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 (7:50 p.m.), Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Mark Spencer, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Ben Croy, Civil Engineer; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Member Kocan said that the Implementation Committee meeting will be rescheduled for September.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth informed the Planning Commission that at the last City Council meeting, Triangle Development presented a new concept for the Main Street development. At some point in time their new plan will come before the Planning Commission. The Twelve Oaks rezoning request from R-A to RC was approved. The parking space text amendment received its first reading approval aprpoval. The second reading of the RUD/PD language was approved. The clean-up text amendment items put forth to clarify the Ordinance received its second reading approval.

Consideration of the request of Ronald Nuechterlein for a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 22, south of Grand River Avenue and west of Novi Road in the TC-1, Town Center District. The subject property is .410 acres and the Applicant is proposing to renovate an existing 3,600 square foot building and add on an additional 2,496 square feet to the building.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes for Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland Permit and Storm Water Management Plan approvals. The subject property is located in the Northwest Ľ of Section 22, east of Taft Road between Ten and Eleven Mile roads in the R-4, One-Family Residential District. The subject property is 9.68 acres and the Applicant is proposing to construct 14 single family residential homes.

Planner Mark Spencer stated that the Applicant is proposing a 14 lot site condominium project for single family residential dwellings on 9.68 acres located on the east side of Taft Road between Ten and Eleven Mile. The home sites would be accessed from a new cul-de-sac and an extension of the existing Dylan Drive. Both are proposed to be public roads. Over 90% of the wetlands on the site would be preserved in 4.6 acres of private parks.

To the north are single family residences – the Merle and Taft Knolls subdivisions. To the east are single family residences in Cedar Springs Estates Subdivision. To the south are single family residences on large lots. To the west are Novi Woods and Novi Meadows public schools. The Master Plan calls for Single Family in the north, east and south, and private parks. To the west the Master Plan cites the land for an Educational Facility

The subject property is zoned One-Family Residential (R-4 - 14 dwelling units are proposed on the site and 30 would be permitted in the R-4 District). Surrounding Zoning (north, east and south) is also R-4. To the west the property is zoned Residential Acreage (R-A).

There are no regulated woodlands. There are regulated wetlands. The site does not contain any ranked habitat areas

Mr. Spencer said that the approval of the Preliminary Site Plan cannot be recommended because of the following:

A Planning Commission determination that it is not in the public interest to maintain the wetland setback on lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and10 (supported by staff). There is a wetland boundary encroachment on lots 7 and 8, and there are wetlands surrounding other lots. The Applicant worked on this plan considerably to create a plan that minimized this impact. This was a reasonable tradeoff to save over 90% of the wetlands on the site. The road was moved as far to the north as possible, while still providing the buffer area between this site and Taft Knolls I.

A City Council waiver of the 140 foot lot depth requirement for lots (lot 6) having a rear lot relationship to a thoroughfare (supported by staff). There is a wetland behind the lot, and this lot meets the other requirements for width and area.

A City Council waiver of the requirement to place a sidewalk along both sides of all local roads (supported by staff). The Applicant has proposed a crosswalk in the area of lot 9. There would still be connectivity up to the other streets.

The plans demonstrate general compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The Traffic Consultant is concerned about the placement of a cul-de-sac at the end of the road. The Applicant is proposing two pieces of pavement to make the area sixty feet wide. That is in the development standards as an acceptable means of ending the road. The Fire Marshal did not ask for a cul-de-sac, nor did Engineering.

The Landscape Review indicates that a waiver is necessary for the berm and planting materials that would be required along Taft Road. There is a wetland in the area. There is also a considerable drop off. Requiring a berm, landscape or wall in that area would be somewhat useless. It would not provide a function.

The Engineering Review recommends approval of the plan and the Stormwater Management Plan.

All of the reviews noted minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant has responded to the reviews and has indicated his willingness to comply with the comments.

Mike Fellows of Mozart Homes addressed the Planning Commission. He said that this project is a fairly simple addition to the Taft Knolls I project. He planned to both develop and build the project. He agreed with Mr. Spencer that he met with the Planning Department and its consultants on several occasions. He reiterated that R-4 density would allow something like 27 homes; he is only proposing half, admittedly because of the wetlands.

Mr. Fellows agreed to continue working with the Staff to enhance the currently undisturbed buffer areas. Some of the planned disturbance is temporary, and some is permanent. There are some areas, specifically on the east end around the sediment basin, where additional buffer and wetland habitat can be created.

Mr. Fellows said that the westerly berm along Taft Road is virtually impossible due to the slope and the well-defined wetland edge. If the Wetland Consultant has recommendations for additional plantings in that area, Mr. Fellows would be willing to do so.

Mr. Fellows asked for Planning Commission input regarding the sidewalk. If the sidewalk is put in, then a retaining wall must be built because of the proximity to the wetland. He would put the sidewalk in if that was the Planning Commission’s preference.

Mr. Fellows said that the depth of lot 6 is a questionable waiver request. The Ordinance reads that any lot with a reverse frontage or a rear yard relationship to a major thoroughfare has to be 140 feet deep. Mr. Fellows asked why that depth would be necessary if the lot was not immediately abutting the road. He said it ceases to be relevant once the 140-foot depth is met from the front of the lot to the adjacent right-of-way. He said that this measurement on lot 6 is 140 feet. On the other side, it is 195 feet. He did not think it was necessary to seek this waiver.

Mr. Fellows said that there was a comment from the Fire Marshal that the emergency access road to Taft Road could be gravel, and a bond posted for future building of that road, if the south parcel does not develop. He would prefer to keep the road gravel, though he will pave it if that is the wish of the Planning Commission.

Mr. Fellows said that there is a letter from the Traffic Consultant that said the t-turnaround was acceptable. If a cul-de-sac could be achieved on the adjacent parcel, that would be preferable. Mr. Fellows said he would go to the owner and seek an easement, but he reiterated that the Traffic Review and the Fire Marshal’s review did give approval of the t-design.

Chair Cassis opened for the floor for public comment:

Bill Spagnoli, 9.6 acre-property owner to the south: Had no reservations with this development. The stub street would dead end next to his property. He wished to save his property and his other neighbor’s property (Mr. Pescucci – 3.6 acres) because of their proximity to what is known as Monroe Creek. Next in line to their properties is Novi-owned land – 5.3 acres. He was present to ask openly for City assistance in reviewing this area for a possible future parkland space. It is environmentally sensitive. It is across from the Board of Education, three elementary schools, a technology center, etc. It is perfect for children to utilize for nature walks, trails, etc. There is an area in the center that would be developable – for about thirty lots. That does represent an economic barrier, though Mr. Spagnoli and Mr. Pescucci are willing to look at any arrangement for this land. Their wish is to preserve this land. Mr. Spagnoli said that there was once a restoration plan for the area, but the State would not allow it. He thought it should be reconsidered at this time. Mr. Spagnoli said that there is a park system in Cedar Springs to the north. There is a woodland corridor on the other side of Taft Road. Chair Cassis suggested that Mr. Spagnoli speak spoke to the City Manager or Mayor regarding this land.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Jane Tierney, 25339 Sullivan: Objected to the plan, and asked that 10-20 feet of trees be left between these homes and those along Sullivan Lane. She asked that the wildlife be considered.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos remembered that there was great discussion regarding Taft Knolls I, and concerns regarding density and a cookie-cutter design. Since that time, Member Avdoulos has driven by that project and believes that it is on par with the other new development in the City. He noted that this project will be even less dense. He was pleased to hear that the Applicant has worked with the City on reducing the issues associated with this plan.

Member Avdoulos said that 90-95% of the wetlands have been saved, and he therefore assumed they must be of somewhat good quality. Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, responded that the main wetland is the one in the center, and is of the highest quality. This is a multiple vegetation community. The edge has wetland scrub shrub with scattered trees. There is an emergent or herbaceous wetland community going inward, and then there is an open water and submerged aquatic community in the interior. The interior is of higher quality and can support water fowl and amphibians. There may be fish. He did not know how deep the wetland was. The proposed impacts along the north side can be replaced reasonably well. The vegetation and plantings can be enhanced along the east side. The side slopes of the basin can be planted. Dr. Freeland felt the design was a reasonable compromise.

Member Avdoulos asked about the lots encroaching the buffer. Dr. Freeland said that the buffer is dominated by a shrub community of mixed, native and non-native species. There are glossy buckthorn and honeysuckle. They are non-native and typically considered less desirable. There is a lot of dogwood. The plantings around the basin and elsewhere with native species will offset the impact reasonably well.

Member Avdoulos asked if the City has received any negative comments regarding Taft Knolls – disruption, noise, etc.? Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said she was not aware of any. Member Avdoulos noted that the letter read seemed to be a complaint, but he felt there was a nice distance here. Without having any complaints on Taft Knolls on file, Member Avdoulos said he felt comfortable with the design.

Member Avdoulos thought he was in favor of eliminating the walk next to the wetland. It will help conserve and preserve the area as much as possible.

Member Avdoulos said he understood the standard for the 140-foot lot depth. Member Avdoulos said this one lot was very close to Taft Road. The adjacent lots are at about 156 feet. Mr. Spencer said that the one measurement was short and could not be lengthened. They can’t extend it to the property line to the back because there is a park. Mr. Spencer said it was preferable not to, and typically the City requires that the wetland not be in the lot. If the wetland is filled, it could be considered part of the lot. Member Avdoulos did not think that a waiver was difficult, given the lot configuration.

Member Avdoulos noted the first comment – that it is not in the best public interest not to maintain a wetland setback – lots 6 through 10. Dr. Freeland has indicated why that isn’t as big of a concern as it might be for other projects. Member Avdoulos’ one concern is that the homes are built on the lots, but there should be a restriction on deck building. On those lots, the decks could be minimized.

In Member Avdoulos’ opinion, the Applicant has addressed the issues presented. There are some landscaping issues with regard the berm and planting requirements, due to the existing topography. However, Staff has indicated that they could support a waiver if all of the requirements are met. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman responded that with any waiver there is a description in the Ordinance that would allow the application of a waiver. In this case, the developer has met the obligations in showing that there is an existing wetland in the area that prohibits the application of this particular requirement. By doing that, it meets the Ordinance requirements to seek the waiver. Member Avdoulos said he drove by the property and did note how the property dipped down and how wild the area was. He thought it would be neat to leave the area as is.

Member Lipski arrived at 7:50 p.m.

Member Pehrson said his concern with the plan is the sidewalk along the south side. Typically, the City has had problems with older developments that now want sidewalks. The safety and welfare is a more important factor than the wetlands or woodlands. He would balance that comment against the idea that the number of lots in this development is not going to produce a substantial traffic flow. It won’t generate as much traffic as a through road. He then felt he could support the sidewalk waiver request.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

Member Kocan said she had a hard time approving lots that even abut a wetland buffer. She kept looking at the plan, and she can understand if the building envelope is out of the wetland buffer. She asked about lots 6, 9 and 10 having the buffer in the building envelope. Dr. Freeland said he understood. She did not want the wetlands filled. There are restrictions on the land because of wetlands. She appreciated that the Applicant is not building at a higher density. She said the Planning Commission needs to be sensitive to those lots where the building footprint is in the wetland buffer. Particularly if Wetland C is a high quality wetland, it should not be filled in to back up the buffer line. She asked if that idea would serve the property owner better.

Dr. Freeland explained that Wetland C has multiple vegetation communities – in concentric rings. The outer wetland community is primarily the scrub shrub with a mixture of native and non-native shrubs. It is the interior of the wetland that is high-quality. The outer, drier part of the wetland is not as high-quality. The impacts are proposed in the mixed scrub shrub community. It is not as high quality. Dr. Freeland said that that an earlier proposal ran the road through the middle of the wetland. The Wetland Consultant rejected that. The new plan is a plan that is not free of impacts, but at .23 acres, it is below the City Ordinance threshold for requiring mitigation. The plan is effectively providing some mitigation by vegetating the sediment basin. With the vegetation enhancements in that area, and perhaps elsewhere in other areas, this is a reasonable compromise.

Member Kocan said that she has never asked for wetland fill before, although she was considering that possibility with this plan. This would necessitate additional mitigation elsewhere. She could not have the wetland buffer going through the building envelope. She did not want to do that. She noted that on lots 7 and 8 the wetland is being filled. It is a lower quality. She was not sure whether she was considering a swap that was quality-wise not equal. She was not comfortable. She thought that maybe a lot could be considered for removal, or wetland filling, or something.

Member Kocan said that three deciduous trees and 17 ornamental trees are being waived. Member Kocan asked if the City could request additional wetland plantings by the sidewalk. Member Kocan said that Mr. Fellows has agreed to do so if the City so desires. Member Kocan said that the landscaping design looked sparse. She said the wetland is scrubby, and additional plantings could improve the look. Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant is proposing to plant the street trees in the right-of-way, an elevated piece of property designed to accommodate the school traffic. The right-of-way line nearly abuts the wetland, so the Applicant’s opportunity to plant is only in the wetland. It is the City’s policy not to request other landscape (besides the street trees) in the right-of-way. There is also a utility line in there as well. Mr. Shipman felt there was a lack of opportunity to put plantings in that area. "Enhancement" may become "disruption." There are opportunities to provide enhancements in other areas. The Taft Road corridor is limited. Member Kocan supported the right-of-way berm waiver and the plantings waiver.

Member Kocan asked about the cul-de-sac versus the t-turn around. Member Kocan never assumed that the request to place the cul-de-sac was on a neighboring parcel. Civil Engineer Ben Croy replied that the neighboring parcel in question is Mr. Spagnoli’s property (to the south). In Mr. Croy’s review, and the Fire Marshal’s review, it was mentioned that the cul-de-sac is not even needed, with the layout of the subdivision. The t-turn around is an acceptable standard for terminating a road. If the road were longer with more homes, perhaps the cul-de-sac would be an acceptable upgrade, but in this case the t-turn around is sufficient.

Member Kocan asked Mr. Spagnoli to continue his pursuit of parkland dialogue with the City, perhaps with the Parks and Recreation Department. If a park materializes, the City may want parking that accesses the area through that road. The stub should remain. A future road will have to curve around wetlands.

Chair Cassis asked if lot 7 would have .068 acres of fill. Dr. Freeland responded that the plan should be re-checked. Chair Cassis said that lot 9 shows 0.01 acres of fill. He was trying to verify the measurements for the fill. George Norberg of Atwell Hicks explained that the areas on the plan are determined by a CAD system. The lot is .25 acres, so .06 is not all that unreasonable. Mr. Norberg offered to re-calculate the area if the Planning Commission desired. He said that the 0.06 measurement represents just over a third of the .15 measurement. Chair Cassis noted that the quality of the wetland is not that good. Dr. Freeland said that .06 acres represents 2,614 square feet. He said that the plan is probably accurate.

Mr. Spencer said that the wetland buffer, by asking for the determination of "nonessential," would not be required. It could be buildable. Dr. Freeland will be working with the Applicant on determining what would be permanent or temporary encroachments into the buffer. The permanent encroachments will be where the building and building footprints could be.

Chair Cassis asked Member Avdoulos to elaborate on his deck comment. Member Avdoulos responded that he put the comment on the table, mostly for lots 6, 9 and part of 10. The dotted lines that form envelopes are the setbacks. The building does not cover the entire dotted line area. In other cases, the Planning Commission has seen where the placement of the envelope did not provide areas for decks, and therefore certain lots had deck restrictions. In this case, there will be physical structures in the buffer. However, if it has been indicated that this is not a problem, then Member Avdoulos did not have an issue with it.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Kocan asked about a conservation easement that was discussed in the review letters. Dr. Freeland said that it was in the City’s best interest to get a conservation easement for the remaining wetlands, and therefore they recommended it. City Attorney David Gillam said that the Planning Commission would have to ask the Applicant for that easement. Mr. Fellows said that if the Planning Commission could make it a stipulation of the wetland permit, then they didn’t need his permission. He said that generally, he was against conservation easements because wetland lines are fluid. They are not permanent things. He has given easements on other jobs, but he was against them. He did not like to encumber a lot any more than he had to. He reiterated that the lines are fluid. Someone may be able to regain ten feet without an easement in place. Ten feet is a big number for those lots that already have reduced back yards. He said that there are already protections in place via the Ordinance and laws. He did not see the need for an easement for the same thing.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said it would be a good thing if the prospective homeowners were informed that there is a wetland there, which is an important natural resource. The Planning Commission recognizes that it is an important natural resource. An easement is an extra layer of protection. She felt that this was a Planning Commission determination. She recommended the easement. Member Kocan asked if, "A Conservation Easement being provided for the wetland areas," could be added to the motion. Member Pehrson and Member Wrobel agreed to the language.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

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

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Chair Cassis asked if the Planning Commission members read the Council Member Lynne Paul correspondence regarding the Friends of the Rouge and the WatchFrog Program. Chair Cassis said that the program seemed to be a good learning opportunity.

Chair Cassis noted the reading material regarding one Planning Commission member’s memoirs of being on a Commission.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

The meeting adjourned at or about 8:35 p.m.

MON 09/05/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 09/12/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 09/13/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 09/14/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 09/19/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 09/26/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 09/28/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

WED 10/04/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

MON 10/10/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 10/12/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

MON 10/17/05 IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE 6:00 PM

MON 10/17/05 CITY COUNCIL INTERVIEWS 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, September 8, 2005 Signature on File

Date approved: September 14, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date