REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 03, 1997 AT 7:30 P.M.

COUNCIL CHAMBERS - NOVI CIVIC CENTER - 45175 WEST TEN MILE ROAD

(248) 347-0475

 

Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington.

 

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley (late), Watza, Chairperson Weddington

 

ABSENT: Vrettas (excused)

 

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Water Resources Specialist Susan Tepatti, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Staff Planner Steven Cohen

 

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

 

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Agenda?

 

Member Bononi asked to add the High Point Development mitigated wetlands as Item 2 under Matters for Discussion.

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any other additions, seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda.

 

 

PM-97-09-224 TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED

 

Moved by Capello, seconded by Canup, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-224 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Watza, Weddington

No: None

 

Chairperson Weddington introduced Theresa Swiecicki the new Clerk Typist for the Planning and Community Development Department. She welcomed Ms. Swiecicki to Novi.

 

 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

 

None

 

 

CORRESPONDENCE

 

None

 

 

CONSENT AGENDA

 

Chairperson Weddington stated there were two items for approval. Minutes of the August 06, 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting and minutes of the August 20, 1997 Regular Planning Commission Meeting. She asked if there were any corrections to either set of minutes?

Member Bononi referred to the minutes of August 06, 1997, page 5, paragraph 6, last sentence, strike the word "in". Page 20, last paragraph, should read, "She thought it was not a question of good or bad design, but design in the wrong context, in the proposed area."

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if there were any other corrections to the meeting minutes of August 06 or August 20, 1997?

 

 

PM-97-09-225 TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 06, 1997 AS CORRECTED AND AUGUST 20, 1997 AS PRESENTED

 

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Watza, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the meeting minutes of August 06, 1997 as corrected and August 20, 1997 as presented.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-225 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington

No: None

 

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

 

1. HOMESTEAD SITE CONDOMINIUMS, SP97-34

 

Property located north of Ten Mile Road, west of Taft Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

 

Eugene Richardson introduced himself as the petitioner of the property. He pointed out a couple of errors on the plan that should be corrected. Under Site Data, he stated the site area should be corrected to reflect 3.680 acres of land. In addition, the density for the development should be increased to 2.174 units per acre.

 

Mr. Richardson stated the development will consist of eight (8) site condominium single family units accessed off of Ten Mile Road with a 60' R.O.W. access drive going to a cul-de-sac area. All of the lots will front along the cul-de-sac which will be called Homestead Court. The zoning is R-4, the density minimum requirement is 10,000 square feet per lot, the frontage minimum requirement is 80' per lot and all of the lots meet the minimum frontage requirement. The lots exceed the minimum area requirement, in some cases very substantially. The minimum lot size is 10,016 square feet which applies to unit 5, the largest lot in the development will be unit 7 at 19,021 square feet. The roads to be installed will be done to the criteria of the City. All City utilities will be accessible and available to the site as indicated on the plan.

 

Mr. Richardson addressed issues that were raised by Mr. Rogers and the Fire Marshal. He consented to all of the issues raised by the Fire Marshal and stated that the issues would be addressed on the Final Site Plan. He addressed Mr. Rogers letter dated August 12, 1997, he found all of the conditions to be acceptable except for the lot line which divides units 1 and 2. He stated there was a different orientation of the lot line. The lot line is not perpendicular to the radius of the street, he explained that he had difficulty with the site planning and meeting the requirements for the side setbacks as well as the front yard requirements. He stated with the configuration, it allows all of the minimum requirements to be met and he was hopeful that it would be acceptable at the time of Final. In regard to the existing improvements on the site which consists of an 11,500 square foot warehouse building along the frontage and Ten Mile Road, and three single family residential dwellings also located on the site, be demolished prior to the commencement of construction.

 

Mr. Richardson stated he received a letter from Mr. Pargoff which raises an issue with respect to the location of an existing 18" Maple tree along Ten Mile Road. The potential problem with the Maple tree is that the acceleration lane required by the entry drive may inpact the life of the tree. He stated there were options that could be discussed regarding the tree. The landscape plan provides all of the minimum requirements for City landscaping criteria. The landscape design within the island will be revised at the recommendation of Chris Pargoff and will be shown on the Final Site Plan.

 

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated he would be reviewing Brandon Rogersí letter of August 12, 1997. The property is zoned R-4, an eight unit site condominium of single family detached units is proposed. The applicant has indicated that the parcel under consideration is B-1 which is 3.68 acres. Parcel B-2 is included in the legal description and is not intended to be a part of the application, therefore it will have to be deleted as part of the Final Site Plan for clarification. Mr. Rogers found that all of the Preliminary Site Plan application has been provided. The lot sizes conform with the minimum requirements. The density is higher than stated in Mr. Rogersí letter. In regard to the lot lines not being radial to the front street line, there are a couple of options. If the parcel can be moved to adjust it, the applicant has indicated that it would cause a problem with meeting the minimum lot width requirement. If this is the case, it may be necessary for the applicant to seek a variance. In regard to Homestead Court, it will require street naming approval, it is within the length maximum. There are sidewalks proposed on both sides as required and there is also a 5' sidewalk proposed within the R.O.W. which fronts Ten Mile Road, he stated it was possible that it may be changed to an 8' asphalt pathway. There is an accepted parcel to the east and west. It is recommended that the structures on the accepted parcel be demolished so that there is not a non-conforming situation created, this should be made a condition of the approval.

 

Landscape planning buffers along the R.O.W. is a part of the proposal. This particular instance only has limited frontage, therefore, many of the comments for property fronting on Ten Mile Road are not going to be as applicable. Corner clearance requirements will need to be met. The site falls under the Woodlands Protection Ordinances and the trees along Ten Mile Road are regulated and the parcels are labeled accepted in future development, a 20' greenbelt easement would be required. However, it appears that both parcels to the east and west are being accepted so it is likely that it would not be a requirement. He stated this issue would need to be further discussed. In summary, Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval subject to the removal of the non-conforming warehouse, approval of the cul-de-sac street name, addressing of the landscaping concerns and adjusting the side lot line between sites 1 and 2, or receiving a variance for the revisions of the Subdivision Ordinance that require that the lot lines be radial.

 

Mr. Arroyo referred to his August 27, 1997 letter regarding the Preliminary Site Plan. Access comes from one roadway and it meets the cul-de-sac length requirements, however, there is a waiver required for driveway spacing. The Design and Construction Standards calls for a 200' separation from the proposed roadway to the secondary entrance into the church across the street and only 165' is shown, therefore, this is a situation that will require a waiver as part of the approval. Ten Mile Road currently has a center turn lane and an acceleration/deceleration lane is proposed. Based on the volumes Mr. Arroyo felt that the 25' acceleration lane was probably not warranted and could be deleted from the proposal. He thought the applicant should submit it to the County for approval. Regarding trip generation, an 8 unit development can be expected to generate about 100 trips per day, 9 trips during the morning peak hour and 11 during the p.m. peak hour. Mr. Arroyo indicated that the entering and exiting radius for the project should be increased to 35' to meet the Design and Construction Standards because the radius will extend beyond the boundary of the propery into the accepted parcel to the west. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the items identified in his letter being resolved on the Final Site Plan.

 

Victoria Weber of JCK stated the site would be serviced from a tie-in to an existing water main that is located on the south side of Ten Mile Road. Sanitary sewer will be extended and tied into existing sanitary which is already located on the parcel. The storm sewer system will outlet to a water quality detention basin, there will be permanent water quality controls within the detention basin. Storm water will discharge to the existing Simmons Orchard storm sewer. Ms. Weber stated the applicant is proposing a 5' wide concrete sidewalk along Ten Mile Road, the applicant has indicated that they will be dedicating the R.O.W. to the City of Novi. She suggested that an 8' wide ashphalt bikepath be placed along Ten Mile Road in conjunction with Ordinances that are currently under review where the City will require placement of 8' bikepaths along all mile and major roads.

 

Ms. Weber asked the applicant if the detention basin was part of parcel B1?

 

Mr. Richardson answered, yes.

 

Ms. Weber recommended approval.

 

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, dated August 18, 1997, which states that the above plan is not recommended for approval due to the following deficiencies: 1) all roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. Item #2 of the Fire Department Notes is not acceptable; 2) Provide an additional hydrant on Homestead Court to reduce the hydrant spacing to below 500'; 3) Street name on suitable pole shall be established and installed prior to construction above the foundation.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated she has received a letter from Eugene D. Richardson which states that he will comply with all of the Fire Department requirements and satisfy the deficiencies before Final Site Plan.

 

Chairperson Weddington opened up the Public Hearing to members of the Public.

 

Bill Dixon, 24400 Bonnie Brook, President of Simmons Orchard Homeowners Association stated the plan was reviewed by all of the members of the board of the Association. On behalf of all of the residents located close to where the buildings are to be built, he would like to give the residents an opportunity to ask questions regarding the plan, Mr. Richardson stated he was not opposed to it. Mr. Dixon asked if the sidewalk was to be of asphalt material?

 

Mr. Richardson answered it would be all concrete.

 

Chris Pargoff, City Forester stated if approval is obtained from the County regarding the taper and the construction of the taper tying in with the existing curb, he did not feel that there would be any danger to the 18" tree, therefore, a Woodlands Permit might not be necessary. He stated a Woodland Permit would be necessary if the taper exists as it is on the current plan.

 

As a neighbor, Mr. Pargoff stated the property has a storm sewer that runs through it and drains the commons area of Roma Ridge. He stated it was approximately a 10-12" vitreous storm sewer that was installed to keep the area somewhat dry. It is a wetland area located in Roma Ridge, Mr. Pargoff asked the applicant if the sewer is broken, that it be repaired to tie it into his existing storm sewer system.

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the issue? Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Csordas believed Ms. Weber to recommend an 8' ashphalt pathway, he also understood the new Ordinance to require an 8' path, however, he thought it might look kind of funny because it would abut two cement sidewalks.

Ms Weber stated at this time it was only a suggestion, the Ordinances have not yet been approved.

 

Member Csordas asked if the buildings were going to be demolished before construction starts?

 

Mr. Richardson answered, yes.

 

Member Csordas asked if the applicant if he cared to share what he was planning to develop in that area after it is cleared?

 

Mr. Richardson answered, the parcel to the east has a pending purchase agreement for the development of a daycare center. At this point, they are not prepared to come in with Preliminary Site Plans and Mr. Richardson wanted to get started on his development.

 

Member Csordas asked the applicant if he intended to meet with the president of Simmons Orchard Homeowners Association?

 

Mr. Richardson understood the question to be if he would be willing to meet with certain property owners who are located closer to the development, he stated he would be happy to do that and explain what development might occur on parcel B2.

 

Member Csordas asked if the buildings were to be one or two story?

 

Mr. Richardson answered he probably would not be building the units, therefore, he did not know what type of unit would be built.

 

Member Hoadley suggested that the residents who wished to question the applicant, fill out a card, give it to the chair and it could be read for the record.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated the questions could be asked, however, a Public Hearing was just conducted giving everyone the opportunity to ask questions and none were received. She understood that the applicant indicated a willingness to meet with any of the homeowners following the meeting.

 

Member Hoadley stated he was hesitant to approve the figuration that would require a variance because he did not see where the lot lines were creating a hardship. He stated the footprints on the large lots could be pushed back further from the cul-de-sac, which would allow the lot line change. He asked why this could not be done?

 

Mr. Richardson deferred to Mr. Norberg.

 

Mr. Norberg stated he looked throught the Subdivision Control Ordinance and he could not find where non-radial lots were prohibited. He stated it is quite often used throughout the Cty, the only requirement is that the final plat indicate that it is non-radial.

 

Mr. Arroyo read the language. "Side lot lines shall be at right angles or radial to the street lines or as nearly as possible thereto."

 

Mr. Norberg stated in order to make the lots more rectangular shaped, the lots are not as nice.

 

In regard to the acceleration lane, Member Hoadley stated there were standards that needed to be met when at all possible. He asked whoís property the 18" tree was located on?

Mr. Richardson answered it was located just barely in the statutory R.O.W.

 

Member Hoadley stated it would seem that the road should be moved slightly to the east to meet the standards, or cut the tree down.

 

In regard to the acceleration taper, Mr. Arroyo clarified if the 25' lane were removed and the taper was shifted back, it would not be in contrary to the Ordinances or to the County Ordinances. Mr. Arroyo thought that conformance with the standards could be kept along with potentially saving the tree, just by adjusting the location of the driveway.

 

 

PM-97-09-226 TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SP97-34 SUBJECT TO CONFORMANCE WITH ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Csordas, FAILS (3-5): To approve Site Plan SP97-34 subject to conformance with all of the consultants recommendations.

 

Member Churella stated if the ground near the tree is disturbed, the tree will die. He thought the tree should be cut down and another one be planted in itsí place. He thought it was inevitable that the tree would die if the roots were going to be disturbed.

 

Mr. Pargoff stated if the applicant ties into the existing curb. He stated the tree has already been disturbed last year and it is doing fine this year.

 

Member Churella amended the motion to remove the 18" tree and replace it with another one.

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if there was a second to the amendment. Seeing none the amendment died for lack of support.

 

Member Capello asked if the Commission were going to allow the tree to be taken down, does it have to go to the Woodlands Review Board versus just being a part of the motion?

 

Chairperson Weddington believed it was a protected tree, therefore, a permit would need to be taken out.

 

Mr. Pargoff stated it would need a Woodlands Permit and a Woodlands Application. He stated at the time of County approval with the taper tying into the existing curb, he would not move in that direction because he felt it was a doable situation in avoiding damage to the tree. He stated if the County did not approve the taper, the applicant would have to come back for a Woodlands approval and he recommended that it happen at the time of Final Site Plan approval.

 

Mr. Arroyo clarified that it would not tie into the existing curb. The curb is still going to be moved back but the taper length will be shortened in order to move it away from the tree.

 

Member Capello stated he was not against the comments of Member Churella, he just did not think it could be done by way of amending the motion.

 

Member Capello asked the petitioner if he planned on dedicating Homestead Court to the City or would it be a private road?

 

Mr. Richardson answered it would be dedicated to the City as a public roadway.

 

Member Capello asked if parcels B1 and B2 have been split or were they under one sidwell number?

 

Mr. Richardson answered it is currently under one number, it will be split after the site condominium is approved.

 

Member Capello asked if the petitioner planned on dedicating the R.O.W. to the south of parcel B2 to the City?

 

Mr. Richardson answered at this point, there were no plans to do so. He stated when parcel B2 is developed, the bike path will be constructed across the front of B2. The only work that is being done at this point is the removal of the building on parcel B2 because it does not conform to setbacks. He stated the building would be removed prior to construction of the Homestead Site Condominiums, the parcel will remain vacant.

 

Member Capello understood that the bike paths would only be required along the major arterials. He asked Mr. Arroyo if there was a requirement for a waiver to the 25' radius as opposed to the 35' radius?

 

Mr. Arroyo recommended that there be 35' radius provided on the Final Site Plan.

 

Member Capello asked if the applicant put a 35' radius on the west side of Homestead Court, would they have to get some type of an easement?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered, the applicant already has a letter granting permission.

 

Member Capello asked Mr. Arroyo if a waiver was needed for the 200' separation from the driveways from St. James Church?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered that is a waiver that the Planning Commission would grant, he added that it is a part of his letter.

 

Member Hoadley stated he would have to amend his motion because he included the 8' bike bath as a recommendation of JCK.

 

Member Capello asked if the motion maker would accept an amendment to grant the applicant a waiver for the 200' of separation required from driveway to driveway?

 

Member Hoadley stated it was already a part of the motion.

 

In regard to the bike path, Mr. Arroyo commented that it might be appropriate to see what happens with the Council when they adopt the bike path amendments. He stated he knew the issue would come up, of how to handle existing situations where there is mostly concrete in place, he stated there may be a policy or requirement that will address it. He stated it could affect the parcel one way or the other and suggested maybe it was something that could be held until Final.

 

Member Canup asked why the piece was split up when it appeared that the way the property was laid out and the road was put in that property B2 would be natural to split up and add to the condominium?

 

Mr. Richardson stated from a lot standpoint, the possibility of different layouts was looked at which ended up in frontage lots on Ten Mile Road.

 

Member Canup stated he would have difficulty supporting the motion based on the fact that the piece in the front is the focalpoint of the project but it is not known what is going to happen with it. He thought if the project were approved as it is, there may be a point where it is regretted.

 

Member Bononi shared the concerns of Member Canup in regard to the undefined usage of the frontages on Ten Mile Road. She also shared the concerns of Member Hoadley regarding approving lots in a new development which require waivers from the ZBA. She stated it is the applicantís right to ask a question but it is a disappointment to her, that professional planners would propose to recommend such a thing. Member Bononi asked the applicant, when he referrs to the lot split that contains the industrial building, was the lot split complete and approved by the City of Novi?

 

Mr. Richardson answered in regard to the two parcels that were divided, he received a letter from the Assessor stating that upon closing of the property and upon payment of the delinquent taxes, the parcel division would be made.

 

Member Bononi asked about the status of parcel B2 from the standpoint of lot split approval?

 

Mr. Richardson answered parcels B1 and B2 are still one unit. He reiterated that there was an offer to purchase, pending from a daycare center. He stated he has met with and discussed some preliminary plans for the daycare center and integrated it along with the site condominium units. He stated they were still working on generating the Preliminary Site Plan for the daycare center and it would be submitted to the Planning Commission upon approval of the site condominium development.

 

Member Bononi asked who owns parcel B1 and B2?

 

Mr. Richardson answered he does.

 

Member Bononi asked who owns the parcel with the industrial building on it?

 

Mr. Richardson answered the industrial building is on parcel B2 which he owns.

 

Member Bononi referred to the building envelopes that comprise approximately 2,000 square feet and asked the applicant to describe the square footage of dwelling that is planned to be built.

 

Mr. Richardson stated his intent was to sell lots to builders. He stated several builders want the options of providing houses from 3,000 to 3,500 square feet and the building envelopes of 2,000 square feet were necessary to accommodate that scheme.

 

Member Bononi asked if there was anything to say that a house of that size would necessarily be bulit on that building envelope? She explained her concern in asking that question was how any sort of dwelling would be compatible with the housing that will surround the development.

 

Mr. Richardson thought the development would be somewhere toward the higher range of housing prices in Simmons Orchard and the subdivision to the south of Ten Mile Road. He thought that the prices could be anticipated at $250,000 to $300,000.

 

Member Bononi asked if there was any industrial use currently going on in the industrial building?

 

Mr. Richardson answered there was no activity going on in the building, it is completely vacant.

 

Member Bononi asked if any of the residue of the property on B2 used to accommodate the industrial use?

 

Mr. Richardson answered there was an environmental assesment made on the property and the phase I environmental assessment was completely positive in terms of any hazardous materials, contamination, etc. He stated there was some concern for materials within the industrial building, he stated the materials were sampled and tested and came back negative for asbestos content. Mr. Richardson reported that he recently removed a 1,000 gallon fuel storage tank from the site and had an environmental engineering team on staff, taking samples from the tank. There was no spillage, no leaks and no cause for concern.

 

In regard to the gas and oil trap separator, Member Bononi asked what the maintenance plan was and who would maintain it?

 

Mr. Norberg did not believe that a maintenance schedule has been established at this point. He thought the City had guidelines that would have to be followed.

 

Member Bononi asked if there would be a homeowners association?

 

Mr. Norberg answered, yes.

 

Member Bononi expressed concern over condition of approval that will be on property that is owned by persons other than the applicant and whether or not it is a valid condition of approval?

 

Mr. Norberg stated the applicant owns that property.

 

Member Bononi stated she asked the question because she thought she heard someone from the audience say that someone else owned it.

 

Member Bononi asked where the vitreous clay pipe that Mr. Pargoff referred to, was located?

 

Mr. Norberg answered, he had no idea. He stated he spoke to Mr. Pargoff on four different projects and every time it is hit, a connection must be made to it to be sure somebody will not be flooded out.

 

Member Bononi stated this was a concern of whether or not it could be made a condition of approval.

 

Mr. Norberg stated it was something that occurs quite often when going through some of the old farms, generally speaking it is taken care of immediately.

 

Member Bononi stated she would not be in support of the application because she believed that there were reasonable and prudent alternatives that the applicant has in creating lots that meet the zoning requirements. She was not interested in supporting developments that would propose variances from the ZBA when there is room to make alternative decisions.

 

Member Hoadley clarified that his motion included that the applicant must change the lot lines to comply with Mr. Rogers concerns.

 

Member Hoadley expressed concern with the accel/decel lane because traffic will be tripled due to the forecast of a daycare facility. Member Hoadley stated he would be voting against his motion because he thought the tree should be cut down.

 

Member Capello asked Mr. Arroyo if the daycare is put in, would a re-assesment of traffic be done to make a determination whether the accel/decel lane would have to be expanded at that time?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered one of the problems at that point, would be that it would be considered to be an off-site improvement. He thought it would be difficult to require the developer to make changes to Homestead Court, being that it could be a public road by then.

 

Member Capello was assuming that the daycare would tie into Homestead Court and the accel/decel lanes would be within the public R.O.W. and asked if the Planning Commission would have the ability to extend those lanes as a part of that special land use?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated it was his understanding that because it would not actually be adjacent to the site and there would not be a driveway that directly serves the site, that the improvements could not be specifically required.

Paul Weisberger deferred to Mr. Arroyo and stated he could look in to the matter.

 

Member Watza expressed concern with the fact that the Commission was being asked to formally respond to the petitioners request to develop parcel B1 that implies that the Commission is also responding to the applicants proposal to develop parcel B2. He wanted to make sure that the everyone understood this was not what was being done because if B1 is approved, it seems thatt here should be some discussion whether or not a daycare center is wanted on parcel B2.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated that issue is not on the table yet.

 

Member Canup stated parcel B2 is very bothersome. He asked how large of a piece of property is the daycare going to require?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered, 2.2 acres.

 

Member Canup thought with the fact that an 8,000 square foot facility was being considered, it would create a fair amount of traffic and he had trouble approving the plan without the daycare being incorporated into it as part of the overall development.

 

Member Capello asked the applicant how long finalization of the purchase agreement with the daycare center would take? He asked if it was possible to tie the two together?

 

Mr. Richardson stated the purchase agreement has already been signed with several contingencies. One of the contingencies was that he proceed with his site condominium development and obtain Preliminary Site Plan approval before they initiated their Preliminary Site Plan design work. One concern of the daycare was that they did not want to be a part of a site condominium. He stated if the Commission denies the request of the daycare center, then Mr. Richardsonís options would be to revise his plans and come back in with Phase II of the site condominium development.

 

Chairperson Weddington was not in support of the motion because the lots do not meet the requirements for spacing and are not radial. She expressed concern with the creative uses of lot splits and site condos. She thought the discussion pointed out a number of problems that result.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-226 FAILED

 

Yes: Capello, Churella, Watza

No: Bononi, Canup, Csordas, Hoadley, Weddington

 

 

 

PM-97-09-227 TO POSTPONE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SP97-34 TO A FUTURE DATE WHICH WILL GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

 

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (7-1): To postpone Preliminary Site Plan, SP97-34 to a future date which will give the applicant a chance to address the concerns of the Planning Commission.

 

Member Capello thought a motion should be made to reconsider the vote, after reconsideration of the vote, he suggested making a motion to postpone.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated the alternative is for the applicant to come back with another plan. She thought this was what needed to be done.

 

Mr. Arroyo stated it has not been turned down, the motion to approve the plan Failed.

 

Member Canup stated he would like to see a time limit set.

 

Member Hoadley amended the motion to postpone for up to 90 days.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-227 CARRIED

 

Yes: Canup, Capello, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi

No: Churella

 

Mr. Norberg asked what detail the Commission was looking for in regard to parcel B2?

 

Member Canup stated he would like to see some proof positive as to what is going to happen, he asked if it was going to be a part of the site plan?

 

Mr. Norberg stated he could prepare a Preliminary Site Plan.

 

Member Canup suggested he could also prepare a conceptual site plan.

 

Mr. Norberg stated he was not looking for Preliminary Site Plan approval on the daycare, he asked if the Commission was asking as a condition of the site plan, to prepare a site plan for parcel B2?

 

Member Canup felt that the board would like to see something positive that is going to be a part of the site plan.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated there would have to be enough detail for the Commission to look at both of them and see how the whole site would work overall.

 

 

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

 

 

1. MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE DIRECTION

 

Member Hoadley stated there is a philosophical difference to the direction that was received from the Planning Commission to the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, with regard to the OST Master Planning along Twelve Mile Road. He stated he would like to see the Committee look the area from the property line between the Corridor and Haggerty Road. He asked the Commission to send some direction on the matter. If the Commissionís pleasure is not to review it, that is fine, however, he hoped they would send the direction to include that portion of the property, south of Twelve Mile Road between Haggerty Road and the M-5 Corridor.

 

Member Bononi disagreed with the matter being decided now because the Planning Commission would not have the opportunity to hear the opinions of the other Master Plan and Zoning Committee members, nor would they have the minutes to be able to review. She believed that Member Hoadley had every right to bring up the matter, however, she did not believe the timing to be equitable. Particularly with regard to everyone on the Committee would not have a chance to speak, nor did she come to the meeting prepared to speak on the subject, otherwise she would be glad to do it. Member Bononi was not in support.

 

 

PM-97-09-228 TO ASK THE MASTER PLAN AND ZONING COMMITTEE TO RETURN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A REPORT RECOMMENDATION AFTER THEIR SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 MEETING

 

Moved by Capello, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED (7-1): To ask the Master Plan and Zoning Committee to return to the Planning Commission with a report on the status of the area to be studied for the OST along the Twelve Mile Road/M-5 Corridor areas.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Hoadley stated a decision was already made to study the corridor from M-5 to Beck Road and this is currently under study. He stated he was concerned about the area between Haggerty Road and M-5 along Twelve Mile Road.

 

Member Csordas asked Member Hoadey if that property was currently owned by the bank?

 

Member Hoadley did not know who it was owned by. He stated this was the kind of information that would be sought out.

 

Member Csordas recalled discussing this piece of property in the past and at that time it was owned by a bank.

 

Chairperson Weddington stated one of the reasons that the Committees exist is to resolve some of the issues before they get to the table. She did not think the Commission had enough knowledge about what was going on to intelligently decide the matter at this time.

 

Member Bononi took issue with Member Hoadley on the fact that there was a constituted quorum and the motion was decided. She was apologetic that he was not in support of the motion but believed that the motion stood.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-228 CARRIED

 

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Canup

No: Bononi

 

 

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

 

 

1. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY REPORT

 

Presented by Greg Capote, Economic Development Coordinator

Identification of existing industry clusters - There is the emerging global technology markets, bio-technology, information technology, manufacturing and material technologies that have been booming in the U.S. He stated the Michigan Economic Development Association has estimated $356 billion of wealth will take place in the next three years. Oakland County is positioned to be a part of the growth and Mr. Capote stated he was doing everything that he could to be sure that Novi is a part of the growth.

 

Business retention and expansion survey - Mr. Capote reported thtat he appeared before the City Council in September of 1995 requesting permission to go ahead with a retention survey to be sponsored by the Utility Consortium, Michigan Jobs Commission and the Michigan Economic Development Association. He stated the Council approved it and put a request onto the EDC to become involved in the survey. He stated it has had difficulty getting off of the ground due to turnover of the EDC membership. Mr. Capote stated he has started to conduct the survey himself, cataloging all of the businesses and making them aware that there is an EDC should they wish to pursue financing, or if they have questions. Once the survey process is complete, he hopes to hand the responsibility off to the EDC.

 

Business migrations and entrepreneurship assessment - Mr. Capote stated he was keeping track of the business migrations and business start ups in Oakland County and in Southeastern Michigan, along with how many are occuring in Novi.

 

Economic Development Corporation mission statement - Mr. Capote stated the EDC is struggling to develop its own mission statement, however they are very close. He stated the EDC is looking to become more involved in the community and with the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber. Mr. Capote expected to finish by the end of the year and he would then provide a written report to the Council with a copy forwarded to the Commission.

 

OST Office Service Technology District potential - Mr. Capote stated the OST Ordinance was adopted in December of 1996 and there has been a tremendous amount of interest by companies in these growth fields. He stated the brokerage community has been aware of this Ordinance for some time and some developers that are looking to move forward.

 

Comparison of Noviís competitiveness relative to neighboring communites - Mr. Capote thought the OST helps keep Novi at a competitive edge with communities such as Farmington Hills, Plymouth Township and Livonia He also thought the OST would help Novi become more competitive in attracting high tech type developments.

Community economic profile for business attraction; Planning & Community Development Brochure - Mr. Capote stated he was compiling information and tying it in with assistance from Oakland County and the Michigan Jobs Commission to create a brochure. Mr. Capote stated he was looking to develop a four-fold brochure that he could use as a marketing tool to describe Novi to those outside of the market area.

 

Compact disk and website development for business attraction - Mr. Capote stated the City of Novi has a website. He stated he worked with Detroit Edison in 1996 and they took some aerial photos of Novi along with some composite maps that are currently on the internet. This was done free of charge. Mr. Capote stated he would like to take this one step further because the entire City was not covered.

 

Trade show booth - Mr. Capote stated there are monies to put together a trade show booth this year. He explained that the EDCís booth has been in disarray for a while and a new one will soon be built. He hoped by the end of December, the Department and the EDC would be attending area trade shows along with the Michigan Jobs Commission and Oakland County Planning.

 

Brownfield Redevelopment Authority potential - Mr. Capote stated he did not see a tremendous amount of potential in Novi given that it is more for urbanized areas such as Livonia, Romulus and Detroit. It takes some of the burden off of the developer for cleaning up contamination of sites with environmental problems. He stated at times, there may be opportunities where it would be applicable in Novi. It is something that the City could establish and appoint the EDC as its board members.

 

Main Street West relocation of existing business - Mr. Capote stated this was something that he works on, project by project, depending on the site plan. He reported that he is still currently working with the Oakland Baptist Church, the moving of the church was one of the first steps in looking towards Main Street West, secondly, is Fendt Transit Mix. He stated he has been working with Fendt to relocate this use.

 

Liaison functions with developers through approval process - He stated he works with a lot of area developers in Southeastern Michigan, St. Louis, Los Angeles and San Francisco who are looking to do business in various parts of the country. Typically, the developer would contact Oakland County, the Michigan Jobs Commission and then the call would come to him. Mr. Capote stated that Noviís requirements are quite extensive. He stated he has a commitment from Doug Rothwell, Executive Director of the Michigan Jobs Commission, that once a brochure and CD are produced and as the homepage for economic development is developed, the Michigan Jobs Commission is looking to come to Novi to tour the area, learn about it, meet the Council and Commissioners so that they can promote the Community when the opportunity arises.

 

Chairperson Weddington thanked Mr. Capote for his presentation. She stated when the joint work session with City Council was held, the tax base of the City was one of the priorities that was agreed upon to try to develop different and better commercial and business uses for the City. She thought the work that Mr. Capote was doing was vitally important to the City reaching itsí objective.

 

Member Csordas asked Mr. Capote if he could tell some of the names of the companies that are interested in the OST?

 

Mr. Capote answered it was confidential information. He further commented that there were many times when he does not know the user. He stated often the company will hire a site selection consultant who only knows the criteria for a site, the consultant will then contact him.

 

Member Csordas asked what the cost of developing a CD would be?

 

Mr. Capote stated Novi currently has the capability to burn CDís in house. With the GIS and the plotter, he felt the equipment was available and believed the CD to be a nominal cost. He stated that some of the audio/visual work is being done with Lou Martin, Public Information Director to determine the cost.

 

Member Watza asked if there was anything that the Commission could do based on Mr. Capoteís experience to petition the businesses?

 

Mr. Capote thought the biggest thing that the Commission has done recently to help in changing the type of development in the Community was the creation of the OST Ordinance and the way the Ordinance is written. Secondly, he stated he was reviewing the Site Plan Manual and had some recommendations for some changes. He asked for the opportunity to present these changes to the Commission when he has completed his review. He thought the OST, working with the Implementation Committee and Master Plan and Zoning Committee were the biggest things that the Commission could work on.

 

 

 

 

 

2. HIGH POINT SHOPPING CENTER WETLAND MITIGATION

 

Member Bononi stated she wanted to bring this matter to the Commission because it is of concern to her as a member of the Environmental Committee and as a participant on the Woodlands Review Board. It was brought to her attention that the wetland mitigation area that was required by the Planning Commission for the High Point Development, which was originally intended to be on the westerly side of Haggerty. She stated it has since been moved to another site, this came to her attention as a result of a woodlands protection hearing that she was invited to. She stated the mitigated wetland site is now located on Garfield Road. She expressed concerns that the mitigated wetland is shown on a lot that she was not sure if it was a lot split, she did not know if it was a permitted use in the zone, she did not know that the site was reviewed. She was concerned that the Planning Commission did not know about it. She understood that it was not a permitted use, and suggested that the Planning Commission look at the situation or it could be referred to the Environmental Committee. She further added that the reason the application is before the Woodlands Review Board was because construction was started on the site without a Woodlands Permit. Member Bononi stated her point in bring up the matter was that there was some policy and procedure in addressing the matters so they do not fall through the cracks and so they are not treated in a casual manner.

 

Chairperson Weddington recollected that the matter came back before the Commission because the condition was not met and the developer was asked to explain why the wetlands were not being mitigated.

 

Member Bononi stated it did come back before the Commission in February 1997 and as of that time the location was still on the westerly side of Haggerty Road, now it is being proposed on Garfield Road.

 

Member Churella asked how large the wetland was?

 

Member Bononi answered it was almost one acre.

 

Member Hoadley was in support of Member Bononiís concerns.

 

 

PM-97-09-229 TO ASK THE DEVELOPERS OF HIGH POINT SHOPPING CENTER TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE WETLAND AND WHY IT IS BEING MOVED OFF SITE

 

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To ask the developers of High Point Shopping Center to come back to the Planning Commission with an explanation of what has happened to the wetland and why it is being moved off site.

 

Member Capello suggested before asking the developer to come back, the Administration and staff to tell the Commission what happened. He stated the developer may have every right to do what he has done or he may have received Administrative approval.

 

Chairperson Weddington asked Mr. Wahl if he could shed some light on the subject.

 

Mr. Wahl answered, not at this time, he stated he would have to check into it and report back.

 

Member Canup thought there was more to it, he thought somebody had to approve the relocation.

 

 

 

 

 

PM-97-09-230 TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ASK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION

 

Moved by Churella, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To amend the motion to ask the Planning Department to investigate and report back to the Commission.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-230 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Watza, Weddington, Bononi, Canup, Capello

No: None

 

Chairperson Weddington thanked Mr. Pham for filling in as the Clerk over the past few weeks, she announced that there would be a new staff member Steve Rumple at the next meeting.

 

 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

 

None

 

 

PM-97-09-231 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 9:35 P.M.

 

Moved by Capello, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 9:35 p.m.

 

 

VOTE ON PM-97-09-231 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Bononi, Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Hoadley, Vrettas, Watza, Weddington

No: None

__________________________________________

Khanh Pham - Community Development Specialist

 

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

September 19, 1997

Date Approved: October 1, 1997