View Agenda for this meeting

NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, February 12, 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, February 12, 2003.

PRESENT:

Antonia Nagy, Chairperson
Lynn Kocan, Commissioner
Gwen Markham, Commissioner
Lynne Paul, Commissioner
Lowell Sprague, Commissioner
Tim Shroyer, Commissioner
David Ruyle, Commissioner
John Avdoulos, Commissioner
Larry Papp, Commissioner

David Evancoe, Director of Planning
Gerald Fisher, City Attorney
Barbara McBeth, Planner
Timothy Schmitt, Planner
Brian Coburn, Civil Engineer
Michael McGinnis, Architect

Novi, Michigan
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Approximately 7:30 p.m.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Good evening. I'd like

5 to call the Planning Commission meeting to order.

6 Ms. McBeth, if you would please

7 call the roll.

8 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9 Member Avdoulos?

10 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Here.

11 MS. McBETH: Member Kocan?

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Here.

13 MS. McBETH: Member Markham?

14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Here.

15 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy?

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here.

17 MS. McBETH: Member Papp?

18 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Here.

19 MS. McBETH: Member Paul?

20 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Here.

21 MS. McBETH: Member Ruyle?

22 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Here.

23 MS. McBETH: Member Shroyer?

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Here.

25 MS. McBETH: And Member Sprague?

 

 

 

 

3

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think Mr. Sprague

2 will be late.

3 Mr. Shroyer, if you would please

4 the lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

5 (The Planning Commissioner and the

6 Audience were lead by Commissioner

7 Shroyer in the reciting of The

8 Pledge of Allegiance.)

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

10 additions to the agenda?

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Motion to approve.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second?

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Second.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion seconded by Mr.

15 Ruyle.

16 All in favor approving the agenda

17 say aye?

18 PLANNING COMMISSION: Aye.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The first audience

20 participation at this time is directed towards any item

21 other than what is on the Public Hearings. If you'd

22 like to address the Commission for any reason other than

23 what is on the Public Hearing agenda, please come

24 forward, state your name, spell it for the court

25 reporter and you're welcome to come forward.

 

 

 

 

4

1 Is there any member of the audience

2 that would like to come forward?

3 Seeing none, I will close the

4 Public Hearing.

5 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Audience

6 participation.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, I will close

8 the audience participation.

9 Madam Secretary, do we have any

10 correspondence?

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: None other than

12 Public Hearing responses.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we have

14 any communications and/or committee reports?

15 Mr. Shroyer.

16 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you, Madam

17 Chair.

18 Our Rules Committee met last week

19 and we made an initial attempt in starting to go through

20 the bylaws. I believe we got through six pages or so.

21 We feel very good about what's been accomplished and

22 we've set up two additional meetings. Our goal is to

23 have an entire activity ready for presentation to the

24 committee by summer. And there is one item that we've

25 asked to be included on the agenda this evening, which I

 

 

 

 

5

1 believe is under Matters for Consideration. I was

2 trying to remember what it was, and that's all I have,

3 Madam Chair.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

5 Do we have any further reports?

6 Mr. Evancoe, do we have any

7 presentations?

8 MR. EVANCOE: We do not this evening.

9 Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

11 Going on to the consent agenda. Do

12 we have any -- Mr. Ruyle.

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I would like, before

14 we vote on it, to have discussion, just one quick

15 question.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sure.

17 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: The quick question

18 is, how many extensions have they asked for and is this

19 the last and final one they can ask for?

20 MR. EVANCOE: I'm going to ask if Barb

21 McBeth can answer that.

22 MS. McBETH: Thank you. This is the third

23 one-year extension that Redford Baptist Church has asked

24 for and this is of the Preliminary Site Plan. This

25 would be the final time that they could request a site

 

 

 

 

6

1 plan extension.

2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: So they go back to

3 stage one if they don't come forth within the next year;

4 am I correct?

5 MS. McBETH: They do. They have an

6 opportunity to come to the Planning Department for Final

7 Site Plan approval and if that's granted then they would

8 have an opportunity for further extensions, but this is

9 the final time they can ask for a Preliminary Site Plan

10 extension.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: With that, Madam

12 Chair, I'll move for approval.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second to

14 the motion?

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have another minute

16 of discussion.

17 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll second the

18 motion.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion was seconded

20 by Member Kocan.

21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have a question for

22 Ms. McBeth. If this site is approved and they do

23 develop it in this year, will the Stormwater Ordinance

24 and the Landscape Ordinance, if it's passed, apply to

25 this site?

 

 

 

 

7

1 MS. McBETH: Thank you. I think I'd like

2 to defer that question to the engineer and the landscape

3 architect.

4 MR. COBURN: Because they've already

5 received Preliminary Site Plan approval they would not

6 have to comply with the new Stormwater Ordinance;

7 however, if they expire, then they'd have to go back to

8 preliminary again and they would have to comply with the

9 new Stormwater Ordinance at that point.

10 COMMISSIONER PAUL: How large is this

11 site?

12 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Forty acres.

13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. And since we

14 have new information on this I, you know, we're trying

15 to really enforce the Stormwater Ordinance. I would not

16 be in favor of supporting an extension at this time

17 because I would like all the new ordinances applied as

18 much as possible. So I will not be in support of this

19 motion.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

21 This is a Consent Agenda on Redford

22 Baptist Church, SP 99-15, for approval of a one year

23 Preliminary Site Plan extension. The subject property

24 is located in Section 12 on Meadowbrook Road between

25 Twelve and Thirteen Mile Roads.

 

 

 

 

8

 

1 Mr. Ruyle has made a motion,

2 seconded by Member Kocan. This is a Consent Agenda. We

3 really shouldn't be having discussion.

4 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Either you vote or

5 don't vote.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there anything else?

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I just had one quick

8 comment and we can end this, if so. There was a comment

9 that if the site plan does change because of the

10 variances that were not approved that it would have to

11 come before the Planning Commission.

12 MS. McBETH: That's correct. There's an

13 opportunity maybe for the site plan to change because

14 one of the waivers that was needed to be granted from

15 the Zoning Board of Appeals was not granted. So there

16 might be a possibility that they would change the site

17 plan.

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Then it would come to

19 us?

20 MS. McBETH: If it's a substantial change,

21 it would return to the Planning Commission.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Would you

23 please call the roll, Ms. McBeth.

24 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan?

25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

 

 

 

 

9

1 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Markham?

2 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

3 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy?

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

5 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp?

6 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

7 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Paul?

8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: No.

9 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle?

10 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

11 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer?

12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No.

13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Sprague is not

14 here.

15 Commissioner Avdoulos?

16 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

17 MS. McBETH: Motions passes 6 to 2.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

19 At this point we're at our first

20 Public Hearing, which is Zoning Text Amendment

21 99-18.172. This is a continuation of the Public Hearing

22 to amend the ordinance, the City of Novi Zoning

23 Ordinance, Appendix A of The City of Novi Code of

24 Ordinances, to revise Section 2509, "Landscape

25 Standards: Obscuring Earth Berms And Walls,

 

 

 

 

10

1 Rights-Of-Way Buffers, And Interior And Exterior

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

3 entire section.

4 Is there someone that would like to

5 comment? Mr. Evancoe.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

7 Good evening to you and to all members of the Planning

8 Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to take a look

9 at the Landscape Ordinance again with you. You'll

10 recall that at our last meeting we had a good discussion

11 and overview of the ordinance. We went through it

12 actually page-by-page and a number of changes were

13 suggested and agreed to and so you were provided in your

14 packet with a new version that is closer to I think what

15 you're hoping to be able to approve.

16 I want to extend a special thanks

17 to Member Kocan for providing some excellent suggestions

18 via e-mail to me, yesterday I believe, and all of her

19 comments were very well taken and we fully would intend

20 to implement those in the final version that goes up to

21 the City Council. So, again, thank you for those

22 suggestions.

23 Also, you'll note that we provided

24 you with a handout this evening having to do with the

25 buffers abutting right-of-way. That's been perhaps the

 

 

 

 

11

1 most difficult portion of this revision to the Landscape

2 Ordinance and that's due primarily to the fact that some

3 -- that the goal, if you will, of perhaps widening our

4 greenbelt requirements in order to accommodate berms

5 that could vary horizontally and vertically ends up

6 being in conflict with the building setback regulations

7 and that's not necessarily a good situation, although,

8 it is a manageable situation.

9 If the Commission were to decide

10 they wanted to have those wider greenbelts without

11 changing the building setbacks, there is a general

12 principle, as I think you're aware, in ordinance

13 interpretation that when two provisions are in conflict

14 with one another the stricter is what applies. However,

15 I would not necessarily recommend that that be the mode

16 we seek to operate by because I think it would be better

17 if we can have the two requirements match each other.

18 And so our interim landscape

19 architect, Mike McGinnis, along with myself and Barb

20 McBeth, did some considerable work here and Mike has

21 prepared some sketches and overheads that he's going to

22 go over with you at such time as you wish. And with

23 that I think I would turn it back to the Chair, and I'm

24 available to answer any questions and work through this

25 and come up with a good ordinance for City Council.

 

 

 

 

12

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Evancoe.

2 Mr. McGinnis, if you could do your

3 presentation and after we're done with your presentation

4 maybe the Commission can go through page-by-page and I

5 think there's a couple of people that have some comments

6 and then we can finish with the ordinance this evening.

7 Mr. McGinnis.

8 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair, I also want to

9 point out this is a Public Hearing as well.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, thank you very

11 much.

12 MR. McGINNIS: Is the speaker on? This

13 diagram just illustrates, tries to incorporate all the

14 changes that are proposed in the ordinance. With the

 

15 first berm, it would indicate a berm that would be on

16 the property line, a four-and-a-half foot berm with a,

17 let's see, four-and-a-half berm with a five foot crest

18 and every time you alter the height by two feet then the

19 requirement of the berm, the berm expands accordingly.

20 There was a request that the

21 measurements be taken to the nearest structure, the

22 finish floor elevation, at 200 feet, within 200 feet,

23 and if you project this line out to 200 feet and then

24 raise it accordingly two feet the berm grows in width.

25 We have an example of a project

 

 

 

 

13

1 currently that was -- that's in the approval process and

2 this is Avalon, lot number 3, where we have a church,

3 it's adjacent to a church, and they have a 50 foot

4 setback in the rear yard to the building envelope. They

5 were required to put in a four-and-a-half foot berm.

6 And this is the finish floor elevation of lot number 3

7 and this is the property, the church property parking

8 lot.

9 This is the berm as it was proposed

10 in the original ordinance and if you extend the berm

11 with all the variables that are involved, this is the

12 existing ordinance, the berm comes out to 29 feet. If

13 you increase the crest of the berm to five feet, it

14 extends out to 32 feet. If you increase the berm width

15 by 25 percent to allow for variability in the berm, it

16 would extend it out to 40 feet.

17 And then under the new requirement

18 we're supposed to take the elevation of the berm from

19 the finish floor elevation. Most finish floor

20 elevations are at a two percent grade from the property

21 lines to allow for pitch away from the house and in

22 addition the finish floor is usually about 18 inches

23 above, 18 inches to two feet above the surrounding

24 grade. At this point this is the old existing grade but

25 the finish grade is about 860, about in here. But,

 

 

 

 

14

1 anyway, the finish floor is at 862.5. And then if you

2 take a four-and-a-half foot measurement from that point,

3 the top of the berm extends out to this point, so that

4 would be 862, 863, 867 with a five foot crest and the

5 three-on-one side slopes. And then if you increase that

6 by 25 percent to allow for variability of the berm, the

7 berm extends out to here. So you can see that the berm

8 grows rapidly with all the variables.

9 So on the perimeter berm for, say,

10 a residence, a residential area, we have kept the side

11 slopes at three-on-one. We are probably not going to

12 use an extended width on the berm in the residential

13 area because it's not as visible as the right-of-way

14 berm. But you do have the new verbiage in the ordinance

15 that allows you to make adjustments if the developer

16 runs into problems with grade changes.

17 So, for example, if this finish

18 floor elevation was up higher, you'd have a berm that

19 would be too large to deal with. Now, this happened to

20 deal with Avalon where the subdivision was developed --

21 the berm was developed on the subdivision side and if

22 you come in with a commercial development or a business

23 development on the development side that's coming in

24 after the residence, of course they'll have room to

25 develop the berm. But this just gives you an idea on

 

 

 

 

15

1 the property line berms.

2 Here's another example of the

3 current project. This is Island Lake. They just came

4 in for a concept meeting along Wixom Road. I think it's

5 their Phase 4D, but the berm under the current ordinance

6 for a right-of-way berm is only three feet when it's

7 adjacent to parking, and this is what the berm would

8 look like.

9 Under the proposed new ordinance,

10 if we extended it out to 40 feet, which allowed for

11 variability in the right-of-way berm, and increased it

12 to the height of four-and-a-half feet with a five foot

13 crest, we would move over into their proposed driveway

14 as it is now and they would probably lose the capacity

15 to develop the end unit over at this area because of the

16 setback from the lake.

17 We are proposing in our chart on

18 our right-of-way, rights-of-way berm, the chart that you

19 have, that we have differing percentages of expanding

20 the berm. As you can see in your chart, you can't read

21 this, but if we use the -- we have the current ordinance

22 and then progressions of expansion of the berm to allow

23 for -- the requirement in the ordinance calls for

24 varying the heights and the widths of the berm so that

25 it's undulating and natural looking, but if we stick to

 

 

 

 

16

1 the 20-foot berm you can't achieve that. You end up

2 with a three-foot berm and it looks just like a, you

3 know, just a very unimaginative berm. So this gives you

4 the options.

5 The last column is the current

6 setback, front yard setback. And so we don't have to go

7 back and change the front yard setbacks, what we will

8 have to do is go along this chart and select the berm

9 that best fits in with the setback requirements.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much,

11 Mr. McGinnis.

12 Are there any other comments by the

13 staff before I open it up to the Public? Thank you.

14 We are at a Public Hearing

15 regarding our Landscape Ordinance. If there's anyone

16 that would like to come forward and make any comments

17 with regard to the ordinance, please come forward, state

18 your name and address.

19 We don't have anyone interested in

20 the Landscape Ordinance. With that I will close the

21 Public Hearing and I will turn it over to the

22 Commission. Who would like to start? Member Markham.

23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I have one very

24 small change and that is on Page 17 under subheading I,

25 down toward the bottom, about seven lines down. It's

 

 

 

 

17

1 talking about replacement trees. It says -- or street

2 trees in subdivisions -- "No final certificate of

3 occupancy will be granted until the trees have been

4 planted and inspected by the City." But I think we need

5 a coma in there or two more words that say "planted by

6 the developer, and inspected by the City," otherwise it

7 looks like the City is supposed to plant the trees and I

8 don't think that's the intent. And that's all I have.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a very

10 good comment.

11 Does anyone else have anything

12 else?

13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'll go.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm sorry. I should

16 wait to be called on. Thank you, Madam Chair.

17 I did give a list of some changes

18 to Mr. Evancoe, but before we presume that they're all

19 going to be accepted I should probably place them on the

20 table for review by the Planning Commission. Some of

21 them are just some questions and, Mr. Evancoe, you can

22 answer the question.

23 On Page 7, h, it refers to a

24 diagram, an obscuring earth berm and obscuring wall

25 diagram, at Section 2509.6. Will there be a diagram

 

 

 

 

18

1 there or has that been removed?

2 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. There is a diagram and

3 that reference should now say 2509.A and then 6 in

4 parentheses.

5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I thought it

6 referred to something in the back.

7 One thing that we did talk about,

8 maybe I'll wait to talk about the chart that Mr.

9 McGinnis just talked about because that is the most

10 cumbersome one. There are some changes that I had with

11 regard to on Page 10, b 2 d, and one of the things

12 that's stated in there, we didn't talk about it at the

13 table but I don't have a problem with it, was the crest

14 width will now become the same as the berm height.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you say that again

16 a little bit slower? I missed that.

17 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Let me see if I got

18 that right, b 2 d.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I see. Right here.

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, correct. There

21 were two things changed. One was the maximum slope,

22 which changed to a three-on-one, and I don't have a

23 problem with that.

24 The other one was, the next

25 sentence says, "and a crest with a width equal to the

 

 

 

 

19

1 required" should be berm, b-e-r-m, "height". And just

2 so that people know, that was not something that we

3 talked about at the table but I think it makes sense and

4 I would like to have that incorporated into the chart.

5 What I want the chart to do, when

6 we get to the chart, is I would like to be able to flip

7 to the chart, just like we do in Section 2400, and have

8 everything we need to see on that page, what the setback

9 is, what the berm height is, what the crest height width

10 is, just to make it simple because when you bury things

11 in paragraphs, not that they're buried, but they are, it

12 just makes it easier to have a chart.

13 I did add -- I went through and

14 looked at the footnotes. There were some references to

15 some footnotes at the end of that sentence. It wants

16 you to refer to another chart in the residential

17 section, B, C, D. I think we need to add footnote E. I

18 don't think F applies because it's more residential than

19 it is for right-of-way. Keep the G, remove H, again for

20 the same reason, add K and keep L. And Mr. Evancoe and

21 the staff have reviewed that and felt that that was

22 appropriate.

23 The chart needs to be moved. On

24 Page 11 the word -- in Section 4 for waiver, "The

25 Planning Commission may waive," and waive was removed

 

 

 

 

20

1 and I think we need to keep it in because we're actually

2 going to be making a waiver at this table. So I would

3 like to keep that in and I think that we should say,

4 "The Planning Commission may reduce or waive." I would

5 reverse those.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Right, and we will remove

7 the word "eliminate". If I may just add, right above

8 that is where we would put in the right-of-way chart.

9 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, because it

10 moved from the previous page.

11 MR. EVANCOE: Right above the waiver

12 section.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So the sentence would

14 read, "The Planning Commission may waive or reduce" and

15 you're taking out the word "eliminate" altogether.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: "May reduce or waive

17 the right-of-way landscape screening buffer" or

18 whatever, landscape screening buffer.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Mr. McGinnis spent a

21 lot of time on Page 12 talking about that chart, but

22 there was also a chart on Page 15 that was the Parking

23 Area Canopy Tree Chart and in my notes from the previous

24 meeting I had a note that said that these percentages

25 could mean a significant change, and I haven't seen or

 

 

 

 

21

1 heard anything that says that these numbers are good.

2 Are you comfortable with these?

3 MR. McGINNIS: I'll explain what the

4 difference is from the old ordinance. Everything, even

5 though it's in a different form, most of everything

6 remains the same except that last factor where it says

7 "number of canopy trees required equals". The old

8 formula, by the time you got through it, was equivalent

9 to dividing the square footage by 100, which gave you a

10 number of trees to use in the parking area. This

11 formula divides by 75, which increases the number of

12 trees in the parking lots or that can be planted around

13 the parking lot by about a third. That's the only major

14 change with this. Now, it does not increase the amount

15 of greenspace or parking island space, it just refers to

16 the number of trees.

17 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. This is also

18 the same area and I did not include this comment, Mr.

19 Evancoe, and I was thinking about it today as I was

20 re-reviewing a site plan for this evening.

21 On Page 14, the intent of the

22 parking area landscaping requirements is to develop

23 larger green spaces within parking areas, reducing

24 impervious surfaces. We've had what could be the second

25 request this evening to consider landscaping outside of

 

 

 

 

22

1 the actual interior parking space to count towards

2 interior parking landscaping and I think as a Commission

3 we need to decide if that's the way we want to go. I

4 did not think that that's what we wanted to do, that we

5 wanted to keep this very specific, it's within the

6 parking areas, to cut up the impervious surface and to

7 decrease runoff, and I'm getting lots of nods. So I do

8 not want to add anything in here that gives credit for

9 boulevards or whatever that run along parking spaces.

10 Okay.

11 On Page 16, number 4, the waiver,

12 is semantics. "The Planning Commission may reduce or

13 waive," just switch the order of the words. I guess I'd

14 like to see us reduce it first and waive as a secondary.

15 On Page 20 there was a change that

16 I'm not sure we talked about at the table, I don't

17 remember it, 3 b, (ii) (a), the end of the sentence,

18 "Evergreen trees," and we're talking about in

19 non-residential subdivisions, "Evergreen trees shall be

20 no closer than" it used to be 25 feet from the roadway

21 and now it's moving to 20 feet from the roadway. Is

22 there a reason why we're allowing it closer to the road?

23 MR. EVANCOE: Well, what I was attempting

24 to do there, if you look over to Page 19 under 2 (b)

25 (i), you'll see the same sentence and it says,

 

 

 

 

23

1 "Evergreens shall be no closer than 20 feet from the

2 roadway." So I was simply trying to make sure they said

3 the same thing. We could go with 20 or 25.

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So 20 was not a

5 problem and that's in our current ordinance now.

6 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, then I don't

8 have a problem with that.

9 On Page 20, semantics again. When

10 I read 3 (b) (ii) (b) the first sentence says,

11 "Evergreen shrubs are required to provide screening of

12 parking areas only" and I am suggesting taking the word

13 "only" out because it sounds like the only place you

14 could use Evergreen shrubs is to screen parking areas

15 and I don't believe that's what we want to say. And

16 maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it sounds like

17 we want Evergreen shrubs because they're not deciduous,

18 they would provide more screening in the winter, and if

19 that's what we're looking for then I think it just reads

20 better taking the word "only" out. Does that sound

21 okay?

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: And in the back

24 sections I saw that the berm charts had been removed.

25 Were you planning to replace them with a similar kind of

 

 

 

 

24

1 chart that Mr. McGinnis presented this evening?

2 MR. EVANCOE: I think the charts that Mike

3 was showing were really for this evening's meeting just

4 to illustrate some principles, but the berm charts that

5 were in there before were very confusing, they were

6 inaccurate and they were not drawn to scale and I just

7 felt that they were of little use so they were removed.

8 There still are some sketches of berms that are rendered

9 with tree symbols and so on, I think those are still

10 useful, but those very basic line drawings I felt were

11 not of any value to keep.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. The cumbersome

13 chart on Page 12, Right-of-Way Landscape Screening

14 Requirement Chart. Are we, Mr. McGinnis, it sounded

15 like what you thought you might be recommending that

16 goes to Council is perhaps a different percentage added

17 for green space depending on the district. Is that what

18 I heard? I guess I was looking for if we want to add

19 additional green space -- and one of the examples you

20 used was residential next to a church. It was my

21 understanding that residential next to something or when

22 anything abuts residential we're not going to add any

23 additional green space for undulating berms; that this

24 particular chart only applies to right-of-way landscape

25 screening.

 

 

 

 

25

1 MR. McGINNIS: Correct.

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Is there going

3 to be one percentage that we're going to use for the

4 greenbelt, a ten percent, a 15 percent, if the 25

5 percent is too high, or is it your recommendation that

6 depending on the zoning or the use and the height of the

7 berm, etcetera, the slope, that there could be a

8 different requirement for the greenbelt in each area?

9 MR. McGINNIS: I think what we tried to

10 show is -- one thing I didn't point out on the chart --

11 is that in the last column it says current front yard

12 ordinance setback. There are some setbacks that are in

13 bold and they do -- they are in conflict with the

14 proposed -- from the original proposal on the ordinance

15 with the buffer requirement because we have a 40 foot

16 buffer requirement in the residential but we only have a

17 30 foot required setback.

18 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Excuse me. Point of

19 information. That's with a 25 percent increase.

20 MR. McGINNIS: Yes. Yeah. So what we

21 have to do is, if we don't want to change the current

22 ordinance setback requirements to conform to the berm is

23 that we have to select a berm that best fits the

24 setback.

25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: My understanding, I

 

 

 

 

26

1 don't want to change the berm heights that we have in

2 the chart, my opinion. I do not want to change the

3 minimum berm heights that we have on the chart on Page

4 12. If we -- and the crest height would be the same

5 because I think that's a major thing and I wouldn't be

6 prepared to discuss lowering any of these berm heights.

7 That's not something I want to do here at the table

8 tonight.

9 I would like us to pick -- if 15

10 percent is the one that works in most cases with the

11 berm as it should be, then I would like us to be able to

12 adopt that. I'm trying to make it consistent across,

13 but I will not be able to agree to change -- to lower

14 any berm heights in any of these areas.

15 MR. McGINNIS: I just want to point out

16 that we were attempting to meet the ordinance

17 requirement for variability in the berm so we don't end

18 up with a very rigid berm along the right-of-way and to

19 allow for some undulation as it calls for in the

20 ordinance. And if you decrease the berm height by, you

21 know, a foot, or a percentage down to 15 percent -- I

22 mean, 25 percent on a three-foot berm will allow you to

23 have enough variability, but if you start decreasing

24 below 25 percent in the smaller berms or the smaller

25 widths you don't get much variability to start

 

 

 

 

27

1 tightening up the berm again.

2 So it is a struggle, but wherever

3 we can meet the buffer ordinance, the proposed for 25

 

4 percent, we should do it. But if we don't, if we go to

5 the 40 percent buffer width and the 40 foot berm, then

6 we might have to change the setback requirement. That's

7 all.

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just one other thing

9 with this chart. I notice that all the pages refer to

10 abutting rights-of-way. None of this talks about when

11 it abuts parking, adjacent to parking.

12 MR. EVANCOE: This is the greenbelt

13 between the right-of-way line, the property line, and

14 the building or parking lot. So it does -- the chart is

15 for both. It's for screening parking and building.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay, because we do

17 currently have if it abuts parking it's a higher berm.

18 MR. MCGINNIS: Correct.

19 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: If it just abuts the

20 right-of-way, it's a lower berm, and what this is saying

21 is it -- there could be now a three-foot berm

22 potentially trying to screen a parking area and I'm not

23 so sure that's the direction we want to go. So this is

24 a tough one because this to me is not in final form. I

25 don't see one recommendation. I'd like to pick one

 

 

 

 

28

1 column and say this is the one I want to do. So I guess

2 I'll listen to comments, but that's all I have. Thank

3 you very much.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer.

5 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you, Madam

6 Chair.

7 I have several things, primarily

8 for discussion, a few recommendations. The first one

9 has to do with the chart, the Landscape Tree Credit

10 Chart on Page 3, and I provided Mr. McGinnis with a copy

11 of that and was requesting that he review it.

12 Is there a good explanation as to

13 why we have a difference in what I would call current

14 size range? If you look on the left.

15 MR. McGINNIS: No, I don't know why they

16 did that.

17 MR. EVANCOE: I'm sorry. What is the

18 question again?

19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Can we put it on

20 the overhead?

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could do that,

22 because I don't think anyone is following along.

23 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Let's do both.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So if we could just put

25 it on the overhead, then the question and explanation

 

 

 

 

29

1 will be much clearer.

2 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: As you go down the

3 diameter of the trunk preserved trees on the left-hand

4 side, starting at the bottom and going up, going from a

5 three inch to a seven inch caliper is four inches in

6 difference.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait, wait. Could you

8 slow down when you say this?

9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I understand.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

11 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: On the greater than

12 seven inches to twelve inches is a five inch difference,

13 then you jump from five inches to seven inches, and then

14 you go back down again to six inches. And I didn't know

15 if there was a landscaping reason based on growth of

16 trees or something along that line as to why we have the

17 differentiation there, when you could go over to Option

18 A on the right-hand side and have a natural progression

19 of four inches, five inches, six inches, seven inches or

20 perhaps even all the way from four to nine inches.

21 This is something that I had sent

22 to Lauren McGuire just before she left, so I don't think

23 she had an opportunity to look at it.

24 MR. McGINNIS: And I don't know why

25 they --

 

 

 

 

30

1 MR. EVANCOE: I think that that's fine. I

2 think that's a great suggestion.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what, one at a

4 time for the court reporter, please.

5 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, I'll just respond.

6 I think it makes sense to have these differences the

7 same. So, I don't think there would be any problem in

8 fixing that.

9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And I would not

10 have a problem with the progression, either Option A or

11 B. I just think we need some consistency of going up

12 and not jumping all around. So whatever the

13 Commissions' pleasure with that I would be open to it.

14 What's the recommendation from the

15 staff? If you look at Option A or B, which would be

16 preferable?

17 MR. EVANCOE: It just went off the screen

18 so I don't have it in front of me.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: May I make a comment?

20 The higher you go on the caliper of trees, the more

21 difficult it is for the tree to take. The nine-inch

22 caliper tree may not be as good to plant, even though it

23 looks nicer, than maybe a five inch, four inch or six

24 inch. So I would prefer the Option B where you go up to

25 seven inches, only because of the shock.

 

 

 

 

31

1 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: You mean Option A.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, Option A. I

3 apologize.

4 MR. EVANCOE: I think there may be some

5 confusion here because we're not talking about the size

6 of trees to be planted. This is the size of trees that

7 already exist on a site to be preserved and then the

8 number of trees that would replace one of those if it

9 were removed.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And seven inches

12 and nine inches, etcetera, is the difference in size as

13 we progress up. So, again, the question would be, what

14 would be a preference or recommendation from staff?

15 MR. EVANCOE: I guess I need to ask one

16 question. In Option A, when you say for the second row

17 from the bottom same, is that indicating --

18 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Greater than seven

19 inches to 12-inch caliper.

20 MR. EVANCOE: Okay, you're staying with

21 that.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Staying with what's

23 on the left. So we'd only change the credits on the

24 three, four and five tree sectors.

25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The only change with

 

 

 

 

32

1 that then is instead of a 17-inch caliper tree would now

2 count for six whereas previously -- I'm sorry -- it

3 would count for three or four -- it would actually --

4 it's not more restrictive, it's less -- the developer

5 would get more credit for preserving --

6 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No, the developer

7 would -- actually on a 17-inch tree would have to

8 provide four trees as opposed to three.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So you're increasing.

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I'm sorry, it's the

11 opposite.

12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Right. We would be

13 increasing -- well, at certain caliper inches. So the

14 only difference in the third line up is two inches, the

15 difference in the next line up then is another two

16 inches, or actually four inches, it would be two inches

17 at each end. But it gives us a consistency of an

18 increase as opposed to going four inches, five inches,

19 seven inches then back down to six inches.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I do have a question,

21 Mr. Evancoe. I thought that we had talked about the

22 Landscaping Ordinance and that if we increased the

23 caliper of the tree then we would count -- let's say if

24 we put in a six-inch caliper tree we would count as two

25 trees versus two three inch. This doesn't change that.

 

 

 

 

33

1 MR. EVANCOE: What you're referring to

2 there, Madam Chair, is a different table in the

3 ordinance that deals with encouraging developers to

4 plant larger trees from the beginning.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I realize all

6 that.

7 MR. EVANCOE: If I could just ask, Mike,

8 do you have an initial impression as to A or B on this?

9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Commissioner

11 Markham.

12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: My impression is,

13 if I may, under Option A, in general we would end up

14 with more trees than if we went with Option B.

15 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

16 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: So typically we'd

17 like to see more trees, so my recommendation would be we

18 select Option A, unless somebody has an objection.

19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I would recommend

20 that as well because I think the 36 inch or greater

21 caliper is the max that I'd like to see us go to instead

22 of trying to measure trees at 42 inches or greater,

23 etcetera. So unless staff had a different

24 recommendation, I would propose Option A.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else have

 

 

 

 

34

1 an objection to Option A? Would the Commission be

2 amenable going for Option A so we could move on in the

3 discussion? Okay.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: The second item I

5 have is on Page 6, and I believe this would go to our

6 attorney. We're talking under the (iii) section right

7 in the middle, everything we talk about is increasing --

8 I mean reducing or eliminating the height of the berm.

9 Do we have an option of increasing the height of a berm

10 as well requiring that?

11 MR. FISHER: You could do that. You would

12 have to have very clear standards in the ordinance for

13 the circumstances in which you would exercise that

14 authority. What you find in this section, which really

15 is intended to provide relief for the property owner,

16 the standard of practical difficulties is utilized. And

17 while in most instances you need standards that are a

18 little bit more specific than that, the phrase

19 "practical difficulties" has a very significant meaning

20 in the law of zoning because since the 1920's that

21 phrase has been utilized in ordinances throughout the

22 country for a basis for granting a variance.

23 So the court has concluded that

24 while you have to make findings, of course, that this

25 standard is adequate. If you're going to go the other

 

 

 

 

35

1 way, I think you're going to have to develop a whole

2 list of standards to follow.

3 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. So in terms

4 that I can understand, we shouldn't do it.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Correct.

6 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you.

7 MR. FISHER: Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other comments?

9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Not on that page.

10 Moving over to Page 8. This goes back to the beginning

11 of the Public Hearing when we had developers in the

12 audience and they came forward and spoke.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. They were

14 landscape architects.

15 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'm sorry,

16 professionals that came forward and spoke. They asked

17 for flexibility and I was trying to look at some things

18 within our ordinance that we could help them with. One

19 of the things I looked at was down under the wall

20 requirements, item 6 (a). We talked about -- it says,

21 "Freestanding walls shall have all exterior sides

22 constructed of face brick."

23 Is there any reason why we wouldn't

24 want to allow a little bit of flexibility there to the

25 developers and allow stone or perhaps stucco or perhaps

 

 

 

 

36

1 drivit or some other permanent type material as opposed

2 to something that would rot like wood? I'd like to see

3 a little bit more flexibility there instead of saying

4 every single wall we build has to be brick.

5 MR. EVANCOE: I'll just respond. I think

6 that's an excellent idea, too. Particularly in

7 residential situations it seems like it would be very

8 appropriate to use rock walls, boulder walls. I think

9 when you get into your TC and TC 1 area I think we've

10 established a brick standard, but I think some variation

11 would be very appropriate.

12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: With that comment,

13 one of the things I was thinking if we could change it

14 to read "Freestanding walls shall have all exterior

15 sides constructed of face brick or stone with a suitable

16 cap, and the interior constructed of masonry or

17 reinforced concrete" and then add "The Planning

18 Commission may consider other durable construction

19 materials such as stucco, drivit," etcetera.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect, I

21 will not support drivit, nor stucco.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Or stucco?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No.

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. How about if

25 we put a period after materials?

 

 

 

 

37

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, I would agree to

2 that because you have to remember what it's going to

3 look like when it wears and tears, and it looks

4 terrible. Do you have any other comments, Mr. Shroyer?

5 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Not on that page.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you like to read

7 the sentence slowly and completely so we're all in

8 agreement.

9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. This is item

10 6 (a) under Wall Requirements. "Freestanding walls

11 shall have all exterior sides constructed of face brick

12 or stone with a suitable cap, and the interior

13 constructed of masonry or reinforced concrete."

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is everyone in

15 agreement with that statement?

16 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'm not done.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. I thought

18 you were done.

19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: "The Planning

20 Commission may consider other durable construction

21 materials."

22 MR. EVANCOE: Commissioner Shroyer?

23 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

24 MR. EVANCOE: I missed one word. "The

25 Planning Commission may consider other"...

 

 

 

 

38

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Durable.

2 MR. EVANCOE: Durable. Okay. Construction

3 materials, was it?

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Or if there's a

5 better -- part of what I'm getting at here is, as new

6 materials are developed and coming on the market, I

7 don't want to have to go back and change the Landscape

8 Ordinance time and time again. If they come up with

9 some type of a fake stone, which actually they have

10 right now, that they put on buildings, we may want to

11 consider that. This would give us the option of

12 allowing that.

13 MR. FISHER: Madam Chair.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher.

15 MR. FISHER: The word "durable" is fairly

16 ambiguous. You might want to put "The Planning

17 Commission may consider other materials of equal

18 durability," which would refer back to brick and stone.

19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I would be happy

20 with that.

21 Mr. Avdoulos, do you have any

22 comments.

23 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: I agree with you

24 on the intent. You could use granite, you could use

25 marble, you could use that kind of facing. So if you

 

 

 

 

39

1 allow flexibility with the design of the wall, I think

2 that's appropriate, but brick, fieldstone, regular

3 stone, any type of durable material like that I think is

4 appropriate. So I think Mr. Fisher had a good comment.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anybody have any

6 comment with regard to the change and do you accept the

7 change of wording by our attorney?

8 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, but in doing

9 that let's eliminate the last sentence and change it to

10 read "Freestanding walls shall have all exterior sides

11 constructed of face brick or other construction material

12 of equal durability," using his words but that allows

13 then for the marble, for the granite, for the stone,

14 fieldstone, etcetera, and we wouldn't need to add the

15 sentence at the end then.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is everyone in

17 agreement? Okay.

18 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: On Page 11 we have

19 the same thing under 4 (b), "use of wrought iron

20 decorative fence with brick accents." Can we

21 incorporate the wording there "brick accents or other

22 construction material of equal durability"? By the lack

23 of response I assume it's okay. Over to page --

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Wait, wait, wait.

25 Brick accents with -- okay. Does anybody have any

 

 

 

 

40

1 comment regarding Mr. Shroyer's comments?

2 MR. SHROYER: I do have a question, Mr.

3 Evancoe?

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe.

5 MR. EVANCOE: I've had some personal

6 experience with alternative fencing products to wrought

7 iron and you can get into some pretty flimsy plastic,

8 fake iron fences that are not as durable and do not

9 weather as well and don't hold up as well. So I guess I

10 just want to make sure the language is what you want it

11 to be, that it's -- maybe it is but I've seen these

12 products and they're very bothersome. They don't stay

13 straight.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I agree with Mr.

15 Evancoe, and I saw Member Paul with her hand up.

16 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have concerns that

17 we're giving way too much flexibility and what happens

18 is the developer comes in, puts in the front wall to

19 look beautiful for a period of time. They're done

20 developing, they move on and then the residents are left

21 with the cost of redoing the front entryway that could

22 be a very expensive project. So I think giving this

23 much flexibility is a lot of room for give. And I don't

24 mind giving some room for flexibility in the

25 landscaping, but the actual building material, such as

 

 

 

 

 

41

1 masonry, is a very expensive endeavor and I think we're

2 giving way too much room and I think it should be stone,

3 marble, granite or brick and let's leave it at that, and

4 give them four or five mediums to work with and not get

5 into wood products or flimsy wrought iron material like

6 Mr. Evancoe is suggesting. And I think I don't want to

7 stick any residents with the cost of a several thousand

8 dollar endeavor that usually isn't there under a budget

9 for a subdivision.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos, did you

11 have your hand up?

12 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: I think

13 Commissioner Shroyer doesn't want to negate the use of

14 wrought iron. I think the wrought iron wants to be

15 there along with brick or stone or marble or granite or

16 whatever material that's suitable. And I agree with Mr.

17 Evancoe, that you don't want to deter the use of a good

18 quality product to sort of experiment and, as

19 Commissioner Paul indicated, you know, put the burden on

20 the residents of the sub that have to pay for it. I

21 think the intent is to be consistent. If we're going to

22 dictate something for a wall, then if the wall has

23 wrought iron then it should be able to follow the same

24 latitude.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Kocan.

 

 

 

 

42

1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So I think we can

2 accomplish that with after the word "brick" put,

3 parentheses, or other substance of durable material.

4 MR. FISHER: Equal durability.

5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Equal durability, and

6 then it applies only to the brick and not to the wrought

7 iron fence.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer, are you

9 accepting that?

10 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, ma'am.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else have

12 any comment? Do we all accept that? I'm looking at

13 everyone. Could we nod or something? Thanks. Okay,

14 Mr. Shroyer, go ahead.

15 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: It's not really on

16 Page 13 but that's where I'm going to discuss about it.

17 This is in regard to transformer and utility boxes. In

18 our 9-27, 2002 proposal there was a statement in there

19 that talked about screening on three sides of the

20 utility box and I cannot find it anywhere on the

21 transformers. I can't find it anywhere in our ordinance

22 anymore. Was it removed and, if so, why?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe, can you

24 address that for the Commission?

25 MR. EVANCOE: I'm sorry, I was trying to

 

 

 

 

43

1 find the place. The question had to do with the three

2 -- providing screening on three sides?

3 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes. It said

4 "Transformers are to be screened on three sides to allow

5 utility company access."

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, we've always had

7 that, as I recall.

8 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And I can no longer

9 find it in the ordinance, or in the proposal here.

10 MR. EVANCOE: Oh, I don't know if this

11 answers it or not, but (d) says that "Doors of

12 transformers must be kept accessible." That would imply

13 that there's one side that remains open, but if there's

14 a better way to say that. I don't really know about the

15 language and it being there or not there, but I think

16 that's the intent.

17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: If it's covered

18 elsewhere in this packet, that's fine.

19 COMMISSIONER PAPP: I thought there was

20 something where it was six feet away.

21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: It says is eight

22 feet under (d), 2 (d) on Page 13.

23 MR. EVANCOE: I think you have a few

24 performance standards in here that end up getting to the

25 same point within the intent. It says that you have to

 

 

 

 

44

1 effectively screen the transformer then you have the

2 section that leaves the door accessible, but I'm

3 certainly open to any change.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'm all right with

5 that if everyone else is.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think so, plus I

7 think there's some requirment in the ordinance book

8 itself.

9 COMMISSIONER PAPP: I just have one

10 question for David. Who determines where the

11 transformers go?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The utility company.

13 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Because you see some

14 in the front yard and you see some in the backyard.

15 MR. EVANCOE: Right. And it's usually the

16 utility company that determines that. However, that's a

17 great point and I don't like to dive into things where I

18 don't know where I'm going here, but I thought there was

19 somewhere in this ordinance where it talked about in

20 residential that the transformers should be located in

21 the rear yard.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Under that Section 2,

23 Requirement I reads, "Transformers shall be located in

24 the rear of the residential yards unless restricted by

25 regulated woodland or regulated wetland areas." So in

 

 

 

 

45

1 the residential it's restricted and in the commercial

2 it's the utilities make a determination.

3 COMMISSIONER PAPP: The Vistas are all in

4 front and ours is in the back and yours is in the front.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Probably before the

6 ordinance. Anything else, Mr. Shroyer?

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, ma'am, there

8 is.

9 Actually on Page 15 but it's a

10 continuation of parking area landscaping requirements,

11 under the general requirements. It is not addressed and

12 I want to ask if we feel it needs to be addressed, and

13 what I'm referring to is materials that are put in the

14 landscaping around the trees of an island, etcetera,

15 because we do not want gravel, egg stones, certain types

16 of mulch, etcetera. Do we need to say "items not

17 permitted" or are we covered adequately with what is

18 permitted?

19 MR. EVANCOE: Commissioner Shroyer, I'm

20 not able to locate it quite yet but I'm going to look,

21 but it is in the ordinance somewhere where it prohibits

22 gravel from parking lot islands.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, it is covered in

24 our ordinances.

25 MR. EVANCOE: It may be in the landscape

 

 

 

 

46

1 plan requirements, but I know it's in here.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think maybe -- I was

3 going to say Page 18 but that's not it.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: We have several

5 people that are sure it's there so I have no problem

6 moving on.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have any others?

8 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, I do.

9 MR. EVANCOE: I did find it if you're

10 interested. It's on Page 29, non-living durable

11 materials.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

13 MR. EVANCOE: It's in that section.

14 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. Good. Thank

15 you.

16 This again isn't in here, but when

17 we talked about the chart with canopy trees, Member

18 Kocan was discussing it and I had written something down

19 at the bottom of this page and I think we need to

20 discuss this as well.

21 At one time, and it was within the

22 last several months when we had a developer come forward

23 with his plans, we discussed putting in written form

24 something to the effect of one landscape island is

25 required for every run of blank number of parking spaces

 

 

 

 

47

1 with the intent to prevent a sea of asphalt or concrete.

2 Did that fall by the wayside and are we no longer going

3 to consider that or is there a place that we should be

4 putting that in our Landscape Ordinance?

5 MR. EVANCOE: I think that we could put

6 that in here, certainly. I remember some discussion and

7 if you look at landscape ordinances that have been

8 developed in communities throughout the country, there's

9 just a slew of different ways that they assure that

10 there's landscaping areas provided within parking lots.

11 You know, for example, just one

12 example, is I believe it's in Savannah, Georgia. They

13 say -- it's very simple. They say no parking space

14 shall be further than 50 feet from a tree and that

15 automatically means that within that parking lot you're

16 going to have a lot of islands.

17 So there's different approaches,

18 but this is the approach that was worked out between

19 Lauren and the ORC and so we kept going with this. It

20 works. It calculates area. It's a little complicated

21 in my opinion how you arrive at that, but if you do all

22 of these multiplications and additions you do end up

23 with a number.

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I know one that I

25 read it did indicate one landscaped island is required

 

 

 

 

48

1 for every run of 15 parking spaces, and by a "run"

2 meaning 15 in a row and then you have an island then

3 another 15 and you have an island. That's the maximum

4 and it sure prevented having what we termed a sea of

5 asphalt or sea of concrete and it doesn't matter if it's

6 on the perimeter or if it's in the middle. Anytime you

7 have a run of parking spaces, you're going to have an

8 island, landscape island. And I'd sure like to see us

9 incorporate that somewhere in here and I thought perhaps

10 this would be the page to put it under as maybe number 3

11 or 4, number 4. And I'd like to have comments from the

12 rest of the Commission on that if they choose to do so.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Markham.

14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: The only comment I

15 would have relative to that is that we need to think

16 about snowplowing and if we're going to put islands in

17 spaces throughout the parking lot then somehow we need

18 to accommodate areas where the plow can get through

19 without being encumbered and still have the landscape

20 effect that we want.

21 So I don't know if that means we

22 need a chart or a drawing or rendering of some sort, but

23 I like the idea of specifying a maximum number of

24 parking spaces, but I do think snowplowing is a

25 consideration.

 

 

 

 

49

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. McGinnis, do you

2 have any thoughts on this?

3 MR. McGINNIS: I think the current

4 ordinance is adequate. I mean, it provides for a lot of

5 interior landscaping. It's just a matter of enforcing

6 it when the plan is reviewed and making sure that we

7 adhere to looking at interior planting islands rather

8 than corners and everything else on the parking lot

9 where plants can be put in.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp.

11 COMMISSIONER PAPP: What type of planting

12 would we have on this island, just trees? Because then

13 you have a problem of getting water to them or if you

14 just let them sit.

15 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'm open to any

16 type of landscaping; however, the intent typically is to

17 have canopy trees to help provide shade and reduce the

18 heat loss, and there is always the possibility of a

19 sprinkler system or whatever, but I know there's a lot

20 of islands in Novi that are not watered and there's

21 surviving trees and healthy trees.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe.

23 MR. EVANCOE: One approach that might work

24 is to say something to the effect that if a parking lot

25 has a certain number of parking spaces over some given

 

 

 

 

50

1 figure, let's say if the parking lot has more than 50

2 spaces, then 50 percent of the required landscaping has

3 to be placed within islands within the interior of the

4 parking lot, or perhaps it's a parking lot that's bigger

5 than 100 spaces, whatever we would choose, but

6 essentially saying that there's a certain amount that

7 has to go within interior islands that are disconnected

8 from the perimeter of the parking lot and then the

9 remainder could be along the perimeter.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos.

11 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: As a person who

12 designs sites, I like to have things a little bit more

13 clear and, Barb, I remember at the city of Southfield, I

14 can't remember what their requirements were for every 15

15 spaces or there was a maximum that you could have and

16 then you had to have an island. The island serves a

17 couple purposes. It allows you to put a tree, it allows

18 you to put some kind of bushes or vegetation, but it

19 also allows you to center a light fixture so you get

 

20 even distribution of lighting without having a pole and

21 a round concrete bottom to it that people slide into all

22 the time anyway.

23 I think our requirements in the new

24 -- in the revised ordinance indicates that all islands

25 are to be irrigated anyway, and that helps out in that

 

 

 

 

51

1 regard. But I would like to see something that has more

2 of a direction so that there is a way to say, okay,

3 after 15 spaces at the maximum, which is 150 feet, I'm

4 going to have an island with some kind of landscaping in

5 it. That's the way I'd like to see it written or

6 incorporated.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: May I point out

8 something? We actually have something in our

9 ordinances, 2509, Parking Area Landscaping Requirements.

10 We could incorporate that into the Landscape Ordinance

11 itself, our new ordinance. We actually have that and we

12 actually apply it.

13 So, for example, excuse me. For

14 OS1, OS2, OSC, B1, B2, B3, NCC, EXPO, EXO, FS, TC, TC1,

15 and RC districts and Special Land Uses, development

16 within the OS1, OS2, etcetera, etcetera, and "shall

17 provide the following area of parking landscape

18 inclusive of the 50 square foot minimum provided in

19 subpart 250981 above.

20 "There shall be one square foot of

21 interior landscaped island for each ten square feet of

22 parking space. Actual parking space area on the site,

23 not including the access aisles, must be calculated

24 except in EXO overlay district. There shall be one

25 square foot of interior landscaped island for each 16

 

 

 

 

52

1 square feet of parking."

2 So there actually is something. So

3 maybe we could incorporate that into the Landscape

4 Ordinance. What do you think, Mr. Shroyer, because I'm

5 willing to do that?

6 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'm open to almost

7 anything. I'm looking for something simple that is not

 

8 open to subjectivity.

9 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Right, and I think

10 the way this is written is you have a formula of one

11 square foot of an island for each ten square feet of

12 parking and when you go into EXO it's one square foot of

13 interior landscape island for 16 square feet of parking.

14 There's my calculation. I have X

15 amount of square feet of parking, I need this much of an

16 island, and so I'm going to pick a spot somewhere within

17 the parking, stick this island and I meet the

18 requirements, yet I can still have acres and acres of

19 parking. So the intent is to start splitting up and

20 dividing that parking lot into something that's more

 

21 regulated so that you can get an even distribution of

22 landscape.

23 I think that's where the confusion

24 lies. Everybody can abide by what's written here but

25 everybody incorporates it differently because this has,

 

 

53

1 -- this requirement right here provides maximum

2 flexibility.

3 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: That's why I keep

4 going back to the word "run", a run of so many parking

5 spaces, then you have to have an island and then another

6 run and you have to have an island. And I'm totally

7 open to the number of parking spaces but I want

8 something, like I said, very definite that it's not open

9 to misinterpretation, somebody can't take it and create

10 a corner island or an island in the southwest corner

11 then you have a huge sea of asphalt again.

12 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: And it's the same

13 thing if you take a look at the mall or you take a look

14 at a Meijer's parking lot. They create these large

15 islands basically in the middle of nowhere but then you

16 have acres and acres of parking, you have lights all

17 over the place and there's no breakup of the space, it's

 

18 just wide open. And it's nicer to be able to provide

19 these islands, provide light fixtures that have low

20 level -- not low level but light the surface instead of

21 uplighting and creating all this light pollution that we

22 have.

23 It's a little better way to start

24 directing what we want. If you pick 15, that's 150 feet

25 between islands if we're at ten feet, a ten foot wide

 

 

 

 

54

1 space, and that's a pretty good distance. So if we

2 wanted to pick something and incorporate it into the

3 ordinance and see where that takes us, that's fine by

4 me.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think if you read the

6 whole ordinance, though, there's other areas of the

7 ordinance that -- that's the old one? The current

8 ordinance, if you read that whole section it tells you

9 the minimum size for an island is eight feet wide. If

10 more than one island is provided, they are to be

11 distributed throughout the parking lot. Islands are to

12 conform in dimensions to Section 2506. Layout is to be

13 between rows of parking and a long strip with eight foot

14 minimum width wherever possible.

15 It's in the ordinance presently. I

16 would have really liked to have had this discussion the

17 last time.

18 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair?

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I think Mr.

21 Avdoulos makes a good point, though. You can meet all

22 those requirements with one big island in the middle of

23 a huge sea of parking, and that's really not what we're

24 trying to get at. What we're trying to get at is evenly

25 spaced islands throughout a parking lot and I think

 

 

 

 

55

1 there is a difference.

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So it --

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: It sounds to me like

5 we're pretty much in concurrence with having it be more

6 instead of the square foot of parking space we want an

7 island for every set number, whatever that set number

8 is, of parking spaces. And perhaps we can leave it to

9 staff to come up with an appropriate number and send

10 this on to City Council, that we would like to take some

11 of the language from the current ordinance but to

12 restrict it more instead of -- so that we do not have

13 just one huge landscape area for a sea of parking

14 spaces.

15 MR. EVANCOE: And I assume you want some

16 degree of balance, that you also don't want little, tiny

17 islands everywhere at the expense of the possibility of

18 some significant islands. You kind of want both I

19 think.

20 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That's where those

21 minimum size requirements would apply.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you be amenable

23 to that, Mr. Shroyer, to have the staff calculate out

24 some so we can move on and send it to Council?

25 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Absolutely. I

 

 

 

 

56

1 think Member Kocan's suggestion is well taken.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. What else,

3 Mr. Shroyer.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Well, I only have

5 another 15 -- no, that's actually all I have. Thank

6 you.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much,

8 Mr. Shroyer. Nice job.

9 Mr. Lowell -- I mean Mr. Sprague.

10 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Thank you.

11 Actually, I wanted to come back to this chart Member

12 Shroyer passed around to make sure I understand it.

13 If we take the example of a 23-inch

14 tree, right now, if I understand it right, the developer

15 gets credit for four trees. So that's four trees that

16 he would not have to put on to the property because he

17 kept the one tree.

18 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: It's the other way.

19 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: It's the other way?

20 If he cuts it down? Okay. So where it says diameter of

21 trunk preserved, we're not really talking about

22 preserved trees, we're talking about cut-down trees? I

23 guess that's what's confusing. The heading is Diameter

24 of Trunk of Preserved Tree, which makes me think that

25 it's being kept, not being cut.

 

 

 

 

57

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No wonder I got

2 confused myself earlier. That is confusing. Can we

3 change the verbiage on that?

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: It shouldn't say

5 "preserved".

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Or removed. Diameter

7 of trunk of tree removed. How about that, Mr. Sprague?

8 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yeah. If that's

9 the case, then Option A is acceptable to me. If it

10 really is preserved, I'd want to keep it the way it is.

11 Thanks.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else have

13 any comments? I have a couple of comments, luckily only

14 two.

15 The first one is on Page 6. It is

16 that large paragraph (iii). How I would like it to read

17 is -- I would like to add a few words in there. So I'll

18 read the sentence: "Where practical difficulties exist

19 with respect to site development as a result of parcel

20 size, configuration, topography or other physical

21 characteristics the Planning Commission may reduce the

22 height of the berm or eliminate the berm and may require

23 that additional landscaping or other materials

24 commensurate with the numbers, size and types specified

25 be provided."

 

 

 

 

58

1 So what I'd like to add is

2 "commensurate with numbers, size and types specified be

3 provided, including a wall subject to Section,"

4 etcetera. I'd like to be more specific.

5 MR. EVANCOE: If I may, Madam Chair, just

6 so I get this written down because I'll have to change

7 it, commensurate with the number, size and...

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Maybe I read that

9 wrong. Yes, numbers, with numbers, size and type

10 specified. I want to make sure that they delineate the

11 types of material, etcetera, that they're going to use.

12 And then further down in that

13 paragraph I'll just start with "where it determines that

14 an alternative design utilizing landscaping or other

15 materials, including a wall subject to Section 2509.4.a

16 below, provides similar and effective noise

17 attenuation." I'd like to add "and effective".

18 And continuing with that sentence

19 it reads "or screening benefits or where such

20 alternative design provides a substantial aesthetic or

21 site design benefit while still providing for noise

22 attenuation and screening to the extent practicable,"

23 instead of possible. Reasonably practicable instead of

24 possible. I don't want the word "possible" in there.

25 And then the next sentence I would

 

 

 

 

59

1 like to read "The intent of this section is not to

2 encourage and allow elimination or reduction of berm

3 height for the sake of convenience or cost savings."

4 Those changes are with regard to that discussion of

5 future Commissions and that we want to keep the control

6 over what is being put in.

7 Does anybody have any problems with

8 that?

9 And then I have one more change, on

10 Page 16, and that is under number 4 with regard to

11 Waiver. I think Member Kocan wanted to change -- it

12 should read "The Planning Commission may reduce or

13 waive." She wanted to change that, but at the end of

14 the sentence I would like to change "such action by the

15 Commission shall be taken" and I'd like to have the

16 words "any and all" -- "when any and all," because you

17 can't meet all four requirements underneath there, "any

18 or all".

19 And then I would also like to add

20 in that "a specific need must be demonstrated by the

21 applicant to entertain the waiver."

22 MR. EVANCOE: To what?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "To entertain the

24 waiver." In other words, you just don't want to keep

25 waiving things, you want it demonstrated to you.

 

 

 

 

60

1 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: What was the first

2 word?

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: "A specific need must

4 be demonstrated by the applicant to entertain the

5 waiver."

6 Outside of that, I have nothing

7 else.

8 Yes, Member Markham.

9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I just want to be

10 clear that what you meant to say was "Such action shall

11 be taken when any or all"?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, "any or all," and

13 then we can put in here -- I don't know where I put it

14 but...

15 So do we have anything else? Mr.

16 McGinnis, you had your hand up first.

17 MR. McGINNIS: Yes. I'd like to go back

18 to Mr. Shroyer's chart, on Page 3. I think if you read

19 F I think it clarifies what the credit is for. This is

20 if in a landscape that does not fall within a dedicated

21 woodland, if the developer saves the trees he can get

22 credit for trees that he could normally cut down without

23 any penalty towards his landscape, his landscape

24 requirement. Suppose he saves trees around the

25 perimeter of the site that can be cut down but he

 

 

 

 

61

1 doesn't, then he can get credit.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Because this is for all

3 the existing plant material.

4 MR. McGINNIS: It's credit toward -- for

5 example, if he has right-of-way trees, existing

6 right-of-way trees and there's one tree for every 35

7 feet, he can get credit for that, for that tree. I

8 think that's the way the ordinance reads.

9 MR. EVANCOE: And that's correct. This is

10 a reward for preserving existing trees. So actually the

11 title of this would be correct and we would want to

12 retain that. Sorry for the confusion about that though.

13 That's a good question.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

17 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Did I just hear that

18 the developer can cut down anything he wants without any

19 penalty as long as it's not in a woodland or a wetland

20 area? That is Woodland Review Board, anything over

21 eight inches now you have to have replacements.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's our Woodlands

23 Ordinance.

24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay.

25 MR. McGINNIS: That's in regulated

 

 

 

 

62

 

1 woodlands.

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I guess I

3 didn't think of it that way.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Sprague.

5 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: If that's the case

6 then, what's proposed under Option A is keeping less

7 trees or adding less trees to the site than our current

8 -- what we currently have. So I would rather keep what

9 we currently have and keep at least the same level of

10 trees being put on the land.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think you may be

12 right, Mr. Sprague.

13 Does anyone else have a comment?

14 Mr. Evancoe, do you agree?

15 MR. EVANCOE: I do agree with Commissioner

16 Sprague. I think again the idea is to reward but not to

17 over-reward. We need to -- I think you may want to

18 consider going back to the way it was originally phrased

19 perhaps.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So, Member Shroyer,

21 would you withdraw your request or would the Commission

22 like to reconsider the request of Mr. Shroyer? Either

23 way.

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I would withdraw

25 the request, but I still don't care for the variance in

 

 

 

 

63

1 the size range. I think that ought to be reviewed and

2 amended.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So we are withdrawing

4 Option A.

5 Yes, Mr. Fisher.

6 MR. FISHER: Thank you. I don't want to

7 belabor this. I know we've spent considerable time.

8 Just two minor points on Page 23.

9 In paragraph 6, the underlying material in the middle of

10 the paragraph, contemplates a developer completing an

11 agreement on a pre-approved blank form as provided by

12 the City and that in and of itself is a little bit broad

13 in the sense that we could put anything in front of them

14 and require them to sign. So I merely suggest adding at

15 the end of that line "with provisions reasonably

16 calculated to assure maintenance consistent with the

17 intent of this section of the ordinance," and that then

18 clarifies that --

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you repeat your

20 sentence? "With provisions reasonably calculated" --

21 MR. FISHER: Yeah. "With provisions

22 reasonably calculated to assure maintenance consistent

23 with the intent of this section of the ordinance."

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, as we do

 

 

 

 

64

1 have in our packet a site maintenance agreement that I

2 was going to include with the motion to adopt that, and

3 if we did do that would that site maintenance agreement

4 be the one that Section 6 would be referring to?

5 MR. EVANCOE: Right.

6 MR. FISHER: And then we'd change the

7 language. Rather than a pre-approved blank, it would be

8 to the agreement and schedule something.

9 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: That was going to be

10 my recommendation for this evening. I read through the

11 maintenance agreement and I thought that it sounded fine

12 and was going to recommend attaching that.

13 MR. FISHER: That would be a fine

14 alternative as long as it's something specific that

15 doesn't essentially open the door to arbitrary activity.

16 I have one other point in paragraph

 

17 7. These cost estimates are included -- there's a cost

18 estimate required to be made and the intent there is to

19 make sure that the bond is adequate. And cost to one

20 individual is different than a cost to a developer and

21 it may be different than cost to the City and what we're

22 really talking about here is cost to the City. So I

23 think we should clarify that accurate planted costs that

24 would be available to the City.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Where would you like to

 

 

 

 

65

1 insert this?

2 MR. FISHER: Right after the word "costs".

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Accurate --

4 MR. FISHER: Planted costs that would be

5 available to the City. Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you have anything,

7 Mr. Sprague? Okay.

8 If we have nothing else, the Chair

9 will entertain a motion. Member Kocan.

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam

11 Chair.

12 In the matter of Zoning Text

13 Amendment 18.172 to amend the City of Novi's Zoning

14 Ordinance, as codified in Section 34, Zoning, of the

15 City's Code of Ordinances, Section 2509, Landscaping, in

16 order to update and revise the entire section, motion to

17 recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment 18.172 with

18 the following conditions: All the changes discussed

19 this evening will be incorporated, particularly staff to

20 revise and finalize the right-of-way requirements chart

21 on Page 12, taking our comments into consideration,

22 without reducing berm heights with respect to greenbelt

23 width.

24 Additional requirements for parking

25 islands from current Ordinance 2509.8.b with islands to

 

 

 

 

66

1 be placed throughout the lot based on a set number of

2 parking spaces as recommended by staff.

3 Including the adoption of site

4 maintenance agreement and recommended verbiage,

5 including the plant material list, including the

6 following statement regarding the effective date for

7 projects in process from the memorandum of January 23rd:

8 In the event a development has received Final Site Plan

9 approval prior to the effective date of the ordinance,

10 then the new standards shall not apply. In the event a

11 development has received Preliminary Site Plan approval

12 prior to the effective date, then the review required

13 under this new ordinance shall be in compliance with the

14 terms of the new ordinance to the extent feasible

15 without having to redesign the development.

16 That's all I have.

17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Second.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Member

19 Paul. Do we have any further comments?

20 Mr. Evancoe.

21 MR. EVANCOE: I would defer first to

22 Commissioner Sprague, who had his hand up.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. Mr.

24 Sprague.

25 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Does the motion

 

 

 

 

67

1 include adopting Option A under this Landscape Tree

2 Credit Chart or not?

3 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: We removed it.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We removed that.

5 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Evancoe.

7 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

8 Member Kocan, you referred to a

9 memo dated January, is that correct, because there is a

10 February 7th, 2003 memo that has the recommendation?

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I never got that. It

12 wasn't in my packet.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here.

14 MR. EVANCOE: It had one additional point

15 at the bottom.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Can I amend my own

17 motion?

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we just change the

19 date?

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Well, I think it's

21 indicative but we can add it: Developments already

22 submitted but not having been approved for Preliminary

23 Site Plan approval shall comply fully with the new

24 requirements. That's the additional sentence.

25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I'm also amenable to

 

 

 

 

68

1 that.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Mr.

3 Evancoe.

4 MR. EVANCOE: And then also a note that

5 the street tree list is a part of the ordinance as well

6 as the planting details that were provided in the

7 packet. I just want to make sure that you're aware that

8 those are part of the ordinance.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I didn't realize that

10 was part of the ordinance. If the tree list is part of

11 the ordinance, I'd like to remove all ash trees --

12 MR. EVANCOE: They are.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: -- because they're ash

14 borer diseased. There's no ash left.

15 MR. EVANCOE: And if I can ask another

16 question. With regard to the abutting right-of-way

17 chart, I'm not sure if Mike and I are clear on your

18 direction as to what you want to do on this. If we

19 could maybe just clarify.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan, would you

21 like to clarify that for Mr. Evancoe.

22 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I wish I could make

23 it real clear, but we don't have a -- I'm hopeful that

24 you could come up with one percentage, 15 percent

25 greenbelt, 15 percent additional greenbelt space,

 

 

 

 

69

1 without reducing the current berm heights. And if that

2 doesn't work, then I would attach a memo to City Council

3 -- it was their recommendation, from what I understand,

4 to increase the greenbelt to allow some more

5 flexibility. So we can put it back in their lap and ask

6 them to get creative.

7 MR. EVANCOE: Shoot for 15 percent and --

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: You pick the number.

9 MR. EVANCOE: But whatever works.

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Whatever works in all

11 the instances so that every single one isn't five

12 percent, ten percent, twelve percent, fourteen percent.

13 I just think it would be easier. Maybe that's

14 unrealistic but --

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm not sure -- I don't

16 mean to interject -- but I'm not sure if a specific

17 percentage would work for all areas. Is that what

18 you're trying to say?

19 MR. EVANCOE: Well, the problem that does

20 come in is to get a percentage that works in all areas

21 it becomes a pretty low percentage, ten percent or less.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Why don't we just go

23 with the motion as it was and I think that it was

24 indicating during the discussion that would be sent to

25 Council, these flow charts, I mean not flow charts,

 

 

 

 

70

1 percentage calculations.

2 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Understanding that if

3 it can't be done then I would expect a recommendation

4 from staff to City Council.

5 MR. EVANCOE: Okay. Thank you.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With that, Ms. McBeth,

7 if you would please call roll.

8 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

9 Commissioner Markham?

10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

11 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp?

14 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Paul?

16 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

17 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle?

18 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer?

20 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

21 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Sprague?

22 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

23 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos?

24 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

25 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Kocan?

 

 

 

 

71

1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

2 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 9 to 0.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

4 At this time the Commission will take a ten minute

5 break.

6 (A brief recess was held during

7 the meeting.)

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call the

9 meeting back to order. We are on our second Public

10 Hearing, which is Island Lake of Novi, (Lake Shore

11 Activities), Site Plan Number 02-62. The Public Hearing

12 is on the request of Toll Brothers for approval of a

13 revised wetland permit. The applicant is proposing to

14 amend the wetland permit previously issued in order to

15 make changes to lake bottom, lake shore, wetland buffer.

16 The property in question is located in Sections 18 and

17 19, north of Ten Mile Road, between Napier and Wixom

18 Roads.

19 Ms. McBeth.

20 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

21 I'll put an aerial photo up to

22 display the location of the property. And for the

23 Commission and the audience and for orientation, Ten

24 Mile Road is located here, along the bottom part of the

25 page, Napier Road is located on the left side of the

 

 

 

 

72

1 page and Wixom Road is located right about in this

2 location here. The lake at Island Lake, of course, is

3 this dark area that's outlined here.

4 So this aerial photo also shows the

5 areas under consideration for the wetland permit

6 activities, which are located primarily around the lake

7 itself. The four general activities are displayed on

8 this photos. The first area is generally located along

9 the north and west sides of the lake here where the

10 applicant is proposing to deepen the lake in some areas

11 to allow sufficient lake depth to accommodate seasonal

12 boat docks.

13 Secondly, the applicant provided

14 some lake buffer planting details for the proposed lots

15 and homes, mostly along the north but I believe also

16 along the south side of the lake, some standard details

17 for the lake buffer plantings.

18 The third request is for new

19 boardwalks proposed in two locations, one on the west

20 side of the property and one located right about here on

21 the property. Those boardwalks are proposed to span

22 existing wetlands in those areas.

23 And, finally, the fourth request is

24 for a community boat launch and fixed docks in the area

25 that would be used for a park for the Island Lake

 

 

 

 

73

1 community.

2 You will note that the Michigan

3 Department of Environmental Quality has reviewed and

4 approved the permits for these four requests and the

5 applicant now seeks The City of Novi Wetland Permit

6 approval.

7 Two reports were prepared for The

8 Planning Commission's consideration of this request for

9 the revised wetland permit. The planning review

10 indicated support for the proposed wetland permits

11 subject to the applicant submitting a plan showing the

12 improvements to the community park proposed to be

13 located again on that southwest side of the lake.

14 The RUD agreements approved by the

15 City discuss the concept of a community park at this

16 location. Improvements, such as a driveway and parking

17 spaces, may be necessary to provide access to the boat

18 launch and the docks at that location. In fact, a

19 Preliminary Site Plan was submitted for improvements in

20 this park area last year, and I'll put that up briefly.

21 This preliminary plan was submitted

22 with Phases 4a and 5a. Those were the homes that were

23 located on the south side of the lake. This plan was

24 not presented to the Planning Commission at that time

25 because the applicant withdrew their request for the

 

 

 

 

74

1 community park at that point and does plan on submitting

2 a plan in the near future for this community park and

3 the improvements that are shown, including a driveway,

4 some parking spaces, a community meeting room in the

5 existing barn that's there and a driveway that would

6 lead out to the boat launch and the fixed docks.

7 The Planning Department suggests

8 that The Planning Commission consider granting

9 conditional approval of the part of the wetland permit

10 for the boat launch and the boat docks, subject to a

11 plan and improvements in the park area being submitted

12 for a review and approval.

13 The second report was the wetlands

14 report and that did indicate support for the revised

15 wetland permit subject to a number of conditions. The

16 Wetlands Review letter is included in your packets this

17 evening for consideration. Aimee Kay, our wetlands

18 consultant, is here this evening, and I believe the

19 applicant is here as well with his wetland consultant if

20 there are any further questions. Thank you.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any comments

22 from the applicant?

23 If not, is there anyone in the

24 audience that would like to address the Commission with

25 regard to this Public Hearing?

 

 

 

 

75

1 Seeing no one, do we have any

2 correspondence? Member Kocan.

3 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes, we do. We have

4 two Public Hearing responses. One from Julie Herron,

5 H-e-r-r-o-n, 25552 Hilldale, who approves of the

6 request, and this is the same one. So I only have one.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. If there's

8 no participation from the audience members, then I will

9 close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the

10 Commission. Member Paul.

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: JCK, Aimee Kay, to

12 please come forward. I have a question for her.

13 When I looked initially at this

14 site I was looking at almost two-thirds of an acre of

15 dredging and when I then sat down and really figured out

16 the square feet and the cubic yards and calculated it I

17 gathered it was about .5 yards, which is approximately

18 18 inches in height. Is that approximately right? I

19 know there's going to be variation in the land and a

20 then variation of what you're going to have to dredge

21 out depending on the depth of this lake, but is that

22 approximately correct?

23 MS. KAY: Yes, and these are just

24 estimates, exactly for what you mentioned. The

25 topography is going to be changed from area to area, but

 

 

 

 

76

1 they just know that basically in that end of the lake

2 it's shallow overall and they're not able to get the

3 boats there and so we gave you some estimates.

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: When I talked with the

5 MDEQ, Todd Loci (ph) was in favor of this, and when I

6 got the MDEQ letter everything seems to have met all the

7 requirements of the letter. So it looks like Island

8 Lakes is following everything recommended. Is there

9 anything you see that we need to have included in this?

10 MS. KAY: No. We're obviously looking for

11 feedback, but we are in support of the plan. All of

12 these items, excepting the boat launch, was part of the

13 RUD agreement and we believe that they always intended

 

14 to have a boat launch and even if it wasn't explicitly

15 mentioned in the RUD that doesn't mean it was not

16 something that they anticipated. So we believe it's

17 reasonable use under the conditions. The lake is a new

18 lake, as you well know. It was mined for years and

19 years and it's a different sort of lake system than

20 most. So we're in agreement with the submittal as such.

21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Under Page 3 of your

22 letter you talk about the lake buffer to be tested for

23 nutrient content in the soils and there was an RUD and

24 that was in the master deed. What is this test for the

25 nutrient control and how often does it have to be done?

 

 

 

 

77

1 MS. KAY: Okay. Actually, the baseline

2 testing has already occurred and I believe that occurred

3 last year and I believe you're remarking on our comments

4 under the -- it says nutrients and what we -- really, to

5 explain that a little further we're really referring to

6 any potential nutrient loading, so not nutrients per se

7 but nutrient loading that would be caused from

8 fertilizers from lawns, from any of the back lots of all

9 the individual residential homes.

 

10 So the testing has already been

11 done and they tested the soils. And what I mean by

12 baseline is just get what is existing in the soils there

13 now so that, say, ten years from now somebody can go

14 out, or there should be continued monitoring actually.

15 I think under our permit there's going to be continued

16 monitoring and they can see if it's increasing in

17 phosphorus, increasing in nitrogen, etcetera, and check

18 for pesticides as well. And, obviously, if there is an

19 increase then they can regulate the use.

20 There's already restrictions for

21 those condominiums on the type of applications they can

22 use for those --

23 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Fertilization?

24 MS. KAY: Right. So we have the

25 monitoring for a starting point to see if it's

 

 

 

 

78

1 increasing.

2 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Is there a set time

3 frame that you want this testing to occur or is there a

4 specified amount already that's been in the master deed?

5 MS. KAY: I believe it's already in our

6 permit. I don't have our permit with me, but I believe

7 that's for five years and I believe their wetland

8 consultant can correct me.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. You can't

10 just interject because you have to identify yourself and

11 then come down. So let her speak and we'll be happy to

12 listen to what you have to say, sir.

13 MS. KAY: Okay. So twice a year for

14 testing.

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. And the other

16 thing is, what phase is the boardwalk in? Under

17 recommendation number 1, you have the boardwalk being

18 either Phase 2b or 3d.

19 MS. KAY: Yeah, we put that in there

20 because actually the plans that were submitted it is

21 unclear what phase is that in and even from all the

22 plans that we've had from previous submittals we

23 couldn't tell that.

24 So we're just putting that in there

25 as a point of clarification so if it happens to be in a

 

 

 

 

79

1 different phase that he can note that on the plan. So

2 it's really a clerical thing, but we are approving that

3 boardwalk.

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. Then I think

5 I'd like to ask the applicant if they would specify

6 where the boardwalk is so we can put it in our soil

7 erosion control.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, if you would

9 please state your name and spell it for the court

10 reporter.

11 MR. RICKARD: Jason Rickard, with Toll

12 Brothers, R-i-c-k-a-r-d.

13 Did you have the site map? The two

14 boardwalks in question are this one right here, which is

15 kind of in limbo in between two phases. We have the

16 Single-Family homes along the lake, this part is already

17 developed, and then the condos that were submitted right

18 now for our pre-application meeting. We just had that a

19 couple weeks ago. So it's kind of in between those two

20 sections. And then this section over here, along Napier

21 Road, once again is kind of in between two sections. We

22 just wanted to get all the boardwalks wrapped up. We

23 had just completed some other ones along Wixom Road

24 through some wetland crossings and then through the

25 woods over all the wetland crossings there.

 

 

 

 

80

1 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I'm still not sure

2 which phase then you're talking about. I'd just like an

3 answer. Is it 2b or 3d and can it be included in the

4 soil erosion control?

5 MR. RICKARD: For which boardwalk?

6 COMMISSIONER PAUL: It says, "The

7 boardwalk on the east side of the lake is within phase

8 2b or 3d. If the boardwalk is within phase 3d, our

9 office recommends including the boardwalk in the soil

10 control."

11 MR. RICKARD: Well, I guess it would be

12 considered 3b.

13 COMMISSIONER PAUL: That's not even one of

14 the options.

15 MR. RICKARD: I'm sorry, 2b.

16 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Can you specify that

17 again?

18 MR. RICKARD: 2b is the section along the

19 lake and then the --

20 MS. KAY: If I could interject. Actually,

21 let me make a correction here. There's a soil erosion

22 permit already for all the lake shore activities and all

23 we're saying in the letter is when he determines whether

24 or not that really is in 3d or is part of this lake

25 shore per se or another phase, whatever phase that may

 

 

 

 

81

1 be --

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you speak up?

3 MS. KAY: Excuse me. That they just note

4 that and he amends the soil erosion control permit

5 that's already active and that he tell the person that's

6 in charge of that permit what these activities are so

7 it's duly noted on their plans so they can put the

8 appropriate soil erosion control measures for this

9 activity.

10 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Thank you for

11 clarifying. I appreciate it. Then are you in agreement

12 to substitute any other species of a natural medium for

13 the Silky Dogwood?

14 MR. RICKARD: Yes, that is not a problem.

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Thank you.

16 In the matter of the request of

17 Island Lakes of Novi (Lake Shore Activities) SP 02-62,

18 motion to grant approval of the Revised Wetland Permit,

19 subject to the submit review and approval of a site plan

20 showing the necessary improvements in the community

21 park, prior to construction of the proposed boat launch

22 and permanent boat docks for safety of the water

23 recreation.

24 Number 2. The 11 conditions

25 detailed on the wetlands review letter as implemented;

 

 

 

 

82

1 the boardwalk on the east side of the lake to be

2 specified into the soil erosion control, and to add

3 native species other than dogwoods are recommended.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do I have a second?

5 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Second.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by Mr. Ruyle.

7 Is there any further discussion? Yes, Member Markham.

8 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: It seems a little

9 unusual to me that we're approving a wetland permit

10 conditional to a bunch of plans that we haven't seen.

11 Is that typical? I haven't seen this book.

12 MS. KAY: Actually, you have seen most of

13 the phases for this. The reason -- you're right, it is

14 a little atypical. The reason we specifically requested

15 that they come before the Planning Commission is because

16 so far what's been happening now the reviews have been

17 coming in at the plot plan level individually and that

18 doesn't mean that it can't continue to do so but because

19 we know they -- they actually wanted to have the whole

20 lake shore development being done at once and we were in

21 opposition to that because we believe it needs to be

22 phased for environmental reasons so you have a little

23 more control over enforcement, etcetera.

24 So we actually did request that

25 they come in for this specific wetland permit. So

 

 

 

 

83

1 you've actually seen most of the permitted impacts that

2 are shown on the DEQ permit but the only additional new

3 permitted activity is the boat launch per se.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Thanks. Nothing

6 further.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan.

8 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam

9 Chair.

10 Following up on that, because I had

11 the same concern, why am I approving a plan that I don't

12 see in front of me? And obviously the addition of the

13 boat launch and the boat docks requires parking changes,

14 it requires a road, it's going to require a turn-around.

15 We don't have a plan showing it. It also requires, from

16 previous comments from City Council, the people who live

17 there shouldn't have to look at parking. So I know

18 there was a blanket statement in the review letter

19 saying we think this is feasible, but I don't like this

20 process. I'm concerned about if we give them approval

21 subject to submittal, review and approval of the site

22 plan, does that not have to come in front of the

23 Planning Commission so in essence we're giving them

24 nothing? I don't understand.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Ms. McBeth.

 

 

 

 

84

1 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

2 Yes, you would still need to review

3 the site plan for the proposed improvements at that

4 community park. The Planning Commission would still

5 need to do that. Maybe the applicant would like to

6 address the timing of these improvements that they're

7 proposing for that boat launch and those fixed docks at

8 the community park. I understood there was some concern

9 about doing the work during the winter months as opposed

10 to the summer months in this case.

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: If I can get

12 clarification from the city attorney.

13 Are we giving them any approval if

14 it says it's conditional on approval of a site plan?

15 MR. FISHER: No. I think that the

16 sequence is rational in the sense that they needed to

17 know that the City would approve this type of wetland

18 activity before preparing the site plan. Why go through

19 all of the site plan process if they can't impact the

20 wetland? So the wetland activities are, you might say,

21 aside from the site plan, although you need the wetland

22 activities in order to do the development that is

23 contemplated in the site plan. So I think it's

24 rational, I think it's a rational request.

25 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do you also agree

 

 

 

 

85

1 then that we will not be in a situation where they could

2 claim hardship later on to say you approved the wetland,

3 you let me spend this money and dredge the lake and

4 whatever and now you're not going to approve my parking?

5 I mean, I don't want us in a position that we have to

6 approve whatever comes in front of us because we've

7 given a previous approval.

8 MR. FISHER: I think the point would be

9 that you are implying that you are going to approve some

10 kind of community project. You do not have to

11 necessarily approve the specific plan they present, but

12 you are implying that you are going to approve some site

13 plan as long as it meets all the other requirements.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Thank you.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further

16 comments? I have a couple comments.

17 Number one, with every Preliminary

18 Site Plan we've had we have wetland approval. I think

19 what's driving this is that they want to do this during

20 winter.

21 Number two, I'd like to know how

22 the -- we know that this was basically dug out, that

23 this was a gravel pit or something that's dug out. I'd

24 like to know who is responsible for the water table.

25 Mr. Coburn, if you could answer that, or the level of

 

 

 

 

86

1 the water.

2 MR. COBURN: Because it's a gravel pit

3 it's a different situation than what you have with a

4 normal lake. I believe that the lake level would be

5 fixed by the level of the water table. So in a regular

6 lake, if you were to dredge something out, the level of

7 the lake might go down. In a gravel pit lake like this

8 one is, you dredge something out, the water table is

9 still going to be the same level. So you're not going

10 to see any decrease in the water elevation.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there someone that

12 maintains the level, is that under the Drain Commission

13 or is that within Island Lake's responsibility?

14 MR. COBURN: I believe it's maintained by

15 the outlet and there's no level maintained, it's just

16 whatever the outlet is.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I personally

18 happen to agree with the prior speaker, that I would

19 have liked to have seen site plans, but I will support

20 the motion.

21 If there's no further discussion

22 then, Ms. McBeth, if you would please call the roll.

23 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

24 Chairperson Nagy?

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

 

 

 

 

87

1 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp?

2 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

3 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Paul?

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

5 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle?

6 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

7 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer?

8 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

9 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Sprague?

10 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

11 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos?

12 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan?

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Markham?

16 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

17 MS. McBETH: Motions passes 9 to 0.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Good night.

19 Can I have your attention, ladies

20 and gentlemen. We are under the Public Hearing for

21 Catholic Central High School, Site Plan number 02-61.

22 Consideration of the request of Father Richard Elmer for

23 approval of a Preliminary Site Plan, Wetland, and

24 Woodland permit and a Special Land Use Permit. The

25 subject property is located in Section 18 on the west

 

 

 

 

88

1 side of Wixom Road south of Grand River Avenue in the

2 R-1 (One Family Residential) district. The developer is

3 proposing a private college preparatory high school.

4 The subject property is approximately 60 acres.

5 Mr. Schmitt.

6 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Go slow.

8 MR. SCHMITT: I will go as slow as you'd

9 like me to.

10 As you can see on the aerial photo,

11 this is the location of the property we're discussing.

12 Twelve Mile Road is to the north and Wixom Road is on

13 the extreme eastern portion of the picture. As you can

14 see, Island Lake Drive does come up to the south. To

15 the north is vacant land and to the west is vacant land.

16 Across the street to the east is the Novi Promenade

17 commercial development.

18 The current zoning for the parcel

19 is R-1, Single Family Residential. To the north it is

20 zoned a combination I-1 (Light industrial) and I-2

21 (general industries). To the south is the Island Lake

22 RUD, which is zoned R-1 in this area. To the west is RA

23 (residential acreage) and to the east is I-1 (light

24 industrial) for the Novi Promenade development. And the

25 land use map is consistent with these zoning

 

 

 

 

89

1 classifications. Both Catholic Central and the Island

2 Lake property to the south are single family. To the

3 west is Master Planned for office, as are the three

4 parcels fronting on Wixom Road, and to the north is a

5 light industrial classification.

6 I'd like to briefly walk through

7 the site just to give everyone a general overview of

8 what is being proposed.

9 As you can see, Wixom Road is on

10 the east. This is the main entrance to the driveway, to

11 the parcel, which begins the ring road, which will

12 encirculate the site. As you can see, part of parking

13 lot is along the front. The school is located roughly

14 in the center of the site with a wetland directly

15 adjacent to the south.

16 The ring road continues to the west

17 to an additional parking lot, the lighted football field

18 and track, the baseball diamonds, both varsity and

19 junior varsity, along with a practice football/soccer

20 field.

21 Their on-site detention is located

22 in this location, and as you travel further back to the

23 east eight tennis courts are proposed and two practice

24 fields for the site. The ring road then exits back out

25 onto Wixom Road.

 

 

 

 

90

1 In going through the review

2 letters, several issues have been noted that should be

3 brought to the attention of the Commission. The fire

4 department has said that the site meets the requirements

5 and is recommending for approval. The fire marshal and

6 the applicant have gone through several meetings and the

7 site is designed to the fire marshal's liking. The

8 facade review indicates that the current building and

9 the concession building both meet the facade

10 requirements, therefore no Section 9 waiver will be

11 required.

12 The engineering review indicated

13 minor comments that could be taken care of at the time

14 of Final Site Plan approval. The planning review

15 indicated two variances that will be required for this

16 site and both of them involved the football field

17 lighting at the lighted field at the west of the

18 property. The applicant is proposing 80 foot high

19 football standards for the lights, with a 45 degree

20 cut-off angle.

21 Under our code, the maximum height

22 allowed would be 25 feet and the lights would have a

23 cut-off angle of 90 degrees. The Planning Department is

24 under the impression that this is not a situation that

25 was taken into by the current ordinance. It's very

 

 

 

 

91

1 difficult to plan for every possible situation and a

2 private high school is a very unique situation to the

3 city.

4 For comparison sake, Novi High

5 School has 90 foot high poles with a slightly higher

6 cut-off angle which provides further spillover than will

7 be at the Catholic Central site. In talking to lighting

8 consultants throughout the area, one of the foremost

9 experts in the field, Musco Lighting, has given us the

10 standards that 60 to 90 feet is a general standard for

11 football field lighting. The higher the poles are the

12 less spillover you get on surrounding properties because

13 you can more easily direct the light towards the field.

14 In addition, the question was

15 raised as to the proximity of some of these fields to

16 the surrounding developments. As you can see, the

17 baseball diamond is within 30 feet of the south property

18 line. However, there is a substantial setback on the

19 Island Lake property to the nearest condo in that area.

20 From the property line of Catholic

21 Central to the nearest condo on Island Lake is 275 feet

22 and it is 305 feet to the first baseball diamond. To

23 the mobile home park, that is further to the southwest,

24 is 375 feet to the property line and 405 feet to the

25 baseball diamond.

 

 

 

 

92

1 For comparison sake, I'd like to

2 show you the recently proposed concept plan for Novi

3 High School, the additions that they will be making to

4 the south of their current location. As you can see,

5 they're proposing -- this is Taft Road to the west --

6 they're proposing two practice soccer/football fields

7 and one softball field. Once this is constructed, the

8 nearest house in the subdivision to the south will be 40

9 feet from the property line and 240 feet from the

10 practice facility, substantially less than the Catholic

11 Central setback.

12 One of the other issues that was

13 raised in terms of the review were the islands, the

14 parking islands in the far west parking lot. The

15 applicant has initially proposed to make these islands

16 flush with the asphalt and simply painted. I will let

17 them further discuss this; however, the traffic

18 consultant has indicated he would not support this and

19 would like to see raised landscaped islands in that

20 area.

21 In addition, a Planning Commission

22 waiver of the opposite side driveway spacing will be

23 required under the traffic review for the southern drive

24 in relation to the truck entrance for Novi Promenade.

25 Bill Stimpson is here from Birchler Arroyo & Associates

 

 

 

 

93

1 and he can comment on any of the traffic issues this

2 evening, but he indicated in his review letter that he

3 would support such a waiver.

4 As you saw previously, Aimee Kay,

5 our wetlands consultant, is here this evening. Aimee,

6 after working extensively with the applicant, came to

7 several agreements and can support the plan as it's

8 currently proposed. Two of the items that should be

9 pointed out are the fact that there are a total of 14.

10 roughly 37 acres of wetland on the site and only 2.04 of

11 them are being permanently impacted. They are

12 mitigating on the site. However, in working with the

13 wetlands and woodlands consultants, a proper amount of

14 mitigation was determined in order to preserve as many

15 of the trees on the site as well.

16 In addition, Ms. Kay has requested,

17 and I believe the applicant can comment further on this,

18 that a bond be placed with the City in the amount of

19 $70,000 to cover approximately 158 wetland trees in

20 roughly this area of the main wetland. This is to

21 alleviate concerns that some of these trees may die off

22 as a result of future flow, water flow, into wetlands;

23 however, Ms. Kay is satisfied that this bonding will

24 protect the City in the event that these trees do die.

25 This is one of the few situations in the City where this

 

 

 

 

94

1 type of bonding has been done separate from actual

2 woodland bonding.

3 Our woodland technician, Elaine

4 Grehl, is here to discuss the woodland issues on the

5 site, a few things to point out, and the applicant can

6 speak further to this. They are working and fine-tuning

7 the site in order to get as many replacement trees on

8 the site as possible and I believe they have further

9 discussion tonight as to more ideas to further that

10 cause.

11 In addition, the bleacher design

12 for the lighted field has been proposed in such a way to

13 minimize the impact to the trees on the far west portion

14 of the site. The home bleachers were intentionally put

15 on the eastern side of the field so as to impact as few

16 trees as possible and to keep the amount of asphalt at a

17 minimum on the far west side. In addition, the visiting

18 bleachers in that area will be a special design in order

19 to save as many trees as possible.

20 Additionally, the southern drive

21 entrance is being designed to avoid as many of the trees

22 in the areas as possible. It will almost provide a

23 tree-lined boulevard design in the area just because of

24 the natural features on the site, and the applicant is

25 working diligently with their landscape architect in

 

 

 

 

95

1 order to make sure to preserve as many as possible.

2 The applicant has provided a facade

3 board, which as you can see is located in front of me on

4 the floor. I'd be happy to pass it around if you'd like

5 to see it.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, we would because

7 we can't.

8 MR. SCHMITT: In closing, I'd just like to

9 point out that the applicant has worked extensively with

10 every member of the City's team and every member of

11 their team have had several meetings in order to provide

12 the best design possible for this site. I think it's

13 safe to say that had this site come in as an office or

14 industrial development as it was previously zoned and

15 Master Planned, we would not be getting quite as

16 nature-friendly of a design.

17 For some perspective, over 70

18 percent of the site will be open space in the final

19 design, not have hard-packed surface such as asphalt or

20 building on it, and approximately 50 percent of the site

21 will actually be left green, meaning wetland or

22 landscaping or woodland trees that will remain.

23 I have no further issues. I'd be

24 happy to answer any questions you may have, as all our

25 consultants.

 

 

 

 

96

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

2 Would the applicant like to address

3 the Commission? Father Elmer.

4 FATHER ELMER: Two minutes for me then

5 I'll introduce those who are my support staff here

6 tonight.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

8 FATHER ELMER: It's very good to be here,

9 especially because our entire Catholic Central family is

10 looking forward and excited about being part of the City

11 of Novi.

12 I want to give a couple of thanks

13 especially to David Evancoe and Tim Schmitt and their

14 staff for turning around our documents so quickly that

15 we are actually able to be here tonight and, of course,

16 was crucial to keeping the tight schedule that we have

17 in order to open our doors in August of 2005, which is

18 our goal.

19 I'd like to thank, too, the welcome

20 I've really enjoyed from all parts of the City of Novi,

21 from the City administration, including the Mayor and

22 the Mayor Pro-Tem, Members of the City Council, the City

23 Manager and Assistant City Manager and, of course,

24 Members of this Planning Commission.

25 And the spirit of friendliness is

 

 

 

 

97

1 actually happening, too, between Catholic Central and

2 the Novi Board of Education. I've had several meetings

3 with your superintendent. Our two principals have

4 gotten together with a meeting, our athletic directors

5 just today got together, and so we do want to have a

6 good understanding working relationship with the schools

7 in Novi.

8 Catholic Central intends to be good

9 citizens in the City of Novi. Just a couple of examples

10 that we might have. Already we're in discussion in

11 opening what will be a very environmentally rich campus

12 to the students in Novi so that they can have field

13 trips there to do their various experiments and so on.

14 And on another point, all of our

15 students are required to do ten hours of community

16 service and that factors into over 10,000 hours of

17 community service that would be available again to the

18 City of Novi.

19 Among those in the chambers this

20 evening are members of our Catholic Central family who

21 live here. They were invited to come to show their

22 support for Catholic Central coming and there are almost

23 400 households that are connected with Catholic Central

24 that are on our mailing list that have Novi addresses,

25 and there are others I understand from Farmington Hills

 

 

 

 

98

1 and Northville that also vote in Novi. So there are

2 quite a few CC connections here already. And I've

3 noticed that a number of our alums are now moving into

4 the city with the idea that they have young boys and

5 they want them to go to Catholic Central. So I think

6 you'll find that will happen as well.

7 And just finally I'd like to

8 introduce our support staff that are here tonight. I've

9 been very impressed with the expertise of all of them in

10 coming to this point that we're at tonight. And if they

11 would just stand as I call off their names.

12 Our architect, from Coquillard,

13 Dundon, Peterson and Argenta, John Argenta and Steve

14 Flicka; our attorney, Tom Ryan; our owner's

15 representative, Greg Kreutzer; our project director,

16 from McCarthy, Smith & Associates, Bill McCarthy; our

17 woodlands experts, from King & McGregor, Jeff King and

18 Woody Held; and our engineers, from Zymet-Wozniak,

19 Julian Wargo and Mark Highlen.

20 I would like to just give a few

21 words to John Argenta, our architect, and then to Ken

22 Weikal, the consultant to our landscape architects, who

23 will give a very brief explanation on some issues that

24 I'll know you'll be asking about later on.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Father, before you

 

 

 

 

99

1 leave, can I ask you a big favor? Do you think you can

2 give the list of the names you just read off to our

3 reporter so he can have the correct spellings?

4 FATHER ELMER: Absolutely.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

6 Sir, if could you please state your

7 name and spell your last name for the court reporter I'd

8 appreciate it.

9 MR. ARGENTA: John Argenta, A-r-g-e-n-t-a.

10 Just a few brief comments to

11 supplement what Mr. Schmitt said.

12 When Catholic Central made the

13 decision --

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you speak up?

15 Thank you.

16 MR. ARGENTA: When Catholic Central

17 originally made the decision to build a new high school,

18 it was because of inadequate facilities at their Redford

19 campus, both for academic and athletic facilities. The

20 building was presently built as a junior high by Redford

21 Union in 1954. It was eventually closed because of

22 declining enrollment. Catholic Central bought it and

23 has been there since the early seventies.

24 When planning began, fortunately we

25 were donated by a very generous donor 50 acres of

 

 

 

 

100

1 property on Wixom Road, the site that we're proposing.

2 When planning began with a program of requirements that

3 outline Catholic Central's needs for a modern high

4 school, both academic and athletic, for a campus that at

5 last would be their permanent home, several meetings

6 were held with the City of Novi and with the DEQ to

7 determine planning alternatives and planning

8 requirements. And as the site planning progressed, it

9 became very clear that in order to protect the wetlands

10 and the woodlands on this site to the maximum extent

11 possible that certain design compromises were going to

12 have to be made in the original program requirements

13 because of the large quantities of wetlands and

14 woodlands and the confines of the site and the way they

15 were laid out.

16 The large area and location of

17 these natural resources, they place significant

18 restrictions on the available area for construction as

19 well as the locations, the relative locations of the

20 different facilities. One of the things was that we

21 were directed early on that the main access to the site

22 would have to be up in the northeast corner, opposite

23 the entrance to the mall across the street. And this

24 really put a constriction between the wetlands and the

25 north property line, and we went back to the donor and

 

 

 

 

101

1 we were able to get an additional ten acres to make this

2 a 60 acre site, because of the narrow confines we had to

3 do any building since that was going to be the main

4 entrance. So then the decision was made to design

5 around the wetlands, many of them wooded, and to treat

6 them as a site amenity rather than a restriction. I

7 think as we've gone along it's been rather successful.

8 A significant amount of trees in the wetlands have been

9 saved so that now the wetlands and the natural features

10 are a very significant part of the design.

11 The main entrance is to the north,

12 the parking is to the north and the main entrances to

13 the building are to the north. To the south of the

14 building there are no entries because of the wetlands

15 and the proximity to the wetlands and the woodlands.

16 And then, as we mentioned before, the drive wraps around

17 the building.

18 The floor plan of the building

19 incorporates a two-story classroom wing. It has a media

20 center. The two-story wing is that triangular piece

21 down at the end. And the building was shaped to take

22 advantage of every in and out of the wetlands because of

23 the constrictions on the site. There's a two-story

24 classroom wing, a media center, administration and

25 counseling offices, staff offices. There's a chapel,

 

 

 

 

102

1 the portion that projects into the wetlands, a

2 gymnasium, cafeteria, kitchen, art and music areas,

3 athletic locker spaces, auxiliary gym and a fitness

4 center.

5 When we got to the site amenities

6 and requirements, the original program called for a

7 varsity game field for football and for soccer and

8 lacrosse with a track. It also required, because of the

9 extensive athletic program with varsity, junior varsity

10 and freshman running three different levels of

11 athletics, three football practice fields, three soccer

12 fields, three baseball fields and ten tennis courts.

13 It quickly became obvious that

14 because of natural site constraints all of these

15 facilities wouldn't fit on the site. So this area here

16 was developed as an artificial synthetic turf field that

17 could eliminate the need for multiple fields and combine

18 the requirements and eliminate the turf management that

19 would be required.

20 That field, here, serves as a

21 varsity football game field, a varsity soccer game

22 field, a varsity football practice field, which usually

23 destroys a regular turf field, a JV football game field,

24 freshmen game field, lacrosse game field and freshmen

25 and JV soccer fields can all be played on this game --

 

 

 

 

103

1 on this field. Also a track around the field and then

2 three practice fields, here, and you'll see the other

3 two at the other end of the site, two for football, for

4 JV and for freshmen, and one for soccer, and then a

5 varsity fenced baseball field and a practice baseball

6 field that is overlaid by a practice field to again

7 reduce the number of fields that would be required on

8 the site and how they would impact all of these natural

9 features.

10 And after some real review with

11 some real innovative scheduling, most of the programs

12 for the school can be accommodated with these sites now

13 in this reduced state because of the synthetic turf

14 field that would go up here.

15 Ken Weikal is here from the

16 landscape firm that has a few comments on the wetlands

17 and woodlands and then...

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

19 Sir, if you could please state your

20 name and spell it for the court reporter.

21 MR. WEIKAL: My name is Ken Weikal,

22 W-e-i-k-a-l, landscape architect with Grissom, Metz,

23 Andriese.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And you know what?

25 It's getting very late, he's been going a long time. If

 

 

 

 

104

1 you could speak a little bit slower, we'd all appreciate

2 it.

3 MR. WEIKAL: Oh, all right.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thanks.

5 MR. WEIKAL: I'll just hit on a few

6 points. I know you've all reviewed the proposed

7 landscape plan. This has been a very interesting

8 project to work on with the constraints of the extensive

9 wetlands and natural features.

10 The planting concept is basically

11 utilizing those and keeping those as much as possible

12 with the natural plantings that will be introduced.

13 We're going to be using mostly native plant types and

14 then also a very diverse grouping of these native plant

15 types due to the -- probably inspired by the emerald ash

16 borer problem.

17 There were a couple points in the

18 review letters from staff. One was the sports field

19 parking, right here, the islands in the parking. We've

20 decided those will be curbed, per the recommendation of

21 the traffic engineer, and we will be doing the required

22 tree plantings in those islands also.

23 There was a request by Mr.

24 McGinnis, the staff landscape architect, about the

25 plantings along the north buffer area. We will be

 

 

 

 

105

1 planting additional native shrubs along there also.

2 The bonding for the wetland trees

3 in this area, this portion of the wetland is going to be

4 used as a very shallow detention basin. Water will be

5 gone within 24 hours, etcetera. That's all described in

6 your packets. We do agree to that -- posting a bond for

7 that.

8 The woodlands, we've been working

9 diligently ongoing with Elaine from the staff. We have

10 agreed to -- since we've been working on the fine

11 grading now, since we made the original submittal, we

12 are working out the very detailed grading. We've worked

13 out -- again that north property line, we can add

14 woodland replacement trees to that area. And then we're

15 still working on other smaller areas, more precise

16 areas, with Elaine to increase the number of woodland

17 replacements.

18 Lastly, there was a note Mr.

19 McGinnis had on what we're calling the "no mow" lawn

20 areas, natural areas around the site, since the concept

21 is to keep the site completely natural. We don't want a

22 real manicured landscaping kind of look. That will be

23 submitted. Those areas will be submitted at final

24 review. Thank you.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, sir.

 

 

 

 

106

1 Is there anyone else that would

2 like to come forward? This is a Public Hearing and the

3 audience has the ability to participate. We have one

4 gentleman, one person, Mr. Allen Bond, that would like

5 to speak. If you'd like to speak to the Commission, you

6 may come forward and address the Commission, and keep it

7 to three minutes as an individual, five as a group, and

8 try not to be repetitive. Mr. Bond.

9 MR. BOND: Good evening.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Good

11 evening.

12 MR. BOND: Allen Bond and my wife

13 Kathleen.

14 We're a couple of Catholic

15 Central's new neighbors on Wixom Road. We own one of

16 the three remaining parcels. We've listened with a

17 great deal of interest tonight to the various

18 presentations made by Mr. Schmitt and Catholic Central.

19 A lot of the concerns that we've had about the site

20 itself have been addressed by those presentations, so we

21 have just a couple of minor things that we've asked the

22 Commission to consider.

23 The secondary access road runs very

24 close to our parcel. We've seen in some of the plans a

25 deceleration lane widening to about 12 feet wide would

 

 

 

 

107

1 start in front of our property. Some years ago when

2 Wixom Road was paved we lost some frontage at that time

3 and we would like to keep what we still have. We're

4 wondering if the site plan could be looked at to perhaps

5 start that deceleration lane at the property line

6 instead of beginning on our property.

7 The other concerns we have are very

8 minor and have been addressed by the landscape

9 architect. We saw that there was some concerns with

10 lighting and berms there. We would simply ask the

11 Commission to consider when they review these plans to

12 help us minimize the intrusion of this school, and we're

13 speaking specifically about light intrusion from any

14 lighting fixtures or noise intrusion from especially

15 this secondary access road, and if that can be mitigated

16 for us by the use of landscaping or berms or so on we'd

17 just simply ask the Commission to consider our needs in

18 those matters.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

20 MR. BOND: Thank you very kindly.

21 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Madam Chair.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle.

23 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Before you leave,

24 sir, point out your property on that big map so we know

25 exactly. I'm sure yours is the bottom portion but I

 

 

 

 

108

1 want to know.

2 MR. BOND: We are this parcel, the

3 southern-most.

4 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

6 Is there anyone else in the

7 audience that would like to speak?

8 Sir, if you would please come

9 forward. Please state your name and spell your last

10 name for the court reporter.

11 MR. WISKA: Yes. My name is Jeff and the

12 last name is Wiska, W-i-s-k-a, an 18-year resident of

13 Novi and a 1977 graduate of Catholic Central.

14 Just for a moment, could I please

15 have anyone in the room who is a Novi resident who is

16 either a Catholic Central alumnus or has someone going

17 to Catholic Central right now, just please stand for one

18 brief moment. Okay. Very briefly. Thank you.

19 When I graduated from that school,

20 now 25 years ago, hard to believe, I know I look

21 younger, I'm not sure -- I know I was well prepared for

22 the world, but let's just say at the 25 year reunion you

23 have a different perspective of life, and when it's all

24 said and done what is Catholic Central? You get

25 everybody that just stood up and you can get a lot of

 

 

 

 

109

1 different answers, but I think -- he's going to kill me

2 -- but I think ultimately Catholic Central is right

3 here. It's alive and it's well.

4 What's he doing here? I mean,

5 certainly he's too young to be retired but certainly he

6 could justifiably be semi-retired. There's no half a

7 million dollar bonus for him to get this project done.

8 There's no if he gets this done he gets to be the

9 principal. He's doing it because he an honorable, good

10 man.

11 And for years people like him and

12 Father McKernan and Father Donaher running around

13 selling bagels on Friday afternoon so he can make the

14 thousand dollar donation to UNICEF, whatever needs to be

15 done.

16 See, when you're 16 and 17 and 18

17 sometimes you don't appreciate it, but in a world of

18 intellectual derelicts and in a world of Enrons and in a

19 world of immorality, as life goes on you're so grateful

20 to have people like this.

21 The world has been very good to me.

22 Catholic Central, I can't say enough things about it.

23 On your tape you say alumnus have a tendency to get

24 emotional and grown men cry, well, believe it or not it

25 happens.

 

 

 

 

110

1 For the last seven years I coached

2 the Novi-Northville Little League football team and

3 everyday -- it's not about winning and losing. And I

4 was one of the lucky ones. I played in college and got

5 drafted and played in the NFL, and everyday I give the

6 kids a little theme and it's not the stuff I learned at

7 Michigan State, it's not the stuff that I learned in the

8 NFL, it's about saying yes, sir, no, sir, it's about

9 treating ladies with respect, it's about honor, dignity,

10 it's about team work, it's about taking that extra step

11 when you don't think you can, it's about sitting in the

12 front of the classroom.

13 And you know what, I don't know if

14 the kids are going to Novi High, I don't know if they're

15 going to Northville, God forbid one or two of them may

16 want to go to Brother Rice, but if that happens -- the

17 point is, and I'll summarize it this way and I'll leave

18 it at this: Everyday we, the alumnus of Catholic

19 Central, have been mentored by people like this who do

20 nothing -- the Father Elmers, the Father Donahers, the

21 Mr. Santellos, the Mrs. Bales, the Coach Matz, the Coach

22 Rodiguezes. It's not about money, it's not about

23 anything but doing what's right. And what they do is

24 they enhance young minds, not only academically but

25 intellectually and spiritually as well. And we have

 

 

 

 

111

1 been taught not to forget where we came from, and I can

2 assure you that we that live here in this community, we

3 will take -- we're going to make sure people like this

4 live forever.

5 You know, we buried Father Clemons

6 several months ago. Father Clemons married my wife and

7 I, and darn it, I'm going to make sure he lives forever

8 because those little kids, so much of the stuff I tell

9 them is the same stuff that he taught me.

10 And I guess in a nutshell and to

11 summarize, we, the alumnus of Catholic Central, know,

12 via our mentors, the responsibility that we have and we

13 challenge those of future years that graduate from that

14 fine institution to keep on giving back to the community

15 as men like this have given to us.

16 And I asked everybody here who is

17 here affiliated with school to stand. I guess I would

18 ask anybody that that doesn't kind of summarize the way

19 that you feel about what's going on at Catholic Central,

20 if you don't feel that way please stand and you can come

21 -- other than that you can just ditto by 50 or 60 people

22 whoever stood up before. Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Wiska.

24 I believe that all the alumni of Catholic Central have a

25 lot to be proud of.

 

 

 

 

112

1 Sir, if you would like to address

2 the Commission, we would appreciate it for three

3 minutes, and spell your last name for the court

4 reporter.

5 MR. SPRYS: John Sprys, S-p-r-y-s.

6 I certainly can't be as eloquent as

7 Jeff; however, keep in mind that the motto of Catholic

8 Central is "Teach me goodness, discipline and

9 knowledge". And I think that has been the motto through

10 all its history and it will continue to be the motto of

11 Catholic Central. I think in Catholic Central you'll

12 have a good neighbor, you'll have a good community

13 member and I think it will continue all of its fine

14 conditions. So I urge your support.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

16 Is there anyone else that would

17 like to address the Commission? I know you all feel

18 passionately. We can feel your passion sitting up here.

19 Does anyone else like to say

20 anything? Yes, ma'am, if you'll please come up. I

21 know you didn't go to Catholic Central.

22 MS. KELLER: I am a Catholic Central

23 mother. I have a son that graduated and then --

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could state your

25 name.

 

 

 

 

113

1 MS. KELLER: I'm sorry. My name is Jane

2 Keller, K-e-l-l-e-r, and I live at 24284 Warrington

3 Court in Novi.

4 I'm really pleased to see all the

5 efforts that Catholic Central has made to bring this to

6 Novi. I think it's a reflection on our community and if

7 there is a resident that has any problems I'm sure we

8 can work it out. I'm happy to see a school of higher

9 education other than -- coming to Novi other than

10 another shopping mall. I think Catholic Central brings

11 a different kind of consumer to this area, which a lot

12 of the businesses would appreciate. And they can use

13 all the support they can get at this point trying to get

14 this on its feet. And any parents that -- just talk to

15 Father Elmer, if they can help in any way, he would more

16 than appreciate all their help that they can get. I

17 appreciate speaking tonight and I think they did a

18 wonderful job. And good luck.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

20 By the way, what are your school

21 colors?

22 FATHER ELMER: Royal blue and white.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Royal blue and white.

24 I like that. I think color is very important.

25 If there's no one else that has

 

 

 

 

114

1 anything that they would like to address the Commission

2 with, then Madam Secretary, will you read any

3 correspondence that we have.

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I have three

5 correspondence.

6 Michael Stanford, 49251 Grand River

7 Avenue, approves of the request because it will be a

8 good addition to our community.

9 I believe it's Louise Stanford,

10 49251 Grand River. The school will bring more families

11 to Novi and surrounding business.

12 Also from L. Steven Weiner,

13 W-e-i-n-e-r, 27575 Wixom Road, approves, stating the

14 Edward C. Levy Company supports the development of

15 Catholic Central as proposed and strongly encourages

16 approval.

17 That's all I have, Madam Chair.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

19 If there's no more correspondence

20 and no one else to participate from the audience, I will

21 close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the

22 Commission. Who would like to begin?

23 Mr. Shroyer.

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you.

25 Well, I think a lot of us have a

 

 

 

 

115

1 lot of things to discuss and as you all know we've been

2 very happy to work with Father Elmer and the entire

3 group in making this come forward. The job of our

4 Commission, however, as you know, is to make sure we

5 follow all the rules and guidelines and ordinances. And

6 so we, at least several of us, have some questions that

7 we need to have addressed.

8 One of the first things that I

9 have, and I don't remember which gentleman it was, I

10 think it was the second architect, Ken Weikal, if he

11 could come forward I'd appreciate it.

12 MR. WEIKAL: Would you like to just maybe

13 state the questions first or do you want us to answer

14 them kind of one-by-one?

15 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I would like you to

16 address them as I ask them.

17 MR. WEIKAL: Okay.

18 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Thank you. The

19 first one, you did indicate that you are going to go

20 ahead and put the curbing in for the islands.

21 MR. WEIKAL: Yes.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And I marked that

23 off my list, but the other question I had, and you did

24 discuss about the northern berming and talked about the

25 recommendations that our interim landscape architect had

 

 

 

 

116

1 made. Could you go over that once again for me, please?

2 MR. WEIKAL: There was a -- since the

3 property to the north is zoned industrial, when that

4 property would be constructed there's a ten foot height

5 berm required under the industrial zoning berm and

6 planting, etcetera, and we were trying to get the uses

7 for the school and the drive, which we've widened for

8 safety, and the parking within that area so we've pretty

9 much gone to the extent of our -- the setback to the

10 property line.

11 The drive is actually above the

12 property line due to grading, so for berming to go up

13 and down there's really no room to do a lot of the

14 calculations that Mr. McGinnis discussed this afternoon

15 with height, or this evening with heights.

16 Originally we wanted to say if

17 there's a berm that's needed, since we're the

18 residential zoning and they're the industrial zoning,

19 they would be responsible for the berm, or a berm, not

20 us. But with the help of Mr. McGinnis, he said, well,

21 that's an opinion but what we should probably do is we

22 should also screen, not necessarily have a berm but

23 screen using plantings along that area.

24 He recommended extensive shrub

25 plantings indigenous. And then it was also an area

 

 

 

 

117

1 where we wanted to use some of the woodland trees that

2 we're required to use in that area also.

3 So due to grading and I believe --

4 do we need to go to zoning to get variance on this one?

5 MR. McGINNIS: Not on this, not in that

6 area but in the rest of the area.

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: The main reason I'm

8 concerned about it is, yes, you're correct, currently

9 the land north is zoned light industrial. We don't know

10 what it's going to be zoned a year from now, five years

11 from now, ten years from now. We haven't done an update

12 on the Master Planning activities so we don't know what

13 it's going to be Master Planned. We don't know what

14 it's going to be zoned, so we do have to account for

15 some type of buffering between those areas and I just

16 want to make sure that we're on target with that.

17 MR. WEIKAL: We'll review that.

18 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Also, and I'm not

19 sure who this goes to, but --

20 MR. WEIKAL: I'll try. Architecture,

21 sure.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Going back through

23 my records and I found in the minutes of November 13,

24 2002, it states the school will not be proposing a full

25 football stadium on this site, and then I see the plans

 

 

 

 

 

118

1 and there's a full football stadium. And at another time

2 when I asked about lighting, because I was concerned

3 about residences, I was told that there wouldn't be any

4 lighted facilities on the entire property.

5 Help me transition from those

6 statements to the current site plan.

7 MR. WEIKAL: I can take a stab at the

8 first one. The field and the track and the bleachers,

9 we're not really considering a stadium because it's very

10 similar to the other local high schools and I'm not sure

11 those are considered stadiums also.

12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Well, under

13 Webster's definition a stadium is a large modern

14 structure for sport events having seats arranged in

15 tiers. It has to be considered a stadium.

16 MR. WEIKAL: Okay. Father, do you want to

17 address that maybe?

18 FATHER ELMER: When I indicated that there

19 were no plans for a football field or stadium, at that

20 time it was our athletic director's demands for fields

21 was such that there was no room. We wanted to save as

22 many of the trees as we could, and the wetlands of

23 course, so as you could see the whole campus is rather

24 shoe-horned in.

25 Our athletic director then told us,

 

 

 

 

119

1 he was making a deal with us, if we would put artificial

2 turf on one of the football fields that he would give up

3 one of his practice fields. He said, "I'm short even

4 now," and he still is. He still would like to have one

5 more but he's willing to do without it, at least for the

6 time being. So that's how the football stadium came

7 into being and, of course, we didn't need lighting until

8 that happened. So that's kind of the history of the

9 change in our plans. I have never had an issue that our

10 alums reacted so strongly against as the notion that we

11 were not going to have a field and it would have been a

12 rather politically incorrect thing for us to do.

13 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I wouldn't be the

14 one to tell the NFL person there isn't going to be a

15 football field.

16 FATHER ELMER: You're absolutely right. I

17 know Jeff very well.

18 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I just want to

19 understand by any means not -- I am not opposed to a

20 football field. I played high school football. I think

21 it's essential. I didn't have the talent to go much

22 further than that. I played rugby instead.

23 MR. WEIKAL: Can I ask a question then?

24 With the fields and the bleachers systems here, are

25 there specific items you'd like us to further

 

 

 

 

120

1 investigate?

2 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: There may be some

3 through other Commissioners' questions. I have no

4 others at that point.

5 MR. WEIKAL: Because I'm writing things

6 down here for the whole team.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: What we'd like you to

8 do in terms of how we do it, is the Commissioners will

9 ask you the questions and then you can respond. So each

10 one will have the opportunity to ask you questions.

11 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And some of them

12 may eliminate -- I mean, I may ask some things other

13 would, so they do not have to reask it. I'm sure I

14 won't ask anywhere near everybody's questions.

15 Help me out also. The westernmost

16 portion of the property is the most heavily wooded and I

17 know that we were -- the woodlands expert, I see her

18 sitting over here, probably has some concerns and I know

19 there's a large amount of ash in that area; is that

20 correct? You need to come up and state your name and

21 give us some opinions.

22 MS. GREHL: Elaine Grehl, G-r-e-h-l. Can

23 everybody hear me?

24 In answer to your question is there

25 ash in the western half of the property? Not as much as

 

 

 

 

121

1 on the eastern side. The western contains mostly

2 American beech, hickory, some oaks, that kind of thing.

3 It kind of progresses into ash as you go further east.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: There's some large

5 maples on the west side.

6 MS. GREHL: Sugar maples, yes. Thank you.

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Most of the ashes

8 are in the wetlands.

9 MS. GREHL: Correct, yes.

10 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. What is it

11 considered as having to do with quality? Again I'm

12 talking about the western portion.

13 MS. GREHL: In my opinion the western is

14 really good quality trees, just with the given species

15 that are there and the condition they're in, too. It's

16 pretty good there.

17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you.

18 I'm sure someone else will have questions. Back to the

19 architect.

20 MR. WEIKAL: Landscape architect.

21 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Landscape

22 architect, okay. Well, it would still be to you. Did

23 you look at other sites on the property for the football

24 stadium?

25 MR. WEIKAL: Let me have Mr. Argenta

 

 

 

 

122

1 answer that because he was involved in more of the real

2 up-front planning.

3 MR. ARGENTA: Yes, we did. There were

4 very extensive, I'd say at least 20 or 30, different

5 site layouts that we worked on, but by the time we ended

6 up with all of the regulated wetlands and the extent of

7 the wetlands and the water management, the retention,

8 that ended up really the only place it became feasible

9 after we were able to locate the building also.

10 There were a lot of schemes thrown

11 around and that became, really, the most feasible way.

12 At one time it was oriented this way, it was further up

13 here, and just to get all of the requirements in the

14 most logical layout, that seemed to work the best.

15 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: So, in other words,

16 to save the woodlands you would have had to infringe

17 upon the wetlands more so.

18 MR. ARGENTA: Yes.

19 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. While you're

20 there you can probably address this as well. I note

21 there is no parking at all near the tennis courts or the

22 southern practice facilities. It's about a 300 yard

23 walk from the building itself, provided they go on the

24 one path through the tennis courts even to get to the

25 practice fields. What problems is that going to create?

 

 

 

 

123

1 In other words, are we going to be seeing you guys

2 coming back at a later date saying we have to have

3 parking?

4 MR. ARGENTA: No. We've talked about this

5 extensively and most of those are practice fields except

6 for the tennis courts and there will be -- the parking

7 will have to take place up in this area. Notice through

8 here -- there are some walkways --

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, there is a

10 microphone right there that you can take.

11 MR. ARGENTA: There are some walkways and

12 there is a pathway that crosses the wetland, sort of

13 like the bridge-type, and that's the way this is going

14 to have to go. There really is no room down there to

15 put any type of parking lot, and they are practice.

16 There is some parking along the lower roadway, about ten

 

17 cars, in case parents are going to watch the kids or

18 something, but the majority of the parking would take

19 place here and it would be walking to those tennis

20 courts.

21 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. In a letter,

22 and I'm not sure who to address this to, maybe I'll

23 start with the City -- no, I'll start with you guys. In

24 the January 24th letter this year to Mr. Schmitt, it

25 indicated that you were approaching the Zoning Board of

 

 

 

 

124

1 Appeals on January 29th on several items. Can I safely

2 assume that didn't take place?

3 MR. ARGENTA: No.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: It did not.

5 MR. ARGENTA: Not yet. I understand it's

6 scheduled for March 13th or something like that.

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Unless we can

8 alleviate all the problems tonight and then you don't

9 have to go. Okay. I have a couple other things here

10 but I think I'm going to pass on to the other

11 Commissioners, with the reservation of perhaps coming

12 back with additional questions. Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp.

14 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Thank you, Madam

15 Chair.

16 First of all, I'd like to thank

17 whoever put this package together. Normally my Planning

18 Commission package comes in an envelope, this came in a

19 box, so it gave me a lot to do for the weekend. It was

20 very well put together.

21 The first question I have is, how

22 many total parking places do we have available?

23 MR. SCHMITT: On site there are 599 spaces

24 plus an additional 13 barrier-free spaces.

25 COMMISSIONER PAPP: And the total seating

 

 

 

 

125

1 capacity in the gymnasium is 1,884.

2 MR. SCHMITT: That is my understanding.

3 COMMISSIONER PAPP: And if we put three

4 people in a car, that's a total of 628 cars to fill

5 that stadium. I'm sorry. Is that right?

6 MR. SCHMITT: Approximately, yes. If they

7 sold out the entire basketball arena, that would be

8 approximately that number of cars.

9 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Where are we going to

10 put the other cars? Is there going to be a lot of

11 parking on the ring road?

12 MR. SCHMITT: My understanding is there

13 won't. Perhaps the applicant can speak to overflow

14 parking issues; however, I believe the site -- they've

15 parked the site for what they feel they need. I mean,

16 there are -- worst case scenario, obviously there are

17 other parking lots in the area that certainly could

18 be...

19 COMMISSIONER PAPP: With that in mind, if

20 they park in the Target parking lot and cross Wixom

21 Road, are we ever planning on putting a cross-over so

22 people won't have to run across?

23 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: There's a light

24 there.

25 COMMISSIONER PAPP: There is a light

 

 

 

 

126

1 there. Okay. What is the stadium seating?

2 MR. SCHMITT: Approximately 3,450 seats.

3 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Three thousand four

4 hundred fifty seats?

5 MR. SCHMITT: Yes. That's home and away

6 bleachers. Just for comparison sake, Novi High School's

7 football field is roughly comparable, approximately

8 3,000 seats there, although that number seems to be a

9 little low in that they have a slightly larger number of

10 bleachers, too.

11 COMMISSIONER PAPP: When Novi has a full

12 stadium they park on the grass.

13 MR. SCHMITT: I don't know. I'm sorry.

14 COMMISSIONER PAPP: And on Taft Road along

15 the side.

16 MR. WEIKAL: I was told that there will be

17 approximately five games a year and we will be utilizing

18 the practice fields in that area and then the boardwalk

19 and then, of course, these parking areas also.

20 COMMISSIONER PAPP: So you'll use the

21 practice fields as additional parking then.

22 MR. WEIKAL: Yes, for those five games,

23 right.

24 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Okay. When was the

25 time we did a traffic study on Wixom Road? Do we know

 

 

 

 

127

1 what the traffic on Wixom Road is today? Anybody?

2 MR. COBURN: I could defer that to the

3 traffic consultant, Mr. Stimpson.

4 MR. STIMPSON: Bill Stimpson, Birchler

5 Arroyo Associates.

6 Counts were done for the Novi

7 Promenade Study I believe. The latest -- cut to the

8 quick, basically the study done for the Novi Promenade

9 estimated about 12,000 vehicles per day. At the time

10 the Promenade builds out, supposedly this year, I think

11 it may be off a little bit, but 12,000 to 13,000

12 probably. The school would add approximately two to

13 3,000 just at the very north end.

14 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Does that include the

15 -- it must include the Island Lake traffic then because

16 all of Island Lake right now goes up to Wixom Road?

17 MR. STIMPSON: Yes, that assumes -- I'm

18 sorry -- the build-out of Island Lake as well as the

19 Novi Promenade as well as other regional growth of

20 traffic.

21 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Tim, would you put

22 this up on the overhead, please.

23 Wixom Road is currently a curbed,

24 two-lane highway; is that correct?

25 MR. COBURN: In this section it's three

 

 

 

 

128

1 lanes. It has a center left-turn lane.

2 COMMISSIONER PAPP: At some points; is

3 that correct?

4 MR. COBURN: Right, correct.

5 COMMISSIONER PAPP: As I was going down

6 Wixom Road, there's a total of 22, I believe it's 22,

7 counting Catholic Central, that will go into Wixom Road,

8 22 streets that will lead into Wixom Road access. At

9 the end of Wixom Road on the south is a fire station.

10 If we put a lot of traffic on Wixom

11 Road and the fire department decides to go north, you

12 also have curbs there so you'll have to pull off

13 somewhere to get through there. I think this is going

14 to be very congested as time goes on and as we build out

15 more off of Wixom Road. Is there any plans -- of

16 course, probably not because we have curbs now, but

17 there's no plans to widen Wixom Road?

18 MR. COBURN: There are no plans to widen

19 Wixom Road at this time.

20 MR. STIMPSON: Several intersections are

21 being widened to three lanes with construction of Island

22 Lake.

23 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Is Island Lake paying

24 for that or are we, the taxpayers, paying for that,

25 anything that happens on Wixom Road?

 

 

 

 

129

1 MR. COBURN: I believe that's part of

2 Island Lake.

3 MR. STIMPSON: Island Lake will be doing

4 that. And the section not only from Grand River down to

5 the south end of Novi Promenade is now three lanes. The

6 Island Lake south access down to Ten Mile will also be

7 three lanes soon. That's a fairly long stretch.

8 COMMISSIONER PAPP: So you feel that Wixom

9 Road, with what's in the plans in the future, will be

10 able to handle this traffic?

11 MR. STIMPSON: Oh yes. A two- to

12 three-lane road can handle comfortably 15 to 20,000

13 vehicles a day. I believe they're mountable curbs.

14 Worse comes to worse, vehicles could go up over the

15 curb.

16 COMMISSIONER PAPP: My biggest concern is

17 the parking that's available for this football field,

18 athletic field. There's 3,450 people can sit in this

19 stadium and I know Catholic Central will probably pull

20 in 3,451. Okay. No further comments.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

22 Any other comments? Commissioner

23 Paul.

24 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I'd just like to

25 comment that I really would like to see Catholic Central

 

 

 

 

130

1 come forward. There are some real constraints with the

2 site and I think you've done a relatively good job

3 staying out of the wetlands, but I do have great

4 concerns with the woodlands that are going to be gone

5 and what would happen to the wetlands at that point.

6 There are 14 wetland areas that are

7 located within this parcel. Over the years urbanization

8 has changed the wetland that connects between the east

 

9 and the west side of Wixom Road. The west side of Wixom

10 Road is the site we're speaking of and the connection

11 that once existed from the east no longer exists.

12 The wetland fronting Wixom Road has

13 deteriorated but the western portions of the site are

14 heavily forested. The ecosystem existed of heavily

15 regulated woodlands since the 1920's. This parcel has a

16 total woodlands of 48.03 acres. The tree impact has

17 1,717 trees that need to be replaced and only 283 are

18 able to be placed on the site. Therefore, a deficit of

19 2,906 trees exist.

20 The reason the number is larger

21 than the trees cut is the actual size of the trees are

22 larger, warranting more trees, and many of you -- I'm

23 just stating that for you in the audience so that you

24 understand why there's such an increase in number and

25 that's why we were going through the Landscape Ordinance

 

 

 

 

131

1 at such extensive degrees.

2 When the trees are cut the water

3 flow and ecosystem are altered. The water flow to the

4 site with a baseball and football fields will be

5 elevated above the neighborhood sites. I really am

6 concerned, and maybe this question will go to the

7 wetland expert, Ms. Kay.

8 What will happen to this water and

9 can we predict with this much of a change in the upland?

10 MS. KAY: I'm going to put a different

11 rendering here.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is our hand-held mike

13 working?

14 MS. KAY: Is it on? Can you hear me?

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. Thank you.

16 MS. KAY: I wasn't going to use it but I

17 will.

18 For those of you who had this in

19 your packet, I'll just go over briefly because you

20 really have a lot of questions, really, but let's go

21 through the wetland from east to west. It does front

22 Wixom Road and ends roughly here and there are two

23 southern lobes of the same wetland system, and that's

24 just the largest wetland on the site, and that's

25 referred to as Wetland ABC in your packet.

 

 

 

 

132

1 As far as -- I'm going to actually

2 turn around here because I don't like using this. Your

3 question really has to do with hydrology and I think the

4 basis for your question is what we spent most of our

5 time reviewing, as far as trying to perceive any --

6 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Use the hand mike.

7 MS. KAY: I should use it?

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. Ms. Kay, you have

9 a very soft voice.

10 MS. KAY: I apologize.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

12 MS. KAY: We were trying to perceive --

13 under your ordinance we are obligated to make sure we

14 take care of water quality as well as quantity. I'm

15 going to defer some of the more particular stormwater

16 detention calculations to the engineers and I'll just

17 try to cover in general what we know with regard to

18 wetland specific items.

19 And obviously I focused many of the

20 comments in my letter with regard to potential mortality

21 of trees and the reason I focused on that somewhat

22 obviously because they're detaining in the wetland.

23 That's not a typical situation. Applicants most often

24 are able to dig detention basins, retention basins and

25 divert the water to other areas.

 

 

 

 

133

1 And in this case they have the two

2 southern lobes of wetland, of the large wetland system,

3 are -- that's your starting point and there are two

4 existing 12-inch culverts that, as I understand it, they

5 are unable to change because that is where all the water

6 is going to flow to. So that's your starting point.

7 They have to base all their calculations upstream of

8 that on those two 12-inch culverts.

9 Now let me digress a little bit to

10 just the site plan in general. They've done everything

11 that we've requested as far as trying to minimize

12 potential impacts. The road, the entrance road, is as

13 narrow as it can possibly be; side slopes, again, are as

14 minimal as they can be. They've changed the building

15 and you've heard the discussion this evening regarding

16 the sporting facilities.

17 We have through, I think, a

18 two-year process discussed in great detail about the

19 sporting events and we did initially make a lot of

20 commentary on could they reduce that and subsequently,

21 as I believe their landscape architect mentioned,

22 there's some overlapping here with the baseball field

23 and one of the practice fields and that wasn't on the

24 prior plan.

25 With regard to water quality in

 

 

 

 

134

1 general, we know there's going to be a change in

2 hydrology. It's unavoidable. I think the basic

3 calculation that's been done as far as impervious

4 surface, which is something that we always look to, is

5 actually halfway decent for this site. For a 60-acre

6 site it's at 28 percent, and as many of you know because

7 of other site plan submittals before you, we commonly

8 get upwards of 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 percent impervious

9 surface on other site plans just by virtue of -- the

10 Target store is a good example. We have a lot -- they

11 need to have large parking areas.

12 This site we had a little more play

13 with that and because they did avoid filling large areas

14 of wetland that's a positive thing you need to focus on,

15 but again they are changing the hydrology. Part of the

16 drainage for the storm system is going to come from the

17 east side, from the entrance road. They're going to

18 take drainage from the parking area obviously and it's

19 going to enter into a detention basin. Let me point

20 that out to you.

 

21 So basically the water will be

22 coming east, pick up from this road and will be coming

23 down here from this parking and will be going into the

24 detention basin here and then during peak flow and storm

25 events it will be entering the southern portion of this

 

 

 

 

135

1 wetland system. And based on these two culverts, that

2 will be acting as restrictors, as soon as you reach

3 higher storm events it will start detaining, and that's

4 what we looked at.

5 So under our worst case scenario,

6 and there could be some tree mortality, because even

7 though we're not questioning the engineering

8 calculations per se we do know in practice, based on

9 developments being built around wooded wetlands in the

10 city, there have been areas that have experienced tree

11 mortality.

12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: In your estimation,

13 with the detention basin being on pretty much the middle

14 of the site on the south border and the north border of

15 Island Lakes that will have -- the mitigation, the main

16 portion of the mitigation will go into that detention

17 basin then it will be disbursed into Wetland ABC?

18 MS. KAY: And when you're saying

19 "mitigation," you're now referring to wetland mitigation

20 proper. You're saying it is being mitigated for.

21 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

22 MS. KAY: Yes, yes. And they've mentioned

23 in the literature over the course of this review if they

24 weren't going to have the sedimentation/detention basin

25 they would have a vortex-type structure to address that.

 

 

 

 

136

1 Also, I think a way of ameliorating

2 some of the gases and oils and greases that you get from

3 the cars on the parking lot, obviously they're going to

4 have some oil and grease sumps and all the typical

5 treatment things that you are used to seeing on these

6 site plan submittals. So there's nothing different in

7 that regard.

 

8 The only thing different here is

9 that they know, based on the two culverts existing, that

10 they have to detain in a wetland for a short period of

11 time. I mentioned in the letter what the duration times

12 would be. I focused on the area that we really felt --

13 well, there is no standard for wetland science, and let

14 me just be honest with you, as far as somebody trying to

15 predict when you think a tree is going to die in a

16 wooded wetland, we don't know that.

17 COMMISSIONER PAUL: You give a five year

18 prediction and there's a warranty for that amount. Do

19 you think there's any benefit to having a ten-year

20 warranty just because we don't know the fluctuation of

21 the Wetlands, we don't know what the total impact is

22 going to be because we're basically eliminating many

23 acres of upland? Would that be something that would be

24 reasonable.

25 MS. KAY: Well, I'm not sure -- I mean, I

 

 

 

 

137

1 understand that there's a direct correlation to the loss

2 of upland woodlands and the hydrology of this wetland

3 and since we can't predict that I'm not sure that I can

4 answer that question as far as whether I think a

5 ten-year bond is reasonable. That's really at your

6 charge. We feel the five year one was reasonable. Any

7 other out of condition that you deem necessary will be

8 up to you. I wish I could say I think that's going to

9 do the trick, but generally speaking when you have

10 die-off experience with trees, it's going to happen

11 within that first five years and most certainly with

12 cases that we've seen in the City over the years it

13 usually happens within the first two years, if

14 construction is rather quick.

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Say this happens in

16 five years and we have 158 trees to replace. What is

17 the cost of 158 trees? I'm sure the tree increase in

18 cost isn't going to be much, but it's the labor I'm most

19 concerned about and I don't want the City to have to

20 foot the bill for a labor increase if it's five years

21 from now and it's going to cost $150,000. I don't want

22 to make up the difference.

23 MS. KAY: There's a few things here. The

24 actual cost that was --

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you speak up?

 

 

 

 

138

1 You keep lowering it and then we keep not hearing you.

2 MS. KAY: The actual cost for the tree

3 replacement formula that you have under a Woodlands

4 Ordinance roughly was at 90,000. So if you want to go

5 by that straight formula under your woodlands tree

6 replacement, that's what it would be. Adjusting for

7 inflation and all those kind of things are up to you.

8 We think that if you are going to experience die-back

9 it's going to be within the first couple years. So,

10 again, your discretion.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Point of information,

12 Madam Chair.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Ruyle.

14 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: With permission from

15 Commissioner Paul.

16 We have an existing, and we were

17 told, that most of the existing woodland and wetland to

18 the east has a lot of ash trees in it. Now, have we

19 made any provision for the removal of those ash trees,

20 because we know they're going to die, prior to them

21 building and what impact by removing those ash trees is

22 going to affect that wetland and woodland?

23 MS. KAY: To my knowledge, there's been no

24 preemptive program in place for this specific site to

25 cut down the ash trees. However, I know that your City

 

 

 

 

139

1 forester, Mr. Prince, has been actively working with

 

2 State of Michigan personnel on the ash borer problem.

3 We, however, did anticipate not having to have the

4 applicant pay for ash tree die-off if everybody felt it

5 was already going to happen and not as a result of this

6 development. So we actually deducted I believe it was

7 23 trees, correct me if I'm wrong, from the total 158

8 that's on that list and sort of gave them credit ahead

9 of time, knowing that the City does have an active

10 program to eliminate trees and have in other areas of

11 the City, but for this site I have no knowledge of that.

12 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Thank you,

13 Commissioner Paul, Chairman.

14 COMMISSIONER PAUL: One other question.

15 When I read all of the information, I have concern about

16 the parking and I'm looking at this ring road that goes

17 around the site and I know if there are 3,000 seats in

18 the football stadium there is going to be a deficit of

19 parking, and I've even spoke with Father Elmer about

20 that.

21 I'm concerned that we're saving all

22 these wetlands and people may park in the buffer out of

23 desperation of where to go when they're trying to rush

24 their child to the game and want to see the game and

25 it's something that's very important to them. Is there

 

 

 

 

140

1 any way we can not permit them to enter the buffer in

2 many of these sites along the ring road?

3 MS. KAY: Yeah. There have been sites in

4 the city where we've asked them to put up a split rail

5 fence. If that's not an aesthetic feature that you want

6 up on this site given the circumstances, you can come up

7 with some other fencing scenario that's appropriate for

8 wildlife mobility but at the same time achieves that

9 goal of not having somebody inadvertently park in a

10 buffer area. And it's been done several times so I

11 think there's an opportunity for that.

12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Could a wrought iron

13 fence be placed and be very durable or made of

14 durability --

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Durable material.

16 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Thank you. Mr.

17 Fisher, I was looking for some help. Would that be

18 something that would be appropriate?

19 MS. KAY: Yes. I mean, I would support

20 something of that nature. Obviously we've done it in

21 residential areas for that -- not the parking reason but

 

22 because people do tend to go into the buffers and cut

23 vegetation and whatnot, but in this case I think it

24 would act as a deterrent.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Point of order for one

 

 

 

 

141

1 second only. I called the wrong thing. I wanted to say

2 that before you get off track on the railing, what did

3 you say?

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: It's the wetland

5 buffer.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. With what

7 they're trying to do, which is maintain the wetlands and

8 the natural thing, the wood fences would be much more

9 appropriate, it would tie in with the scenery.

10 Aesthetically I think it would look nicer. So let's not

11 give them more expense than they need.

12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Would the applicant be

13 interested in helping us in that?

14 MR. WEIKAL: Two things. The Fathers'

15 Club is very, very -- they pretty much run the football

16 game and they run the traffic, so there will be many of

17 these big, burly men out there helping with the traffic

18 and make sure the people don't park along those areas.

19 Also, if you take a real close look

20 at I think it's the landscape and planting and grading

21 plan, you'll notice that in quite a few of those areas

22 there's the curb, there's a four foot -- or a

23 one-on-four area along the curb and then it drops off at

24 one-on-three. So in a lot of these areas that come

25 along the wetlands the road is elevated, so there's kind

 

142

1 of a slope across there. So it would be a little

2 difficult to park. And I'm sure that Father Elmer, we

3 could discuss it among ourselves, but if there are a

4 couple smaller areas that are real sensitive, I don't

5 see a problem with a picket fence or a split rail fence

6 along in there.

7 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. Thank you.

8 Now, this is a question for our

9 tree expert. With all of the trees that are being taken

10 out, they were very kind in giving us a bond for the 158

11 trees of $70,000, and the Commissioners can discuss what

12 price they'd like to put that at, if they'd like to keep

13 it at the $90,000, which is the price value, and I'd

14 like to know what your thoughts are about a tree bond.

15 MS. GREHL: I guess if I can have the

16 overhead for a second I can show you what it would cost

17 if they were to bond for them.

Elaine Grehlís Catholic Central Overhead Comments

Proposed Catholic Central High School

(3,189) Total Required Replacements Value $ 1,036,425.00

Provided On-Site Replacements Value $91,975.00

(42) Provided Additional Parking Lot Trees Value $13,650.00

to be considered Woodland Replacements

(2,837) Required Replacements Unaccounted for $ 930,800.00

18 The top figure here is the total

19 replacement values of the whole site. There are 3,800

20 trees above eight inches caliper surveyed on the site.

21 Of those 3,800, they're removing 1,700 and some odd and

22 the replacement requirements for those depended, as you

23 explained to the audience, depended on the size that

24 adjusts the replacement value for it. That's the total

25 replacement for the whole site. This is the amount for

 

 

143

1 the ones that they are proposing on site, to be planted

2 on site. And then they had some extra parking lot trees

3 that just in conversations with the landscape architect

4 I said if you made them, you know, acceptable woodland

5 replacement plants I can count them as additional

6 woodland replacement trees.

7 So that's kind of the figures in

8 front of you as far as this is what's unaccounted for

9 right now as far as replacements either on site, off

10 site or in the tree fund.

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Would there be an

12 amount that you think would be fair for the tree bond?

13 MR. WEIKAL: If I could step in just a

14 minute.

15 With a lot of the additional areas

16 that we've been working on to add more trees to the site

17 to take care of a lot of the woodland trees, we're sort

18 of not at our final number yet on the replacements, just

19 so you know.

20 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. That's helpful.

21 I really feel if there's going to be a wetland bond, the

22 thing that's being destroyed more is truly the uplands

23 here and I think a tree bond would be fair.

24 MS. GREHL: It is in the ordinance as

25 that. I mean, to uphold the ordinance you would either

 

 

 

144

1 put the replacements on site, put the replacements off

2 site or pay into the tree fund. So you have to satisfy

3 the ordinance unless it's up to you guys.

4 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Well, that's our

5 charge, is to meet the ordinances. So that's something

6 that we're going to have to discuss and maybe we bring

7 this back to final site review and discuss what the tree

8 bond actually is because it's not determined tonight

9 even close of what our final may be in tree count and a

10 million dollars is a lot of money. So that's important

11 to me.

12 I also want to express my concern

13 still. I understand what you're talking about in

14 regards to the mitigation into the detention basin and

15 then I also understand it's going to go into the

16 wetlands, so the chemicals will be removed in the

17 detention basin.

18 But the amount of water flow is all

19 theory and we've had other theories that have not worked

20 in our city. Briarwood we spoke of, we also talked

21 about Mystic Forest. There was many others. We don't

22 have all the answers to the theories. We can only

23 project what our thoughts are and when you remove a lot

24 of upland and all these trees that absorb fluid and we

25 put this water somewhere, I don't want to flood out our

 

 

 

 

145

1 neighbors to the south or even to the west. There are

2 grave sensitive areas there. This is a closed wetland

3 system and I feel that we have to really protect it and

4 all of its sensitivity.

5 I'm not sure if we can vote on

6 approving this tonight. I'm really questioning at this

7 time because I think we still have some issues to work

8 out, that maybe tabling would be a good idea. I'd like

9 to listen to my fellow Commissioners and turn over the

10 table and I might be talking more. Thank you.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

12 Do we have anything on this side,

13 gentlemen? Mr. Avdoulos.

14 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: I'll take it

15 whether I want to or not.

16 First of all, I'd like to thank all

17 those who came in order to support the project. I think

18 it's great to have alumni, past and present, people that

19 are associated with the school to show their passion and

20 indicate their feelings toward this project.

21 And a bit of background for the

22 people that are here is that the project came before us

23 in a Master Plan Committee Session where we had to

24 decide what are we going to do with this property and it

25 was indicated that Catholic Central was wanting to join

 

 

 

 

146

1 our community, and everybody on the Planning Commission

2 feels strongly the same way, that we do want Catholic

3 Central as part of the community. The next step was to

4 rezone the property. We heard the concerns and issues

5 of the neighbors to the east along Wixom Road and we

6 tried to address those concerns as much as possible and,

7 yes, we did table the meeting but that was to allow the

8 Commissioners to gather all the facts and make sure that

9 we were making the right decision.

10 And the plan that we have before us

11 is the very first time, at least in my eyes, that I've

12 seen the layout, the proposed layout. Throughout the

13 whole process of the Master Plan, throughout the whole

14 process of the rezoning, I didn't know what was going to

15 go on the site. All I knew it was a lot of wetlands and

16 a lot of woodlands.

17 When I opened up the package and

18 started looking at the layout, I really appreciated the

19 amount of effort that's gone into the site plan to save

20 as much of the natural features as possible based on a

21 program that was given by Catholic Central. And doing

22 this for a living I know that there's a lot of give and

23 take and it's very hard to try and accommodate

24 everybody, but I think the location of the entry

25 boulevard swinging the road as far north as possible,

 

 

 

 

147

1 locating the parking as far north as possible, locating

2 the building where it's at is the most appropriate

3 location I think on the site. The football field, I'm

4 going to call it, I'm not going to call it a stadium

5 because to me a stadium is an enclosed building that

6 requires building codes, and this is located as far to

7 the northwest corner of the site as possible to help

8 alleviate any concerns that the neighbors along Wixom

9 Road had and I think it takes it as far as away as

10 possible from Island Lakes.

11 The building itself, I appreciate

12 the layout. I like the way it's broken up with regards

13 to the educational wing with the classrooms, the

14 administrative area and the gymnasium. I think the

15 exterior aesthetics works well. Being brick it presents

16 itself as a very institutional building and the use of

17 the brick and the stone accents provide a warm yet a

18 substantial aesthetic, depicting a strong permanence,

19 which is something that Catholic Central has in its

20 reputation and I think is exhibiting in the building.

21 The building may seem conservative

22 in nature when you first look at it and that's well

23 because the general philosophy of a Catholic

24 organization is not to be showy but to show substance.

25 But there are little things that I like about it, how

 

 

 

 

148

1 it's broken up, and there's a play on some of the

2 entries which I think are very nice.

3 The location of the fields, I

4 guess, was a major concern that the other Planning

5 Commissioners had and I knew it was going to come up

6 because I, too, had -- in my recollections of the past

7 meetings we had, I was under the impression that we were

8 going to probably share a field with another high school

9 because we didn't know what was going to go on to the

10 site, but now that I see the field and then I see two

11 baseball diamonds and I see tennis courts and I see the

12 practice field, I do have also a large concern with

13 parking and especially when it's associated with ball

14 games.

15 I know there was an indication

16 there's only five throughout the season, but 3,000

17 people dictates a lot of parking. Compuware Arena at M

18 14 and Beck seats 4,000 people and when I go there,

19 especially for Windsor Spitfire games, the place is

20 packed and the parking gets full very quickly.

21 The concern I have with parking on

22 the practice fields is if it's very rainy people might

23 get stuck, there might be ruts that we'll have to fix

24 and it's just a major upkeep. I don't know what to do.

25 I don't know if there's any auxiliary plans for parking.

 

 

 

 

149

1 I don't know if you'd want to even cut a deal with

2 Target because that sort of fills up their spaces and

3 eliminates the customers from utilizing the spaces just

4 to go shopping.

5 The other concern I had was the

6 height of the lights. Eighty feet is about the size of

7 a four to five-story building and with 23 light fixtures

8 on each pole, and I'm not sure, I can't remember how

9 many poles we were looking at. Is there someone that

10 could answer?

11 MR. WEIKAL: Four.

12 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Four poles, and

13 the lighting levels that were shown on the plan, the

14 intensity of the light level is an average of 70

15 footcandles on the field, and then there was some

16 calculations that were shown around the outer perimeter

17 of the field itself.

18 Are those the calculations that are

19 part of the lighting for the football field?

20 MR. ARGENTA: Yes. Those were all

21 computer generated --

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what? Please,

23 when you come to answer a Commissioner, could you step

24 to the mike first before and not talk from there.

25 MR. ARGENTA: Those were all computer

 

 

 

 

150

1 generated and those were based on accepted footcandle

2 levels. If you'll notice, there's a very sharp cut-off.

3 We just installed two fields like that this summer with

4 the same type and they were 80 foot high and they have a

5 very sharp cut-off. The higher the better. And there's

6 very, very little spill. In fact, I think residential

7 back yards, and those were about 25 feet away from the

8 fields, and it was almost like there was a straight line

9 right there of light and dark.

10 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: And that's why I

11 asked the question, because when I looked at the numbers

12 that were shown you can see the high intensity around

13 the field and then you saw a quick drop-off and I didn't

14 know if that was just indicative of the spillover light

15 from the site lighting that went there or if that was

16 the light from the lighting standards used for the

17 football field.

18 MR. ARGENTA: That's basically from the

19 lighting standards.

20 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: If that's the

21 fact, then that's a good indicator that you're not going

22 to have a lot of light leakage that's going to creep

23 beyond the periphery of the field. So I don't know what

24 to do about that. I don't know what direction we're

25 going to take with how we're going to look at approving

 

 

 

 

151

1 the lights or not.

2 I think a lot of the other comments

3 were addressed with regard to wetlands, with regard to

4 the trees, the parking and the light fixtures. Again,

5 looking at the project for the first time and trying to

6 absorb it over the past three days, I was kind of

7 disappointed there wasn't like a football jersey in that

8 big box that we got.

9 MR. WEIKAL: We can arrange that.

10 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: No, we can't.

11 MR. WEIKAL: That big guy up there has a

12 couple extras I think.

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Keep it under five

14 dollars.

15 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: I'm not here to

16 cause trouble, believe me, but as it's presented, the

17 effort that's gone into it I think, in all honesty, it's

18 a valiant effort. I think the reading that I did,

19 especially with stormwater management, indicated that

20 the applicant has tried to work as much as possible with

21 the City. And the concern again, and maybe as we think

22 about -- more about how the project is going to be

23 handled when a game is on, I'd like to see some kind of

24 plan, whether it be written or an idea of how we're

25 going to handle it because 600 spaces is quite limited

 

 

 

 

152

1 and, you know, I know it happens in Novi, people parking

2 along Taft Road. I know Northville High School plays at

3 the Cook Middle School and Cook Middle School gets full,

4 Taft Road gets full, the site across the street where

5 they take the pedestrian bridge over gets full. And I

6 really appreciate the enthusiasm and intensity of these

7 football games, I love seeing people get together. This

8 is not a neighborhood school, though, it's a commuter

9 school, and it's not like we could walk to it. So I

10 think those concerns are most paramount in my mind.

11 FATHER ELMER: The property to the north

12 of us I've been talking to, I don't think I'm giving

13 away any undue secrets here, talking to Thompson and

14 Brown, who are partnering with Mr. Pellerito to develop

15 that land. They're holding back from going forward too

16 fast until we get our act in order, but we've been

17 talking to them about the possibility of their parking

18 for what they're going to do to be in proximity to our

19 football field and they seem to be very amenable to

20 helping us in that regard.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Father, is

22 that why there is that stud, or stub road rather.

23 Sorry.

24 FATHER ELMER: They call them Freudian

25 slips.

 

 

 

 

153

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Stub road to the north.

2 I assume that is the -- would be the potential entryway

3 to the Pellerito property if they build out and then at

4 that point I assume what you're saying is that they

5 would have parking area for you to park there.

6 FATHER ELMER: It would be -- we don't

7 know, they don't know the design. I mean, this is all

8 in the talking stage, of course. I just wanted to make

9 sure that you knew that we were addressing this issue of

10 parking and trying to solve it, and Mr. Pellerito has

11 been very good to Catholic Central and he still wants to

12 be of assistance in helping us to make this school

13 possible. And so that's the basis of our hopes, that we

14 will have additional parking for those games when --

15 usually at night and, of course, whatever is there

16 probably wouldn't need the parking at night as they do

17 during the day.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

19 I'm sorry. Go ahead.

20 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Thank you, Father

21 Elmer. That was my one question. I've noticed in all

22 these drawings that there was these dotted lines

23 indicating a stub road and I didn't know what that was

24 for. I was assuming, but again you never assume.

25 The one thing I wanted to point out

 

 

 

 

154

1 to the Planning Commissioners, just for their

2 information, and I spoke to a few of them, I've worked

3 before with Grissom, Metz, Andriese and I have the

4 utmost confidence in their capabilities. They're very

5 sensitive to a lot of issues such as incorporating

6 formal architectural or landscape architectural features

7 within a natural context and CDPA Architects have a very

8 good reputation in the Metro Detroit area.

9 So I think they got a good crew

10 that's on board and I think for that I -- wherever we go

11 I have the utmost confidence in the project and at this

12 point I'm on the support side.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

14 Mr. Sprague.

15 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Thank you, Madam

16 Chair.

17 As usual, John said everything a

18 lot more eloquently than I ever could. I share a lot of

19 the same concerns. What I was hoping to try to focus on

20 a little bit was I think it's a very environmentally

21 sensitive area. I congratulate you on doing what I

22 think is an exceptional job in trying to deal with this

23 parcel.

24 What I'm afraid of is that the

25 uses, like the football, are going to cause some

 

 

 

 

155

1 unintended consequences on it. I'm wondering if we're

2 going to do the overflow parking on these practice

3 fields, how many cars can that actually hold and what is

4 the intended path over to the football field for that?

5 Because I think if it's supposed to go through that

 

6 boardwalk, we're asking for trouble there and we're

7 asking for that whole part of the wetlands to end up

8 being destroyed by traffic.

9 MR. WEIKAL: We haven't done any specific

10 quantities on that because it kind of just came up today

11 in preparation for the meeting. I don't know where the

12 site plan went. There is a sidewalk that goes from the

13 sports field area all along the perimeter road on the

14 inside and I think that's either eight or ten feet wide.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you take that off,

16 it's right underneath it.

17 MR. WEIKAL: Oh, okay. Thanks. Yes, the

18 sidewalk system runs from the school and the parking

19 area along, all the way along the edge to here, to the

20 tennis courts, and then the boardwalk area runs through

21 here.

22 If there would be any parking down

23 there or even the students moving back and forth, they

24 would be using the boardwalk, of course, and mostly this

25 larger enlarged sidewalk for more people. It's not just

 

 

 

 

156

1 a five-foot wide sidewalk.

2 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Do you know how

3 wide it actually is, is it eight foot or ten foot?

4 MR. COBURN: It's ten feet on the site

5 plan.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. Once again.

7 MR. COBURN: It shows ten feet on the site

8 plan.

9 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Thanks. How many

10 cars do you think those two fields can hold?

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If I may interject,

12 those are the regulation size practice fields, which are

13 360 feet by 160 feet, so maybe someone that has a --

14 MR. SCHMITT: It's roughly between 150 to

15 200 cars per practice field I believe.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, an average car is

17 17 feet long so...

18 MR. SCHMITT: Our ordinance requires, just

19 doing a basic 9 by 20, I think it comes out -- let me

20 run the calculations exactly and I'll get right back to

21 you.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

23 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: I guess the major

24 question is, until another alternative may be developed

25 would you be willing to restrict access over that

 

 

 

 

157

1 boardwalk so that all the traffic that came from those

2 fields did use the sidewalk --

3 MR. WEIKAL: Sure.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time.

5 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Thank you.

6 Thank you, Madam Chair.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Sprague.

8 Mr. Ruyle.

9 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam

10 Chair.

11 I, too, as a Commissioner are

12 looking forward to the day you can break ground and

13 build your school. I think it's going to be a good

14 asset to the City of Novi.

15 I do have a couple of questions

16 that I'd like to -- one we had a resident that's going

17 to be your neighbor address us so I think I have to talk

18 to a Birchler Arroyo representative. Could you take the

19 podium, sir.

20 Look down at the section where the

21 man pointed out where his house is. He's the bottom

22 house there. He was addressing the question of the road

23 extension going in front of his property. What gives us

24 the right to do that, do we have the right-of-way, do

25 Catholic Central have to acquire that or what?

 

 

 

 

158

1 MR. STIMPSON: This plan is not drawn

2 correctly I just noticed.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Bill, before you continue,

4 you do need to have that microphone.

5 MR. STIMPSON: Actually, the site plan,

6 the true site plan, not the artistic rendering, shows a

7 deceleration at the north driveway, not the south

8 driveway. They've got them reversed here.

9 There would be presumably a taper

10 at the south drive which would have a lot less impact,

11 in fact, it wouldn't go in front of this out parcel at

12 all.

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: So, in other words,

14 he is not going to be impacted?

15 MR. STIMPSON: This is not drawn

16 correctly. I would have to look at the site plan

17 itself.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect,

19 it shows it on the site plan that the Commission

20 received. If you'd like to --

21 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: That's why I'm asking

22 the question.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you'd like, Mr.

24 Evancoe, if you would maybe give him the actual site

25 plan, or Mr. Schmitt.

 

 

 

 

159

1 MR. EVANCOE: Tim is looking for that now.

2 MR. STIMPSON: I don't recall seeing the

3 decel lane at the south driveway. That wouldn't be

4 warranted. A taper would be. We can revise that at --

5 once we take a closer look at the final traffic

6 assignments, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't warrant a full

7 lane.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you explain to

9 the Commission how that would change it? What would

10 make it different, a taper?

11 MR. STIMPSON: Well, the pavement would

12 simply flare out over a hundred feet to the radius. It

13 wouldn't have this full width lane preceded by an

14 upstream taper. There's plenty of right-of-way for

15 either treatment frankly.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, what Mr. Ruyle's

17 question originally was is the impact it would have upon

18 the resident and the resident's home if that

19 deceleration lane goes in front of his house.

20 MR. STIMPSON: I think we can revise that.

21 I don't remember seeing this decel lane, frankly, on the

22 review I did. I don't have a scale handy, but it looks

23 like the taper, the standard decel taper that we would

24 normally have on a driveway like that would not even go

25 in front of the out parcel as I said. There shouldn't

 

 

 

 

160

1 be any disturbance at all of the frontage with the

2 treatment we could put on Final Site Plan. I wouldn't

3 hold them to the decel lane at this point. I would

4 perhaps leave that to Final Site Plan.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like a guarantee

6 for the resident that lives there at the present time

7 that it would not affect his property. I don't know

8 about anybody else.

9 COMMISSIONER PAPP: A point of

10 information. Is that ring road going to be a one-way

11 road?

12 MR. STIMPSON: No, two lanes. I asked for

13 a center line to be striped, limiting the road to 24

14 feet to keep speeds down.

15 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Thank you.

16 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: As the Chairman said,

17 though, what guarantee do we have to that resident? We

18 need to know something that we can tell him.

19 MR. STIMPSON: I personally would be quite

20 satisfied to have you put a condition of approval that

21 there would be no widening in front of that out parcel

22 with this project.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Coburn, would you

24 like to add to that?

25 MR. COBURN: Yes. Mr. Stimpson was

 

 

 

 

161

1 referring to a hundred foot taper instead of the decel

2 lane as shown. A hundred foot taper would keep it

3 outside of that property. There would be no need for

4 the lane to front on that. It would completely be on

5 the Catholic Central side.

6 MR. STIMPSON: Just to give you a little

7 context, the traffic consultant for the applicant has

8 estimated that probably no more than about ten percent

9 of the traffic from the north would go to the south

10 driveway to turn right in.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: The impact is on the

12 neighbor. That's what I'm concerned about, and I don't

13 want the impact to be on Catholic Central that they got

14 to buy a right-of-way or something of that nature.

15 MR. STIMPSON: There's ample right-of-way

16 for either treatment in the long term, but certainly

17 under current traffic conditions, the ones we

18 forecasted, there's no need for a full decel lane there.

19 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: As long as we can

20 assure that neighbor of that and I don't want him coming

21 back here and saying you said and then we don't. Do you

22 understand what I'm saying?

23 MR. Stimpson: Right.

24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Point of information

25 to the applicant. There is -- you said you had several

 

 

 

 

162

1 contacts with the Novi city school system, Dr. Lippe,

2 etcetera.

3 FATHER ELMER: That's correct.

4 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: If my recollection is

5 right, isn't there a major junior high school across the

6 street or middle school?

7 FATHER ELMER: A middle school and an

8 elementary school are down the road from us.

9 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: And you're going to

10 have your five games every year at night?

11 FATHER ELMER: I can't -- probably.

12 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Probably at night or

13 on the weekends when that school is not in session.

14 FATHER ELMER: That's correct.

15 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Then I think maybe

16 you can enter into an agreement with the school district

17 about their parking and maybe run a shuttle bus that

18 would give you access to more parking on something that

19 is not used at that time so that would give you leeway

20 and a free-for-all for an additional couple hundred

21 parking spaces, which would alleviate a lot of our

22 concerns about parking on the practice fields, etcetera.

23 FATHER ELMER: That's a good idea and

24 certainly we'd be willing to consider that.

25 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: That's something that

 

 

 

 

163

1 I would suggest.

2 Madam Chair, I'm finished.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schmitt, did you

4 want to answer --

5 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, if I may interject.

6 The parking on the practice fields, I was grossly

7 underestimating. I believe I was using yards instead of

8 feet. It's estimated that each field could hold

9 approximately 400 cars.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

11 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Excuse me, Madam

12 Chair. We need to vote to extend the meeting.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Will someone --

14 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair, I'd

15 like to move that we extend the meeting at least another

16 hour in order to conduct the business that we have on

17 the agenda tonight.

18 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Second.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say aye.

20 PLANNING COMMISSION: Aye.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would like to have

22 some courtesy for our court reporter. He's been writing

23 now for over two hours.

24 You don't care? Okay.

25 Does anybody else want to take a

 

 

 

 

164

1 break before we go on? We'll take a five minute break

2 before we go on, please.

3 (A brief recess was held during

4 the meeting.)

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If we can call the

6 meeting back to order, please. I think the last

7 Commissioner was done with questioning so the next

8 questioner is Commissioner Markham.

9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. First thing

10 I'd like to say is I was overwhelmed with the amount of

11 material that was dropped on my doorstep on Friday night

12 and if I ask questions where the answer was included in

13 the material I apologize. I really did try to read

14 everything and I read everything once and I made notes

15 as I went through, so please bear with me. I did break

16 my comments down into some general areas.

17 I'll start with my traffic

18 questions because that's what I have the least comment

19 about. I, too, am concerned about parking but it sounds

20 to me like there's been some alternatives recommended

21 tonight and it sounds like you can work some things out

22 and it's really more of a surge issue and I would rather

23 see you resolve those few occasions in a creative way

24 than pave more parking lot on your own site. So I'm

25 hopeful that you'll take care of that because you have

 

 

 

 

165

1 been sensitive and I expect you will continue to be.

2 I did wonder if you have buses for

3 your student population and, if so, where do they park

4 on this site?

5 MR. WEIKAL: I'm not sure of the number of

6 buses. How many buses do we have right now, Father?

7 FATHER ELMER: Four right now, large ones.

8 MR. WEIKAL: Four right now, large ones.

9 The bus area is back here, parking right along the west

10 end of the site.

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: And then when you

12 have sporting events and you have opposing teams and

13 their buses and their students who all come to

14 participate, do you have an anticipated staging area for

15 their buses as well?

16 MR. WEIKAL: I think there are actually

17 six spaces.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Speak into the mike,

19 please.

20 MR. WEIKAL: I'm sorry. There's six

21 spaces I believe on the plan, as I'm looking here.

22 Yeah, six.

23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: All right. The

24 question of the driveway spacing waiver that's required,

25 there's no other way to deal with that. We have to have

 

 

 

 

166

1 the driveway spacing.

2 MR. STIMPSON: There was an alternative

3 considered where the waiver would not be necessary, but

4 the driveway would be very close to this out parcel that

5 we were concerned about earlier. I think it's a fair

6 compromise. There will be negligible southbound traffic

7 turning left behind the Target store to possibly

8 conflict with northbound left turns into the school, so

9 I don't anticipate a problem.

10 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. The rest of

11 my traffic questions were answered when other

12 Commissioners asked their questions.

13 As far as the sports facilities go,

14 I recognize that you're a Class A school and although

15 you only have 1,100 students they are all boys and so

16 that makes you equivalent to a co-ed school that's twice

17 the size essentially. So I called around to some of the

18 other schools in the area to look at their facilities

19 and it turns out that you have been very conservative in

20 your estimate of what you need, maybe even too

21 conservative, but certainly I don't think you can

22 squeeze anything else on the site and I don't want to

23 see you try.

24 I appreciate what you have done to

25 try and put practice fields on top of baseball diamonds

 

 

 

 

167

1 and the astro turf on the football field to accommodate

2 additional practices, but there was some questions that

3 just popped out at me. There was a discussion of the

4 noise analysis and what a football game would generate

5 and that sort of thing and it did say that all football

6 games were planned for the daytime. Did you really mean

7 to say that?

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If I may interject.

9 Our daytime hours per our ordinance are 7:00 a.m. to

10 10:00 p.m.

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Oh.

12 FATHER ELMER: Then the answer is yes.

13 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. Is lighting

14 proposed for any other sport besides football? Do you

15 plan to illuminate the baseball diamonds at all?

16 MR. ARGENTA: No. There is no other

17 lighting for any other sports. None of them would take

18 place in the evening.

19 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Are you planning to

20 have a swim team?

21 MR. ARGENTA: They do have a swim team.

22 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: And where will they

23 practice?

24 MR. ARGENTA: Right now they practice at

25 Mercy High School and they probably would. They've been

 

 

 

 

168

1 practicing there for years.

2 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. My concern

3 is there is not an overabundance of swimming pool

4 capacity in the city of Novi, there really isn't, and as

5 much as I want you to come to this community I don't

6 especially want your swim team to squeeze out the other

7 swimmers in this community. So that's something for the

8 City of Novi to remember.

9 Have you had any discussion with

10 Park and Recreation regarding sharing the sports

11 facilities for parks and rec leagues or private leagues

12 in the off season? For example, the school district,

13 Novi School District, let's the Parks and Rec soccer

14 leagues practice on their fields and their baseball

15 leagues play on some of the baseball diamonds. Have you

16 had any of those kinds of discussions?

17 FATHER ELMER: No, we haven't. As a

18 matter of fact, we met the athletic direct for Novi just

19 today, but I mentioned before we want to be good

20 citizens in Novi and certainly those kind of things are

21 open for discussion and obviously we can't -- we have to

22 fit it into what our schedule is like as well, but yes,

23 we certainly would consider that.

24 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I'm thinking

25 primarily summer kinds of things.

 

 

 

 

169

1 FATHER ELMER: Then that's not a problem.

2 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: All right. I think

3 that's all the questions I have about the sports

4 facilities.

5 The last subject that I want to

6 talk about is the woodlands. I know we've had a lot of

7 discussion on that tonight so I won't repeat any

8 questions that anybody else had.

9 On the south property line where

10 we're not recommending that a berm be put in place, I'm

11 a little bit concerned with how close the road is to

12 Island Lake and the Island Lake road that's there and

13 I'm just wondering if you're going to try to maximize

14 the plantings between the two roads to screen the

15 practice fields and the school site from the residential

16 that's to the south of it.

17 MR. WEIKAL: Mr. McGinnis and I walked

18 that area specifically and we prepared a few real quick

19 boards here.

20 This is the Catholic Central site

21 with some of the additional Island Lake information on

22 the same board. This, of course, is the road. These

23 are existing hedge lines that will be preserved, and

24 I'll show you some pictures of those. This is the

25 wetland mitigation that Island Lake is currently

 

 

 

 

170

1 installing in this area. Here's the Island Lake road.

2 Here's -- this shows where their berm is installed, this

3 is their existing conservation area.

4 So real quickly, photo number 1,

5 and I'll probably bring these up a little more close,

6 this is the entrance, this is the existing house that's

7 going to be removed. As someone noted previously,

8 there's an existing alley of Siberian elms on either

9 side. We're keeping those and that's going to be used

10 as our entrance through there.

11 Photo number 2 is, as you walk down

12 about halfway, almost where the existing home is now, it

13 will be removed, and you look into this little wetland

14 treed area that Island Lake owns, this is what you see

15 here. And there's actually another parcel beyond that

16 that you can barely see through the trees even in the

17 wintertime.

18 Photo number 3, there are three big

19 white pines that are along the drive. Those occur here,

20 here and here. Mr. McGinnis is actually standing about

21 right in the middle of the current proposed wetland

22 mitigation, and this border, this edge, will be

23 preserved also here.

24 Photo number 4 looks right at the

25 Island Lake property down along the preserved hedge row,

 

 

 

 

171

1 so you can see the trees here. So this is the type of

2 thing we're keeping. This is why there is no berm

3 installed.

4 Number 5 is another picture. This

5 is a large tree that's in a little pocket of wetland

6 that occurs in here.

7 6 and 7 are looking on to our

8 property and away from our property. So you can see in

9 the distance all the way across the mitigated wetland

10 through another group of foliage tree buffers which

11 occur in here.

12 Photo -- let me skip ahead. So you

13 kind of get a feeling for that whole area. Then just a

14 couple more.

15 Down as the Island Lake road gets

16 closer to our property, and here there's a little

17 wetland area with some large trees in here that's

18 preserved, the Island Lake berm and Evergreen plantings,

19 the berm is about this high from the existing grade of

20 the road, and then these are the Evergreen plantings on

21 their parcel in here. So we're beyond that. Did that

22 answer your question?

23 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes, it does.

24 Thank you.

25 I have an idea for the question of

 

 

 

 

172

1 trees replacement, because you have a big number of

2 trees that you have to try to replace. First of all, my

3 question -- I have a question relative to the cost of

4 tree replacement, that million dollar number that was up

5 there. Does that include labor?

6 MR. WEIKAL: Yes.

7 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: That includes the

8 labor to do the job; is that correct?

9 MR. WEIKAL: Yeah, and the two-year

10 guarantee required by the City.

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I believe the

12 intent of the Woodlands Ordinance as it pertains to tree

13 replacement is to try to sustain the number of healthy

14 trees within the city and it's not just for air quality

15 and water quality and habitat, and it's also for

16 beautification. And the way I read the ordinance is it

17 first requires you to replace the trees on your own

18 property but if that's not feasible then you're to

19 replace them within the city, and if that's not feasible

20 then you're to put money in the tree fund. And not only

21 is the cost an issue, it's really a practical matter of

22 the City personnel trying to plant this many trees and

23 actually get the job done that I see as an issue for the

24 City.

25 So what I'd like to propose is that

 

 

 

 

173

1 Catholic Central, in partnership with the City forester,

2 develop a plan by which Catholic Central actually plants

3 the trees within the city over some agreed upon period

4 of time.

5 And, Father Elmer, I wouldn't

6 presume to tell you how to run your business, but you

7 have 1,100 young men between the ages of 14 and 17 that

8 I think could probably make pretty short work of 2,900

9 tree plantings, you know, if we plan it right. So you

10 talk about your community service component and I think

11 there's something that could be done here for the

12 benefit of all. It would bring down the overall cost of

13 the tree replacement, it would get them planted, it

14 would get them planted where the City wants them. I

15 talked to the City forester about this and he said, you

16 know, just starting to think about replacing the ash

17 trees around this community is a huge undertaking and

18 he'd really like help from any direction he could get.

19 I think about this in the context

20 of what Governor Granholm and the Mayor have talked

21 about finding ways to volunteer in our communities to

22 make things better. I don't know. This idea just came

23 to me and I thought it might work. I have a fifteen

24 year old son, I had him digging holes and planting

25 trees. And I think this is a big problem that can be

 

 

 

 

174

1 solved and help integrate Catholic Central into the

2 community as a citizen in a really positive way very

3 quickly and it could probably be accomplished over a two

4 to three year period if it's planned right. So what I'd

5 like to see at the Final Site Plan is a plan for how

6 these trees are going to be -- how these replacement

7 trees are going to be handled, but that would be my

8 suggestion. And that is all I have at this time.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

10 Member Kocan.

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam

12 Chair.

13 Catholic Central's plan is quite an

14 aggressive endeavor and I do applaud you for a lot of

15 the work that has gone into it and I know it has gone on

16 for a number of years. And as was stated earlier, the

17 fact that we're critiquing your plan is what we're

18 charged to do, is to try to minimize any waivers that

19 are brought before us or if we can't minimize them we

20 have to at least substantiate them. That's what we're

21 doing this evening, looking at your recommendations, the

22 City's recommendations and what can we do or what can

23 you do so that we can give you substance for when you

24 have to go to ZBA or if there's something that is really

25 a negative impact we need to eliminate it.

 

 

 

 

175

1 This is a Special Land Use. We

2 have to make sure that there are no adverse impacts on

3 the residents around this property. We cannot approve a

4 site plan until we can approve the Special Land Use. So

5 that's our process here this evening.

6 Having said that, a couple things I

7 want to say first. I'm pleased that the football area

8 is going to be synthetic turf. I had heard that you

9 approached the high school to see if your varsity team

10 could play there. And I talked to Emmett Lippe last

11 night, I talked with George Cortland and I talked with

12 Curt Ellis last night and expressed my concern and they

13 also stated that they had said to you that that probably

14 was not a viable alternative. The fields that the Novi

15 schools are using right now are totally maxed out. So

16 the fact that you may be able to even help out the City,

17 particularly when this is a nonprofit organization so

18 you're not paying property taxes, that would be a

19 definite plus for the schools of Novi.

20 I do have questions for the

21 landscape architect because to me it seems like most of

22 the variances are in the landscaping. First I'd like to

23 address the berms. And there is a requirement around a

24 Special Land Use whether it abuts anything, residential

25 or whatever, there is a requirement for a

 

 

 

 

176

1 four-and-a-half foot berm, three-to-one ratio. So my

2 calculation is we need to have at least, if not a berm

3 that runs a span of 30 to 33 feet, then we should have

4 at least landscaping that takes up that same amount of

5 area. I know you've addressed the south border.

6 My number one concern is behind the

7 residents on Wixom Road. I do not believe that there's

8 a berm proposed behind their homes right now. From the

9 pictures it looks like most of the woodland are

10 deciduous trees. There's not a lot of opacity there.

11 So my concern is for the residents who are on Wixom

12 Road, is that they're going to need some additional

13 protection. If it's not a berm, it needs to be

14 additional Evergreens. And I notice that there is

15 mitigated wetland back there, and I will talk to Ms. Kay

16 with regard to that, but I don't believe the buffer for

17 the wetland should be anywhere near -- I mean, it should

18 be a minimum of that 35 feet away from the property line

19 to allow for what would be a required berm.

20 I don't know if Ms. Kay wants to

21 address that or if you want to address it. I know it

22 was in your letters but I'd still like to hear it again,

23 the reasons for not having berms along the perimeters

24 along the right-of-way. I don't believe there's a berm

25 to the north. We need to hear and substantiate why we

 

 

 

 

177

1 would waive a berm in those areas.

2 MR. McGINNIS: The mitigated wetlands

3 would be to the west of the residences and I'm sure,

4 after talking with Aimee Kay, that we could add some

5 Evergreens along the upper levels of that area and she

6 may want to address that, too, because if you look at

7 the contour elevations they would support some upland

8 plantings and Evergreens in that area because it doesn't

9 flood that high. But that is the reason that we were

10 proposing waiving or asking for the variance there.

11 Just because of the slope going from the property line

12 down to the wetlands, it would be difficult to put the

13 berm in and I don't think we'd want to put a wall in in

14 that natural area, but I think we can reinforce it with

15 Evergreens and I think the applicant would agree to

16 that.

17 As far as the entrance road, the

18 south entrance road, there should be a berm or a wall

19 along the south residents' property line, but again

20 there's a distance, there's quite a distance in there

21 between the drive and the residents and, you're right,

22 there isn't much Evergreen in there but I'm sure the

23 applicant would be happy to put in Evergreens, enough to

24 provide the opacity along that area, provide the

25 screening.

 

 

 

 

178

1 The right-of-way berm at the south

2 entrance, there are large existing deciduous trees, as

3 you can see on the photograph that Ken Weikal provided.

4 If we put a berm in there, we would impinge on the drip

5 zone of the trees and we might affect the trees and I

6 think the best way to handle that is by adding

7 additional planting in that area but -- if we need the

8 berm. I mean, usually you have the berm along a

9 right-of-way because there's a structure -- you're

10 trying to buffer the traffic from the structure or to

11 enhance the structure, and in this case there isn't a

12 structure. And I really think that with the existing

13 deciduous trees there that they can seek the variance

14 for the berm and not put the berm in. That's the

15 right-of-way berm.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: As you heard in our

17 Landscape Ordinance discussion this evening, that's the

18 kind of discretion that we would like the Planning

19 Commission to have so we don't have to send these types

20 of issues to the Zoning Board of Appeals, who typically

21 does not have access to a landscaper or a woodlands

22 expert. We would like to be able to have more control

23 over those issues here.

24 So it would be a requirement of

25 mine that the developer would work with the City to beef

 

 

 

 

179

1 up the areas around the residential properties and

2 wherever possible for a minimum of that 35 foot berm

3 setback area to be an exchange. I mean, I can

4 understand you don't want berm areas that are wetlands,

5 etcetera.

6 To the north of -- interior

7 landscaping, interior parking landscaping. Again I

8 asked the question during Landscaping Ordinance, should

9 perimeter -- it's not perimeter but like a boulevard --

10 is it the intent of this Planning Commission to allow

11 landscaping around the parking lot to count towards

12 interior parking landscaping? And that was not our

13 intent. Can you discuss this particular plan with

14 regard to that?

15 MR. McGINNIS: The reason the applicant

16 cut back on the interior landscaping was to keep the

17 parking lots at a minimal size to help preserve the

18 trees, especially around the football field. I said in

19 my letter that if you do count the perimeter trees as

20 part of the interior landscaping because they exist

21 between the parking and the perimeter road and they

22 would not be part of the perimeter buffer, but they are

23 along the parking area and they are between two

24 vehicular use areas, and it is sort of a unique

25 situation, having this long linear lot with a drive

 

 

 

 

180

1 behind it, that we can -- that would be one way to sort

2 of get around the internal parking, or internal

3 landscaping requirement.

4 However, if the other alternate is

5 to provide the internal islands, and they actually are

6 not that short. If you total up all the internal

7 islands, I think that they are equivalent of 16 parking

8 spaces, that much green space short. However, given the

9 need for parking on the site, it would probably be

10 preferable if we don't count that edge treatment to the

11 parking lot, it would be preferable to add that to the

12 variance requirements for getting -- get a variance for

13 the interior landscaping requirement.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. Ms. Kay, can

15 you come to the podium and pick up where he left off

16 with regard to the impervious surface and runoff and is

17 it from a -- if this is your area -- is it beneficial to

18 have the landscaping where it is at the north between

19 the ring road and the parking lot, and also if you could

20 address the landscaping additional trees behind the

21 residences on Wixom Road.

22 MS. KAY: We concur with your landscape

23 architect that there are opportunities with the design

24 of the mitigation in that area, and especially near the

25 residents, that we can make sure that the deeper pockets

 

 

 

 

181

1 for the higher levels of water are farther away, thereby

2 sloping toward that end, toward the residents, so that

3 you have more upland, if you will, and more buffer on

4 that end, and I think we can achieve that. If we can't

5 and we get to that point during, you know, Final Site

6 Plan then by all means we can make an exception in this

7 case and I think we can support having any kind of

8 upland trees on the upper, upper ends of the buffer.

9 Obviously the buffer is upland anyway.

10 Typically we want more deciduous

11 and more variety of trees but we can have some shrubs as

12 well. So with regard to the mitigation design, I think

13 there's enough room there to achieve what you're trying

14 to achieve, which is some screening. Correct?

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Correct.

16 MS. KAY: Okay. And the same would be

17 true for the ring road. I'm not sure there's as much

18 opportunity on that end, although I didn't look at that

19 very closely, but you can see that there's very little

20 room given the north end of that road and the property

21 boundary, but whatever can be done certainly should be

22 attempted.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Is there going to be

24 a negative impact from there not being the interior

25 islands in that --

 

 

 

 

182

1 MS. KAY: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I missed

2 that one entirely. Well, everything is relative and

3 that parking area is relatively small. I mean, if you

4 look at the overall acreage of the site, that area in

5 between the school and the football stadium is a small

6 parking surface. And I know that everybody is trying to

7 achieve all these different things but this particular

8 site is obviously where you're going to have to give a

9 little in some areas and take in others. I am not

10 opposed to keeping the parking as is. I'm not sure what

11 you can actually achieve on such a small parking surface

12 space. I mean, 600 doesn't sound small but for this

13 city that is, and I'm not sure what you can actually

14 achieve as far as attenuating any heat with a few trees

15 here or there.

16 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: The wetland

17 mitigation is less than the one-to-one ratio that's

18 required in our ordinance and you had in one of your

19 letters a recommendation to possibly remove this

20 north-south field and there was a response from the

21 developer stating they did not want to do that. Was

22 there ever a discussion about removing half of the

23 field, the upper north half that is actually on the

24 wetland area? And the reason I ask that is because if

25 we did that, I'm just throwing this out here, it would

 

 

 

 

183

1 eliminate the variance for the one-to-one ratio and it

2 would also allow for less mitigated wetland area. My

3 concern about the mitigated wetland area is, and we've

4 said it before, what's proposed and what really happens

5 are two completely different things. And the major

6 concern -- if this mitigated wetland was on the west

7 side of the property I wouldn't be as concerned as I am

8 with it being on the east side of the property with the

9 residents being negatively impacted. We've got practice

10 fields that are elevated, which makes them much more

11 visible. What is your feeling about that alternative?

12 MS. KAY: Okay. Again, there's a great

13 trade-off on this property with regard to even the

14 natural resources themselves. If I'm forced to make a

15 value judgment between the upland woodlands and some

16 wetland for the sake of meeting your wetland ordinance

17 and having no net loss, if you will, because I think the

18 actual estimate is that you would have roughly a third

19 of an acre loss of wetland on the site without your

20 typical wetland being built for mitigation, I am going

21 to have to lean toward preserving as much upland

22 woodlands on the site in lieu of that and that's why we

23 wanted them to preserve every available upland woodland

24 and gave them credit, if you will, for that net loss of

25 wetland mitigation.

 

 

 

 

184

1 And we don't do that that often and

2 I think by far this is probably the one case where we

3 took that kind of liberty with that amount of acreage

4 for that net loss. We did try to explore alternatives

5 as is required under the ordinance with the applicant.

6 They can still explore other alternative. They can

7 certainly try to find other areas in the city as

8 required by the ordinance, they can try to use your city

9 area-wide mitigation property, all those things.

10 I'm not sure what's going on with

11 that, but we really felt that the upland woodlands on

12 this site, especially on the western half, is of such

13 great value that the more that you're going to preserve

14 of that adjacent, especially adjacent to the wetland

15 system itself, it's going to actually help the post

16 development wetland on this property. So that's why we

17 came to that judgment.

18 And as far as losing the practice

19 field, the one that is oriented north-south, again, it's

20 a little bit of a stretch for me because I'm supposed to

21 stick just to the wetlands. If I'm just going with the

22 wetland ordinance and they had to lose a field, then

23 obviously we would be in support of that. However, in

24 this case I can't make that decision in a vacuum and I

25 think that we'd much rather then preserve anything they

 

 

 

 

185

1 can on the western half of the site with regard to just

2 maintaining the viability of the wetland system overall.

3 Does that answer your question?

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Sure. Leaves room

5 for interpretation.

6 MS. KAY: Sure.

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: I think that's I all

8 I have for wetlands.

9 Just some general comments. I am

10 opposed to parking on the practice fields particularly

11 since the north-south practice field is going to be over

12 a current wetland. And I do agree with the comment that

13 was made that it would be more beneficial to not have

14 more impervious surface for those five, ten times a year

15 when you're going to be having -- and my calculations

16 are considerably higher than anyone else's. If you have

17 something like -- from what I understand with the

18 bleachers in the football area, you've got 8,550 linear

19 feet of bleachers. Usually people don't take up more

20 than two feet. So that gives you 4,275 people that can

21 fit in that football stadium. That's a ton of people.

22 So if there's some way, and I would

23 like to hear, and I know that you started to pursue

24 either parking arrangements or whatever, I would like to

25 have a, and I don't know if it's an agreement that I'm

 

 

 

 

186

1 looking for or maybe just some sort of solution that you

2 would bring as part of a Final Site Plan approval, that

3 you've either worked out some sort of a shuttle system,

4 or Target has allowed you to park on their property, or

5 people to the north of you are going to give you some

6 land. I really don't want to see parking on Wixom Road

7 and we already have that problem with Novi High School.

8 FATHER ELMER: One of the Commissioners

9 also suggested the possibility of making for the games

10 the road one way so that there could be parking along

11 the road and still have room for traffic.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Would we have to get

13 approval for that from the fire marshal? I would think

14 that we would have to have -- to see if the road is wide

15 enough to allow parking plus the fire truck to go

16 through.

17 MR. EVANCOE: I think we could certainly

18 run it by the fire department during Final Site Plan

19 Review and see if it is okay, see what their comment

20 would be.

21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Because that would go

22 toward my request to have some sort of arrangement for

23 Final Site Plan approval.

24 The decel lane to be changed to

25 whatever we called it, the taper, makes sense. There

 

 

 

 

187

1 was no traffic study done on the south entrance, so I

2 don't believe it's going to require the amount of

3 traffic going in. The one area I didn't mention, I said

4 we talked about landscaping or you discussed a little

5 bit on the west side. Again, I do see landscaping there

6 but because the fields are elevated, and I know that

7 there's no -- you can't put in a berm plus have it

8 elevated, and I think this has already been said, but I

9 do want to see additional landscaping between the

10 fields. And the property is currently zoned residential

11 to the west. I know it's Master Planned as office but

12 it is zoned residential so we have to be very sensitive

13 to that.

14 I think that's all I've got at this

15 time. Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Markham.

17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Well, I'm ready to

18 make a motion but do you want to speak before I do?

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to make my

20 comment put on the record.

21 Even though most of the

22 Commissioners have asked a lot of questions, I do have a

23 couple of questions that I do want to ask and, Mr.

24 Stimpson, you're one person I have a question of.

25 On your report provided by your

 

 

 

 

188

1 office, item number 10 regarding access, there's a

2 statement in here that says, "We have reason to believe

3 that the stub was never constructed," referring to a

4 ramped sidewalk stub.

5 MR. STIMPSON: I'm sorry, Madam?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Number 10, under Access

7 in your letter, it says, "A ramped sidewalk stub was to

8 have been constructed on the northeast corner of the

9 signalized driveway to allow for a future pedestrian

10 crossing to the school site. We have reason to believe

11 that this stub was never constructed. The City should

12 verify that this is the case and take steps to ensure

13 that the stub is provided prior to its being needed for

14 crossing." Has your office verified that with the City?

15 That is -- has this taken place, Mr. Coburn? Maybe

16 you're the wrong person I'm directing the question to.

17 MR. COBURN: I went out to the site and

18 took a look at it and the stub going across Wixom Road

19 towards the Catholic Central site has not been

20 constructed. That is something we can take a look at.

21 And I know on the Promenade site we are not completed

22 with all the items for that, so we can take a look at

23 that and make sure.

24 MR. STIMPSON: It may have been an

25 oversight. That stub was not on earlier versions of the

 

 

 

 

189

1 Wixom Road improvements, as we call them, for Novi

2 Promenade. An early version was inadvertently stamped

3 improperly before its time and another version was

4 stamped some weeks later. There may have been some

5 confusion in the field as to what was required.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I appreciate that, Mr.

7 Stimpson. I want to make sure that this is not one of

8 those we're-going-to-look-into things, and if we're

9 going to have a school there that that is provided.

10 MR. COBURN: No, that's something we'll

11 definitely follow up on.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr.

13 Stimpson.

14 The other concerns that I have are

15 the winter opacity.

16 Mr. McGinnis, in photograph number

17 2, if you -- or maybe I could ask the landscape

18 architect. In photograph number 2, that is depicting

19 the site from where to where?

20 MR. WEIKAL: Standing right on the

21 property line.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you would take the

23 hand mike, I would appreciate it.

24 MR. WEIKAL: Thank you. Photograph number

25 2 is standing almost directly next to the existing home

 

 

 

 

190

1 that's there, where our drive will be. And so I stood

2 on the property line, or Mike and I stood on the

3 property line and looked -- in fact, you can see the old

4 fence and looking right across through there's a little

5 bit of an open area and then a forested wetland that

6 occurs right here.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So what you're looking

8 at is, if you're standing at their property line, you're

9 looking south into Island Lake.

10 MR. WEIKAL: Yes, just to show the buffer

11 that occurs along there, existing planting material.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Usually we have certain

13 requirements for opacity for winter. Did you say or did

14 someone say that there would be a couple of Evergreens

15 put in there?

16 MR. WEIKAL: Well, on the landscape plans,

17 on the concept plans, we have introduced Serbian Spruce

18 right there.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Serbian Spruce?

20 MR. WEIKAL: Well, we haven't picked them

21 yet but they would be Serbian. It's a narrow growing

22 Evergreen.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Then you agreed

24 that you would be putting in some Evergreens around the

25 perimeter of the homes located there.

 

 

 

 

191

1 MR. WEIKAL: Yes. There actually is a

2 buffer planting.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right, yes.

4 MR. WEIKAL: So the Commission wants more

5 Evergreens.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: A couple, yes. I think

7 that would be helpful. Thank you for your time.

8 I understand about the upland and

9 everything, but I was reading about hummocks and we

10 don't have a whole lot of those within our city, do we?

11 Ms. Kay, if you could. I have a couple questions

12 regarding the wetlands, specifically Wetland Y, which is

13 where one of the practice fields are.

14 MS. KAY: Yes, on this specific the

15 hummocks that you are referring to, I mean, they're not

16 rare in the city but they are a system that is uncommon,

17 so that's sort of like splitting hairs.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can you, for the

19 benefit of the Commission, explain what a hummock is?

20 MS. KAY: Sure. It's basically a grouping

21 of sedges and grasses and it's elevated. There's a

22 picture of it in your packet in one of the photographs.

23 It actually gives you a little bit of perspective. And

24 generally speaking there's a foot from the base of this

25 grouping of plants to the top that shows you what the

 

 

 

 

192

1 levels of water are standing during a normal storm event

2 in the summertime. And all that tells us is that

3 there's a lot of water standing in that wetland area

4 temporarily in spring and fall during large storm

5 events. So for Wetland Y, we indicated that in the

6 packet just because we described the different wetland

7 systems and different wetland vegetation types for you.

8 But as far as a rare system, it is not but it is a very

9 special wetland system in that some of the vegetation

10 diversity is different. We pointed it out again just as

 

11 information for you so that you could compare.

12 Obviously the majority of wetland

13 on the site is forested, not a lot of understory,

14 meaning underneath the tree canopy there's not a lot of

15 herbaceous vegetation. Wetland Y is different, it's not

16 forested -- excuse me -- there's some trees around the

17 periphery but the majority of it is these kind of

18 grasses.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. There's a couple

20 things I want to ask. First of all, there is going to

21 be some mitigation on the south of the road which would

22 be in Island Lake. What impact is that going to have?

23 I mean, you're putting a road through that one area,

24 we're breaking up this whole area. Doesn't this

25 tributary go into Davis Creek? And it's a good system.

 

 

 

 

193

1 What is that -- you know, those two sites, how will they

2 impact each other? You're mitigating in one area,

3 you're mitigating in another area. I see some trees but

4 if you put wetlands in there the water will kill the

5 trees. How does this all impact? This is the whole

6 system, isn't it, with Island Lake included in it?

7 MS. KAY: Yes, and I'm going to try to

8 summarize that. That's a lot of different points, as

9 far as, you know, items in wetland.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right. It's

11 late.

12 MS. KAY: Again, for the wetland system,

13 the largest contiguous wetland system on this

14 property --

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is A.

16 MS. KAY: Right. There's no doubt in

17 anybody's mind that we're saying that, you know, there's

18 going to be some impacts from the development, but we

19 think that given the circumstances the, you know,

20 percentage of impervious surface, albeit there is some

21 but it's not high, this wetland system should remain a

22 viable wetland system.

23 Again, practice has shown us that

24 there could be some tree mortality. It is not

25 throughout the whole system. I don't want to mislead

 

 

 

 

194

1 anybody here. We don't have a good rendering here for

2 you this evening with regard to where they're actually

3 proposing to detain in the wetlands, so let me move over

4 here and I'll try to outline that area.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would appreciate it

6 because that's a hard site to walk into.

7 MS. KAY: I lost my rendering here.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it's behind the

9 flag.

10 MS. KAY: Oh, it's underneath. No, that's

11 not it. Excuse me a minute.

12 This is the one time I could have

13 highlighted it with my magic marker like I usually do

14 and I didn't. This should have been in your packet as

15 well. The most southern/southwestern lobe of this

16 wetland system, this area in gray is the only area

17 that's proposed for detention for a, well, I'll read it,

18 "A five-year storm event and a ten-year storm event".

19 And that is a standard for engineering again with regard

20 to those storm events, not necessarily a direct

21 correlation whether or not the trees are going to die.

22 But that's the area that we outlined for you, and that

23 is a decent standard that they designed to. I don't

24 want to mislead anybody here. That is very detailed and

25 the area conforms to an elevation, a known elevation

 

 

 

 

195

1 within that wetland area.

2 The 158 trees are within this area

3 alone. There's not much -- and this is just for a

4 different storm event, a one-and-a-half year, first

5 flush. This larger area over here on the right side of

6 this rendering in the purple and the light purple is for

7 a much larger area on site and that's for two

8 back-to-back 100-year storms. That's the worst case

9 scenario. That's basically designed to a 200-year

10 storm. And that's a much larger area obviously but it

11 doesn't go all the way to Wixom Road.

12 Obviously under those calculations

13 you would anticipate that once every 100 years, right,

14 if all that holds true. So that's the area. What else

15 did you specifically want to know?

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I guess you kind of

17 answered my question because I wanted to know if there's

18 any -- you answered my question. I appreciate it.

19 I do have a couple questions,

20 Father, if you wouldn't mind answering, I think that

21 came out this evening and that I thought were rather

22 interesting and maybe could solve some future problems.

23 You know, I am on the Master Plan

24 and Zoning Committee and so I know what these properties

25 around you are Master Planned at the present time and

 

 

 

 

196

1 zoned, and to the north of you, Mr. Pellerito's

2 property, is commercial, so he has the -- I know,

3 commercial-light industrial -- so he has the ability to

4 build something there which would probably have the

5 ability of parking on the north side which you could

6 probably use, right? And this is the kind of discussion

7 that you're having with him. And before I ask another

8 question of you, do we have -- I guess, Ms. Kay, I

9 probably asked you to leave too soon. Is she here

10 still?

11 What is on the north side of that

12 property, is there a bunch of wetlands there? If

13 there's future build-out there will there be, you know,

14 would that be a problem?

15 MS. KAY: Okay. I haven't personally

16 walked that site in a great many years, but one thing I

17 do know from some previous files in the office there are

18 some wetlands on that property. It was farmed for years

19 there. We had an active wetland violation many, many

20 years ago, over ten years ago, on the Pellerito property

21 you're referring to, the property on the north I take

22 it. So there are some wetland systems there intact is

23 my understanding but not a lot of wetland system overall

24 because he did farm that area for years. And that's my

25 understanding but I have not personally verified any

 

 

 

 

197

1 current wetland conditions on that property.

2 I wanted to back up also because I

3 realized I didn't answer one of your quick questions,

4 and not to belabor this, but you mentioned something

5 about Davis Drain, and downstream, whatnot, and closed

6 or open system, and I know there's been some

7 conversations with that regard, but our position for the

8 wetlands on this property is that it's a closed system.

9 A lot of the calculations that we

10 requested from the applicant and discussions that we've

11 had is that their position is that it's an open system.

12 And, you know, we've walked the property downstream, if

13 you will, but what we consider an open system for

14 wetlands in general are when a wetland system is

15 actually connected to a major stream section, a

16 continuous major Rouge River stream section or somewhere

17 where you have an actual outlet. And so that's why

18 we're calling this in our letter a closed system,

19 because we know that the two southern lobes of that

20 wetland end. And even though there's some existing

21 downstream drains, Novi Line Drain, and the large lake

22 system as part of Island Lake, you know, that's our

23 position so far. Unless somebody brings some additional

24 information to our attention, we're going to consider

25 this a closed system.

 

 

 

 

198

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

2 Once again, Father Elmer, is there

3 any, is there any negotiation regarding the property,

4 the residential that are left? Is there any

5 anticipation of acquiring those properties that are left

6 along Wixom Road?

7 FATHER ELMER: We certainly obviously

8 would like to acquire them. Whether we can afford that

9 or not is in question right now.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So I assume --

11 FATHER ELMER: There has been conversation

12 with the property owners there.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So I assume the

14 reliability of future parking would probably be to the

15 north.

16 FATHER ELMER: Yes.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there any

18 future plans for a rectory? Where will the priests

19 live?

20 FATHER ELMER: That's a good question and

21 I'm not sure how we're going to answer that right now.

22 The priests right now are willing to stay where we are.

23 It's about 15 miles from where the school will be.

24 Right now, as far as the land is concerned, there isn't

25 room for it and that's -- the driving force right now is

 

 

 

 

199

1 that. But if we were to obtain more property, that

2 might be a possibility.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We have talked about

4 the wetlands and the woodlands and this looks a little

5 bit different than the concept plan that I saw at the

6 Master Plan, but I do think that on the whole I think

7 it's a very nice design. I did want to ask whether or

8 not you really need the third practice field, which

9 would be Wetland Y, and would it be possible to use half

10 of it instead of the whole field?

11 FATHER ELMER: I think my athletic

12 director would resign if we took any more practice field

13 space from him. The main problem is in the fall. We

14 have soccer and football and three teams each, freshmen,

15 JV and varsity. So that's -- really, if we're going to

16 have the ideal situation, that's five practice fields

17 and a game field because one of those teams would

18 probably be playing. So right now we're very tight, as

19 Commissioner Markham pointed out, with practice fields.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much,

21 Father.

22 Mr. Coburn, are we meeting all the

23 requirements for the new Stormwater Management

24 Ordinance?

25 MR. COBURN: Yes, they are.

 

 

 

 

200

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. There is only I

2 think one question I had for you. I apologize.

3 Regarding the -- on your review, your plan review,

4 regarding project summary, you said, "Water service

5 would be provided by a looped 12-inch water main from

6 Island Lake development to the south and from Wixom Road

7 to the east. A water pressure booster station and a

8 pressure regulator are being proposed to provide

9 required pressure for this site."

10 When I read that I just wanted to

11 make sure is it going in, is the pressure going to be

12 correct because this says, you know, is everything for

13 the 12-inch water main -- what's the word I'm looking

14 for? -- sized?

15 MR. COBURN: Yes.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. And all the

17 stormwater is being treated, you have Vortechnics in

18 there, and -- geez, I don't know if I have any more

19 questions. Everybody was so -- oh, I know.

20 This is again for you, Father. Do

21 you give out athletic passes?

22 FATHER ELMER: I could make sure you get

23 one if that's what you're asking.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, I mean like -- that

25 didn't come out right. I'd just like you to know that I

 

 

 

 

201

1 am Catholic. You know, I meant like, you know, like

2 more tickets out to friends and neighbors.

3 FATHER ELMER: Complimentary tickets?

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's it.

5 FATHER ELMER: There are some that do go

6 out but...

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm looking to see how

8 much that will add to your parking.

9 FATHER ELMER: Oh, I see. Our stadium is

10 only going to be able to hold so many no matter what, so

11 I don't think that would have any effect.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I thought my question

13 was perfectly fine.

14 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: As long as the Chair

15 gets one, that's all we care about.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I want to be clear

17 before anyone makes a motion. We are going to be

18 putting in -- you are going to be putting in the berm --

19 adding on the south. What about the lights, what did we

20 talk about with regard to the lights?

21 Mr. Stimpson, do you have any

22 knowledge regarding lighting, is that your expertise at

23 all?

24 MR. EVANCOE: I think Tim Schmitt can best

25 handle that. He did the review regarding the lighting.

 

 

 

 

202

 

1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did you really?

2 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am. I've done a

3 lot of lighting reviews since I got here.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let's talk about that.

5 MR. SCHMITT: I'd be happy to.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm not familiar with

7 this thing, what did you call it, Muska, some kind of..

8 MR. SCHMITT: Musco Lighting. It's one of

9 the larger companies in the area.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you're

11 telling me if it's 80 foot tall and it has a 45 degree

12 angle that it's going to go straight down?

13 MR. SCHMITT: That is almost the best case

14 scenario for lighting of this sort given the, and Mr.

15 Argenta had mentioned it before, the light loss from

16 these lights -- if you were to put this at a 90 degree

17 angle that high, the lights are going to spread much

18 farther than they are when you have them pointed

19 directly at what you want to light.

20 So there really is almost a curtain

21 right behind the light because the light is not going in

22 that direction, it's all going forward. So you're

23 pointing lights towards each other and it's providing a

24 much cleaner lighting and very minimal spillover. I was

25 actually very surprised when I saw the site how little

 

 

 

 

203

1 spillover there actually was.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I appreciate your

3 answer, however, I wanted to ask you, in the future when

4 we're talking about lighting, especially new lighting or

5 something that doesn't fit our ordinance, if there could

6 be visuals. I mean, I think that would make things a

7 lot -- especially when it's 12:30 at night.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Certainly. This is

9 obviously a very rare situation. I would doubt --

10 unless the City itself comes forward and proposes

11 lighting at either Power or Sportsman's Park, you would

12 probably never see this situation again.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One other question.

14 Will there be any other lights? Like you have this big

15 ring road. Will there be any other lighting along the

16 road?

17 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, and they meet the

18 ordinance requirements along every other place on the

19 site except for the football field.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. That will be

21 25-foot lights. Is that going to be bright?

22 MR. SCHMITT: Twenty-five feet where

23 adjacent to residential. So given the size of the site

24 we essentially split it in half. The southern half,

25 being adjacent to residential, will meet the 25-foot

 

 

 

 

204

1 requirment and the northern half is going to be 30 feet

2 high, being adjacent to industrial.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And you're going to put

4 lighting in on the southeast corner in such a manner

5 that the residents that abut Wixom Road will not be lit

6 up at night?

7 MR. SCHMITT: I'd have to check and see

8 where the nearest pole is, but I'm guessing if they set

9 it off the road fairly substantially so the light

10 doesn't spill over to the property.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Those are all my

12 questions that I have. Thank you very much.

13 If someone would entertain a

14 motion, I mean, the Chair will entertain a motion.

15 Commissioner Markham. Please break

16 it down to the Special Land Use first and then the rest.

17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Then I need the

18 list of the findings, don't I?

19 In the matter of Catholic Central

20 High School, Site Plan 02-61, a motion to grant approval

21 of the Special Land Use, finding that relative to other

22 feasible uses of the site this proposed use will not

23 cause any detrimental impact on existing thoroughfares

24 and whether -- and relative to other feasible uses of

25 the site it will not cause any detrimental impact on the

 

 

 

 

205

1 capabilities of the public services; that it is

2 compatible with the natural features and characteristics

3 of the land, and compatible with the adjacent uses of

4 the land in terms of location, size and character and

5 impact; it's consistent with the goals, objectives and

6 recommendations of the City's Master Plan for land use;

7 it will promote the use of the land in a socially and

8 economically desirable manner; and it is listed among

9 the provisions of uses requiring Special Land Use and is

10 in harmony with the purposes and conforms to the

11 applicable site design regulations of the zoning

12 district.

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Second.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion was made by

15 Commission Markham, seconded by Mr. Ruyle.

16 Does anyone have any other

17 discussion? Commissioner Paul.

18 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Under this Special

19 Considerations, the very first one is the proposed use

20 will cause any detrimental impact on existing

21 thoroughfares in terms of overall volumes, capacity,

22 safety, vehicular turning patterns, intersection view

23 obstruction, and line of sight, ingress, egress,

24 accleration/deceleration lanes, off-street parking,

25 off-street loading/unloading, travel times and

 

 

 

 

206

1 thoroughfare level of service.

2 I don't know how we can say yes to

3 that because we have no answers to the parking at this

4 time. We are -- if we have 4,000 seats in the football

5 field, how can we say that?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due respect,

7 parking is not a part of that.

8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: But off-street parking

9 is definitely an issue and patterns of the thoroughfares

10 are definitely an issue.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, you said --

12 COMMISSIONER PAUL: The whole sentence.

13 And, you know, I'm very much in favor of this site, but

14 I'm looking at the deficit of parking that we have

15 without an agreement and I'm gravely concerned that

16 people will park in Island Lakes, people will park on

17 Wixom Road, people will park along the ring road no

18 matter what we do, people will possibly park in Target,

19 maybe they'll park in the three residents' houses, close

20 to their house or their drive and block them. I'm

21 looking at this and thinking there's no way we can

22 actually meet that first requirement at this point in

23 time.

24 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Madam Chair.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Member Markham.

 

 

 

 

207

1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: In my second motion

2 for approval of the Preliminary Site Plan I was going to

3 include a comment that at Final Site Plan there needs to

4 be a plan by which they will accommodate sports event

5 level parking requirements, which would answer that

6 question that they have to -- by the time they get Final

7 Site Plan approval they have to tell us how they're

8 going to handle that.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: For Special Land Use

10 you'd like to amend the motion?

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Does it belong with

12 the Special Land Use motion or does it belong in the --

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher, I wouldn't

14 think that belongs with the -- can she amend a Special

15 Land Use motion to indicate that?

16 MR. FISHER: Yes. It could be a condition

17 that some solution, I think as Commissioner Kocan stated

18 it, must be provided by the time of Final Site Plan

19 approval for the parking. That would be a reasonable

20 condition to impose.

21 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. So I would

22 amend the motion to say on the condition that there is a

23 plan in place at Final Site Plan to -- what's the word?

24 MR. FISHER: Accommodate.

25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Overflow parking

 

 

 

 

208

1 for sporting events.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is the seconder of the

3 motion amenable to that?

4 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: I will accept it.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Commissioner Paul.

6 COMMISSIONER PAUL: I have a question for

7 legal counsel.

8 If we agree to do this and we do

9 not have any of those agreements in place --

10 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: They can't get final.

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay. Then can we

12 have this at Final Site Plan approval? Would that be --

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: That can be part of

14 the next motion.

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Okay.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else have

17 any further comments?

18 Mr. Schmitt, if you please call the

19 roll.

20 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

21 Commissioner Papp?

22 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?

24 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?

 

 

 

 

209

1 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?

3 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?

5 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

6 MR. SCHMITT: Commission Avdoulos?

7 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?

9 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

10 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

12 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

14 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 9 to 0.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The Chair will

16 entertain another motion for the -- Commission Markham.

17 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: In the matter of

18 Catholic Central High School, Site Plan 02-61, motion to

19 grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan Wetlands

20 Permit, Woodlands Permit and the Stormwater Management

21 Plan, subject to a ZBA variance for the height of the

22 football field lighting. Do I have to spell out what

23 it --

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Fisher, does she

25 have to state exactly what the footage is?

 

 

 

 

210

1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: This says 80 feet

2 but what if it turns out to be 90? That makes sense.

3 MR. FISHER: You can merely say a variance

4 in order to comply with the ordinance.

5 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. Then I won't

6 state a height. A ZBA variance for the cut-off angle of

7 the football field lighting; a ZBA variance for removal

8 of the berm or wall requirement along Wixom Road

9 right-of-way, taking into consideration additional

10 Evergreen plantings around adjacent residential

11 properties; a ZBA -- well, actually, that goes with the

12 next one -- a ZBA variance for removal of berm or wall

13 requirement along residentially zoned properties; the

14 Planning Commission waiver of the City's opposite side

15 driveway spacing requirement; a wetland bond filed with

16 the city in the amount of $70,000; the deceleration lane

17 changed to a taper on the southern access point in front

18 of -- near the residence; and I don't know exactly how

19 to talk about the replacement trees. They're required

20 to do something about the replacement trees.

21 MR. FISHER: I think under the

22 circumstances, from all the discussion, I think it might

23 be appropriate to merely say they must comply with the

24 ordinance with regard to tree replacement.

25 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Okay. Applicant

 

 

 

 

211

1 must comply with the ordinance regarding tree

2 replacement; and a parking agreement at the time of

3 Final Site Plan approval which will accommodate overflow

4 parking associated with sports events; and a ZBA waiver

5 for interior landscaping requirements -- I thought we

6 were -- I thought they agreed to put the landscaping on

7 the interior.

8 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: On the existing

9 islands but they weren't going to add additional

10 islands. They were going to count the trees surrounding

 

11 it as additional, the way I understood it.

12 MR. EVANCOE: Yes. If I may, I think this

13 is regarding the -- allowing the islands that separate

14 the ring road from the parking lot to count as interior

15 parking lot islands.

16 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: All right. So what

17 do I want to say? Waiving the interior parking

18 landscaping requirements to separate the ring road from

19 the parking, the student and staff parking, and this is

20 to be brought back to the Planning Commission for Final

21 Site Plan approval.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I'll support it.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Member Paul.

24 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Do we want to specify

25 the tree bond or the replacement trees around the city?

 

 

 

 

212

1 Do we want to spell that or is just following the

2 ordinance the same?

3 MR. FISHER: I don't think any resolution

4 to that, you know, exactly how that's going to be

5 carried has been decided, so we don't even know what the

6 numbers are. So I think the appropriate thing is they

7 have to comply with ordinance.

8 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Secondly, do we want

9 to say anything about the Bonds' property not having the

10 deceleration lane?

11 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I said that.

12 That's included.

13 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Madam Chair, second

14 the motion.

15 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: He already did, Tim

16 already did.

17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I did.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has been

19 made by Commissioner Markham and seconded by

20 Commissioner Shroyer. Any further discussion?

21 Mr. Schmitt, if you would please

22 call the roll.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

24 Commissioner Paul?

25 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

 

 

 

 

213

1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?

2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?

6 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?

8 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

9 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?

10 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?

12 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

13 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?

16 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

17 MR. SCHMITT: Motions passes 9 to 0.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

19 Good luck.

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I'd like

21 to make a motion to extend the meeting.

22 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Second.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Till 1:30 at the

24 latest. Thank you.

25 Excuse me, we have another site

 

 

 

 

214

1 plan. Is the petitioner for Duke office still present?

2 Our next item is matters for

3 consideration, Duke Office Building, Phase II, Site Plan

4 Number 02-57. Consideration of the request of Lonnie

5 Zimmerman of Siegal/Tuomaala Associates for approval of

6 a Preliminary Site Plan. The subject property is

7 located in Section 36 on the west side of Haggerty

8 between Eight and Nine Mile Roads in the Office Service

9 Commercial District. The developer is proposing to

10 remodel the existing three-story office building,

11 including adding additional parking and landscaping.

12 The subject property is 4.42 acres.

13 Mr. Schmitt, are you presenting for

14 the applicant?

15 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: How interesting.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Make it brief, please.

18 MR. SCHMITT: I got the longest drive, so

19 I would be happy to.

20 As you can see on the overhead,

21 we're looking at Haggerty Road to the right-hand side,

22 Orchard Hill Place swooping in an L-shape fashion. The

23 Duke Office Building is the L-shaped parcel at the

24 corner of Haggerty Road and Orchard Hill Place.

25 As you can see on this zoning map,

 

 

 

 

215

1 the entire area around it is zoned OSC, with a small

2 amount of OS-1 further to the north and some residential

3 to the west. And the Master Plan shows that the entire

4 surrounding area is Master Planned for office uses.

5 To begin with, I'd like to state

6 that this is actually an existing building. If you

7 drive out there, they're currently in the process of

8 remodeling the interior and changing the facade, which

9 was previously approved internally. The building was

10 built prior to many of the ordinances that are currently

11 on the books, therefore it is a nonconforming building

12 under today's standards. The goal of most

13 noncomformities is to bring them into conformance to the

14 extent feasible under most situations.

15 The applicant has decided to do a

16 complete remodel and to provide a better entranceway to

17 the project, which will be located right here. Really,

18 the main entrance to the building is somewhat obscured

19 and hard to get to, so he will be providing a more

20 impressive opening to the building and bringing the

21 parking into conformity in terms of numbers that are

22 required for the office building.

23 The reviews for this plan were

24 exceptionally clean. There's only one major issue to

25 note. The landscaping review indicated that a ZBA

 

 

 

 

216

1 variance is required for the lack of a Haggerty Road

2 right-of-way berm, and I will let Mr. McGinnis further

3 discuss that should the Commission have questions.

4 In addition, the traffic review

5 indicated that a Planning Commission waiver of the

6 opposite side driveway spacing will be required and a

7 City Council waiver of the secondary access requirement

8 will be required.

9 After discussing internally with

10 our City engineer, it has been determined by the

11 Engineering Department that neither of these will be

12 required. It is an existing building. The fire marshal

13 does not -- after speaking with the fire marshal, he had

14 no problems with only having one point of access to the

15 building given the fact that it's a fully sprinklered

16 building, there are not elderly or children in the

17 building, it's a general office use, it's got excellent

18 access off Haggerty Road and very close to Eight Mile.

19 So Mr. Evans did not feel that a secondary access will

20 be absolutely required in this situation. And given

21 that the driveway is currently in place, the driveway

22 spacing waiver would not be required given that the

23 driveway predates the ordinance.

24 I'd be happy to answer any

25 questions you might have, and that's all I have for now.

 

 

 

 

217

1 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: I guess I'm the

2 chairperson while the Chairperson is gone.

3 Would the applicant like to address

4 the Commission? Please state your name and spell your

5 last name for the court reporter.

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: My name is Lonnie

7 Zimmerman. I'm an architect with Siegal/Tuomaala

8 Associates. Zimmerman, Z-i-m-m-e-r-m-a-n.

9 I'm here tonight with Tom Duke, the

10 owner of the building, and with Eron Kleckner, our

11 landscape architect. I think Tom would like to say a

12 couple words to you about the development of the

13 building so you've got a clear picture of what we're

14 trying to achieve with it and then I would like to make

15 a couple quick comments afterwards. Thank you.

16 MR. DUKE: My name is Thomas Duke, and I

17 served for three years with the Farmington Hills

18 Planning Commission so I have an appreciation for the

19 late hours that you folks have to endure.

20 The building in question was built

21 in 1980 and it was never finished. The original site

22 plan for this building showed an additional wing coming

23 off the south end of it and it was to be a two-story

24 bank branch building with drive-ups. So that seems to

25 address some of the open space that's to the south of

 

 

 

 

218

1 the building. So as the building is now unfinished, the

2 south entrance seems to be quite unfinished and doesn't

3 make a lot of sense, frankly.

4 Over the years tenants have come

5 and gone and the building's out-of-state owner had let

6 it fall into disrepair, both inside and out. When I

7 took over in September, the occupancy in the building

8 was only 17 percent. For years, despite the building's

9 excellent location, it has been ignored by tenants and

10 brokers that represent them. The deferred maintenance

11 of tenant areas, common areas, bath, lobby and grounds

12 can only be overcome by a significant renovation.

13 This renovation, now over budget at

14 2.5 million, is curing many, if not all, of the

15 property's shortcomings. One major factor, in my

16 opinion, in the building's failure is the current

17 landscaping. It is overgrown and uncared for. It does

18 not enhance the site but rather degrades it. There is

19 nothing in the current inventory of plantings that

20 deserves prominence on the site or in the city. The

21 trees that exist are the most common and unimportant

22 species, poorly shaped and poorly groomed.

23 When I visited Longwood Gardens,

24 which is an estate built by the Dupont family in

25 Philadelphia, it comprises about 500 acres, I picked up

 

 

 

 

219

1 a nice book called Plants That Merit Attention by the

2 Garden Club of America and I'd just like to read a few

3 short sentences.

4 "For years concerned and devoted

5 gardeners and plantsmen have lamented their repetitious

6 and narrow palette of plants drawn upon for home and

7 park landscaping. One need view no more than a dozen

8 gardens in any city to make an inventory of the handful

9 of plants used in any particular region. While many

10 have speculated upon or decried this uniformity, few

11 have tried to do anything about it."

12 The plan that I propose was

13 partially inspired by the twin columns of chestnuts

14 along the Right Bank of the Seine River in Paris. The

15 plan is formal, it is elegant. It lends a first class

16 appearance to a prominent corner site. It will help put

17 a fresh colorful face on a tired, old property.

18 There are major vacancies in office

19 buildings up and down Haggerty and the I 275 corridor.

20 This building needs to be competitive and to command

21 attention from future businesses looking for a home.

22 Thank you very much.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Please

24 state your name and spell your name for the court

25 reporter.

 

 

 

 

220

1 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I already did.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry.

3 MR. ZIMMERMAN: What I'd like to do is

4 very briefly just explain what's happening on the site

5 with the building to make sure everybody understands.

6 Haggerty Road, Orchard Hills Place

7 Drive. The building faces Haggerty. The entry to the

8 site is off of Orchard Hills Place Drive. We're not

9 changing the entry location at all. The red indicates

10 the existing small parking lot as you drive into the

11 site that's there right now.

12 As I'm sure all of you have seen,

13 the entrance to the building is practically obscured

14 with landscape, overgrown trees, and that's been one of

15 the problems with the building's visibility or the

16 presence of the building. What we want to do is, we're

17 going to remove the trees in the area of the entrance

18 and we're going to put in a plaza at the entrance, as

19 well as expanding the parking lot with a driveway that

20 let's you drive continuously through it rather than a

21 dead-end driveway like is there now. Handicap parking

22 much accessible as well as additional visitor parking,

23 and we're going to put in a rather dramatic looking

24 canopy.

25 On the sample board, I don't know

 

 

 

 

221

1 if it's here but we delivered it to the City at one

2 point, the basic appearance of the building with the new

3 curtain wall that's underway right now -- what you've

4 seen, if you've been by there within the past couple

5 weeks, is the curtain wall without the mullion covers on

6 it. So it's -- the whole color of the framing is

7 unfinished there. What it's going to be, all the

8 horizontals are going to be a copper color and the

9 verticals are going to be dark. So you're going to see

10 strong horizontal lines in copper color.

11 The entire top of the building is

12 being changed. It's being removed and we're putting on

13 a copper color top which angles out slightly. The

14 bottom metal panels, which have just recently been

15 removed, are being replaced by glass spandrel. So it's

16 going to connect in a clean glass appearance from the

17 top panel right down to the first floor glass.

18 The idea is to make this a clean, a

19 sleek building. The copper colored horizontals will tie

20 in with the copper color canopy. The canopy is going to

21 be stepped, it's going to be metal, it's going to be

22 open, and I think it's going to be a rather dramatic

23 appearance for the entrance of the building with the

24 plaza. It's going to have a presence to it without

25 shouting at you, and that's the goal of this, to really

 

 

 

 

222

1 try to make it interesting and dramatic but kind of a

2 classy looking building.

3 And to that end we've also looked

4 at the landscaping and I know it's been pointed out that

5 the landscaping, lack of a berm, is one of the issues.

6 And we have a bit of a problem with the berm being

7 continuous along here and part of that has to do with

8 the particular grading on the site right now.

9 If you've noticed, the grade comes

10 to the sill of the first floor windows. That's just the

11 existing grade that's always been there with the

12 original design of the building. There is a swale, a

13 depression, which takes water from north to south,

14 heading toward the major detention pond to the south for

15 the whole region, a regional pond.

16 If we put a berm there, we're very

17 concerned about water backup. Even though the water is

18 draining to the south, a berm in front of the building

19 is going to block water from moving as rapidly as it

20 needs to and we're worried about it getting into the

21 windows because we've only got about six inches between

22 the sill of the window and the grade right now.

23 Where we did put berms is where we

24 could put berms, at the north lot and the south lot.

25 There we've got berms and, as Tom Duke was indicating,

 

 

 

 

223

1 we've gone with a variety of trees across the front of

2 the building with a little more formal planting.

3 And for a better description of the

4 landscape, I guess I'd like to bring up Eron Kleckner to

5 briefly describe to you some of the landscape

6 components.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could state your

8 name.

9 MR. KLECKNER: My name is Eron Kleckner.

10 The first name is spelled E-r-o-n and the last name is

11 K-l-e-c-k-n-e-r, with EJ Kleckner Associates. We're

12 landscape architects.

13 Let me just start off a little bit

14 by discussing the berm a little bit further. Another

15 reason why we didn't show it on our drawings was due to

16 the fact that on a subsequent meeting with the prior

17 city landscape architect we were under the impression

18 that because of nonconformance that berm was not

19 required. And, again, along with the drainage issue,

20 that's another reason why we didn't show the berm on the

21 drawing.

22 The second issue I'd like to

23 address is the issue of removal of the existing trees.

24 If I can go over there, I'll show you where there's some

25 existing masses and clumps of trees.

 

 

 

 

224

1 We have two distinct clumps of

2 existing trees, one clump here, another clump here,

3 there's also a third clump here and there's some

4 existing Evergreen trees here. Part of these Evergreen

5 trees will be removed because of the parking lot

6 extension and some trees here will also be removed

7 because of parking lot extension. But these trees are

8 very tightly-knit clusters, five, six feet apart, seven

9 feet apart. Many of the trees growing in these clusters

10 are ash and American elm, so their life expectancy is

11 very short.

12 What we're afraid of is if we

13 retain these trees and the ash and elm will die then

14 we're left with rather unshapely individual trees, which

15 we really don't want. What we're trying to do is we're

16 trying to create a strong formal appearance of a

17 particular tree. It's called a Red Flowering Horse

18 Chestnut.

19 We chose a Horse Chestnut for a

20 couple reasons. One is that it flowers, and even though

21 it flowers maybe only two or three weeks out of the

22 year, when it is in flower it's something people

23 remember. The other reason why we chose a Horse

24 Chestnut is realizing that it's a rather rare tree, not

25 a lot of them certainly in Novi, thinking that since all

 

 

 

 

225

 

1 of these are one variety and thinking in terms of

2 diversity we feel that a tree that's rather rare would

3 have a much less chance of becoming a catastrophe in

4 terms of diseases and insect infestation.

5 The other question here is in terms

6 of the Evergreen trees here. They're almost planted in

7 double rows and what will happen is when the parking lot

8 expands we will be removing just about the first row.

9 The trees are not the most shapely trees, very thin on

10 the bottom. What we're afraid of is with just one row

11 of trees here and probably about six or eight feet up in

12 the air they're very thin. We'd like to remove them and

13 putting something maybe a little more impressive than

14 what the Evergreens are.

15 We are berming these areas, we are

16 planting these areas, but we had not at this time

17 intended on the berm going across the front of the

18 building.

19 If there's any other questions, I'd

20 certainly be happy to answer them.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much.

22 Do we have any additional comments

23 from our staff? If not, I'll turn the discussion over

24 to the Commission.

25 Member Kocan.

 

 

 

 

226

1 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam

2 Chair.

3 I've heard that this is called a

4 nonconforming -- is it a nonconforming use or a

5 nonconforming building?

6 MR. SCHMITT: I'm going to go with a

7 nonconforming development. The building, I believe,

8 meets all the requirements. The catch is the parking

9 setback and some of the landscape items. So the use is

10 permitted, the building is in the proper location, the

11 parking amounts will now be appropriate. Really, the

12 only problem left is the parking setback issue and

13 that's one nonconforming that's extraordinarily

14 difficult to take care of, really.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I have no

16 problem with a ZBA variance for the lack of the berm on

17 the Haggerty Road as indicated by the developer that it

18 would require berming over an existing swale. There was

19 a requirment to switch the lighting throughout to metal

20 Halide bulbs.

21 MR. SCHMITT: It's actually a suggestion.

22 Our code sort of pushes you towards Halide. That's what

23 we'd like to see but if it's not feasible then it's not

24 an exact requirement.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you'd like to ask

 

 

 

 

227

1 the [Petitioner].

2 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, I can respond to

3 that. The adjacent parcel to the west is sodium

4 lighting right now. The parcel to the south is metal

5 Halide. We have no objection, in talking with Mr. Duke,

6 over the course of the next several years to make that

7 change over to metal Halide. Right now the lights are

8 all functioning, and given the amount of work that's

9 going into the building now, he'd preferred to extend

10 the period of time to make that changeover, but he does

11 intend to do that.

12 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. With regard to

13 the differentiation in species, I'd like to ask the

14 landscape architect whether he's in agreement with the

15 comments made by the developer this evening?

16 MR. McGINNIS: Usually on a large site I

17 think I'd be more concerned about the lack of diversity,

18 but he obviously is making a design statement with his

19 trees and if he wants to take the risk that they're

20 going to be not eaten up by invading insects I think

21 that, you know, that should be his choice.

22 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: With regard to

23 changing the dumpster area, was it the traffic engineer,

24 or someone had recommended that there has to be some

25 changes in the width of the lot? It looks -- if those

 

 

 

 

228

1 recommendations or those changes are made, that would

2 require removal of one, at least one or maybe two

3 parking spaces?

4 MR. SCHMITT: Our engineer, Ben Croy, and

5 I went out to the site to discuss this a little bit and

6 the situation is north of the dumpster, proposed

7 dumpster location, are two parking spaces. In backing

8 out of there that actually should be a curb in order not

9 to nick the cars as you're backing out.

10 What we would propose to the

11 applicant, and we don't see a major problem with this,

12 is removing those spaces, extending the curb down per

13 the request or not even -- extending the curb so you'd

14 be able to back out easily and then taking those two

15 spaces and adding them to the new parking area to the

16 north, thereby still balancing the site in terms of

17 parking and the new parking area will still be set back

18 appropriately and the landscaping should not be impacted

19 in a substantial way.

20 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Is this the first

21 time you're hearing that?

22 MR. ZIMMERMAN: It's the first time I'm

23 hearing that solution because we have another solution

24 in mind which would not be quite the same but it would

25 do the same thing.

 

 

 

 

229

1 We're proposing to add one space --

2 if I can just come around on the drawing.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could point to

4 it, I would appreciate it, and slow down when you talk.

5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: The area in discussion is

6 right over here. This was the old truck well, if any of

7 you drove back there. This is a truck well and this is

8 a covered dock area. We are putting glass frontage on

9 the dock area and that will become a new vending area

10 for the building with glass and a landscaped little

11 courtyard in front of it and we're putting the dumpster

12 enclosure in front of that and the truck well is being

13 removed and brought up to grade level. So that will be

14 eliminated as a recess ramp down.

15 And the area that is being

16 discussed is this area just to the north here. Our

17 solution was to do the curb as was recommended in the

18 report. I was going to add one space down here to this

19 parking area because we have space to add it here and I

20 think the report indicated we would lose one space up

21 here. I had a net loss of only one space and then pick

22 it up down here. So I think it nets out to zero.

23 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: When I looked at it,

24 to leave just one spot on the other side of the -- there

25 were only two spots there in the first place. It might

 

 

 

 

230

1 be better, if it's feasible, to move that parking spot

2 somewhere else. I would prefer to see that spot moved

3 and maybe have some additional landscaping where that

4 spot was.

5 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I think Mr. Schmitt was

6 suggesting it up here, to up here, which we can just as

7 easily do. I have no problem with that.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Actually, it's up to the

9 applicant. We can either move the two in front of the

10 building or behind the building. It really doesn't

11 matter as long as the side balances.

12 MR. ZIMMERMAN: We're flexible.

13 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Okay. I appreciate

14 that. I was surprised that the fire chief did not

15 recommend widening the entryway into the parking lot as

16 there is no secondary access. Very surprised. And

17 you're already over budget at 2.5 million, but maybe

18 some day I'd really like you to consider bringing that

19 into conformity with making it a 90 degree turn and

20 widening it because there's only the one entrance. I do

21 understand that if there were a fire that the fire truck

22 could pull up alongside Haggerty Road but I'm just I

23 can't say anything else other than surprised.

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: We've addressed that. Mr.

25 Duke has sent a letter to the adjacent property owner

 

 

 

 

231

1 about putting in an emergency access drive to connect

2 them.

3 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: To the west?

4 MR. ZIMMERMAN: I'm sorry?

5 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: To the west?

6 MR. ZIMMERMAN: To the west, and if need

7 be we can do that if we get a positive response. We

8 haven't got a response yet. But the other thing is that

9 we've come to find out that the driveway width is

10 actually -- I believe it was originally shown at 26

11 feet. I think our surveyor has actually found it to be

12 about 29 feet, which is closer to the 30 foot standard.

13 So it is a bit wider than we originally thought that it

14 was.

15 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: It sounds like you've

16 been doing a lot of work and trying to come into

17 compliance with City and we certainly appreciate that

18 and it looks like that face lift should do considerably

19 -- benefit the company and I appreciate you taking the

20 time and effort and money to do that.

21 Therefore, I'm willing to make a

22 motion.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: In the matter of the

25 request of Duke office remodel, SP 02-57, motion to

 

 

 

 

232

1 grant approval of the Preliminary Site Plan, subject to

2 ZBA variance for lack of right-of-way berm along

3 Haggerty Road as the berm would need to be over an

4 existing swale; and subject to the comments on the

5 attached review letters being addressed at the time of

6 Final Site Plan, particularly switching the lighting

7 throughout to metal Halide bulbs over the next several

8 years as appropriate, and given that condition I believe

9 the Planning Commission can find that the parking and

10 lighting are compatible with surrounding developments.

11 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Second.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by

13 Commissioner Paul.

14 Do we have any further discussion

15 on this?

16 Mr. Shroyer.

17 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes, I have several

18 questions unfortunately, looking at the time. I'll go

19 fast.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, no, you're not

21 going fast.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: The first one I

23 need ask is to the City. I couldn't find in the

24 ordinances but somewhere I seem to remember, and maybe

25 it was another city I used to work for, we did not

 

 

 

 

233

1 permit metal doors on a trash container. We don't have

2 anything in our ordinance that prohibits that. Correct?

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No, we do not.

4 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. That's the

5 first question. Then I need to talk to Mr. McGinnis.

6 When you surveyed the area and

7 looked at the property, the applicant did talk about

8 several clumps of trees, but when I went out virtually

9 every single tree had a red flag around it, which to me

10 says it's to be removed. The entire south property

11 line, the entire west property line, all the trees just

12 on the west side of the building. And when you surveyed

 

13 the area, when you looked at the area, did you look at

14 those trees? Are all those ash and elm that we're going

15 to lose eventually? I know there's a lot of white pines

16 or some type of scrub pine tree as well, and they are

17 very poorly shaped, I have to agree with that, but the

18 deciduous trees.

19 MR. McGINNIS: There are a lot of maple

20 trees and they're very nice maple trees but they're not

21 part of the regulated woodlands and the applicant is not

22 prohibited from removing those and he is replacing a lot

23 of the landscaping.

24 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: We're talking, I

25 mean, some of them are eight-, nine-, ten-, 12-inch

 

 

 

 

234

1 trees.

2 MR. McGINNIS: The nicest tree along

3 Haggerty is an ash. I mean, it's a beautifully formed

4 tree. When I first saw it I thought it was a sugar

5 maple but on closer inspection it is an ash.

6 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: What are the trees

7 in the two landscape islands on the western portion that

8 they're talking about removing? There's two trees in

9 each one, one on the south side and one on the north

10 side.

11 MR. McGINNIS: Oh, the clumps. The clumps

12 of trees?

13 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No. There's an

14 island on the south side of the parking, if you could

15 help point it out, and then there's also one on the

16 north side? I'm talking about the L-shaped portion,

17 down in the lower left. There's one island there and

18 there's an island on the north side that are both --

19 MR. DUKE: The existing island.

20 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Correct. What

21 trees are those?

22 MR. KLECKNER: Those are maple.

23 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And the same thing

24 on the north side?

25 MR. KLECKNER: The north side, those are

 

 

 

 

235

1 ash.

2 MR. DUKE: And one of them is on a big

3 hill that sticks out of the parking lot and I can't

4 understand why it's there. It just looks ridiculous.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Let's not talk

6 out of turn, please.

7 MR. DUKE: I apologize.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I appreciate that

9 but...

10 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: The concerns I have

11 -- he's passionate, of course -- the concerns I have,

12 you know, we spent a lot of time tonight talking about

13 painted islands and now we're going right back to

14 painted island again. We do have some landscaped

15 islands and we're going to remove them. I think that

16 the new entrance is great, I love the copper idea of the

17 roofing, the entrance not being a dead end, the traffic

18 flow is excellent. I do have concerns about the

19 southern/western parking area and it sure seems like

20 we're losing a lot of really nice trees.

21 MR. McGINNIS: We are.

22 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: And, in fact, a lot

23 of those trees look a lot nicer to me than the light

24 poles. I think the light poles look pretty shoddy, but

25 that's my personal opinion. And, with that, I hope that

 

 

 

 

236

1 other Commissioners might have something to say as well,

2 so I'll relinquish the floor.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we have

4 any other comments? I'd like to make a couple comments.

5 I happen to agree about the trees.

6 There are some beautiful trees out there. I'm very

7 familiar with that building. I go past that building

8 every time I go down to 275. I live at Nine and

9 Haggerty area. I think some of the problems have been

10 because the trees were never pruned; however, the ash

11 trees you can't do anything with. I wouldn't mind

12 keeping a couple of your maple trees. I think Horse

13 Chestnut is a beautiful tree, but I just can't imagine

14 -- how big does it get, Mr. McGinnis? I can't remember

15 the height of a Horse Chestnut. Do you remember?

16 MR. McGINNIS: No. Eron, it's about 50

17 feet.

18 MR. KLECKNER: The red flowering variety

19 matures out at slightly less, probably about 40 feet.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I can't imagine, with

21 all due respect, what that's going to look like

22 eventually. I mean, that just seems like way too close

23 to the building, that type of tree, the height and the

24 width. I just can't understand how you think you can

25 plant that in there and -- maybe we'll be dead in 20

 

 

 

 

237

1 years or something, but that just doesn't seem like the

2 appropriate tree to put in at that density that you're

3 putting it in.

4 MR. KLECKNER: I guess in my lifetime I'm

5 not concerned about them being overgrown.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I guess you're right.

7 I guess you're right. You don't expect to live real

8 long. But they are beautiful trees. I know what it

9 looks like. I just have a hard time with that. I just

10 don't think it's the appropriate type of tree to put in

11 that area. What else did I have. That's the only

12 comment I have.

13 Member Kocan.

14 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Just in response to

15 Commission Shroyer, I did not read this to say that

16 these were going to be painted-in islands. What they

17 have on the plan does not meet the ordinance but there's

18 a request to have them meet the ordinance.

19 MR. SCHMITT: There are actually two

20 painted islands. They're not really islands, they're

21 just areas to try to delineate the light poles. It's

22 sort of a leftover space, if you will, not wide enough

23 to be a full island but not small enough to just leave

24 it. So I believe it's to delineate the lighting to try

25 to keep people away from the light posts.

 

 

 

 

238

1 MR. ZIMMERMAN: That's correct, yes.

2 They're only in line with the light poles. There are no

3 painted islands indicated other than at the light poles.

4 I think there's two on the whole site and they're very

5 narrow.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any further discussion?

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Let me say one

8 other thing I guess.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer.

10 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I sure would like

11 to see the applicant open to a discussion with the City

12 concerning what else can be done with saving perhaps

13 some of the maples, maybe even have a wall-type area on

14 the southern island that's currently there to make it

15 look decent because you're right, right now it's just a

16 big mound, but there's all kinds of decorative things

17 that can be done to make it attractive. And I believe

18 Mr. McGinnis does have some good ideas in regard to this

19 and I think he does want to save some trees as well. So

20 if you would be open to working with the City and

21 perhaps making some recommendations, I could support

22 your plan.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other further

24 comments? Do you want that as part of the motion?

25 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No, but I'd like to

 

 

 

 

239

1 hear his response, if I may.

2 MR. DUKE: I'd like to respond to your

3 comment and a couple others that were made.

4 I like the maples, too, they're

5 pretty trees, but they are very common and the quality

6 of materials that we're trying to put in, the oaks, the

7 chestnuts, the Camperdown Elms, they're all spectacular

8 trees that you just don't see everyday. That's the

9 point. We're trying not to be repetitious, we're trying

10 not to be bland, we're trying to make this site really

11 interesting. So I agree with you, a maple with a trunk

12 of that caliper is very nice, but it's a dime a dozen.

13 And we're taking out 75 trees, we're putting in 101 and

14 they're all going to be spectacular trees.

15 Your ordinance, the reason -- you

16 questioned whether or not chestnuts are the right tree

17 for that double row.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I did.

19 MR. DUKE: And I can only say your

20 ordinance requires a shade tree so I tried to come up

21 with a shade tree that has a beautiful flower and is

22 spectacular. And if you've walked the Right Bank in

23 Paris, you know when you walk under those trees they're

24 magnificent, closely spaced like soldiers. Just

25 wonderful.

 

 

 

 

240

1 In regards to lights, I'd love to

2 replace the lights and give me about 24 months when I

3 get this building full up.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Thank you very

5 much.

6 Any further comments?

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: No, ma'am.

8 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Do you have a resident

9 for this building already?

10 MR. DUKE: A resident?

11 COMMISSIONER PAPP: I'm sorry, a tenant.

12 MR. DUKE: We have signed one tenant for

13 the third floor and we may get lucky and hit the second

14 floor soon.

15 COMMISSIONER PAPP: I commend you for

16 taking on a task like this and redoing a building like

17 this.

18 MR. DUKE: Thank you. It's a big risk,

19 sir.

20 COMMISSIONER PAPP: It is, and we have

21 several more in Novi if you're interested.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any further

23 comments? I think this will be a major improvement to

24 that whole area.

25 Mr. Avdoulos, do you have any

 

 

 

 

241

1 comments?

2 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Time me. No, I

3 think the improvements to the facade are great. The cap

4 that's being proposed is going to bring it up to, you

5 know, contemporary standards. The canopy, I would have

6 done something different but I think it's a good attempt

7 to at least identify what the entry point is.

8 On the site there is a light pole,

9 and this is what I was talking about before about trying

10 to use an island to contain a light pole, and we have a

11 new light pole that's being proposed but it's being

12 proposed at the intersection of four parking stalls and

13 I don't know why we couldn't shift it over a stall to

14 put it into an island just for safety reasons.

15 And the other ones that concerns me

16 is the shifting of the parking spaces on the light

17 fixture or because of the light fixture on one of the

18 rows. It gets kind of disorienting when you're trying

19 to park and especially, you know, when you're trying to

20 clear the site and stuff.

21 Other than that, I think the

22 attempt to bring this up to par is great, and I'm sure

23 you have a response to my light pole question.

24 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Well, the reason that we

25 had to move around some parking spaces is to try to

 

 

 

 

242

1 bring us up into parking compliance with the ordinance.

2 I mean, if we were to be short of the required parking,

3 then we would have more options as to how we would be

4 able to deal with the site, but one of the goals was to

5 bring it into compliance in every place that we could.

6 So we tried to balance lighting with landscape quantity

7 per the ordinance.

8 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Well, the question

9 was why is that one particular light fixture, or this

10 one here, at least it's -- unless it's labeled wrong, is

11 shown in a parking intersection.

12 MR. EVANCOE: It would be on the lower

13 right corner of the site plan, in the lower right

14 parking lot.

15 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Actually, I got the

 

16 landscape plan up here so I don't have the parking lot

17 shown.

18 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Well, it's shown

19 here on one of the civil plans.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Here, here. Why don't

21 you take this. It would be very nice if somebody gave

22 it to him.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Can I get the overhead,

24 please? Por favor. I believe we were discussing that

25 light pole.

 

 

 

 

243

1 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Right, and I don't

2 see why it couldn't be shifted over ten feet.

3 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Into the island you're

4 talking about. I guess we could. I don't have an answer

5 directly on that. It could move. I don't think it's

6 going to affect the photometrics meaningfully. So, this

7 answer is it could move.

8 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: I don't think so

9 either. It's just as we get into site plans, and

10 hopefully the Landscape Ordinance will start addressing

11 some of these issues, but that's the one thing I really

12 find a problem with, is having light poles in the middle

13 of parking lots and you have a concrete standard and

14 that's it. This is just an opportunity just to shift it

15 over a few feet and we're done with that. The existing

16 ones, it's hard, you're going to eliminate parking,

17 probably two spaces per light. So I think everything is

18 -- for what's been done, I think everything is in good

19 order.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any further comments?

21 If not, I'd like to call for the vote.

22 Mr. Schmitt.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?

24 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

25 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?

 

 

 

 

244

1 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?

3 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

4 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?

5 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

6 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

8 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?

9 COMMISSIONER MARKHAM: Yes.

10 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

12 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.

13 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

14 MR. SCHMITT: And Commissioner Paul?

15 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

16 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 9 to nothing.

17 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Madam Chair, if we

18 can continue the meeting for five more minutes, we can

19 finish off the agenda. Okay, two minutes.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I do not

21 believe that anyone is going to be talking about the

22 rules and the changes to the Committee if you have pages

23 of them. It's up to you.

24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Do you guys want to

25 adjourn the meeting or are we continuing the meeting for

 

 

 

 

245

1 five minutes.

2 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Go.

3 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Five minutes.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I do not want anyone

5 talking, speaking fast. Everyone is getting tired.

6 This man has been here since seven o'clock.

 

7 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Tim, you want to take

8 that one?

9 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: We're on the Rules

10 Committee now?

11 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

12 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Okay. We are

13 recommending that the following change to the Novi

14 Planning Commission Bylaws and Rules of Procedure be

15 presented to the Planning Commission, which we're doing,

16 for approval or denial. The City attorney, Stephanie

17 Simon, reviewed the recommendation and opinion letters

18 attached, etcetera, etcetera.

19 But, if you had a chance to read

20 it, I would like to move to amend our bylaws, Section

21 3.2, Subsection A, to read: "Regular meetings of the

22 Commission shall be held at least once a month on a

23 Wednesday evening in the Council chambers."

24 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Second.

25 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there any

 

 

 

 

246

1 discussion?

2 MR. SCHMITT: May I ask, is that the text

3 that was included in the packets?

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, it was the text

5 that was included in our packets, as I recall.

6 MR. FISHER: A little different.

7 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yeah, it's a little

8 different, shortened it.

9 MR. FISHER: It's a variation on the same

10 thing.

11 MR. SCHMITT: If you could just give me

12 that.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, then, I would

14 like to have you read it verbatim what it is that you

15 guys wanted.

16 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: I did.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You did?

18 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Just to bring us into

19 compliance. That's all.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I will call for

21 the vote. Was there a second?

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, there was, by

23 Member Kocan.

24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?

25 COMMISSIONER SHROYER: Yes.

 

 

 

 

247

1 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Sprague?

2 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Yes.

3 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos?

4 COMMISSIONER AVDOULOS: Yes.

5 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan?

6 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: Yes.

7 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Markham?

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: She's not here.

9 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy?

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes.

11 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp?

12 COMMISSIONER PAPP: Yes.

13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Paul?

14 COMMISSIONER PAUL: Yes.

15 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?

16 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Yes.

17 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 8 to 0.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you.

19 Do we have a motion to approve the

20 minutes of November 20th, 2002?

21 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So moved.

22 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Second.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say aye.

24 PLANNING COMMISSION: Aye.

25 COMMISSIONER RUYLE: Abstain. I wasn't

 

 

 

 

248

1 here.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have approval of

3 the December 4th, 2002 Planning Commission minutes?

4 COMMISSIONER KOCAN: So moved.

5 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: Second.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second by Mr. Sprague.

7 All in favor say aye.

8 PLANNING COMMISSION: Aye.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. There are

10 no matters for discussion, there are no special reports.

11 Is there anyone in the audience who

12 would like to address the Commission?

13 Yes, sir. If you could please

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

15 MR. HOGAN: Wayne Hogan, H-o-g-a-n.

16 I just wanted to make a comment on

17 the Catholic Central project. I wasn't aware that a

18 football stadium field, whatever it is, was going in to

19 the place and it's been my experience when the parking

20 is laid out for a place where they have overflow on

21 additional fields that the handicap parking doesn't grow

22 with the abundance of additional vehicles that come into

23 the area. And the way that that lot is set up that I

24 saw on the plan the gentleman showed me is you have the

25 20 cars, in three rows I believe, in the area right

 

 

 

 

249

1 where the stands are.

2 And they actually did for once draw

3 some handicapped spaces actually into the plan, which is

4 kind of nice, but they're very poor and only have the

5 utility of a regular parking space. And when I was

6 discussing it with Father, he had indicated to me that

7 not many handicapped people come to his games and that

8 kind of bothered me a little bit. We had a discussion

9 regarding his alumni not getting any younger and his

10 realizing that that could be an issue in the future.

11 But having a 600 car bump from the amount of car spaces

12 that are in that area and not accommodating the

13 additional seniors and persons with mobility issues in

14 the plan from the get-go is very poor forward thinking.

15 And I would like to suggest

16 something that I do at some hotels where we have

17 conferences where this takes place, where you have a

18 conference that has, for instance, persons with mobility

19 issues or a large number of seniors. The hotels are

20 able to put up -- we provided the first few of these,

21 just poles with blue bags on them that say "handicap

22 parking". And that can be picked up and taken back off

23 the field or off the parking surfaces. We don't want

24 people walking on fields and rolling on fields. They

25 have to have hard surfaces to roll on.

 

 

 

250

1 And so putting up a pole or rolling

2 a pole out, just like you do a cone or anything else to

3 be able to use for that period, ten or 15 of those along

4 the edge there, would be perfect. It's very low in cost

5 and very effective in convenience.

6 So I like that -- I always try to

7 offer some type of solution and in this particular case

8 it is an easy one if it's just regarded.

9 Okay. Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you, Mr. Hogan.

11 Appreciate your comments.

12 Move to adjourn.

13 COMMISSIONER SPRAGUE: So moved.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say aye.

15 PLANNING COMMISSION: Aye.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're adjourned at

17 1:38.

18 (The February 12, 2003 General

19 Meeting of the Novi Planning

20 Commissioned was adjourned at

1:38 a.m.)

 

251

1

2

3 C E R T I F I C A T E

4

5 I, Glenn Miller, do hereby certify that I

6 have recorded stenographically the proceedings had and

7 testimony taken in the above-entitled matter at the time

8 and place hereinbefore set forth, and I do further

9 certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of two

10 hundred fifty-one (251) typewritten pages, is a true and

11 correct transcript of my said stenograph notes.

12

13

14 Signature on File

15 Glenn Miller

16 Certified Shorthand Reporter

17

18

19 February 19, 2003

20 (Date)

21

Signature on File

Donna Jernigan

Planning Assistant

Approved with Amendments: April 16, 2003