View Agenda for this meeting

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2003, 7:30 P.M.
45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan 48375
(248) 347-0475

Proceedings had before the NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION, taken before me, Maureen A. Haran, CSR-3606, a Notary Public, within and for the County of Oakland, State of Michigan, at 45175 W. Ten Mile Road, Novi, Michigan, on Wednesday, February 26, 2003.


15 Chairperson: Antonia Nagy

Commission Members: John Avdoulos, Lynn Kocan,

16 Larry Papp, David Ruyle, Tim Shroyer.




Planning Director: David A. Evancoe

19 City Attorney: Thomas R. Schultz

Planners: Timothy R. Schmitt, Barbara McBeth

20 City Engineer: Benjamin Croy, Michael McGinnis.




Maureen A. Haran, CSR 3606





12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to open

13 the Planning Commission meeting for February 26,

14 2003.


16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If we could please

17 call the roll, Ms. McBeth.

18 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

19 Member Avdoulos.


21 MS. McBETH: Member Kocan.


23 MS. McBETH: Member Markham.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused.





1 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy.


3 MS. McBETH: Member Papp?


5 MS. McBETH: Member Paul?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused.

7 MS. McBETH: Member Ruyle.


9 MS. McBETH: Member Shroyer.


11 MS. McBETH: And Member Sprague.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Absent/excused.


14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp, if you

15 could lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

16 (The Pledge of Allegiance was

17 recited by all present.)


19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

20 additions and/or deletions with regard to the

21 Agenda?

22 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second?

24 MEMBER PAPP: Second.




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I just wanted to,

2 before we move on, I received a letter from Mr. and

3 Mrs. Bond on Wixom Road. Did all the Planning

4 Commission receive that letter or was it just me?

5 (No affirmative response.)

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can I add this

7 under the Matters of Discussion?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry, Matters

10 for Consideration. I would like to add Alan and

11 Kathleen Bond's letter dated February 19, 2003.

12 MEMBER RUYLE: Move for approval as

13 amended.

14 MEMBER PAPP: Second.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

16 aye.



19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: At this point we're

20 at our first Audience Participation. If there is

21 anyone in the audience that would like to address the

22 Commission on anything other than the Public Hearings

23 this evening, please come forward.

24 Seeing no one, I will close the first





1 Audience Participation and move onto correspondence.


3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Secretary, do

4 we have any correspondence?

5 MEMBER KOCAN: Nothing other than

6 Public Hearing notices.



9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

10 Communications and/or Committee Reports?

11 MEMBER KOCAN: Just to state that

12 there are a number of committee meetings being held

13 and, as you know, there is something on the Agenda

14 tonight for the Budget Committee, and hopefully we'll

15 be able to get to that at a reasonable hour.

16 The Rules Committee, as Mr. Shroyer

17 stated at the last meeting, we're in the process of

18 rewriting the rules and we're getting near the end of

19 that. And there's also the Implementation Committee

20 that is working on the day care ordinance right now.

21 So we're still conducting lots of meetings. Thank

22 you.








2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are there any

3 presentations? Mr. Evancoe.

4 MR. EVANCOE. Yes, Madam Chair, thank

5 you. Good evening to all.

6 I wanted to just bring to your

7 attention some materials that I received in the mail

8 yesterday that I think might be of interest to the

9 Planning Commission. I'd like to actually pass a few

10 of these out.

11 We have six commissioners. Pass one

12 of these down to each, if we could.

13 What this is is some training that

14 looks like it might be excellent for the Planning

15 Commission, especially for perhaps our newer

16 members. This is a program that is being put on by

17 the Michigan Society of Planning, and they are doing

18 a conference called Planning Basics, which is

19 training for new officials, and it's being held

20 throughout the state. And what Oakland County

21 Planning and Economic Development Services has done

22 is basically been able to get almost a private

23 program for themselves due to the number of

24 commissioners and officials within the county.




1 So this is an event that's held on

2 Saturday, April 5. It's at a reduced cost compared

3 to the other sessions, identical sessions being held


4 throughout the state, and I just wanted to provide

5 that and if anyone is interested, just let us know at

6 the Planning Department, and we will get you signed

7 up and make that happen. Thank you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

9 much.


11 1. Novaplex SP99-32

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving onto the Consent

13 Agenda, are there any removals?

14 Madam Secretary.

15 MEMBER KOCAN: I have a question for

16 the City attorney.

17 Mr. Schultz, I noticed in this that

18 this is an extension of the Final Site Plan, and

19 typically we have had extensions of the Preliminary

20 Site Plans, which our ordinance allows three such

21 extensions. This is a Final Site Plan extension,

22 which already received a Preliminary Site Plan

23 extension. Is it three total extensions, period, or

24 are they allowed three for Preliminary and three for





1 Final?

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Give me a quick second

3 and I'll take a look at our Extension section.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, because I

5 think that that may make a difference.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that is a

7 question that everyone has been asking.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: Madam Chair, if I may.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Schultz.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: The reference in

11 Section 7 to Extensions says, the time limit set

12 forth in sub part 2516.6(a) above, which is a

13 reference to Approvals for Both Preliminary and Final

14 Site Plan, indicates that they can be extended one

15 year.

16 So it would be three extensions,

17 whether it's Preliminary or Final, total for both.


18 So I guess I can't speak to how many were on for this

19 parcel.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: We didn't ask that

21 question.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it said in

23 our packet.

24 MR. EVANCOE: If I recall, I think it




1 said there has been one extension granted so far.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Two. There was one

3 granted for a one-year Preliminary Site Plan on

4 September 5, and then a Final Site Plan extension was

5 granted administratively -- oh, without approval.

6 I'm sorry. That approval was granted for the Final

7 Site Plan on March 22, 2002.

8 MR. SCHULTZ: So they've had two.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They've had two.

10 Can you do that?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: Reading this in the

12 most conservative way -- and let me make sure the

13 Commission is clear on this. This is ultimately an

14 ordinance that you're going to be interpreting. You

15 asked me for our opinion, but ultimately you apply

16 this section.

17 If you want to read it conservatively

18 to say three total, and they've already had two but

19 those were Preliminary, they would get one extension

20 of this Final Site Plan.


22 MR. SCHULTZ: A conservative reading

23 of this, you could also read it to say -- a more

24 generous reading, you could say three for Preliminary




1 and three for Final, but that really becomes your

2 issue and I think either is defensible.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, since we're

4 not interpreting, we're just-

5 MR. SCHULTZ: We're still under

6 three.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We're still under

8 three.

9 So, does anyone move to approve the

10 Consent Agenda?

11 Yes, Mr. Ruyle.

12 MEMBER RUYLE: I'll move to grant the

13 extension for one year with the direction given to

14 the Planning Department that they are to notify this

15 Applicant that this is it. This is the final third,

16 and they either act on it within the next year, or it

17 goes back to Stage 1.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: I support that.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Supported by

20 Mr. Shroyer.

21 Mr. Evancoe.

22 MR. EVANCOE: I just have a question.

23 I apologize if I'm not tracking well this evening,

24 but I'm wondering where we're finding the





1 interpretation that there have been two extensions

2 granted so far. I see on the second to last bullet

3 that there was a one-year Preliminary Site Plan

4 extension, but not any others.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, maybe that

6 was an error in reading this.

7 MR. EVANCOE: It's not terribly

8 important, but I think we just need to perhaps know

9 that we're not up against -- you know, I think we've

10 only granted one so far.


12 MEMBER RUYLE: I would still iterate

13 that you call them, let them know what our feelings

14 are.

15 MR. EVANCOE: I will. Thank you.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Does the

17 maker of the motion then amend it to just let them

18 know how many extensions they have?

19 MEMBER RUYLE: Correct. Yes. I'll

20 accept that.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll accept.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. With no

23 further discussion, if you would call the roll,

24 please, Ms. McBeth.





1 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

2 Commissioner Kocan.


4 MS. McBETH: Chairman Nagy.


6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp.


8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


10 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


12 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


14 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.



17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Moving on in the

18 Agenda we have Public Hearings.

19 The first Public Hearing is the Public

20 Hearing to amend Section 201 of the City of Novi

21 Ordinance Number 97-18, as amended, the City of Novi

22 Zoning Ordinance, to add to the definition of home

23 occupation a limitation on the placement of signs

24 visible through window areas suggesting or implying





1 the existence of a home occupation.

2 Ms. McBeth.

3 MEMBER RUYLE: Madam Chair?


5 MEMBER RUYLE: Clarification for the

6 City attorney.

7 I own a home business. I don't

8 advertise it, but I do business out of my home.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't see a conflict.

10 MEMBER RUYLE: Okay. Thank you.


12 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

13 If the Commission wouldn't mind, I

14 would like to discuss all four of the proposed


15 amendments relating to signs all at once, and then

16 allow the Commission to go ahead and hold the four

17 Public Hearings if that is the Commission's

18 preference.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that will

20 be fine.

21 MS. McBETH: Thank you. The four

22 Public Hearings that are to follow are for changes to

23 the ordinances as they relate to signage. I'd like

24 to describe each of those ordinances briefly at this




1 point. The Planning Commission is asked to forward a

2 recommendation to City Council regarding these

3 ordinance changes. The ordinance changes were

4 initiated by the Neighborhood Services Department in

5 order to restrict or allow signage in specific

6 circumstances, and one ordinance is proposed to

7 establish a penalty for violation of the sign

8 ordinance.

9 The Implementation Committee discussed

10 these items just very briefly. The recommendation

11 was made to send these items to the full Commission

12 for consideration, and that recommendation to City

13 Council.

14 The first proposed ordinance amendment

15 is to the Zoning Ordinance and that would change the

16 definition of home occupation. The new ordinance

17 language would prohibit signage within the windows of

18 a home occupation that would be visible from outside

19 the home and that would advertise the home

20 occupation.

21 The second proposed amendment is to

22 change the Sign Ordinance and that would establish

23 standards for signage for garage sales. The new

24 ordinance language would limit the maximum area and




1 height of garage sale signs and would also place a

2 limit on the number of garage sale signs that are

3 allowed, the location of the signs, and would place a

4 maximum period of time that the signs may be

5 displayed.

6 The third ordinance change to be

7 considered by the Planning Commission this evening is

8 also to the Sign Ordinance. And that would establish

9 a penalty for violation of the Sign Ordinance. It

10 states that any person, firm, or corporation

11 determined to have been in violation of the Sign

12 Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Anyone

13 convicted of this infraction, may be subjected to a

14 fine or imprisonment, or both, as provided in the

15 section of the City Code that was also provided in

16 the Planning Commission packet this evening.

17 Finally, that fourth request relates

18 to a specific regulation for locating signage along

19 Twelve Mile Road. The ordinance currently states

20 that signage must be set back 78 feet from the center

21 line of Twelve Mile Road. Because of the recent

22 widening of Twelve Mile Road, the Neighborhood

23 Services Department sees the need to increase that

24 required setback from the center line from 78 to 93




1 feet. The 93 feet would allow the placement of signs

2 three feet off the right-of-way, and that would be

3 consistent with the location regulations for signs in

4 other zoning districts.

5 So to conclude, the Planning

6 Commission is asked to hold four separate Public

7 Hearings on these ordinance changes, and forward the

8 recommendation to City Council. If there are any

9 additional questions, the Planning Department would

10 be happy to answer, as well as Cindy Uglow who is

11 here. She's the Neighborhood Services manager.

12 She's present this evening. Thank you.



14 Ms. McBeth.

15 These are Public Hearings. Would

16 anyone like to address the Commission on any of the

17 items for the Public Hearings regarding the ordinance


18 text amendments?

19 (There was no response from the

20 audience.)

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is no

22 one, I will turn this over to the Commission.

23 Member Shroyer.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: I was, first of all,





1 going to ask even though we held a Public Hearing for

2 all, can we as a Planning Commission discuss each one

3 separately?

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that would

5 make sense.

6 1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.175

7 MEMBER SHROYER: I think so too. And part

8 of the reason I say that is I have no problem with

9 the first one. So if we could discuss that or if a

10 discussion is necessary. If not, I'll move that we

11 accept it as written.

12 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. It has been

14 moved and seconded that the Zoning Ordinance Text

15 Amendment 99-18.175 be amended as written.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Recommended to Council.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm sorry. We

18 recommend to Council that it be accepted as written.

19 Member Kocan, would you have any


21 MEMBER KOCAN: I just wanted to add:

22 For the following reasons: That the reasons for

23 accepting this is because the ordinance revision

24 clarifies that there shall be no signage for home




1 occupations, and I believe that that was the intent

2 of the Neighborhood Services and the City, to take

3 out any loopholes that there were.



6 (There were no further comments

7 from the Commission members.)

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, Ms. McBeth,

9 would you please call the roll.

10 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

11 Chairperson Nagy.


13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp.


15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


17 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


21 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Kocan.


23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.





1 2. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18-176

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Going onto Sign

3 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.176, and that is to

4 amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code of

5 Ordinances, to add requirements for temporary garage

6 sale signs.

7 Do we have any comments on that from

8 any Commissioners?

9 Mr. Shroyer.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: This one I do have

11 questions on. First of all, the entire packet

12 indicates that it was reviewed by the Implementation

13 Committee, but I don't see a recommendation from the

14 Implementation Committee in the packet.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Secretary, if

16 you would like to answer that?

17 MEMBER KOCAN: I'd like to speak to

18 that.

19 The Implementation Committee, it does

20 state that we reviewed it, however we actually did

21 not review each one. We did not have the language at

22 the meeting, and I did send a note to the staff

23 saying -- as information and as a disclaimer -- the

24 Implementation Committee did not review the actual




1 ordinance changes, but followed the attorney's and

2 the City staff recommendation that these would be

3 simple changes and they would go directly to the

4 Planning Commission.

5 But I have some changes that you'll

6 hear also. So we did not -- we approved them to come

7 forward in ideology.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: I have further

9 questions and, Mr. Evancoe, should these be addressed

10 to you or Ms. Uglow?

11 MR. EVANCOE: Probably not to me, but

12 I would say Ms. Uglow or Barbara McBeth.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think you should

14 ask Ms. Uglow to step forward.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: Come on down.

16 State your name and spell it for our

17 reporter, please.

18 MS. UGLOW: Good evening. Cindy

19 Uglow, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, U-g-l-o-w.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you. Several

21 questions. And the reason for this is our

22 subdivision is very, very, active with garage sales,

23 and if I didn't ask some questions I'd be burned at

24 the stake or something.





1 First of all, I note that things are

2 supposed to be bolded in our copy for the changes

3 made. I'm trying to have -- I'm having difficulty

4 figuring out exactly what changes were made. Are

5 there specific sentences?

6 MS. UGLOW: I thought we added a

7 cross-out.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It was crossed out.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: This is new. The whole

10 thing.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: It's all new?

12 MR. SCHULTZ: The whole thing.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: So it all should have

14 been bolded.

15 MS. UGLOW: All.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, some of the

17 questions I have then, and I almost hate to get


18 picky-

19 MS. UGLOW: Go ahead.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: Any time something

21 is in written form, you're looking at an ordinance,

22 or whatever, that is enforceable. And when we say

23 things such as "Maximum permit duration or exception,

24 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m," are we saying





1 that the people have to put up their signs every day

2 and take them down every night?

3 MS. UGLOW: We would prefer that.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: It doesn't say

5 prefer.

6 MS. UGLOW: Well, we don't like

7 clutter-

8 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand.

9 MS. UGLOW: -and that's the object of

10 this specifically is the clutter and sight

11 obstruction. So we're going to be flexible, and I

12 know there's additional comments as far as the

13 times.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And the

15 second comment I have is the concern about the 10

16 feet from the traveled portion of the street or road.

17 For a garage sale sign in the front

18 yard that's easily accomplished, but a garage sale

19 sign at a corner or major intersection trying to

20 direct traffic, to put it 10 feet away from the road,

21 nobody's going to see it.

22 MS. UGLOW: They do see them and if

23 there's a number more than one or two, I would

24 request that you think about election time where one





1 can be at 10 feet, then the next one who wants to be

2 more visible will be at eight, and then six, and all

3 of a sudden you're at gravel.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: I understand.

5 MS. UGLOW: So we're more conscious,

6 the ordinance officers are more conscious of sight

7 obstruction and clutter than getting the stick-out,

8 which we do have, but we're a little more flexible on

9 the footage.


11 MS. UGLOW: We needed an area to start

12 from.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, sure.

14 MS. UGLOW: So we treated this as a

15 temporary sign.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: And I'm looking at

17 it from the practicality standpoint as opposed to-

18 MS. UGLOW: Sure. And I have to add

19 the majority of our residents and our citizens are

20 very good about it. And they have put them up at the

21 specific days and times that they feel that they're

22 running, and the majority of them remove them by

23 Sunday or Sunday evening when they're done.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: Some of them have




1 been up there since 1999.

2 MS. UGLOW: Exactly, and we're

3 cleaning them up as we see them. Hopefully the snow

4 will melt and I'm sure there will be more.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: The third question I

6 have is does the language for the garage sales tie

7 directly into the third item in here, which makes it

8 a penalty of a misdemeanor and possible jail time?

9 MS. UGLOW: We hope not.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Again, the verbiage

11 though.

12 MS. UGLOW: I know. I know what

13 you're getting at. We have a sense of let's choose

14 our battles. Garage sale signs, although we prefer

15 them to be the letter of the law, as all our

16 ordinances are, and for everyone -- we do not do

17 selective enforcement, but in some of the cases,

18 garage sales and community annual meetings, there's a

19 flexibility there that's probably not going to be

20 written.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. That's all I

22 have on this item, and what I'll do is turn it over

23 to the rest of the Commissioners if they have any

24 questions for Ms. Uglow, and then if not she can sit




1 down and go forward.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

3 much.

4 Mr. Ruyle.

5 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam

6 Chair.

7 I'm a conservative but I'll use the

8 lawyer's term tonight, reading this thing most

9 liberally. This says between the hours of 9 a.m. and

10 5 p.m. prevailing time, it could be Eastern Daylight

11 or whatever, solely during the duration of the garage

12 or yard sale, no permit required.

13 That would tell me that I could put my

14 sign up, if I'm going to have the sale on Thursday,

15 and not take it down until I have the final sale on

16 Saturday, if I'm reading it liberally.


18 MEMBER RUYLE: So you say take it

19 down daily.

20 MR. UGLOW: Yes, sir.

21 MEMBER RUYLE: I think you should

22 spell that right out, that it has to come down and be

23 put back up. Because as I interpret it, and like I

24 said if I interpret it liberally, it would tell me





1 the duration of the sale, and the duration of the

2 sale is four days.

3 MS. UGLOW: I'll look to Tom for

4 that, to make it a little more clear.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: We can make that

6 clarification, sure.

7 MEMBER RUYLE: I think it should be,

8 because you're going to get that argument.

9 MS. UGLOW: Yes, sir.

10 MEMBER RUYLE: Just like you got

11 arguments before with political signs of when they

12 can go up and when they can't go up because of

13 election times. Basically that's what I wanted to

14 point out. I have no problem with it other than --

15 if you want them down daily, just spell it out

16 daily.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, do you

18 have any comments?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: I would reverse the

20 order for -- a suggestion: Reverse the order of the

21 phrases then, and just say solely during the duration

22 of the garage and/or yard sale, and only between the

23 hours of 9 to 5 daily, hourly, whatever.

24 MEMBER RUYLE: I think the word daily




1 has got to be in there. I mean, there are several

2 lawyers in the audience and they'll all interpret it

3 the way they want to interpret it. Let's interpret

4 it the way we want it interpreted, which means daily.


6 that actually if you had this, it would read between


7 the hours of, let's say, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. And

8 only -- so it would read, and only between the hours

9 of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

10 Read to me exactly what you want it to

11 say.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Solely during the

13 duration of the garage and/or yard sale, comma, and

14 only between the hours of blank a.m. and blank p.m.

15 daily.


17 Did you have any further comments,

18 Mr. Ruyle?

19 MEMBER RUYLE: No. That's -- I

20 wanted to bring that out. Thank you, Madam Chair.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos.

22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Can we add that the

23 signs be posted during these hours, have that

24 verbiage in there? Because when I first read it I




1 was reading that the garage sale could only be from 9

2 to 5, but it has nothing to do with taking down

3 signs, putting up signs, even though this is the Sign

4 Ordinance.

5 And the other question I had, if

6 there's no permit required, that we have maximum

7 permit duration or exemption, it sort of -- it erases

8 itself and it gets kind of confusing. There is no

9 permit fee required, but you have to still fill out

10 an application to get a permit.

11 MR. SCHULTZ: We're kind of stuck

12 with the fact that we're working with the chart here

13 in the ordinance. It's kind of hard to -- we could

14 put a footnote here and say no permit required but it

15 seemed easiest to put it under the column for permit

16 duration, that one isn't required. Because I don't

17 think we want to have applications for signs for all

18 of the garbage sales that occur during the summer.

19 I'll defer to Ms. Uglow on that.

20 MS. UGLOW: Okay.

21 MR. SCHULTZ: We don't really want to

22 do anything but regulate whether they're up or not.

23 MR. AVDOULOS: So the question is, you

24 don't need a permit to have a garage sale.





2 MR. AVDOULOS: Whereas other cities

3 you do.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't believe we have

5 a permit for the garage sale. It just addresses the

6 signs.

7 MR. AVDOULOS: So if I want to have a

8 garage sale, I just need to know I can only have a

9 maximum of eight signs.

10 MS. UGLOW: Eight?

11 MR. AVDOULOS: It says eight garage

12 or yard sale signs -- I don't know what that eight

13 means, if that's the number eight.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: That's the eighth item

15 in the chart.

16 MR. AVDOULOS: That's where it gets

17 confusing, because I was reading under Height,

18 Placement and Number of Signs. One sign at the

19 residence, one additional sign may be placed at each

20 entranceway to the subdivision. So you could have

21 five entrances, so there's six. And then at

22 intersections within that subdivision to provide

23 directions to the garage and/or yard sale. So you

24 may have 12 intersections, so you may have 20 signs.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, you may.

2 MR. AVDOULOS: And that's where, you

3 know, when you look at this chart real quickly and if

4 that's what an Applicant picks up, then that's what

5 they can do. And I guess those were my questions.

6 MS. UGLOW: You'd be surprised the

7 directional -- you get them one at one entrance --

8 I'm going to give the Meadowbrook Glens as an

9 example. You have the Ten Mile entrance, and you

10 have the Meadowbrook Road entrance. People find

11 their way. It's very rare that they hit every

12 intersection within the neighborhoods. So.

13 MR. AVDOULOS: No, I know. I'm just

14 looking at the zealous kids. And the reason I asked

15 about the permit is because my daughter and her

16 friend had a little garage sale in Northville, and a

17 police officer came by and said, Do you have a permit

18 for this?

19 MS. UGLOW: Really.

20 MR. AVDOULOS: And they did not, so

21 they had to close shop.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: But did you tell

23 them that you lived in Novi?

24 MR. AVDOULOS: But this was in




1 Northville.

2 MS. UGLOW: Aren't you glad you're in

3 Novi?

4 MR. AVDOULOS: I don't know. But that

5 was it.


7 MR. SCHULTZ: Is it clear now that the

8 number eight means this is the eighth item in the

9 chart, and it doesn't say eight signs?

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes. You know, we

11 are slow.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: No, no. I wasn't sure

13 I caught the beginning of that comment.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Madam Chair -- I

15 mean Madam Secretary.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm going to be the

17 Chair yet.

18 I just wanted to continue with what

19 Mr. Avdoulos said and what the attorney said because

20 I did get a copy of the Sign Ordinance being on the

21 Implementation Committee. I looked at it about

22 6 o'clock today, and this is in the middle of

23 something that's already been set and charted, and

24 there are other areas, specifically political signs,





1 that have the same verbiage that says no permit

2 required. So this is consistent with the other --

3 with the chart that's in our Sign Ordinance.

4 However I do have some questions.

5 When I read through this the first time, in the

6 column under Height and Placement, the sentence that

7 begins: No more than one additional sign may be

8 placed. And when I read that, I took it very

9 literally and said no more than one additional sign.

10 And then it said, but you can put it here, here,

11 here, here and here. I'm wondering if it would be

12 easier to understand if it stated instead:

13 Additional signs, only one per location may be placed

14 at each entranceway, et cetera, et cetera, and at

15 intersections, et cetera, et cetera. I take things

16 very literally. When I read them, I implement them

17 the way that they're written. So that would be my

18 suggestion to change the verbiage there.

19 The other section has to do with the

20 maximum permit duration, and I'm wondering if instead

21 of putting: Solely during the duration of the garage

22 and/or yard sale-, is it necessary to even have that

23 verbiage and just have the times. If we say -- well,

24 if you had the maximum permit duration between the





1 hours of, whatever the hours are, no permit

2 required. Do we -- you're going to need additional

3 verbiage.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the thought

5 was, we don't want: Garage sale coming next week, or

6 something like that.

7 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. Then as long as

8 we insert the word daily, then I would agree with

9 that.

10 But the hours of 9 to 5, my concern

11 about that is while that might be an ideal time to

12 have signs out, it's not an ideal time to have

13 someone physically put the sign out if your garage

14 sale starts at 8 o'clock in the morning. If a spouse

15 is requesting another spouse to put it out on their

16 way to work, they could put it out by 7 a.m.

17 I would be much more amenable to

18 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. With daylight during the summer,

19 garage sales go longer. I would like to extend the

20 hours.

21 MR. PAPP: That would be the same as

22 construction is allowed, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: Construction is 7 to 7?

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I want to





1 make sure that that went on the record. So could you

2 repeat yourself, Mr. Papp?

3 MR. PAPP: Yes. Changing it from

4 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. would be in conjunction with the

5 ordinance of construction that we allow.

6 MS. UGLOW: Sure. That's fine. I

7 don't have any problem with that.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you for

9 clarifying, Mr. Papp.

10 Do we have anything else?

11 MR. PAPP: I have one other thing.


13 MR. PAPP: Under Type of Structure,

14 should we list freestanding, so it's not attached to

15 a telephone pole or stop sign or a speed limit sign?

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would prefer to

17 have something myself. Because we have a beautiful

18 tree, gigantic tree, and people want to attach things

19 to it and it's an historical tree.

20 MR. PAPP: So Type of Structure

21 should be freestanding sign only, ground, pole or

22 portable sign.

23 MS. UGLOW: For the record, oh

24 absolutely not. No trees, no fences, no utility




1 poles, no traffic devices. Freestanding is fine.

2 MR. PAPP: Freestanding means it has

3 to be self-supported by wire.

4 MEMBER RUYLE: You can't put it over

5 a stop sign, huh?

6 MS. UGLOW: No. Please.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there

8 anything else?

9 MR. PAPP: That's all. Thank you.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would agree with

11 all the changes. The 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. I agree with

12 the signs being freestanding. I agree with the

13 purpose or the intent of this ordinance as well. I

14 think you've done a good job on the whole anyhow,

15 Ms. Uglow.

16 MS. UGLOW: Thank you, Chairperson.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If there is nothing

18 further -- Mr. Evancoe.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you, Madam Chair.

20 If I may, I would like to make one additional

21 suggestion. Kind of going off of Commissioner

22 Avdoulos' comments. The last column, where it says

23 Maximum Permit Duration or Exemption, perhaps that

24 could be renamed as Duration of Sign Posting.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, it really

2 doesn't matter to me what we call it, because what --

3 Maximum Permit Duration or Exemption, you're right,

4 if there's no permit required.

5 Mr. Schultz, do you have an opinion on

6 that?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: I have no objection to

8 it. It's the pleasure of the Commission. It's clear

9 enough either way.

10 MEMBER KOCAN: I would just say

11 because it's a column heading, as long as that

12 applies to every single permit. If that verbiage

13 applies to everything, then I don't have a problem

14 with it.

15 MS. UGLOW: Whatever your pleasure.

16 I don't have any problem with that either.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's what you

18 have -- excuse me, I don't mean to interject.

19 That's what you have, Maximum Permit

20 Duration or Exemption for campaign signs and signs

21 such as that, that's how the column is headed?

22 MS. UGLOW: Uh-huh.


24 consistency sake, I think we should keep it the way





1 it is then.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: Just as a practical

3 matter, how it would be accomplished is we would

4 reprint the entire chart when it went from here on to

5 Council, and we would say for 1 through 7, unchanged,

6 but we would change the heading for the whole chart

7 along with these changes. So it can be accomplished.

8 It's at the pleasure of the Commission.


10 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you,

11 Madam Chair.

12 I still have concerns. When we

13 started talking about the $500, the 90 days

14 imprisonment, a hearing, trying to identify who owns

15 the sign. I mean, the address is going to be right

16 on the sign as to where the garage or yard sale is.

17 You pretty much know whose it is.

18 Even though I think 1, 3 and 4 are

19 great, I have no problem at all. This one, I'd feel

20 much better if there's no time requirement -- maybe I

21 need to ask that. Do we have to get this to Council

22 ASAP?

23 MS. UGLOW: I would prefer. These

24 are -- go ahead, Tom.




1 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a clarification.

2 I think as I understand it, you're kind of skipping

3 -- if I may, Madam Chair.

4 You're kind of skipping ahead to the

5 next sign that talks a little bit about the penalty.

6 Right now, the Sign Ordinance as a general

7 proposition, is a misdemeanor violation. Every

8 ordinance has to have a penalty that goes along with

9 the violation.

10 We're not yet to the point of bringing

11 to City Council a civil infraction, which would

12 change a lot of these misdemeanors. Sign Ordinance,

13 Zoning Ordinance violations, even for really small

14 things, are technically misdemeanors. I think

15 Council will be considering whether we should make

16 those civil infractions, but that's not going to be

17 for a while.

18 In the meantime, you've got all these

19 other elements of the Sign Ordinance which are really

20 already misdemeanor violations. The 90 days, the

21 $500, that's all in there. We're just kind of

22 clearing up the language a little bit to make it

23 consistent with what it ought to say to accomplish

24 what it accomplishes now. So we're not changing the





1 criminal aspect of it. And adding the garage sale

2 signs, I think Cindy can probably speak to the level

3 of enforcement we'll get there.

4 MS. UGLOW: I don't think we've ever

5 written a ticket for a garage sale sign. I mean, we

6 haven't written a ticket for a political sign.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And we should.

8 MS. UGLOW: I mean, we can talk all

9 night for our temporary signage, and some of those --

10 I mean, the difference is, they have to register with

11 the clerk's office.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There are a few

13 still out there.

14 MS. UGLOW: Please tell us where. We

15 try to get to all of them. God, I hope not. But

16 like Tom says, this is tweaking tonight. This is

17 tweaking a little bit of the verbiage.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do you have

19 anything else, Mr. Shroyer?


21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Please continue.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

23 As I said, I'm uncomfortable with this

24 but if there is a time situation where we do need to





1 move forward on it, I can support it. I would like

2 to see some type of verbiage added regarding

3 neighborhood association signage. I know it's been

4 verbally discussed.

5 MS. UGLOW: We were talking about

6 that.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: But the large

8 sandwich sign, or whatever you want to call them

9 should be exempt from some of this, because the whole

10 association is doing a garage sale at that time.

11 MS. UGLOW: As I had mentioned, we're

12 taking a look at the whole Sign Ordinance itself.

13 I'll be coming forward, or at least giving the

14 Implementation Committee a heads-up as to where else

15 we need to be looking within this ordinance.

16 Signs -- it's a big ordinance. This is just the

17 beginning of what, hopefully, the Committee will have

18 a chance to review.

19 As far as the penalties and things

20 like that, we can move on to that. But if you're

21 okay with that, spring's coming. There's a lot of

22 garage sales going on. The sooner we get that, if

23 it's your pleasure to tweak it a little bit more

24 later, I have no problem with that, but at least




1 we'll have something on the books.

2 MEMBER SHROYER: Will there be any

3 problem at a later date coming back and making

4 additional changes or whatever?

5 MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. That will be

6 fine.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Because maybe when

8 Ms. Uglow comes to the Implementation Committee with

9 additional items, if there's still concerns that need

10 to be addressed on this one, we can move forward on

11 that.

12 MS. UGLOW: Absolutely. Sure. It

13 would be my pleasure.


15 anything, else Mr. Shroyer?

16 MEMBER SHROYER: No. Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

18 other comments from anyone else?

19 Yes, Madam Secretary.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: Madam Chair, I'll make

21 a motion in the matter of the request of Sign

22 Ordinance Text Amendment Ordinance, 99-18.176, to add

23 requirements for temporary garage sale signs, motion

24 to recommend approval to City Council of the proposed




1 revised ordinance language as discussed at the table

2 for the following reasons: To establish standards

3 for garage and yard sale signs -- and I guess I can

4 list some specifics: Changing the times to 7 a.m. to

5 7 p.m., adding the word daily, adding the type of

6 structure to be freestanding, and to clarify the

7 additional signs at the specific locations.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second?

9 MR. PAPP: I'll second it.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion was seconded

11 by Mr. Papp.

12 Is there any further discussion?

13 Mr. Schultz.

14 MR. SCHULTZ: I really hate to do

15 this, but the last item -- I just want to make sure

16 we're all clear on what we're changing. And I think

17 we're talking about the additional signs. If we

18 could have that language from Member Kocan.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: My proposal was to

20 state: Additional signs, only one per location, may

21 be placed at each entranceway.

22 And then leave the rest of the

23 verbiage as it was there.

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you.




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you're

2 adding: Additional signs, only one per location.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: It's going to replace

4 -- it's going to be the beginning of the third

5 sentence. Instead of: No more than one additional

6 sign.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. So you want

8 it to read: Additional signs, only one per location,

9 may be placed at each entranceway to subdivision

10 within which the garage and/or yard sale is being

11 conducted.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: Correct. And at

13 intersections, et cetera.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, right. I was

15 reading that first.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: Correct.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone else

18 have any further discussion on this?

19 (There was no further discussion

20 by Commission members.)

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, if

22 we could please call the roll, Ms. McBeth.

23 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

24 Commissioner Papp.





2 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


4 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


10 MS. McBETH: And Chairman Nagy.


12 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

14 much.

15 3. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.177

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Continuing on with

17 the third Public Hearing, which is the Public Hearing

18 to amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the City of Novi Code

19 of Ordinances to implement a misdemeanor penalty.

20 Do we have any further discussion on

21 this?

22 Member Kocan.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you, Madam

24 Chair.





1 I've even got a handout because I'm

2 changing the paragraph, and I thought it might be

3 easier for the Commission members to read what I've

4 written, instead of me just trying to state it.

5 Part (c) of the ordinance was very

6 confusing to me, and I want to be sure that it says

7 what I think you want it to say. So I've proposed

8 some changes.

9 Ms. Uglow, did you get a copy of my

10 handout?

11 MS. UGLOW: No.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: Please pass that.

13 I have no problem with the beginning

14 of Part (c) because it's talking about remedies.

15 Where it seems to me to get muddied, is when you're

16 starting to try to identify the owner, and what we

17 need to do or what process happens. So my proposal

18 is that Part (c) should read:

19 In addition to the remedies otherwise provided,

20 the City may remove an unlawful sign on public

21 property in accordance with the following

22 procedures.

23 No change to that sentence. No change

24 to the next sentence:




1 Unlawful signs on public property may be removed

2 by the City.

3 The next sentence, I do have some

4 changes: "If an owner may be determined-," because

5 we use determined in the next sentence and it just

6 didn't read real clearly to me, I would propose that

7 we change it to:

8 If an owner can be identified from an inspection

9 of the sign removed, the City shall attempt to

10 notify the owner of the sign. That upon the

11 request of-

12 Instead of such person, I would

13 propose to say:

14 -upon the request of the sign owner, the

15 Neighborhood Services Coordinator, or his or her

16 designee, will conduct a hearing at which-

17 Instead of "-the person," I would say:

18 -the sign owner may contest the propriety of the

19 removal of the sign.

20 The last sentence, I changed around

21 and I'm hoping that this reads a little bit more

22 clearly.

23 If the sign is not retrieved and a hearing is

24 not requested within five days after notice to





1 the sign owner, comma, or if the owner of a sign

2 cannot be identified through reasonable effort,

3 comma, the sign shall be treated as abandoned

4 and be discarded.

5 I want to identify, instead of saying

6 such person and person, I want to identify who's the

7 sign owner and who's the City, and who's the

8 designee, and who's holding the hearing. I also

9 wanted -- I did change the words "-the sign may be

10 treated as abandoned-," I changed it to "-shall be

11 treated-," and I want to know if that's your intent.

12 Are you more comfortable with "-may be

13 treated as abandoned-," or shall we say "-it shall be

14 treated as abandoned-"?

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. I want

16 to ask a question of Attorney Schultz. Is this the

17 same -- this paragraph right here. Will this be the

18 same paragraph in the political signs?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different than

20 that.


22 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It's different?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: It's different.




1 Political signs are dealt with separately.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The reason I ask

3 the question is, some of the verbiage is shall and

4 may, so I wanted to make sure.

5 Any further comments?

6 MEMBER KOCAN: Ms. Uglow, do you have

7 any-

8 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) Well, if

9 you're going to -- let me give the example of the

10 garage sale. I mean those are definite. You can

11 identify those. I mean, their address is on there,

12 like you said.

13 I have a concern of where to keep

14 these signs for five days. I mean, in any given time

15 on a Monday, you can go to three pick-ups in the City

16 parking lot, and the beds are full. I mean, between

17 people putting the signs -- you have people that

18 aren't even in the City of Novi. I mean, get away

19 from the garage sale, get away from For Sale by

20 Owner, the homes for sale, but you have others

21 advertising. Northville Homes, the Pulte Homes.

22 They're at Beck and Ten. I mean, there's got to be

23 two dozen there every weekend. We try to address

24 them.




1 And I applaud your effort on this, but

2 I don't want to give that much leeway.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Then my question is,

4 it was not your intent to say, "If the sign is not

5 retrieved within five days-," you didn't want to

6 state that?

7 MS. UGLOW: We have them at a certain

8 place at the DPW lot. Commissioner Ruyle can attest

9 to this. Not specifically for garage sales, we tend

10 right now to leave those alone until Monday. If

11 they're not picked up, we pick them up and dump them

12 because we know there's no more garage sale.

13 Political signs are kept in a separate

14 bin. If we're called on them, and they want to

15 know -- they're given an instruction sheet when they

16 register with the City during election time. We give

17 them a copy of the Sign Ordinance, and those signs

18 are kept separate.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm trying to

20 understand what it is you want to say, and that's why

21 I wrote it the way I wrote it.

22 Let me go back. If we go to the

23 original document that you gave us, the last

24 sentence -- because I originally wrote it one way.




1 If the owner of a sign cannot be determined by

2 reasonable effort, comma, or if a sign is not

3 retrieved-

4 I was going to put a comma there, and

5 then say:

6 -or if a hearing is not requested within five

7 days after notice to such person who would be

8 the sign owner.

9 They're two different things, but when

10 I reread it, I thought you wanted to give people five

11 days from the time you notify them that they can come

12 get their sign. If that's not what you want, I don't

13 want to put those words into the ordinance. So

14 you've got to tell me what you want to say.

15 MS. UGLOW: That's okay, the five

16 days. I have a concern with a hearing for every

17 sign.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: But that's what you've

19 stated. That's your original proposal: If you can

20 identify the owner, the City will notify the owner,

21 and upon the request of such person-

22 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) I guess

23 we've never been requested.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Everybody's got to





1 talk one at a time.

2 MS. UGLOW: I don't know. Tom?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the original

4 intention of this amendment was to deal with signs

5 that weren't necessarily in the public right-of-way,

6 on public property.

7 Cindy, with your approval, why don't

8 we take another opportunity to take a look at this

9 and make sure that Cindy's needs are met here. I

10 don't know that we have to act on this one

11 immediately tonight.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due

13 respect, I think I understand the intent of your

14 paragraph. That last sentence, if you read it

15 slowly:


16 If the owner of a sign cannot be determined by

17 reasonable effort, comma, or if a sign is not

18 retrieved or a hearing requested within five

19 days after notice of such person, the sign may

20 be treated as abandoned and be discarded.

21 She's saying all these three

22 possibilities. You know, if it's not retrieved,

23 there's no hearing, and you can't determine the

24 owner, then you can treat it as abandoned or





1 discarded.

2 Is that your intent?

3 MS. UGLOW: Uh-huh. That's fine.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're trying to

5 give that person the option with their sign.

6 MS. UGLOW: Exactly. Although, and I

7 apologize, we've never held a hearing. We've

8 always -- either House for Sale signs, we've taken

9 them back to their homes and said you may not be

10 aware. Garage sale signs, on Monday morning they're

11 picked up, they're discarded. Political signs,

12 they're put separately.

13 So I appreciate that. I

14 misunderstood, sorry.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due

16 respect, then I do think Member Kocan's verbiage is

17 somewhat clearer. Because if you state to a

18 person -- you just change the word:

19 If the sign is not retrieved or a hearing is not

20 requested within five days after notice to the

21 sign owner, comma, or if the owner of a sign

22 cannot be identified through reasonable effort,

23 comma, the sign shall be treated as abandoned

24 and be discarded.




1 I think you're both saying the same

2 thing in different verbiage. Don't you, Mr. Schultz?

3 MR. SCHULTZ: I think so, and it might

4 help -- Mr. Evancoe pointed this out, if we put the

5 word "may" before the phrase "be discarded," so the

6 City isn't obligated somehow to throw it away.


8 -the sign may be treated as abandoned and may

9 be discarded.

10 MS. UGLOW: That's fine.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you okay with

12 that, Member Kocan?

13 MS. UGLOW: That's fine. Perfect.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: That's fine.

15 MS. UGLOW: Thank you very much.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: What you did is you

17 changed the word "and."

18 If the sign is not retrieved, comma, or the

19 hearing is not requested.

20 MS. UGLOW: Perfect. Thank you very

21 much for that.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: The only other

23 question I had, had to do with in one paragraph,

24 you're stating it's a public nuisance, and two





1 paragraphs later it's a misdemeanor.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: They're intended to be

3 complementary. The public nuisance has to do with

4 whether we can get a judge to enjoin a particular

5 sign. It's going to be a misdemeanor violation in

6 any case, regardless of whether that finding is made.

7 They complement each other.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, but when they're

9 separated by a paragraph, to me it seems like

10 there's-

11 MR. SCHULTZ: It's the same thing in

12 the Zoning Ordinance, everything is declared to be

13 both a nuisance and a misdemeanor.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: I have nothing else.


16 MEMBER PAPP: Do you pick up a lot of

17 the Pulte signs, John Richard signs, every Monday?

18 MS. UGLOW: Well, we try to get an

19 officer to work on Saturdays and catch them, and at

20 least give them a verbal warning. We have written

21 tickets, haven't we.

22 MR. PAPP: So you do write tickets

23 against the signs that are left out that you're

24 picking up?




1 MS. UGLOW: I'm sorry?

2 MR. PAPP: You do write tickets for

3 the Pulte signs-

4 MS. UGLOW: Oh, no. Sorry. Those we

5 just discarded. All directional signs as to the

6 developments or the builders cannot be at those

7 locations, like Ten and Beck. No.

8 MR. PAPP: So they're in violation of

9 this ordinance.

10 MS. UGLOW: Yes, sir.

11 MR. PAPP: Would we not write them a

12 ticket?

13 MS. UGLOW: If I saw the person -- if

14 the officer witnessed the person installing that into

15 the ground, they may write them a ticket, yes, sir.

16 MR. PAPP: But you can't write it to

17 Pulte-

18 MS. UGLOW: (Interposing) You cannot.

19 Normally, they hire people to do that. And you're


20 not going specifically to the owner. It's just-

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) It's

22 very complicated.

23 MS. UGLOW: It's very simple to just

24 remove them. It's cost effective for us and cost




1 impaired to them.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

3 further comments?

4 (There were no further comments

5 from the Commission members.)

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, the Chair

7 will entertain a motion.

8 Member Kocan.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: In the matter of the

10 request for Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.177

11 to implement a misdemeanor penalty, motion to

12 recommend approval to City Council of the proposed

13 ordinance language, subject to subsection (c) to read

14 as recommended by Member Kocan in her handout,

15 changing the word "and" to "or." And also adding the

16 word "may" before "be discarded."

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have a

18 second?

19 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by

21 Mr. Ruyle.

22 Any further discussion?

23 (There was no further discussion

24 by Commission members.)





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing none,

2 Ms. McBeth, if could you please call the roll.

3 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

4 Commissioner Ruyle.


6 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


8 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


10 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


12 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy.


14 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Papp.


16 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.


18 4. Sign Ordinance Text Amendment 99-19.178

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And moving onto the

20 last public hearing regarding the ordinances is a

21 Public Hearing to amend Chapter 28, Signs, of the

22 City of Novi Code of Ordinances, Section 28-6(2)A.3

23 to change the setback regulations applicable to

24 Twelve Mile Road to reflect the widening of the





1 roadway.

2 Do we have any discussion?

3 Mr. Shroyer.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: I'd be happy to make

5 a motion.

6 In the matter of request for Sign

7 Ordinance Text Amendment 99-18.178, to amend Section

8 28-6(2)A.3, to change the setback regulations

9 applicable to Twelve Mile Road to reflect the

10 widening of the roadway, motion to recommend approval

11 of the proposed ordinance language, subject to the

12 following modifications -- basically there's none --

13 and for the following reasons: that with the widening

14 of Twelve Mile Road, it is necessary to change the

15 setback.

16 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has

18 been made, and seconded by Mr. Ruyle.

19 If there is no further discussion-

20 MR. PAPP: Should that be forwarded to

21 City Council -- recommend to forward that to City

22 Council?

23 MEMBER SHROYER: I didn't say that.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did you say




1 recommended?

2 MR. SHROYER: No. I just said

3 recommend approval.

4 Recommended to City Council --

5 forwarded to City Council for approval.

6 MEMBER RUYLE: I'll second it.


8 If you could call the roll,

9 Ms. McBeth.

10 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

11 Commissioner Shroyer.


13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


17 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy.


19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp.


21 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Ruyle.


23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very





1 much.

2 MS. UGLOW: Thank you all very much.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The Commission

4 will take a ten-minute break before we continue on

5 with the next Public Hearing.

6 (A brief recess was taken.)

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'd like to call

8 the meeting back to back to order.

9 5. Asbury Park Estates, Site Plan Number 01-82

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The next item on

11 our Agenda is the Public Hearing at the request of

12 Joe Rokicsak for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan

13 and Wetlands Permit. The subject property is located

14 in Section 16 on the north side of Eleven Mile Road

15 between Taft and Beck Roads. The developer proposes

16 a 45-unit condominium development under the

17 Subdivision Open Space Option in the R-1, One Family

18 Residential, District. The subject property is

19 approximately 53 acres.

20 Ms. McBeth?

21 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

22 I'll put an aerial photo up here that

23 locates the property for us.

24 We are on the north side of Eleven





1 Mile Road, and this is Beck Road here. The property

2 is outlined here in blue. It's currently undeveloped

3 land. The property to the west is developed with

4 Central Park Estates, which fronts on Beck Road and

5 there are some single family homes on the west that

6 front on Eleven Mile Road.

7 To the north of the site -- I'll zoom

8 out a little bit so you can see Grand River on the

9 Plan. To the north of the site are industrial uses

10 and vacant land that front on Grand River. To the

11 east are single family homes fronting on Eleven Mile

12 Road. To the south, across Eleven Mile Road, are

13 Abbey Hills, Lochmoor Village, and Walden Woods

14 subdivisions, and there's also single family homes

15 that front on Eleven Mile Road.

16 I'll show you the Master Plan, and the

17 property is outlined in blue, in this area here. The

18 Master Plan for land use recommends single family

19 uses for the site, and for the properties to the

20 south, to the southwest, and to the east. To the

21 northwest, the Master Plan recommends multiple family

22 uses. To the north, the Master Plan recommends

23 office uses. To the northeast, the Master Plan

24 recommends light industrial uses.




1 I'll show you the zoning map next.

2 The subject property that we're looking at, again

3 outlined in blue, is zoned R-1, One Family

4 Residential. To the west, the zoning is RA,

5 Residential Acreage, and RM-1, Low Density Multiple

6 Family. To the north, the zoning is I-1, Light

7 Industrial. To the east the zoning is RA,

8 Residential Acreage. And to the south, the zoning is

9 RA and R-1, One Family Residential.

10 We had a request to see the City's

11 wetlands map, and that's been provided to each

12 Commissioner at the table this evening, and it's

13 displayed up here, which shows generally where the

14 wetlands are located. These are not precise, they

15 haven't been verified out in the field, but the

16 general locations of the wetlands are outlined in

17 blue. The site, is this case, is outlined in

18 yellow.

19 So there's large areas of wetlands on

20 the site. There are wetlands to the north, the

21 industrial property that fronts on Grand River, and a

22 little finger of wetlands that appears to exist to

23 the north on this side, and also to the northeast at

24 that location.




1 Again, I want to say that those have

2 not been verified out in the field, that is simply

3 from the City's wetland maps overlaid on the City's

4 aerial photos.

5 This is a small version of the Site

6 Plan in front of you here. The proposed Site Plan

7 shows 45 units of detached site condominiums proposed

8 to be viewed under the Open Space Subdivision

9 Residential Option section of the ordinance.

10 This submitted Plan conforms

11 substantially to the conceptual Plan that was

12 reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 7, 2002

13 and approved by City Council on September 9, 2002.

14 The Plan before the Commission this evening shows the

15 same road configuration with the road system looping

16 north from Eleven Mile Road and connecting back to

17 Eleven Mile Road again. The entrance on the west

18 side, is aligned with Lochmoor Drive to the south,

19 and the entrance on the east side is located near

20 their east property line.

21 The proposed Plan provides the same

22 number of lots as the conceptual Plan that was

23 reviewed by the Commission and Council, that's 45

24 lots, and provides the comparable amount of open




1 space.

2 One issue of concern previously was

3 the location of wetlands within the boundaries of

4 three of the platted lots. On the Plans before us

5 this evening, the wetlands were removed from the lots

6 with one exception. There is a small area of

7 mitigated wetlands located on what is called Lot 12.

8 This is going to be mentioned again during the

9 Wetlands Review.

10 The following is a summary of the

11 important issues for the Planning Commission to

12 consider this evening. The Planning Review indicated

13 that there are two Zoning Board of Appeals variances

14 and three findings the Planning Commission may wish

15 to make. One variance is for the active recreation

16 area on this Plan that is located right about here,

17 and that area is slightly less than the two acres

18 required by ordinance. In subsequent discussions

19 with the Applicant, we believe that the full two

20 acres can be provided with minor modifications to the

21 Plan. However, a Zoning Board of Appeals variance

22 will be required to allow the location of the active

23 recreation area on the perimeter of the site.

24 One issue the Planning Commission has




1 jurisdiction over is the approval of the location of

2 open space on the site. Under the section of the

3 ordinance that we're reviewing this Plan under, open

4 space is required to be located in one of two

5 manners: the open space must either directly border a

6 majority of the lots in the subdivision, or it must

7 be located so that a minimum of 25 percent of the

8 open space perimeter borders the subdivision street.

9 I'm going to point out the open spaces

10 that do not seem to comply with these requirements.

11 Open Space Number 1, the active recreation area.

12 Open Space Number 2, Open Space Number 8, and Open

13 Space Number 9, do not meet these requirements.

14 Open Space 1, again, is that active

15 recreation area. Open Space 2 is a wooded wetland

16 proposed to be left in its natural state, and Open

17 Spaces 8 and 9, are small uPland areas located within

18 the larger central wetland on the property.

19 The ordinance does allow the Planning

20 Commission to modify the Open Space location

21 requirements, where the regulated woodlands or

22 wetlands exit on the site.

23 A second issue for the Planning

24 Commission to consider this evening is whether Open




1 Spaces Numbers 7, 8 and 9 meet the intent of the

2 section of the ordinance. This section requires

3 access to all of the Open Space areas. Again 8 and 9

4 are in the center of the site and may be difficult to

5 access. Open Space Number 7 is located here,

6 adjacent to Unit 12, and that Open Space consists of

7 a sedimentation basin.

8 Typically, retention basins shall not

9 be considered as part of any Open Space. I would

10 like to point out to the Commission that even if

11 these three Open Spaces are eliminated from the

12 calculations, the Applicant will still have provided

13 in excess of the four acres of Open Spaces required.

14 And finally, under the Planning

15 Department Review, the Planning Commission may wish

16 to make a determination whether the proposed

17 recreational facilities meet the intent of the active

18 recreation requirement of this ordinance.

19 The Plan Review Center requested that

20 the Director of Parks & Recreation provide us some

21 input on this requirement, and you will find that he

22 has written a memo that is included in the back of

23 the packet, that comments on the proposed activities

24 within this active recreation area.





1 The Wetlands Review indicated that a

2 Wetlands Permit is recommended subject to a City

3 Council waiver for the proposed wetland mitigation

4 area within the boundary of Lot 12. Again, located

5 right about here on the Plan. This is an area where

6 a wetland mitigation and a sedimentation basin are

7 proposed.

8 During extensive discussions with the

9 Applicant on this matter, it's believed that the

10 issue of the small area of wetland mitigation on

11 Lot 12 may be resolved with further modification to

12 the Plans, since the Applicant has proposed much more

13 wetland mitigation than is required by City and state

14 requirements.

15 Dr. Don Tilton, the City's wetlands

16 consultant is here this evening if the Commission has

17 any questions about the Wetland Review.

18 The Woodlands Review indicates that a

19 Woodlands Permit is recommended with minor notes and

20 changes to the Final Site Plan.

21 The Landscaping Review indicated that

22 a Planning Commission waiver is needed in order to

23 allow the use of the existing woodlands near the west

24 entrance instead of the required berm at that





1 location.

2 The Traffic Review indicated that a

3 City Council waiver is needed for lack of access

4 stubs every 1300 feet around the periphery of the

5 site. The Applicant has provided an access stub on

6 right-of-way area on the east side of the site. The

7 traffic engineer is asking that the next Plan

8 submitted show the actual street stubs to be

9 constructed at the outset of development within this

10 right-of-way.

11 Another access point will connect to

12 the north to the industrial property that goes out to

13 Grand River. Adjacent to the west side of the site

14 is Central Park Estates development, and there is

15 also a protected wetlands in this area associated

16 with the development, making access to that area

17 difficult.

18 The Engineering Review indicated that

19 the site does meet the requirements and that

20 modifications will be required at the time of Final

21 Site Plan Review. And finally the fire marshal

22 recommends approval of the Plans subject to all of

23 the proposed fire hydrants being shown on the next

24 submittal.





1 Thank you, Madam Chair. That

2 concludes my presentation.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

4 much.

5 Would the Applicant like to address

6 the Commission?

7 Mr. Quinn.

8 MR. QUINN: Yes. Good evening, Madam

9 Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen. Matthew Quinn

10 appearing on behalf of Asbury Park Estates.

11 This evening I have with me

12 Larry Swistak, the developer of the property/owner;

13 Claudio Rossi, the builder of the property;

14 Rick Hirth, the engineer. So between myself and

15 them, we will be able to answer any questions that

16 you may have.

17 It is good to see all of you again.

18 We started this project well over -- just like in a

19 deposition, right? We started this project well over

20 a year ago, and we were here as was stated August 7

21 of last year, and you granted conceptual approval

22 recommendation to the City Council. And then we went

23 to the City Council, presented this conceptual Plan

24 to them, and they also gave it their blessing.




1 Thereafter, the staff of this

2 development took all the comments. The comments that

3 this Planning Commission made, the comments that the

4 City Council made, and made a significant amount of

5 revisions to the Plan. There was, and I can show you

6 here on this map, initially all these red areas were

7 intrusions onto lot areas. You had comments about

8 those; those are all gone. A lot of work was done to

9 revise the whole Plan.

10 And this, as you recall, this is a

11 very difficult site. Of 53 acres, almost 20 are

12 wetlands in the center. So it's a difficult site to

13 work with, but with creative engineering and site

14 layout, we now have the same number, 45 lots. All of

15 these lot, first of all, meet the requirements of the

16 R-1 District by lot size and by lot widths, what have

17 you. There are now no lots that are contained in any

18 wetland area. As was stated, the one lot right down

19 in this corner, that's going to be removed so that's

20 not even anything that we're asking for. So that's a

21 variance that is gone.

22 Also, what we are considering here is

23 the fact that the active area, there was a request

24 mentioned of a need for a variance -- I'm sorry,





1 Madam Chairman?

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, if you could

3 clarify before you go on, is the actual Lot Number 12

4 going to be removed?

5 MR. QUINN: No, no. The wetland

6 intrusion within the lot line has been removed.


8 MR. QUINN: So the lot line now is

9 totally self-contained without any wetland intrusion.


11 MR. QUINN: All right. You're going

12 to end up here with a very beautiful subdivision of

13 houses in the 600,000 to $900,000 range. There has

14 been a lot of interest in this subdivision, and

15 coincidentally enough from the neighbors that live

16 across the street, that want to move up from their

17 current house to the new homes that will have a very

18 private-like setting, with this wetland in the

19 middle, with the active recreation areas and the

20 other areas for the families to enjoy.

21 The active recreation area is going to

22 be two acres. Again, we're not asking for any

23 waivers or variances for that. It is committed that

24 that will be two acres of active land. We've looked




1 at the Parks & Recreation director's letters as far

2 as what activities should be there. We do adopt the

3 asphalt pathway instead of the wood chips. It only

4 makes sense for maintenance purposes throughout the

5 years that the asphalt will be easier on the

6 homeowners to do.

7 That two acres is mostly going to be a


8 open, grassy, manicured area, so that you can have

9 active sports activities on them. The other

10 activities that are mentioned in the Plan will be

11 provided.

12 We agree with the director, that

13 perhaps those physical Phys Ed stations, the exercise

14 stations, aren't going to be used so why waste

15 everybody's time and money in the maintenance that's

16 involved. You know, as was stated by him, most

17 people these days if they want to exercise they own

18 everything in their basement to exercise on or they

19 go down to Bally's or one of the other facilities

20 these days. It's partly social, partly exercise. So

21 that, we can certainly meet.

22 Yes, we still will need the ZBA


23 variance for the location of the active area, since

24 it is on the boundary, but the rationale for that is





1 very simple. We are preserving a significant amount

2 of natural features on this property, and really, the

3 area where it is, is the only location that makes

4 sense. And there are accesses from both road

5 systems, the east and the west road system, by the

6 walkways to the active area so it certainly meets the

7 intention of being able to be accessed by the members

8 of the community.

9 The issue of the 7, 8 and 9 as was

10 mentioned, a determination by you that those are open

11 spaces. Again, that's an easy one because we really

12 don't need those. We're still in excess of the four

13 acres that's required, so that, in our position, is a

14 non decision.

15 As far as the Wetland Review is

16 concerned, we are preserving 96 percent of the

17 wetlands on-site. I'm not sure that any developer,

18 at least that I know, in the history of Novi has

19 preserved that much significant wetlands in a

20 project. We do have our MDEQ Permit. That has been

21 issued and provided to your staff today. That was, I

22 think, just received yesterday from the MDEQ's

23 office. So all of our activity in the wetlands has

24 been approved by them. This is, of course, under





1 their jurisdiction because it's in excess of five

2 acres.

3 As far as the Wetland Review letter.

4 There is a discussion in there of the placement of a

5 split rail fence along the wetland buffer area.

6 Discussions have taken place today on alternative

7 ways to resolve that. It really doesn't make sense

8 to wind a wooden fence through a heavily treed area,

9 because all of these backyards are mostly heavily

10 treed. During construction, you're going to have the

11 orange fencing within 15 feet of the house structure

12 to protect everything to the rear. So discussions

13 were held today just before the meeting with staff

14 that perhaps we do away with the split fence, but we

15 put up signage throughout that area, education for

16 everyone, so that they will know where the wetlands

17 buffers begin, and that's something we'll certainly

18 work out with the staff.

19 Also regarding a request that the

20 buffer areas be placed within the conservation

21 easement will cause some concern. Discussions again

22 were held today regarding the necessity of placing

23 Detroit Edison lines within the buffered area,

24 instead of taking down significant trees where those




1 Edison lines would normally go. So we think that,

2 again, is something we can work out with staff and

3 that that should not be a requirement of the Wetland

4 Review.

5 Also in the area of mitigation, there

6 was again a request in the Wetland Review letter that

7 the mitigation areas should have no more than one to

8 two feet of standing water in them, and that again

9 was something that was discussed with staff today

10 that will be worked out, because the whole idea here

11 is for the waters to flow into the wetland system in

12 the center. And those levels, as requested, will not


13 work, and that's something that the wetland people

14 and the engineers will be able to take care of.

15 On the Traffic Review, two things to

16 address. First of all, the request we will have to

17 City Council requesting a waiver for the requirement

18 of a stub to be on the east side of the street. The

19 issue is, this area to the east is already developed

20 as was shown on the overhead by the Central Park

21 Estates Multiple Family Development. It doesn't make

22 sense to have to put, really, a stub that goes

23 nowhere and probably will affect some area where

24 there is some water on the site. So that is





1 something that we think that Council will grant to us

2 and we will go to Council and request that variance.

3 As far as the required stub street to

4 the east, and that is right here, we did not show the

5 construction of the stub on purpose. First of all,

6 we will, if required, build it, but we think that

7 area should be left as an open area for now. We

8 would be willing to bond for the construction of that

9 stub street, but the chances are that that will never

10 be developed or ever be needed in the future, but

11 we're allowing a space for it. We will leave it

12 there. If it's required to be built, we will build

13 it, but there are trees that will have to be removed

14 and it may serve the subdivision better for now to

15 leave it in its natural state.

16 The landscape waiver we're asking you

17 for on the west entrance, as was stated there's

18 significant trees there that act as a buffer already

19 between the roadway and the homes on the west side,

20 and it doesn't make sense to tear trees down to build

21 a berm and then plant new trees on it. So as

22 recommended by staff, we concur in the request for

23 the Planning Commission waiver in that regard.

24 We think that with all of the





1 information that we provided, the changes that we

2 have put into this project with your help, we have a

3 great subdivision that will be a jewel in the City of

4 Novi. We think that the waivers that we're asking

5 you for are minimal in nature for the overall

6 development, and we would expect that the ZBA will

7 grant us our one waiver there, and the City Council

8 will grant us the one waiver that we request from

9 them.

10 We'll be more than happy to answer any

11 questions or concerns that you may have regarding any

12 comments that your staff made, and then any comments

13 that are in our presentation or comments that have

14 been made by myself. The engineers are ready to

15 answer any engineering questions. Claudio Rossi can

16 answer any questions about the homes that will be

17 constructed, or how the construction will work with

18 the protection of the woodlands and the wetlands as

19 those houses are constructed.

20 So thank you for your attention and we

21 look forward to a favorable resolution.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Is

23 there anyone further on your behalf that would like

24 to speak?





1 MR. QUINN: Not right now.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. This

3 is a Public Hearing. We have a Mr. Will Siembor who

4 would like to come forward.

5 Sir, if you would state your name,

6 spell your last name for the court reporter, and give

7 her your address.

8 MR. SIEMBOR: My name is Will Siembor.

9 That's S-i-e-m-b-o-r. My address is 46500 Eleven

10 Mile Road.

11 I have two common borders with the

12 proposed development, my east border and north

13 border. So actually, there's a map right here. So I

14 have the property right here in this corner. And

15 I've been a homeowner on Eleven Mile for 17 years

16 and have enjoyed the wild life and the wetlands all

17 that time, and knew someday it was going to be

18 developed, as well as across the street on Eleven

19 Mile with the developments there.

20 The only thing that -- I assumed this

21 was going to be developed, and I always watched over

22 that it would be developed responsibly. Whether it

23 was Walden Woods I, Walden Woods II, Asbury Park.

24 You know, we know development is going to take place,





1 we just want it to be done responsibly.

2 I've been working with the

3 developers. They've been communicating with me

4 regarding the Site Plan for over a year now, and I

5 really do believe the intention that they have, that

6 I have, that you have, is to save the wetlands as

7 much as possible, as well as to allow Novi to be

8 developed. And I really do believe this type of

9 development works very, very, well.

10 As far as a couple of the variances

11 that I saw listed on the hand-out regarding the open

12 space or active open space, the east entrance is

13 literally 500 yards from the school system. So

14 there's a running track, there's football fields,

15 there's baseball fields. So that somebody that wants

16 some activity, they can literally walk across the

17 street and within a quarter of mile be at a half

18 mile's worth of active open space.

19 And regarding the wetlands, as

20 Mr. Quinn had mentioned, 95 percent of the wetlands

21 are going to be saved. And that's the important

22 part. If five percent is used to allow a development

23 like this to take place, but to save 95 percent of

24 it, and to guarantee that nothing else will be





1 developed for our lifetime on that wetland, I think

2 that's a very, very, small price to pay. My concern

3 is if this Board here and the City Council does not

4 allow something like this to go through, who knows

5 what's going to happen in the next two or three years

6 with the next development that wants to do

7 something.

8 So I think the intent and purpose of

9 this development is in the spirit of what the City of

10 Novi wants. They want a reasonable tax base, nice

11 homes, as well as to have a nice mix of natural

12 settings for our citizens. So I'm absolutely in

13 favor of this development.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

15 much for coming forward, sir.

16 Is there anyone else in the audience

17 that would like to address the Commission regarding

18 this Public Hearing?

19 (There was no response from the

20 audience.)

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I

22 will close -- I'm sorry, do we have correspondence,

23 Madam Secretary?

24 MEMBER KOCAN: I do. I have two




1 correspondences. The first one from Martin Gibbons,

2 25951 Abbey Drive, who objects to the development.

3 Stating with four subdivisions and another planned,

4 the Planning Commission just was overruled by City

5 Council in 2002, he feels Eleven Mile Road is already

6 overcrowded with traffic. The residential road is

7 being abused by speeding autos and semi trucks

8 cutting through. Also with the building of an Expo

9 at Grand River and Taft, this will only increase

10 vehicles and commercial truck travel on Eleven Mile

11 and Taft Road.

12 The second letter is from William

13 Dutka, D-u-t-k-a, 25906 Glenmore. It states that

14 this is the third time that he's received this letter

15 over the past two years. He's not in favor of the

16 development. He'll be cutting down mature trees in

17 the area. Construction will be complicated by the

18 Grand River closure. There will be building noise.

19 The roads will be muddy during construction. The

20 deer population will have to move out. Is there

21 going to be adequate electricity during the summer

22 months to run all the air conditioners? He's

23 concerned about water pressure that will be decreased

24 more than it is now. And the population density





1 after construction will add to traffic congestion in

2 the area, especially on Eleven Mile.

3 Those are the only two I have,

4 Madam Chair.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

6 much. If there's no further communication, then I

7 will close the Public Hearing and turn this over to

8 the Commission. Who would like to start?

9 Mr. Shroyer. You have that guilty

10 look.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: Did I raise my hand?

12 Well, I guess somebody has to start, right? Okay.

13 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you ready to make

14 a motion?

15 MEMBER SHROYER: No, I'm not ready to

16 make a motion yet. I have some questions, and I

17 don't care who comes forward with this, Mr. Quinn or

18 Rossi. Somebody start out here, if you would.

19 MR. QUINN: All right. Sure.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: First of all, I do

21 applaud you and a lot of the changes that have been

22 made. Looking at the old Plan that we saw last year

23 and the new one, there's some changes that are

24 definitely to the plus. And it's obvious that you





1 have taken our comments and concerns into

2 consideration.

3 What you've done with the active

4 recreation area I think is a plus. Taking away the

5 intrusions upon all the wetlands is a major plus. I

6 do not -- there's always a "not" in there somewhere,

7 isn't there. I do not agree with the Open Spaces 7,

8 8 and 9, but evidently that's not going to make a

9 difference because you're still going to exceed the

10 open space. Those are the minor things.

11 But one of the things I do want to ask

12 about, and that is on the old Plan, Lot Number 30 was

13 an open space. Now in order to maintain 45 spots, it

14 appears that the area that you have now dedicated an

15 open area for the eastern stub street, you removed a

16 lot there and you moved it across the street and

17 filled it in on the Open Space.

18 Walking the property, I couldn't find

19 where that spot was. It's very difficult to find.

20 Is that a large flat like plateau?

21 MR. QUINN: Is that-

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Lot 30, yes.

23 MR. QUINN: Yes, and the engineer can

24 address that. That is an upland spot. It meets all





1 the legal requirements for a lot. Value of 200,

2 $250,000, that particular lot. There's already been

3 inquiries for that lot. So, yes, it's an extremely

4 important lot to this development.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. And you've

6 mentioned a bond, and I wanted to talk to our

7 attorney about the bond for the stub street. Usually

8 or in the past, I know we've looked at the

9 developmental agreements. Is a bond appropriate for

10 something along that line?

11 MR. SCHULTZ: This is in connection

12 with the Council waiver?

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Eastern stub street

14 to be built in the future.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Oh, yes. That's

16 something that typically the City has done under

17 appropriate circumstances, reviewed by engineering

18 and administratively.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you.

20 The asphalt path going -- that's

21 replacing the wooden path. I would assume you are

22 going to build it to City standards for a bike path;

23 is that correct?

24 MR. QUINN: Whatever the City




1 requires in that regards. Is that right? (Referring

2 to Mr. Rossi.)

3 Yes.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, the City

5 doesn't require internal on property.

6 MR. QUINN: But it only makes sense

7 because it will be accessed by children on bikes,

8 adults on bicycles.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: That was my comment,

10 for bicycling and roller blading, and even the

11 strollers people will be pushing around, all that

12 kind of stuff.

13 MR. QUINN: Yes.


15 Mr. Shroyer.

16 Do you have a comment, Mr. Evancoe?

17 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, I do have

18 one question, if I may. Thank you.

19 Commissioner Shroyer, are you speaking

20 of just the paths that access the parks within the

21 development, or the overall sidewalk system?

22 MEMBER SHROYER: I was, at this

23 point, only referring to the two connectors

24 connecting the two roads together for the active





1 recreational facility in the middle.

2 MR. EVANCOE: Okay.

3 MS. McCLAIN: I just wanted to get

4 clarification on the bike path. Do you mean the

5 width of eight feet, or do you mean the cross section

6 and the type of construction that it would be?

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Everything to make

8 sure that it supports what we need a bike path

9 normally to support.

10 MS. McCLAIN: Because we do have

11 both, sidewalk pedestrian paths and we have bike

12 paths, and I just wanted to make sure that we had

13 which one you were intending.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: My intent was to get

15 a verbal commitment, so to speak, that's it's going

16 to be built to the standards of the City's bike

17 paths.

18 MS. McCLAIN: Thank you.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

20 I also want to ask, and maybe

21 Ms. McClain is the person who needs to answer this

22 too, I don't know yet. But regarding the berming at

23 the north end, I'm a little confused because one of

24 the Plans had indicated that the intent was to have




1 the people to the north put in the berm, and there's

2 already been an agreement made to do that.

3 MS. McCLAIN: I think Mr. Quinn can

4 best answer that.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Let's bring

6 Mr. Quinn forward.

7 MR. QUINN: Yes. This development is

8 putting the berm in on the adjacent property.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: So you have a

10 written agreement?

11 MR. QUINN: We're working to put an

12 easement together to allow that to happen. Because

13 we're working with them on some other easements for

14 sewer to come in and out of the property. So that's

15 all part of our program with the adjacent property.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: All right. And I

17 want to ask the City. Do we need to have a copy of-

18 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) We'll

19 review all that.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: And we'll get that

21 prior to Final Site Plan; correct?

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: On Open Space Number

24 2, which is kind of down in the southwest corner, are




1 there any plans for that, other than just leaving it

2 natural vegetation?

3 MR. QUINN: Just natural.

4 MEMBER SHROYER: Just natural, as is.

5 Okay. And from what I understand from our woodlands

6 person, that's some of our better trees on the site.

7 That's going to be preserved in that area, on Space

8 Area Number 2, southwest corner, behind Lots 1 and 2.

9 MS. GREHL: That area is really -- it

10 makes a nice screen, and the trees are really good in

11 that condition as well as on the upper northeast side

12 as well.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: Northeast side as

14 well.

15 MS. GREHL: Yes. That's why, I don't

16 know if I get to answer, but I kind of agree with

17 just the bonding for the stub street because it's

18 kind of nice up there.

19 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Well, the

20 other question I wanted to ask you regarding that, is

21 is there a better section along that eastern border

22 that would be usable for a stub street entrance that

23 would not be as intrusive on good woodlands, or high

24 quality woodlands?




1 MS. GREHL: I couldn't recommend a

2 better one, really. They're all kind of comparable,

3 the whole eastern border.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you state

5 your name and spell it, please.

6 MS. GREHL: I'm sorry. Elaine Grehl,

7 G-r-e-h-l.


9 MEMBER SHROYER: In my notes, I wrote

10 down -- I didn't write it very well, but I wrote down

11 something about removal of Lot 37. And where is

12 Lot 37? I'm trying to-

13 MEMBER KOCAN: In the wetlands.

14 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, okay. That's

15 why. The majority of that area, it appears, is right

16 on top of a small wetland, Lot 37, and -- where is

17 our wetland person?

18 There we go. Can you come forward

19 and address that, please.

20 Is that a major problem, where we

21 stand on that, et cetera, et cetera?

22 DR. TILTON: Good evening.

23 Dr. Donald Tilton, T-i-l-t-o-n. 501 Avis Drive,

24 Ann Arbor, Michigan.




1 This question relates to a small

2 forested wetland that is less than half an acre in

3 size in terms of total area. It's dominated by a

4 mixture of trees and shrubs, and the reason that

5 we're recommending this evening that it be considered

6 possible to be filled, is because if it were to be

7 preserved in its current condition, it would have a

8 road adjacent to it and a residential area adjacent

9 to it. And its functions would be significantly

10 impaired by the developments surrounding it, compared

11 to the locations where we can build a new wetland,

12 contiguous with a much larger complex, which is a lot

13 more diverse, considerably more wildlife use.

14 So while ordinarily we don't endorse

15 the filling of natural wetland systems regardless of

16 their size, in this particular case, because of its

17 proximity to development and the likelihood to have

18 its natural hydrology impaired if it were to be

19 preserved, we think it would be fine to go ahead and

20 fill it and move it somewhere else.


22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Where would you

23 move it?

24 MR. TILTON: The wetland could be




1 moved to -- there are a couple of different locations

2 that are being proposed, all of them adjacent to the

3 larger wetland complex. And incidentally, they'll

4 all be new forested wetlands, so the same habitat

5 type that is going to be lost under this new

6 proposal, will be replaced by the developer in the

7 construction process. And there are several

8 locations. There are two up in here. There's one

9 back along this side adjacent to the forested area on

10 the adjacent property. There are also areas adjacent

11 to the forested complex right down in here. Another

12 forested one adjacent to the forested wetland on the

13 west side.

14 So there are a number of different

15 areas, all of which in my view, would replace and in

16 fact exceed the replacement of the wetland to be lost

17 under this current proposal.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: You've been working

19 with the Applicant to try to come up with something

20 for that?

21 MR. TILTON: Yes, indeed. We met

22 this evening. We've been talking. Of course

23 Mr. Croy and myself have been debating and working

24 out the need to meet the engineering requirements and




1 the sedimentation requirements, as well as build a

2 functional wetlands system. And this evening, I

3 think we're very close. It's just a question of --

4 well, we've resolved it. It's just a question of

5 working out some details that can be taken care of

6 during the Final Site Plan Review process.

7 MEMBER SHROYER: Thank you.

8 MR. TILTON: You're welcome.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: At this time,

10 Madam Chair, I have no further comments, but while

11 he's up there, if somebody else had questions you

12 might want to grab him.


14 Mr. Avdoulos?

15 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you,

16 Madam Chair.

17 I think a lot of the questions that I

18 had were addressed by Commissioner Shroyer, and I was

19 happy to see that some of the variances that were

20 being requested are slowly being resolved.

21 Especially with the recreation area requirement of

22 two acres, that we were shy by about 1300 square

23 feet, and I think that a real small ranch house will

24 -- with all that property, I think we can find that.




1 I'm glad it's getting resolved.

2 The fact that the Applicant is working

3 responsibly to preserve as much of the wetland as

4 possible is commendable. The fact that they're also

5 working with some of the neighbors is a great thing

6 too. We always like to see some communication

7 there.

8 The question I had on a couple of

9 these lots was, I guess, to you Mr. Quinn and to the

10 builder, Mr. Rossi. The houses are going to range

11 from 600 to $900,000. Are each of the lots going to

12 be individually sold to builders, or is there one

13 builder that is going to do each lot?

14 MR. ROSSI: My name is Claudio Rossi

15 with Mirage Development.

16 There's probably going to be a group

17 of two, three builders possibly, in there. These are

18 going to be high end lots. Homes are going to range

19 600 to 900,000, so there will be a group of builders

20 that will be put together to come up with an upscale

21 product that everybody will conform to. So each

22 individual lot will be basically a custom lot. There

23 will be a Plat Plan designed for each individual lot,

24 and at that point in time it will be, you know,





1 submitted to the City for review.

2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And will there be a

3 group -- I don't know if its going to be Asbury -- or

4 a group that controls the whole site so that it acts

5 as a condominium?

6 MR. ROSSI: Well, there would be an

7 association that would be set up. You know, it

8 probably would be under, you know, the Asbury Park

9 Condominium Association, but we would control that up

10 to such a point that enough homeowners had moved into

11 the project to, you know, dedicate that over to the

12 homeowners.

13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. The concern

14 I had was for, say, like a Lot 45. That sounds like

15 a pork chop lot, it narrows out to the south. And my

16 concern is that somebody trying to put up a home

17 there, needs to come in for any kind of setback

18 variances or requirements.

19 I don't know what the actual

20 dimensions of those are and what it fits. The

21 description indicated that most or all of the houses

22 were going to be side entry garages.

23 MR. ROSSI: Correct.

24 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I was just





1 looking at the maneuverability of that one, and then

2 some of the corner lots, 23, 24, 25, 26. I want to

3 make sure that if we're looking at a 5,000 square

4 foot house, if you were able to get 2,500 square foot

5 footprint on the lot, if that's been studied at all.

6 MR. ROSSI: Correct. We have studied

7 those lots, and obviously there will be quite a bit

8 of customization for this whole project, although

9 models are proposed to be built by the builders.

10 Most of the plans that are probably going to be built

11 are going to be customized to suit the needs of each

12 individual homeowner. So there were will be a lot of

13 architectural work in the design stages, to not only

14 build on your regular lots, but the lots that you

15 mentioned, 45, 23, 24, that are a little bit odd

16 shaped. It still meets the requirements of the lot

17 and the setbacks, although some of the offsets might

18 have to be adjusted in the design stage to

19 accommodate a house on those lots.

20 MR. AVDOULOS: Yeah, I just want to

21 make sure we don't keep seeing things going to ZBA

22 for variances for each individual.

23 MR. QUINN: There's no plan that any

24 house will need a ZBA variance to be constructed.




1 These are all 19,000 plus square foot lots, so there

2 is sufficient room.

3 MEMBER AVDOULOS. Yeah, I can see the

4 majority of them have nice rectilinear shapes to

5 them, but then you get to the odd ball sizes that get

6 hard to work with.

7 MR. ROSSI: Also, it's important to

8 point out that the home size ranges will probably be

9 anywhere from 3500 square feet on the minimum,

10 possibly up to 5,000 square feet. So, you know,

11 there are some choice lots there as far as bigger

12 lots that you can build the bigger homes on, and then

13 obviously someone that doesn't want to go quite that

14 far, can also pick other lots that will accommodate

15 the smaller homes. So there's a good variety and we

16 will work together with the builders to, you know,

17 make this an A-1 community. We really feel strongly

18 about the site. It's got a lot of really nice

19 features and I think it will be a good attraction to

20 the community of Novi.

21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. Thank you.

22 To dovetail Commissioner Shroyer's

23 comments on the bermed area to the north there, we

24 received the Site Plan that indicated the extent of




1 the wetlands to the north, and one of the waivers, I

2 guess, is for the required berm. And I think

3 Commissioner Kocan can help me out on this.

4 As we abut an industrial piece of

5 property, there's a requirement for a berm all along

6 that property line. The larger wetland is the one to

7 the northwest, and then the smaller wetland which is

8 bordering the northeast corner. I don't know if

9 that's considered a large enough buffer, because we

10 don't know what's going to happen to those properties

11 in the rear. And I guess the concern was all these

12 other pieces of property, with exception to -- well,

13 23 abuts multi residential, and 24 and 25, 26,

14 they're kind of strange because they're put out in

15 the corner and they're actually facing those houses.

16 I couldn't tell what the landscaping was.

17 I see a whole bunch of trees along

18 that perimeter, but are we looking at screening, and

19 providing enough screening for these properties not

20 to look out into the residential area because you

21 got -- I'm sorry, into the industrial area, because

22 you've got a lot of things happening on Grand River,

23 and I know a lot of these properties are going to

24 start getting developed, and they're going to be





1 abutting that. And I just want to make sure that,

2 you know, we provide the proper buffers as intended

3 in the ordinance.

4 MR. ROSSI: Yeah. On the north end we

5 show a berm that's proposed about the central section

6 of the property. However, we are in conversation

7 with the property owner to actually -- I believe the

8 property owner owns all of those parcels on the north

9 end. We actually would like to extend the berm

10 across the whole north side, not only to screen out

11 the building but also to screen off that whole area

12 so that if future development comes into that area,

13 that we will have a berm with some good sized trees

14 that will help to screen off our project with future

15 projects to the north.

16 And then also to the west, there is

17 also a proposed berm with planting to actually screen

18 off the apartment buildings from Lot 23, 24, in that

19 corner.

20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And I guess that

21 was my concern and question. I didn't know if that

22 property was the only one that was contacted, or the

23 one on both sides. If we were going to look at

24 creating something, we could extend it all the way





1 across and be amenable to both-

2 MR. ROSSI: (Interposing) Absolutely.

3 We are in total agreement.

4 And Larry, I believe he owns all of

5 those pieces there?

6 MR. SWISTAK: Good evening. My name

7 is Lawrence Swistak.

8 The gentleman who owns that property,

9 his name is Jeffrey Heyn, H-e-y-n. I've met with

10 him, we've talked. His attorney just became a judge

11 so we kind of stalled. We've exchanged agreements.

12 We've agreed in principle. The only issue now, he

13 has discovered that -- I think it's the sewer line

14 kind of cuts on both of our properties, so he now

15 wants me to amend the easement to add language to

16 allow him to come onto our property to access the

17 sewer line, which I will agree to do. He's taking

18 water from us, so I gave him an easement for water,

19 and the issue now is just the berm line, which we've

20 already agreed on.

21 I've talked to him about extending the

22 berm and he doesn't have a problem with it. I think

23 it will be part of the easement agreement. We've

24 exchanged agreements now for several months.






2 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay, thank you.

3 Just to finish up here. The

4 Applicant has addressed the variance to the

5 recreation area. The location of the recreation

6 area, I think based on specifics of this particular

7 piece of property, is appropriate. The wetland is

8 very large. It's going to be maintained to the

9 south.

10 I was indicating that I wouldn't mind

11 seeing something larger than the path, at least the

12 one that connects the east road into the open space

13 area, to be a little wider, which would be visibly

14 more of an image so that you can see the space,

15 rather than seeing it through a couple of houses.

16 But if the open space is actually meeting the two

17 acres, then I think we're okay there.

18 The other waiver of the berm at the

19 west entry drive. With what was indicated with our

20 Landscape Review, I'd like to keep it as natural as

21 possible. We'll introduce whatever berms are

22 required for the ordinance, but whatever we can keep

23 in a natural state I'm all in favor for.

24 And at this point, that's all I have




1 right now, Madam Chair.


3 Member Kocan.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: I'll continue where

5 Mr. Avdoulos stopped off. Good evening Mr. Quinn,

6 Mr. Rossi.

7 MR. QUINN: Good evening.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Continuing with the

9 berm -- I'm big on berms, particularly between

10 residential and light industrial. And my question to

11 the attorney was who's responsible to put in the

12 berm; is that the first development that goes in, the

13 residential to berm from the light industrial, or the

14 light industrial from the residential?

15 It sounds like you're working it out.

16 This is a requirement as far as I'm concerned. I

17 understand that there's wetlands in the area that may

18 impact some of the berming, but a ten-foot berm is

19 required. That's at least a 70-foot area of

20 screening at a minimum that I would be requiring for

21 these homes, Numbers 24, 25, 26, and 38. That's part

22 of our ordinance, and that is very important.

23 MR. ROSSI: We would like to make that

24 berm as wide as possible so that we can get as much




1 height to be able to screen. So we're in total

2 agreement. That's for the benefit of our project.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. The other

4 problem I have, and we've heard from one resident

5 this evening who abuts the active recreation area,

6 and I have not heard from the other residents, but

7 I'm concerned about the active recreation area being

8 -- a pathway being so close to their property line.

9 And that to me is a form of intrusion, in my

10 opinion.

11 It looks like the path is within ten,

12 15 feet of the property line, and typically in

13 backyards you have to have a minimum of a 35-foot

14 setback. There is no actual berm requirement in the

15 ordinance because this is a different situation, but

16 we're looking at this to see whether or not it meets

17 the intent of the ordinance. It's active open

18 recreation space, so I think we need to address

19 additional setbacks of pathways and badminton courts.

20 And I didn't see any landscaping, as a

21 matter of fact, at all proposed along that south

22 property line. That concerns me greatly. So it

23 looks like if we have to put some landscaping or have

24 a green belt of landscaping there, which I believe




1 should be a requirement of this particular

2 development, then that could impact the amount of

3 active recreation area, which would mean you would

4 need to add additional recreation area. Could you

5 address that for me, please?

6 MR. ROSSI: Yes. I think our

7 intention would be not only to provide some screening

8 of that area, but also to provide some type of

9 decorative type fencing to kind of outline that

10 sports field or recreation area, so as to protect the

11 kids as well, when they're playing on that field

12 chasing after a ball, that they're not going onto the

13 adjacent yard, or not going towards the pond or into

14 the wetland. So that would be kind of a border

15 outlining that recreational field, and it also gives

16 it some kind of buffer between the south property

17 owner and also the recreational field.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Now are you talking

19 about on the property line itself or around the

20 badminton court, or whatever it is?

21 MR. ROSSI: Around the actual

22 recreational field. And we would meet all the

23 setback requirements of the City as far as the fence

24 installation, however the City would want to handle




1 that, or exactly where they would want to put it.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm wondering if I

3 heard -- I think I'm hearing two things. Number

4 one -- and I'm trying to process -- would you be

5 suggesting, and I don't know if the residents want

6 this, would you be suggesting a brick wall along the

7 back, or are you saying that it would be some other

8 kind of a fence?

9 MR. ROSSI: A decorative type fence.

10 A wood fence, something that would still be natural

11 looking and, you know, go along with the natural

12 features of the property. Not a brick wall, not

13 something that would look intrusive.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, because I

15 realize we want to maintain the character of the area

16 which is woodlands and wetlands.

17 MR. ROSSI: As far as the landscaping

18 goes, there's a lot of natural features and trees in

19 that area, and we moved the sports field to the best

20 desired location in order to minimize the impact on

21 any environmental areas. And I believe we're only

22 taking down 13 or 14 trees -- most of them are Ash

23 and Elm and are probably not considered high quality

24 trees -- in order to provide for the sports field.





1 So we're trying to accomplish both things, keep it

2 natural looking, and still give the active recreation

3 to the kids in the area.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: Well, I would be


5 looking for at least some pine trees. The walkway

6 that goes along there -- Mr. Schultz is trying to-

7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) Just a

8 reminder that this issue of the location of the

9 active area being close to the edge of the

10 subdivision, is one that's going directly to the

11 ZBA. So those properties to the rear, will be

12 notified when that goes to the ZBA, would be able to

13 show up at the meeting. Certainly the ZBA would

14 probably appreciate any comments that you have, but

15 they have the clearest ability to impose conditions

16 like fences or walls.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Where did this go to

18 the ZBA -- oh, to allow it on the outer perimeter of

19 the subdivision.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a reminder. I

21 didn't mean to cut your comments short or anything.

22 But there will be a hearing before the ZBA and they

23 have very clear authority to say yes, but, we impose

24 these conditions.





1 MEMBER KOCAN: All right, but our

2 finding is whether or not we approve this recreation

3 area, where the location is. So in my opinion, I

4 think I can add some stipulations to that.

5 MR. SCHULTZ: I agree.

6 MEMBER KOCAN: Point taken. Thank

7 you. I'm trying to work it from both ends.

8 So I would appreciate some additional

9 landscaping there. I know that we do in Meadowbrook

10 Lake Subdivision, we have a similar park area that

11 has a walkway from two entrances of the subdivision

12 that come into a common picnic/park area. The other

13 thing that our subdivision has that we utilize an

14 awful lot are the picnic tables, and just some

15 benches and whatever to sit and watch the lake. Of

16 course, we can fish. I don't think you can fish in

17 your wetlands.

18 MR. QUINN: Catfish.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: Oh, we do get catfish.

20 MR. ROSSI: I don't see that as a

21 problem because we have plenty of replacement trees

22 to be, you know, planted on site and we can

23 definitely provide some landscaping in that area. We

24 would work with the staff in order to come up with a





1 mutual agreement on how they would like to see that

2 done.


4 appreciate you taking your residents into

5 consideration. Those residents that abut that

6 property.

7 MR. ROSSI: You're welcome.

8 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Member Kocan?


10 MEMBER AVDOULOS: While you're on

11 that, does that blue line indicate the path?

12 MR. ROSSI: Yes, it does.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: Isn't there also a

14 circular path around?

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time.

16 MR. QUINN: I think that's just

17 showing the major in and out and not the loops off of

18 the main path.

19 MR. ROSSI: There's a path that

20 actually loops around. We can move this around to

21 this side, it just hasn't been colored in.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I just propose that

23 you move that just a little bit farther away from the

24 lot line.




1 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Or even just leave

2 it like that.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Not have the loop.

4 MR. ROSSI: Continue the path through

5 here and not have the looping path?

6 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Right. And that's

7 only just to do what you indicated, to alleviate any

8 intrusion along that property line. Just keep

9 everybody as far north as possible, but keep it all

10 open, and that way it allows you that strand to do

11 any plantings or evergreens.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: I'd appreciate that.

13 I'd appreciate that you take that into consideration.

14 MR. ROSSI: Yeah, we can do that. No

15 problem.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: The reduction of the

17 size of the sedimentation basin outside Unit 12 -- it

18 may be an engineering question. I see it referred to

19 as -- it's called mitigation and it's also called the

20 sedimentation basin. If we reduced the size of it,

21 number one, does it still meet our mitigation ratio,

22 which I believe the answer is going to be-

23 MR. CROY: Yes.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: If you reduce the size




1 of the sedimentation basin, do you now change the

2 effectiveness of that sedimentation basin?

3 MR. CROY: It is our opinion that we

4 wouldn't want mitigation and sedimentation to occur

5 in the same location anyway. And since, according to

6 JCK, we believe that they're over the ratio of

7 mitigation that they need, we believe it's going to

8 be possible to eliminate the coexistence of the

9 sedimentation taking place where there's mitigation

10 taking place.

11 MEMBER KOCAN: But it's going to

12 remain a sedimentation basin. We're removing it from

13 the mitigation numbers is my understanding, but it's

14 going to remain sedimentation but it's going to be

15 downsized; is that what I heard?

16 MR. HIRTH: That's correct.


18 MR. HIRTH: My name is Rick Hirth,

19 with Warner, Cantrell, Padmos. I'm the engineer for

20 the project.

21 The sedimentation basin, due to the

22 comments of both the DEQ and JCK, our comments this

23 afternoon and this evening before the meeting, we're

24 looking at a way to reduce the depth of that




1 sedimentation basin. And we're looking at perhaps

2 using some of the more mechanical treatment devices,

3 and also reducing the depth of the water. And by

4 reducing the depth of the water to one or two feet,

5 allows us to create the wooded wetland around it,

6 reduce some of the runoff that goes to that

7 particular basin, and keep us at the one to two

8 feet -- allowing us to pull it off of Unit Number

9 12.

10 So based on our conversations with the

11 engineer and Dr. Tilton, and my experience with it, I

12 believe we can accomplish all of that. And JCK's

13 comments about reducing the number of mitigation

14 areas, especially where they coexist with sediment

15 basins, is a very good idea. I mean, we were trying

16 to promote as much mitigation as possible. We're

17 over -- we've got a high ratio. So we agree that

18 mitigation and sedimentation can be pulled apart and

19 done that way. Not that we might not have some in

20 this area because of just the physical nature of it,

21 but the other areas can be pulled apart.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I just don't want to

23 compromise any of the runoff or water on the site.

24 MR. HIRTH: As well as we don't




1 either. It's expensive to try to repair it. I mean,

2 we want to get it right the first time.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: In the Concept Plan

4 there were a number of micropools that were proposed

5 and they have been removed?

6 MR. HIRTH: Yes, and that's what led

7 us to a little bit larger sedimentation basin to

8 revert more back to a little bit more of conventional

9 sediment traps and mitigation areas. We're not

10 particularly opposed to micropools per se, but on

11 single family, where there are lots and these

12 micropools are located between the lots, we saw a

13 problem and the DEQ saw a problem, and I believe your

14 wetland people saw a problem with the long-term

15 viability of those. You know, people might have a

16 tendency to throw grass clippings in there, filling

17 it. Although the micropools might work in some multi

18 family areas where you have a lot stricter control of

19 maintenance and stuff, I think in the single family

20 developments going to a system more like we have is

21 the answer.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I appreciate that,

23 because that was a concern at the concept level.

24 MR. HIRTH: That was brought up, yes.





1 MEMBER KOCAN: Storm Water Plan. I

2 believe that there were two different opinions in the

3 letters. JCK felt that you did not have to comply

4 with it. I believe that the City staff believed that

5 there has to be compliance with that to the extent

6 feasible.

7 Mr. Croy?

8 MR. CROY: That's exactly that, to

9 the extent feasible. They're not exempt from the

10 ordinance at this point. We're going to make them

11 comply to the extent feasible, without reducing the

12 number of buildings, density.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: Can you just state for

14 me why if the Preliminary Site Plan is just being

15 reviewed, why we're not requiring total compliance

16 with this Storm Water Ordinance?

17 MR. SCHULTZ: I don't have the

18 resolution in front of me, Member Kocan, but

19 essentially it takes into consideration -- and maybe

20 Nancy can give a better answer to this, so I'll let

21 her -- how much work they've done to date.

22 MS. McCLAIN: In July, when the

23 interpretation for the new Storm Water Ordinance was

24 adopted by the City Council, the requirement was that




1 the Site Plan had to have been submitted prior to the

2 adoption of the ordinance and be an active Site Plan.

3 This was submitted and has been an active Site Plan.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: That's what I needed

5 to hear. Thank you.

6 Just a couple of more things. Two

7 things. One of them, I'm on the Woodlands Review

8 Board, and I foresee an awful lot of cases coming to

9 the Woodland Review Board after this development is

10 built. There's a note in the papers that state that

11 you're going to encourage naturalistic woodland

12 landscaping. You also talked this evening about

13 setting up signs and telling people these are

14 woodland areas.

15 We need to do something to tell people

16 that these are woodlands. You're not going to come

17 back and say the developer never told me I couldn't

18 build here, because that's what we hear over and over

19 again at the Woodlands Review Board. So there's got

20 to be some way, and maybe the City has to work with

21 this to ensure that either that yellow fence is up

22 the entire time, that it's posted. I want something

23 a little bit more than encouraging the residents in

24 those woodland areas.




1 MR. ROSSI: Yes. They will be

2 notified in many different ways. You know, by the


3 restrictions. It definitely will be clarified in the

4 restrictions, as far as what they can do, what they

5 can't do and, you know, this is protected woodlands.

6 When they sign a contract, it will be in their

7 contract. There will be signage, as discussed

8 earlier, throughout the site demarcating these

9 woodlands. And plus the orange tree fence that will

10 go up once building starts, so we can keep control of

11 this so long as we're building the homes, and once

12 the homeowners move in and have their C of O, and the

13 orange fence at that point is still up. You know, we

14 can only control the homeowners so much. We've given

15 them the language. They understand what can be done,

16 what can't be done. If they start going into those

17 areas then, you know, we try to, you know, let them

18 notice them.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: It's very important

20 that they know.

21 MR. SWISTAK: Let me interrupt a

22 second. There are legal restrictions. Since it is

23 a site condominium, the Master Deed, which is the

24 deed under which they are producing is recorded,




1 there are clear restrictions in that Master Deed.

2 The bylaws, which are part of the Master Deed have

3 clear restrictions prohibiting them from doing

4 anything in the wetland or the woodland.

5 And on top of that, when they get this

6 package of condominium documents, a lot of people

7 won't read it or just give it to an attorney to read

8 -- and he won't read it either -- but they get a

9 disclosure statement. That disclosure statement is

10 very much like a prospectus when you buy a stock, and

11 that's about a five or six-page summary of

12 everything. In boldface type, here are your

13 restrictions, here are your important restrictions,

14 and that is clearly one of them, that the woodlands

15 and wetlands which are delineated on the Site Plan

16 and which are part of your property, cannot be

17 touched. And the Association which has been formed,

18 by the way, has the power to enforce that Master Deed

19 and bylaws, and they will.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: And is that deed also

21 filed with the City?

22 MR. SWISTAK: The Master Deed is

23 actually filed with Oakland County.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time. We





1 have a court reporter here, so let Mr. Swistak

2 continue, Mr. Schultz, and you'll get your time.

3 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a comment. Those

4 kinds of things do get a lot more attention lately.

5 I don't know if some of the things that have been

6 coming to the Woodland Review Board are older

7 versions of the Master Deed, but they do come to us,

8 they are approved, and we have someone in our office

9 that does, I would say, almost exclusively that, and

10 those provisions are paid attention to and we make

11 sure they're in there.


13 Mr. Schultz.

14 Mr. Swistak, do you have anything else

15 to add?

16 MR. SWISTAK: No, I don't.


18 MEMBER KOCAN: Two last questions.

19 The measurements for the distance between the access

20 roads, there is a proposed stub to the east and it

21 looks like that stub goes to -- it doesn't stub to

22 the industrial property, it's stubbing to the

23 residential property; is that correct?

24 MR. ROSSI: That's correct.




1 MEMBER KOCAN: And there's a person

2 who owns that piece of property at this time -- I

3 mean, is there?

4 MR. ROSSI: A resident.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: And I believe we

6 talked about having a bond for construction of the

7 stub, and that would be something that I would be

8 looking for. But if you could just tell us again

9 what the distance is from the road to the stub, to

10 the stub, to the other side.

11 MS. McBETH: They would need to have a

12 connection to the roadway system or a stub street

13 every 1300 feet, and one is not provided along that

14 west property line because there is a protective

15 woodland natural area associated with the multiple

16 family development that's located there. And the

17 multiple family development did not provide a stub

18 connection in that area.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay, but then the

20 other stubs, if they have the east stub and then a

21 stub to the north, there would be no variance or

22 waiver?

23 MS. McBETH: There is still a

24 City Council waiver for the lack of a stub street on




1 the west side.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: Are we making a

3 recommendation to the City Council -- no, this is our

4 approval.


6 MR. SCHULTZ: That's all I have.

7 I'll pass the floor. Thank you very much.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anyone on this

9 side?

10 Mr. Ruyle.

11 MEMBER RUYLE: Just a comment. Thank

12 you, Madam Chair. From the Plan that you earlier

13 brought to us and this Plan, I think you did a

14 phenomenal job and you did address 99 percent of the

15 stuff we asked you for, so thank you very much for

16 that.

17 MR. ROSSI: Thank you.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anyone have any


20 (There were no further comments

21 from the Commission members.)

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, I'd like to

23 make my comments.

24 I think you've taken an awful lot of





1 natural features into consideration, and I like a lot

2 of the ideas that you have. I think you've given it

3 careful thought. I assume since Lot Number 30 is a

4 premium lot, that Dr. Tilton has no objection of

5 retaining that lot.

6 If you could just answer that question

7 for me, sir.

8 DR. TILTON: Yes. Lot 30 is fine. I

9 think they can build on that without impacting the

10 wetland areas. It may, in my opinion, be one of the

11 better lots in the site because it's surrounded by

12 wetland on three sides, but I have my own biases.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You're right. And

14 you have no problem by Lot Number 20, taking that

15 sedimentation basin, reducing the size, and it will

16 serve as a sedimentation basin.

17 DR. TILTON: Yes. As a matter of

18 fact, we think that if we can make it a little

19 shallower, it will actually be more effective. Some

20 of the more recent studies of the effectiveness of

21 sedimentation basins are saying that if you can get a

22 little more shallow, you won't get the resuspension

23 of the finer sediment. You can get up to 70 percent

24 removal, so we're pleased with that.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I'm not sure if

2 you're the person I should ask this question of, but

3 if you could bear with me for a moment, Dr. Tilton, I

4 would really appreciate it.

5 DR. TILTON: Sure.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: In reading the -- I

7 think in reading the Engineering Review, and maybe

8 this is an engineering question, maybe this isn't

9 you. But I'm looking at the water flow. I'd like

10 someone to explain to me, where does it go from -- if

11 all the storm water will ultimately discharge into

12 the 18.1 acre wetland, which is that big central

13 portion, then where does it go from there?

14 That's my question. I don't know if

15 that's one I should be asking you or Mr. Croy.

16 DR. TILTON: Well, as long as I have

17 it, Mr. Croy, why don't I -- my understanding is that

18 there is a small intermittent stream that flows from

19 the north, flows down through here, and then out,

20 right about down through here.


22 DR. TILTON: And that this flow

23 pattern has been established and is actually present

24 with standing water and wildlife habitats throughout





1 the wetland complex. So what's going to happen is as

2 water comes out of the sedimentation basins at the

3 various locations, and into the wetlands complex, it

4 will seek its own level and flow out of the site in

5 the natural pattern, and eventually hook up with the

6 Rouge River.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. That's what

8 I thought.

9 So you just kind of explained this to

10 me, and do we know the rate of discharge for this

11 site; is that something that you can calculate and

12 tell me, or am I asking you a little bit too much?

13 MR. CROY: That might be something we

14 end up looking into for the Final Plan Approval

15 Review.

16 DR. TILTON: And at the present time

17 from a wetland perspective, and Mr. Croy and I have

18 sort of talked about this, I'm reluctant to do any

19 storage or restricting any flow in this wetland

20 complex because of its diversity. I would like to

21 just have it maintain -- the fact that it's got a lot

22 of resistance to flow, we can put a lot of water into

23 it, and just by its natural storage function, we can

24 get it to be stored.





1 I can't tell you what the discharge

2 rate would be because it's not coming out of an

3 engineer detention basin. But I can tell you it's

4 going to go in there. For small storms, it will

5 never come out. It will sit in the wetland and it

6 will be evaporated. For larger storms, it will work

7 its way across the forested complex and then out the

8 outlet, saturating the soil as it goes.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The outlet would

10 be on the northeastern portion.

11 MR. CROY: Yes. On this side.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right where we're

13 talking about putting that stub road.

14 DR. TILTON: Yes. There's a big box

15 culvert that's going to go there.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I appreciate

17 that. I wanted to understand that.

18 My other question is, and I don't

19 know, maybe Ms. McBeth can answer this question.

20 On the southeast by Lot Number 9, how much

21 vegetation is there between that lot number and the

22 first owner of that lot?

23 MS. McBETH: I'll have to refer to

24 this. Just a moment.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I want to make

2 sure that that -- I was reading through the past

3 minutes, and there was a gentleman, Mr. Vedro who

4 indicated that he lived next door to the proposed

5 property, and he was concerned with the encroachment

6 on the wetlands, which we've covered, and then he

7 said -- and this is an interesting one, this is why I

8 asked all these questions:

9 I believe the wetlands have a definitive bearing

10 on the state of my well and my neighbor's well.

11 And that's why I wanted to know about

12 the flow, to make sure that this man and the other

13 neighbor, their well is in fact enclosed there, there

14 is not any problem, and I also wanted to make sure

15 that there would be no flooding coming off that

16 property onto his property.

17 So I wanted to know if you could tell

18 me the distance -- because when I was out there at

19 that site, and this is a hard site to really walk

20 especially in the winter. I walked it before as much

21 as I could, but I noticed on the Vedro, the last

22 owner, they had property which they kept natural that

23 was out by the first -- I think it was the first

24 telephone pole. So they have a buffer there. And I




1 wanted to know how much of a buffer there will be

2 between Lot Number 9 and their area. Maybe I can't

3 read these prints correctly.

4 MS. McBETH: I've got the Plan open

5 now that shows the existing trees out on that

6 particular lot. There are a number of trees along

7 the Eleven Mile Road frontage, and there are a few

8 scattered throughout the site, but depending on the

9 placement of the home on that lot, they may need to

10 get rid of a number of those trees. But as I

11 understand it, they're planning to go lot by lot and

12 determine which footprint of which house is going to

13 be located on that lot, and then come in and seek the

14 approval to remove those trees.


16 Because I want to make sure that their property is

17 well protected. And, obviously, whoever builds on

18 Lot 9, does not want to see their neighbor either.

19 The other thing that I wanted to ask

20 was, since we have a new Storm Water Ordinance, and I

21 asked Mr. Coburn this question before. I do not want

22 to belabor the point, but I would like you, Mr. Croy,

23 to kind of take one of those drawings and physically

24 kind of explain how things will go. Because I think




1 the Commission needs to understand the new ordinance,

2 and what better time than now to start -- oh, it

3 doesn't apply this time. I'm sorry, I thought it

4 applied. It doesn't apply.

5 Okay. Then we're clear with

6 everything. To the extent feasible. All right.

7 I think that you've done a very nice

8 job, and I think it's very difficult to keep all

9 these trees and wetlands, because I think they're

10 very important. There's one thing I noticed,

11 Mr. McGinnis, there were 69 Pin Oaks. Is that a

12 replacement tree, or is that what is existing there

13 now? And I think that's by the front entrance of --

14 is it the east? Are we keeping Pin Oaks or are we

15 putting Pin Oaks in?

16 MR. McGINNIS: I'm not exactly sure.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think it was

18 on -- wait, I have the blue sheet. I don't know if

19 your landscape person can answer it. It is on the

20 LLP-1, Landscape Planting Plan and Open Space Plan,

21 and I don't know -- it says replacement trees.

22 MR. McGINNIS: Correct.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it says: 69

24 Pin Oak, two and a half-inch caliper.




1 Is it that they're going to replace

2 that, or they're going to put Pin Oaks in?

3 MR. McGINNIS: That's the tree that's

4 going to be installed for replacements.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Isn't Pin Oak one

6 of the trees that is not very good in this area and

7 usually needs a lot of treatment and injection and

8 most of them die?

9 MR. McGINNIS: That is true, but

10 there are also a lot in the area, and they are sort

11 of a wetland edge tree also.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And are they able

13 to tolerate the carbon monoxide coming from the

14 automobiles that will go through the entrance?

15 MR. McGINNIS: That's a good

16 question. I don't know that answer.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I ask that,

18 Mr. McGinnis, because we have taken, in our complex,

19 we have taken down almost every Pin Oak. We only

20 have a couple left that are somewhat enclosed, and

21 they require a lot of care.

22 MR. McGINNIS: They're probably

23 planted in an upland situation, and when you're in

24 that situation they are difficult to develop, but





1 there are some along Eight Mile that are very nice

2 too.


3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have no further

4 questions at this point. Do we have anything else?

5 Mr. Shroyer.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: I believe I'm

7 prepared to make a motion.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, that's great.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: It's rather lengthy

10 though, so I'll be slow.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let's go nice and

12 slow.

13 MEMBER SHROYER: In the matter of

14 Asbury Park Estates, Site Plan 01-82 C, and motion to

15 approve the Preliminary Site Plan, Woodlands Permit

16 and Wetlands Permit, and grant a Planning Commission

17 waiver of requirement that open space area will be

18 located so that open space either borders a majority

19 of the lots within the subdivision or so that a

20 minimum of 25 percent of open space perimeter borders

21 subdivision streets. That was (a).

22 (b) is that Planning Commission

23 finding that proposed recreational facilities meet

24 the intent of active recreation space requirement of





1 the Subdivision Open Space Plan option, due to the

2 uniqueness of layout of the Plan, and in particular

3 Section 2402, Item 1 (a), (b), (c) and (d).

4 (c) The Planning Commission waiver of

5 the required berm at the west entry drive to allow

6 use of existing regulated woodland.

7 The approval is subject to: The

8 Zoning Board of Appeals variance to allow location of

9 the active recreation areas on the outer perimeter of

10 the subdivision. The City Council waiver for lack of

11 access stubs every 1300 around the periphery of the

12 site. Subject to the comments and the attached

13 reviewed letters being addressed on the Final Site

14 Plan.

15 The active recreation area will be

16 increased to the size of a minimum of two acres.

17 That areas, 7, 8 and 9 identified as Open Spaces be

18 removed from the Open Space calculations. That a

19 bond be implemented for a stub street to the east in

20 the event that a connecting road is built on the

21 property to the east in the future.

22 The replacing of the wood chip path

23 with a paved area to the city standard for a bike

24 path. That Lot 12, wetland intrusion be removed.





1 That landscape screening and possibly decorative

2 fencing be included to act as a buffer separating the

3 active recreation area from the residents to the

4 south. And that the berm extends along the entire

5 northern property line and as much of the northeast

6 corner as the wetland permits.

7 For the following reasons:

8 That the Applicant has worked very

9 diligently with the City, taking into consideration

10 City Council and Planning Commission recommendations

11 and comments. And that they are preserving

12 approximately 96 percent of the wetlands, and they

13 have obtained the necessary MDEQ Permit.

14 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: Did I miss anything?

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It was seconded by

17 Mr. Ruyle.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: There was just one

19 other comment that I think we had, which was the

20 removal of the walking path along the southern

21 property line of the recreation area.

22 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. If we want to

23 remove that, I'll be happy to include that in the

24 motion.





1 MEMBER RUYLE: Acceptable.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: So the amendment to

4 the motion is that you remove the walk path on the

5 south property line of the recreation area.

6 MEMBER SHROYER: Southern portion of

7 the loop.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Southern portion of

9 the loop.

10 MEMBER SHROYER: Yes, ma'am.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

12 other comments?

13 (There were no further comments

14 from the Commission members.)

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If not, then I will

16 ask Ms. McBeth to call the roll.

17 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

18 Commissioner Avdoulos.


20 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


22 MS. McBETH: Chairperson Nagy.


24 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp.






2 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


4 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


6 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 6 to 0.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

8 much. Good luck, Gentlemen.

9 We are going to take a five-minute

10 break.

11 (A brief recess was taken.)

12 6. Premium Self Storage, Site Plan Number 02-58

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We are resuming the

14 Commission meeting and we are here for the Public

15 Hearing at the request of Cypress Partners for the

16 approval of a Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land

17 Use Permit. Subject property is located in Section

18 24, on the north side of Grand River Avenue, between

19 Meadowbrook and Haggerty Road. The developer

20 proposes a self storage facility in the I-1, Light

21 Industrial District.

22 Mr. Schmitt.

23 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

24 If I could get the overhead for a





1 moment.

2 As you can see, the subject property

3 is located in the center of this drawing on

4 Grand River Avenue. Meadowbrook Road is here to the

5 west. To the south is the Willowbrook subdivision.

6 To the north is the Vincenti Court and the light

7 industrial development associated with it. And to

8 the west is a large wetland area, and to the east is

9 the Laird's Autometrics Building.

10 As you can see on the Zoning Map, the

11 zoning of the property and the surrounding properties

12 are all light industrial with a small amount of OS-1

13 to the southeast.

14 And the Land Use Map indicates that

15 the entire area is Master Planned for light

16 industrial uses, with the exception of this small

17 office area to the southeast.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you speak up?

19 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, ma'am.


21 MR. SCHMITT: To give a brief

22 walk-through of the site. Grand River Avenue to the

23 bottom. The main entrance will be located on the

24 western portion of the property. The main building





1 on the property will be a two-story -- one of the

2 stories will be underground -- but a two-story

3 climate controlled storage facility, with the

4 manager's quarters to the rear, and a small office to

5 the front.

6 In the rear of the property there will

7 be three of the typical storage units. All the

8 detention, storm water management for the property,

9 will be located in this location on the rear parcel,

10 and secondary access will be here. There will be

11 gated access per the specifications of the fire

12 department.

13 This is just a colored rendering of

14 the site. In the review of this request, a few items

15 were brought forth that will need the Planning

16 Commission's attention. Both the Facade and Fire

17 Review found that there are no issues with respect to

18 their reviews.

19 The Engineering Review indicated minor

20 comments that could be taken care of the time of

21 Final Site Plan Review, as did the Landscaping

22 Review. There are no regulated woodlands on the

23 site, and there's a minor wetland impact located in

24 this location. This was an administrative -- this




1 was a minor use, therefore administrative approval

2 was previously recommended.

3 The Traffic Review noted that a

4 Planning Commission waiver of the same side driveway

5 spacing would be required. I'll let our City

6 engineer discuss this further. 162 feet were

7 provided and 275 feet are required, based on the

8 speed limit of Grand River Avenue.

9 The other item that will need further

10 attention is the pitched roofs for the buildings on

11 the site. Under the Special Land Use requirements

12 for self storage facilities in I-1, there are two

13 requirements that you should take note of: One, no

14 building or structure, other than the manager's

15 quarters shall exceed 15 feet in height. As it is

16 currently designed, the Applicant is meeting this

17 requirement, so no variance will be required of

18 this.

19 However, the next requirement is that

20 in addition to the requirements of 2520, Exterior

21 Wall and Facade Material, self storage facilities,

22 including the storage buildings, caretaker's office

23 and quarters, shall be architecturally designed so as

24 not to have a flat roof, and shall instead have a




1 mantered gabled hip or gamberole roof design.

2 None of the buildings are currently

3 shown to have a pitched roof of any sort, and in

4 order to provide a pitched roof on these buildings,

5 they will need to exceed the height requirement of 15

6 feet. So the Planning Commission should take this

7 into account when granting a Special Land Use Permit.

8 There is difficulty and the applicants

9 can speak to this further, of placing a pitched roof

10 on a building the width of the climate controlled

11 building, which is approximately 230 feet by 180, I

12 believe. However the smaller buildings, it may be

13 possible to place a pitched roof on them without

14 exceeding the requirements. Further investigation

15 will need to be required of that, depending on how

16 the Planning Commission chooses to proceed in this

17 matter.

18 That's all I have at this time. Thank

19 you very much.


21 Mr. Schmitt.

22 This is a Public Hearing, would the

23 Applicant like to address the Commission at this

24 point?





1 MR. PARKS: Yes, I would. Thank you,

2 Madam Chair.

3 My name is Michael Parks. I'm with

4 Cypress Partners. Before I get started, I'd like to

5 just kind of hand out a small packet of information,

6 if that's okay. It might help answer some questions

7 for you.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You want us to

9 read this?

10 MR. PARKS: No. Just to have it as a

11 -- particularly not at this hour. It will help as a

12 reference.


14 MR. PARKS: As I pointed out, I'm

15 Mike Parks with Cypress Partners. I will attempt to

16 make this short, particularly given the hour, and I

17 really appreciate the Commission taking the time to

18 work with us on this project.

19 I thought what I'd do tonight is

20 explain, really, kind of who we are, how we got here,

21 what the project is from a real estate standpoint,

22 and really what the project is from an operational

23 standpoint. The owners of the project that's going

24 to be going in is the Damone Group out of Troy,





1 Michigan; WLW Partners from Santa Fe, New Mexico;

2 and a local pension fund. I am just the Applicant of

3 record, assisting the owners in the process.

4 Nowak & Fraus is the engineer of

5 record. They helped us with the design, layout and

6 engineering. Benedetto & Associates from Chicago

7 will be the architect of record, and they are not

8 present tonight. Nowak is here with us to answer any

9 kind of technical questions at the end, as well as

10 Rob Lee from WLW Partners can address any operational

11 questions that you might have at the end.

12 We started looking for property in

13 Novi roughly in 1999. So we've kind of been at this

14 for a while. Not full-time, but kind of on a

15 part-time basis, knowing that we really would like to

16 be in Novi, and we came across this property which is

17 on Grand River. Some of you may know it, it's the

18 old Holcomb Building -- probably no surprise to you.

19 It's just about halfway between Meadowbrook and

20 Haggerty, 40900.

21 After we identified it, we thought it

22 was a good fit due to the industrial nature of the

23 area, and the zoning that's required for our product.

24 We thought it was a very good fit, there were no





1 residences around it. We thought that the width and

2 the size and the area fit very well with what we were

3 trying to do.

4 Once we identified the property, we

5 met extensively with staff, and they were very

6 considerate to us. We had lots of questions and

7 issues on the property, and they were very nice and

8 met with us a number of times. We met with Tim a

9 number of times, Mike Evans with the fire department,

10 Don with the Building Department a couple of times.

11 Juanita was fantastic and helped us process quite a

12 bit of stuff, and Barbara also was involved quite a

13 bit in the beginning.

14 Those meetings kind of took place

15 through September and October in the preparation of

16 the submittal, and in the beginning of November, we

17 submitted to be heard tonight.

18 The Plans in front of you reflect --

19 the Plans that should be in front of you, reflect the

20 changes that were requested of staff. All of what I

21 would call the solvable changes with the property

22 which were about 90 percent of what the staff asked

23 for, and the outside consultants. There are two open

24 issues that Tim pointed out that we can address at




1 the end, and at the end of the meeting I'll kind of

2 use some exhibits to kind of walk you through, so

3 you can further understand what the issues are and

4 kind of ask any questions at that point.

5 Really, what is this project? It is a

6 self storage facility, that has a climate controlled

7 component to it, as well as traditional storage

8 buildings behind it. It's on roughly 5.5 acres. The

9 building, the self storage or the climate controlled

10 building in the front, has a footprint of 31,000

11 square feet. It will appear as one story from

12 Grand River from the elevation. As Tim pointed out,

13 it does have a lower storage area. The four

14 buildings together will equal about 86,000 square

15 feet of storage space. That will make up about 675

16 units.

17 As Tim pointed out, the height of the

18 front building will be 15 feet in some areas, which

19 is the maximum allowable underneath the height

20 limitations. Most of the building will be about 13.8

21 from the front. The back buildings will be

22 ten-foot-eight. And that kind of gives you a kind of

23 overall of the specific product.

24 The 675 units, I forgot to point out,




1 will be a mix of units from the smallest 5 by 5's to

2 10 by 30's. So it's a range of unit sizes to meet

3 the customer demand.

4 The operational description of the

5 project really is low impact, is the way I would

6 describe it. We get at any one time about five cars

7 at a time. As you can see by the Site Plan, there's

8 only eight spots that are required for the project.

9 Typically, users of the facility are 40 percent

10 business and 60 percent residential users. Hours of

11 operation are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The office has

12 shorter hours, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The trash is handled

13 once a week. Lighting is low-dim. Security type

14 lighting at night; it's not offensive.

15 And that will kind of give you the

16 general operational points of the project. Again,

17 Rob Lee is here from WLW Partners to answer any more

18 difficult questions on the operational side.

19 What I think I'll do is I'll take a

20 minute and show you some exhibits so you can get a

21 better handle of the project, and then we'll be happy

22 to answer some questions for you.


24 MR. PARKS: This is the elevation




1 that-

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Would you take the

3 hand mike. Just slip the microphone out.

4 MR. PARKS: Oh, it's nice.

5 This is the elevation in front of you

6 that we originally came in with.

7 MEMBER RUYLE: Can you move the mike

8 stand, sir?

9 MR. PARKS: Pretty busy up here.

10 The elevation before you is what we

11 originally came in with. That is a very close

12 rendition of what we will build. I have an

13 Architectural Plan that's in your package that gives

14 kind of a more detailed architectural view of the

15 project. But that really is a graphic display of

16 what we'll build.

17 The awnings are kind of up in the air

18 at this point. We've had kind of some maybe on those

19 from the staff, so we're open to suggestions on that.

20 The facade board-

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) If

22 you can just pass it down to Mr. Shroyer, he'll pass

23 it down to each one so that we can look at it.

24 MR. PARKS: It gives you an idea of





1 the colors that we'll use in the project. Again,

2 I'll be happy to answer anything I can, but I think

3 it's pretty pleasing colors that we're using.

4 This is, again, the architectural

5 elevation that we'll be using. It shows, again, much

6 more detail than most people need to see, but it

7 gives you a better idea of kind of the specifics of

8 the elevation. Very close to what you see in the

9 graphic display.

10 This is a Landscaped Plan project.

11 As you can see a lot of the acreage is not being

12 used. It's being used for retention and just general

13 landscaped area. As you can see, most of the project

14 is orientated towards the southeast of the property,

15 and we'll have a predominant amount of open area and

16 green space.

17 We took the luxury of showing you

18 what is there now in case any of you have forgotten.

19 This is the Holcomb Building as it exists now. We

20 originally looked at this to convert it, thinking

21 that we could do something with this building, but

22 the more we got into it we realized pretty quickly,

23 it was a long shot at best, so we ditched those

24 efforts. And now we're just going to scrap it.





1 As you can see by the existing

2 condition on the inside, it really is unsalvageable

3 and we would be spending, many, many months and many,

4 many dollars in there trying to get it into the

5 condition that would be acceptable to us.

6 And that really concludes what I have

7 to say and I'll be happy to answer any questions that

8 you have.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

10 much.

11 This is a Public Hearing. If there is

12 anyone that would like to address the Commission with

13 regard to the self-storage unit, please come

14 forward.

15 (There was no response from the

16 audience.)

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I

18 will close the Public Hearing. And, I'm sorry, I

19 forgot about the correspondence, Madam Secretary.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. I have one

21 piece of correspondence from a Richard Hamlin

22 40750 Grand River, objecting to the development,

23 stating there may be a better use of this property

24 as an employer of more people. And there appears to





1 be an abundance of storage units within a one mile

2 radius of the site.

3 That's all I have.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

5 much.

6 I now will close the Public Hearing

7 and turn it over to the Commission. And

8 Mr. Avdoulos, would you like to start?

9 MEMBER AVDOULOS. I have no choice.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You just had that

11 look.

12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Thank you,

13 Madam Chair.

14 The review from the Planning

15 Department and our ordinance indicates that the

16 buildings that are going to be utilized, the storage

17 units, are to have pitched roofs. In looking at the

18 size of this climate controlled building, the

19 footprint is huge, and even if you put a minimum of

20 3/12 or 4/12 pitch, it gets way up there.

21 The thing that I didn't see in our

22 packet is a floor Plan or a layout of what this

23 particular building up front is going to look like,

24 and I guess I'd be interested in knowing what's going





1 to be housed on the first floor, what's going to be

2 housed in the basement or the lower level, and what

3 that particular space is going to be used for.

4 MR. PARKS: I think what I'll do is

5 I'll turn this over to Rob Lee of WLW. He's the

6 operational partner.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, could I

8 just say something. When you're asked a question

9 then you can come forward.

10 And is this a question you want to

11 ask, or do you just want to continue on first?

12 MEMBER AVDOULOS: No. I wanted to get

13 an answer to what it is being used for.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And then when you

15 come forward, sir, if you could just say your name

16 and spell it for the court reporter.

17 MR. LEE: My name is Rob Lee with WLW

18 Partners. And my name is spelled R-o-b, last name,

19 L-e-e.

20 Commissioner, if I can answer your

21 question. You were asking how the layout of the

22 floor Plan works. What you'll find in the floor Plan

23 are hallways along with storage units in those

24 hallways. In that building, we'll have about 32,000




1 square foot footprint, of which they'll be about 250

2 to 300 units on each floor on the aggregate floor and

3 also below grade.

4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And are these

5 contained rooms?

6 MR. LEE: Yes.

7 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And are these

8 hallways eight-foot corridors?

9 MR. LEE: Five to six feet wide, and

10 we have doors along the hallways that are not unlike

11 your standard storage door, that are alarmed and tied

12 to a central computer system.

13 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. And is there

14 an elevator in the building to takes things up and

15 down?

16 MR. LEE: Yes.

17 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. I guess in

18 looking at the original rendering, it's sort of

19 difficult to get a picture of what the building is

20 going to look like. And this one here is just a

21 little different in the fact that it's got an extra

22 bay of glass to it. Which, in my opinion, is a

23 little bit more appealing than the rendition that we

24 received because it breaks it up a little more.




1 MR. LEE: I agree.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: One at a time,

3 please.

4 MEMBER AVDOULOS: It will create three

5 equal spaces. The issue that I've been looking at is

6 the pitched roof versus the flat roof, but in driving

7 up and down that site, the opposite side of the

8 street, the south side of Grand River, has quite a

9 few buildings with pitched roofs, starting with

10 Glenda's Nursery and going down the street to the

11 dentist office and so forth.

12 This side of the street, the property

13 next to it, Laird's Glass, is a flat roof building

14 that, I don't know, is it a two-story building?


16 MEMBER AVDOULOS: And most of the

17 stuff along that part of the road is flat. I think

18 in all honesty, the building itself is contextual to

19 the site and to its surrounding neighbors. It fits

20 within what's there. It's not out of character. The

21 fact that we have a requirement that these be pitched

22 roofs, I think is probably more for the effect of the

23 smaller buildings in the back. And then in looking

24 at those smaller buildings, do we want to put pitched





1 roofs on those, and maybe the one up front keep it as

2 a flat roof building, then you got the thing of

3 having a complex with two different esthetics.

4 Right now, the way I'm leaning is for

5 this particular building -- if you came in as a light

6 industrial building, which is almost what it is at 30

7 something thousand square feet, it pretty much fits

8 the character with what's in the neighborhood. So I

9 really don't have a problem with it, but I'd like to

10 pass it on to the rest of the Commissioners to see

11 what their concerns are with the zoning requirement,

12 because that's what we're looking at mainly.

13 The height issue is what starts to

14 happen. I was taking a look at one of the smaller

15 buildings, which is 60 feet wide. If we ended up

16 putting a 4/12 pitch on it, the height of that at the

17 peak would reach ten feet. Add onto it, I don't know

18 what are the heights of these buildings, 12 feet, the

19 smaller ones?

20 MR. LEE: Around 11.

21 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Okay. So say 11

22 feet, and then we add ten feet to the top of the

23 pitch, so you'd have a building, a small building in

24 the back that the peak would be 21 to 22 feet, and we





1 have a 15-foot requirement. Although if you go to

2 the center line of the gable, which you're allowed to

3 do, you can knock off five feet, so you'd be around

4 16 or so. So it would be pretty close. Then if you

5 do that, and you keep the building up front flat at

6 15-foot or 16-foot, whatever, then the roof pitches

7 will stick up above the top of that building too. So

8 it starts getting kind of sloppy in order to meet the

9 requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.

10 So at this point in time, I'm leaning

11 towards the design that was presented or that's being

12 presented by the Applicant. And I'm just going to

13 leave it right there.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Do we

15 have someone else that would like to make a comment?

16 Member Kocan.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Now that Mr. Avdoulos

18 didn't say anything that I thought he was going to

19 say, I'll move to a different area. Because now I've

20 had ideas about the roof and adding something

21 different, and we talked about what's happening at

22 the dentistry offices, et cetera.

23 I'm going to listen to hear what other

24 people have to say. I believe you do have some pitch





1 on the roofs for the back areas because you have to

2 do that so that there's no rain water collection.

3 MR. LEE: That would be a slope. I

4 think the pitch that we're talking about is actually

5 this. I think, I've seen it in other ordinances and

6 it's to give -- to break the buildings up a little

7 bit, and you really can't do it on a building this

8 large.

9 In addition to that, I think it's

10 important to note that this building is facing

11 Grand River. Most people are not going to see the

12 buildings on the back side, unless they're inside the

13 property itself.

14 MEMBER KOCAN: My thinking was when I

15 read this and talked with staff, was that when this

16 ordinance was written, and I'm not privy to what the

17 thought process was with regard to this particular

18 ordinance, but I don't believe the way that it's

19 written that they took into consideration a climate

20 controlled self storage area such that you're

21 proposing here.

22 MR. LEE: That's correct.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: So that my discussion

24 with staff was I would probably be more amenable to a





1 taller building with a higher roof. We're going to

2 have to give you a variance no matter what -- so what

3 was I thinking, you know, what direction did I want

4 to go?

5 I do like the design that you have.

6 There are an awful lot of flat buildings, but I

7 believe the other consideration we have is in light

8 industrial you can go as high as 40 feet tall. Not

9 with this particular ordinance, but other buildings.

10 But there are some things that I do

11 want -- other areas that I do want to address, and

12 they have to do with landscaping. This is light

13 industrial, it is a special land use, there is a

14 requirement that when it does abut an office, that

15 there should be a ten-foot green belt of

16 landscaping. And as I look at the Landscaping Plan,

17 it doesn't look like there is that much landscaping

18 along the eastern border of the property.

19 Mr. McGinnis?

20 MR. McGINNIS: Well, there is a row

21 of evergreens and as the evergreens mature, the lower

22 branches may not screen as well in the future. There

23 is the possibility of adding some shrubs at a later

24 date, because landscaping is dynamic and it changes.





1 But I think as it's proposed right now with the

2 evergreens, the young evergreen trees, they'll remain

3 full enough to provide the screening that's

4 necessary.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: Would you consider

6 that a ten-foot green belt? I don't think it has to

7 be a berm, but it's supposed to be a ten-foot green

8 belt. I mean, one row of trees to me, that is not a

9 ten-foot wide landscaped area.

10 MR. McGINNIS: It could be added to.

11 When the evergreen trees are planted, there will be

12 gaps. There won't be a definite screen, but as the

13 trees mature, someday it's going to be too crowded.

14 So you could plant additional shrubs along there now

15 to sort of nurse the planting along.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: I guess my question

17 is, can you zig-zag the pine trees to give it some --

18 I mean, does a pine tree typically take up ten feet

19 of area then?

20 MR. McGINNIS: Oh, very easily.

21 That's the problem. There's not enough room.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: With all due

23 respect, you're not planting ten-foot wide

24 evergreens.





2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it's going to

3 take quite a bit of time for it to get ten-foot wide.

4 I mean, you know, you see the evergreens and how

5 slowly they grow. I think she's got a point. The

6 ordinance says ten-foot wide landscaping. She's got

7 a point. You can always take bushes and intersperse

8 them and maintain them and stuff like that. I think

9 she's got a point.

10 I understand what your point is,

11 Mr. McGinnis, but it's going to take quite a while

12 before it's going to get ten feet wide.

13 MR. McGINNIS: Three or four years.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If even that fast.

15 We've -- I won't go into personal things, but we've

16 planted trees and evergreens, seven feet tall, and

17 they're not ten-feet wide yet.

18 I'm sorry, Member Kocan.

19 MEMBER KOCAN: That's okay.

20 I would just like to perhaps beef up

21 the landscaping at least on the east side. On the

22 west side, I believe that it does not abut an

23 office. I may be mistaken.

24 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Is that zoning or is




1 that a physical building? It's zoned I-1 on both

2 sides.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Well, the actual

4 verbiage is when the site abuts an office, a

5 recreational facility, a motel, hotel, or a

6 restaurant in an I-1 District.


8 MEMBER KOCAN: Then the screening

9 shall consist of either a face brick wall, not less

10 than six feet in height, or what they're proposing, a

11 six-foot high chain link fence, and a ten-foot wide

12 landscaped green belt.

13 So I'm looking for -- when I think of

14 landscaping, I'm thinking of something more than just

15 a row of evergreens. I'm looking for some design

16 here.

17 MR. LEE: We can work on that.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: I appreciate that.

19 And on the other side, we've got parking that the

20 landscaping seems to stop, and then there is parking

21 spaces, and the landscaping continues to the north.

22 So, again, I would almost prefer to

23 have the landscaping blocking the parking area than

24 the actual building. So I would really like you to





1 work with-

2 MR. LEE: Commissioner Kocan, if I

3 could just get you to clarify that a little bit more.

4 Where you're talking about.

5 MR. SCHMITT: Can I get the overhead,

6 please?

7 MEMBER KOCAN: Do you have the

8 Landscape Plan?

9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, I do. I believe

10 there were discussions previously, Commissioner Kocan

11 had indicated this area adjacent to the parking lot

12 and which appears to be somewhat barren at this

13 point.

14 MR. LEE: So you're talking just

15 south of this area in here, Commissioner Kocan?

16 MEMBER KOCAN: Right. Correct. It

17 seems like they stop and then the shrubbery starts

18 again.

19 MR. LEE: Okay.

20 MR. SCHMITT: And in addition, I

21 believe the other area you were discussing is along

22 this area.

23 MR. LEE: Yes. We will work on that,

24 and fill it in until the evergreens begin to grow.




1 Maybe put some shrubs in there that will maybe be two

2 or three-feet tall, or something like that.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: Is the road ten feet

4 away from the property line, the access road? Is

5 that within the ordinance, that the road can be ten

6 feet from the property line around the perimeter?

7 MR. LEE: Yes. That's all within

8 acceptable distances.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. And maybe it's

10 just adding esthetic short shrubs.

11 MR. LEE: Yes.

12 MEMBER KOCAN: It looks to me,

13 because this is the first time I've really paid

14 attention to buildings on that side of the street,

15 this will definitely be a benefit to the north side

16 of the street. So we need to set standards, and

17 that's what I'm looking for.

18 MR. LEE: We agree. I've spent a lot

19 of time in the community here looking at the other

20 buildings in the area, including the retail, and

21 tried to design something I felt looked good within

22 the area.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: There was a noise

24 analysis which was completed, and I appreciate that.





1 The lighting in the area can't be higher than 15 feet

2 if it's attached to the buildings because the

3 buildings are less than 15 feet tall.

4 With regard to should this be in this

5 location, I think about, I believe one of the only

6 areas that this self storage is allowed is in light

7 industrial.

8 MR. LEE: That's correct.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: And Grand River

10 appears to me to be a better place for a development

11 like this. It's not allowed next to residential, but

12 I'd rather see it farther away from residential than

13 abutting or close to residential.

14 That's all I have at this time.


16 Mr. Ruyle.

17 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you, Madam

18 Chair.

19 What is an environmentally controlled

20 building?

21 MR. LEE: It is a building where we

22 control the heat and the cooling, as well as remove

23 the humidity. One of our big customers are

24 pharmaceutical representatives who, by federal law,





1 have to store their samples in a climate controlled

2 building. Climate control means you have a range of

3 temperatures, typically between 65 and 80 degrees.

4 We keep the building within that range as well as

5 remove humidity.

6 MEMBER RUYLE: Nothing frozen, or

7 anything like that?

8 MR. LEE: No. Not that we've done.

9 MEMBER RUYLE: Well, that's what I'm

10 saying. I mean, you don't have a storage locker that

11 would be for meat or anything like that.

12 MR. LEE: No. No cold storage,

13 nothing like that.

14 MEMBER RUYLE: All right. In my

15 recollection in the City of Novi, we don't have any

16 storage facilities like this.

17 MR. LEE: I would say that's probably

18 true.

19 MEMBER RUYLE: The one on

20 Haggerty Road doesn't have it and the one on

21 Novi Road doesn't have it.

22 MR. LEE: Not like this building, no.

23 MEMBER RUYLE: Right. I like the

24 attractiveness of it. It looks just like a regular




1 old building, which I think is more attractive than

2 seeing locker, locker, locker, locker.

3 MR. LEE: We agree.

4 MEMBER RUYLE: And like Commissioner

5 Kocan, we have to set a precedent, because we're now

6 developing Grand River and Grand River is our main

7 artery going in through into the City, so we have to

8 watch that site and that's an eyesore right now, the

9 building that's there, and you're doing nothing but

10 improving it.

11 Caution: If you go to the awnings,

12 make sure you don't put anything on them. They have

13 to be plain, because our Sign Ordinance is going to

14 tell you you can't put a sign on there saying this is a

15 self storage unit and stuff like that. Just for your

16 own sake. What you have is Novi there, and what

17 you're calling it, that's probably all you're going

18 to be allowed with our Sign Ordinance. Just a matter

19 of caution, if you do put the awnings up, don't put

20 anything on the awnings.

21 MR. LEE: Thank you.

22 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you,

23 Madam Chair.






1 MEMBER PAPP: Thank you, Madam Chair.

2 You have resident quarters in the

3 back.

4 MR. LEE: Yes, we do.

5 MR. PAPP: Is there any problem with

6 residents-

7 MR. SCHULTZ: (Interposing) It's

8 permitted.

9 MR. PAPP: It is permitted?

10 MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.

11 MR. PAPP: I think it's a very nice

12 building, and I could support having that in this

13 location. I think it's nicely done. It's going to

14 add a lot to Grand River.

15 MR. LEE: Thank you.

16 MR. PAPP: Thank you.


18 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, I don't have a

19 whole lot of things here, but I have some questions.

20 I note -- and we don't have a lot of language in our

21 ordinance on self storage facilities. So maybe

22 that's one thing we ought to be looking at down the

23 road, just in case we get some more. Not that we're

24 looking to restrict them, but we want to be fair to





1 everyone and make sure that everyone follows the same

2 guidelines.

3 The first question I need to ask and

4 this will go to the City. The land that's directly

5 north, tell us about that. To me it appears that

6 it's landlocked, that there's no access to it from

7 any direction, unless it's owned by one of the

8 adjacent property owners.

9 MR. LEE: You can access it, I think,

10 off of Vincenti.

11 MR. SCHMITT: The property directly

12 to the north of where the main buildings are?


14 MR. SCHMITT: I believe is owned by

15 the same property owner to the east. That's right

16 behind it. If you can see, there appears to be

17 parked cars on both the properties on the aerial

18 photo. There is an access drive out to Joy Drive

19 there. Let me put it on the overhead.

20 MEMBER SHROYER: But it's being shown

21 as a separate parcel. I think we need to make sure

22 that we're not landlocking a piece of property.

23 MR. SCHMITT: I'm being told it's

24 actually owned by Mr. Vincenti who owns the property





1 to the north. So the access, I believe you're

2 talking about this parcel, the access would be coming

3 from either here, or the road that's coming down

4 here.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Can we assume that,

6 since both properties are owned by the same

7 gentleman.

8 MR. EVANCOE: I don't see a problem

9 here, and, really, that's an existing condition

10 that's not affected by this proposal.

11 MEMBER SHROYER: That's fine. I just

12 wanted to make sure we're on the same page on that.

13 I do have a problem with the roof. I

14 mean it is our ordinance. I don't have as much of a

15 problem with the three buildings in the back, but the

16 view off of Grand River, even though there are some

17 flat roof buildings right now, I don't think that's

18 the vision that the City wants to go toward in

19 developing that corridor that is an entryway to our

20 City. So I do have some concerns about that. I

21 don't have an answer, I'm not an architect, and I

22 have to believe that subject matter experts that tell

23 us, you know, a building that size can't support a

24 roof, and if it does it exceeds our 15-foot maximum.





1 There's a problem either way.

2 MR. LEE: We've looked at it very

3 hard trying to fit within the ordinance, and we were

4 just unable to do it.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: I think the way I'm

6 leaning on that is I would be much more amenable to

7 something like this if -- and I'll use the words that

8 Commission Kocan used earlier -- if landscape was

9 beefed up quite a bit. If we could make the frontage

10 on Grand River more attractive, if the side berms

11 that we discussed had green belts, if they had more

12 landscaping. And like you guys have indicated, you

13 haven't made a decision if the awnings are going to

14 come. If you take away the awnings, right now that's

15 the most attractive part of that building.

16 MR. LEE: So the awnings are well

17 received, I imagine, from everybody?

18 MEMBER SHROYER: At least that's how I

19 feel.

20 MEMBER RUYLE: As long as they're not

21 signed.

22 MR. LEE: We will put awnings up.

23 MEMBER SHROYER: Well, we're not

24 directing you to do that and we can't direct you to




1 do that. But I think working with the City, you

2 know, we really need to look at the outside

3 appearance. I believe it was Member Avdoulos that

4 indicated that the additional glass at the west end

5 is much more attractive. That creates a better

6 appearance. So things along that line, I think would

7 be much better.

8 Also in our ordinance, and I do note

9 that it is on the Plan, the entire property needs to


10 be surrounded by a chain link fence, and you do show

11 that on the Plan. Is that chain link fence ugly

12 galvanized?

13 MR. LEE: We'll use slats and

14 decorate it some.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: The slats that-

16 MR. LEE: (Interposing) That fit in.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: (Continuing) -that

18 disappear and that fade?

19 MR. LEE: Well, when you consider

20 that not a lot of people are going to see it. Our

21 neighbors to the side are going to see it, the

22 neighbors to the north are going to see it, so it

23 really won't be seen from passing traffic on

24 Grand River Avenue.





1 MEMBER RUYLE: Point of information,

2 Madam Chair.


4 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you going to put

5 any barbed wire or anything like that on top of the

6 fence?

7 MR. LEE: No, sir.

8 MEMBER RUYLE: That's an important

9 question because kids playing and stuff.

10 MR. LEE: Absolutely not.

11 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Is it the intent to

13 meander the fence -- well, what side of the

14 landscaping is the fence going to be on? It's

15 obviously going to be on the outside; correct?

16 MR. LEE: Yes.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm not a proponent

18 of, like I said, the metal because it seems like that

19 always gets bent. Lawn mowers get caught on it, it

20 tears it up, it fades, it gets missing. I personally

21 prefer like the vinyl coated, whether it be a black

22 fence or green fence.

23 MR. LEE: See through?






1 MR. LEE: Vinyl coated see through or

2 the slats?

3 MEMBER SHROYER: The see through.

4 Your buildings aren't unattractive, so I don't care

5 if somebody sees the buildings. I would look at the

6 fence being more of a secure issue, than one to

7 breach the opaqueness.

8 MR. LEE: What would you think of us

9 on the north side, just leaving it galvanized chain

10 link, and on the sides where it does have more

11 exposure, we'll use the plastic coating on it?

12 MEMBER SHROYER: That would be much

13 better in my opinion.

14 I believe we have some questions down

15 there. I'll yield the floor for now.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Avdoulos.

17 MR. EVANCOE: Madam Chair, with your

18 permission.


20 MR. EVANCOE: Mr. Shroyer, being

21 that this is a Special Land Use, you would have the

22 ability to require a more decorative fence than chain

23 link, and I think Mike can attest that his landscape

24 architects, routinely receive voluminous catalogs of





1 all kinds of industrial fencing that either is

2 wrought iron or ornamental iron or a facsimile of

3 such. But I just wanted to remind the Commission

4 that you have the ability, through the Special Land

5 Use process, to require more than just a chain link

6 fence.

7 And I think too, to remind you, if you

8 consider the self storage facility that's to the east

9 of this property, closer to Haggerty Road, I believe

10 they do have a black ornamental iron, at least a gate

11 apparatus that they've employed there.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, they do.

13 Anything else? Mr. Avdoulos?

14 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I was going to

15 dovetail to Commissioner Shroyer. I don't know if he

16 was done yet or not.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'm not, but go

18 ahead.

19 MEMBER AVDOULOS: The fencing that was

20 one issue that I was going to look into, making it a

21 little bit more esthetic, especially in the front.

22 If we're going to have that whole self facade,

23 actually the way it looks now in the rendering, and

24 contrary to popular belief, I'm not a big proponent




1 of awnings, I don't like things attached to

2 buildings, but being a south application, you're

3 going to get a lot of sun there anyway, and I think

4 you're going to have to screen it somehow. And I

5 think the idea of having the third bay of windows,

6 gives it more of an office look rather than a

7 warehouse look.

8 The idea of having some kind of

9 ornamental iron in the front part of the building, or

10 even an application of brick and iron, something to

11 not give it that warehouse look, and then once it

12 turns to the sides, black vinyl fencing is fine. But

13 I think keeping in that character, where we enhance

14 the front and enhance the sides as the landscaping

15 turns, and then we could be more consistent along the

16 back.

17 But I think Commissioner Shroyer is

18 correct. The buildings are not obtrusive. I mean,

19 they appear to be very pleasant and low scale. And I

20 think that's going to benefit, at least the views, as

21 you go down Grand River. So I'm in agreement.

22 Thank you.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Shroyer, do you

24 want the floor back?






2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you wouldn't

3 mind, Mr. Ruyle.

4 Mr. Shroyer.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Just in summary on

6 that, as I indicated, I would be willing to yield the

7 problem with the sloped roof if the landscaping was

8 enhanced. And also more specific on the fencing, in

9 particular the southern portion that faces

10 Grand River, if that entire sector ended up being a

11 decorative fence, wrought iron, something along that

12 line, and the gating be something other than a chain

13 link fence. And I assume you were going to do that.

14 MR. LEE: That's right. We were

15 going to, yes.

16 MEMBER SHROYER: And then I agree

17 with Commissioner Avdoulos, that once the landscaping

18 began on the sides, just black vinyl coated fence

19 would be adequate for me. And I don't think you're

20 talking much difference in cost, between buying a

21 slatted, you know, the metal things that go down

22 which, as I mentioned before, get lost and faded and

23 everything else. So with that I'll close. Thank

24 you.





2 MEMBER RUYLE: Thank you,

3 Madam Chair.

4 Just a little follow-up that needs

5 clarification from the City, to help this gentleman,

6 I think.

7 This ordinance that we're dealing with

8 requires the pitched roof; correct?

9 MR. SCHMITT: Yes, it is a

10 requirement.

11 MEMBER RUYLE: Because it's a storage

12 facility.

13 MR. SCHMITT: Specific to storage

14 facilities.

15 MEMBER SHROYER: But it's also light

16 industrial; am I correct?

17 MR. SCHMITT: Yes.

18 MEMBER RUYLE: Then that tells me

19 that any building, including Laird Glass that's there

20 now, that gets built for light industrial and

21 everything else, can have a flat roof.

22 MR. SCHMITT: I believe so. The

23 requirement for the-

24 MEMBER RUYLE: (Interposing) So what




1 I'm saying is -- go ahead.

2 MR. SCHMITT: The requirement for the

3 pitched roof is specifically a Special Land Use

4 requirement for self storage units.

5 MEMBER RUYLE: Right. And so what

6 I'm saying is that, best case scenario, 99 percent of

7 the buildings that are going to be built in that area

8 in new condition, are going to have flat roofs. So I

9 would recommend that they do go before the ZBA and

10 get a flat roof variance because it would be more

11 conducive to the area.

12 Thank you, Madam Chair.


14 Mr. Ruyle.

15 I have a couple of comments and maybe

16 Mr. -- I'm not sure who can address this, but it's

17 with regard to traffic. And I know -- I don't see

18 anyone from Mr. Arroyo's office, but Ms. McClain, or

19 Mr. Croy.

20 In Mr. Arroyo's letter of February 18,

21 he states that they did not request a change in the

22 width of 24 feet for the access drive, and the

23 driveway no longer meets the City's standards because

24 they changed that.




1 Are they changing it back to what met

2 the standards, Mr. Croy? It's Item Number 5 under

3 Access, that paragraph.

4 MR. CROY: Okay, thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: He states that the

6 previously proposed design should be restored,

7 wherein the driveway throat tapered from 32 feet at

8 the end of the returns, to 24 feet at the parking lot

9 aisle.

10 MR. CROY: Are you asking me if the

11 Applicant is going to-

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is he going back

13 to what he originally had, which would meet our City

14 standards for this, or is this what he has?

15 Did I miss something on the drawing?

16 MR. CROY: I think it's something the

17 Applicant can answer, but certainly it's a

18 requirement of one of the review letters, so it's

19 something that should be addressed.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do you understand

21 my question?

22 MR. LEE: I'm sorry, I don't.


24 full-time access drive, you have redesigned that to a





1 uniform width of 24 feet since the last submission,

2 and that was not requested by our traffic

3 consultant. And by making that change, the driveway

4 no longer meets the City standards.

5 Ms. McClain, can you answer this or

6 somebody? Do you understand what I'm saying?

7 MS. McCLAIN: I understand what

8 you're saying. When the Plans came in and had been

9 changed -- previously you had shown it with the width

10 of 32 feet at the throat, and now it's showing 24.

11 And what we need to know is if you plan on changing

12 it back? If you do not change it back, it will

13 require a Design and Construction Standards waiver

14 from the City Council.

15 MR. HUHTA: Hi. My names is

16 Jeff Huhta with Nowak & Fraus Engineers. The simple

17 answer to that question is we'll revert it back to

18 the way you would like it.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay, thank you.

20 MEMBER AVDOULOS: Madam Chair?

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yes, Mr. Avdoulos.

22 MEMBER AVDOULOS: I'm looking at Nowak

23 & Fraus SP-3. And it's hard to read, but there looks

24 to be a dimension at the throat of 32 feet, but





1 there's also a gutter elevation of 884.17. And I'm

2 not sure if that's what was changed back to 32 feet

3 or if that's the point in question.

4 MS. McCLAIN: Let's ask it of the

5 Applicant this way: Do you intend to meet the City

6 standards for the driveway at 32 feet; will you be

7 meeting that standard on your next set of Plans?

8 MR. HUHTA: Yes.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

10 much, everyone.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. The second

12 traffic question is with regard to the proposed

13 162-foot same side driveway spacing, and our minimum

14 requirement is 275 feet. Is there anything that can

15 be done to meet our requirements?

16 Mr. Croy.

17 MR. CROY: I believe they have done

18 what they can to meet the same side requirements in

19 both directions. They cannot fully comply with the

20 same side spacing requirements.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Will that cause any

22 sort of problem with the amount of traffic that we

23 have on Grand River, and having been on

24 Grand River several times?





1 MR. CROY: Well, I believe the traffic

2 consultant is okay with the waiver.


4 MR. CROY: I would go on their


5 recommendation as far as any traffic concerns.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Maybe you could

7 explain this paragraph to me.

8 It appears that the 579 foot spacing between the

9 nearest drive east and west of the site,

10 together with the required driveway width, would

11 make some size of same side spacing waiver

12 necessary, regardless of where the proposed

13 drive might hypothetically be located. The

14 Applicant should be expected to explain,

15 however, why a driveway relocation to reduce the

16 size of the required waiver would be infeasible.

17 So I'd like to know what the traffic

18 engineer is talking about, and obviously he's not


19 here.

20 MR. CROY: They do need two driveways

21 to the site, two entrances. That's part of their

22 problem that they're working with. I guess, you

23 know, the option would be moving the two driveways

24 closer to each other, and I'm not sure if that's




1 feasible for the site that they're trying to develop.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. And we are

3 putting in deceleration taper lanes -- tapers,

4 rather?

5 MR. CROY: Yes. On the main drive.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: On the main drive,

7 but not on the access, emergency access.

8 MR. CROY: I believe that's correct.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's one more.

10 And you have the Letter of Agreement with regard to

11 the encroachment of the other property?

12 MR. CROY: They claim they do, yes.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I have one more.

14 This does require the new Storm Water Ordinance be

15 met; correct?

16 MR. CROY: Fully. In full compliance,

17 yes.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The reason I asked

19 that, is because this does drain into the Bishop

20 District, and that's rather high quality.

21 MR. CROY: It's also considered a

22 regional detention.


24 don't really think I have any other questions at this




1 time. I just want to make sure that the ordinances

2 are met with regard to the traffic and to the storm

3 water.

4 I do have a comment. With all due

5 respect, that's not what you're going to build.

6 You're just giving us a drawing of what you would

7 like it to look like?

8 MR. LEE: No, it will look very much

9 like that.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Very much is not

11 the same as exactly that; correct?

12 MR. LEE: We will do everything we can

13 to make it look as much like that as we possibly can.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Because I

15 also would like to see the more landscaping in the

16 front. We talked about that, in the front of the

17 building?

18 MR. LEE: Yes, we did.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. I think

20 the awnings are fine. I think this is an improvement

21 over Holcomb Industries, and I appreciate the fact

22 that you are willing to work with the City with

23 regard to the fencing, adding the berming, and I

24 think the building will look nice.




1 Is there any further discussion?

2 Mr. Evancoe.

3 MR. EVANCOE: Yes, Madam Chair. If

4 the Commission is inclined to ask for the awnings I'd

5 like to address that at such time. If you're looking

6 to not require that, then my concern won't matter.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know, I don't

8 know if we can make it a requirement. I'm just

9 presuming that just by where they're facing, they're

10 going to get a lot of sun. And I assume you're

11 probably going to put awnings up for that purpose

12 alone.

13 MR. LEE: I like the looks of the

14 awnings.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I do too, but I

16 think this is all personal taste, I'm not sure if

17 it's something that should be at the table, but if

18 you'd like to expound on that.

19 MR. EVANCOE: Well, maybe I should

20 just explain what the concern is. The issue is that

21 when the building facades were reviewed by our facade

22 consultant, there were not awnings on there. And the

23 canvas awnings are a material that is listed in the

24 Facade Ordinance, and being that this a Region 1





1 building, you cannot have more than ten percent of

2 the facade as canvas awnings. So there's

3 calculations that have not been done to this point to

4 determine whether or not those awnings, as depicted

5 on the rendering, would conform to the Facade

6 Ordinance.

7 So if you wanted for them to provide

8 the awnings, you would need to grant a Section 9

9 Waiver, which they have not requested, but you could

10 do that as a part of your review tonight. So there

11 is an issue there about whether or not that complies.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Sir, would you

13 like to put awnings on your building?

14 MR. LEE: We will submit a Section 9

15 Waiver.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You could request

17 one from us.

18 MR. LEE: Yes, we would. I would like

19 to do that.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then you would

21 request a Section 9 Waiver for the awnings?

22 MR. AVDOULOS: Is that just for

23 canvas, if they were metal or some other type of

24 material?





1 MR. EVANCOE: The ordinance only

2 lists canvas awnings as the material.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's the only one

4 we can use in Novi.

5 MR. AVDOULOS: So there are other

6 buildings though that have canopy-type structures

7 that may not have roofs on them, that may be open, or

8 there could be some kind of screening in lieu of an

9 awning. So I think -- do they request that Section 9

10 Waiver now at the preliminary stage, or do they just

11 look at what can be done and put something up that

12 may be similar?

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Schultz, would

14 you like to say anything?

15 MR. SCHULTZ: Just a brief comment.

16 The requirement for the awnings I think is something

17 that the Planning Commission could impose if it

18 wanted to. It doesn't sound like you have to because

19 they're willing to do it. But there is a connection

20 between that and the pitch of the roof and all that

21 kind of stuff. I think that he would be within the

22 discretion.

23 I guess the question is, do you feel

24 comfortable enough tonight to make the decision as to




1 what you want to see, or do you want your facade

2 expert to review it some more and make

3 recommendations for materials? I get the impression

4 from the report that our facade people haven't had

5 that conversation as to what it ought to be yet.

6 You may like it, but you may not be

7 comfortable -- I'm not saying you're not, you but you

8 need to be comfortable before you make a final

9 decision on it. If you're not ready to, that's your

10 decision.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can the Commission,

12 even though the facade person has not reviewed this

13 with an awning, can the Commission, if it so chooses,

14 just waive the facade waiver, I mean, just waive it

15 for them?

16 MR. SCHULTZ: If you're comfortable

17 with that decision. I went through the ordinance,

18 there's no Public Hearing or anything like that, it's

19 your call if you're comfortable with it.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then I think that's

21 something that whoever the maker of the motion is,

22 can include in the motion and the Commission can

23 either vote for the waiver or not vote for the

24 waiver. It's very democratic.





1 Yes, Member Kocan.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: I think the only

3 other -- I mean this discussion, we like the awnings

4 because they have an esthetic appeal. And if we

5 don't do the awnings -- there's two things. If the

6 ZBA doesn't give a variance for not having the

7 pitched roofs, and they require a different kind of

8 roof, this conversation is null and void. Moot.

9 Other kinds of considerations. In

10 looking at the -- you know, if no awnings, then the

11 Novi Commerce Center at least had something different

12 to break up -- and I guess I would like maybe an

13 interpretation of the ordinance. What the Novi

14 Commerce Center has, which is a little bit farther

15 north, is it's a flat roof, but about every 20 or 30

16 feet, it has a brick column that comes up over the

17 top of the building about five feet, I'm guessing,

18 and that's about every 30, 40, 50 feet, and it

19 provides a break-up of the front of the building.

20 Now, if a developer were to do something like that,

21 does that then constitute a flat roof, or is it now

22 no longer a flat roof because you have-

23 MEMBER RUYLE: (Interposing) It's not

24 a pitched roof.





1 MEMBER KOCAN: It's not pitched.

2 Okay. The question is, it's got to be a pitched

3 roof.

4 Thank you, Mr. Ruyle.

5 MEMBER RUYLE: Madam Chair, I'd like

6 to make a motion that we extend the meeting for the

7 time needed to complete the Agenda, twelve-thirty.

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Is there a

9 second to the motion?

10 MEMBER KOCAN: Second.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

12 aye.


14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Motion passes

15 unanimously.

16 You still have the floor,

17 Member Kocan.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Let's take a stab at a

19 motion. Let's see where it goes. I'm going to break

20 it into two. I'm going to talk about the Special

21 Land Use first.

22 In the matter of Premium Self Storage

23 Site Plan 02-58A, motion to grant approval of the

24 Special Land Use, finding that this building is





1 compatible with adjacent uses. The proposed use is

2 listed among the provision of uses requiring a

3 Special Land Use in a Light Industrial District which

4 does not abut Residential. The hours of operation

5 are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The building meets the

6 ordinance with regard to noise and lighting.

7 That's my motion.


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The motion has

10 been seconded by Mr. Ruyle.

11 Mr. Schultz.

12 MR. SCHULTZ: Is there any conditions


13 that the maker of the motion intends to attach that

14 aren't regular Site Plan conditions? In other words,

15 anything over and above what we can require under the

16 ordinance. Now is the time to make those in the

17 Special Land Use Motion. Fencing, extra landscaping,

18 now is the time, not in the next motion.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Not in the next

20 motion?

21 MR. SCHULTZ: The exercise of

22 discretion is coming now. The next one would be

23 approving the details of the Plan.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Then would you like





1 to continue the motion?

2 MEMBER KOCAN: Then I would like to

3 continue my motion. I took a breath and-

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: The world changed.

5 MEMBER KOCAN: With the stipulation

6 that there be additional landscaping on the east and

7 west property lines, as well as in front of the

8 building. That an ornamental iron front gate/fencing

9 be in the front, as well as black vinyl fencing on

10 the sides and back.

11 Section 9 Facade Waiver, address that

12 here?

13 MEMBER SHROYER: He wants you to put the

14 galvanized fencing on the back and put the-

15 MEMBER KOCAN: My motion says-

16 MR. SCHULTZ: Section 9 is separate.

17 MEMBER KOCAN: I had landscaping on

18 the front, additional landscaping on the front and on

19 the east and west property lines. I think those were

20 the two main things. The other items can be added to

21 the Site Plan.

22 Who seconded it?

23 MEMBER RUYLE: Second.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seconded by





1 Mr. Ruyle.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any

4 further discussion?

5 (There was no further discussion

6 by Commission members.)

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: This motion is on

8 the Special Land Use. If there isn't, Mr. Schmitt,

9 if you would please call the roll.

10 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

11 Commission Avdoulos.


13 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Kocan.


15 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy.


17 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.


19 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle?


21 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer?


23 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 6 to 0.






1 MEMBER KOCAN: Continuing. Second

2 motion.

3 In the matter of Premium Self

4 Storage, Site Plan 02-58A, motion to grant approval

5 of the Preliminary Site Plan and the Storm Water

6 Management Plan based on the Plan, is in full

7 compliance with the Storm Water Ordinance, subject to

8 a ZBA variance for not having pitched roofs on the

9 self storage buildings in order to match the front

10 building, the Planning Commission waiver of the same

11 side driveway spacing as a full service access drive

12 which serves as a secondary entrance is required.

13 Considering that if canvas awnings as requested by

14 the Planning Commission exceeds ten percent of the


15 facade, the Planning Commission grants a Section 9

16 Facade Waiver. Subject to any additional conditions

17 and items listed in the staff and consultant review

18 letters.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second

20 to the motion?

21 MEMBER PAPP: Second.

22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Second to the

23 motion by Mr. Papp.

24 Mr. Evancoe?





1 MR. EVANCOE: Just a question on the

2 motion. If perhaps you want to nail down a little

3 bit more about the awnings. If that's exactly the

4 type of awnings you would like to see. You may want

5 to refer to the exhibit that was displayed as to

6 color and type.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: That's a very good

8 point.

9 MR. SCHULTZ: We ask again, that

10 administratively that it be reviewed and approved --

11 or at least reviewed and commented on by our facade

12 consultant.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay then, we will add

14 the facade, with the awnings as presented to us in

15 their booklet, because there is a rendition under Tab

16 Number 1, as well as a reviewed by the City facade

17 consultant.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Materials and

19 construction and those kind of people.


21 accept the amendment?

22 MEMBER PAPP: I accept.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Any other comments

24 from anyone?





1 MEMBER KOCAN: I don't want to drag

2 this out. Question: Again, reading literally the

3 ordinance.

4 No building or structure other than the

5 manager's quarters shall exceed 15 feet-

6 Forget it, that's pitched roof.

7 The manager's quarters though, that

8 32,000 square foot building, would that be considered

9 the manager's quarters?

10 MR. SCHMITT: No. Nice try.

11 MEMBER KOCAN: I was going to move in.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are we ready to

13 have roll call?

14 Mr. Schmitt.

15 MR. SCHMITT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

16 Commissioner Kocan.


18 MR. SCHMITT: Chairperson Nagy.


20 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Papp.


22 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Ruyle.


24 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Shroyer.






2 MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner Avdoulos.


4 MR. SCHMITT: Motion passes 6 to 0.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

6 much.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: I apologize for this,

8 but I should have caught the fact that the Special

9 Land Use, the first motion, did not also make it

10 subject to a ZBA approval. If we could have another

11 motion just to clarify that. It should also -- we

12 don't want them having Special Land Use hanging out

13 there if they never get the height variance.

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are you talking

15 about the pitched roof, the ZBA variance for not

16 pitched roofs?

17 MEMBER KOCAN: Aren't we just

18 approving the use?

19 MR. SCHULTZ: You approve the use, do

20 you want that Special Land Use hanging out there if

21 the ZBA says no to the Plan?

22 MEMBER KOCAN: Then they have to redo

23 their Site Plan. That's my interpretation. The use

24 is approved as a self storage facility in a I-1





1 District. If the Site Plan doesn't comply, then they

2 have to come back.


4 MR. SCHULTZ: Okay.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

6 much.

7 7. Island Lake of Novi, Phase 4B1, SP 02-43

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Our next Public

9 Hearing is a Public Hearing at the request of Toll

10 Brothers for approval of a Preliminary Site Plan for

11 site condominiums. The subject property is located

12 in Section 19 on the north side of Ten Mile Road

13 between Napier and Wixom Roads. The developer

14 proposes 76 detached single family homes in the

15 Residential Acreage District.

16 Ms. McBeth.

17 MS. McBETH: Thank you, Madam Chair.

18 I'll put an aerial photo up on the

19 board to display the location of this phase of the

20 development.

21 And again, the subject property is

22 outlined in blue. It is Phase 4B2 of the Island Lake

23 Development. That's on the north side of Ten Mile

24 Road, and that is east of Napier Road and west of




1 Wixom Road. The area we're looking at is outlined in

2 blue.

3 So the aerial photo shows that the

4 site is currently vacant land. To the west is vacant

5 land, also fronting on Ten Mile Road as well as on

6 Napier Road. To the north and to the northeast are

7 Phases 4A and 5A within the Island Lake Development,

8 which were approved for the construction of single

9 family homes. To the east is a vacant parcel of land

10 which fronts on Ten Mile Road, and then further to

11 the east is the parcel of land we expect is going to

12 be developed with the Oak Pointe Church. To the

13 south across Ten Mile Road is the Links of Novi Golf

14 Course.

15 The Master Plan showing the property,

16 again outlined in blue, shows that the subject

17 property is Master Planned for residential uses.

18 Just slightly to the south, the Master Plan shows

19 that the property is Planned for a golf course.

20 And the zoning map shows that the

21 property is zoned RA, Residential Acreage, as are the

22 surrounding properties.

23 I'll display a small version of the

24 Site Plan for you. I know that there's a large




1 version in front of me here. Ten Mile Road is again

2 on the bottom part of the page. The phase that we're

3 looking at is in bold on this Plan. The submitted

4 Plans propose a development of 76 single family

5 detached dwelling units, associated road system, and

6 parks that were envisioned in the amended RUD

7 Agreement for Island Lake. The RUD Agreement was

8 modified by City Council in December of 2002 for this

9 area, to approve adjustments for locations of the

10 streets; to the park areas, stub street locations.

11 I'm going to highlight just a couple

12 of the items from the review letters that were

13 provided from the City staff and consultants to the

14 Planning Commission, for their consideration.

15 The Planning Review letter asked for a

16 Planning Commission clarification of stipulations of

17 the originally approved RUD Agreement. The approved

18 RUD Agreement specifies that building setbacks on

19 individual lots will vary depending on the lot width

20 that is provided. And that is typical of Zoning

21 Ordinances to do that.

22 The RUD Agreement also states that

23 homes will be grouped in neighborhoods with a common

24 theme. There may be a need for the Planning





1 Commission to mediate between these two concerns.

2 The RUD Agreement specifies that lots

3 110 feet or wider, will have greater building

4 setbacks than those that are only 90 feet in width.

5 The Site Plan for Phase 4B1 provides lot widths for

6 both 96 feet and the 120 foot range. These lots are

7 mixed throughout the neighborhood without any

8 defined separation within the neighborhood. And I'm

9 going to put up a small map that displays some of the

10 issues that were highlighted in the Birchler-Arroyo

11 Review, and you can almost see that some of these

12 lots are highlighted with yellow and some are

13 highlighted with green. But the lots that are

14 designated at 120 feet in width that do provide the

15 greater setbacks as indicated in the RUD Agreement

16 are shown in yellow, and you can almost see that

17 these are those locations. Those are the ones that

18 do provide the greater setbacks that the RUD calls

19 for.

20 Lots that are designated as 110 feet

21 that provide lesser setbacks than the ordinance

22 requires, are identified in green and for some reason

23 that shows up even worse, this location, this

24 location, and that location have a deficiency in the





1 setbacks.

2 The Applicant has indicated that

3 there's a desire to maintain the smaller building

4 setbacks on these lots -- most of those are pie

5 shaped lots -- to allow the lots to be developed with

6 homes that would be consistent in size and appearance

7 with the other homes within this neighborhood or this

8 phase of development.

9 The dilemma lies in the question of

10 whether the lots should be widened at the front of

11 the parcels in those areas, so that adequate setbacks

12 can be provided for those lots which would result in

13 the appearance from the road that the homes are set

14 back farther apart, or whether the smaller but

15 consistent setbacks should be provided throughout the

16 entire development.

17 Moving on. There were no wetlands to

18 review for this proposal, as the Applicant received a

19 Wetlands Permit from the Planning Commission last

20 summer to fill a non essential wetland in an area

21 near Ten Mile Road. No Woodlands exist on this area

22 of the site. The Landscaping and Engineering Reviews

23 both indicated only minor comments which may be

24 addressed at the time of Final Site Plan Review.





1 The Traffic, Engineering and Fire

2 Reviews, indicated comments which may be addressed at

3 the time of Final Site Plan Review, and I believe

4 they may have already been addressed on the Plans

5 that were most recently submitted. Both of those

6 indicated that the temporary T turn-around that is

7 proposed for the end of Langley Court needs to be

8 modified to meet the City's design and construction

9 standards.

10 And as a matter of information, the

11 Applicant has provided the City with a schedule, a

12 projected schedule of submittal of Plans that is near

13 the very back of the packet. I think it's the last

14 page or second to last page, with a map provided from

15 the City that shows the phasing lines for your

16 information. Thank you.


18 MS. McBETH: Yes.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If you could just

20 explain to us a little slower, and maybe by taking

21 the big map and pointing to it, about the lot

22 deficiencies with the setbacks, side yard setbacks.

23 We got kind of confused.

24 MS. McBETH: Sure. I do apologize.




1 It's a little bit confusing. This is where the

2 dilemma is.

3 These lots are shaped more like pieces

4 of a pie. The front yard is usually the area where

5 you measure the lot width. So the area along the

6 road is where you usually measure the lot width.

7 Those turn out to be wider at the front than they are

8 in the back. And the homes that are indicated on

9 some of these Plans, show that they want to build a

10 home that is typical in size to the other homes in

11 the neighborhood. So in order to fit a home on those

12 pieces of property, it's got to be wider in the front

13 and narrower on the back.

14 What they're requesting, really, is

15 sort of an interpretation that they can use the

16 dimension across the rear of the property line as

17 opposed to the front in making their determination

18 that the side yard setbacks will be provided for the

19 narrower lot width.

20 And I'm not sure if that clarifies the

21 question. I think the Applicant might also want to

22 speak to that question as well.


24 understood what you said.





1 MR. EVANCOE: If I may interject just

2 briefly. Just so everybody knows. What we're

3 talking about is the side yard setbacks. We're not

4 looking at front or rear.

5 MS. McBETH: And we are talking about

6 four lots in total that appear that they don't meet

7 the standard for setbacks, because they're wider

8 along the front, we would expect a larger setback for

9 those lots.

10 MEMBER KOCAN: Point of information?


12 MEMBER KOCAN: The only difference in

13 the side yard setback is five feet; is that correct?

14 MS. McBETH: Yes. Let me get this

15 out so I can tell you exactly.

16 For the wider lot, for lots that are

17 90 feet or in the 90-foot range, we would expect 30

18 feet for the total of the two side yards, ten feet on

19 the least side.

20 For lots that are 110 feet to 150

21 feet, we would expect a total of 40 feet for the

22 combined total side yards, with 15 feet on the least

23 side.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: But because of the




1 shape of the lot, they would all be able to meet the

2 minimum 30 feet, houses put on those lots.

3 MS. McBETH: That is correct.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

6 much.

7 Would the Applicant like to make any


9 MR. BOSHAW: Thank you. My name is

10 Ron Boshaw, B-o-s-h-a-w, Toll Brothers. Thank you

11 very much, Ms. McBeth, for the description of this

12 phase of the properties. It was very complete. The

13 home style that we are building here is consistent

14 with the home style that we are building on what

15 we're calling the north side of the lake. 2500 to

16 3500 square foot homes, ranging in price from 450,000

17 to 600,000 plus or minus. The lots are approximately

18 14,000 square feet in size, and a minimum of 96 feet

19 in width at the setback.

20 And unless there is a -- again, I

21 think Ms. McBeth's explanation was right on, so I

22 don't need to say anything further, but if you have

23 any questions for us, myself or our development

24 manager, Kevin Sullivan, we'll be happy to answer




1 them.

2 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

3 much.

4 This is a Public Hearing and does

5 anyone in the audience wish to address the Commission

6 regarding this site?

7 (There was no response from the

8 audience.)

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Seeing no one, I

10 will close -- I always forget. Do we have any

11 correspondence, Madam Secretary?

12 MEMBER KOCAN: Yes, we do. I have

13 two letters. Actually, it's the same letter twice,

14 but it's from a husband and wife. John, I think it's

15 C-a-r-b-o-t-t, and Deborah C-a-r-b-o-t-t, at

16 25490 Birchwood. They object to the proposal.

17 Number one, negative effect on ground water supply to

18 neighboring water wells. Depressions, six inches to

19 eight inches deep are forming in our backyard and

20 neighbors'. They're missing tall screening plantings

21 between home and development along the road edge and

22 the island circle.

23 They felt that there's not enough


24 information. They felt they did not have enough lead




1 time, and would have liked to have more room for


3 That's all I have.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you. Now I

5 will close the Public Hearing and turn it over to the

6 Commission.

7 Member Kocan.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Picking up where the

9 letters talked about the berming. I did not drive

10 past the site and I should have done that. Because

11 when I looked at your Canabe Park and your

12 Langley Park, I see berms that are 14 feet tall. Is

13 that an existing condition of the land?

14 MR. SULLIVAN: A lot of these berms

15 we've created-

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Sullivan?

17 MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. Kevin

18 Sullivan.

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Could you take the

20 hand mike?

21 MR. SULLIVAN: Kevin Sullivan, Toll

22 Brothers. S-u-l-l-i-v-a-n.

23 Most of the berms here are going to be

24 created. And as we have done in the past throughout




1 the site, we've tried to create the largest berms we

2 can possibly fit in for screening, not only along

3 Wixom Road, but in the back along Napier Road.

4 Wherever we can do the berms, we try to maximize the

5 height as well as the plantings. The plantings have

6 far exceeded -- as we get started on the Landscape

7 Plan, we end up in-filling a lot of the additional

8 landscaping.

9 MEMBER KOCAN: My concern is you're

10 calling it a park, but it's a 14-foot tall berm.

11 That is not a park, unless it's a ski hill, but

12 there's no place to stop your skiing. So I'm

13 concerned about traffic and visibility. I'm a

14 proponent of berms, but I'm wondering if this berm

15 isn't too tall.

16 And continuing with that, our

17 requirement is very specific that there needs to be

18 landscaped buffers installed and maintained along the

19 entire property line abutting the right-of-way, and

20 your berm ends east of that property line where the

21 detention/retention basin is. That does not comply

22 with the ordinance. The entire right-of-way has to

23 be bermed and screened.

24 So I'm looking for a change in that




1 location, and then how does that change affect the

2 detention basin? If you want to speak to that.

3 MR. SULLIVAN: We've had this

4 conversation with Mr. McGinnis today -- he did with

5 our engineer. We talked about possibly moving this

6 detention basin back around and continuing that berm

7 further down. And at this point we don't really see

8 any problem with continuing that berm further.

9 With regards to calling these things

10 parks, these aren't really the designated parks that

11 we're required to have within the Island Lake

12 Development. We're just identifying areas is all.

13 It's not a play park, no. The parks up in here,

14 these are the intended parks that are part of the

15 RUD, are part of the open space.

16 MEMBER KOCAN: With regard to the

17 turnaround, is it going to be a temporary turnaround?

18 It's my understanding that where the fire chief is

19 concerned is at an area which could eventually be

20 developed as additional residential; correct?

21 MR. SULLIVAN: That's correct. This

22 ten acre piece now has been brought before you

23 recently to be developed.

24 MEMBER KOCAN: To the Master Plan





1 Committee.

2 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes. I think that's

3 correct.

4 MEMBER KOCAN: I haven't seen it yet.

5 MR. SULLIVAN: Conrad brought that to

6 you.

7 MEMBER RUYLE: Conrad brought it to

8 us. It's owned by the Assembly of God, State of

9 Michigan Headquarters, and it's right next to the

10 church -- in between the church and their property,

11 and that's where the stubs -- they're going to

12 utilize the stub streets to build more streets.

13 MEMBER KOCAN: Residential.

14 MEMBER RUYLE: Yes. All residential.

15 I think it's 26 lots -- or 16 lots, that's what it

16 was. Thank you.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It hasn't come

18 before the Commission.

19 MEMBER RUYLE: No. It just came

20 before the Master Planning Committee.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And we did make a

22 recommendation in favor.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: I just hear rumors.

24 There's still 34 trees that are





1 required for the woodland replacement. Is there a

2 plan for those 34 trees?

3 MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, there is a plan.

4 Again, we've far exceeded the planting requirements

5 so far. We continue to plant. Originally, going

6 back to the north side, we had an agreement to do

7 some tree banking because the lack of trees on the

8 south side, and the abundance of trees on the north

9 side, so we did our replacements. We're going to

10 bring those down into this phase.

11 MEMBER KOCAN: Okay. With regard to

12 the two types of lots, the 96-foot wide and 120-foot

13 wide, I really don't have a problem with

14 standardizing the setbacks, the side yard setbacks

15 throughout the subdivision, recognizing that these

16 are pie shaped lots and noting that their

17 configurations are significantly different from a

18 rectangular lot.

19 My main concern is, I understand that

20 we don't have an approved RUD Amendment from the

21 City Council at this point. So can we even act on

22 this tonight?


24 MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Madam Chair.





1 We did raise this issue earlier today.

2 We received the Draft Agreement last week. We would

3 expect that that Agreement would go to City Council,

4 if everything goes right, at the March 17 meeting.

5 We did check the calendar for when the next available

6 Planning Commission meeting would be, since the

7 proponent has some time issues, and that would be the

8 March 26 meeting.

9 Our idea was if we held a hearing, as

10 we have, we've given the proponent the comments, you

11 would ask the proponent to have a plan ready to go

12 that met the comments for the March 26 meeting.

13 So, yes, we do not have an approved

14 RUD Agreement, although Council did approve the Plan

15 and the concept. This is the language, this is the

16 contract as opposed to the concept which has been

17 approved.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Ruyle, did you

19 want to make a comment?

20 MEMBER RUYLE: Correct me if I'm

21 wrong, Mr. Schultz, but can we not make it part of

22 the motion subject to the approval of the City

23 attorney and the RUD Agreement?

24 MR. SCHULTZ: Well, the RUD Agreement





1 will now -- the contract will now go back to

2 City Council. The question will be are you getting a

3 little ahead of yourself if the Council doesn't

4 actually approve that written agreement.

5 MEMBER RUYLE: As I said, subject to

6 Council approval then, if we put it in our motion.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: We would recommend

8 against that. But we would ask that it then be at

9 the next available meeting on the 26th.

10 MEMBER KOCAN: My only comment to

11 that is then I would want to extend the Public

12 Hearing, because if there's another Plan that comes

13 before the Planning Commission, I want to afford the

14 audience the opportunity to be able to speak to that

15 if there is a change. So that would be my request.

16 MR. SCHULTZ: To the Chair, if we do

17 that, I would just ask again, when the motion comes

18 up, that that Public Hearing which was closed, be

19 reopened set for that date certain, March 26, so we

20 don't end up having to readvertise and cause a delay.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now, here's a

22 question. Excuse me. Why did we make these people

23 stay all this time then? Maybe we should have just

24 told them to come back on the 26th.





1 MR. SCHULTZ: I think the idea was to

2 have the developer get the comments of the Planning

3 Commission as to what changes might be required, so

4 that the meeting on the 26th would presumably be them

5 indicating their compliance with the comments.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. Do we have

7 any other comments?

8 Mr. Avdoulos, do you have any

9 comments? You're thinking.

10 Mr. Ruyle?

11 MEMBER RUYLE: It looks fine to me,

12 Madam Chair.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Member Kocan?

14 Well, I would like -- the Chair would

15 entertain a motion of some sort indicating that we'll

16 reopen and continue the Public Hearing on March 26.

17 And what we can do is, what, table this?

18 MR. SCHMITT: The motion would reopen

19 the Public Hearing and then table to that date.

20 Table action until that date.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Reopen the Public

22 Hearing and-

23 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: Second.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: There's been a





1 motion made to reopen the Public Hearing and to

2 continue this on March 26.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: So then do we also

4 need a motion to table or was that handled all in the

5 one motion?

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: It will be tabled

7 to March 26.

8 MEMBER RUYLE: So moved.

9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there any

10 further discussion?

11 Mr. Shroyer.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Just primarily a

13 question. If we do it in that order, correct me if

14 I'm wrong, we do have to readvertise again.

15 MR. SCHULTZ: No. If we set it to a

16 date certain, we don't need to readvertise. Frankly,

17 by the 26th, we probably can readvertise it.

18 MEMBER SHROYER: I would request that

19 we do. I think it's only fair to the citizens of

20 Novi that it be reopened. Oh, I've just been handed

21 a note to ask if Council will have it approved by

22 that date?

23 MR. SCHULTZ: That's really what

24 we're getting at.





1 MEMBER SHROYER: Because it's up to

2 them for review, and we have to assume that they're

3 going to approve it.

4 MR. SCHULTZ: From my perspective,

5 you've held a Public Hearing. The changes that

6 you've indicated to the developer are here on the

7 record at this Public Hearing. Presumably, what

8 you're going to get from the developer is something

9 that meets those comments, that the public could have

10 been here to see.

11 I'm not sure I can see the reason to

12 have the second Public Hearing, but if that is the

13 Commission's pleasure, then legally you are okay if

14 you do that. Pick a date here at this Public Hearing

15 and pick a date certain, you are not obligated to

16 renotice.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: Wouldn't we be

18 better to reopen the Public Hearing right now and not

19 close it until the next meeting?

20 MR. SCHULTZ: That's what you would

21 be doing. The motion on the table is to reopen the

22 Public Hearing and then table the matter until the

23 26th, a date certain.

24 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Can I make




1 the motion to supersede the one that's currently on

2 the table then.

3 MEMBER KOCAN: That is the motion on

4 the table.

5 MEMBER SHROYER: Oh, that is the

6 motion?

7 MR. SCHULTZ: That is the one.

8 MEMBER SHROYER: I thought we were

9 reopening it on the 26th.

10 MR. SCHULTZ: No. We're reopening it

11 now.

12 MEMBER SHROYER: Okay. Thank you.

13 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Does anyone have

14 any further comments? We don't need to belabor this

15 point. Does everybody understand what we're doing

16 here?

17 The motion is to reopen the Public

18 Hearing and to table it to March 26, 2003. Okay.

19 All right, we're all on the same page? Okay.

20 If we could please call the roll,

21 Ms. McBeth.

22 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

23 Chairperson Nagy.






1 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Papp.


3 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


5 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


7 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


9 MS. McBETH: And Commissioner Kocan.


11 MS. McBETH: Motion passes six to 0.

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: See you on the

13 26th.


15 1. Planning Commission Budget

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: For Matters for

17 Consideration, our first item on the Agenda is the

18 Planning Commission Budget.

19 Member Kocan.

20 MEMBER KOCAN: Thank you. I was

21 designated to speak on behalf of the Budget

22 Committee. Member Ruyle and I are members, as well

23 as Member Sprague and Member Paul who are not here.

24 We wanted to give the Planning




1 Commission an opportunity to look at this budget at

2 least twice, and that's why it's before you tonight.

3 So I'm looking for whatever projects that you have,

4 whatever, you know, we talked about what our

5 priorities are, and if there are other priorities

6 that we haven't thought of, we need to hear that. We

7 also did get some input from the Master Plan

8 Committee who stated they have a number of reports.

9 I think my biggest concern is, and you

10 did receive a letter, an additional letter either

11 Monday or Tuesday night dated April 19th. And just

12 so that you know what happened with the budget, last

13 year we requested about $96,000 worth of studies. In

14 April of 2002, our budget was cut back to $42,000.

15 And the four items that are in April 19th letter, are

16 those projects and those reports that the staff, City

17 staff, felt were the most important. This was

18 approved -- well, I don't know if it was approved, it

19 was just memoed, cited to the Mayor and City Council

20 members. Yes, our budget was revised.

21 The thought is that it is believed

22 that only about $10,000 of that $42,000 for the

23 studies will be spent this year, and the proposal was

24 to carry over the additional 32,000 to complete those





1 four projects next year. My concern is if we have a

2 budget of $42,000 this year and there's projects that

3 we need to get done, as well as additional studies

4 that need to be done in order for the Master Plan

5 Committee to complete the Master Plan next spring,


6 I think we need to look at that. In the Budget

7 Committee we looked at just moving the 32,000 to next

8 year. I'm now questioning that decision, and I would

9 like feedback from the rest of the Planning

10 Commission.

11 I see that Mr. Evancoe has a comment

12 to make.

13 We also added -- before you speak,

14 Mr. Evancoe -- we added in an environmental study

15 that was on our priority list from last year and the

16 year before. And we also added, we felt it was very

17 important that this Planning Commission lacked

18 training and development, and we feel it's very

19 important. And I'm going to state I think

20 particularly, and I don't mean this to be -- what's

21 the word -- offensive to the Planning Department, but

22 with more Planning Reviews being done in-house, I

23 think it's even more important that we all get out

24 and get different opinions on what's happening out in




1 other parts of the community.

2 So I think it is a real priority, and

3 that's why we put Master Plan first, and then

4 training and development. Development Review Process

5 and Public Outreach in the Objectives. We're looking

6 for feedback. So if you have any questions, please

7 question. If you have comments, I know Mr. Evancoe

8 has a comment.


10 MR. EVANCOE: Thank you. Just a

11 couple of points I wanted to make. First of all, no

12 offense taken whatsoever. In fact, full agreement.

13 This is a time when both the staff and the Commission

14 needs to get all the training possible. And it was

15 unfortunate that the budget last year didn't allow

16 for that to occur, and I'm hopeful, as you are, that

17 we can get some money appropriated for training in

18 the coming year. So we'll keep our fingers crossed

19 on that and put it forth.

20 The $42,000 that was approved by the

21 Council last year, was for the Growth Management

22 Plan, and within that Growth Management Plan there

23 were four deliverables that were promised, one was

24 the -- and these are all studies that have been on




1 your schedule for several years as part of the

2 five-year update. And I'm going by memory, but there

3 was the Economic Base Analysis, the Thoroughfare Plan

4 Study, the Water and Sewer Master Plan Study, and one

5 other that's slipping my mind.

6 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Fiscal Analysis.

7 MR. EVANCOE: Fiscal Analysis, right.

8 And those were all components of the Growth

9 Management Plan, which is a project that was

10 identified by the City Council that they wanted

11 accomplished.

12 What we did is we, you know, and it's

13 just an estimate. We estimated that provided that

14 that project goes forward -- which is not entirely

15 certain because that's going to be a topic at the

16 next City Council meeting as to philosophy and

17 whether that's still indeed a goal. But assuming it

18 goes forward, we're estimating that we would spend

19 about $10,000 by the end of this fiscal year, and

20 that's where the $32,100 comes from, as a proposed

21 carryover to next year to complete the Growth

22 Management Plan.

23 So I just wanted to -- in case that

24 was not understood, I wanted to clarify.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: If I could just

2 comment. One of the things that having been on the

3 Planning Commission, at this point the longest of

4 anyone, we've had a lot of studies where we've

5 allotted money and the studies were never completed

6 from one year to the next. And I think that at the

7 rate this Planning Commission is working, with two

8 Master Planning Committee meetings a month, and two

9 Implementation meetings a month, I think we're

10 striving to make sure that our focus is that we will

11 have the Master Plan approved. And I think that's

12 where the Budget Committee is coming from.

13 Are there any other comments, because

14 I think a lot of comments after reading this can be

15 addressed via e-mail or something, about the budget.

16 Mr. Shroyer.

17 MEMBER SHROYER: I'll just make two

18 very quick ones. First of all, being on the Master

19 Plan and Zoning Committees, and knowing that we have

20 been asking for reports for some time, and we need

21 them, especially in order to meet our goal of having

22 a new Plan ready by May of 2004, a bird in a hand is

23 worth two in the bush. If we have the money

24 allocated right now, we need to go forward with it.




1 Who knows what will happen with the state of the

2 business currently and economic situation, that

3 budget cuts may come any day now. So I don't feel

4 comfortable at all about carrying money over to next

5 year, hoping that it will be carried over to next

6 year.

7 The second item: I would like to

8 address the recommendation on the worksheet for the

9 training in regard to the conferences. Just a quick

10 comment. The recommendation was two members for the

11 American Planning Conference, and the six for the

12 fall conference, MSP Fall Conference. That totals

13 eight, which means that one Planning Commissioner

14 would not be able to attend the conference. I'd

15 rather see us look at the possibility of three for

16 the American Planning Conference, which would be one

17 out of each seniority group, and then the six that do

18 not attend that one, would have the first option for

19 the MSP Conference in the fall.

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that kind

21 of a suggestion has been made in the past. So I

22 think your committee ought to talk about it again.

23 MEMBER KOCAN: I was just going to

24 give away $2,000, but I'll push for it all.






3 MEMBER KOCAN: I think we need to

4 make a determination whether it's tonight or when we

5 actually -- well, probably when we approve our

6 budget. We do need to, if what I'm hearing, we need

7 to hopefully spend that 42,000, and whether it needs

8 to be outsourced, or additional job assignments

9 given, we would like to try to complete as much as

10 possible this year. Because the Master Plan

11 Committee -- the Thoroughfare Plan is a duplicate,

12 but Natural Features is a little bit different, or

13 does that tie in with the Environmental Study?

14 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that's a

15 little different than the Environmental Study, if I

16 recall correctly. And isn't there something that

17 Oakland County has as well?

18 MR. EVANCOE: I was just going to

19 mention that. The ranking of Environmental Area

20 Studies should be very easy now, because Oakland

21 County contracted with Michigan State to do a

22 county-wide environmental ranking. They've actually

23 taken Novi and other communities, and given them

24 three priorities, and it's really a good study they




1 did. We may be able to adopt that or tweak it

2 slightly.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I think that

4 encompasses what we were talking about, and if you

5 look at the various studies that we have requested,

6 well, some of them we've gotten them already in the

7 Master Planning Committee. There's a lot-

8 MEMBER KOCAN: (Interposing) I just

9 want to confirm that your Natural Features request

10 that comply with our Standard of Performance B on the

11 first page, saying:

12 Assess the physical characteristics of the

13 community, ranking those areas of environmental

14 sensitivity for determination for use as park

15 land or development.

16 Would that fulfill your Natural

17 Features Study?

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No. I don't think

19 that's at all what Natural Features means. Natural

20 Features is different than that, what you said.

21 MEMBER KOCAN: With the environmental

22 sensitivity.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Right. And park

24 land.




1 MEMBER KOCAN: Then we need to know

2 exactly what it is you're looking for, so that the

3 staff can assign a price tag to it.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All right. I think

5 we already made a list, and I think Mr. Schmitt, you

6 had sent a letter and there was a list of studies

7 that were already done, and so maybe we could get

8 that and incorporate it into that.

9 MEMBER SHROYER: Some might just need

10 to be updated.

11 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Yeah, just updated,

12 and then maybe with the updates, we can bring it back

13 to the Commission to pass the budget. And do you

14 have an anticipated date for that?

15 MEMBER KOCAN: We have a date for the

16 Budget meeting, a week from Friday. We're going to

17 talk about the date because right now it's 7:15 a.m.,

18 which is awfully early, but we plan to meet to try to

19 have this at the next Planning Commission meeting.

20 So we need, you know, we will have, I believe Mr.

21 Evancoe at that meeting. We did not have him at the

22 last meeting, but we need somebody from staff to be

23 able to work with us and assign numbers, as well as

24 make sure we have the amount of money in for charts




1 and printing and maps and to ensure that we have

2 enough money to support the Planning Commission.

3 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Are there any other

4 comments? Are we done with that item?

5 MEMBER KOCAN: That's all. Thank

6 you.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very much

8 for your update.

9 2. Letter Received from Alan and Kathleen Bond

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I would just like

11 to mention that I put under Matters for

12 Consideration, I received a later from Alan and

13 Kathleen Bond. And they are also writing on behalf

14 of their two neighbors, Richard Herbel and Chris and

15 Sylvia Walsh. And they're the three homeowners on

16 Wixom Road that are being affected by the Catholic

17 Central development. They are going to be coming to

18 the Master Plan and Zoning Committee meetings and

19 they are going to be requesting a Zoning and

20 Master Plan change.

21 And what we have is that -- when we

22 ask for Master Plan and rezoning, then we have to get

23 a traffic impact study. And what these people have

24 written is that we have an ability as Planning




1 Commissioners to waive the Traffic Impact Study.

2 We've had one done by Catholic Central, one done by

3 Promenade. And I just wanted to make all of you

4 privy to this.

5 And I assume that the recommendation,

6 Mr. Schultz, would be when they come to the

7 Master Plan Committee, do we have to make the

8 recommendation to waive or not waive the Traffic

9 Study before they come? Because our Zoning Ordinance

10 -- I mean, the ordinance says:

11 The requirement for a Traffic Impact Study or

12 the study elements with the Traffic Impact Study

13 contents, may be waived/modified by the Planning

14 Commission. Reasons for the waiver or

15 modification shall be documented. Factors to be

16 considered include-

17 And then they have three.

18 MR. SCHULTZ: Can you just tell me

19 which section?

20 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: You know what, I

21 don't know. It's the City -- here.

22 Let me just state that there is one of

23 the reasons being a similar Traffic Study was

24 previously prepared for the site and is still




1 considered applicable.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: I think I can at least

3 say it's probably something that the Commission as a

4 whole would do. The Master Plan Committee can do its

5 investigation and review without that if it's

6 comfortable.

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we talk about

8 that now and make that motion now?

9 MR. SCHULTZ: For the full Commission

10 to do it? I think we probably ought to wait and see

11 what comes out of the Master Plan Committee. The

12 Master Plan Committee can do its due diligence on

13 this issue, without the Traffic Plan if it wants to

14 do that.

15 The Commission, as a whole, when that

16 recommendation comes forward, will have to decide

17 whether it wants the full Traffic Plan. And it will

18 have a better-

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: (Interposing) But

20 in order for them to come to the Master Plan

21 Committee, as I understood it, they have to bring a

22 Traffic Review; isn't that right, Mr. Schmitt?

23 MR. SCHMITT: For the rezoning request

24 they would be required to have a Traffic Impact




1 Study, not for the Master Plan request.

2 MR. SCHULTZ: You can do your review

3 without all of that.

4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And then I bring

5 it before the Commission at a whole, for them to

6 decide whether or not they want to ask them to do

7 another Traffic Study?

8 MR. SCHULTZ: You may not even have

9 to do that when you bring the Master Plan before the

10 Commission as a whole. It sounds like it's a

11 requirement for the zoning change if there is one

12 proposed.


14 wanted to be clear and I wanted everyone to know that

15 I received that letter. I can have Xerox copies made

16 and give it to the other Commissioners at our next

17 meeting.

18 MR. SCHMITT: Madam Chair, we'd

19 appreciate a copy of that letter as well. We did not

20 receive this.

21 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, you did not

22 have one?

23 MR. SCHMITT: No. I anticipated what

24 it was but-




1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Now I really feel

2 special.

3 MR. SCHMITT: I knew what it was, but

4 I didn't get a copy of it.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Okay. I will make

6 you a copy and I will send it and you can disperse it

7 to all the other members.

8 MEMBER KOCAN: Just to be

9 argumentative, because that's who I am, I just feel

10 comfortable making a motion stating that we would not

11 require a Traffic Study to be performed by these

12 three residents, as we already have on record with

13 staff a Traffic Report from Promenade and Catholic

14 Central, which will suffice the situation.

15 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a second

16 to that motion?

17 MEMBER PAPP: I'll second it.

18 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Mr. Papp seconded

19 that motion. Is there any further discussion?

20 Yes, Mr. Shroyer.

21 MEMBER SHROYER: A question. Is the

22 motion intended to allow them to come to the Master

23 Plan and Zoning, or to waive it totally to the

24 Planning Commission? I believe it's the latter, but





1 I want to make sure.

2 MEMBER KOCAN: It's my intent that it

3 waives it for the committee as well as when they come

4 forward that they can bring the Traffic Study from

5 the Promenade and the Catholic Central study, that's

6 on file with the City.

7 MR. SCHULTZ: I guess, the Commission

8 does, based on what the Chair read, have to make some

9 findings as to the basis for the waiver. There's not

10 even a rezoning application before the Commission and

11 there may not be for sometime. It's possible the

12 scenario would be if you waive it tonight, the

13 obligation to bring it when they come in for

14 rezoning, that that could be 18 months, 36 months, or

15 four years from now.

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, let me read

17 a portion of this letter.

18 MEMBER KOCAN: Or we can put a

19 stipulation stating within the next six months.

20 MR. SCHULTZ: Is there a reason for

21 doing it now if it's not required at this step or

22 even the next step or three steps from now?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Let me just read

24 part of this letter.




1 You may be aware that we have submitted

2 applications to change our Master Plan

3 designation from OST to B2, as well as the

4 actual rezoning application. This was at the

5 suggestion and counsel of City Planner,

6 Tim Schmitt. Obviously the properties have

7 little value now as residences due to the area


8 development. Our plans are to place the

9 properties up for sale should the Commission

10 grant our request. On Tuesday, February 12, a

11 few days after submitting the rezoning

12 applications, Ms. Freeman called me and asked

13 for a Traffic Study. I admit to

14 misunderstanding when Mr. Schmitt told me about

15 the Traffic Study requirement. I thought the

16 City did the study, especially when I was

17 charged $150 at the time I submitted the

18 rezoning application.

19 So they obviously sent this in, the

20 rezoning. So why can't we have the motion stand,

21 either pass or fail according to the vote?

22 MR. SCHULTZ: Commission's pleasure.

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Anybody have any

24 other questions or comments?





1 Mr. Evancoe.

2 MR. EVANCOE: I guess the only thing I

3 would say is that the Traffic Studies that exist

4 there now are based on the zoning that is presently

5 there. B2 uses, as you can imagine, could generate

6 significantly more traffic than OST does, and so what

7 they're adding to the mix is more traffic. And if

8 you don't ask them to quantify that, it weakens your

9 ability to make any requirements you as proceed

10 forward.

11 Mr. Schultz' question to me is if they

12 don't do it, will the Commission require the staff to

13 do the Traffic Study? And I presume you would not.

14 If we did, we would probably have to bill the

15 Applicant and in that event they're paying for it

16 either way.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, I would

18 assume what these people basically want is to -- and

19 B2 might not be the appropriate zoning. But I assume

20 by this letter and by everything we've seen, that

21 these residents do not want to keep their property

22 residential. They would like to rezone it, sell it

23 and move.

24 So wouldn't the traffic study be




1 incumbent upon the person who bought the property?

2 MR. EVANCOE: It would be whoever is

3 the Applicant for the rezoning.


5 MR. SCHULTZ: How about a compromise.

6 How about you give them -- it sounds like there is

7 some sentiment to waive this, at least until we know

8 what we're dealing with. If they're being asked to

9 produce it now in order for their application to be

10 processed, you could give them some kind of temporary

11 or at least conditional waiver, and allow the Master

12 Plan Committee to do its work without them being held

13 up because they haven't submitted this piece.

14 But if somebody comes in with a

15 rezoning request that looks like it's substantial or

16 for an intense use, you may want to be able to have

17 the opportunity to go back and say, you know what,

18 we're going to need that study after all.

19 Conditionally, to let them go forward

20 so that the City says you can't move from here,

21 that's one thing. I don't know if the Commission is

22 really ready or has enough information to say we

23 don't ever want it.

24 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Did you have a




1 comment, Mr. Papp?

2 MEMBER PAPP: The last meeting we

3 brought up the traffic on Wixom Road. We brought up

4 that there were 22 roads that lead to Wixom Road, and

5 I asked if Wixom Road could handle the traffic with

6 the additional Catholic Central going in, and I was

7 assured that yes, it could. You're dealing with

8 three properties. What possibly could they build on

9 those three properties to generate traffic that would

10 be far more than the 22 roads that already lead

11 there, and the 4,000 seats in the stadium?

12 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: And it is less than

13 four acres.

14 MR. PAPP: It's less than four acres,

15 right. I mean, we're not going to put a used car lot

16 there, you know.

17 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: B2 has a lot, but

18 we don't know if that's applicable at this point.

19 But like for example, a convenience store, that's an

20 in and out thing. You know, I don't know. I think


21 there is a motion on the table.

22 MEMBER KOCAN: I'm willing to amend

23 the motion to say for an eight or nine-month period.






1 MEMBER PAPP: Second.

2 MEMBER RUYLE: With that, I'll vote

3 with the motion. Other than that, I would have voted

4 against it.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: No more comments?

6 (There were no further comments

7 from the Commission members.)

8 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Can we vote on the

9 motion, please, Ms. McBeth.

10 MS. McBETH: Thank you.

11 Commissioner Papp.


13 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Ruyle.


15 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Shroyer.


17 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Avdoulos.


19 MS. McBETH: Commissioner Kocan.


21 MS. McBETH: And Chairperson Nagy.


23 MS. McBETH: Motion passes 5 to 1.






1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We do not have any

2 Matters for Discussion.


4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Do we have any

5 Special Reports?

6 (There were no Special Reports

7 by the Commission members.)


9 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: This is our last

10 Audience Participation. Is there anybody in audience

11 that would like to address the Commission?

12 MR. HOGAN: I have some pictures for

13 you, but due to the hour, I think I'll just go ahead

14 and do the verbal stuff.

15 I have been concerned recently-

16 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Excuse me. You

17 didn't identify yourself.

18 MR. HOGAN: Wayne Hogan, H-o-g-a-n.

19 Recently going through the complexes

20 and parking lots during the snow removal audits and

21 looking at how much in compliance they are with the

22 local ordinances and what common sense dictates, I

23 see a lot of trouble with the policy that Novi has.

24 Recently, within the last week, someone






1 has talked to some of the people that you're

2 contracting, to improve, and it did improve for one

3 snow storm, but that was the extent of it. Usually

4 when it snows like what happened the other day

5 happens, we give it one day, then we give it another

6 day, and then those types of things should be cleaned

7 up. As far as parking, a ton of snow on one

8 handicapped parking space, but every other place in

9 the parking lot is clear. Those types of things.

10 In the snow issues, and frankly the

11 access issues at the senior housing places you have,

12 there are curbs everywhere. There are a handful,

13 literally a handful, of curb cuts in the whole

14 Meadowbrook Commons Complex. There are curbs

15 everywhere. This is a complex that handles senior

16 citizens, many of them with mobility issues and

17 persons with disabilities. And forward thinking is

18 not taking place when those types of things are being

19 done.

20 There's some stuff that's being built

21 now, there's some additional senior stuff on the map

22 to be done, but I still see these curbs going in all

23 over the place. There is a place over on Twelve

24 Oaks, I can't remember the name of it, it's just to




1 the east of Twelve Oaks, again with the curbs all the

2 way around. Everything is eight inches off the

3 ground. We're talking about people who have issues

4 with stepping up even from hips and so on. And these

5 are places that were made specifically for seniors

6 and, this is what gets me with the curb cuts.

7 The curb cuts are not just for people

8 in wheelchairs to get back and forth from one surface

9 to another, they're also for people with walkers and

10 people who can't step up, and people just in general

11 to make it easier to egress.

12 Another issue has been for the last

13 couple of meetings I have talked to -- the meeting

14 times, dates, and information, the agendas and

15 minutes being caught up, being done on time, and

16 today I just went to the City Council meeting and let

17 them know about the huge number of meetings that were

18 not taking place that were on the maps, that were on

19 the calendars, were on the kiosks, were on people's

20 list that when you call up their offices, that didn't

21 take place at all. If they didn't take place, they

22 didn't take place at the right time. They were

23 cancelled for two or three months at a time.

24 Tonight, I came here at 7 o'clock. On





1 the web site its says 7:30, on the calendar it says

2 7:30. I called five times up here today, and I was

3 told 7 o'clock, 7 o'clock, 7 o'clock. And that was

4 with the person looking at the kiosk right over there

5 that's five feet from their desk, and they told me it

6 says 7 o'clock on it.

7 I was here at 7 o'clock. There wasn't

8 a Planning meeting going on at 7 o'clock.

9 We have also some issues that have

10 come up right away -- I'll try to be at quick as I

11 can. There are some places that are being built now

12 and the handicap and the ADA issues are just being

13 tossed out the window. I'll give you a for instance;

14 you can drive by yourself one day and take a look.

15 We have places that are awesome like the Outback,

16 Novi Police Department, they keep their places nice

17 and clean, the accessible parking is right there and

18 easy to use.

19 The utility of, for instance, handicap

20 parking out here is 50 percent at best. And 50

21 percent at best, half of it being disturbed by snow

22 makes it even worse. But the place, Caribou, over

23 here, Caribou Coffee, Sprint, Blockbuster, across

24 from the hospital, they don't have one curb cut for





1 six stores. All the way around the corner, all the

2 way down the other side, not one curb cut. Of

3 course, there's no handicap parking in that entire

4 area either. And the same type of a thing exists

5 over at Pheasant Run. Six stores, some of them are

6 double-fronted stores, but six stores all the way

7 down, there is not one curb cut, no ramp. Not any

8 way for one person to get from one surface to

9 another.

10 Those are just coming up and coming up

11 and coming up. And the van access issue, responsible

12 van access, if you see the places that do it, for

13 instance over at the hospital now, where they've made

14 major improvements, it took three years but they made

15 a lot of van access on both sides and not curbs on

16 three sides like you do out here.

17 They did patch the holes up on the

18 patio that goes right in the doors of the library.

19 Everybody on two feet, every person, went over that

20 hole every day. Every person in and out of the place

21 had to go over that hole. They finally did patch

22 that, but they have three sided curbs where you have

23 to park for your handicapping. And you have a ramp

24 that's literally 20 degrees and not even a foot





1 long. And it's an inch and a half off the ground for

2 you to try to get up onto the patio, and you open

3 your car immediately onto an 11-inch curb.

4 Let's see. I'll try to be quick

5 here. As far as if you look at the Outback, the

6 Outback has got really nice access on both sides. It

7 doesn't kill people's business, it actually improves

8 business. If people just aren't able to go to places

9 that don't have adequate parking, and some people say

10 well, it hurts their business, well it hurts the

11 convenience for everybody in the neighborhood if they

12 can't use the facilities.

13 The Red Hot & Blue is another place on

14 the A list. They clean their snow up immediately.

15 There's access on both sides of the cars, and it's a

16 restaurant where they depend on high turnover, so it

17 just makes sense for them to make it as easy as

18 possible.

19 With regard to the Catholic Central

20 issue, I made some comments with it regarding tossing

21 parking for these games into practice parking lots

22 and parking lots, and grass and gravel and ditches,

23 and everything else that someone can pull a car into.

24 Everybody has to traverse all of those different





1 elements as well, getting from those vehicles to the

2 place. And they only had on their Plans or in their

3 drawings, nine handicapped places for the 3,000

4 seats.

5 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They had 13.

6 MR. HOGAN: Pardon me?

7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: They had 13.

8 MR. HOGAN: Yeah, but the others

9 aren't even close to the place.

10 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: I don't mean to be

11 rude to you, but you are double the amount of time we

12 usually give. Could you wrap it up?

13 MR. HOGAN: Yes. I think that needs

14 to be looked at very carefully, because I still

15 haven't had a return call from Father yet regarding

16 what their plans are for people who have mobility

17 issues that are going to use that place to come and

18 watch games. The moms and dads and grandpas and baby

19 strollers, you know, the gamut.

20 Why are we eliminated from

21 participating just because someone has the ability to

22 do so?

23 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Well, we will

24 be -- we have requested that they come back for Final





1 Site Plan, so you'll have another chance to review

2 that before we approve it.

3 MR. HOGAN: Okay. Thank you. Just

4 one more thing. Please keep in the forward thinking

5 mode on accessibility, because the accessibility

6 issues are going to be getting better for us.

7 They're already in the works to get better so people

8 should be making it, instead of 12 to 1 on the ramp,

9 15 to 1 on the ramp. It is already in the works, so

10 why have to retrofit everything that comes down the

11 pike. I would just suggest that would be a nice

12 thing to have happen and it's not that deleterious to

13 their appearance.


15 Mr. Hogan, we always appreciate your comments.

16 Is there a motion to adjourn?

17 MEMBER RUYLE: Are you closing the

18 audience participation?

19 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Oh, I'm sorry.

20 I'm closing the audience participation.


22 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Is there a motion

23 to adjourn?

24 MEMBER RUYLE: Move to adjourn.





1 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: Thank you very

2 much. Is there a second?


4 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: All in favor say

5 aye.


7 CHAIRPERSON NAGY: We are adjourned.

8 (The meeting was adjourned

9 at 12:35 a.m.)

10 _ _ _

11 I, MAUREEN A. HARAN, do hereby certify

12 that I have recorded stenographically, the

13 proceedings had and the testimony taken in the

14 above-entitled matter, at the time and place

15 hereinbefore set forth; and I do further certify that

16 the foregoing transcript, consisting of 242

17 pages, is a full, true and correct transcript of my

18 stenographic notes.


20 Signature on File

21 Maureen A. Haran, C.S.R. 3606

22 03-19-03

23 (Date) Siganture on File

Donna Jernigan, Planning Assistant

Date Approved: April 16, 2003