Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairperson Piccinini.

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Canup, Churella (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Engineering Consultant David Bluhm (arrived late), Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, Façade Consultant Christian Fox, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay (arrived late), Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Wetland Engineer David Mifsud (arrived late), City Attorney Tom Schultz and Planning/Traffic Consultant Kathy Wyrosdick

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

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as submitted.

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

No: None

None

Presentation by State Representative Nancy Cassis to Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect, for award entitled "State of Michigan Special Tribute to Linda Lemke, Woman Entrepreneur".

Nancy Cassis State Representative indicated that this is the celebration of one (1) woman who has served the Novi Community long and well. She reflected the reasons for involvement with the local government is due to an own interest or an urging by others. She quoted Member Koneda’s comments for the reason(s) for the length of his involvement in various different capacities, "The spirit of being part of a community, the excitement of being associated with it and to grow with it as our community has." She noted that Linda Lemke has been an outstanding consultant to the Novi community. She recalled first meeting Linda Lemke on a tour of the Twelve Mile Tree Farm, which she had the opportunity to learn the beauty of the environment through Ms. Lemke’s eyes. Ms. Cassis stated that over the years, Ms. Lemke has brought the love of the environment commitment to the City of Novi. She noted the City’s appreciation of the accomplishments and creativity that are treasured throughout the community due to Ms. Lemke’s landscape artistry. She noted that her skills, personality, charm, integrity and forthrightness would all be missed. The opportunity for the State Legislature to honor outstanding women entrepreneurs who have made tremendous accomplishments in the field and a model to both men and women. Ms. Cassis indicated the State of Michigan Special Tribute recognizes Linda Lemke a woman entrepreneur. She read some of the tribute aloud, "With compassion, strength and kindness Linda has achieved greatness. The Michigan Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects has recognized her business with the honor award for her natural resource design plan in the City of Novi. Linda has also been given the Ring Marshall Rowe Award for outstanding graphic ability from the University of Michigan. Women in every aspect of business may learn from her excellent example in leadership. You have left our City a more beautiful place. We wish you all Godspeed in the future and know you will continue to make our environment, wherever you are, the wonderful, beautiful environment it can be." She noted that herself, State Senator Bill Bullard and Governor John Angler sign the tribute in recognition of all Ms. Lemke’s contributions. She added that a grateful community says, "Thank you".

Ms. Lemke thanked those who have worked with her over the years. "It is because of you that I am here tonight to accept this incredible tribute from Representative Cassis. In particular I want to include the past and present members of the Planning Commission; the past and present members of City Council; the consultant firms who provide a highly qualified multi-disciplinary team, which is unique in City-government; the past and present City Departments and their staff; the many residents and business owners in the City and the other Cities and Townships, which my firm represents that has supported the preservation of our natural resources and the beautification of their communities by strong landscape standards; the members of my firm for all of their hours and perseverance; my family especially my husband Frank for their support and encouragement; and Nancy, for your support and hard work all of these many years and for this wonderful tribute. Thank you."

None

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

Approval of the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 2001 and May 16, 2001. She asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Member Kocan requested the comments of the City Attorney to be included in the May 2, 2001 minutes.

Member Mutch requested that "per student" be added after "$8000 for the Walled Lake School District", on page 18 of the May 2, 2001 minutes; page 18 to add "the area" to "…rid of the housing development…" He submitted corrections for the May 16, 2001 minutes.

Member Nagy completed her statement on page 18 to include "should someone else purchase the property". She added to page 19 "…when there are requested changes…" Page 29 she made a grammatical correction from "underline" to "underlined"

PM-01-06-139 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 2, 2001 AND MAY 16, 2001 AS AMENDED.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 2001 and May 16, 2001 as amended.

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

No: None

1. COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION SP 98-37D

This project is located in Section 26, on the northeast corner of Novi Road and Arena Drive. The 1.067 acre site is zoned Office Service District (OS-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Wetland Permit.

Corrado Bartoli represented Community Federal Credit Union. He stated that their plan was approved in October 1998 and due to circumstances the construction was postponed. However, he indicated that they are ready to proceed at this time. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the one-story building.

Ms. Wyrosdick, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated May 8, 2001. The outstanding issues are related to the photometric and lighting plans. She noted that the applicant subsequently submitted a Lighting Plan, which is in need of some modifications. The light levels at the property lines and the ratios in the ordinance have been exceeded. She stated that approval would be recommended upon these changes at the Final Site Plan. She added minor notes that needed to be included on the Site Plan.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval in the review letter dated May 18, 2001. She stated a bank of the proposed size could be expected to generate seven hundred ninety (790) trips during the average weekday, one hundred five (105) during the morning peak hour and one hundred fifty-two (152) during the afternoon peak hour. She indicated some minor signage issues that would need to be addressed, which she felt could be accommodated on the Final Site Plan. She explained that the proposed site is the only property that would allow the property to the north to have access to Arena Drive. She noted the discussions for alternatives for the drive stubbing to the north and allowing a stub from the subsequent development of the northern property to connect to the stub and create the access to Arena Drive.

David Evancoe, Planning Director spoke in the absence of the Engineering Consultant of JCK. Approval is recommended in the review letter dated May 7, 2001. He noted the numerous comments in relation to the survey related matters. 1) Metes and bound legal description needs to be clearly shown in plan view. 2) Show roof lead tie-in storm sewer. 3) A minimum of two City of Novi Standard benchmarks will be required. He noted the Floodplain Use comments. 1) A Local Floodplain Use Permit (Minor Use) will be required form the City of Novi Building Department prior to final Site Plan approval. 2) An MDEQ Floodplain Permit or letter of no jurisdiction will be required prior to final Site Plan approval.

Mr. Evancoe spoke in the absence of the Environmental Specialist of JCK. Approval of the Preliminary Wetland Plan is recommended in the review letter dated April 18, 2001 with the following revisions being addressed on the Final Site Plan. He noted the revisions. PERMITS - 1) An MDEQ permit must be obtained prior to the City’s wetland permit being issued. 2) A Soil Erosion Control permit must be obtained through the Building Department prior to construction. IMPACTS – 1) Quantify buffer disturbance for the storm water discharge into Chapman Creek in square feet and cubic yards. Include a noted indicating this area will be restored. Show restoration planting on the Landscape sheet with a note on the impact sheet. Currently some shrubs are shown along the outlet pipe, these shrubs need to be replaced with native shrubs. Also include a seed mix for disturbed areas adjacent to the discharge pipe. 2) Water quality plantings in the detention basin need to be shown at final Site Plan. Please include the botanical and common name for all species present. 3) A cost estimate for buffer replacement, including labor will be necessary in order to establish the wetland bond at final Site Plan review.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect recommended approval of the Conceptual Landscape in her letter dated May 4, 2001. She stated there are a number of items that could be addressed and would be required at Final.

Christian Fox of JCK indicated that the building was in full compliance in the previous review on March 17, 2000. It is an all brick building. The current drawings are consistent with the previously approved plans.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated April 25, 2001 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.

Mr. Bartoli indicated that the Lighting layout was revised. He noted the additional lighting under a canopy, which he requested permission to have more light for safety reasons.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that he would have the opportunity to discuss the issues during the Planning Commission’s discussion.

Member Mutch announced there was one correspondence from Bartoli & Associates date June 11, 2001 regarding the Traffic Review. "Last year the driveway idea was proposed and consequently rejected by the Credit Union for the following reasons: A) Changing the entry from Arena Drive from one way to two way traffic would created a traffic build up for the credit union. Customers waiting to enter the drive-thru and ATM areas. Cars would potentially back up to Arena Drive causing more traffic deadlock at the intersection of Arena Drive and Novi Road. As a result, this change is not in the best interest of the credit union, the members or the residents of Novi. B) The grade differentials would have made guardrails necessary near the detention pond and possibly next to the parking area. In addition, some type of retaining wall would be needed to support the drive. In closing, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission consider Community Federal Credit Union’s request. Sincerely, Corado A. Bartol."

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

Susan Lenover, 23875 Novi Road, stated that her business is located directly across from the proposed. She asked if the building would be facing Arena Drive or Novi Road. She clarified if the building would be located on the corner of Arena Drive and Novi Road. She recalled her assessment for bringing down sewer at her site at twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). She stated that she was told that anyone who built across from her site would be required to pay tap and fees back to her. She requested that this issue be addressed. She stated that the traffic light was installed without consulting her and it has prevented customers from making a left turn into her business. She stated that her business has suffered greatly over the last year.

Member Kocan asked where her property was located.

Susan Lenover stated that her property is located north of the proposed.

Christine Klingenschmitt, Novi Ten Associates, stated that she faxed in a letter to the Commission.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that they had not received a letter. She requested that Ms. Klingenschmitt read it to the Commission and then submit it for record.

Christine Klingenschmitt stated that she was representing Dan Weiss, manager of Novi Ten Associates and owner of the property north of the Credit Union. She stated that Mr. Weiss sold the property to the Credit Union and made an access road agreement at the time of the sale. She referred to the Ms. Wyrosdick’s comments of the stub connection to allow the access to Arena Drive. She read the letter from Mr. Weiss. "Dear Sirs, This memo is to confirm that we wish to fully cooperate and accommodate the decision and the requirement of the City of Novi, as was stated clearly on the record. That the City would be best served and normal traffic flows as well as emergency vehicles, etc… by having a cross access going across the Federal Community Credit Union property northward. (A drawing is attached.) This access is from Arena Drive north to Novi Ten Associates land and is a north and south road being west of the wetlands and lying east on the back side of the dry land area. the commercial of Novi Ten fronting on Novi Road. This road connection cross access, being as it is quite common, accommodates the commercial traffic of the Novi Ten and the Credit Union out onto Arena Drive. All such traffic then will flow out on Novi Road with the benefit of the traffic light control. Basically, such a road was agreed upon and will connect to their own drive, which goes to Arena Drive approximately at the same location as the Credit Union’s original plan. The main difference being that the Credit Union needed some additional land for usage to reshape and remove their detention pond and somewhat increase paving cost for the north/south access road. We met with them and came to an agreement initially verbally to accommodate the goals of the City, which included these main points. 1) That as to the extra paving cost of their property, we would pay a proportionate share. 2) As to the extra land they needed on their site, we would provide it to them at no charge. All of the detail of this generous agreement were written up and completed with full legal descriptions and delivered to the Credit Union. Though we have not heard back from them since there has been new management and other delays there. The summary is as to the City’s established record of requiring the service drive, cross access at this location for all other properties going from Arena Drive all the way to Ten Mile Road, we are glad to cooperate and assist with the stated goals benefiting the City. Sincerely, Dan Weiss." She recapped the agreement in which they offered to donate the land to the Credit Union to be used for this purpose along with additional money assistance for paving to comply with the stated goals. She stated that Mr. Weiss is very interested in seeing and cooperating with the City planning. She noted that Mr. Weiss sends his apology for not being able to be present at the meeting.

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 Koneda recalled the layout being the same, the building being larger and two (2) drive-up windows in the previous plan.

Mr. Bartoli answered, correct.

Member Koneda clarified that the building was scaled back and the footprint slightly smaller. However, the plan is what was approved previously.

Mr. Bartoli answered, correct.

Member Koneda asked if the cross access agreement was also discussed at that time.

Mr. Bartoli answered, no. He did not recall it being discussed. He explained that the reason for the scaling back is due to the finding of the initial contract stipulation between Novi Ten and the Credit Union that the building could not be larger than three thousand (3000) square feet. He stated that he was not aware of this. He noted that it was scaled back upon the CEO’s knowledge of this stipulation. He stated there was never an agreement with Mr. Weiss. He did recall the issue being discussed at one meeting, but no agreement was made.

Member Koneda clarified that according to Mr. Bartoli, the purchase agreement included a requirement for the access.

Mr. Bartoli understood the purchase agreement to state Mr. Weiss’ reasoning for not giving the land of the detention pond and instead an easement accompanied by his letter. At a future date in the easement, if the City of Novi put in place the storm sewer, they would be able to connect. This would allow Mr. Weiss to use the piece of land to access his property. Mr. Bartoli stated that there was never an agreement to access. He clarified his understanding further that it is an easement and the detention pond is not the property of the Credit Union.

Member Koneda recalled discussion in detail of the parcel to the north and the wetland with the creek running through not allowing a crossing. This area would be the only location to allow a crossing to the property to the north without crossing the boundary of the creek.

Mr. Bartoli stated Mr. Weiss wanted the land to access his property. He stated that there was a request on the Credit Union’s part for the additional of land in one area and shrinking another area. (He designated on the map.) However, he stated that Mr. Weiss would not agree to go up further. He restated that there was no agreement on the issue of access nor was it discussed in the original approved plan.

Member Koneda asked the City Attorney regarding the Cross Access Agreement. He recalled this discussion, which could be found in the minutes/records. He understood that putting in the agreement would be placing the applicant under a burden. However, if the other participant is willing to cost share, could this be considered. Member Koneda felt that a change in the road is significant, if it is a cross access agreement or a driveway to the Credit Union, it would significantly impact the site.

Tom Schultz, City Attorney understood the great desire and the need for the cross access easement. However, he reminded the Commission that this is a Preliminary Site Plan Approval stage. He stated the Commission could apply its ordinance requirement with regard to access to the site. He stated that there are no ordinance requirements that would mandate the property owner to grant a cross access easement as a condition for approval on their Site Plan. If there were an agreement between the neighboring property owner and the proponent and the approval is granted without the cross access easement, then the neighboring property owner would need to enforce any reached agreement. There is not an ordinance standard to allow the commission or the City through the Commission to require access across the proponent’s property.

Member Koneda clarified that there is not a provision in the ordinance that requires the Commission to require a cross access agreement.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated the site has two (2) points of access and meets that secondary access requirement. Therefore, the placement of a stub road to a future development would only benefit the future development and not necessarily this development. He questioned if the driveway was not widened and only required the stub connection, for emergency access to the other site, then this would only benefit the future development and would not benefit this development.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct. According to the planner’s review, to his understanding the plan meets ordinance requirements.

Member Koneda stated that he had the impression from the City Attorney that the Commission can not require a cross access agreement and can not require that the road be wider than the current eighteen (18) feet, which is proposed as a one way in and one way out site.

Mr. Schultz stated this was his belief.

Member Koneda expressed his disappointment because of the vision for the development to the north to have access to Arena Drive to assist with the traffic flow in the area. In regard to the lighting plan, he felt the proposal from the consultants would be that the plan should be in full compliance. He recalled the applicant stating an exception to the compliance.

Mr. Bartoli stated the exception would be for the location underneath the canopy and the remainder of the site would conform to the lighting standards. He explained this exception would be due to the ATM machine use at night.

Member Koneda asked what level they proposed the exception to be.

Mr. Bartoli stated the highest request at 18.8.

Member Koneda asked what the nighttime maximum allowed.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that there is a minimum level that is required to be maintained, however, there is not a maximum level. She explained one issue is that the lighting is over the maximum (a half-foot candle) at the property line. She stated this would need to be addressed. She added that this was not the lighting issue the applicant was having. Instead it is an on-site issue.

Mr. Bartoli stated the lighting is now .59.

Ms. Wyrosdick indicated a few along Arena Drive, which could be shielded with modified light fixtures. She did not feel this would be a problem. She explained the ratio being exceeded, which could possibly be accommodated with modification to the lighting. She noted that the parking ratio is not to exceed 1:4, meaning the average can not be four times the minimum. She stated they could go as high as they need to and would only need to regulate it throughout the site to meet the ratios.

Member Koneda asked if Ms. Wyrosdick if she felt confident that the light plan requirements could be met and the increased lighting in the canopy if she worked with the applicant.

Ms. Wyrosdick felt this was a possibility. She stated currently the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the body to waive the standards. Therefore, if an agreement of the standards could not be reached, then the issue would become a ZBA issue.

Member Koneda stated the Commission’s action would be to approve the Preliminary Site Plan conditional upon the consultant’s recommendation, including bring this issue into compliance.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked if Chapman Creek could accommodate the discharge.

Dave Bluhm, Engineering Consultant answered yes. He stated there is a 10-year detention basin on site for discharge. A 100-year flood plain is associated with the Chapman Creek. There is a defined floodplain through the creek area downstream. He did not foresee any problem.

Member Nagy discharge from the property to the north would also go to Chapman Creek.

Mr. Bluhm answered, correct. He stated that Chapman Creek would be the point of discharge for most of the adjacent sites. He added that the City has proposed a regional basin downstream that would be built in the future as needed.

Member Nagy noted that Christine Klingenschmitt (audience participant) had her hand raised to speak to the matter.

Christine Klingenschmitt indicated that she had a letter stating the applicant’s agreement to the access.

Member Nagy asked who signed the letter.

Christine Klingenschmitt stated Director Branch of Operations Diane Kenny signed the letter.

Chairperson Piccinini requested that the letter be read.

Christine Klingenschmitt read the letter dated September 21, 1999, "Dear Mr. Weiss, This will confirm the agreement reached in your office on September 2, 1999. The Credit Union agrees to grant Novi Ten Associates the cross egress/ingress easement along the east edge of its boundary as requested by Novi Ten. Novi Ten Associates for its past agrees to assume and pay all engineering and construction costs associated with the ingress/egress easement when built by the Credit Union and to waive the deed restriction limiting the size of the proposed structure as set forth on the waiver attached here too. Please indicated your approval by signing the duplicate copy of this letter and returning it to me in the stamped envelope provided." She read the reason that Mr. Weiss did not sign and send it back, "We did not sign the initial write-up as it is completely missing the detail like a legal description, usage agreement, standard cross easement language and the amount of money that we agreed to contribute to the cause. There was not any disagreement on any of these topics. The only problem was their overly brief memo completely omitted all of these matters, which had been agreed to."

Member Nagy questioned if this would constitute an agreement because there is nothing signed.

Mr. Schultz answered that based on what he has heard and not having seen it, it did not appear to.

Member Nagy did not feel that the Commission could require the applicant to put in a stub. She commented that it would be neighborly to do so.

Mr. Bartoli stated that he did not have difficulty being neighborly. He explained that it would be a hindrance. He noted the possibility of cooperating with the northern property as it develops. He stated the cost was an issue.

Member Nagy requested that Mr. Evancoe address the issue of Susan Lenover’s business being negatively impacted by the light installed.

Mr. Evancoe stated that as the Novi Road Corridor Plan was being developed the issue arose of the access to Novi Road and between properties. He gave the example of the Post Office located on Novi Road. He stated there are future access points conceptually shown in the Novi Road Corridor Plan.

Member Nagy asked when the study would be complete and implemented.

Mr. Evancoe anticipated the study to be complete within the upcoming month or two.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Community Federal Credit Union SP 98-37D to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Wetland Permit Approval conditioned upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions on the Lighting Plan be in conformance with Ordinance Standards

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Bluhm to address the issue raised regarding the tap fees.

Mr. Bluhm stated that there might have been a certain number of taps paid for at a per/tap cost. (Tape ends)

Chairperson Piccinini asked that the Susan Lenover come forward and clarify her situation.

Susan Lenover indicated that she has saved the information regarding the matter. She stated there have been several splits. She noted she was the owner of several acreage pieces that she has sold off. In 1987 sewers were brought in from Novi and Ten to Montessori. She stated that each person was paying an estimated twenty thousand ($20,000) per every one hundred feet. She stated when she inquired about the payback; she was told that there was no knowledge of this. She stated in her agreement with the City notes that anyone taping across on the Eastside of Novi Road, directly across from her property, would have to pay back to her.

Mr. Bluhm recalled the initiating of a special assessment district. He was not certain if is a payback district or a special assessment district. To bring the sewers down, there was a development of a cost reimbursement of the parcels. He suggested that she speak to Zora Singers with the Department of Public Works. He stated that he works with her routinely on the matters of the cost, payers and the districts associated with it. He stated that he would give her his card and she could contact him to clarify the issue.

Member Kocan stated the considerable elevation differentiation between the road and property "gully" that she noted on the site. She asked if the building would be built up or if it would be lower. She stated the lighting on the building facing residential properties would need to be taken into consideration. She was aware of the ordinance stating that they could have lighting 25 feet high on a building that abuts residential. She felt that this was too high. She wanted to ensure that the lighting on the building facing the residential would be shielded and not impact those residents in the apartments.

Mr. Bluhm stated that based on the contours and the finished floor elevations being proposed, it appeared that the building would be slightly below the road, directly East of Novi Road. He noted the road is a foot higher from the building directly West of Novi Road. From Arena Drive, the building is approximately less than two (2) feet higher than Arena Drive and the same direct south projection to Arena Drive.

Member Kocan asked if this would be filled.

Mr. Bluhm stated the parcel is at 889 or 890, which according to the contour plan presented is equal to the elevation of Arena Drive. The building would be elevated approximately 1.5 to 2 feet. He stated the East Side would be filled because it drops off considerably.

Member Kocan stressed that she wanted the Lighting Standards to be complied with.

Member Koneda referred to the Novi Road Corridor Study, which would come before the Commission next month for adoption. He added that the implementation of the Study might take several years. Therefore, the relief of the traffic issue would not be immediate. He stated the Study would also require the reuse of properties that are already there.

Chairperson Piccinini welcomed Susan Lenover to speak to Mr. Evancoe after the meeting to arrange a time to discuss the issues further.

Member Mutch asked if the trees along Arena Drive would be impacted by the proposed development.

Ms. Lemke stated if the trees are impacted, then they would be required to be replaced. She added that this would be reviewed at Final.

Member Mutch clarified if there was no legal agreement providing for a cross access easement. He did not find any information that was shown to be legal documentation of this. He questioned if it would be beneficial and if the commission could require a stub to provide some future circulation.

Ms. Wyrosdick found it to be beneficial to provide internal parking area connections and secondary access to other parcels. She felt that some consideration should be given to the parcel to the north because it would be cut off by the wetland. She noted that it would not have access north to the property north to Ten Mile Road. Secondary access is necessary for any property that develops. The property to the north may have limited opportunities for the secondary access possibly leading to two (2) curb cuts on Novi Road. She stated if the north to Ten Mile Road were not an alternative, then south the Arena Drive would be the only other alternative. She noted that a stub for emergency access purposes to allow the north property to stub to it. She stated this would address a secondary access for the north property with possibly one curb cut on Novi Road and secondary access would be through emergency access with the stub to Community Federal. She stated that it could be gated.

Member Mutch asked if there was secondary access required from the Wallgreen’s property to the south and if it was provided. He confirmed with Mr. Bluhm that there is a lot of topography.

Mr. Bluhm agreed.

Ms. Wyrosdick did not recall a stub from that parking area.

Mr. Bluhm stated that the topography is severe on the East Side of Wallgreens. He believed that there was topography was less severe on the West Side.

Member Mutch agreed with the applicant that there is not a requirement or legally existing cross access agreement with what has been shown. He agreed that a two-way access would be detrimental to their project. However, he noted the benefit of a number of commercial projects to provide a level of connection. He was not concerned with the ability for access. He noted the Chapman Creek appears to effect the westerly, as it heads north. He stated the property to the north appears to be able to have access off of Novi Road. However, he preferred that the northerly property not have two (2) driveways if they could have one (1) or none. He questioned what they could legally require them to put in place, realizing that there is no access agreement.

Mr. Schultz felt that the Commission could legally require the applicant to put in place what the ordinance and engineering standards require. He felt that it would be a difficult argument that it would be only for emergency purposes would not properly answer the question if there was the right to force the access. He noted the ability during Site Plan review to deal with the vehicular access internal to the use of the site. He stated this language of the ordinance is generally broad and could move parking around, require more pavement etc… However, if it is for the purpose for access to another property, it crosses the line a little.

Member Mutch stated with Mr. Schultz’ comments, he felt comfortable with the motion. He hoped that during the future development of the area that the property owners would find the benefit to put this in place.

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

No: None

This office-building project is located in Section 14, on the west side of Meadowbrook Road and south of Twelve Mile Road. The 5.597 acre site is zoned Office Service Technology (OST). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Woodland Permit.

Huck Hemphill of Quadrants Inc. stated that he submitted all of his renderings and plans to the Planning Department. He did not have a presentation.

Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval in the review letter dated May 17, 2001 subject to a Planning Commission Waiver of the screening of the loading area. She indicated that the loading areas in the OST District are required to be screened from all public rights-of-way and adjacent properties by use of a courtyard design of the building or decorative wall. The Planning Commission could grant a waiver if they find that appropriate landscaping is in place to screen it. She indicated that the additional minor Site Plan notes could be added and addressed at Final. A Lighting Plan is required to be submitted with the Final Site Plan. The screening for the dumpster must be composed of brick to match the façade of the building. She noted that this was not shown on the Preliminary Site Plan and would need to be shown on the Final Site Plan. Although the parking is sufficient is correct for Phase I Building, she pointed out that the parking calculations did not utilize the City Standard of gross lease-able area. Therefore, she wanted the applicant to be aware that when they return for the expansion of the Phase I building, there may be issues to address with the parking. She stated that the approval is for the Phase I building without the expansion. She noted that there would be an expansion of the Phase I building and a Phase II, as shown on the Site Plan.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick stated a boulevard style driveway would access the parcel. Minor modifications to the entering radius would need to be addressed at Final. She recommended approval in the review letter dated May 15, 2001 subject to the minor modifications listed in the review letter. The Final Site Plan would need to include the pavement marking revisions. She recommended a twenty-four (24) foot wide driveway stub to the south and the east property lines be added to the southeast corner of the parking lot to provide emergency vehicle access for both phases and to meet the secondary emergency access requirement. In addition to the minor comments in the review letter, she recommended approval.

Mr. Bluhm recommended approval in the review letter dated May 1, 2001. The development would have water and sewer service. Watermain would be brought in from the existing watermains that run along Meadowbrook Road on the East Side. It would be brought over to service the development with fire hydrants and fire protection. The sanitary exists to the south at I-96 and would be brought to and across a previously approved development to the south to their parcel. This would stub to the north to serve for an expansion to the north that needs to serve for future development to the north. He noted the rolling topography. A high point at the southeast corner that drops off to Meadowbrook Road. The West Side falls to the south west corner where the wetland is located. A detention basin is proposed in this location with a discharge to the wetland. He noted that currently this naturally falls in this direction. He noted the information submitted that depicts the restricted water to the wetland and then to the Twelve Oaks Lake, located to the west. He requested additional detail to ensure this positive connection. The applicant was informed that if the development to the south does not move forward, then the sewer would need to be brought from the I-96. He indicated that the applicant understood the ramifications. Off site easements would be required to be secured. Mr. Bluhm felt the comments of the review letter could be addressed at Final.

Ms. Lemke stated the proposed has addressed her concerns. A small woodland located on the West Side of the property touches the edge of the proposed parking lot and continues to a wooded wetland on the southwest corner. She stated they have preserved more of the area as she requested. There would be a small area of understory removed and the remainder of the canopy trees and larger trees would be preserved. She stated in this regard all of her comments were addressed. At this stage, she stated that her approval is of the woodland review (to be checked at Final) and the Landscape Plan continues to show a grading within one area of the woodlands.

In regard to the Landscape Plan, Ms. Lemke approved the Conceptual Plan subject to the Planning Commission Waiver for the elimination of the berm required for OST zoning to screen the loading and unloading. She noted that they have changed their plan to provide this with evergreen plant materials. She added that they have addressed her concerns of her previous letter regarding right-of-way screening and number of parking lot trees in square footage in parking lot. Ms. Lemke recommended approval with the comments in her review letter,

David Mifsud, Wetland Consultant recommended approval in the review letter dated April 16, 2001. The applicant proposed a single storm water discharge. In addition to the discharge, the basin would be vegetated to provide water quality features to better filter the water prior to the discharge.

Mr. Fox identified the project in Region 1 in the OST District. The percentages of brick between fifty percent to eighty percent (50%-80%). Flat Metal is between thirty percent (30%) and fifty percent (50%) depending upon the façade. There is a small percentage of Spandrel Glass. He noted that all of the materials are within the ordinance requirements and meet full compliance.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated April 25, 2001 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 being corrected on the next plan submittal: 1) The fire department connection for the sprinkler system shall be located on the front/address side of the building, in an accessible location, within 100 feet of a hydrant. 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 watermains 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.

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

Seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda clarified if Ms. Lemke was recommending a waiver of the berm requirement for the screening to preserve the woodlands located at the West End of the property.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated that he wanted to ensure that the reason was preserve the woodland. In exchange the request if for additional evergreen plantings in place of the berm.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda asked if the landscaping requirements along Meadowbrook Road were met.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards: In the matter of Trane Building SP-01-27 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Woodland Permit Approval including the Planning Commission Waiver for the loading area screening to the West, preserve the existing Woodlands to the west with the requirement of additional evergreen planting as stipulated by the landscape architect.

Chairperson Piccinini requested an amendment to the motion to include the approval for only Phase I Building only without the expansion area.

Member Koneda and Member Richards accepted the amendment.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Trane Building SP-01-27 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Woodland Permit Approval including the Planning Commission Waiver for the loading area screening to the West, preserve the existing Woodlands to the west with the requirement of additional evergreen planting as stipulated by the landscape architect and it includes the approval for Phase I Building only without the expansion area contingent upon the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Member Richards suggested that the motion include that the appropriate formula be used for the parking lot due to the expansion plans shown. He stated if this is not calculated with the City-formula then several problems may be encountered when they are ready to expand.

Mr. Hemphill stated that he is in agreement and that this would be addressed on the Final Site Plan.

Member Kocan stated that the truck traffic would enter from Meadowbrook Road, turn left, go around the building clockwise verses counterclockwise. She questioned if it would be a better plan to have the truck traffic travel due west and enter at the corner (location of the detention

basin). She felt the most direct route would be the best route.

Mr. Hemphill stated that in working with Bircher & Arroyo revisions were made to the plan to address her concern.

Member Kocan asked what type of truck vehicles would be entering the site.

Mr. Hemphill stated the vehicles would mostly be flat trucks, which is a 24’ or 27’ truck. He added that it is a training facility for Trane. He stated that there would be large semis but not as often as warehouse. In regard to the truck traffic, he stated when entering from Meadowbrook Road turning west to the south, the road has been curved to meet the need. He stated that the buffer is being maintained. The southeast corner of the parking lot was "kicked back" with the minimum clearances being maintained. The southwest corner was "kicked back" to four (4) foot to still allow for the future expansion.

Member Kocan felt the less cross traffic through the parking lots and around the people, the better. She asked the reasoning for not placing the future expansion at this time.

Mr. Hemphill noted this was for the possibility of the need for expansion to demonstrate the capability on the original site.

Member Kocan clarified that there was not a timetable for the expansion and it would be as needed.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked if Ms. Wyrosdick was aware of the changes Mr. Hemphill presented.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that she had not seen the changes. However, it had been closely detailed what would need to occur, which were minor modifications of the radius. She trusted that the applicant had spoken with Bill Stimpson. She assured that this would be reviewed at Final.

Member Nagy asked regarding the future expansion. She questioned what would happen to the property if there were no need in the immediate plan to expand. She asked Ms. Lemke if it would remain empty or if it would be landscaped.

Ms. Lemke indicated that the landscaping would be provided across the right-of-way, which would go across the front of the entire piece of property, including Phase II.

Member Nagy asked what species of evergreen would be planted in place of the berm.

Ms. Lemke indicated that it would not be Austrian Pine or White Pine. She noted that it would be reviewed at Final.

Member Nagy asked the reasoning for the temporary septic system on site.

Mr. Bluhm stated that the applicant felt that if there were a delay in the construction of the sewer, they would approach the county for a permit to put a septic field in place. He noted in his experience, he found that those are difficult for these types of facilities. He suggested that the applicant first pursue the extension of the sewer from the south to serve the site. From his understanding, most of the easements are in place from the south to the Minasian Development project. He felt that they would have what they need to service the site by public sewer.

Member Nagy clarified that the permit would come from the county.

Mr. Bluhm answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked if this was something that the Commission would need to approve or not approve.

Mr. Bluhm indicated that the issue would be a county issue.

Member Landry asked Ms. Wyrosdick regarding the dumpster screening. He referred to her recommendation of a waiver for the screening of the dumpster due to possible landscaping. He questioned if the woodlands to the west of the property was the landscaping that she was referring to.

Ms. Wyrosdick clarified that the waiver was not for the dumpster and that it would be for the screening of the loading area. She added that the dumpster screening is required. She stated that the woodland would be the screening.

Member Landry clarified that she and Ms. Lemke felt that the woodland would be sufficient to screen the loading area from view and there would be no need for the berm.

Ms. Lemke stated that evergreens would be placed along the edge of the parking area along the west. She noted that there is a small area that they would be clearing for the first five (5) or six (6) spaces and by the dumpster. She stated that she would be looking for evergreen plantings in that area to provide screening for this. She added that she would also be looking for a slight grading for the parking where up right evergreens could be added in case of future development to the west. She noted that this is a deciduous forest with visibility through it, therefore she would ensure that the parking and loading area are screened at Final.

Member Mutch clarified that the applicant indicated that this would be a training facility.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct.

Member Mutch asked if there would be heating and cooling type of operations occurring.

Mr. Hemphill stated that Trane would be relocating their headquarters from Farmington Hills to Novi. He noted the training facility is a new idea that they are implementing throughout different regions of the United States.

Member Mutch clarified that the reference to the truck traffic would be mainly to bring in the equipment that would be used in a training situation.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct.

Member Mutch clarified that the office type of use would be established at this location.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct. He added that the warehouse area is small.

Member Mutch stated that it would be predominately office use.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct.

Member Mutch asked if the future use in the front of the property would be of a similar use.

Mr. Hemphill stated that he was not aware of any discussion regarding this.

Member Mutch clarified that it may not be used by them and may be another use of them potentially.

Mr. Hemphill answered, correct.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Bluhm if the stormwater runoff from this project was flowing to the south and the west on the property as discussed at the last meeting with Singh Development.

Mr. Bluhm noted a channel ditch or swale, that is part of a wetland system, drains toward the south and west and into the Twelve Oaks Lake.

Member Mutch clarified that it would cross the Singh property and into the lake.

Mr. Bluhm answered, correct. He stated it crosses off-site areas of the properties.

Member Koneda clarified that the Planning Commission waiver is for the berm and not for the screening of the loading. He stated that it is the policy to not kill the trees to provide a berm. The requirements are to provide screening, which would be done by the provision of supplemental plantings.

Member Landry asked if they were also considering the screening of the wall around the loading area.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that the OST District requires screening of the loading areas from adjacent properties with a courtyard design of the building or a wall. The waiver would allow the plantings instead.

Member Landry asked if she is suggesting a waiver from the Ordinance requirement of a courtyard design or wall of a building.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that the waiver is not only for the berm.

Ms. Lemke stated that it is part of the same section. It is a wall or berm that is part of the OST Ordinance.

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

No: None

This site condominium project is located in Section 27, on the west side of Novi Road between Nine and Ten Mile Roads. The 5.37 acre site is zoned One-Family Residential (R-4). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and Woodland Permit.

Mike Fellows, represented the developers of McLean Meadow Estates. He introduced Jack and Kathy McLean, owners of the property. The project is just directly south of and adjacent to the existing Mystic Forest subdivision. There was a stub street left in the Mystic Forest subdivision for access to this property. It is zoned R-4, permitting a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a density of 3.3 units per acre, which on 5.37 acres translates to almost 18 homes if you could pack them in there. The proposed plan contains twelve (12) homes and lot sizes ranging from eleven thousand (11,000) square feet to just over twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet with an average of over sixteen thousand three hundred (16,300) square feet. It is proposed as a site condominium instead of a platted subdivision, which refers only to the type of ownership of the units. In all aspects the character of the development would resemble identically to a single family detached residential development. The homes would range in size from twenty-nine hundred (2900) square feet to thirty-six hundred (3600) square feet, resembling the adjacent Mystic Forest with the exception that the lots and homes would be larger on average. He noted the high quality woodlands indicated on the Site Plan. He noted the consideration of the single family cluster option, which was found to not be feasible due to the requirement that no structure be placed within the area of seventy five (75) feet from any outside property line. He stated that the computed area on a site this size would be almost three (3) acres. (Tape ends) He indicated his expectation of the severe opposition from the adjacent residents with any attachment of units. He stated that there was also consideration given to the open space option however, open space area preserved must be a minimum size of four (4) acres. Mr. Fellows proposed a single family detached development with fourteen (14) lots. He indicated the revision to twelve (12) lots in attempt to address Ms. Lemke’s comments regarding the intrusion on the regulated woodlands. Mr. Fellows indicated his communications with the Mystic Forest subdivision representatives for the purpose of explaining the project and obtaining information regarding their concerns prior to his submittal. He stated that as a result of their concerns a couple meetings occurred and revisions were made prior to meeting with them again. The submitted plan reflects several of these items raised by Mystic Forest. The submitted plan also includes the comments from the consultants. He noted the previous plan had received negative recommendations from Birchler Arroyo and Linda Lemke. He indicated that Mr. Arroyo’s main concern was with the detention basin proposed, which would be shared partially on lot 7 and 8. The concern was if the lots were adequately sized to accommodate the proposed basin and have net area left over to meet the Ordinance requirements. The minimum requirement is ten thousand (10,000) square feet and lot 7 is over fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet and lot 8 is almost fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. He stated his understanding that Preliminary Site Plan approval can be granted subject to obtaining the waiver from City Council for the placement of the detention pond on those two lots. In regard to Ms. Lemke’s letter of negative recommendation, he indicated that the most current Site Plan reflects the revisions addressing her comments. He stated that he met with Ms. Lemke after making the revisions and she indicated that she could now recommend approval of the Site Plan. Mr. Fellows designated some of the revisions made in response to the concerns. He indicated areas of the retaining wall, which are intended to minimize the intrusion into the regulated woodland areas and to minimize some grading along Novi Road. He explained that the walls are intended to be at a slope that is flat enough to not require any type of intrusion. He noted the addition of trees along the northern property line and added that they would be willing to add more. He explained that with the preservation of trees along the property line it is difficult to determine how many trees could be planted. Therefore, he indicated their consent to walk the site with Ms. Lemke at the time of the planting those trees and plant as many as possible that she would approve. He noted the landscape berm along Novi Road and the required twenty (20) foot non-access greenbelt. The berm is proposed on the plan to utilize the entire twenty (20) foot width at a height of about three (3) feet, which would require a slope of about 1:3. He added that this is fairly steep and difficult to maintain. As an alternative he suggested the addition of more trees and the option to lower it to a slope of 1:4 or 1:5. The elevation of the property and the proposed berm area is three (3) to eight (8) or nine (9) feet above the elevation of Novi Road. He felt there was already substantial screening existing. He indicated their stipulation that there would be no construction traffic through Mystic Forest. He added that this is noted on the plans and a construction access drive is proposed off of Novi Road.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that from a planning standpoint she initially did not recommended approval due to the waiver noted by the applicant. The waiver is for the detention basin, which is within the boundaries of lot 7 and 8. The Design and Construction Standards of the City of Novi does not permit this. She noted that the applicant has the option to go to City Council and request a waiver. She explained that her main concern is that the minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet is met with the exclusion of the area of the detention basin. She indicated that the remaining Site Plan issues could be addressed on the Final Site Plan. She added that the applicant agreed to some of the notations and requirements onto the plans such as the non-access greenbelt along Novi Road. A copy of the Master Deed for the development would have to be approved by the City Attorney because this is a Site Condominium Development. She stated that minor notes and missing details from the Preliminary Site Plan would need to be addressed on the Final. However, due to the required waiver she did not recommend approval. She indicated that the Planning Commission could make the motion subject to City Council granting the waiver.

In regard to traffic Ms. Wyrosdick recommend approval subject to the items in the review letter dated May 18, 2001 being addressed on the Final Site Plan. The applicant proposes to extend Weston Drive about 475 feet and provide building sites for twelve (12) single-family detached condominiums. She indicated that the access would be from Westin Drive to Novi Road via Mystic Forest Drive and Mystic Boulevard. Novi Road is a 40 m.p.h., two-lane arterial under the jurisdiction of the City of Novi. She indicated that that the Final Site Plan should include a list of curves and their back-of-curb radii. The Final Site Plan should also show traffic control signs on the cul-de-sac island, consistent with recent City practice.

Ms. Lemke indicated that she recommended approval of the landscaping plans submitted to the Planning Commission, with the condition to review the street trees at Final. She stated that they did not meet the requirements at this point however, she felt they would by the time of Final.

In regard to woodlands, Ms. Lemke described the site as an interesting piece of property. She noted that the Woodlands and aerials maps depict the site as 100% wooded with canopies merging into one another as they go off site into a wooded area south. However, she stated that this changes considerably on the site. The property owners have planted a majority of the trees in this area (pointing to the map). She explained that the woodland line in the field follows the hedgerow across the northern property line abutting Mystic Forest, continues behind the pine trees, breaks off about ¾ of the way, picks up again, continues along the south property line and out to Novi Road. Driving along Novi Road she noted the view is primarily the trees to the south, which is somewhat misleading. She indicated the highest quality woodland area is located to the south, which connects to the remaining contiguous woodlands. There are 2.2 acres of regulated woodland on the site. There are not designated Historic or Specimen Trees present on the site. There are not potential trees that should be considered for Historic or Specimen Trees. This site is listed as Type A on the City’s Wildlife Habitat Map. The wooded areas are primarily Ash and Elm varying in size from eight (8) inches up to twenty (20), with an average of eleven (11) to fourteen (14) inches. She indicated the area of her concern is the southeast corner. She stated the new plan, which has not been reviewed by engineering, preserves a wider area along the southern property line behind lot 7. In addition to the berming and plantings along Novi Road it would provide replacement plantings, which would need to be reviewed by the City Engineer in detail to ensure the grading works and is acceptable. However, she stated at this point, she is very favorable with the layout. She stated that the applicant has attempted to address her concerns with the area to keep a contiguous boundary along the southern property line. She indicated that one of the main reasons she did not recommend approval previously was because she wanted that area explored further and there was a number of missing information on the Site Plan. Ms. Lemke indicated that she could give a favorable recommendation with a number of items to be worked out on Final. These items include the grading and the exact number of replacement trees, etc. She restated the applicant’s intention to plant as many replacement trees as possible. She added that the Mystic Forest Homeowners Association has requested that replacement trees be planted where possible.

Mr. Bluhm recommend approval in the review letter dated May 14, 2001. He stated the proposal is for the construction of a twelve lot residential site condominium. Associated public road connecting to the existing public road in Mystic Forest subdivision to the north. He noted the standard twenty-eight (28) foot curved roadway sections with eyebrow and cul-de-sac to meet City standards. He stated that the applicant is proposing water service will be provided by extension of an 8" water main form the existing 8" water main stub in Mystic Forest subdivision; sanitary sewer service will be provided by connection of an 8" sanitary sewer to the existing 8" sanitary sewer in Mystic Forest subdivision; An on-site storm sewer system will discharge storm water to an on-site detention basin located at the southeast corner of the site. The basin is proposed to contain temporary sedimentation and permanent water quality controls. The basin will discharge at a restricted rate to the Novi Road ditch and ultimately to the Rouge River through Miller Creek to the southeast. Mr. Bluhm indicated that he would like to add to the record a comment that was not "caught" in the review. He recommended that the water main provide a loop connection out to Novi Road on the Final Site Plan. He described the site as having a lot of topography. The site generally falls from the Mystic Forest side from the north to the south, quite severely at the southern edge to the existing residential areas to the south; also, to the southeast toward Novi Road. There is a detention basin located at the lower part of the site, at the southeast corner. The detention basin will outlet to the existing ditch on the west side of Novi Road and will discharge into the Miller / Thorton Creek, which is about 500-600 feet to the south. There is quite a bit of slope from the basin down to the creek and the ditch is fairly well defined. He stated that the applicant’s engineer is requested to evaluate the existing ditch line downstream of the discharge point for adequate capacity. If it is found efficient for he proposed discharge then modifications to the existing roadside ditch and/or the discharge rate may be warranted. He did not anticipate a problem based on the contours that are present, however, he stated it is typical to have them explore it further. The sanitary sewer extension into Mystic Forest is essentially a deviation from the Sanitary Master Plan of the City. Sewers from this property are intended to go to the south and be picked up in the sewer down near the Thorton Creek area. The applicant has explored the ability to bring sewers up to service this site. He felt there was no clear benefit for the City, as far as servicing other areas, to bring them up from the south. However, the question remained if the off site district or area that they want to go into have capacity since they are going into a district with sewers. The Master Plan is defined with a certain amount of capacity. Per his request, the applicant’s engineer prepared a detailed study of the downstream conditions to show if theoretically there is capacity, with the exception of one segment of sewer that is east of Novi Road. He added that the applicant has placed a monitoring device in the manhole to evaluate the actual flows through the system as opposed to the theoretical flow. This is an on going process, which is expected to be completed soon. He explained that this would determine that there is capacity, as anticipated, and they would be able to move forward with Final Site Plan Approval. He stated this would be addressed administratively through the Department of Public Services. Mr. Bluhm noted that there is a provision in the Design & Construction Standards that allows the location of a detention basin in lot areas if the lots are oversized for that purpose. He felt the Site Plan demonstrates that there is enough area in the lot areas and it appears to confirm that there is enough residual lot area outside of the detention basins. In addition to the City Council Wavier, a variance or an approval would be needed to go out of district for the sewer. He stated there are two (2) Council issues to be addressed prior to constructing the site. Mr. Bluhm stated with the added comment regarding connecting the water main to loop it back to Novi Road and with the comments of the review letter, he recommended that the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility.

Chairperson Piccinini asked for clarification on the second City Council waiver.

Mr. Bluhm stated that the second City Council issue is an approval to go out of district with the sanitary flows. The first issue is to permit the use of oversized lots for detention basin purposes.

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 being corrected on the next plan submittal. 1) All roads are to be paved prior to construction above the foundation. This shall be noted on the plans. 2) 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. 3) 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.

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

Kim Capello, representing the Mystic Forest Homeowners Association. He had represented them when they were taking over the association, to help them with their by-laws and take it over from the developer and working out issues with the City. He stated his appreciation of Mr. Fellows contacting them to share his concept plan for the development of the property. He noted several meetings in which Mr. Fellows has been cooperative and amended his plans to accommodate the residents. On behalf of the association and the residents that Mr. Capello has met with, he noted that they are all in favor of the plan. He stated that he spoke to Linda Lemke and Gerald Fisher regarding the granting of the Woodland Permit. He stated that the Ordinance indicates that replacement trees must go on that property or property that the developer owns or has an interest in. However, he felt it was obvious that the developer did not have an interest in the homeowners properties and he felt it would enhance those woodlands to plant the trees on the Mystic Forest property. He did not recall Mr. Fisher having a problem, if it satisfies the Ordinance, to have those homeowners grant an easement for tree planting, maintenance and replacement. Mr. Capello stated it would accommodate the trees coming off of the property, keep them as close as possible, enhance the area of the woodland between the properties and create screening. He suggested that the Commission include this in Woodland Permit. Mr. Capello added that Mr. Fellows has agreed to either create a maintenance agreement with Mystic Forest or to include in the bylaws of that association that they will contribute on a prorated share to the maintenance of the entranceway. He explained that Mr. Fellow did not have to do this but he has agreed to. He stated in using that entranceway, it will create a nicer entranceway and it will help Mystic Forest by enhancing it. Mr. Capello noted his previous concern with the construction access. However, he noticed on the Site Plan that a construction access is located off of Novi Road. He felt this is a great plan and the Mystic Forest Homeowners Association is happy. He requested that the Planning Commission give approval.

Member Kocan clarified that the five (5) homeowners will abut the property and would grant an easement?

Mr. Capello answered, no. He stated that he tried to contact all of them. He explained that when coming off of the stub road the last house on the right hand side is Matt’s house, which is mostly affected. The new house would be the closest to Matt’s house. He indicated that Matt is planning on granting the easement. He stated there were a couple of the other homeowners that we were not able to contact, which is information that I shared with Mr. Fisher. He stated if the easement is granted then the trees can go there. In contrast if the easement is not granted, they would not get the trees.

Lynn Cummins, Brookland Farms, the subdivision on the other side of Mystic Forest and McLean Meadows. She stated the first that she heard of the project, other than having surveyors trespassing on her property for the past two years, was Thursday when she received a letter from the City. She stated that she had a few concerns. 1) Public storm water - that the run off would be collected and sent to that pond. She stated that an engineer she consulted with pointed out, that there is no provision in the back of the lots for any drainage. She felt that if it were dryer and not wetter, then it would be all right. She did not want her property to be turned into the Dudwood Swamp in Novi. She stated that she would be looking out over this boulder retention wall on lots 4 and 5. She questioned where the houses could be built. She stated that she was not clear as to whether the trees were protected or if this would be a voluntary issue per homeowner/builder. She questioned if would there be a sufficient silt fence put up during construction to prevent the run off from going into the protected area and her property. She noted the low spot, which goes onto her property from lot 4, is 869.42 and the middle of the retention pond 881, which is higher than the low spot on the back of the property. She questioned if this would create any type of drainage problem for her.

Mark Cummins, Brookland Farms, questioned when construction would begin and how long he could anticipate to hear the sound of chainsaws and earth moving equipment.

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

Member Mutch announced that he received correspondence from:

Kenneth Dul, 43028 Cottisford who indicated that it will further congest an already congested area and destroy the homes of many wild animals. It will cut down a large number of trees, which are sacrosanct in this City. It will abut too close to Brookland Farms, Mystic Forest was enough for this area. Of what tremendous value will this be to a City that is expanding too fast. It will add more noise to a subdivision that has already been impacted by noise from Mystic Forest.

Linda Clossa, 23346 Mystic Forest, objects because it will reduce value of residential homes. There are already too many apartments and condos nearby that take away from the subdivision value.

Richard and Jacqueline Siebenaller, 43440 Cottisford, object to the hazardous traffic problems, sewer and water problems and possible negative tax revenue. They note that this site is proposed for twelve condo units, zoned Single Family and is immediately adjacent to Single Family both to the north and south. 1) Putting a large number of units on a small site would put a minimum of 24 more cars on an already very congested Novi Road, on a hill with limited sight distance. This would create a very hazardous condition. 2) Is this proposal expecting to tap into central sewer and water, when long time property owners do not have this option? If they are not on a central system, a private well and sewer plant, large enough for twelve units on a small lot, would be a very large burden on an already over burdened aquifer. 3) Would the proposed rezoning of this property generate enough tax revenue or would it be an additional burden on existing property owners. Consideration, being given to these issues, is appreciated.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke if she could respond to the question(s) regarding the trees, the building envelope and the silt fence.

Ms. Lemke stated that a silt fence would be required. She stated that it typically would be placed in front of the woodland preservation fencing, which would be at that woodland preservation line, along the south property line.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke to address the dotted line issue raised and any trees that would be removed in that area.

Ms. Lemke indicated the area showing the trees to be removed is the protective fencing, which has been revised on the plan she reviewed. She stated it would be approximately at the location of the boulder retaining wall on lots 4 and 5. The area would be slightly to the south of the boulder retaining wall.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Bluhm to address the drainage elevations at the pond.

Mr. Bluhm noted a fairly significant existing drainage course, which takes forty percent (40%) of the property down to the house behind lots 4 and 5. The result would be a net reduction in flow. He estimated that the road would cut off approximately fifty percent (50%) to sixty percent (60%) of that existing flow. The remainder would be grass area and as much wooded area that can remain. He added with the net reduction and it should be determined if there are wetlands to bring flow back in and to match what might be removed.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the Site Plan is good for one (1) year after its approved?

Ms. Brock stated that it is approved for one (1) year after final Site Plan approval. She added that they could come back and ask the Planning Commission for a one (1) year extension.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that the length of construction is unknown however, the timing of construction would typically occur in that one (1) year unless there is an extension.

Member Koneda clarified if all road construction, infrastructure, sewer, water would have to be done prior to the first basement is put in.

Mr. Bluhm answered, correct.

Member Koneda clarified that upon the start of construction, all of the roads would be done first.

Mr. Bluhm stated that the roads and utilities would be put in simultaneously.

Member Koneda stated that the build-out would depend on when the lots are sold and when those homes are built. In regard to the water flow path, he stated that typically drains are not placed in the back of residential lots with the assumption that the water would drain through the normal course to the detention basin through other means.

Mr. Bluhm commented that it would be common to have drains in the rear yard areas.

Member Koneda asked if drains are being proposed on any of these lots.

Mr. Bluhm answered, no. He explained that the woodlands issue would need to be addressed in attempt to save the woodlands. He stated that the lots up are set up to allow the drainage to the front and as much of the roof area could drain to the front toward the road. The remaining area would be lawn and what remains in the backyard to drain to the rear.

Member Koneda asked if Mr. Bluhm if he felt the water flow would be reduced from this current state.

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He indicated that the area of where the resident spoke would definitely have a reduction.

Member Koneda questioned if the heavy line on the Site Plan is the woodland boundary. He noted the boulder retaining walls in two locations; behind lots 4 and 5 and by the detention basin.

Ms. Lemke agrees.

Member Koneda stated that the woodland boundary crosses the residential lots. which is typical. He stated when home construction begins the footprint of the home is supposed to stay out of the woodlands boundary however, in some cases a Woodland Permit could be requested for each individual lot.

Ms. Lemke stated that the Woodland Permit the Planning Commission would grant or not grant would establish the area of removal of woodlands.

Member Koneda stated the Commission would define the woodland boundary as shown on the Site Plan Map with the Woodland Permit.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Member Koneda stated that when individual lots are sold and construction begins the owner of the lot would understand the woodland boundary. However, in some instances they could encroach closer to the woodland boundary if an individual lot was granted. He questioned further the situation if the Woodlands Committee granted a permit to encroach.

Ms. Lemke noted her recommendation that Mr. Fellows to ensure that the areas represent what he intends to put on there or built. She agreed that they could seek relief from the Woodlands Review Board from what the Planning Commission approves if they wanted to expand those areas.

Member Koneda stated his concern of future developments in which residents may want to put in a swimming pool, etc…encroaching into the woodland boundary. He agreed that the developer should be aware that the boundaries need to be well defined. He felt that the potential buyers of the lots should understand the impact on the woodlands.

Mr. Fellows stated that he did not have problem making this clear to a potential buyer. He added that he would not be asking for any further individual Woodland Permit or variance from the line shown on the Site Plan. He stated that he was not able to speak for a homeowner in five years who may attempt to try this on his/her own.

Member Koneda stated that the reverse frontages for lot 7, 8 and 9 have met the one hundred fifty (150) foot requirement. He stated the frontages along the major arterial are required to have a reverse frontage of at least one hundred forty (140) feet. He clarified if this requirement has been met.

Ms. Wyrosdick answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated he has a problem with the detention basin on lots 7 and 8. He asked if there have been any instances in the City in which a detention basin is permitted to be located on residential lots. He questioned if precedence has been set.

Mr. Bluhm answered, yes. He explained a situation in Greenwood Oaks in which there is a temporary detention basin. However, he stated that McLean is proposing a permanent basin. He stated that he could not recall a specific case that is similar to this situation.

Member Koneda stated that he preferred to not have the detention basin on shared lot lines. He felt that the only solution might be to remove the lot, resulting in eleven (11) lots verses of twelve (12). He asked the applicant if this has been considered.

Mr. Fellows agreed that it would be a solution. However, for economic reasons he could not consider it. He explained that the lots are oversized with easements for the detention basin. He stated the person on that lot would have to grant an easement to the City to maintain the basin. He added that it would be a dry basin and would not contain water all of the time.

Member Koneda stated that he understand Mr. Fellows point. He questioned if there would need to be a cross access agreement with each one of the lot owners to go in and maintain the basin.

Mr. Fellows indicated that he would be granting the easement, not the owners. He stated the buyer would buy it with the easement attached to it. He stated that he would be granting the easement on each lot to install the basin and maintain it.

Member Koneda asked the City Attorney if this is adequate. He restated the developer would attach an easement for the detention basin maintenance on the two lots. He continued that if City Council were to grant relief for placement of a detention basin on residential lots then the developer would have to attach an easement for maintenance to each individual lot.

Mr. Shultz stated this would not be a problem and would be appropriate. He referred to Mr. Bluhm’s comments of the Ordinance provision that allows Council to grant the waiver, which contemplates that this could happen.

Member Koneda stated his concern with the Open Space Preservation Options. He stated the Commission is considering a change in the open space options, which would give relief to smaller developments such as the proposed.

Member Mutch added that the option does not apply to R-4 zoning. He noted that the Implementation Committee is currently looking at the cluster option (available in R-4) and possibly addressing some of the limitations. He stated that the Committee realizes that there are some issues in the cluster option that would normally be applicable in the zoning district may not work on a small parcel with the current language.

Member Koneda stated that he was very concerned with the detention basin location on the residential lots. He felt this would set a bad precedence.

Member Landry shared Member Koneda’s concerns regarding the detention basin. He felt it would create liability risks on the association that it would ultimately be turned over to. He stated that being a condominium association every homeowner would be responsible for maintaining this area at some point. He felt with the detention basin close to lots 7 and 8 he shared Member Koneda’s concern especially for children and general liability purposes for the entire association.

Member Nagy stated that she is the president of her association. She agreed with the comments of the other members and she also had a problem with the location of the detention basin. She indicated that an insurance company recently reviewed the association. She stated that they share Village Oaks Lake and a part of the park property has frontage, which is never used and boats are not allowed. However, she stated that they considered the placement of something, which would have raised the premiums. She did not feel that this was a good idea from a liability standpoint. She questioned how much of a backyard would the owners would have on lot 5 and lot 7. She stated that it appears that lot 5 would be looking at the brick wall. She stated that although she understands the comment(s) regarding lot reduction, she felt that a concern of the liability for detention basins, which tend to overflow due to the bad rains, should not be the burden of the Commission. She questioned the City Attorney if this is the Commission’s burden.

Mr. Schultz stated no, the developer’s financial problems are not the Commission’s burden. However, the question is whether what he has proposed or what he would be limited to if he met the Ordinance requirement gave him a reasonable use of the land.

Member Nagy was not sure if this should be considered a reasonable use of the lot because there is no place in Novi that she could recall, which permitted a detention basin in the back. She felt strongly that this would pose a liability. She noted the other cities that have them, such as Farmington Hills along Twelve Mile Road, that have very small back lots with detention basins that are constantly flooding the back yards. She stated for this reason, she would not support this.

Mr. Fellows stated basin the basin is dry and not full of water. He stated to his understanding a heavy rain would fill it up to a certain degree and it would slowly drains out. He stated that he did not have the knowledge of how long it would take to drain if it were completely full. He guessed approximately a day. He stated there would not be water in the pond on a permanent basin.

Member Nagy stated that she was aware that it would not be on a permanent basis. However, she stated that the developer was not able to answer, at this time, the question of "How long the water will be retained in that area?" and the seepage rate. She added that she was not interested in an estimated guess and would like a factual answer.

Mr. Fellows stated that 99% of the time there would be no water in the basin. The slopes are 1:5 or 1:6 meaning that for every five (5) or six (6) feet out it would drop a foot. He added that it would not be any kind of dangerous fall off condition. He stated that as a matter of practical reality of the construction, the proximity of the pond to any of the homes is probably not unlike many developments within the City. He continued that the fact that the lots are big enough that the area of the basin falls partially on the lots as opposed to on its separate lot does not change the way it would look and function once physically installed.

Mr. Fellows addressed the issue of the retaining wall behind lots 4 and 5. He stated that the lots would have little or no cleared area for lawn, however this would not be an issue for him to decide if it is good or bad. He stated the high side of the retaining wall is on the house. The homeowner would not be look out the back door at the face of the wall. Instead, they would be looking out their back door at the trees.

Member Nagy asked if the property line could be defined for lots 7 and 8?

Mr. Fellows indicated the northerly line of lot 8 on the Site Plan. He pointed out the actual lot line between 7 and 8 on the Site Plan. He stated the easements would be granted to allow for the maintenance of the pipe. (He pointed out on the Site Plan the way they would go around the basin.) He stated it is a heavy dashed line. He stated that once you the area of the basin is taken out, the lots are approximately forty percent (40%) larger than the required minimum and larger than several other lots.

Member Mutch noted that he first looks at the underlying zoning when reviewing subdivision/site condominium plans. The zoning is R-4, which is (tape ends)….lots can be reduced to address some of these concerns. He felt that after hearing from the Commission and consultants there are two (2) areas of concerns. 1) The area of woodlands. He agreed with Member Koneda’s concern(s) regarding the long-term protection of the woodlands. He felt they could be better address this concern by removing those woodlands from within the platted lots as much as possible. He continued that taking those into a common area so that every property owner in the subdivision would have an interest in the preservation. This would also avoid future Woodland Permit issues. He suggested looking at the lots along the wooded area, (Lots 14, 15, 25, 16), fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet and lots that are anywhere from ninety-five (95) to one hundred fifty (150). He felt that with the recognition that there is a ten thousand (10,000) square foot lot to work with the lot sizes could be reduced. He recognized that the developer may have certain visions in terms of square footage and he noted there would be room for adjustments. He felt that the Commission could remove some of the woodlands from the lot areas. He did not feel there was a reason that lot 3 needed to extend back to the rear of the parcel. Therefore, some of it could be pulled out addressing some of the raised concerns. He felt it is a similar situation with the lots around the detention basin. He stated that the Commission needs focus on making some adjustments to move the detention basins out of the lots. He could not recall a subdivision in the City, built within the last 30 years where this situation exists. He did not feel that any of the Commissioners could consider this good planning. Although the Ordinance has a provision for a City Council waiver, he did could not recall any project with this situation. He stated for all of the reasons that Member Landry outlined there are plenty of reasons why this would not be done. He suggested the potential to extend Westin Court closer to Novi Road, which would move the lots more perpendicular to the road creating an arrangement for the detention basin to be set off on its own without really impacting a lot. He added with this alternative, there would obviously be an issue of cul-de-sac length that would need to be reviewed. He stated the current lot arrangement on a radial layout, forces the placement of the detention basin in the middle of two (2) lots. He felt this concept could be explored. He suggested along the northerly boundary line that some of the lots could be reduced in depth with a common area along that border. He added that the Mystic Forest residents would not have to be concerned that someone would remove the trees with a Woodlands Permit. He stated there would not be an additional need for easements and maintenance issues. He felt that if they get the trees out of the lots it would address ninety percent (90%) of the concerns relating to the woodlands issue. He stated that a plan with no defined greenspace, in terms of common areas and detention basins in the middle of two lots, indicates to him that it is overbuilt. Member Mutch stated that if the developer can not work it with some of the concepts that he suggested then the Commission should begin to consider pulling out a lot. Member Mutch felt that a table would be appropriate if the Commission felt supportive of his.

Member Koneda asked the developer if he would be interested in tabling the action to allow him to address some of these concerns.

Mr. Fellows stated that he would consider tabling but would like to respond to Member Mutch’s comments. He restated Member Mutch’s comment that 90% of the concern is the preservation of the woodlands. He indicated that he has written a letter to Linda stating that he is willing to place everything, that is to remain when the site is cleared, into a preservation easement. Therefore, the woodland areas would not be reduced. He noted the considerable area of common greenspace, which would be maintained by the association. This would include the berm along Novi Road, the plants and landscaping around the basin and all the perimeter trees. He stated that they considered an extension of the cul-de-sac farther east in the earlier plans. He stated that they could not fit any lots in between the end of the cul-de-sac and Novi Road if it was any closer than what is shown on the plan. He referred to Member Mutch’s comment to push it sideways. He explained that the area taken up by the cul-de-sac prohibits lining up any more lots or putting in any side by side lots perpendicular to the road in that location.

Member Mutch asked how many lots were in the original concept plan.

Mr. Fellows stated there was a range from eleven (11) to sixteen (16).

Member Mutch stated that he would like to see some drawings. He stated that he has seen developments in other communities with the cul-de-sac extended to the right-of-way, which also addresses his concern of a sidewalk connection on Novi Road. He questioned with the recognition that some oversized lots could be reduced, would a common area or the trees on the lots would be better in relation to long term woodland preservation.

Ms. Lemke stated that a preservation easement would be better long term.

Member Mutch clarified that his question is referring to whether those are sitting on the individual lots or pulled out onto a common area. He added that there would always be a Preservation Easement.

Ms. Lemke disagreed stating that sometimes there is not a preservation easement on individual lots. She explained that the preservation area is back from the lots and it would depend on the individual situation. She felt that it would be better in a common area than on an individual lot.

Member Koneda stated that the plan seemed to define the lot line to the whole perimeter.

Ms. Lemke stated that the lot line does go to the perimeter.

Member Koneda stated that the woodland boundaries are being defined but because it is on an individual lot there is no common area. Therefore, by definition, he stated there is no common area. He added that this presents a problem.

Ms. Lemke stated that there is no common area according to the plans presented.

Member Koneda referred to the City Attorney. He noted that the Planning Commission has three actions that could be taken tonight. 1) To table to allow the petitioner to address the concerns in attempt to work some of them out. He stated that he is concerned about the detention basin and did not recall hearing any solutions suggested. 2) To grant Preliminary Site Plan and Woodland Permit conditional upon receiving the favorable waivers from City Council. 3) To deny. However, he questioned if the petitioner would be able go before the City Council to seek the waivers if the Planning Commission denied the plan.

Mr. Schultz answered, sure.

Member Koneda continued his scenario stating if the applicant was granted the City Council Waivers would he then come back and resubmit Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Koneda clarified that the applicant could not go before the City Council unless action is taken.

Mr. Schultz agreed.

Member Koneda stated his preference to table the matter if a resolution could be made for the detention basin on the individual lots. He added that if there was not a resolution available, then the Commission should take action.

Mr. Fellows stated that he preferred to not table due to the extensive meetings with the consultants and renditions. He felt the only alternative would be lose a lot. He pointed out that a detention basin to the north that is permanently wet. He stated that it is no farther from any of the existing homes than the proposed location of the dry basin. He felt that instead of focusing on the issues of its location on the lots or on the lots, an easement or in its own lot, etc…he felt that they should be focusing on how it would physically look. He felt the design and the fact that it is a dry basin would keep it from being a potential liability to the City.

Member Koneda stated that he understood Mr. Fellow’s position. He asked if the detention basin for Mystic Forest site is on common land and not a residential lot. He clarified for the applicant that the issue is that the detention basin is located on a residential lot.

Ms. Lemke stated yes.

Mr. Fellows stated that he did not understand the concern(s) involved with its location on the lot. He asked if this could be explained to allow him to address it appropriately.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that some of the concerns were safety and liability issues.

Member Koneda answered, correct. He added that they are basically the well being of the City. He explained that typically with subdivisions or developments that has come before the City, the cost of putting in the development includes the infrastructure, roads and detention basins for storm water is part of the cost of doing business. He stated that there has not been precedence in the City to allow detention basins on individually owned lots. He recalled previous projects requesting relief for detention basins and was told that the detention basin would need to be located on property that is not included on the subdivision platting. It can not be part of the individual lots. He was certain that the City Council would agree with his findings.

Mr. Fellows asked Mr. Schultz’ opinion on the issue of potential liability. He also asked Member Koneda if the issue is a size issue. He questioned if there would be a concern if the lots 7 and 8 were three (3) acres each with the same size basin. He added that the basin needs to be located on these lots due to the frontage along the cul-de-sac not being able to create a separate lot without losing a lot.

Member Koneda stated that it would not make a difference how large lot is. He stated that he personally would not afford a detention basin on a residential lot.

Mr. Fellows questioned if he would still hold that opinion with the granted easements for maintenance, etc…

Member Koneda deferred the question to Mr. Schultz.

Mr. Schultz stated that the municipal liability issue would not change one way or another. However, he stated if he was a homeowner the basin on his lot he would be concerned. He stated that he was not aware of any community that permits a detention basin on an individual lot. Although it is provided for in the Ordinance and the Council could do it in its discretion, liability is one of the issues. He indicated that typically this would be handled by limiting it to a common general element, such as an outlot or a common element area. He noted that in this situation, the problem is that there is not the lot width to do this.

Mr. Fellows stated that he would stipulate in the Master Deed and By Laws that it would be a limited common element.

Mr. Schultz suspected that if this limited common element were made, it would affect the lot width.

Member Koneda did not recall any indications that the lots would have to be pie-shaped. He explained that if there is the frontage on the side that comes back along some angle and is diverted parallel then the minimum lot size may be obtained allowing the normal 10-year detention basin off the property line. He asked Ms. Wyrosdick if this would be a possibility.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated that it would take more plan modification than drawing a circle around the detention. She assumed a concern would lie with the flow to the basin being unencumbered and not within a lot. She thought it might be ten (10) feet on either side of the lot width, which would be flowing into the basin. Lot 8 to the north is eight-one (81) feet, which is 1.46 feet more than required. Lot 7 is eighty (80) feet. She was uncertain if this was possible. She stated that it appears that the lots could be modified in width a small amount and move the flow into the basin, a general common element and still meet the eighty (80) feet. She stated more informally that it might be possible to "squish" the lots to fit this in. She restated that it appeared doable, however, it would need to be reviewed further.

Member Koneda stressed that he wanted this development to be possible and did not want to sound negative. He stated that he would like to see the driveway off of Novi Road and the entrance come off the back. However, he questioned what is the right decision for the City. He stated if the applicant is willing to go back and address the issues with the consultants then he would make a motion to table. In contrast, he indicated if the applicant wanted the Commission to take action then he would vote against it and the applicant could request their waiver from the City Council. He clarified with Mr. Schultz that if the City Council granted the waiver, then they could return to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Schultz answered, yes to the extent that the denial is based on the detention issue.

Mr. Fellows stated that he would like to table it to the next meeting.

Member Richards stated that he was in support of tabling the matter because he did not feel that the design could be created in discussion and would need to be reviewed. He thought that it might be possible to "chip" the oversized lots and keep the twelve (12) lots. He stated that the developer has an idea of the Commission’s thoughts and he could work with it.

Moved by Richards, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0): In the matter of McLean Meadow Estates SP 01-28 to postpone to a date uncertain.

Mr. Evancoe based on previous discussions regarding crowded Commission agendas and late nights he felt that the Commission should be mindful of the impact of scheduling for any particular date.

Member Landry referred to the developer’s comments stating that the detention basin would not be constantly filled and possibly an intermittent condition. He stated this increases his concern. He explained his concern of the proximity of the detention basin to the residences. He stated the fact that there may be water in it one day and not another day would create a new and exciting place that would attract children to play.

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

No: None

1. MAYBURY PARK ESTATES SP 00-53A

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.

Kim Capello, representing Maybury Park Estates, indicated that they had previously been before the Commission for a Public Hearing with the request of RUD approval. The Planning Commission forwarded Maybury Park Estates to the City Council to find their opinion on the RUD application. The City Council approved the RUD application and sent it to the City Attorney for the preparation of the final contract documents. Mr. Capello requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval. He stated the issues that were raised at the previous Planning Commission meeting have been addressed. He recalled Member Mutch’s concern of whether the water would be safe for drinking due to the dump to the west of the project. Originally there would be community wells or individual wells until City water was available. He indicated that JCK is conducting a water study to determine this. Although the study has not yet been completed, it has been found that there would not be enough pressure to accommodate Maybury Park Estates. He indicated that they are currently in the process of negotiating to obtain water from Northville to the City of Novi. The City of Novi would provide the site with water until the pressure is sufficient to satisfy Maybury Park Estates. He added that this is not unusual and it has been done in the past. Currently Northville is in the process of conducting their water study to ensure that they have enough pressure. This is a formality and Northville has stated that they are certain there would be enough pressure to serve Maybury Park Estates, Our Lady of Victory and possibly the project to the west. The sanitary sewer would have a temporary lift station to pump through Bellagio and into the City sewer. As City sewer is available, Maybury Park Estates would abandon the lifter pump station and tie directly into the City sanitary sewer system. The RUD agreement would provide that any construction and maintenance of the pump station/ lift station would be the responsibility of the developer or the association until such time that City sewer is available. Any cost to tap into the city sewer would also be the responsibility of the developer or the association.

Steven Deak, Landscape Architect with Robert Leighton Associates gave a brief overview of the Site Plan history. The site is comprised with natural features on the site, predominantly open agricultural fields that are still being cultivated. In the northern portions of the site are the highest quality woodlands and wooded wetlands. Several hedge rows/corridors of woodlands and wetland run north and south; and several non-essential and essential wetland pockets within the farming fields. Looking at these natural features, he noted they found the potential to preserve the high quality features on the site and the agricultural uses lending themselves to be buildable areas for homes. He noted that the RUD gave the flexibility to work with the lot size to preserve these features. He stated this led to the Preliminary Site Plan presented to the Commission. He noted that with using the RUD Option, they were able to work in the RA zoning to reduce the lot size and maintain the character of the area. The lot sizes were reduced to R-1 standards, which allowed significant acreage to be saved along with the natural features on the site. He stated for this reason the road system meanders throughout the site taking advantage of the subtle ridgelines in the open areas. It works around the woodlands and wetlands for the home sites and drainage patterns to maintain the areas. He stated the significant portions of single loaded road define public access to some of the open spaces. Additional areas of open space, not part of the woodland or wetland, were able to be saved. He stated of the approximate 130-acre, they were able to save 52.3-acres, roughly thirty-eight percent (38%) of the site. He felt this was a demonstration of the RUD being implemented successfully. He stated the intent of the project was to save open space and create a high quality project. He informed the Commission of the revised Site Plan to address the comments raised. He noted the included changes. 1) The stub road was found to have an inappropriate location. The stub road was previously leading to an offsite wetland. Therefore, it has been relocated. 2) The long nature of the road, which could present a traffic flow. Therefore, the intersection has been reconfigured to eliminate the long stretch. He stated the road was previously close to the edge of the property, the revision to the intersection pulled the road south giving more distance between the road and the adjacent development northeast of the site.

Rick Hearth of Warner Cantrell & Padinos spoke in regard to the detention basin. The proposed City Regional Retention Basin is on an existing culvert under Eight Mile Road and discharges to a small pond and into a small park. He indicated the discussion with Northville Township in attempt to obtain input on the basin and its discharge to properties in Northville Townships. The criteria requested by the DPW Director included conforming to the latest Wayne County Standards (adopted in October) for a 100-year storm; outlet rate at .15 CSF per acre; and the retention basin be designed to accommodate only the discharge that currently occurs under the undeveloped condition. He stated with these criteria, Northville Township would give a positive recommendation to the basin. Mr. Hearth indicated in a drawing (the pink line) a full elevation of the retention basin. He designated the locations of the small sediment forebays in the original concept of the detention basin. In working with Mr. Bluhm of JCK, he noted the finding that the sedimentation basin could be made into one, which would be more efficient in maintenance and serviceability.

Mr. Capello requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to the RUD contract being signed by the City Council. He commented that the City Council has approved the concept of the RUD Plan with the proposed plan in mind. He indicated that he has been working with Mr. Fisher to negotiate the specific terms of the RUD Agreement. He raised the issue of the RUD Agreement with the Island Lake Development. He felt that this was a different process because Island Lake is a larger project and it was the first project under the new RUD Ordinance. He recalled it conceptually coming in with several phases. There were not specific lot layouts at the time of RUD Approval and the contract was signed before detail was brought forward for the phases for Preliminary Site Plan Approval. In contrast, Maybury Park Estates is ready to move forward with both applications simultaneously. He explained if the project is required to wait then the Final Engineering could not begin until Preliminary Site Plan Approval is granted. He stated that some of the issues to be resolved for negotiating out the terms with City Council of the RUD Agreement involve the engineering issues, which take place between Preliminary and Final. He explained that if the Commission were to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, it would allow the project to move forward with the Final and finalize the details of the RUD Agreement. He highlighted the portions of the RUD Agreement referring to Site Plan Approval. Maybury Park is a 135-acre development consisting of 106 single-family home sites. It is designed to maintain the rural open character. Each home site shall be referred to as a "lot" or "unit". Approximately 38.8% of the site, representing 52.3 acres of the Property shall be permanently preserved as dedicated open space, including wetlands, woodlands, hedgerows, internal parks and green space buffer area. Home sites substantially shall be situated on lots conforming with a combination of R-1, One Family Residential, and RA Residential Acreage, lots as provided in the City of Novi Ordinance. He stated these are the only issues that the Planning Commission would need to review in a Preliminary Site Plan Approval. He read another section of the agreement, "This agreement shall consist of this text, along with the attached and incorporated Site Plan (full size original of Site Plan on file in the City Clerk’s office), and is intended to serve as the contact contemplated under Section 2404 of the City Zoning Ordinance, and is intended to represent approval of the preliminary Site Plan of Maybury Park and establish the fundamental terms and provisions for subsequent final approval, development, use and maintenance of the Maybury Park…" Mr. Capello indicated that the Ordinance does not state whether the RUD Approval or the Preliminary Site Plan Approval should come first. He agreed with the decision to have the concept approved by the City Council. He explained the rational of the Commission deciding that the RUD Agreement should be signed first. He questioned the position of the Planning Commission if the City Council signed the agreement based on the proposed Site Plan. He questioned if the plan could be changed or if they would have to approve it based on the decision of the City Council. He continued to question if the Planning Commission made changes to the Site Plan, would he have to go back before the City Council for changes in the contract.

Mr. Capello explained that his involvement with the Maybury Park Estates project originally began with the Master Deed and Bylaws. However, with the need for an attorney for the RUD Agreement, his involvement became increased. He stated if the Commission does not grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, he was not certain what the City Council would be approving. He felt the Site Plan issue should be determined by the Planning Commission. The approved Preliminary Site Plan would be attached to the RUD Agreement to be sent to the City Council for Final Review. If the City Council finds issues that they do not like in the Site Plan, they could make changes and then the project would come before the Planning Commission again. He referred to a letter he wrote to the Planning Department stating his understanding in moving forward they could have to return to the Planning Commission should there be a "glitch" at City Council. He did not object to returning to the Planning Commission for Final Site Plan Approval to ensure that the Preliminary Site Plan is consistent with the RUD Agreement. He stated that in the seven (7) years that he served on the Planning Commission, he had not seen a Site Plan that was environmentally sensitive as the proposed. He felt the developers had done a great job addressing Member Mutch’s concerns; accomplishing a plan to have sanitary sewer to this area of the City; the agreement to put in a new left turn lane verses a bypass lane; and the accommodation of all the concerns of the consultants. Mr. Capello stated his preference to have the Site Plan issues addressed as opposed to after the City Council approves the Site Plan attached to the RUD Agreement.

Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval subject to the comments in the review letter dated January 19, 2001. One comment includes the setbacks for Lot 87 being revised to comply with RA Standards. Currently the lot shows R-1 setbacks. She felt that this could be accommodated on the Final Site Plan. She added that the applicant must submit a copy of the proposed Master Deed for review by the City Attorney prior to the Final Approval. The Final Site Plan must identify all applicable conservation easements for preservation of open space, wetlands and woodlands. The Subdivision Ordinance states that all lots are required to front upon internal road and not have direct access to a major thoroughfare. This was an issue with Lot 107, which has been removed from the plan. She noted the modifications to the lots. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the lots meet RA lot width standards and seventy-three percent (73%) meet R-1 width requirements. Eleven percent (11%) meets RA lot area requirements and eighty-nine percent (89%) meet R-1.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick recommended approval in the review letter dated January 29, 2001. (tape ends) Waivers Required – The absence of access stubs every 1300 feet around the periphery of the site requires a Council Waiver of the relevant provision of the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. She supported the waiver due to the constraints of the site and felt that the stub street, shown to the western boundary of the site, is sufficient and would adequately serve the site. She indicated two (2) boulevarded access points from Eight Mile. The eastern access is proposed to have a one hundred ninety-five (195) foot entry island and the City standard is one hundred (100) feet. Waiver Required – The proposal for a 195-foot long entry island in the east access street requires a Council Waver of Figure IX.3 of the City’s Design and Construction Standards Ordinance (not a variance of the Zoning Ordinance, as the Applicant stated in a recent letter). As indicated below in comment 11, however we do not support such a waiver. Ms. Wyrosdick was not in support of this waiver. She indicated that the plans could be modified to have a cut in the boulevard providing the one hundred (100) feet and creating three (3) small boulevards. The Preliminary Site Plan reviewed showed a single long passing lane proposed between the two (2) access drives. She preferred that a center left turn lane be provided as opposed to an excessively long passing lane. She stated that the applicant appeared to be willing to provide this. She continued that the radii would need to be clearly dimensioned on the plans. Comment 15 - Acceleration and deceleration tapers have been provided on the plan, however the transition would need to be smoothed out, which could be addressed at Final. Revisions and additions to the signs proposed near Eight Mile Road that could also be addressed at Final. She restated her strong support for the single stub shown to the western boundary. Historically she stated the adjacent property owner was not in favor of the stub. However, she felt that if the property were developed in the future, the stub would provide another access to Garfield Road and to the area where the school would be proposed. She stated proposed location is adequate. She recommended that the stub be only a right-of-way, but that it be built and paved to a twenty-eight (28) foot wide street stub, which could be shown on the Final Site Plan.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Conceptual Woodlands Plan and the Conceptual Landscape Plan subject to the comments of her review letters both dated January 17, 2001. She indicated that an item in the woodland letter, the regional detention basin, carries over into the conceptual landscape review. She noted that she did not review these plans, however, the City engineer and the applicant’s engineer have updated her on the proposed grading just before the meeting. She wanted the Commission to be aware of the changes that would be involved. These changes would involve a larger area of tree removal than previously shown. She recalled the light woodland area, which she did not have any objection with the removal of trees or the re-grading. However, the area has increase and is a larger area than what she reviewed originally. Ms. Lemke outlined the changes. 1) Increased tree removal. 2) Grading into an area that has been called contiguous habitat area. (the purple area on the map) This was one of the areas eligible for the density bonus. It was part of the 2.36-acres of important open meadow and habitat areas. She stated this would decrease slightly, however it was over with an extra credit for 30 units. This area was not part of the area that could have been used for the active recreation area. The open space area for active recreations is Lots 35 through Lot 41, which would not be effected. She stated it would need to be recalculated to determined how much and the effect on the 2.36-acres. She added that there are enough density credits. She stated that she was not against the changes, however, she wanted the Commission to be aware of the different impacts. She indicated a recalculation would need to be done for the woodlands replacement trees and the party responsible for the cost would need to be determined.

Mr. Bluhm gave more details on the three (3) utility issues. In regard to the storm water, he noted the grading plan shows the stages of storage during a 100-year storm. He referred to his review letter dated June 1, 2001, which depicts the anticipated storage times to show the impact of the 100-year storm in the regional basin area. Adjustments of the regional basin limits the saving of additional wooded areas that are higher, which would not see water if not graded out during a storm event. Based on conservative volume estimates, provided by the applicant, he felt there was the ability to make adjustments in this area. He indicated that there is a lot of detail that is not available at this point. He noted the final issues related to construction drawings. He felt that the issues raised by Ms. Lemke could be addressed with the flexibility with the basin. He pointed out the revision to the sedimentation (water quality) portion of the basin, (note as blue), making it a single basin, which would function better and protect the bulk of the wetland areas. He added that the City Council would give the final approval of the regional basin as well as cost issue resolutions. He stated identified another issue related to the elaboration on the water system improvements. Originally the proposal of wells to serve the development, which he did not anticipate to be a problem due to the way the water drains. However, he stated the proposal to have service through Northville Township is a benefit. He stated there have been smaller commercial sites that have tied into other communities on a temporary basis with the intent of converting over to the City’s system when available. One benefit is that the applicant would construct the public infrastructure, the watermains and roadway. The fire hydrants would be serviceable as compared to not having fire service and fire protection with the wells. He noted the long term benefit would allow the City to connect in the event there is a problem with the Novi system. He explained that a valve shut connection to the Northville system that would remain connected by shut off. In the event of an emergency situation, the City could tie into this valve or could open the valve to provide service. He added this would be a temporary type facility. He stated that a draft copy of the water study could be obtained from the Department of Public Services. He indicated that there were a number of improvements needed outside of the development that were found to be necessary to provide a consistent pressure for water to service the development by the City of Novi. The model indicates that three (3) of the improvements would be provided, which would be a number of years before all are in place. He noted this would allow an easy connection and a shutting of the Northville system, should Northville determine there is adequate pressure to service this and other developments in that area. He restated that all of these issues would need to be approved by the City Council.

Mr. Bluhm noted the number of options being considered regarding the sanitary sewer. Currently the sewer is being designed to service this development and parcels to the west. Recently an option was considered that would provide sewer to this development without the need of securing an offsite easement. This option would provide service to more Novi parcels and allows the sanitary to run down Beck Road to Eight Mile and West into the development. He noted this is currently being strongly reviewed by the Administration. There are two (2) other alternatives being considered, however, he felt this was the best option. He stated the applicant has indicated their intent to look into the construction of a temporary pumping facility. Mr. Bluhm did not feel this would be necessary, especially in light of the routing for gravity sewer that does not require any easements. Therefore, if this were to move forward there would not be any encumbrances to the sewer being built to provide service. Although the goal is not to provide a pumping station, the administration has indicated that they are willing to accept this on a temporary basis under the proper legal agreement with the developer.

Aimee Kay, Senior Environmental Specialist referred to the review letter dated January 8, 2001. Seventeen (17) wetlands are located on the site and approximately ten (10) acres of wetlands on the whole property. She noted this to be a small amount of wetlands in reference to the total acreage. The property has Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Wetlands, Locally Regulated Wetlands under 2-acres and Non-essential non-regulated local wetlands. Jurisdictional issues aside, they are all types of vegetative types of wetlands on the property; open water systems forested, wetland systems emerge in to submerge inch scrub shrub. She noted there is every type of wetland system on the property. The primary item she wanted the Commission to understand was that of the entire ten (10) acreage of wetland for the property, there is an impact proposed to a little under half acre. This is a locally regulated wetland and not a State Regulated Wetland. She referred to page two (2) of her letter - The applicant has reconfigured portions of the Site Plan to avoid additional wetland impacts. In addition, they are willing to preserve non-essential wetlands, enhance the existing wetlands and buffers, restore the disturbed wetlands and provide corridors for greater wildlife mobility throughout the site via natural vegetative means. She noted that she would address any questions regarding the actual wetland map. She agreed with their legal council, who stated the proposed is providing several benefits environmentally and specifically with the wetlands. She stated the northern half of the site consists of very high quality wetlands. The proposed is completely out of the forested wetland areas. She noted the State threatened species, Pumpkin Ash Tree, which they would be preserving entirely. They would be restoring an area that would provide wildlife mobility from the northern half of the high quality wetland through some of the hedgerows referred to by Ms. Lemke, south to Eight Mile Road. She stated that this is the only revision from the previous plan with regard to additional wetland impact in the regional detention basin. She stated that she was in support of this and continued to recommend approval.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated January 17, 2001 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 noted that in looking at the RUD Agreement on its second revision, she repeatedly found the some of the same Site Plan issues. She read Mr. Schultz’ comments from the February Planning Commission meeting, "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." She questioned how the Site Plan could be attached to the written RUD Agreement if the Site Plan can not be approved. She asked Mr. Schultz how they could arrive at the final written RUD Approval without the Site Plan.

Mr. Schultz explained that the City Council would approve the text of the agreement and the Site Plan is attached when the Planning Commission approves it.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that although the Site Plan is mentioned as part of the written portion, it could go to it and come to the Planning Commission after for the approval.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if he shared the same comments that he stated at the February 7, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Schultz felt that the Commission has the discretion to approve the Site Plan if they chose to. He stated that Mr. Capello acknowledged in his letter, that he sent to the City that he understood the risk. He felt that Mr. Fisher’s comments were based on "what ifs". For example what if the RUD Agreement was not actually approved by Council for various reasons. He stated there are a number of issues that may not prove to be obstacles but have not been resolved. He stated if the question is if an arrow would be placed in the property owner’s quiver, if there is a challenge to the City’s decision not to enter into the RUD Agreement if the Planning Commission has approved the Site Plan in advance contingent upon. He stated this is the issue. He stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that prohibits this "tagging along". He stated that this does not mean that it is the best idea or the worst idea. It would be the Planning Commission’s discretion.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that the Commission has granted Site Plan Approval contingent upon a ZBA Variance or City Council Variance. She stated the same legal issue would exist if the Preliminary Site Plan Approval was granted contingent upon City Council’s Final Approval of the RUD.

Mr. Schultz felt this was true.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that the issue is the comfort level of the Commission. She stated that either scenario is the same. She stated that there were several motions made this evening contingent upon… therefore, she felt it was the same issue.

Mr. Schultz felt the typical process would be to take the approvals in steps. He stated that this would also be the safest process. He clarified that this would not mean that in the exercise of the Commission’s discretion that they could not decide that they would like to take things out of order. He stated that the Commission would need to recognize that the steps are out of the order and find the appropriate comfort level as whatever it would mean from the proponent.

Member Kocan felt "torn between doing things right and doing the right thing". She stated that since the time the project was last discussed, numerous requests for additional information were made by the Planning Commission and the City Council. She noted this information specifically included the results of a study of the water pressure and the volume for the area, which has not been finalized. She continued, the sewer extension plans and the possible easement grants; concrete evidence that nearby contaminated sites have not adversely impacted the soil in the development area; DEQ verification that the site could be served by individual wells should there be a need (Are the volumes in Northville adequate to service the area?); and finalization and approval of the RUD Agreement by the City Council. She indicated that the wording also stated that the Site Plan should be attached. She noted that the RUD Agreement also stated "the initial Site Plan", which gives discretion in regard that it would not have to be the finalized one. She did not agree with approving a Site Plan without the submission of requested reports for detailed review by the Planning Commission. She stated new information was presented at this meeting and she did not feel comfortable processing information that she did not have a report on. She felt that the Planning Commission would be taking a risk that they could make certain determinations that could be interpreted as a "go aheads" in some areas. She stated that she was more comfortable with the tabling of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval and the Wetland Permit recommendations to the City Council.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy: In the matter of Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A to table Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval and the Wetland Permit recommendations to the City Council until such time that Novi and Northville water pressure, sewer extension, soil analysis, well contamination issues, well construction issues and the RUD Contract are finalized.

Chairperson Piccinini stated the motion should be amended to postpone the matter.

Member Kocan and Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy: In the matter of Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A to postpone Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval and the Wetland Permit recommendations to the City Council until such time that Novi and Northville water pressure, sewer extension, soil analysis, well contamination issues, well construction issues and the RUD Contract are finalized.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Schultz if the written approval of the RUD Agreement would entail the issues listed by Member Kocan in her motion. She asked Member Kocan to repeat the issues.

Member Kocan stated water pressure, volume for the area, sewer extensions plans, possible easement grants, concrete evidence of contaminated sites not adversely impacting the soil, DEQ verification that the site could be served by individual wells were prior to the finalization of the RUD Agreement.

Chairperson Piccinini noted the motion from the City Council included the "resolution of water and sewer issues discussed at the table, developer to confirm that the Final Site Plan was contingent upon City Code and ordinance requirements for portable water and sewer service and would conform to all the consultant’s recommendations and all the open items to be resolved..."

Mr. Schultz stated that several of these are referenced in the agreement.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that several are included and not all.

Mr. Schultz did not recall if it was the entire list.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Member Kocan if there was an item in particular.

Member Kocan stated that her list was obtained based on comments from the City Council meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that the comments were part of the City Council discussion and not the City Council motion.

Member Kocan answered, correct.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified with Mr. Bluhm if the well construction eliminated.

Mr. Bluhm stated that the applicant is not proposing well construction with the Revised Plan.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Schultz if this could be included in the motion if it is not being proposed.

Mr. Schultz asked Mr. Bluhm to clarify if the well construction is included on the Site Plan that was submitted or if it is verbal.

Mr. Bluhm stated that it is a recent change and the well construction is identified in the Site Plan that the Commission is acting on. He indicated that the applicant’s direction is changing in relation to actual construction.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if it is postponed based on this, would it be one of the actions that would occur.

Member Kocan stated that a determination of what is or is not required constitutes finalization or resolution of an issue.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that final decision on the issues, not necessarily having those issues, it would be the final decision on those issues. She asked Ms. Brock if she recorded this clarification.

Ms. Brock indicated that the Wetland Permit is an Approval to be postponed by the Planning Commission and not a recommendation.

Chairperson Piccinini agreed. She stated that the RUD Agreement would go before the City Council and the Site Plan, Woodland Permit and Wetland Permit approvals are by the Planning Commission. She asked Mr. Schultz to indicate where the soil is coming from and to clarify if they could require this.

Member Kocan recalled this comment from Mayor Clark. She assumed it was located in the Beck and Eight Mile area.

Chairperson Piccinini referred Mr. Schultz to Mayor Clark’s comments on page 11 of the City Council minutes dated March 5, 2001.

Mr. Schultz stated that he understood the motion to indicate that soil erosion issues generally need to be resolved. He stated that these are issues that remain under consideration in the RUD Agreement with storm water…

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that Member Kocan was referring to contamination. She asked if this could be required.

Mr. Schultz stated if they wanted the contamination issue resolved prior to acting on the Site Plan…

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if he stated "just resolved".

Mr. Schultz continued information and resolved to the Commission’s satisfaction prior to Site Plan Approval would not be a problem.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the City Council or the Planning Commission would resolve this and other issues. She noted that several of the issues are in the RUD Agreement. She asked Mr. Schultz if these issues would be resolved with the RUD Agreement or if it should be included in the motion.

Mr. Schultz stated that he did not find a problem with the motion saying that there has been discussion to wait to act on the Site Plan until a City Council "okay" on the RUD Agreement. Therefore, he did not find a problem with "calling this out" as a subject. The RUD issues would be resolved with the City Council decides that it would like to enter into the agreement subject to the Planning Commission approving of the Site Plan. The Site Plan issues would be determined when the Commission decided to vote on the Site Plan.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that some of the issues might be Site Plan issues that return to the Planning Commission. She asked the motion could state "the final approval of the RUD" as opposed to stating all of the issues. She explained that some of the issues might that come back might not be able to be finalized before returning to the Planning Commission. She stated if the issues are Site Plan issues, they would have to come back and could not be resolved until it came back before the Commission. Therefore, she asked if it would be more appropriate to have the motion state final written approval by the City Council.

Member Nagy asked Chairperson Piccinini to clarify if she preferred that the motion be worded based on the fact that there is not a signed RUD Agreement. She felt that the minutes of the City Council did not identify this stage as a regional detention basin. She believed that it was proposed, but not yet identified.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if Member Kocan would accept the amendment to her motion to state the written RUD Agreement being approved by the City Council. She felt this would avoid the situation of Site Plan issues that could not be resolved ahead of time. She also suggested amending the motion to include – the first agenda immediately following the City Council’s approval of the written RUD. She stated that because the issue is the RUD, she felt it should be indicated when it would return to the Planning Commission. She stated that it could come back as a Consent Agenda item because there is not a waiver. However, if there were a waiver, it would be removed from the Consent Agenda.

Member Kocan did not feel comfortable with placing the item on the Consent Agenda in the event that minor issues arise and required discussion.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that it would then come back under Matters for Consideration.

Member Kocan agreed.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if she was agreeable to it returning immediately following the approval from the City Council of the written RUD.

Member Kocan was in agreement if no notification was required.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that notification would not be required.

Member Kocan agreed.

Ms. Brock stated that she needed clarification on the Wetland. She indicated that the verbiage for the motion was written two (2) different ways. She stated that with the RUD, the Wetland would need to go to the City Council.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the process would be that the Wetland would go to the City Council and then back to Planning Commission. She asked if this would have to be sent back to Council again.

Mr. Capello stated that Wetland Approval typically follows Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Therefore, if the Site Plan Approval is at the Commission, then the Wetland Permit Approval should be also.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that it is City Council with the RUD and would be a recommendation to the City Council.

Mr. Capello stated that the Wetland Approval typically follow the Site Plan Approval. He continued that if the Site Plan Approval goes to the City Council in a subdivision or RCC or TC over five (5) acres district, the Wetland would follow it.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if he was suggesting that the City Council might be able to approve it prior to the Site Plan coming back before the Commission.

Mr. Capello answered, no. He stated that the Wetland should stay at the Planning Commission level where the Preliminary Site Plan Approval is granted.

Chairperson Piccinini asked the Commission would see it if when it returns to the Commission, whether a recommendation or approval was given.

Mr. Schultz answered, correct.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Maybury Park Estates SP 00-53A to postpone Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit Approval and the Wetland Permit Approval to Matters for Consideration on the first agenda following the City Council approval of the written RUD Contract.

Member Kocan clarified if she was looking at for the Ordinance with regard to the City Council, the approval of the permit involved the granting of open space credit. She referred to page 3270 – the area eligible for additional open space credit excludes all identified wetlands. In determining whether to grant such additional credit the City Council should consider.

Mr. Schultz answered, no.

Member Kocan requested that her previous comment be disregarded.

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

No: None

This building addition to house water disinfection equipment is located in Section 9, southeast of West Road and south of South Lake Drive. The 10 acre site is zoned One-Family Residential (R-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Larry Ancypa of Hubbell, Roth & Clark, Inc. represented the Oakland County Road Commissioner operator of the Walled Lake Novi Wastewater Treatment Plant serving Walled Lake and Novi residents. He stated the disinfection facility is to implement the latest technology available in disinfection and ultraviolet. It would eliminate some of the hazards currently existing at the plant with the use of Chlorine. The proposed would eliminate residual chlorine and the Findley Drain, where the affluent goes. He stated that they are in review for placement, they found that the site currently has an affluent that drains by gravity to the Findley Drain, which he hoped to maintain. He noted the option to move it on the site, which would require the installation of a pumping station to pump out the affluent, due to the increased length involved. He indicated that several issues arose during the Site Plan review by the City Consultants. The adjacent property is zoned residential with large expanses to the north and the east, which are wetlands. He did not feel these would be developed due to the current environmental rules and regulations governing wetlands. An old right-of-way on the north and east side of the plant which City Council vacated in preparation for the project. He noted this was the delay in coming before the Planning Commission for consideration. He indicated that they have filed to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the required variances in response to the objections raised by the consultants. He noted variances for setbacks, building height, berms and screening. He stated the site is fully developed and the intention is to restore the site to its the existing condition and greenbelt around the perimeter as much as possible. He stated there are maintenance access areas around the building to allow access to the various apparatuses in the building and adjacent to the building to clean and service it as required. Mr. Ancypa asked the Planning Commission look favorably upon his request and make an approval contingent upon a ZBA variance approval.

Ms. Wyrosdick stated the accessory building is under nine hundred (900) feet and typically the Site Plans would be handled administratively. However, due to the required ZBA variances she noted the applicant needed to come before the Planning Commission. She did not recommend approval in the review letter dated May 31, 2001 due the required variance for the building height. Accessory buildings in the district can not exceed fourteen feet (14’) and the proposed building is 1.5 feet taller than the permitted height.

In regard to traffic, Ms. Wyrosdick indicated no substantial issues. However, she recommended the extension of the sidewalk to the drive to allow the employees to have better access to the building. She recommended approval in the review letter dated May 29, 2001.

(tape begins)

Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval in her letter dated February 28, 2001 due to the required variances. She noted two (2) variances concerning the obscuring earth berm and plantings, which are required along the east property line and along the north property line. She recommended the two (2) ZBA variances due to the wetland system to the north and the large expansive wetland system to the east. The third required ZBA variance - elimination of the four (4) foot greenspace and plantings on the north and east sides of the building. She did not recommend approval of this variance based on the presented information. She believed there was room to plant and room for the placement of the 4’ greenspace along the northern side of the building. She noted the numerous landscape requirements that would apply at final if the applicant did not receive the ZBA variance and was required to plant.

Mr. Bluhm recommended Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval subject to the stamping sets for approval addressing the comment in the review letter dated February 28, 2001. Comment -Building finish grades will need to match existing grades.

Mr. Fox stated the proposed building is under one thousand (1000) square feet. Technically it does not belong to the façade ordinance as an accessory building under one thousand (1000) square feet. He suggested the accessory building match the existing buildings on the site. He noted the applicant’s compliance with this recommendation. Mr. Fox indicated that the percentages comply with the ordinance standards. He recommended approval in the review letter dated March 5, 2001.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated February 27, 2001 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.

Member Nagy clarified that Ms. Lemke preferred the four (4’) foot greenspace and plantings on the north and east side of the building.

Ms. Lemke stated this is required by ordinance.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Walled Lake / Novi Wastewater Treatment Plant Disinfection – Accessory Building SP 01-10 be approved to contingent upon meeting (Section 2509.9) the greenspace and plantings on the north and east side of the building and contingent upon ZBA variances for building height of an accessory building, the elimination of greenbelt plantings, elimination of obscuring earth berms/plantings and walls along the east property line, elimination of obscuring berms/planting and walls along the north property line contingent upon all recommendations and conditions of the consultants.

Member Richards asked the reason that the accessory building is 1.5 feet higher than what is permitted by ordinance.

Larry Ancypa stated that due to the open water nature inside of the building, there are masonry walls with a precast concrete top. He explained that the accessory building has a pitched roof in attempt to meet the character of the existing buildings, which also have pitched roofs. Due to the height required to allow the gantry crane to remove the UV light tubes for servicing and cleaning, the minimum height inside the building was needed. He added that the building is not any larger than it needed to be. He felt that a flat roof would be out of character with the site.

Member Mutch noted that the surrounding property is City-owned property, which is either parkland or wetland mitigation, etc… He added that there are not houses close to the site.

Member Koneda asked if the 4’ greenspace existed around the other buildings on the site. He added that the applicant’s argument to ZBA could be the existing conditions; to be in compliance with the rest of the buildings on the site.

Chairperson Piccinini noted that Member Koneda’s comment was not part of the motion.

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

No: None

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the Commissioners had brought with them the sample motions text. She stated if the commissioners did not have the materials, then she would postpone that portion of the discussion to the next meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini announced that this item of the discussion would be postponed to the next Planning Commission meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that the Rules Committee unanimously recommended deleting the first three (3) pages concerning the City Code of Conduct accepted and certified in 1991. She restated that this would include the removal of the first three (3) pages of the Legal Briefing (Planning Seminar Handbook) Section III to insert the already City approved Resolution.

Member Koneda clarified if this would be the Conflict of Interest.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

Member Nagy asked the reasoning for the removal of the three (3) pages.

Chairperson Piccinini stated it was unanimously felt by the Rules Committee that the Resolution was more consistent with what the City has followed and that some were more restrictive than what was felt to be appropriate. She stated in researching with other cities, she found that they were not this extensive. She stated that Farmington Hill has something that Secrest Wardle does also, which is legal, but is voluntarily from the Commission verses from legal to the Commission on restrictions. She stated there was nothing in writing. She recalled the discussions of the First Amendment Rights and in not wanting to effect that, decided that this was too restrictive.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Schultz if the section Chairperson Piccinini is referring to is included in other client’s booklets that he hands out.

Mr. Schultz stated that the form used, is one that has been used for other seminars in other communities. He stated that the Conflict of Interest Section has been written and given out to a number of other communities. He stated that there was a disclaimer placed on the ZBA Seminar stating that they would not be commenting on any existing procedures. He stated if it is determined that it goes beyond what feels comfortable for the Commission or what is felt needed to be done as the Commission then that would be fine.

Member Nagy stated that she did not have the materials with her.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the item should be postponed to the next meeting for discussion.

Commission agrees.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated the discussion would be placed on the next agenda. She requested that the Commissioners bring the necessary materials, which would include the motions and prepared memo prepared by the Rules Committee.

Mr. Schultz clarified to the Commission that this was not intended to be a binding document.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she was aware of this.

Member Landry suggested that in the future, that the commissioners be provided with the reason(s) their vote is needed. He did not feel the memo provided the information of why the text was unanimously recommended to be removed. He felt that they should have been provided with the reasons why and the explanation of the rational by the Rules Committee. He stated that he did not have any understanding of why the Rules Committee is requesting him to make the changes.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Matters for Consideration Item 3 Legal Briefing and Code of Conduct to postpone until the next available Planning Commission meeting.

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

No: None

None

None

None

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Mutch, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 11:25 p.m.

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

No: None

________________________________

Sarah Marchioni - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

July 26, 2001

Date Approved: August 1, 2001