(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington

ABSENT: Members Capello and Vrettas (absent/excused)

ALSO PRESENT: City Attorney Dennis Watson, Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Engineering Consultant Dave Bluhm, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Water Resources Specialist Sue Tepatti, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Greg Capote, and Planning Aide Steven Cohen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there are any additions or other changes to the agenda? Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she would like to add under Matters for Consideration, as Item (5) Schedule an Executive Session for the Special Meeting of May 29, 1996 to Discuss Litigation. Member Hoadley asked if the session would be prior to the meeting? Chairperson Lorenzo replied, yes. Mr. Rogers asked what time would the session be held? Chairperson Lorenzo replied that the Commission will get to that once they get to that item on the agenda. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there would be any other additions. Seeing none, she entertained a motion to approve the agenda as amended.

PM-96-05-091 - TO APPROVE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Bonaventura, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY:

To approve the Agenda as amended.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked all those in favor of approving the Agenda as amended, please signify by saying aye, those opposed no. Chairperson Lorenzo stated motion passes unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-091 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the next item on the agenda is Audience Participation and anyone wishing to address the Commission on any topic that is not scheduled for a Public Hearing may do so for a period of three minutes.

Chuck Young, 50910 W. Nine Mile Road - stated that he would like to discuss the development in the SWAN area, particularly the new proposed recreational zoning that could possibly occur in the future. Mr. Young explained that basically what that would do is bring commercial into residential, along with an ice rink. Mr. Young advised that he is not taking a position for or against the proposal, but he has investigated the whole corridor along Beck to Napier Roads and he believes that it is going to be very well developed with Singh Corporation as the major developer. Mr. Young further advised that a deep sewer will not be constructed after the problems that occurred with the Garfield Association. Mr. Young explained that he is asking the Commission to keep him aware of what is occurring in that area.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Commission. Seeing no one, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the first Audience Participation and advised that the second will be after the midpoint break and a third before adjournment.

CORRESPONDENCE

Member Weddington advised that she has three letters that were not included in the packets. The first is from Mrs. George Taylor, Mrs. Marjorie F’Geppert, and

Miss Sue Ann F’Geppert residents on Meadowbrook Road. Member Weddington advised that the letter states that they are concerned about the increased traffic after reviewing the Sinai Hospital and DMC notices. Member Weddington further read that even though Meadowbrook is quite a distance from DMC, traffic will increase to reach Twelve Mile Road. The thought of widening Meadowbrook again is unthinkable to them after they just went through it a short time ago. The letter further states that as residents and tax payers, they should receive consideration in this matter. In addition, the writers advised that it is almost impossible to enter or exit their driveways.

Member Weddington reported that the second letter is also in regard to the Sinai Medical Center plan from Deborah Ludke on Riverview Lane. Member Weddington advised that the writer stated that she is a nine year resident of Novi and has worked as a hospital laboratory professional for sixteen years. Ms. Ludke is concerned about the need for planning and coordinating with other communities for medical facilities. Ms. Ludke sites a Detroit News article regarding UAW efforts to cut health costs and believes that the building of redundant facilities and the duplication of services may exceed the communities actual health needs. Ms. Ludke also stated that every hospital in the metropolitan Detroit area is experiencing cutbacks and is looking for affiliations, privatizing and farming out lab work that was once performed within the hospital facility. In addition, Ms. Ludke feels that most of the hospitals are not utilizing their full capacity in terms of the number of beds that they have. Ms. Ludke further wrote that many of the hospitals are being closed and are consolidating their operations. Ms. Ludke stated that she has used the Novi Providence facility, but questions whether additional facilities that may duplicate such services. In addition, Ms. Ludke sites Botsford, Providence, St. Mary’s, and Huron Valley as all being within twenty minutes of Novi that serve as existing full service hospitals. Ms. Ludke asked that if duplication of service is necessary, can it be provided at an existing facility or does the provider just want to move out of Detroit? Ms. Ludke explained that Novi needs office and light industrial development and thinks that at this time, Novi needs to do some homework about health care before the development can be approved.

Member Weddington reported that the last letter is from Lynn F. Kocan of Ennishore Drive which states that Circuit Court Judge Richard Kuhn has ordered the reversal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Special Land Use for Interlock Corporation to build its factory on the property abutting residents of Meadowbrook Lake Subdivision. Ms. Kocan advised that several statements in the Judge’s opinion support her request to the City in June of 1994 to amend Section 1900 ordinances. Ms. Kocan went on to write that one of the most significant statements in the opinion is that the intent of an ordinance is and should be treated as separate from performance standards. Ms. Kocan believes that it is in the City’s best interest to change and/or clarify sections of that ordinance prior to future developments being proposed abutting residents. Ms. Kocan reported that Dales and Graphics is currently being reviewed for a location next to Meadowbrook Glens Subdivision. Ms. Kocan stated that while the Implementation and Review Committee has been addressing this amendment, they have not discussed this issue since February of 1996. Ms. Kocan further stated that she spoke with Greg Capote who indicated that the discussion would probably continue at the June 5 Implementation meeting and she would like to be informed of the exact date.

Member Weddington advised that the letters will be placed on file for the record.

CONSENT AGENDA - REMOVAL AND APPROVALS

1. Approval of the April 17, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she has one correction to the April 17, 1996 minutes. Chairperson Lorenzo noted that on Page 22, the first paragraph, the last sentence reads, "seeing no one, she opened the floor to continue the Public Hearing for SoccerZone" instead should read "and seeing no one, she closed Audience Participation and continued with the consultants’ reports for SoccerZone."

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if there are no other changes, corrections, or removals the Chair will entertain a motion to approve the items under the Consent Agenda.

PM-96-05-092 TO APPROVE BOTH ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA

Moved by Weddington, seconded Hodges, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: Motion to approve both items on the Consent Agenda.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked the motioner and the seconder if their motion included the amended minutes of April 17, 1996? Both replied that it did. Chairperson Lorenzo then asked all those in favor of approving the Consent Agenda with the April 17, 1996 minutes amended to signify by saying aye, those opposed say no and reported that the motion was carried unanimously.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-092 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo informed the applicant that the one-year extension for Preliminary Site Plan approval for the Hampton Woods Office & Residential Care Facility, SP 95-12B has been approved.

1. SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP 96-06A

Property located at the southeast corner of Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan, Phasing Plan, Woodland Permit, and Wetland Permit approvals.

Jim Cruthis of Rossetti Associates stated that he is representing Sinai Hospital and Sinai Park. Mr. Cruthis advised that Phillip S. Schaengold, President and CEO of Sinai Hospital is also present. Mr. Cruthis reported that they have tried to keep the building compact and that the distance between the various facilities is a crucial planning issue. Mr. Cruthis further reported that they have tried to keep parking within proximity of the facility to keep the distances down and to surround it with the facilities that they need. Mr. Cruthis advised that the medical office buildings and diagnostic and treatment facilities are designed to surround a short stay hospital like facility. Mr. Cruthis advised that the Commission is looking at a landscape plan and a wetland’s development in specific areas on the plan (he pointed toward the plan). Mr. Cruthis explained that while wetlands pose certain planning problems, he looks at them an opportunity. Mr. Cruthis believes that he backdrop to the complex is a wonderful opportunity to develop an outstanding site and therefore, has paid close attention to that with their wetland consultants and their landscape people. Mr. Cruthis reported that the size and parking specifics are in the Commissioner’s packets. Mr. Cruthis advised that they were also asked to produce a concept rendering that will give the Commission an idea about the character of the plan. The two story diagnostic and treatment and office building is in the front and there is a five story building proposed behind it. Mr. Cruthis explained that the five stories do not really look like a five story building because it is situated behind the two story buildings and because of the perspective and distances, its mass and bulk are minimized. Mr. Cruthis believes that they have an outstanding concept and they are pleased about how it fits into the site.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant reported that he has reviewed the preliminary site and phasing plans for Sinai Park in his letter dated May 3, 1996 and recommends approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant, reported that they have reviewed the preliminary site plan and the traffic study that was required per the City’s ordinance in his May 6, 1996 report and recommends conditional approval. Mr. Arroyo reported that there were forecast turning movements at the intersections as part of the traffic study. The results were compared versus the warrants that the City has to determine if passing lanes, center turn lanes, or deceleration lanes are warranted. Mr. Arroyo advised that it was found that a deceleration lane and tapers are warranted for the Meadowbrook Road approach and although that has been provided, the acceleration taper still needs to be shown and fine tuned as part of the final site plan. Mr. Arroyo went on to state that passing lanes or center turn lanes for the southbound left turn volume was shown to be relatively low given the location of the site and it was determined that a passing or center turn lane would not be warranted at this time. However, Mr. Arroyo recommends that this issue be reevaluated at each phase to check for change in the existing conditions and the projected conditions. Mr. Arroyo explained that a passing lane was not required for the approach to Beck Road for the Providence Park project, but noted that after continuous review of the subsequent phases, it was determined that the warrants had been met for a passing lane and it has now been installed. Mr. Arroyo summarized by stating that they are recommending a similar approach since it is also a phased project. Mr. Arroyo stated that the phasing plan is now acceptable in terms of internal site issues and that the road proposed around the entire complex in Phase II is an improvement. Mr. Arroyo recommends approval subject to the items noted in his report.

Dave Bluhm of JCK reported that they have reviewed the plans several times and as Mr. Arroyo mentioned, there are two points of access to Twelve Mile Road and to Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Bluhm also noted that the main circulation through the site is to be built to public standards with 28' back to back. Mr. Bluhm advised that water mains will be looped through the site and around the building from an existing 16" main in Twelve Mile Road. They will further extend the main out to and up the entire frontage on Meadowbrook Road per the City’s master plan. Mr. Bluhm stated that there is an existing 12" sanitary sewer on the east side of the site, just off site. Mr. Bluhm advised that the easement actually abuts the property and they will be extending sewers into service the site from that. Mr. Bluhm further advised that a public sewer will be brought in and looped around the south side of the building, stubbing off on the west side and there will be no need to service west of Meadowbrook Road with this development. Mr. Bluhm added that the sewer has recently been constructed during the last two or three years and down stream of the sewer there is a pump station. Mr. Bluhm reported that the pump station has identified only a certain amount of capacity for the property and is deficient by 25% according to their calculations with ultimate Phase III development. Mr. Bluhm advised that the first two phases have adequate capacity to handle it, but the third is in question. Mr. Bluhm reported that improvements to the pump station can be made fairly easy and increased to a service level that would handle the addition of the hospital. Mr. Bluhm would like to make the provision that it will have to be explored when the Phase III final site plan comes in. Mr. Bluhm expects that until Phase III is built, other areas may change and capacity may be available at that time. Mr. Bluhm advised that they are going to hold off until then.

Mr. Bluhm reported that the storm sewers collect the drainage that is directed to two locations for detention. The first location is immediately east of the buildings and is a constructed sedimentation detention basin north of the wetland at the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Bluhm advised that the storm water will be detained for approximately 50% of the site in that location and the restricted flows will be discharged into the wetland at the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Bluhm reported that from there, the wetland drains to a fairly well defined channel off site at the southeast corner and then continues to the south and east toward the M-5 connector. Mr. Bluhm advised that the other proposed detention area is in the southwest corner where there is a fairly better wetland with standing water. The developer is proposing shallow ponding in the wetland area on a temporary basis, roughly four to five inches and by their calculations, two to three hours of duration for the storm event. The detention area will discharge into another well defined swale that tracks off to the south and east and interconnects the two swales together offsite moving further to the south and east.

Mr. Bluhm added that they advised the applicant to contact the City’s DPW for the existence of utility payback. Mr. Bluhm reported that an easement for storm water conveyance will also be required across the southwest wetland area per the City’s Storm Water Master Plan, as some offsite storm water in Meadowbrook Road into the west actually conveys itself through that wetland. In addition, Mr. Bluhm advised that an easement will be required for the proposed sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road and for the water main to be constructed across Diversified Recruiters, which is the cut out piece adjacent to Meadowbrook Road. (end of tape) Mr. Bluhm reported that the retention basin should be sized to allow the offsite water from Meadowbrook Road and west of Meadowbrook Road to flow as freely as it does with the current agricultural rate, although they won’t be detaining it at that location. Mr. Bluhm concluded by stating that the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and they are recommending approval.

Sue Tepatti of JCK stated that there are a number of issues regarding the wetlands and referred to her May 9, 1996 report. Ms. Tepatti began by stating that the plan shows numerous wetland pockets throughout the site and the majority fall under the two acre description in the ordinance and as such, are reviewed under slightly different conditions. Ms. Tepatti advised that there are two larger wetland systems located in the southwest and southeast corners of the parcel. Ms. Tepatti reported that the impacts that require a wetland permit include the filling of the small wetland pockets (which are all less than two acres), the reconstruction and enhancement of the northeastern wetland and incorporation of this wetland into the mitigation detention area which flows south. Ms. Tepatti said that portions of the large wetland in the southwest corner of the site are proposed to be filled for the development. Ms. Tepatti also reported that the western arm of the wetland (described as J in the southeast corner of the site) extends into the parking and building and is proposed to be filled. Ms. Tepatti reported that Mr. Bluhm had already mentioned that there are two areas where the storm water will be ultimately discharged through the wetlands and then offsite to the south. Ms. Tepatti explained that a DNR permit will also be required for the site and is currently under review. Ms. Tepatti stated that any conditions placed upon the development will also become a part of the City’s permit.

Ms. Tepatti stated that her office has walked the site several times with the applicant’s wetland consultant and they have determined that the majority of the small wetlands do not meet the essential criteria in the wetland ordinance due to their small size, the nature of the vegetation, and the seasonal hydrology. Ms. Tepatti further reported that they do not appear to be essential and would not remain viable systems even if they were preserved and surrounded by development. Ms. Tepatti therefore advised that they do not object to the fill of those areas.

Ms. Tepatti reported that the small northern tip of the southwestern wetland that is being filled is a marginal area because it is primarily dominated by dogwood and is seasonally saturated. Ms. Tepatti further reported that due to its nature the area is difficult to work around and because of the lack of alternatives to try and avoid that, she does not object to that fill. Ms. Tepatti is concerned about the larger amount of fill on the same wetland which is approximately one half acre and fills a higher quality portion of the wetland. Ms. Tepatti advised that the DNR is also evaluating that fill. Ms. Tepatti stated that the applicant has looked at shifting its parking around the building to attempt to minimize the impact to the area. Ms. Tepatti further stated that the applicant is having difficulty with the building lay out because it can’t be shifted to the east or the north due to the circular road that surrounds the road and the amount of required parking. Ms. Tepatti reported that mitigation is considered when losses appear to be unavoidable. Ms. Tepatti further reported that the applicant is proposing mitigation, with most of it west of the fill on the same wetland. Ms. Tepatti stated that the area will initially be constructed as a sedimentation and detention basin during construction. Ms. Tepatti advised that once the construction is finished, the sedimentation basin will be converted to a wetland mitigation area and water quality area and then integrated with the existing system to replace the functions that would be lost due to the fill.

Ms. Tepatti stated that the arm of Wetland J in the southeast corner that is being filled is a marginal wetland and extends up slope into an area that is primarily field and small dogwood. The wetland primarily contains stands of dogwood with herbaceous vegetation underneath and light seasonal standing water. Ms. Tepatti advised that the wetland that continues to the south of that area is primarily larger trees and shrubs that contain a little more standing water and is a little higher quality. Ms. Tepatti advised that the area is difficult to work around due to the configuration of the arm of the wetland and how it extends into the site. Ms. Tepatti advised that the applicant has proposed mitigation for that as well.

Ms. Tepatti reported that the rest of the mitigation is along the eastern property line and that the applicant proposes to incorporate wetland E, an existing wetland. This wetland also falls under the two acre limit in the ordinance and is currently in a slightly degraded condition due to some utility construction in the past, as well as some already dying vegetation within it. Ms. Tepatti advised that the applicant is proposing to enhance that area and incorporate it into the remaining mitigation areas and detention plan.

Ms. Tepatti stated that the mitigation total for the regulated areas and the state regulated fill is proposed at a two to one ratio. Ms. Tepatti further stated that the storm water will be discharged to the eastern basin along the property line and is not being detained within Wetland J. The storm water will be released at the agricultural rate at the northern end of the wetland in an attempt to maintain some hydrology and will then be conveyed through that wetland and out the existing channel as it currently functions. Ms. Tepatti concluded by stating that based upon those comments, her office recommends approval of the plan but has a variety of conditions. Those conditions include obtaining a DEQ Permit, that further mitigation plans are developed and submitted for review, that oil and gas separators and 4' sumps are utilized in the storm structures, that a schedule and plan are submitted for the conversion of the sedimentation basin and mitigation areas with monitoring plans, and that the landscape plans provide for plantings at the slopes of wetland impact areas.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect reported that the regulated woodland on the site is found in the center of the site adjacent to Meadowbrook, surrounding the little excepted parcel that is shown on the map. Ms. Lemke advised that the site is approximately three acres and the plan proposes to remove all of these. Ms. Lemke reported that the woodlands are low quality consisting primarily of elm, locust, black cherry, apple, and black alder that range in 8-10" dbh and smaller in size. Ms. Lemke stated that approximately 95 trees would be removed as a result and further described the woodlands as isolated with no connections to the other woodlands in the area and is pioneer species so that the quality of the tree species and sizes are low. Ms. Lemke further added that the wildlife habitat is also low. In summary, Ms. Lemke stated that they do not have any problem with the applicant removing the woodland because they will be replacing it according to the schedule that is in the ordinance. Ms. Lemke reported that the applicant will address the landscape plan at the time of final site submission, but they have conceptually proposed a replanting based upon different communities throughout the site. Ms. Lemke believes it is an interesting concept and a good replacement plan for the lower quality area of regulated woodland. Ms. Lemke added that they will also require that a minimum of 25% of the landscaping have fruit and nut bearing capacity and that the vegetative connections are established between wetland areas. Ms. Lemke further stated that she is primarily looking at the southern edge of the site for those connections. In conclusion, Ms. Lemke is recommending approval of the woodland’s permit with three standard conditions in her April 22, 1996 letter.

Chris Pargoff, City Forester stated that the woodlands will be entirely removed and there will be a mitigation replanting taking place on site with different communities of forested type species. Mr. Pargoff advised that the applicant is trying to recreate a natural beech maple forest in their replanting. Mr. Pargoff concluded by stating that he concurs with Ms. Lemke’s review of the project.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated for the record that she has a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department which recommends approval. Chairperson

Lorenzo advised that this is a Public Hearing and opened the floor to the public.

Andrew Mutch, 24541 Hampton Court stated that his only comment he has about the site plan this evening is in regard to the 5' sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Mutch stated that the City has plans for a safety bike path traveling north along Meadowbrook Road to almost the southern edge of the property and is planned to go to the east and follow M-5 to Twelve Mile Road. Mr. Mutch guesses that his request is to the petitioner because they are not required by the City’s ordinance to replace the 5' sidewalk with an 8' asphalt bike path in terms of utility and uniformity along Meadowbrook Road. Mr. Mutch thinks that it would be more useful in terms of an overall pedestrian oriented environment.

John Dinan stated that he owns property directly across the street from the proposed site and wondered if he could be given a timing schedule on the phasing. Chairperson Lorenzo replied that she will make sure that the Commission asks the applicant those questions.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Dinan to give his name and address to the Clerk. Mr. Dinan gave the information verbally and stated that his name is John Dinan, 11725 Merriman Road, Livonia, Michigan.

Howard Friedlander stated that he owns the property immediately south of the proposed development and began by stating that he is in favor of the proposed development and welcomes Sinai as his neighbor. Mr. Friedlander stated that he has submitted a letter for the packet and wanted to point out that he is concerned about any possible adverse impact to his property as a result of the alteration of the storm water. Mr. Friedlander advised that he is currently in the direct path to the south as water travels across from property to property. Mr. Friedlander is asking for some kind of assurance that if there were an adverse impact to his property that appropriate action would be taken to correct it.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this issue. Seeing no one, she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley advised that all of his questions will probably not be addressed and asked permission to come back and address some issues because he does not know where to start. Member Hoadley advised that he has reviewed the Impact Statement and the Traffic Studies that the petitioner has provided and also took the opportunity to look at the property with Sue Tepatti. Member Hoadley stated that it was so wet that they were unable to get in with a 4x4, but they were able to walk into one area.

Member Hoadley began by asking if the northwest wetland, where the main parking lot is proposed, is the one that he observed. Ms. Tepatti replied that he was correct. Member Hoadley does not believe that he saw all of it. Member Hoadley reported that what he saw did not particularly look like a wetland. Member Hoadley advised that the area looked more like a low depression that was wet and muddy with no reeds or other plantings that is usually associated with a wetland. Member Hoadley further stated that he believed that at least part of that area could be filled in without too much concern. Member Hoadley advised that although the consultant says there is no alternative to the parking, he believes that the parking could be moved forward and reduce some of the impact to the trees that are going to be removed.

Member Hoadley is also concerned about the impact on the neighboring property. He further stated that he has a problem with the proposal to fill Wetland C because it is a continuation of another owner’s wetland and property. Member Hoadley asked Ms. Tepatti’s to comment about why Wetland C has to be filled in and why the road can’t bypass the area. Ms. Tepatti replied that Wetland C is small in size and it does extend onto a neighbor’s property. Ms. Tepatti explained that even though it extends onto the neighbor’s property to the east, it is still quite small. She further explained that although it does have some seasonal standing water at the property line, she is sure that at the time of grading that Mr. Bluhm will review the grading to be certain that there is no excess ponded water caused. Ms. Tepatti advised that even if they preserved the area, the wetlands would still be quite small in size and that it is under a quarter acre consisting of some small dogwoods and a lot of grasses with scattered trees.

Member Hoadley stated that Ms. Tepatti and Ms. Lemke have reported that this is the only alternative that can work. Member Hoadley reported that there are other alternatives and asked if one viable alternative would be to purchase more property. Ms. Tepatti replied that the applicant has stated that they have looked into that and perhaps they can better address that issue. Member Hoadley reiterated by asking if it is a viable alternative? Ms. Tepatti replied that she cannot say if it is viable, but believes that the applicant did pursue that and if the properties are not for sale, then she does not believe that they would consider that viable.

Member Hoadley asked if downsizing the project is a viable alternative? Ms. Tepatti replied that is always an alternative, as well as the no build alternative. Member Hoadley asked if the building could go up more than two stories and reduce the size of the footprint. Ms. Tepatti replied that she is not certain what the height restriction is. Member Hoadley replied it would be 65'. Ms. Tepatti replied that might be something that Brandon can comment on. Member Hoadley stated that is an alternative, isn’t it? Ms. Tepatti replied that if it meshes with the applicant’s design and she is not sure that they would agree to that. Member Hoadley reiterated by asking if it is an alternative? Ms. Tepatti replied that she does not know. Member Hoadley went on by stating that if the footprint could be reduced if the building went up and asked if that was a fact statement. Ms. Tepatti replied that she did not know. Member Hoadley stated that logically if the height of the building is raised, doesn’t it shrink the footprint?

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that Member Hoadley has asked some questions and Ms. Tepatti has tried to answer them to the best of her knowledge and suggested that they move on.

Member Hoadley reiterated that another alternative would be to reduce the size, but asked if a parking garage would be an alternative. Ms. Tepatti replied that she is not certain if it is allowed in the area, but a parking deck or if the parking is reduced can be an alternative. Ms. Tepatti restated to Member Hoadley that perhaps Mr. Rogers or Mr. Arroyo can comment on whether or not that is an acceptable alternative.

Member Hoadley stated that it is a fact from looking at the site plan that more than two thirds of the site is being paved or has buildings on it and asked Ms. Tepatti if that was correct? Ms. Tepatti replied that she does not know the percentage, but there is a lot of impervious area. Member Hoadley asked what is the total percentage of wetlands to the total acreage. Ms. Tepatti replied that she would have to look it up, but believes there is 9 acres of total wetland. Member Hoadley then calculated that 9 into 39 would be 25% and asked if that would be a fair statement? Ms. Tepatti reiterated that yes, there is quite a few. In addition, Ms. Tepatti stated that the majority of the wetlands are the smaller wetland systems and the rest of the wetlands are being preserved.

Member Hoadley asked what the percentage of woodlands is on the site? Ms. Lemke replied that there is almost 3 acres of regulated woodlands. Member Hoadley asked Ms. Lemke to point them out. Ms. Lemke replied that they are located around the excepted parcel (pointed to plan) adjacent to Meadowbrook. Member Hoadley asked if they would be around the already developed piece of property. Ms. Lemke replied that there is a little house on there. Member Hoadley asked if most of the trees are going to fall because of the parking? Ms. Lemke replied that Member Hoadley was correct. Member Hoadley then asked if there any other alternatives to this proposed woodland plan? Ms. Lemke replied that there are other alternatives, but in evaluating the quality of the trees, she does not believe that another alternative would warrant saving these trees. Member Hoadley asked what would some of the alternatives be? Ms. Lemke replied that the parking could be reduced and that a lot of the things that he has already mentioned may also work. However, Ms. Lemke determined that it is her opinion that the quality of the woodlands does not warrant that. Member Hoadley stated that part of the woodlands are adjacent to the northeastern parking lot and asked if moving the parking northward would be an alternative? Ms. Lemke replied that it would not because most of the woodlands come down into the southern parking lot and just a small strip travels north of the excepted parcel. Member Hoadley knows that, but it looked like there is quite a bit of space between the northern end of the parking lot and the road and asked if it can be shifted to reduce any impact to the trees that border on the southern part of that particular parking lot. Ms. Lemke replied that it is a possibility. Member Hoadley then asked if that alternative was explored with the petitioner? Ms. Lemke reiterated once again to Member Hoadley that she does not believe that the trees are sufficient quality to explore that. Member Hoadley asked if the trees that would be taken down in that particular area are regulated? Ms. Lemke replied that most of the trees on the site are elm and locust with a few apple. Ms. Lemke further stated that if the parking was moved further north, a few isolated trees would be saved and again with the kind of landscape plan that is proposed, she would rather have those put back in with some good beech, maple, or oak trees.

Member Hoadley asked the Commissioner’s to refer to the supplement that Mr. Cohen supplied. Member Hoadley then instructed them to look at paragraph four of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes which he then read aloud, "Mr. Hirsch said they expect to apply immediately for site plan approval so that they would be able to commence construction of the new campus facilities in approximately the Spring of 1996." Member Hoadley stated that the petitioner wrote that they were initially intending to build two buildings totaling approximately 100,000 sq. ft., which would include primary care physicians, specialists, and a diagnostic and treatment center, all of which would be in a campus-like development including substantial open landscaped areas. Member Hoadley reported that this was the applicant’s testimony to what they hoped to put on the property approximately one year ago. Member Hoadley advised that this plan has suddenly "grown wings" and is now 540,000 sq. ft. Member Hoadley reminded the Commission that the original plan included an area of 40 acres for 100,000 sq. ft. and that he had reservations about rezoning it at that time. Member Hoadley advised that Member Hodges made some powerful arguments that swayed his vote. Member Hoadley thought that 100,000 sq. ft. building on 40 acres would not have caused much infringement on sensitive land but a larger project is going to generate a lot more traffic and questions whether there is a community need now or in the future. Member Hoadley stated that in addition to these problems, there is a similar proposal for an addition to DMC. Member Hoadley believes that because the total final site plan approval includes three phases, it would be difficult to reject Phase III later.

Member Hoadley advised that the letters in the packet also express his concerns about traffic on Meadowbrook. Member Hoadley is specifically concerned about the length of the deceleration/acceleration lanes and asked Mr. Arroyo to testify to their length and how many cars will they hold? Mr. Arroyo replied that the applicant has shown a 100' lane for the deceleration taper lane and a 25' deceleration lane in advance of the turning radius on the preliminary site plan. Mr. Arroyo further stated that the City’s Design and Construction Standards provide for deceleration lanes varying from 25' to 100' in length with 25' being the general standard and 100' being the maximum that is generally required.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Arroyo to explain what he means by the 25' holding and further asked if that is where the car would actually fit after it has pulled off the road. He further asked if it is on an angle. Mr. Arroyo replied that was correct and as a vehicle exits the through lane, there is a 100' taper for deceleration. Mr. Arroyo added that there is a full additional lane that is 25' long and 12' wide prior to making the turn. In terms of length, Mr. Arroyo said that it is roughly a car length or longer. Member Hoadley stated that it would then hold a car and there could be a little problem in blocking that entrance way or coming out. Member Hoadley asked if traffic would tend to stack up on the taper during a car braking situation in the early morning with heavy north bound traffic? Mr. Arroyo advised that it is a free flow right turn and it is not a situation where a stop is necessary to make a right turn. Mr. Arroyo further advised that if it were a situation where traffic would actually have to stop to make a right turn, then the potential for additional stacking would be there. Mr. Arroyo stated that the applicant is forecasting roughly 55 right turns in during the a.m. peak hours. Member Hoadley asked what would happen in a situation similar to a freeway when somebody hits their brakes and begins to slow down? Mr. Arroyo replied that it depends upon where they are. Member Hoadley further stated that traffic will back up sometimes for miles and although it may be just "rubber necking," it is the same situation that could occur here. A slow down will tend to stack up traffic and there is no passing lane there so cars can continue to move. Member Hoadley asked if Mr. Arroyo has a problem with adding a third lane for a turning out? Member Hoadley realizes that people will generally try to turn out of a place in the same direction that they arrive and believes it could pose a dangerous situation if there is no middle lane for making left-hand south bound turns in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. (end of tape)

Mr. Arroyo advised that the traffic study has provided them with a forecast of those inbound left turns. Mr Arroyo further advised that the forecasted figures have been compared with the warrants and with the Design and Construction Standards. Mr. Arroyo reported that it has been shown that the warrants do not appear to be met. As indicated in his letter, Mr. Arroyo believes that it is something that should be evaluated on a phase by phase basis so that when the second phase is ready for construction, there can be an analysis, a count, and a projection based on the Phase II traffic to determine if conditions have changed to a point where a center turn or a passing lane would be warranted. Based on the information and his review of the traffic study, Mr. Arroyo stated that it does not appear to be warranted, particularly in Phase I. Mr. Arroyo advised that one of the reasons is that the majority of the traffic to and from the facility is going to be traveling from either the northeast or the southeast because the bulk of the population is east of the project. In addition, Mr. Arroyo stated that most of the traffic will be traveling from Twelve Mile Road or M-5 and Twelve Mile. Mr. Arroyo advised that traffic from the east would likely use one of the turn arounds on Twelve Mile Road and make a right turn in off the cut on Twelve Mile. Traffic from the south traveling on Meadowbrook Road would make a right turn into the project from the Meadowbrook Road cut. Traffic from the west on Twelve Mile Road would likely continue through Meadowbrook and make a right turn into the driveway onto Twelve Mile Road. Traffic from the north on the gravel portion of Meadowbrook may continue through and make a left turn into the driveway or turn right and make a turn around to enter from Twelve Mile Road. Mr. Arroyo advised that when looking at the direction of approach for traffic to the site, the likelihood of a high volume of inbound left turns at the driveway on Meadowbrook is fairly low. Mr. Arroyo further advised that is why he does not believe, particularly for the first phase, that the warrants will be met for a passing lane or a center turn lane.

Member Hoadley agrees with Mr. Arroyo about the traffic flowing south, but he does not agree with the traffic flowing out of the cut. Member Hoadley believes that the traffic that will turn in, will turn out and there will be a volume of people trying to make left turns. Secondly, Member Hoadley stated that he discovered during his review of the traffic study that the volume counts are from 1990. Mr. Arroyo stated that the counts are from 1995 and that all the turning movement counts and the capacity analysis are also based on 1995 counts. Member Hoadley stated that he is talking about the volume of traffic. Mr. Arroyo replied that the volume of traffic that was the basis for the capacity analysis, the level of service, and all the turning movement counts were done in 1995. Mr. Arroyo added that even the twenty-four hour counts are all from 1995. Mr. Arroyo believes that some historical counts were older than 1995 in the traffic study, but all the analysis was based on 1995 traffic. Member Hoadley stated that he is referring to trip distribution and assessment that the petitioner provided.

Member Hoadley read the trip distribution from page five, third paragraph; "Trip distribution for the proposed development was based on population estimates of 1993. The population data was received from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) and based on the 1990 census information. The population of municipalities within a ten mile radius were used." Mr. Arroyo advised that those are population counts and not traffic counts. Member Hoadley stated that he understands that, but they were used as a basis for traffic generation. Mr. Arroyo replied that they were used for determining the distribution of traffic to and from the site. Mr. Arroyo further stated that 1990 census data is the most recent data and there hasn’t been a substantial change in population that would effect distribution of traffic over that period. Member Hoadley asked what about the City of Novi? Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that she appreciates Member Hoadley’s thoroughness and concern, and that he has also asked some pertinent questions. But, Mr. Arroyo again has tried to respond to the best of his knowledge and that once the questions are asked and answered, the Commission has to move on. Member Hoadley replied that for the record, refer to that paragraph, because it is very specific and he would submit that Novi has gone far beyond what was anticipated in 1990 as far as current population. In fact, Member Hoadley added that the City is in the process of doing a census and he thinks that it will show that the population has increased considerably more than anticipated.

Member Hoadley stated that Mr. Rogers testified that the requirements will be 1,200 plus parking and the applicant is providing 1,500. Mr. Rogers replied that he did not say that. Mr. Rogers advised that he had said that the required parking ranges from 1,220 based upon one standard to 1,534 spaces plus handicapped. Member Hoadley asked if Mr. Rogers is saying that those amounts are adequate for a footprint of 540,000 square feet. Mr. Rogers replied that this would be for the full build-out of the three phases and he believes that the hospital will be completed in five to seven years. Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if during the deliberation for his forecast did he actually check facilities similar to this? Mr. Rogers replied that he did not, but used the two standards that are found in the ordinance and he did have a floor plan as best as could be provided by the architects. Member Hoadley advised that according to the plan that Phase I will have three hundred employees. Member Hoadley then asked if it will be a twenty four hour, a twelve hour, or a sixteen hour facility? Mr. Rogers deferred to the applicant, but that it was his understanding that Phase I was primarily an office building with regular day time office hours. Mr. Rogers further advised that if they have two shifts, the number of employees might be less at any one time.

Member Hoadley asked the applicant to comment on his question. Mr. Schaengold, President and CEO of the Sinai Health System, replied that the first phase, which is approximately 100,000 square feet, consists of medical office space and diagnostic and therapeutic services geared to provide services approximately ten hours a day. Member Hoadley stated that the 300 hundred employees under that scenario would be during the ten hour period based on what the applicant has said. Member Hoadley further stated that 300 employees could constitute 300 cars. Member Hoadley then stated that only 310-320 spaces are needed for Phase I and wondered how that number can be justified with that many employees based on the assumptions that there will be customers? Mr. Rogers replied that the ordinance does not relate to the number of employees and he cannot comment on whether they will drive separately. He further advised that there is no public transportation at this point and that the employees would obviously have to travel by car. Mr. Rogers stated that the numbers, particularly when adding in Phase II, meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Rogers advised that if they have all 300 employees there at the same time and if they all drove individually, they would use 300 of the 310 parking spaces. Member Hoadley reiterated that they are only talking about Phase I for the parking and stated that it is possible that 300 of those spaces could be used by the 300 employees that they anticipate having in Phase I. Member Hoadley then stated that he assumes that they will have a lot more employees when they have Phases II and III which would take up additional space. Member Hoadley testified that he checked with Providence Hospital because it is similar to Sinai, although it is only 190,000 square feet. Member Hoadley stated that to date they have 900 parking spots to service their employees and at any given time they have 400 employees. This tells Member Hoadley that perhaps the standards Sinai is proposing is incorrect. Member Hoadley noticed that they are using footage standards like offices would, although this is a hospital. Member Hoadley would submit that the standards may not be correct for what they are anticipating for parking. Member Hoadley advised that the site plan is covered with parking now and his problem with the whole thing is that he believes that there is more footprint and intensity than anticipated for 40 acres. Member Hoadley further advised that he can handle 100,0000 square feet, but he has a real problem with 540,000 square feet. Member Hoadley’s intuition tells him that the site should be increased dramatically if that is what they want to do to accommodate that or that Phase II and III should be eliminated. Member Hoadley asked to have the opportunity to come back to speak further.

Member Bononi asked what percentage of the 39.407 acre site is proposed to be covered with impervious material? Matthew Schwanitz, of Giffels Webster Engineers, 2871 Bond Street, Rochester Hills advised that he does not have the exact number at his finger tips, but could come back with the information. Mr. Schwanitz further advised that by eye balling it, he would say it is approximately 60% of the site. Member Bononi stated that 60% is an estimate and that according to her math, 23% of the site is designated wetland and asked Mr. Schwanitz if he agreed with that. Mr. Schwanitz stated that the figure sounds about right. Member Bononi then asked if 10% of the total wetland area is being proposed to be filled as part of the plan that was submitted. Mr. Schwanitz asked if that would be 10% of the total 23%? Member Bononi said that it would and Mr. Schwanitz agreed. Member Bononi asked if the somewhat poorly drained and moderately drained soils on the site as noted on one of the engineering plans provided from SES were taken into consideration? Mr. Schwanitz advised that they all will be considerations in the final design. Member Bononi reported that the bulk of the building square footage is located in somewhat poorly drained and very poorly drained wetness limited soils according to the SCS manual. Mr. Schwanitz replied that was correct and added that is the soil that is predominant throughout the site. Member Bononi asked if they are requiring any kind of subsurface drainage to lower the water table as part of the building plan? Mr. Schwanitz asked Member Bononi for what purpose? Member Bononi replied that it should be required because the seasonal high water table is high from time to time. Mr. Schwanitz replied that he cannot answer that. He further stated that there may be some perched ground water there, but in terms of permanent water, he could not state that it would not be necessary.

Member Bononi asked Mr. Schwanitz if he could respond to a letter written by Steven G. Metzer. Mr. Schwanitz replied that Steve is a wetland biologist on his staff and he could possibly answer some questions for him. Member Bononi stated that his memo is dated June 19, 1995 and under the last page of the mitigation section it states "several areas adjacent to wetlands G and J are candidates for mitigation if required. Topography of the site will require excavation of large quantities of soil to reduce the elevation." Member Bononi asked for an estimate of the large quantity of soil. Mr. Schwanitz replied that it would require 4 or 5 thousand yards of dirt which for what they are moving is a lot, but for a site of this size is minuscule. Member Bononi asked if they would be thinking about using all of that fill on site somewhere. Mr. Schwanitz replied that the site will balance and they are not talking about exporting or importing materials on the site for grading.

Member Bononi asked where the ultimate outlet will be for the storm water from the proposal? Mr. Schwanitz replied that it will be located in the southeastern corner of the property and both systems will basically converge in defined channels which will be legal outlets. Member Bononi asked if it is going into another wetland in a property south of the site and as she understands it, the owner has already expressed some concern about the effect that the drainage may have on his property. Mr. Schwanitz replied that Member Bononi is correct and they concur with his concern. Mr. Schwanitz stated that they are not going to release at a rate greater than what is currently released from the property. Member Bononi asked if he feels that they are going to accomplish that as a result of detaining the water and then having a metered flow out. Mr. Schwanitz replied absolutely and that Mr. Bluhm will keep them honest on that. Member Bononi asked if Mr. Schwanitz knows where the water goes after it leaves their neighbor to the south? Mr. Schwanitz replied that it goes into a defined channel and outlets further to the southeast. Member Bononi asked where its ultimate destination is? Mr. Schwanitz replied that perhaps Mr. Bluhm could point out the general route on the map, but it is basically going into an existing county drain. Mr. Bluhm interjected by stating that it ultimately gets to a county drain. Mr. Bluhm advised that once it leaves Mr. Friedlander’s property, he believes that it becomes part of the drainage system for the M-5 area. Member Bononi stated that at that point it is no longer open channel, but it is contained. Mr. Bluhm replied no, that it is primarily open flows through that area. Mr. Bluhm added that it is in the constructed channels that are being used for the M-5 although there is some enclosed storm, but it is still primarily open channels.

Member Bononi asked the applicant if they have looked into building a higher building in order to reduce the building footprint? Mr. Cruthis replied that the zoning ordinance stipulates that they can only have two stories for the diagnostic and treatment and office building space, although the short stay hospital facility can be five stories. Mr. Cruthis advised that they have done both and have gone the maximum in terms of height according to the ordinance. Member Bononi asked Mr. Cruthis to verify the total square footage of the buildings if they complete all phases. Member Bononi advised that she has seen a discrepancy in some of the material about what the actual total square footage is. Mr. Cruthis replied that he believes there is a tabulation on the drawings depicting 100,000 square feet, with two stories above. He continued by stating that they also have proposed a full basement, which would basically contain mechanical and electrical storage space and connecting space to each of the other facilities and back to the future hospital. He further stated that there are two phases of 150,000 square feet each, including a basement with 100,000 occupiable space above. He advised that the first two phases are proposed to be identical square footage and type which calculates to 150,000 square feet in the first phase and 150,000 in the second. Mr. Cruthis further advised that with the hospital facility it would total 540,000 thousand and is consistent with what was originally proposed.

Member Bononi asked if Mr. Cruthis has investigated a parking deck or garage to eliminate some of the intrusion into the wetlands from the intensive parking. Mr. Cruthis replied that they have considered it, but feels that it would impose a negative visual impact. Mr. Cruthis believes that the proposed landscaping is a better solution. He further commented on how a parking structure would relate to the medical facility and that unless they build it under the buildings, which is very difficult, it would not function as well. Mr. Cruthis further advised that although it is an alternative, it is also something that is eight to ten times more costly. Member Bononi asked if their greatest objection is aesthetic? Mr. Cruthis replied that it is one of the major reasons because as they made representations originally, they were trying to keep a low rise, informal character of the site and parking decks project a more urban commercial character.

Member Bononi is concerned about the removal of the 95 designated trees. Although she appreciates Ms. Lemke’s comments regarding the quality of the trees, Member Bononi is concerned about the size of the trees and the disturbance that will occur where the trees exist. Member Bononi is also concerned about the caliper of the trees which range from 8" to 20" and asked if they know the caliper of tree that these trees will be replaced with. The applicant’s landscape architect replied that the calculation varies in the number of trees. He further advised that trees 8" to 11" will be replaced with one tree at a 3" caliper, trees 11" to 20" will be replaced with two trees, and trees above 20" will be replaced with three trees for every one taken down. Member Bononi stated that according to the formula the largest caliper tree that they are going to replace is 3".

Member Weddington advised that she was in the minority when the rezoning request came before the Commission last year. Member Weddington opposed it because of her concerns about intensity and about what might ultimately happen and now believes that her fears have come true. Member Weddington shares Member Hoadley’s concerns about what appears to be over building of the site because it has grown five times larger than what was shown as a potential concept plan. Member Weddington stated that all of the other issues about the limited sewer capacity, the impact on traffic, and the storm water management still need more attention before she can approve the plan. In addition, Member Weddington stated that questions raised before the Commission in other situations where industrial projects have been proposed in regard to twenty four operations adjacent to residential is similar to the current situation. Member Weddington reported that there will ultimately be twenty four operations producing hazardous materials with outside generators to provide twenty four hour activity and she is not certain that this is the right spot for this facility. Member Weddington realizes that Twelve Mile is becoming a major corridor and is conveniently located to M-5, but she believes that it is too big for this particular parcel. Member Weddington stated that if it had been the original scope and size that was outlined, it might be easier to approve. In summary, Member Weddington stated for the record that she shares the concerns of the other Commissioners and of the people who have written to them.

Member Markham stated that Member Bononi has already asked many of her questions, but has one that is related to the construction of Phase III. Member Markham asked how the applicant plans to manage the construction of the hospital in Phase III with the buildings in front of it and the wetland behind it? She further asked if any consideration was given to the traffic and the construction equipment? The applicant replied that Phase III is behind the other two phases and that the construction activities would occur basically in the back area. He further stated that at the request of Mr. Arroyo, they will run the loop road around and that a portion of the road from Phases I and II would be considered temporary. When Phase III is constructed and because construction activities would damage the temporary road, its permanent configuration would then be constructed. The applicant added that the road is adjacent to the wetlands and would be the limit of the construction area. The applicant further advised that they use all kinds of construction site controls so that they do not get silting and run off into wetlands and channels or clogging of storm drainage systems. He stated that by the City’s ordinance and good engineering practice is something that is required and that they do and this is is one of the reasons why the plan is being developed in its phases. The applicant is concerned that the appearance and the viability of the project looks good and functions well at every phase.

Member Markham is also concerned about the storm water management as she is not convinced that the property to the south is adequately protected. Member Markham further stated that Mr. Bluhm reported that the down stream pump station needed to be upgraded when Phase III is constructed and that the letter stated that it would only be needed at Phase III. However, tonight she has heard Mr. Bluhm state "probably" and that because it could go either way, Member Markham suggested that it might be done earlier in the project just in case. The applicant replied that if it is necessary, it would be done. He added that he thought that one of the statements was that with the possibility of other development taking place that it would require it to be upgraded before they get to Phase III. In addition, the applicant stated that as part of the submittal process, it would be reviewed at the second phase and if reevaluation at that time indicated that it was necessary, it would be taken care of.

Member Markham added that she would also like the applicant to consider a parking deck to reduce the overall footprint of impervious property. Member Markham stated that there is about a fourth to a third of all the wetlands are intended to be filled and is a lot in her opinion. The applicant replied that they are replaced on a two to one basis, so ultimately there would actually be more. Member Markham still feels that the parking is excessive and broad. (end of tape) Member Markham suggested that by moving the building, the applicant could do some things to minimize the aesthetic issues that they may be concerned with. Member Markham stated that she is not talking about an eight story parking garage, but a two story, like she has seen adjacent to other hospitals.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she will entertain a motion at any time.

Member Hodges asked the applicant to explain how the proposed 100,000 square feet became 500,000. The applicant explained that it did not and that Phase I was 100,000 square feet and it was clearly delineated as phases all along, so that there is Phase I, Phase II, and Phase III. Member Hodges stated that what the applicant is saying is that there was a break down in communication in the Commission’s understanding on the special land use? The applicant replied yes.

Although Member Hodges is in favor of the hospital, she is concerned about the situation regarding the wetlands. Member Hodges stated that if there is one thing that can be said about the greater Detroit area, it is that they have exemplary medical facilities and physicians and she sees this as a coup to any community. Member Hodges added that another thing that she does not want to see is a parking garage and would rather see a smaller facility that would utilize less parking space. Member Hodges added that this issue is a matter of personal aesthetic choices. Member Hodges further stated that she shares equal concern about the mitigation on the property and is especially concerned about the wetland fill and the effects on the neighboring property. Member Hodges asked if a time line has been established in response to the residents question? Mr. Schaengold reported that the first phase of 100,000 square feet consisting of medical office space and the diagnostic and therapeutic services would be the first project that would begin on the property once they receive all the necessary approvals and permits. He advised that they have received a certificate of need approval for the component that will have ambulatory surgery and they are prepared to move forward as soon as they receive the appropriate approvals from the City of Novi. Mr. Schaengold advised that the second phase of 100,000 square feet would begin upon the successful completion of the first 100,000 of both construction and attraction of physicians to the medical office space. Mr. Schaengold stated that Phase II would depend on the timing and success of Phase I. Mr. Schaengold advised that Phase III, the short stay hospital, does not have a time frame on it because it is totally dependent on the State of Michigan approving the concept of beds that are designed for twenty four to seventy two hour stays. Mr. Schaengold said that it is very unlikely that in the next decade that the State of Michigan is going to approve any real hospital beds in Southeastern Michigan. Furthermore, Mr. Schaengold stated that they believe that as health care becomes more dependent on outpatient services and as technology allows more services to be done on an outpatient basis, but require some recovery time post of the procedure, the State will probably consider the concept of a twenty four hour to a seventy two hour stay facility. Mr. Schaengold reported that only then would they consider constructing Phase III, because it would require state approval. Mr. Schaengold stated that in reality, they are really looking at two phases of 100,000 square feet. The second phase is dependent upon how successful the first phase is and the final short stay bed facility is dependent upon how the State of Michigan decides to pursue overnight stays outside the traditional inpatient facilities. Member Hodges asked how does the short stay compare to outpatient in terms of hours? Mr. Schaengold stated that he did not understand the question. Member Hodges asked if outpatient is limited to a short stay of thirty six to seventy two hours? Mr. Schaengold replied outpatient services that require some recovery would be less than ten to twelve hours. Mr. Schaengold further advised that once more complicated procedures are performed that require an overnight stay, those so-called beds are really not in existence or licensed in the State of Michigan and that is why the amount of outpatient surgery is limited to those patients that can recover within a relatively short period of time and does not require an overnight stay. Member Hodges was under the impression that outpatient could be up to thirty six hours. Mr. Schaengold responded by stating that it is possible in theory, but to maintain a patient in an approved setting that would allow a stay more than a twenty four hour period, would require the construction of facilities that are a hospital quality which raises licensure issues again. Mr. Schaengold further stated that is why there are limited overnight stays in terms of outpatient services. Mr. Schaengold stated that birthing center is probably an exception and even that is on the border line on how it is licensed. Member Hodges raised this question because of the parking situation and if she is going to be admitted for twenty four to thirty six hours, it is possible that her spouse would stay for that time too. Member Hodges stated that he would therefore, utilize a parking space for that amount of time that it would be long term parking in that type of situation.

Member Hodges further stated that she has two physicians that share offices at Providence Park and are there only a couple days a week. Member Hodges advised that when they are not there, other physicians are using the parking so it is similar to stacking as they may have X number of total physicians using the facility, but not at the same time. Member Hodges knows that they do a lot of office sharing in the facilities and that is something else that should be considered for parking. Mr. Schaengold advised that the main reason for the proposed parking and the reason that they came to the City originally was that they were proposing a park setting environment and bring to the City an outpatient health care facility. Mr. Schaengold would prefer not to build parking garages because it detracts from their original purpose and what they believe is what the City really liked about the project. Mr. Schaengold believes that there is sufficient parking in the project to service the program. Mr. Schaengold reported that in reality, only certain elements of the project are actually going to be there twenty four hours a day and that is the short bed component which is planned seven to ten years from now. Mr. Schaengold advised that the first 200,000 square feet is a normal outpatient/medical office space kind of operation that is about ten to twelve hours in duration with visitors and employees moving in and out of the facilities. Member Hodges asked if there was any way that the applicant would consider the project on a less, grander scale by deleting a phase? Mr. Schaengold replied that as the phases are currently laid out have maximized the use of the land and provide the kind of program that is necessary for this campus. Mr. Schaengold thinks that everyone has to realize that the short stay beds, which are significantly down the road, can be downsized if the demand for those beds don’t exist. Mr. Schaengold further stated that they tried to lay down a plan that assured that there is sufficient parking and circulation on the site to allow the maximum utilization of the space, but the actual size of the final phase depends on the utilization demands of the community. Member Hodges agrees and thinks that insurance companies are dictating that hospitalization have shorter bed stays. Member Hodges went on to state that she has to agree with her fellow Commissioners that the property with the wetland is over developed with the three phases and is why she posed the question about eliminating a phase. Member Hodges stated that it is big acreage, but there is a lot of impact that needs to be considered. Member Hodges will not entertain a motion because she can predict how it will be addressed and passes it onto another Commissioner.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that when she supported the recommendation to City Council for the rezoning of the property, she did so on a land use basis and because it was proposed on the City’s long term Master Plan. Chairperson Lorenzo reserved judgement for a hospital or a medical office facility until such time to review plans, even though Sinai indicated that they were proposing to build their facility on this land. Chairperson Lorenzo’s support for the rezoning was for the rezoning and not for a particular type of development on the property.

Chairperson Lorenzo restated that Mr. Rogers calculated the parking in two ways and asked if both figures include the hospital portion or does one exclude it. Mr. Rogers replied that the 1534 included the hospital facility and the 1220 also included the hospital facility. Mr. Rogers advised that he attached a letter to his report that he requested from Mr. Cruthis and page two includes the hospital facility bed count parking requirements. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is an indication of how many spaces would be required if the hospital portion was never built? Mr. Rogers replied that 600 spaces would be deducted from both scenarios. Mr. Rogers added that would be if they were eligible and licensed for 300 beds of one type or another.

Chairperson Lorenzo’s first concern is about building parking lots for a phase that may never be built. Chairperson Lorenzo could see land backing parking lots, but to say that you are going to pave over and fill wetlands and put parking spaces in when it is not known if they are needed is premature. Chairperson Lorenzo’s second concern is in terms of utilizing the wetlands as detention basins. Ms. Tepatti’s letter indicated that Wetland J is not going to be used for detention and that the water is going to filter through there. Chairperson Lorenzo pointed out that Mr. Metzer’s report indicated otherwise and read from his letter, "that the utilization as proposed for storm water detention in Wetland J differs from Wetland G and one difference is that the proposed water elevation will inundate the wetland and large upland areas adjacent to the wetland. While not necessarily a problem by itself, this type of detention will obviously have a greater impact than by merely using wetlands as a vegetation. Uplands are typically intolerant of frequent inundation and it is highly likely that this area will suffer. Some smaller individuals may adapt and do quite well. The proposed detention elevation will provide permanent water with depths of 1-3'." The applicant (did not identify himself) interjected by stating that since that was written, they have worked with the City’s staff through several revisions of the plan and there is no detention provided within that area. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the utility and storm water sewer plans indicate detention area B as Wetland J. Chairperson Lorenzo further stated that it says that the entire wetland will be dedicated as a drainage easement. Mr. Cruthis advised that the key is in the term and it is being dedicated as an easement as all wetlands are generally dedicated for both wetland protection and conveyance of storm waters through them. In addition, Mr. Cruthis stated that any wetland that is an outlet to any property, both the Drain Commission and the City staff require that they create that easement instrument. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it says detention basin B, 81,000 cubic feet of storage. Mr. Cruthis advised that is the upland area now in the mitigated wetland area to the north of that. Ms. Tepatti interjected by stating that the detention B label is actually pointing to an area that they are constructing to the east of the existing wetland. She further stated that they will be doing some grading up against the wetland to keep the detention out of Wetland J. The applicant stated that they would accept any restriction on the Commission’s part that would preclude them from going into the wetland that they may be concerned with. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it was not clear in the report and on the plan which is why there is a definite discrepancy between Ms. Tepatti’s report and everything else that is in the packet. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the applicant is utilizing Wetland G for storm water detention. The applicant replied that is correct and that they are creating an upland sedimentation basin up from that for a discharge point and that is being used for a five hour detention period for the outlet. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if that is a temporary sedimentation basin? The applicant replied that it is a permanent basin. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the plan states that it is temporary. The applicant advised that at post construction, it will be converted into a mitigated wetland area. Chairperson Lorenzo asked where will the sedimentation be for all the wetlands? The applicant replied that it will be outletting into that mitigated wetland area, will have a sump outlet, and an overland outlet into that wetland area. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that what they are proposing is then to use the mitigated wetland as a sedimentation for a water quality basin. The applicant replied that there will be a sedimentation basin pre-stage from that also as they will be constructing basin upland from that part of the discharge. Chairperson Lorenzo asked where that will be located? The applicant replied that the plans are too small of scale, but it will be at their outlet point and there will be a discharge pipe with a small sedimentation basin next to that. The applicant further stated that further upstream there will be a sump manhole with a grease trap to that will also take care of all suspended solids. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she will need to know where the basin would be. She further stated that the plans before them show a temporary sedimentation basin, which Ms. Tepatti indicated would be utilized as a sedimentation basin in the future. Ms. Tepatti replied that is correct. Chairperson Lorenzo then asked where is the sedimentation basin before there is discharge into any of the wetlands or is the applicant proposing to mitigate wetlands and then use them for a sedimentation basin? It is Ms. Tepatti understanding that although the plans are fairly general, the entire area between the wetland lobes during construction will be used as sedimentation. Ms. Tepatti further stated that once the grading and everything is stabilized, it will be converted to a wetland mitigation area. Ms. Tepatti advised that the applicant will probably construct some types of sumps and small pools that will act as sedimentation basins at the outlet. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that there are not any locations for those yet. Ms. Tepatti stated that was correct. Chairperson Lorenzo then stated with all of the parking and the buildings, she does not see any room for anything upland from where it is being proposed. Ms. Tepatti advised that it will more than likely be where the outlets are discharging into that area and will probably be constructed right at those outlets so that the mitigation will be incorporated just after those areas. The applicant (did not identify himself) interjected by stating that they would accept that as a condition and they have used multiple approaches. The applicant further advised that they will work with the City staff and follow any condition that may be imposed. Chairperson Lorenzo appreciates that.

Chairperson Lorenzo then stated that her other large concern is that the detention wetlands are detainable for a ten-year storm and what will happen beyond ten-year storms in terms of how much water will be retained and what changes will it have to the wetland characteristics and functions? The applicant replied that the elevation will not change and the duration will be the same as a regular hundred-year storm because it is going to overflow the ten-year outlet. The ten-year outlet is going to control the maximum elevation of those areas and then they are going to outlet by gravity as they normally would. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if he is telling her that in a fifty or a hundred-year storm there will not be increased water or water for longer periods of time? The applicant replied that it would not be noticeable from what would occur under current conditions. Mr. Bluhm interjected by stating that in a storm event of that frequency, the porosity of the soil becomes a non-issue, the water is flowing off the soils in its agricultural condition the same as it would flow off a parking lot. Mr. Bluhm further stated that once it moves beyond a ten-year storm, a difference is not seen as far as how fast the water gets down to the detention basin. The applicant stated that he agrees with Mr. Bluhm. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she disagrees because she lives adjacent to a wetland and has seen what happens beyond ten-year storms. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that she has seen the water rising, she has seen the capacity and changes in the vegetation so she finds it hard to believe that is the case. The applicant stated that in a hundred-year storm the ground is basically pavement and the rate of run off is too rapid for any percolation. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she is not comfortable utilizing wetlands for stormwater detention.

Chairperson Lorenzo also stated that she has to agree with her fellow Commissioners in that the site is over built and there are too many wetland impacts, stormwater management concerns, too much parking for a phase that may never be constructed, and she believes that at this point in time, she cannot support the project in this form.

Member Hoadley is concerned about the impact on Meadowbrook and is specifically concerned about left-hand turns from the project. Member Hoadley asked that if the Commission were to approve all three phases and the applicant decided not to construct past Phase I and if Phase I caused a left hand turn problem, is it true that there is nothing that the Commission can do about it from a financial standpoint? Member Hoadley added that they will not pay much in taxes because they are a nonprofit scenario, but asks if there is any way that it could be bonded for so that if it becomes a problem, the City will have the money to do something about it. The applicant did not understand Member Hoadley’s question. Member Hoadley stated that he is talking about adding a middle lane so that people can make left turns out of the cut and also to increase the deceleration/acceleration lanes so that it is more than just a 25' carrier for an individual car. Member Hoadley would like to see it be at least 50'. The applicant advised that if warranted, they would do what Member Hoadley is suggesting and if another lane is required, they would do so. Member Hoadley reiterated that he believes that the trip generation statistics based on the applicant’s own statement is low. Member Hoadley believes that this plan is more than what the Commission originally bargained for. Member Hoadley reminded the applicant about his statement when rezoning was originally requested which states it was 100,000 square feet and there was no mention of a hospital. Member Hoadley asked the applicant that if the Commission were to disallow Phase III from the start, would it allow the applicant to complete Phases I and II and decrease the amount of parking necessary? The applicant replied that the ordinance would provide for less parking. The applicant stated that they would expect that under conditions of using the alternative of exam rooms/waiting rooms that is one reason for the alternative that it would be upwards of 300 cars less if the whole development was done. The applicant stated that they have shown the case that would be a safe thing with a maximum condition it would probably be considerably less in reality. Member Hoadley stated that parking for Phase I is recommending 310 spaces. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by asking Member Hoadley to speed it up. Member Hoadley stated that he has not asked the petitioner this question, but that he has only asked the consultant. Member Hoadley asked if 300 employees is an accurate count for Phase I? The applicant reiterated that it was correct and reminded Member Hoadley that it may not all occur at the same time. Member Hoadley asked if the applicant was talking about a ten hour period and the applicant reiterated that he was. Member Hoadley asked if doctors were included in his total employee count? The applicant replied that with all due respect he believes that they are now into semantics and he believes that when they originally spoke about the project, they talked about Phase I employing 300 people on the site. The applicant stated that it would include physicians, nurses, and clerical staff that would be coming and going throughout a ten to twelve hour shift. The applicant also stated that they believe the parking that is allocated for the 100,000 square feet uses fairly standard calculations for medical office space and medical diagnostic services. The applicant advised that the spaces that are allocated follow both the City of Novi’s fireman as well as industry standards for that development. In addition, he advised that it is not their intent to build parking spaces for Phase III, because it is not in place. In fact, he advised that if the Commission would recall, their objective was not to even ring the site beyond Phase I. He further stated that it has been requested of them that even in Phase II to proceed with ringing the site, but it would not be necessary for them to build parking lots for Phase III, if it is not in existence. Member Hoadley stated that in order to construct the ring road, it would require that quite a bit of the wetland would be filled and the ring road would be required if Phase II were constructed. The applicant stated that was correct. Member Hoadley asked if the applicant would be willing to bond for whatever is necessary to do on the outlet road on Meadowbrook in advance? The applicant replied yes. Member Hoadley went on by asking if the Commission would be assured that the money would be there in case the applicant decided not to complete Phases II or III. The applicant replied yes. Member Hoadley will not support a positive recommendation because he believes that the footprint is far too large for the 40 acres. Member Hoadley is not saying that it can’t be done, but he would think that if the applicant would want to continue, that they would look for additional land.

Member Bonaventura agrees with Members Hoadley and Weddington, and Chairperson Lorenzo’s comments. Member Bonaventura’s concerns are based around another regional facility that Novi will play host to. He further stated that the impacts that this size of a facility will generale concerns him greatly. So with that in mind, Member Bonaventura moved to deny preliminary site plan to Sinai Park Development, SP 96-06A. The motion was seconded by Bononi.

PM-96-05-093 TO DENY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP 96-06A

Moved by Bonaventura, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To deny preliminary site plan to Sinai Park Development, SP 96-06A.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to deny Sinai Park Development, SP 96-06A and asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-093 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo announced that the Commission will take a brief recess.

Chairperson Lorenzo brought the meeting back to order and the first matter is Audience Participation.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Judy Elvy, 48120 W. Eight Mile Road - stated that although her address is a Northville mailing, she actually resides in the City of Novi. Ms. Elvy reported that she lives on the former property of the Meyer dairy farm on Eight Mile and currently owns Barn Antiques, which is operated out of the barn that is on that same property. Ms. Elvy advised that she would like to make her statements known to the Commission regarding the REC Ordinance. Ms. Elvy further advised that she is also a member of the SWAN Neighborhood Association, the Novi Historical District’s Study Committee which is a City appointed position, a member of the Novi Historical Society, and Preservation Novi. Ms. Elvy advised that as a resident, she understands that as a result of the REC Ordinance there is a possibility of a recreation facility going in on the property that Mr. Meyer has for sale. Ms. Elvy does not know what kind of an impact that this change will have on her. Consequently, she does want to voice her thoughts on the potential of the ordinance. Ms. Elvy is first concerned that if she should become land locked, meaning if she is residential agriculture as she currently is zoned and if the Meyer property to the north and east of her changes to REC, what are the impacts? In addition, she would be the only residential structure physically along Eight Mile Road at that point. Ms. Elvy advised that Singh has plans to develop a church to her west and further down the road is a trucking business. Ms. Elvy wonders what her future will be there. Ms. Elvy reported that they bought their property five years ago with the idea of turning the farmhouse into a bed and breakfast as a way of preserving the farmstead. Ms. Elvy further reported that the farmstead dates back to 1827 and has been added to through the years. Currently, there is a farmhouse, a garage with two stables attached, a guest house, a stone milk house, and a barn. Ms. Elvy advised that they began restoring the barn two years ago with the idea of preserving the farmstead and the barn helping to pay the preservation costs. Ms. Elvy stated that they have been willing to place thousands of dollars into the restoration of the farmstead for their future. Ms. Elvy also advised that upon moving to Novi they became immediately involved in historic preservation and became members of the Historic District Study Committee, which has been at work for more than five years designating historic spots within the City of Novi. Presently, there are approximately 400-600 historic sites that are potentially going to be designated and the Committee is wrapping up their information. Ms. Elvy stated that if there is going to be a change in the zoning behind her property, as much as she wants to be a part of a historic designation for the purpose of preserving what is left of a farmstead within the city limits of Novi, she is not sure that she can agree to becoming historically designated with a clear conscience for the sake of her family’s future. She has also asked herself what this means to them as a historic property, what it means as a residential property in a neighborhood, and what it means as running a business. Ms. Elvy advised that when they applied for a land variance to operate an antique shop out of the barn, the City was overwhelmingly generous to them. Ms. Elvy believes that they have done an excellent job in the restoration of the barn, they have preserved the landscape, and they have a parking lot that no one can see from the road. Ms. Elvy is very proud of what has happened at their facility and she has had numerous other people say the same thing to her. Ms. Elvy further stated that they try to keep everyone’s future in mind and not just their own. Ms. Elvy is not certain about what her concern is, but she is concerned about what kind of impact would a recreational designation mean to her property. Ms. Elvy asked if she will be land locked and the only person recreational agriculture and have a real residence. She further asked who would want to buy a residential home with a church on one side and a recreational structure to its rear. She said that the addition of a recreational facility could increase traffic flow and also possibly increase her antique business, but what would that mean if she is historically designated also and would then want to sell because she would only be able to sell residential? Ms. Elvy reiterated that her main goal is to see her property preserved.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the Commission will be discussing the recreation ordinance in general and not any particular proposals anywhere in the City. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is anyone else who would like to speak. Seeing no one, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the second Audience Participation and moved to the second Public Hearing for DMC Outpatient Rehabilitation Center SP 96-10A.

2. DMC OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION CENTER, SP 96-10A

Property located south of Twelve Mile Road, between Meadowbrook Road and Novi Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan recommendation to City Council and Woodland Permit approval.

Jordon London stated he is from Edmund London & Associates, the architectural firm representing the Detroit Medical Center. Mr. London further stated that Gary McCann from DMC and Mark Leipsitz from DeMaria Building Company were also present. Mr. London stated that they are proposing a 27,000 square foot building on a six acre parcel. Mr. London advised that the use of the property is for an outpatient rehabilitation center and is basically a consolidation of various entities of the Detroit Medical Center that are operating in the area. The facility includes programs from the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and the Detroit Institute for Children. Mr. London advised that the building is one-story due to the condition of the patients that are seeking rehabilitation and they are providing 140 parking spaces of which five are handicapped accessible. Mr. London further advised that some of the patients that are children are brought in a small van from another location. The building is masonry with vaulted ceilings in the three gym areas to allow daylight in and is adjacent to the DMC Health care Center on Twelve Mile Road. Mr. London said some of the programs currently existing in that center need to expand, as they are operating in very small spaces. Mr. London added that they are providing easements on the north and south ends of the site and to the east there has been some discussion about a future connection to the development of park property around the facility including the Singh development to the south. Mr. London stated that DMC has provided the easement so that Singh can make a connection to the DMC development and have emergency access to Twelve Mile Road.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant reported that his comments refer to his review letter of April 23, 1996. Mr. Rogers stated that the use is permitted in the R-C District and therefore, has to be referred to City Council for concurrent approval. Mr. Rogers also stated that the applicant provides the greenspace setbacks, but they cannot provide it on the east side where they have a shared drive. Mr. Rogers reported that there was a requirement in the preliminary site plan approval that Singh Development would provide a secondary vehicular access to the north for their proposed continuum care facility so that residents could take advantage of the DMC outpatient medical facilities. It is Mr. Rogers’ opinion that the two have very compatible land uses. Mr. Rogers advised that the first site plan only showed the sidewalk on the west edge, but the second submittal showed a possible future road extension along the joint dividing line between the Woodland Medical Center (DMC) and the proposed facility which stubs in part to the Singh Development. Mr. Rogers requested that there be further definition of where this road could feasibly go and he has prepared a map in the packet showing the juxtaposition of the DMC facility and the Crescent Oaks facility. Mr. Rogers advised that he indicated the proposed road connection on the easterly edge of the map and that it dead ends at the continuum care facility. Mr. Rogers also showed with a dotted line an alternate alignment off the parking lot coming into a curb cut at the Crescent Oaks development site. Mr. Rogers advised that the horizontally curved dotted line depicts an 86' wide ingress/egress easement that Mr. Taubman, David Weir, and others have reserved for the connection of their properties east and west of the DMC site in a long range plan. Mr. Rogers has spoken with Mr. London, who has spoken with Mr. Weir, and it appears that where they cross the Taubman easement is of little concern and they have no objections. Mr. Rogers has also spoken with Mike Kahm of Singh Development and they realize that they will have to comply with this requirement if they want to get final site plan approval. Mr. Rogers advised that the DMC project has only one shared entrance off of Twelve Mile Road and the secondary access through the Singh site would "kill two birds with one stone" by possibly fulfilling the Crescent Oaks requirement and the DMC requirement. In summary, Mr. Rogers recommends preliminary site plan approval subject to: (1) Further analysis of suitable alignment of the road extension to connect with the Singh project. Impact on regulated woodlands and wetlands should be considered. Such study should be provided at time of final site plan submittal. (2) Compliance with all requirements of pending Woodland Permit. Mr. Rogers advised that he is also aware that Mr. Seiber of Seiber Keast is in the audience in response to the request of Singh and Jordon London to produce a consistent engineering drawing to connect where feasible through the area. In addition, Mr. Rogers further advised that Mr. Bluhm can address the impacts on wetlands and woodlands.

Dave Bluhm of JCK referred to their letter of May 9, 1996 and stated that the applicant should be aware that an ingress/egress easement will be required to share the driveway.

Mr. Bluhm further stated that one comment that they had was with respect to the storm drainage as it will be detained and about how the developed flows will be carried through the 30' storm sewer. Mr. Bluhm reported that although the basin or pipes have been designed to handle this area from a developed point of view, as a matter of course, they would like to see the calculations provided at the final. Mr. Bluhm further advised that the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and approval is recommended.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant referred to his letter of May 3, 1996 and reported that Item 3 addresses the 86' easement and he would like to see some information as to how that will tie into the properties to the east and to the west as nothing was provided in the application package. Mr. Arroyo further stated that there is also a 30' road frontage easement along Twelve Mile Road that would potentially connect the site to the property to the west so that there is the potential for two separate connections to the west. Mr. Arroyo reiterated Mr. Rogers’ observation about the missing connection to Crescent Oaks on the plan that needs to be addressed and he thinks that the applicant has now indicated a potential route following those easements. Mr. Arroyo stated that Twelve Mile Road is carrying 27,000 vehicles per day as of 1995 and he has also provided trip generation information in the report. Mr. Arroyo advised that the Twelve Mile Road access is an existing access point, is signalized, and has appropriate turning lanes in place so no additional improvements are warranted. Mr. Arroyo recommends approval subject to the items identified in his letter.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect advised that there are some wet regulated woodlands on the southern property line of the site. Ms. Lemke further advised that the site primarily contains poplars and that the woodlands in question consist of four poplar trees. In addition, Ms. Lemke reported that there are some miscellaneous trees of which the applicant will be saving thirteen. Ms. Lemke advised that the proposed road will be constructed in some very young poplar with the same understory and the applicant will need to resubmit for a revised woodland permit at that time. Ms. Lemke does not see any problem with the road construction as there are only four trees that are 8" dbh and greater and because the rest are very small, it would be possible to construct a road with little intrusion. Ms. Lemke reported that they have worked with the applicant to provide the correct protective fencing and that information, as well as other information that they have requested, are provided. Ms. Lemke is recommending conditional approval for a woodland permit subject to the standard conditions listed on her April 22, 1996 letter.

Chris Pargoff, Forester stated that he concurs with Ms. Lemke’s evaluation.

Sue Tepatti, Environmental Specialist advised in her May 8, 1996 report that there is small wetland near the center of the site that the applicant is proposing to impact. The wetland is approximately one-tenth of an acre in size and due to the nature of the impact, it falls under the minor use category of the wetland ordinance and is being reviewed administratively. Ms. Tepatti further stated that the wetland is within a disturbed area and historically it has been filled in the past. Ms. Tepatti added that there are several spoil piles in the vicinity. Ms. Tepatti further stated that the slightly wider northern tip is basically a small depression with one cottonwood tree in the middle and a small stand of willows around it with ponded water. Ms. Tepatti advised that as it narrows to the south, it is a barely distinguishable swale with some wetland grasses in it, but the same grasses are invasive and continue over the whole field. In addition, Ms. Tepatti reported that the swale disappears and flattens out into a gravel area of old fill and disturbed ground and does not appear to convey any water. In addition, Ms. Tepatti advised that further south there is a man made ditch that extends off the site. Ms. Tepatti reported that the wetland is basically isolated and of very low quality in an already existing disturbed area and therefore, she does not expect to have any problems with the impact to it.

Chairperson Lorenzo reported for the record that she has a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department stating that approval is recommended with the following condition: Add a fire hydrant at the north entrance drive to the parking area to meet the 300' maximum spacing of hydrants in a commercial development.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that this is a Public Hearing and opened the floor to the public for discussion. Seeing no one, she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Weddington asked the applicant if he anticipated selling memberships to the public to use the facilities at various times during the day? Gary McCann, Director of Business Development with the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan advised that he does not anticipate that and that their patients are all insurance related and referred by physician prescription only. Mr. McCann advised that the arrangement that Member Weddington may be referring to is something along the lines of a fitness program that has memberships, but reiterated that their facility is strictly a referral-based facility by physicians.

Member Weddington asked if there is going to be any foot traffic of staff members between the DMC/Woodland Medical Clinic and the proposed building? Mr. McCann reported that the facilities are stand alone facilities and the employees will not be shared. Mr. McCann explained that patients will be referred from the HCC facility and will have direct access to the rehabilitation center. Member Weddington stated that the reason that she asked the question is because she is concerned about the pedestrian traffic across the boulevard and wanted to make sure that it wasn’t something that needed to be addressed with Mr. Arroyo from a safety standpoint.

Member Weddington is in support of the project, but is concerned about the appearance of the north elevation seen from Twelve Mile Road. Member Weddington explained that it appears to be plain looking on the drawings because the building is oriented toward the access boulevard facing the other DMC facility. Member Weddington does not know if there is anything that they can do to make it look more attractive to the traffic on Twelve Mile Road, but realizes that it is not a major concern. Member Weddington also commented about the lack of a canopy. (end of tape) Member Weddington stated that this is just a comment, but it may be something that they may want to consider. The applicant replied that they have considered a canopy, although it will not be a total drive under, it will hang so that people can drop off patients right to the covered area and it is illustrated more clearly on the construction documents.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that she will entertain a motion at any time.

Member Hodges stated that the 135 space parking figure, and the five handicapped spaces are 15 spaces in excess of what the ordinance actually requires. Member Hodges asked if the handicapped parking should be increased because of the use of the facility? The applicant replied that they are planning to increase the handicapped as a result of a comment that resulted from a recent staff meeting. He further stated that during final site plan approval they will propose to convert significantly more of the spaces to handicapped. The applicant added that both of the points that the Commission members made were brought up by users of the facility and will be incorporated into the final planning documents.

Member Hodges then offered to entertain a motion. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that this will be a recommendation to Council. She added that there is one recommendation to Council and then a woodland permit. Member Hodges stated that her first motion will be to send a positive preliminary site plan recommendation to City Council. The motion was seconded by Member Bonaventura.

PM-96-05-094 TO SEND A POSITIVE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Bonaventura, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive preliminary site plan recommendation to City Council.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the preliminary site plan for DMC Outpatient Rehabilitation Center and asked if there is any discussion on the motion?

Member Bononi read the comment in JCK’s letter of May 9, 1996 which stated that "a note on the plan indicates that the existing storm sewer has capacity to handle developed flows from this site. However, this must be verified prior to final site plan approval." and asked if it does not meet capacity, what is the remedy and who pays? Mr. Bluhm replied that there are several options if it does not meet capacity. Mr. Bluhm explained that the applicant can improve either the storm sewer system because there is detention capacity downstream or they can come back before the Commission with a revised preliminary showing some type of on-site detention. Mr. Bluhm advised that the overall master plan does show that the area is being picked up in a developed state so he does not anticipate any problems.

Member Hoadley asked the applicant if there is shared parking between the two entities? The applicant replied that there is not, but there is a shared driveway. Member Hoadley advised that a shared driveway could lead to shared parking. The applicant replied that they anticipated the parking on the site to serve the facility and they do not see a need for shared parking. Member Hoadley asked if it would be true that if one facility was full, wouldn’t the tendency be to park in the proposed facility or vice versa? Member Hoadley further asked if it would be a good idea to provide an adequate cross walk, since people might walk across. The applicant replied that they do not anticipate that happening, but he does not think that it would be a problem to provide one. Member Hoadley would like to see a cross walk as a condition, in addition to including approval subject to the consultant’s recommendations and asked if the maker would incorporate it. Member Hodges advised that she would agree to incorporate the consultant’s recommendations and comments, but has trouble with a sidewalk because it would encourage people to use it. Member Hodges explained that as she understands the proposal that it is not the applicant’s intent. Member Hodges stated that they should provide some realm of safety and that is why there are street lights, etc. so that access can be made safely. Member Hodges does not think that they should encourage walking by the development on a sidewalk and will not agree to adding the sidewalk as a condition. Member Hoadley stated that he is just proposing a crosswalk. Member Hodges replied that she understands what he is saying, but she still thinks that it encourages the use and she does not want to put people in that position because it is not designed to be a safe pedestrian way. Member Hodges realizes that people will walk there, but she does not want to encourage it. Member Hoadley was not suggesting a walk way near the road. Member Hodges stated that she knows that he means that there should be a connector road. Member Hoadley stated that there should be a connector near the entrance to where the other parking lot would be. Member Hodges agrees that if needed, people will use it as a "shared parking," but again stated that she does not want to encourage it with a pedestrian traffic way.

Member Hoadley asked if the applicant has had any other situation where the other parking lot has been full? The applicant replied that there has been no problem at the current time with an overflow of parking. Member Hoadley conceded and stated that he will not ask that this be added to the motion, but would like to see the consultants’ recommendations and comments added. Member Hodges stated that it was an oversight and would like that added to her motion.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked for further discussion and seeing no one restated the motion to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the preliminary site plan for DMC Outpatient Rehabilitation Center, SP 96-10A subject to all the consultants’ recommendations and comments.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-094 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Bononi

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the Chair will entertain a motion for the woodland permit.

Member Hodges would like to make a motion to approve the woodland permit for DMC Outpatient Rehabilitation Center, SP 96-10A. Chairperson Lorenzo reiterated that it is an approval and stated that the motion is to approve the woodland permit. Member Hoadley seconded the motion.

PM-96-05-095 TO APPROVE THE WOODLAND PERMIT FOR DMC OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION CENTER, SP 96-10A

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Hoadley, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the woodland permit for DMC outpatient Rehabilitation Center, SP 96-10A.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to approve the woodland permit for DMC Outpatient Rehabilitation Center and further asked if there was any discussion on the motion. Seeing no one, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-095 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Bononi, Hoadley

No: None

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. NANTUCKET COVE RESTAURANT & THE BOSTON CLUB BANQUET HALL, SP 94-49A

Property located at the northeast corner of Meadowbrook Road and Grand River Avenue for possible extension of Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan approvals until September 20, 1996.

Member Hodges would like to make a motion to extend Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan of Nantucket Cove Restaurant & Boston Club Banquet Hall, SP 94-49A until September 20, 1996. The motion was seconded by Member Markham.

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Markham, CARRIED (6-1): To extend Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan of Nantucket Cove Restaurant & Boston Banquet Hall, SP 94-49A until September 20, 1996.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that there seems to be a couple of items that need to be incorporated into the motion. She further stated that one condition would be that there is a relocation of the proposed Meadowbrook Road driveway to line up with the recently modified Ray Electric/SoccerZone Meadowbrook Road driveway across the street and based on that it would be wise to have the plan come back before the Commission for final. Member Hodges agreed to Chairperson Lorenzo’s change in the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the motion is to approve the extension of Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan subject to the relocation of the proposed Meadowbrook Road Driveway to line up with Ray Electric and SoccerZone and to bring the plan back for final. She then asked if there was any discussion on the motion?

Member Hoadley wants to know if there is any impact since the site plan that is included is the original site plan and is not the plan that would agree with Mr. Arroyo’s request or is it enough to know that the Commission is requiring a realignment without it actually being shown. Chairperson Lorenzo replied that when the applicant comes back for final, the relocation will have to appear on their final site plan. Member Hoadley stated that there were some other considerations in regard to site distance in the relocation that should be made a part of the motion. Member Hodges asked Chairperson Lorenzo to restate the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo restated the motion as she has it is to approve the extension for Special Land Use and Preliminary Site Plan until September 20, 1996 subject to the relocation of the proposed Meadowbrook Road driveway to line up with the recently modified Ray Electric/SoccerZone Meadowbrook Road driveway and to bring the plan back for final.

Member Hoadley asked about the ZBA’s reinstatement of approval for off premises parking? Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is a time limit on the ZBA approval? Mr. Watson replied that if the applicant wants to move forward, they will have to go back to the ZBA. Member Hodges wanted to amend the motion to include the comments of the consultants. Chairperson Lorenzo then stated that as she understands it, the motion then is to approve the extension subject to the relocation of the driveway, subject to all the consultants’ previous comments and recommendations, and that this is to be brought back for final.

Member Hodges replied that she is a little confused about asking to bring it back for final because they are just asking for an extension to approve the preliminary. Member Hodges stated that at the time of preliminary, if it is approved, wouldn’t that be the time to have it come back for final. Chairperson Lorenzo replied no and that they are not going to bring back a preliminary because they are extending their preliminary approvals at this time.

Member Weddington asked if an extension to September 20, 1996 is sufficient because she does not want it to have to come back again in October because of another delay. Member Weddington stated that the Commission normally gives extension for a year at a time. The applicant interjected by stating that he was going to propose a year extension and advised that it was an error. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the applicant is requesting a years extension from today’s date. Mr. Watson advised that it would actually be a year from the expiration date. Mr. Cohen advised that the date is January 18. Chairperson Lorenzo reported that the correct date would then be January 18, 1997. Member Hodges stated that the applicant is now requesting more than what was originally stated in the motion. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that was correct and that the Preliminary Site Plan and Special Land Use expired January 18, 1996. Member Hodges advised that she could be nasty and tell the applicant to reapply for an application because that is the way it is done where she comes from and that he should start the process all over again. Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Hodges if she wanted to amend her motion. Member Hodges said she is not going to amend that, but it feels good. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if Member Hodges was going to withdraw the motion. Member Hodges asked to leave the motion on the floor as it stands. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the date should be September 20? Member Hodges replied that the date should be until September 20, 1996. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that the motion as it stands is to approve the extension until September 20, 1996 and asked if there is any discussion on the motion.

Member Bonaventura stated that he had problems with the project the last time it came before the Commission and voted against it. He further stated that if he remembered correctly, the reasons were that the project is too big for the site and there is not enough parking. Member Bonaventura added that it is another regional attraction for the community to hold the burden of being a host and he has a problem with this, with the strip mall that is going in across the street, and with the regional hospital proposed down the street. Member Bonaventura agrees with the earlier comment that if the plan has expired as of January 1996 and the applicant is serious about continuing, then he should reapply.

The applicant asked to comment and Chairperson Lorenzo replied that it would be inappropriate unless he has a question posed to him.

Member Hoadley invited the petitioner to reply. The petitioner stated that there was some concern from the Commission about the parking and which they took very seriously. The petitioner advised that it took him nine months to do what the Commission suggested about providing additional parking. The applicant reported that they had 340 spaces and after nine months, they were able to acquire another 500 spaces. They also appeared before the ZBA, who granted their variance. Member Hoadley advised that he was one of the Commissioners who voted against the original plan because of inadequate parking. Member Hoadley further advised that he was one of the Commissioners that had made a strong recommendation to acquire additional off site parking and add a valet service to accommodate those times when they would overfill their parking on site. Member Hoadley stated that the applicant did not have to do that, because the Commission voted to approve the plan as it was originally proposed, but the applicant recognized on his own that it could be a concern. Member Hoadley is not going to withhold his vote tonight to extend this plan because of a technicality and further believes that the applicant represents a spirit of cooperation.

Mr. Wahl stated that he believes that the Commission should be aware that the expiration to a certain extent, was inadvertent. Mr. Wahl explained that there was a lack of communication with another department and that the applicant misunderstood when the deadlines were. Mr. Wahl further stated that the Department is going to try to rectify those kinds of problems with plan expirations in the future.

Member Hodges stated that she appreciates Mr. Wahl’s explanation. However, the applicant is not a stranger to the ordinance of Novi and if he does not know how long the application process takes, that is his own fault. Member Hodges therefore, cannot accept Mr. Wahl’s explanation.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated seeing no further discussion, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll. Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion is to approve the extension to September 20, 1996 subject to relocation of the driveway, all of the consultants’ prior recommendations and comments and to be brought back for final.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-096 - MOTION CARRIED

Yes: Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges

No: Bonaventura

2. MAIN STREET VILLAGE, SP 95-09D

Property located south of Grand River Avenue, between Meadowbrook Road and Novi Road for possible Final Site Plan approval.

Mike Kahm, of Singh Development advised that they are before the Commission for final site plan approval and that their construction drawings have been completed and reviewed by all of the City’s consultants and staff. Mr. Kahm further advised that all the comments that they have received to date have been addressed. Mr. Kahm noted that he and Mr. Seiber will answer any questions regarding any items in the site plan. Mr. Kahm reported that he has the renderings from the preliminary site plan and that the architectural drawings in the packages reflect the final design.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant advised that Ms. Lemke will present the bulk of his report because the detail amenity package for Town Center zoning is in their joint report. Mr. Rogers referred to his letter dated April 16, 1996 and advised that it conforms with the previously approved preliminary site plan.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated that she and Mr. Pargoff have spent a lot of time with the petitioner in reviewing not only the woodlands, but also the amenities that are required by the ordinances. Ms. Lemke believes that this is their third letter and it basically boils down to two items that they still have concerns about, but have now been addressed. Ms. Lemke reported that one item was the need for additional pedestrian lighting standards throughout the project if the pedestrian scale is to be enhanced. Ms. Lemke advised that the applicant has added seven additional lighting standards. Ms. Lemke added that the applicant then had to reposition the other standards so that there is a uniform pedestrian lighting scale throughout the project. Ms. Lemke stated that the other item was screening on the southeastern property line where the six foot high screening wall stops. Ms. Lemke reported that the applicant basically had a row of crabs, but have now added shrubs underneath that to achieve another level of screening. Ms. Lemke advised that she will address the woodlands whenever the Commission is ready, but this takes care of the site plan and they are recommending approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Ms. Lemke to continue with the woodlands.

Linda Lemke stated that they had spent a lot of time with the petitioner and the only outstanding problem was in regards to the wells behind Buildings 20 and 24 that were located in the area of regulated woodlands which were indicated to be preserved for the woodlands permit. The applicant has since submitted conceptual plans that pull the wells as far out as they can from the woodlands. Ms. Lemke advised that they will be a little bit into the woodlands due to the separation that is required from other utilities, but she feels the locations that are now being shown are acceptable and need to be added to revised plans. Ms. Lemke further advised that they have six conditions: (1) Payment of a performance bond in the amount of $30,000; (2) Final replacement bond to be determined by Mr. Pargoff; (3) No construction, including clearing or grubbing can begin until the protective fencing has been approved by the City and an environmental preconstruction meeting is held; (4) The remaining regulated woodlands which are not platted are placed into preservation easement; (5) Preservation signage is erected as directed by the City; (6) The revised wells must appear on revised plans.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant reported that in his letter of May 10, 1996 that he noted in Item 2 that there are one or two areas that are showing what appears to be lined parking space next to parking garages. Mr. Arroyo reported that they are not actually spaces and they are not to be striped because they are not intended to be spaces and do not meet the standards for that. Mr. Arroyo advised that the applicant previously identified the spaces as areas that would be entryways into the garage.

Mr. Arroyo further noted that as a point of information, the wetland mitigation area appears to be in the path of the Market Street extension to the south. Mr. Arroyo stated that he has spoken with Mr. Bluhm and it appears that if it were to be extended to the south the potential exists that it could be shifted to the west and would minimize impacts on that. In conclusion, Mr. Arroyo is recommending approval of the final site plan.

Dave Bluhm of JCK reported that they are at the point where they can recommend approval, but they have some minor issues that are identified in Items 1 and 2 of their letter dated May 8, 1996. Mr. Bluhm advised that some of the grades around some of the buildings needed to be adjusted a little to insure drainage away from the buildings. Mr. Bluhm reported that the applicants engineer is making those adjustments. Mr. Bluhm further reported that there is some minor utility service lead locations need to be slightly adjusted. Mr. Bluhm added that it should be noted that the development is being constructed simultaneously with regional improvements downstream that were approved by City Council last year. In conclusion, Mr. Bluhm reported that beyond the minor adjustments, they are recommending approval with an administrative resubmittal for final approval.

Sue Tepatti, Environmental Specialist reported that she has reviewed the plan for conformance with the prior wetland permit approval in her May 9, 1996 letter. Ms. Tepatti advised that the project was approved by the City Council for a wetland permit in June 1995 and then received subsequent recommendations and approvals for a revised permit based on some reduction in woodlands impact. Ms. Tepatti reported that the applicant has supplied the information that was listed in the conditions of the wetland permit approval regarding additional topography at road crossings and proposed swale improvement. Ms. Tepatti advised that the application has been made for the soil erosion permit and is currently under review. Ms. Tepatti further advised that the only issue she has outstanding is about the mitigation and that she is in the process of reviewing the revised grading plans.

Chris Pargoff, Forester concurs with Ms. Lemke’s evaluation of the project. Mr. Pargoff advised that he is not as optimistic as the applicant’s engineer as to how many trees they are going to save. Therefore, Mr. Pargoff reported that Item 1 in his recommendation letter of May 9, 1996 requires bonding for an additional 62 trees equivalent to replanting of 110 trees on the site. Mr. Pargoff advised that the bond is to insure that the intruded area is adequately protected. (end of tape) In addition, Mr. Pargoff advised that at the request of the developer to plant as many of the woodlands replacement trees on the site as possible, they are proposing with Detroit Edison to clear the upright growing species along the southern and eastern boundaries of the property. Mr. Pargoff further advised that to compensate for the impact of the loss, the developer shall plant two inch crabapples (the variety will be determined by himself), Amalanchier, White Flowering Dogwood, or Red Bud. Mr. Pargoff advised that for each of the shorter growing trees, the developer shall receive one half credit toward a woodland replacement. Mr. Pargoff advised that by using this plan, the right tree will be planted in an Edison corridor, the developer will be able to satisfy his woodland replacement requirements, residents of the northwest portion of Meadowbrook Glen will have less intrusion by Detroit Edison trim crews, and the City will gain a flowering corridor.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that she has a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department recommending approval. Chairperson Lorenzo turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion and the Chair will entertain a motion at any time.

DISCUSSION

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Rogers if he reviewed all of the facades on final? Mr. Rogers asked Member Bonaventura to recall that the applicant resubmitted perhaps two times until they met the ordinance requirements. Mr. Rogers further stated that they originally came in for a Section 4 waiver which received a negative review from Mr. Necci. Mr. Rogers advised that the applicant did comply by hanging brick over the garages and is now at least 75% brick on each facade with a complimentary clapboarding effect for the balance.

Member Bonaventura asked why there is no berming in the area near Meadowbrook Glens? Mr. Rogers advised that there is some existing vegetation to be preserved and he believes it was augmented in places. Ms. Lemke interjected that it is augmented further north and as Mr. Pargoff had mentioned, the applicant is going to have to clear in that area. As a result, Ms. Lemke advised that some of the understory vegetation will be removed, but the augmentation is enough to provide the screening. Mr. Rogers added that the buildings are setback 75' from Meadowbrook Glens and all of the parking is in the front of the buildings to the north side with no vehicular parking or access on the south side of the three buildings.

Member Bononi still has concerns about the impact on the existing wetlands, by not only this project, but the two previous projects that went along with it. Member Bononi is concerned about the quality of water that will divert into the wetlands, she is concerned about the 72% of surface vegetation that will be removed and increase the erosion infiltration factor unless it is carefully handled, she is concerned about the water quality in the wetlands, and she is also concerned about just how much the wetland can take. Member Bononi advised that wetlands do have limitations from the standpoint of an over burden. Member Bononi understands however, that the wetland approval was already granted and consequently, she is looking for very special requirements to see that the erosion and sedimentation of the site is controlled. Member Bononi asked when the off site storm sewer by way of Trans-X property is scheduled to be installed? Mr. Bluhm replied that there is no certain date, but it will have to be installed either concurrently or before the development of the property.

Member Markham was very disappointed to read that the development is going to get 63 water taps to the Detroit main, when there are subdivisions in the community where residents are paying a lot of money to have their water filtered because the wells are not of good quality. Member Markham thinks that it is a shame that another development can connect before residents already in homes can connect to the Detroit water main.

Member Bonaventura asked why is that? Mr. Bluhm replied that it is based on the frontage that the applicant has and if the property has frontage where a main was put in place before 1991, then they are allocated a certain number of taps because basically the property has those taps all along. Member Bonaventura asked where the frontage is? Mr. Bluhm replied that they have access to Grand River and he believes it is the Grand River main where they are receiving the taps.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that one of the conditions in the wetland letter of September 14, 1995, was that the culvert elevation shall be reviewed and future submittals to determine that wetland hydrology which shall not be altered. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it was determined that the wetland hydrology was not altered? Ms. Tepatti stated that was correct and they reviewed it to see if they matched the existing conditions. Furthermore, Ms. Tepatti stated that in reviewing the profiles and the cross sections, the applicant appears to be matching those. Ms. Tepatti added that they were putting in quite a large culvert at the road crossing. Chairperson Lorenzo interjected by stating that they are installing the box culvert that was required.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is a monitoring mitigation plan proposed? Ms. Tepatti replied that there will be a five year monitoring plan that the applicant will be required to have their consultant monitor, not only during construction, but they will be required to submit reports every November or December 1st for a period of five years. Mr. Tepatti added that there are extensive conditions that will be listed in the standard mitigation conditions that detail the monitoring report requirements that they will have to comply with.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked what the requirement is for the wells and the 75 foot clearance and why it is required? Ms. Lemke advised that it has to be separated from any other utilities by 75 feet and she believes that it is a state requirement. Mr. Bluhm interjected by stating that it is a State Health Department requirement.

Member Hoadley reiterated remarks made from a couple of weeks ago for the record that this is the second slice of a three-slice pie and all interdicting the regulated wetlands. Member Hoadley reported that the Commission did not have all this information when the original decision was made for wetland permits for the project. Member Hoadley suspects that Vic’s is to be the other two slices, although he wasn’t there at the time. Member Hoadley recommends for the future that even though the Site Plan Manual might not require it, that the Commission should require that they be given all the facts to make a better judgement as to how the additional phases of a project might interdict a sensitive land issue or traffic. Member Hoadley would like to broaden their scope in the review process to look at those things and encourages the Planning Department and Consultants to help the Commission get that information. Member Hoadley also suggested that the consultants provide photographs or require the applicants to provide them for sensitive areas because some of them cannot get to the site or other constraints. This would give the Commission a better opportunity to visually see what is being talked about.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is a motion at this point in time?

Member Weddington made a motion for final site plan approval, Main Street Village SP 95-09D, subject to all the consultants’ conditions and comments. The motion was seconded by Member Hodges.

PM-96-05-097 FOR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, MAIN STREET VILLAGE SP 95-09D, SUBJECT TO ALL THE CONSULTANTS’ CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Hodges, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: For final site plan approval, Main Street Village SP 95-09D, subject to all the consultants’ conditions and comments.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it has been moved and seconded to approve the final site plan for Main Street Village SP 95-09D, subject to all of the consultants’ verbal and written conditions, recommendations, and comments. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

Yes: Markham, Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo

No: None

3. REC ORDINANCE - SCHEDULE PUBLIC HEARING

Recreation District is proposed to provide areas for the development of recreational facilities by governmental entities and/or private entities. Schedule possible Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance for June 19, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.

Member Hodges asked if this is the proper time to make a comment? Chairperson Lorenzo replied that brief comments are appropriate. Member Hodges is concerned about lumping all the activities, 1-15, as principal uses allowed 150' to any residentially zoned district. She would agree that some are acceptable, such as parks and play fields. Member Hodges does not want a putt-putt miniature golf course, ice skating rinks, and indoor arena. She also objects to them being so close to neighborhoods because they generate a lot of traffic and if they are close to neighborhoods, children will walk to them. Member Hodges greatest concern is that she does not think that the amount of traffic that they would generate would be conducive with foot traffic. Member Hodges made a motion to schedule a public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance for June 19, 1996 at the Regular Planning Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Member Weddington.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that it was moved and seconded to schedule the Public Hearing for the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for Recreation Ordinance for June 19, 1996. Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is any discussion on the motion?

DISCUSSION

Member Bonaventura asked if Mr. Rogers if he or his staff worked on the amendment? Mr. Rogers replied that it was all his work under the retainer with the help of the Planning Department’s staff. Mr. Rogers further advised that he and others personally visited the West Bloomfield facility, which has the same functions inside that he is looking for, but it does not have the architectural, setback, or parking standards by any means that this ordinance would require. Member Bonaventura asked if Mr. Rogers started out with a similar ordinance or did he start with scratch. Mr. Rogers advised that he looked at other ordinances for example, Milford Township and West Bloomfield. Mr. Rogers further advised that this ordinance has been tailored more to Novi’s ordinance format and the City’s needs and space. Member Bonaventura asked if he reviewed the rumored piece of property on Eight Mile Road. Mr. Rogers heard that area may be a possible site, but the ordinance is not place specific and could apply to all the City park sites. Member Bonaventura knows that, but he is trying to determine if this is a designer ordinance or not. Member Bonaventura stated that a facility was reviewed that is rumored to go on a piece of property and wondered if Mr. Rogers used any of the numbers from the width of the property or the size of the property in writing the ordinance. Mr. Rogers replied that the only thing that he had relating to the 40 acre property, is that he saw a sketch plan from the petitioner that laid out some of the functions and showed 150' setbacks, height, and indicated a rough approximation of parking. Member Bonaventura asked if there were any discussions made with the petitioner about a recreation district ordinance? Mr. Rogers responded that he has had some discussion.

Member Bonaventura asked if indoor ice skating or roller skating rinks are only allowed in heavy industrial? Mr. Rogers replied that they are allowed in Heavy and Light Industrial, Section 1903. Member Bonaventura asked if can be against residential in Light Industrial? Mr. Rogers replied that it cannot because of the way the ordinance is written. Mr. Rogers added that the setbacks would only be 20' in an I-1 District. Member Bonaventura remembers comments made about whether Novi would want these types of facilities against residential or not. Member Bonaventura advised that right now they are required to be in industrial and not against residential. Mr. Rogers replied that under the present ordinance, Member Bonaventura is correct. Member Bonaventura just wanted to make clear what somebody has already decided about indoor skating and roller rinks. Member Bonaventura always assumed that it was decided because of the hours of operation and that hockey games and such might be a little bit too disruptive and should be separated from where people live. That is why Member Bonaventura questions whether this is a good idea. Mr. Rogers advised that this is only a third draft and the Commission is only recommending revisions, additions, and deletions to City Council from the draft. There is no doubt in Member Bonaventura’s mind that the facility that may be proposed would be a benefit to the community. However, what bothers him is that just because a deal is in the works with one particular property owner and because there is a need for quality recreation, it may be over done just to accommodate a particular piece of property. Member Bonaventura reiterated that he would like the Commission to think about the reasons for the current requirements.

Member Hoadley stated that this is the first draft that he has seen and asked if it was to be enacted, would the Commission then decide where the zoning would be for this type of situation? Mr. Rogers replied yes and that it would have to be decided where and establish the planning justification, have a public hearing and make a recommendation for a map change to City Council.

Member Hoadley asked if the City is going to have a Recreation District, it seems that it should have a lot of debate similar to what the Implementation Committee has and asked why it did not go before them for a recommendation? Mr. Wahl responded by stating that there is no requirement that any ordinance go to the Implementation Committee and this project and proposal was brought forward by the Administration. Mr. Wahl further stated that the Commission has received several reports in the process of how that occurred. In addition, Mr. Wahl advised that the community has been working long and hard on these particular needs and now the process has gotten to a point where action is needed. Member Hoadley asked if this is the first draft to come before the Commission? Mr. Wahl replied that is correct. Member Hoadley advised that he is going to vote against the motion because he is recommending that this go to the Implementation Committee to be debated so that they can offer input and be able to make a positive recommendation. Member Hoadley is not opposed to the idea, but agrees with Member Bonaventura that it is very hard to bring out all the questions and concerns at a public hearing.

Member Hodges asked if the Commission agrees to a public hearing, will the draft that is now before them be the one that is advertised? Mr. Watson replied that it will be redone. Member Hodges stated that if it will be redone, she really does not really know what her motion was for? Mr. Watson stated that the draft will have to be put into ordinance form. Mr. Watson further stated that the draft that they have is a rough draft that isn’t in the form for adoption. Member Hodges asked if the items are verbatim more or less. Mr. Watson advised that he will correct some of the syntax and grammar. What Member Hodges is asking is under the principal uses permitted, that is what would be advertised. Mr. Watson replied that is correct. Member Hodges is worried about the wording and feels that if this comes before the public, it will take care of itself.

Member Bononi commented that she would have a lot of concerns about the ordinance and questions the need for an ordinance in this particular form. Member Bononi understands where they are heading, but would have a lot of concerns about some of the items under required conditions in particular and also accessory uses and principal uses. Member Bononi further stated that if the matter is brought forward in its current form, she would not support a public hearing. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that there might be proposed amendments to it and it will be debated and discussed at that time. Member Bononi stated that Member Hodges brought up the point that whatever form it is in, is whatever form it’s in. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that won’t be before the Commission, but they have the option of proposing amendments to it at that time before it goes to Council.

Mr. Watson asked if the May 29, 1996 agenda already filled? Mr. Wahl replied that it is.

Member Bonaventura asked Mr. Watson if it is unusual to have something in such a rough form to propose a public hearing on and it seems to him that someone is in a hurry? Mr. Watson is not certain why Member Bonaventura is asking him that question. Member Bonaventura asked if it is common for the Commission to propose to have a public hearing on something that is in such a rough draft? Member Bonaventura recalled that Mr. Watson has usually gone over the ordinance change and then a public hearing is requested. Mr. Watson replied that he has probably reviewed approximately 80% of the drafts prior to them coming before the Commission.

Member Weddington shares Member Hodges concerns with respect to some of the principal uses permitted. Member Weddington also does not see ball diamonds or any of the existing facilities on the list. Member Weddington would like to see some more specific information about the setbacks and so forth because she is not interpreting this enough to be able to act on or to consider.

Member Markham does not believe that this has been reviewed enough by the Planning Commission in detail to be put before a public hearing. Member Markham is in favor of a public hearing, but she has comments on the matter and also believes that several of the other Commissioners do too. Member Markham would like to see a separate meeting to prepare this before a public hearing is granted or there will be five hours of discussion and still not be any further along than tonight. Member Markham proposes that they do something different, perhaps in the Implementation Committee or give Brandon their comments for another draft.

Member Weddington suggested that perhaps an informational public hearing or one with the purpose of soliciting comments from the public in a data gathering process before formulating an ordinance even in draft form. Member Weddington would like to get some input from the public on what they feel is necessary and use the information in trying to come up with a proposed ordinance. Member Weddington sees a value in having a public hearing.

Chairperson Lorenzo interjected that it seems to be the Commission’s pleasure to instead of scheduling a Public Hearing, having the item as a matter for discussion at the June 19, 1996 meeting? Member Hoadley would to send it to Committee under those conditions. Member Hodges is willing to withdraw her motion in favor of Matter for Discussion. Member Weddington agreed to withdraw motion.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised that there is now a motion on the floor to bring the item back as a Matter for Discussion on June 19, 1996. Member Hodges asked if she needs to formally make the motion, then so moved. (end of tape)

PM-96-05-098 TO SCHEDULE THE ZONING REC ORDINANCE UNDER MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE JUNE 19, 1996 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule the item under Matters for Discussion at the June 19, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if there is no further discussion, the motion is to bring the REC Ordinance back under Matters for Discussion on the 19th of June and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-098 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

4. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Possible adoption and recommendation to City Council.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it is the Commission’s pleasure to continue, or postpone Item 4 to a future date? Member Bonaventura made a motion to postpone to. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that it may be postponed to a future agenda and they will try to get it on the May 29, 1996 agenda. Mr. Capote interjected by stating that due to extenuating circumstances, the best case scenario this report would have been to the Planning Commission a month ago. Mr. Capote advised that the report needs to be included with the City Council budget and believes the packet is being prepared tomorrow. Furthermore, Mr. Capote advised that it should be an attachment to the City Council’s budget which obviously puts the Commission under the gun should they have issues with the report and want to make revisions to it. It was Mr. Capote’s hope to try to have it included with the Council budget. Chairperson Lorenzo asked what is the Commission’s pleasure? Mr. Capote advised that Member Hodges was a member of the Committee that helped to create the document, the new time table, and the new form on which all the Departments submitted their information. Mr. Capote asked Member Hodges to provide some additional insight, given Member Vrettas is not available this evening. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that there are two choices, the Commission can either postpone it or approve it.

Member Hodges reported that Mr. Capote had done research and attended workshops which provided a good format that allowed the Committee to bring the CIP process up to ordinance and state statute. Member Hodges further reported that they got recommendations from various departments and there was an informational item that allowed them to set priority to the projects, they did so and this recommendation would then submit these priority items. Member Hodges stated that one item of information that is important and new about this is that they followed the definition of capital improvement projects as outlined by state statute and that included all public land . . . Mr. Capote interjected by stating, public land and those improvements upon those lands, only. Member Hodges went on to state that if for example if the Fire Department asked for new fire hoses, even though it may have been a larger budget figure, it did not qualify by state statute under capital improvements. Member Hodges stated that what they did was put all of this into the right category. Member Hodges said the budget was not adjusted by the Committee and was submitted by the Committee as they requested.

Member Hodges made a motion for adoption and recommendation to City Council for Capital Improvement Program Budget as submitted. Mr. Capote suggested that the motion should state, as the Committee rankings and Department rankings to be considered during Council’s deliberations. Chairperson Lorenzo advised that is too much for a motion. Member Hodges stated that she should say the budget and all documentation, therein which will say that. Chairperson Lorenzo suggested that the motion is to adopt and recommend the Capital Improvement Program as presented to City Council. The motion was seconded by Member Weddington.

PM-96-05-099 TO ADOPT AND RECOMMEND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AS PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adopt and recommend the Capital Improvement Program as presented to City

Council.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was any discussion on the motion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hoadley asked if the CIP impacts the Planning Commission’s budget in any way. Mr. Capote responded that it does not.

Member Hoadley observed that this is the first time that he has seen this and it is short notice. Member Hoadley candidly stated that because the Commission had such a huge packet that he did not have the opportunity to review it. Member Hoadley does not believe that it is fair to bring these items in at the last moment, but he will go on good faith that Member Hodges has reviewed the document carefully. Member Hoadley further advised that many times at Committee decisions are made, but it doesn’t necessarily come out that way and if he can be reassured that it has been reviewed line by line and reflects the Committee’s true recommendations, he will then support it. Member Hodges reassured Member Hoadley that it has and some of the information that they reviewed had been verbatim year after year. The Committee took that standard information and updated it to match the state statutes. Member Hodges reiterated that what they did was review it and make changes to the language. Member Hoadley asked if there was some reason that it came before the Commission at this late hour? Member Hodges replied that it is only because she thinks out of fairness, it is just the fact that this process has never been done in the City as she understands it before. She further stated that even though they have capital improvement requests, they had not been done according to state statutes and so a new process has been developed and presented to the departments. Member Hodges advised that they set deadlines for the departments and the packets could not be assembled until the departments responded. Member Hodges said that the Committee only saw the total package after the last Planning Commission Meeting to approve it and then bring it before the Planning Commission at the next meeting.

Mr. Capote stated in response and in concurrence with some of Member Hoadley’s concerns that his memo indicates a new CIP time frame format that is to be followed in future years as the plan evolves and the City develops. This was passed with a resolution by the Planning Commission and City Council to enforce this upon the various administrative department heads to follow the direction and cooperative spirits of the Planning Commission and the CIP Committee that gathers this information in a timely manner so that the Planning Commission is afforded the opportunity to review the document in an appropriate time frame. Mr. Capote believes that although there will be some changes to the document next year, it is more important that it be done on a timely basis and that the department heads are involved which has been a real difficulty in the past.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that Mr. Capote’s point is well taken and they appreciate the effort that has gone into the document. Chairperson Lorenzo stated that if there is no further discussion, there is a motion to adopt and recommend to City Council the Capital Improvement Program as proposed and asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-099 - MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington

No: None

5. SCHEDULE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 29, 1996 TO DISCUSS LITIGATION

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that the Chair will entertain a motion to schedule an Executive Session of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. before the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on May 29, 1996 to discuss litigation.

Member Hoadley stated that he will make the motion and it was seconded by Bonaventura.

PM-96-05-100 TO SCHEDULE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:00 P.M. BEFORE THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 29, 1996 TO DISCUSS LITIGATION

Moved by Hoadley, seconded by Bonaventura, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To schedule an executive session of the Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. before the Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on May 29, 1996 to discuss litigation.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is any discussion on the motion. Seeing none, she asked Mr. Cohen to call the roll.

VOTE ON PM-96-05-100 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Yes: Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. JULY 3, 1996 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Discussion regarding possible movement of meeting date to Wednesday, July 10, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. due to the Fourth of July holiday.

Member Hodges advised that she will not be available July 10, but she will be available July 3, 1996.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked for the consensus of the Commission. Chairperson Lorenzo asked for a show of hands as to who can attend the meeting on the third? Chairperson Lorenzo stated that as far as she can see, everyone can make the July 3, 1996 meeting and no change is necessary.

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Chairperson Lorenzo opened the floor for audience participation.

Chuck Young, 50910 West Nine Mile Road advised that he is gratified to know that Mr. Rogers came up with the plan because he had heard that two other executives had come up with the plan. Mr. Young stated that one person can really have a say in the community and he wants everyone who might be watching this meeting tonight to know that can happen. Mr. Young reported that there was a dewatering situation in SWAN on Garfield Road which went basically against the residents and the whole area, and it was proven that the water did not take the pond level down.

However, Mr. Young further reported that they were blind sided by this REC ordinance proposal and he has made a study of the Beck Road to Napier corridor and the Meyer’s Berry Farm was not in there. Mr. Young agrees that it is a money maker, but asks, what about the residents? Mr. Young stated that if it goes to Public Hearing, it does not affect anyone except the people that live there and asks what is going to happen to the current zoning? He also asks where can recreational zonings be put then? He supposes they can be put wherever the Commission wants to get away from I-1 or away from a commercial rating. Mr. Young is not saying that it is good or bad and is not taking any opinion on it, because that will be up to the spokesman for the SWAN people. Mr. Young believes there are some time constraints on this because it is being rushed. Mr. Young also stated that he visited the facility and that it would have to be different from the one he saw. Mr. Young agrees that although it is a good plan, but it is also a plan to blind side people. Mr. Young asks the Commission to look closely at the whole thing.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there is anyone else who would like to comment, seeing no one, she closed Audience Participation and entertained a motion to adjourn.

PM-96-05-101 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION AT 11:42 P.M.

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the regular meeting of the Novi Planning Commission at 11:42 p.m.

Yes: Weddington, Bonaventura, Bononi, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham

No: None

Transcribed by: Barbara Holmes

May 29, 1996