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

Present: Members Victor Cassis, John Avdoulos, David Lipski, Lynn Kocan, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson, Wayne Wrobel

Absent: Andrew Gutman (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Mark Spencer, Planner; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Jason Myers, Planner; Lance Shipman, Landscape Architect; Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer; Larry DeBrincat, Woodland Consultant; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant; David Gillam, City Attorney

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

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Meyer:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no Correspondence to share.

Member Kocan said that the Implementation Committee met one month ago and discussed the Doggie Daycare and Kennel language. They also discussed bank stacking lanes. December 5, 2005 would be the next date for an Implementation Committee meeting, if one is to be held in December.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth noted that the next Planning Commission meeting will be on December 14, 2005.

There was no Consent Agenda.

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Eudora Adolph of Lincoln Place Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium, Storm Water Management Plan, and Woodland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 33, south of Nine Mile, east of Beck Road, in the R-1 One-Family Residential District. The subject property is 4.59 acres and the Applicant is proposing a six lot site condominium for single family residential dwellings.

Chair Cassis began the meeting by noting that on the previous evening, a new Mayor and new City Council members were elected.

Planner Mark Spencer described the property and the project. He said that the historic house on the property is proposed to be relocated to Lot 2 for use as a home by the Applicant. The road design of this development is a cul-de-sac. The barn on the site is for sale and will be removed. The site is zoned R-1 and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the west is residential, zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the south and east is Barclay Estates, zoned R-1 and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the North is Autumn Park, zoned R-1 and master planned for Single Family Residential. The Master Plan density in this area is a maximum of 1.65 units per acre.

There are no regulated wetlands on the site. There are no regulated woodlands on the site but it does contain one regulated landmark tree and therefore a woodland permit is required to assure protection of the tree. Several other substantial trees are proposed to be saved. Three additional trees may be able to be saved if the detention pond is slightly redesigned with some possible encroachment of the pond into the forty-foot non-access easement. This may require the use of a small retaining wall to maintain the four-foot height of the berm. There are no ranked habitat areas on this site.

The Planning Department recommends approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the Applicant working with staff to provide a minor lot boundary redesign to provide more radial lot lines between Lots 3 and 4. There is a small triangle area behind Lot 4, which seems to make the area fairly unusable.

The Landscape, Engineer, Traffic and Fire Department reviews all recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan with minor modifications to be made on the Final Site Plan submittal. The Applicant has agreed to work with the City on these issues.

Jim Butler from PEA addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Eudora Adolph, owner of the property. He offered to answer any questions that the Planning Commission might have. Mr. Butler said that they would like to discuss the detention basin. If it is moved into the forty-foot buffer it would give them the ability to save some trees.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

John Dennis, Autumn Park: He opposed the project. He purchased his home because of the view of the Lincoln House. He was made aware from the developer prior to the meeting that the Lincoln House may not be moved to one of the lots. Its future is uncertain. This historical home was built by James Palmer in 1838, 22 years before the Civil War. He sold it in 1865 when his son was killed in the war. The house has been used in national advertising campaigns. In 1985 Dane Johnson, an architect, deemed it one of Novi’s top ten buildings. He also did not want traffic to increase. He did not want more noise. Nine Mile is a very quiet road. The future buyer of his home will be denied the view of this home. He thought this development was bad for Novi’s housing outlook.

Edward Wong, Barclay Estates: Thought the historical implication of the Lincoln House was unique and the home should be kept. He hoped the trees were to be preserved. He bought his house because of the trees on this site.

J.D. Shanahan, 22299 Barclay: His home would be located behind Lot 1. His specific request was for the Applicant to consider making the building envelope a minimum of 45 feet from the lot line for Lot 1, rather than the Ordinance standard of 35 feet.

Bill DeCoste, 22430 Southwyck Ct.: He would like to see the preservation of the Lincoln House. He did not think this development would negatively affect his property value, though it might affect the adjacent homes. He was not pleased with another street entering onto Nine Mile. The school already increases the traffic. This development would negatively affect the feel of the area.

Vicki Thomas, representing 22119 Barclay: These homeowners would be located near the wooded area on this development. They were concerned about the plan.

Sheri Roberts, 22340 Barclay Drive: She thought real estate was languishing in Novi, and when these homes do not sell, this will be a half-finished project until such time the industry turns around. She was concerned about the traffic and the addition of another curb cut. This project would negatively affect the area.

Johannes Palm, 22359 Barclay: This homeowner would be adjacent to the detention pond. He requested information on the elevation of the court, which is the high point on the site. There are trees that could be undermined by a road being developed right through the area of the existing structure. There are pines and maples near the proposed detention pond and he wanted to know what their future would be. He said that the height of the berm running along the Barclay Estates properties was not specified on the plan. He asked what would happen with the white wood picket fence. He wanted to know the routing of the utilities. He said the elevation of the detention pond ranged from 942 to 946; he wondered how those related to the adjacent site elevations. His low elevation is 942; he was concerned about water drainage.

Brad Drogosch, 22250 Beck Road: Opposed to the development but understood that he couldn’t stop it. He was concerned about the wildlife. He said that the back area of this property floods every spring and he did not want this development to flood his property further.

Chair Cassis asked Member Wrobel to read the correspondence into the record:

David Hoffman, 47273 Autumn Park Court: Objected to the project. It would change the neighborhood and affect the value of his home. It would bring traffic congestion. He would lose the view of the Lincoln House.

Johannes Palm, 22359 Barclay: Objected to the project. The homes should be restricted to 3,000 square feet. The homes should be set back at least 45 feet from the road and 45 feet from back property line. Elevation of road and sidewalks needs to be established. The project could affect existing trees. More tree information should be provided. Berm elevations and planting information should be provided. The letter reiterates the items he discussed in person (see above).

Margaret and George Surdu, 47225 Autumn Park Court: Approved of a project with single family homes that were of similar size to the surrounding homes.

Richard Brockhaus, 47321 Autumn Park: Objected for traffic reasons.

J.D. Shanahan, 22299 Barclay: The letter reiterated his request that he made in person (see above). He wished to see the property line plant installation remain as shown on the plan.

Carol and Michael Crawford, 22135 Beck: Approved as long the plan does not have an exit onto Beck Road.

Robert O’Neill, 22139 Barclay: Objected if this is a rental property.

Monica Cahill, 47320 Autumn Park: Objected because she wished to see the historical home preserved. Did not want another road, or headlights glaring into Autumn Park.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing. He asked whether there was any historical designation on this home. Ms. Eudora Adolph responded that none of the buildings on the property are registered as historic, nor can they be. Although the original home was built a number of years ago, the home was updated in the 1950s, and a number of those changes to the home were pertinent to the 1950s. The home cannot be registered because of these many changes. The previous owner looked into this issue.

City Attorney David Gillam responded to Chair Cassis’s question about the Planning Commission’s ability to preserve this home if in fact there is no historical designation on it. Mr. Gillam responded that without a designation, there is no basis for the City to make a request to keep the home. Even if it were designated, there could still be the possibility of moving it.

Member Avdoulos, an architect, has worked on restoring homes to an historical significance. Restoring a home in such a manner can be costly and time consuming. He said that the surrounding community must understand that things change over time. As long as the change conforms to zoning and master planning, the City cannot stand in its way. He would like to see the house left as is, but he understood that the request before them met the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The woodlands have been reviewed, and the Applicant was commended for their intention to preserve and protect one regulated and many nonregulated trees on the site.

Member Avdoulos was concerned about the extra traffic too, because the timing of the traffic light nearby seems to allow for ten minutes of Beck Road traffic to thirteen seconds of Nine Mile traffic. He noted that another Beck Road project would be presented after this hearing. He said that the Planning Commission does what it can to ensure that the community’s best interest is considered with any site plan review. This includes flooding, wetland and woodland issues.

Member Avdoulos would like to see the Lincoln House stay. It is of the classic Greek revival style and is in great shape. It has great character. If this home is moved, it would be interesting to have the rest of the development emulate that character. This would be something unique for the site. Member Avdoulos noted that some of the newer subdivisions once brought concern to the homeowners in this area, but since their development they have added character and have not been disruptive as anticipated.

Member Avdoulos said that the berm around the detention pond has a top elevation of 948-950. This information will be further reviewed, and Landscape Architect Lance Shipman may discuss the landscaping further. Larry DeBrincat, the Woodland Consultant, discussed the woodland information. He confirmed for Member Avdoulos that one of the trees has a dbh over 36 inches. Mr. DeBrincat said that specifically, there are no woodlands on the site, but the Applicant is working to save the one regulated tree. Mr. DeBrincat said that his colleague, Doris Hill, is working on this site with the Applicant regarding the saving of other trees on the site.

Member Avdoulos asked whether the site had been reviewed on a lot per lot basis. Mr. DeBrincat said that at this level the plan is reviewed as the overall project. The impact of the road and utilities are reviewed. Because there is only one regulated tree, their review was geared toward that tree. He said that Ms. Hill would be looking for ways to save the other trees, as long as the Applicant was willing to do so.

Member Avdoulos asked about the footprint for the homes in R-1. Mr. Spencer responded that the maximum footprint would be 25% of the lot area. That translates to about 5,000 square feet. The Applicant will base the size of his homes on the market conditions. There may be deed restrictions that would define the home sizes further.

Member Avdoulos directed the question to the Applicant. Ms. Adolph responded that the homes must be worth about $750,000-$800,000, or more, in order for the development to succeed. To justify that price point, the homes will be similar to those in the area, not quite as big as Bellagio homes perhaps, but similar to the other neighborhoods.

Member Avdoulos asked about the historic home. Ms. Adolph said that the development’s moniker was not named after the Lincoln House because of the City’s rule that properties cannot be named after presidents. Therefore, "The Rushmore" was chosen. Once the design changed from seven to six lots, the Applicant said she has to re-analyze the numbers. She was not able to comment further on the preservation of the Lincoln House. Member Avdoulos would recommend moving the house and bringing it up to today’s standards. There are many instances of preservation in Novi, most recently the barn from Island Lake being moved to Maybury. Ms. Adolph said that Maybury informed her that they do not need her barn. She said the cost to move it is prohibitive. She worked with the Michigan Barn Preservation Network Society about salvaging the barn. The barn is big and the effort would be costly. Member Avdoulos explained the moving of the barn from Island Lake, and how it was a change to their development agreement. He said he was not trying to twist Ms. Adolph’s arm.

Member Kocan was an advocate for homeowners and compatibility of projects adjacent to residential. This site is zoned and master planned for residential. It is zoned R-1 and proposed to be developed as such. There are no woodlands. There are no wetlands. This is a reasonable development. The Planning Commission must allow the owner to develop this land; it is her right to do so. As much as the neighbors don’t want the site to change, it is within the rights of the Applicant to do so.

Member Kocan said that this is the least amount of trees she has seen on a site in over a year. The City would like to see as many of those trees saved as possible. The homes will not necessarily be built using the entire footprint. Member Kocan said she would not apply a different standard to these homes than what is provided for in the Ordinance. Consistency is important. It promotes equity and fairness. Though it is difficult to tell neighbors this, the development proposed is reasonable, legal and totally appropriate. It will change the aesthetics of the area, but the development fits. The minor tweaking of the plan includes the lot line change between Lots 3 and 4. There has to be 110-foot frontages. If there is a lot line change, it may affect the frontage. Member Kocan drew some sample designs of the lots with the lot line change, and she thought it was feasible to maintain that distance. Mr. Spencer agreed.

Member Kocan asked about redesigning the detention area. Would a variance then be necessary? Could it just be deepened? Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that the forty-foot non-access greenbelt easement is just that – an easement. Having basins within that easement is very common. The City has a requirement for a four-foot berm with a four-foot crest which, at its minimum, has a horizontal measurement of 28 feet. There is room for play in the area. It is possible to design the berm in the area. This berm requirement is for the land along Nine Mile. There is no requirement for a berm along eastern edge of the property. The berm is mostly at the basin and at Lot 2. The berm would help screen the basin area and would give it the proper elevation, which would alleviate the concerns of the adjacent property owner. That elevated berm would prevent water from going the direction of that resident. The berm goes behind Lot 2 and is an added benefit. It is not a requirement of the Ordinance.

Member Kocan was concerned about the elevation of the site. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn responded that the grade of this site is higher than Barclay Estates. The center of the road ranges from 948 to 951, whereas Barclay is at 943. The drainage will be taken care of on site. There will be catch basins and swales along the property line. Member Kocan asked if the City ever tries to set things further down. She noted that the property to the west is at 947-948. Mr. Coburn said that this site is matching the natural slope of the area.

Member Kocan asked about the utility placement. Mr. Coburn asked whether she meant franchise utilities or public utilities. The Subdivision Ordinance dictates the requirements of the placement of electric lines to be in the rear yard, unless otherwise approved by the Engineering Division.

Member Kocan said if the detention basin was moved north, it would not affect the berm. She read a note that a retaining wall could be used if necessary. Mr. Shipman responded that she was correct. There is plenty of width to do this. Topographically speaking, it could be tricky, which is why the retaining wall may work well. He thought that the wall was more to facilitate the depth of the basin than to elevate the berm. This should be able to be worked out without the need for a variance.

Member Kocan noted the use of spruce, burning bushes, service berries and red maple trees. Mr. Shipman stated that along Nine Mile the landscape meets the minimum Ordinance requirements. A lot of that design has to do with the narrowness of that area, which also has to accommodate a curb cut. The additional vegetation on the berm is heavily placed, with two evergreens deep and a good mixture of materials. That is the description of the berm between this site and Barclay Estates.

Member Kocan said she understood the stormwater drainage design should mitigate any potential flooding problem. She felt that she could not not approve this plan. She said that the Planning Commission was commissioned to enforce the Ordinance, and that was what they were doing.

Member Wrobel agreed with the other speakers, though it panged him. The Planning Commission must approve the plan because it meets the Ordinance requirements. Given the fact that the home is not a registered historical home, the Planning Commission cannot react to it. He would hate losing the home. He asked if the Applicant was taking any steps to find someone else who might want to move the home. Ms. Adolph responded that her goal was to move this home to one of the lots. She lives in it now. Her plan was to fix the home up now. She did try to find a home for the barn. People have looked at the barn, considering whether they could make a home out of it, but there aren’t enough cross-structural beams to do so. There is beautiful old lumber in the barn. The lot count on this development just recently lowered to six. She has to look at that change, and speak with builders, in order for her to make a decision. She did not know if it made sense to move the house onto one of the lots. Ms. Adolph said her goal was to keep the home and have the development radiate a presidential estate feel. She didn’t want to see the old house go, but she has to determine whether keeping it will work.

Member Pehrson said it is unusual to get a proposal before the Planning Commission without any exceptions. He expected this approval to have taken five minutes because the developer meets every obligation that the Ordinance dictates. It may be an emotional issue for the neighbors, but given the extent of the work the Applicant has performed in conjunction with the City, he applauded their efforts. He hoped the neighbors understood that this is not discretionary; these are black and white issues. There is nothing that would prohibit this Planning Commission from approving this plan.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Member Kocan asked whether the motion should address the detention basin situation, but Mr. Shipman responded that it was not necessary.

Chair Cassis gave the floor back to a neighbor from 22299 Barclay. Mr. Shanahan said he heard mention that the water flows from west to east. He is on the east side and he said that he already has installed a drain tile on the back of his lot because the swell is about eight to ten feet. He cannot cut his grass in the spring in that area. He was not sure that the drainage of this site would not affect him. Mr. Coburn explained that the development will make his problem better. Currently, this man’s property is the low spot. Water from this site is currently draining onto his property. What will happen with the development is the berm will block that flow. There will be a swale that captures that flow and a catch basin will carry the water through the storm sewer to the detention pond. The intent is that the entire site will drain into the detention pond. Mr. Shanahan said it did not appear that the berm reached across his lot line. Most of the water comes from the south and west. He said the water will be coming into his site from south of where the berm ends. Mr. Coburn said that the catch basin will catch all of the surface drainage before the water reaches his property.

Chair Cassis encouraged the residents to come to City with any questions they may have. He said that this Applicant must also get a Final Site Plan approval before anything is done on the site.

Vicki Thomas asked permission from the Chair to have the letter written by the residents of 22119 Barclay included in the minutes. Chair Cassis agreed. The letter was signed by Alain Charlois and expressed his concern for this development as he is an adjacent homeowner.

Chair Cassis agreed with the comments made by his fellow Planning Commission members. He also lived in the area and he noted the beauty of the Lincoln House. The fact of the matter is the Applicant has brought forward a good project with half-acre lots, which isn’t done too often anymore. Chair Cassis suggested that the Applicant contact Kathleen Mutch, a local historian. She has been helpful in the past. He thought that there must be a future location for the Lincoln House.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Interphase Land Development, LLC for Preliminary Site Plan, Site Condominium, Storm Water Management Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit approval. The subject property is located in Section 32, west of Beck Road between Eight and Nine Mile in the R-A, Residential Acreage District. The subject property is 14.91 net acres and the Applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and accessory buildings to construct a ten-lot site condominium for single family residential dwellings using the Open Space Preservation Option.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project. He stated that David Campo, of Interphase Land Development, has proposed to remove an existing home and accessory buildings and construct a ten-lot site condominium to be accessed off of a proposed cul-de-sac boulevard-style private road with an overhead entry structure to highlight the entrance.

Mr. Spencer said that the site is located on the West side of Beck Road between Eight Mile and Nine Mile. To the north is the partially developed Bellagio site condominium, zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the east, across Beck Road, are Barclay Estates Subdivision, zoned R-1 and Pheasant Hills Subdivision (Northville), both master planned for Single Family Residential. To the south are single family homes on one to eight acre lots, zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the west are Bellagio and Maybury Park Estates Phase 2 Site Condominium, zoned R-A and master planned for Single Family Residential. The density of the R-A Master Plan Single Family Residential for this area is .8 units per acre, and 1.65 units per acre for the property zoned R-1.

The City’s wetland map shows wetlands on the site. Several City and State regulated wetlands were field verified on the site. The western and south western portion of the site contains medium density regulated woodlands. The western portion of the site is shown in the City Master Plan as a Priority Two wildlife habitat area.

Mr. Spencer said that the Applicant originally proposed a ten-unit development with one acre minimum lots. The original site plan for this site was submitted as the parallel plan. Because this site contains an extensive amount of natural features on the western portion, the Applicant was encouraged to consider on of the City’s conservation options. The Applicant returned with a proposal using the Open Space Preservation Option. The Open Space Preservation Option provides for a reduction in lot area and lot width if a minimum of 20% of the site’s important natural, environmental, agricultural and/or contextual features are permanently preserved as open space. The open space must be accessible to all lots, connected to adjacent open space and not cause an unreasonable burden upon public services and neighboring properties.

The Planning Commission must find that the density proposed is what could have been developed without the use of the option. A Parallel Plan was submitted for this purpose. This was the original plan submitted. Staff has found that it generally meets Ordinance requirements, although some minor tweaking of this plan would have been necessary to be approved.

The proposed Preliminary Site Plan now includes three acres of undeveloped open space area along the west side of the property, and north and south of Lot 6, which exceeds the minimum 20% open space required to qualify for the Option. A substantial portion of the regulated woodlands and wetlands are to be placed in a general common element with a permanent conservation easement.

Three wetlands are proposed to be filled. The City’s Wetland Consultant has determined that they are not essential and the MDEQ has determined that Wetland H is not regulated. Mitigation will not be required.

The City’s Wetland and Woodland Consultants recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan with minor modifications to take place on the final site plan.

The Planning Department commends the effort expended by the Applicant to save natural features on the site. They have demonstrated a very cooperative understanding of the City’s goal to preserve and save natural resources where practical. At this time the Planning Staff does not recommend approval because of three issues.

First, the Subdivision Ordinance does not permit wetlands on lots. A small amount of wetland is located on Lot 6. Second, the building envelopes for Lots 3, 4, & 10 did not provide the required 50 foot setback from the property line. The Applicant has indicated he would correct both of these issues. Third, the Subdivision Ordinance requires connectivity to adjacent parcels. The properties to the north and west were developed without provisions for connectivity. A connection will need to be provided to the south or a City Council variance for lack of stub streets to neighboring properties will need to be obtained. Staff does not support this variance since space is available to provide this connection. The Applicant would like to pursue the variance at City Council.

The City’s Landscape Architect recommends approval of the site plan with the condition that the Planning Commission approves a waiver to allow the construction of a landscape wall in lieu of a berm on a portion of the right-of-way frontage.

The Applicant has proposed an approximate 25-foot tall entrance structure. It will include a storage area. The Planning Staff recommends relocating the building entrances to open on the west side and not into the street. The City’s Façade Consultant reviewed the proposal and recommends approval subject to a Section 9 Waiver for the use of excessive amount of stone and for the imitation slate proposed for the roof.

The Engineering and Traffic Reviews recommended approval subject to minor corrections on the Final Site Plan. Mr. Spencer showed the Planning Commission the façade board. The roof material is imitation slate made of polyvinyl plastic. The Façade Consultant believes the material is very durable, and from the road will look very much like real slate. It will have a long life.

David Compo represented the Applicant. He stated that he will be the home builder on this project as well. He said that he anticipated using Lot 6 for a model home which would later become his home. The name, Casa Loma, came from the castle in Toronto.

Ron VanSingel from Nederveld Associates and Rick Tuttle from Great Oaks Landscaping were present. Mr. VanSingel said that this project has been active for one year. The wetland will be removed from Lot 6. The setbacks on Lots 3, 4 and 10 will be adjusted. The wetland on Lot 2 was not regulated, and he received an MDEQ permit which verified this statement. The Conservation Easement will ensure that the open space remains in its natural state.

Mr. VanSingel said that they designed the site to maintain the natural state of the north property line. The tree replacement plan places many trees in that area, to help keep that corridor in tact.

Mr. VanSingel said that they wish to seek the Stub Street Waiver because this plan is a private cul-de-sac, and is intended only for those who are truly looking to be on that street. Another access would not get one anywhere. The private street would be maintained by the homeowners on the street. It has a friendly design with sidewalks going around both edges. Opening this site to additional traffic could be less safe for the residents.

Mr. VanSingel said that the adjacent sites do not have access points to this site. The southerly site is a single home. The plan would have to set the road back from Beck Road, and the logical place would be right through the woodland. This 66-foot strip would require many trees to be removed, just to provide a connection to something that would not enhance the plan. He did not wish to bring public traffic down this proposed private street. Mr. VanSingel offered that the plan provided for pedestrian connectivity to the north and south along Beck Road. There would be pedestrian access to the east. There is a sidewalk system throughout the development. There is a woodland area that is along three sides to the back of the development. There is internal access to that woodland. There would be a properly-marked natural trail. There are many trees in the area, and the path would weave around the trees.

Mr. Tuttle said that in lieu of the berm, the plan proposed a wall. They were looking to design the site with a diverse entry. There is an overlook by the pond. There is a great deal of landscaping planned around the pond. The islands have turn-arounds on the west sides of all of the lots. There is a water feature planned for the cul-de-sac. The front berm is planned with six-foot high brick walls at the entry. The street trees are shown on the plan; five different species are proposed.

Mr. Compo described the application of the roof shingles. Each piece is placed individually and the top is placed with ice and water shield. The cost is four times higher, but it is lifetime, walkable slate roof. Mr. Compo said that the entry is not a gatehouse. The "Casa Loma" concept is meant to run through the entire development. The storage area would be for holiday lighting and items like that.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for comment:

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Planning Commission.

Member Meyer appreciated the Applicant’s willingness to make the wetland and setback changes to his plan. He preferred a berm to a wall. He was concerned that the storage area would be an eyesore. Member Meyer was told by the Applicant that the price of these homes would be $1,000,000+.

Member Kocan thought this was the first Open Space plan to come before the Planning Commission. She thought the Applicant did a nice job, providing the parallel plan. She agreed with the Staff that the Applicant has met the requirement for using the option. She asked about the green area shown on the plan. Mr. Spencer said that the c-shaped green area is the preservation area. There is a ten-foot sliver that provides access to the open space. The Planning Department has suggested that the path be terminated at the property line or before so that people are not encouraged to trespass. Member Kocan thought that the path dumped people into the woodland area. She did not think that the woodland would be further connected to other walking paths and she worried that the path was too close to neighboring homes. She asked the Woodland Consultant for comment. Mr. Larry DeBrincat said that he did not comment on the path in his review. He thought the resident to the south had a point when he said that the path might encourage people to trespass onto his property. The path could continue around the back side of Lot 6, and at some point in time a path could connect this design to the property to the south. It would lead people away from Lot 6 and into the meandering woodland.

Member Kocan asked about how the woodlands would be handled on each home site. Mr. DeBrincat said they would be handled individually. Lots 3 and 4 have high quality woodlands. These will be preserved and will be reviewed again in the future.

Member Kocan asked for clarification on the wetland fill. Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, said the north wetlands, J and K, are state regulated. The yellow area will be filled, about one-tenth of an acre. Wetland H is not essential, but there was a question as to whether it would be state-regulated because of the stream. Dr. Freeland located the area that was proposed to be filled. The stormwater function should be addressed in the stormwater plan. The neighbor said his worry was the speed in which the stormwater plan functioned. Dr. Freeland said that it was a legitimate concern. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn responded that the review letter indicated the need for the City to review the off-site yard drainage would be handled in this plan’s detention basin. There is some responsibility for the water because the drain comes onto his site. The design is feasible, it just isn’t shown on the plan at this time. It will be worked out at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

Member Kocan noted wetlands in the preservation area. They will not be filled. The building footprint on Lot 4 will be triangular to avoid the buffer.

Dr. Freeland said that the quality wetlands and woodlands are on the west side of the site. The ponds will be noisy in the spring with frogs. The areas will be placed in the conservation easement.

Dr. Freeland reiterated that the MDEQ has chosen not to mitigate Wetland H. It does not meet the regulatory criteria.

Member Kocan asked Landscape Architect Lance Shipman about the 120-foot wall. Mr. Shipman said that the entry feature would be a wall with some berm. Some of the wall is along the sides of the property. She preferred not to have a wall exclusively. Mr. Shipman noted the entry into the Multiple Family Residential property on Beck Road. The mixed wall/berm also has a rock feature. It will have a tiered effect. Bellagio has a wall and heavy landscaping. Its wall is also very high – five or six feet. If this project gets the wall, it will be in concert with Bellagio. Mr. Shipman deferred further comment on the entry structure to a Planner. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that entries have been proposed in the past. She did not know whether the Beck Road entry structure was considered an accessory structure or not.

Member Kocan thought that the secondary access and stub street were two separate requirements in the Ordinance. Ms. McBeth said the Ordinance requires at least one point of external access. There are some exemptions. It encourages secondary access to an adjacent piece of property, if that property has potential to be developed.

Member Kocan did not think that the inclusion of the stub streets site promoted preservation of the site’s natural features. City Council would have to grant the variance. Typically the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to City Council.

Member Kocan noted that the entry needs to have the stone reduced to 50%. Mr. Compo said that the stone is more valuable than the slate. He thought the stone must start at the window, or architecturally it will be out of place. He could change one elevation, if the Planning Commission desired. He did not see a better answer. The proposal before the Planning Commission looks better than just a brick entry. The entry will be placed over 120 feet away from Beck Road. The 25-foot height is substantially smaller than the homes that will be built in Casa Loma. Mr. Compo was looking for a terracing effect. The landscape will be terraced. The street will incline by twenty feet between the entry and Lot 6. The entry structure will not be overwhelming. Mr. Compo agreed to change the placement of the storage doors.

The amount of stone that is allowed per the Ordinance is 50%. On the north and south side of the entry, there is 55% proposed. Member Kocan asked about the clearance. Mr. Spencer responded that the Applicant has been notified he may have to change the overhead beams to provide the necessary clearance.

Member Wrobel liked the project. He thought the wall was congruent with Bellagio, but thought the "gate house" was a bit much, and asked if it could be scaled back. Mr. Compo responded that he can’t go lower because of the clearance requirement.

Member Wrobel asked if the access to the natural space could go between Lots 6 and 7. Mr. VanSingel said that the access was placed on the south side to provide additional connectibility in the future. It was suggested to place the ten-foot path in lieu of the sixty-foot wide swath for a road. Some area would be reserved for a possible future southerly connection.

Member Kocan asked if neighboring Maybury Reserve had trails; Ms. McBeth could not recall. Ms. McBeth confirmed that there will be open space abutting open space.

Member Avdoulos thought the entrance was pulled back off of Beck Road enough that it wouldn’t be overwhelming. He liked the idea of the overlook. He didn’t mind the landscape wall. He said that the under canopy was 15.5 feet high and the City requires 14 feet for fire trucks. The Fire Marshal must have noted that as well. Member Avdoulos was not opposed to the materials. He did not like architectural style of the entry structure. He thought it looked like an entry to a ski lodge. He confirmed that the entry was made of brick up to the windows. The upper portion was designed with a rowlock stone sill. There is also stone further up. It will be applied either in two- or three-inch thickness. Member Avdoulos did not think it reflected the character that the Applicant is seeking.

Member Avdoulos shared the concerns of the neighbor about the pathway. He did not want people dumped off near the neighbor’s property; he preferred a more secure design. He thought that a cul-de-sac design was appropriate for this site. Member Avdoulos was glad that the Applicant was adjusting Lots 3, 4, 6 and 10 to accommodate the changes requested. He supported the Applicant’s request for a wall.

Member Avdoulos looks at a project’s density, especially in this section of the City. Currently the site is designed at .67, which is acceptable.

Member Pehrson confirmed that a Section 9 Waiver would be required for the entry structure.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

Ms. McBeth asked that the Planning Commission make a finding about the entry structure. A section of the Subdivision Ordinance allows for the use of an accessory building customarily incidental to the permitted uses in the district. The Planning Commission should make a finding on whether it is acceptable to have the entry as a customarily incidental structure. City Attorney David Gillam added that the language is found in all of the residential districts, and this interpretation would cover the gamut. Member Pehrson and Member Kocan agreed to add the language, "An entry structure is accessory to residential and is a customary use already established" to the motion.

Member Kocan asked the Applicant to be mindful of the Lot 1 as it is adjacent to the entry structure.

Chair Cassis complimented the Applicant on the care he has shown on this development. He asked about the future homes. Mr. Compo said no contemporary homes would be built. They would be more country French, European, turrets, steeper pitches, homes with an estate feel.

Mr. Compo said that they will build what the customer wants, but if their request doesn’t fit in this development, he will not build it. He liked the timber-frame architecture. He has built many homes with the Structurally Insulated Panel (SIP). It is more efficient than traditional construction. He is considered an energy 5-star builder. He built half of Pheasant Hills, most of Quail Ridge, many in Hidden Lake, etc. He is on his 1,005^th home at this time.

Mr. Compo said that the colored elevation of the entry structure misses the mark a bit. The overhangs will be adjusted. He was responding to the comment that the design looked a bit too "alpine."

Chair Cassis said he welcomed creativity with designs. He said that sometimes the Planning Commission gets scared by new ideas, but it is important that the designs that come forward are not mundane. He felt this would be a premium subdivision.

Chair Cassis liked the stone proposed for the entry. He liked the gate house. It will make the development unique. There are more walls on Beck Road than can be counted.

Member Avdoulos told the Applicant that in the future he could bring photographs to help illustrate his plan.

Member Pehrson confirmed with Mr. Gillam that language regarding the Conservation Easement could be placed in the Woodland Permit motion.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

Member Kocan asked that, "The Applicant working with Staff to reduce the woodland impact to the extent feasible on Lots 4, 5 and 6 be added to the motion." Member Pehrson agreed. Member Kocan said that she was just reminding the Applicant to be mindful of the woodlands with this language. Mr. Gillam said that the language was appropriate.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Kocan:

The Public Hearing was opened on Zoning Map Amendment 18.658, the request of Boulder Construction for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning property in Section 10 at the northeast corner of Twelve Mile and Dixon Road, from R-A, Residential Acreage, to OS-1, Office Service Commercial District. The subject property is 3.10 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property for the Planning Commission. There are three separate parcels, of which all three house residences. To the west of these R-A parcels are more parcels zoned R-A; to the north is R-1 zoning; to the south is R-C (Regional Commercial); to the east is OS-1. The entire corridor between Dixon and Novi Road is master planned for office; the south side of the road is master planned for Regional Commercial. The properties to the west are master planned for Multiple Family, consistent with the Liberty Park development, which is at a density of 15 pursuant to the terms of the Sandstone Consent Judgment. The property to the north is master planned for Single Family Residential, at 1.65 units per acre.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site, though both items will need to be delineated at the time of Final Site Plan review.

The Planning Department recommends approval of this rezoning request. It is consistent with the Master Plan. It does provide a proper transition between the heavily traveled road to the south and the possible residential development to the north. The entire corridor has been master planned for Office for some time, and this request covers the three remaining parcels to complete the vision of the City for this area. It is also the natural break between the residential to the west and the office development to the east.

The Traffic Review provided a trip generation table that indicated no major concerns. The "102" in the first column is a typo; the correct number is 38. The Reid Cool Michalski traffic report was also provided to the Planning Commission.

The Engineering Review indicated no major concerns. Water is in place at the subject property. Sanitary service is nearby. The subject property would not substantially increase the flow in either district.

This property is adjacent to the Manchester Professional Center that was approved in June 2005. At that time, the Planning Commission recommended a berm waiver for Manchester pending the rezoning of this property from Residential to Office. The Public Hearing was postponed from an earlier meeting in order to allow the Applicant time to provide adequate signage on the site.

Jeff Pfeifer from Boulder Construction was present at the meeting and offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment:

Al Pilotto, Carlton Forest: Objected to the project for himself and on behalf of 35 of his neighbors. He said when they purchased their property they reviewed the zoning for the area, and only one piece of property was zoned Office. In general they felt the area was more residential in nature and did not agree with the statement that this area better accommodates Office uses. They do not see the need for more Office in Novi. He felt an office use would negatively affect their property values, would bring more noise, odor, pollution, light pollution and sight pollution. Their expectations were that the Planning Commission would respect the views of these Carlton Forest residents.

Mr. Schmitt clarified for the residents that there are two different matters to consider. One is the zoning of the property, which designates which uses would be allowed on the property. The other is the Master Plan, which outlines the City’s intention for the area. The Master Plan has listed this area as Office, perhaps for a full decade (or even back to the 1960s) before Carlton Forest was even conceived. The request is to bring the legislative intent into compliance with the Master Plan.

Member Wrobel read the correspondence into the record:

Carlton Forest Residents: Objected because they purchased their property with the understanding that this property was zoned residential. There is too much Office in Novi already. The area is more residential in nature.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing, turning the matter over to the Planning Commission for consideration.

Member Pehrson considered this request, and found that the use of Office along the main road was similar to what existed along Haggerty Road between Eight and Nine Mile. It acts as a buffer for the residential. He felt this was a good use for the land. It is a nice buffer, it is in compliance with the Master Plan and it does extend the Office use to the natural break. He supported the request.

Member Avdoulos said he was a member of the Master Plan and Zoning Committee and worked on the 2004 Master Plan update. These properties are located in an area that is conducive for Office uses. It will complement the other development in the area, including Providence Hospital. Carlton Forest is a heavier density and it too is considered a transitional use alongside the Office uses. Member Avdoulos noted that these properties are further from Carlton Forest than other property that is already zoned for Office uses. It has been the intent to transform this corridor into Office. It is similar to the Twelve Mile – Halstead area, and the Twelve Mile – Drake area, where one-story office buildings buffer Twelve Mile, with residential tucked in behind them. The Liberty Park development was out of the Planning Commission’s hands; it was not master planned for Residential, but sometimes Consent Judgments do create unplanned pockets. This request meets the intent of a longstanding designation in the Master Plan. The residents’ concerns are considered, but the transitional nature of this use, alongside the density of the area, Member Avdoulos felt this request was valid. He said that there is an ongoing review of the Master Plan designations; things are always being tweaked. The Master Plan and Zoning Committee reviewed this request and found it to be adequate and appropriate.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Meyer agreed that the resident who spoke had a point. If a person comes to the City and reviews a Master Plan, and then the Master Plan is going to change, then everything possible should be done to alert the residents that the map is subject to change. Member Meyer supported the motion, but felt that the City’s responsibility was to be clearer in assisting people fulfilling their due diligence.

Director of Planning Barbara McBeth informed that Planning Commission that she spoke personally with Mr. Pilotto earlier in the day regarding this rezoning request. She apologized for the possibility that the Planning Department may not have been clear in providing reference material to residents who are fulfilling their due diligence in purchasing property in the City. Typically, the Planning Department provides the Zoning Map, the Master Plan, the environmental maps and utility maps.

Chair Cassis further explained that when the Master Plan is under review, there are Public Hearings held that are noticed in the paper.

Member Kocan reviews compatibility issues when considering a rezoning request. OS-1 is one of the least offensive zoning classifications. It is a good transitional zoning. The Twelve Mile corridor is now boulevarded. There is a significant amount of traffic. It was planned for Office to separate the residential from a significantly traveled road.

Member Kocan said that Carlton Forest is at least 700 feet from the northeast corner of these parcels. She did not recall any OS-1 building being allowed that was taller than thirty feet. Member Kocan noted that when a consent judgment office building recently came forward, the woodlands were kept in tact and the parking was placed further from the residential – from Carlton Forest. Mr. Schmitt confirmed for the Planning Commission that there will be some two-story buildings in the area, but the closer development will be one-story. There have been no requests for three-story buildings for this area. Member Kocan said that change is inevitable; Residential property near her home was rezoned to Industrial, which spurred her to become involved. She maintained that OS-1 has been anticipated for this area and will be a good buffer. She supported the motion.

Chair Cassis noted that the owners of the property just north of the subject property were in the audience, and they are planning to bring forward a residential development. He agreed that OS-1 complements the area. It will not be offensive to Carlton Forest. There will be landscaping and berming. The lighting will be appropriate. He invited the residents to return to the Planning Commission when this property’s site plan is considered. He appreciated their apprehension, but Twelve Mile is a heavily traveled road and therefore the Master Plan was adopted as such to allow this Office use. Once the Master Plan is published, the City is basically committed to following the document.

Consideration on the request of Dennis Miller of Flagstar Bank for Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 36, at the intersection of Eight Mile and Orchard Hill Place in the OSC, Office Service Commercial District. The subject property is .870 acres.

Planner Tim Schmitt described the property for the Planning Commission. It is currently the home of Rainbow Rascals’ Daycare. It is located on the northeast corner of Orchard Hill Place and Eight Mile. It is zoned and master planned for Office. To the east is Bank One, zoned OSC and master planned for Office. To the north is High Point Shopping Center, zoned OSC and master planned for Office. To the south is Northville Township’s Meijer, zoned commercial. To the west is the Henry Ford Medical Office Building, zoned OSC and master planned for Office.

There are no wetlands or woodlands on the site.

The Planning Review indicated two ZBA variances will be required. One will allow parking in the front yard. The OSC District requires two acres in order to have front yard parking. The existing building has front yard parking already. A variance will be required for the setback along the eastern property line. 13 Feet are proposed, but twenty feet are typically required. The Applicant is encroaching into the setback due to the escape lane and stacking for the drive-throughs. The Applicant must also redesign the site to provide .75 feet additional setback along Eight Mile. The Planning Commission also needs to make a finding that the parking lot lighting is compatible with the surrounding development, which is necessary for the allowance of front yard parking.

The Landscape Review indicated that a Planning Commission Waiver is necessary for the deficiency in parking lot landscaping. Currently only the island north of the drive through qualifies. A Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the right-of-way berm along Orchard Hill Place, and the placement of nine canopy trees along Orchard Hill Place due to the existing sanitary and utility easements. A Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the distance between trees and power lines along the easterly property line. Alternative species should also be considered and will be further addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal. A Planning Commission Waiver is requested for the northerly four-foot interior building landscape along the drive-through lane, a request now handled by the Planning Commission in light of the recently approved Ordinance amendment. The area is made up for elsewhere on the site.

The Traffic, Engineering and Fire Reviews all indicated minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant has provided a response letter indicating which changes can be made.

Tim Germaine of Nowak and Frauss, the Applicant’s engineer, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Dennis Miller, Vice President of Real Estate for Flagstar, and Jason Kovalle, the architect. Mr. Germaine said that this is a difficult site, and this plan is the result of several meetings with City personnel.

Mr. Germaine felt the site was well-suited for a bank.

Member Kocan said that there are many negative recommendations in the reviews, but there are issues to consider. The location, the adjacent uses, the fact there are no Eight Mile curb cuts and that this is a redevelopment must all be considered. Member Kocan said that the setbacks must be discussed. She said that stacking requirements have become an issue in the City – the Planning Commission has stuck with the requirement on the books, but they are reviewing those standards now. The Applicant is meeting the requirement, and now a seven-foot variance is required.

Member Kocan said consistent decisions are important. Some banks have been approved with variances. Some have not been approved with variances. It is important for her to differentiate this site from other sites that have come before the Planning Commission. In light of the existing conditions, Member Kocan tends to look more favorably on this project. She could recommend the front yard parking variance. She didn’t like the parking setback, but there are two similar uses next to one another, and she took that into consideration. The landscaping is deficient but some landscape requirements have been located elsewhere on the site. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that this is a small lot, which makes it difficult for a bank applicant to comply. Also, the site is considered to have two front yards. There are utilities on two sides. As proposed, he did not know whether there is opportunity to get this bank plan any closer to meeting the intent of the Ordinance. He said any bank would have problems meeting the Ordinance on this site.

Member Kocan asked about the existing trees. Mr. Shipman said that the pine trees would have to be removed to facilitate the drive-through stacking aisles. There are also overhead lines along the property lines. There are underground electrical lines along the west side of the property line. The Applicant has provided a letter from DTE, wherein it is noted that they are not interested in having a three-foot berm on their easement. There is an existing partial berm in that area. The Applicant has proposed a significant number of trees in that area. Mr. Shipman felt that if DTE doesn’t want the berm, they probably don’t want those trees either. He felt the City should really get confirmation from DTE on what they will allow in the easement area. Mr. Shipman felt that DTE has overriding jurisdiction, but he thought that the Planning Commission could consider this issue since the Applicant is seeking a waiver. Mr. Shipman said he would like to continue working with the Applicant on this issue. His concern is that more landscaping might be lost. Mr. Germaine said Flagstar understands that they are already going to be required to put nine trees’ worth of money in the tree fund; Flagstar understands that amount might increase after the final DTE determination. They are trying to make the best use of the property. The utilities criss cross on this property.

Mr. Shipman said the potential for loss is twenty trees. Mr. Germaine said that this facility is surrounded by vegetation and trees. Flagstar is concerned that their visibility may actually be hampered when the site is complete. Flagstar understands the requirements of the Landscape Ordinance, and they are doing their best to keep greenspace on the site. Mr. Germaine said he would be happy to continue working with Mr. Shipman on the design.

Member Kocan said that the fact that this is a bank, the landscaping issues become bigger. A different use would require less impervious surface.

Member Kocan asked about the berm again. Mr. Shipman said that there is an existing 1.5-2.0-foot berm, which will be altered during construction. There is an underground easement for DTE electricity. Mr. Shipman felt that the berm and the trees will both be lost in this area. This is the western edge. Mr. Shipman said the berm along Eight Mile will be reshaped.

Member Kocan asked about the overhead lines. Mr. Shipman said that the Ordinance encourages the placement of trees fifteen feet away from the lines. DTE does allow certain trees to be planted closer, if they are appropriate and will not exceed a certain height. The Applicant has proposed Katsura trees and Japanese Tree Lilac. The City would not approve the Katsura due to the tight area near the drives. There may be other species that could be considered.

Member Kocan confirmed that the interior landscape requirement is provided elsewhere. The formula is perimeter times eight, and the Ordinance is written as such that this Applicant can count the Orchard Hill front yard.

Member Kocan confirmed that the .75 foot additional setback can be added.

Member Pehrson asked if there is a need for loading waiver. Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant must just provide documentation that the loading function for this use is not necessary.

Member Pehrson asked if the old building would be torn down. Mr. Germaine answered affirmatively.

Member Pehrson said there are practical difficulties on this site. Due to the number of banks in the area, and the intensity of the area, he thought the proposal fit well. The rendering and materials fit the scheme. Member Pehrson did not know what jurisdiction the City would have in what DTE might say. As long at the Applicant is actively pursuing the greenest site possible, Member Pehrson would accept the deficiency.

Member Pehrson did not see much else on the list that could be further discussed for change.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Mr. Shipman said that the Applicant has offered to place money in the tree fund, as stated in City meetings and here at the Planning Commission meeting. He suggested that, "The Applicant placing money in the tree fund for deficient landscape trees," be added to the motion. Member Pehrson and Member Wrobel agreed to the addition.

Member Kocan confirmed that the Applicant would provide the .75 foot additional setback and that it didn’t have to be stated in the motion because it is in the review letters.

Member Avdoulos said that the setback along the easterly property line is an issue that has previously been denied on a different bank. Because of the site conditions and the safety factor on this property, he felt this request is appropriate.

Member Avdoulos appreciated the Applicant working with the City. He supported the motion.

Chair Cassis applauded Mr. Schmitt for this report. He thanked Mr. Shipman for all of his expertise.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Wrobel:

Consideration on the request of Rino Soave of Tierra Investments, LLC for Preliminary Site Plan and Storm Water Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 24, at the southeast corner of Grand River Avenue and Joseph Drive in the NCC, Non-Center Commercial District. The subject property is 1.2 acres and the Applicant is proposing to build a 7,992 square foot one-story office building.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project, a proposal to build a 7,992 square foot one-story office building and associated parking and drainage facilities on a 1.2-acre site. The site is zoned NCC and master planned for Community Commercial. To the north is the Novi Commerce Center, zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the east is Beech Tree Office Center, zoned I-1 and master planned for Light Industrial. To the south is the Leslie Park Subdivision, zoned R-4 and master planned for Single Family Residential. To the west is Glenda’s Market and Garden Center, zoned NCC and master planned for Community Commercial.

There are no regulated wetlands or woodlands on the site. There are no ranked natural features on the site.

Approval of the Preliminary Site Plan is not recommended by the Planning Department because the lot area does not meet the minimum area required in the NCC District, one of the few districts that has a minimum lot area requirement. A Zoning Board of Appeals variance is required to build on a non-conforming lot. The parcel has an area of 1.2 acres and a minimum of 2.0 acres is required. The Applicant has indicated a desire to pursue this variance. Staff supports this variance since this site is an existing non-conforming lot platted for residential purposes many years ago, and the surrounding properties are currently developed with existing uses.

Also, the covered building entrance encroaches into the required front yard setback by 13 feet along the Joseph Drive frontage. Only three feet are permitted. Mr. Spencer described this encroachment to the Planning Commission through the use of a site plan. The Planning Department does not support this request; the site could be redesigned without the feature and still function. There is not an encroachment to the north.

A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk is required along Joseph Drive unless the City Council grants a waiver of this requirement. The Applicant has indicated they will pursue a waiver from the City Council. Staff does not support a waiver of this requirement because the sidewalk could provide future connectivity to the developed home sites in the Leslie Park Subdivision south of the site if and when sidewalks are constructed in the subdivision.

Staff also recommends a pedestrian connection between the proposed office building and the public sidewalk/path system to provide safer pedestrian access to the office building; the Applicant has indicated he would provide this connection. Other minor items can be addressed on the Final Site Plan submittal.

The Landscape Review does not recommend approval. A Planning Commission Waiver of parking lot landscaping area requirement is necessary as no qualified landscape islands have been proposed. A Planning Commission Waiver of parking lot tree requirements - 14 required vs. 12 proposed – is required. A Planning Commission Waiver is required for the right-of-way ornamental tree requirements - 21 required vs. 20 proposed. The Applicant has agreed to comply with the last two items, and the Planning Department does not see any practical difficulty in meeting any of these requirements.

The Traffic Review recommends denial unless the sidewalk on Joseph is provided.

The Façade Review recommends approval subject to a Section 9 Waiver for the excessive amount of asphalt shingles due to the high roof design. This Region 1 property is allowed a maximum of 25% roofing on the elevation, and the Applicant’s proposal ranges from 38 and 53%.

The Engineering Review and the Fire Department Review recommend approval subject to minor corrections on the Final Site Plan submittal. There are drainage issues that can be easily resolved.

Richard Taubman, attorney for the Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He introduced Rino Soave, President; Brian Foresta, Architect; John Nagy, Landscape Architect; and Bill Donan, Engineer. The goal of the project was to create an upscale building that was feasible on the site. The limiting factor is the narrowness versus its length. The Applicant will comply with every Ordinance requirement, except for those issues that are related to the configuration of the property. They wish to seek some variances and waivers, which are all predicated on the practical difficulties of this narrow site.

Mr. Taubman said both covered entrances could be removed to avoid encroachment, but the result would be a less desirable building. The façade would then be flat. Covered entrances provide articulation and depth to the building, both characteristics of an upscale building. The façade could be moved back to allow for the covered entranceways, but that is not practical because it would shrink the building footprint too much.

Mr. Taubman said that the sidewalk would conflict with the Applicant’s efforts to address the narrowness of the property in a way that is aesthetically pleasing and economically viable. The space between the property line and the building is already at a minimum. The Applicant wants as much greenspace there as possible. There is a great deal of paving associated with this project. Mr. Soave has agreed to pave Joseph Drive from Grand River to the southerly entrance.

The configuration of the parcel creates a problem in meeting parking lot and landscaping requirements.

Member Kocan looked at the NCC standards and saw the setback was 35 feet. The west encroachments were 6.5 feet for the north porch, and 13 feet for the center porch. The front yard setback is actually forty feet, per Mr. Spencer. The building is setback 82 feet from Grand River. The building does have two front yards, though one is an exterior side yard. Member Kocan thought the center porch could be moved so it didn’t protrude as much.

Member Kocan liked the seven-foot berm between this property and the residential to the south.

Member Kocan asked about the landscape deficiency. Landscape Architect Lance Shipman said that this property is narrow and its shape reduces the Applicant’s ability to place a lot of landscaping. Opportunities for parking lot landscaping might include stretching the sizes of the islands, though Mr. Shipman did not think it would make a remarkable improvement. The additional berm height is probably the only feature proposed that could be considered above and beyond the requirements. There isn’t much opportunity to get more landscaping without reducing the size of the building, which the Applicant does not want to do.

Member Kocan asked about the drainage problem to the south. Civil Engineer Brian Coburn understood Member Kocan to be referring to the roadside drainage. The issue is road drainage will be concentrated by the fact that the road will be paved with curbs. The road drainage will run into the curbs and will shoot south. It will discharge into a very flat area with no ditches. The Engineering Department is also concerned. The Applicant must explain how this will be handled. As of right now, there is no resolution. It is possible for the Applicant to forego paving Joseph. The City Council could grant a variance for a lack of curbs. This issue needs further exploration. Member Kocan understood the problem with standing water on newly curbed roads and said she would like this issue further explored. Mr. Coburn said that the City would like this Applicant to speak with Beech Tree to the east regarding this issue. Beech Tree has agreed to allow the onsite discharge to go through their site, however they have not allowed the road drainage to go through their site. That would be the win-win situation.

Member Kocan said sidewalks were mandatory as far as she was concerned. The City is now benefiting from connectivity.

Member Meyer asked about the landscaping. Mr. Nagy explained that there is landscaping, but the Ordinance requires the island to be at least 300 feet, which can’t be done on this site. There are some islands that are 150 feet or 175 feet. On the east side, the dumpster area is separated by a peninsula of landscaping. That is about 400 square feet, but isn’t an island according to the City’s interpretation. They tried to meet the intent of the Ordinance, and he hoped that the Planning Commission sees their effort. They have intensively landscaped the areas where possible; they have proposed trees, day lilies and shrubs. The tree canopy goes all the way around the parking areas. They would be happy to add the deficient trees to the site, though he thought that perhaps some areas of the site were counted twice, thereby requiring more trees.

Member Meyer thought the entry porch was a nice feature. He asked how much distance was between the porch cover and the street. Mr. Foresta explained that the center canopy was designed to make the building better. This is a tough site because of its narrowness. They think the building is better with the porch, and they don’t believe that the encroachments interrupt anything in the setback. Mr. Foresta agreed that there were things that could be done to dismiss the need for a variance, but the building as proposed is the Applicant’s favored design. The cover gives the building character, so the Applicant felt the variance request deserved consideration.

Member Wrobel liked the building for the site. He wanted the Applicant to put the sidewalk in. He felt the sidewalk was important for this area’s connectivity.

Member Avdoulos said that there seemed to be some geometrical changes to the concrete approach from one site plan page to the next. Mr. Foresta said that he would prefer the more dynamic approach of the two. Member Avdoulos reviewed the entire plan, and he found that the entire Joseph frontage is bermed and landscaped. Member Avdoulos supported the variance request for the front entry, and if he agreed to one, he would agree to the other, but he would also insist that the Applicant put in a sidewalk.

Mr. Foresta asked about the sidewalk, and wanted to know if the existing interior sidewalk could be connected in some fashion to an exterior link, so that the placement of two sidewalks was not necessary. Member Avdoulos said that the sidewalk linking to the parking lot was fine.

Member Avdoulos said that the roof is at a 12:12 pitch. It is a large mass. The canopy in front breaks that mass up and picks up on the architecture of the arches. It is not an enclosed space. It does add appeal to the building. The design is detailed and shows a traditional style. The materials proposed are brick, stone, textured dimensional asphalt shingles. Because of the tightness of the site, Member Avdoulos felt that the berms and small parking accomplish something special. He thought this was a good effort. Member Avdoulos tried to picture the building with a different pitch, but he thought that the 12:12 pitch was more dynamic. This is an area along Grand River that is well-traveled. Mr. Foresta said that they tried other pitches, but the proposed roof worked in this area and they felt it was architecturally significant. They didn’t want to redesign the building with a shorter pitch or flat roof. They felt the proposed roof worked in this community.

Mr. Taubman added that this will be an owner-occupied building. There will also be other tenants in the building. Mr. Taubman said that they would provide the sidewalk because they understood the importance of that connection.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

Chair Cassis discussed the use of the building with the Applicant. It will be a general office building with perhaps three or four different tenants. The Applicant will be taking 1,500-2,000 square feet. They also have letters of intent from a real estate company and a mortgage company.

Chair Cassis was concerned about the parking. He was afraid that 35 spaces for an 8,000 square foot building were not enough. Mr. Spencer responded that the Applicant met the requirement of the Ordinance. This calculation was based on "general office." A medical office would require more spaces. The Applicant said that he would only need three or four spaces for his operation. The other spaces would generate more need for parking. He was confident that there was enough parking. Chair Cassis said he was skeptical, but the Applicant did meet the requirement of the Ordinance. He warned the Applicant that he might be creating a challenge for himself. Mr. Spencer said that the site is tight already. They gained some land when the Engineering Department allowed their underground detention design. The berming requirements against the residential property took up land. The site is being maximized. There will be two handicapped parking spaces.

Member Kocan wondered if enough rationale has been provided for the benefit of the ZBA regarding the first two stipulations. She wasn’t sure what the term, "non-conforming lot" meant as it relates to this site. She said the site was narrow and had two frontages. There are certain hardships that the Applicant has. Mr. Spencer explained that the term "non-conforming lot" relates to the fact that this district requires a certain size parcel and this lot does not meet that requirement.

Member Meyer stated that, based on his ZBA experience, this Applicant would not have too much of a challenge in procuring these variances from the ZBA.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Avdoulos:

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

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals for Commission Action.

There were no Matters for Discussion.

Member Kocan asked for Supplement 63 for the Ordinance update. Director of Planning Barbara McBeth said that the full Ordinance update that the Planning Commission received was for the entire Ordinance, which is always updated on the City’s website.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The meeting adjourned at or about 12:30 a.m.

FRI 11/11/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/14/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

THU&FRI 11/24&11/25 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 11/28/05 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

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

TUE 12/06/05 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 12/14/05 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

FRI 12/23/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

MON 12/26/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

FRI 12/30/05 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 01/11/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:30 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, December 7, 2005 Signature on File

Date Approved: December 14, 2005 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date