more reasonable site plan.

Member Shroyer agreed. He said safety is his number one concern. He did not see that many changes from the original application to this application. He does not think the Applicant has taken the time or effort to make corrective measures on this plan. Member Shroyer said as long as the Applicant is willing to continue to work with the City, he is willing to continue the review of a site plan for this site. However, at this time he would not be in favor of approving the plan as submitted.

Member Avdoulos also agreed. He said the changes to the plan from April to this meeting include façade enhancements. He said that the placement of the building on the property was meant to reduce height variance issues between this property and the surrounding properties. He agreed with Member Kocan that perhaps the building is too big for this site. Member Avdoulos said that two feet would come out of the building footprint to accommodate the increase of two feet on the driveway, which he said the Planning Department recommended in their review and he agreed with. He said that if the building is set off of the property line by one foot, that could further reduce the building footprint by a foot. He said the building is currently 118 feet long, but perhaps it could be reduced to 100 feet even. He said that the building footprint would then be 25 feet by 100 feet and he felt that it was a more workable size. This would also eliminate the requirement of about four parking spaces. They could be eliminated from the front entry and more landscaping could be provided. If some were eliminated from the back, the dumpster could be relocated and that would work better as well. Member Avdoulos said there are ways to make a building work on this site.

In light of Engineering’s comment about the necessary easement for the storm water drainage, Member Avdoulos asked which property would be affected. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that he believed it was the property to the south. Member Avdoulos said that this property owner has already refused to have a shared driveway with this Applicant; he wondered if this issue presents yet another difficulty. Mr. Croy responded that he thought it might. Mr. Schmitt interjected that the Applicant has been working with Wendy’s for a second access and for an easement that would allow a directional bore to accommodate this site’s stormwater. Member Avdoulos said he was not as concerned about the property having two access sites. Member Avdoulos wanted to ensure that these minutes made it into the hands of the Applicant.

Member Ruyle also felt that the project returned without enough change to warrant its placement on this Agenda. He was not supportive of postponing this review and stated that he would prefer to deny the plan.

Chair Markham said that this infill site will never be built without variances and waivers. She said that these variances and waivers can easily address things like greenbelts around the building, but felt that issues like fire safety, stormwater management – things that impact the health, safety and welfare of the Community – are critical and the site needs to be designed with safety in mind. She is not convinced that the proposed plan does this. Chair Markham noted that the Fire Marshal did not approve of this plan, and that this is perhaps only the third time she’s ever seen this occur.

Chair Markham said that if the City’s Engineering Department says that this plan does not meet the Stormwater Management Ordinance, she cannot support the plan. She said she would be willing to postpone this project if the Applicant is willing to work with the City to resolve those issues that impact the Community’s health, safety and welfare. She noted that there is nothing that can be done about the driveway spacing waivers.

Mr. Schmitt responded to the Planning Commission comments by agreeing that there are certain issues associated with an infill site that will remain unworkable – the driveway spacing waivers, for instance. He felt that the action of the Applicant of proposing this basically unchanged site plan proves that he is not trying to work with the City. He said that the Staff will do their best to assist this Applicant in reducing the number of variances and waivers. He said that the Planning Department prefers that this does not drag on for another eight or nine months. He asked that the Planning Commission consider giving a specific date that the project must return if it is their intention to postpone this review. He suggested the first meeting in April. Mr. Schultz confirmed that this is an acceptable venue, but that they should note in their motion that the plan could return earlier if it were ready beforehand.

Member Kocan clarified that if the Applicant wasn’t ready by that date then the Planning Commission would have to review the current plan and (likely) deny it. If the Applicant asked for more time, the Planning Commission would have the option of postponing the matter again. Mr. Schultz said that if no movement by the Applicant is made over the next couple of months, and the motioned date passes, a Planning Commission member could make a motion to bring the project back to the table for a vote to finalize the matter.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Staff will keep the Planning Commission informed of any progress. Chair Markham said that because this is a difficult site to develop, it is very important for the Planning Commission to be fair. However, she said that if there is no forward progress, the Staff, consultants and Planning Commission should not have to keep reviewing this plan.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Markham called for a five minute break. She then reconvened the meeting.

Consideration of the request of Robert Spencer for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located in Section 14, on the north side of Eleven Mile between Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road in the I-1 (Light Industrial) District. The developer is proposing a 6,629 square foot speculative industrial building. The subject property is 1.01 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is zoned I-1 as are the properties to the north, east and south. To the north and west is property zoned OSC. Further south is a B-3 district and to the southwest along Grand River Avenue is OS-1. The Master Plan indicates all properties to the north of Eleven Mile are master planned for office uses and all the properties south of Eleven Mile are master planned for Town Center Gateway District.

There are no woodlands or wetlands associated with this site. The Planning Review recommends approval with minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. A lighting plan is required at that time as well. The Landscape Review indicated that this plan falls under the new Ordinance and therefore some minor modifications will be necessary. The Traffic Review recommended approval subject to a Design and Construction Standards Waiver for the secondary access point. The Engineering and Fire reviews also noted this and all agree that based on the small size of the property that the proposed plan is acceptable.

Mr. Schmitt said that the site’s access is along Eleven Mile. To the west and north is a large retaining wall where the hotel parking lots are. The grade change is very steep in the area. Mr. Schmitt said that area is part of an overall larger parcel/development, and the secondary access would be better further to the north. Because of this and the grade change, even the Planning Department approves of the waiver for the secondary access.

The Engineering Review recommends approval of the plan. The Façade review indicated that the building meets the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Schmitt noted that the Applicant has written a response letter, indicating that they will comply with all of the Consultants’ comments. He passed around the façade board.

Robert Spencer, 13033 Ormond Drive, Belleville, addressed the Planning Commission. He is the owner of the project and the petitioner. He said the office building will house four or five tenants. Chason Company will occupy 1,600 square feet. Their business is building, developing and real estate management. He thanked the staff for their cooperation.

Member Avdoulos noted that the parking calculations were not shown on the plan. Mr. Schmitt clarified that there are 35 spaces on the site. He said that the requirement for a medical office building of this size is 35 spaces. This is the minimum for a medical office and the maximum for a light industrial office.

Member Avdoulos asked about note 16 on sheet 3. Mr. Schmitt said that the numbering may be incorrect but the area in question is the loading zone. Note 14 is listed as the loading zone; Mr. Schmitt thought the numbers were presented backwards. This is one of the minor issues that needs to be cleared up prior to Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Avdoulos clarified that this site plan will meet the new Landscape Ordinance; it is one of the plans that got caught in the changeover. He wondered whether the one traffic comment pertained to realigning the walk so that it didn’t stick out so far. He commented about the ADA access to the sidewalk, which is currently shown on the corner. It was suggested that the access be placed in line with the hatched area. Member Avdoulos did not know whether that design would work because it would make a space that ramps down right in front of the two front entry doors. Mr. Schmitt responded that the Staff will be asking the Applicant to look at that location for their handicap ramp, as opposed to the corner location.

Member Avdoulos asked why there is no requirement for a secondary stub street. Mr. Schmitt responded that to the west and north, secondary access cannot be provided given existing elevations. There is a large retaining wall there. For the sites to the north and east, the entrances would then be within 150 feet of one another. Mr. Schmitt continued that the current design of the plan makes for a more accessible site. The adjacent site will be better served by a more northerly access point, perhaps north of the Lakepointe Office Building.

Member Avdoulos said that a fire truck could not maneuver through the site because of the way it meanders, and there’s no way for a fire truck to turn around either. He asked why this would be acceptable by Staff and the consultants for this project but not for the project presented immediately before this one. Director of Planning David Evancoe responded that the Staff sees the major difference here is the amount of traffic on the thoroughfare that the property gets its access from. In this case, he said, because the traffic will probably always be light on Eleven Mile, a fire truck could easily pull up in front of the property and wouldn’t have to gain access onto the site. It would be imperative that the fire truck get off the road for the Novi Site.

Landscape Architect Lance Shipman also commented about the sidewalk in front of the building. He said that the Applicant must deal with a grade change about five to six feet away from the sidewalk. He said that the current design may be able to be tweaked, but it is unlikely that the sidewalk will get much closer to the entry.

Member Kocan said that the new Ordinance does not require a berm along ROWs that are not buffering parking. She commented that the finished elevation of the building and the parking lot is 920, while the grade at the road is 912. Mr. Shipman said that with the new Ordinance, the waiver for the landscaping in the front of the building comes from the Planning Commission, whereas with the previous landscape Ordinance this would have been handled by the ZBA. Mr. Shipman explained that the new Ordinance does not require a berm along the east side of the drive. The Applicant does have a berm requirement along the west side of the drive because there is parking abutting the green space in that area. That berm is being provided, and the review letters have requested that the Applicant provide a cross section of that berm for review.

Member Kocan confirmed that additional landscaping will be required around the loading area, primarily along the north side.

Member Kocan said that earlier she had asked the Staff whether they consider the curve in the driveway to be a hazard. It looks like it may be difficult to maneuver. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the two curves meet the minimum radii (outside and inside) standards per the Ordinance. He did not believe there would be safety or sight issues associated with this design. He did not know whether striping was required on this road. He said it would be something to consider to ensure the maneuverability of this road.

Member Kocan asked if more landscaping is added to the parking lot, would there be room to add additional parking in other areas. Mr. Shipman responded that the Staff sees some flexibility in how the parking spaces are arranged on this site. It may require the loss of one space, primarily to address the maximum 15 spaces in a row issue of the new Ordinance. He said that the design could be tweaked creatively to accommodate the requirement. Member Kocan said that if the Applicant is going to be one of the tenants in the building, they are not medical and therefore do not require as much parking. She said that may be something to consider when determining the final number of parking spaces required for this project.

Chair Markham called for a motion.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Kocan:

Chair Markham asked whether Member Shroyer would like to add to his motion, in the section regarding secondary access, a statement that explains that there is no safety issue associated with this waiver. Member Shroyer added the following language, taken directly from one of the review letters: …the relatively small size of the site, the proximity of the existing parking to the west and north, and the fire marshal’s letter of November 17 stating that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. Member Kocan agreed to this additional language.

Member Avdoulos spoke on behalf of the Budget Committee. He said the first objective of the Planning Commission for the coming fiscal year is the completion and publication of the Master Plan. The standards of performance for completing this will require input by the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

He said the next objective is to develop a comprehensive greenways and trails plan. Again, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and Environmental Committee would need to provide guidance and standards for this objective.

Next, the Planning Commission will look at updating the environmental maps. They will be requesting funding for this project, and the Environmental Committee will be involved in this process.

Member Avdoulos continued that the Implementation Committee has expressed interest in updating and revising the Zoning Ordinance. They have suggested looking at the Zoning Ordinance content first and then the formatting of the document.

Member Avdoulos said the Training and Development of Planning Commission members is also a critical goal. He said that with three new members coming on board, it would be nice to ensure that they are brought quickly up to speed, especially those members who may not have experience. He noted that the Citizen Planner Program attended by four Planning Commission Members this year was a great success.

Member Avdoulos said that another objective is a Public Outreach Program that would extend beyond the Master Plan update. He said it is important that the Community understand the City’s willingness to work together with its private and corporate citizens.

Mr. Evancoe said that the Committees listed in the Planning Commission’s memorandum would need to meet to determine what the standards of performance are for these goals and objectives. He said that this step will help in determining dollar amounts for the budget process.

Mr. Evancoe noted that the training of Planning Commission Members does not conveniently fall to any Committee. He suggested that, in addition to the standards already listed, the Citizen Planner Program actually be listed as a conference that should be available for Planning Commissioners. Mr. Evancoe said that the plan is for the Planning Commission to approve a budget by the second meeting in January. The feedback from the various Committees should be forthcoming prior to January 20, 2004. Mr. Evancoe suggested that the Committee chairs work with him to complete this task of determining the standards of performance.

Member Kocan noted the holidays and the possibility of holding Committee meetings prior to the January 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting may be difficult. She encouraged the Committee chairs to work with Mr. Evancoe on the standards of performance if they were comfortable with this arrangement.

Member Kocan also stated that the Planning Commission needs to approve the Capital Improvement Plan at the January 28, 2004 meeting. The CIP Committee will start meeting in February to create the final document.

Mr. Evancoe offered to create the standards of performance and then the Committee chairs would only have to review his work. Chair Markham thought that was a very helpful suggestion and thanked Mr. Evancoe for his input.

Member Shroyer noted that for the Training Standards he, too, would like to suggest that attendance to the Citizen Planner Program is encouraged. He supported the concept of certification in this program over just attending workshops.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Ruyle:

There were no Consent Agenda removals for Commission action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Kocan said that there is an Implementation Committee meeting on Thursday, January 8, 2004 and on Thursday, January 22, 2004.

Chair Markham said that there is a Master Plan meeting on Wednesday, January 7, 2004.

Wayne Hogan, ADA Advocate, Novi: Wanted to thank Chason Properties for their excellently-design bathrooms. They provide more than five feet for turnaround space. They also placed the sinks on the opposite wall to prevent people from having to move out of the way before opening the door.

Mr. Hogan said that he agrees that the parking space at the Booster Station should be handicapped-accessible. He said there are plenty of disabled people in the repair and technician business. He suggested an 11x15 foot space. Mr. Hogan also said that when the next budget is considered, he thought it would be a mistake to reduce the Planning Commission conference money. He said conferences facilitate diversity and experience.

Mr. Hogan continued, stating the handicapped spaces are dwindling in the Main Street area. He said that the remaining handicapped parking does not lead to the Post Bar or Market Street or the other areas. All parking is full, he said. Finally, Mr. Hogan thanked Member Ruyle for acknowledging his efforts in separating dumpster areas from handicapped parking areas.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Kocan:

Motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at or about 11:23 p.m.

SAT 12/13/03 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8:30 AM

(Singh Links of Novi Rezoning)

TUE 12/16/03 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

THU 01/08/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

WED 01/14/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 01/20/04 BUDGET MEETING 6:00 PM

THR 01/22/04 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane Schimpf: January 6, 2004 Signature on File

Date Approved: January 14, 2004 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant