View Agenda for this meeting

Regular Meeting
Wednesday, January 29, 2003

The proceedings had in the above-entitled matter were taken before me, Glenn Miller, CSR-2593, Notary Public in and for the County of Oakland, State of  Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, January 29, 2003.


Antonia Nagy, Chairperson

Lynn Kocan, Commissioner

Gwen Markham, Commissioner

Lynne Paul, Commissioner

Lowell Sprague, Commissioner

Tim Shroyer, Commissioner

David Ruyle, Commissioner

John Avdoulos, Commissioner

David Evancoe, Director of Planning

Thomas Schultz, City Attorney

Timothy Schmitt, Planner

Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer

Michael McGinnis, Architect



1 Novi, Michigan

2 Wednesday, January 29, 2003

3 Approximately 7:30 p.m.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I'd like

5 to call the meeting to order.

6 Mr. Schmitt, if you could please

7 call roll.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9 Commissioner Avdoulos?


11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?


13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


15 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?


17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent, excused.

19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?


21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?


23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?


25 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Sprague?







2 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you.


4 If we could have Commissioner

5 Markham lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

6 (The Planning Commissioner and the

7 Audience were lead by Commissioner

8 Markham in the reciting of The

9 Pledge of Allegiance.)

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we have

11 an approval of the agenda, any additions or deletions or

12 anything?

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Move for approval.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second?


16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member

17 Kocan.

18 All in favor say aye.



21 We are at our first audience

22 participation. If there is anyone that would like to

23 address the Commission on anything other than the Public

24 Hearing, please come forward.

25 Seeing no one, I will close the






1 audience participation.

2 Madam secretary, do we have any

3 correspondence?

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I have none, Madam

5 Chair.


7 Do we have any communications

8 and/or committee reports, Mr. Evancoe?

9 MR. EVANCOE: No, Ma'am, I do not. I

10 believe Commissioner Shroyer may though.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why? Mr. Shroyer.


13 Chair.

14 I just wanted to mention that our

15 Implementation Committee met on 1-25.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Implementation?

17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I can't read my own

18 note. No, the Capital Improvements Committee met on

19 1-25 and ranked recommendations for the capital

20 improvement items. The report must come to the Planning

21 Commission for review before the first meeting in March.

22 Is that correct, Mr. Evancoe?

23 MR. EVANCOE: We are planning to schedule

24 it for the first meeting in March.

25 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. So that has






1 to have the entire Commission's review and approval.



4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no other

5 reports, Mr. Evancoe, do we have any presentations?

6 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, Madam Chair, I do. I'd

7 like to do a staff introduction.


9 MR. EVANCOE: Good evening, Madam Chair

10 and Members of the Commission. I'm very happy, as I

11 announced last week, we have a new planner on staff.

12 This is Darcy Schmitt. I know several of you have had

13 an opportunity to meet with Darcy and we're very

14 fortunate to have Darcy join our staff.

15 Darcy is a graduate of Michigan

16 State University where she got her Master's Degree in

17 Urban Planning and also a Bachelor's Degree in Landscape

18 Architecture. And so those are skills that we think

19 will be very useful and very helpful to our department

20 and for providing service to the Commission.

21 Before joining the City of Novi,

22 Darcy worked in several venues in the private sector for

23 a development company that actually did some work

24 related to Island Lake and also she worked for a

25 consulting firm out of Lansing.






1 And so, again, I just wanted to

2 introduce Darcy. Anything you want to share, Darcy?

3 DARCY SCHMITT: Thank you. I'm really

4 glad to be with you here. I really love this community

5 and it was very nice to meet you tonight, looking

6 forward to working with you.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

8 Is that with two T's or one T?

9 DARCY SCHMITT: Two T's, no D.

10 MR. EVANCOE: Same as Tim.

11 DARCY SCHMITT: Just like my little

12 brother Tim.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Same as Mr. Schmitt.

14 Thank you.

15 DARCY SCHMITT: Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this point we do not

17 have anything on our consent agenda, or do we? What do

18 we have? Oh, I'm sorry. We have the approval of the

19 November 20th, 2002 Planning Commission minutes.

20 Commissioner Kocan.

21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I didn't

22 have a chance to read all the minutes, but I still see a

23 change or two that needs to be made and I'm also

24 requesting that I get my copy back that I marked up so

25 that I can double-check the minutes. So I ask it be






1 pulled and redone one more time.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I happen to

3 agree. I have some corrections on that set of minutes

4 myself. We can give it to the court reporter and they

5 can give it to their firm and they can give us the final

6 copy, and we will request that the final copy be

7 submitted to Member Kocan.



10 There are no other items on the

11 consent agenda. We are going to begin the Public

12 Hearing. I would like to remind the members of the

13 audience that we have a court reporter present. When

14 you come before us and speak at the podium, please state

15 your name and spell your last name for the court

16 reporter. And, of course, I would like to remind

17 everyone to speak at a decent pace. Don't speak too

18 fast. Okay. With that, we are at Public Hearing.

19 The first Public Hearing is Zoning

20 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.174. The Public Hearing

21 to amend Ordinance No. 97-18 as amended, the City of

22 Novi Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of the City of Novi

23 Code of Ordinances, to create Section 2514, "Additional

24 road design, building setback and parking setback

25 requirements for One-Family Clustering Option,






1 Two-Family uses, Multiple Family uses and certain

2 non-residential uses and developments," and to amend

3 Section 2403, "One-Family Clustering Option," for

4 related purposes.

5 Is this Mr. Arroyo?

6 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Madam Chair, we've

7 asked Rod Arroyo to attend for this case. Rod, as you

8 know, has been very instrumental in drafting initially

9 the interim road policy, as we've called it, and he

10 along with Attorney Schultz have come up with the actual

11 ordinance language, and so I will allow Rod to make the

12 presentation.


14 Mr. Arroyo, if you would spell your

15 name for the court reporter, please.

16 MR. ARROYO: A-r-r-o-y-o.

17 Good evening.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening, Mr.

19 Arroyo.

20 MR. ARROYO: Nice to see everyone. As you

21 know, there has been in place for several months what

22 we've been calling an interim policy regarding certain

23 applications of road and setback standards. And as we

24 discussed when that interim policy was first brought

25 before you for consideration, we had some projects come






1 forward and we started to look at the ordinance and we

2 found that it was unclear as to which standards applied

3 to certain types of projects, particularly when we were

4 dealing with general condominium developments, that's

5 where the concept first came up, because if you look at

6 many of your standards they're based upon the type of

7 development.

8 You have standards for plats, you

9 have standards for site condominiums, but it was unclear

10 how we treat general condominiums and some other types

11 of development. So we came up with this interim policy,

12 which you accepted and have been applying, as a way of

13 interpreting the zoning ordinance in an interim basis.

14 Obviously, whenever you're doing something like that on

15 an interim basis, it's best to actually amend the

16 ordinance eventually so that you can clarify and make

17 part of the city code what your interpretation is so

18 that it's understandable to applicants coming before

19 you, and that's what you have before you this evening.

20 It's intended to apply to certain

21 situations and it's primarily one-family clustering

22 option situations, two-family development, which you

23 don't see very often but you may see in the future,

24 multiple family uses and certain non-residential

25 development. The non-residential generally depends upon






1 the type of situation. It primarily applies when you

2 have more than one principal structure and you've got a

3 distance of one of those structures from a public

4 roadway so it becomes -- essentially what's happened is,

5 we've had some projects over the years, some

6 non-residential projects, that get fairly deep off the

7 roadway and if you don't have any standards other than

8 your parking standards what happens is it becomes a very

9 -- it has in some instances become a very circuitous

10 route to get from a public road to the building in the

11 very back, you've been meandering through parking lots.

12 It's made it challenging for the

13 fire department and other officials to make their way

14 through a parking lot situation when it really was never

15 intended typically to go for an extended distance. You

16 really want to have a more clearly designated emergency

17 route and even primary route for vehicular traffic to

18 circulate within a larger project. And this would

19 accomplish some standards for that.

20 It also, in evaluating how this

21 works with certain types of projects, and in particular

22 cluster projects and two-family projects, we also found

23 that there was an issue with parking in the very front

24 of a cluster project for example. Right now, there's a

25 25 foot setback that's measured from the back of the






1 curb, if you're doing one-family clustering, to where

2 the garage and the structure can begin.

3 Well, that's really a problem

4 because a typical length for parking on the apron of a

5 garage is about 20 feet for a vehicle. And then you're

6 supposed to have a sidewalk and your sidewalk is

7 supposed to be placed five feet off the curb. So if you

8 have a five-foot sidewalk and it's supposed to be five

9 feet off the back of your curb, plus you have to allow

10 for 20 feet for the parking stall, you really need 30

11 feet setback from the structure from the back of the

12 curb, and right now you have a 25-foot setback.

13 So that's another amendment that

14 you see that's running parallel to the standards, is

15 increasing the setback requirement for one-family

16 clustering and two-family in order to provide for that

17 so that we can fit everything in within the space.

18 I think that's all I'll say at this

19 point. There are some illustrations at the back to show

20 how this applies and I'm available for questions.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much,

22 Mr. Arroyo.

23 Do we have anything else from the

24 staff?

25 MR. EVANCOE: No, Madam Chair, we do not.







2 Is there anyone that would like to

3 address the Commission regarding this Public Hearing?

4 Seeing none, I will turn it over to

5 the Commission. Do we have any comments?

6 Member Kocan.

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, then, I'll

8 speak just a little bit because when I read through the

9 minutes that we received this week I'm not sure if they

10 were more help or confused people more, but you probably

11 saw that I kept referring to changing of zoning, that I

12 considered it a rezoning. And that was my problem with

13 the version until it was clarified that -- or my concern

14 was addressed with what Mr. Arroyo just stated.

15 My main concern was the setback of

16 the building from the road in the RT-2 family

17 residential district, and it was only 25 feet but this

18 has now been changed to 30 feet, which does allow room

19 for the sidewalk with allowance for a 20-foot drive.

20 And I felt this was especially important because there

21 are reduced driveways and many times limited parking in

22 these types of developments. So it was important to

23 have the length of the driveway.

24 Hopefully the Implementation

25 Committee has addressed and anticipated all the







1 scenarios and we believe that this ordinance will assist

2 the City and the developers with site plan reviews of

3 general condominiums.

4 If there's no other discussion, I

5 can propose a motion.


7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I believe this is

8 a recommendation to City Council.


10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I also believe

11 there's one other thing, before I make the motion, in

12 our packet. We're creating Section 2514, we're amending

13 Section 2403 but we're also amending Section 2400. So

14 we need to put that in the motion also; is that correct?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: That's correct.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Then I will

17 add that.

18 Motion. In the matter of -- and

19 I'm going to follow the verbiage on our agenda -- in the

20 matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.174,

21 motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council

22 to amend Appendix A of the City of Novi Code of

23 Ordinances, to create Section 2514, "Additional road

24 design building setback, and parking setback

25 requirements for One-Family Clustering Option,






1 Two-Family uses, Multiple Family uses, and certain

2 non-residential uses and developments, and to amend

3 Section 2403, One-Family Clustering Option for related

4 purposes, and to amend Section 2400, Schedule of

5 Regulations, for related purposes."

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do I have a second to

7 that motion?


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member

10 Paul.

11 Is there any further discussion?

12 Member Paul.

13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: There are several

14 corrections I think we should get clarified on the

15 January 27th, 2003 packet, the minutes to our

16 Implementation meeting, before this continues forward.

17 It's the November 4th, 2002 meeting, Page 2, the very

18 bottom it says Rod -- it's his comments, the first

19 sentence, "that what it is". So it should be "that's

20 what it is", an apostrophe s. And then it says "but

21 they're difficult to do". "But it is difficult to do"

22 is what I think we were trying to get across.

23 Page 6, middle of the page under

24 Rod's comment, "this could be alight industrial

25 project". There just needs to be a space between "a"






1 and "light".

2 Under Lynn's comment three sections

3 later, third line, "and that's what I have a real

4 problem with," it says "and that and that it". I think

5 we have to just eliminate some of these. I think it

6 should read "with, that and it became obvious".

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think this is -- is

8 this the one -- excuse me, I don't mean to interject,

9 but is this the one that we had -- this was a draft that

10 was not done by a regular person, it was done by

11 Juanita, the person who does the minutes. Could we make

12 the corrections and then just give them to her?


14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Because I think she

15 really did a good job and this is the first she's ever

16 done anything like this.

17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I just didn't want

18 this to go forward to another committee, the Council,

19 without having some of these looked at. Do you want me

20 to pass them to Mr. Evancoe?

21 MR. EVANCOE: That would be great.


23 MR. EVANCOE: I'd be glad to pass those on

24 and get those amended.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And if anybody else has






1 any corrections that they would like to put in, please

2 make the corrections and give them to Mr. Evancoe. I

3 think -- and then I think also contained in those

4 minutes is the word "aye" we know is spelled a-y-e.

5 Is there any further discussion?

6 Yes, Member Markham.

7 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I just wanted to

8 commend everybody that's worked on this. It's only been

9 a year, and I say that nicely. I mean, I really mean

10 it. It seems like everybody worked on this and worked

11 to clarify something that was very murky and I

12 appreciate all the work that went into it.

13 MR. EVANCOE: Hear! Hear!

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no further

15 comments, the Chair will request that Mr. Schmitt call

16 the roll.

17 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

18 Commissioner Kocan?


20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


22 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?







1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?


3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?


5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?


7 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Avdoulos?


9 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.


11 Our next item for Public Hearing is

12 Zoning Map Amendment 18.621. The Public Hearing is at

13 the request of Leonard G. Siegal of Siegal/Tuomaala

14 Associates to rezone the subject property located in

15 Section 1, north of Thirteen Mile Road and west of M-5

16 from RA (Residential Acreage) to RM-1 (Low Density, Low

17 Rise Multiple Family) or any other appropriate zoning.

18 The subject property is approximately 62.5 acres.

19 Mr. Schmitt.


21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle.

22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: For reasons already

23 stated on the record, I ask to be recused.


25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Motion to recuse Mr.






1 Ruyle.


3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Mr.

4 Shroyer.

5 All in favor say aye.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

8 Now to you, Mr. Schmitt.

9 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

10 The request before you this evening

11 is concerning the rear half of the Brightmoor Christian

12 Church parcel that I'm sure you're all familiar with at

13 the corner of M-5 and Thirteen Mile Road. Although this

14 isn't the exact dimension of the parcel, we received the

15 written description and our GIS Department hasn't even

16 had time to update it yet. So, it is roughly this area

17 to the rear of the church that you can see here.

18 If I can zoom out a little bit, M-5

19 is located directly adjacent to the east and Thirteen

20 Mile is located directly adjacent to the south. The

21 current land use for the parcel is Single-Family for the

22 actual Brightmoor parcel and Multiple-Family for the

23 rear parcel, which we are discussing this evening. That

24 designation was changed at the December 4th Planning

25 Commission meeting per the recommendation of the






1 Planning Commission, with the intent that a development

2 agreement will be formed for the site at the time of

3 rezoning.

4 Zooming out a little further,

5 you'll see to the north is a Single-Family parcel,

6 quasi-public neighborhood park, which is part of the

7 Haverhill Farms Subdivision, to the west is

8 Multiple-Family designation with a PD-1 option, which

9 I'm sure you're aware of is the Erikson development, and

10 to the south along Thirteen Mile Road are several small

11 Single-Family lots.

12 The zoning map reflects which was

13 just stated in terms of land use. To the west is zoned

14 RM-1, to the north is zoned R-2, to the south is RA,

15 across Thirteen Mile Road, and on the other side of the

16 M-5 Connector is the OST Corridor.

17 The request this evening is to

18 rezone the parcel from RA, it's current designation, to

19 RM-1, (low density, low rise multiple-family). The

20 property will -- the Planning Department is

21 recommending, the Master Plan and Zoning Committee

22 recommended and when the Planning Commission voted on

23 the actual Master Plan changes suggested a development

24 agreement will be formed for the site if City Council so

25 approves. The developer is quite amenable to this and






1 feels it is probably the best way to develop the site in

2 the long run.

3 Some of the terms of the

4 development agreement will include setbacks between

5 buildings and rear yard setbacks and a maximum building

6 height. It will essentially conform to the standards of

7 the RT District but will be developed as a general

8 condominium project without lot lines.

9 As you just voted on the interim

10 road policy, when it becomes -- depending on the timing

11 of when it becomes active, this may be one of the first

12 projects that falls under it with the 30-foot front yard

13 setback, but that is something that will be a part of

14 the development agreement should City Council approve

15 its formation.

16 The traffic review indicated that

17 the Rezoning Impact Study was adequate and acceptable

18 and comments on the full Traffic Impact Study will be

19 provided at the time of Preliminary Site Plan.

20 Just to go through a few of the

21 options the Planning Commission has here this evening.

22 The preferred alternative would be to rezone the parcel

23 to RM-1, subject to the development agreement, with the

24 terms that were attached at the Master Plan Zoning

25 Committee and at the Master Plan change and any other






1 terms that may be recommended by the Planning Commission

2 or City Council.

3 One alternative would be rezone the

4 parcel to RT, two-family residential development, and

5 the other alternative would be to deny the request at

6 this time.

7 As I mentioned, the RM-1 is the

8 preferred alternative. Given the density of the Erikson

9 property to the west and the proximity of the M-5

10 Connector to the east, the fact that there's a large

11 amount of open space to the north, this parcel seems to

12 fit in line with the RM-1 and mobile home park density

13 that is traveling eastward towards the M-5 Connector in

14 the north side of the corridor.

15 The south side of the corridor is

16 predominantly Single-Family Residential; however, with

17 the Brightmoor Christian Church in front of this parcel

18 the impact of this parcel on these single-family homes

19 will be lessened and will probably not change from the

20 current impact from the church itself.

21 The major alternative of rezoning

22 the property to RT has several other items that would be

23 needed to be addressed. A parallel plan would be

24 submitted as part of the Preliminary Site Plan review

25 given the fact that the project will be developed as a







1 condominium. We will need to see the lot lines on one

2 plan; however, the formally approved plan will not

3 actually have the lot lines on it. This is similar to

4 the situation that we ran into recently with the

5 Trillium Village project, that a parallel plan will need

6 to be submitted at this point.

7 The other drawback to the RT zoning

8 is, in order to have lot lines on a project of this

9 nature you would have to split a building in half and

10 it's fairly impractical to do so. So a condominium is

11 the best way to go on this project and the best way to

12 do the condominium would be R-1 zoning, which does not

13 have the lot lines between buildings.

14 The applicant is here this evening

15 and representatives from Brightmoor Christian Church and

16 they would be happy to answer any questions you might

17 have.


19 Would the applicant like to address

20 the Commission for any reason?

21 MR. FOLINO: Hello. My name is Reverend

22 Thomas Folino, F-o-l-i-n-o. I represent Brightmoor

23 Christian Church. We don't have any issues that we

24 really are concerned about. We felt we've discussed

25 everything at the committee level and the Planning --






1 the previous Planning Commission meeting. I would like

2 to give the floor to Mr. Jim Galbraith of PT Commerce,

3 who is the developer.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could spell your

5 last name for the court reporter.

6 MR. GALBRAITH: Yes, I will.

7 Good evening. My name is Jim

8 Galbraith, and it's G-a-l-b-r-a-i-t-h.

9 PT Commerce, LLC, which I am a

10 principal of, has entered into a purchase agreement with

11 Brightmoor Church to acquire the 60 northerly acres or,

12 as we call it, the residual parcel and we have appeared

13 before the full Planning Commission in December of this

14 past year seeking a Master Plan amendment that would

15 reflect the multi-family development. This would be as

16 discussed at that time and as discussed at the Master

17 Plan Amendment Committee meetings prior to that.

18 It is our intention to pair this

19 rezoning request up with a development agreement to be

20 negotiated between our offices and the City Council,

21 probably our respective attorneys I would suppose, that

22 would incorporate all of the development standards that

23 we have embodied in our very conceptual plan that has

24 been presented to you.

25 This is a fairly sensitive site.






1 We feel that it's appropriate to be developed under a

2 development agreement because it has some extensive

3 woodlands on it and some extensive wetlands that we are

4 very sensitive to, and we know from a site plan

5 standpoint with our development team we can respect

6 those natural features of the site. We are aware of the

7 new standards that you've just recommended adoption of.

8 We'll be reflecting those and incorporating those into

9 our new plan. For the most part, with the exception of

10 the front yard setback, we had already incorporated all

11 of those.

12 We are proposing to build a duplex

13 condominium ranch product, under the development

14 agreement not to exceed 200 units, perhaps at the end of

15 the day it may even be a few units less than that once

16 we've reached final engineering and dealt with staff on

17 wetlands and woodlands.

18 I don't have a great deal to add

19 over what your Planning staff has set forth in their

20 reports. They've done a very thorough job. I'd be

21 happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission

22 might have. We feel, as we've stated before when we

23 appeared regarding the Master Plan amendment, in our

24 view there's some very compelling reasons to look at a

25 moderately higher density than the current RA zoning.






1 And not to be redundant but I will reiterate briefly.

2 With the Erikson community to the west, we feel that

3 this is a natural step-down in density to the east, to

4 the M-5, and it provides a good transition to the north

5 as well, to the Haverhill community. There's a large

6 natural buffer to Haverhill and we feel that from a land

7 use standpoint the residential owner-occupied

8 condominiums at this density are compatible with the

9 area.

10 As I said, we'd be happy to answer

11 any specific questions that the Commission might have.

12 Thank you very much.


14 Is there anyone in the audience

15 that would like to address the Commission regarding this

16 Public Hearing?

17 Seeing no one, I will close the

18 Public Hearing and turn it over to the Commission.

19 Member Paul.

20 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I want to comment to

21 the Planning staff that I really appreciate you giving

22 us all the options for what we can zone this as, and I

23 appreciate that in the future I really think that's a

24 good way for us to have a meat and wrap our arms around

25 the project, some real meat and potatoes to work with.






1 So thank you.

2 In the matter of Zoning Map

3 Amendment 18.621 for Brightmoor Christian Church,

4 recommend approval to the City Council to rezone from RA

5 to RM-1 (low density, low rise, multiple-family

6 residential) with a development agreement attached to

7 the site.

8 Number 1. Limiting the density to

9 a total 100 dwellings, which is 200 units, on the site,

10 which is approximately 3.25 units per acre.

11 Number 2. Front yard setback of 25

12 feet, measured from the edge of the right-of-way for the

13 street.

14 Number 3. Setback between

15 buildings of at least 20 feet side to side and 70 feet

16 back to back, for a maximum building height of

17 two-and-a-half stories or 35 feet, and to preserve --

18 the natural wetlands and woodlands on the site shall be

19 permanently preserved by way of the appropriate

20 conservation easements.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a second to

22 the motion? Member Kocan.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll second the

24 motion, but can I also add something and ask a question.

25 I would also like to add for the following reason that






1 the zoning is consistent with the Master Plan and it

2 also provides transitional use between the high density

3 Fox Run Village and M-5.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you accept that?


6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I have a question

7 for the staff or the attorney.

8 When the Master Plan Committee

9 talked about the front yard setback, it was resolved

10 that there would be a development agreement that stated

11 the setback would be 25 feet from the right-of-way.

12 What we just approved for the front yard setback in the

13 previous ordinance, in the new ordinance, is a front

14 yard setback 30 feet from the curb.

15 Essentially the setback ends up

16 being about the same if you measure one from the curb

17 and one from the right-of-way; is that correct?

18 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. If there are

19 property lines on the project, it would be done from the

20 right-of-way. However, without the property lines it

21 can be done from the back of curb under the interim

22 policy.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So the 25 feet from

24 the right-of-way as stated in the motion, that would be


25 correct?






1 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. It will -- once

2 it's worked out with the attorneys, the attorneys may

3 choose to go with the 30 feet from back of curb

4 depending on how the language is worked out, but it will

5 essentially be the same setback.

6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: As long as we're

7 consistent and the developer understands what we're

8 talking about. I think it's going to end up being the

9 same setback. I just want that to be clarified.

10 I have no other discussion.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further

12 discussion? Member Markham.

13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I have a few items.

14 I've been working on this from -- at the committee level

15 forward and I still think it's the right thing to do. I

16 think it's absolutely going in the right direction, but

17 I'm a little bit concerned about recommending rezoning

18 without having seen anything that resembles a

19 development agreement. And maybe I'm just not clear in

20 how -- the sequence by which that's done, but my concern

21 is we recommend rezoning to RM-1 and we have all these

22 things that we want to make sure get included and then

23 it gets up to council level and for whatever reason our

24 recommendations of restrictions don't get included, and

25 I have a real concern with that.






1 So I'm wondering what we can do to

2 tie all of these requirements to our recommendations

3 such that they're not taken apart at the Council level.

4 Similar to what we did with Catholic Central,

5 potentially putting some sort of proviso in there that

6 says that if it's not built to -- rezoned and built to

7 these standards it reverts back to the RA zoning.

8 Is there some way we can handle

9 that?

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, would you

11 like to answer that question?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. Every development

13 agreement that we do, since it's not specifically

14 provided for in the ordinance, has that last language

15 that you talked about. That's really the only remedy --

16 if a developer or property owner wants to violate our

17 agreement, that's our remedy and that's written in, sort

18 of cast in stone in every agreement that we do. So

19 that's in there.

20 The items that are being

21 enumerated, or were enumerated by Commissioner Paul, and

22 any amendments to that are also tied to your

23 recommendation to the City Council. The City Council

24 can either accept those recommendations when it

25 addresses the rezoning or not. So you can't have a






1 guarantee sitting here tonight that the Council will

2 find all of those to be something they desire, but

3 you've put your recommendation on the record with those

4 conditions and that will be your record recommendation.

5 So what you need to do here tonight

6 is make sure that the list of things that you want to

7 see in the development agreement is complete because

8 this is your chance and it will now go to Council and

9 they'll either accept those, add to them, delete from

10 them and come up with the agreement that Council wants.

11 It's a little hard for us to give

12 you a draft agreement because we don't even know if

13 we're going to be directed by Council to prepare one and

14 to spend the time and effort to sit down, negotiate with

15 the property owner's attorney until Council says we're

16 interested. So we've had preliminary discussions on a

17 staff level but there's been no expenditure of that kind

18 of time and effort, which will come later.


20 Schultz.

21 Okay. Did we include the

22 conservation easements as part of the motion? I didn't

23 hear that.

24 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am, that was

25 included.







2 There was a note in the traffic report at the very end

3 that said the existing New Life Drive will have to be

4 extended through the site, either as a public road or a

5 private road built to public road standards, north to a

6 stub aligned with the proposed Benson Drive.

7 I took that to mean that we need to

8 send this road through the development up to the

9 development north of that and I don't think that's what

10 we want to do. Did I read that in error? It was on the

11 last -- it was on the last page of the Birchler Arroyo

12 report dated May 15, 2002.

13 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, or go ahead, Tim,

14 if you're ready.

15 I was just going to add, I mean,

16 you certainly are reading it correctly and I think

17 that's the recommendation we're receiving from Birchler

18 Arroyo. I think they're proposing that there be

19 interconnection between this parcel and the one to the

20 north and that is their recommendation. It's not

21 something that you're bound to follow, but it is their

22 professional recommendation.

23 MR. SCHMITT: I believe the suggestion is

24 being made to connect up to the long, skinny development

25 to the north, which would have run a road all the way






1 down through it under a proposed plan previously. I'm

2 not aware of the status of those plans; however, should

3 the two developments both occur, it would be

4 advantageous to link them up.


6 decided it wouldn't be advantageous because we don't

7 want to put a road through the woodlands up in that part

8 of the property.

9 MR. EVANCOE: And it is important to note

10 the date of this review from Birchler Arroyo because the

11 Bray Point Development that we're referring to has been

12 withdraw by that developer. They're not proceeding with

13 those residential plans at this point. So there is not

14 a road likely to be connected to from that site.

15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't want this

16 development to be required to do that, and I know we

17 talked about it at the Master Plan level because we

18 talked about putting in an alternate fire access that

19 was actually grass pavers, which comes up in the

20 landscape ordinance discussion we're going to have

21 shortly, but, you know, that was to be the second access

22 to this piece of property from a safety standpoint. I

23 thought the only traffic access was to be through the --

24 I forget the name of the -- well, it's New Life

25 Boulevard. It would be on the west side of the parcel,






1 right, north of the church -- northwest of the church

2 was going to be the only access into this development.

3 MR. SCHMITT: I believe that's how it's

4 currently laid out in the concept plan.


6 Mr. Schultz, I don't know if you

7 were here, but I thought when they put in Fox Run, I

8 thought there was supposed to be a connection.

9 MR. SCHMITT: There is one shown on the

10 concept plan.


12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: There are. There's

13 this one and this one.


15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay, and we talked

16 about that. And they also were talking about putting

17 grass pavers in here as additional fire access. What I

18 don't want to have happen is for them to have to put a

19 road up here, which is what I believe that

20 recommendation --

21 MR. SCHMITT: The recommendation I believe

22 would be lining up on the far northeastern corner of the

23 site where there are minimal woodlands. I believe that

24 was where the proposed Bray Point property would have

25 lined up. However, with that not occurring -- with that






1 having been withdrawn or abandoned, we really don't know

2 what connection will occur. So I think that's something

3 that certainly we'll look at at the time of the site

4 plan review, but at this time no connection is proposed

5 given that there's no road to the north.


7 clear. Our consultant is recommending that that needs

8 to happen. It is a site plan question.


10 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11 And it is partly site plan but it's

12 also relevant to discuss tonight, and I think one thing

13 I didn't hear in the motion or the amendments was any

14 reference to the concept plan. And if the Commission is

15 generally -- finds that the concept plan before you

16 tonight to be generally acceptable, then that may be

17 something you would consider attaching to your motion

18 and when it comes back for site plan review, or before

19 then if this issue is developed in front of Council,

20 then that can maybe be made part of the development

21 agreement. If you have strong feelings or if a majority

22 has strong feelings of no connection, make that part of

23 your motion tonight as well, but it will all be resolved

24 finally at the site plan review. If you have

25 suggestions or concerns, put them as part of the motion






1 as a reference to the concept plan.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Schultz.

3 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: If stating that the

4 concept plan is generally acceptable as part of the

5 motion will clarify this, then I would suggest we do

6 that.

7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Can we also -- we do

8 not want rural Benson Drive to connect to the north

9 property?

10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: We haven't had all

11 that discussion yet though, you know, because I think

12 there are other members who don't necessarily agree with

13 that.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, do you want that

15 as an amendment to the motion, Member Markham, the

16 concept plan?

17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: The concept plan,

18 yes. I don't think necessarily it's necessary to the

19 road.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you amenable to

21 that?


23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Before I approve

25 that, a concept plan is flexible. I mean, it's a






1 concept. My concern is, I don't know if the City fire

2 department has looked at this concept plan and I have a

3 real concern about the meandering throughout this, and

4 the fire department may require a road and I would want

5 the health, safety and welfare to be addressed.

6 So I did read throughout the

7 minutes that the concept plan would be attached to the

8 development agreement if we so chose, but I also want

9 the flexibility that should the -- should we get

10 recommendations and requirements for health, safety and

11 welfare to have a road there, I don't want to say no,

12 we're not, absolutely not going to put one in. So as

13 long as that's open, I would second the amendment.


15 MR. SCHULTZ: And it would be open. The

16 development agreement typically attaches a concept plan

17 but will also say meet ordinance requirements except

18 where we deviate in this document. So, it will identify

19 it as a flexible thing.


21 MR. COBURN: And I think the intent of

22 what the traffic review letter was saying is very

23 similar to what Member Kocan was saying, is that if

24 you're having trouble with the 800 foot rule for the

25 length of streets with two points of access, and I think






1 that's what he was getting at, was that emergency access

2 point to the north, because, according to Mr. Schmitt,

3 past the wetlands you're exceeding your 800 foot from

4 two points of access. So I think that that's where

5 we're going with that.


7 Do we have any further comments?

8 Mr. Shroyer.


10 have one for quick clarification, and this will go to

11 Mr. Schmitt.

12 The motion as read, or as made I

13 should say, and amended, does that cover all the parts

14 of the development agreement that you recommended from

15 the City? I don't want to leave something out.

16 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, sir, it does.

17 Attaching the concept plan would be the last thing that

18 really needs to happen.

19 MR. SHROYER: Including the parallel

20 plans?

21 MR. SCHMITT: The parallel plan is not

22 necessary if you rezone it to RM-1. The parallel plan

23 would be required if you went to the RT district.

24 MR. SHROYER: Okay, but the plan we have

25 will show property lines.






1 MR. SCHMITT: No. The plan you will get

2 will be considered an apartment building, if that helps

3 you clarify it. There will be distances between

4 buildings as opposed to distances off of property lines.

5 MR. SHROYER: But for planning purposes


6 you would be looking at invisible property lines.

7 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, you can look at it that

8 way.

9 MR. SHROYER: Okay. I just wanted to make

10 sure I understood it correctly. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm sorry, one more

13 clarification. Does the development agreement run with

14 the land or with the developer?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: It governs -- it does run

16 with the land to the extent that its terms are complied

17 with. The remedy in the development agreement if there

18 is noncompliance before the property is finaled out and

19 actually built is to revert back to original zoning,

20 which in this case would be RA.

21 So it governs the land, it runs

22 with the land, not the developer. It typically says --

23 we could write it so it only went with the developer but

24 we would typically say heirs, successors and assigns.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Heirs?






1 MR. SCHULTZ: The heirs of the property

2 owner.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I see. I didn't

4 hear what you said.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: So in reality it runs with

6 the land until it becomes an issue and we want to revert

7 back.


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further

10 comments? Member Paul.

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One point when this

12 does come back towards the Commission, I think it would

13 be helpful if we knew what the acreage was through the

14 woodlands if we were going to connect that drive. So if

15 we could be very specific, because it looks like it's

16 already a point that might need to be clarified in the

17 future and a maybe there's some disagreement already

18 about that drive extending. So it would have that from

19 the fire marshal and, second, it would have the acreage

20 that would be lost to support that road. Maybe even

21 some soil borings need to be done if we're going to

22 extend that road.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly that's something

24 that we'll require at site plan review.








2 Do we have any other comments? I'd

3 like to make one comment.

4 Since I was on the Master Plan and

5 Zoning Committee, I think -- did you say in your motion

6 200 units? I think, our recommendation was --

7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One hundred dwellings,

8 200 hundred units.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One hundred dwellings,

10 200 units. That was our max according to our

11 recommendation.

12 MR. EVANCOE: I think it might be most

13 appropriate to say 100 buildings, 200 dwelling units.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it was not to

15 exceed 200 dwelling units.

16 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did we put that in the

18 motion, not to exceed said 200 dwelling units?

19 COMMISSIONER PAUL: What I stated was

20 limiting the density to a total of 100 dwellings, 200

21 units, on the site approximately 3.25 units per acre.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's not right.

23 COMMISSIONER PAUL: So how would you like

24 to word that?

25 MR. EVANCOE: I think 100 buildings, 200






1 dwelling units would be appropriate.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Not more than.

3 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Not to exceed a total

4 -- not to exceed 100 buildings, 200 dwellings on the

5 site --

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Dwelling units.

7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Dwelling units?


9 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Good enough for me,

10 3.25 units per acre.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. If there's no

12 further --

13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we need to second

14 that? I will.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, you do.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. I do.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Member

18 Kocan, and thank you, Member Paul, for that amendment.

19 If there's no further discussion,

20 could you call the roll, Mr. Schmitt.

21 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

22 Chairperson Nagy?


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?







1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?


3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?


5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?


9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


11 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 7 to 0.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Good luck,

13 gentlemen.

14 MR. GALBRAITH: Thank you very much and

15 we'll look forward to working with the City Council on a

16 development agreement.


18 At this point it is early, but we

19 will probably have a long discussion. Would the

20 Commission like to entertain taking a ten minute break

21 now? We will take a ten minute break.

22 (A brief recess was held during

23 the meeting.)

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call the

25 meeting back to order.






1 Our next Public Hearing is Zoning

2 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.172. Public Hearing to

3 amend Ordinance No. 97-18 as Amended, The City of Novi

4 Zoning Ordinance, Appendix A of The City of Novi Code of

5 Ordinances, to revise Section 2509, "Landscape

6 Standards: Obscuring Earth Berms And Walls,

7 Rights-of-Way Buffers, And Interior And Exterior

8 Landscape Plantings", in order to update and revise the

9 entire Section.

10 Do we have anybody that would like

11 to present?

12 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Thank you, Madam

13 Chair. I've chosen to remain here at my station because

14 I do have quite a bit to present this evening, but

15 before I do that I obviously will defer to the Chair as

16 to how you would like to conduct the process this

17 evening. But in terms of history, I think it's very

18 appropriate to give credit to the members of our

19 Ordinance Review Committee, that included Mayor Clark,

20 Council Member Bononi and Council Member Lorenzo who

21 worked --

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's Mayor Pro-Tem,

23 Mayor Pro-Tem Bononi.

24 MR. EVANCOE: Mayor Pro-Tem, Excuse me,

25 who worked very extensively with our former landscape






1 Architect Lauren McGuire on preparing this ordinance,

2 and the ordinance that we've supplied to you comes

3 basically as it was forwarded from the Ordinance Review

4 Committee. And this evening you have in your packet

5 obviously the ordinance itself. You also have several

6 exhibits, some of which are intended to be a part of the

7 ordinance and others are kind of side documents that we

8 would like to receive a recommendation on but they would

9 not actually be a part of the ordinance. Specifically

10 the street tree list and the planting details would be a

11 part of the ordinance, whereas the suggested plant

12 material list, which could be changed from time to time,

13 would not actually be within the ordinance, nor would

14 the proposed site maintenance agreement.

15 And with that I have done a very

16 extensive review and Member Kocan was quite helpful on

17 two occasions. Recently she provided some excellent

18 comments, many of which I had seen and many of which I

19 had not seen, and I'm prepared, if the Commission

20 wishes, I can go through the document really on a

21 page-by-page basis and provide you with some reactions

22 and suggestions for some things that are fairly

23 substantive and some things that are more grammatical

24 oriented.

25 So I think that if you were willing






1 to indulge me on that I think it might be a time-saver

2 to do that because my belief is that most of what I will

3 present you will want to go along with and then some of

4 those items would obviously require some discussion. So

5 I would defer to you as to how you would like to

6 proceed.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm going to ask the

8 members of the Commission.

9 Member Kocan, what is your

10 pleasure?

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My only concern is

12 your suggestions this evening, we would probably have to

13 vote on them individually if you're making any changes

14 to the copy that we have in front of us.

15 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you kindly repeat

17 that?

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I was going to say my

19 only concern is that -- I believe that if there's any

20 changes to what is in the actual ordinance as it's

21 written, would we have to have separate motions on those

22 or, Mr. Schultz, we could probably state changes as

23 discussed -- I mean some of the things that I brought

24 forward are probably going to require some discussion by

25 the Commission.






1 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair.


3 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess the answer to that

4 question is, it depends if you want to vote on it

5 tonight or if you intend to open it for public comment,

6 hold a Public Hearing, close the Public Hearing and then

7 continue to work on the ordinance both at this meeting

8 and at some subsequent meeting.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think the plan is we

10 have the Public Hearing, I think there is correspondence

11 we have here so if somebody does want to come and say

12 something to us. I would encourage the Commission to be

13 able to vote on it this evening.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm hopeful we can do

15 that. I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, if you'd like

17 to do a quick presentation of the overall and once we

18 get to page-by-page after we -- that would work because

19 I know Member Kocan is -- I understand what she's saying

20 and I tend to agree.

21 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, I really don't

22 have an overall presentation. I think, as you know,

23 this amendment is really intended to address various

24 inconsistencies and shortcomings that have been

25 discovered over the years with the present ordinance.






1 It's really not, per se, a whole new approach to

2 regulating landscaping. It's really more a tightening

3 up and clarification of the existing ordinance. So

4 there is not a lot of new, very bold approaches, which

5 is okay, because I think we have an ordinance that's

6 creating a fairly good community.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good. Okay. I'd like

8 to continue with the Public Hearing then before we get

9 into any further discussion.

10 Do we have any members of the

11 audience that would like to address the Commission

12 regarding this Public Hearing of our landscape

13 ordinance?

14 Yes, sir. If you would please step

15 forward, state your name and spell it for the court

16 reporter. And please keep your -- if you represent a

17 group, you are entitled to five minutes, if not, three

18 minutes.

19 MR. CONROY: Okay. Thank you.

20 My name is Pat Conroy, C-o-n-r-o-y,

21 and I'm the president of Conroy Associates. We are

22 landscape architects.

23 I've come before this Council, or

24 the Planning Commission, before on various projects that

25 we've worked on within the city and we have looked at






1 the ordinance as it's put together, and I have also

2 talked to Lauren when she was here on staff and so on

3 and there's a couple points I would like to bring up

4 from those of us who work with this ordinance on a

5 day-to-day basis or in many cases weeks-to-weeks or

6 month-to-month, depending upon the project.

7 One of the things, if I can, in

8 your intent, and I'm just going to quote real briefly,

9 "is to achieve significant visually attractive

10 landscapes which reflect the City's interest in lush

11 green landscaped areas throughout Novi. These

12 landscapes shall be fashioned by creative placement and

13 distinctive design that emphasizes the preservation of

14 existing natural resources and the use of native plant

15 materials, and provides a changing palate of color and

16 texture throughout the season by utilizing a diversity

17 of plant species."

18 That is an excellent intent. The

19 reality is, as we start to work with this ordinance we

20 find that it becomes very restrictive in certain ways of

21 trying to create a creative, attractive landscape. You

22 know, there are many elements that make up the landscape

23 in any given site. There's trees, evergreen and

24 deciduous, there's ornamentals, there's shrubbery,

25 there's perennials, there's annuals, there's






1 groundcovers, there's grasses. There's also additional

2 types. There's landscape items. There are various

3 kinds of screening walls that can be used, there's other

4 kinds of retaining walls that can be used to add

5 interest and character to the landscape. Different

6 paving patterns, textures, brick, textured concrete and

7 so on. These all go into creating a pleasing palate.

8 Water features, there are other examples of items that

9 can be used to help, you know, address and create a very

10 pleasant looking landscaping.

11 Again, as someone who's worked with

12 the City on various projects, we find that the past

13 ordinance, and this has addressed some of the issues,

14 but the main emphasis seems to be on tree replacement

15 and, you know, trees for frontage requirements, trees

16 for units, parking lot trees, screening trees. The

17 emphasis in the ordinance is very much loaded towards

18 trees and the quantities that we can put on a piece of

19 paper.

20 What we'd like to see is that they

21 look at some of the other aspects of landscaping that go

22 into creating, you know, again a pleasant palate. Just

23 to keep it brief there's a couple things we'd like to

24 see.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you just slow






1 down just a little bit and speak up? I don't know.

2 Maybe I'm going deaf or something. I don't know.

3 MR. CONROY: No, I get told that

4 occasionally.


6 MR. CONROY: You know, under the tree

7 replacement ordinance right now we have to -- there's

8 the formula and so on for doing tree replacement. The

9 tree replacements have to stand alone by themselves.

10 There's no consideration given to using them for any

11 other part of the landscape ordinance. Okay.

12 What happens with that with the

13 clients that we work with and the developers that we

14 work with over in the city is that we laugh and we say

15 we're not doing a landscape architecture project,

16 we're doing a reforestation project. It's how many

17 trees can you get on site, because most of our clients

18 would rather spend the money on their site than give the

19 City 325 or 375 dollars to use it elsewhere.

20 So that becomes somewhat

21 restrictive and we find ourselves, like I said, not

22 doing architecture but just putting as many trees on the

23 site to satisfy the ordinance.

24 The other thing I'd like to see, if

25 possible, and we work with a lot of other cities and






1 townships, and almost every one that we work with there

2 is a clause that the Planning Commission has the

3 authority to look at the landscape and to see if it has

4 met the intent that you're looking for.

5 I know in -- at least it's my

6 impression under the Novi ordinance, unless you can get

7 specific requirements it then becomes a zoning issue and

8 it's got to go to the Zoning Board to get a variance on

9 some of these. I think that's something -- and, again,

10 I've worked with this Planning Commission and past ones.

11 I mean, you should have the ability

12 to look at a landscape project that comes before you and

13 to make minor modifications to see if it has met the

14 intent without forcing the client to then get a denial,

15 go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and then come on back

16 for a variance on this issue. Okay.

17 I'm trying to think what else we've

18 had. Those are pretty much the main elements and I know

19 I'm probably pretty close to my time on that.

20 You know, the other issue that we

21 talk about, too, and there's other people that may

22 address it, is the emphasis on sizing. I did see Lauren

23 did put in there and we did talk quite a bit with her on

24 allowing credit for additional upsizing of material.

25 The way the past ordinance was






1 written, if you put in an eight-foot Evergreen you got

2 no more credit -- or if you put in a 15-foot Evergreen,

3 there was no more credit than if you put in a

4 eight-footer. So, again, our clients are going, well,

5 what's my incentive if I'm not getting any benefit out

6 of it. So we end up with in my case, or I feel a lot of

7 cases, a very boring type of palate. You get a lot of

8 trees that are the same size and, you know, all-in-all

9 it's kind of like, you know, somewhat boring.

10 So those are a few of the items

11 that I wanted to address today. I appreciate your time

12 and if you have any questions I'd be more than happy to

13 answer them. Thank you.


15 Is there anyone else that would

16 like to address the Commission regarding this issue?

17 Sir, if you would come forward,

18 state your name and spell it for the court reporter.

19 MR. SCHUTZKI: Good evening. My name is

20 Dr. Robert Schutzki from Michigan State University.

21 It's S-c-h-u-t-z-k-i. I'm also speaking on behalf of

22 Amy Frankmann, an Executive Director of the Michigan

23 Nursery Association. I believe you have a letter that

24 we sent earlier this week. And basically the intent of

25 the letter is just to make you aware of what the status






1 of the nursery industry is in terms of the shortage of

2 caliper sized stock.

3 Over the last three to five years

4 we've been faced by drought, we've been faced by

5 increased demands in not only the number of projects

6 that we have but also the number of trees per project.

7 And it seems that we were doing okay and we would have

8 been out of the shortage in about two years until

9 emerald ash borer hit.

10 And, based on the estimate, we have

11 about 25,000 trees that are used in the general Michigan

12 area that have to be replaced by other species. As a

13 result, the landscape industry is scrambling to try to

14 find these trees and the people we spoke to, the nursery

15 suppliers, the brokers, are not having anywhere near the

16 numbers to meet the current demands. And so the

17 Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association and Michigan

18 State University, we're working together to try to find

19 possible solutions to this and trying to keep people

20 updated with the seriousness of the situation.

21 And so, again, our intent in the

22 letter is to let you know what's happening out there in

23 the industry and if there's any way that there could be

24 temporary variances or considerations given to some of

25 these projects for the amount of three-inch caliper






1 trees that -- there's two-and-a-half inch caliper trees

2 on the market, there's two inch. Now certainly going

3 from a three inch to two inch is a reduction quite a bit

4 in crown size, but there may be slight situations from

5 project to project that may warrant some consideration.

6 The other thing is that, again,

7 we're keeping abreast of this situation. If there's

8 anything we can do either as the Association or through

9 Michigan State, please give us a call and we'd be more

10 than happy to work with you. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Doctor, if I could ask

12 you just one question. With regard to the ash borer, is

13 that all ashes, green ashes, mountain ash, purple ash,

14 is it all the ash species or just certain ones?

15 MR. SCHUTZKI: Okay. It's all the

16 fraxinus ash. Mountain ash is a different genus and

17 species. And so when we talk about all the fraxinus,

18 it's white ash, green ash, black ash, there's a European

19 ash, several of the Asian ashes are also affected with

20 it.

21 One of the things that we have

22 started is a collection of ash species and cultivars to

23 try to look at selectivity of this. And because of the

24 situation we're accumulating these things and actually

25 we're hoping to get that project planted next spring.






1 This spring we have a project going

2 in at our Tollgate Center in Novi where so far we have

3 67 different alternative species that we'll be planting

4 out and use that in educational programs for the

5 developing industry, for municipalities, for the

6 landscape industry to start to look at alternative

7 species that may start to fill some of these voids

8 created by ash.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Just to clarify, the

10 ash borer disease affects the white ash, the green ash,

11 the black ash, the European ash and the Asian ash.

12 Correct?


14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So if we have those

15 within our tree inventory supply list, then we should

16 remove those. Correct?

17 MR. SCHUTZKI: At this particular time

18 we're suggesting that. Until we have more information

19 on the specificity of all of them, that's what would be

20 the recommendation.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

22 MR. SCHUTZKI: Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there anyone else

24 who would like to address the Commission with regard to

25 this Public Hearing?







1 Sir, if you would please step

2 forward, state your name and spell it for the court

3 reporter.

4 MR. ROBERTS: My name is Gary Roberts,

5 R-o-b-e-r-t-s. I'm the owner and president of Great

6 Oaks Landscaping. I'm also a landscape architect. I've

7 done a great deal of work in the city of Novi. I worked

8 with Lauren McGuire on reviewing the old ordinance, so I

9 had an understanding of it and made some recommendations

10 at that time to her.

11 And I haven't read the new

12 ordinance so I'm not sure what things have been

13 addressed, but just as a point of reference, Dr.

14 Schutzki mentions some of the diversity problems, some

15 of the availability of nursery stock, so from a

16 practical standpoint acquiring of nursery stock has been

17 extremely difficult. It's not just a matter of the ash

18 borer but the sizes that are available and the species

19 that are allowed to be planted in the city and some of

20 the recommendations are that you broaden that palate a


21 little bit.

22 It might help with some diversity

23 but not let any one species start to dominate to such a

24 great extent that another problem can arise. So it

25 might even open up to other species that have been






1 looked down upon for one reason or another, Norway

2 maples possibly, even some of the Poplar varieties, some

3 of the other pear varieties and things like that, to add

4 a little bit more diversity. In small quantities I

5 think they would do very well.

6 But also, you know, in some

7 communities we work in, they'll take the quantity of

8 caliper inches that are required and allow it to be

9 counted a larger tree of a five inch caliper or a 12

10 foot Evergreen or a 20 foot Evergreen and will start

11 counting toward that caliper inch in a proportionate

12 manner. And what I found in designing is that that will

13 give you a more complete, a fuller landscaping, one that

14 doesn't look so static, that does give maturity to it.

15 Some of the better developments will have a variety of

16 sizes which can change the proportions and the density

17 of the site.

18 Some of the regulations we looked

19 at within the ordinance, the way it was written before,

20 was so specific that it tied the hands of the creative

21 designer. It sometimes brings it down to the lowest

22 common denominator that it says at a minimum this is

23 what you must do, so anybody could be a designer. You

24 know, one tree, five bushes, two Evergreens, all right,

25 repeat it here, here and here. That started -- it went






1 contrary to what your intent was.

2 So what we're recommending is that

3 it might be a minimum that needs to be done but now, you

4 know, it might or with reviewing the ordinance is it

5 more flexibility to say did we achieve the main broad

6 concept of intent and at least have a minimum that you

7 hold people to but realizing that sometimes it's better

8 not to have those percentages; that sometimes design

9 means changing those proportions, changing the

10 arrangement of those trees and that there should be some

11 flexibility within reviewing the plans that the intent

12 of the ordinance is kept without trying to be a cookie

13 cutter on some of the other items.

14 Hoping that make sense, and I'm not

15 sure what's been addressed yet in the ordinance, I have

16 not read that, and I know talking to Lauren these were

17 issues that did come up and we're hoping that they were

18 met.


20 Do we have anyone else that would

21 like to address the Commission?

22 Yes, sir, if you would come

23 forward, please. If you could state your name and spell

24 your last name for the court reporter.

25 MR. WEINDORF: Paul Weindorf,






1 W-e-i-n-d-o-r-f.


3 MR. WEINDORF: I come before you this

4 evening because I'd like to protest the wording under I

5 guess it's Paragraph 5, Landscape Plan Requirements, in

6 this document.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you tell me what

8 page you're on? That would be quicker. There's a page

9 number at the bottom.

10 MR. WEINDORF: 20.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Sir, could you speak

12 up?

13 MR. WEINDORF: Okay. It says in there

14 that "a landscape plan must be submitted for any new

15 commercial and residential developments and" -- and this

16 is where I have a problem -- "any addition to an

17 existing building that is a 25 percent increase in the

18 overall square footage of the building or 400 square

19 feet, whichever is less," and then there are 20 some odd

20 items that are required if you have a 25 percent

21 increase or 400 square feet or less.

22 What I am protesting is that this,

23 as I read it, applies even to old residential properties

24 that may exist in the city of Novi and it would, if you

25 go through these items, and I'll touch on a couple of






1 them, I think in my opinion it puts an undue financial

2 burden on any person that's trying to improve his

3 property and add on to it.

4 So for the common -- the way this

5 whole thing reads, it reads like commercial development

6 requirements and you're now applying to Single-Family

7 residential, old residential properties and trying to

8 bring them up to current standards when no one else in

9 the neighborhood is required to do so.

10 So, for instance, it's not clear

11 whether this applies to 400 square feet or 25 percent if

12 you're talking about a second floor addition or is this

13 the base, base floor property.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. It's the

15 increase of the building, 25 percent out.

16 MR. WEINDORF: It doesn't say that. It

17 says 25 percent in the overall square footage of the

18 building. So a residential property is measured in

19 interior square foot. If there's a second story, that's

20 additional square feet.

21 MR. AVDOULOS: Madam Chair.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Avdoulos.

23 MR. AVDOULOS: The way I understand it,

24 and the way it's read, the existing building that has

25 the increase is either a commercial building or a






1 residential development. To me it doesn't pertain to an

2 actual residential neighborhood -- an actual residence.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Single, like one house

4 in the whole subdivision.

5 MR. WEINDORF: Right, but if you read it

6 from my point of view, I think it could apply to that.

7 MR. AVDOULOS: And that may be something

8 that right now we look at correcting or putting a

9 clarification to indicate that it's only for commercial

10 or residential development properties, not individual

11 residences.

12 MR. WEINDORF: That would satisfy me,

13 because if you read through this it would cost more to

14 just update my house than for all these requirements

15 than what the addition would cost.

16 MR. AVDOULOS: I agree.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's a good point.

18 MR. WEINDORF: Thank you very much.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anything else?

20 MR. WEINDORF: That's it.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much for

22 your time.

23 Do we have anyone else that would

24 like to come forward and address the Commission with

25 regard to this Public Hearing?






1 Mr. McGinnis, do you have anything

2 that you would like to add while we're here?

3 MR. McGINNIS: Not at this point.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

5 With that, I'll close the Public

6 Hearing and turn it over to the Commission.

7 I think it would be almost

8 appropriate for Member Kocan to start. Well, aren't you

9 the one that has all the --

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My suggestion is, why

11 don't we look at this ordinance page-by-page and as

12 people have questions on that page we can address them

13 and maybe come to an agreement as to what the ordinance

14 should say. That's my suggestion. So whoever wants to

15 take lead, whether it's Mr. Evancoe or you, Madam Chair.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I kind of think

17 it would be okay to go through it. I personally don't

18 have a lot of things to point out.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But I think if Mr.

21 Evancoe -- I don't want to start, Mr. Evancoe, with Page

22 1 and go line by line by line.

23 MR. EVANCOE: No, that's not my intention

24 at all. In fact, I'm on Page 4 already.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Let's go to Page






1 4 and then we can start with there and then the

2 Commission add on to anything else you're saying.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Excellent. Thanks very much

4 and I will try to be as quick as possible.

5 Page 4, the only change that I was

6 recommending there is in the second to last line it says

7 "as indicated in the below berm requirement chart," I

8 would put in "following berm requirement chart" instead

9 of "below".

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "Following" instead of

11 "below ".

12 MR. EVANCOE: Then going to Page 5, I

13 would like to expand on the title of that chart and call

14 it "The Residential adjacent to Non-residential Berm

15 Requirement Chart".

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "Residential adjacent

17 to Non-residential Chart". Okay.

18 MR. EVANCOE: Then in the chart itself,

19 under No. 7, Industrial, there's an item that needs to

20 be lined up, this was pointed out by Member Kocan,

21 halfway through in the "berm height" column it starts

22 with 15 foot height berm. From there down that belongs

23 with I-2. So that's just an adjustment that we need to

24 make on the chart to have that align with I-2 and the

25 text above it align with I-1.






1 Then on item No. 4, Placement, the

2 last line of that paragraph says "from adjacent property

3 owner," that should say "from the adjacent property

4 owner".

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. Where

6 --

7 MR. AVDOULOS: Page 5, item 4.


9 MR. EVANCOE: Page 6, the top of the page,

10 A. Now, this item I'd like to kind of breeze through

11 for the moment but I think it may require more

12 discussion later.

13 What I would suggest adding to A is

14 the following. To read the whole thing it would say,

15 "The first floor elevation of the closest adjacent

16 principal structures; within 200 feet of the subject

17 site's property line." So, again, I would add "within

18 200 feet of the subject site's property line." And that

19 is because if you go down to the double I in parentheses

20 just below that it says -- it mentions 200 feet. So

21 it's just to make that consistent.

22 Item No. 3, directly below that,

23 the 3 I's in parentheses, the last line says "per item

24 11 below," I've not been able to find item 11 below so I

25 would probably propose, unless somebody can locate that,






1 that we take that reference out.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I couldn't

3 find that either.



6 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why don't we just

8 delete "visual screening", period.

9 MR. EVANCOE: Right, right.


11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Member Kocan.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll defer to Mr.

13 Schultz first.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Just to comment since we're

15 on this paragraph now, at the Ordinance Review the

16 reference to extreme or extraordinary existing

17 conditions was added I think to what Ms. McGuire had

18 originally proposed or, in any event, it came from a

19 discussion with Ordinance Review and I guess from our

20 perspective I wonder if that's what the Planning

21 Commission -- I wonder if that's what the Planning

22 Commission really wants to happen.

23 I think what this is doing is sort

24 of limiting the discretion that the Planning Commission

25 has to deviate from the berm requirements, which while






1 it may sound good really forces the issues to a

2 different body, the ZBA, which would have the ability to

3 deviate from this section and the berm requirements.

4 And I wonder if that's where you'd rather have these

5 dealt with or would you rather retain the discretion to

6 be the one to make determinations on berm size.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I would think the

8 Planning Commission, which is always working with this

9 and this is not something that the ZBA always works

10 with, would prefer to have the discretion.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: So I think the phrase

12 "extreme or extraordinary circumstances" probably limits

13 your use of discretion and puts it into the ZBA's ball

14 park, and I raise it as kind of a policy issue than a

15 language issue.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: How would you change it?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I would take out extreme or

18 extraordinary and just say where existing conditions

19 warrant.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But, you know, I

21 understand what you're saying with regard to those two

22 words, but where existing conditions warrant, that's too

23 general. I mean, I think what they're trying to imply

24 here is if there's something unusual going on then we

25 would have more discretion.






1 MR. SCHULTZ: We could probably use then a

2 standard that would be familiar like practical

3 difficulty or exceptional circumstance or something like

4 that that is not quite so limiting and wouldn't cause a

5 petitioner to throw up his hands and just take it to the

6 ZBA.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, that's where I

8 would like to go. I don't know what the other

9 commissioners have to say.


11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Markham.

12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I'm sorry. We had

13 a condition two weeks ago where a building came forward

14 and asked to have the berm waived because of the way

15 that the building was set on the property, and it was

16 going to be very nice, and all of us said yeah, we don't

17 want them to have to put a berm there. They were able

18 to put the parking behind the building, it was a

19 beautiful facade.

20 And, you know, that ties in with

21 what a couple of the gentlemen that came forward tonight

22 said. How do we -- where do we have the discretion to

23 allow some flexibility when we have a design that makes

24 sense and looks better than the cookie cutter, lined up

25 trees, you know?






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It would be this

2 paragraph.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Yeah. I want to be clear.

4 This was discussed kind of at least at Ordinance Review

5 and the idea was put it in, make it restrictive, make it

6 exceptional circumstances and I guess this is kind of a

7 further reflection from our office that all that does,

8 it's a feel-good kind of thing in one way but it really

9 causes people to go to another venue and that's the

10 policy question.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Well, I think

12 the Commission wants to, I'm sort of mind reading here,

13 but I would assume that the Commission would want to

14 keep the discretion within this body because they are

15 the ones that are always reviewing the landscape plans.

16 I think that maybe you could come up with a -- we could

17 come up with a verbiage to make sure that it stays

18 within this body.

19 Member Kocan.

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My concern is when we

21 remove or when we add considerable discretion, and I'm

22 going to address that in another section, is the

23 confidence that I have in this particular Planning

24 Commission with the amount of landscaping and

25 architectural knowledge that we have I think we can






1 design some really nice landscapes; however, we have to

2 think about future Planning Commissions and is there

3 going to be consistency throughout the city, are we

4 going to be removing things and now it's going to end up

5 like our facade ordinance and we're waiving everything

6 that comes through. That's a concern to me. If we want

7 to take it out I can support that, but I think it's on

8 the record that we are taking it out and City Council

9 can put it back in, but I do have a concern about us

10 having so much discretion that we don't even have to

11 enforce our ordinances anymore.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: And in that respect, Madam

13 Chair, I think if we identify kind of terms of art,

14 practical difficulty, exceptional circumstances instead

15 of extreme and extraordinary, those are familiar terms

16 that relate to the exercise of discretion, kind of limit

17 it, kind of allow it.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And I think it has to

19 have something beside practical difficulty because I

20 think the case in point made by Commissioner Markham was

21 well taken. At Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook, the

22 building was beautiful, the parking was in the back and

23 I think it was like eight out of nine people thought it

24 would be okay to waive the berm in that instance.

25 I personally, just my personal






1 thought, I don't think that every site in the world

2 requires a berm. As a matter of fact, in some areas

3 berming I think has actually caused more harm than good,

4 especially when it's a tall berm with Evergreens on top

5 and the water rolls down the hill.


6 Mr. Avdoulos.

7 MR. AVDOULOS: The question I had was with

8 the words "existing conditions". The way I was reading

9 it was that if there was a site that had existing

10 conditions that needed to have some delineation towards

11 creativity and deviate from the landscape ordinance. Or

12 does this mean a project that's already up and then

13 there's something going on new with it and then it comes

14 in and has to require the Planning Commission to, you

15 know, state their case or give direction or say yea or

16 nay?

17 I guess to me that was like, okay,

18 this building already exists, this project already

19 exists, and I don't know if that meant existing site

20 conditions or grading conditions. I'm not exactly sure

21 how I was reading that.

22 I do agree, though, and I'm trying

23 to figure out if this is the point where we can provide

24 some flexibility for the Planning Commission to review

25 designs that, you know, may follow the intent of the






1 City and how they want to do things.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the language as

3 written is a little bit difficult to apply. I guess if

4 you want to go on and I'll try to work out some typical

5 language and come back with it.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't think that's a

7 bad idea because I think the whole sentence, even if you

8 take out extreme or extraordinary, it says where

9 existing conditions warrant, and I think Mr. Avdoulos'

10 point is well taken, there's no definition of existing

11 conditions. So I think the whole sentence is poor.

12 I'm sorry. I forgot to look down

13 here. I apologize. Member Paul.

14 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One thing that I think

15 we need to mention about the Meadowbrook site is

16 although they weren't doing the berm they put additional

17 landscaping that would be in the berm to the rear of the

18 building, which is the south portion. So they weren't

19 eliminating the landscaping, they were moving the

20 landscaping and pushing the property into a more visual

21 component so you could see the facade of the building,

22 but the actual landscaping, the quantity, was still the

23 same.

24 So maybe it has to do with quantity

25 that we put in here and if there is an existing






1 condition that maybe they take the quantity of

2 landscaping that would be in that area, such as a

3 wetland buffer and they had to infringe on the wetland

4 buffer, so they didn't want to encroach in that area,

5 that's where the berm would be, we don't want to put

6 more soil in that condition, let's move that landscaping

7 to another portion of the site.

8 So although I agree with the

9 Planning Commission keeping as much discretion here on

10 the actual site plan because that's what we are doing on

11 a regular basis, I do think we should have some

12 discretion for the applicant. And I do think that when

13 they show us the intent, which is exactly what these

14 three speakers eloquently put, they are putting the

15 right amount of landscaping forward. They're just

16 moving it in the site to be more creative.

17 It might be a change in the actual

18 content of the landscaping, it might be in not as many

19 tall trees, maybe there's more small deciduous trees, it

20 doesn't matter. I just think that we have to consider

21 their statement and remember what we were just doing

22 last -- two weeks ago at this Meadowbrook site.

23 We were looking at the landscaping,

24 realizing they had met the intent and we were very happy

25 with the facade, so that we were pleasantly pleased that






1 they were moving landscaping to the rear and still

2 keeping the quantity on that portion and on that site.

3 And also looking at the existing conditions, that it was

4 a corner location and we weren't going to be breaking up

5 a berm in the middle of Twelve Mile. We were on a


6 corner site, which was Meadowbrook and Twelve Mile,

7 therefore, we could break up the berm.

8 So I think somehow we have to get

9 that in context and I don't know quite how to do that.

10 I think Mr. Schultz will help us there.

11 Thank you, Madam Chair.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham.

13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I like the word

14 "intent" if you can tie in this paragraph back to the

15 section on intent in the front. That may help. Also, I


16 like the one gentleman's suggestion of total tree

17 diameter. You know, if you take a site and it's

18 supposed to have a hundred trees of two-and-a-half inch

19 caliper diameter, you multiply two-and-a-half by a

20 hundred and then maybe he wants to put in one bigger

21 tree which counts for less. You know, to allow some

22 flexibility to meet the overall big number but give some

23 creative license to meet it in some different ways and

24 then we would have the ability to review that and see if

25 the way they did it did in fact meet that.







2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: With regard to that

3 paragraph we're talking about, as I read it and re-read

4 it, it looks to me that they're talking about noise

5 attenuation. This is with regard to noise attenuation

6 and not just a broad you can throw out the ordinance if

7 you want to.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the intent, from

9 being at that Ordinance Review meeting and talking with

10 Lauren about it, there probably ought to be a comma

11 after the word "proposal", the idea being two separate

12 thoughts. Number one, you can exercise discretion with

13 regard to the berm but you should be taking into

14 consideration the idea of noise attenuation and whatever

15 that reference was to -- I think this is ultimately a

16 reference to the opacity issue. I think the numbers got

17 twisted around but I think it's an opacity reference.

18 MR. EVANCOE: Actually, I think I just

19 found that. It's item K farther down on that list.

20 That's what Lauren had called item 11. So we can

21 substitute K for 11 there.

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Which is the opacity.


24 MR. EVANCOE: Right, which is the opacity.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you want that







1 paragraph, the last sentence to read "subject to

2 Planning Commission approval that meets the screening

3 requirement with regard to noise attenuation Section

4 2519 and visual screening per item K below."

5 MR. EVANCOE: Correct.

6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Or why don't we just

7 say opacity because I'm proposing you move K and H.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. You

9 know what, we're going to be here all night. Let's work

10 on one thing and one thing only. Okay, now you --

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I just want to take

12 out "per item 11 below". I just think it would make

13 more sense just to say "and opacity requirements".

14 MR. SCHULTZ: With the Chair's indulgence,

15 I was just going to kind of rewrite right now, while

16 you're working on other things, this whole paragraph and

17 I'll read it.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Would you like

19 to --

20 MR. SCHULTZ: If you want to move on to

21 the next and I'll sort of --

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you done?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: I've got all your comments.

24 I'm going to try and write something right now.







1 MR. SHROYER: Thank you. We heard from

2 three professionals in the audience and we also have

3 three professionals in the landscaping background on our

4 staff. I would like their opinions because I think it's

5 important to take that into consideration if Mr. Schultz

6 is going to rewrite this as well.


8 MR. McGINNIS: This is the body of the

9 City that is the front line in landscaping and you do

10 have, or you did have, a qualified, talented landscape

11 architect on staff and that position was replaced, and

12 it will be equally talented I'm sure, and you should

13 have some discretion in the decision in landscaping

14 because you're the most involved with it and I think the

15 Meadowbrook example is a great example right there.

16 MR. SHROYER: Okay. Mr. Evancoe, do you

17 or Mr. Schmitt have anything to add to that?

18 MR. EVANCOE: I would just be glad to work

19 with Tom on some language. There's a -- I don't know if

20 you all know, well, I won't go into that, but I

21 worked on a landscape ordinance in Illinois that ended

22 up getting an award from the Illinois APA there and we

23 had a section in that ordinance called Alternative

24 Compliance and we were -- and it gave us the ability to

25 have -- to allow developers to come forward with






1 something that complied in an alternative way and for

2 that to be reviewed and considered seriously. And it

3 didn't limit it to one aspect of the project like plant

4 size or plant quantity or berm, it was -- generally it

5 gave the city the ability to look at an alternative plan

6 and determine whether it complied, and so there's the

7 possibility of an approach like that.

8 MR. SHROYER: I really like that idea.

9 That would also fit directly into Mr. Conroy and Mr.

10 Roberts' activities and discussion items as well. I

11 think that's an excellent idea. I'd like to see us

12 pursue that further.

13 Thank you, Madam Chair.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos, did you

15 want to say something?

16 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, the text that we're

17 looking at in this little paragraph is under "berm

18 requirements" and I guess that's -- you know, we're

19 going to rephrase it, but is it going to be stipulated

20 under each heading such as parking area landscape

21 requirements, and adjacent to public right-of-ways.

22 Under there we have a waiver that the Planning

23 Commission may waive or reduce right-of-way

24 requirements, da-da-da-da-da-da. We have an intent and

25 we want to provide flexibility, but right now if we






1 squeeze it into the little paragraph under berms then I

2 don't want the designers and the applicants to think

3 that the flexibility is only here and is not throughout

4 the whole ordinance, and I think that's what the idea

5 was in the first place.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I was reading the

7 minutes of the Ordinance Review Committee, and maybe I'm

8 incorrect, but I read it as that that was their intent,

9 for only berming. I thought that they were not -- where

10 they wanted the flexibility to be given to the -- in the

11 ordinance was with regard to the berming. That was my

12 understanding. Did I misread that? So that's why I

13 want to keep it in the berming part because that's where

14 they want the flexibility and that's I think where the

15 greatest flexibility probably should be.

16 MR. AVDOULOS: Right, but in adjacent to

17 public right-of-way there is a waiver that the Planning

18 Commission, you know, so as you go through the whole

19 ordinance there's bits and pieces where there's Planning

20 Commission discretion that's available at each one of

21 these subheadings. But I think based on what some of

22 the landscape architects and professionals had stated is

23 there should be an overall essence that this is a

24 minimum and this is what we want people to start with

25 and then from that point let's get creative and let's






1 challenge the designers, similar to what we have with

2 the facade ordinance. This is what a minimum is but if

3 you want to enhance it and do a little better then

4 present it and then if there's a waiver then, fine,

5 we'll give it to you so long as there's some creativity

6 put forth behind it.

7 But a lot of times what happens,

8 and, you know, I'm a professional, too, and a developer

9 or an owner comes up to me and says, "John, I want the

10 minimum," and, okay, you got one tree, three bushes,

11 five flowers and that's it, we meet all the

12 requirements, done deal. So I think we want to be a

13 little more proactive.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I agree with you and I

15 think in reading the minutes of the Ordinance Review

16 Committee that was their intent, that this is the

17 minimum requirement and we are looking for more but this

18 is the minimum you have to have. And I think giving the

19 landscape architects flexibility, especially since we

20 really did have a good one and she did have -- in the

21 short time she was here she had a great impact.

22 I think we need to give that

23 flexibility and I also think that in looking at some of

24 the, you know, designs it's not the same old thing all

25 the time. The minimum list would be Ten Mile and Beck






1 -- is it Ten Mile and Beck? -- Kroger, Grand River, that

2 to me is like the bear minimum.

3 Member Kocan.


5 you'll indulge me. Can we back up to the top of the

6 page with the insertion of the first floor elevation of

7 the closest adjacent principal structure within 200 feet

8 of the subject site property line, and I'm thinking Karl

9 Wisinski's property where the elevation goes down

10 considerably and you've got a berm requirement and the

11 residents need some protection.

12 Can I ask Mr. Wisinski how far his

13 house is away from the berm? My concern is, if his

14 house is more than 200 feet away, now we go to the

15 elevation of the nearest property line. Well, his

16 property line is a ditch and so the berm starts down so

17 low that it provides absolutely no screening.

18 So without having something that

19 states the first floor elevation of the closest property

20 within 200 feet or the elevation of the property and

21 maybe we need a particular distance, something that's

22 reasonable, something that -- I don't know that we can

23 state, you know, 200, 300 feet away, because if

24 something is on a hill you'll never get a berm high

25 enough, but we need --






1 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, maybe this is where

2 this comes in where it does say extreme or extraordinary

3 existing conditions, then the applicant comes in and

4 says, look, my property line is, you know, 30 feet into

5 a ditch, this is what I propose.

6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, the applicant

7 is not going to say that but...

8 MR. AVDOULOS: But I think this is where

9 those situations are covered. We can't put a generality

10 on it because every site is not flat and every piece of

11 property is not a square or rectangle. So I think this

12 helps out and if the intent was to provide that

13 flexibility I think it's a good spot, but it's very hard

14 to predict each site.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: But my concern is

16 then there's not a requirement. It's strictly the

17 developer, the applicant may present an alternative.

18 MR. AVDOULOS: Well, you put in the

19 requirement and if they can't meet it then that's when

20 they come in.

21 MR. EVANCOE: I believe the 200 feet was

22 suggested because you need to have something, otherwise

23 you could have a building that's a quarter mile away

24 from the property line and that would be kind of a

25 ridiculous way to, you know, determine this. So it






1 could be 300 feet, it could be 400 feet, it could be 100

2 feet but some minimum standard and then like

3 Commissioner Avdoulos said then you can get into the

4 discretionary aspects that we've been talking about, but

5 there needs to be some minimum standard that the

6 developer knows they have to achieve.


8 MR. McGINNIS: I have a problem with that

9 sentence, too, because if you look at a typical

10 situation that happened with the Avalon development, in

11 Lot No. 3 that I think it's a church that it's adjacent

12 to. If you applied the new rule of taking the highest

13 elevation, or it says whichever is greater, the first

14 floor elevation of the building envelope of the

15 residence, if you use that as the greater elevation you

16 would double the size of the berm and the berm would

17 extend into the building envelope and he wouldn't have

18 been able to develop that lot. So that restriction

19 right there is pretty severe for a developer in some

20 situations. So you have to have an out so they can

21 present that to the committee.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have any

23 suggestion? I'm open.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, that's really

25 the function of Paragraph 3 and that's kind of the






1 language or the concept that we're working on. I think

2 if you -- you got to break it into two thoughts.

3 Number one, if you got practical

4 difficulty because of site configuration or topography,

5 some physical characteristic, that's sort of one thing

6 you have to deal with. I think you are going to -- with

7 this provision it can be pretty harsh.

8 The other thought is the other

9 situation you were talking about. If there's just some

10 kind of design characteristic that gives you an

11 alternative compliance, those are really -- the idea

12 would be allow the Planning Commission, rather than the

13 ZBA, to be the one to decide, okay, is the lot

14 configuration so much of a problem we need to waive or

15 is there a design excellence reason we would waive for,

16 leave that with you in Paragraph 3 rather than sending

17 it on to the ZBA. That's kind of the thought I was --

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And I think if I

19 understand you correctly, you and Mr. Avdoulos are

20 really basically saying the same thing.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: Right.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it's in that

23 paragraph.

24 You know, we have been spending on

25 this paragraph quite an amount of time. May I make one






1 suggestion, that we get something from you in writing on

2 this paragraph and then we can approve that because I

3 think that you're getting the gist of everything that

4 we're talking about and I think the Commissioners kind

5 of agree as to where we're going with this and it is to

6 keep the control in here.

7 Yes, Member Kocan.

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just to finish back

9 with A and Mr. McGinnis, what he said. I personally

10 would like to remove the "within the 200 feet of the

11 subject site property line" because I would like to

12 leave it "first floor elevation of the closest adjacent

13 principal structure" because then at least it takes into

14 consideration what is out there.

15 If there is a hardship it can be

16 stated and I just think I'd rather take the within 200

17 feet out. Same thing with the Avalon subdivision, the

18 developer will come in and say, you know, the hardship

19 is if we did that we can't do the berm because now it's

20 200 feet wide and 30 feet tall. I really want the

21 closest adjacent principal structure to be considered in

22 a berm plan. That's my suggestion. So I would like to

23 see this table discuss whether to leave the 200 in or to

24 take it out.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any other






1 thoughts on that from any of the other Commissioners?

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Then can I propose

3 removing it and leaving it the way it is?

4 MR. EVANCOE: I think that works fine.

5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we have support

6 for that?

7 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I'll support it.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So under A you are

9 taking within 200 feet --

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just leave it the way

11 as written.


13 Yes, Member Markham.

14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I'd like to go back

15 to Mr. Avdoulos' comment that maybe we need a broader

16 statement for the whole document relative to flexibility

17 and not just in the berm section. If you had something

18 more at the beginning --

19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Or at the end.

20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or at the end that

21 referenced, for example, Mr. Evancoe's paragraph.

22 MR. EVANCOE: That's how we did it. We

23 had a whole section at the end of the ordinance that

24 discussed alternative compliance.

25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Something like that






1 that then would then give the overall flexibility to

2 someone who wanted to come in with something nice, then

3 we wouldn't have to necessarily have it piecemeal all

4 the way through the document.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you provide us with

6 something like that, Mr. Evancoe?

7 MR. EVANCOE: Absolutely.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And let the Commission

9 look at it and we can go from there. Thank you.

10 Can we move on to another page?

11 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Well, I have two

12 quick ones on this page and I think they will be quick.

13 Item C. I would like to suggest

14 adding to the end of that sentence -- crossing out "are

15 required" and adding "without compromising the minimum

16 height requirement of the berm". So the total sentence

17 would read: "The berm shall have overlapping and

18 undulating changes in elevation both horizontally and

19 vertically without compromising the minimum height

20 requirement of the berm." That's to avoid allowing them

21 to dip down and stay down with the berm for a long

22 period of time and to avoid basically doing the berm and

23 saying we're undulating. And, again, with the

24 alternative compliance, if that's what they felt was

25 best for the site and you agreed, you would have that






1 ability to approve it, but this just holds to the

2 standard height.

3 And then going down to H below,

4 Commissioner Kocan suggested that we switch that with K.

5 So if we do that -- and the reason for that is to have K

6 come into this spot so that we have both of our opacity

7 requirements together instead of separated.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. That makes

9 sense.

10 MR. EVANCOE: If we do that, then we bump

11 back up to item 11 where we changed that to K and we

12 make that H, but I had to wait to tell you about that.

13 And with that I would be prepared to move on to Page 9.


15 MR. EVANCOE: And at the very top I would

16 just put a period after Novi and cross out the word

17 "and".

18 And then going down to number 1

19 "Intent" under Adjacent Public Right-Of-Way, the end of

20 that sentence I would suggest just crossing out "and to

21 create a sense of place". I think that's too vague for

22 ordinance language. There's no way to define what that

23 means. So I would put the period after "highlighted".

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So I think that makes

25 sense. "Views of natural resources or vistas to be






1 highlighted."

2 MR. EVANCOE: Right, period.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That is kind of

4 strange. Okay.

5 Does anybody have disagreement with

6 that sentence, those words being taken out?

7 MR. EVANCOE: I think we would argue

8 endlessly with somebody about what it means to have a

9 sense of place.

10 Moving then to item C, below that,

11 number 2, Requirements, item C, second line starts "with

12 a minimum of a 25 foot wide," I would suggest crossing

13 that out and having the sentence then read as follows,

14 starting at C: "There shall be provided adjacent to the

15 abutting right-of-way or private road a landscape area,"

16 -- and here's the new language -- "of sufficient width

17 to accommodate a required berm as indicated in the

18 right-of-way landscape screening requirement chart," and

19 then continue on with the language that's there.

20 Because what you'll find is in the chart 25 foot is not

21 necessarily the requirement throughout that chart.

22 There are some instances -- one instance where it goes

23 all the way down to ten feet because there's no berm

24 actually required.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody have any






1 disagreement with that?

2 MR. EVANCOE: Then moving to the top of

3 Page 10, there is -- the second -- the first full

4 sentence at the top of the page starts with "Berms shall

5 comply with Section" and it lists a bunch of sections.

6 Those are all wrong because they all refer back to

7 Lauren's previous document. So that needs to be -- all

8 those references need to be changed to 4, well,

9 actually, 2509.4.A and then parentheses 5 B, C, D, F, G,

10 H and L and that would just replace those references one

11 for one.

12 Then H, going down from there,

13 there's a paragraph that starts with "shopping centers".

14 My only comment there was I felt that that whole

15 paragraph was very vague. It talks about shopping

16 centers and sites being adjacent to freeways are highly

17 visible, therefore a strong emphasis shall be placed on

18 the design of landscaping that affords a positive and

19 pleasant visual experience along these corridors.

20 Impacts of paving and parking need to be diminished.

21 We could leave it, but I just

22 thought it was kind of vague and hard to get your hands

23 around.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, it is a little --

25 you know, it is subjective when you say positive and






1 pleasant visual experience, that is a subjective thing.

2 MR. EVANCOE: It could remain, though.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that -- there's

4 other sections of the ordinance that would kind of

5 define that.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Right. I mean, basically

7 there's nothing there that -- it doesn't sound like

8 ordinance language because there's nothing that we can

9 require there.

10 MR. AVDOULOS: It sounded more as an

11 emphasis that you have an ordinance, but at these

12 locations we want it to be a little more emphasized, you

13 know, that landscape is going to be an important issue.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: You're saying leave

15 it.

16 MR. AVDOULOS: I would just leave it in.

17 MR. EVANCOE: That's fine. It does no

18 harm.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It doesn't hurt.

20 MR. EVANCOE: No, it doesn't.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Anything else?

22 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Then going on to I

23 there's a reference to building requirements, Section 5,

24 and I would change that to -- instead of Section 5 it

25 would be 2509.4 E.






1 And then on number 3, Waiver, I

2 would just add the word "the" in front of Planning

3 Commission, "the Planning Commission may waive".

4 E, under Waiver, there is a

5 reference to berm per Section 3Aa.6. That should read

6 footnote 8 of the right-of-way landscape screening

7 requirements chart.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Say that again slowly.

9 MR. EVANCOE: Sure. I'm sorry. Instead

10 of what it says about Section 3Aa.6, it should say

11 footnote 8 of the right-of-way landscape screening

12 requirements chart.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I will just put on

15 the record that this waiver is new. From the previous

16 ordinance, at least the way I read the previous

17 ordinance, was things had to go to ZBA and this does

18 talk about right-of-way and I know that we talked about

19 Twelve Mile and Meadowbrook.

20 If that's what the majority of this

21 Planning Commission wants to do, is have that much

22 discretion, again my concern is, and maybe it gets

23 boring if you have everything look the same, but this

24 paragraph talks about specific areas that would allow us

25 to give a waiver but it doesn't state that it has to






1 meet these specific areas in order to get a waiver. So

2 again our discretion -- it's very, very discretionary.

3 I'm not as comfortable with that, but if the City

4 Council is comfortable with that, and it seems like most

5 of this Planning Commission is comfortable with it, I

6 just wanted to point it out. I just think it's very

7 loose. Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I can

9 understand what you're saying, but as I read this when

10 it talks about the chart and then when you determine the

11 parcel size, the configuration or the design of this

12 site would be better met by the proposed change or

13 existing conditions would warrant the change, I think

14 that gives more discretion for creativity than I do for

15 us messing it up.

16 In other words, I cannot imagine a

17 Planning Commission not asking a landscape designer or

18 landscape architect who's designing a site for a

19 developer not to -- not only to meet the minimum

20 requirements but that we would waive the minimum

21 requirements and allow him or her to do something less

22 than required. I'm not making sense, am I?

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I know what you're

24 saying.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Know what I'm saying?






1 Does anybody else have any comment

2 on that one? Member Markham.

3 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I think we should

4 leave some room for flexibility and these are the kinds

5 of things that would be something that you might want to

6 make adjustment for.


8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And I don't disagree,

9 because I believe that the things that are listed you

10 should be able to make adjustments for, and I was going

11 to suggest adding a sentence that said instead of "such

12 items may include" I was going to state "one of the

13 following conditions would warrant a waiver". Any other

14 aesthetic condition would require a ZBA waiver but then

15 that takes away -- I mean, then I'm sending people to

16 the ZBA and that's not what...

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We don't want to send

18 things to the ZBA.

19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I'm shut down.

20 I accept that.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're not shut down.


23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They complain all the

24 time.

25 MR. AVDOULOS: I just wanted to make a






1 comment to Member Kocan's concerns. I don't know if

2 you're concerned with all of a sudden you allow

3 flexibility and every project that comes in from now on

4 has no berms, has no this, has no that. I think that if

5 the applicant and the designer cannot come up with

6 something that is aesthetically challenging and sort of

7 meets the intent of what the berm is supposed to meet,

8 then the minimum is to provide the berm. So I think we

9 have that flexibility.

10 Also, with the planners coming

11 before the landscape architect and our Planning

12 Department, I think there could be a judgment call

13 there, too, whether they're meeting an intent or not.

14 So I know we don't want to design the sites but I think

15 we -- we don't have that issue with buildings either.

16 You know, we say that these are the

17 minimum materials you use on a building, but we don't

18 tell them how to put it together and we don't tell them

19 where to put the windows and where to put the brick. We

20 just say this is a percentage that you're going to use.

21 So, actually, buildings are more flexible than the sites

22 and the sites -- they have constraints on building

23 location, on parking location, on our islands that we

24 require, on amount of landscape.

25 So I think we're creating a very






1 good palate for the designers to use and I think right

2 now we're just going to see some interesting sites come

3 up because as Mr. Evancoe stated before, you know, all

4 the easy stuff in Novi is taken over. So now we're

5 going to have some difficult situations with woodlands,

6 wetlands, so there's going to be constraints on the

7 sites right there.

8 So I think the way this was stated

9 with indicating preservation of regulated woodlands, the

10 grading, the significant architecture, historical

11 buildings, these things are very important and I think

12 those are going to be markers on the site anyway. So

13 we'll keep an eye on it just to ease your concerns.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have a correction to

15 make on that page.

16 Under F, the second sentence is

17 "(30) inch tall berm". There should be a period after

18 the word "berm".

19 And I also think, why are we always

20 using that magical number 30. That's not even three

21 feet. It really doesn't do anything.

22 MR. EVANCOE: It's allowed in those areas

23 where you don't have parking, a situation like the

24 Meadowbrook office. That's what they would have been

25 required along Twelve Mile, is a 30 inch berm, which






1 would have given just a little topographic relief but

2 not to really screen anything.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect, I

4 think 30 inches is not very aesthetically pleasing when

5 you go along -- I personally despise those junipers that

6 spread out, I think they're junipers, creepy-crawly

7 things, and all they look like is kind of like weeds.

8 Why can't we put at least 36 inches, I mean three feet.

9 I mean, you can see something. I don't think you can

10 see a whole lot with 30 inches. All right. I'm not

11 going to belabor the point. Let's move on.

12 MR. EVANCOE: Number 4 at the bottom of

13 the page, I'm suggesting that we remove the last

14 sentence that says, "These shall be of similar plant

15 material as that already existing." The reason for that

16 is that what if that plant material is in poor

17 condition? We certainly don't want to require them to

18 match up to something that's undesirable. I don't think

19 the paragraph needs that to work.

20 Going on to the table on Page 11,

21 now here's where I'm proposing -- Mike McGinnis and I

22 talked at some length about this and I'm going to

23 propose something quite different, but before I do that,

24 first of all, I would like to add to the title of this

25 chart the words "right-of-way", Right-of-Way Landscape






1 Screening Requirements Chart, so as not to confuse it

2 with any other type of screening that we require.

3 In the column that's called Green

4 Belt Width, under Right-of-Way Requirements, there are

5 numbers such as 41 feet, 37 feet, 29 feet. Mike and I

6 are suggesting that those figures be increased by 25

7 percent in order to accommodate the kind of undulating

8 berms that are recommended in the ordinance that vary

9 horizontally and vertically. If we stick with the

10 figures that are already in there, it will only allow

11 for a straight berm, meeting its slope requirements on

12 the side and its crest and there would be no ability for

13 them to achieve this other recommendation.

14 So I'm proposing two things here.

15 A footnote 11 would be added on Page 12, which would

16 read as follows: "The width of the required green belt

17 buffer area shall be increased by 25 percent to provide

18 sufficient area to meet the requirements of Section

19 2509.4.a.5.c." And then in the chart itself, the

20 figures, here's how the numbers would change based on

21 calculations that Mike and I did. Going down the list,

22 41 feet would become 51 feet, 37 feet would become 46

23 feet, and going down we go to 36 feet, 36 feet, 31 feet,

24 36 feet, 25, 25 and ten remain as they are because

25 there's no berm required there, 33 becomes 41 feet and






1 25 feet becomes 31 feet. So this is a change. This is

2 more green belt.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that makes

4 sense. Does anybody have any problem with that?

5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Can I just ask, has

6 that been applied to any site plans that you've looked

7 at to see if it changes either setbacks or anything? I

8 mean, if this is new.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. McGinnis, have you

10 applied this?

11 MR. McGINNIS: No, not yet we haven't. It

12 probably will change some site plans.

13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Again a concern is,

14 if it considerably changes something I think we would

15 need to know that. I like the idea but I'd like to know

16 if there's any ramifications that we haven't taken into

17 consideration.

18 MR. EVANCOE: I think it probably would be

19 good for us to double-check this against building

20 setbacks and make sure that we're not creating a problem

21 there. So we can study that and bring that back.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a good

23 idea. Maybe also, too, I don't know about the rest of

24 the commissioners, but visual aids are very important

25 and maybe you could make a drawing where you have it at






1 this amount and then the flexibility with the added 25

2 percent as long as it doesn't change the right-of-way.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Great idea.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: May I ask you a

5 question? Do we have much more on this page?

6 MR. EVANCOE: No, I'm done with that page.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could we give this

8 court reporter like a break.

9 MR. EVANCOE: He's indicating he's okay.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd be dying if I were

11 in your place.

12 MR. EVANCOE: Going to Page 12 under C,

13 transformer, utility boxes --

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Member

15 Kocan.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: With regard to the

17 column for the three foot wall, even though you

18 reference 4 about the Planning Commission Waiver is

19 required to use a wall, and 7, what they have to be

20 constructed of, when you -- when I was looking at it and

21 I saw the three foot wall's required, required, required

22 I was confused as to why we're saying required. If you

23 have a berm, a waiver would be required for the three

24 foot wall.

25 MR. EVANCOE: Good point. I think you're






1 right.

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So, I'm wondering --

3 MR. EVANCOE: So we could require --

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You shouldn't put that

5 in there at all.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Maybe that's just a blank


7 column.

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The only one where

9 you can't put in a wall, it looks like, is in single

10 family residential.

11 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

12 MR. AVDOULOS: Or does that say allowed or

13 allowable?

14 MR. EVANCOE: Allowed with waiver perhaps.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: That's what your

16 footnote says, waiver required. You may want to look at

17 that and see if that column is even necessary.

18 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. It may not be. Okay.

19 I'll circle that. Okay.

20 Under transformers, utility boxes

21 on Page 12, that's number C, the word "manor" needs to

22 be re-spelled under the Intents section to m-a-n-n-e-r.

23 And going on to Page 13, item B

24 talks about islands and in the second line there's a

25 reference to round 32 foot diameter islands. We've






1 looked at that, Mike and I've both looked at that, and

2 we know where that came from. We know at the city of

3 Southfield at their city hall building they did that,

4 but just looking at the drawings I think you could get

5 more bang for your buck if you were to make those more

6 squarish with appropriate radiuses. I think the four

7 trees that are shown on the diagram that Lauren has

8 drawn, it would work better that way both from a traffic

9 point of view and a landscaping point of view. I think

10 the circles look interesting in plan view but not

11 necessarily at eye level. So I would suggest then in

12 that particular just crossing out the words "round 32

13 foot diameter islands or" so that it reads "such as

14 island between rows of parking."

15 Then going down to D -- no, that

16 was okay. Never mind.

17 Item E, in the second line it says,

18 "All clear site distances shall be maintained" and then

19 in the final line of E it says, "That the City of Novi

20 is not responsible for any accidents caused by the lack

21 of clear site distance." So it seems to me if they have

22 achieved the first part of this paragraph then there's

23 no need to be talking about what we're going to do if

24 there's an accident from not doing that. So I guess I

25 would want to change that.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, wait a minute.

2 Wait just a second there. What if they don't trim their

3 trees? Why should we be responsible?

4 MR. SCHULTZ: We aren't responsible.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why not leave that in,

6 "The City of Novi is not responsible for any accidents."

7 Why don't you want to leave that in there?

8 MR. EVANCOE: I don't think this is a

9 major issue at all, we could go either way, but I felt

10 that above it says, "That all clear site distances shall

11 be maintained" and that's the standard they have to

12 achieve.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think we should leave

14 it in there. Mr. Schultz, what do you think?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm neutral. It's a note on

16 the plan. I think the concept must have been that

17 you're giving notice to the property owner that you're

18 taking the position as a matter of law. So I'm neutral

19 on it.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The more you tell

21 someone, the more they know. Leave it in there, unless

22 somebody else disagrees. I'd like to leave it in there

23 and put a period after "distance ".

24 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Very good. The

25 following paragraph, F, speaks of reduced in length to






1 18 feet. I believe that could be 17 based on past

2 practice. That was one that Member Kocan caught, one of

3 the many she caught.

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do we need the word

5 "seventeen" and then 17 in parentheses like we did

6 throughout the rest of ordinance?

7 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. Then on Page 14 the

8 chart, I'd like to change the name of that chart as well

9 to Parking Area Canopy Tree Chart instead of Landscaping

10 Chart because the only topic that is discussed in that

11 chart is canopy trees.

12 MR. McGINNIS: May I make a comment?


14 MR. McGINNIS: This may be another

15 instance where we might want to test this out on some

16 plans to see how this changes the ordinance, because I

17 did a preliminary check and just on the one instance I

18 checked it increased the number of trees required by 35

19 percent. So, I don't know, maybe that's the goal, but

20 it is a significant change.

21 MR. EVANCOE: I do recall that Lauren had

22 done quite a bit of testing of this, but I think it

23 can't hurt to do some more. I can't disagree with Mike

24 about that.







1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Below the chart

2 there's a reference in the first line under number 1 --

3 by the way, there's a list of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I'd

4 like to remove those numbers and just replace them with

5 bullets because they appear to be footnotes that are not

6 referenced above in the chart.

7 But with the very first one that

8 says, "A minimum square footage as set forth in 4 c,"

9 that should be changed to say 2509.4.D.(2).(C), with the

10 2 and the C being parenthesized, if that's a word.

11 Okay. Going to the top of Page 15

12 under Intent, just some grammatical problems with those

13 sentences, or that sentence. It should read, "The

14 intent of this subsection is to provide green, landscape

15 space around" -- I would cross out "the" -- "around

16 buildings", with an s, "in order to help integrate

17 buildings". Take out "the" and add an s. That's all I

18 would change there.

19 Going down to Requirements. Number

20 2, b, it starts with "For the front and any other

21 facades visible from a public street a minimum of 60

22 percent of the building facade," I would like to change

23 that to exterior building perimeter instead of building

24 facade. So this would read then, "For the front and any

25 other facades visible from a public street a minimum 60






1 percent of the exterior building perimeter will be

2 greenspace planted with trees," etcetera.

3 At the bottom of the page under b,

4 Requirements Adjacent to Major Thoroughfares, third line

5 should read, "Marginal access streets are not desirable

6 or possible to attain." Should be "not possible"

7 instead of "possible".


9 suggestion? Is it possible that for some of these sorts

10 of changes that we could just put them in red and then

11 give it back to us? In other words, if we're going to

12 read stuff like -- do you know what I'm saying?

13 MR. EVANCOE: We'll bring all of this back

14 most certainly changed, but I wanted to make sure that

15 you were okay with these changes before we do that.

16 The second to last line there,

17 Section 2509.3 should be .4.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think before we can

19 even say okay, I think the Commission is probably going

20 to read the whole thing again.

21 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. That's fine. Okay.

22 That's great. Now, under the top of Page 16 we have

23 Additional Requirements for Street Trees and Boulevard

24 Planting. I would like, with your concurrence, to study

25 this a little further. This is some new language that






1 was added at the suggestion of our Parks and Recreation

2 Department subsequent to it having gone to the ORC. So

3 this is language -- well, some of this language is new

4 is what I'm saying. And particularly what I'm concerned

5 about is the sixth line down that starts with "no". It

6 says, "No final plat approval will be given until the

7 trees have been planted." I don't think that's what we

8 want to do there. I think we might want to say "no

9 temporary certificate of occupancy or final certificate

10 of occupancy will be given," because if you go with

11 final plat that's the point at which the developer is

12 allowed to sell lots and I don't think we want to have

13 trees -- in fact, I confirmed with this Steve Printz.

14 He does not want to have trees planted in the

15 subdivisions before home construction even begins.

16 Those needs to go in towards the end of the construction

17 process.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you want no

19 final -- you want --

20 MR. EVANCOE: I would take out "final

21 approval" and replace it with, I'll just abbreviate for

22 now, TCO or final C of O, but that means Temporary

23 Certificate of Occupancy or final certificate.

24 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: But that's not the

25 way it's done in the city today. If you buy a house in






1 a subdivision, you move in, you live there -- you can

2 live there a year before the street trees are planted in

3 front of your house.

4 MR. EVANCOE: Right.


6 that's way beyond the temporary occupancy permit.

7 MR. EVANCOE: And we don't want that to

8 occur. We want to say that no TCO or final C of O will

9 be issued until they are planted. So they've got to be

10 planted before they are issued.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We want to make sure

12 they're planted. We have a subdivision, I think it's

13 Autumn Park, that never got all its trees to this day.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: The issue then is the

15 property doesn't get a say in where it goes, which is

16 one of the things --

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But when you're talking

18 street trees you're talking between the sidewalk, the

19 strip right there, and the street.

20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's a big change

21 from what's done right now because many homes get their

22 yards landscaped then the City comes in and puts a

23 street tree in after, you know, in regard to where the

24 fire hydrants are and everything else. That can be as

25 much as a whole season later because you have -- I think







1 you have six months after occupancy or the next season

2 to do your landscaping and then the street trees many

3 times don't come in until after that.

4 MR. EVANCOE: And I think Steve's idea is

5 to put the burden of planting the street trees on the

6 developer instead of forcing that on to the City to do.

7 I think that's why you see those delays, is because the

8 developer has gotten out of having to do that.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We understand that. We

10 understand that it has been a big problem.

11 Member Paul.

12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: That's exactly what

13 the problem and what's happening is there's no finances

14 to pay the person to actually do the plantings, the

15 maintenance and the removals. So if the developer has

16 that as part of their costs, then it's removed from the

17 City. They maintain them for two years then it can be

18 turned over to the City.

19 Right now they have an escrow where

20 they can place money into a fund and it's not covering

21 all the costs. It's not covering the plantings, the

22 removal and so it's very skewed and it's very, you know,

23 it's unfair to the actual residents because they can't

24 get trees replaced that have been dying.

25 With that, would we be able to






1 possibly have these amendments that Member Kocan and Mr.

2 Evancoe are making in writing and at the next meeting we

3 can go over this because we're not even halfway through,

4 we have a long way to go? And I really think there's a

5 lot of points that are very well taken, but your

6 suggestions can be applied and read and we can read them

7 again and maybe in brackets how it was read before,

8 however you think it's necessary, but we're not going to

9 be done with this meeting if we continue on with every

10 page.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I personally tend to

12 agree, but it is very time consuming also, too. I

13 wouldn't mind getting the corrections up to Page 16 and

14 then from Page 17 forward getting the -- what Member

15 Kocan and you had suggested in red because I want to

16 take what we just did and I want to absorb that and I'd

17 like you to give us that wonderful paragraph that you're

18 going to give us.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: I'm done. My only comment

20 relates to the procedure. I would consider some of

21 these to be substantive and I think we either need to

22 give the public present here tonight, who got notice of

23 the meeting here tonight, opportunity to comment on what

24 has been said so far or the next meeting probably ought

25 to be set up as another Public Hearing. Either way






1 would work. If Mr. Evancoe isn't done, we probably

2 ought to do another hearing.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then let's do it now.

4 Let's just continue.

5 Mr. Shroyer, did you have

6 something?

7 MR. SHROYER: Yeah, just quickly. I'd

8 recommend that we not discuss the grammatical errors and

9 punctuation and just hit on the highlights and I think

10 that would satisfy the Public Hearing.

11 MR. EVANCOE: Would you like me to

12 continue then?


14 Did you have something, Member

15 Kocan?

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Mr. Schultz just

17 stated he had his paragraph, but if we're not ready for

18 that right now --

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have your

20 paragraph?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: I can wait till the end.

22 MR. EVANCOE: That would probably be best.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll wait for the end.

24 We'll keep going.

25 MR. EVANCOE: So I guess to sum up that






1 paragraph then, this is language that was reviewed by

2 Randy Auler and Steve Printz. It's the language that

3 they feel comfortable at this time would take care of

4 their needs for street trees. One thing you'll notice

5 that is new also is that the guarantee on street trees

6 is two years from when it's planted, then if any of

7 those trees die then the replacements are guaranteed for

8 another two years. So in essence you have a four-year

9 guarantee and that's a new requirement.

10 I have no other things on that page

11 and let me look for -- I'll skip the grammar ones.


13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One comment that might

14 need to be inserted in here that I can think of, and

15 maybe it would be someone in Ordinance Review. I think

16 we really have to think about the type and species of

17 trees so that we don't have ash for a hundred trees and

18 then they all get removed and we have a problem with

19 this ash borer. If we can look at the variation of

20 these trees so that we don't slice down one whole strip

21 of a road like Christina Drive, across from the police

22 station. That's a perfect example.

23 They had, I'm not sure, 150, 200

24 ash borer trees that needed to be removed. Now it looks

25 like a completely different subdivision because those






1 trees were of mature nature and now they're gone.

2 MR. EVANCOE: That's a point very well

3 taken.

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Some variation here.

5 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. That is actually

6 addressed on Page 17. Near the top of the page there's

7 a double I in parentheses that says "tree species" and

8 it speaks about that subject. It identifies some

9 percentages and to address that. That's a good point.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I just want to make

11 another point. Member Kocan just pointed out something

12 to me.

13 Mr. Schultz, on Page 16 under c

14 (i), the word continually comes up, "inspected by the

15 subdivider". Do you think that is a common enough

16 phrase that everybody would understand?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: No. Actually, I think we

18 probably are going to recommended that that be changed

19 to applicant or something similar to that. It's a

20 carryover from the subdivision ordinance. This language

21 used to be in the subdivision ordinance. We now in the

22 ordinance we're looking at tend to use applicant or

23 something but I wouldn't call it substantive.

24 MR. AVDOULOS: I don't even know what the

25 word means.






1 MR. EVANCOE: We can change that. I think

2 "developer" is a more common term we tend to use.

3 Then the bottom of 17 there's a

4 chart there called Tree Lawn Size. I think that phrase

5 doesn't really make a lot of sense. I'm suggesting it

6 be changed to Minimum Planting Area Width would be the

7 title of that table.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. Minimum

9 what?

10 MR. EVANCOE: Minimum Planting Area Width.

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I have a question

12 on Page 17. In b, right up from the bottom. "If an

13 island is to be re-landscaped by the subdivision

14 association, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the

15 City for approval of plant and landscape materials." Is

16 that a new requirement?

17 MR. EVANCOE: I believe that is and,

18 actually, I was going to make a suggestion that we say

19 "administrative approval" because it seems to give it --

20 you don't want to -- I wouldn't think that the Planning

21 Commission wants to review these circles when they get

22 redesigned within a subdivision in a cul de sac.


24 don't know how the subdivisions know that they have that

25 requirement.






1 MR. EVANCOE: That may be a communications

2 issue.


4 new requirement and I live in a subdivision that's 15

5 years old and we want to re-plant the island, how do I

6 know I have to go to the City to get approval.

7 MR. AVDOULOS: You get arrested.


9 MR. EVANCOE: I guess that's at the

10 discretion of the Commission as to whether you feel that

11 this is something that needs City review or not. You do

12 get into some site distance issues. I think that's the

13 only health, safety and welfare issue that there could

14 be.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos.

16 MR. AVDOULOS: I had one question

17 regarding I believe it was Section 4, Island and

18 Boulevard Planting. We are requiring "All islands,

19 boulevards and easements shall be landscaped and

20 irrigated."

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You can't require that

22 of everyone, can you, on existing ones?

23 MR. AVDOULOS: I think this is for all new

24 stuff, but in some instances I would think it would be

25 difficult to irrigate islands because of where the lines






1 have to go and what's in the island. Sometimes you

2 don't have landscaping, you'll have a light pole that's

3 in an island and maybe you can get a hardy type of plant

4 material, such as like a Sumac or something that doesn't

5 require watering all the time and gives the island a

6 little bit of height. But I know there's cities that do

7 require everything to be irrigated but sometimes, I

8 don't know, that becomes costly and can create a

9 hardship and maybe even doesn't even do what it's

10 supposed to do. I don't know what you have to think

11 about that, Mr. McGinnis.

12 MR. McGINNIS: I know that the city of

13 Canton requires that all their islands be irrigated and

14 it's very expensive for the developer. And when they --

15 and water that the association has to pay for when they

16 take over, you know, a lot of times that just adds to

17 the billing and they complain a lot about the added

18 irrigation bill. So if the island is planted with

19 species, you know, that can withstand a little bit of

20 drought, I think that would be adequate.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I disagree. I

22 think there should be irrigation because unless the

23 association members take care of the island -- I mean,

24 we are an old subdivision. We put in irrigation

25 because -- I don't care what you put in there, when we






1 had drought everything was dying. I think it should be

2 irrigated and I think it that -- it's the first thing

3 people see. It should look nice. Just leave it.

4 MR. AVDOULOS: I'm thinking more of a

5 large office complex with parking islands and, you know,

6 a large parking surface and then you have all these

7 islands that are, you know, interconnected so they can

8 get irrigated. At least that's the way I was looking at

9 what an island is. I didn't look at it as part of a

10 residential. You know, this is under subdivision

11 planting.

12 MR. EVANCOE: This is actually referring

13 to like a residential subdivision because there is

14 another part of the ordinance when we get to the parking

15 lot landscaping where it requires I believe either

16 irrigation for parking lot islands or a sandy loam soil

17 that will take in the water and hold it.

18 MR. AVDOULOS: Okay.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Are we clear?

20 Can we move on?

21 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. I don't know if this

22 falls into the range of important or not, but I've taken

23 off the asterisks on table four to six foot, I've taken

24 that asterisk off as well as the following sentence at

25 the top of Page 18. There's no need to say that they --






1 to have that four foot requirement when it's already in

2 the table.

3 Going down to 3, to the three I's

4 in parentheses, I don't know what you call that, under

5 Multi-Family/Attached Dwelling Units, halfway down the

6 page. It says, "A mixture off shrubs and subcanopy

7 trees and groundcover, perennials, annuals, and

8 ornamental grasses shall be provided," -- and I would

9 add "as foundation plantings" -- "at the front of each

10 ground floor unit." I would cross out the rest and

11 replace it with "covering at least 60 percent of the

12 front building facade". Mostly that's just

13 clarification language.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you're just adding

15 the three words "shall be provided as foundational

16 plantings at the front of each ground floor unit",

17 etcetera.

18 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. It's not a real

19 substantial change.

20 Skipping over a few section numbers

21 I fixed, I would go down to Page 19, fourth item from

22 the top says "Grass species that go dormant in" -- now

23 this is speaking of the kinds of landscaping that would

24 be required around detention basins.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you on item d?






1 MR. EVANCOE: I'm on 4 b iv, Page 19. And

2 so keeping in mind that this is talking about detention

3 basins/landscaping, it says, "Grass species that go

4 dormant in winter such as fescue or groundcover such as

5 pachysandra, Vinca minor, and Euonymus fortunei are

6 suggested." I would not -- I don't agree with that.

7 Those are not native species.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They're not.

9 MR. EVANCOE: They can be invasive into

10 woodlands, particularly Vinca minor, and so I just --

11 oftentimes these detention basis are adjacent to

12 woodlands. I just don't think that it's necessary to

13 permit those plants.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I totally agree with

15 you, Mr. Evancoe. So what would you suggest?

16 MR. EVANCOE: I would suggest taking

17 that --

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The whole sentence out.

19 MR. EVANCOE: No. I would suggest leaving

20 it with "Grass species that go dormant in winter such as

21 fescue are suggested" and take out the rest of that.


23 MR. EVANCOE: Number 5, Landscape Plan

24 Requirements, Page 20. The first paragraph says, "A

25 landscape plan must be submitted for any new commercial"






1 and I would say "or residential development excluding

2 Single-Family homes." Now, what I mean there is not a

3 development. I'm getting to the gentleman's concern

4 that was voiced, that he didn't want this to apply to

5 his home. So some kind of language that would clarify

6 that we're talking about subdivisions, big developments.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I think that also

8 would be confusing, too, to put "or excluding

9 Single-Family homes" because you're building

10 subdivisions with Single-Family homes.

11 MR. EVANCOE: How about individual

12 existing homes?

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Parentheses subdivision

14 developments. Why can't you put subdivision

15 developments?

16 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or down where it

17 talks about any addition to an existing building you can

18 say "to an existing commercial or industrial building"

19 and that would make the distinction that it was...

20 MR. EVANCOE: I'm sorry, where is that?

21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Well, it's in the

22 second line of that same paragraph. You'd say "any new

23 commercial or residential developments and any addition

24 to an industrial or commercial building."

25 MR. SCHULTZ: Non-residential.






1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Or non-residential

2 building, right. That would cover everything but

3 houses.

4 MR. EVANCOE: Great.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: You might even want to say

6 non-single family residential to cover multiple family

7 in case they do a --

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, I think you need

9 to add that, non-single family residential.

10 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One point of

11 clarification before we move on, Chairperson Nagy.

12 I'd like to ask if a subdivision

13 comes in a second phase and it's just an extension on

14 their site, that still applies here and the verbiage

15 isn't -- if we just exclude that it won't be a problem.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Right.

17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Just checking. Thank

18 you.

19 MR. EVANCOE: I'd like to add a sentence

20 to this first paragraph that we've been looking at. So

21 right after it says "400 square feet, whichever is

22 less," I would add a sentence -- and this is going to --

23 I'm proposing somewhat substantial changes here. There

24 would be a sentence that says, "The following items

25 shall be included on all preliminary and final landscape






1 plans unless otherwise noted." And the reason I say

2 that, if I can find a good example, well, before I get

3 to that, just going down to e. E starts out with, "A

4 plan of the site at a scale," I would add a sentence


5 there that says, "Variations from this scale requirement

6 shall be approved by the City's landscape architect." I

7 think that limiting this to one inch equals 20 is too

8 restrictive. There are sites that are so large that

9 it's not practical to do site plans at that scale. We

10 may have to go to one inch equals 30 or 40, but I just

11 think there needs to be some flexibility in there.

12 Now, number 3, e 3, starts with

13 "location". I'm suggest we remove the sentence that

14 says, "For preliminary submittal, plants shall be

15 indicated with actual plant material names." What I'm

16 going to say here is that we say, "Final landscape plans

17 shall indicate actual plant material names." We don't

18 find, and I talked with Mike about this, we don't find

19 it necessary at the Preliminary Site Plan stage to know

20 the botanical names and the common names. What we

21 really need to know is it an Evergreen tree, a deciduous

22 canopy tree.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I want to know. I want

24 to know what the name of the plant is. You know I

25 always read that and I want to know. I'm sorry. That's






1 my thing.


3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You may not have to

4 give the Latin, but I want to know what it is because

5 when I'm looking at that landscape plan and I'm reading

6 it I want to know what's going in there, A, and two, it

7 gives me -- allows me to visualize, too.

8 MR. EVANCOE: Not to be argumentative at

9 all, but I think the developer at that stage has a very

10 hard time knowing exactly what specific plants they're

11 going to use because they don't even know at that stage

12 what's available out there and they're -- and this is

13 not really new. We've allowed what we call conceptual

14 landscape plans all along.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We'll have a conceptual

16 landscape plan that includes the name of the species

17 that are being planted. It's been like that ever since

18 I've been on here. I'd like to continue it. That

19 doesn't mean you can't vary from that or say you can't

20 get this, but he has to have an idea. As a landscape

21 architect when you're designing this, you have to have

22 an idea of what you're going to put here, there and

23 everywhere. I'd like to continue doing that. You can

24 forget the Latin, but I'd really appreciate the regular

25 name.






1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay.


3 MR. EVANCOE: Moving on then to, let's

4 see, the bottom of the page. We have f. It says, "A

5 planting" -- this is going to be the same thing again.

6 Here I was going to suggest that we cross out the

7 botanical and common names and say "final landscape plan

8 shall also include," but we won't go there. We've been

9 there, haven't we? Okay. Let's see.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe, I just

11 would like to point something out. You see, there have

12 been a lot of these Austrian pines that were going in

13 and because I was reading them they weren't allowed to

14 go in, and think of all the diseases that we prevented.

15 So there is a point to my madness. Thanks.

16 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. That's great. I'm

17 sorry. I didn't mean it that way. Its late. I'm

18 getting kind of silly. No, all due respect.

19 Okay. Page 21, top of the page,

20 number g, final landscape plans shall include all of

21 these items is what I was going to suggest there.

22 "Final landscape plans shall include planting

23 details" --

24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: He said g. That's

25 not what he's reading.






1 MR. EVANCOE: Top of the page. I'm trying

2 to find the important ones here. Oh, there was one

3 point somehow I've missed here.

4 If we could momentarily go back to

5 Page 15. Oh, no, I've already made that change. I'm

6 sorry. Never mind. I'm losing it here.

7 MR. McGINNIS: Madam Chair.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. McGinnis.

9 MR. McGINNIS: While Mr. Evancoe is

10 looking for another topic, I just wanted to point out

11 that the current ordinance does not require that the

12 landscape architect put the plant names down for the

13 Preliminary Site Plan.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right, Mr.

15 McGinnis, but precedent has been set, they've been doing

16 it for years. So I don't think that it's really hurt

17 them and they can also make those changes as necessary,

18 but I think it's important. I think for me as a

19 Planning Commissioner reviewing that, yes, plus I think

20 it's also an educational thing for the Planning

21 Commissioners as well to understand species and know

22 what's going in and be able to identify them as they

23 drive around town.

24 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Now I've got one of

25 some substance here. This is some language I had






1 drafted to address the concerns of the Michigan

2 Nurseryman's Association, the gentlemen that were here.

3 At the top of Page 24, I've added

4 another asterisk under that chart that would have five

5 asterisks and it would read as follows, it would say:

6 "The City landscape architect may permit smaller sizes

7 upon receipt and review of sufficient documentation that

8 larger sizes are not readily available," and that would

9 allow for allowing these smaller plants but they have

10 to...


12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Is there where we can

13 also put an asterisk to state if there's larger trees in

14 diameter that maybe they'd get credit for a 15-foot tree

15 versus an eight-foot tree?

16 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. That's actually in the

17 table just below that under number 2. You'll see that

18 there's a chart that has size and then total tree

19 credits. This is where we've proposed to give credit

20 for planting larger plant materials.


22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Markham.

23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't understand

24 these funny little things here, these weird X's and --

25 MR. SCHULTZ: E-mail transmission issues.






1 MR. EVANCOE: Those should say like eight

2 foot to ten foot, ten foot to 12 foot and so on. We'll

3 fix that.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We thought it was a

5 secrete landscape architect code.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Actually, it is. Okay.

7 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: And the same thing

8 is on Page 25 in your footnotes. You have some funny

9 looking Greek, weird things. I don't know what it is.

10 Those should be fixed too.

11 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. I think with that

12 what I want to quickly do -- that's all I have for the

13 ordinance. I'd like to point you to some of the charts,

14 to these berm charts that look like this in the

15 ordinance. Member Kocan rightly pointed out that these

16 numbers are in error, and I don't really know where

17 these came from, but the figures should say, looking at

18 the first one that has a -- that has a 100 foot width

19 and a 12 foot high berm, that should say 77 feet instead

20 of 100, and the one below should say 109 feet instead of

21 130 feet.

22 And then the next page also has two

23 berms. They should say 95 feet for 15 foot height and

24 77 feet for 12 foot height on that top drawing.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. You're






1 confusing us.

2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: The top one is 77?

3 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. You'll notice the top

4 one has two vertical dimensions, 12 foot on the right,

5 15 foot on the left. So in the case of the 15 foot,

6 it's 95 feet length, 12 foot height, would be 77 feet.

7 Then the berm below it should say 125 feet for 15 foot


8 height and 109 feet for 13 foot height and then the

9 final, third page, should be 95 feet and 125 feet.

10 And then going to this chart, which

11 has these parking lot islands with the big circles that

12 I talked about earlier, I would like to amend those

13 drawings to make them more square-ish in size instead of

14 round, and then -- we're almost done here.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let me ask you a

16 question.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Yes.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: What is wrong with the

19 round ones?

20 MR. EVANCOE: Well, if you take a close

21 look, there would be a great temptation to park at an

22 angle.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I see. That first

24 little --

25 MR. EVANCOE: Right.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Got it. Thank you.

2 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. You get more

3 landscape the other way as well.

4 Moving all the way to the suggested

5 plant material list, which is this spread sheet with the

6 tiny little words on it, that looks like this, we need

7 to cross out all the fraxinus, which are the white,

8 green and pumpkin ash that are listed there, about just

9 not quite halfway down the page, Fraxinus Americana

10 through Fraxinus Profunda. Those need to be taken out.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Is that the Latin?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's the Latin.

13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Can we go back to

14 these street tree chart?

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait a minute. I want

16 to first of all spell for the court reporter. Fraxinus

17 is spelled F-r-a-x-i-n-u-s.

18 So we're going to take out all the

19 white ash, the green ash, black ash, European ash and

20 the Asian ash.

21 MR. EVANCOE: Not all of those were listed

22 there but if they were we would take them out.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And pumpkin ash.

24 MR. EVANCOE: There's actually a blue ash

25 called Fraxinus Quadrangulatta that is not listed either







1 but we would take that out.

2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Did you learn all

3 these big words in college?

4 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah, University of

5 Illinois.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's why we pay him

7 the big bucks.



10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: In the City of Novi

11 street tree list, which was the chart before, some trees

12 are called out as recommended, others are called as

13 special circumstances. Do we say anywhere in the

14 ordinance what constitutes a special circumstance?

15 MR. EVANCOE: I don't -- can you help me

16 understand where you see that?

17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: It's over on the

18 right, it's over on the right.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Oh, okay, I see what you

20 mean.

21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Some of them are

22 recommended and some are special circumstances. What

23 made me think about it was I was looking at this for the

24 one that's in front of my house, which happens to be a

25 special circumstance tree, and I don't know what -- I






1 didn't see anything in the document that referenced

2 that.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Yeah. We could certainly

4 add a footnote to this chart that discusses that.

5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Is it necessary?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, it is. Do you

7 know why, if you don't mind?


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's because like it

10 depends where you plant it, a dogwood, how much heat it

11 gets, how much wind it gets, it depends on soil

12 conditions. So depending what tree you put where,

13 that's why it would be special circumstances. Like you

14 would not necessarily want to put a dawn redwood --

15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I don't want to

16 argue with you.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Here's a perfect example,

18 here's a real good example. The top of the second page

19 has thornless cockspur Hawthorn. That, you know,

20 thornless is not always thornless and so you don't --

21 you wouldn't want to have that necessarily right next to

22 a walkway where it could harm somebody. If you wish, we

23 can try to find out more about that. Steve created this

24 list.

25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I just wondered






1 where do we tell them what special circumstances means.

2 And, you know, we tell them they have to have a wide

3 variety and we give percentages for that and then you

4 come along and you make distinctions here and you don't

5 really say why they can or can't use something so... I

6 don't know what's so special about my front yard that it

7 has to have a special circumstance tree.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's because it's your

9 front yard.

10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: No, it's my whole

11 street. Actually, I kind of like it. It's unusual.

12 MR. EVANCOE: Other than just some -- a

13 few things that were grammatical, I'm done. That's all

14 I had.


16 Commission Kocan, do you have

17 anything to add?

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm very pleased with

19 all the progress we've made. My only other question --

20 I guess we're not going to make a recommendation to

21 Council today. It sounds like it's going to come back

22 to us.

23 In your cover letter you stated,

24 and it's something we're going to have to talk about, is

25 when we do implement this how is it going to be






1 implemented and who's it going to apply to? We can

2 leave that for another day.

3 But the other thing you talked

4 about was the site maintenance agreement and how that

5 had to go to Implementation and then come back. And my

6 question is, why does that have to go to Implementation?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't think it does. But

8 I think if the Commission has reviewed it and thinks

9 it's a good idea, when we go back and revise this

10 ordinance we're going to add a specific reference to it

11 in the ordinance. So if you've reviewed it and you

12 think it's a good idea, we'll just make a reference to

13 it.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Is this new, never

15 had it before?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: It's a new concept. And it

17 wouldn't -- the way it's written, it doesn't relate only

18 to landscaping and that's part of the reason why we

19 didn't put it in yet, but we would find a separate

20 section, we would put it in and that would sort of go

21 along with it.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We definitely need to

23 get this back and vote on it at our next meeting. I

24 think that's very important.








1 have one other item that I would like discussed briefly

2 and that is the question of grass pavers. I don't

3 remember where it was in the document but it was in the

4 comparison chart. It says we used to allow grass pavers

5 for secondary fire truck access but the new document

6 does not allow it. I'd like to understand why and then

7 if this is really true then the development that we

8 talked about tonight, Brightmoor, is talking about using

9 grass pavers for a secondary access and so that needs to

10 be dealt with.

11 But my question is, why are we not

12 using them conceptually especially as we get to

13 developments that are on more and more unusual parcels


14 of land?

15 MR. EVANCOE: I can't speak -- I think it

16 may be a fire department thing, having the ability to

17 support the load of their equipment, but I can say one

18 thing and then let Tim chime in, too.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Coburn, do you know

20 the answer to that, by any chance?

21 MR. EVANCOE: If I could just add the

22 point that I was starting to say, that snowplowing is a

23 problem with these. Because they're invisible the

24 snowplows don't pick up that they need to be plowed and

25 so they become impassible. That's just one reason.






1 MR. COBURN: The fire department has issue

2 with the pavers for that very reason and they've not

3 allowed them in the past.


5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's a very good

6 point. And, Mr. Schmitt, you're going to talk to the

7 Brightmoor people as we look at their development going

8 forward?

9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. I think they're in a

10 unique situation that Mike actually might be amenable to

11 it in that location because they have so many other

12 points of access, but obviously it's something that will

13 be looked at.


15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have anything

16 else? Mr. Evancoe.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Just one thing about

18 scheduling the next review of this. Right now the next

19 meeting scheduled for the 12th is looking very full.

20 That's the one that will have the Catholic Central site

21 plan on and several other things that are already on

22 there. We can certainly bring this back if you want to

23 but I'm afraid it would probably result in a pretty

24 lengthy meeting. Could we leave it a little bit more

25 open as to when it would come back to you?






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I thought I still

2 had a little bit of control over the agenda.

3 MR. EVANCOE: You do, but...


5 COMMISSIONER PAUL: As long as whenever we

6 bring this back I want to make sure whatever site plans

7 come forward that we think about when they're going to

8 apply, and I've been -- this is probably what I put the

9 most thought into, is when we're going to apply these to

10 all the previous sites. And the front page was very

11 nice in explanation, I really appreciated that, and I

12 looked at this back in June 17th, 2002, that's a long

13 time ago, and we have a lot of sites that this may

14 change and we're going to have some very unhappy

15 developers.

16 So I would like to make sure that

17 anything that comes through the Planning Department that

18 they look at this ordinance as what we're probably going

19 to put forward and it gets applied anything coming

20 forward.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is it not, Mr. Schultz,

22 when City Council adopts it?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: Unless the ordinance says

24 otherwise, and that's a very important point. I think

25 it's hard -- even though that makes logical sense, I






1 think it's hard to tell people they have to comply with

2 it now, because it hasn't been adopted by Council and it

3 may change.

4 But I think it's possible for the

5 Commission to suggest that we put in the ordinance what

6 Council had to do by resolution for storm water, which

7 is, say right in it which plans it applies to, those

8 that don't have Final Site Plan approval or even if they

9 have Preliminary Site Plan approval where there's been

10 substantial funds spent and it would take substantially

11 more funds to change the plan. That's the compromise

12 Council came up with. It would be better if it were

13 right in this ordinance and then with an absolute

14 cut-off date where it applies to everything after such

15 and such a date. We propose that language to come back

16 to you.

17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Member Avdoulos and I

18 were speaking in the back and one of our comments was

19 anything that has not had final site approval really

20 should be the ones that we apply this to.

21 If there's some circumstances that

22 we need to know about, that they've spent copious

23 amounts of developer dollars already, it's going to be a

24 hardship, then I think we need to be aware of that and

25 maybe make it cognizant right up front when we adopt






1 this. But I really think something has to be in here

2 concrete as it moves forward because it might be another

3 two months or three months before this is actually

4 adopted and I don't want anything else to slip through

5 the cracks. We're trying to improve our landscape

6 ordinance. Thank you.

7 MR. EVANCOE: I think in terms of this

8 memo the paragraph that I've circled here is the one

9 that would be the basis of our recommendation at this

10 point, subject to your discussion and decision.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It says, "In the event

12 the development has received Preliminary Site Plan

13 approval prior to the effective date." Isn't that what

14 we're trying to put in here, is the effective date?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we make today the

17 effective date, does it matter?

18 MR. SCHULTZ: The date that Council passes it.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. All right. Can

20 we move -- does anybody have anything else to add?

21 MR. EVANCOE: I guess I just want to ask

22 again would there be some flexibility as to the

23 scheduling of this as opposed to saying that it will be

24 the next meeting?

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think we can discuss






1 this between the officers.

2 MR. AVDOULOS: It would be a Public

3 Hearing.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It would be a Public

5 Hearing or would --

6 MR. SCHULTZ: I would suggest this: Open

7 the floor to public comments again tonight. If it turns

8 out there's time to advertise this as another Public

9 Hearing, I think it would be a courtesy to do that, but

10 if you open the Public Hearing now you probably wouldn't

11 have to do that.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why can't I just

13 continue it?

14 MR. SCHULTZ: Exactly. That's a good

15 point. You could continue it to a date certain if we

16 set a date certain tonight. If you skipped a meeting,

17 you could continue this hearing to the next scheduled

18 meeting. If you do that, you have to pick a date

19 though.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: How long does the staff

21 need? Mr. Evancoe, Mr. Schmitt, how long do you need to

22 make these changes?

23 MR. EVANCOE: Well, I think that we could

24 make the changes quickly enough to bring it back on the

25 12th. My concern is just that that may not be an ideal






1 meeting. Perhaps the following one would be better.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect,

3 the Council has asked for this more than once. To me

4 this would become a priority and I think we can discuss

5 that but we can continue Public Hearing. I don't know

6 how much more the Commissioners have to add to what

7 we've discussed tonight. It doesn't seem to me that

8 there's a lot of -- are you going to have a lot?


10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And Commissioner Kocan

11 has already put her changes in, so all the important

12 ones are in.

13 MR. EVANCOE: In terms of minutes, that

14 can be a challenge, too, in terms of our court reporting

15 firm as to whether they could get the minutes from this

16 pretty lengthy discussion back. Do you think you need

17 those do you feel?

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't think we need

19 the minutes from the court reporter. I think that

20 everybody has been writing on their stuff and maybe

21 everyone has a good idea.

22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: It should come back

23 and be a slam-bam-thank-you-ma'am.

24 MR. SHROYER: Your changes are in red.







1 MR. EVANCOE: Okay.


3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a final comment. Since

4 the Public Hearing was closed, I'd ask that there be a

5 motion to reopen it and continue it to the next meeting.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do I hear a

7 motion to reopen the --



10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. It was a motion

11 made by Mr. Ruyle to reopen the Public Hearing, the

12 motion was seconded by Commissioner Markham, that we

13 continue to the next date.

14 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: February 12th.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: February 12th.

16 MR. EVANCOE: That's fine.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmitt, if you

18 would please call the roll.

19 MR. SCHMITT: Just so I'm calling a

20 correct roll, we are taking a vote on the motion to

21 reopen the Public Hearing and continue it until February

22 the 12th?


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?







1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?


3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.


5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?


7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?


11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


13 MR. SCHMITT: And Chairperson Nagy?


15 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Now we take

17 a five minute break. We're taking a five minute break.

18 (A brief recess was held during

19 the meeting.)

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ladies and gentlemen,

21 I'd like to call the meeting back to order.

22 Our next matter is Matters for

23 Consideration, Hickory Corporate Park, Site Plan Number

24 02-45. Consideration of the request of Bennett

25 Donaldson of J.B. Donaldson Company for approval of a






1 Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is located

2 in Section 26 on the west side of Venture Drive and

3 north of Nine Mile Road in the I-1 (light industrial)

4 District. The developer is proposing two speculative

5 industrial buildings. The subject property is 1.99

6 acres.

7 Mr. Schmitt.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9 As you mentioned, this is two

10 speculative industrial buildings off of Venture Drive

11 just north of Nine Mile. The location can be seen here.

12 To the north is the J.H. Bennett development and across

13 the street to the east Jansar. You may remember this

14 property, this is the Venture Drive B that was in front

15 of you several months ago for a parking lot expansion.

16 The entire area is Master Planned

17 for light industrial uses. On that other side of the

18 park there's a Single-Family subdivision abutting it;

19 however, this property does not abut Single-Family. And

20 the property is zoned I-1, light industrial, as are the

21 surrounding properties in all directions.

22 The review of this site plan was

23 fairly clean. There are minor issues that need to be

24 resolved at this time. The first item that I will

25 mention is under the Planning Review. It indicates that






1 a ZBA variance is required to allow for the parking in

2 the front yard on a site less than two acres in size.

3 After further discussions with the

4 applicant, and the applicant will speak to this further,

5 there seems to be no problem in making the site two

6 acres in size and eliminating that variance.

7 In addition, the Planning

8 Commission will need to make a finding that the parking

9 and lighting are compatible with the surrounding

10 development as a requirement to allow parking in the

11 front yard. The parking and site plan layout are

12 generally similar to other developments in the Venture

13 Drive area. Most notably the Jansar development across

14 the street has parking in the front yard and will use a

15 similar layout as do the Venture Drive A and B spec

16 buildings to the north.

17 There were no wetlands and

18 woodlands on the site. The Landscaping Review indicated

19 minor comments that will be addressed at Final Site Plan

20 submittal as will the engineering review and the fire

21 review.

22 The traffic review indicated that a

23 Planning Commission waiver of an opposite side driveway

24 spacing will be required. I will let Mr. Coburn, the

25 engineer, discuss this further, but it is a fairly minor






1 issue involving a southbound left-hand turn into Jansar.

2 The facade review indicated the

3 application is not consistent with the intent of the

4 ordinance and a Section 9 waiver was not recommended for

5 approval. The applicant will need to make revisions to

6 his facades to bring them into compliance with the

7 ordinance. Most notably, reducing the amount of

8 split-faced block on all facades to meet the ordinance

9 maximum of 75 percent.

10 Just to give you an idea of the

11 site, this is a color rendering of the landscape plan.

12 As you can see, there are two buildings. Loading is

13 located in the rear of the site and it's properly

14 screened. Mr. McGinnis indicated that they may want to

15 consider changing one of the plant species as it is

16 somewhat hard to find, but he feels the screening of

17 both of the loading areas is appropriate.

18 And those are all the comments I

19 have at this time. Thank you very much.


21 Mr. Coburn, would you like to add

22 anything?

23 MR. COBURN: Thank you, Madam Chair. I

24 just wanted to add on the driveway spacing waiver, this

25 is a similar situation that we had with the Venture






1 Drive spec building B where the left turn conflict would

2 be with traffic traveling southbound on Venture Drive

3 and making the left turn into Jansar, which probably

4 would happen very rarely, so that's why the traffic

5 consultants recommending approval of that waiver.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

7 Would the applicant like to add

8 anything? If you could state your name for the court

9 reporter, please.

10 MR. DONALDSON: Hi. I'm Bennett Donaldson

11 with J.B. Donaldson Company and we're here obviously to

12 seek Preliminary Site Plan approval.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what? There's

14 no way this poor man can write this. Please, normal.

15 MR. DONALDSON: Obviously we're here to

16 seek Preliminary Site Plan approval for these two

17 buildings. Tim was correct in saying that we do have

18 the ability to gain an extra two feet or whatever is

19 required to the south of the property to make the site

20 an even two acres to come in compliance with our front

21 yard parking.

22 The facade is a non-issue. We'll

23 certainly bring the buildings into compliance as far as

24 the facade is concerned on the, you know, on the

25 upcoming revisions.






1 And also to piggyback on Tim's

2 other statement about the left-hand turn, as far as

3 making a left-hand turn into Jansar's driveway, I don't

4 think that's going to be happening. So, that was all.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Nothing

6 further from the staff. With that I'll turn it over to

7 the Commission. Member Paul.

8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have a question for

9 Mr. Schmitt.

10 When I was configuring the parking,

11 I was looking at the data that is provided and when I

12 was looking at building 2 I was concerned. I had a

13 little bit different numbers than what's provided.

14 For building number 2 I had a total

15 of 16 office spaces that would be provided and

16 manufacturing would be seven spaces. So I would have 23

17 spaces and there's some change so if you wanted to say

18 24 spaces because of the manufacturing site is like

19 7.67. I can understand that.

20 For building 3, for the office

21 space I have 15 spaces that are provided and for

22 manufacturing I have seven spaces. So, again, for

23 building 3 I have 22 spaces, yielding 45 total, and the

24 applicant has 29 and 29 for each building, which is 58,

25 so there's a discrepancy of 13. And you had a different






1 number altogether, you had 53. So I'd like you to

2 explain that.

3 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Member Paul.

4 Since we're dealing with a

5 speculative building we don't have interior partitions,

6 we don't have interior walls, etcetera. So essentially

7 you have a clear span that you're doing a gross floor

8 area on. Assuming the 40 percent office, 60 percent

9 industrial is what Mr. Donaldson is doing, and that

10 seems like a perfectly appropriate number, that gives

11 you a very -- not a worse case scenario but a very

12 liberal parking calculation to allow you to have some

13 flexibility in the amount of office the user actually

14 needs. I'm sure the market will dictate what actually

15 happens.


16 To give you some perspective,

17 Venture Drive B, when Sunglow came in, was roughly 30

18 percent office, 70 percent warehouse. So 40/60 is a

19 reasonable split. Now, to get to the actual

20 requirements, the four office spaces is based on gross

21 leasable area. Under our code gross leasable area is

22 essentially everything inside the walls, for all intents

23 and purposes since we're on a one-story building.

24 Based on that, you would need

25 roughly 28 spaces for building 2 and 25 spaces for






1 building 3, based on everything inside the wall. That's

2 a total of 53 for the site, and Mr. Donaldson is

3 providing 58. So the site does balance regardless of

4 how you actually do the calculations.

5 The reason we come to this is the

6 calculations that are commonly used in some of the plans

7 that we see is 80 percent gross leasable area. It's an

8 industry standard is my understanding. It's sort of how

9 you do office leasing. However, under our code there's

10 no allowance for us to assume 80 percent. We have to

11 take -- go by the definition of gross leasable area and

12 that's how we get to the standard that we use.

13 So without having interior

14 partitions in the actual layout of the building on the

15 inside we can't -- we're fairly stringent on what we can

16 actually apply it to. However, for a building where we

17 had an interior layout, it would probably reduce the

18 number of parking spaces that are actually required, but

19 in this situation he is providing for virtually any user

20 he could think of for the site.

21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: If we had brought this

22 back at final so we have total square footage, would

23 that be more appropriate because then it might change

24 our parking requirements?

25 I have one idea also and I already






1 had shared it with the developer. Parking lots, no

2 matter what way we try to put an island there, they're

3 not attractive. The railroad tracks, no matter what we

4 try to do, they're not attractive. I thought that it

5 would be a possibility that maybe you could continue the

6 split drive between building 2 and 3 and take all the

7 parking and put it to the rear of the site, and that to

8 me would be a better use of the land and it would be

9 more attractive to the front and maybe get a tenant in

10 there and still have parking in the middle. Maybe the

11 applicant can make a comment to that effect.

12 But we have -- we're looking at

13 this as a Preliminary Site Plan and we're completely

14 guessing on the parking spaces that are required. If we

15 do not need 58 parking spaces, I'd rather not have it as

16 a pervious surface. That's my comment.

17 MR. SCHMITT: In terms of bringing it back

18 at Final Site Plan, while it's a good idea it may not

19 necessarily help in this situation. Because it's a

20 speculative building, there's no guarantee at the time

21 of Final Site Plan we'll actually know how the interior

22 renovations are going to look. So we may have the exact

23 same situation of clear span interior still hitting the

24 53 number with everything inside the walls.

25 By providing for the maximum -- by






1 providing for sort of a higher end scenario of the

2 needed parking, we're avoiding a situation much like

3 another site in Venture Drive where they have overflow

4 parking and oftentimes have trucks parking on the actual

5 road because there's not enough parking on their site.

6 As we saw several months ago at Venture Drive B, he

7 actually had to come back in for an additional parking

8 lot because the original site wasn't parked high enough.

9 So from a planning perspective,

10 while we want to reduce the amount of impervious

11 surface, it makes sense, given the history of this

12 subdivision, to provide for a higher end number of

13 parking given the type of users that have come in here.

14 In terms of flipping the site, it

15 actually -- if I can go over to the podium real quick --

16 if I can get the overhead briefly, given the geography

17 of the site, it would be fairly simple, and this is just

18 a rough sketch, to flip the parking, to put it all in

19 the rear. The benefit of that, certainly it's

20 aesthetic, however, the landscape requirements would

21 then change for the front so you may be losing something

22 by trying to gain it by putting the parking in the rear.

23 There are other developments along

24 Venture Drive that have parking in the front, most

25 notably right across the street at Jansar. They have






1 parking in the front, they've done the required berm and

2 landscaping along the right-of-way. So given that the

3 character of the corridor -- given the character of this

4 road is an industrial park, flipping the building isn't

5 necessarily a make or break item. I think certainly the

6 applicant can respond to this, but it's not something

7 that the Planning Department would absolutely require in

8 order to get approval.

9 COMMISSIONER PAUL: It was just a comment.

10 Thank you, Madam Chair.


12 Do we have any other comments by

13 any other Commissioners? Member Kocan.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you. And I'll

15 just continue with that, what was that diagram of

16 putting all the parking in the front because my question

17 is I don't like the fact that there isn't a rear

18 entrance behind this loading dock. If you added all the

19 parking to the back, not all the parking but the front

20 parking to the back, it increases the situation.

21 And I would like to ask the

22 developer if -- I don't think it's a requirement but it

23 might be something to consider for safety purposes to

24 have a back entrance to these buildings because of where

25 the loading dock is. Is that something that is -- may I






1 ask the developer, Madam Chair?

2 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah, we're not opposed to

3 putting a back door entrance, you know, a small sidewalk

4 into the back of the building so people can have access

5 instead of walking through a maneuvering area or

6 something.

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I would appreciate

8 that. I think for health, safety and welfare of the

9 employees.

10 The parking calculation, you know,

11 we did just have a situation where we had to increase

12 parking and then we had setback issues because it is a

13 spec building and it was underestimated how much

14 parking. I drove down Venture Drive today and the

15 parking that is in front of the buildings is screened.

16 As a matter of fact, one of the buildings I didn't even

17 know there was parking in the front because it was

18 screened so well. So I'm hopeful that the screening

19 will be effective and it is consistent with the rest of

20 the parking in the area.

21 Just to clarify, some of the

22 narrative that we received states that the berm along

23 the right-of-way needs to be two-and-a-half feet when in

24 fact the ordinance states it needs to be three feet.

25 And if I read the landscape plan correctly, it is a






1 three foot berm along the right-of-way?

2 MR. McGINNIS: Yes.

3 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: There was a note from

4 the landscaper that said additional plantings around the

5 loading zone on the north and west would help

6 additionally screen the loading zone. Is that a

7 request, is that a suggestion, is that a requirement?

8 MR. McGINNIS: That wasn't my note. What

9 I said was it was a change in the plant material because

10 they have a plant specified that I think is going to be

11 difficult to get and might not do too well in that

12 situation anyway. But as far as the loading zone being

13 screened, I think it's adequately screened right now the

14 way he has it proposed.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Because loading zone

16 screening, required yes, proposed yes, meets requirement

17 yes, but the comments additional planting on the north

18 and west side will further screen the loading, on the

19 second to the last page of your chart.

20 MR. McGINNIS: I think that was a typo

21 that was a carryover from a previous report.

22 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, because it's

23 not highlighted. So he's fine with regard to the

24 requirements.

25 MR. McGINNIS: Yeah.






1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I wonder if there's

2 any flexibility -- never mind. We won't go there.

3 With the development size going

4 from 1.99 acre to 2 acres, does that change -- are there

5 any implications with regard to drainage requirements?

6 MR. COBURN: There's a requirement in the

7 existing design and construction standards that if the

8 site is over two acres in size a temporary sedimentation

9 basin is required on the site. What we can do is work

10 with the applicant to set up drainage areas that would

11 work with a sedimentation chamber and then that would

12 probably solve the problem with that. We would have no

13 problem with that going to two acres, that would not be

14 a problem.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, does that

16 require a design change on the developer's part?

17 MR. COBURN: He's already proposing a

18 stormwater chamber and what we would do is just work

19 with him to move it up to serve this site only. We

20 don't -- what we don't want is a chamber that's down

21 here on the south side of the site serving the south

22 site that's not developed or not part of the site plan

23 and the north part of the site plan. So we'll work with

24 him at final moving that up just to serve the site that

25 you're discussing tonight.






1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So there shouldn't be

2 considerable cost implications for acquiring 1/100th of

3 an acre to make it two acres?

4 MR. COBURN: No, no.


6 believe you'll have an ingress-egress easement problem

7 because you own the property to the north. Correct? Or

8 you developed the company to the north.

9 MR. DONALDSON: To the north we developed

10 it, we don't own it, but as far as getting the

11 ingress-egress easement, I believe we already have it.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: You already have it.


14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Facade, we

15 haven't talked about facade, and it's not recommended to

16 have a waiver and so I guess I'd like --

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: He's reducing it.

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Oh, was that stated

19 that you're going to comply with the facade ordinance?


21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I missed that. Okay.

22 In that case I'm willing to make a

23 motion in the matter of Hickory Corporate Park West,

24 site plan 02-45, motion to grant approval of the

25 Preliminary Site Plan with the following conditions:






1 Planning Commission waiver of the minimum opposite side

2 driveway spacing standard, 58 feet proposed, 200 feet

3 required, for the access on Venture Drive given that

4 southbound left turns are expected to be minimal.

5 Applicant will make revisions to

6 come into compliance with our facade ordinance number

7 2520.

8 As stated, the developer will

9 acquire additional property to the south to increase

10 site to two acres, therefore, no ZBA variance is

11 required for front yard parking. Subject to comments on

12 the attached review letters being addressed on the Final

13 Site Plan.


15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The motion was

16 made by Member Kocan, seconded by Member Paul.

17 Is there any further discussion?

18 Mr. Schultz.

19 MR. SCHULTZ: Just with regard to the last

20 requirement of changing the lot line. I guess just a

21 clarification. In the event for some reason the

22 proponent isn't able to do that, either through

23 acquisition or if Mr. Lemmon, the city assessor, doesn't

24 permit a splint of that existing lot line, is it the

25 intention it would have to come back here or would a ZBA







1 variance be an acceptable alternative?


3 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I would recommend that

4 it comes back here because right now we're giving him

5 all these waivers based on that. We're saying that the

6 planning requirement and the facade requirement, mainly

7 the planning requirement for a ZBA, is going to be

8 waived because he's purchased the two acres in size to

9 make this two acres total. So I think it's two feet

10 that you acquired?

11 MR. DONALDSON: Yeah, I think -- we own

12 the site to the south.

13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: So it doesn't sound

14 like it's going to be a big deal, but if for whatever

15 reason it doesn't go through I think we have to look at

16 this in a whole 'nother way.

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I just wanted clarification.

18 I don't think it's a policy decision.

19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I was originally

20 going to make a motion, and if I'm the maker of the

21 motion I -- and I may not get a second -- but I was --

22 because this is a 1/100th of an acre deficiency, I was

23 going to -- I mean, I would appreciate that the

24 developer is going to acquire to make it two acres,

25 that's our desire and the intent of the City.






1 If for some reason there are

2 unforeseen circumstances that negate you acquiring this

3 property, I would be willing to recommend a ZBA variance

4 to allow parking in the front yard, recognizing that the

5 site is only 1/100th of an acre deficient in size.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you making that as

7 part of your motion?

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I would add that to

9 the motion.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you accept that?

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I'd like to make a

12 comment first.

13 We always try to, you know, uphold

14 the ordinances and parking is not allowed in the front

15 of this building. I know it's only two feet, but in

16 point of the ordinance this isn't how it's written. And

17 there's an alternative to put this parking in the rear,

18 which is something that makes perfect sense to me. So

19 I'm not willing to do that. So maybe someone else will

20 be.

21 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I'll second the

22 motion.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, then, maybe we

24 need to vote on my amendment and to see if the amendment

25 is acceptable and then go back to the main motion. But






1 we've got a second for the amendment?

2 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I agree on the main

3 motion for second and I'd like to hear the vote on the

4 amendment.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So we have the

6 motion for the amendment made by Member Kocan, seconded

7 by Mr. Ruyle. And the amendment is that should the

8 applicant not acquire the 1/100th of an acre, which is

9 equivalent to what, two feet?

10 MR. DONALDSON: It might be less, it could

11 be a foot.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then instead of coming

13 back to the Planning Commission they would be able to go

14 to the Zoning Board of Appeals to be able to have the

15 parking in the front.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: If he doesn't acquire or if

17 for some reason the split is not permitted.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, okay. Let's put

19 that in there. I'm sorry.

20 If for some reason he does not

21 acquire or the split is not given. Okay. Could we call

22 for the vote, Mr. Schmitt.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?


25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?







2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?


4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy?


12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?


14 MR. SCHMITT: Motion fails 3 to 5 -- 5 to

15 3.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now, would we like to

17 vote on the first motion which is -- we still have a

18 motion on the table.

19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: We do but we need to

20 address that if he doesn't acquire the two acres that it

21 he needs to come back. We need a motion and amendment.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you want to amend

23 your motion to indicate that, your first motion, that

24 with those conditions predicated upon him acquiring the

25 1/100th acre and, if not, then he has to come back to






1 the Planning Commission. That's an altogether different

2 motion.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: If I may, right now the

4 motion as it was initially made did not reference a ZBA

5 variance. It indicated that it was predicated upon the

6 acquisition of the property and the split being

7 approved. That's how I heard the first motion. That's

8 the one that's still on the table if Member Kocan

9 doesn't withdraw.

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I just wondered if we

11 needed to address if he can't get that extra. My motion

12 says he will get that extra so no ZBA variances are

13 required. Then can we assume the next step if he

14 doesn't acquire the two acres he has no choice but to

15 come back to us?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: He no longer has site plan

17 approval.

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: He no longer has site

19 plan approval. So is that -- then we'll just vote.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: You can vote as is.

21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I don't have a

22 problem with that.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sprague, would you

24 like to say something?

25 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: I just wanted to






1 know what that means. Does that mean for the developer

2 where he gets in line to be able to come back? Does he

3 go back to the end of the line if he doesn't get the

4 foot?

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sprague's question

6 is, where would he fall in --

7 MR. SCHMITT: Given that the site has

8 already been reviewed, generally we try to bring those

9 projects back quicker. I don't foresee it being

10 problem; however, if it does becomes a problem certainly

11 we can expedite the process.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would imagine with

13 everything that if it came back it would come back on

14 the next available agenda. This is not a difficult site

15 plan. I don't think we would be spending as much time

16 with it as we are now.

17 MR. DONALDSON: And just to add to that, I

18 don't believe the lot has been split off yet, you know,

19 I don't think the split is complete. So I think it's

20 going to be a function of us moving the line and then

21 turning it in for the split, you know, because we were

22 waiting for site plan approval before we make the formal

23 application for the split.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Now, we have a

25 motion on the table. Does everyone understand the






1 motion? Okay.

2 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please

3 call for the vote.

4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?


6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?


8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?


10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?


12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?


14 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Nagy --

15 Chairperson Nagy? I'm sorry.


17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?


19 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Ruyle?


21 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

23 Good luck.

24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Madam Chair, I move

25 we extend the meeting for 15 minutes.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's been moved by Mr.

2 Ruyle to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. Do we

3 have a second?


5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member

6 Markham.

7 The next item on the agenda is

8 approval of the December 4, 2002 Planning Commission

9 minutes. If we could just take our corrections and give

10 them to the department. Instead of at 11:31 everyone

11 reading their corrections into the record, why don't we

12 all take it and give them to the court reporter.

13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I was

14 not at this meeting. I did see it on tape. I do have

15 corrections, most of them are spelling changes. The few

16 changes that I do have I'll run by you to see if you

17 approve of them first. There's like two word changes

18 that --

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sure. Go ahead, Member

20 Kocan.

21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The city attorney

22 made one. Actually, it was Matt McClain. On Page 59,

23 line 6, she's talking about installation of individual

24 left turn it says heads for that intersection. I

25 suspect it should be getting ready to do the






1 installation of individual left turn lanes for that

2 intersection. I don't want to change what somebody

3 means, but is there left turn heads?

4 MR. COBURN: Were they talking about

5 traffic signals by chance?


7 MR. COBURN: That would be heads.

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: It would be heads.

9 See, that's why we had to correct that. Never heard

10 that term before. Okay.


12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: That's the only major

13 ones.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Whatever else needs to

15 be we can give it to the reporter. Since there are

16 minor corrections, they can come back to us for our next

17 meeting. Okay.

18 MR. SCHMITT: Just to clarify, there's

19 been no motion to approve them?

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, there has not been

21 a motion to approve them. Or do you want to make to

22 approve with the changes? It's up to all of you.

23 MR. SHROYER: That's fine with me.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The Chair will

25 entertain a motion to approve with the changes.








3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So moved by Mr.

4 Avdoulos, seconded by Mr. Ruyle.

5 All in favor?


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes 8-0.

8 The next item on the agenda is

9 Matters for Discussion. We have nothing to discuss.

10 The next item is Special Reports.

11 We have none.

12 We have audience participation. Is

13 there anybody in the audience that would like to address

14 the Commission on any subject? Seeing no participants,

15 I will close the audience participation.

16 Mr. Ruyle, would you like to move

17 to adjourn?

18 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Move to adjourn.


20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Mr.

21 Shroyer.

22 All in favor say aye.


24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Meeting adjourned at

25 11:34.






1 (The January 29, 2003 Regular

2 Meeting of the Novi Planning

3 Commission was adjourned at

4 11:34 p.m.)





























3 C E RT I F I C A T E


5 I, Glenn Miller, do hereby certify that I

6 have recorded stenographically the proceedings had in

7 the above-entitled matter at the time and place

8 hereinbefore set forth, and I do further certify that

9 the foregoing transcript, consisting of one hundred

10 sixty-eight (168) typewritten pages, is a true and

11 correct transcript of my said stenograph notes.



14 Signature on File

15 Glenn Miller

16 Certified Shorthand Reporter



19 February 10, 2003

20 (Date)

21 Signature on File

Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant


23 Date Approved: April 9, 2003