Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Weddington

PRESENT: Members Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini and Chairperson Weddington

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Members Watza

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Assistant City Attorney Paul Weisberger, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Environmental Specialist Debbie Thor, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, and Planning Assistant Kelly Schuler

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

none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as presented.

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as presented.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Weddington

No: None

Cheryl Schneider of Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision commented on the Senior Citizen Housing project which backs up to her property. In regard to the park, she was not aware that it was intended to serve the public. She did not see a need to have a street opened up as she anticipated cars cutting through Cherry Hill. She was upset and stated that the design that was presented has been altered. Ms. Schneider felt the Public Notices should be drawn to scale, as she felt they gave the wrong impression.

Chairperson Weddington referred Ms. Schneider to the Planning and Community Development Department or suggested that Mr. Arroyo could review the plans and changes with her so that she had a better understanding of what is proposed and the next steps.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission? Seeing no one she closed the Audience Participation and announced there would be a second after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

Lee and Nancy Mamola wrote regarding the proposed Master Plan. They objected to the part of the Master Plan that depicted the Nine Mile Road R.O.W. as eventually being 120’ wide. They stated Nine Mile Road was substantially a residential street which serves as an access to and from subdivisions along its route. Nine Mile Road also provides street frontage to many other long established residences, the only non-residential portion of Nine Mile Road is approximately ¼ Mile on either side of the railroad west of Novi Road. Nine Mile Road also offers a unique opportunity to maintain and enhance the character of Novi. This area of the City contains many historic properties and the character will be destroyed by doubling the R.O.W. of Nine Mile Road. They felt the City of Novi and its residents would be better served by implementing the development of other east/west arterioles such as Eight, Ten and Twelve Mile Roads.

Matt Quinn wrote in regard to the proposed Master Plan property located east of Wixom Road, south of Grand River. He asked that the Master Plan designation of Community Commercial be granted to the 57 acres.

None

None

1. IKON SP98-64A

 

This project is located in Section 13, north of Eleven Mile, east of Meadowbrook Road and south of I-96. The 8.87 acre-site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). Applicant is seeking Woodlands Permit approval.

 

Chet Hill of Johnson Hill and Associates, Inc. stated there were two trees within the woodlands that were proposed to be removed for construction of the building. The trees will be replaced adjacent to the parking lot. All other requirements have been incorporated on the plans.

 

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant had no comments.

 

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant had no comments.

 

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval. She had four conditions as listed in her letter dated January 27, 1999.

 

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

 

Jeff Franklin, 40309 Eleven Mile Road stated he lives 500’ from the project and he would like to see the woodlands preserved as much as possible.

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

PM-99-05-165 TO GRANT A WOODLANDS PERMIT TO IKON SP98-64A SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS

 

Moved by Csordas, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant a Woodlands Permit to IKON SP98-64A subject to all of the Consultants conditions and comments.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Koneda commented regarding the woodlands. He stated this was probably the best job the applicant could do to preserve the site. He thought the developer did a wonderful job of saving the eastern portion.

 

Ms. Lemke clarified that the applicant was removing only 2 to 3 trees, it would be determined at the time of Final Engineering. The remaining trees were being placed in a Preservation Easement.

 

VOTE ON PM-99-05-165 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None

 

2. MEADOWBROOK CORPORATE PARK SP98-04A

 

Project is located in Section 13, on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, north of I-96, and south of 12 Mile Road. The 31.49 acre-site is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). Applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands and Wetlands Permit approvals.

 

Chuck DiMaggio of Burton-Katzman Development Company introduced Robert Santner, Architect of Yamasaki Associates Architects, Alan Hargus, Civil Engineer of Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc., Sue Tepatti, Woodlands and Wetlands Consultant of Giffels-Webster Engineers, Inc. and Bill Bowman of Thompson-Brown Realtors.

 

Sue Tepatti gave an overview of the environmental features on the site. The site is approximately 31 acres with regulated wetlands and woodlands. There are four (4) separate wetland areas on the site, two of which have been determined by JCK and Associates to be non-essential wetlands due to their size and quality. The remaining two wetland areas are shown on the site plan, one is located in the northeast corner of the property and is mature and forested approximately 1.24 acres and continues extensively off site to the east. This wetland is being preserved in its entirety. The other wetland is approximately 2.8 acres and is located near the center of the site. It consists of scrub shrub, forested and open water areas. There is a road crossing proposed which involves 0.11 acres of fill to provide access to the eastern building. The additional impact is for the detention and discharge of storm water to the northern part of the wetland. The wetland will provide detention for the storm water before it is released further down. There is an additional upland sedimentation detention basin proposed near the southeast corner of the site, it will also discharge to the south before it continues to the south off site. The woodlands areas consist of light and medium density woodlands. The majority of the woodland areas are being preserved. There is some open field habitats in the southeast corner of the site as well as the sanitary sewer corridor in the northeast corner of the property. In summary, Ms. Tepatti requested action on the Wetlands and Woodlands Permit.

 

Robert Santner briefly described the plan. He stated less than 50% of the actual ground surface of the site was being developed and a considerable amount of high quality woodlands were being preserved. The concept is for five buildings of varying heights, the total building area on the site is 260,150 gross square feet and basically a multi-type tenant configuration. The parking is figured on a per phase basis and totals 984 cars on the site. Service and trash facilities are located in areas that are able to be screened via landscaping from side yard positions. Storm detention for the initial phase is being handled in line into the wetland. Materials used are predominantly brick with accents of alternating color in EIFS.

 

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant stated there were several proposed buildings. The project is being treated as a two phase development. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. He indicated that there would need to be some modifications to Building #3, the loading and interior side yard or the applicant would need to seek a ZBA variance. There were some minor revisions with the parking calculations. Mr. Arroyo noted that there is existing single family development to the north and south of the property. All of the abutting property is zoned OST, however, he believed the development should be sensitive to the single family development. The applicant proposes a center left turn lane on Meadowbrook Road, there will also be a deceleration lane. He stated there were other minor issues that could be resolved at the time of Final. Mr. Arroyo recommended overall approval from a traffic perspective as well.

 

David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant stated the applicant proposes public water via an extension from Twelve Mile Road across the site. The water system will loop through the site with multiple connection points and hydrants serving all of the buildings. A public sewer extension is proposed to service all of the buildings, they will be tying into an existing sewer along the eastern edge of the site. The site will be serviced by on site detention basins. The western half of the site slopes from Meadowbrook Road to the east, to the large wetland complex. The applicant will provide storm sewers throughout the internal parts of the site and will discharge to a specialized structure that will exist along the west edge of the wetland. The structure will provide sedimentation and water quality functions. Mr. Bluhm requested that the applicant provide a maintenance program and monitoring program for the structure to ensure that it is functioning properly.

 

The building along the east is located on a ridge area. A detention basin will be put in on the south side. A similar type specialized structure is proposed at the south end of the building prior to the release into the detention basin, therefore, a maintenance and monitoring program is also necessary for this structure. In regard the proposed detention in the wetland, a structure will treat the water before it goes into the wetland. He stated the applicant would be required to secure a variance to the Design and Construction Standards which require sedimentation basins, however, the structure is proposed in lieu of it. Also, the variance goes hand in hand with the fact that the applicant is not following Best Management Practices at this time and they would also need a variance to that. Mr. Bluhm felt the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

 

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated there were approximately 20 acres of woodlands on the site. She stated the highest quality woodlands are in the northeast corner and along the wetland system. The remainder of the woodlands being removed are pioneer species, poplar, ash, cottonwood, silver maple, walnut and willow with a few cherry and beech on the site. The habitat quality is good, there was a wide variety of birds and mammals observed. The Wildlife Habitat Master Plan denotes the area as Type C which is the lowest. She stated there were a number of items required at the time of Final as indicated in her letter dated March 19, 1999. Ms. Lemke recommended approval with the four conditions in her letter being met.

 

In regard to the Conceptual Landscape Review, she recommended approval conditioned upon two items. Berms and plantings along Meadowbrook Road need to be indicated in Phase I. The plan needs many more sub-canopy trees and shrubs, especially on the north and south sides of the project. Ms. Lemke stated there were a lot of proposed conceptual trees on the site as well as a number of replacement trees. She requested that all of the trees be removed from the center retention basin because of the storage of the water and the poor quality of the trees. Replacement trees will be put there in conjunction with wetlands mitigation and re-establishment. There were some minor items to be addressed. If the interior roadway is public, it will also need to have berm requirements or a ZBA waiver, she was in support of a positive recommendation for a waiver of the 30" berm. There were a number of items that she would look for at the time of Final as stated in her letter. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan.

 

Aimee Kay, Senior Environmental Specialist referred to her letter dated April 06, 1999. She stated the applicant has more than demonstrated avoiding all higher quality wetlands. The northeastern and southern section of wetlands will not be impacted at all. Her concern focused on the interior northern lobe of the southern wetland and the water levels. She stated they would be temporary and would have some special pre-treatment. It demonstrates good water quality. The only other impact to the wetland is a fill for a road crossing to access the eastern portion of the site. The configuration of the wetland makes it difficult for the applicant to access the usable portions of the property. She felt the applicant demonstrated minimizing impacts to the wetland, there was some temporary and some permanent buffer disturbance. Ms. Kay recommended approval.

 

Doug Necci of JCK stated there is a requirement for two (2) Section 9 Waivers, one for the percentage of EIFS which exceeds the Facade Chart. More significantly, there is a waiver required for the use of CMU on the courtyard areas. Mr. Necci recommended this waiver because of the fact that the courtyard areas are concealed from view. Mr. Necci’s positive recommendation was contingent upon the return walls being consistent with the exterior walls of the building. Based on these two issues, he recommended a Section 9 Waiver.

 

Mr. Santner stated he would definitely return the same architectural treatment within the courtyard.

 

Chairperson Weddington announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the applicant has provided a revised plan that addresses the comments of the review letter dated April 16, 1999. The plan with the revisions provided on April 26, 1999 is recommended for approval.

 

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

 

Steve Reid stated he spoke with Mr. DiMaggio who has agreed to put up a 3’ berm with landscaping. He stated the only way Mr. DiMaggio could have access to water was to come across his property which was not discussed. Mr. Reid asked if his property was going to be used to accommodate the acceleration lane? He stated he has not heard anything regarding these issues and his property.

 

Bill Despot stated he has a deeded and recorded easement that runs across the existing development and is not shown on the plan. The property at the rear of his house is lower than the existing plan for development, he asked how this would impact his septic field and his backyard in general. He asked if there would be a berm on the north end and what would prevent the salty water from running into the wetlands? When the 5 or 6 houses are demolished for construction, he asked what governs the proper sealing off of the wells on the properties?

 

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Member Csordas asked for clarification on the road to access Building 5 in the future, he asked if it was to be a bridge. He asked for further clarification on the specialized structure.

 

Mr. Bluhm answered it was going to be a road connection with culverts that will connect the two pieces of wetland together. There is about 6 to 8 feet of fall from the wetland lobe at the north. The culvert under the driveway will be the control structure for the detention component of the wetland area. With respect to the specialized structure, it uses a vortex to separate out the sediments and a filtration system to attempt to separate out as much of the suspended materials as possible. It is a fairly large vault structure of about 8’ x 10’ x 4’. It is a similar structure what was used in the Main Street development. Mr. Bluhm expressed concern with separating out the suspended materials, however, it appeared from the materials gathered that it does a fairly good job of it. He added that there will be a small swale prior to entering into the wetland.

 

Member Csordas asked if the wetland to the north of the road would be wet or dry most of the time?

 

Mr. Bluhm answered it would remain in its natural condition which he did not believe to be totally wet all the time. He deferred to Ms. Kay.

 

Ms. Kay stated it was the dryer portion of the wetland and it does not hold a lot of water as it is the beginning portion of the wetland. She felt that there would be some improved species.

 

Member Csordas complimented the developer on the plan. Once the project is developed, he asked if the woodlands would be protected and preserved for the future?

 

Ms. Lemke answered this was one of her four conditions, that the remainder of the woodlands be placed into a Preservation Easement.

 

Member Csordas asked if the two Section 9 Waivers was a radical request in Mr. Necci’s opinion?

 

Mr. Necci answered, no. He stated the EIFS waiver is very insignificant. With regard to the CMU, the applicant is using it in the courtyard areas and Mr. Necci asked that it be of a decorative type.

 

Member Csordas asked if the applicant needed to dig up a portion of the neighboring property owners land to the north in order to put in the water lines?

 

Mr. DiMaggio answered the water line needs to be extended from Twelve Mile Road down the east side of Meadowbrook Road to the site. He stated it would need to run across the property owner’s frontage and they would need an easement in order to do so.

 

Member Csordas asked if there were any challenges with the elevation of the neighboring property to the south?

 

Mr. Bluhm stated the Ordinance requires that all storm water be contained on the developers site and they have shown that this is feasible to do. As the drainage discharges to the southeast corner, the potential for backup and the detriment is probably minimal. He added that the water is expected to be fairly clean by the time it gets down there. He stated the Ordinances and grading and drainage protect those interests and concerns.

 

Member Csordas asked if Mr. Bluhm could foresee any adverse affect to the property owner to the south regarding water control, etc.?

 

Mr. Bluhm answered, no.

 

In regard to the road crossing for Building #5, Member Koneda asked if it was the point of the wetland crossing that had the most insignificant impact?

 

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated it was the most invasive position for the road crossing.

 

In regard to the culverts that connect the two wetlands, Member Koneda asked if the restricted outlets existed to try to retain some of the storm water in the northern part and restrict it into the southern part?

 

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.

 

Member Koneda asked what roads would be put in as part of Phase I?

 

Mr. DiMaggio answered he would be putting in the main access drive up to approximately the point where the road diverts and goes north around the wetland.

 

Member Koneda asked if the road widening would be done as a part of the same phase?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He was hopeful that it would be done throughout the entire area at one time. If not, the applicant would be responsible for placing it at the entrance drive at the time that it goes in.

 

Member Koneda asked about the affect on wells and septic fields?

 

Mr. Bluhm stated any abandoning that goes on is regulated by the County and the State. Therefore, the applicant would have to petition for an abandonment of a well, the State requires a proper procedure to safely abandon the systems.

 

In regard to Building #3, Member Koneda asked if the loading dock could be addressed as a part of Final?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant had two choices. As a condition of approval they could move it as part of the Final or they would have to go to the ZBA to seek relief.

 

Member Koneda asked how much of the landscaping was going to be put in as part of Phase I?

 

Ms. Lemke stated the applicant has not indicated how they will phase it.

 

Mr. DiMaggio answered, as part of the initial phase, all of the landscaping and berm work along Meadowbrook Road will be installed. All of the landscaping and berm work along the south property line and within the confines of Building #1 will be installed as well as that around the storm water detention basin area in the wetland. He added that this also included any replacement plantings.

 

Member Koneda asked about the north side of the boulevard?

 

Mr. DiMaggio stated after it is mass graded, it would probably be put in a grass condition until they were prepared to move forward with it.

 

Regarding the distance from the parking lot to the south property line, Member Koneda asked what the width of the buffer zone was.

 

Mr. DiMaggio answered, about 45 to 50 feet.

 

Member Koneda asked if there was any berming provided?

 

Mr. DiMaggio stated the finished grade on the parking lot was about 12 to 15 feet higher than the grade of the home to the south. He stated he would attempt to put in a berm, he added that there would be heavy plantings there as well.

 

In regard to Mr. Despot’s easement, it is shown on the drawing that he has an access easement to his property along Meadowbrook Road. Mr. DiMaggio stated it would be preserved, it is recorded and he would not be affecting it in any way.

 

Member Koneda asked about the buffer zone on the north side?

 

Mr. DiMaggio stated he was required to maintain a berm, he believed it would be a 3’ high berm with plantings on top.

 

Member Mutch asked Ms. Tepatti if the wetlands that are being filled for the road crossing would be mitigated?

 

Ms. Tepatti answered, no. She stated there was not a current proposal for mitigation.

 

Member Mutch asked if it would be possible to mitigate on site and if it would be appropriate?

 

Ms. Tepatti believed it was possible to mitigate. She stated typically if there is less than ¼ of an acre of impact, the State and City do not require mitigation.

 

Member Mutch asked if the pedestrian walkways would be interconnected between the buildings and to the exterior sidewalk system?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

 

In regard to the access to the southerly property, Member Mutch asked how it would be provided to the building?

 

Mr. DiMaggio stated the property owner is currently utilizing the easement. He stated he has offered the property owner the possibility of continuing to use it or accessing his site through the parking area.

 

Member Mutch asked if the loop driveway was an easement?

 

Mr. DiMaggio answered, no it is not an easement and the property owner has agreed that he does not have those interests in it.

 

Member Mutch asked how access would be provided to the property if the property owner decides to sell his property?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated at this point, that issue has not been looked into because the applicant is maintaining access to the property. It has also not been looked at in terms of future access. He stated there were several options, in the future, it could be purchased and become part of the development or it could be a separate development. He stated it could be further looked into at the time of Final, however, the current proposal meets the requirements.

 

Member Mutch asked if someone comes in with a project and needs to put in a driveway to Meadowbrook Road, he asked if it was possible with the topography?

 

Mr. Bluhm stated a connection out to Meadowbrook Road, just west of the existing home would be very difficult as there is a substantial fall in that area. The only option would be to make a connection through the development to the north. He stated the western half of the property is not much lower than the parking area, this would be the developable area, however, access would be very difficult directly to Meadowbrook Road.

 

Member Mutch stated if there was some way to provide access to the property, it should be explored before Final approval. He asked if the pedestrian path on Meadowbrook Road was to be 5’ or 8’?

 

Mr. Arroyo answered it was 8’ on the west side and 5’ on the east side.

 

In regard to the water main that is being brought in, Member Churella asked if the residents would have access to tap into it?

 

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes.

 

Member Churella asked if the wells are contaminated as a result of the construction, would the residents be given some kind of relief of the fees to tap into City water?

 

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney did not know of any such procedure where the residents would receive relief. Whatever complaint they would have would be with the developer.

 

Member Canup stated if the wells are properly installed and drilled to the proper depth the chances of contamination are very slim, especially with the State and County monitoring the closing of the wells in the area. He did not consider it to be a potential problem.

 

PM-99-05-166 TO GRANT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WOODLANDS PERMIT AND WETLANDS PERMIT APPROVALS TO MEADOWBROOK CORPORATE PARK, SP99-04A SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS CONDITIONS INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM BEING ESTABLISHED FOR WATER QUALITY SYSTEM STRUCTURES AND VARIANCE FROM THE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS FOR THE WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE. ALSO INCLUDING THE PHASING PLAN AND TWO (2) SECTION 9 FACADE WAIVERS AND ZBA VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK IF REQUIRED

 

Moved by Churella, seconded by Csordas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To grant Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodlands Permit and Wetlands Permit approvals to Meadowbrook Corporate Park SP99-04A subject to all of the Consultants conditions including the maintenance and monitoring program being established for water quality system structures and variance from the Construction Standards for the water quality structure. Also including the Phasing Plan and two (2) Section 9 Facade waivers and ZBA variance for side yard setback if required.

 

DISCUSSION

 

In regard to Building #3 needing a ZBA variance because of the loading dock, Member Capello stated it looked like it faced to the north. He asked if the applicant needed a variance to do so?

 

Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant could correct it on the Final site plan so it is in the rear yard or if it is not feasible to do so, they can go to the ZBA.

 

Member Capello clarified that the trees in the sedimentation basin would be taken out.

 

Ms. Lemke answered the trees would be removed from the basin.

 

VOTE ON PM-99-05-166 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

Yes: Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup

No: None

 

Chairperson Weddington announced the Commission would take a short recess.

 

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

 

None

 

3. CITY MASTER PLAN FOR LAND USE

A Public Hearing for the proposed updated City Master Plan for Land Use, pursuant to requirements of Act 285 of Public Acts of 1931.

Mr. Arroyo gave a brief overview of the Master Plan and highlighted some of the changes. He stated it is an ongoing five year cycle. He stated there have been studies prepared on a regular basis that provided background data and analysis that lead up to the final consideration of the Master Plan update. Mr. Arroyo stated the intent of the Master Plan is a policy guide for long range planning and land use decisions. He reviewed changes to the draft.

Chairperson Weddington announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Matt Quinn, 21995 Meridian spoke in regard to the property located south of the Lincoln-Mercury dealership on Wixom Road at Grand River. His client has owned the property since 1965, it has been zoned Light Industrial for most of the time. Mr. Quinn stated if the area on Wixom Road were designated for Community Business purposes, it could put an end to the City’s worry about where other Commercial development will go. By placing the Commercial development in the area, it would decrease the traffic congestion because residents who live on the west side of Novi will go there to shop versus going to other places along Ten Mile Road, Eleven Mile Road or Grand River. He stated it meets the goals of the Master Plan and the property owner. He stated the site is about 57 acres and is half covered with regulated woodlands and a substantial portion of wetlands, therefore, a development would not be built on the entire parcel. Mr. Quinn felt the location was ideal for Community Commercial Development as described by the Master Plan. Mr. Quinn requested that the Commission include it in the Master Plan and that action be taken on the property.

Leonard G. Siegal, Siegal/Toumaala Associates, 31731 Northwestern Highway spoke on behalf of Dan Weiss, owner of the property at the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Novi Road. He showed the detailed natural features of the site.

Irwin Arkin spoke in regard to the property at the northeast corner of Nine Mile Road and Novi Road. Mr. Arkin proposed to stay away from multiple and go into some kind of Commercial Zoning where a drug store or medical office could be put in. He hoped to find a qualified user for the restaurant that would add onto the facility thus creating an ideal banquet facility with access from Novi Road and shared parking.

Jonathan Brateman, 42705 Grand River complimented Mr. Arroyo for the complete job on the document. He referred to pages 78 and 79, bottom paragraph in regard to east Meadowbrook Road and Grand River Avenue. He stated the text jumps from a generalized speaking of Commercial Land Use and then gets into specifics that he did not feel were necessary. He suggested amendments to the language; 1) Where it reads, "Development in this area should be characterized…", he suggested using the word "might" versus "should". This would allow flexibility for dictating as to what the zoning will be. 2) Where it reads, "Accordingly, the appropriate zoning for this area would be NCC" Mr. Brateman did not think that the document had to indicate exactly what the zoning must be at this point. He thought this sentence could be removed and then it would read thematically exactly what the document is trying to accomplish.

Tom Steffler, 27110 Taft Road spoke regarding the two parcels on Twelve Mile Road to be re-Master Planned from Office to Community Park. He urged the Commission to leave the one acre property Master Planned as Office. He stated he was looking at different options for the parcel and felt there was no real reason for it to be changed to park area.

Lee Mamola represented the owner of the property located at the northwest corner of Nine Mile and Haggerty Roads. It is a 5 acre, "L" shaped piece of property. He stated the owner has had the intention to see the property developed per its’ current zoning, Multiple Family. Because of the site configuration, not all of the property is able to be used. He stated giving the existing land uses to the south of Nine Mile Road, the property aligns well and becomes a nice compliment to the corner of Nine Mile and Haggerty. If the land were to be left Multiple Family, it is the only intersection of a major street on Haggerty from Five Mile Road to Maple, where someone would be asked to front their home on a major intersection. He thought this was a good opportunity to allow this gateway into the City to be developed in a more attractive manner.

Edward Kriewall, City Manager, City of Novi, responded to Mr. Steffler’s comments. He gave some history of what has transpired in that area. He stated the City passed a bond issue where it proceeded to assemble all of the park land. In regard to the vacant corner piece and the piece just to the west of it, he wrote to the owner stating that the City would like to acquire the land for parkland and the owner indicated that she had a good renter at the time and she would like to remain as long as she could. She stated she would contact the City when the renter departed and the City would be given the first opportunity to purchase the property. Mr. Kriewall stated he was advised that the property had been listed for sale, therefore he met the current property owner. In the meantime, City Council has authorized the City to proceed with an appraisal and it is the intent to attempt to purchase the property. Mr. Kriewall believed the intent to Master Plan that area to parkland is appropriate, it is a natural assembly to the property the City has already assembled in that area. The current property owner has been notified for three years and she was fully aware of the City’s intent.

Mr. Steffler stated there was a letter which stated they were interested in acquiring it for R.O.W. for the Twelve Mile Road widening. The discussion of parkland was not necessarily conveyed to them. He again urged the Commission to keep it as it is. He stated he was not opposed to sell it to the City, however, he urged the Commission to allow the retired couple to keep their options open.

Chairperson Weddington asked if anyone else would like to address the Public Hearing? Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Canup thought there were questions brought up by the public that needed to be looked into. In particular he referred to Ten Mile and Novi Roads, and Wixom Road and Grand River. He thought for the Commission to act on the Master Plan without further study would be inappropriate.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To postpone action on the Master Plan after the Master Plan Committee reviews and considers the comments raised on five parcels of property; 1) Grand River & Wixom area, 2) southwest corner area of Ten Mile and Novi Road, 3) the northeast corner of Nine Mile Road, 4) Twelve Mile Road and Dixon parcel proposed for park use, and 5) the northwest corner of Nine Mile Road and Haggerty Road.

In regard to the southeast corner of Ten Mile Road and Novi Road, Member Mutch stated what was discussed at the Committee level and the change presented tonight was quite significant and a number of factors that went into the consideration and drove the decision have changed with the location change. He stated there were some serious traffic considerations that need to be addressed before a decision is made.

Member Canup thought the Committee should also look at the 12 acre parcel located adjacent to the Sports Club of Novi to make sure it is in conformance with the other plans of Office on the corner.

Member Csordas agreed with the comments of Member Canup that it would be appropriate to review all of the properties to be sure the changes to the Master Plan are held down, specifically the property located on Ten Mile Road and Novi Road. He thought it made sense because there were constant concerns about development on the western portion of the City. Member Csordas thought it would be consistent with the Master Plan and the desire of the citizens, he encouraged the Master Plan Committee to take it under consideration and he supported it.

Mr. Arroyo stated if it was the desire of the Commission to send the document back to the Committee to study the issues, he would be happy to assist with it. He stated another option would be to discuss the merits of them this evening.

Yes: Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington, Canup, Capello

No: None

Since the Public Hearing has been held and closed on the Matter, Mr. Arroyo asked if it satisfied the requirements in terms of a future meeting on the issue?

Paul Weisberger, Assistant City Attorney answered, yes.

None

None

None

Jonathan Brateman stated he brought forth a text amendment and it was not addressed by the Commission. He asked what he could do to address the Commission?

Chairperson Weddington suggested that he put his comments in writing and forward it to the Committee for review along with everything else because everything was still open at this point.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 10:30 p.m.

Yes: Canup, Capello, Churella, Csordas, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Weddington

No: None

________________________________

Kelly Schuler - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

May 18, 1999

Date Approved: June 02, 1999