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

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

ABSENT/EXCUSED: None

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Planning Director David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke and Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber.

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

Member Nagy added Architectural Review Ordinance to Matters for Discussion.

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

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

No: None

None

None

Chairperson Piccinini announced there was one (1) item on the Consent Agenda.

This industrial project is located in Section 4, north of West Road and east of the City of Wixom on Ryan Road in the Beck North Corporate Industrial Park. The 1.70 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval.

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

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

No: None

The proposed rezoning of 8 acres in Section 16, located on the north side of Eleven Mile Road and east of Beck Road. The applicant is seeking a positive recommendation to City Council from Residential Acreage (RA) to One Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Joe Rokicsak pointed out the area on the Site Plan for which he was requesting the rezoning. He stated that he is attempting to create an environment to protect existing woodlands and wetlands on the site, develop the property and create a pleasant Novi-type environment. He indicated that the Planning Commission previously denied the other portion of his site, which the City Council approved. He requested the rezoning to complete his site.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant recommended approval of the rezoning in his review letter dated June 28, 2001 subject to the required sign plot plan being submitted to the City of Novi prior to consideration for the rezoning by the Planning Commission. The property is an additional 8-acre piece that would be part of an overall development with the 46-acre parcel recently rezoned by the City Council. The property is in compliance with the density recommendations in the Master Plan for Land Use. He noted that the conceptual plan submitted with the rezoning request would not necessarily be directly approvable and would require amendments in the Site Plan Process. He stated his letter includes comparisons between the R-1 and RA district. There are natural features on the proposed site, such as regulated woodlands and a small wetland area. He added that the larger site had a more extensive wetland area in the center.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo referred to the review letter dated July 6, 2001. He noted the findings of basic information regarding Eleven Mile Road. A trip generation comparison of the RA zoning and the R-1 zoning. He indicated that the findings are based on the combination of the properties because they would likely be developed as one parcel. The previous zoning 18.610 and 18.612 is combine to forecast potentially up to fifty-three (53) dwelling units on the combined parcels. The number of dwelling units would depend upon how the Site Plan or the Plat Plan is approved.

Member Churella announced that he has received three (3) correspondences:

William Ducka objects due to the increased traffic on Eleven Mile Road, increased noise, cutting down of the mature trees, displacing of wildlife, making other RA think of the construction, construction traffic, decreasing property values, increases class size for schools with additional students coming into the City and tapping into the City water, which already has low water pressure.

Hejia Pan and Yongbin Yuan, 25968 Laramie Drive, objects and wrote "The area is already very crowded. Rezoning for construction of residential houses should not be permitted."

Ed and Denise Ranilovich, 46450 Eleven Mile Road, approves and wrote "The Master Plan for the City has designated this area as R-1."

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.

PM-01-07-192 IN THE MATTER OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.612 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FROM RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE (RA) TO ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) BASED ON PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS AND CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY’S MASTER PLAN.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Map Amendment 18.612 to send a positive recommendation to City Council from Residential Acreage (RA) to One Family Residential District (R-1) based on previous City Council actions and conformity with the City’s Master Plan.

Member Mutch stated that the applicant’s zoning application indicated no regulated wetlands on the site. He pointed out that Mr. Arroyo’s report noted some wetlands on the site. Therefore, he questioned if there are regulated wetlands on the site.

Ms. Weber stated that she was not sure. She explained that a determination would be done at the time of a Site Plan review with the delineation of the wetland boundary.

Member Mutch note Mr. Arroyo’s letter indicated increased traffic on Eleven Mile Road. He questioned if Eleven Mile Road would have the capacity to handle the increased traffic from the new development.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. Based on the size of the development and its impact, he believed that Eleven Mile Road would have the capacity. The Master Plan forecasts are predicated on improvements to other roads in the east/west direction such as Grand River Avenue, Ten Mile and additional major arterial. He stated this would provide relief to the minor roadways such as Eleven Mile Road. He added that people tend to stay off of these minor roads unless there is a reason to travel on them to avoid traffic on other roads. He stated with the assumption that the other roads would improve there should be more modest volumes on Eleven Mile Road.

Member Mutch stated that he did not support the previous rezoning for the area because he felt it would be an intrusion into the neighborhood. He stated that in a sense this would create more of a problem due to the creation of islands of unlike zoning, which he would address further in another motion. He noted that the City Council rezoned the other property and therefore, in terms of consistency he did not find a reason to not move in the same direction. Member Mutch pointed out that the applicant’s report contains numerous inaccuracies and statements, which are not consistent with the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he wanted to ensure that the Planning Commission’s recommendation does not reflect what is in the book because it does not reflect what the Zoning Ordinance allows.

Member Koneda commented on the "islands" with the left over RA land (five or six lots). He questioned if the City Council approves the plan would the remaining land, currently zoned RA, be developable as R-1 or would it be prevented from being brought into compliance with the Master Plan.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the possibility would depend upon how this site laid out and where the access would be located. However, he explained that it was not possible to determine this until information of wetlands, regulated woodlands and other features are gathered to evaluate how they might impact the site lay out.

Member Koneda questioned if the developer would be required to provide access to the site to allow for a road across, which would make it conform to R-1 in the future if it was assembled as a single parcel.

Mr. Arroyo stated that this would be evaluated at the time of a review of the Plat or Site Plan. He stated if it made sense, they would look for stub connections to allow for this to occur.

Member Koneda agreed with Member Mutch’s comments. He stated that he was not in objection to the rezoning of the land, as it is in conformance with the Master Plan. He expressed his concern with the excluded lots and did not want to prevent them from taking advantage of the zoning.

Member Kocan notified the petitioner that her approval of the rezoning in compliance with the Master Plan does not give credence to the Site Plan that was included.

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

No: None

Member Mutch indicated some issues that occur with the "piece meal" rezoning. He stated that the development might not be the best pattern for the overall long-term use of the area. Those that are excluded, such as the islands in this situation, may be placed in a less advantageous position simply with the decision to not rezone at this time. He suggested that the Planning Commission request direction from the City Council for the potential of rezoning the entire area north of Eleven Mile Road to bring it in conformance with the Master Plan. He felt that this would allow development in that area to take place in a more coherent pattern. It would not obligate anyone to sell out and those residents who chose to remain on the acreage parcel could do so, but they would have the flexibility to move forward. He stated that this would make more sense verses a "piece meal" zoning pattern.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To request direction from the City Council for the potential rezoning the north side of Eleven Mile Road to the current Master Plan

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

No: None

This engineering and research facility is located in Section 9, on Desoto Court, north of West Road and east of Beck Road in the Beck North Corporate Industrial Park. The 2.2 acre site is zoned Light Industrial (I-1). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Special Land Use Permit and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Steve Farsakian of Ronnish Construction Company introduced architects Matt Niles and Chuck Fosse of Yeh Wee Associates and Tim Angelos of Design Research Engineering. He noted that he would be presenting additional information to the July 12, 2001 re-submittal. He noted the intent at the pre-application meeting on April 3, 2001 to conform to the ordinances, with the exception of the Section Nine Facade Waiver and a Special Land Use Application. On May 14, 2001, he noted the submittal of the Preliminary Site Plan, which received comments that he would address in his presentation. He indicated that they would be able to meet the City Ordinances at Final.

Matt Niles or Yeh Wee Associates noted that they have addressed the consultant comments. He highlighted some of the areas of concern. He noted the confusion with the East setback, buffer zone/landscape area between the site and the existing residential. In response to this concern, he indicated that they have designed a plan to illustrate a revision with compliance to the Ordinance. He compared the submitted Site Plan with the Revised Plan. He pointed out the area with the setback issue. A one hundred (100) foot setback is required from the East Side of the residential landscape buffer to the building. In response, he noted the parking on the side of the building has been eliminated and the building shifted to the east to allow for a row of parking "here" (pointing to the location). He stated this illustrates a one hundred and six (106) foot setback from the East Side of the buffer zone to the building, which is in excess of the required amount. In another scheme, he noted the parking has been removed and been replaced on the West Side abutting industrial zoned property. He indicated the difference between the two (2) schemes is the sense that the circulation is defined. He noted a defined drop off circular driveway area in one plan and a customer visitor parking area and employees parking in the back. The building height on the eastern portion was twenty-four foot eight inches (24’8") and the western twenty-seven foot (27’). The maximum allowed is twenty-five (25) therefore, the plan has been revised to bring the twenty-seven (27) foot portion into compliance. He added that it would not change the look of the building. He felt the remaining issues were minor and had been addressed.

Mr. Arroyo referred to the review letter dated July 5, 2001. He indicated that the review letter was prepared with the knowledge that the sound analysis would be submitted. The sound analysis study indicates that the City noise standards would be met. He noted the specific recommendation for sound barrier panels on the rooftop equipment, of a certain nature, to provide the effective screening and noise attenuation. He suggested that the motion include the recommendations from the noise consultant to be incorporated at Final. He added that this is a critical issue for a Special Land Use approval when adjacent to residential. The proposed project is part of the Beck North Corporate Park. He noted the City-owned fifty (50) foot strip of land located between the corporate park and the residential property that was dedicated as a Wildlife Corridor. He indicated that the ordinance measures industrial setback requirements from the residential district rather than from the property line. Therefore, the site is able to incorporate the fifty (50) foot strip in terms of measuring many of its setbacks. Parking is not permitted closer than one hundred (100) feet to a residential district. It appears that the parking issue is being addressed by the revised plans, which would be confirmed at Final. The applicant has indicated that they would meet the building height requirement and comply with the lighting requirements, which would be determined at Final. The site is limited to a half foot (½) candle at the property line adjacent to residential and one (1) foot candle is permitted adjacent to industrial. He indicated that additional minor details of the review letter could be addressed at final. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the issues being resolved on the Final Site Plan.

In regard to Traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated July 10, 2001. Beck North is a new industrial park with a new road network generating little traffic. He indicated that the entire park was reviewed with the implications of when the road system went in. A trip generation forecast is included in the report. A stub connection is proposed for the property to the west, which has been a focus for all of the industrial sites. This connection would meet the City secondary access requirement, facilitate truck ingress/egress and provide easier maneuverability from property to property without using the public road system. He noted minor issues to be addressed regarding end islands and minor adjustments to be resolved on the Final Site Plan. He referenced the sketch of Beck North Corporate Park’s approved projects, which indicates how the proposed project relates. He pointed out the location of the proposed Design Research at the southern side of Desoto Court adjacent to the eastern boundary; Peary Court A & B located further north; and Suntec and Paramount #13 to the north. He showed the Commission an aerial photograph taken approximately two (2) years ago to give a perspective of the relation of the proposed site with the adjacent residential property. He described Desoto Court, Hudson Drive, West Road and the subject’s property. He described the residential properties located off of West Park Drive. Screening is provided as part of the overall park and the individual Site Plans.

Ms. Weber, recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan for engineering review in the review letter dated June 13, 2001. She indicated that the site would be serviced by existing utilities with extensions of leads for water and sewer. Detention for the site would be provided by the North Novi Regional Detention Basin. Pretreatment would occur in a sedimentation basin that was constructed with the overall Beck North Development. She recommended approval with the comments of the review letter being addressed at Final.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval in her review letter dated June 13, 2001 of the Conceptual Landscape Plan. She noted the heavy hedgerow that is part of the Wildlife Corridor. She indicated that a berm would provide the screening and it would go into that area some but would not disturb any of the existing vegetation and is on the property for fifty (50) feet. Additional evergreen trees have been added on their property adjacent to the berm. She noted a number items included in her June 13, 2001 letter and the applicant’s indication that they would address all of the comments. Ms. Lemke recommended approval conditioned upon the comments of her review letter.

Ms. Weber noted that Doug Necci of JCK recommended approval of the Section Nine Façade Waiver in his letter dated June 4, 2001. The applicant has decided to use a concrete material as a substitute for brick. This product has been used on several projects within the City of Novi, which a Section Nine Facade Waiver was granted. She indicated that Mr. Necci recommended approval of the concrete masonry units (C.M.U.).

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated June 4, 2001, from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting 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) Fire hydrants shall be located in the southern ends of both the west and east parking lots. 2) The drop off area at the front covered entry shall the 45 foot minimum outside turning radius. 3) 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. 4) 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. 5) 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.

Lisa Abtulla, 46300 West Park Drive, asked if the Special Land Use Permit would effect her.

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

Mr. Arroyo addressed the audience participant’s comment. He explained that the Special Land Use Permit is a process by which certain land uses are allowed if the conditions are met. The only primarily principle permitted uses (meaning no permit is required) in Light Industrial District (I-1) are office uses when adjacent to residential. An industrial use adjacent to residential is required to go through a Special Land Use Permit process, which requires a public hearing, public notice to those within 500 feet and Planning Commission hearing to determine that the plan meets ordinance standards. If the Planning Commission determines that the use meets the intent of the Special Land Use criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, then they may approve the use as a Special Approval Use. The use would then be required to be built in accordance with the Site Plan submitted. The process is a way to have a use permitted within the district subject to special conditions and after a public hearing.

Member Koneda questioned if there would be a problem with the fire apparatus accessibility to fifty percent (50%) of the building perimeter with the elimination of the parking.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he could not give an exact calculation with the presented plan. He indicated the possible solution of an extension of the parking area along the building with an eighteen foot (18) wide paved surface to allow the fire vehicles to pull up against the building. This surface would not be open to public access. He found potential in this solution however, this issue would need to be reviewed in detail.

Member Koneda suggested the eighteen (18) foot wide drive across the entire southern portion, which would be dead end and might need a turnaround. He questioned if there were wetlands located below this area.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that some short runs do not require a turnaround. If there is a reasonable distance, the vehicles would back up therefore, it would depend on a case by case basis.

Member Koneda clarified that if there were an approval, it would need to be conditioned upon the Fire Marshall’s review of the Site Plan to assure that it meets the apparatus requirements.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Member Koneda assumed the fire hydrant in the east parking lot would be deleted due to the elimination of the parking lot to the east. He added that the Fire Marshall would need to readdress the Site Plan.

Member Koneda commended the applicant for their efforts to address the Special Land Use requirements with the submittal of the noise analysis. He stated that traffic infrastructure is not an issue and he felt the use was compatible with the surrounding areas. He noted that the applicant did a nice job not locating doors and access points on the part of the building that faces the residents. He stated that he was concerned with the noise analysis comments regarding the roof top mounted equipment noise levels at the property line, which is the fifty (50) foot buffer and not the residential property line. He confirmed with Mr. Arroyo that the sound level numbers of fifty-one (51) d.b. at the east property line is the noise level at the easement between the residential property.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the study noted the level expected at the property lines of the adjoining acreage. He stated that it appears to indicate the residential property line.

Member Koneda stated that an approval should be conditioned upon confirming that the sound analysis is correct.

Mr. Arroyo stated if the analysis was conducted at their property line, then it would only get better because it would be farther away. Therefore, he indicated that the study would be a worse case scenario.

Member Koneda asked the applicant if the study was done at his property line.

Matt Niles answered, yes.

Mr. Arroyo stated in this case, it could be lower.

Member Koneda clarified that the proposed is a spec building.

Matt Niles answered, no.

Member Koneda questioned what types of trucks were anticipated to be on the site. He questioned further if the trucks would be diesel trucks. He noted the loading located on the southwest end of the building.

Tim Angelous of Design Research Engineering indicated that there would be occasional deliveries that would require trucks. However, he stated that the site would rarely have truck traffic to the building. The warehouse area would be for high tech instrumentation work on automotive and marine products. Therefore, there would not be a regular delivery of supplies. Based on the currently Novi location (Intech of Novi) he anticipated the truck traffic to be one truck or trailer truck every couple of weeks at the most or on an average once a month.

Member Koneda stated that typically the noise analysis includes the delivery vehicles that would come to the site. He questioned if the noise level would need to be reevaluated to include the potential delivery vehicles. He asked Mr. Arroyo how large of a truck the site could accommodate. He indicated that it appeared that the site could accommodate a typical state size such as a diesel.

Mr. Arroyo felt that the site could potentially accommodate a larger truck based on the design, especially with the connection to the property to the west and the stub area. He indicated that the truck could pull forward and then back in.

Member Koneda questioned if the applicant should provide a sound analysis to include the potential truck traffic to the site.

Mr. Arroyo suggested that the applicant’s sound engineer be requested, as part of the Final Review, to address the issue and determine if it would have an impact on the findings that have been made. If a problem were found then the Site Plan would need to come before the Commission again. He did not anticipate that it this would be the case due to the low level of activity. He felt the issue could be addressed with a supplemental letter.

Member Koneda felt that this would be appropriate. He stated that it might be far enough from the property line to not cause an issue, however, he preferred to have the confirmation.

Member Koneda clarified with Ms. Lemke that the green space adjacent to the building would be provided.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She added that her response is based on the plan.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, (motion amended in PM-01-07-195): In the matter of Design Research Engineering SP 01-35 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver to allow the use of Smooth Faced Concrete Masonry Units in place of Brick conditional upon the applicant confirming that the noise analysis for the truck usage would be in compliance with the Noise Ordinance Standards and contingent upon all of the conditions and comments of the consultants.

Chairperson Piccinini noted Mr. Arroyo’s comment to include the recommendation of the Noise Consultant dated April 26, 2001 and the requirement to conform to the sound standard. She also suggested the amendment to the motion to include the re-review by the Fire Marshall to ensure the conformance of the Site Plan.

Member Koneda and Member Richards accepted the amendments to the motion.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, (overridden by motion to table in PM-01-07-196): In the matter of Design Research Engineering SP 01-35 to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Special Land Use Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver, to include the recommendations of the Noise Consultant dated April 26, 2001 and to confirm that it meets Noise Standards, to have the Fire Marshall re-review prior to Final for approval, the applicant’s Sound Engineer addressing the truck traffic to find if it impacts the sound analysis and return to the Planning Commission if it does, conditional upon all consultant’s recommendations and conditions.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney, noted the indication in the traffic study of the possible need to change the cross access easement. He questioned if this analysis has been done to determine if a change in the easement would be required.

Matt Niles answered, no.

Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to have this noted in the minutes. He stated that this might be an issue that would need to be addressed. He suggested that that minutes reflect the aspects of finding of the Special Land Use as it relates to the single-family residential.

Member Koneda indicated the Special Land Use conditions that were met: 1) The noise analysis submitted by Klano & Saha Engineers dated April 26, 2001 indicates the maximum sound levels at the property line is below the daytime allowed levels. 2) Traffic is not adversely impacted. 3) The infrastructure is in place to support the building. 4) The use is compatible with the surrounding areas. 5) The architectural style is in harmony with the surrounding areas. 6) No doors are facing the residential district. 7) This Special Land Use achieves one of the goals of the Master Plan of providing Industrial land use.

Member Kocan referenced the applicant’s indication that with the relocation of the parking the building would be one hundred and six (106) feet from the property line. She questioned if this figure includes the fifty (50) feet of the berm or not. She added that the ordinance requires it to be setback five (5) feet for each foot of building height when abutting residential. Therefore, she indicated that the setback would need to be one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the residential.

Matt Niles stated the building has a setback requirement of one hundred (100) feet and the proposed building has one hundred and six (106) feet. He explained that the screen walls could be higher than the twenty-five (25) foot building height.

Member Kocan disagreed with the applicant’s comment. She read from ordinance Section 2400(m)(1), "Where a use abuts a residential district and is not separated therefrom by a thoroughfare…five (5) feet of horizontal setback for each foot is of the building height ,or one hundred (100) feet, whichever is greater…" Member Kocan stated that the building is required to be one hundred twenty-five feet from the property line. She questioned if the measurement was taken from the east or the West Side of the berm.

Matt Niles indicated that it was measured from the East Side of the berm.

Member Kocan clarified that they are not in compliance if it was measured from the East Side of the berm.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. There is the requirement of one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the residential district with the proposed building height.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that it would not be from the berm but from the property line.

Mr. Arroyo stated it would be from the residential district. He explained further that it would include the City-owned property in the one hundred twenty-five (125) feet.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Arroyo to clarify if the requirement has been met.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he could make that determination without reviewing the Revised Plan that the applicant has presented. He indicated that this is the first time that he has seen the Plan being presented.

Member Kocan asked the applicant if he measured from the East Side of the berm including the fifty (50) feet of berm.

Matt Niles answered, yes. He added that they have revised the plan lowering the building to meet the twenty-five (25) foot height requirement.

Member Kocan stated that this was to bring the building into compliance with the twenty-five (25) foot maximum height allowed. She explained to the applicant that he would have to be one hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the residential. She questioned how this should be handled.

Member Landry stated the Façade letter indicates the smooth concrete masonry units are virtually indistinguishable from brick. He asked if the applicant had an example of the material that would be used. He stated that the ordinance permits zero (0) C.M.U. and the proposal is for an excess of fifty percent (50%).

Matt Niles indicated that a full size piece was submitted with the façade board.

Member Landry clarified if that piece (referring to the material displayed) represented what the

concrete masonry units would look like.

Matt Niles answered, yes. He stated that it represents the finish. He then pointed out the piece of material representing the actual size.

Member Landry clarified if the color to be used was represented here.

Matt Niles stated it would be a color in the same family. He indicated that they would be willing to adjust the color if the Commission preferred.

Member Landry agreed that the material looked like brick. However, he wanted to clarify which piece of material represented the color they would be using. He clarified that it would not be the color of the material above the piece that the applicant was pointing to.

Matt Niles answered, correct.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified if Member Kocan’s question was addressed regarding the setback issue.

Matt Niles stated that the situation would need to be reviewed because it was new information to him. He stated that this was not pointed out to him previously.

Member Koneda suggested making a motion to table the matter to give the applicant the opportunity to review the setbacks and allow the Fire Marshall to review the issues with the building accessibility. He stated that there may be a more significant impact. Member Koneda explained that his motion was made with the impression that there was a one hundred (100) foot setback from residential.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that the applicant would need to review this.

Matt Niles stated that all of the consultants have reviewed the Site Plan and given conditional approval, therefore, he requested that the Commission honor that conditional approval. He requested permission to have the opportunity to make it work.

Member Koneda clarified that he did not make a motion. Instead he was making a suggestion of a possible avenue.

Chairperson Piccinini explained to the applicant that the alternative could be that the building height would need to be reduced an additional five (5) feet. She stated that if the approval were granted based on the recommendations, then whatever would be required to make the site work, he would have to comply with. She questioned if he would like to chose an approval based on the consultant recommendations or if he would like to have the matter tabled to allow him to review alternatives.

Matt Niles pointed out the end of the building facing the residential property. He questioned if a one hundred and five (105) foot setback would be required if the twenty-four foot eight inch (24’8") portion was lowered to twenty-one (21) feet. He indicated that there would not be any difficulty in meeting this height. He questioned another portion of the building could become twenty-five (25) feet if the eastern portion complied. He added that they would be another one hundred (100) feet removed from the residential district.

Mr. Arroyo felt that Commission should make this determination if this would meet the intent. He added that he has not seen this proposed in this manner. He stated if the Commission determined that it did not meet the intent of the ordinance, it should be rejected.

Member Nagy suggested tabling the matter because it does not meet the ordinance, the changes and fire issues. She suggested placing it on the next Planning Commission agenda.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that a motion to table would override the motion on the floor.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, (amended in motion PM-01-07-197): In the matter of Design Research Engineering SP 01-35 to table to the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.

Member Kocan indicated her reason to support the motion to table the matter is due to the fact that the Site Plan presented is not the Site Plan that was submitted in the packets. She stated that she would like to the opportunity to review the Revised Site Plan.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Arroyo it would be possible to review the information submitted by the applicant and have it ready for the packets in nine (9) days.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it would depend upon how quickly the issue could be resolved by the applicant and the information submitted for his review. He stated that the date could be "tight" and he suggested leaving the date open.

Chairperson Piccinini suggested a motion to table to the August 1, 2001 meeting or meeting after that depending upon the review.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that there is typically a review period of twenty (20) business days from the submittal date.

Mr. Arroyo answered, typically.

Chairperson Piccinini added that the Fire Marshall issue can not be answered for due to him not being present at the meeting.

Mr. Arroyo agreed.

Chairperson Piccinini suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include the first or second meeting in August 2001.

Member Nagy and Member Kocan accepted the amendment.

Member Koneda asked if the building could be moved west six (6) feet and place the parking in the back.

Matt Niles stated that it could be moved a couple of feet.

Member Canup indicated that there is a motion on the floor and called for the vote.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Design Research Engineering SP 01-35 to table to the August 1, 2001 or August 15, 2001 Planning Commission meeting.

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

No: None

Member Mutch suggested that the City Attorney clarify the building height issue prior to the applicant redesigning a building that may not meet the ordinance. He felt that the ordinance clearly defined that it would be the entire building.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if he was requesting legal interpretation. She asked Member Mutch to clarify what he was asking for and if it would be necessary to spend the time for a legal interpretation.

Member Mutch felt that the applicant should be aware what the ordinance is requiring.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated the Member Mutch would need to make a motion to find if the commission agrees.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Landry, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To have a legal interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance Section 2400(m)(1) regarding the building height.

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

No: None

This hotel project is located in Section 13, south of Twelve Mile Road and west of Haggerty Road. The 2.32 acre site is zoned Community Business District (B-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval, Woodland Permit and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Mr. Hannawa of H & H Designs proposed the Holiday Inn Express. He indicated that the hotel would have ninety-one (91) rooms and would not have a swimming pool. He stated their attempt to resolve the major issues. He felt that it would be possible to work out the remaining details. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Mr. Arroyo stated the property is located directly west of the Cooker’s restaurant on the South Side of Twelve Mile Road, immediately across from Cabot Drive and the Haggerty Corporate Park area. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan in the review letter dated July 11, 2001 subject to the items being addressed on the Final Site Plan. He indicated that Lighting Plan required additional changes to meet the ordinance. The applicant proposes to gain access to the site by two means. 1) A new access point onto Twelve Mile Road directly across from an existing cross over to go from west bound to east bound, which would provide direct access into the site. 2) An secondary point of access into Cooker’s parking lot, which would benefit both sites. An easement or dedication of right-of-way will be required where the bike path encroaches onto the Applicant’s property and out of the 12 Mile Road right-of-way.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval subject to the items in his review letter dated July 12, 2001, being addressed at Final. He indicated A Planning Commission Waiver of the City’s same-side minimum driveway spacing standard is required for the main access drive on Twelve Mile Road (206 ft to the next driveway to the east, verses 230 ft required). Mr. Arroyo supported this waiver because the new driveway is located across from the cross over and aligns at a point that makes sense. He stated if it were to be moved further to the west it would not align, which he would not have supported. However, given the existing conditions related to the design and function of Twelve Mile Road he was able to support the waiver. Signal modifications are required due to it being a signalized cross over. The applicant would be required to arrange through the Road Commission to have these signal changes made. He stated there are internal circulation issues that would need to be addressed. (tape ends) He noted a facsimile that he received in the early afternoon indicating the Fire Marshall reviewed the Site Plan showing an additional ten (10) foot area, which he would like to have resolved at Final to ensure that related issues are addressed. He added that the area is a small ten (10) foot projection to the west off of the truck turnaround area to allow the fire trucks and fire apparatus to have adequate turning radius in the dead end area.

Victoria Weber, Engineering Consultant, recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan for engineering in her review letter dated July 6, 2001. Water and sanitary sewer are available to service the site. The grade on the site generally falls from the northeast to the southwest with a proposed detention basin at the southwest corner of the site. The basin will contain water quality controls, which would be reviewed more closely on the Final Site Plan. She noted the items of the review letter could be addressed at Final. She noted some of the requirements. 1) An easement requirement will be required for the portion of the bikepath proposed outside the Twelve Mile Road right-of-way. 2) A private cross access agreement of the shared driveway connection and off-site improvements will be required prior to Final Site Plan Approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect, recommended approval of the Site Plan in regard to a Woodland Permit with the items of her review letter dated June 19, 2001 being addressed at Final. She noted that the Site Plan is the second submittal and indicated her satisfaction with the adjustments made. The 0.5 acres of Regulated Woodlands on the site are located in the southwest corner, follow the proposed detention basin, are up north of the site and swing back to the property line. The location of the building and various retaining walls have been adjusted in attempt to preserve the maximum amount of woodland. She noted that the site was previously a homestead and the attempt to preserve the larger trees. However, some of the trees, located isolated throughout the site, were not able to be saved due to the grading. The woodland/wetland area consists primarily of smaller trees 6-8" d.b.h. comprised primarily of Elm. She noted that this area is basically the wetland setback area / buffer to the wetland. The proposed plan removes approximately 0.20 acres of regulated woodlands where the detention basin is proposed. She stated they have restricted their grading with the review of retaining walls to reduce the impacts adjacent to the wooded wetland area. Ms. Lemke recommended that the woodland area to be preserved be placed into a Woodland Preservation Easement. She stated the site was previously tagged with metal tags, which is not permitted by Ordinance. Therefore, all metal tags are required to be removed from all trees saved prior to the release of any financial guarantees and a condition of the Woodland Permit. Ms. Lemke also noted the summary of the four (4) conditions in her letter.

In regard to the Conceptual Landscape Plan, Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval in her letter dated June 20, 2001 due to the required ZBA variances. A ZBA variance for the interior building landscape requirements (Section 2509.9) for the 4’ of greenspace, which has not been provided for 38’ on the east façade. It has been provided for the remainder of the building. Ms. Lemke supported the variance due to the location of the building outside the wooded wetland area. A ZBA Variance for Landscape planting buffers abutting the right-of-way (Section 2509.7d) – A variance is needed for the use of a retaining wall and plantings in lieu of a brick wall or berm along Twelve Mile Road. She noted her support of this variance due to the higher elevation of Twelve Mile Road and the screen plantings adjacent to the road, which the applicant has provided. She noted the required Planning Commission Waiver. Parking Lot Setback – the minimum side yard setbacks have not been met. Planning Commission may modify the setback requirements where it determined that modification does not reduce the total area of setback on a site below the minimum setback area requirements of this section. She indicated the setback has been reduced on the eastern side of the site. An equivalent amount of open space has been provided on the western side of the site thereby preserving the natural features as requested during the Pre-Application meeting. She indicated that the site is a B-2 zoning and therefore, the comment in her review letter regarding the screening of the loading and unloading in an OST District does not apply. She stated the remainder of the comments in her review letter could be addressed at Final. Ms. Lemke indicated that she could recommend approval with the approval of the ZBA variance, granting of the Planning Commission Waiver and the comments of her review letter being addressed.

Ms. Weber recommended approval from a Wetland perspective in the review letter dated July 5, 2001. The projects falls under the minor use permit category and would require an administrative permit approval. The wetlands are located to the west and the southwest of the site running along the West Side to the north. She noted the comment under the Proposed Impacts regarding the proposed 4,296 square feet of buffer disturbance. She indicated that additional information was recently received from the applicant’s engineer showing a reduction in the amount of impact to approximately 3,200 square feet. She noted the applicant’s attempt to minimize this as much as possible. However, she added that the required restoration for areas of buffer disturbance would be reviewed closely on the Final Site Plan. She added that the remainder of the comments could be addressed at Final.

Ms. Weber indicated the approval for a Section Nine Facade Waiver in the review letter dated July 2, 2001 from Doug Necci of JCK, which states: "We have reviewed the drawings dated February 22, 2001 for the above referenced project. The drawings are consistent with the drawings for which a Section Nine Facade Waiver recommendation was made in our letter dated May 8, 2001 (attached)."

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated June 22, 2001 from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting Fire Marshall of the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following item being corrected on the next plan submittal. 1) The truck turnaround needs to be enlarged 10 feet west to support a fire apparatus turning around.

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 Canup noted the numerous problems with the building on the site. He stated that it appeared to be an overbuilding of the site, which is creating the issues, noted by the consultants.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Nagy, MOTION FAILS (4-5): In the matter of Holiday Inn Express SP 01-17B to deny Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit and Section Nine Facade Waiver.

Member Mutch indicated that the ordinance requires B-2 zoning to have a ten (10) foot parking lot setback. He asked Mr. Arroyo or Ms. Lemke to verify this information.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Mutch indicated that there is not a parking lot setback issue on the landscaping.

Mr. Hannawa believed this comment was related to an older drawing.

Member Mutch stated that the ordinance requires ten (10) feet and the Site Plan indicates ten (10) feet.

Mr. Hannawa indicated the provision of 10.6 feet.

Member Mutch felt that this issue has been addressed. He noted his questions regarding the wetland buffer. He indicated the consultant’s concern regarding the future buffer intrusions. He questioned how these intrusions would be prevented from occurring, in terms of a design that would address the landscaping vehicles driving through the built out property.

Ms. Weber clarified that he was speaking to the maintenance of the buffer.

Member Mutch answered, yes.

Ms. Weber indicated that typically the area along the side of the building would be difficult to maintain. She stated that according to the plan, she did not find that there would be any type of grassed areas. She noted the steep grade and the propose retaining walls for the areas down to the wetland in which the 1:3 grade could not be met. Therefore, to plant or maintain any grass in this area would be difficult. The applicant would be required to restore any areas of disturbance to their natural state.

Member Mutch commented on the required driveway spacing waiver. He referred to the comment of Mr. Arroyo’s review letter indicating that the proposed location of the driveway is the logical location. Therefore, he stated that it would not make any sense to request a different location from the applicant. He noted that the landscape waivers have been addressed and do not apply. He noted Mr. Necci’s comments regarding the issue of the Section Nine Facade Waiver, which indicated the efforts by the applicant to bring down the levels of the Split-Faced Block. He stated that he typically has concerns for sites that are overbuilt, however, he did not find the problem by the requirements of ordinance. Therefore, he stated that he would not support the motion.

Member Landry agreed with Member Mutch. He stated that it appears that the problems on the site are generated by the attempts to preserve woodland and the wetland, as they appear to be doing according to the consultants. He indicated that the other waivers appear to be related to the road being higher than the site. He felt that it appeared that the applicant is attempting to work with the site within the ordinances to maintain the woodland and wetlands. Therefore, he would not support the motion.

Member Churella indicated that he would not support the motion for the reasons mentioned by Member Landry and Member Mutch.

Member Koneda agreed. He stated that regardless of what is built on the site, the driveway would be located as proposed to give the best alignment. He felt that a Planning Commission waiver would be appropriate. He questioned if two (2) ZBA Variances were required. He added that retaining walls are typically not permitted, however, they are being considered in several places because of the architectural diversity that they offer. He stated that the ZBA Board could determine if this would be appropriate.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She stated the retaining wall is located on the inside and the plant materials would be closer to the driveway.

Member Koneda stated that anything built on the site would share the same difficulties due to the road being higher. Therefore, he felt that the burden would be legitimate to go before the ZBA. He asked if there remained the greenspace deficiency along the East Side. He stated that he was not able to determine this deficiency on the Site Plan.

Ms. Lemke answered that there remains a greenspace deficiency.

Member Mutch pointed out the area on the Site Plan.

Member Mutch asked if this was related to the parking.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if the bay windows could be removed.

Member Koneda recalled Ms. Lemke’s report indicating that she supported the variance for the green space deficiency.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda asked her to clarify her reasoning for the support of that variance.

Ms. Lemke stated that they have pushed the building to the east to preserve the wooded wetland area.

Member Koneda added that therefore, they are closer ten (10) foot setback requirements for parking. He continued that the green space on that side of the building is being lost due the attempt to preserve the wooded wetland on the other side. He restated that he would not support the motion and called for a vote.

Chairperson Piccinini stated there were still commissioners that would like to comment prior to the vote.

Member Nagy asked if the photograph represented what the building would look like.

Mr. Hannawa answered that the photograph is a prototype that represented exactly what the building would look like. He stated the elevations clearly indicate this.

Member Kocan questioned the movement of the truck traffic on the site. She stated her concern of the truck traffic through the Cooker’s parking lot verses the Holiday Inn Express parking lot. She questioned the assurance that this would not occur. She stated that it would be a direct route to come through Cooker and turn to the loading dock.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it might be helpful for the applicant to inform the Commission of its anticipated deliveries as discussed at the Pre-Application meeting. He stated that the deliveries would be minimal. He indicated that there would not be a restaurant.

Mr. Hannawa stated the Continental Breakfast could consist of bagels and coffee, which would be picked up by the manager or delivered by a van to the drop off area. He noted the floor plans show the continental breakfast area and small pantry. He added that there would only be microwaves and no cooking equipment such as ovens etc…

Member Kocan commented on a personal note that she was please to find that there was nothing smaller than a Queen size bed. She suggested moving the wash basins out of the bathroom to avoid the family issues.

Chairperson Piccinini applauded the applicant for the attempt to stay out of the woodland and wetland areas. Although she understood the Planning Commission Waiver and the retaining wall, she also preferred to have them preserve the green space. She stated that she would be in support of the motion.

Mr. Fisher clarified that the motion to deny the Site Plan was based upon the unresolved issues.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct. She added that it would also be based upon the ZBA variances and Waivers.

Mr. Fisher clarified as stated in the reports.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Yes: Canup, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

No: Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (5-4): In the matter of Holiday Inn Express SP 01-17B to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Woodland Permit, Section Nine Facade Waiver and Planning Commission Waiver for the same side driveway spacing conditional upon the granting of the ZBA Variance for the deficiency in green space and the use of a retaining wall in place of the berm contingent upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Koneda commented that it is appropriate for the Commission to vote in favor because the only reason for denial is the applicant’s need to obtain ZBA Variances. Therefore, he explained if the request for approval is denied and a ZBA Variance granted, the Site Plan would return to the Planning Commission.

Yes: Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch

No: Canup, Nagy, Piccinini, Richards

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 indicated that McLean Meadow Estates Site Plan is in its second submittal. He stated that Site Plan is ninety-nine percent (99%) the same as the first submittal. Therefore, he indicated that he would only present the revisions. He noted the main concern of the location of the detention pond within the boundaries of two (2) of the lots. The pond has been decreased in size and relocated outside the lot boundaries. The storm pipes have been increased in size to help hold the water. The remaining lots (Lot 7 and Lot 8) continue to be greater than the minimum size lots required by ordinance. The distance from the homes has been substantially increased from the previous site plan. He noted the concern regarding the intermittent character of the water in the pond. He indicated that in conversation with his engineer, it was determined that after a storm of the size that the pond was designed for, the pond completely filled would remain filled for a duration of two and one-half (2.5) hours. The grading has been revised between the homes and the pond making it a flatter slope from the sides of the homes to the top of the bank of the pond. He noted that there is a distinctive change in grade where the pond slopes. He indicated that they would work with JCK at the time of Final Engineering to flatten the slopes more. Mr. Fellows noted the concern(s) regarding the preservation of the trees, which are intended to remain. He referred to Ms. Lemke’s recommendation that a greater area of trees can be preserved if left in the individual lots. He continued that together they would be placed into the preservation easements along the south, west sides of the property and the hedgerow to the north. He stated that there was consideration given to the comment by Member Mutch to move the cul-de-sac eastward to possibly reconfigure some of the lots. However, unfortunately it was determined that the pond could not be downsized and it would result in more pavement on the site and less landscape area on the lots. Mr. Fellows asked the Commission or the City Attorney to clarify why he would be required to obtain a City Council Waiver to connect the sewer system into the Mystic Forest system. He noted the Master Planned Sanitary Sewer System showing a projected layout of all of the sanitary sewer pipes dividing the City into various sewer districts. He understood the legal steps required to become established as a sewer district, however the proposed property is not within one of the four (4) districts. He added that the sewage flow would ultimately flow to the same connector pipe that it ultimately would and therefore, he questioned if the City Council Waiver was required.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments of the review letter dated July 9, 2001 being addressed at Final Site Plan. He stated the compliance with the lot width area and setback requirements. He indicated that the Master Deed would need to be provided for review (primarily by the City Attorney) as part of the Final Site Plan Review.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated July 11, 2001 subject to the items being addressed on the Final Site Plan. He indicated that there are not new external accesses proposed to the major arterial. They will be coming in the existing Mystic Forest subdivision and providing a cul-de-sac extension to provide access to all of the lots of the proposed property. He recommended several modifications at the time of Final Engineering to ensure Design and Construction Standards are addressed and traffic control signing is in accordance with City Requirements.

Ms. Lemke continued to recommend approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan. She indicated that the items of her July 12, 2001 letter could be addressed at Final. In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke indicated that there are 2.2 acres of regulated woodlands on the site. The primarily high quality area is located to the south. She recalled some of the items raised during the last Planning Commission meeting. 1) If the reduction of the width of the lots could provide more distance adjacent to the detention basin. She stated if Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 were reduced to eighty (80) feet in width, the result would be an area of approximately fifty-five (55) to sixty (60) foot area separation. She added that this reduction in the lot sizes would create different look for the subdivision. 2) If the more would be preserved if the Woodland Preservation area were located outside the lots. Ms. Lemke stated that she had thought it would preserve more if it were outside the lots at the minimum of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. However, when she reviewed this possibility, she found that it would preserve less if drawn at the ten thousand (10,000) square feet. The preservation area that is shown on the Site Plan, which is on the lots, would have a greater area of woodland preservation. She noted some needed changes on the tree survey. Ms. Lemke recommended that the remaining Woodlands be placed in a preservation easement on Lots 1-7 and a hedgerow on the rear of Lots 9-12. She also noted the four (4) conditions in her letter dated July 12, 2001.

Ms. Weber continued to recommend approval of the Preliminary Site Plan from an Engineering perspective. She amended Approvals/Variances Required No. 2 of the review letter dated July 11, 2001, which states "Grading waivers will be required for Lots 4, 5, and 7 at time of Land Improvement Plan Submittal." She explained that the lots might need retaining walls, which would be examined more closely at the time of Final Site Plan with the submittal of the more detailed grading. If it is determined that retaining wall would be needed, then the developer should notify the perspective purchasers of the property of this possibility. A partial reason for the retaining walls would be to help preserved the woodlands located in the back of those lots. She stated that it appeared that the Mystic Forest sanitary sewer is within the same district, however, a City Council approval would be needed. She explained that the Master Plan for Sanitary Sewer requires a developer of a piece of property bring sewer service to their site and provide service stubs at locations for adjacent properties. Therefore, according to the Master Plan the applicant would be required to extend it up from the sewer at Nine Mile Road. Ms. Weber indicated they are currently reviewing flow data from the Mystic Forest to determine if there is sufficient capacity. She added that she felt fairly confident that there will be the capacity needed. She explained further that it would be an approval from what the Master Plan calls for and not necessarily a variance. She added that Mr. Fisher could elaborate further on the issue.

Mr. Fisher agreed with Ms. Weber’s comments. He stated that it would not be a variance. It would be indirectly modifying the Master Plan and allowing the property to utilize an adjacent district as a means of achieving its goal. In this case, it would contemplate more because there would need to be a demonstration of adequacy of capacity in the lines to be utilized. Therefore, he stated it would be somewhat of a double issue. One being an engineering question of capacity and the other would be the deviation from the Master Plan with the City Council approval.

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated July 2, 2001, from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting 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 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. 2) All water mains and fire hydrants are to be installed and be 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 that this is not a Public Hearing. However she received a green card for McLean Meadow Estates after the first audience participation closed. She asked Mr. Fisher it would be appropriate to allow the gentleman to speak at this time although it is not a Public Hearing.

Mr. Fisher stated that this decision would be within the discretion of the Chair.

Chairperson Piccinini called the audience participant forward to speak.

Richard Herbel, 43600 Cottisford, owner of the lot immediately south of the proposed project stated that he is not opposed to McLean Meadows Estates. He stated that he was encouraged to see this development. He stated that he has been the owner of his property since 1965. He noted that he only wanted to ensure that the property was developed in the best interest of the City and himself. He noted on a drawing that his property has no access to the road and Brooklyn Farms. He pointed out a small sliver of property that excludes access to the south, leaving Novi Road as his only access. He recalled writing a letter dated June 18^th to the Planning Commission addressing several items. One item included his conversation with Hugh Crawford regarding the development of Mystic Forest and the possibility of including the items to improve Novi Road. He noted the difficulty to exit Cottisford to Novi Road. He suggested the possibility that McLean Estates could incorporate his request. He stated that Mystic Forest stubbed a road for McLean. He was concerned with the access through Mystic Forest. He did not want precedence that there could not be an entrance on Novi Road. He stated that it is located on a slope and turning left would be dangerous. He stated his concern with the detention pond and the water runoff that could be discharged. He pointed out his property in relation to the location of the detention pond. He questioned where the water would be discharged. He noted that his property has several low spots and questioned where the water would go when Novi Road is widened. He stated the location of two (2) ponds along Novi Road adjacent to the proposed property. He suggested that the pond located immediately to the north could be a draining area for the retention pond. He continued that the water could then drain under Novi Road to the larger pond, which he felt, had great capacity and would not affect the neighbors.

Member Mutch discussed the alternative that was explored to reduce the width of Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 to move them away from the detention basin. He clarified if Ms. Lemke’s review noted that this alternative would impact the woodlands.

Ms. Lemke disagreed.

Member Mutch referred to her comment in her presentation stating "It would change the look of the sub." He asked her to clarify this comment.

Ms. Lemke explained that there would not be green space between the buildings. In comparison to the present Site Plan, it would be a more narrow (80 ft) and appear differently from the street. From a Woodlands perspective, the width of the lots would not make a difference because the difference would be with the depth. She explained further that the deepness of the lots and what is preserved at the southern end of the lots would be related to the depth.

Member Mutch suggested that the lots be approximately at a depth of ninety (90) feet. Therefore, there would be a loss of ten (10) feet. He felt the look of the subdivision was related to how the buildings present themselves. He noted the front entrance garages, which he felt was equated with a narrower lot. Therefore, in relation to the "look of the subdivision" he did not find the difference between the lot size being ninety (90) feet or eighty (80) foot. However, he noted that he understood Ms. Lemke’s comment.

Member Mutch stated that Lot 1 around to Lot 4 are larger in comparison to some of the other lots. He recalled suggesting a reduction of the rear yards for these lots, pulling the areas out that are heavily wooded and moving them into a common area. He recalled Ms. Lemke’s presumption the alternative might preserve more of the trees. However, he clarified if she instead found that leaving the trees on the individual lots with the preservation easement would save more trees. He asked Ms. Lemke to clarify this finding.

Ms. Lemke referred to the drawing. She stated the green line notes the current location of the protective fencing. The pink line indicates where the protective fencing would be located if the lots were reduced to the ten thousand (10,000) square feet. She stated in some areas, it would be the same. However, Lots 3, 4 and 5 have a significantly greater area that would be saved. She commented that she was surprised with the result of the alternative also.

Member Mutch questioned if there would be a reason why the areas between the pink line and the green line could not be placed under a preservation easement if the lots were reduced in size.

Ms. Lemke answered, no.

Member Mutch clarified that in this effect it could be the same. He added that there would be building envelope issues that would require review.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes. She added if the preservation easement was placed over it could be the same.

Member Mutch recalled previous experience of this situation with Bellagio. He stated the developer requested for credit for the trees on the lots and indicated that they would preserve the trees with a preservation easement. He felt that most purchasers of the lots with trees have good intentions. However, at Bellagio the trees were on the individual lots and were not pulled out to a common area. The result has been a loss of the trees lot by lot. He stated the trees with or without a preservation easement were lost. He suggested if the plan were approved, having the lots pulled into a common area. He felt this would achieve the clarification to the property owner "what they can touch and what they can not touch". He explained that often when one purchases a lot, they feel that they can rightfully do what they want to with or without a tree ordinance or preservation easements. He stated another achievement would be that it would benefit all those in the development to have the trees in a common area. He felt that all those in the Site Condominium would have an interest in protecting the trees into the future. In contrast, if the trees were left on an individual lot, the reliance would remain on one (1) person to abide by the rules. He questioned who would enforce the rules. He suggested if the project is approved, he suggested this option for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and possibly 5, along the lines of what Ms. Lemke marked on the map. He felt that this would be in the best interest of the trees and the long term interest of the property owners.

Member Nagy questioned what was being referenced with the term "pulling out". She asked if the trees would physically be removed.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, no. She explained that it was referring to the lot line.

Member Nagy asked Ms. Lemke to state her opinion of this option.

Ms. Lemke commented on the Bellagio preservation easement. She clarified that the preservation easement does not include the areas in which the trees have been removed. She added that the trees have been removed in areas that were protected Woodlands. Those trees were either removed as indicated on the approved Site Plan or the applicant requested an increase in removal from the Woodland Review Board. She stated that the trees were not taken out of a preservation easement and remain intact.

Ms. Lemke addressed Member Nagy’s question. She stated that if the area were a common area, it would be more difficult to remove trees from an individual lot. However, if it is a preservation easement then they could not go into the area. Therefore, she stated that there are pros and cons to each option. A common area would be defined with the allowance for everyone to access through the common area. She added that the Commission would need to take into consideration if this would be what they preferred to occur for these areas.

Member Nagy preferred the preservation easement if it could have the same effect. She explained that it would be impossible to imagine a common area with the configuration of the Site Plan. She added that it was questionable how many residents would prefer to have foot traffic behind their homes. She commented that as a common area, everyone would be able to use it.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Lemke to point out the preservation easement on the map.

Ms. Lemke explained that the green line represents the current location of the protective fencing. She stated the pink line indicates the approximate line where the lots could be reduced to ten thousand (10,000) feet.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if this was also the location of the preservation easement if the lot sizes were not reduced.

Ms. Lemke noted the difference on the drawing. She stated it is further in a more area would be preserved in "here" (pointed to the drawing).

Member Nagy asked Ms. Lemke to repeat what the green line represents.

Ms. Lemke stated that the green area would be at the end of the lot of the ten thousand (10,000). The hypothetical common area would locate to the West Side of the pink line. She clarified that this would not necessarily be the preservation easement.

Member Nagy questioned the difference. She questioned why the area could not simply be named the preservation area.

Ms. Lemke explained Member Mutch’s point that it would be easier to preserve if it were a common area verses if it was all a preservation easement area.

Member Nagy questioned what Ms. Lemke stated it would be.

Ms. Lemke indicated that this would be a different connotation. If the area is deeded out and is a common area, it might be more difficult to do something in the common area. However if it is in preservation area then it can not be gone into at all.

Member Nagy stated that if the area is a common area, then she felt that everyone should have access to it.

Member Mutch stated that it did not have to be referred to as a common area. He stated it is called a preservation area. He felt that Member Nagy was focusing on the terminology.

Member Nagy agreed.

Member Mutch stated that the common area at Lakewood is a park. However, he indicated that there are a number of subdivisions that have preservation areas that have common ownership. He noted a number of subdivisions that do not permit access to those areas and yet the preservation of the trees and the wetlands were still preserved.

Member Nagy clarified the area would be a common area that would be preserved and have common ownership.

Member Mutch agreed.

Member Nagy thanked Member Mutch for clarifying this.

Member Landry clarified Member Mutch’s point with an example that a stake on the property would indicate to the property owner where the property ends. This would make it clear to the owner where the lot ends and that they should not cut down trees. In contrast, if only the "understanding" of a preservation easement existed, there would be a lack of understanding of the "meaning" of a preservation easement. He explained further that there might be more efficacy to the idea of not cutting the trees down if their lot is stopped by a marking. He asked Member Mutch if this was the idea that he was conveying.

Member Mutch answered, yes.

Member Landry asked the developer if this change on the Site Plan would make a difference in marketing, etc…

Mr. Fellows indicated that it would make a difference.

Member Landry asked Mr. Fellows to state reasons why.

Mr. Fellows stated that if the lot sizes were reduced it would create building setback issues and building envelope problems for the homes. He stated the homes would likely have to be smaller. He stated that there are eight (8) of the twelve (12) lots that are currently proposed for side entry garages. He agreed with Member Nagy’s comments regarding undesirable the foot traffic. He stated if the lot lines remains as large as they are proposed, then the individual owners could prohibit pedestrians from walking behind their homes. He stated that a preservation easement would be a preservation easement whether it is located on or off the lot. He stated the homeowner would not be allowed to cut down the trees under a preservation easement. Mr. Fellows indicated his willingness to place the trees in the preservation easement. He stated he would sign it as the City wills to clearly mark the area as a preservation easement.

Member Landry stated that he was pleased that the detention basin is no longer located on Lot 7 and Lot 8. However, he noted large trees on the north and the western edge of the detention basin, which seemed to be located on Lot 7 and Lot 8. He questioned if this were the location of the trees, would it be the responsibility of the owner(s) of Lot 7 and Lot 8 to maintain the large trees.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Canup stated that he as a homeowner viewed trees as an asset to the property and did not feel they would be a threat to a homeowner. He stated that a preservation easement would be a good idea, although he did not feel it would protect the trees any further than he, a homeowner, would protect it himself.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (7-2): In the matter of McLean Meadow Estates SP 01-28A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Woodland Permit Approval subject to the consultant’s recommendations and conditions and a City Council Approval of the sanitary flows.

Member Koneda noted the concern with the water detention issues raised by Mr. Herbel. He clarified if this property was located in the Novi Township of the City of Novi.

Mr. Herbel answered that it is located in the City of Novi.

Member Koneda questioned the location of the out flow of the water being detained in the detention basin.

Ms. Weber stated that there is a ditch on Novi Road. However, she noted the request to the applicant’s engineer to evaluate the ditch. She noted that there might be the need to re-graded or over-restrict (if there is a capacity issue) beyond they typically required 10-year storm detention. She added that they might have to change some of the detention in the basin or find additional storage.

Member Koneda referred to the applicant’s comment regarding the 2.5 hour water holding time in the detention basin. He questioned if it would be detained the length of time needed to out flow it at a rate that would not cause downstream flooding.

Ms. Weber answered, correct. She explained that it would be a restricted flow taking 2.5 hours for it to reduce back to the "standing water" elevation or normal water surface elevation would be in the basin.

Member Koneda questioned if there should be a longer period of time to detain if there was a concern if the capacity could handle the flow downstream.

Ms. Weber stated that it would not necessarily be the flow downstream. Instead it would be more of a capacity issue within the ditch to carry the restricted flows. She explained that there might not be the capacity to carry normal restricted flows. Therefore, the applicant may have to reduce the amount of the flow coming out of the basin further. She indicated that this would be requested on the Final Site Plan.

Member Koneda expressed his concern with the lot and the accessibility to the lot. He questioned if the only accessibility to the lot would be by Novi Road.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct. He stated that it would have an access point with a cul-de-sac coming off of Novi Road.

Member Koneda clarified that there would be an access point to the lot. He stated with the current development, access would not be possible without going through the woodlands with a stub street.

Mr. Arroyo felt that there were a couple of issues worth noting. He stated if the cul-de-sac were extended from this property into the adjacent property, it appeared that it would extend beyond the eight hundred (800) feet. Topography is another issue. He explained that off of Novi Road there is a steep grade serving the parcel to the south. He stated that there is a low area on the adjacent parcel, which could impact how it develops. Therefore, he stated it would be difficult to give an answer to how it would work. He restated the preliminary analysis of cul-de-sac beyond eight hundred (800) feet and the alternative to enter off of Novi Road, which would involve grade issues. Mr. Arroyo felt that the site was not easy with either option.

Member Koneda question if the location of the construction access was according to the preference of the residents of Mystic Forest.

Mr. Fellows answered, correct.

Member Koneda questioned Lot 9 would be the last lot to be built, due to the construction road access.

Mr. Fellows hoped that it would work out this way. He stated if the road access was relocated, then it would not be.

Member Koneda questioned if there was a buyer for Lot 9 would he then side it over to Lot 8. He clarified that one of the lots would need to remain until the end to maintain the construction access as a condition.

Mr. Fellows answered, correct.

Member Koneda asked if this was an agreement that he made.

Mr. Fellows answered, yes. He stated that there would be no construction access through Mystic Forest.

Member Koneda noted the Fire Marshal’s requirement of the posting of the address during construction. He questioned if the Fire Department would be aware of the shorter route through the construction access verses through Mystic Forest if there is a problem with construction. He asked if this knowledge was typically made known to the Fire Department.

Mr. Arroyo stated that they should have the knowledge in their review of the Site Plan.

Member Koneda restated that the Fire Department would be aware of the construction access point.

Member Koneda noted the desire to avoid the destroying of the understory with the conservation easements. He stated the hope that the owners of the lots would not rake leaves underneath the trees. He stated that it should stay in the natural state. He questioned if not destroying the understory would be part of the easement agreement.

Ms. Lemke stated that this is part of the preservation easement.

Member Koneda assumed the buyers of the lots would have this information in their Deed Restrictions.

Ms. Lemke stated that Mr. Fisher would make sure.

Member Koneda stated if Ms. Lemke felt confident the trees would be preserved as well as if they were placed in a common area than he would support the motion.

Member Kocan reiterated her comments from the previous meeting. She stated that building footprint or envelope would be a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from the Woodland to avoid several requests to the Woodland Review Board.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She indicated her reviewed of this matter with Mr. Fellows and felt confident that he understood the woodland building area and the fifteen (15) feet.

Member Kocan questioned if there remained room for people to add decks to the back of their property.

Ms. Lemke stated that it would be difficult on the Lot 4 and Lot 5.

Member Kocan clarified if this was due to the retaining wall.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Member Kocan questioned if it was due to the location of the retaining wall and if the people would be aware of the retaining wall there.

Ms. Lemke agreed.

Member Mutch stated while reviewing a map of the City, he felt that the commission was "hung up" with the terminology. He noted the numerous subdivisions in the City with areas of Woodlands and Wetlands within the subdivision and sit outside the platted lots. He felt if the discussion pertained to a Wetland area there would not be the current discussion because it could not be platted within the Wetland. He explained that instead there is a differential treatment occurring with a comparison of importance of the Woodland and Wetland. He noted his respect of Ms. Lemke’s opinion and felt that the same goal could be obtained with his approach. He stated that the Chairperson could speak to the matter of what occurs with lots with regulated woodlands. Member Mutch agreed with Member Canup’s comments. However, he stated that there are other individuals in the City who have done great damage to Regulated Woodlands with the stripping out of understory, intruding into the regulations and easements, etc… Member Mutch suggested an amendment to the motion to include that Lots 1 through Lots 5 be reduced in size to remove the regulated woodlands from the lot areas. He indicated that he did not want to set an arbitrary number to allow the developer flexibility. He recognized that the developer had some good in terms of working with the lots.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Arroyo if there would be rear yard setback issues, building envelope sizes, etc… if there is a reduction to ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that it would depend upon how large they intend to construct the actual home. The Site Plan shows a dash line indicating the setbacks, which gives an idea as to how it relates to the building envelopes shown. He stated there is room to bring up some of the lots and still meet the requirements. He added that it would vary from lot to lot.

Chairperson Piccinini recalled an Implementation Committee meeting with the Head of the Building. She noted the change made to the application for a Homeowner Building Permit, which a signature is required for the disclosure of information received from the City. She asked Ms. Lemke if she found a change with the language regarding the regulated/preservation woodlands.

Ms. Lemke answered, no.

Chairperson Piccinini recalled residing in a subdivision with Regulated Woodlands, Beckenham, which people cut through in the middle of the night. Therefore, she was personally aware of the issue. She noted her position on the Woodlands Review Board and the number of requests. She stated her concern with the setbacks and rear yards. She felt that Member Mutch expressed valid concerns. She stated the benefit of meeting the setback in the backyards to provide some area of protection as much as possible. Although she agreed with Member Mutch’s comments, she did not want to make it imposed to the point that it would prevent the developer to build the size house that he is allowed to build on the site. She suggested an amendment to this effect.

Member Mutch suggested no less than twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. He stated that currently they have 14, 15, 25, 16 and 14. He restated that they would not have to go below twelve thousand (12,000) square feet.

Chairperson Piccinini added that this would give more room in the back.

Member Canup indicated that there is a motion on the floor.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that she was aware that there was a motion on the floor. However, she was asking if there was an acceptance to this amendment.

Member Canup and Member Churella did not accept the amendment.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Kocan, Landry, Nagy, Richards

No: Mutch, Piccinini

This industrial project is located in Section 9, north of Twelve Mile Road and west of West Park Drive in the Beck West Corporate Park. The 4.676 acre site is zoned General Industrial (I-2). The applicant is seeking Preliminary Site Plan approval and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Brad Klintworth represented Channel Partners. He requested Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the fifty-five thousand (55,000) square foot high tech light industrial building. He noted the review letters of recommending approval of the Site Plan with minor comments. He felt that the Site Plan meets and exceeds the I-2 requirements. He indicated that Channel Partners is agreeable to the comments as published in the letters and would make the necessary modifications on the Site Plan at Final. He felt the items of the letters are minor and could be addressed.

Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments in the review letter dated July 9, 2001 being addressed. He indicated that the Site Plan has been revised since its last review by the Planning Commission, in which action was tabled. He felt that the applicant was responsive to the comments made by the Commission. The loading area has been moved to the northwest corner of the building. Additional landscaping has been added that should effectively screen the loading area from West Park Drive. He stated a truck loading area (not previously in place) with a number of overhead doors facing the north were modified. He stated the intent of the requirements of the district and the requirements of the Beck West Approved Site Condominium Plan have been met.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated July 11, 2001. He noted that the stub location to the property to the west might change. He stated the land to the west has been acquired and the two (2) property owners will coordinate the location of the stub. He informed the commission that the stub location to the property to the west might move from its current location, dependent upon how the two (2) plans "mesh" together. He anticipated this being resolved at the time of Final. Mr. Arroyo added that the remaining comments of the review letter could be addressed at Final.

Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the Revised Preliminary Site Plan Conceptual Landscape Plan subject to the comments in her letter dated June 19, 2001. She noted the item of her review letter, which the applicant has agreed to address. Industrial Requirement - Loading on the north side of the building needs to be completely screened from West Park Drive. She indicated that the large transformer in this area would need to be relocated in order to provide a large evergreen canopy tree. Ms. Lemke noted the number of items in her review letter, which could be addressed at Final.

Mr. Klintworth added that the Site Plan shows the transformer’s relocation to the dumpster area with the changes requested.

Ms. Weber recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan Engineering subject to the comments in the review letter dated July 11, 2001. She stated the existing placed within the Beck West development would service the proposed site. A sedimentation basin is proposed on the south side of the site, which would outlet to a storm sewer located on the East Side of the site. The storm water would be conveyed to and detained in the North/Novi Regional Detention Basin. A number of easement requirements are outlined in the review letter dated July 11, 2001.

In regard to the façade, Ms. Weber read the review letter from Doug Necci of JCK dated July 2, 2001. We have reviewed the drawings dated 6-21-01 for the above referenced project. The drawing are consistent with the drawings for which a Section Nine Facade Waiver recommendation was made in our letter dated 4-19-01 (attached).

Chairperson Piccinini announced she has received a letter dated June 28, 2001, from Gordon A. Poyhonen, Acting Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended.

Member Nagy asked the applicant if he had the rendering of the building.

Mr. Klintworth answered, yes.

Member Nagy requested that he place it up for the Commission view.

Member Kocan asked regarding the parking requirement based on the floor area. She questioned the applicant is providing one hundred fifty-four (154) spaces for the required sixty-four (64) spaces.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Kocan asked the applicant if this was due to it being an office use.

Mr. Klintworth stated that they wanted the ultimate flexibility to take the office further up from the Ordinance requirement of one (1) parking space per every employee plus five (5) or an office warehouse combination mix and lay one out as office and the other as warehouse. He stated that the review letter lays out the minimum of what the building could be built with parking lots. He indicated the reality of the building would be a thirty (30) to forty (40) office build out with the remainder being warehouse/R and D/manufacturing.

Member Kocan clarified that the run off would not be a problem in relation to the parking.

Ms. Weber answered, no. She stated that it would be detained in the Regional Detention Basin located to the southeast.

Member Kocan asked if the sedimentation basin in front of the building was the required at this size.

Ms. Weber stated that it is a requirement for the site. She noted that a sedimentation basin was not put in place with the overall Beck West Development. She stated that the sedimentation basin would need to be sized based on the site size. She explained that typically sedimentation basins are sized to detain a 1-year storm.

Member Kocan stated her reasoning for questioning the possibility to reduce the size of the sedimentation basing was to reduce the problem with the driveway being close to West Park Drive, which could cause back-ups. However, she understood that the sedimentation basin is critical for the environment.

Ms. Weber indicated that the applicant’s engineer could explore the possibility of tightening up the slopes on the sedimentation basin to create more room.

Member Koneda questioned if there were two (2) truck wells.

Mr. Klintworth answered that there would be one (1) truck well.

Member Koneda explained that the plan appeared to show a truck well next to the building and another next to the green space.

Mr. Klintworth stated the truck well is located next to the building. However, beside the green space is a grade with a mandor, a grade door, a grade door and a grade door. He stated that this would be primarily used for the moving of machinery in and out of the building if required.

Member Koneda indicated that it appeared that the trucks could enter the stub street to pull ahead and back in to the truck well. He stated that it appeared that there would be difficulty getting out.

Mr. Klintworth stated that he worked extensively with Bill Stimpson on the matter. He stated they took the largest trailer possible with the one (1) well to ensure the radius could be make leaving the parking area. He indicated that originally there were two (2) wells, which were reduced to one (1).

Moved by Koneda , seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Magellan Two SP 01-19A to grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Section Nine Facade Waiver to allow integrally colored smooth concrete masonry units on all façades, which is consistent with previous buildings that were granted waivers and contingent on all consultant’s recommendations and conditions

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

No: None

Member Kocan requested that the commission receive a color rendering of the façade waivers in their packets. She questioned if this would be handled through the ordinance or if it could be requested.

Ms. Brock indicated that a request could be made to the applicant to submit an 11 X 17. She asked if this would be a suitable size.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if this would be okay if it is not a requirement in the ordinance.

Mr. Fisher indicated that it would be a voluntary requirement unless it is stated in the ordinance.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that there is currently a requirement to submit five (5) Site Plan color elevation copies. He stated that this is included in the Site Plan Development Manual, which could be amended to increase the number of copies.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if he was speaking to the elevation.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the Site Plan Manual could be amended to include the façade with the appropriate number of copies.

Chairperson Piccinini questioned if he was suggesting that the matter go before the Implementation Committee for an amendment.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it might be able to be handled administratively because it is not part of the Ordinance. He stated that he would find the appropriate procedure and report back at the next meeting.

Ms. Brock stated that until that time, the rendering could be requested as voluntarily.

Member Koneda recalled the Ordinance requiring a sample board with variance request. He stated that there was not one presented at this meeting, however the was one for the previous waivers.

Mr. Klintworth stated that sample boards were submitted previously and also to the Community Development Department. Therefore, he stated they have submitted two (2).

Ms. Weber indicated that Chris Fox of JCK was requested to bring the sample boards to the meeting. She stated that he indicated that he would bring the boards.

Member Koneda clarified that it is not the applicant’s fault that the sample boards are not at the meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that this matter was sent to the Rules Committee. She stated that the materials include the changes to the bylaws and three (3) reasons for the amendment. 1) The section may interfere with the operation of the Planning Commission. Example: Committee meetings can not take place if there are not officers. She added that there would not be person to run the meeting. 2) The section is in conflict with other sections of the Bylaws. Example: Member Churella is in the position of secretary over the two (2) year term limit. 3) Committee appointments could effect the ability of the commissioners to do their commissioner work.

Member Canup questioned if the item under (b) was the only suggested change.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

Member Canup read the change, "(b) The elections of all officers shall occur at the Commission’s first meeting in July." He clarified if this is the only amendment that the Board requests.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, correct.

Member Canup asked what action would be required to make this amendment.

Chairperson Piccinini explained that a vote on the amendment would be required.

Member Canup asked if a motion would need to be made.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes.

Moved by Canup, seconded by Koneda, MOTION WITHDRAWN: In the matter of Planning Commission Bylaw Amendment to change Section 2.1(b) to read "The elections of all officers shall occur at the Commission’s first meeting in July".

Member Richards questioned if this change would require the Commission to vote on officers at this meeting since the first meeting in July has passed.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that they could.

Member Richards questioned if the elections could be done at the next meeting.

Chairperson Piccinini answered that it could be at this meeting or the next. She added that it would be at the discretion of the Commission.

Member Koneda stated his finding in the Bylaws Amendments, "These Bylaws and Rules of Procedure may be amended by the Commission by a concurring vote pursuant to subsection 3.6 during a regular meeting, provided that all members have received an advanced copy of the proposed amendments at least 3 days prior to the meeting at which such amendment are to be considered." Therefore, he stated according to the language he read the commission would be in violation of the bylaws if the matter were voted on at the current meeting. He stated that the next Planning Commission meeting would be the earliest time that the matter could be voted on.

Mr. Fisher indicated that the Commission could unanimously waive this. However, it would need to be a unanimous vote.

Member Koneda suggested first making a motion to waive the rule.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Mr. Fisher if this would supercede the motion on the floor.

Mr. Fisher indicated that the motion on the floor would need to be taken off the floor.

Member Canup withdrew the motion on the floor.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Canup, FAILS (6-3) (unanimous vote required): To waive the rule to allow the Commission to vote on the amendment without the prior 3 day notice.

Member Mutch stated that he recalled some of the discussion from the previous meeting. He felt the matter was consistent to the issues discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. He recalled the direction being to get away from the idea of being tied down to the time of appointment and instead, to set a specific date to allow the business of the commission to proceed whether or not the City Council had acted. He asked if the commission agreed that this was the direction.

Member Canup agreed that this was the direction. He noted his suggestion to move the date to September or October to give new members an opportunity. He indicated the finding at the Rules Committee meeting, that there could theoretically be the result of a situation without officers. He felt that there is a reason that the appointments are made in July. He felt that the matter was sent to the Committee for a closer review and determination. He noted that although he would favor of having the election later than July, he understood why it was not possible.

Member Mutch added that the Planning Commission could lose all of its officers.

Member Canup stated that theoretically all of the officers could be lost and no one to run the meeting until an election. He added that obviously no meeting could be held because there would be no officers. He informed Member Mutch that his thoughts from the last Planning Commission meeting were correct. He restated that he preferred his idea and although he preferred it, it would not work.

Member Mutch felt that the issue was a singular change that either made sense or did not make sense. He agreed that the striking of the language made sense. He did not find any reasons for additional changes and asked for clarification. He stated his support to waive the rule to consider the matter. He stated that officers needed to be elected.

Member Landry stated his objection to waiving the rule. He requested to have language to review and time to think about the matter prior to his vote. He felt the same result could be achieved if the language read, "The election of all officers shall occur at the first meeting following Council appointments." He stated with this change, the commission would not be left without officers because then the same commissioners would remain if the Council chose to not appoint officers.

Chairperson Piccinini disagreed. She questioned what would occur if the officers did not remain.

Member Landry questioned what she meant.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that no officer has to remain after his or her term is finished. She stated that all the commissioners could chose to step down leaving a situation of no officers.

Member Landry stated if they all chose to step down then this situation could occur.

Chairperson Piccinini stressed that this was her point.

Member Mutch asked about the conflict with the one (1) year rule.

Chairperson Piccinini added also the two (2) year conflict rule.

Member Landry indicated that he had the floor. He asked Ms. Brock if she typed the text.

Ms. Brock answered, yes.

Member Landry questioned when she typed it.

Ms. Brock answered, tonight after the Rules Committee meeting.

Member Canup called for the vote.

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

No: Kocan, Landry, Nagy

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that the item was included on the Agenda under Matters for Consideration. However, the language was not received three (3) days prior. She asked Ms. Brock if she had received any phone calls indicating the lack of information in the packets distributed to the commissioners.

Ms. Brock answered, yes. She indicated that Member Kocan contacted her.

Chairperson Piccinini stated that she was not present at the previous meeting. She stated that she was informed that the commissioners wanted to have the elections at the following meeting. She indicated that this was the idea of speeding the matter along. She clarified that it was not intentional to by pass the rules, yet instead an attempt to facilitate the commissioners’ request. She stated that the election of officers would be on the next Planning Commission agenda regardless of the resolution of the matter being discussed. She added that it has been removed from the agenda two (2) times.

Member Koneda stated that the proposal from the Rules Committee did not require further discussion because the commission could not take action on the matter. He indicated that it would become Matters for Consideration on the next Planning Commission Agenda. He added that all of the commissioners have been notified.

Chairperson Piccinini answered, yes. She stated that it would be placed on the next Planning Commission Agenda under Matters for Consideration.

Member Nagy noted a request made to Mr. Evancoe for architectural review ordinance information, which he has provided. She stated that she has reviewed as much of it as she could. She suggested that Mr. Evancoe utilize the information he provided the commission along with the City Façade Ordinance to derive a recommendation for the Planning Commission. She expressed that it is a poor ordinance to start with in comparison to what she had read. She added that she was not requesting by next week.

Chairperson Piccinini made a point of clarification that no motions could be made under Matters for Discussion. She stated the option for the matter to be placed on the next agenda under Matters for Consideration.

Member Nagy clarified that she was not attempting to make a motion. She asked Mr. Evancoe if this was information that he would be able to provide to the Commission.

Mr. Evancoe asked Member Nagy to explain further what she desired. He questioned if there were problems identified with the existing ordinance that she wished to have addressed or if the commission intended to move in the direction to develop a comprehensive architectural review ordinance. He stated that he would like to provide the commission with its request, however, he needed further clarification.

Member Nagy realized that her request was broad.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Brock how many issues were already tentatively on the next agenda.

Ms. Brock stated that the agenda was full.

Chairperson Piccinini asked if the item could be placed on the agenda for the second meeting in August under Matters for Consideration. She stated that the Façade Ordinance and the Architectural Review Ordinance included in the commissioner packets. She stated that the requests and discussion could take place at that meeting.

Member Mutch informed the commission that requests are made to the Department and not to specific individuals. He added that although Mr. Evancoe may be the person to handle the matter, the request should be made to the Department. He questioned the direction of the matter after the discussion at the August meeting. He suggested the possibility of the Implementation Committee.

Chairperson Piccinini indicated that this would be determined at the meeting after the discussion under Matters for Consideration.

Member Mutch noted that he wanted to clarify the process.

Chairperson Piccinini added that placing it under Matters for Consideration would offer several options to the direction of the matter.

Mr. Evancoe felt the topic was interesting. He suggested first reviewing and finding the problems with the current information. He felt confident that he could provide the commission with a response with this framework to start.

Member Churella suggested that Member Nagy read the ordinance and make her suggestions to the Commission. He added that Member Kocan has done an excellent job at this.

Member Nagy expressed her appreciation to Member Churella’s comment. She explained that the City Ordinance was not difficult to read. However, the various areas of the Architectural Review Ordinance, which the commissioners were provided, are more difficult. She did not feel that she was the appropriate person to find the comparison as opposed to a Planning Director.

Member Koneda agreed that the Architectural Review Ordinance was a large amount information. He added that it seemed to be a collection of information from other areas and how they go about architectural reviews. He suggested a discussion to determine if there is a need for an Architectural Review Ordinance or if there are sufficient means in place. He stated that the Commission needed to obtain the direction on information to look for. He assumed that the discussion would center on this idea. He suggested that Mr. Evancoe could give highlights of what other communities are doing as a Special Presentation. He added that it would not need to be an action item. He suggested that the Planning Department provide a Special Report on Architectural Review Ordinances in existence in other communities and how the City of Novi could benefit from such an Ordinance. Member Koneda stated that he was not in favor of telling others how to design buildings.

Ms. Brock informed the commission to contact the Department if they were in need of the materials.

Chairperson Piccinini announced to the Commissioners that the information would not be included in the commissioner packets.

Member Mutch asked if there would be a Planning Commission representative at the Gateway Ordinance Meeting on the 30^th.

Chairperson Piccinini announced that she has not received any information from the Clerks Department since June 29^th. Therefore, she did not have any information on the issues for the evening.

Member Mutch understood that it would only be gateway.

Chairperson Piccinini asked Ms. Brock to inform the commission of the items.

Ms. Brock stated that it would only be Gateway. She indicated that on Monday, the City Council has rescheduled the date. She stated this was the reasoning it had not been posted.

Chairperson Piccinini clarified that it was only one (1) item.

Ms. Brock answered, yes.

Chairperson Piccinini asked who from the Commission would like to attend the meeting.

Member Mutch indicated that he would attend.

Mr. Evancoe announced the Ordinance Review Committee has been rescheduled to Thursday, July 26, 2001 at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Evancoe announced the current changes in the Planning Department. He referenced the previous City Council approval to hire two (2) Planners and one (1) Landscape Architect. He indicated the hiring of one (1) Planner, one (1) Landscape Architect and the continuing search for the second Planner. He gave the Commission background on the two (2) new employees. Amy Golke, Planner, would begin employment on July 30^th and attend the August 1, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Golke currently is employed at Becket and Raider in Ann Arbor and prior employment was The City of East Lansing. Ms. Golke has a Bachelors Degree in Environmental Policy from the University of Michigan and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning from Michigan State. Lauren McGuire, Landscape Architect, will begin employment on September 4, 2001. Ms. McGuire is currently employed at the City of Southfield as a Landscape Architect with a number of years of experience. She has a Bachelors Degree in Biology from the University of Michigan and a Masters Degree in Landscape Architecture from the University of Michigan. He indicated that he would give a more formal introduction when they attend the Planning Commission meeting.

Mr. Evancoe anticipated the launching of the Plan Review Center to be located on the first floor of City Hall. He stated that center would consist of the two (2) Planners, a Landscape Architect, City Engineer, Building Plan Examiner and Economic Development Coordinator.

None

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

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

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

August 15, 2001

Date Approved: September 19, 2001