The meeting was called to order at or about 7:30 p.m.

Present: Members Avdoulos, Cassis, Gaul, Kocan, Markham, Pehrson, Ruyle, Shroyer, Sprague (arrived at 7:48 p.m.)

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

The Planning Commission led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Kocan asked that "Committee Appointments" be added to the Agenda under Matters for Discussion. Chair Markham asked that "Joint Meeting with Lyon Township Planning Commission" also be added under Matters for Discussion.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Pehrson:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share with the Planning Commission.

There were no Communications or Committee Reports.

Mr. Evancoe announced that on January 24, 2004 there will be a neighborhood leaders breakfast at City Hall from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. After this breakfast there will be a Master Plan Citizen Input Meeting (10:30 a.m. to noon), and is open to the whole community.

Member Kocan asked that items 2 and 3 be pulled for discussion later in the meeting.

Refer to Implementation Committee the request of Providence Park to consider an amendment to the OSC Office-Service-Commercial Zoning District requirements in order to accommodate increased building height for a planned hospital development, per City Council directive of 11/24/03.

Consideration of the request of Douglas Thal for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 4 on the southeast corner of Hudson Drive and Peary Court. The applicant proposes speculative industrial buildings on 4.75 acres. The property is zoned I-1(Light Industrial). The applicant received a final site plan extension December 18, 2002.

Consideration of the request of JS Evangelista Development, LLC for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 2 at 14 Mile and Decker Roads. The applicant proposes a 100 unit congregate senior housing project on 4.67 acres. The property is zoned R-A (PUD). The applicant received two previous Final Site Plan extensions in December 2002 and 2003.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Cassis:

The Public Hearing was opened to amend an Ordinance to amend Chapter 28, "Signs," of the City of Novi code to implement a municipal civil infraction penalty.

City Attorney Tom Schultz explained that City Council recently passed an Ordinance implementing a municipal civil infraction penalty. Prior to that Ordinance being adopted by City Council, all of the violations of the various sections of the entire City Code, including the Zoning Ordinance, were misdemeanors. A few years ago the State Legislature passed a law allowing municipal civil infractions to be implemented. City Council considers this beneficial for two reasons. First, it decriminalizes offenses that are undertaken by Novi citizens regarding woodlands, wetlands, building code, etc. Offenses use to require an arraignment before a magistrate at the District Court, a pre-trial with the prosecuting attorney, a right to a jury trial, etc. With the civil infraction penalty, these offenses are handled more like a traffic ticket. It is a formal hearing instead of a trial. No jury is involved. Upon the finding of responsibility, the violator is not found guilty of a crime but is responsible for paying a fine or taking action to rectify the problem. Mr. Schultz said that with regard to the Zoning Ordinance, any change to that amendment has to start here at the Planning Commission. This Ordinance makes violations of the Zoning Ordinance civil infractions instead of misdemeanors.

Second, Mr. Schultz said that along with decriminalizing the violations, the municipal civil infraction authority gives the judge the ability to order injunctive relief, which means that the guilty person can be ordered to do something (as opposed to just paying a fine or serving jail time). With this change, the judge can order something to be cleaned up or fixed up or whatever the necessary relief is. The City now has the right to perform this relief if the property owner fails to do so. Mr. Schultz reiterated that this is a very beneficial Ordinance that is consistent with what City Council has passed in recent months for other sections of the Ordinance.

No one from the audience wished to speak so Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Moved by Member Shroyer, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan said that she approved of the language going into the Sign Ordinance, but she said she wanted to clarify that her support of this motion does not reflect her immediate support of the next issue on the Agenda, which is somewhat of a piggy-back item.

Member Pehrson asked Mr. Schultz whether the remedy for a violation is left up to the judge. Mr. Schultz responded that the Ordinance calls for a $200.00 fine for a finding of responsibility for the first offense. The second offense can be up to $500.00. Where the judge has greater latitude is in instances where he can grant relief to the City in a different manner, e.g., requesting that a refrigerator be removed from the front porch, etc. Now, the judge can order the relief, and the City can provide the relief (and be reimbursed) if the violator fails to do so.

Chair Markham said this Amendment to the Ordinance allows the City to take action in situations that previously they could not. This allows the City the opportunity to address concerns from residents who have occasionally asked the Planning Commission, "What will the City do if the Applicant doesn’t keep his word?" She supported the motion.

Member Sprague arrived at approximately 7:48 p.m.

The Public Hearing was opened to amend an Ordinance 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, for the purpose of amending Article 38 to implement a municipal civil infraction penalty for violation of the Zoning Ordinance, and Article 2 to provide additional definitions.

No one in the audience wished to speak so Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing.

Member Kocan suggested that in Section 3800, the language currently states, "It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person, firm or corporation to conduct any use or activity contrary to an approved site plan, a special land use approval or any condition required in conjunction with the approval of a site plan or special land use." Member Kocan said that she liked the specificity of that verbiage. The proposed language reads, "Any person… who fails to comply with the regulatory measures or conditions adopted by the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission or the City Council, shall be responsible…" She asked that City Attorney Tom Schultz address where in the Ordinance this is stated. Member Kocan felt that the more specific the language is, the less people will have to search the Ordinance to determine what applies and what doesn’t. She asked if special conditions are actually covered by the verbiage, "regulatory measures."

Mr. Schultz responded that the new Ordinance language, through an accommodation of provisions that are sprinkled throughout the entire code, ties in site plans, site plan approvals, and special conditions that are attached to a specific approval. The Ordinance requires that those conditions be complied with, the site plan be complied with, and regulations that may not be attached to a site plan but govern the use of property also be complied with. Mr. Schultz said he understood the gist of Member Kocan’s comment - that it would be beneficial to make clear that this section is discussing site plans and conditions. He had no objection to making that clear in the language of Section 3800.

Member Kocan said the additional language makes the Ordinance more understandable. She said that the language could state, "This applies to the Ordinance as well as site plan, Special Land Use or any other conditions imposed by the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission or City Council." Mr. Schultz said that the language would be rewritten broadly enough so that it remains inclusive.

Member Kocan stated that in Section 3805.c.1, the last line reads, "…an original three (3) copies of a citation." Member Kocan confirmed that it should actually read, "…an original AND three (3) copies of a citation."

Member Kocan suggested that in Section 201 (Definitions) the "Nuisance Per Se" entry also include the language, "including any conditions imposed as part of an approved site plan, Special Land Use…" or any other broad language that Mr. Schultz felt was appropriate. Mr. Schultz agreed to that change as well.

Member Kocan suggested that the "Repeat Offense" definition include the language from Section 3803, wherein it states, "Each act of violation and on each day upon which any such violation shall occur, shall constitute a separate offense." Mr. Schultz had no objection in restating this information. He explained that in order for the violation to be considered a daily (separate) violation, a ticket would have to be written every day.

Member Kocan suggested that under the definition of "Violation" the Attorney insert the appropriate language stating that it, "includes any conditions imposed by the Board of Appeals, Planning Commission and City Council…"

Member Kocan asked Mr. Schultz what other kinds of violations this Ordinance would apply to. Mr. Schultz said that in terms of the kind of things that this Planning Commission reviews, e.g., failure to build pursuant to a site plan, the District Court now has the jurisdiction to find that the site plan wasn’t complied with and that it needs to be complied with or some remedy will be attached. This violation would no longer have to go through the misdemeanor jury trial aspect or to Oakland County Circuit Court.

Mr. Schultz also said the Ordinance will apply to issues like outdoor storage, noise violations, etc. Basically, any stipulation from the Ordinance that isn’t met can now fall under the jurisdiction of the District Court.

Member Shroyer asked that the year be changed to 2004 on the signature page.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Shroyer:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of RSM Development to rezone property in Section 16 located south of Twelve Mile, west of Taft from R-A (Residential Acreage) to OST (Office/Service/Technology). The subject property is 2.7 acres.

The subject property is zoned R-A, Residential Acreage, as are the properties to the northeast, east, west and south. To the north is the other parcel controlled by RSM Development, which was recently rezoned to OST, Office/Service/Technology. On the north side of Twelve Mile the land is zoned I-1, Light Industrial. The Master Plan for Land Use recommends Office uses for the site, and the surrounding properties to the east, south and west. The Master Plan recommends light industrial uses for the properties on the north side of Twelve Mile.

Ms. McBeth said that the Applicant has requested the zoning change in order to submit a site plan for a medical office building development on this property. The Applicant has presented a site plan showing his plans for a two-phase, two building medical office development.

A Planning Review, Traffic Engineering Review, and the 1998 OST Study were included in the packets for the Planning Commission’s consideration. The Planning Review indicated that the requested OST zoning is in conformance with the uses the Master Plan recommends for this property and would allow the development of medical office buildings on the site. The Planning Review highlighted several infrastructure improvements that have been made since the late 1990s that increased the feasibility for OST zoning in this area, including the Twelve Mile Boulevard improvements to the east, the West Park Drive improvements, the water main extensions proposed in this area, and the expected full-service interchange at I-96 and Beck Road at some point in the near future.

Ms. McBeth said that the Planning Commission may wish to consider in its recommendation to City Council, that the OST zoning has been fairly successful since it was instituted in the late 1990s. Preliminary calculations are being prepared for the 2004 Master Plan update that will address the OST land in the City. These calculations indicate that of the approximately 1100 acres zoned OST, 435 acres (approximately 40%), remain vacant. Another point to consider is that some land originally zoned OST has been rezoned or removed from the expected core OST uses: approximately 49 acres were recently rezoned from OST to single family residential for the Catholic Central development, and approximately 55 acres are expected to be used with the EXO Overlay for the relocated Novi Exposition center. The ten acres of property to the north, as mentioned earlier, was rezoned by City Council to OST from residential zoning last year.

The Regulated Woodlands map shows light and medium woodlands covering part of the subject property. A woodlands survey is not required for a rezoning request. The Wetlands map shows that there may be regulated Wetlands in this general vicinity. The application for rezoning indicates a total of 0.15 acres of regulated wetlands on the site. The Wildlife Habitat map shows that the site is not one of the areas designated as wildlife habitat areas.

The Traffic Engineer reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Study that was submitted with the previous rezoning request and the materials presented with this request. Additional estimates were provided by the City’s Consulting Traffic Engineer for traffic generation purposes. These estimates compared trip generations of the single family residential homes allowed under the current zoning (approximately seven units) to possible future OST developments, i.e., the anticipated medical office and a single tenant, general office use. Additional review of the traffic will be required at the time of Preliminary Site Plan Review.

Ms. McBeth asked that the Planning Commission consider this request and forward their recommendation to City Council.

Mr. Mark Schafer, 51331 West Pontiac Trail, Wixom, addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of RSM Development. He offered to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have.

Member Avdoulos read the written correspondence received by the City regarding this rezoning:

Chair Markham noted that no one from the audience wished to speak regarding this issue so she closed the Public Hearing.

Member Ruyle reiterated that another portion of this parcel has already been rezoned OST. Member Ruyle is a proponent of OST because of the value it brings to the City without much reliance on City services. He said this rezoning conforms to the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Cassis:

Member Sprague asked whether the footprint of the building would be smaller if this rezoning was not approved. Ms. McBeth responded that the Planning Department hasn’t focused on the presented site plan because this is still the rezoning stage. She did believe, though, that less acreage could result in a smaller building.

Member Sprague asked who would pay for the extension to the sanitary sewer lines. Civil Engineer Ben Croy replied that he believed it was the Applicant who planned on extending this line to their property. Again, because this request is in the rezoning stage, the actual site plan has not been reviewed in detail. Member Sprague confirmed with Mr. Croy that the correspondent who requested that his property not lose access to utilities was not unreasonable in his request; Mr. Croy said that this issue would be addressed with the actual submittal of a site plan.

Member Sprague asked whether the City would take the initiative to rezone the entire area. He then asked whether the entire area could also be master planned with a road plan so that excessive curb cuts don’t become a future issue. Chair Markham agreed that this section of the City should be planned to optimize the area.

Mr. Evancoe stated that the City has the authority to rezone the entire area to OST. However, as a matter of practice there are potential drawbacks to doing so. First, Mr. Evancoe said that each individual property owner typically makes this request within their own acceptable time frame. If the City rezoned the property ahead of their schedule, one of the effects that it would have is the likely increase in the property owners’ property taxes (a result of OST zoning vs. R-A zoning), thereby creating a hardship. Second, Mr. Evancoe said that the properties would also immediately become nonconforming, which could also create a hardship (in a catastrophic event that would require rebuilding). Finally, there is an historical practice of allowing property owners the right to initiate their own rezonings. In terms of statutory authority, the City can rezone the area, but it is a policy decision that would have to be made.

Member Sprague asked whether not rezoning the area runs the risk of negating the Master Plan, especially a plan for the road infrastructure. Mr. Evancoe responded that the Master Plan designates this area for Office, and he said that the road improvements are all part of the timing. The first project to come forward for this area will provide the most direction for how future driveways are planned and spaced. Mr. Evancoe said that the Master Plan could describe road policies regarding curb cuts and shared access; however, in the end it comes down to timing, and which properties submit for Preliminary Site Plan approval first.

Member Sprague supported this property’s rezoning, but he does not want to see a curb cut mess along Twelve Mile. Looking at historical practices, he is not impressed with the decisions made along Novi Road. He also noted that driveway spacing issues arise all the time with office park projects. He felt that a road as important as Twelve Mile should be pre-planned.

Mr. Evancoe added that the property owners in this area could be encouraged to join forces and submit a joint rezoning petition, similar to the recently approved Bond rezoning.

City Attorney Tom Schultz reiterated that an involuntary rezoning by the City would create non-conforming uses, which affects a property owner’s ability to rebuild in the event of a fire, to refinance, to improve the property, etc. This, he said, is indeed a hardship. He said it is a very rare occurrence that a City would "upzone" an area without a particularly compelling reason. He said that even though the area may not be zoned OST, the Master Plan could still move forward in developing a plan for Twelve Mile.

Member Ruyle said that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee has routinely discussed areas in the City that would benefit from service drives. He said that this is an ideal location for this concept. He said the City should work with Applicants on this concept so that the number of curb cuts could be dramatically reduced.

Member Shroyer asked the Applicant what his time frame for this project was. Mr. Schafer responded that they would like to break ground in April of 2005. They have been working on this project for about a year, and they envision another fifteen months of planning. He said the closing of the rezoned 9.86 acres will take place within the next sixty days. Once the property has been transferred to the entity that will develop the property, this 2.7 acres will be combined with that property within the next 120 days. At that time, the Applicant will be able to move forward with the site plan.

Member Kocan confirmed that RSM has purchase agreements on both the 9.86-acre parcel and this 2.7-acre parcel. RSM possesses a letter that allows them to request these rezonings and subsequently gives them the first right to purchase the properties after the contingencies have been removed from the purchase agreement. Ms. McBeth said that the application for rezoning in the package was signed by a principal of the International Transmission Company.

Member Kocan asked whether a letter should be sent to the area property owners stating that some interest has been expressed by some of the neighboring owners for an area-wide rezoning. She said the letter could encourage them to join together for a group rezoning. Mr. Evancoe responded said that the Planning Department could send out a factual letter, although this is something that they have not done in the past. He said that the letter could be informative, telling of the recent rezonings; it could state that the local homeowners could join together to submit a rezoning petition. Member Kocan thought that was a good idea, but deferred the request to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee.

Member Shroyer suggested that the Master Plan and Zoning Committee make information available to the Community Communication and Liaison Committee. He said that this is perhaps the more appropriate Committee to handle this correspondence. He felt that until this concept had been discussed by the Committees, the correspondence should be handled by City Staff.

Member Cassis said that he has never seen a City just start sending letters and initiating such a practice. He said the Planning Commission has enough on their plates with just the projects that come before them. He reiterated that the City Attorney did not recommend such a practice, because the property owners may not want a rezoning at this time, and the rezoning could cost the property owner more in taxes. He said that this RSM request is a rezoning that complies with the Master Plan and he suggested that the Planning Commission vote on it.

Member Avdoulos agreed that this request is consistent and appropriate. He felt that a Master Plan and Zoning Committee meeting was a more appropriate venue for discussing the future of Twelve Mile. He supported the motion.

Chair Markham said that when the OST Study was performed, there was a mass rezoning of properties. She asked how that was different than what has been suggested in the correspondence. Mr. Evancoe responded that the mass rezonings preceded the current Staff. He said that perhaps there were fewer owners involved, or that perhaps, for instance, it only involved one petitioner, Northern Equities. He offered to research the rezoning and report its history back to the Planning Commission.

Chair Markham agreed that might have been the case along the M-5 corridor. She also noted several properties along Meadowbrook road that were rezoned. She did not think anything should be acted upon tonight, but she felt that the City must ensure the proper planning of the Twelve Mile area. She said that the City has now received two informal requests for additional rezoning of Twelve Mile property, and that it certainly represents the start of bringing this section of the City into compliance with the Master Plan. Mr. Evancoe said that it would be appropriate, since they wrote letters, to respond to these two property owners in writing to inform them of the outcome of this rezoning request. Chair Markham called for the vote.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Toll Brothers Inc. for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 19, east of Napier Road between Ten and Eleven Mile roads in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District under a RUD Agreement. The subject property is approximately 2.53 acres out of a total of 907 acres in the overall development. The Applicant is proposing a waterfront park with a boat launch.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. The property is zoned R-A, and there are parts of the community that are zoned R-1; the entire area is master planned for single family residential, except for the northerly property master planned for a mobile home park. He said the location of this park and boat launch is in the northwest section of the lake. To the north is Phase 6 and further north is the Novi Meadows mobile home park. To the south are Phases 5a, 5b and 4b.

Mr. Schmitt said the proposal is for a waterfront park with boat parking, car parking and a boat launch with dock. The waterfront impacts were approved on February 12, 2003. The Planning Commission heard this request on June 25, 2003, at which time it was tabled until the barn issue was resolved with City Council. The RUD Amendment was approved in theory on November 10, 2003: The barn will be removed from this property and will be donated to Maybury State Park to replace the barn that was lost in the fire. The final language of the RUD is being prepared by the City Attorney, and the formal City Council approval of the RUD Amendment is imminent. Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Department recommends the Planning Commission’s approval of this request subject to the formalization of the actual RUD Amendment.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Review indicated that the project requires two variances. Two sideyard setback variances are necessary for the parking area. The Ordinance requires an eighty-foot yard setback for non-residential uses in residential districts. This standard has been applied throughout the Island Lake development, most notably at the clubhouse and at the Shores North Park. These two Island Lake areas are substantially larger and therefore the standard was easily accommodated. The subject property, however, will require the variances or a substantial rework of the site. Mr. Schmitt asked the Planning Commission to consider that the current design of this project was worked out with the traffic consultant to improve the circulation. From a site-planning standpoint this is a superior layout.

Mr. Schmitt said that the other review letters all indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. He noted that the Landscape Review acknowledges the Applicant’s changes to the landscaping that resulted from their earlier appearances before the Planning Commission and City Council. There are still some minor issues to be addressed, but the plan itself substantially conforms to the requirements of the Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Jason Rickard, Toll Brothers, 10841 Winner’s Circle, Whitmore Lake, represented the Applicant at the meeting. He offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Kocan was disappointed in this project. She didn’t think the Applicant should ask for setback variances for a property that will abut million dollar homes. She felt the location of this parking area, even though it is shielded by a berm, is nearly in a neighboring home’s front yard. Member Kocan said this was a self-created hardship. She understood that if the Planning Commission approves this plan the ZBA will be charged with determining whether this is a self-created or actual hardship. Member Kocan said that if the property next to this parking area was not yet developed, she would be willing to work with the Applicant on the entire area to remove the need for the variance.

Member Kocan noted that the submitted plan may have been updated, but the date on the plan still reads

April 11, 2003.

Member Pehrson asked whether the trailer storage is for temporary (daily) use. Mr. Rickard responded that it is essentially being provided for Island Lake homeowners who don’t live directly on the lake. It is not for overnight storage. Member Pehrson stated that the hardship might very well be self-created and therefore he was as yet undecided on whether he could support this plan.

Member Shroyer asked whether the path would meander through the island as previously discussed. Mr. Rickard said that they had been requested to place the path around the perimeter of the property. City Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that walking path designs typically avoid crossing vehicle travel lanes whenever possible. Mr. Schmitt said that the path at the southernmost portion of this area was not part of the original plan. The path went to the boat dock, and the remainder of the path is provided by the sidewalks that are typical throughout the Island Lake development. Comments were then made by the Planning and Traffic Consultants that the paths should connect somehow from the south. He said that Mr. Shipman was correct in stating the Planning Department would prefer not to have this conflict, but in order to tie the park in with the southernmost sidewalk area, the stub was provided.

Member Shroyer asked whether the path could continue along the road to the east. His concern was safety, and while he doesn’t anticipate this to be a high-traffic area, he questioned whether this design would accommodate a handicapped pedestrian. Mr. Schmitt responded that the handicapped parking was relocated to be closest to the boat dock, which explains why the stub is placed in that area. The southern path will travel along the property line and up the western property line to connect into the path on the north side near the condos. The original comment, he said, was that the path should allow people to walk from the parking area to the south. He said that the Planning Commission comments are well-founded and if they don’t want the path in its current design it could be deleted. Member Shroyer said that he would guess people are going to walk through the island even if there isn’t a path provided, which could affect the landscaping and didn’t seem consistent with what the Planning Commission has previously reviewed. Member Shroyer supported the project.

Member Cassis noted that the Island Lake homes are listed for over 1.5 million dollars, and therefore he understands Member Kocan’s logic that these homes should not be crowded by a parking lot. Mr. Rickard said that the parking is eighty feet from the property line, and the road is within the eighty feet. He is not sure what the required measurement is taken from – the parking lot or the drive. He pointed at four parking spaces that Toll Brothers would agree to eliminate from the plan because they are not required. The 55 feet from the bays to the property line is a different problem that results from needing an acceptable turnaround area for the trailers. He also said the berm could be enlarged. These changes can all be made to lessen the impact on the neighboring parcel. Member Cassis appreciated that the Applicant was becoming more sensitive to what their future residents would expect from this development. He said these changes would be more palatable for the ZBA to accept as well.

Chair Markham asked for clarification on how this setback measurement is determined. Mr. Schmitt responded that the setback is typically measured from the maneuvering lane because it is considered part of the parking area. The parking spaces are indeed set back appropriately, and it is the maneuvering lane that causes the problem. This is one of the inconsistencies in the RUD that has now become a learning experience for the City. The part of the RUD that covers this portion of the development is open for interpretation, and there is a very good possibility that if the planning review would have been completed inhouse it would have been determined that the required setback would only have been twenty feet. The eighty-foot setback does not take into account that the park is only three acres to begin with, and it would be difficult to design with an eighty-foot setback.

Member Cassis said that the site itself has problems, as Mr. Schmitt indicated. He said the Applicant is trying to accommodate the Ordinance which in this case has rigid standards. Member Cassis did not have a problem with this proposed plan, as the area is small and the development in the area is not that intense. He supported the plan with the modifications suggested by the Applicant at this meeting.

Member Sprague asked whether the removal of the four parking spaces eliminates the need for the variance. Mr. Schmitt said the variance would then be for approximately thirty feet, being measured from the trailer parking spaces.

Member Avdoulos confirmed that the docks are for Island Lake residents. He noted that there are five trailer spaces and twelve parking spaces. Mr. Rickard said this was the only public launch site; the other docks are privately owned by the homeowners who live on the lake. No gas-powered boats are allowed. The electric pontoon boats will be trailered, but kayaks and canoes are oftentimes transported on cars without trailers.

Member Avdoulos was in favor of keeping the barn on this site, as he is not in favor of creating a Mill Race (Northville) where the buildings are not seen in their original context. He is pleased, though, that Maybury is able to take the barn to compensate for the barn lost in last year’s fire.

Member Avdoulos thought that although these are expensive homes, the surrounding homeowners will be aware of this boat launch prior to making their purchase. He also would like to see the path connect through the center island area. He said if the four parking spaces could be eliminated the ramp could be shifted over to reduce its encroachment of the private home. He said he doesn’t care much for self-inflicted hardships, especially in cases where the Applicants have mapped out the RUD themselves. He noted that these are large variances, but in this case, the abutting homeowners will be aware of what exists next to them.

Chair Markham does not support a self-imposed hardship, but she said if the ZBA sees its way to approve the variance request, she will support this plan. She said the Applicant was trying to do a lot of things with such a small piece of property. The RUD states that the private water park will establish the entrance image for the west part of the property, incorporating the existing barn, and will contain picnic areas, play equipment, bike paths, walkways, landscaping, lighting, entrance signage and parking. She said if these items were not going to be provided, this language should be changed to reflect that. She did not necessarily advocate the addition of these amenities to this area. Mr. Rickard said there are other parks on this site that are not as space-challenged and would be better locations for the residents to congregate at. He did not have a problem with requesting a minor revision to the RUD to address this issue.

Mr. Schmitt said that this is a classic example of where the RUD was too specific where it should have been vague. Those amenities are provided throughout the site, and the Planning Department agrees with the consensus here, that pedestrian traffic should not be encouraged in an area where vehicles hauling boats could make the area less than ideal for walkers. The only real area where the picnicking could be designated is the "Open Lawn Activities Area." Two homeowners in Condo 59 have already expressed that they don’t want anything, including landscaping, blocking their view of the lake. This park area was only roughly laid out in the RUD and was always anticipated to be the only public boat launch (which exempted them from the Keyhole Ordinance). It is possible that the City didn’t anticipate these issues at the time of the RUD development. Otherwise, a different standard could have been agreed upon that would have negated the need for a variance. The Planning Department does not necessarily believe that an Amendment to the RUD is required for these picnic amenities, as these items are provided throughout the development. If it is found to be necessary, Mr. Schmitt said the Planning Commission could authorize it at this meeting. It would be noted as a minor Amendment to the RUD.

Mr. Schultz said that the Planning Commission would not be responsible for changing the RUD language. They are only responsible for reviewing what is in front of them and comparing it to the intent of the RUD. If the Planning Commission approves of this plan tonight, that is all that is necessary; if the Commission chooses to call it a minor Amendment that is their prerogative. Mr. Schultz said if the Planning Commission determines that this plan meets that intent of the RUD, given the explanations provided at this table, then this becomes the plan and the approved use of this park. As Mr. Schmitt indicated, this area was intended to be a boat launch, and this is the contractual acknowledgement by the City.

Member Cassis asked if the Applicant would provide a big plaque with a barn on it and place it onsite where the barn once stood. Mr. Rickard said they had no problem providing a commemorative plaque. Mr. Schmitt said that there will also be a plaque at Maybury.

Moved by Member Cassis, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Member Ruyle asked for clarification on the measurement for the second ZBA variance listed in the motion. Mr. Schmitt responded that the exact number didn’t have to be listed, but that the number will be confirmed once the plan is received by the Building Department for the ZBA Agenda. Mr. Schultz agreed, that the motion requires the removal of the four parking spaces, and whatever the calculation is, so be it. Member Ruyle supported the motion.

Member Sprague confirmed that the motion calls for the elimination of the four parking spaces. He confirmed that the motion calls for the berm to be modified to Mr. Shipman’s expectation. He asked whether the pathway through the island or the commemorative plaque should be provisions listed in the motion. Member Cassis agreed to add those items and Member Avdoulos agreed to the changes as well.

Member Kocan confirmed that that lot next to the boat launch is not sold; it is reserved and is not for sale.

Chair Markham called for a five minute break, and then she reconvened the meeting.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Toll Brothers Inc. for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit , Wetland Permit, and Site Condominium. The subject property is located in Section 19, east of Napier Road between Ten and Eleven Mile roads in the R-A (Residential Acreage) District under a RUD Agreement. The subject property is approximately 6.69 acres out of a total of 907 acres in the overall development. The Applicant is proposing twelve condominium units within three buildings.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. This section is in the far northern portion of the site, along the northern property line. He located Catholic Central to the north. Island Lake Arbors is located to the south and west, and this plan is considered an extension of the The Arbors. The Island Lake Vineyards is to the southeast. The entire area is zoned R-1, single family residential, and master planned for single family residential. Mr. Schmitt said that Building 1 is on the north side of Island Lake Drive, and Buildings 2 and 3 are on the south side. There are wetlands in the area. He pointed to an area that continues toward Wixom Road and he said that it was an area of wetland mitigation.

Mr. Schmitt said that all disciplines recommended approval of this plan, subject to clarification of items at the time of the Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant will have to submit a typical building layout to ensure the 75% unit offset can be made. Since this is a continuation of The Arbors, the Planning Department does not foresee a problem with this issue. A no revision affidavit was submitted in lieu of a request for a Façade Review, as there will not be any changes to the façades from the previous submittal. The woodland and wetland permits can be approved after minor corrections are made to the submittal. The Applicant must quantify some wetland buffer impacts. The permits will not be released until the appropriate submissions have been made. The Environmental Pre-Con meeting will not take place and the Applicant cannot begin work on the site until these issues are taken care of.

Mr. Rickard, Toll Brothers, 10841 Winner’s Circle, Whitmore Lake, offered to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have regarding the site plan.

Chair Markham closed the Public Hearing after determining no one from the audience wished to speak.

Member Gaul noted that the plan meets requirements, and he stated that the plan looked pretty clear cut.

Member Cassis asked what the impact to the wetlands was. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that the buffer areas are being impacted, and for the most part they will be temporary impacts caused during the construction phase. The Planning Department assumes the area would be restored. He thought that the Wetland Consultant would be more knowledgeable in stating how long the impacts would last and how long the restoration process would take. Mr. Shipman said they were regulated wetlands, and a large portion of the area is constructed wetland (from the mitigation); therefore this expected disturbance was likely taken into consideration in the planning of this wetland and should not be a problem.

Member Pehrson asked where the berm (item 3 in the Birchler Arroyo Planning Letter) was located. Mr. Schmitt responded that the berm would normally be located along the northern property line, but because of the wetlands in the area it has been recommended that the berm requirement be waived.

Member Pehrson noted that the Applicant was proposing a sanitary gravity system rather than a forced sanitary system. He asked if that was consistent with the other portions of the development. Civil Engineer Ben Croy responded that the entire site is serviced by existing gravity sewers and this system will tie into what is already in place.

Moved by Member Ruyle, supported by Member Sprague:

Member Sprague said that it seems obvious that the berm should not be placed where the wetland is. He asked whether the Wetland Consultant approved of this plan. Mr. Schmitt responded that they have been on site and have acknowledged the proposed design, but they have not responded in writing that they have accepted this design. They agreed with the delineation that was described in the packet, and they felt no need to comment.

Mr. Schmitt explained that these buildings were always anticipated as part of the overall plan, but Toll Brothers chose not to build these building in conjunction with the rest of the The Arbors. He confirmed for Member Sprague that the buildings were always planned for this location.

Member Sprague noted that the Woodlands Review suggested that the Applicant consider preserving and protecting the areas beyond the silt fence shown on the plan. The Applicant agreed to abide by this recommendation.

Member Avdoulos confirmed with Mr. Croy that the sewer is being placed on the other side of the road. Mr. Croy said that they determined that the south side of the road was a better location. He said he will verify the pitch once the plans are resubmitted. Member Avdoulos thought the layout was fine. There was an open feel to the plan and he supported the project. He confirmed that the sewer system had an eight-inch main.

Member Kocan asked why wetlands were mitigated to an area of future development. Mr. Schmitt responded that this is another example of where the RUD language was too specific when it should have been vague. This area was shown on the area plan to have units, and it was also shown as part of the wetland mitigation area. He thought that was one reason why the waiver of the berm is being permitted.

Member Kocan asked if the wetlands were at all wooded or were they low brush. She asked what part of the Catholic Central campus will be exactly north of these units – the tennis courts, soccer field, etc. She was concerned that the Applicant was supposed to provide a 330-foot setback in this area. Now this setback distance has been waived in lieu of the placement of the berm. Now the berm is being waived. She thought that the current plan did not provide setbacks of 130 feet and 93 feet - she estimated the measurements to be approximately 104 feet and 75 feet. She said her concern was to protect the residents in the area.

Mr. Schmitt responded that the existing wetland is wooded. The mitigated wetland has the required plantings and has woods all along the perimeter. He said that directly to the north is the Catholic Central loop road, and further north is a wetland. Further west is the soccer field and even further west is the tennis court. He said area in question is the location where the wetlands were preserved behind the Herbel, Bond and Walsh properties, which is contiguous to the mitigated wetland. Member Kocan confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that development was indeed proposed for this area in the RUD.

The Planning Commission turned in their grammatical corrections. Member Kocan noted that in the motion for the West Park Booster Station, the stipulation should have said that the parking space (not spaces) should be made ADA compliant.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

Consideration of the request of Douglas Thal for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 4 on the southeast corner of Hudson Drive and Peary Court. The applicant proposes speculative industrial buildings on 4.75 acres. The property is zoned I-1(Light Industrial). The applicant received a final site plan extension December 18, 2002.

Member Kocan said she pulled this item from the Consent Agenda because the Planning Commission is routinely asked to give extensions. She said that new Ordinances require Preliminary Site Plans that have already come forward, but haven’t received Final Site Plan approval, must incorporate the new Ordinance language as much as feasible. She said that when an Applicant asks for an extension, it’s very specific. The approved plan has to be in compliance with current site plan and pending zoning Ordinances that could substantially change the requirements of the approved plan. Member Kocan said that this site plan and the next site plan could potentially require changes. She said that if the Planning Commission continues to give site plan extensions on plans that may not be up to date, then the Ordinance should be updated to not require this stipulation. Member Kocan also asked what the Planning Department reviews on a plan when an extension is requested.

City Attorney Tom Schultz responded that the Ordinance must be read very closely to ascertain what Ordinance changes have to be met on a site plan extension. He said that it is the burden of the Applicant to show good cause for the granting of the requested extension. Mr. Schultz said that is a good standard. It is a discretionary call on the part of the Planning Commission. The rest of the section is meant to help the Planning Commission with their decision. The Ordinance states that the body, which approved the Preliminary Site Plan, shall consider the following factors to determine whether good cause exists:

Have needed utility services been delayed;

Have technical reviews at the final site plan stage caused a delay;

Are there unforeseen economic events (Mr. Schultz said that he thought both of these site plans were requesting an extension based on this reason);

Consideration of whether the plan is in compliance with the current site plan criteria (neither of these site plans are because of the recently passed Ordinance amendments regarding the Stormwater management and Landscaping);

Are there issues on the horizon.

Mr. Schultz said that in considering the fourth factor, the Planning Commission needs to consider what has happened since those Ordinances were passed. When the City Council passed the Stormwater Ordinance, they considered the hardship that could affect someone who was far along in the approval process. The hard money begins being spent after the Preliminary Site Plan approval – engineering costs, irons placed in the ground, etc. The condition placed on this Ordinance by City Council was intended to recognize this problem. That would apply to both of these projects.

Mr. Schultz said every extension request must be looked at case by case. There may be minor amendments that could be made subject to the Commission’s approval of an extension, although he cautioned that the Commission would have to know a lot about the site plan. He reiterated that the burden was on the Applicant, but if a plan is denied, the burden will be placed on the Planning Department or City Attorney to explain to the judge why the Applicant can’t have one more year. In some cases the City may be able to provide a list of reasons. In other cases it might be a hard question to answer. He asked the Planning Commission to consider the hardship as real, in that the Applicant has invested quite a bit of money into the plan. He also felt that City Council provided some direction in saying that once the Applicant has gotten through Final Site Plan approval, the City recognizes that the Applicant has done quite a bit to get there.

Member Cassis recalled that City Council debated this issue rather vigorously and they determined that if the Applicant has gone through the Preliminary Site Plan, then it is acknowledged that the Applicant has reached a certain level of completion, even though there may be changes to the Ordinance. Mr. Schultz concurred. Member Cassis continued that the Planning Commission can ask for more out of the Applicant in response to their request for an extension, if in fact they find a compelling reason to do so. Mr. Schultz said that in an unusual case that may be available.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Cassis:

Consideration of the request of JS Evangelista Development, LLC for approval of a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject project is located in Section 2 at 14 Mile and Decker Roads. The applicant proposes a 100 unit congregate senior housing project on 4.67 acres. The property is zoned R-A (PUD). The applicant received two previous Final Site Plan extensions in December 2002 and 2003.

Member Kocan said she asked that this request be removed from the Consent Agenda because she wanted to determine why the developer was requesting an extension. Mr. Schmitt responded that this extension is being requested as a result of a concept meeting that the Planning Department had with the Evangelista Corporation. They came in for a meeting in the second week of November and stated that they were looking to possibly rezone their property given the current market conditions in the senior housing industry, especially with Fox Run and Waltonwood Phase II coming on line. Ultimately they asked for this extension, hoping that the market conditions will change over the next year. They appropriately demonstrated to the Planning Department that there was an economic hardship in moving this plan forward. Mr. Schmitt apologized for not ensuring that this point was specified in their letter.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Sprague:

Member Shroyer confirmed that the date that must be considered in granting extensions is the date that the previous extension was granted. Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department tries to accommodate Applicants by tracking these dates and placing the Applicants on Agendas that maximize their timeframes. He then clarified that the Applicant could go to the ZBA to ask for a fourth extension, which he has never seen, but theoretically it is possible to do so.

Member Ruyle said he would not support the motion because from day one this Applicant promised to put senior housing on a particular corner; now the Applicant has placed a strip mall there. This Applicant promised the City senior housing. He said this Applicant is trying to renege on its commitment.

Member Pehrson said that it makes sense to make a policy decision on how to handle future extensions. He asked whether Applicants have ever been asked to address the Planning Commission when seeking an extension. He thought this request could provide clarification on issues like the one Member Ruyle described, and it would allow the Applicant a chance to respond to the Planning Commission’s questions. Mr. Schmitt responded that Applicants are offered the opportunity to represent themselves in person for extensions. In the case of office projects, most Applicants don’t feel the need to state their case in light of the current economic times. In the future, the Planning Department will encourage Applicants with fringe-type cases to come forward and address the Commission in person.

Chair Markham suggested that the request could be postponed. Mr. Schmitt requested that it not be postponed because there was a clerical error in determining the expiration date and this request has actually exceeded the limit by about one day. Mr. Schultz noted that the Ordinance language is odd in that it would limit Commission’s ability to postpone its own decision. His interpretation would be that the Planning Commission considered it within the allowable time frame, if the request was postponed the site plan would not lose any benefit that it otherwise had. He would however, leave it up to the Planning Commission.

Member Cassis said the Planning Commission cannot conjecture what an Applicant might do in the future. He also said if the Applicant changes its mind, the Planning Commission is in place and can tell them no. City Council can tell them no. He does not see how this request can be denied, since the requirements have been met.

Mr. Schultz said this property is governed by a PUD which already limits the ability of the Applicant to come in and do something other than what has been approved. At some point in time, they will have to return to the Planning Commission to explain why they don’t want to do senior housing. Mr. Schmitt thought that Mr. Schultz was correct in stating this land was part of the PUD. The strip mall is part of the PUD. An office building will be built and is part of the PUD. The bank is part of the PUD. There is also a fourth phase of the commercial component as well as a second residential component. In previous discussions with the City Attorney’s office, a change to the proposed restaurant was discussed, which would have made the restaurant property part of the strip mall. It was determined that this PUD is a contract between the Applicant and the City. If the Applicant were to come back with a proposal for this corner that does not include senior housing, it would require an Amendment to the "Development Agreement" that covers the site. Obviously, there would be some discussion of the merits of changing that plan. Mr. Schmitt said that the Evangelistas were in favor of moving forward with their plan, but as a small developer they were obviously concerned when Fox Run came on line. He reiterated if the senior housing is indeed part of the PUD, the City will enforce the document or require an Amendment be made. Mr. Schultz concurred, stating that the City is not required to make the change to the PUD.

Member Ruyle agreed, then, to vote in favor of the extension, in light of the fact that any change to this plan will require a change to the PUD Agreement.

Member Avdoulos confirmed with Mr. Schmitt that the one-year extension becomes effective on January 15, 2004. It was determined that a clerical error on the part of the City, not the Applicant, was the cause for this extension request being somewhat tardy.

Member Shroyer asked whether the issue of site plan extensions should be reviewed for possible improvement to the Ordinance language. He suggested that perhaps the Applicant should provide a written form explaining why an extension is necessary. He said that perhaps the form could have "explanation" boxes for the Applicant to check if they apply. He thought the Staff could also review whether it is a good or bad idea to have the Applicant appear before the Planning Commission for their site plan extensions. Mr. Schmitt said that he would discuss this matter with Donna Jernigan, the Planning Assistant who works closely with the Applicants on matters such as this. He agreed that the presence of the Applicants at tonight’s meeting may have proven to be helpful.

1. COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

Member Kocan noted that the new Planning Commissioners have been asked to consider on which Committees they may be interested in serving. The Main Street Committee does have an opening, and City Council has commented about firing up a Downtown Development Authority, which would bring this Committee back to fruition. She also commented that there is not a current opening on the CIP Committee; Chair Markham said she is the alternate but would be happy to step aside.

Representing the Rules Committee, Member Ruyle said that a precedent was set in determining that Chair Markham’s tenure allowed for her service on any Planning Commission Committee. He said that accordingly, Member Cassis would be allowed to serve on any Committee as well.

Chair Markham noted that with current boundary issues such as The Preserve, Quail Hollow, the regional bike trail, the paving of Napier Road, etc., it might behoove Novi to meet with Lyon Township. She asked the Planning Commission for their input. Should it be a joint meeting at their location, our location, a separate (perhaps Saturday) meeting, a Committee versus a full Commission?

Member Sprague thought it was a good idea – either to meet as a whole, or have the two Master Plan and Zoning Committees meet. He cautioned against having the meeting without an Agenda but lots of speaking, because in the end it will have accomplished nothing. He suggested that Mr. Evancoe and the Lyon Township Planning (Director) speak first and layout the issues, which would provide direction for the Planning Commissioners.

Member Cassis said this issue came before the City Council recently. He said that City Council leaned toward the Planning Commissions meeting, and Member Cassis thought this was a good idea. He said that Lyon Township is beginning to realize a larger volume of development and they are the next stop west after Novi. He thought it would be good for the two communities to determine whether there are any common matters that would benefit from their cooperating with each other. He noted that there is a large development planned for Ten Mile and Johns Road that is in close proximity to Novi’s Quail Hollow and Island Lake developments. He suggested that the full Planning Commissions meet so everyone can get a better feel for each other’s concerns; if necessary, future meetings can proceed with specific committees.

Member Pehrson suggested that the Planners from both communities present information on their current and future plans. This might spur talking points for the two Commissions to consider.

Member Shroyer thought that the first step should be a discussion between the two Planning Commission Chairs, and they should decide whether the meeting should be between Committees or Commissions.

Member Avdoulos agreed, and also suggested that the first meeting could also be held by the Administrative Liaison Committees. In any event, progress on this matter should be reported back to the full Commission. He noted that Lyon Township has commented that they want to maintain the rural feel along Ten Mile, but they’re also advocating development.

Member Kocan thought that perhaps the best place to start is with a smaller group. She would recommend either the Administrative Liaison or Master Plan and Zoning Committees. She noted that the basis of this request comes from the concern for Ten Mile.

Chair Markham said that she will discuss this matter with Mr. Evancoe and she will also call the Lyon Township Planning Commission Chair. She said she was on both the Administrative Liaison Committee and the Master Plan and Zoning Committee. She does not want this issue to linger either.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department would help out in any way, and suggested that they meet on a neutral site, such as the Links of Novi clubhouse.

There were no Special Reports.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

The January 20, 2004 Budget meeting has been rescheduled to replace the January 22, 2004 Implementation Committee meeting. The next Implementation Committee meeting will be February 19, 2004. The Rules Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 at 5:30 p.m. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee will meet on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 at 7:00; the Thoroughfare Plan will be discussed. The Master Plan Public Input Meeting will be January 24, 2004 at 10:30 a.m.

Moved by Member Ruyle, seconded by Member Kocan:

Motion carried 9-0. The meeting adjourned at or about 10:45 p.m.

MON 01/05/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

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

MON 01/19/04 CITY OFFICES CLOSED, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

WED 01/21/04 MASTER PLAN AND ZONING 7:00 PM

THU 01/22/04 PLANNING COMMISSION BUDGET MEETING 6:00 PM

SAT 01/24/04 MASTER PLAN PUBLIC INPUT MEETING 10:30 AM

MON 01/26/04 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 01/28/04 RULES COMMITTEE 5:30 PM

WED 01/28/04 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

THU 02/19/04 IMPLEMENTATION MEETING

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, January 27, 2004 Signature on File

Date approved: February 11, 2004 Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant