WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995 - 7:30 P.M.


(810) 347-0475



The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Clark.



ROLL CALL: MEMBERS Bonaventura (Present), Capello (Present), Clark (Present), Hoadley (Present), Hodges (Present), Lorenzo (Present), Mutch (Present), Taub (Present)


(9) Present (0) Absent


A quorum being present, the meeting was in session.



ALSO PRESENT: Brandon Rogers - Planning Consultant

David Bluhm - Engineering Consultant

Dennis Watson - Assistant City Attorney

Rod Arroyo - Traffic Consultant

Linda Lemke - Landscape Architect

Sue Tepatti - Wetlands Consultant

James R. Wahl - Planning Director

Greg Capote - Staff Planner

Steve Cohen - Planning Clerk





The Planning Commission pledged Allegiance to the flag.





Member Taub requested that they have a moment of silence for Councilman Tim Pope.


Member Capello requested to move Item #1 under Matters for Consideration, Novi Technology Center, Phases II and III, SP94-34B to the Consent Agenda, subject to all of the Consultants' recommendations and administrative review.


It was,


Moved by Member Capello

Seconded by Member Lorenzo



To move Item #1 under Matters for Consideration, Novi Technology, Phases II and III, to the Consent Agenda.


(voice vote) (7) Yeas (2) Nays-Bonaventura and Hoadley




Chairman Clark indicated that would be Item #3 under the Consent Agenda.


Member Mutch said there were two Commissioners who have a question on this matter. She asked if it was not unanimous to move it to the Consent Agenda, was someone going to ask that it be removed later.


Mr. Watson said yes someone may or may not remove it and at least two people voted against putting it on Consent Agenda, but a majority vote would get it on the Consent Agenda and then if it would be removed, it would be removed, and they could discuss it at that time.


It was then,


Moved by Member Capello

Seconded by Member Weddington



To approve the Agenda as amended.


(voice vote) (8) Yeas (1) Nay-Hoadley








None and Chairman Clark closed the first Audience Participation.





Member Taub said first there was a letter dated May 12, 1995 which was in response to the City of Novi Notice in the May 11, 1995 Novi News regarding Main Street Village. He said that letter stated:


"I am a resident of the City of Novi, specifically, I reside in Meadowbrook Glens directly southeast of the Main Street project. My address is: 41896 Cherry Hill.


Directly behind Meadowbrook Glens, there is what is left of a very small woodland/wetland area. Also, behind other properties in the Novi area, in the areas which are related to the site in question. I feel that builders and industry are taking from the beauty of the land to promote their profit, and are sterilizing the land of all the good benefits that trees and wetlands can provide.


My request in this letter is to leave any natural land as is, and to use it to better benefit for outdoor use in the Main Street area, such as walking paths, outdoor eating areas, play areas for children, wildflower areas protected and to be used for enrichment of children and adults alike. When we moved into this area, my children (now grown) would walk this area and said it was a beautiful wild life place and were very saddened when it (the woods and wildflowers) were destroyed under the name of progress and profit.


Please save this area and use it as an outdoor attraction to use in conjunction with any "stores."


I like to see Novi growing, but not growing with greater losses that can never be replaced. And with the loss of woodlands, Novi will soon be seeing smog such as Detroit and other cities "enjoy."


As the City grows, and more industry comes into Novi, you will see more people like myself decide to move away and allow the City to turn into a Detroit-like City.


Lillian Irwin (A concerned citizen of Novi)

41896 Cherry Hill"


Member Taub said the next letter was regarding Comments to Novi Planning Commission, Main Street Village project.


"I cannot appear before you on Wednesday evening, May 17th so I am writing my comments and hoping they will not lose any impact on the Commissioners because they won't hear the sincerity in my voice.


First of all, why is so much development being contained in the square mile bordered by Grand River, Ten Mile, Novi Road and Meadowbrook Road?


The Commissioners and Council members approve development from their chairs in the Civic Center, but probably never actually go to a site to consider how their approval will affect the abutting residential area. You can't just consider the building, zoning codes, parking spaces, etc., but you must consider situations that will arise because of a development's existence. Therefore, the Commissioners are urged to come out to the northwest section of Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision to see first-hand how the "Main Street" project will negatively impact the residential area it will abut. (See Master Plan)


Our subdivision is almost completely surrounded NOW by commercial and industrial, a situation which exists nowhere else in Novi. (If I remember correctly, there wasn't much initial interest generated by the "Main Street" concept. Is this a question of a private owner wanting to develop his land or more big business/dirty politics?)


With the growth of the Town Center, businesses on Grand River and on Novi Road and now even worse, Vic's Market, residents of the northwest section of Meadowbrook Glens have had to put up with increasing bike and pedestrian traffic cutting between our houses and through our yards to get to these areas. Bikers and skateboarders use these parking lots for recreational purposes, again cutting through our yards to get there. (In the Ironworkers Union Hall parking lot, they dig huge holes and set fires in them as obstacle courses to jump their bikes over). The bike ruts have been so bad in the past that some of us have had to re-sod between our houses - not to mention the countless flowers and shrubs that have been trampled.


There are even people cutting through to get to their jobs, walking instead of driving to work. There are also the cars that come after hours to "party" in these secluded parking lots (drinking, drugs, rowdiness-especially in the Ironworkers parking lots). Some of us call the police (check NPD dispatch call log). But I'm sure our understaffed, undersized police department has better things to do than cruise these parking lots.


Some of us feel it's hopeless because of the alleged corruption in our City politics and from our experiences in petitioning help in the past. The Council and Commission let us down in the first place by approving the Ironworkers Hall to be built abutting residential. We were also shot down when we requested the City Council to do something to help us with these parking lot "parties" after hours. We requested that the City request the Ironworkers to put locking gates on their lot after business hours. We were told by then Mayor Quinn that we would have to talk to the Ironworkers ourselves. Again, where were our "City fathers" and why couldn't they help the taxpayers? (Common knowledge is that Ironworkers made contributions to Mr. Quinn's campaign - Novi News published list after the election).


Further adding to the problems of these businesses abutting residential are the delivery and service trucks at all hours to consider. (Yes, the sound of semi-trucks shifting gears has awakened us on many summer nights. (Remember, you have to consider EVERYTHING that will result from this development).


Is a solid cement-block wall around "Main Street" the answer to our problems? At least it would preserve our rights as long-time, tax-paying citizens of Novi. Or is the answer to finally let-go of this Main Street idea? Does Novi really need another shopping area?


And what about the woodlands and wetlands ordinances that protect this area (where yet more parking lots would be located)? And what of the wildlife that inhabit these areas? (The deer also use this thin greenbelt to travel north and south - an ecosystem in itself.


Main Street would also further compound the severe traffic problems in the Grand River/Novi Road area. I for one will not drive on Novi Road between Ten and Twelve Mile Roads, or anywhere near the Grand River/Novi Road intersection. Why must every inch of this area be developed? Move some of this congestion of cars, people and stores to western Novi where there are MANY large parcels of open land, or would that be too close to YOUR homes?


There are so many problems in Novi that need to be addressed before the Planning Commission and City council approve any further development (particularly for more shopping areas or strip malls) - overcrowded schools, crumbling and overcrowded roads, undersized police and fire departments, etc., etc., etc. Where do our tax dollars really go?


Residents along Ten Mile will really get a lot for THEIR tax dollars if Ten Mile is widened. Talk about "getting the shaft." Wouldn't it make more sense to widen Grand River (No residential that's too close to the road), and there wouldn't be a bottleneck going into and coming out of the Grand River/Novi Road intersection. Then lower the speed limit to 30 MPH on Ten Mile making it a less desirable route. (30 mph "works" on Meadowbrook Road, and it would work on Ten Mile too).


Another item that might help you in your future decisions and approvals. Last summer I was vacationing in Leland Michigan, north of Traverse City. I wrote a personal check for a purchase and the clerk looked at my address on the check, smiled and said, "Novi, you live where the BIG SHOPPING IS" Is this the kind of reputation Novi wants?


The main point being that all of this is in violation of the Master Plan in that it puts a very negative impact on our abutting residential areas. (Or has the Master Plan, like the Woodland and Wetlands Ordinances been forgotten also)?


Now each of you has to honestly put yourselves in our place as homeowners and consider how you would actually feel if all this were going on around you. Maybe it's easy for you to approve these types of development because it doesn't really concern you. Think hard.


Novi isn't just growing way too fast - it's already becoming out of control. Listen to the words of your own, Glen Bonaventura, when he tries to promote SLOW GROWTH for Novi.


Mary Blessed

42575 Park Ridge

Meadowbrook Glens

17 Year Resident"


Member Taub said next was a letter regarding Hampton Woods Office and Residential Care Facility dated May 17, 1995 and that letter stated:


"Dear Mr. Cohen:


I am a property owner in the Orchard Ridge Estates Subdivision adjacent to the above proposed development. This letter is submitted as a formal request to adjourn the public hearing on this matter for a period of not less than three weeks or in the alternative, to deny the requested site plan approval. Please distribute it accordingly.


The reasons for the requested adjournment are two-fold. First, the time which has been provided between Notice of Hearing and date of hearing is inadequate to allow the interested public to formulate a response or provide cogent input into the site planning process. Second, the central reason why the response time provided is inadequate is the fact that the site plan, woodlands permit and wetlands permit requests are deficient and in the absence of modification and resubmittal, are improper candidates for approval.


As shown below, there are numerous defects in the proposed site plan and permit requests which simply cannot be addressed with the time provided. Public notice of the hearing was not received by the adjacent landowners until the Friday or Saturday prior to the hearing. Relevant materials, including the Commissioners' packet were not provided and had to be obtained from a third party source. This process left little if any opportunity to examine the details, ramifications and potential options to the proposals before this board.


In addition, it provides no opportunity whatsoever to research the requirements which a developer must meet under the rules, regulations, and statutes as set forth by this Board, the City of Novi, the County of Oakland and the State of Michigan. Accordingly, it is requested that this Board adjourn any determination on the proposals before it for a period of not less than three weeks so that competent input may be provided from those which may be impacted by this proposed development.


The proposed adjournment is supported by the fact that the various proposals before the Board are deficient in that they are (1) incomplete, (2) violative of applicable statutory and regulatory standards and (3) contingent upon future ill-defined events and occurrences which the public is prevented from addressing due to the nature of this process. Time constraints have prevented anything but a cursory review of the relevant materials. This review, however, has indicated the following inadequacies in the proposed site plan and permit requests:


1. The woodlands permit and site plan do not comply with the City of Novi woodland regulations in that they fail to identify the particular trees which are projected for removal.


2. The proposal contemplates installation of a Residential Care Facility with a dedicated lot size that is less than 68% of the 20 acre minimum size required under applicable zoning laws.


3. The proposed contingency that regulated woodlands not platted be placed into a Preservation Easement cannot be evaluated absent agreed upon scope, terms and condition.


4. The proposed contingency that regulated woodlands not platted be placed into a Preservation Easement fails to consider similar treatment for the adjacent wetlands, which are part and parcel of a larger, five acre protected wetland area.


5. The proposed contingency that the developer obtain appropriate DNR permit approval is lacking in sufficient detail and parameter such that the Board and the interested public may be advised as to the scope and terms of the contingency.


6. The nature and location of any protective fencing has not been adequate described, and natural landscaping alternatives or supplements to such fencing has not been considered.


As viewed from Novi Road, the site in question would not appear to be one of any particular import. When viewed from the West, it becomes quite clear that this area is a frequent habitat of a variety of fauna and fowl. It also provides a pleasant vista, free from commercial, residential or other development. While it is clearly acknowledged that such benefits must often give way to appropriate development and use of land rights, it is also anticipated that the procedures in place provide adequate opportunity for public input as well as the input of those directly impacted by the development. I am advised that this is the single opportunity for such comment. Under the facts of this case, such input is impossible due to the lack of opportunity to formulate a response and because the numerous deficiencies in the proposals prevent the Board as well as the public from a full picture of what the proposals entail.


In addition to the foregoing, I personally have a scheduling conflict with the hearing as presently set. If the Board should see fit to adjourn this matter until such time as the proposal is complete and an appropriate response may be formulated, please advise me of such date.


Very truly yours,


David A. Breuch

Clark, Klein, Beaumont

Detroit, MI."


Member Bonaventura asked if Mr. Watson could give an answer as to whether proper notice was given before the Hampton Woods Office and Residential Care Facility was discussed and Chairman Clark said yes.


Member Taub said that concluded the letters received.





1. Approval of the April 19, 1995 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.


2. DeMaria Building Company, Inc., SP95-24 - Property located at the northwest corner of Grand River Avenue and Taft Road for Possible Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

3. Novi Technology Center, Phases II and III, SP94-34B - Property located on the north side of Grand River Avenue, westerly of Haggerty Road for Possible Final Site Plan Approval.

It was then,


Moved by Member Capello

Seconded by Member Hodges



To approve the Consent Agenda.


(voice vote) (7) Yeas (2) Nays-Bonaventura & Hoadley


Mr. Watson then indicated his understanding was that the Consent Agenda requires unanimous approval and if the persons who opposed the approval could identify which items they wanted pulled, those items should be pulled.


Member Bonaventura said his concern was the Novi Technology Center

and it was a matter of principle and as far as he remembered the Final site plan and his concerns, he felt it should come back formally in front of the Commission for Final, but the majority of the Commission doesn't wish this, so, so be it.


Mr. Watson then asked was it his understanding that neither one of the two members desire anything to be pulled from the Consent Agenda and it was stated that was correct.








Chairman Clark indicated there was a Special Presentation by the Japanese Center of Novi, which was a presentation of the 1994-95 class project by the third year architectural design students of the Lawrence Technology University.


Dr. David Chasco, AIA, was present of Lawrence Technology University. He said the presentation that night was by the third year architectural class and their project was the Japan Center of Novi, a 33,000 sq. ft. center.


The students then made their presentation of the Japan Center of Novi.


Dr. Chasco then thanked the Planning Commission for allowing them to make their presentation and Chairman Clark indicated the Commissioners all enjoyed it. Dr. Chasco stated he would be happy to answer any questions.


Member Mutch said she just had a comment. She indicated the students already know this and Dr. Chasco knows this, but the rest of the Commissioners may not be aware, but along with Steve Meyers of Suzuki Meyers Consulting Firm in Novi and Mr. Yamoto of the Cherry Blossom Restaurant, the three of them and Mr. Rogers, were part of a review team and they had the opportunity to go to Lawrence Tech and see the students do preliminary presentations and they were all amazed by the detail, the talents, and the creativity that the students have brought to those projects, which were projects that were based on a very specific set of requirements, but then they also had to deal with a real world location in of all places Novi, one of the most restricted places, and then meet the site plan requirements and Zoning Ordinances in doing those hypothetical projects.


Member Mutch said when they see what architects start out with and the dream that they start out with, they might have a little more respect for those plans that come before them and at least appreciate the distance they have traveled by the time they actually get built, so she applauded those students and hoped they carry on because they have a tremendous creative talent that they have demonstrated here.





1. Main Street Village, SP95-09A - Property Located South of Grand River Avenue, Between Meadowbrook Road and Novi Road for Possible Preliminary Site Plan/Phasing Plan Recommendation to City Council, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, and Section 4 Waiver Approval.


Mr. Watson first wanted to indicate to the Commission that the Wetland Permit was actually also a recommendation to the City Council.


Mr. Mike Kahm of Singh Development Company was present. He indicated he just wanted to put things in perspective since it has been awhile since he has appeared before the Commission. He said at the last meeting, he appeared before the Commission for their review and recommendation for rezoning of the subject property to the TC-1 District which it now has.


Mr. Kahm said the City Council did approve the rezoning on October 3, 1995 and with that approval, they conditioned the rezoning on him coming back with a site plan consistent with the exhibits that he presented at that time, one of which was the site plan that they see to his right, which was conceptual and included 250 units.


Mr. Kahm noted the unit styles were townhouses, stacked ranch units, stacked flats, and stacked townhomes. He indicated all of the units in this project would have attached one or two car garages.


Mr. Kahm said when they approached this site and looked at the planning for it, really the planning and zoning went hand in hand, and the City's desire in this entire quadrant was to create an urban environment and to integrate an urban living environment of both residential, as well as commercial development. He said Mr. Chen, with the beginning of Vic's Market as a start, was working with the City on the commercial portion and Mr. Kahm indicated Main Street Village was his proposal for the residential component.


Mr. Kahm said in analyzing the site, they tried very hard to try and create an old downtown feeling to both the architecture as well as the streetscape. He said their goal was to create City blocks and to create a tight urban character to the project and the old style of urban neighborhoods.


Mr. Kahm indicated they have tried to work their site plan in concert with the existing natural features of this property and he felt they have done that to a large extent. He said Mr. Clif Seiber in a moment would present to the Commission the details of their site plan to everyone. He stated unfortunately, they were not able to do everything that all of the Consultants would have liked them to do in difference to his friend Ms. Lemke, but he felt they have tried very hard to work the design of the site plan in with the natural features, although they were intruding somewhat in the woodland area at the southwest corner of the property.


Mr. Kahm indicated they were replacing those woodlands pursuant to the Ordinance with a large number of replacement trees by creating a streetscape along all of the major road system in the project with a street tree system, as well as substantial landscaping throughout the project in the common areas and in the open spaces between the buildings. He said they have attempted very much to try and integrate the urban design within the natural features of this site and he felt they have done a fairly good job and he hoped everyone agreed.


Mr. Kahm said what he would do right now was to have Mr. Alex Bogaert, who was the architect for the project, present to everyone the character of the architecture that they have presented previously with the rezoning. He said relative to the renderings they had at that time, the zoning was conditioned upon taking those renderings and then returning with the architecture consistent with those renderings to give them a feel of the urban character they were trying to create with this project.


Mr. Bogaert was present and indicated their intent was to create a street scene as they move through this property that was reminiscent of many of the Town Center type themes that they have seen in communities. He indicated one of his favorite communities was Bristol Rhode Island and it was a community that was really intensely developed with residential along the main street areas that were within 5-10 feet off the edge of this street. He said they were two-three story buildings and were brick and wood siding homes and certainly set in a scene that was established and strengthened by trees up and down the streetscape and it was really stunning American and was everything that they would call an American Streetscene.


Mr. Bogaert said by and large, they were trying to create that type of a theme here on their property and they were in the central part of the site plan, which Mr. Seiber would show them in a moment. He indicated there was a large town square area where they have the principal community building and the amenities for the property, but there was centrally to the entire property, a large visual vast open space and as they move down each street area, they could see that they have created an avenue of trees that was all part of the major planting area that Mr. Kahm just described to them.


Mr. Bogaert said in addition to that, they chose as their architectural theme, Traditional American Architecture and in an attempt to reinforce that theme, they have chosen the dark red bricks and the black and dark rooflines. He said they have also created rather than the typical thing that they might see in a multi-family development where there was one building type and that one building type was repeated over and over again, they chose to move away from that.


Mr. Bogaert said moving away from that and creating four building types, would give them the opportunity to get an interest to the streetscape by a variety of different building elements, characters and massing, and changing from one building type to another, with garage entries in different locations from one building to the next.


Mr. Bogaert said by using that as their format, they really have the opportunity to create the street scenes that they see here represented in those perspective renderings as well as the site plan.


Mr. Bogaert then said Mr. Clif Seiber would present the site plan to everyone. Mr. Seiber began by pointing out the features of the Main Street Village project. He said the access to the project was one access directly off of Grand River, which was located just to the east of the proposed Sports Tavern. He indicated the secondary access, which of course was one of the requirements of the Fire Department, was a roadway proposed to the rear of Vic's through a narrow portion of an existing wetland and connects to the Main Street project.


Mr. Seiber said those two roadways lead to the Central Town Center or the clubhouse and recreational area where tennis courts and playground facilities were provided. He said the rest of the street network was a series of loops and they could see all the main roadways throughout the project would be built in accordance with City standards for City roads 28 feet with concrete curb and gutters and asphalt pavement. He said some of the rear driveways located to the back of what was called "200 buildings" would provide access to garages and they were a narrower 20 foot wide pavement area.


Mr. Seiber said the storm water storage or storm water management really in this case was provided through an outlet which was off-site which was a proposed storm water improvement project which would allow this project, as well as Main Street, Vic's and the Sports Tavern to drain undetained.


Mr. Seiber said in other words, there would no longer be any on-site storm water detention required, which was that all the water would be directed through this wetland complex to the southwest where a storm drainage improvement would be conducted in order to allow this water to be directed directly to the C & O basin and he believed it was one of the City's regional storm water detention basins located just north of Ten Mile Road.


Mr. Seiber said there were some wetlands as he mentioned located on the site and again there was some wetland fill required for this crossing for their secondary access, and there was also a couple of small fingers which extend to the southeast and to the south and they were just clipping the edge of that with their roadway. He said they have a proposed wetland fill and he believed it was .46 acres and they were provided a 1.51 mitigation ratio in some of those other areas and he then pointed out where the mitigation was in order to provide that 1 1/2 to 1 mitigation factor.


Mr. Seiber said with respect to the woodlands, they could see approximately one-third of this site or possibly almost half of the site does have some regulated woodlands contained on it and with the proposed building and road network, approximately 25% of this site would be retained as woodlands and natural featured areas. He believed they have a total tree count of regulated trees of 800 trees and they were proposing to remove approximately 267 trees, which results in about a 67% preservation factor, in other words 67% of the regulated trees currently on the site would be preserved.


Mr. Seiber said regarding bedroom counts, there was a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms proposed as part of this project and garages were provided for every unit. He said in addition to that, they have provided additional parking at various points around the site and they exceed the parking requirements considerably. He stated they have also indicated through some of the shading that in the areas where they have no driveway access, they were proposing that some street parking was also available, although it was not required for an off-street parking requirement.


Mr. Seiber then said he would be available to answer any questions.





Mr. Rogers said this was a major project integrally tied in with Main Street in the southeast quadrant of Town Center and in the past year has been rezoned TC-1. He said plans of this nature were shown to City Council and he believed the Planning Commission at the time of the rezoning action. He said there have been some modifications in the street layout, but the density has remained the same.


Mr. Rogers said the buildings that were proposed, 36 of them on the 26 acre site, comply with TC-1 district standards. He said on dwelling unit types, they could see on page one of his report, the density was computed by the number of rooms. He said for example a one-bedroom unit was a 2 room unit of the bedroom and the living room, and then the kitchen and bathroom would be accessory rooms.


Mr. Rogers said a two-bedroom unit would be 3 rooms and so forth, so when they get all through with the 248 dwelling units, they find that there were 748 rooms in this development and by the density factor, it would ultimately require if they follow the mathematics, 20.6 acres of site to accommodate those particular rooms.


Mr. Rogers said the overall density of the project was 9.2 units per acre, slightly higher than the RM-1 density and average density of 7.23. He said one bedroom units comprise 12.9% and they were allowed to have up to 25%.


Mr. Rogers said they also have in the packet the second submittal and they have clarified where this parking was on-street or in the case of garage parking and certain off-street parking. He said he called out that they provide surface parking of 159, garage parking of 365 or a total of 524 spaces and 464 were required. He said in addition, they have some on-street curb parking which would be subject to detail planning and site planning and engineering.


Mr. Rogers said they meet the open space requirement of 200 sq. ft. of usable space per actual dwelling unit and the center square they have called out was where the clubhouse and the tennis courts and the picnic areas were, and that was about an acre and a half and they were just over one acre so they comply with the open space.


Mr. Rogers said the street names have been approved by the Street Naming Committee and the name Main Street Village itself was still under study and was not approved but it was on an appeal. He said he would recommend Main Street Village.


Mr. Rogers said concerning the phasing plan, they too redid the phasing plan in the second submittal to show the two phases and the various sub-phases. He said each of the 36 or 37 buildings and the envelope around it was a separate phase, which would be developed within the two basic phases, Phase I and Phase II.


Mr. Rogers said a detail review of the landscape plan would be done at the time of Final site plan submittal, and he had discussed further on Page 2 and 3 of his letter some of the general observations that he has developed in consultation with Ms. Lemke, Landscape Architect, reviewing this plan also.


Mr. Rogers said he also noted that the design of this project was urban and it was not a curvelinear free-flowing low density suburban development and the clubhouse was the focal point or the focus of it and the details and the amenities which would be further developed as they get into Final site plan review, could enhance this open space and the streets leading to it.


Mr. Rogers said they have sidewalks throughout the development and there was a couple of points where maybe additional sidewalks could be placed. He said the screening on the plan that he reviewed for the residential uses to the south and the east, they found needed improvement and for the Meadowbrook Glen Subdivision at the southeast corner of this development, the buildings were set back 75-76 feet from the property line and there was no driveway there or no vehicular access, and they want to make sure that that was buffered very well and along the east edge for about two-thirds of the frontage, that backs up to Fountain Park West Apartments No. 2 and they were all familiar with those buildings and their parking lots were adjacent.


Mr. Rogers said the facades need or require a Section 4 waiver in a TC or TC-1 District. He said it must be that the buildings or any addition to a building, must be of materials compatible thereto. He said as in the Novi Town Center, there was the application of dry-vit above the brick.


Mr. Rogers said in this particular development, there was no lap-siding and brick and Mr. Necci has made suggestions that certain facades be increased in brick format, which he was convinced could be done. He indicated it was of a colonial design and some of the units were two-story and some were three-story and some were four-story. He said there were variegated setbacks and variegated materials and some units having two garages and some having one, all breaks up the monotony. He said there were also a few apartment developments in the City that have good variety such as Saddle Creek and River Oaks West.


Mr. Rogers said Mr. Pargoff would discuss the Woodlands Permit along with Ms. Lemke. He said he was fully familiar with the impacts on the woodlands and he was fully familiar with the Ordinance and the reports by experienced woodlands authorities went by the book and had to tell them the impacts and the removals and the replacements and the issues. He said he didn't always disagree with Ms. Lemke, but in this case, with the urban nature and the proximity to the downtown, the very low density, occasioned by the extensive wetlands and woodlands, he felt there was an over-riding benefit to this plan. He could be wrong, but at least he was giving his honest opinion.


Mr. Rogers said he recommended Preliminary site plan approval and Phasing plan approval subject to three items: (1) Section 4 review of building facades, which the Commission could recommend and their recommendation goes to Council because this site was in excess of five acres. (2) Addressing preliminary landscape plan concerns. (3) Addressing the Woodland Permit conditions.


Mr. Bluhm indicated he has reviewed the Preliminary site plan. He said the applicant was proposing a series of what he called private driveways through the development and those driveways would be required to meet public standards and those should be reflected on the Final site plan documents when they come in.


Mr. Bluhm said the applicant was proposing also a series of water main extensions through the site at this time for fire protection purposes only and their engineer has indicated that they plan to hold off until the Moratorium was lifted and go with domestic taps right to the mains. Mr. Bluhm said he would see how that goes as things progress.


Mr. Bluhm indicated the water mains would be tied into the main that exists at the south side of the Sports Bar and the Vic's development area and loop through and connect to the Main Street/ Market Street connections to the proposed mains that were going to be constructed with Main Street. He said the applicant was also proposing sanitary sewer extensions and there would be some replacement of sewer that was put in with the Vic's Market plan and would be extended in through the site from that point.


Mr. Bluhm said the applicant was also proposing, as Mr. Seiber mentioned, a storm sewer system on site and the storm sewers enclosed would collect the storm waters. He said the plan shows those sewers in the roadways themselves and he didn't really like that as a design function, but since those were private drives and the site was somewhat restricted beyond the roadway itself and the units being tight up to the sidewalks, there may not be any other choice in that matter, so he would like to see the applicant move them if it was possible, but if not, they would take a look at that as things progress.


Mr. Bluhm said once the storm water was collected in the storm sewers, it would be directed to the northern part of the series of wetlands along the west side of the project into a temporary sedimentation basin/a permanent water quality basin. He said from there, as Mr. Seiber mentioned, it would be directed into the northern wetland. He said this wetland and its connection to the southern wetland on the west side of the site, would be used for conveyance.


Mr. Bluhm indicated the City Administration was currently evaluating the improvements to the storm sewers that exist south of this site which carries storm water to the regional basin which was currently on line, which was where they feel this development, as well as the other regional Main Street development areas and the Main Street commercial areas, should detain their water.


Mr. Bluhm said responsibility of approval of that project, for which he had a report in their packets to Mr. Nowicki, would fall with the Storm Water Committee. He said any condition on approval of this plan for their recommendation would be that the Storm water Committee goes forward and makes those improvements to that Storm water system.


Mr. Bluhm said some improvements between the two wetland areas to allow for the conveyance of the water to the proposed improvements to the storm sewer systems would be required for the site. He said beyond that, they have no other concerns of the project other than some minor comments they have additionally made and he was recommending approval.


Mr. Arroyo indicated he has also reviewed this Preliminary site plan as well as a traffic study that was submitted as part of the requirements of the City of Novi. He stated as has been mentioned, this project was proposed to have access from two locations, one being a primary access, a boulevarded entrance off of Grand River Avenue and another being an access point from what has been proposed to be named as Market Street, which was the north/south portion, the southerly extension of Town Center Drive that was in on a temporary basis that now runs along the west side of Vic's Market.


Mr. Arroyo said he has noted in his letter that since this north/south segment was still a private road, that if this project were to begin construction prior to the SAD being constructed, that there would have to be easements obtained from the owners, however, if this moves forward after the SAD was in place, obviously it would be a public road, however, this segment that was south of Main Street was still proposed to be a private drive and that was the segment of Market Street just south of the Main Street intersection, so there would still need to be an easement obtained for access.


Mr. Arroyo said what they were proposing to do was actually modify the entrance and if they were to go south on Market Street today to the very southern end back behind Vic's and enter Vic's, that would be the entrance to both the rear portion of Vic's and also the entrance to this project, and they were proposing to widen that out as a boulevard as they could see on the plans.


Mr. Arroyo said Vic's would have access to that street going into the apartment complex and also obviously there would be the access to Grand River. He said one of the advantages to mixing residential uses with non-residential uses was the way traffic flows and the traffic flow characteristics that were different between the different uses. He said in the case of a residential use such as this, they have a heavy outbound flow in the morning as people leave their homes to go to work or go to school, etc.


Mr. Arroyo said the people who live in this complex would have the opportunity to use Main Street and Market Street to access the road system at a time when the volumes generated by Main Street and Vic's would be very low so as traffic was leaving this site, they could take advantage of the signalized intersections at Town Center Drive and Grand River and the future traffic signalized intersection of Main Street and Novi Road. He said those were all access points that would be fairly unused or under-used in the morning in particular, because Main Street has such a significant amount of office and particularly commercial and restaurant uses, which don't really start operating until later on in the day.


Mr. Arroyo said so the mix of uses he felt was one of the benefits to having this type of urban development and it also provides some traffic benefits. He said they have mentioned there was a minor modification that would need to be made to the entrance into Vic's off of the re-design boulevard section to narrow that down and better define that and that was something that could be addressed as part of the Final site plan.


Mr. Arroyo said also the applicant was proposing to extend the existing deceleration lane that goes into the Vic's entrance off of Grand River across as a full lane through the boulevarded entrance into this project and that would be required by Ordinance and also by the Road Commission for Oakland County.


Mr. Arroyo said regarding the traffic study that was submitted in terms of trip generation, a 248 unit apartment complex could be expected to generate just over 1700 average trips per day, roughly 865 in and 865 out and AM and PM hour trips which are the most critical, are forecast to be 131 for AM and 166 for PM peak hour.


Mr. Arroyo said the traffic study evaluated the off-site road network and it looked at it in its existing condition and it also forecast future conditions with and without the project. He said as part of this analysis, they looked at 1998 as the build-out of the Main Street Village project and when they looked at the future scenario, they had existing traffic that was increased on an annual growth factor based on historic growth rates, which he believed was 8% for Novi Road and about 5% per year for Grand River, so those volumes were actually increased on an annualized basis to show growth from other development.


Mr. Arroyo said in addition the main street project itself was added to the road network and then finally this development was added to the road network so they have what he considered to be a very conservative analysis and likely even on the high end of what they were actually going to see in terms of volumes, which provides a conservative overview.


Mr. Arroyo said as they have discussed in the past and as most people were aware, the Grand River/Novi intersection was the most difficult to deal with and it currently was operating at Level of Service D during the AM peak and Level of Service E during the PM peak hour. He indicated the Grand River Town Center intersection was operating at much better Levels of Service, Service B and C at the two peak hours.


Mr. Arroyo said when the Main Street project came in adding all that project, as well as the back-growth from other development, it would degradate the Level of Service at the Grand River/Novi intersection to Level of Service F. He said but at that time, it was found that improvement to the intersection by the signalization upgrade would improve the Level of Service to a D. He said it was scheduled to begin construction later this year, which was the computerized linkage of Novi Road signals from Grand River north to 12 Mile and the addition of a westbound right turn lane on Grand River to go westbound on Grand River to northbound Novi.


Mr. Arroyo said they have added on the Main Street Village project and they have also taken that previous Main Street scenario and forecasted it out a few additional years and show a future Level of Service E with the addition of that westbound right turn lane, however, the addition of the traffic from this project does not degradate the Level of Service anymore than it otherwise would be if this project didn't go forward.


Mr. Arroyo said so they also have some Level of Service information regarding the project entrance from Grand River and as can be anticipated, the most difficult movements would be the left turns out and the left turns in. He said as the signalization modifications are made to the Town Center/Grand River intersection to provide some more green-time to the north/south movements, they would anticipate that there would be improved gaps hopefully for left turners.


Mr. Arroyo said also as they know, the City has talked about the widening of Grand River to five lanes and there were no plans for that at this time, but that was something that was continuing to be explored and would likely be something that would have to be addressed in the near future.


Mr. Arroyo said regarding the internal site issues, there has been some revisions to the site plan based on some of the previous comments. He indicated that most of the drives, other than the main internal circulation drives, which were 28 feet wide, have now been widened to 20 feet which was the minimum required width if they have 10 foot wide parking spaces. He indicated there were still a few other aisles they need to see widened to meet the standards and some minor changes in the sub-phasing, but those were items that he felt could be addressed at Final site plan, so he was recommending approval subject to the comments in his letter being resolved on the Final site plan.


Chairman Clark indicated there was a letter from City of Novi Fire Department under the signature of Daniel W. Roy, Captain, indicating that the above plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the following condition which was to add fire hydrants to comply with the 300 foot maximum spacing for multi-family residential developments.


Ms. Lemke said she would review her letter and she would like to begin by describing the site in terms of review standards, which was Section 37-29. She said some of them know that that was how she was able to evaluate the woodlands that were on a site by going through the review standards and making determinations as to what the proposed development would do to those natural resources, how they would impact them and also the quality of the habitat, the site and all the different variety of woodlands that may be on a site.


Ms. Lemke referred to the plan and explained it to everyone. She said the dark green line was the area of regulated woodlands on the site and the orange slashed areas were the areas that would be removed by the proposed development. She indicated the green areas were the areas of upland woodlands and the blue areas were pretty much wetland with the majority being open water and then the light green areas were the areas that have wooded wetlands on them.


Ms. Lemke said she has visited this site many times over the last ten years and for some of them that have a long history with Novi or who are listening to this broadcast, this used to be the Beacon Hill site and Beacon Hill Apartments was proposed for this site probably 8-9 years ago.


Ms. Lemke said there was a diversity of woodlands habitat on the site ranging from wooded wetland treed areas, wetland buffers, open field and mature beech maple upland woodlands. She explained the areas immediately adjacent to the wetlands would be the wooded wetland sites and this particular area in here was upland beech maple and they have their open field habitat here and some new growth poplar on the edges of the wooded wetland areas.


Ms. Lemke said the wildlife value with this great diversity of vegetation and habitat was very high throughout the site. She noted that many wildlife species were observed throughout the site and have been observed in past years in the beech maple woodlands located in the southern portion of the site. She said over 10 species of wildflowers were blooming about a week ago.


Ms. Lemke said the woodlands species on the entire site range from cottonwood, elm, poplar, ash, and red maple to beech, sugar maple and black cherry and basswood in the upland areas. She said the size of the trees range from new growth saplings in the wetland buffer areas to a preponderance of 20-30 inch diameter at breast height in the beech-maple woodlands.


Ms. Lemke indicated the soils in the site were a mixture of wetland peat and sandy loam in the uplands and the wooded areas were part of or adjacent to the creek that flows through the property along the western boundary and she pointed it out to everyone.


Ms. Lemke indicated the wetland soils were unstable and sensitive to development in that the trees on those areas would be effected adversely by adjacent intrusion. She indicated the diversity of the trees on the site was good and the underlying new growth was of the same species as the older canopy trees. She stated the tree size and density throughout the site were also good.


Ms. Lemke said the health and vigor of the tree stands on the site were good. She indicated the understory species and qualities were good. She said the area of woodland forms a buffer to the wetlands on the site and also was an oasis of merit in this urban section of the City.


Ms. Lemke said the total area functions as a system along the creek forming a buffer which cools and provides a windblock noise buffer and scenic and environmental asset in this section. She said it also provides an important buffer to the industrial uses to the south of the site, which Mr. Rogers referred to earlier, and to the residential located in the southeast corner and along the eastern section.


Ms. Lemke said there were several potential historic or specimen trees on the site such as the 30" dbh white oak which she pointed out. She said the beech maple woodlands which was the southern portion of woodlands, was significant in that it was a unique woodlands in the City containing trees that were 200-300 years old and she would equate the quality of this particular area to Robins Nest.


Ms. Lemke indicated the overall quality of the woodlands that were regulated on this site was varied depending on the type of woodlands present but in this beech maple woodlands, the value was the highest. She indicated most of the trees were of a larger size and the majority of them were beech which were very sensitive to intrusion.


Ms. Lemke said the remaining new growth in wooded wetlands have a lesser quality value as a woodlands for the whole site but a good quality were habitat and buffer areas.


Ms. Lemke said the proposed plan intrudes into the regulated woodlands on the site which Mr. Seiber was correct in saying it was approximately half of the site, 13 acres. She said the intrusion was proposed in several different areas with 13 of the proposed buildings and also including the roads, the driveways and the utilities. She said the amount of this intrusion into regulated woodlands, the areas that were defined by the dark green line, was approximately 6.61 acres.


Ms. Lemke said the acreage of wooded wetlands that would be removed by this proposal was approximately 3.11 acres and the beech maple woodlands which totals 3.5 acres in total, the area of intrusion into that was approximately 1.5 acres.


Ms. Lemke said in her letter of May 9th, there was a listing of the 77 trees that would be removed by approximately four buildings in the beech maple woodlands, and she indicated she has noted their size and the species and included in the total figure of removed trees, which was 218. She said in addition, they believe a minimum of another 55 trees would be removed due to impacts of the proposed storm water runoff throughout the site and grading.


Ms. Lemke said after confirming with Mr. Bluhm and visiting the site with him, she still had questions and concerns regarding the potential impacts and effects on the trees as to the drainage of the site, detention, and possibly conveyance of storm water. She said those were the trees that were basically along the creek area. She said the whole site basically slopes down to this creek area all the way around, with the highest point on the site being in the upland beech maple woodlands.


Ms. Lemke said basically the plans have met the requirements of the contents of the application with some minor variations on the description of the existing ground cover. She said the cost estimate of the trees and protective fencing has changed slightly from the last submission and the replacement tree numbers would also need to be increased.


Ms. Lemke said in looking at the alternative plan that was submitted, alternative A, this plans intrudes even further into the woodlands and an additional 1.2 acres of regulated woodlands would be removed on the site. She said basically what they did was to take this road and extended the units down to the edge of the beech maple woodlands.


Ms. Lemke said it was her opinion that this was not a valid alternative as it creates more intrusion which was into the most sensitive and high quality woodlands on the property. She has met with the petitioner several times and discussed this project and the areas of some sensitive woodlands many times over the last year and she has suggested several alternatives that eliminate the impact on the beech maple woodlands and reduce the overall impact on the woodlands on this site.


Ms. Lemke said those alternatives were reducing the number of units, the use of cul-de-sacs, angling roads in units and elimination of the tennis courts.


Ms. Lemke said therefore there were other alternatives that could save the areas of woodlands that has the highest quality and the beech maple woodlands and lessen the impact of this proposed plan on the natural resources throughout the site. She said she would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Pargoff reviewed his letter of May 12, 1995 and he indicated he could not recommend approval of the woodlands permit application and current plan for Main Street Village. He said in general, he concurred with the analysis of their consultant Ms. Lemke, and the placement of units 28 and 29 in the center of the medium woodlands was destructive not only in its obvious intrusion but also by the removal of the transition zone and the creation of a new woodlands edge.


Mr. Pargoff this edge effect may cause the death of trees, additional trees, that have been protected by the existence of other trees in their vicinity, and basically they were breaking down the community of the forest by exposing those trees to heat, light wind and other environmental and man-made factors to which they have had only minimal exposure until this time.


Mr. Pargoff said in addition, the location of the protective fencing around units 29 and 26 and 27 does not provide enough room to allow for the movement of machinery in those areas. He said if the plan was approved, substantial increases in bonding would be necessary for the additional tree removal. He said in other words, the trees that were listed were not the only trees that were going to be destroyed by the building process.


Mr. Pargoff said regarding units 24-27, they open a wooded wetland to view by the casual observer and similar areas were present at the rear of Vic's Market, Mystic Forest and Briarwood developments. He said it was his recommendation that additional landscaping be included in this area if the plan was approved and in addition, the landscape plan must begin to delineate which trees were landscape requirements and which trees were woodland replacements.


Mr. Pargoff said it was his belief that per the plans that were shown and the renderings, that there would not be enough room between the sidewalks and the curb to grow substantial shading street trees, therefore that room should either be increased between the sidewalk and the curb, or trees should be placed behind the sidewalk in order to give them substantial root space for those trees to grow and not effect the concrete sidewalks by throwing those sidewalks.


Ms. Tepatti stated her office has also reviewed the plan before them for impacts on the wetlands. She indicated there were some extensive wetlands on the site as has been already mentioned. She said the largest complex was highlighted in the bluish green and that was a complex which does extend onto Vic's Market as well.


Ms. Tepatti said this portion of the wetland here was primarily a young forested scrub shrub area with seasonal standing water and then the area which extends partially onto the Main Street Village property was a seasonal open water area which was surrounded by shrubs and wet meadow vegetation.


Ms. Tepatti referred to a forested wetland and as Ms. Lemke stated, the center of this wetland was primarily open water and it appears that it was seasonal in nature and it may persist throughout the summer. She said there were mature trees along the banks of this area as well.


Ms. Tepatti said this connection which has been discussed as a proposed improvement, was actually a small ditch or swale that cuts through some higher topography on either side of it and then connects this large wetland system to a narrow wetland strip. She said there were some pretty good grade changes throughout this area to get the water down through there.


Ms. Tepatti indicated this wetland was also forested and has mature trees on the edges and a good slope into the upland woodland that Ms. Lemke mentioned and does not have much vegetation in the center and mainly conveys the water to the south where it enters a storm inlet down there and then it was conveyed along Trans-X Drive. She said this wetland was a smaller forested wetland, a little over an acre in size.


Ms. Tepatti said the applicant is proposing several impacts to the wetlands and the primary impacts are due to the proposed road crossings which are highlighted in pink. She said this link should link the development with Main Street and the Vic's Market complex and the entry road impacts approximately .2 acres of wetland.


Ms. Tepatti said they have proposed wetland mitigation at a 1 1/2 to 1 ratio and that was located in areas adjacent to the existing wetland and they were also proposing to expand mitigation that was already constructed for Vic's Market.


Ms. Tepatti said there was also mitigation shown along the side of the wetland and then as Mr. Bluhm mentioned, construction of a sedimentation basin prior to the water entering the wetland and being conveyed through.


Ms. Tepatti said another impact was working on the channel in there and they have met several times with Mr. Bluhm and with the applicant to discuss the storm water situation and the current proposal as he stated, was to use the wetlands for a conveyance. She said they did look at using the wetlands for detention because that was first discussed and that would actually involve more alteration to the wetland than having the water conveyed through it.


Ms. Tepatti said the channel was actually an outlet or an overflow for this wetland and the channel elevation would have to be changed and the base of that channel would have to be dropped, which would basically lower the existing water level in this wetland and that would then allow for a 1-2 foot fluctuation of water in that wetland during storm events.


Ms. Tepatti said upon inspecting the wetland and weighing the different alternatives, it appears that in conjunction with the Storm Water Master Plan and the impacts they see that was associated with this, it would be preferable to have the storm water conveyed through this area as long as it goes through some type of pre-treatment with the sedimentation basin.


Ms. Tepatti said the road crossing was located actually in a good area and there was a ridge that separates those two wetlands except for during very high water and that was approximately where this road crossing was located.


Ms. Tepatti said there were also some areas which were proposed to be reduced for the buffer and those reductions were anywhere from a couple of feet to 10 feet or so and there was some small areas where the parking or the driveways were adjacent to the wetland.


Ms. Tepatti said for most of those areas, she believed there was some restoration that could be conducted after construction and most of those areas were not at the back of units but were adjacent to the roadways so this buffer was currently in a shrubby condition so it would be quite dense and she felt that the remaining wetland

would be still sufficiently buffered from the development.


Ms. Tepatti said she has recommended approval of the wetland permit with the condition that the DNR permit was obtained and that has been applied for and was currently under review with the DNR.


Ms. Tepatti said she would like to see additional topography in some areas within the wetland and the main one was the channel to determine with Ms. Lemke what the proper elevation should be for the conveyance of the storm water so that it does not impact the woodlands and has the least impact on the existing wetland.


Ms. Tepatti said she would like to see additional topography in the eastern lobe of the wetland where there was an overflow structure or inlet proposed there to intercept any extremely high water flows and that would enter the storm system at that point so she would be reviewing those conditions in that wetland to determine the proper placement for that.


Ms. Tepatti said also she would recommend approval based on the detailed review of the submitted mitigation plan so in summary she indicated she has recommended approval of the permit.


Chairman Clark asked if Mr. Necci was present and Mr. Bluhm indicated he was not but Mr. Rogers has indicated some of Mr. Necci's report and he and Mr. Rogers would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Rogers said he noticed that the letter from Mr. Necci wasn't copied to anyone but the Planning Department and he didn't know whether the architect has seen it and he asked if it would be proper to give him a copy. He also indicated the date of the letter was May 11, 1995 although the second page indicated May 5, 1995.


Mr. Rogers said he had asked Mr. Necci to prepare such a report and plans were shared by Mr. Bluhm accordingly. He said there was a suggestion on Page 2 of Necci's letter, the next to the last paragraph, which says, "However, I am somewhat concerned that on a few facades the percentage of proposed materials exceed those allowed by the Ordinance by a great margin. I believe it would be reasonable to request an increase in the percentage of brick on certain facades where such large deviations exist. For example, the rear facade of building type 200, which is 88% wood siding, as well as the front facades of building types 100 and 200 which are 73% and 71% wood siding respectively. I would suggest that a maximum of 60% wood siding be allowed."


Mr. Rogers said Mr. Necci has gone through all the facades of all the buildings and there were some divergences on all of them, however, Mr. Necci ends up saying, "For the reasons stated above, it is my recommendation that the requirements of Section 2520 of the Zoning Ordinance be waived, as provided under Section 4 of said Ordinance, contingent on reasonable incorporation of the modifications and contingent on review of the Final construction drawings to assure that the type and percentages of materials indicated therein are consistent with the types and percentages of materials upon which the Section 4 Waiver was based."


Mr. Rogers said essentially Mr. Necci was recommending the waiver but was asking when this comes back in for Final, that those adjustments be considered.


Mr. Wahl spoke next and indicated he would like to break his comments down into two sections and one was from a community development perspective and he would like to present some comments and recommendations and then he would have Mr. Capote speak on the actual site plan issues and recommendations.


Mr. Wahl said as most of the Commissioners were aware, the Department has been involved with this site and this project for well in excess of five years and they have actually been a facilitator in working to accomplish the goals of the community and of this board in terms of achieving "a Main Street type project." He said a very important component of that was residential and he felt it goes without saying that the typical or contemporary or planning practice was that the success of a Main Street or a Town Center or a Downtown was very importantly linked to the neighboring residential areas and there were plenty of examples of successes and failures accordingly.


Mr. Wahl said so they have really been working on this project as a community development effort in conjunction with the private sector and he could report that several years ago he felt it was 1992 and having no success with several other development companies, they actually drove to Singh Development and talked to them about possible interest in this project because they were a respected developer in the community and talked about what it was they were attempting to accomplish.


Mr. Wahl said for those familiar, the previous conceptual plans were prepared for this site consisting of garden apartments with curvelinear streets that really represented projects which were very familiar to them, either in their community or other communities of suburban garden apartment developments, and frankly they were very disappointed and it had very little reflection on a Main Street theme or on any type of the planning practice that they were all familiar with in terms of the Neo-Traditional type of planning concept and there were no grid streets and there was nothing that anyone would recognize as being special or unique or connected in any way to a Main Street project.


Mr. Wahl said and the other developers were highly respectable and very successful, but could only report to them that this site was between a standard apartment complex and an I-2 industrial site and that this was what the market would suggest was the highest and the best use. He said he suggested to Singh and other developers and representatives of the bank who own the property at the time, to please go back to the drawing boards and come back with something the community could be proud of and that would accomplish the idea of a Main Street project.


Mr. Wahl said as a professional planner, he felt he could state that he was satisfied and pleased with the project that they all have in front of them today and hope they would act on it accordingly in relation to all of the letters from the Consultants and from the Department and that they would have some comments in terms of the woodlands review from Mr. Capote.


Mr. Wahl said he also wanted to briefly review some of the issues. He said first regarding density, what they really would like to see was the highest density that they could accomplish on this site that was workable and comfortable. He said it would be workable from a traffic standpoint and would be comfortable in terms of the land that they were working with and what could be done with the architecture of the buildings to make the whole thing come together.


Mr. Wahl said that maybe seemed very straightforward but it wasn't that easy because there were a lot of views here as reflected in his letter and a lot of professional views, a lot of personal views over what was the best use of this land and so there were maybe some compromises, but he felt in terms of a Main Street project, they want as many people as could comfortably be put into this area.


Mr. Wahl said this was not a rural area and was not intended to be a suburban area and it was a Town Center and it was an urban area. He said regarding the street system, he mentioned earlier that what they had seen originally was some kind of circular curvelinear street and the diagram that they see in front of them was very similar to the Oakland County Town Center plan for this area, which he felt they have seen on numerous occasions, which was a grid street, a right angle linear street system, typical of older communities which they would find in Northville and other residential developments of this nature.


Mr. Wahl said another issue was the architecture of the project. He said architecture was a very subjective opinion in a lot of regards and they don't see any architects sitting here at the table presenting any kinds of detailed architectural analysis because it was a very difficult thing to make decisions on criteria that they could accept or reject the product in front of them.


Mr. Wahl said, however, there was a report from Mr. Necci who was an architect and has a responsibility to provide recommendations to everyone in regards to the Facade Ordinance and he felt he has made some good points and he would hope that the developer would consider those in terms of perhaps some minor alterations of the facade, but in looking at the overall design that they see here, this was substantially compatible with the idea of a traditional Main Street project.


Mr. Wahl said this was not suburban or Twelve Oaks Townhouses or Wexford Village and he didn't think anyone would confuse this with those other projects.


Mr. Wahl said they were very proud of River Oaks West and every handsome suburban design project, and he felt this does not reflect that type of architecture, and he felt it was compatible with Main Street.


Mr. Wahl said finally they reviewed the environmental recommendations and they spent a lot of time on them and not only with this project but also with the Beacon Hill Apartments which preceded this and was the residential component of the Town Center project and that was 320 units and it was not anything like the quality that this project could bring to their community.


Mr. Wahl felt that when they look at the map and he didn't pretend to be a woodlands expert, but he felt there has to be some views in terms of compromising natural values, human values, and other values, which they were all looking at and each Consultant has brought their expertise and opinion to this review and to a certain extent, his Department has tried to provide an overview. He said he would have Mr. Capote discuss that because he was speaking in terms of the community development values.


Mr. Wahl felt there has to be some compromises and some melding of all of what it was they were trying to do here. He felt this project does that and it does preserve the large majority of the natural areas for this site, but this was not western Novi and this was the Town Center, the heart of the community, and this was not a central park in terms of a usable area and there were no walking paths and there were no active recreational areas and there were no nature preserves in the sense of anything anyone was going to be walking to or looking at.


Mr. Wahl said the primary function was its screening function and does it adequately screen from the industrial area and from the residential area and that was the primary function of the natural areas in this site as far as he could determine and he felt if they look at it and go out and walk the site, that even with the development as presented, those goals and objectives would be accomplished.


Mr. Wahl said in conclusion, he felt although there may be different opinions in terms of specific issues, the idea here was to bring this altogether and to look at it in a larger perspective and does it accomplish the Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan of the Town Center plan of the Main Street planning concept, and he felt it has done that and as a professional planner, he felt he could wholeheartedly recommend approval with all of the criteria that they have looked at. He said looking at it overall, that would be his opinion particularly from a community development perspective.


Mr. Wahl said he would now like to have Mr. Capote discuss the site plan issues more extensively and any comments he might have from that standpoint.


Mr. Capote began by reminding the Planning Commission of this Department's sensitivity to their woodlands and their wetlands and what they were trying to protect. He said but the objective of this plan does accomplish the objectives and the intent of the TC-1 Zoning Ordinance of which this property was rezoned to in conformance with the City's Master Plan.


Mr. Capote said in keeping with that they do support the project even though there was a significant intrusion into the woodland area. He said there may be the possibility of saving some of the prime specimens and he hoped that could be worked out with the Consultants.


Mr. Capote said but in supporting a plan with the TC-1 zoning and in conformance with the City's Master Plan, and the Town Center zoning, that was all he had to say at this time.







There was no Audience Participation and Chairman Clark closed the Public Hearing.





Member Lorenzo began by asking Mr. Rogers a question. She asked when they rezoned this to TC-1 from RM-1, did that increase the density and the building height allowances, and Mr. Rogers replied yes and he mentioned the gross density including woodlands and wetlands was 9.2 units per acre. He said if they average two-bedroom units under an RM-1, it would be 7.3.


Mr. Rogers said in an RM-1, the building height was limited to 35 feet or two-stories and when certain projects like the Springs, Portsmouth Place, Saddle Creek, and River Oaks West came in with three stories, they went to the ZBA for that variance, but they also stayed within the 35 feet at midpoint of gable roof.


Mr. Rogers said in a TC-1 District and in a TC District the height was 65 feet or five stories. He said the height of those buildings was that some were four-story and some were three-story and some were two-story.


Member Lorenzo asked about the setback requirements and how do they measure or compare between RM-1 or TC-1 between the buildings, etc. Mr. Rogers said they were relaxed and the buildings could have proximity to the roadways closer and the spacing between buildings was closer and there were certain specific requirements such as next to any residential single family, like Meadowbrook Glens, there was a 75 foot setback, within which he felt some driveway might have been able to be put in.


Mr. Rogers said it was a more urban, not 0 lot line, but it was different than the RM-1 and the original plan that came in on this site, Beacon Hill, met the RM-1 requirements at the time.


Member Lorenzo asked Mr. Arroyo when he mentioned about the additional westbound right turn lane that could be installed to improve the PM peak hour operation, was that scheduled to occur or was that something that they need to have done.


Mr. Arroyo said that was not currently funded. Member Lorenzo said it was not like the other improvements that were scheduled to go on line in a few months and Mr. Arroyo said that was correct.


Member Lorenzo said this project was not going to have any impact on the Level of Service for this area and it would be the same whether this project was there or not. Mr. Arroyo said that was correct and they would not have any change in the Level of Service designations in the road network based on adding this traffic and obviously whenever they add traffic, there was some impact but it would not degrade the Level of Service at the intersection.


Member Lorenzo said in other words, it was already so degraded that even the additional traffic wouldn't affect it, and Mr. Arroyo said that was not necessarily true and obviously that intersection was not one of the better functioning ones in the City. He said for example in the morning, it operates at Level of Service D which was generally considered to be acceptable in an urban area and Level of Service A-D was normally acceptable and Level of Service E and F, they generally looked at as being undesirable.


Mr. Arroyo said it was at Level of Service D and when the traffic from this project was added on, he believed it remains a D so it was not being degraded any further at those times when there was an opportunity for additional degradation if the project were a lot larger for example.


Member Lorenzo said she has supported the rezoning on this project and in general she supported the project, however she could not support the project in its current form because of the proposed impacts to the southern beech maple forest and that was where she drew the line.


Member Lorenzo said she was disappointed and displeased because the developer has acknowledged since day one when he came to the Town Center Steering Committee, that he was advised by Ms. Lemke from day one, to avoid those areas because of their sensitivity and he has not done so.


Member Lorenzo said to her that was total disregard for the respect of the Consultants and the respect of the Ordinance and she was not happy about that.


Member Lorenzo said they as the Planning Commission and the Council, have been very accommodating thus far and they have rezoned this to a higher density, higher building heights, reduction of setback requirements, and if they approve this plan in other respects, they would be utilizing wooded wetlands for storm water conveyance which may very well cause additional tree die-off and they would be allowing wetland fill impacting other areas of upland woodlands and they could not replace mature trees with young twigs as that was not adequate replacement for a woodland of this size and sensitivity.


Member Lorenzo said there were a lot of urban settings that she wished that they had the foresight and the opportunity to incorporate and integrate and preserve natural amenities throughout the country and while it was a good thing to build a community such as this, she felt it was a positive thing but not at the expense of an existing community that was also trying to survive.


Member Lorenzo felt it was important to recognize this existing community, this natural community that exists there and she felt the young architects that were with them that night did a good job of recognition of that and while they may have an idea sometimes they have to change that idea somewhat when they have the reality of what was out there on the actual land and she felt they could learn something from those young architects of tomorrow.


Member Lorenzo said so she could not support this as it presently stands and she felt they have been accommodating and reasonable and she would be willing to support all of the other impacts that she has just recited here but she could not and would not cross this line.


Member Lorenzo said they talk about urban settings and she felt Ms. Lemke has proposed several prudent and feasible alternatives that have not been explored and one would be to remove the tennis courts. She said she has lived in an urban area for most of her life and tennis courts in her mind were suburban amenities and not urban amenities and she has not lived in an apartment that had a tennis court, so she felt there were other feasible and prudent alternatives that have not been explored.


Member Lorenzo said since this was somewhat City driven, she has said from the beginning when Main Street was a concept, that the City has a higher responsibility and obligation to comply with the Ordinances and to make sure that projects, whether it was Vic's or Main Street or this project, that they get what they normally expect and would require from a project like this, particularly when they were dealing with Ordinances.


Member Lorenzo said it was an Ordinance and it was a law and they just couldn't toss it out when it seems convenient or when they like a project and they couldn't do that and she couldn't do that. She felt it was a very important concept to keep in their minds that it was a law and an Ordinance that they have on their books and they just couldn't toss it. She then said she would make a motion.


It was,


Moved by Member Lorenzo

Seconded by Member Bonaventura



To postpone Main Street Village, SP95-09A until prudent and feasible alternatives to the woodland areas have been explored properly.





Member Bonaventura asked if he could make an amendment to the motion and Chairman Clark said it has been moved and seconded and now it was open to discussion.


Member Bonaventura then said in the beginning of their packets they have many recommendations and also Planning and Community Development recommendations and the Commission even has the privilege that night of having representatives of Community Development present. He stated as Member Lorenzo has stated, the project has been driven by the City.


Member Bonaventura said regarding a comment on the woodlands that were being intruded on, it says with respect to the woodlands issues that the alternatives which preserve the greatest amount of woodlands area involve compromising urban character of the project as well as adversely effecting the project's amenities intended to be used by the Main Street residents.


Member Bonaventura said he saw that the amenities were centralized in this project and he saw the woodlands intrusion and he wanted to ask whoever wrote this letter, what amenities would be taken out if they do not intrude into those woodlands.


Mr. Wahl responded that his understanding was that other alternatives would essentially eliminate or otherwise remove the common area, the tennis courts, etc., in the central part of the project, so in essence, although they would remove the residential units from the southwestern part of the project, they would end up somehow replacing it or otherwise redesigning the project in a way that the recreational facilities and clubhouse, etc., would be either partially or totally eliminated.


Mr. Wahl said those were the alternatives that he saw and frankly he could report that in addition to one or two primary alternatives that the developer actually put on the table, they must have looked at ten others that never got beyond discussion because they were not considered to be viable.


Mr. Wahl said so his understanding was that they would put buildings in the middle of the project and either maintain the density or similar density and move the recreational facilities.


Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Rogers as far as the development amenities, weren't they required to have a certain amount of recreation and Mr. Rogers said they were and he called that out in his letter.


Member Bonaventura said with the amenities that they were offering, do they vastly exceed what was required and Mr. Rogers referred to the small clubhouse park there and said they exceed that by 50% of the minimum requirement. Member Bonaventura said they were actually offering double what they have to for this then and Mr. Rogers said yes.


Mr. Rogers further stated if they add up some of the perimeter greenspace areas, they have at least double what the Ordinance requires, which was only 200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit.


Member Bonaventura asked for the perimeter greenspace areas, would that include landscaping and would that be included as recreation or were they saying just the woodlands there. Mr. Rogers said all around, the north, the west and the south, there was a lot of perimeter area there that was either regulated woodlands or regulated wetlands and there really wasn't any large playfield space.


Member Bonaventura asked if that was considered recreational activity, just preserving the woodlands and Mr. Rogers no, he wouldn't say that and he would say that the recreation space per the Ordinance was that center square. Member Bonaventura said but that square exceeds what was required by 50% and Mr. Rogers said yes the center square was 63,000 sq. ft. and they need 49,000 sq. ft.


Member Bonaventura said so instead of what Mr. Wahl said which was that they would eliminate it, they could only eliminate 50% of that or a little less than that and they have to have some recreational space and Mr. Rogers said yes and in the center was a good place for it.


Member Bonaventura said his opinion of this project when he saw it was that he was extremely disappointed and he was disappointed in the layout, disappointed in the architecture, and disappointed in the concept. He said he was disappointed because of the fact that they rezoned this to TC-1 and the Ordinance speaks to a lot of items that it doesn't speak to in Multiple Housing, which it was previously zoned.


Member Bonaventura said basically what he sees was an apartment complex with a barrack style. He then said he would briefly read from the Ordinance under Town Center Districts under Architectural Design which states, "Architectural design and facade materials are to be complimentary to existing or proposed buildings within the site and surrounding area."


Member Bonaventura said obviously they know that one of the proposed buildings or proposed areas was Main Street and when he approved of this being rezoned to TC-1, he read this Ordinance and it spoke several times to it complimenting the proposed areas and he expected this project to compliment Main Street more than any other project that they could imagine, because Main Street was suppose to be the best project that they could produce and he really agreed with Member Lorenzo and had seconded her motion that this needs to be postponed.


Member Bonaventura then asked Member Lorenzo if she would accept an amendment to her motion. He said he felt this project was important and it needs more time and he would suggest a Special Meeting be scheduled before it comes back to the Commission and that meeting would include Mr. Chen and his people and would also include the development company. He said he felt they need to discuss this because this Town Center Ordinance gives them more latitude than other Ordinances as far as the architecture and areas complimenting each other and especially the amenities.


Member Bonaventura said he realizes this was preliminary but this was a very special project. He said one of the things he felt they should have was a total listing of all the amenities that this project was going to offer and how they compliment or correspond with the conceptuals of Main Street and he felt this was important.

Member Bonaventura also said he was looking for less intrusion into the woodlands and that was something they could discuss at this special meeting and he would like to come to the conclusion on how it compliments Main Street and he wanted a lot of discussion on that, and he would like to see a greater buffer area and possibly negotiations on preserving woodlands, and he would also like to see a greater buffer area for Meadowbrook Glens.


Member Bonaventura said Mr. Wahl talked about it but this was an urban development and it was a different character and they should be protecting their suburban developments which were not of the same character as this and possibly they should be doing a little more than they were doing there. He said it was just a small corner of the project, but he felt it was important to make that separation from those two vastly different projects and vastly different in density.


Member Bonaventura asked Member Lorenzo if she would accept that amendment to have a special meeting with the parties he named before this comes back to the Commission.


Member Lorenzo said if it was necessary, she would do that.


Chairman Clark asked if they were postponing to a date specific and Member Bonaventura stated before they have a date specific, they should schedule a special meeting with the parties that he mentioned.


Chairman Clark said they could deal with that separately but they should deal with the motion to postpone first.


Member Lorenzo asked how would they know if Member Bonaventura's intent was to have a special meeting prior to this coming back to them. She said this coming back to them would obviously have to be far enough back so that the special meeting would occur.


Chairman Clark said he noted on their Agenda that there was a request for a special meeting either on May 24th or May 31st for a Study Session, which would mean they could use one of those two dates, but that would also mean that any motion to postpone that they were proposing would be to some date after that he would assume.


Member Lorenzo felt it would be either the first or second meeting in June. Mr. Cohen indicated the dates in June would be June 7th and June 21st and Member Lorenzo said she would say June 21st because that would allow any ideas that may come out of the special meeting to be incorporated and then also allow time for reviews from the Consultants and any other necessary reviews.



Chairman Clark then said Member Lorenzo's motion would be to postpone this item until June 21st and in the interim, to have a special meeting where this matter could be discussed in-depth with both the applicant and Mr. Chen and his representatives.


Member Lorenzo indicated that was correct and Member Bonaventura seconded the motion.


Member Bonaventura said he had a question for Mr. Rogers and Chairman Clark said they shouldn't get too far afield in going into in-depth discussions about something they want to postpone.


Member Taub then said he understood the concerns regarding the woodlands and some of the other issues, but as a member of the Town Center Steering Committee for some time, he just wanted to indicate, and Mr. Wahl could conform this, that there has been a history of interest by developers or a developer for an apartment complex or a condominium and then interest diminishing and what he was saying was that he felt it was a linchpin of the Main Street project.


Member Taub said the Commission assumes that they want to go ahead and have this Main Street project and they already have part of it in place with Vic's and he believed it was necessary that they have an indigenous nearby population of individuals who would frequent this Main Street project and it was necessary that they could viably entertain a project which hopefully would be Singh's project.


Member Taub said he was just concerned that they avoid going off on too theoretical of a realm and then end up with no developer. He stated he had the same concerns about woodlands and he felt Member Bonaventura's idea was a good one of trying to sit down and see what they could do, but from a developer's standpoint, he knows speaking from history that there were developers who were interested who then couldn't do it.


Member Taub said a developer was not going to do an apartment project if it doesn't make economic sense and then the Commission was weighing do they want high standards and no apartments and perhaps an overall failure with Main Street or do they want to be somewhat pragmatic and try to balance things out and work it out with the developer and get the apartments in there. He said he didn't feel Main Street was going to work without the adjacent apartments with a certain amount of individuals living nearby who were going to frequent Main Street.


Member Taub said so again he wasn't saying they have to ignore their ordinances and the trees, but he felt they also have to be realistic or they would be left with a half-done project.


Member Weddington said she agreed that they needed some residential next to the rest of the Main Street development, but she agreed wholeheartedly with Member Lorenzo that they could not ignore the Woodlands Ordinance which very specifically states it was the intent to protect the integrity of woodland areas as a whole in recognition that the woodlands service part of an ecosystem and to place priority on the preservation of woodlands, trees, etc.


Member Weddington stated that priority goes over any other development when there were no location alternatives and the standard of review was to determine whether there were any feasible alternatives and they have not seen any.


Member Weddington said in this case, the proposed development would destroy half of the regulated woodlands and it would totally destroy the ecosystem as pointed out by Ms. Lemke, so she felt they need to take a very close look at that and look for alternatives that were feasible. she said she was also disappointed and felt that there needs to be additional work done in landscaping and buffering, especially for the neighboring communities and as Member Bonaventura pointed out, they were trying to fit an urban development within a suburban community.


Member Weddington said Novi was not New York City or Boston or Washington D.C. and it was a suburb and those amenities that were being proposed were suburban in nature and they need to find some sort of fit between them if this project was going to go forward. She indicated she supported the project but agreed that they need to be very careful because it was so important to the City being so centrally located that they need to do it right.


Member Weddington said she supported the motion to postpone until they could work out some of those issues.


Member Hoadley asked was there precedent about having special sessions with developers. He indicated he was new on the Commission but it offends him that the Commission would do this for this developer and not give the same consideration for other developers. He said since he has been on the Commission, they have never done this.


Mr. Watson said he didn't think this was something they were doing for a particular developer as opposed to something they were not doing for another developer. He said as he understood Member Bonaventura, the purpose of the special meeting was so they could explore this particular project in its inter-relation to the areas around it in more detail and in more detail than they would do at a regular meeting and there was precedent for that.


Mr. Watson stated the Commission has had a number of special meetings on projects over the years including joint meetings on projects with the City Council when they felt that it was necessary to do that so there was a whole lot of precedent for it, and it was not a question of doing it for one and not doing for another and they were doing it where they feel they need it to sufficiently study a project.


Member Hoadley said but normally don't they make their observations and ask their questions and then if they want to postpone it, then the developer has an opportunity to listen to all of their questions and problems and bring back another plan rather than just sit down in a special session with them.


Mr. Watson said sometimes the Commission does that and sometimes it doesn't. Member Hoadley asked if it would be a public meeting and Mr. Watson said yes, and he asked would all the people be notified who might have an interest in this, all the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Watson replied if Member Hoadley meant another public hearing, no they have conducted the public hearing that night and there were no members of the public that gave them any input on this and their public hearing was closed so there was no need to do that again.


Mr. Watson explained the purpose of what Member Bonaventura was suggesting was not another public hearing on this but was a session for the Commission to work on this item.


Member Hoadley said he didn't feel they have had an adequate public hearing then. He indicated he supported the postponement but he didn't support a special session.


Mr. Watson explained in terms of what was required by the Zoning and Enabling Act for a public hearing, they have had an adequate public hearing and they did the notice that was required and they opened it up for public hearing and no one gave any input and he didn't know of anything else they could do to conduct a public hearing.


Member Capello asked what would happen if they made a recommendation one way or the other to City Council on the preliminary plat but postpone the decision on the woodlands permit and does that get the Commission anywhere.


Mr. Watson said as a practical matter, he knew how they could do that if they have what apparently was a very sticky woodlands question. He said they could send the rest of it on to the City Council when they haven't gotten a more definitive answer on what they were going to do on the woodlands issue.


Mr. Watson said they were basically giving the Council a recommendation and telling them to go ahead and act on the Preliminary site plan and other elements of this but they still may be denying the woodlands permit.


Mr. Watson said now an alternate that would be more in line with what they were suggesting might be done, which would be to actually act on this and if they were not satisfied with the woodlands permit, to deny the woodlands permit and make whatever recommendations on the other items they deem fit to make accordingly, and then let the City Council act on the matter. He said the City Council always has the authority from their decision on the woodlands permit so they could let them make a decision.


Mr. Watson said it really boils down to what they feel was the most efficient way to do this.


Member Capello said Mr. Watson has answered his second question and it doesn't matter how the Commission rules on the woodlands permit, if they denied it or approved it, because if City Council approves the Preliminary plat, then they could either accept the Commission's approval of woodlands or overrule it on an appeal and was that correct and Mr. Watson said yes. Member Capello said it was ultimately the Council's decision then and Mr. Watson said yes if the applicant chooses to take an appeal from the Commission's woodlands decision and Member Capello said it would go to City Council then and Mr. Watson said correct.


Member Capello asked Mr. Wahl if it was going to be postponed rather than having a special meeting, could they put this on the Town Center Steering Committee Agenda. He said everyone was invited to attend those meetings and at least they would have two City Council representatives at that meeting and they could get a little bit of input from Council and share more of their views. He asked if that would be a problem if too many Planning Commissioners attend that meeting and Mr. Watson said that wasn't the problem and the problem was that the matter was now before the Commission for its action and he didn't feel they could defer it to another body.


Member Capello said he wasn't doing that, but he was just saying if they were going to postpone it before June 21st, rather than having a special meeting to talk about the special issues, they could hash those special issues out in a more informal context with a couple of City Council members there at a Town Center Steering Committee meeting and they would not be giving this Steering Committee their authority to make any decisions and it would be more of an informational gathering type of meeting.


Mr. Watson said if the point was to have that hashed out by someone else who was then going to give them a recommendation, he felt maybe that makes sense, but he said the point of this was to have the Commission hash it out because ultimately the Commission was going to be taking action and making a recommendation on the issue.


Mr. Watson continued that he didn't know how they could hash it out and then come back. He said possibly they could have three Commissioners or four Commissioners at that meeting and then come back to the Commission, but he felt they may be spinning their wheels and that was probably more a practical opinion than a legal opinion.


Mr. Wahl then answered the question directed to him by Member Capello. He said one, they were anticipating scheduling another meeting of the Town Center Committee within the next couple of weeks because of some other pending items. He said two, there was the resolution that the City Council enacted to create that committee, which was to the expressed purpose of providing this type of input and function to the planning process.


Mr. Wahl said so for example, when they come back to the next meeting any alternatives or other issues might be explored to the point that at least they would have some ideas or perhaps the developer would be aware further beyond this conversation of some other ideas that might be useful.


Mr. Wahl third, this was a very important project and again from the community development perspective, he felt it was important to act on the project within a reasonable period of time to identify the issues and to come up with solutions and that was what the purpose of that committee was for and it wasn't just as a Sub-Planning Commission.


Mr. Wahl said it was as a body that has had experience in dealing with issues in the Town Center and the Main Street and should be able to come up with perhaps an impartial or more impartial approach than just turning it back to Singh development and telling them to come back in June with another alternative.


Mr. Wahl said he didn't know if there was any By-Law that says that the Committee couldn't just take it up on its own initiative in order to provide input to the Commission and if they wouldn't be offended by that. He said if he were to make an Agenda for a Committee Meeting that he was planning on doing for a week from now or two weeks from now, he would hope to add this to the items for consideration if they would allow that or otherwise endorse it.


Member Capello said as far as the petitioner was concerned, he knows that this wasn't the first plan that he has proposed and that the petitioner has worked with the Consultants and the Planning Department. He asked the petitioner what were his druthers in regard to a postponement and would he rather have more input from the Commission and try to come back and work with something or try to possibly work with the tennis courts.


Mr. Kahm said he would respectfully request that the Commission would take either an affirmative or a negative action on this that night.


Member Hoadley said he was one Commissioner who absolutely does not want to see this go to the Sub-Committee and he wanted this to be discussed publicly with all of them having input. He indicated not only did he have the same concerns that Member Bonaventura, Weddington and Lorenzo have, but he has about a dozen more and since they were going to postpone it, he wouldn't bring them up that night, but he has major concerns over and above those. He said one of them was the storm water scenario that they presented that night and he didn't think it was the best and he felt there were probably some alternatives that should be explored.


Member Hoadley said he would support postponement and he would support a special meeting as long as it was public and all nine of them participate, otherwise he would not.


Member Bonaventura indicated that was what he intended when he made the amendment.


Member Hoadley asked if the motion could be restated and Chairman Clark restated the motion:



To postpone consideration of Main Street Village, SP95-09A until June 21, 1995 and that in the interim, there would be a special meeting of the Commission at which time the applicant, the developer and anyone else connected with the project who may wish to have some input, would be present.


Member Hoadley asked if that would include all of their Consultants being present for that special meeting and Chairman Clark said they haven't decided on the special meeting yet and they would have to decide on that after this motion.


Member Hoadley said but the special meeting would include the Consultants being here and Chairman Clark said yes and they would have to pick a date agreeable to everyone.


Member Capello said if they were going to have a special meeting and then the June 21st meeting, why were they putting it on the Agenda twice.


Chairman Clark indicated they were not putting it on the Agenda twice. He said for the special meeting they have to set a special date for it and they want to pick a date where they would have as many people present as possible.


Member Capello said they would not make any decision at the special meeting and Chairman Clark said it would be just for information and any decision would be made on June 21st.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Capello (No), Clark (No), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (No), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (No), Taub (No), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes)


(5) Nays (4) Yeas








Chairman Clark said they have several items they could vote on and send either a positive or a negative recommendation to City Council. He said the first deals with the Preliminary site plan phasing plan, which would be a recommendation to City Council and he asked if there would be a motion in that regard.


Member Taub said in light of the comment made by the developer, he wasn't exactly sure what the developer means by seeking a yes or no vote that night, but perhaps by tabling this, they could determine whether or not the developer intends to make an alternative proposal before they make a final vote. He said then they could deal with some of the issues of whether they wish to risk losing this developer for the project or whether it was worth taking on that risk to be consistent with the Ordinance and protect the woodlands portion.


Member Taub then said he would make a motion.


It was,


Moved by Member Taub

Seconded by Member Lorenzo



To postpone Main Street Village, SP95-09A to their next meeting of June 7, 1995 to determine whether or not the developer intends to propose any changes in light of the comments made.








ROLL CALL VOTE: Clark (No), Hoadley (No), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (No), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (No), Capello (No)


(5) Nays (4) Yeas





Chairman Clark said they still have several items to deal with and they still have before them several items to deal with and the first of which was to send a recommendation to City Council on the Preliminary site plan/phasing plan for Main Street Village, SP95-09A. He asked for a motion from the Commission.


Member Capello said he agreed with the comments of Mr. Wahl and Mr. Rogers and he felt that Ms. Lemke and Mr. Pargoff have also done a very good job in what they were required to do and gave them a good report on the woodlands situation, however, he did believe that was an urban setting and the configuration of the streets and the density were what they need for the Downtown District and based on that and subject to the recommendations of the Consultants, he would make a motion.



It was,



Moved by Member Capello



To send a positive recommendation on the Preliminary site plan/phasing plan to City Council for Main Street Village, SP95-09A per the Consultants' letters.





Member Hoadley asked before another motion was made, he felt they should all be able to have some input and be able to ask their questions and have this continue as a public hearing because he hasn't asked the questions he wanted to have answered before the motion was made one way or the other. He said there has been only three people who have asked any questions and he for one has a lot of questions over and above what their concerns were.


Chairman Clark said he understood that, but if someone makes a motion they were required to see if there was a second, after which point the matter was open to discussion by any member of the Commission.


Member Hoadley asked if they could be recognized to ask some questions now since there was no motion on the table and Chairman Clark replied yes.





Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if they took out nine buildings that were intruding into the woodlands/wetlands area, was this still an economically feasible project in his opinion.


Mr. Rogers said he couldn't tell him as he didn't do the financial analysis and he had no way of knowing.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Bluhm on the water retention, why couldn't that water be brought through that road connecting to Main Street and then go forth the same way that the Main Street storm sewer system would be, rather than to intrude into the wetlands at all.


Mr. Bluhm asked if he meant to have the storm water directed by storm sewers in the streets and directed to the south. Member Hoadley said the storm water flowing down as they were now proposing through the wetlands was intruding into them, and since there was going to be a second access road going up to Main Street, why couldn't that water be diverted along that road into Main Street.


Mr. Bluhm indicated that was possible and that was an alternative that could be explored and it was a very expensive alternative. He said the other drawback to that was if they divert a good portion of this water away from that wetland, they would be reducing the viability of the wetland to a certain degree by removing water and directing it in another location also.


Member Hoadley asked why was that so and Mr. Bluhm said if they were removing all of the storm water that currently goes through that wetland in an undeveloped condition to storm sewers that would accept the water in the agriculture rates and the developed rates, they were going to be removing water from that wetland area.


Member Hoadley said but he has heard the testimony of the other experts saying that this water going through those wetlands was probably going to increase the damage to the woodlands and to the wetlands, and was there a compromise where a part of it could be diverted so the wetlands would not be intruded upon.


Mr. Bluhm said that was a possibility also and they could have storm sewers convey a portion of the developed flows around that wetland and have the wetland convey a portion of the flows to mimic what was going through there now and that was also a possibility.


Member Hoadley said so that would be one of his main concerns for an alternate plan and that the developers consider other ways of taking care of the storm sewer without any more intrusion on their woodlands and wetlands.


Member Hoadley said his next question to the developer was the same question he asked Mr. Rogers whether he has done an economical feasible plan in reducing the number of buildings and would it still be an economically viable development if there was a little less density.


Member Hoadley said what he was thinking about was less buildings and maybe more two bedrooms or three bedrooms but less buildings in other words, a plan B where they wouldn't have the intrusion into the woodlands that they have now since he could go four stories.


Mr. Kahm said over the past year, he has performed many site plan analyses on this property to come to the number they have come to today which was 248 and he started with 280 which was within the Zoning Ordinance density allowances on this property, but they continually have made compromises in the spirit of trying to create a vaiable urban character to this design and it was their intent all along.


Mr. Kahm said those density allowances were made by him in order for him to create a plan that they presented both last fall when they asked for rezoning as well as this evening for site plan approval, so they have made several compromises already internally in order to come to a plan that he felt was viable and meets both the spirit and the letter of the TC-1 Zoning Ordinance.


Member Hoadley said but he could squeeze up their center area a little bit and gain maybe another building that way and they could go to two and three bedroom apartments and go a little higher and eliminate some of the two-stories and maintain close to his density.


Mr. Kahm said there were a lot of things they could do within the TC-1 Ordinance and they could even do a mid-rise building, but their charge was to try and create a residential neighborhood feeling for this project. He said in the mix that he has presented both in two, three and four story buildings, he has attempted to do that and the mix they have there, was a mix between low key two story stacked flats with garages to three story townhomes and up to four story stacked townhomes so they have a variety of a mix.


Mr. Kahm felt that the variety they were trying to create here was what provides the character for this project and they don't want it to look like it was one building after another all the same and they wanted to create some diversity and some character and that was what they tried to do here.


Member Hoadley asked what would it do to their plan if they just knocked those buildings out that were intruding altogether and maintain the rest of his plan and he was talking about 7-8 units. Mr. Kahm indicated that each building has 8 units in it so 9 buildings would be 72 units.


Member Hoadley said they have 36 buildings altogether and Mr. Kahm said yes and Member Hoadley said he was talking about 9 units and it would be the ones that were intruding into the woodlands and knock those out.


Mr. Kahm said respectfully, he didn't believe that was something they would want to do if they were still trying to create some sort of an urban character to this project, which was what they started working on the site in the beginning for. He said it was to create an urban environment, something unique to Novi that Novi does not have now.


Mr. Kahm said even though it may appear they were insensitive to the woodlands, they were being most sensitive to the woodlands and he felt if they look at the site plan that he presented that evening, Mr. Seiber showed the dark green area which was the preserved natural features on the site and it was a substantial amount of preserved features on this site that they were maintaining, along with creating an urban environment, an urban character, a neighborhood character.


Mr. Kahm said he was somewhat disappointed that all of the work they have gone through over the last year hasn't apparently been satisfactory, but they feel they have married the natural features of this plan along with the urban character they were trying to create within the TC zoning district quite well.


Mr. Kahm said they feel this was a good plan and a sound plan and it matches what the City was looking for by creating an urban area of a Main Street nature, as well as being sensitive to the wetlands and woodlands.


Mr. Kahm said in some cases, they maybe are not as sensitive as some may think they should be, but again he wanted to mention that the trees that they were removing were about a third of that overall upland woodland area and they were replacing them with a substantial amount, far in excess of what the Ordinance requires in trees in an urban area along with the street trees and landscaping within the common areas.


Mr. Kahm said so yes they were removing some woodlands, but as a trade-off in creating an urban environment and an urban neighborhood with the character of an old-style neighborhood. He said he felt it was worth it and the pluses far outweigh the minuses.


Mr. Kahm said he wanted to also comment on the appearance that there was going to be some negative on the wetland area where the storm water was flowing. He said the storm water flows through there now and the storm water from the Main Street project flows through there now and the Vic's Market storm water was detained in a detention basin approximately there and that water runs right through there and into the existing storm sewer that outlets into the C & O basin.


Mr. Kahm explained what they were going to do was to have a lesser impact than that particular flow has now by having it run undetained and if Ms. Tepatti wouldn't mind he would read from her letter at the bottom of page three where she indicated that there was little vegetation within the wetland itself which would be negatively impacted by the storm water flowing through it and he agreed with Ms. Tepatti and felt it was true.


Mr. Kahm said a large amount of that wetland along the western boundary line does not have trees in the middle of it where the water stands and it was on the perimeter and those trees were not going to be effected by storm water running through there so he wanted to make sure that was clear.


Member Hoadley said he understood that but he has never seen a wetland yet that was not impacted when running storm water over it, particularly if it was contaminated and it would be and even an oil and gas separator would help but they don't eliminate contamination.


Member Hoadley said if he was hearing Mr. Kahm right, was he saying it was this plan or the highway or was there room for compromise and was Mr. Kahm willing to come back with an alternative plan that would be less intrusive to the woodlands, less intrusive to the wetlands.


Mr. Kahm said he means his response in a most respectful way, but when he received the rezoning on this property from City Council, he received it with conditions on what he would come back with, and in fact, he has diminished that to some extent from what was presented to them and what was captured and held in the storage room adjacent to the Council Chambers as exhibits to that rezoning. He indicated he has followed that charge since that rezoning was approved in October and the site plan that he presents to the Commission that evening meets the charge he received from City Council when they received the rezoning approval.


Member Hoadley indicated he was not a member of the Commission at that time so he respectfully felt he had the right to ask his questions. He also stated that Mr. Kahm has heard the other concerns about the woodlands and it was a major problem.


Member Hoadley asked Mr. Arroyo how many trips per day was going to be generated from Main Street when it was fully developed, both exiting onto Novi Road and exiting onto Grand River Avenue.


Mr. Arroyo asked if he was talking about the Main Street project and Member Hoadley said yes. Mr. Arroyo said he couldn't recall the peak hour numbers but he recalled on a 24 hour basis, it was in the neighborhood of 20,000-21,000 trips a day. He indicated he did not recall the PM peak or the AM peak hour numbers and he didn't have that information with him.


Member Hoadley said to Mr. Arroyo that he didn't feel this project was going to be impacted for people trying to go to work and come home at night with the tremendous volume of traffic running up and down Main Street.


Mr. Arroyo said as he mentioned, in the morning he didn't think there would be much of an impact at all because a majority of the uses in Main Street would not be open when most of the people who live in this complex were going to work.


Member Hoadley said to remember there was 175,000 sq. ft. of office that would be impacting at exactly the same time and Mr. Arroyo indicated except that most of that traffic was going to be coming in from Novi and Grand River and not going out where this traffic would be going out, so they would be using different lanes and this would be mainly outbound traffic where most of that traffic would be inbound so he didn't see that as a problem.


Mr. Arroyo said in the PM peak hour when that project was complete, yes it would likely be significantly more congested on Main Street, however, this project's main entrance was off of Grand River away from the Main Street project and traffic would then abe able to enter and exit from that driveway onto Grand River. He said if the only access to this project was from Main Street, he would have a concern about it, but there was another point of access that people could use to get there who live there, in the afternoon in particular, and because it has that, he felt it would be acceptable.


Member Hoadley said Ms. Lemke testified earlier that she felt there was some alternate plans that should or could be developed by this developer that would allow him to proceed and not impact their woodlands so much and would she mind explaining in detail what those might be.


Ms. Lemke pointed out the area of the Beech Maple woodlands that she was concerned about and said there was a distinct line in the field that runs right where the road comes through. She said of course the first alternative that they could suggest was to take those two units out, units 28 and 29.


Ms. Lemke said the second area since they would still be impacting somewhat with this road, would be to cul-de-sac an area there and basically take this road and angle it and put another unit in there so those were the two alternatives.


Member Hoadley asked if the petitioner was aware of those alternatives and Ms. Lemke replied yes.


Ms. Lemke said of course reducing units was another alternative and then removing the tennis courts and adding a unit. She said there were a variety of alternatives that could be considered. She said when she was talking about the 8 units, that was 8 units that touch some of those areas that she has a lesser concern with and her major concern was the Beech Maple woodlands and it was very definitive in the field when they go out there and it was mature woodlands and nothing on the other side.


Member Hoadley asked if they were to come in with an alternate plan and address those three main buildings and using some of the other space to add some buildings, would that then allow her to recommend a woodlands permit. She said that would allow her to recommend the woodlands permit based on a satisfactory solution of the water going through here and where they would have to dig to enlarge the pipe through there.


Member Hoadley said there has been some testimony by the petitioner and by Ms. Tepatti that that water running through there was not going to impact the woodlands and he asked what was her opinion on that because he had suggested that maybe they could run that water on up to Main Street on that road that would be the second access.


Ms. Lemke said she still had some concerns on that and when she reviewed the plans, they were exploring whether it should be detained/conveyed and when she was out in the field with Mr. Bluhm, certainly conveyance would have less impact on the adjacent woodlands which was all along that stream bed as it comes up, then detainment, so she felt it needs to be looked at closer and the only way to do that was to look at the final engineering drawings but she felt they should explore all options.


Member Hoadley asked her opinion of running it up that access road over to Main Street and then down Main Street and Ms. Lemke felt it could be looked at as a possibility and maybe not all of it because again they wouldn't want to take all of the water out of there and those were wooded wetlands and the trees were used to having a great deal of water in some areas too. He then indicated that concluded his concerns.


Member Mutch said to Mr. Kahm after hearing what has been stated, did he still want a decision or recommendation that night and Mr. Kahm indicated he did.


Member Mutch said it was apparent when Member Capello made the motion for a positive recommendation that he couldn't even get a second for that motion. She said she would be willing to make a motion so that Mr. Kahm gets a decision that night but she didn't think he would like the recommendation, but before she did that, she would make a very brief comment.


Member Mutch said they have two problems when they deal with a project like this that there was no easy way around and it has nothing to do with the specifics of his particular project either and that was some things come to them after a long, long period of development. She said they probably have no one sitting on the Commission, with the exception of the Chairman, who has been on the Commission for as long as the Main Street concept has been around.


Member Mutch said so all the discussions that go on, all of the compromises and all of the ideas that get discussed and then later built upon, were not really as familiar to all of the Commission as they might be if they did some type of periodic update or periodic orientation. She said people on the Town Center Sub-Committee were probably the most knowledgeable members of this Commission in regard to the evolution of the Main Street concept and the way that all of the parties were asked to participate in the development of ideas, let alone actual projects in this area.


Member Mutch said that was one problem, which was having any continuity as those things develop and they have given an excellent example which has been supported by Member Taub for one in terms of the compromises that they have gone through and the ways in which both the Planning Department people, the Consultants, and Mr. Kahm and his people have all tried to work together to develop something that was mutually beneficial.


Member Mutch felt so the continuity was lost when they have a change here and they don't have a continuing re-orientation and that was probably something that was not usually necessary if they have a developer come in and propose something and he doesn't build it, such as Silver Beech for example, and they could drag out all the material again, and they could get summaries. She said it was a simple one idea type project.


Member Mutch said this was a concept that takes in a whole and not just a single lot or single property and it was a whole central City idea here that even involves how they look at the City of Novi and were they looking at it as a suburban community or were they looking at it as she has heard Mr. Rogers say as a satellite city.


Member Mutch indicated she was only identifying the problems because she was hopeful that they would all begin to think about how they could deal with those two problems because until this whole area was developed, they were going to continue to have the problems.


Member Mutch said the second problem was that as Mr. Kahm pointed out in his last set of remarks, City Council in giving him that rezoning set forth certain conditions and there were certain things that the City, as represented by the City Council, has said they would like to see in this area and Mr. Kahm and other developers who have come into this area and Mr. Chen in particular, have tried to work within what the City wants to see developed when the City wasn't the property owner or the financier or the ultimate user of the property.


Member Mutch felt when accommodations were made and they run into the problem of the City requiring something but at the same time was requiring something else and those two things were in conflict, the City has to take some responsibility for setting priorities on where it wants to give and where it was willing to compromise.


Member Mutch said the problem for the Commission in this particular situation was that the City Council has made those requirements or put those conditions on the Commission with the rezoning and they have the Ordinances to work with as Member Lorenzo pointed out with the woodlands in particular and the Commission doesn't have the authority to ignore those Ordinances.


Member Mutch said the only problem she really had with this was what Member Lorenzo pointed out in terms of the woodlands intrusion and the fact that they were dealing with the situation where someone has to make a decision here in what was going to give, otherwise she didn't have a real problem with it.


Member Mutch said so she would make a motion for a negative recommendation to City Council because she felt Mr. Kahm could probably make the same case he has made to the Commission to the City Council and perhaps find a more receptive ear because they were the ones who have created this particular situation.


It was then,


Moved by Member Mutch

Seconded by Member Hodges



To send to City Council a negative recommendation for Preliminary Site Plan/Phasing Plan for Main Street Village, SP95-09A.





Chairman Clark first asked everyone to keep the discussion brief as it was now 11:05 P.M.


Member Taub said he would like to vote for a negative recommendation but he couldn't because he was too concerned that Singh may walk away and the City would not have a developer. He said in a sense, those things were like a poker game but his instincts were telling him that they have to put the third tier on this. He said they have Vic's there, they have Main Street and they need the apartment complex, and he felt the Commissioners have to realize that if Singh walks, it might take 3-5 years to get someone in there and they may do a worse project.


Member Taub said Mr. Wahl commented to him, that there were those people in earlier on who were proposing a much worse project, a project that was not as attractive and they ended up that they couldn't do it. He said this was the kind of thing where they could pass on this and they may end up with nothing or they may end up having to bite their lip and take something that was not as good. He said he was going to have to go with the developer on this.


Member Taub said if they didn't have the Main Street configuration and the overall project, he would probably vote against this project, but again what also tips the scales was that this was suppose to be an urban project and perhaps they have to sacrifice things that would be of greater concern elsewhere in Novi to get this much needed apartment complex. He said without this complex, he felt they would see the whole Main Street fail and if they phase in the Main Street block and they don't have this lined up, the whole thing could be a disaster.


Member Taub said they have to be realistic and nothing was perfect. He said some of the concerns he has was more for subdivisions as far as woodlands and wetlands, and he didn't know if they necessarily pertain here and he wanted Singh to stay so he would have to vote against the negative recommendation.


Member Bonaventura said his whole intent on asking for a postponement was because he originally and still did support Main Street because he believed it to be a small project, a unique project for the City. He said regarding this residential development, people keep saying it was an urban design, etc., and it was just an apartment complex. He said this was nothing more than an apartment complex and the main thing he was concerned about was the compatibility between this and a project he considered worthwhile, which was the Main Street.


Member Bonaventura said one of the things that was stated in their Ordinance was that the Planning Commission may request the report and recommendation of a professional designer or architect consultant as part of its review process for the proposed waiver, which would be the Section 4 waiver that they were requesting.


Member Bonaventura said this Section 4 waiver needs to be discussed and he was big on aesthetics, especially with a project like this that has practically got the City's name stamped on it, and he felt it was really important that they spend the time on it and that was why he asked for it to be postponed and why he asked for a special meeting, so they could actually plan what was happening that night. He said Mr. Kahm admits it and wants to be sent to Council and he doesn't want to deal with the Commission but let him deal with Council and deal with the politicians.


Member Bonaventura said the way everything was set up here, the Commissioners were volunteers and citizens and they were suppose to be the area between Community Development which was staff and paid and the politicians. He indicated he took a lot of pride in the amount of work he put into this and the study he put into this and he couldn't be compared to some of the architects obviously, but what he was trying to do was to do some planning here and have some discussion where he felt other committees have possibly failed.


Member Hoadley said he would vote no for most of the same reasons that Member Bonaventura has stated. He said he would much rather see it postponed because he was not against it and he was for it, but he just wasn't for it in the form that it has been delivered to the Commission that night.


Member Hoadley said he would like to give the petitioner 30 days or so to come back with an alternative plan that might address some of the concerns heard from the Commission, rather than to either send a positive or negative recommendation and so he would vote no hoping to defeat the motion and have a postponement.


Member Weddington said she would be supporting the motion for the specific reason that this site plan cannot go forward because it was in clear violation of the woodlands ordinance and it has not been demonstrated to the Commission that alternatives have been considered.


Member Weddington said it just appears from her amateur point of view that there could be some accommodation made to preserve more than half of the woodlands, so she felt it was important to get on the record that the way she read all of the Ordinances, the woodlands and the wetlands ordinances, they do take priority and those natural resources must be preserved unless there were no other alternatives and that has not been demonstrated here.


Member Lorenzo said she appreciated Member Bonaventura's comments, particularly that they were a non-partisan body. She said also she couldn't see how the reduction of units 28 and 29 makes or breaks a so-called urban setting and two buildings does not create or break an urban setting.


Member Capello said if the comment made about another committee failing was directed to the Town Center Steering Committee, he must take exception to that and that person doesn't know where this project began from and doesn't know how far it came, so for that person to say they have not done their job and this was not a good product, was absolutely wrong.


Member Capello indicated the Town Center Steering Committee worked a long time on getting this project where it was today and it was much better off than where it began and that Committee put a lot of work into it. He said that all citizens could attend and offer their input and get educated with what was going on with this project.


Member Capello said he would apologize for being short that night but he, as three other Commissioners, has sat on that committee and was familiar with what has transpired since it came in front of them and this product, even though it was not exactly as he would want it, was the best they were going to get.


Member Capello said in most situations, the Commission makes the final decision on Preliminary site plans, therefore, they could sit here with the developer and say they really want their project to stay and would they work with the Commission further, but in this situation, the Commission doesn't make the final decision and the City Council could do as they choose.


Member Capello felt the Commission has performed their function and have acquired the information and they have held the public hearing and now it was up to City Council to take the information and digest it and approve the plan or reject the plan.


Member Capello agreed that the woodlands permit was not something they normally wouldn't approve. He said again, if the Council wanted to accept the Preliminary site plan, they would overrule the Commission's decision on the woodlands permit if it was denied that evening.


Member Capello said lastly, he agreed with Member Bonaventura insofar as the facade waiver and he would have preferred to see just that issue postponed and he would like that to come back to the Commission and work with that a little bit, but not the other three items, and he felt that was where they have some ability to work with the developer and get a project that looks nicer and was more compatible with the rest of Main Street.


Before a vote was taken, it was asked to restate the motion:



To send a negative recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Site Plan/Phasing Plan for Main Street Village, SP95-09A.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Hoadley (No), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (No), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (No), Clark (Yes)


(6) Yeas (3) Nays





Chairman Clark said they would also need a motion with reference to the other items, the action on the woodlands permit, the wetlands permit and the Section 4 waiver. Mr. Watson indicated the wetland permit would be a recommendation to City Council.


It was then,


Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Weddington



To send a negative recommendation for the Wetlands Permit to City Council for Main Street Village, SP95-09A.





Member Mutch asked if this was where they had a recommendation for approval from Ms. Tepatti and it was stated yes.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (No), Taub (No), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (No), Clark (No), Hoadley (Yes)


(5) Yeas (4) Nays





It was then,


Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Weddington



To deny Woodlands Permit approval for Main Street Village, SP95-09A.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (No), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (No), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes)


(7) Yeas (2) Nays





It was then,


Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Taub



To deny the Section 4 Waiver for Main Street Village, SP95-09A.





Member Capello said he would like to offer another motion on the Section 4 Waiver.


It was,


Moved by Member Capello

Seconded by Member Taub



To postpone the decision on the Section 4 Waiver until the June 21, 1995 Planning Commission meeting.





Member Mutch asked if this would go to City Council before it was irrelevant and Mr. Watson said it was not irrelevant but they don't know whether it will or whether it wouldn't.


Member Bonaventura asked if he could make an amendment to Member Capello's motion regarding the Section 4 waiver and Member Capello was postponing it and did he have a date certain and Member Capello said yes it was June 21st.


Member Bonaventura then said in the Ordinance it states that the Planning Commission may request a report and recommendation of a Professional Design Architectural Consultant as part of its review of the proposed waiver and he asked did they have such a report and Mr. Rogers indicated yes from Mr. Necci who was a registered architect Consultant.


Member Capello then asked if Member Bonaventura was making an amendment and Member Bonaventura said no he just was clarifying the date for the postponement. A vote was then taken.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (Yes), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes)





Member Capello asked Mr. Bluhm to make sure that Mr. Necci was present for the June 21st meeting.



2. Hampton Woods Office and Residential Care Facility, SP95-12B - Property Located West of Novi Road, between Nine Mile Road and Ten Mile Road for Possible Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit and Wetlands Permit Approval.


Chairman Clark asked Member Bonaventura if he had asked earlier about the adequacy of the notice and Member Bonaventura yes regarding the letter received from David A. Breuch.


Mr. Watson then explained that particular issue was whether there was sufficient notice to the public of the project. He stated what the Statute requires was that a notice be sent by mail or personal delivery to all persons to whom real property was assessed to within 300 feet of the property in question and to occupants of structures within that distance.


Mr. Watson said Mr. Cohen has indicated that that notice was sent out and it was mailed 7 days before today's date, the date of the public hearing. He said the Statute requires that be sent not less than 5 days and not more than 15 days before the date of the hearing so it was correctly sent out.


Mr. Watson said what the notice was suppose to provide was the nature of the request, which this notice indicates it was for an office and residential care facility. He said the notice was suppose to indicate the property that was the subject of the request and it does that and a locational map was provided. He said the notice was also suppose to indicate when it was being considered and the notice does that by giving the date and time of the public hearing, and then also the notice is to indicate where and when written comments could be submitted and the notice provides for that.


Mr. Watson said in addition, the Statute on special land use doesn't mandate public hearings and what it mandates was that a notice be sent out and if any interested party wants to request a public hearing, then the notice indicates that they have that ability to make that request since they automatically set all of theirs for public hearings without a request being made so that requirement was superfluous. He said in terms of what the Statute requires for a notice, that has all been complied with.


Mr. Watson also added that the dates were keyed to the sending of a notice and not to the receipt of the notice and he felt the reason the Statute was done that way was because they have no control as to when it was going to be received, particularly when they were sending out a large volume of them. He said to account for that or to deal with that concern, the Statute also requires the newspaper publication within that same time-frame and that was done as well.


Member Bonaventura said there were some reasonable concerns as far as timing and ability to research and receive information third party, which he was assuming means the City and he would save this and find out who to bring that matter up to so it could be discussed further.


Mr. Watson said in terms of other things that they might want to do would be that the notice requirements be beyond what the Statute was.


Member Hodges had a question concerning the same correspondence and Mr. Breuch indicates in his letter in the third paragraph on the first page that, "relevant materials including the Commissioners' packet were not provided." She asked if any Commissioner did not receive their packet.


Mr. Watson said what Mr. Breuch means by that was that what was mailed out to the people within 300 feet was not the packets. Member Hodges said he wants a packet and Mr. Watson said that was what he read into that comment, but that was not required.


Member Taub indicated there was a packet available in the Library for the public and also a packet available in the Department.


Chairman Clark said now they would proceed with the Hampton Woods project.


Mr. Chawney was present. He indicated this property was 16.59 acres located on the west side of Novi Road just south of Ten Mile Road and about two-thirds of the property was with woodlands and wetlands. He said he proposes to develop two different uses which were both permitted under the current zoning, and one was the office building which was a rather intense use which they have kept in front of the property so that it also provides a buffer for the less intense use, which was for assisted living for the seniors.


Mr. Chawney said this office building was about 12,000 sq. ft. plus or minus and each of those buildings has 20 beds in each one so the total population would be 80 beds in four buildings and they want to maintain the residential character of those four buildings and they have totally avoided interfering with 98% of the wetlands and the woodlands. He indicated the only place where they do get into the wetlands was on the north side of the existing road, which was connected by a small culvert going under the existing road into the main wetland so when they finish their development, that wetland would be transferred and he pointed that out and said it would become one wetland.


Mr. Chawney said most of the concerns raised by the review letters were very minor and could be easily corrected such as the parking space and the addition of one or two parking spaces required in Mr. Rogers' letter. He said also in Mr. Pargoff's letter, he requires the counting of the trees that they were taking out. He said he has 34 existing trees and he believed they were taking out 29 but they were adding 50 more trees.


Mr. Chawney then asked Mr. Seiber to make some comments on the engineering of the property but first he would also add that all of his buildings were one story. He then referred to a rendering which was the presentation of the residential buildings and another rendering which was the presentation of the office building. He then said he would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Seiber said Mr. Bluhm would cover most of the comments regarding the site utilities but one item he wanted to bring to their attention was that the vast majority of this site was a wooded wetland and it was also designated on the City's Storm Water Management Master Plan as being a regional storm water detention basin.


Mr. Seiber said they had originally proposed that their storm water be discharged through a series of piping into a storm water sediment basin and then discharged to this wetland area. He said they computed that the result and the effect on the wetlands during a ten year storm event to be only about 3/4 of an inch.


Mr. Seiber said however due to the fact that there were no downstream easements secured for this regional storm water basin, it was necessary for them to provide temporary on-site detention, which they have provided. He said so they have in accordance with the City's standards, provided for on-site storm water detention which would then be released into this wetland area, which hopefully would become one of the City's regional storm water detention basins.


Mr. Rogers indicated this was the third submittal of this project and some, not all, of the comments he had made earlier have been made. He said it was zoned OS-1 and it permits a residential care facility and the two office buildings proposed subject to certain setbacks and building height, etc.


Mr. Rogers said the property for a residential care facility per Ordinance should have 20 acres but this site has 16.56 acres of which he has estimated the two office buildings and related parking occupy more less 3 acres. He said so the net for the RCF facility was 13.56 acres plus or minus. He said relief from this deficiency was of course through the ZBA.


Mr. Rogers said the buildings do comply with the OS-1 District setbacks. He said concerning the off-street parking, looking at the two office buildings and the computed usable floor area, 65 spaces plus 3 handicapped spaces were needed for a total of 68. He found only 64 and have indicated where that could be corrected.


Mr. Rogers said concerning the RCF building usage on page two, based upon 80 beds and 11 employees, he found 43 spaces were needed and were provided on the plan including the three required for handicapped.


Mr. Rogers said they have now shown the off-street loading and unloading for the office uses and they have shown a sidewalk inside the 60 foot set-off from center-line of Novi Road and internal sidewalks on most of the internal driveways and they even have a name for one of those roadways and if they were going to name the internal driveway with a name, that would have to go to the Street Naming Committee.


Mr. Rogers felt the basic concept of the plan has some rationality. He said on Novi Road they have small independent office buildings to the north and to the south, 3-4 of them and this building would be set on line. He said it tells him that their Master Plan recommending this area for office development has some meaning and that there was a market for where they could drive up to the front door and have their small office.


Mr. Rogers said seclusion was given to the RCF buildings off the main street back into the wooded wetlands area or near the wooded wetlands area. He said the location of the regulated wetlands and woodlands restrict use of the site and there was no opportunity to expand the site.


Mr. Rogers said the phasing plan has been amended to show an acceptable driveway design and so he recommended Preliminary site plan approval subject to the addition of three parking spaces, and review by the ZBA of the deficient parcel size.


Mr. Bluhm indicated he has also reviewed the Preliminary site plan and the applicant was proposing water and sewer extensions to service the site. He said there was as part of the Chapman Creek, a 100 year flood plain/flood way associated with this development and a good portion of the developed property would be in the flood plain and they would be required to elevate the buildings to keep them out of the flood plain and this was uncommon for this type of development and it could be done through issuance of a flood way or flood plain fill permit through the Building Department which would be closely monitored at Final.


Mr. Bluhm said as Mr. Seiber mentioned, the applicant was proposing on-site detention and they would like to stress that those were temporary basins because the Storm Water Master Plan has designated the Chapman Basin to be constructed in the future which would partially be constructed on this site. He said they would like to make sure the applicant has the provisions in there to remove those basins and that the water was directed to the regional basin when it comes on line.


Mr. Bluhm said regarding the flood plain, the area was fairly dry out there for the most part and it was a strange situation in that area in that the improvements to the regional basin, when that goes on line, would actually help to lower the elevation of the water that was seen out there right now. He said so from that aspect, they really don't have too much of a concern with allowing the developer to go into the areas undeveloped or unrestricted now that the easements were not in place, so he was recommending temporary detention from that respect.


Mr. Bluhm said beyond that, the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility.


Mr. Arroyo said he has also reviewed the Preliminary site plan regarding access. He said one point of access was proposed from Novi Road and he has some recommendations regarding that, including some changes to the width to meet City and County standards and also to shift the driveway to the north somewhat so they could improve the separation from the driveway and the office building located to the south.


Mr. Arroyo said there was a time in the past where there was some discussion of possibly having shared access between this property and the property to the south, but the owners of the property at the time were not able to reach an agreement so they were in a situation where they couldn't make any changes now because that time has come and gone and there were efforts certainly made in the past, but he would like to see some additional separation and he felt that was something that could be handled as a minor adjustment as part of Final site plan.


Mr. Arroyo said in terms of access improvements, there was a proposed a deceleration taper and acceleration lane and they also find that the warrants were met for a passing lane, which given the location of this project, would be the extension of a center turn lane that currently exists on Novi Road and that could be addressed at the time of Final site plan.


Mr. Arroyo said he has also recommended that regarding the cul-de-sac bulb that was provided, even though this wasn't a public road, they should attempt to meet the City standards as close as possible to make access by emergency vehicles as reasonable as possible which would involve a minor change to the size of the island within the cul-de-sac bulb and that should not be a significant problem to resolve as part of Final.


Mr. Arroyo said so he was recommending approval subject to their comments being resolved on the Final site plan.


Chairman Clark said the file should reflect that there was a letter from the City of Novi Fire Department under the signature of Daniel W. Roy, Captain, indicating that this plan has been reviewed and approval was recommended with the condition that fire hydrants must be added to conform to the 300 foot maximum spacing for commercial developments.


Ms. Lemke said this site was almost 100% wooded according to the Woodlands Map, however, it was mostly vegetation not trees which were under 6" in diameter at breast height. She said this was what she has been telling them all along was a pioneer emergent woodlands and it was also a wooded wetland, but it was very new early growth successional type of plant material.


Ms. Lemke said they could all see a portion that was not wooded but the rest of the site was wooded. She indicated the area in the pink hatches was what was proposed to be removed and that was approximately 3 acres that would be impacted. She indicated there were approximately 11.5 acres of woodlands that were being preserved on the site and many openings through there do not have vegetation on them at all.


Ms. Lemke said primarily there were shrubs and small trees of dogwood, hickory, poplar and honeysuckle. She stated the woodlands quality was low based on the criteria in Section 37-29A-H, and primarily the value here was on habitat for wildlife and due to the large percentage that was being saved, the impact of the proposed development on the existing habitat was minimal.


Ms. Lemke said the woodlands also serves as a buffer to Chapman Creek and the proposed facility improvement would remove 29 trees, 8" dbh and greater and there was some question in the letter before them whether or not they were all tagged, and she felt the problem was that there were not very many trees that were 8" dbh and greater and that was what they were regulating by the Ordinance, so all of the existing woodlands trees that were being removed have been tagged on the site.


Ms. Lemke said the cost estimate and general type of replacement trees has been provided, but still needed were the exact location of those plants and species and this could be furnished on the landscape plan.


Ms. Lemke said the drainage, as Mr. Bluhm discussed, was to the Chapman Creek to the west and they were anticipating no negative impacts on the regulated vegetation on the site due to the drainage course. She indicated she still would need to review Final engineering plans to make sure there wouldn't be an over-abundance of water on this site or onto another site further on down.


Ms. Lemke said she has asked the Petitioner to provide additional snow fencing and she pointed out the locations and that could be put on the Final engineering plans and all other requirements have been met, therefore, she was recommending approval of the Woodlands Permit with the following six conditions: (1) Submission of Final engineering plans for review and would contain the location of additional woodlands protective fencing. (2) Payment of a Performance Bond or Letter of Credit with the amount to be determined at the time of Final site plan review. (3) No construction can begin until the protective fencing has been approved by this office and payment of inspection fee. (4) That the remaining regulated woodlands which are not platted are placed into a Preservation easement and that was traditionally done prior to the permit being issued but after the approval process. (5) Preservation signage is erected as directed by Mr. Pargoff. (6) Review of replacement tree locations and species on the landscape plan. She then stated she would be happy to answer any questions.


Mr. Pargoff said regarding Hampton Woods Office and RCF project, he has no objection to the approval of the Preliminary site plan, but he could not recommend approval of the woodlands permit application at this time. He said this recommendation was based on Item 1 in JCK's letter, which indicates a key listing of all trees 8" dbh and larger with common names conditioned as to which ones are to be removed and the elevations of each tree on the site and this item has not been met.


Mr. Pargoff said the location of the trees to be removed should also be shown on the woodlands plan. He said in addition, the woodlands bond amount was not correct and the correct amount should be based on $225 per tree. He said this amount was recently reconfirmed in the February 6, 1995 City Council resolution on tree planting.


Mr. Pargoff said in regards to the landscape plan which has yet to be submitted, the applicant should delineate which trees were replacement and which were required landscape trees. He said right-of-way trees every 50 feet as per Section 2509.6.c. of the Zoning Ordinance should also be included on the landscape plan. He said those should be small deciduous trees because of the proximity of the Detroit Edison overhead utility lines.


Mr. Pargoff said the Consultants have recommended approval of this project, but his office could not concur with their opinion based on the aforementioned information and incomplete woodlands plan.


Ms. Tepatti said she has also reviewed the Hampton Woods office plan and the wetlands on this site were quite an extensive system which extends to the north, south and west, and it was primarily a forested wetland system and that area was shown on the City's official map.


Ms. Tepatti said as Mr. Chawney has stated, there was a small piece of wetland that was separated from the larger wetland system and this area was shown in pink. She said there was an existing home on the property that has been abandoned and an existing driveway splits a small portion of the wetland from the main body in the center of the site.


Ms. Tepatti said the applicant has proposed to fill a portion of the wetland for the construction of the drive and in her review of the plans, it does not appear that they would actually need to fill the entire wetland and they would be able to tell that with future engineering drawings. She said the edge of their road was actually in the northern half of the pink area so there may be additional wetlands down in the southern portion of the pink area that might be able to be preserved.


Ms. Tepatti said the applicant has offered mitigation and they have offered to remove the existing driveway, which would basically re-establish the connection between the wetlands and would actually be quite a good location for some mitigation since the driveway was currently several feet higher than the forested wetland so basically by removing that area and doing some plantings in there, they would have a high success rate with the mitigation.


Ms. Tepatti indicated additional mitigation was also proposed adjacent to the existing wetland in the northwest corner of the property as well.


Ms. Tepatti said the applicant was also proposing as was mentioned, the construction of the two detention basins to discharge the storm water to those wetlands and the mitigation was proposed at a 1 1/2 to 1 ratio of the eventual determined wetland fill.


Ms. Tepatti said she has recommended approval of the wetland permit and the applicant would also be required to get a DNR permit and the actual issuance of the permit would not occur until that does happen.


Ms. Tepatti said they also do not have a problem with the detention and the discharge to the wetlands and the wetlands were quite extensive and were a slightly drier wetland and there were pockets of standing water throughout and as Ms. Lemke stated, the trees were relatively young and there was a good mix of wetland vegetation that was in there that was quite able to handle any additional water, which in talking with Mr. Bluhm, there wasn't expected to be a lot because this area does currently drain the topography down to that area.


Ms. Tepatti said there were some portions of the buffer zone that would be impacted either temporarily or reduced in width throughout the site and most of those areas again would be able to be restored once construction or grading was completed. She said she also recommended that prior to discharge to the wetland, oil and grease separators be installed in the last catch basin and if it was determined to be feasible, that those detention basins also function as temporary sediment basins during construction and she would be reviewing the future engineering drawings as well to determine the effects of the detention and she would also be requesting some additional cross sections through some of the critical areas to determine the exact impact on the wetlands.


Ms. Tepatti said in summary, she recommended approval of the permit.


Mr. Rogers then indicated there was a point of clarification to be made. He indicated he has reviewed the Zoning Map for this property and it appears substantial portions of the wetlands were zoned R-4. He said they may recall the boundary that was established between Orchard Ridge was left R-4 and shouldn't change the site plan, but it would reduce the amount of area of the site that was qualifiable for RCF, which he called out as being 16.65 acres and he couldn't give them the exact acreage but it could reduce that by a third or a half. He felt what should be done was a correct measurement of the property that was zoned OS-1 so that they know the exact acreage that it was short and it was short now and it would be more short when it was reduced.





Mr. Terry Thornton of Arrowon Pines was present. He said he had one concern which was the flood water. He said he backed right up to the area of the woodlands/wetlands. He said since Arrowon Pines has completed that, it has changed the amount of water that was going into the plains.


Mr. Thornton said the first year it was relatively dry but last year it was wet and it was still wet and if they get rain of half an inch, they then have a couple of inches of water back there and he thought Mr. Bluhm had indicated it was dry back there but it wasn't and it was very wet.


Mr. Thornton said he has lived in Novi some 20 years and he has seen things come before Council and before the Commission with approved engineering and then the nice dry property becomes 2-3 feet under water and he didn't want a pool in his family room.


Mr. Thornton said he was real concerned that the flood plain was that close to him and Mr. Rogers talked about the parking lot and the building and maybe it was too large for that piece of property and obviously the more parking lots and the more building structures they have, the more runoff they have. He said he couldn't emphasize enough that he had no problem with the building but he just wanted to make sure that the water was retained. He said if the engineers were saying it was going to be retained in those retention ponds so it could be a slow run-off, that would be fine.


Mr. Thornton said they talked a bit about an easement there and if he goes back aways, the River Oaks and Arrowon Pines driveways were put in directly across from each other as recommended by the City somewhere along the line and it was almost impossible to get out there now, and now they were told they could not put a light up there because it was two private drives. He said they have some 400-500 units he believed in River Oaks, and Novi was becoming extremely busy and whether the light was put at his driveway or somewhere along there, something needs to be done.


Mr. Thornton said he has talked to Oakland County and he doesn't seem to be getting anywhere and they were wanting to put in more office space and they were talking about elderly residents trying to get out of here and maybe some thought should be considered towards putting in a traffic light and breaking that traffic between 9 Mile and 10 Mile to help this project, as well as the other projects that have been approved.


There was no further Audience Participation and Chairman Clark then closed the Public Hearing.





Member Hodges said she had two areas of concern on this project and the first one was the aforementioned deficit of acreage and the second one of course was the City Forester's report and recommendation.


Member Hodges said she would like to get a feel from Mr. Rogers as to what was a suitable deficit in this type of project, and Mr. Rogers then referred to the Zoning Ordinance and read from the section of Principal Uses Permitted for OS-1 on Page 3202.1 which states, "Facilities for human care such as hospitals, sanitariums, rest and convalescent homes subject to the following requirements, (a) such shall be developed only on sites consisting of not less than 20 acres." Mr. Rogers also indicated there were certain setback requirements.


Mr. Rogers said it would seem that the framers of this Ordinance were thinking of hospitals and large sanitariums and not one-story senior housing. He said he couldn't tell them how much it must be but the Ordinance calls out 20 acres and anything that was determined to be less than 20 acres has to be a variance. He said there were four buildings here and they were all detached and there were four communities with each one really standing on its own.


Mr. Rogers said they don't need 20 acres to accommodate those four buildings so reading the Ordinance it states 20 acres and it would be nice to have 20 acres but they don't have 20 acres. He stated the Ordinance goes on to say here that if they have a general hospital in an OS-1 District, it could be up to five stories in height and they do have a petition for a rezoning for a hospital to OS-1 District that has been received at 12 Mile and Meadowbrook and they have 40-50 acres.


Member Hodges then asked Mr. Chawney if this was to be a residence or a convalescent facility and Mr. Chawney said those were going to be what was known as residential care and very little medical help would be there and it was primarily for people who were in excess of 75 years of age. He said people in this category were alert and there was nothing wrong with them medically but they need assistance for their daily living for housekeeping, food, etc., but very little to do with medical.


Member Hodges asked if they were mobile and Mr. Chawney said yes but 99% of them do not have cars and in all probability, he would have a van which would be for shopping trips, etc.


Member Hodges said the other question was regarding the Forester's recommendation to deny and Mr. Chawney has stated he has reviewed the recommendations of the Consultants and feels he could comply. She asked Mr. Chawney if he could comply with the request of the City Forester and Mr. Chawney said he could because his recommendation for the site plan itself was that it should be approved and has no objection. He said what Mr. Pargoff was saying was regarding the woodlands permit and that there were 9 trees that have to be tagged and which he has to indicate which species they were and he planned on taking care of them in the Final site plan approval.


Mr. Chawney said the other comment was regarding the landscape plan and for Preliminary site plan approval, the landscape plan was not required and it was required for the Final site plan approval and on that plan, he would illustrate which trees he was holding back, which trees were new and which trees were being proposed to be replaced that they were taking out. He indicated all the details would be in the Final site plan and it was difficult to write all that information on this plan.


Member Lorenzo said her first question was to Mr. Bluhm. She said she believed Mr. Seiber mentioned that it was calculated that 3/4 of an inch of additional storm water would have been conveyed to the wetlands if it was undetained during a 10 year storm event. Mr. Bluhm said that was correct and she asked was it calculated what would happen under high intensity storms such as a 50 year or 100 year storm and how much additional storm water in inches would they see under those circumstances.


Mr. Bluhm said he didn't believe that was looked at and he thought they only looked at what the requirements were for the detention required storm, a 10 year storm event and everything else beyond a 10 year event would automatically be allowed to flow into the Chapman Creek area.


Member Lorenzo asked do they know what was going to happen to the wetland and trees and upstream and downstream in terms of water impact from the higher intensity storms. She said part of the flood plain was being filled for construction of buildings and driveways, etc., and Mr. Bluhm said that was correct and she asked how much more water could that wetland system expect to see during the higher intensity storms.


Mr. Bluhm said it wasn't required because the storage component was only required for a ten year storm but what they find was that the greatest impact was in the lower level storms and once they get up to a certain storm event, the impact of all the other portions of the watershed negates what one smaller portion of it would have. He said even though it was a very severe impact, incrementally for it beyond a 10 year storm, they don't get a significant impact of any certain development and the total watershed becomes more critical when they get beyond that.


Member Lorenzo said they don't know exactly how much water that was going to see and Mr. Bluhm said no it was not a requirement of the Ordinances and it was just required that they have an overland flow route to an established drain, which in this case they would have.


Member Lorenzo said to Ms. Lemke that she had indicated she didn't believe the vegetation and the trees in the area would be disturbed from the conveyance of the storm water and she asked would she be concerned about the higher intensity storms in terms of the water flowing through there, particularly the two detention basins were described as temporary not permanent, so what happens when they were off-line and how much water were they going to actually be seeing going through there.


Ms. Lemke said that was why they wanted to look at Final engineering to make sure where the grades were and how it was draining. She said usually when they have a larger storm and the temporary basins back up and depending upon how the site drains, it would back up and then it would go back as they become unfilled and go into the wetlands and it would go to them or it would filter over. She said the grading on this site was such that it would disperse it over a large area and then take it into the major wetland down the drainage area.


Ms. Lemke said again there might be certain pockets in there that it would effect for a short period of time, but usually with a larger storm system, they have a lot of water at one time and then it stops and it doesn't continue and continue and hopefully there would not be a 100 year flood and then the next year a 10 year storm on top of it.


Mr. Bluhm said to add on to what Ms. Lemke has stated, when they have an event that goes beyond a 10 year storm, that was what the floodways and the floodplains were identified for because the water was dispersed over a greater area and it was a much less frequent storm and it would be very intense. He said just generally speaking, it was detrimental to the area and critically they want to get the buildings above it because the rest of the areas were going to flood but it was going to recede.


Member Lorenzo asked if Arrowon Pines was part of a floodplain and Mr. Bluhm said he believed the northern fringe was, although he didn't know if Arrowon directly abuts this, but he did believe that the northern part of their development was the southern end of the Chapman Creek range. He said he didn't believe it was a flood plain, but he believed it was the wetland area beyond the Chapman Creek and he didn't believe it directly abuts this development but it was on the other side of the creek so to speak.


Member Lorenzo said her personal feeling would be that she would certainly be more comfortable with those two detention basins remaining permanent, particularly if they could get them to have a dual combination of detention and also sedimentation. She said she would just have a more comfort level at that point with water, as long as the wetland was still receiving amounts of water to continue it functioning as a wetland, so that would be her preference in terms of that.


Member Lorenzo said she didn't have any other questions and she would like to make a motion just to get things rolling.


It was,


Moved by Member Lorenzo

Seconded by Member Hoadley



To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Wetlands Permit Approval to Hampton Woods Office and Residential Care Facility, SP95-12B subject to the following conditions:


1. Consultants' recommendations, both verbal and written.

2. Deficient calculations being recalculated. (Mr. Rogers said the applicant should delineate the line between the OS-1 property that he is developing and the R-4 zoned property which is all a part of the wetlands. Mr. Rogers said he wanted to make absolutely certain that the parking lots, driveways, and setbacks are measured from the perimeter of the OS-1 District. He said it would cause another number to be derived on a deficiency on the 20 acre rule and he couldn't give that number now, but he felt he could have that quite soon.

3. That the two detention basins be permanent in nature.

4. Preservation easements be provided for the wetlands.

5. That it come back to the Commission for Final Approval.





Member Mutch said Mr. Bluhm that doesn't pose any particular problems if something was originally proposed as temporary and then they say to make it permanent in terms of a detention basin and Mr. Bluhm said from the site, it wasn't going to make any difference and the only thing that it would do was if a commercial site like this puts a detention basin in, they were not required to pay the tap fees that were used to develop the regional basins.


Mr. Bluhm said if they make those permanent basins when the regional basin was proposed for construction and they had been considered for removal, the developer or the owner of the property would be required to pay the fees and in this case, if they made them permanent, those fees may not be able to be recouped by the City or paid to the City. He asked Mr. Watson if he had any comments on that issue.


Mr. Watson said he wasn't sure what it says in terms of fees, but he felt making them permanent, when there is an available drainageway, may even be contrary to the Ordinance and require a variance and without going through the storm water provisions, he wasn't sure about that and it was something they should explore before it comes back for Final.


Mr. Watson said the second issue was the reason that the overall plan was devised that way with trying to avoid on-site basins and doing it through the overall system, was to avoid the problem of maintenance and if they don't maintain them, they were not going to perform that function and then they were going to have a worse problem than they would have had otherwise.


Mr. Bluhm said the DNR likes to see those basins kept for water quality reasons too and that may be a reason and not so much for the detention component of it, but for the water quality component of it, and it was a separate issue but it still related to the basins.


Member Lorenzo said so they would know by the time this comes back for Final exactly and Mr. Bluhm said yes that would be explored and determined.



Member Mutch said Member Lorenzo's motion was to make those permanent and then the discussion was to explore whether or not they should be permanent and Member Lorenzo said she could alter her motion to say to explore the matter. She then said her Item #3 would read:


3. That the two detention basins be explored to determine whether or not they should be permanent.



Member Hoadley asked if Member Lorenzo would accept an amendment to include gas and oil separator and Member Lorenzo said that was part of Ms. Tepatti's recommendations and a vote was then taken.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (Yes), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes)





Member Lorenzo asked if they needed to act on the woodlands permit as she had kept that separate because of Mr. Pargoff's lack of information and it was stated a motion was needed.


It was,


Moved by Member Lorenzo

Seconded by Member Hodges



To approve the Woodlands Permit for Hampton Woods Office and Residential Care Facility, SP95-12B subject to the Consultants' recommendations and that Mr. Pargoff receives the information that he has requested.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Weddington (Yes), Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (Yes), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes)












1. Boston Chicken, SP94-25B - Located at the southeast corner of Novi Road and Crescent Boulevard for Possible Final Site Plan Approval.


Member Bonaventura said due to the late hour, he would begin with a motion.


It was,


Moved by Member Bonaventura

Seconded by Member Taub



To grant Final Site Plan Approval to Boston Chicken, SP94-25B per the Consultants' letters.





Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers about the parking and he indicated he was concerned about adequate parking and they were showing 41 spaces and did Mr. Rogers have any concerns at all that that was adequate for this type of business with the fact that they were going to have 40 sit-down spaces or that people were going to be lined up because it was a very popular restaurant. He said people would be lined up out the door and would be coming in and out of there with the drive-in and they would also have at least 10 employees that would take up 10 spaces. He said if Mr. Rogers had a concern, what would be his recommendation.


Mr. Rogers said the Planning Commission on July 20, 1994 approved the site plan with 41 parking spaces along with the location of the curb cuts and the building setback and that decision was based on the Ordinance, which considers that Boston Chicken or Boston Market was part of Novi Town Center and it was part of pad site Q of the approved Trammel Crow Town Center and in his letter of July 5, 1994, he commented that when they add in the floor space of the Boston Chicken facility, there would be a total need, a recomputed need for Novi Town Center of 2,926 parking spaces and he found that they were providing, including the 41 spaces, 2,983 parking spaces.


Mr. Rogers said this site plan was considered an amendment to the Novi Town Center plan of 68 1/2 acres and technically if they had pro-rated it on the basis of a planned commercial center, they would only need to provide on site 21 spaces and they provide 41 spaces.


Mr. Rogers then said regarding what the Ordinance states about a free-standing restaurant, forgetting the Town Center, there were two standards. He said one standard was one parking space for every 70 square feet of gross space and the gross floor space was 3,520 sq. ft., therefore, they need 50 spaces plus 2 handicapped. He said the other standard was based upon occupancy. He said on the basis of 42 seats, 10 employees on maximum shift and 100 sq. ft. lobby, which he determined from a conference with Mr. Drane and looking at the plans and traffic study, they would need a total of 29 spaces plus 2 handicapped.


Mr. Rogers said would the 41 spaces work. He said the 10 employees could be told to park on the east side of Ingersol Drive very easily because they were using that parking as part of the credits for this Town Center Parking Study. He said they have all been to Boston Chicken, and he would say 50% of the activity was carry-out and there was no drive-up window, but they could park and could get in and out in six minutes.


Mr. Rogers said in his opinion, they would have enough and of course they have across Ingersol, the parking lots of the Town Center but they obviously couldn't expect to use much of the parking at Grady's and Olive Garden as those parking lots were filled. He said they have met the Ordinance and the Planning Commission already approved this plan for parking and he felt Mr. Drane who has done many Boston Chickens could speak from a practical and functional standpoint as to whether this was enough parking.


Mr. Mark Drane was present and indicated he was the architect in charge of this project and all the other Boston Chicken sites in the Metropolitan Detroit, Ann Arbor and Ohio area. He said when Mr. Rogers called him this morning, he rushed to their file to find out how many parking spaces were in the Boston Chicken sites on an average and he wanted to share with them a couple of instances where they were part of a shopping center and an out-building with generally a drive-through window and this has seating and a carry-out facility.


Mr. Drane referred to a Boston Chicken site which was the highest grossing Boston Chicken in the Detroit area and stated it has 47 spaces and Westland which was an out-building on Ford Road has 42 spaces and Canton, which was a free-standing site without an adjacent shopping center has 46 spaces and their Plymouth Road site has 35 spaces. He stated in all of those locations, there were no parking problems.


Member Bonaventura said to Ms. Lemke there were two things he was concerned about and one was regarding the landscaping and was it going to be adequate to conceal some of the parking lot as far as visually and also was it going to be up to the standards for the Town Center and Ms. Lemke replied yes on both counts.


Member Bonaventura asked visually from Novi Road, has sight lines been checked out as far as what type of height they need in order to cover that parking lot and Ms. Lemke replied they have about the same berm as the remainder of the area along Novi Road. He asked her in her opinion was there any need to upgrade it and she replied no.


Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Rogers about the architecture on this building and did it meet Town Center requirements and Mr. Rogers said yes.


Mr. Rogers added that Mr. Drane's firm designed Grady's and he has tried to create somewhat of a parallel entryway on Crescent Blvd., and they always ask for that and it was a larger building than what he has built on other sites and it was an upgrade.


Member Capello asked about the Hadco lights referred to in Mr. Rogers' letter and were they normal lighting or the Town Center lighting. Ms. Lemke said those were the lighting fixtures that were out there presently which was still currently the Town Center standard until it was decided to change that, which would be shortly.


Member Capello asked if they were going to require Boston Chicken to put in the new standards, and she said not the new standards that were at Vic's, but the new standards that were at the Town Center. Member Capello said they wouldn't have problems with their lights that they were having now and Ms. Lemke said that was correct and that was why it says in the May 3rd letter of Mr. Rogers' letter, "that this fixture if installed will not be improved," and it was very specific.


Mr. Rogers added that some of the other restaurants have agreed to change over and Grady's was one and Mr. Jerome and Ms. Lemke and the Committee were screening new fixtures and Ms. Lemke said they were close to a new fixture and she has faxes on it and she just wanted Mr. Jerome to go over them but they were very close.


Member Capello said normally Mr. Rogers puts his conditions at the end of his letter and this falls in the center of his letter so he just wanted to be sure that it was part of the Consultants' conditions and part of the motion.



Chairman Clark said the motion was subject to all Consultants' conditions, including the lighting.


Member Hoadley said he read the minutes where this was originally discussed and there was discussion in regards to benches and people sitting on the benches outside, and whether Mr. Drane was going to add enough and he asked was that part of his plan to add enough seating outside for people to wait and Mr. Drane said they do provide a bench near the entry.


Member Hoadley said there had been discussion by the Commission as to whether one bench was adequate and Mr. Drane said they feel one bench was adequate and they feel their business was a convenience business and if people were waiting around for food, they would not wait and they would be gone.


Member Hoadley asked if there was room to put a second or third bench if needed and Mr. Drane replied there was.



ROLL CALL VOTE: Bonaventura (Yes), Capello (Yes), Clark (Yes), Hoadley (Yes), Hodges (Yes), Lorenzo (Yes), Mutch (Yes), Taub (Yes), Weddington (Yes)









Chairman Clark then indicated there was a request for a matter for discussion, but given the lateness of the hour, they would adjourn.





There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M.





Steven Cohen

Planning Clerk



Transcribed by Sharon Hendrian

June 2, 1995