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

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Lynn Kocan, David Lipski (arrived at 8:00), Mark Pehrson, Lowell Sprague

Absent: Member Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Member Sprague led the meeting attendees in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Member Sprague asked to remove the Providence Park Parkway, SP04-48, street lighting issue from the Consent Agenda and place it as item one on the Matters for Consideration.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Andrew Mutch, 24740 Taft Road: Asked the Planning Commission to reconsider the size limitation of eighty acres for RUD proposals, in an effort to encourage more creative designs that would save more wetlands and woodlands. He said there are perhaps only six projects left in the City that could achieve that acreage. He said it seemed like a lot of work for the City to amend an Ordinance that may never be used again. Mr. Mutch also showed a map of southeast Novi that he created that located remaining vacant land that he created. He noted that the Villagewood Lake property is the largest vacant land left in this area of Novi, measuring 14 acres. He showed another map that located the parks in the same southeast Novi area. He said that there are almost 18,000 residents in the area (40% of the population) and they are served by only 62 acres of parkland – only 7% of the City’s total. He asked the Planning Commission to look forward at what they can do to protect as much as possible of the remaining vacant land.

There was no Correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the Natural Features Expo was held at the Civic Center on the previous evening. It was coordinated by Cindy Uglow of Neighborhood Services. About 100 people attended. On June 16^th from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. there will be an event called "Protect our Lakes and Streams" at the Civic Center.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of William Roskelly of Basney & Smith for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit, Woodland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 25, east of Meadowbrook Road, between Nine Mile and Ten Mile in the R-4, Single Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 14.97 acres. The Applicant is proposing ten single-family homes.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial map. It is zoned R-4. Meadowbrook Road is the westerly boundary; across the road the land is zoned R-3. To the north is Willowbrook Estates 2, zoned R-4. Heatherbrae and Heatherwoode subdivisions are to the east, zoned R-3. Orchard Hills West is to the northwest. Ingersol Drain runs through the northern portion of the site. The area is master planned for single family residential, consistent with their current zoning.

Mr. Schmitt said that the property has a substantial amount of wetlands in the northern third of the site. The Ingersol Drain runs between the Willowbrook Estates and Heatherwoode subdivisions. There is a patch of woodlands located on the site.

Mr. Schmitt said this proposal would extend the existing Villagewood Road, which is currently designed with odd islands. The Applicant wishes to extend the boulevard and terminate the road in a cul-de-sac with ten homes on the south side of the road, adjacent to the lake. The north side of the road is proposed to remain undisturbed.

Mr. Schmitt said that in 1970 many projects between "Eight-and-a-half" Mile and Ten Mile were part of an overall RUD. There were several different names over the years. Most commonly, it was known as the Villagewood RUD. The RUD proposed a school, a clubhouse, a park, the townhomes along Meadowbrook Road and the single family homes that are built to the east and south of the subject property.

Mr. Schmitt said that the subject property was part of the original RUD. It was originally designed with the road cutting into Meadowbrook Road, just south of the bridge. Between 1970 and 1975 the plan was reviewed repeatedly by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ultimately this part of the plan was removed. These ten homes were in the original proposal. At the time, the RUD Ordinance had an expiration clause that stated that if Preliminary Site Plans or Preliminary Plats that were not submitted in a timely fashion, the RUD would be considered expired. Presumably, the City Attorney at the time determined that this RUD was likely expired, which was discussed when the townhomes on Meadowbrook Road were being considered.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department does not believe that the RUD has any bearing on this project. This configuration would be consistent with what would have been approved. The R-4 zoning would allow this property to be developed at a density of 3.3 dwelling units per net acre. This proposal is for a density of 1.9 dwelling units per acre. There are site constraints that would likely preclude a development at the 3.3 density.

Mr. Schmitt said that there are two sidewalk waiver requests that will require the approval of City Council. The Applicant proposes a sidewalk around his loop road on the submitted plan. The sidewalk is not planned for the north west side of the road and would save ten to fifteen feet of woodlands prior to the wetlands. The Planning Department supports this design. The Applicant also wants a waiver for the sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. A boardwalk would be required near the bridge. The Planning Department does not support this design, and it is noted that the Master Plan does not show a sidewalk in that location. There is a school of thought that states a sidewalk on one side of Meadowbrook is sufficient, so as not to affect the wetland on both sides of the road. This would be a decision for City Council to make.

There is a realignment of the boulevard and pork chop island proposed on this plan. Mr. Schmitt said that the Traffic Consultant, Steve Dearing from OHM, was present at the meeting to discuss this. The Traffic Review and the Fire Department have both provided their suggestions for changes, which Mr. Schmitt said could be worked out at the time of Final Site Plan review. The Fire Marshal is satisfied with the plan, but the changes that have been suggested will probably make the design even better for the Fire Department.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department public-noticed this project because of the wetlands and woodlands. Most of the trees are being saved on this site. Only a few trees are proposed for removal, as the Applicant has designed the road and the building envelopes around the trees.

Mr. Schmitt said that the proposed road and homes have no wetland impacts. There will be temporary impacts from the grading, but this would be handled under a temporary authorization to encroach into the wetlands – footnote "t" of Section 2400. That would be handled administratively at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There is a utility extension that will affect the wetlands, which is the result of the connection location in the Heatherwoode and Heatherbrae subdivisions. There is an eight inch water main proposed to be extended from the main at Meadowbrook Road, up toward the lake, and between lots 9 and 10. At this point, it is unknown whether this will require a formal fill. There was some discussion with the Wetland Consultant as to whether it can even be done under a temporary permit; it depends on how high the rim elevation has to be. This project was publicly noticed for a Wetland Permit, to err on the side of caution. At the time of Final Site Plan submittal it will be determined whether the permit is indeed required, or whether a letter of authorization will suffice. This impact will only be a minor use impact at most. The rest of the information stated in the Wetland Review is typical and the issues will be resolved as the Applicant determines the actual grading of the site and the actual quantities of fill.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Planning Department does recommend the approval of this project, subject to the two waivers that are required from City Council.

Chair Kocan asked Mr. Schmitt whether he was prepared to discuss the elevations of the property near Willowbrook versus the upland area proposed for development. She asked how far from the ledge or the slope that the road is proposed to be.

Mr. Schmitt located Ingersol Drain on a plan. He said that was the extent of the clearing in that location. The rim elevation on the road is 843.44 across from the proposed lot 4. The wetland elevation is 838. The elevation is 840.99 across the street from lot 4. The elevation is 837.22 at lot 5 of Willowbrook Estates. There is a drop-off from the constructed edge of the road and the property to north. The road is actually perched on the high point of this site, in large part, to stay out of the FEMA regulated flood plain. This area shows up on FEMA maps as being regulated. The elevations, however, do not appear to be at a flood plain height. Ultimately this will require a map revision and a letter from the federal government will be required at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. FEMA will have to determine whether this area is in a flood plain. This is not a situation where the Applicant is filling in the flood plain.

Mr. Schmitt said that the houses are on the back side of the slope. They will likely be walkouts to the lake. The building envelopes are outside of any regulated wetlands and woodlands. The sites are buildable. The wetland setback is from the dark line (on the site plan) to the lake. This is a 25-foot setback. A detailed grading plan will determine whether the letter of authorization will suffice. This is similar to what the Planning Commission has seen on the south side of Island Lake. The road is a little lower, the slope increases toward the houses and the walkouts grade down to the lake. These letters of authorization may not even come until the house permits are pulled. This is typical for a single family subdivision. The impacts will be more readily known once the actual home has been decided upon for the lot. The Wetland and Woodland Consultants review every house permit. The road is a bit higher than the subdivision to the north.

Mr. William Roskelly, 33177 Schoolcraft, Livonia, addressed the Planning Commission. He was the Applicant on this project. He said that Phase 1 of the old subdivision exists on the southeasterly side of the lake like. This would have been Phase 2. Originally the road would have gone through to Meadowbrook and the area was planned for twelve homes. He designed this proposal with a cul-de-sac in order to stay out of the wetlands. He gave up two lots. He is only improving one-third of the land.

Chair Kocan explained the procedures for the Public Hearing. Member Sprague asked that anyone who wished to speak who also gave a written response, to identify himself or herself, so that the written response could be acknowledged but not read. City Attorney David Gillam said that letters not read aloud would still be part of the official record.

Chair Kocan opened the floor for comment.

Clarence Michowski, 23199 West LeBost: Concerned about the wetland area. He thought that the development would be built in the wetland area, and that the stream would be widened by thirty feet. He said that the area floods and he and his neighbors get water in their yards when it rains heavily.

Jackie Pringle, 23285 West LeBost: Lives north of the site and backs to the woodlands. She lives in a flood plain. She said there is constantly standing water in the ditches and in the wetland and along Meadowbrook Road. She said she has not yet felt the impact of the removed trees from the Orchard Hills expansions. She brought pictures of the wetland. She thought the land should heal before more development is proposed. She said her and her neighbors’ sump pumps run continuously. She asked that the City take responsibility for any change in drainage to the area. She opposed any more development in the area. Chair Kocan noted the elevation changes in the area for the benefit of the Planning Commission. She closed by stating she did not want the City to lose its "Tree City USA" designation.

Stan Olkowski, 23303 West LeBost: Read neighbor Glen Jorgenson’s letter. He asked that the flood plain elevations don’t change because of this development. He said that he and Mr. Jorgenson successfully petitioned FEMA to be removed from the flood plain. He asked who would be responsible for his increased insurance premiums if this development caused his home to return to flood plain status. He was concerned about the aquifer as he has a well system for his lawn. He said that construction across the road may have affected his aquifer level by two feet. He said the site is a wildlife haven. He said that the area has beautiful scenery. This proposal would bring traffic. There will be noise during construction.

Katherine Kekeely: Lives in Village Oaks on Village Lakes. She said there are no sidewalks, which is dangerous, and she does not think the subdivision needs more people. She said her home has sump pump problems too. She said their subdivision gave this land to the City, not for some Johnny Come Lately to come and develop ten homes. She said the subdivision’s original construction took seven years and each phase affected their retention pond. The draining of Meadowbrook Lake is also affecting their pond.

Kathy Jones, 23253 LeBost: Stated that her lot is actually lot 156, not 157 as shown on the proposed plan. She said that her home has a slipped sewer lead because of the wet ground conditions, a reason offered by Oakland County. She said they also told her that a repair would be impossible. She said the lead slipped all the way five years ago and was repaired, although a new lead had to be dropped because they couldn’t find hers. She said the ground is so wet in the area, at least one house has collapsed, and her family room and garage have collapsed, as a result of well points being placed in the ground. She said her home is on float rock. She said the lake fills up and floods her property. She said the wildlife is plentiful. She said the City knows it should never have allowed their subdivision to be built.

Ken Morgan, 41256 Village Lake. Stated that his association calls for a six foot easement on everyone’s property frontage so that everyone has the ability to walk the lake. He asked if this would be true on this proposal. He said there is a Village Lake Park where this proposal places its utilities. He said he and his neighbors are going to want access to this park. He asked what the environmental impacts this development will have on the lake – would sprinklers draw from it or will their fertilizers drain into it? This lake does not overflow at this time. People love to fish on this lake. He said that Village Lake owned this land, gave it to Novi, and Novi sold it to this Applicant. He said that this Applicant did not maintain the land last year. He said these houses will block his view of the wetlands and wildlife. He opposed the proposal.

John Keller, 23261 West LeBost: Stated that his sewer used to back up. The City had to pump water off of his property for four months. His house shifted as a result and it took another year to straighten this out. He said the water table is fragile. Any disruption will affect his property. The area homeowners will not ever be able to sell their homes. There is a lot of wildlife. The aesthetics are beautiful. The area should not be touched.

Barb Pietron, 23882 West LeBost: Stated water is a problem in their area. She said there are sinkholes and she believes there is one forming in her yard. There is a lot of wildlife. The elevation of this site concerns her.

Dave Medved, 41126 Village Lake: Concerned that this area is a flood plain, and the more concrete added to it, the more runoff the neighbors can expect. He did not know why the City would disrupt the area for a few thousand dollars in taxes. He said it will cost the City to repair the problem. He said there is a lot of wildlife that will be affected by these ten homes.

Gerald Haran, 41208 Village Lake: Said everything is getting built upon and this space should remain open. He cited traffic, expense and noise as issues. He said that he and his neighbors would occasionally hear that development would occur on this site, but then they heard the area was a wetland and would remain vacant. He said the property should remain as is.

Jerry Helton, 23262 West LeBost: Said his house is the one that fell apart. He did not see how there was enough room to accommodate the wetland setback, building envelope and road. He said there are no guarantees that the wetland won’t be built upon. He said there is a lot of wildlife. He said that the City acts as if it doesn’t care about the residents. He asked if the sewer system could accommodate this proposal.

Jennifer and Scott Huggins, 23131 Heatherbrae Way: (letter read by Katherine Kekeely an unidentified neighbor) Concerned about traffic safety, noise, wildlife loss and loss of forested beauty in Novi.

Mrs. Welch, 23147 Heatherbrae Way: (Letter read by Katherine Kekeely an unidentified neighbor) Asked why the residents weren’t told that this land would be sold.

LuAnne Kozma, 23837 West LeBost: Asked the City to look at the big picture of needed open space. She thought it sounded like Novi once owned this land. She said there are plans for a Novi Park Foundation, and she asked the City to work with Mr. Roskelly on the purchase or donation of this land. She said everyone in Novi enjoys the view of this land.

Paul Changes, 41166 North McMahon: Said that Novi was beautiful when he was growing up and now there is so much going on. He said this area was a swamp where he caught frogs as a child. He said this proposal would increase traffic. He said Meadowbrook was an overpopulated road.

Christine Changes, 23874 East LeBost: Stated that the creek in her area is rotting her property line away. More development will widen the creek and reduce the value of her home.

David Mustonen, 23761 East LeBost: Asked the Planning Commission to consider the word "planning" and he did not think that these ten homes will make or break this City. He said this development will risk the lives of many current residents. He opposed the project.

James Bruce, 23780 East LeBost: Stated that this area is the only decent wetland between Nine Mile and Thirteen Mile along Meadowbrook. He has routinely complained about water issues along Bishop Creek which leads into Ingersol Creek. There is a lot of erosion in the area. He said that draining Meadowbrook Lake is costing over $1,000,000 but is necessary because the silt buildup has diminished its ability to act as a retention basin. This proposal will add to that silt and the ongoing problem. He said his complaints fall on deaf ears, but hopes this Planning Commission will take a different course of action.

Garry Kidd, Meadowbrook Lake resident: Asked the Planning Commission to understand the water problems in the area. He said the homes in his subdivision are each built on fifty telephone polls because of the water problems in the area. He said that the area of his lake that is being dredged right now was only six inches deep the last time it was dredged in 1984. The silt in the lake comes from the area creeks and from the construction of I-696 and I-275. The dam has now been lowered by four feet. There is a lot of silt there. He said he meets people from all over Novi walking their dogs on this property. He asked the Planning Commission to look into how the City could sell this land after Village Oaks donated it to it. He said this was a breech of trust. He opposed the project.

John Pringle, 23285 West LeBost: Was concerned about the runoff, the draw on the lake from sprinkler systems and the fertilizing pollutants. He said the other construction in the area has caused standing water along Meadowbrook, which is a haven for mosquitoes. He opposed the project.

Member Sprague read the correspondence into the record:

John Archibald, 23460 Meadowbrook: Asked the City to save the wetlands and wildlife.

Virginia Blaut, 23048 Heatherbrae Way: Objected because she liked the green space. She said the City was greedy.

Clare Dudek, 23751 West LeBost: Objected because this is a protected wetland site.

Michael Edwards, 40958 Mallott: Objected because he appreciated Novi’s beautiful wetlands and natural environment.

Michael and Susan Everett, 23389 West LeBost: Thought the City has already destroyed enough wetlands.

Michael Flaherty, 41011 McMahon Circle: Objected for traffic and density reasons.

Darlene Friedman, 40944 Morningside: Objected because the wetlands should be protected.

Laurie Helgren, 23653 West LeBost: Objected because she thought the area was a protected wetland.

Warren Jocz, 40755 West Ten Mile: Once was on the Stormwater Management Committee and objected to this plan because it would be detrimental to Meadowbrook Lake and the area streams and violated the plan established in 2002.

Jennifer Kapica, 22582 Winfield: Objected for problems with the water table and the area is a protected wetland, and for increased density.

Debra Kawalczyk, 23219 West LeBost: Objected because it would damage the wetland and would increase runoff. She commented about wildlife and the status of the creek.

Dorothy and Michael Lair, 23187 West LeBost: Objected to the proposal because of density, wetland and stormwater issues.

Roberta Lemieux, 24304 Pinecrest St.: Objected because the wetlands are protected and the schools are already overpopulated.

Gerard Lukas, 41171 Hollydale: Objected for reasons that the wetlands and natural resources will be disrupted, there will be flooding problems and the inability to repair the problems.

Rana Malinoff, 23277 West LeBost: Objected for wetland and woodland issues.

Martha and Paul Mazur, 23186 West LeBost: Objected for density reasons. They wanted the area to remain a wetland.

Lydia Nordstrom, 41120 West Ten Mile: Objected because of the adverse effect on the wetlands.

Judy Pappenger, 41204 Hollydale: Objected because of density reasons. Asked about the installation of sidewalks to benefit the residents and businesses.

Paul Root, 23828 East LeBost: Objected for traffic reasons and the impact on the wildlife.

Kim and Dan Rutenbar, 41072 Hollydale: Preferred to protect the wetlands.

MaryAnn Rumptz, 41120 Hollydale: Objected because there are water problems in the area.

Michelle Sankovic, 23566 LeBost: Objected because there are too many homes already.

Elaine Weiland, 23240 West LeBost: Objected for traffic issues and the area is a wetland.

David and Panagiota Wolsterncroft, 40611 Oakwood: Objected for traffic, noise and density reasons.

John Zen, 23334 Meadowbrook: Objected because of water issues in the area. The area is a wetland.

Sandra Zuchlewski, 40827 Villagewood: Objected for traffic, water and stormwater issues. The area is a wetland. There is enough density already.

Joseph Toth, 22734 Chestnut Tree Way: Provided historical information on the site. He said the land is unsuitable for supporting roads and buildings. The structural requirements should make this project cost prohibitive. Homes in adjacent Willowbrook have water problems. He said the Applicant should provide an adequate number of soil borings. They should consider the traffic flow on Meadowbrook Road. They should get a report from a structural engineer on the roads. These reports should be made part of the Planning Commission recommendation.

Mr. Roskelly readdressed the Planning Commission. He said that he has a longstanding relationship with this City. He said he has been paying taxes on this site for many years. He understood that approximately seven acres of the land was a woodland or wetland.

Mr. Roskelly said that currently this land is perched up, causing agricultural runoff. When this property is developed, the water that runs into the lake will be filtered. None of the water is filtered at this time.

Mr. Roskelly said that he would deed that six or seven acres to the City. He said this plan has no encroachments on Meadowbrook. He said this is a feasible and comparable site. He does not believe that neighbors who live on a comparable lot should have the right to deny Mr. Roskelly the ability to develop this land. He said he would build good homes.

Chair Kocan closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos thanked the residents for their input. Member Avdoulos knew the history of this area and wasn’t surprised that this project is a hot topic.

Member Avdoulos said that if an Applicant follows the Ordinance and the zoning of a piece of land, then he has the right to develop the property. The Planning Commission likes to work in the spirit of cooperation and harmony so that stress is not placed on the surrounding areas.

Member Avdoulos said he understands water tables. He, himself, had to raise his basement eighteen inches so as to reduce the need for a sump pump.

Member Avdoulos said that there have been incidents where one project can affect other properties. The Planning Commission looks at the overall picture and tries to do what is best for the Applicant and the City. This project is interesting in that Mr. Roskelly is a Civil Engineer himself. This site is on a plateau. All of the disciplines reviewing this plan have recommended approval. The other side of the coin is that the people surrounding this property know the site better than anyone else. This is where a problem is posed. Should this site be looked at as its own sustainable property?

Member Avdoulos was not sure whether this project could possibly affect the surrounding area. Would there be excess runoff into the wetland? Could the neighboring basements flood even more? This development has its own stormwater system. It is designed to drain the right way. The wetland is not being impacted. The Woodland Consultant has commended the Applicant for blending the natural features into this design. Member Avdoulos said that the proposal answers all of the technical questions.

Member Avdoulos clarified with Mr. Roskelly that he had owned this property for about 14-17 years. Mr. Roskelly said that he did not believe that the City ever owned this parcel.

Mr. Schmitt said that this plan does not propose widening Ingersol Creek. No work is even proposed for the drain. No work is proposed north of the ridge line, other than the right-of-way work.

Member Avdoulos asked Civil Engineer Ben Croy whether there was any concern about this development, or was it considered self-sustainable. Mr. Croy said that the soil borings will tell more. It will locate the existing water table. He did not yet know whether dewatering would be necessary for the utilities or basements. This extensive review would be performed by the Building Department.

Mr. Croy discussed the surface drainage. He said that the ridge line that drains to the north has its peak north of the lake. There is a lot of runoff into Ingersol Creek. By putting in this road, it moves the peak further to the north and takes the drainage that is now flowing into the floodplain (which may be causing some of the problem) and channels it to Villagewood Lake. This lake is a detention basin that has a control structure that will appropriately manage that additional runoff. If the level of the lake reaches the 100-year level, it allows the draining to occur at an accelerated pace. Any development creates runoff. Residential is not a high additive to additional surface runoff. The runoff will make its way to Ingersol Creek and will continue west. It will not impact the stream east of Meadowbrook Road or the northerly homes.

Member Avdoulos asked about sump pumps. He said if the water table is 840 and the average grade of these homes is 845, he was concerned about these homes if they were to be designed with basements. He said these basements would have sumps that have to dump into something. He asked if there was a way to alleviate that. Mr. Croy said that the residents will need a sump pump if there is water there. There is no way around it. It can be discharged overland onto the surface or into the storm sewer. It can go to the lake and pass on. The definition of "flood plain" is that there is periodic standing water. That frequency can range from very frequent to once every 100 years. People in a flood plain have to expect that their sump pumps are going to run. It is not a bad thing that the sump pumps move the water away from the walls and protect the building.

Member Avdoulos asked about the soil borings. He said he understood that a certain PSI must be met in order to accommodate the foundations. Member Avdoulos asked if there was anything that could be recommended to the Applicant, or required of him, to ensure that the soils are appropriate. Mr. Croy said that the soil borings will be received by the Engineering Department and passed on to the Building Department. They will determine whether additional testing is necessary. If the water seems to be ten feet below the basement, then they probably won’t ask for more borings. If it’s close, they may ask for more. Mr. Croy was hesitant to speak for the Building Inspectors, but there are better construction practices now than before, and from Mr. Croy’s experience, he doubted that the Building Department employees would give building permits if they thought there would be any problems.

Member Avdoulos asked about the bridge and the construction across the street, and whether anything can be done at this time to resolve the water issues here. Mr. Croy said that the issue here is that this land is a flood plain. There is going to be flooding problems. The dredging downstream will have short term effects. These areas are hydrologically connected. The dredging project will be complete in a month or two. The dam will be stopped back up and the levels of the lake will rise. This is an aesthetic issue more than anything. Mr. Croy reiterated that when a developer is in a flood plain, there is nothing that can be done with the amount of water unless major work is done on the area. FEMA is not going to permit work that removes existing houses from the flood plain.

Member Avdoulos said that the issue is that the citizens in the area have grown to like this open space and don’t want to see anything built on the land. The owner of the property wants to develop according to his zoning classification and the Ordinances. The reviews are favorable. The Applicant is also willing to donate six or seven acres of a wetland. Member Avdoulos said he would like to hear from the other Planning Commission members.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission must apply the Ordinance to this proposal. Whichever the decision is, the public must understand that the Planning Commission takes this seriously and they don’t just side with or against the Applicant. They look at the facts. They render a judgment based on the facts. In this case, this proposal meets the intent of the Master Plan. It is master planned for residential and has been for some time. The Applicant is building less than what he could. Member Pehrson applauded the Applicant for offering the open space for a park. Member Pehrson said that he thought about whether boundaries could be placed on this Applicant on some of the issues – like the creek width and things of that nature.

Member Pehrson said he was not sure whether he had all of the information at hand to make a decision. Member Pehrson asked about the frontage rights around the entire lake. Mr. Roskelly said that if the six or seven acres are given to the City, it would give people access to all six or seven acres. As far as leaving a belt around the entire lake, Mr. Roskelly said that if Heatherwoode has that same stipulation in place to benefit his future homeowners, he would reciprocate with the same offer. He did not know whether that stipulation was in place on the other subdivision. He said that could be a future agreement if it was reciprocal.

Mr. Roskelly also stated that he is not even touching the creek, which keeps being discussed.

Member Pehrson asked who would upkeep the park. City Attorney David Gillam said that the care and maintenance of the park would belong to the association. The City might want to factor some language into the master deed that would allow the City to undertake any maintenance that has not been done properly down the road.

Member Pehrson asked if all ten lots would be built at the same time. Mr. Roskelly said that he would build a model home and would not build the next home until there was a buyer. He suggested that it could be a two-year period.

Member Pehrson wondered if there was any review of the effect of removing lake water for irrigation. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that the proposal is only for the "subdivision" and its irrigation of common areas. He felt that the irrigation for the single family homes was the issue that people were discussing. This information would come in on each individual plot plan. It is not known if the master deed would even require irrigation. Right now it would be speculation to discuss where this irrigation would come from. Typically, people use wells to irrigate to sidestep using City water. But this is not known at this time. There is also a fertilizer Ordinance in place in this City that regulates fertilizing land adjacent to water.

Member Pehrson said that many people have commented about the safety of children walking in the subdivision. Member Pehrson said that he would like to see the sidewalk on Meadowbrook as well as a sidewalk on the north side of the inlet road.

Member Pehrson said that information on the 100-year flood plain is lacking. Member Pehrson asked what FEMA documentation is in hand that describes when that level has been reached. Mr. Croy said that perhaps the DPW had information; his documentation is FEMA’s modeling of this area. Member Pehrson asked how old the model was. Mr. Croy said that the last maps were updated in 1992. FEMA is updating the maps this year. The new maps will have new information. The floodplains may change and the elevations may change. The information is not out for use.

Member Pehrson said that the Planning Commission’s judgment is being based on a plan designed in 1992. He said he could be sure that changes in the topography in the area could impact that study. Mr. Croy said that if there is a home that has been removed from this floodplain (per the Public Hearing comments), then that indicates that the elevations are lowering. If FEMA is involved in granting that, they must have updated information. Mr. Croy said he would be led to believe there must be better information on this area. If the change is four inches or a foot, though, he did not know.

Member Pehrson said that comments have been made about the traffic. He wondered if there was a quantifiable number that could be put to ten houses. Mr. Schmitt said that the threshold for a proposal requiring a traffic study was not met. There is a rezoning traffic assessment and a full traffic study. A rezoning requires an assessment. A site plan may require a study. A subdivision must propose 75 lots before a study is warranted.

Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing said that on average, the a.m. peak hour would yield one car per dwelling unit. Throughout the entire day, the assumption is ten trips per dwelling unit. For this proposal, one could expect about 100 trips per day. There are work trips, mail delivery, garbage pick-up, lawn care, driving children, etc.

Member Pehrson asked whether having a sidewalk on both sides of the road was more desirable. Mr. Dearing said that as a traffic engineer, he cares about pedestrian safety. He would, in all cases, recommend a pedestrian facility. Usually, providing the sidewalk on just one side meets the needs. In this case, he recognizes there is a balancing of issues. The south side sidewalk balances the environmental issues, and he was not opposed to the granting of this waiver, to remain clear of the woodlands. He recognized that there are competing interests in the community.

Member Pehrson asked the City Attorney about the liability of flooding issues. He asked what the City could do to protect itself, this development and those around it. Mr. Gillam responded that the answer could be lengthy. The trespass nuisance is addressed by the fact that the City and the Planning Commission are using reasonable care in its reliance upon the recommendations received by the Staff and from its Consultants. He did not see a potential liability as far as the City is concerned.

Member Pehrson wanted to see more information on the road. He recommended going to the extremes in gathering soil information, to ensure that everything is documented.

Member Pehrson did not understand the lake issue, and how it has turned into a retention basin with water runoff. Given the fact that there is already natural runoff, and now there will be runoff from impervious surfaces being added, he would like to see something more quantifiable regarding the impact of this site on the lake. He has heard words that don’t give him a sense of assurance. Mr. Croy responded that the lake is currently a regional detention basin and falls within the Villagewood Lake district. It has a constructed outlet control structure that is operating very well. The Stormwater Master Plan update that was just adopted addresses this lake. The main reason for a detention basin is for flood attenuation. The models that were run show that this lake is operating very well. It is one of the better basins the City has. There is nothing on this proposal that suggests to Mr. Croy that this basin could not also accommodate its runoff.

Member Pehrson said that this was an important point raised by many people. He did not want to belabor the point. He said that there might be a point in time on a plan like this that requires a more in-depth explanation of what the stormwater model looks like and how it works. He was not saying that he didn’t believe Mr. Croy, but he likes to see numbers and he would like to look at more information on issues that are this complex.

Member Sprague said that the future is now. He listened to the comments and it was very clear to him that this project requires special care. It may not be fair to the current property owner, as he wants to put up ten houses and he has the right to do it. He is within the Ordinances. The exceptions are sidewalk issues. The real issue is what happens to the surrounding community when these ten houses are built? Member Sprague said he did not have enough information to make a decision. Member Sprague said that he did not have sufficient confidence in knowing that this road is ready to be built. What will happen five years from now? When the buildings are built, what does that mean? He wants answers to those questions now. This is a sensitive area. He did not want to make the situation worse. After all, the property owner has the right to put those buildings on this site. Member Sprague appreciated the conservation easement. But, he wanted to make sure the plan is done right.

Member Sprague said he wondered if all of these homes with water problems were taken into account. The comment has now been made that the City is going to take soil borings. What happens if those tests indicate that these homes are going to have the same problems? Will this project continue to move forward? Member Sprague wanted to ensure that the answers were known now before any approval is given. Member Sprague would like the consideration of this project postponed until the answers are found.

Member Sprague said that the sidewalk issue pales in comparison to the overall issue. He had no problem with granting the north sidewalk waiver. The sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road would not connect to anything. Mr. Schmitt said he was unsure whether there was right-of-way in place that would even allow a connection at this time. The current Master Plan only shows a sidewalk on the west side of the road. Member Sprague was not in favor of building a boardwalk across this area that will never be used. He said some of these already exist in the City and they look strange.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Roskelly if he had ever built homes before. Mr. Roskelly answered yes. Member Cassis asked how big these homes would be. Mr. Roskelly said they would be 2,800-3,000 square feet. He said he has built thirty homes on Ten Mile and homes of comparable size will be built by Singh in Avalon Subdivision (Willowbrook), on the same size lots. He said that maybe the homes will be more like 2,200-2,600 square feet, but with a bedroom above an attached garage, the home could be larger. Member Cassis asked what the sizes of homes were in the area. Mr. Roskelly said he did not know. Member Cassis asked what the price range of these homes would be. Mr. Roskelly said $400,000.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Schmitt for his "planner’s recommendation" for this site. Mr. Schmitt responded that the City couldn’t ask for a better product on this site. Member Cassis asked if Mr. Schmitt had any problems with the planning of this site, and the questions raised this evening. Mr. Schmitt said that it appears that the original developer, Kaufman and Broad, may not have wanted to address some issues regarding this land during the time of their construction. Mr. Schmitt said that none of the issues raised at this meeting related to the planning of this site.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Croy what the impact of dredging the lake will be on this area. He asked what the bridge improvement might do to the area. Mr. Croy said there would be no impact whatsoever. The dredging of the lake will remove sediment and the lake level will return. There are issues like stream bank erosion further down by Meadowbrook Lake. Member Cassis asked Mr. Croy if these ten homes could affect the water problem in this area. Mr. Croy said that, if anything, this project is going to take runoff that would go north and pull it to the south. It will take the runoff to the detention basin and on to Meadowbrook Lake. It is going to reduce the runoff to Ingersol Creek immediately north of this development. For the amount of water that runs through this area, this project’s impact will be insignificant – negligible.

Member Cassis said that this plan does not have woodland issues. He asked Mr. Shipman whether there was anything the Applicant could plant that could improve the runoff issue. Mr. Shipman responded that based on the plan presented, he could make the following comments. This Applicant has developed his plan so as to minimize his impact on the regulated woodlands. He kept his design to one side of the road and angled the road in such a way to refrain from disturbing the trees. The replacement trees would go on the southern edge to enhance that area. The Applicant has indicated that no understory would be disturbed. The irrigation and seeding on the north side of the road is outside of the woodland protection fence. The irrigation for that side of the road is negligible. It would be a ten-foot wide space to control erosion.

Mr. Shipman said that the Woodland Consultant commended the Applicant for his design. Mr. Shipman said this Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to work with the City. He did not think that there was much more that the City could ask from this Applicant. The runoff is not going to be much more, if any, than what is there now. The agricultural runoff will be about the same.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Shipman if the City would be shadowing the completion of this project to ensure that it is developing correctly. Mr. Shipman said there were many elements that would be inspected. Financial guarantees are required to ensure compliance. There are maintenance bonds to cover the two-year warranty period of the natural features. There are eyes on every project.

Member Cassis was sure that every department would be following this project. He asked if the City would be responsive. Mr. Shipman answered affirmatively.

Member Cassis asked Mr. Roskelly if he would be amenable to a postponement. Mr. Roskelly said he would prefer a decision but would understand if it was tabled. He was under the impression that the Planning Commission was a "land use" group and not necessarily the purviewers of engineering and the other areas of such a project. He was a bit amazed, and Member Cassis interrupted him to ask again, if he would be amenable to a postponement. Mr. Roskelly said that based on the time spent, he would have preferred a decision. He will accommodate the Planning Commission by accepting a postponement.

Member Cassis said he knew many of the people in the audience. They are his old customers and his neighbors. Member Cassis moved to Novi because it was desirable. He said everyone enjoys open space around his or her home. He said that when everyone moved here, each contributed to the reduction of this open space. Member Cassis said Novi is suburbia. It is enriched by wetlands. The citizens cherish the woodlands. He said many of the meeting attendees have suffered through flooding. Member Cassis said Kaufman and Broad was infamous for water problems, window problems, roof problems, etc.

Member Cassis referred to Mr. Mutch’s comment that the City should purchase this land and wondered where Mr. Mutch may have thought the money would come from. Then Member Cassis said that there is precedent for neighborhood associations purchasing parkland.

Member Cassis asked the City Attorney to comment on what would happen if the Planning Commission were to deny this site plan, if the Applicant has met the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Gillam said in general terms, if there is a development that complies with the requirements of the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance, then the Planning Commission is obligated to approve the proposed site plan. If the Planning Commission does not approve the plan, that constitutes a taking of that individual’s property, which is grounds for the City to be sued.

Member Cassis had concerns about what will happen when construction of these homes begins. He thought these homes may increase the value of the surrounding homes. He told the attendees of the meeting to understand what the role of the Planning Commission is regarding this plan.

Member Gutman said it seemed to him that the Planning Commission is trying to do a thorough job in understanding the position of the surrounding homeowners. He also heard the Staff’s position that the issues have been addressed and they have recommended approval of this project. Member Gutman had confidence in the Staff and the Consultants. Member Gutman said the Planning Commission has an obligation to any landowner to allow them to utilize their land, as long as the rules are followed. To the extent that this plan follows the rules, Member Gutman thought the Planning Commission had an obligation there.

Member Lipski said that it was important to note that the Planning Commission is comprised of citizens who have volunteered every other Wednesday for the City. They are not on the other side of the spectrum. They are chosen to protect the interest of the citizens. Those interests are defined by the Ordinance. If an Applicant follows the rules, the Planning Commission would have a hard time denying his plan. The City Attorney has just told the Planning Commission that if the rules are followed and the Planning Commission denies that plan, then the City is in a bigger pile of trouble.

Member Lipski said this was the strongest showing he has seen at a Planning Commission meeting, and he said that was a great testimonial about the City of Novi.

Member Lipski said that he was not in tune with the postponement of this plan. He said he could summarize the audience’s comments, in that they have real concerns about this development exacerbating the flooding problem, removing the wildlife, and negatively affecting safety and traffic. Member Lipski said the question is really, how does the City know that these things are going to happen? Member Lipski said if someone knows something that hasn’t yet been divulged, then they need to bring this information forward. Member Lipski said that the professional Staff and Consultants have said otherwise. Member Lipski then asked how this plan can be denied if the Planning Commission does not know that this site plan will create all of those problems.

Member Lipski said he must first be educated on how these ten homes will flood the neighbors’ yards. Then he must be educated on how this Applicant’s proposal is illegal in terms of the Ordinance. He therefore was not really in favor of postponing this consideration.

Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission must approve the specifications of the Preliminary Site Plan. The Staff has said that the sidewalk waivers would have to come from City Council. Chair Kocan supported the request for the sidewalk waiver for just the one side of the road. Chair Kocan said that the Master Plan shows a sidewalk only on the west side of Meadowbrook Road. She would have a hard time requiring a sidewalk on just the east side of the road. Although, there is no guarantee that the City will get the sidewalk on the west side of the road. There are easements, setback issues, etc. She said that sidewalk has been on the table since at least 1987.

Chair Kocan said it made sense to agree with the Traffic Consultant about altering the island to improve the turning radius. She said it made sense to support that suggestion.

Chair Kocan referred back to Member Lipski’s comment about what is in this submittal that would allow the Planning Commission to say no? In her opinion, maybe the Planning Commission cannot say no to the Preliminary Site Plan, but they are charged with approving the Wetland Permit and the Stormwater Management Permit, and these are the biggest issues.

Chair Kocan said she was familiar with the area as she lives in the Meadowbrook Lake subdivision. The lake is being dredged behind her house. She thought this area would remain a wetland forever. She walked this land today and saw that this development would be on the hill. She said it was evident that the trees are leaning. That tells her that the earth is moving in that area. She said that now a road is being proposed for this area, significantly close to the edge. She could not believe that this plan would not impact the neighbors. She had a hard time with this because seeing the plan on paper and seeing the seeing the actual site are two different things. She was not trying to say that the engineering reports were insignificant.

Chair Kocan referred to a site in Novi where the wooded wetland died after the neighboring development was complete. She said water has a mind of its own. She said that the Orchard Hills West road that is being built is going through a wetland. It should not have been approved. There are no plans to move the standing water and that is a problem.

Chair Kocan said that Meadowbrook Road issues need to be resolved to prove to the residents that engineering can be done and will be appropriate and feasible and will work properly. Chair Kocan said that the Applicant does have the right to develop his property. If this plan were to be reviewed in a vacuum, it appears to be okay. But this area is a sponge, as evidenced by the speakers from the audience. Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission has the charge to approve the Wetland Permit and the Stormwater Management Permit. While the plan has conditional approval from all of the consultants, Chair Kocan is not satisfied that the City has all of the answers or knows all of the impacts.

Chair Kocan referred to the review letters. She said that the Wetland Review asks the Applicant to quantify the wetland impact, including square feet and volume. The Applicant was asked to show the 25-foot natural feature setback adjacent to the wetland. The Applicant was asked to quantify the impacts due to the grading and utility installation within the natural feature setback. The Applicant was asked to show restoration details for all the impacts to the wetlands and natural features setbacks. These items did not appear to be shown on the plans. Chair Kocan said the request for the MDEQ information was typical. She would also ask for an analysis of the runoff impact to the north and south of the proposed road and development.

Chair Kocan said, with regard to the Engineering Review, the first comment states that a complete engineering review could not be performed based on the limited information provided in this submittal. Chair Kocan said that 100% of the concerns were engineering in nature. She was not ready to approve this plan, when there is limited engineering information provided in the submittal.

Chair Kocan said that the overall stormwater management system is not explained. Soil borings have to be taken. She did believe that the higher ground seemed to be steadfast, but just a bit lower down there is a lot of water. Chair Kocan said she never knew the problems that these residents had. She hoped that the City finds some kind of relief for them.

Chair Kocan said that the approval of this plan happens at this table. The Planning Commission has options. They can deny approve the plan, postpone the consideration of the plan for additional information, approve the plan with certain conditions, approve the plan and require the plan to return for Final Site Plan approval. Chair Kocan said she could not support approving this plan at this time, potentially putting at risk a multitude of homeowners who are currently experiencing significant problems. She supported the postponement of this consideration.

Member Cassis asked Chair Kocan what she would recommend as the reasoning for the postponement. Chair Kocan said that limited information was submitted. Chair Kocan would like the wetland items either updated on the plans or responded to by letter. Chair Kocan thought that more engineering information was necessary. She thought soil boring information was part of the process too. She was concerned for the Applicant, that he would continue to spend money on this site if the soil borings prove otherwise (that the site is not worthy), or if this plan is going to flood out the other residents. Chair Kocan asked if the Planning Commission can require soil boring information. Mr. Gillam said that the Planning Commission can ask for additional soil boring information. Mr. Gillam said the question is whether this information will answer the issues on the table.

Mr. Croy said that everything is speculation at this time. The water table won’t be known until the soil borings are completed. If the water table is high, Mr. Croy will have to determine its effect on the roadway. The Building Department will determine its effect on the basements. Mr. Croy said that if two soil borings indicate two different water levels, i.e., six feet and 25 feet, he will ask for more borings. That wouldn’t paint a true picture of the area. Mr. Croy said he has the power via the Ordinance to request that. He could not, at this time, say that he requires more borings.

Mr. Croy said that the statement in his review about the incomplete submittal is typical language meant to put the Applicant on notice that more information will be needed on the next submittal. The items referenced by that statement are things that are not required at the time of Preliminary Site Plan. It allows Mr. Croy the opportunity to alert the Applicant from the onset that more information must be forthcoming. The information that has yet to be received in this case will not shed further light on the water shed. Chair Kocan said she understands that this City asks for more information at Preliminary Site Plan submittal than other communities.

Chair Kocan said that she wants to ensure that the road runoff is proper, and she noted that the Wetland Consultant was not available to ask for further comment on the runoff in general. Those were the problems she had with this submittal.

Mr. Roskelly said he, too, was confused about when items were due with a submittal. It seemed to him that most items discussed are Final Site Plan items, and that at this evening’s meeting, the Preliminary Site Plan was submitted for Planning Commission approval, so that the Applicant could be confident in moving forward and preparing the information for the next submittal. Chair Kocan appreciated that but did not want to prolong that discussion. She said that if the Planning Commission just looked at plans, the City wouldn’t need a Planning Commission. The Planning Commission members bring their own personal experiences and expertise to review the various issues – things that are other than black and white. Chair Kocan was looking at wetland impacts on this plan. Before she can say yes to this plan, she wanted to be more assured.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Sprague Pehrson:

Member Avdoulos told Mr. Roskelly that he was correct; there was a level of Final Site Plan review and approval. The various issues will be addressed at Final Site Plan. The Planning Commission occasionally asks to see the plan at the time of Final Site Plan to ensure that the issues have all been addressed. Because of the sensitivity of the area – concerns that were not relayed to the Planning Commission through the reports – Mr. Roskelly can continue to hear, through the reports, that the Planning Commission is satisfied with the information. This is almost like an interim step. Then, the Planning Commission may also choose to review the Final Site Plan, but typically, the Staff handles that level of review. At that time the technical issues are resolved. This is just an opportunity for the residents to be part of the meetings and it ensures that the Planning Commission is doing its due diligence.

Member Lipski encouraged any resident who can show the link between this development and the flooding of their home to bring that information forward to the City. Member Lipski agreed with this postponement at this time because he, too, wanted to ensure that the problems in the area are not exacerbated by this project. However, Member Lipski was torn by this because the Applicant has certain rights and this is delaying his process and increasing his costs, all without an expert’s testimony stating that this plan will harm the neighbors.

Chair Kocan also asked that the Applicant provide additional information on the building setbacks – were the 35-foot setbacks in addition to or blended with the wetland setbacks?

Mr. Gillam confirmed with Member Pehrson that his motion was for the postponement of all the issues – Preliminary Site Plan, Stormwater Management Plan, Wetland Permit and Woodland Permit approval.

Chair Kocan said that this postponement was only on the consideration and not the Public Hearing. Ms. McBeth said she could not pinpoint a timeframe in which this plan could return. She said that the Planning Department could send out courtesy notices for the continuation of this review.

Chair Kocan called for a short break.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that the plan first came before them on December 8, 2004. She said that Providence has requested to remove their lighting plan, and while it wasn’t an item discussed at the Planning Commission meeting in December, it was an item listed in the review letters. The Planning Department felt most comfortable with bringing this request back to the Planning Commission for their approval.

Ms. McBeth said that lighting of the street, public or private, is not a requirement of the Ordinance. If it is provided, the Planning Department ensures that it conforms to the Ordinance. Ms. McBeth showed the Planning Commission the new road plan and pointed out the new, straighter road that saves more woodlands but does affect the wetlands more. The Consultants are pleased with this compromise.

Ms. McBeth said that the request is to remove the entire lighting plan. The Planning Department continues to work with this Applicant on the street lighting at the entrance points and important intersections.

Richard Abbott, 23100 Providence Drive, Southfield, represented the Applicant. The intent of this request is to remove the lighting around the road, but maintain the lighting at the entrances. The lighting requirements will continually be revisited as each of the developments come through for site plan approval. They analyzed their own process and determined that this lighting was duplicative, as there will be spillover lighting from the parking lots. They also felt that the wetlands and woodlands really didn’t have to be lit, for the benefit of the habitat. Mr. Abbott said that this line item on their budget was questioned – was the lighting really necessary?

Chair Kocan confirmed that there is no requirement for exterior lighting. She asked if the Planning Commission can require it. City Attorney David Gillam responded that the lighting is not a requirement in the Ordinance. The Planning Commission can impose reasonable restrictions as they relate to health, safety and welfare. If the Planning Commission concludes that there is a sufficient relationship between these things and the lighting, the Planning Commission could require the lighting.

Member Avdoulos said the plan was removed from the Consent Agenda and placed in Matters for Consideration so that the Planning Commission could ensure that the entrances would remain lit for ease of way finding. He was concerned a bit about the road not being lit, but he agreed with the Applicant that the parking lot would be lit. St. Joseph’s Hospital in Ann Arbor also doesn’t have dedicated street lights. He believed that the hospital will be responsible in adding lighting to any area that may require it. Typically there is no street lighting in subdivisions. There is no lighting on some of the City’s main roads. It is important to light intersections. He could likely support the request, as long as the intersections remain lit.

Member Pehrson asked if the intersections would be lit. Mr. Abbott said that their engineer, Gary Tressel of Hubbell Roth and Clark, had plans to share with the Planning Commission. He said the entrances will remain lit. There will also be signs that will come before the Planning Commission at a future date. The street lights will be provided with conduit stubs that will provide lit directional signs.

Member Pehrson said he saw a potential problem to the south where the road will have minimal lighting impact from any parking area. As long as the entrances are lit, Member Pehrson didn’t have a problem with the request at this time.

Member Sprague supported the request.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Gutman:

Chair Kocan was concerned about the woodland. She said that as a woman, driving to an unfamiliar hospital campus concerns her. She understood that the Applicant would likely add more lighting if the need arises. She would like to see something more concrete. She asked whether language could be added to the motion for the health, safety and welfare of the people who are traveling on the road. The area in question is the wooded area. She would feel more comfortable if that area was somewhat lit.

Mr. Abbott said that their concern was that they should preserve the natural areas as much as possible. He said perhaps her concern was for road markings. He said that they could provide reflected bollards that easily identify the pathway.

Member Cassis asked whether the wooded area would have pedestrians. Mr. Abbott said no. Member Cassis concluded that the activity in that area would be car traffic. Reflectors might be okay. Member Cassis said that as a hospital, health, safety and welfare should be important to Providence.

Member Cassis said that the Planning Commission is usually worried about too much lighting, and now, he said, it was ironic that the Planning Commission was asking for more lighting. As the southern side approaches the residential area, it may be better not to put the lighting in that area.

Chair Kocan said that Providence has offered to put in road markings and she asked if Member Cassis would be amenable to that. Chair Kocan asked if the maker of the motion would include in the motion, "…with road markings included in the wooded areas." The maker and the seconder of the motion agreed.

Member Pehrson also said that the perhaps the design could include 3-5-foot mushroom canister lighting, for the specific purpose of just lighting the roadway. It would reduce the light pollution but provided ambience. Member Pehrson was not asking to include this information in the motion, he just said that the Applicant could consider this option as he continues to work on the plan. Chair Kocan said that the language added to the motion could be, "…the Applicant continue to work with the City on a viable solution in order to mark the road in the wooded area in a safe, appropriate manner." Member Sprague preferred that language. Member Gutman agreed.

In the matter of the reconsideration of the Street Lighting Requirement for Providence Park Parkway, SP04-48, motion to approve of the removal of lighting along the ring road, except for the lighting at the driveways adjacent to the rights-of-way, subject to the Applicant continuing to work with the City on a viable solution in order to mark the road in the wooded area in a safe, appropriate manner.

Consideration of a request of Aladdin Heating and Cooling for a Section 9 Façade Waiver approval. The subject property is located in Section 16, on the south side of Grand River Avenue, east of Beck Road and west of Taft Road, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The Applicant is proposing to retrofit the existing façade only.

Planner Mark Spencer located the property on a map for the Planning Commission. The neighboring property to north is vacant, zoned OST. The east is vacant property zoned I-1. To the south is a single family residence zoned OS-1. To the west there is vacant property zoned R-A , residential acreage, and B-3, general business. The future land use map designates the property for office uses.

The Applicant plans to use the site for his residential and contractor supply heating and cooling business, with a retail showroom that is permitted with special conditions approved by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2003. The ZBA granted variance to allow a 1,300 square foot showroom in January, 2004. The driveway and parking area improvements approved by the Planning Commission are completed.

Mr. Spencer said that the Applicant proposes to replace the wood fascia board with EIFS material. He displayed the façade board for the Planning Commission. The north face will be 63% EIFS and the east face will be 54% EIFS. There will be no change to the west face. The south face is up against the warehouse. The site is in Façade Review Region 1 – which allows for a maximum of 25% EIFS on the building face. The Façade Consultant does not recommend approval of this request because of the percentage of EIFS proposed. However, he did indicate that the proposed retrofit is an improvement to the building and a Section 9 Waiver should be considered.

Mr. Spencer said that the approval of this waiver is required prior to the Planning Department approving this plan. Section 2520, Section 9, states that when a particular building, materials, colors and walls are found by the Planning Commission to be keeping within the intent and purpose of the section, the Planning Commission may waive the requirements of this section. The intent of this Ordinance is to enhance the qualitative visual environment of the City and to review the design of a building against its surroundings.

Dave Turowski from Aladdin Heating and Cooling was present at the meeting. He told the Planning Commission that the pictures he provided are "before and after" for their consideration.

Member Avdoulos said that the Façade Consultant provided a commentary stating that the Applicant is improving his building. This is similar to the request at Grand River and Novi Road, where the Applicant wished to improve his building, add to the aesthetics of the area and help clean up the area. Member Avdoulos said this was a sufficient solution that is lightweight and would not add structural complexity to the project. He felt it was appropriate.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Sprague wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission is being consistent. He said that Wonderland Plaza was rejected because their request wasn’t up to code. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the plaza is under renovation at this time. They worked with the Façade Consultant to make the most of their design. That plaza is in the Town Center District, which states that any improvement to the building then requires that the entire building come into Town Center District compliance. Ms. McBeth said that the plaza was encouraged to add more brick to his design, and their progress on the building proves that it is a nice improvement. Ms. McBeth said this Applicant is also requesting the Section 9 Waiver. The Planning Commission has some discretion as to what will be approved. Ms. McBeth did not know if this Applicant has considered brick or stone materials – or even metal panels. The Planning Commission has the purview to request something different.

Member Sprague said that this waiver request is for using EIFS as opposed to asking for everything to be updated. Ms. McBeth agreed. She said that it is the Town Center District that requires everything to be brought up to code. Member Sprague supported the motion.

Member Cassis said that this was an improvement to the building. He commented that a heavier material like brick may not be acceptable as there is no foundation. Mr. Spencer did not know the structural integrity of the building in order to comment on Member Cassis’ statement. Ms. McBeth said that the Building Department did have to work with the Wonderland Plaza on their brick design, as it was added to building in an elevated position. It is harder to do, and she did not know if it was possible in this case. Member Cassis did not see anywhere on the building that would easily accommodate more bricks.

Member Avdoulos clarified that the bottom of the building is brick, so brick could be added upward. However, the problem then becomes matching the brick. He thought this product is superior to the EIFS of twenty years ago and is an acceptable solution.

Consideration on the request of Shane Kremser for Preliminary Site Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 17, on the north side of Grand River Avenue, east of Wixom Road in the B-3, General Business District. The Applicant is proposing to construct a National City Bank branch. The subject property is approximately 1.34 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt located the property on an aerial photo. The property is located near the convergence of Twelve Mile, Grand River and Wixom Road. To the north is the City of Wixom. To the west are Jimmie’s Rustics and Don’s of Traverse City. To the East are vacant land and 52-1 District Court. The subject property is zoned B-3, as are the properties to the east and west. A similar zoning exists to the north in Wixom. To the south and west are I-1 properties. To the south and east, and further to the west, is B-3.

The property is master planned for community commercial uses, as are the east and west properties. The south properties are master planned for office.

There are no wetlands or woodlands.

The Applicant is proposing two Grand River curb cuts – one entry and one exit. There is a full access proposed onto Twelve Mile. The building is approximately 3,400 square feet with four drive-through lanes. Appropriate parking and stormwater detention are located on the site.

The Zoning Ordinance is in the process of being updated to remove the loading zone stipulation for banks. Because the Ordinance is not completely in place, a ZBA variance would be required.

The Traffic Review indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Two spacing waivers are required. The Twelve Mile entrance requires a variance from its distance to the Jimmie’s Rustics driveway – 180 feet are proposed and 275 feet are required. This is more of a service drive for Jimmie’s. Given the fact that few left hand turns occur in this area, the Planning Department supports this waiver request. A driveway spacing waiver is required for the westernmost driveway on Grand River. 110 feet are proposed and 275 feet are required. Mr. Schmitt noted that this is an exit only so the Planning Department has minimal concern over the proposed distance.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Zoning Ordinance is also being amended to remove the four-foot building landscape requirement for banks. Because the language has not yet been approved, the Applicant is seeking a waiver from the Planning Commission. The berm along Grand River is currently designed at two feet, but three feet is required. This requirement can be easily met. The Twelve Mile berm in its current design requires a waiver. Mr. Schmitt said that the driveway space between the outermost island and the parking is currently designed as a total of 24 feet. Angled parking only requires 18 feet. This 24-foot measurement could be reduced by six feet, which would make the greenbelt area 16 feet between the curb and basin. The gravel drive is not required and the basin is pretty accessible. A reconfiguration of the basin could be designed to provide enough width for the right-of-way berm. The Planning Department said they could work with the Applicant on this design on the Final Site Plan submittal. Placing it in this area meets the intent of the Ordinance, according to the City’s Landscape Architect. It would provide better screening because the elevation is higher.

A Planning Commission waiver is likely required for interior parking lot landscaping. The Planning Department has recommended the removal of one parking space for the purpose of adding a landscaped island. Mr. Schmitt noted that banks tend to have a problem meeting the parking lot landscape requirements.

Mike Morrison, the engineer and architect for the project, represented National City Bank. He said that due to the shape of the site and the various access points along Grand River and Twelve Mile, they are finding it difficult to place 1,409 square feet of landscaping within the parking lot. He noted that 40% of the site is landscaping. There is not an excess of parking stalls. They are at the City’s minimum and at National City Bank’s minimum as it is.

Mr. Morrison said that National City requires four-car stacking lanes. This stacking could be reduced if the City would prefer to see landscaping instead of stacking lanes.

Member Sprague asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman about the landscaping issues. Mr. Shipman said that the Grand River berm issue can be resolved easily. This change to their design can be submitted on their Final Site Plan.

The Twelve Mile issue is different. First, the road sits lower than the site. The berming is typically used to improve the view. One of its primary goals is to buffer the parking area. This can be achieved if the berm design is creative. The intent of Ordinance would be met, even without the berm being placed adjacent to the right-of-way. Mr. Shipman said that the basin is currently designed too steep and will require a fence. The Planning Department suggests that the basin plantings be placed on the exterior of the fence as another means to improve the buffering.

Mr. Shipman said that the parking lot landscaping is an issue. Banks typically have too much impervious surface because of their drive-through aisles, their 360-degree lots and in this case, the site has two frontages. By reducing the driveway aisle and removing a parking space, the amount of impervious surface has been reduced, but there will still be a need for a waiver. If the Planning Commission approves of a bank for this site, the request for this waiver would probably be required regardless of design. The need for the waiver can be reduced but not eliminated.

Member Sprague said that the northeast corner may be a location for more landscaping. Mr. Shipman said that if the measurement is 300 square feet or greater, that area would have been used in the calculation.

Member Sprague confirmed with Mr. Shipman that the four-foot perimeter waiver request is the same request made by all the other banks.

Member Sprague asked if the driveway locations could be in any way improved. Traffic Consultant Steve Dearing said their location placement made logical sense. Grand River is already pretty developed, so the character has already been formed, and doesn’t really allow for the driving spacing requirements to be met. Mr. Dearing considered what alternates might exist, but none made sense. Since the traffic flow is one way, he said this design is the best they can do. He supported the waiver. Member Sprague asked if the two curb cuts onto Grand River created the need for another waiver. Mr. Dearing said no, because one is ingress and one is the exit.

Member Avdoulos asked if it would be better to have 17-foot parking spaces with two-foot overhangs on the south side of the design. Mr. Shipman responded that from a green space perspective, it would appear that the site had more landscaping. From an Ordinance perspective, the extra two feet cannot be counted.

Member Avdoulos was concerned about two curb cuts onto Grand River. However, he has looked at other existing banks, and determined that this layout is better. Member Avdoulos asked if this was the same engineering firm designing the National City in Livonia. Mr. Morrison said yes. Member Avdoulos said that bank is a very nice design. It will be a long-lasting design. This bank has a nice brick that will compliment Jimmie’s Rustics.

Member Avdoulos said there was concern about cleaning up the one corner, and he felt that as long the Applicant keeps working with the City, he could support this plan.

Member Pehrson asked about the taper lane discussed in the Traffic Review. Mr. Dearing said that the traffic will continue to increase along Grand River, looking beyond the date this bank opens for business. The thresholds for reviewing traffic are based on the traffic turning into the site and the traffic that is already on the main road. This plan is so close to meeting the criteria now, they will in fact some day need that taper lane. He suggested that it was better to provide it now than later. Mr. Dearing said that the plan currently shows a large radius, and he recommended a turn lane.

Member Pehrson asked if the bank would consider designing their plan with a turn lane. Mr. Morrison said that they are close to the point of needing the turn lane, but there were three assumptions made based on the traffic study they felt were too conservative. The bank believes their impact will be negligible at this time.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Lipski:

Chair Kocan asked about the stacking. She thought that the design was short one space, and having a vehicle stopped in the driveway was not a definition of stacking. Mr. Dearing was not well-versed in Novi’s stacking requirement. He has reviewed the standards for banks, and his opinion is that Novi requires a lot of stacking. He was not particularly worried about this part of the design, because the City’s requirements are so restrictive anyway. Mr. Schmitt said he, too, was not worried. He said there was plenty of room to re-design the plan to get that last stacking space on the plan.

Chair Kocan said that Staff commented that the waiver for the right-of-way berm was unnecessary, and Chair Kocan wanted to ensure that the motion adequately reflected the discussion made at the table. Chair Kocan was referring to the third stipulation, but then understood that it referred to the Twelve Mile berm, not the Grand River berm. However, Mr. Shipman stated that historically, stipulations such as this do not offer "a waiver or," but state that "the Applicant will continue to work with the Landscape Architect on the solution." This language implies that the need for the waiver is trying to be eliminated.

Chair Kocan asked the City Attorney if the motion language should be tweaked. She said that there will be a lack of berm along Twelve Mile. Mr. Gillam said that if this type of language was used before, it would be fine to use it now. Mr. Shipman said that in this instance, because the design is going to meet the intent, it is more of a design issue. He said that if the intent is being met, a true variance (waiver) isn’t necessary. The berm is going to be in place, it just won’t be up against the right-of-way. His concern in saying "no waiver" is that in the event that the plan falls a foot short, it still is the best design and best solution. In that sense, it would still need a waiver.

Chair Kocan asked the Applicant what his intention was, when he responded to an either/or statement in the Landscape Review with "I agree." Mr. Morrison said that to the extent possible, they will continue working with Staff.

Member Sprague said that the same issue applies to the fourth stipulation, because there is an "or" statement in that stipulation as well. Mr. Shipman said that he would prefer to see the word "and" replace the word "or" because the waiver is going to be necessary, and the Applicant should continue working with the City to reduce the amount of the waiver to the best extent possible.

Chair Kocan confirmed with the maker and seconder of the motion that these improvements to the language of the motion were acceptable.

In the matter of the request of National City Bank, SP04-54a, motion to approve the Preliminary Site Plan and Stormwater Management Plan, subject to: 1) A ZBA variance for lack of a loading space on the site; 2) A ZBA variance for lack of building interior building landscaping around the drive-through facility; 3) A Planning Commission Waiver for the design of the right-of-way berm along Twelve Mile, and the Applicant will continue to work with the Landscape Architect on the solution; 4) A Planning Commission Waiver for lack of parking lot landscaping, and the Applicant continuing to work continue working with the City to reduce the amount of the waiver to the best extent possible; 5) A Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver, (275 feet required, 110 feet proposed); 6) A Same Side Driveway Spacing Waiver, (275 feet required, 80 feet proposed; 7) A taper lane and recommendation from the Consultant for the ingress and egress onto Grand River be followed, with direction and coordination through the City; 8) The planting around the basin be designed as suggested by the Landscape Architect; and 9) All comments in the Staff and Consultant reviews; for the reason that the plan meets the intent of the Master Plan.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Lipski:

Chair Kocan said she would forward her written comments to the Planning Department, in light of the late hour. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth wished to comment that the acreage requirement for the RUD has been recommended for removal from the text. She was responding to a comment made by Andrew Mutch during the Audience Participation segment at the beginning of the meeting.

Chair Kocan said that it appeared to her that City Council had a sticking point with the amendment to the RUD, as opposed to the approving of the RUD itself. When the conditions were made to the original RUD, nothing had to go the ZBA – whatever was approved by City Council was approved. It became part of the plan. In Chair Kocan’s opinion, the weight of the new language must be on what happens when an Applicant is making an amendment to an approved RUD.

Member Avdoulos asked for clarification on the RUD acreage. Ms. McBeth said that the 76-acre section was struck. The general language would allow City Council to consider modification of the strict standard. She said it was not the 80-acre statement that was struck.

Chair Kocan said that this presentation related to tax base alternatives.

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Chair Kocan said that from the Chair’s perspective, there cannot be an Agenda similar to this Agenda for a meeting that begins at 6:00 p.m. She said it was not the number of items, but the intensity of one of the items. Chair Kocan thought there was another OST text amendment regarding the height. She thought it had something to do with Meadowbrook Road. She asked that this background information be provided. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said she would provide that information, as she also recalled that information.

Chair Kocan asked if Triangle would be at the meeting to make a presentation. Ms. McBeth said this was a different topic altogether. This presentation is on tax base alternatives and is really meant to open discussion about the entire Ordinance in general. It is mostly related to the OST and light industrial districts. However, she said that they could open the discussion up to include all of the districts, to look at what uses that might be suggested for inclusion in the Ordinance.

Member Avdoulos asked if this was more of a general discussion, rather than a review of specific information, such as "65 feet" versus "68 feet." He said he thought the Planning Commission should look at it from the perspective of the developer – consideration of a second story or the viability of that idea. Specifics could be looked at later on. Ms. McBeth said that was correct. The idea was to have a round table discussion encouraging interaction between the developers and the Planning Commission. Background information from the City and the County would be provided. Nothing specific would be discussed at this meeting, but input would be collected and shared. Member Avdoulos said he would like to see graphs and images.

Member Pehrson said the meeting was a brain storming session, not just a meeting to discuss building heights. Ms. McBeth agreed. The idea is to increase the tax base without increasing the burden on the residents. It could be a modification to the Ordinance standards to allow increased development on the sites without compromising the standards that are already appreciated. There could be consideration of uses currently not listed in the Ordinance. The developers may have information to share. She said that Sterling Heights and Troy have good Ordinances, and perhaps this City is lacking that information.

Chair Kocan said that although she has heard from City Council members that the Main Street Committee was sunsetted, she believed it to be an active Committee, one which happens to be coming active again. There was a Main Street Committee meeting this evening just prior to this Planning Commission meeting that did not have Planning Commission representation. Chair Kocan said that the Planning Commission provides two members to the Committee, the other three come from City Council. She asked whether the Planning Commission could consider naming two members and perhaps an alternate. She noted that Member Wrobel was on the Committee, but was out of town at this time.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that she attended the Main Street Committee meeting, along with Assistant City Manager Clay Pearson. She said that a Committee Report would be presented at the next City Council meeting. She said this information could also be shared with the Planning Commission, if that is their desire.

Member Sprague volunteered for the Committee. Chair Kocan said there was no formal paperwork forum for members to have expressed express their interest.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Moved by Member Sprague, seconded by Member Gutman:

The Planning Commission members turned in their changes for incorporation into the minutes.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded

The Planning Commission members turned in their changes for incorporation into the minutes.

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Pehrson asked whether the text amendments to the Sign Ordinance would come back to the Planning Commission for review, since Council Member Kim Capello had some issues with portions of the Ordinance. Director Barbara McBeth said that the City Attorney was going to review the comments from the City Council meeting and make modifications to the Ordinance based on those comments. If the changes aren’t significant, they will be approved as part of the second reading of those Ordinances. If the City Council wants Planning Commission comments, they will send it back to the Planning Commission for that reason. Member Pehrson thought that the comments made about signs visible but hanging inside the building were relevant. He thought that the Implementation Committee talked themselves out of addressing them. Member Pehrson would support something being done with those signs because they are a nuisance. Chair Kocan confirmed with Ms. McBeth that the text amendment to the Sign Ordinance pertaining to political signs was not put into immediate effect.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Sprague:

The meeting adjourned at 12:18 a.m.

MON 04/18/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/27/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

TUE 05/03/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 05/09/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/11/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/16/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING 6:00 PM

MON 05/23/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 05/25/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 05/30/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 06/06/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 06/07/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 06/08/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, April 21, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: April 27, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date