View Agenda for this meeting






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


PRESENT: Members Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards




ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Director of Planning and Community Development and Staff Planner Beth Brock, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, City Attorney Tom Schultz



Mr. Schultz stated that to his understanding the commission officers were elected last July and would be completing a years term. He stated that as a result of the loss of the Chairmanship, the Vice Chair would succeed the position of the Chair according to the by-laws. He added the commission needed to elect a Vice Chair.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the commission if there were any nominations for the Vice Chair?

Mr. Schultz stated that the Secretary was elected last July or June and Member Churella would be serving out his term as Secretary.


Moved by Nagy, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Nominate Brent Canup for Vice Chair.


Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None




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


Member Mutch requested an addition to Matters for Discussion:


  • The rescheduling of April 18th and July 4th meetings to alternative dates due to the holiday conflict.





Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.




Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None












Chairperson Piccinini announced there were two (2) items on the Consent Agenda.


Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2001. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.


Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the minutes.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 6, 2000 and December 20, 2000.




Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None





This condominium project is located in Section 32, on the north side of Eight Mile Road between Beck and Garfield Roads. The 134.75 acre site is zoned Residential Acreage (RA). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit approval. The applicant is also seeking a positive recommendation to City Council for a Wetland Permit and to develop as a Residential Unit Development (RUD).

Dave Siegal of Multi Building Company Inc., represented Maybury Estates. He proposed the one hundred six (106) homes under a site condominium. He stated the project had been designed to preserve the wetlands and the woodlands by implementing the RUD. He introduced Stephen Deak.

Stephen Deak, landscape architect with Robert Leighton Associates, Inc., stated the site had an agricultural history and continued to be cultivated with different crops to last season. He stated there was a combination of woodland and essential and non-essential wetlands. He designated the areas with regulated wetlands intertwined with the lower quality woodlands and gently rolling topography in the open areas. He stated this feature would provide for excellent drainage. Mr. Deak stated the northern area included a majority of the higher quality essential wooded wetlands and City’s Regulated Woodlands. He noted that some of the preserved wooded area abuts the development Bellagio. He felt that the buildable areas blended and created a road pattern to access various areas and still preserve the natural features on the site. He stated different sections of the road pattern were single loaded to allow public access to open spaces, preserve natural features and minimize the impact. He proposed two (2) entrances with a loop system to the site from Eight Mile Road. Mr. Deak requested the minimal reduction of R-A to R-1. He felt this would allow the site to be workable and preserve the site features. He stated the reduction of the lot size would be beneficial to fit the role character, as it would be surrounded by R-A developments. He added with the RUD, they would be able to save over seven (7) acres of the regulated wetlands. He was uncertain if the detention basin would impact one (1) of the seven (7). Over nineteen (19) acres of regulated woodland would be preserved along with five (5) acres of the lighter woodland areas. He added there would remain sixteen (16) acres of open space upland. He calculated the area to be over fifty-two (52) acres of the site, thirty-eight (38%).

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated January 19, 2001, as it met the intent of the RUD provisions. He felt the additional preservation of natural features would provide a benefit to the city. He stated it was above what could be approved with a conventional development. He clarified the residential unit development options were to have a recommendation to the City Council. He stated the RUD portion of the plan is ultimately a City Council decision and the Preliminary Site Plan is a Planning Commission action. He explained that this meeting would allow the Planning Commission to give the recommendation to City Council and the approval of the Preliminary Site Plan would be contingent upon the RUD approval from the City Council. He restated the applicant’s desire to remove one (1) lot, unit 107, as it does not have frontage to an internal road. He explained that by not having it included as part of the legal description it would remove the nonconforming component outside of the plan. Mr. Arroyo explained that RUD is a discretionary decision, not a mandatory requirement, therefore there are specific standards in the ordinance. He stated the purpose of the RUD is to provide an optional means of flexibility to preserve valuable open land, fragile natural resources and rural character that would otherwise be lost under conventional development. He stated the impact has been closely studied. He agreed that over thirty-eight (38%) of the site is open space. He added that the sited also possessed wildlife habitat and core reserve areas. He stated the impact on the core area was minimal due to the reduction of the lot sizes. Mr. Arroyo commented that the proposed development would preserve more of the natural areas than a conventional development. He stated at Final, a minor setback issue for Lot 87 would need to be addressed. Also, legal council documents would need to be submitted and a contract between the City Council and developer with the approval of the RUD. He explained the contract would spell out the conditions of approval along with detailed information related to the plan. Mr. Arroyo stated that this was the only residential option that existed in the zoning ordinance that would allow them to go above the density based on net side area. He explained that the ordinance based the density on net side area. (The subtraction of regulated wetlands over two (2) acres from the gross site to determine the calculation of density.) He calculated the RA development with .8 dwelling units per acre and multiply it by the net side area (gross minus the wetlands). He compared this figure to the RUD allotment. He stated the RUD allows a limited amount of .8 dwelling units per acre for areas that meet certain criteria preserved on site. He stated that it did not permit density to be greater than the gross site multiplied by .8 over the entire site. He calculated the site with the thirty-eight (38) acres applied to the .8 dwelling units per acre, which could potentially allow thirty (30) additional units. He pointed out that Maybury would have one hundred six (106) units under the RUD option, as opposed to 104 units as a conventional residential development. He referred to his letter, RUD Plan Requirements and Findings Overview, which stated "The existence of clear, explicit, substantial and ascertainable benefits to the City from the RUD".


In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval. He stated there were additional items that would need to be resolved by an amendment to the plan or City Council Design and Construction Waivers in the subdivision ordinance. 1) He stated the subdivision ordinance requires all site condominium and subdivisions to have stub street connections to adjacent property approximately every thirteen hundred (1300) feet bordering the site. The applicant did not propose this in the site plan. The ordinance would require two (2) potential connections to the west of the site. He stated the applicant contacted the single family residential home to the north to create an easement for emergency access and the owner declined. Mr. Arroyo stated the property on the northeast corner, (owned by Northville Public Schools) and the surrounding property, (owned by Cambridge) both declined the stub connection. He felt a connection would be reasonable for future access the potential elementary school. He indicated this would benefit the traffic on Eight Mile Road. The plan demonstrated the potential stub connection and it did not actually shown the pavement to the property line. Mr. Arroyo recommended that the stub be constructed and paved to the property line with the site plan approval. He stated that his experience has shown that there is difficulty with constructing the stub street after the subdivision. Item 2) The proposal for a 195-ft long entry island in the east access street with the ordinance states the maximum length of an island is 100-ft. He stated this could be resolved with no waiver if there was a break in the island. He explained that the one (1) island would be at least thirty-five (35) feet long and with a turn around provided. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval based on the traffic review subject to the resolution of the waiver issues being resolved and the items in the review letter being addressed.


David Bluhm, Engineering Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated January 26, 2001. He recommended approval. The applicant proposed an interconnecting public road system through the site with two (2) connections to Eight Mile Road and an eight (8) foot concrete bike path. He stated they proposed a water main extension into the site from the Bellagio development across the wooded area to the north. They would provide stubs for future connections at the east and west property lines. They proposed a pumping system (a pump station) on site with a discharge into the Bellagio subdivision. He stated they would be evaluating the two (2) alternative proposed locations, which would discharge sewer by gravity. He indicated the City Managers office authorized JCK to create or evaluate a design to bring sewer to the eastern property line of the proposed subdivision. He added they are currently in final stages of negotiations with several property owners of the two (2) feasible routes. He stated the applicant has located the stubs in locations consistent with the locations of the routes. Mr. Bluhm anticipated one (1) of the two (2) locations would become the discharge for the development. Therefore, Mr. Bluhm did not foresee the need for the project to move forward with a pump station. Topographically, the site falls from the northwest corner downhill to the south and to the east. He stated the applicant proposed four (4) detention basin locations. 1) Northern location would discharge to the south end of the site. 2) Eastern location would have a tiered system. 3) Southwestern portion of the site would be detained to two (2) basins located along the Eight Mile Road frontage. (The lowest point of the site.) Mr. Bluhm explained that the basins ultimately discharge into the wooded wetland system, which is Master Planned as a regional detention basin. He clarified that the detention basin is proposed at this point and is not existing. He added the City did not have any immediate plans to construct this basin and it would be a City Council action. He suggested the applicant work with the city to provide an easement for the future Regional Basin. He felt if the easements were obtained from the developers, then City Council would ultimately decide if they wanted to build a basin with the woodland and wetland impacts. Mr. Bluhm recommended that if the stubbed right-of-way was going to remain a right-of-way it should be paved to public standards. He mentioned the water main pressure problems with the southwest part of the city during peak demands in the summer. He stated the city authorized JCK to update a water distribution analysis. This is a computer-generated model that inputs all of the perimeters in the city to evaluate the pressures with demands. This is anticipated to be complete in three (3) months. He stated this would give an accurate picture of the future demands on the system as Novi continues to build out and the impact of the improvements to the system. He stated it would also show if pressures would pose a problem in the proposed development. Mr. Bluhm explained his concern, with the single water main feed from the Bellagio development. The Bellagio is also a single feed. He stated if the water system test analysis results showed inadequate pressure the applicant has indicated they would provide individual lot wells or community well system on the site. Mr. Bluhm expected the applicant to address any shortage of pressure in the six (6) months to a maximum of a few years. He requested the distribution to be in place so that it could be charged and used and the individual wells could be taken off line at some point. He did not agree with the temporary pump station. He commented that the preferred choice would be to have them connect by gravity. He stated if the systems were not by gravity in the near future, they would have to enter into an agreement with the City Council for the temporary use of the pump station. (To use the pump system until the gravity system becomes available.) Mr. Bluhm mentioned one (1) of the many comments related to the storm water detention - the capacity of the culverts underneath Eight Mile Road to discharge the detained flows in the proposed basin. He stated they have done preliminary investigations on the capacity of the culverts, however more detail would need to be provided at Final. He evaluated the basins at adequate size. He suggested the applicant contact the Northville community and notify them by letter of their proposed discharge of storm water. Mr. Bluhm felt the site plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and the comments in the review letter could be addressed at Final.


Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval in her letter dated January 17, 2001. She calculated approximately 47.89 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. She stated the site consisted of a large number of diverse natural resources; hedgerows; wooded wetlands; and high quality woodland area. She located the two (2) highest quality of woodland area. 1) Located at the center of the site connected to the Bellagio site. 2) Located to the north is one of the two (2) Wildlife Habitat - Core Reserve Areas of the city. She felt that the applicant had done a outstanding job addressing the concerns regarding the environmental asset of the site and presented a plan beyond the majority of the woodland and wildlife systems on the site. She pointed out the discrepancy of the woodland area. She stated they would be removing only 7.99 acres of regulated woodlands and preserving 39.9 acres. She stated those areas are located in less significant areas in regard to quality. The light woodlands, she stated 6.4 acres are being removed with thirteen (13) acres saved. In regard to the medium woodland, the higher quality areas, 1.59 acres would be removed and 26.9 acres saved. The applicant has addressed all of the changes that she suggested throughout the review of the project. She stated this included the significance of saving of Tree #630, a thirty-six (36) inch d.h.b. Black Walnut and a bench mark now located on Lot #19. She stated at this stage there are two hundred forty (240) regulated trees being removed with a replacement credit of three hundred ninety-six (396) trees to be planted on site. Ms. Lemke stated there would be additional impact to the area should there be the regional detention basin to the south. She recommended the remaining regulated woodlands and the replacement tree location areas be placed into a preservation easement. She indicated the applicant agreed to do this. She commented there were five (5) conditions to her January 17, 2001 review letter for her recommendation. She stated there remained a lot of work to be completed from this conceptual stage and the residential unit development and its criteria would be reviewed. She stated that the proposed project meets the purpose of Section 2404, by preserving natural systems and important animal and plant habitats. Ms. Lemke calculated the density credits stating that they would be saving approximately 39.9 acres of high quality wooded/wetlands subtracting approximately two (2) acres, with 36.15 acres of woodlands eligible for density credits. She stated the RUD allows important meadows and habitat areas to be counted as potential credits. She found 2.36 acres in this category. She recommended a preservation easement over all of the preserved woodlands and the local important plant and habitat that would be eligible for the density bonus. In regard to park area, she stated there was one (1) usable area for an active park space. She designated the open space surrounded by Lots #35 - #41. With regard to the stub streets, Ms. Lemke stated that she would be looking for the least impact to the adjacent regulated woodlands. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the landscape plan.


Aimee Kay, Environmental Specialist indicated the sixteen (16) wetlands to be approximately ten (10) acres of the property. She focused on the proposed impact, the filling of Wetland "X" for the construction of Lot #6 and Lot #7. The amount of proposed regulated wetland impact is 18.731 square feet (0.43 acres). She indicated restoration opportunities the applicant had proposed. In addition to filling the wetland, the applicant proposed to relocate the aquatic invertebrates and amphibians to another area on the site. Although the wetland is an essential wetland, regulated under the ordinance, she felt it justified with the flexibility of the RUD option, to look at the other opportunities. She credited the applicant for their efforts and cooperation. She indicated a high quality wetland system in the northern portion of the property. Although they appeared to be small "wetland pockets" she stated there was a definite flow of wildlife into the Uplands, the Core Reserves, northward, eastward and south along the hedgerows. She mentioned the large amount of connectivity among the wildlife throughout the site. Although the open farm area had been active, she stated the only degradation, from a wetland perspective, was an area along the hedgerow. She stated this was the reasoning the area under one (1) acres was not called essential. She mentioned the opportunity to change the non-essential area to a functioning wetland. She stated in her letter dated January 26, 2001 that the 0.5 acre of proposed fill, not be the typical wetland mitigation project. She suggested that primary restoration be focused on the wetland and hedgerow area. She stated the applicant would have additional planting enhancements. She felt this would increase the connections from north to south and benefit the city. Although there was ample site to do mitigation she felt it would be a better benefit for the city to allow the restoration enhancement and relocation of the species from the wetland fill. She stated the two (2) wetlands located at the far eastern corner were probably used for irrigation, have a good breeding of amphibians and requested addition of buffering here. Ms. Kay recommended approval.


Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.


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


Mark Taylor, stated he has lived in the area for twenty (20) years. He stated that his home borders Bellagio and Maybury Estates. He stated that he moved to the area to enjoy the woods and the peacefulness, not construction. He objected to the proposed project and felt that it was not the image the community had set forth. He did not see the benefit of another subdivision.


David Capel, owner of fifteen (15) acres to the east of the property and adjacent to Bellagio. He stated he was not contacted regarding the possible stub street. However, he thought it should be considered. He stated that he intended to develop his abutting fifteen (15) acres of land to residential in the next five (5) years. He thought they could possibly combine the developments. He suggested having a third entrance from Beck Road.


Chairperson Piccinini asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.



Member Churella stated he received a letter from Douglas Didbick, 48120 Eight Mile Road, objected to the project with the current information regarding Lot #107. He stated a building here would disturb the natural land and historical value to the community of Novi. He did not feel this would blend in well with Maybury Park or the Barn. Member Churella stated the applicant should contact Mr. Didbick to notify him of the decision to remove Lot #107.




Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo to clarify if the plan could be approved if the City Council did not approve the RUD?


Mr. Arroyo answered, no.


Member Mutch questioned if the site plan should first have the RUD approval from the City Council. He wanted ensure that it would not create problems if the planning commission approved the plan. He explained that City Council may or may not approve the RUD and they could also make significant modifications. He felt the planning commission action(s) would not accomplish anything until the applicant went before the City Council. He requested input from the city attorney.


Mr. Schultz stated in his review of the ordinance, he felt if the City Council approved the RUD Plan with the site plan being consistent, there would be no potential conflict. However, there is nothing in the ordinance that does not permit a developer to "tag along" a site plan with the request for the conceptual RUD approval. He stated the developer should be aware of the risk with a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission for the RUD and a positive action on a site plan. He continued that the positive action for the site plan would not be any good if the RUD plan is not approved by the City Council. Therefore, the approval of the site plan would be contingent upon the City Council’s approval. He did not feel it would be harmful for the planning commission to take action on the site plan or make a positive recommendation of the RUD Plan without the conceptual approval by the City Council. He stated the developer needed to be aware that he would not receive more than a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission for the RUD and that an approval of the site plan would not add to the recommendation. He stated the wetland and woodland issues would need to be contingent upon the City Council.


Member Mutch was concerned that time would be spent reviewing the details of the site plan and City Council may reject or revise the RUD. He questioned if it would be more appropriate to table the issue until the City Council has made a final determination on the RUD. He felt this would allow the Planning Commission to review the site plan consistent with the City Council’s RUD request.


Mr. Schultz stated there would be no problems with tabling the site plan, woodland and wetland related issues if the commission was to act on the proposed RUD plan.





Moved by Mutch, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (6-3): To postpone the Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland Permit approval and the Wetlands Permit for Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A.


Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch in some aspects, however, he felt that typically a RUD Plan is conceptual in nature. He stated the site plan that City Council would base their decision would be the preliminary site plan. He felt it was appropriate to discuss the site plan, because it would effect the RUD. He gave the example of the water and sewer. He restated that action should be taken on all of the matters and not only the RUD.

Member Churella was concerned with the water and sewer. He was uncertain if the Bellagio sewer could handle one hundred six (106) homes because there is currently not enough water pressure. He stated they needed the infrastructure brought to the site. He was not in support of the project.


Yes: Canup, Kocan, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: Churella, Koneda, Landry


Member Mutch disagreed with Member Koneda regarding addressing the RUD issues. He stated there were a number of issues under the RUD approval. He asked Mr. Bluhm if the applicant would be extending city water to the site?

Mr. Bluhm answered yes.

Member Mutch asked if it was provided would there be adequate water pressure?

Mr. Bluhm answered yes.

Member Mutch asked if the extension of city water lines was processed administratively or through the City Council? He asked if there was a Master Plan for the extension?

Mr. Bluhm stated after the Planning Commission motion, it would become an administrative issue.

Member Mutch asked if the waterline extension would occur at an unlimited cost to the city?

Mr. Bluhm stated as he understood, the developer intended to pay for the entire infrastructure.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bluhm to recap where the waterline extension would originate?

Mr. Bluhm stated there is a stub at the southwest corner of the Bellagio development, which is the northeast corner of the proposed development.

Member Mutch asked if this would be the only point of water until other properties were developed?

Mr. Bluhm answered yes.

Member Mutch asked regarding authorization of the extension of the sewer line from the eastern property line of the project. He asked if City Council had authorized sewer extensions to the area?

Mr. Bluhm stated the directive was from the City Manager. He was not aware if it came from City Council.

Member Mutch asked if the extension of sewer lines/sewer area were the authority of the City Council?

Mr. Schultz assumed it would come from the City Council and would be within the City Manager’s prerogative to direct that it be explored and administratively considered.

Mr. Bluhm added that the City Manager authorized the preliminary design with the intent to take it to Council once the preliminary design was completed for authorization to enter the construction phase.

Member Mutch questioned when sanitary sewer is added to an area that did not previously have sanitary sewer, if there would usually be a large area designated?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He stated this would be approximately a mile and one half (1.5) square area to the west.

Member Mutch asked where the sanitary sewer was originating from and where it was going?

Mr. Bluhm stated the existing sewer is stubbed along Beck Road at the south edge of the Bellagio development.

Member Mutch questioned who would finance the sanitary sewer extension?

Mr. Bluhm stated the intention of the City Manager was to bring it to the City Council as a payback district or a SAD district.

Member Mutch asked if the city would be financing with the developers?

Mr. Bluhm stated this was his understanding.

Member Mutch asked at what point Mr. Bluhm felt the storm water regional basin would be required?

Mr. Bluhm stated the regional basin could be used for the site. He stated the basin district was small for the regional basin being one hundred seventy-five (175) acres, seventy (70) acres on site and 90 – 100 on another site. He stated the actual construction or need of the basin would be determined by the City Council.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bluhm if from an engineering perspective he felt the need would come? Would it be after the development of this site or the development of additional properties?

Mr. Bluhm felt it could be prior to the development of the remainder of the district.

Member Mutch asked if it could be in the next couple of years but not immediately?

Mr. Bluhm stated that was possible.

Member Mutch asked if the city had experienced the placement of a detention basin that is being developed as residential subdivision, removing the woodlands and the wetlands?

Mr. Bluhm answered yes.

Member Mutch asked what the reaction of the residents to this activity?

Mr. Bluhm stated this has not been done in the last seven (7) to ten (10) years. He stated that much of the development in the late 80’s and early 90’s brought very little objection. He stated the intent of the wooded wetlands is to minimize the impact. He explained that constructing the regional basin did not refer to excavating the area and it would only be a control structure at the outlet. The remainder of the property used to store water would be undisturbed. He noted the obvious concern of affected trees.

Member Mutch asked if the property to the south was explored to find if it could support the flow of the culverts?

Mr. Bluhm stated that applicant had evaluated the capacity of the culverts.

Member Mutch questioned if the area past the culvert was only assumed to be able to handle the flow and if this was a realistic assumption?

Mr. Bluhm identified Member Mutch’s relating to the 100-year. He stated the applicant was asked to evaluate the flows of a 100-year storm, however, it is not city policy for the applicant to evaluate and provide a capacity to carry 100-year storm. He explained that the increase in flow from an undeveloped condition to a developed condition in a 10-year storm was insignificantly different. However, the run off factors of a 100-year storm is significantly different.

Member Mutch asked what would occur if the property to the south could not support the flows? He asked if the ordinance would require the applicant to detain above the 10-year storm?

Mr. Bluhm stated the downstream conditions would be evaluated. He added that the applicant was asked to contact the neighboring community to address this issue. He expected these issues to be addressed before Final site plan approval.

Member Mutch asked if the flow would be traveling onto private property or Maybury Park?

Mr. Bluhm believed it would be flowing into Maybury State Park.

Member Mutch asked if it would be necessary to contact the DNR?

Mr. Bluhm anticipated that Northville Township would requested this. He added the applicant would need to address their request.

Member Mutch asked what the long-term health of the Core Reserve Area would be under the RUD Plan?

Ms. Lemke answered it would be good. She stated the plan has crossings coming down over the green area on the map. She noted some disruption in the area for the connection of utilities to the Bellagio. She stated this disruption would be a minimum strip and being surrounded on both sides, and did not anticipate a large impact. She stated that the wildlife culverts for the road crossings and planting would be evaluated at Final. She added that they would be able to plant up to the road crossings.

Member Mutch asked if Ms. Lemke felt further lot size reductions would created a significant amount of additional open space and habitat area beyond what has been proposed?

Ms. Lemke stated there could be some additional open space, however she did not interpret the amount as "significant". She stated all of the higher quality areas are being preserved.

Member Mutch asked if there was woodland intrusion in the area in the northeast corner? He asked if this could be reduced?

Ms. Lemke stated that area is lightly wooded and not of high quality.

Member Mutch commented that during the RUD Development evaluation, the potential impact on public services and public infrastructure is evaluated. He expressed his lack of support of the city footing one and one half (1.5) miles of sanitary sewer extension. He felt this was ultimately front-loading the cost of "urban sprawl". He stated the development could not occur without that sanitary sewer extension. He did not agree that the city was able to authorize a city sewer line extension without the signing of the plan by City Council. He felt that the City Council should address this. He added that the current water system was not able to support the development. He mentioned the contamination site down Eight Mile Road and therefore, well water would not be an alternative. However, he felt the RUD Plan did allow a higher amount of preservation in terms of the Core Reserve and the woodlands, therefore, he would favor the RUD development. He stated that there were a number of issues that the City Council would need to address before giving final sign-off on the site.

Member Canup agreed with Member Mutch regarding the cost of the sewer extension. He asked who would be paying for the sewer extension? He also questioned the math for the one hundred six (106) lots with a minimum square footage at twenty thousand (20,000) square feet per lot?

Mr. Deak asked Member Canup to clarify the question?

Member Canup stated that the lot chart size shows the forty-three (43) minimum square foot lots at twenty thousand (20,000) square feet. He continued with one hundred six (106) lots at .5 acres would be approximately twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.

Mr. Deak answered approximately twenty-one thousand (21,000) square feet.

Member Canup continues that 106 X 2 = approximately 200 acres. Approximately one-half acre (½).

Mr. Deak noted that the amendment to the plan, to remove the 107th lot, was after the plans were submitted. Therefore, he continued the percentages were based on the one hundred seven (107) lots and would need to be adjusted when the plans are resubmitted.


Motion by Canup, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED (8-1): To send a positive recommendation to City Council for the RUD option for Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A.




Member Koneda asked if the acreage would be kept as part of the RUD development or if Lot 107 would be pulled out and sold?


Mr. Siegal answered that the lot acreage would be removed from the site plan and possibly acquired by Mr. Tubert.


Member Koneda clarified that Lot 107 would be deleted and the acreage would be removed from the site plan with the possibility of another residential home?


Mr. Siegal agreed that this was a possibility.


Member Koneda asked if it could be a possible shared driveway?


Mr. Siegal answered, yes.


Member Koneda felt the RUD was suited for the space. He was acknowledged the wetland and woodland consultant’s strong positive recommendations. He stated these reports would be part of the RUD presentation to Council because it exhibits the conservation of the land. He was certain that the conservation easements were a condition of the RUD agreement. He commented that the purpose of the RUD was to preserve open space and the conservation easement would be an interval part of the RUD agreement contract. He stated it was not necessary to make this part of the motion. He added that the RUD allows for reduction in the lot size and can also permit higher density in conventional zoning. Member Koneda stated that he was pleased that there was not a density increase. He questioned if there was a subdivision option as a RUD?


Mr. Arroyo answered yes.


Member Koneda thought the development needed to be a site condo under the RUD. He asked if it was a site condo it would need to come before the Planning Commission?


Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.


Member Koneda asked if the detention basin and the dedication of the easement were a condition of the RUD agreement? He asked if the city would have to buy the easement?


Mr. Bluhm stated the easement could be bought or donated.


Member Koneda clarified if the developer proposed to offer it?


Mr. Bluhm stated the developer indicated their willingness to move forward and work with the city. However, he was not certain if they had determined to offer it for free.


Mr. Schultz restated to the commission that this was an option. He stated they could chose to enter into the agreement if it was favorable to the city.


Member Koneda stated that he was concerned regarding the engineering aspects of water and sewer. He felt that the City Council should take this into consideration when they take action on this RUD Plan. He felt the Planning Commission should give a positive recommendation to City Council because the plan preserves the open space, meets all of the requirements and is ideally suited for the site.


Member Kocan asked if there would have been a more extensive engineering review if the property across the street (south of Eight Mile Road) were part of Novi?


Mr. Bluhm stated this would not have made a difference. Novi would have asked the applicant to review the downstream, however, in this situation he explained, it is anticipated that Northville would make the request.


Member Kocan stated that she was not comfortable with the idea that the Northville engineers had not reviewed the plan. She stated her interested with the feedback from the City of Northville and the DNR. She commended the developers for their efforts with the preservation of space. She added that the ordinance stated "…in order to be eligible to additional density, (to go up from the 104 conventional lots to the 106), the applicant must show that the remaining open space will be dedicated to active and passive recreation areas for the RUD residents." Member Kocan noted Ms. Lemke’s comment of possible active recreation in the horseshoe area between lot #35 and lot #41. She asked how people would get to this recreation area, since it would be located in the resident’s backyard? She asked if a walkway would then be necessary and if the residents would be interested in that? She was not requesting the plan to be changed, however, she felt this recreation area would be an attractive asset to the community.


Mr. Siegal indicated the many discussions regarding this option. He explained that the area between lots #35 and lot #41 included a wood chip path leading up to that area. He stated that in conversation with David Misfud and Linda Lemke, the idea of incorporating walking paths was discussed. He recalled the consultants advising him not to add the wood chip paths throughout the site. He stated the plan would include open fields and adequate areas for the children at play and eventually there would be an eight foot (8’) concrete path across the frontage on Eight Mile. He noted the stub road, which they hoped to eliminate due to the objections from the neighbors. He proposed a walking path from the area into the neighboring subdivision, which would allow children safe access to the Northville Public School area.


VOTE ON PM-01-02-020


Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: Churella




  2. This condominium project is located in Section 4, south of Pontiac Trail and east of Beck Road. The 10.835 acre site is zoned Low-Density, Low-Rise Multiple-Family Residential (RM-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan, Woodland and Wetland Permit approvals and Section Nine Façade Waiver.

    Mark O’Rourke of Landmarc Building and Development presented the revisions to the Site Plan. He stated the adjacent property to the north is zoned commercial, with a proposed commercial center. To the east are apartments, to the west is existing commercial along Beck Road and to the south is the Wixom’s zoned light industrial. He felt that the required seventy-five (75) foot setback limited their buildable property area. Mr. O’Rourke proposed an impact to some of the woodlands and a minimal amount of the wetland in attempt to compact the proposed design. He showed the commission the original conceptual plan, which did not meet the forty-five (45) degree angle requirement. He added with this concept plan, a large amount of woodland and wetland would have been impacted. He showed the commission the second plan, which also did not meet the forty-five (45) degree requirement and significantly impacted the woodland and wetland areas. He proposed the next stage of their revisions. He stated the commission felt the plan was too dense and did not enough open space for recreation. Mr. O’Rourke presented to the Planning Commission the newest plan. He stated one (1) of the changes was the removal of the loop road. A large open space area was created for recreation facilities. Sidewalks have been added to connect the residential to the nearby shopping plaza. He designated the areas in which more woodlands were opened up. The proposed plan relocated the boardwalk. He added with the many revisions, they were still able to present to the commission the Vistas. Mr. O’Rourke commented on additional items which he would like to revise. He designated the trees he would like to relocate. He felt the overall site plan addressed the changes requested by the commissioners.


    Mr. Arroyo did not recommend approval due to the need of a ZBA Variance. As indicated in the review letter dated January 22, 2001, the site plan consumes more than thirty percent (30%) the required side yard with paving, parking and maneuvering areas. (The maximum is 39%.) Mr. Arroyo indicated there were two (2) buildings that did not meet the forty-five (45) degree requirement. He recommended approval of a Planning Commission Waiver for this situation. He stated the two (2) buildings are buffered from the adjacent property line by the woodland/wetland area. He considered it a practical difficulty to meet this portion of the ordinance due to the environmental features on the site.

    In regard to traffic, he recommended approval. He noted that the emergency access needed to be reconfigured to allow fire trucks to access the site. He felt the remaining traffic issues of the review letter dated February 1, 2001 could be resolved at Final.

    Mr. Bluhm recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. He stated there were essentially no changes from an engineering perspective. Water and sewer are proposed to serve the site. He stated the sanitary sewer currently exists along the north and the west property line and would bring service leads. The applicant proposed to extend water main from Beck Road. He noted that Beck Road’s water system is the City of Wixom. He stated that the City of Novi did not currently have public water available to this area. Therefore, an agreement would be necessary between the City of Wixom and the City of Novi and the developer for the temporary use. He stated this would need to be secured and have City Council approval. He requested the water main be stubbed at a location, in which the system could be disconnected from the City of Wixom and connected to the City of Novi’s public system when available. He stated the two (2) cell detention basin is proposed at the north end of the site. He indicated the basin would discharge into the large wetland complex extending to the east. Mr. Bluhm requested that the downstream capacity conditions be evaluated. In addition to the number of comments to be addressed at Final he recommended approval.

    Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Woodland Permit. She stated her previous area of concern had been addressed in this site plan submittal. She explained the proposed plan is removing approximately one (1) acre of regulated woodlands and saving six (6) acres. She compared this figure to the previous submittal, they had proposed to remove 1.9 acres and save 5.1 acres. She noted that the areas of impact are less quality, lightly wooded areas. She stated the plan would preserve the higher quality area. Ms. Lemke recommended that the remaining regulated woodlands be placed into a preservation easement. She stated there were a number of items in her letter dated January 22, 2001 to be addressed at Final. She stated there were four (4) conditions with her recommendation. She indicated they would need a variance from ZBA for the berming along the western property line abutting the existing shopping center. (The berm does not meet the height requirement.) She recommended that alternatives be explored to achieve the berming height. She suggested they provide the berm height by utilizing an easement with the property owner to the west or with the combination of a retaining wall and berm. Ms. Lemke stated the site would need a Planning Commission Waiver for the preservation of the existing woodland area abutting residential at the southeast corner of the site. She stated there is approximately forty (40) feet in depth to the north and three hundred fifty (350) to four hundred fifty (450) feet in depth further south that would be preserved. If the Planning Commission should grant this positive waiver, she requested that additional evergreen trees along the forty (40) foot depth of woodlands in the northeast corner to meet the opacity requirement.

    Mr. Mifsud recommended approval in the review letter dated January 15, 2001. He indicated the proposed impacts to the site. 1) To fill 0.11 acres of wetland for construction and grading of a road and driveway. 2) To cross the wetland with a sanitary sewer line from the east property boundary. 3) Storm water discharge from a detention basin to the wetland along the northern edge of the wetland. 4) A storm sewer connection to existing storm sewer to the south that immediately outlets to the wetland. He stated his concern with the proposed location of the sanitary lead. He stated previously there was a location impacting the wetland and the other was outside of the wetland. To his understanding, both of these sanitary leads would be feasible from an engineering perspective. He requested the original location be reestablished or a reasonable compromise made to minimize woodland/wetland impacts.

    Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. She indicated she received a letter from Doug Necci of JCK dated January 30, 2001 recommending a Section Nine Facade Waiver.



    Member Nagy referred to a previous meeting in which she requested that the façade ordinance be met. She referred to the minutes indicating that Mr. O’Rourke agreed to meet the façade requirements. She questioned why he was asking for a façade waiver?

    Mr. O’Rourke stated that at the December 6, 2001 meeting they received feedback from the commission regarding the façade. He explained the commissioners at that meeting chose the revised sample board. He stated the proposed product is of higher quality with more of a wood look.

    Member Nagy stated that the minutes indicate that he stated he would voluntarily meet the façade ordinance and despite what occurred at the December 6, 2001 meeting, he agreed to meet the ordinance. She restated that he was not meeting the ordinance.

    Mr. O’Rourke stated if this was a requirement for approval, then he would agree to change the façade. However, from a resident perspective, he felt that the maintenance long term, the proposed façade would be preferred.

    Member Nagy stated that she appreciated Mr. O’Rourke’s comments and felt he should stand by what he had said. She asked him to designate the location of the added unit?

    Mr. O’Rourke indicated the building that was reduced. He stated it allowed the two (2) buildings to be twisted, meeting the forty-five (45) degree rule and provide a larger green space. He addressed Member Mutch’s comments from the previous meeting regarding the front façade.

    Member Nagy felt the changes are substantial. She stated could support the project, however, she would not support the Section Nine Facade Waiver. She stated if he has agreed to meet the requirement then he should uphold the agreement.

    Chairperson Piccinini stated that the November 15, 2000 minutes indicate that Doug Necci stated the 1/8 inch gage textured vinyl siding is allowed.

    Member Koneda clarified the concern of the lighter gage vinyl siding was the buckling effect. He was aware of the discussion between the applicant and Mr. Necci. Member Koneda read from Mr. Necci’s letter dated January 30, 2001. "The applicant has recently proposed the use of 1/16" gage, 3 exposure vinyl siding in the same percentages as originally proposed. It is our recommendation that this product will provide a visual appearance equivalent to 1/8" gage vinyl siding. A Section Nine Facade Waiver is therefore recommended." He asked the applicant if they changed the selection of the vinyl siding? Member Koneda felt that although a verbal commitment was made, his commitment was to meet the intent of the ordinance. He stated the intent of the ordinance was to have an appealing façade. Member Koneda felt this issue should be addressed.

    Mr. Fox pointed out that the review letter was written after the December meeting. He stated the material tends to buckle and create a concave look. He stated the smaller exposure with the horizontal lines alleviates a lot of this cupping. He felt this choice was close to the equivalent they were attempting to reach with the 1/8" gage. He stated this was the reasoning for the acceptance and recommendation.

    Member Koneda clarified if the recommendation was that the 1/16" gage 3" vinyl siding is structurally equivalent to the 1/8" gage 4" as originally proposed.

    Mr. Fox answered correct. He stated the 4" gage only gives a one (1) horizontal line and tends to cup out. He compared it to the 3" gage, three (3) horizontal panels decreased the effect were attempting to avoid. He stated the original reasoning for the thick vinyl was to prevent the cupping.

    Member Koneda was satisfied with Mr. Fox’ recommendation.

    Member Nagy asked why the applicant did not use wood to meet the ordinance?

    Mr. O’Rourke felt it was preferential to the clientele, as it would be less maintenance.

    Member Nagy did not feel this was an issue.

    Member Koneda commended the applicant on the site plan. He commented on the forty-five (45) degree orientations for buildings A and B. He felt the waiver was appropriate. He believed the purpose of the angular orientation was to improve the aesthetic appeal of the site from the surrounding areas. He felt the preservation of the natural features provided a similar function. He supported the granting of the Section Nine Facade Waiver. He stated he could also support the waiver for the berm to the southeast, to preserve existing vegetation.


    Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of Pointe Park Condominiums SP 00-51b that we grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Wetland Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver, Planning Commission Waiver of the forty-five (45) degree orientation for buildings A and B for the reasons stated, Planning Commission Waiver for the berm to the southeast to preserve the existing vegetation conditional upon the petitioner obtaining a ZBA Waiver for the excessive off street parking in the west side yard or bring it into compliance with the ordinance and a ZBA Variance for the western property berm or bringing that into compliance also subject to the conditions and recommendations of the consultants.


    Member Landry understood that 1/8" vinyl siding met the ordinance requirement. He questioned if this would only apply to the buildings in Region 3 and not where the building is located in Region 1?

    Mr. Fox noted the subnote #11 of the wood siding in the ordinance, which indicates if the buildings are in a residential style architecture, the percentages go up to approximately fifty percent (50%) for wood siding in all regions. He stated the 1/8" vinyl siding is equivalent to wood.

    Member Landry asked Mr. Fox where the ordinance indicated the 1/8" vinyl siding is equivalent to wood?

    Mr. Fox believed it was 7012 or 7013. He continued, that if it was considered to be wood siding, then it would be allowed up to fifty percent (50%) in other regions, based on the style of the architecture, which meets the ordinance requirements.

    Member Landry stated that the applicant was proposing 1/16" gage vinyl siding. Therefore, he stated it appeared that he was not proposing the 1/8" gage that is contemplated by the ordinance. Due to this issue, Member Landry stated that he would not support the façade waiver. He continued that it did not appear that the applicant was making an attempt to meet the façade ordinance requirement. He asked Ms. Lemke if the applicant’s options for the western berm were to go to ZBA for a waiver or to agree to build a retaining wall?

    Ms. Lemke stated that a wall would require approval by the Planning Commission. She continued that if the applicant did not comply with the requirements of the berm, then they would be required to obtain a variance from the ZBA. She added that the applicant could also comply with the berm height.

    Member Landry clarified that the motion on the floor would require the applicant to go to the ZBA?

    Chairperson Piccinini stated the motion gave both options.

    Member Landry restated that the applicant could comply or choose to go to the ZBA?

    Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

    Member Landry stated that he was not in objection to the forty-five (45) degree angle. He felt the applicants efforts to meet this requirement were commendable. However, they would have to go to the ZBA for the thirty (30) percent maneuvering space. Member Landry expressed his support with the southeast berm issues, however, he would not support the façade waiver.

    Member Kocan stated the opportunity to provide the berm without hardship existed, she did not agree with sending the applicant to ZBA for a variance. She asked the applicant why there existed a thirty percent (30%) side yard verses a thirty-nine (39%)?

    Mr. Deak stated the site is required to have emergency access. He stated there has been an easement negotiated which allows emergency access to Beck Road. He continued that they needed to add the strip of pavement to establish pavement to the emergency access. He indicated there was another area that needed to be paved to obtain access to the site. He stated the combination of the two (2) items placed the percentage over on the one (1) side. He added that the ordinance addressed the pavement coverage on each side of the site.

    Member Kocan clarified the reasoning to be the existing development in front of the site creating a unique site?

    Mr. Deak agreed and stated it was impossible.

    Member Kocan asked Mr. Deak to address the berm issue?

    Mr. Deak stated his intention to attempt to meet the requirements of the ordinance from the berm perspective. He planned to work with Ms. Lemke at an administrative level to address this.

    Member Kocan stated that it was her personal preference to not have the berm completely waived.

    Mr. Deak agreed with Member Kocan. He did not want to have the residents viewing the back of a shopping center.

    Member Mutch asked Ms. Lemke if there was an existing berm?

    Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

    Member Mutch asked if it met current standards?

    Ms. Lemke stated that the berm did not meet the screening requirements as measured from the residential units.

    Member Mutch asked if there would be an issue because the residential units are two-story?

    Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She stated the current issue was only measuring from the first floor and did not considered the second floor.

    Member Mutch referred to the aerial photograph. He stated the only residential building adjacent to this site was at a ninety (90) degree angle. Therefore, although this did not comply with the ordinance, he stated that the property next to the site was not in compliance at all. He could support this waiver. He asked Ms. Lemke regarding the entrance sidewalk along the entrance drive. He noted that he previously commented that it was not appropriate to have the sidewalk abutting the street. He asked if the sidewalk could be shifted north to allow grass?

    Ms. Lemke stated indicated a proposed water main and stated details would need to be worked out with the engineers. She felt they might be able to have some separation.

    Member Mutch did not feel this needed to be part of the motion, however, he requested that the option be explored. He recognized the applicant numerous revisions to address the concerns of the commission. Although, the specific elements of the façade package did not meet the façade ordinance, he felt the intent of the ordinance was met. He recalled the alternative façade types being presented at the previous planning commission meeting. He indicated that the commissioners present for that meeting felt the façade package presented met the needs of the applicant and the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, he stated the applicant had met the intent of the waiver request. He commended the applicant for the great detail and efforts made to preserve the woodlands, wetlands and provisions of open space.

    VOTE ON PM-01-02-021 CARRIED

    Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

    No: Landry, Nagy



This light industrial building is located in Section 14, on the north side of Eleven Mile west of Meadowbrook Road. The 3.9 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Jeff Scott of Scott Architects represented Cassell & Associates. He introduced the landscape architect of the proposed project, Brian Devlin of Ludwig and Associates. Mr. Scott proposed the eleven thousand (11,000) square foot assembly office building. He stated the building would be owner occupied. He indicated the wetland, which bisects the site and the large Walnut trees that would be maintained. He stated the unique sloping to the east and the north allowed the design of the building to be set in the hill. He stated from Eleven Mile Road, the two-story development would appear to be a single-story building. He noted the existing two-story building would be demolished to allow room for the new construction. Mr. Scott stated the applicant did not seek to maximize the yield of the site potential, instead they were seeking to maintain the trees and the wetland. He noted that the surrounding developments and the wetland offered some buffering to the proposed development. He noted the location of the parking field for employees and clients utilizing the facility and the entrance to the west. He stated the proposed project exceeded the nineteen (19) required parking spaces with twenty-seven (27) total spaces. Mr. Scott requested a Section Nine Facade Waiver for the architectural element of split faced block. He stated the majority of the building was brick and the split faced block would be to for the building base. He noted the asphalt shingled roof, accent banding and tinted glazing. He explained that Cassell was attempting to create an open look with natural lighting by using the glass block to enclose toilet rooms and stairwells.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the planning commission waiver that would be required for the existing drive along the eastern property line that is closer than ten (10) feet to the side lot line. He noted the ten (10) foot buffer requirement. He stated it would generally be brought into conformance. However, he stated the ordinance would permit the planning commission to allow the distance be closer than ten (10) feet if additional parking setbacks were provided elsewhere on the site. He indicated the proposed eight (8) foot bike path along the north side of Eleven Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo indicated that a complete lighting plan would need to be submitted with the final site plan. He stated the plan must demonstrate compliance with all requirements of Section 2511. He requested a floor plan and detailed description of the use of the accessory building be provided at final. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the preliminary site plan for planning and traffic subject to the appropriate waivers being granted.

Mr. Bluhm stated the applicant would tie into the water main on Eleven Mile Road. He noted the sanitary sewer would be stubbed at the western property line and service the site. He stated the waste water would be disposed of through a privately maintained injector pumped sanitary lead that would tie into the proposed 8" off-site sanitary sewer to the west of the site. Mr. Bluhm stated the site has severe topography, falling extensively to the rear and west to east. He stated the proposed western parking lot is ten (10) feet higher than the eastern parking lot. He noted two (2) basins – western basin is located north of the parking lot and a basin at the northeast corner of the building. He noted the Bishop Creek, a city owned creek, flows from west to east with an open body of water at the lower levels. He stated the applicant proposed to connect the western basin with the eastern basin and have a single discharge to the creek. He stated a Local Minor Use Flood Plain Permit would be required. He explained a flood plain is associated with Bishop Creek. He noted the lowest elevations of the building a tenth shy of meeting the ordinance requirement of one (1) foot free board above the 100-year flood. He stated this was a minor issue that could be addressed at final. Mr. Bluhm recommended the applicant secure a map revision from FIRM because the flood insurance rate maps tend to be inaccurate. He noted that the flood plain locations is not accurate to the actual elevation of the flood plain based on the existing topography. He felt the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and he recommended approval.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the conceptual landscape plan. She indicated the applicant would be providing the additional setbacks at Eleven Mile Road and along the western and northern property line. She stated this would support the planning commission waiver for additional space for the driveway. She noted the applicant also proposed to preserve the larger trees adjacent to the driveway. She added they proposed to save the Walnut trees on the site. She complimented the nice landscaping on the center island in the middle of the parking area and the entry planting east of the driveway.

Mr. Mifsud noted the original Preliminary Site Plan proposed two (2) storm water discharges. He stated the applicant has revised the plan to have a single storm water discharge to Wetland C, which functions as part of the watercourse for the Bishop Creek. He noted this change lessens the wetland impact. Mr. Mifsud stated a conservation easement was recommended over all remaining wetlands on-site with the applicant’s consent. Mr. Mifsud recommended approval.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items to be corrected on the next submittal: 1) An additional hydrant shall be on Eleven Mile Road at the west property line. 2) All weather access roads capable of supporting 25 tons are to be provided for fire apparatus prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 3) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be in service prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 4) The building address is to be posted facing the street throughout construction. The address is to be at least 3 inches high on a contrasting background. This shall be noted on the plans. She indicated she received a letter from Doug Necci of JCK dated January 16, 2001 recommending a Section Nine Facade Waiver.


Member Koneda stated he was concerned with the driveway spacing waiver for the west side. He noted since the waiver is required, it would be better to have the same side driveway spacing variances verses an opposite driveway variance. He felt this action would be appropriate.

Member Nagy asked what impacts the 11’ encroachment would have on Bishop Creek?

Mr. Arroyo stated the 11’ encroachment would be with the widening of the proposed drive. He stated it would not impact Bishop Creek directly. He noted Bishop Creek was noted because it is "next door".

Member Nagy asked if Bishop Creek could handle the discharge?

Mr. Mifsud stated the original two (2) discharge proposal would have also gone into Wetland C. He noted the revised plan with one (1) discharge would have a restricted flow and would not impact Bishop Creek. He stated the wetland would function as a detention and discharge into a two (2) system detention basin. As a result of the single storm water discharge, the minor use permit could be handled administratively.

Member Nagy commented on the interesting design. She questioned why the applicant needed the façade waiver? She asked if the applicant could change their proposed materials to materials that would meet the ordinance? She suggested canopy regular windows verses the proposed glass block.

Mr. Scott stated the reason for the glass block would be to allow the maximum amount of natural light into the facility in areas that require privacy.

Member Nagy asked if the applicant considered frosted or tinted windows?

Mr. Scott felt the glass block was the most appropriate use for the building with the design.

Member Nagy asked what the applicant was attempting to achieve that could not be achieved with a material that met the city ordinance? She felt the design of the building was fairly standard.

Mr. Scott stated he was not aware of the benefits of the frosted window. He did not feel a frosted window would be appropriate for the use inside.

Member Nagy stated she was not only referring to frosted windows. She asked the applicant what the unique character/design of the building that did not enable them to meet the city ordinance?

Mr. Scott asked Mr. Fox if the site had too much glass?

Mr. Fox explained the south and west elevations have large bands of glass in the curtain wall type of entrance. He stated this places the aluminum, sophit and fascia boards over the fifteen percent (15%) allowable by ordinance. He stated felt this was based on keeping the overall design of the building, and they did not find any problems. He stated this was taken into consideration for the trim.

Member Churella stated if the glass was painted, it could pass under the city ordinance. He stated they attempted to change this ordinance at the Implementation meeting. He stated there was not credit for glass when placed on the building. He noted the block is actually as strong as brick. He felt the building was well designed.

Member Nagy agreed that the building design was well done.

Mr. Schultz stated the façade ordinance has specific standards. However, he stated there is a waiver authority built into the façade ordinance. The ordinance indicated that the commission needed to consider if the proposed is consistent with and would enhance the building design concept and how materials/colors relate to the buildings in the surrounding area and the development. He continued that the planning commission might, as part of the review, request and report a recommendation from the consulting architect. Mr. Schultz explained the report from Mr. Necci represents this report. He stated the planning commission did not have to accept his recommendation. He clarified the question should not be "Why can you not meet the written standard?" but instead, "Are you giving us what we are asking or something similar?"

Member Nagy thanked Mr. Schultz for his comments. Although she understood the intent of the ordinance, she felt there was still an ordinance in place to be met.

Member Landry understood the Planning Commission’s authority to waive the façade ordinance. He asked the applicant why the waiver was being requested? He stated the ordinance indicates zero (0) glass block. He did not feel a consultant’s recommendation or a waiver request should be cause for his vote. He asked the applicant if cost was the reason for the split faced block?

Mr. Scott stated felt the split faced block would provide a larger module, textured material and a building base. He stated they did not want to have a "cookie cutter" building. He felt he was hired to design an economical building. He indicated that although he has designed an economical building, it was not a cheap building. He felt he had the proper use of materials taking all the factors into consideration – the use of the building, the programming requirements and the aesthetics of the design.

Member Landry asked the applicant if the split faced block was being used for aesthetics or cost or both?

Mr. Scott answered it was for aesthetics.

Member Landry asked the applicant their options of materials to meet the ordinance? He asked if brick could be used?

Mr. Scott stated this was a possibility. He noted they would need to deal with the module size and texture that the brick would not offer.

Member Canup noted he was also in the building business. He understood that split faced block was not cheap. He believed the cost was approximately ten dollars ($10) per block in place. He felt it was an attractive material as opposed to other methods. Member Canup expressed his support of the split faced block.

Member Koneda stated the ordinances are typically living documents that change with the found need. He stated when the commission finds several variances for the same ordinance, they review the ordinance and determine if there is a need to revise the language. He noted several of the ordinances had been in place for many years and over that time, the architect styles have changed. He suggested sending the façade ordinance to Implementation for review. Member Koneda felt the plan was aesthetically appealing. He felt the glass block was an attractive alternative with the design of the building. He commended the architect.

Member Richards asked if there was a possibility of an error in the applicant’s favor with the FIRM map?

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He believed there may be an error in the applicant’s favor with the actual elevations placing the flood plain closer to the actual creek than what is indicated on the flood insurance rate map indicates. Mr. Bluhm clarified that there was not an elevation issue. He indicated the difference would be the location of the flood plain on the property, the topography and where the elevation falls on the property. He restated that the base flood elevation would remain unchanged with the FIRM map.


Moved by Churella, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED: To grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Section Nine Facade Waiver for SP 00-72 and Planning Commission Waiver for the required ten (10) foot parking setback along the east property line, Planning Commission Waiver of the city’s minimum commercial driveway spacing for the west access drive and all the consultant’s recommendations and conditions.


Member Kocan agreed that the façade ordinance needed to be addressed. She indicated that the commission is not supposed to vote based on how they feel about a project. She noted they needed to examine the intent of the ordinance and determine if the materials being used enhance the building. She stated based on the picture, the proposed building appeared nicely designed. She asked if the parking stalls could be reduced to seventeen (17) foot? Due to the transportation of workers, she asked if they anticipated larger vehicles, requiring the twenty (20) foot parking spaces? She noted the four (4) foot landscape strip recommended by Ms. Lemke could be allowed if the parking spots were shortened.

Mr. Scott agreed to work with the staff in attempt to shorten the parking spaces. He did not feel this would be an issue.

Member Kocan did not feel the dumpster location was acceptable. She asked the applicant if the dumpster would be able to be relocated to the location recommended by the city?

Mr. Scott stated he had some less evasive ideas for the dumpster. He felt confident that this issue could be worked out with the staff as well.

Member Kocan asked the issues with the accessory building to be discussed?

Mr. Scott stated the use would remain storage and storage for maintenance vehicles to plow the driveway.

Member Kocan clarified that there would not be any outside storage?

Mr. Scott answered, correct. He noted the current outside storage was from McSweeney Electric and would be cleaned up.

Member Mutch stated the outside accessory structure is non conforming with the city ordinance. He assumed the outdoor storage would also be non conforming and not permitted. He asked if the structure could continue to be used in any manner since this is a redevelopment of the site?

Mr. Schultz stated the commission has the ability to leave the structure as it exists and consider the proposed development to be a redevelopment of the remainder of the site. He felt the commission has the opportunity, through the course of the development, to address the non conforming issues if they chose.

Member Landry stated that he was not in objection to the driveway situation or the parking lot setback. He was not in support of the façade waiver.

PM-01-02-022 CARRIED

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Mutch, Piccinini, Richards

No: Landry, Nagy


Member Koneda asked if the façade ordinance was sent to Implementation Committee, when could it be addressed?

Ms. Brock stated April.


Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send the façade ordinance to the Implementation Committee to reevaluate


Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None



  2. Chairperson Piccinini announced the joint meeting with the City Council would be Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.

    Member Mutch requested that the future role of the City Consultants as it pertains to the Planning Commission and its activities be added to the agenda of the joint meeting.

    Member Churella stated he would not be able to attend the meeting due to prior commitments.


    Kathy Crawford, Special Recreation Coordinator, stated she has been the Senior Citizen coordinator for twenty (20) years. She indicated that information was enclosed in the packets describing some of the activities that occur on a daily basis at the Senior Center. She stated in 1986 a resolution was passed to establish a Senior Housing Needs Study Committee. The goals and objectives of the October 1986 meeting were determined. She stated the committee met with community leaders, church officials, complex developers and senior housing complexes to survey the likes and dislikes. A map of ideal locations to live was developed by the committee. She noted the first site chosen is across the street from the new complex. In 1987, the committee made a presentation to City Council with recommendations. In 1987 the Senior Housing Ordinance was written. Ms. Crawford stated the ordinance was not as effective as the committee had hoped. She stated at that time, the city felt it was built out for multiple housing. There was no opportunity to have additional multiples for only seniors without rewriting the ordinance. In January 1992, Ruby Fuerst named the City of Novi in her will donating a large sum of money to build senior citizen housing on the Civic Center site. Since the site was not feasible and it was tied to the site, it had to be returned. In March 1992 a second housing committee was formed and a third in 1994. In 1995 Building Authority was formed to fund the senior housing project. In July 1997, sixteen (16) acres on Meadowbrook Road were donated to the city by Holson and Silverman. This is the location of the senior housing complex. In 1998 and 1999 interview and selections of developers and architects were made for the project. She stated August 17, 2000 was the ground breaking of the site. December 1, 2000 the first unit was completed. She noted that already, twenty (20) units have been pre-leased, eight (8) have moved in and sixty-eight (68) to be processed. She stated the complex had one hundred fifty (150) units. The main building is scheduled to be completed by early summer of 2001. Ms. Crawford stated the senior center would be relocated to the senior complex and attached as a multipurpose room on the main building. She noted over nine hundred (900) interested responses. She noted a model was open and she encouraged residents take a tour. She indicated Cherry Hill, the entrance to Meadowbrook Glens subdivision, would be a better route verses turning off of Meadowbrook Road. Ms. Crawford read county statistics regarding the Novi population: 1980 – 22, 525; 1990 – 32,000; 2000 48,572; which she estimated to be at a 46.5 percent growth each year. She noted the population of ages 45+ total 12,393. She stated the senior programs serve those ages fifty-five (55+). She totaled the figures from voter registration 51+, with ages 41-50 to total 17, 574 seniors. She noted the many services available through the senior center: home bound meals, volunteer opportunities, employment opportunities, tap dancing, clogging, massage therapy, center lunch program, lending libraries, senior transportation (approximately 600 rides a month), day trips, extended trips, shows productions etc… She noted for all of these events, herself, part-time center manager and nine (9) part-time senior van drivers. Ms. Crawford stated Novi is named the focal point for seniors in the region. She felt communities should be preparing for the "baby boomers" (those born between 1946 and 1964) senior population. She noted the senior housing in Novi to consist of White Hall Nursing home, Charter Hall, Novi Village, South Pointe and Walton Woods. Ms. Crawford indicated the total persons served in 2000 was 90,131 (visits to the center for activities) to show the dramatic jump in numbers. She felt the senior population would continue to grow at a rapid rate over the next several years. She noted that surrounding communities offer subsidized housing for seniors and private senior housing complexes. She felt that Novi continued to be under-served for senior housing and many seniors have had to move to other communities.

    Member Kocan asked if Meadowbrook Commons is only housing with no care units?

    Ms. Crawford stated it is independent housing and the residents need to be able to maintain themselves to reside there.

    Member Kocan asked if there were requirements for residency? She asked if only Novi residents were being processed?

    Ms. Crawford answered that it is based on a prioritized list with different categories of residences.

    Member Mutch asked what need the monthly rent was representing, a low-income housing or high income housing for seniors?

    Ms. Crawford stated these statistics have not been gathered. She stated a survey was performed amongst the seniors to find what was affordable. She noted this information was often difficult to obtain and therefore, there was not certainty. Ms. Crawford noted that social security alone would not afford the lot rent of a higher end mobile home park. She felt the rent was fairly moderate to cover expenses at a range of $550-$850 per month for one/two bedroom units. The ranch units are $960 per month.

    Member Mutch asked what the top three (3) reasons that seem to determine where seniors would locate for housing?

    Ms. Crawford found that the three (3) reasons could be 1) senior activities, 2) close to churches/shopping and 3) close to family.

    Member Koneda asked if security would be a reason?

    Ms. Crawford noted that during a survey, she found security to be at the lower end of the list.



    Joe Galvin represented Erickson Retirement Community. He stated there exists a need in the City of Novi to provide housing, service needs and activities for seniors. He spoke of the needs of the Novi seniors and the proposed senior housing project. The location of Erickson Retirement Community would be located on Thirteen Mile Road between the church and the mobile home park. He stated the goal was to facilitate into the community. He introduced those involved with the project; Danny O’Brien, vice president of operations to explain the uniqueness of the project; Carmen Aventino, urban planner to elaborate on the present needs of the city and the projected need; and Mary Jukuri, land planner and site designer to discuss the location of the site. He asked the commission to remember the senior statistics quoted by Ms. Crawford because these were issues the planning commission needed to deal with. He stated he was not asking for votes at this meeting, however, he noted they would be returning to request an amendment to the Master Plan to allow the site to be developed to serve the community. He stated they would need to request rezoning, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a PD1 option to provide this need. Mr. Galvin reminded the commission that the community could not obtain the mentioned goals without taking the appropriate steps.


    Danny O’Brien commended the efforts and work of Kathy Crawford. He noted in his travel to the many communities, it is rare to find the energy, vision and passion that Kathy Crawford holds. He stated Erickson Retirement Community has been established for approximately twenty (20) years, with eight (8) communities in five (5) states. Ford Motor Land Development toured the country's retirement communities and chose Baltimore, Michigan to build the Henry Ford Village in 1993. He stated Henry Ford Village is full. Mr. O’Brien stated the project serves middle income seniors, two-thirds of the number served are widowed females, twenty-five (25) percent couple and five (5) percent are unattached males. He stated their goal was to add life added to the years verses years to their life. He noted the several advantages to Erickson Communities. Affordability to middle income seniors. He stated the resident enters a life care contract with an entrance deposit and monthly fees. Typically the entrance fee is non refundable or the two percent becomes non refundable each month of residency. However, with Erickson Retirement Community the fee is one hundred percent (100%) refundable to the resident or their estate. Typically the pre-paid health care is a requirement regardless if it is used or not. He stated this makes the monthly fees affordable. He stated their standard of living does not decrease and their quality of life increases. He noted the Henry Ford Village in Dearborn is the largest community in Michigan with a large waiting list. They provide access to health services. He noted the 1994 geriatric clinician of the year is the senior vice president and medical director of Erickson Retirement Communities. He stated the program that he has put together a nationally recognized medical program. Independent and assisted living would be available. He stated this would allow for progressive moving according to the need and care. Six (6) physicians and a pharmacy are located on the campus. He greatly supported the integrated healthcare system. Mr. O’Brien stated the provisions for seniors are not only housing, but it needed to include services, healthcare and social interaction. One of the greatest health risks among the elderly is social isolation and depression. Erickson Retirement Community would offer of several services. He noted the several clubs, health spa, indoor pool, television station, college courses, craft rooms, religious services. He stated the campus lifestyle allows the resident to be active regardless of the weather etc… He proposed a fifteen hundred (1,500) independent living units with healthcare units and community spaces. He stated fifteen hundred (15,000) units are what is needed to provide the services for the residents at an affordable price to the middle income market. He stated the three (3) to four (4) community building would be surrounded by four (4) to five (5) residential buildings. The entire campus would be integrated and connected by enclosed climate controlled bridges and walkways. He added the healthcare campus, with assisted living would also be connected. He noted the scholarships programs available to students that work at the communities. He explained if students average ten (10) hours a week for two (2) years, they will receive a four (4) year thousand dollar a year ($1,000) scholarship to college. He noted the programs with the YMCA, donations to the local fire companies and additional charities. He stated the senior want to stay active and want to offer volunteer help. He stated all of the services tax revenue pays for is provided for through the community. Therefore, the project is added to the community of Novi. He noted the 1.8 million dollars in school tax that would be paid by the fifteen hundred (1,500) units. Sewer and water tap fees would be paid into the community and not used by the residents of the campus. He felt this development would generate jobs for physicians, social worker, nurses, physical therapists, retail sales and doctors.


    Carmen Aventino, planning consultant spoke regarding the demand for senior housing. He stated the Master Plan did not specifically identify sites for senior housing on the future land use map. He noted the goals and objection section supports senior housing. He stated the key points were to provide for a variety of high quality housing to support a diverse population. He added to also provide services as Mr. O’Brien stated that would be convenient to commercial and recreational areas integrated with surrounding area. He quoted the Novi senior population to be at ten percent (10%) of the overall population. He noted it was growing at a faster rate than the general population. He stated 1990-2000 fifty-three (53%) of the new growth in Novi was attributed to the forty-five (45) and older age group. He stated there was a national trend of the "baby boomers" and the demand would become greater than the supply. In preparation, he stated that Novi only had six hundred nineteen (619) built units to service this need. He added the planned one hundred ten (110) units at Maple Manor and one hundred twenty-five (125) units at Beck House. He stated this totaled to eight hundred fifty-four (854) units for Novi. In the year 2000, he noted nineteen thousand three hundred eighty-nine (19,389) units. He stated only four percent (4%) of the total units in Novi are for senior housing. In 2020, the projected units would be almost twenty-eight thousand (28,000) and the total units, with Erickson Retirement Community, would be twenty-five hundred (2,500), nine percent (9%) being senior housing. In the year 2020, a conservative estimation of the Novi senior population would be twenty-five percent (25%). He commented the percent would drop to less than three percent (3%) without the Erickson Retirement Community Project. He encouraged the residents and the commission to tour Henry Ford Village. Mr. Aventino indicated the campus provided police/security and EMTs. He stated Erickson Retirement Community would maintain all of the internal road and infrastructure, including snow removal and water/sewer lines.


    Mary Jukuri spoke of the physical community planning aspects for locating this type of program in the City of Novi. She noted there was currently no development in Novi to provide this comprehensive array of services. She stated the Master Plan supports the need and use of senior housing in Novi, however, there is no mapped specific recommendation. She noted the existing Land Use Pattern and Master Plan designation shows the city to be pressed to find any site for any future housing. She stated no vacant, undeveloped and available land with a RM-1 zoning exists in the City of Novi. Ms. Jukuri noted if the non residential land uses were removed, such as OST uses, commercial uses, Light Industrial District (I-1), or parks it would take away the supply for the RM-1 land use. Due to the types of services Erickson Retirement Community would like to provide, they would need at least seventy (70) acres of net buildable land. Therefore, they need site that are approximately seventy (70) to one hundred (100) acres in size. She stated the majority of the sites in Novi either too small, have significant wetland concerns, too far removed from existing infrastructure road capacity or utilities or are subdivided into large lot residential parcels. The search for land has brought them to the northeast corner of Novi. She stated the Planning Commission would need to address this need of rezoning the area to provide for the senior housing needs described. Based on a gross acreage basis she calculated to propose a the campus on one hundred and two (102) acre site on Thirteen Mile west of the M-5 corridor. She noted the larger area contained a variety of multi-family and single family residential developments, commercial development, future OST corridor and is adequately served by public utilities. She explained the PD-1 option would allow for the more compact/cluster development to fit in the open space. She indicated Hickory Farms is located to the north, Maples of Novi and Vistas of Novi are to the west, Chateaux Estates to the west and Brightmoor Tabernacle to the east. She stated Maples of Novi consists of one thousand (1,000) single family and attached cluster units, Chateaux Estates has over seven hundred (700) units and Vistas would ultimately over nine hundred (900) units. Ms. Jukuri proposed Erickson Retirement Community to have fifteen hundred eighty-eight (1588) units. She stated a senior housing unit would have less of an impact than a typical housing unit as it would have a lower population per unit, lower vehicle numbers and lower vehicle traffic than a single family home or multi-family. She noted Erickson Retirement Community typically assigns 0.8 cars per unit per residential and 1.1 spaces per unit to accommodate visitors and employees. She stated the peak hour combination of Chateaux Estates was 705 trips and Brightmoor Tabernacle is 750 trips. Erickson Campus would have 650 peak hour trips combined, only adding a four percent (4%) additional traffic volume. She noted the three (3) and four (4) story elevations in the Brownstone development. She felt the project would fit with the natural features and open space context of the site. She noted over thirty percent (30%) of the site could be preserved, predominantly the high quality woodlands at northern portion of the site. Ms. Jukuri felt the senior housing could be treated differently under local zoning than other residential land uses. She stated the local zoning provisions for senior housing have been upheld. She noted that the City of Novi has precedence a higher density of residential zoning that meets special needs, adjacent to lower density single family. She gave the example of the Beck Road Multi-family District abutting a planned R-1 single family district. She recapped the reasons why the development would best suit Novi - services the campus would provide, the afforded by the City of Novi’s Master Plan goals, senior housing and services, location for infrastructure, fiscally attainable, similar and lower peak traffic counts than adjacent properties and the significant open space preservation.


    Mr. Galvin thanked the audience and the commission for their attention. He felt the City of Novi was in need of why they had to offer. He stated this was the proper location for the site. He stated the first step for the Planning Commission to help the development would be to acknowledge the current situation with the ordinance and Master Plan would not enable the development to occur. This type of combination of housing and services can not be brought to Novi under the current conditions. He stated once this was acknowledged, the Planning Commission would be enabling Erickson Retirement Community to help Novi. Mr. Galvin emphasized that this development was not enough to deal with the issues. However, he felt this could be the best available alternative for the present.


    Member Mutch asked what meeting the applicant planned to attend regarding the Master Plan?


    Ms. Brock stated they anticipated being on the agenda in March.


    Member Koneda asked if the applicant would come for the PD first?


    Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant has applied for a Master Plan amendment rezoning, PD, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Land Use. He noted these would come forward at once. He noted some of these items would need to go before City Council.


    Member Mutch clarified if the Master Plan item was for the Planning Commission?


    Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He noted that the remainder of the items would be for City Council because it is a PD-1.


    Member Koneda asked if it was appropriate for the applicant to come before the Planning Commission for the Zoning Change request and the PD option?


    Mr. Arroyo stated the Master Plan would need to be first. He noted this would be the Planning Commission action. The zoning and PD-1 would be a planning commission recommendation to the City Council.


    Member Koneda clarified that the Master Planning would be to determine if the zoning on the site should be changed.


    Mr. Arroyo stated it would be to determine if the planning commission felt the Master Plan should be amended to allow the use and the density on the proposed site.


    Member Koneda asked if they petition for a zoning change, would they still need to go to Master Plan?


    Mr. Arroyo stated the applicant could apply for rezoning and not request a Master Plan amendment. He felt due to the situation and the size of the property, he thought it was more appropriate to amend the Master Plan.


    Member Mutch expected the applicant to address the impact on the surrounding properties during their future presentation. He did not feel this was a site specific issue due to the vacant surrounding land.


    Member Churella asked if the area could be Master Planned for senior housing?


    Mr. Arroyo stated this could be explored at another time. He stated the current Master Plan dealt with density.


    Member Canup asked if Mr. Arroyo could explore the best avenues to help things happen.


    Member Koneda asked if there would need to be any ordinance changes? He was not aware if there could be services in a residential development?


    Mr. Arroyo stated the multiple family and PD ordinances would allow for accessory uses to serve the residents. He gave the example of the skilled care and the assisted living. He did not think ordinance amendments would be required.


    Member Koneda clarified this would be providing if the services were strictly for the services in the development.


    Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.




Chairperson Piccinini noted that according to the bylaws, meeting dates that fall on or within a holiday could be rescheduled. She suggested both meetings be moved to the following weeks. The dates would then be July 11th and April 25th.




Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reschedule the July 4, 2001 Planning Commission meeting to July 11, 2001 and the April 18, 2001 meeting to April 25, 2001.



Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None













Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:15 p.m.




Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: None




Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant


Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

February 22, 2001


Date Approved: March 7, 2001

Amended: June 6, 2001