The meeting was called to order at or about 7:00 PM.

Present: Members John Avdoulos, Brian Burke, Victor Cassis, Andrew Gutman, Michael Lynch, Michael Meyer, Mark Pehrson,

Absent: Members David Lipski (excused), Wayne Wrobel (excused)

Also Present: Barbara McBeth, Director of Planning; Tim Schmitt, Planner; Mark Spencer, Planner; Kristen Kapelanski, Planner; Ben Croy, Engineer; David Beschke, Landscape Architect; Tom Schultz, City Attorney; John Freeland, Wetland Consultant

Member Pehrson led the meeting in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

No one from the audience wished to speak.

There was no correspondence to share.

There were no Committee Reports.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth told the Planning Commission that previous to this meeting, she met with the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) Committee. She said that the Committee will likely meet a second time in the next week or so.

Ms. McBeth told the Planning Commission that the Zoning Ordinances in their packet are fresh and up-to-date; they could replace their old copies with this Ordinance.

Consideration of the request of Mike Baker of Schonsheck, Inc. for a one year Final Site Plan extension. The subject property is located in Section 12, south of Thirteen Mile, west of Haggerty Road in the OST, Office Service Technology District. The subject property is 9.67 acres.

Consideration of the request of Rino Soave of Soave Corporation, for a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension. 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 two 3,850 square foot one-story office buildings.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Meyer:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Amson Dembs Development for Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland Permit, and Stormwater Management Plan approval. The subject property is located in Section 4, west of Hudson Drive, south of Nadlan Drive, in the I-1, Light Industrial District. The subject property is approximately 2.30 acres combined and the Applicant proposes a speculative light industrial building.

Planner Tim Schmitt said that this project mirrored the project reviewed at the last meeting for Lots 2 and 3. He described the project and noted that it was located in both phases 1 and 2 of the park. The Applicant will have to address this for the condominium purposes. It is likely that the Phase 1 lot will be moved into Phase 2.

This property is zoned I-1, Light Industrial, as are the properties to the north, south and east. To the west in Wixom is M-1 land, which is their Light Industrial classification. The properties are all master planned for Light Industrial uses. There are woodlands and there is a wetland to the west of the site in a common area of the park.

The Community Development Department recommends approval of the plan, acknowledging that the condominium must be adjusted for the Master Deed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. Also, the impact to the wetland buffer must be further described on the next plan submittal. The Woodland Consultant believes there are inconsistencies with their plan that must be cleared up prior to the environmental pre-construction meeting. The Woodland Review denial was given by the Consultant as a means to get the Applicant’s attention. Their pre-construction meeting cannot be held without this issue being addressed.

The Landscape Review indicates that there are minor items to be addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal. There are no waivers being requested.

The Traffic Review and Engineering Review both have minor items that must be addressed on the next submittal.

The Façade Review does meet the requirements of Section 2520.

The Fire Marshal had one minor comment that he would like the Applicant to address on the Final Site Plan submittal.

The Applicant has turned in a response letter that addresses each of these outstanding issues.

Larry Stoby of Amson Dembs addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the woodland issue is being addressed right now by his professional staff.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos believed that the outstanding items were addressed by the Applicant. He clarified with Mr. Schmitt that there were no conservation easements required with the Phase 1 condominium approval. Mr. Schmitt said that it was out of bounds to ask the Applicant to provide such an easement now. Phase 1 was developed prior to the Road and Utilities Ordinance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

The Public Hearing was opened on the request of Joe Bennett of International Transmission Company for an amendment to the previous approval of the Wetland Permit. The subject property is located in Section 13, south of Twelve Mile, between Haggerty Road and the M-5 Connector, in the OST, Planned Office Service Technology District.

Deputy Director of Community Development Barbara McBeth located the site for the Planning Commission. She displayed a wetland map on the overhead projector, and reminded the Planning Commission that they previously approved the Wetland Permit for this site in December 2006. She located the area of the originally proposed wetland mitigation area, which was primarily on the south side of the property. Subsequently, the MDEQ found that the proposed area was a nice habitat, and they preferred that ITC leave that area intact and choose an alternative location. The City prefers that the mitigation take place somewhere on this site. ITC has now proposed to mitigate along the Haggerty Road driveway, on the opposite side of where the trailer park is located. The drive will be moved slightly to the south.

Ms. McBeth was fairly confident that the MDEQ will approve this mitigation site. If the site is found to be unworkable, the Planning Commission may wish include language in their motion this evening that the final mitigation area must be acceptable to the City’s Wetland Consultant. There are onsite locations that the Applicant has identified, as well as some less-preferred offsite locations elsewhere in the City.

Ms. McBeth continued that the driveway area is the location identified by ITC for construction trailer and equipment staging. The Applicant has been working with the Building Department on this item. Typically, the mitigation is one of the first items done on a site. However, if the staging is going to happen in this area, the mitigation will have to come later.

There is another impacted wetland area in a location pinpointed on the map by Ms. McBeth. It represents another 400 square feet. The Planning Commission should consider adding this area to this revised Wetland Permit request. The Planning Commission should include language in their motion that asks the Applicant show any approved changes on their Final Site Plan submittal.

Joe Bennett of ITC addressed the Planning Commission. He said he has been working with the MDEQ and the Community Development Department and the Wetland Consultant on this mitigation concept. He offered to answer any questions.

Chair Cassis opened the floor for public comment. No one wished to speak, so Member Pehrson read the Public Hearing correspondence into the record:

Katie Johnson, 39673 Reston Blvd.: Objected for traffic and light-pollution reasons.

Zach Thompson, 26970 Haggerty, Farmington Hills: Supported the project.

Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Lynch remembered that ITC’s plan included adding landscaping near the homes trailer park to reduce their concern over this plan. He thought it was acceptable to place the mitigation near the area of the drive.

Member Pehrson asked whether Ms. McBeth’s suggestion to be generous with the wetland mitigation placement language was typical. Ms. McBeth responded that the intent was to allow the Applicant to place the mitigation in the best spot that will be approved by the MDEQ. The generous language is meant to allow the Applicant to place the mitigation in the same watershed if, for some reason, the current proposed location along the drive ends up not being the most beneficial mitigation location.

Dr. John Freeland, the City’s Wetland Consultant, responded that the preliminary plan of this request has been reviewed. As long as there aren’t utility conflicts, this location would meet the requirements of the Wetland Ordinance. He would like to have confirmation from the MDEQ. Their previous objection was an area was being disturbed that provided a habitat. The option now being proposed will create less earthwork disturbance, and basically replaces a turf grass area with a wetland. It is disturbing a lesser-habitat area. From that standpoint, it is a good option.

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Burke:

In the matter of the request of Joe Bennett of ITC Transmission Company, SP06-53A, motion to grant approval for the amendments to the previous approval of the non-minor use Wetland Permit, and authorization to encroach in the natural features setback for proposed permanent impacts subject to: 1) A Wetland Use Permit being granted by the MDEQ; 2) Additional wetland information being provided prior to the Wetland Permit being issued; 3) Acceptance of the wetland mitigation area as generally shown on the PEA sketch dated February 7, 2007, or an alternate location as determined acceptable by the City’s Wetland Consultant; and 4) The conditions of the attached review letters; for the reason that the plan is otherwise in compliance with the Ordinance.

Chair Cassis said this is a great development. The Applicant has been accommodating. He wished the Applicant well.

In the matter of the request of Joe Bennett of ITC Transmission Company, SP06-53A, motion to grant approval for the amendments to the previous approval of the non-minor use Wetland Permit, and authorization to encroach in the natural features setback for proposed permanent impacts subject to: 1) A Wetland Use Permit being granted by the MDEQ; 2) Additional wetland information being provided prior to the Wetland Permit being issued; 3) Acceptance of the wetland mitigation area as generally shown on the PEA sketch dated February 7, 2007, or an alternate location as determined acceptable by the City’s Wetland Consultant; and 4) The conditions of the attached review letters; for the reason that the plan is otherwise in compliance with the Ordinance. Motion carried 7-0.

The Public Hearing was opened for Planning Commission’s recommendation to City Council for an ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance, to expand possible locations for veterinary clinics.

Planner Tim Schmitt told the Planning Commission that this topic of veterinary clinic placement has been discussed in the City and the parameters have changed and grown over time. Previously, the Planning Commission considered and recommended the addition of pet daycares to the Ordinance. This use was added to the Light Industrial District and the language was finalized and adopted in Mid-July 2006. During those discussions, the Implementation Committee considered whether veterinary clinics should also be added to the Light Industrial District but ultimately the use was not.

In late 2006 a local veterinarian came to the City and asked for this change. The Animal Emergency Center in the Pine Ridge Shopping Center near the corner of Ten Mile and Novi Road has a new location picked out but the land is zoned Light Industrial. Mr. Schmitt said that the language added to the Light Industrial District for this use is the same language currently used in the B-3 District. The use will be considered a Special Land Use when it is abutting residential, and the building would have to be set back 200 feet from the adjoining property line. The use must be within an enclosed building, except for the expected pet walking.

Mr. Schmitt said that the Applicant has a specific timeframe in which she must have this request reviewed, so the Community Development Department fast-tracked the process in order to accommodate her. He anticipated turning this Public Hearing recommendation over to City Council as early as their next meeting.

Dr. Heather Robertson addressed the Planning Commission. She offered to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have.

No one from the audience wished to speak and no correspondence was received so Chair Cassis closed the Public Hearing.

Member Avdoulos stated that the Implementation Committee discussed this possibility at various times over the past years. He noted that doggie daycares are permitted uses in several zonings in other communities. He stated that B-3 is perhaps the most generous zoning district, where veterinaries are currently allowed, but that I-1 would also be acceptable for this use. The Applicant told the Implementation Committee where their proposed location is and that they would be the primary user of the building. Their new location is in very close proximity to their current location.

Member Avdoulos reiterated that the vet use will have to be considered as a Special Land Use if the land is near residential. The use will have to be in an enclosed building. He surmised that the possible issues associated with this text amendment have been addressed. He felt this was a good change to the Ordinance.

Moved by Member Avdoulos, seconded by Member Pehrson:

Member Pehrson was pleased that the City took the effort to bring forth this amendment in an effort to correct an omission in the Ordinance. It will help the City retain a successful business. This is a good change for everyone.

Member Burke asked if the vets were expecting to expand into a doggie daycare center. Dr. Robertson said that they would continue to be an emergency vet clinic only.

Chair Cassis asked the vet to describe their business activity. Dr. Robertson said their business is open 24/7 including holidays. They provide medical, surgical and diagnostic services. They also have a blood bank. They are the only emergency pet clinic that handles exotic pets. This means they see birds, rabbits, guinea pigs, snakes, spiders, etc. They have helped the Fire Department out with tending to stray pets that have been hit by cars. Thus far in their current location no complaints of noise or odor have been lodged against them. They are currently leasing their facility and they have outgrown their 3,280 square feet. Their new location will be between 6,000-7,000 square feet. They have added a cardiologist to their staff.

Consideration of the request of Vistal Land and Home Development, for revised Preliminary Site Plan for revised landscape berm, wall and fence only. The subject property is located in Section 35, west of Meadowbrook Road and north of Eight Mile in the R-1, One Family Residential District. The subject property is approximately 7.35 acres and the Applicant is proposing a modification to the previously approved landscape plan.

Planner Mark Spencer described the project for the Planning Commission. It is surrounded by residential development on all sides. The Applicant’s original site plan, SP01-72, was approved September 25, 2002. The Planning Commission waived the required berm for the south 210 feet along the frontage. Mr. Spencer located the creek location and said the berm was waived from that point south. There was a thirty-inch safety railing proposed by the creek, and a thirty-inch landscape wall proposed for another section. He located the area of the site plan where a berm was proposed.

Mr. Spencer shared some recent photographs with the Planning Commission. He located the pathways and curb cuts on the photos. The Applicant wants to replace the previously approved 36-inch landscape berm with a 68- inch tall brick wall along the northern 260 feet of Meadowbrook Road frontage and replace the previously approved thirty-inch brick wall and pedestrian safety railing with a 68-inch brick wall and three thirty-foot long sections of 61-inch tall decorative steel fence along the south 210 feet of Meadowbrook Road frontage. The proposed wall has 76-inch tall pilasters and the proposed decorative fence has 66-inch tall posts. The landscape sheets depict the proposed wall pilasters at about five feet from the pathway north of the creek crossing and at about a half-foot from the pathway south of the creek crossing. Some minor landscaping changes proposed include shrubs being added adjacent to the north wall and street trees along Meadowbrook. Now, about 15 feet of the proposed 25 feet of landscaping will be behind the wall. The trees will grow above the wall. In the southern section, all of the landscape will be behind the wall.

The Applicant previously asked the Planning Commission to approve a similar revised plan that included less fencing, ornaments on top of the wall pilasters, the wall located closer to the pathway and less landscaping material. The Planning Commission denied that proposed change on August 10, 2005.

The proposal meets most requirements of the City’s Ordinance. A Planning Commission Waiver of the adjacent-to-the-right-of-way landscape berm is required to replace the berm and the exact location of the wall must conform to the City’s Design and Construction Standards and be approved by the City Engineer

The Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission may grant a waiver to eliminate the berm, in favor of a wall if it finds that practical difficulties exist due to parcel size or configuration, or that the design of the site would be enhanced by an alternative design, or for the preservation natural or cultural features.

The Planning Commission should decide if the proposed full frontage wall and fence is an improvement to the appearance of the right-of-way in lieu of a berm and or a lower wall and if the proposed wall and fencing fits the character of the neighborhood along Meadowbrook.

Mr. Paul Bauman, 44723 Ford Way, Novi, addressed the Planning Commission. He said that the reason for the redesign was for continuity. The design seemed a bit chopped up – part berm, fencing and wall. It would be impossible to place a berm the entire distance because of the natural features. He didn’t think that fencing would be well-received. They are now proposing the wall. Once they sold a couple of homes they consulted the homeowners and asked them what they would like. They subsequently came up with a wall and landscape plan. They would like to build this brick and limestone wall from one end to the other, with thirty-foot sections of iron gating. They looked at other nice looking sites in Novi. They hoped to emulate those designs. He said this project is worth a significant amount of money – about five times more money than the original design.

Member Meyer said that he previously voted against the wall. He said that the fence would be almost as long as a football field. He wondered why the Applicant was proposing such a high wall. He said it looks like the Applicant is planning to turn this into a gated community. These were his concerns. He said that some of his Novi friends didn’t approve of his last vote on this issue, so he continue to be open-minded and listen again for the benefits of this request. He said that the four buildings on site are magnificent. Member Meyer said he needs to be sure that the subdivision is inviting and welcoming. He wanted clarification on where the landscaping would be placed. He asked about the half-foot clearance of the wall from the sidewalk. That measurement seemed close and he hoped that the sidewalk was safe. He would be open to reconsidering this request, but he needed the Applicant to convince him that the plan is acceptable. He wanted to ensure that this does not become a gated community.

Chair Cassis offered to let people from the audience speak:

David Adams, future resident of Mirabella Estates: He thought that other developments have very appealing walls and landscapes. This request is not meant to be a distraction. It will be aesthetically pleasing. It will also have wrought iron inserts and architectural pillars. There will be landscaping for all four seasons. This wall will provide some privacy. He thought the wall would be an enhancement.

Greg Graziole, Meadowbrook Manor Association Past President: His neighborhood is across the street. He supports the wall design over a berm design. He thought it would improve the appeal of the area.

Costa Cardezas, future resident of Mirabella Estates: He supports the request for the wall. It will be aesthetically pleasing.

Member Lynch did not have a problem with a gated community design. He supported the request. He noted that the neighbors came to the meeting to voice their support.

Member Burke thanked the neighbors for taking the time to get involved. He supported the request. He said there are three or four other subdivisions designed will walls instead of berms, and therefore there was somewhat of a precedent for this feature. Because the Community Development Department endorses the request, he too, is compelled to do the same. He noted that this was quite an undertaking – to increase the spending on the project – during this downturn in the Michigan economy.

Member Gutman supported the gated community design, to the extent that it is not distracting.

Moved by Member Gutman, supported by Member Pehrson:

In the matter of Mirabella Estates, SP05-33B, motion to approve the revised Preliminary Site Plan for revised landscape berm, wall and fence only, subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Waiver to allow a masonry wall in lieu of berm along the Meadowbrook Road right-of-way; 2) The Applicant maintaining a minimum three-foot separation between fixed objects and pathways, where feasible, as determined by the City’s Engineer; and 3) The comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; as the plan is otherwise in line with the Master Plan.

Chair Cassis said that this developer is willing to spend a considerable amount of money during these tough economic times. He said that the wall is nice looking. Chair Cassis has been consistent in this type of review. He is willing to support attractive walls in lieu of berms. He doubted that this wall would include a gate. Mr. Bauman said that it wouldn’t. Chair Cassis said that more and more developers are designing their sites with walls. They provide a nice distinctive look. Shrubbery, landscape and trees will make a nice presentation. He supported the request.

In the matter of Mirabella Estates, SP05-33B, motion to approve the revised Preliminary Site Plan for revised landscape berm, wall and fence only, subject to: 1) A Planning Commission Waiver to allow a masonry wall in lieu of berm along the Meadowbrook Road right-of-way; 2) The Applicant maintaining a minimum three-foot separation between fixed objects and pathways, where feasible, as determined by the City’s Engineer; and 3) The comments on the attached review letters being addressed at the time of Final Site Plan submittal; as the plan is otherwise in line with the Master Plan. Motion carried 5-2 (Yes: Burke, Cassis, Gutman, Lynch, Pehrson; No: Avdoulos, Meyer).

Moved by Member Pehrson, seconded by Member Gutman:

There were no Consent Agenda Removals.

There were no Matters for Discussion

There were no Supplemental Issues.

No one from the audience wished to speak.

Moved by Member Burke:

The meeting adjourned at 8:10 PM.

MON 02/19/07 CITY OFFICES CLOSED

WED 02/28/06 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 03/05/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 03/06/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 03/14/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 03/19/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 03/28/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/02/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 04/03/07 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 7:30 PM

WED 04/11/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

MON 04/16/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

WED 04/25/07 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 PM

TUE 05/01/07 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM

Transcribed by Jane L. Schimpf, March 6, 2007 Signature on File

Date Approved: March 14, 2007 Angela Pawlowski, Planning Assistant Date