(810) 347-0475

Meeting called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Chairperson Lorenzo

PRESENT: Members Bononi, Capello (Arrived 7:38 p.m.), Hoadley, Hodges, Chairperson Lorenzo, Markham, Vrettas, Weddington

ABSENT: Churella (Absent/Excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning Consultant Brandon Rogers, Engineering Consultant David Bluhm, Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Assistant City Attorney Dennis Watson, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke, Senior Environmental Specialist Susan Tepatti, Director of Planning & Community Development Jim Wahl, Staff Planner Steven Cohen

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda. Steve Cohen, Staff Planner stated the introduction of new staff members of the Planning & Community Development Department will be postponed until the next Planning Commission meeting.

Member Vrettas added the discussion of regulations on the length of deceleration lanes as Item 2 under Matters for Discussion.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other changes, seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the Agenda as amended.

PM-96-08-159 TO APPROVE AGENDA AS AMENDED

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as amended.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-159 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

LaReta Roder, Vice President of the Novi Heights Community Association would like to address the number of projects that have been before the Commission that directly affect her subdivision. During the Site Plan approval process, specific measures were set to protect the residents, it was her belief that those measures were being ignored and seemed to be unenforceable. She gave some examples of the magnitude of the problem. She stated complaints from the residents to the various city departments have resulted in no action by the city. Enforcement must catch up to the amount of current construction and the city must consider the safety and welfare of its residents.

Tom Harmon, 42463 Park Ridge, a resident of Meadowbrook Glens subdivision, requested the denial of the Revised Preliminary Site Plan approval for Dales & Graphic Supply development. There were three issues of concern: 1) The lack of zoning enforcement by the City, 2) The nature of the existing Dales & Graphic Supply operation currently in Sterling Heights, 3) A new tree survey to be conducted on the southern half of the property in question, since the last time a survey was conducted was in 1986. Mr. Harmon is asking for denial of the project because he feels the City has failed to demonstrate effective zoning enforcement with no recourse for its’ taxpaying residents.

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

Member Capello reported there was no correspondence.

CONSENT AGENDA

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections or clarifications to the June 26, 1996 Special Planning Commission minutes. She stated on Page 10, last paragraph, the last sentence should read, "Chairperson Lorenzo explained the Chair is not relinquishing the floor at this point." Page 11, first paragraph, the fifth sentence from the bottom should read, "Member Hoadley advised he spent three hours today with representatives of the sports club...". Page 31, the fifth paragraph should read, "Chairperson Lorenzo asked if they should be official about it?" Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any other changes, seeing none she entertained a motion to approve the June 26, 1996 minutes as amended.

PM-96-08-160 TO APPROVE THE JUNE 26, 1996 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS AMENDED

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Hodges, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the June 26, 1996 Special Planning Commission minutes as amended.

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

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections to the July 10, 1996 Special Planning Commission minutes. Member Bononi stated on Page 5, the last two sentences, the words "alienate" and "perception" should not be underlined.

PM-96-08-161 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 1996 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AS AMENDED

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Hodges, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the July 10, 1996 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-161 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections or clarifications to the July 10, 1996 Special Joint Meeting of the Novi City Council and Novi Planning Commission. Seeing none she entertained a motion to approve.

PM-96-08-162 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 10, 1996 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE NOVI CITY COUNCIL AND NOVI PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Hodges, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the July 10, 1996 Special Joint Meeting of the Novi City Council and Novi Planning Commission Meeting minutes.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-162 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there were any corrections or clarifications to the July 17, 1996 Special Planning Commission Meeting minutes. Mr. Cohen stated that on Page 11 the date of the Planning Commission Meeting was misstated, it should be June 19, 1996. Chairperson Lorenzo stated on Page 10, fifth paragraph, the fourth sentence should read,

"...until it merges into the left-hand lane." Chairperson Lorenzo entertained a motion to approve the July 17, 1996 Special Planning Commission Meeting minutes.

PM-96-08-163 TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 1996 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES AS AMENDED AND THE JULY 17, 1996 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the minutes of the July 17, 1996 Special Planning Commission Meeting minutes as amended and the July 17, 1996 Regular Planning Commission Meeting minutes.

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

No: None

1. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.556

Property located south of Thirteen Mile Road, east of Meadowbrook Road for possible recommendation to City Council for rezoning of property from Residential Acreage District (R-A) to One-Family Residential District (R-1) or any other appropriate zoning district.

Robert Carson referred to his presentation maps. He stated the property in question is ready to be redeveloped and rezoned to R-1. It seems most appropriate because it conforms with the area surrounding it in regard to the uses and density. He described how the parcels were proposed to be used. There are approximately 50 acres of land which yields 40 sites at 0.08 of an acre in an R-A District. There are approximately 10 acres to the north and approximately 40 acres to the south. The land has extensive woodlands and wetlands, therefore it will have very limited development possibilities to the south. An agreement has been reached with the Walled Lake Consolidated School District which yields several results for the development including the connection of the two developments by the creation of a road at the back of the school parcel, allowing two exits. The cost of the road will be substantial, in order to connect and yield the two exits. If the southern portion of the property remains R-A, according to the Ordinances, there is a limitation on the length of the street. There is a total of 36 sites in the proposed format, therefore even under the rezoning, there are still 40 sites which are yielded under the R-A zoning.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant referred to his letter dated July 9, 1996. He stated the purpose for the rezoning is to achieve additional residential density that will support the installation of sewer and water. The two vacant parcels are bounded on all sides by properties that are zoned R-A. The southerly part of the property has been considered by the City on two occasions in the past, Mr. Rogers sites these cases in his report. Under the Preservation Option, the conforming development could result under the R-A District standards. Mr. Rogers stated he cannot support the rezoning because there is no proof showing that the property cannot be developed as presently zoned and master planned.

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

Thomas Nations, 24820 Ivywood Drive of Farmington Hills stated he owns 14 acres of property just to the east of the property in question. He stated he is building a house that is approximately 3,000 square feet and it will be facing the proposed road. His concern was that the road would detract from his property. He stated he was not in support of the rezoning.

Terry Sullivan, lots 2 and 3 on Summit Drive. He asked Mr. Hughes if he will be bringing in water and sewers, if the property is to be developed?

Joanne Findley, 28805 Summit, lot 5. Expressed concern regarding the development and how it will effect her as it develops.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if there was anyone else who would like to address the Public Hearing, seeing no one she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Hodges asked the applicant if the concentric circles on the presentation boards were of any value or what did they mean? Mr. Carson stated they are half mile circles. They were put in so that anything within a half mile, mile, etc. proximity could be seen in comparison to the proposed rezoning. It was Member Hodges’ understanding that the zoning change was requested so that the cost of the installation of sewer and water would balance out.

Mr. Carson explained putting in the infrastructure for any development is an expensive proposition. One of the criteria for development of the property is to bring in sewer and water.

Member Hodges expressed her concerns and stated that the zoning request should be based upon economics. She stated there are Ordinances to protect wetlands and woodlands and how they can make for some unique configurations of land development, however, it is a responsibility that the land owner will have to bear.

PM-96-08-164 TO SEND A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR REZONING PROPERTY FROM RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE DISTRICT (R-A) TO ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-1) ON ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 18.556

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Bononi, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a negative recommendation to City Council for rezoning property from Residential Acreage District (R-A) to One-Family Residential District (R-1) on Zoning Map Amendment 18.556.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it has been moved and seconded to send a negative recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.556 and asked if there was any Discussion on the motion.

DISCUSSION

Member Weddington asked the applicant if the property could be developed as R-A using wells and septic fields?

Ron Hughes answered no, it cannot, because the soils are not conducive. The yield of only ten lots on 40 acres is not enough to be viable.

Member Weddington asked, aside from the economics, are the surrounding residents on wells and septics?

Mr. Hughes answered yes, however, they are not next to wetlands. He stated his site is very low and two-thirds of the site to the south is contiguous to wetlands and woodlands. The topography of land that is developable has a very high water table. This is the reason for waiting for sewer and water to be available to the site.

Member Weddington asked Mr. Rogers the maximum number of units that could be built if the land were rezoned to R-1, and the Preservation Option were exercised?

Mr. Rogers stated the degree of reduction of lot size depends upon the amount of area other than regulated wetlands. If those areas are on site, the lot sizes can be reduced by 20% and the width can be reduced by a lesser amount. In an R-1 District with half acre lots, the full 20% cannot be taken if there are eligible preservation credits because it would drop below the threshold of the R-3 District. Mr. Rogers stated all of the property to the south and to the east is on substantial large parcels and did not see why it could not be developed as R-A.

Member Weddington asked Mr. Bluhm to address the issue of septic fields not being feasible under the wetlands.

Dave Bluhm, of JCK stated he believes that the houses to the east on Summit are all on septic fields. There are options for the construction of septic fields, engineering of a septic field can be done if the soils are not adequate. He stated a definitive decision cannot be made without any detailed soil reports.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers how many developable acres are on the site?

Mr. Rogers stated it could be more or less than 40%, he has not computed it. The lower property is 40 acres and the upper is roughly 10 acres.

Member Hoadley stated 40% of land would be about 16 acres, added to the upper 10 acres, for a total of 26 acres of developable land. This would give a total of 30 lots at 0.08 of an acre. Member Hoadley corrected the applicant by stating 800 feet could be cul-de-sacked under the Ordinance, as opposed to 600 feet. Member Hoadley asked the applicant if any soil boring tests have been completed to prove the point of no perking on the property?

Mr. Carson answered no, they have completed preliminary walks but no formal reports can be presented.

Member Hoadley asked if it was just a guess of the applicant that the land cannot be developed?

Mr. Carson stated he partially made his statement based on some walks that were completed with experts as to how and where the land could be developed, however, there are no formal reports.

Member Hoadley agreed with Mr. Rogers that the land has been Master Planned R-A and assumed that the applicant knew this when they purchased the land. Member Hoadley stated he is not in favor of a rezoning at this time, unless it can be proven that the land is absolutely not buildable.

Member Capello asked Mr. Bluhm where the sewer is at this point?

Mr. Bluhm stated the sewer is approximately 1500 feet north of Twelve Mile Road on Meadowbrook Road which is approximately 3000 feet south of the southwest corner.

Member Capello asked if the applicant is planning on bringing the sewer up 3000 feet to the development?

Mr. Hughes answered, yes. Member Capello asked if the cost of the sewer has any impact on the decision of needing more lots? Mr. Hughes stated in order to develop the entire easterly side of the Vistas of Novi, is required from Twelve Mile Road and Meadowbrook Road. In conjunction with bringing up the sewer, it puts the property in a developable position. The cost will be allocated to pro rata to whoever uses the sewer.

Member Capello asked if the applicant had given any thought to extending the cul-de-sac and appear before City Council to get a grant for that variance? Mr. Hughes answered he cannot proceed any further than the requirements of the City Ordinance which is 800 feet. Member Capello explained he could go to City Council for a variance to extend it and asked if he has given any design thought to it? Mr. Hughes answered no.

Member Capello stated that since the cost of the sewer was to be shared with the Vistas, he did not see the need for any additional lots. Based on the fact that the cost is to be shared, he cannot recommend approval for the rezoning.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she is in support of the motion because there is not enough information at this point. She would like to have known from Mr. Rogers, the percentage of woodlands on the property, the number of lots that could be yielded from R-1 and R-A assuming the Preservation Option. She stated substantiated evidence is needed in terms of the parcel not perking. At this time she is inclined to support the motion, however, in the future, more information will be needed. Chairperson Lorenzo referred to the minutes of the City Council Meeting of May 15, 1995. Page two, the last paragraph, Mr. Lanciault indicated, because of the sites significant amount of wetlands and other natural features, the total development for R-3 zoning will only be approximately 37 homes assuming a wetland crossing permit is granted by the DNR. Chairperson Lorenzo asked the petitioner how he would explain 37 homes under R-3 zoning and the gentleman who spoke previously mentioned the same effect under R-1 zoning? She asked that the discrepancy be explained to her.

Mr. Lanciault explained the last petition only included the southerly portion of the land to the south of the school, the parcels are now combined. He stated initially he owned all of the 77 acres, sold 25 acres to Walled Lake Consolidated Schools which split the parcel. After meeting with Mr. Rogers and the Planning Department, it was strongly suggested that the two parcels be connected. Mr. Lanciault stated that after the land was sold, he went to the City to connect the two parcels, as it was their recommendation. He stated he would prefer not to connect them.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Member Hodges and Member Bononi if they would like to make sure that it is specified in the motion to send a negative recommendation in accordance with Mr. Rogers’ verbal and written recommendations.

Member Hodges and Member Bononi answered yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated there is nothing further and asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role, once again the motion is to send a negative recommendation to City Council for Zoning Map Amendment 18.556 in accordance with Mr. Rogers’ verbal and written recommendations.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-164 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

2. SOCIETY HILL APARTMENTS, SP 95-44D

Property located west of Novi Road, between Twelve Mile Road and Twelve ½ Mile Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit recommendation to City Council and Woodland Permit approval.

Mr. Galvin stated the Site Plan before the Commission, meets all of the Ordinance criteria for approval. He asked the Commission to reconsider their votes of the previous meeting based upon the fact that at the time the plan was reviewed, the land was not zoned for multiple use and the PD-1 Option had not been applied to the property. Mr. Galvin referred to the City Council Meeting Minutes of July 15, 1996, page 20. The Discussion concerns the issue of the Preliminary Site Plan Review, he read Councilman Mitzel’s comments, "The Planning Commission’s review might be slightly more directed and objective once a zoning is in place so the recommendation might be slightly different." Mr. Galvin stated that there are recommendations for approval from all of the consultants because all of the criteria in the Ordinance have been met. Mr. Galvin asked the Commission to recommend approval of the Site Plan because it meets the criteria, secondly, he asked for recommendation of approval to the City Council for the Wetlands Permit. Thirdly, he stated that a more directed and objective review should be given and the Woodlands issues should be dealt with at the proper time.

Chairperson Lorenzo clarified the Agenda of the meeting is the request of Woodland Permit approval. She asked Mr. Galvin if he was now requesting that it be postponed? Mr. Galvin stated that he would like to deal with the non-issues and then look at the real issues. Member Capello asked if he meant for the issues to come before the Commission later this evening or at another meeting? Mr. Galvin answered at another meeting, he stated he needs to go before City Council with the Wetlands Permit, then he will come back before the Planning Commission.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant clarified in his recommendation for approval of the PD-1 Preliminary Site Plan stating that he had some conditions, as did Mr. Arroyo. Mr. Rogers was concerned that the Commission would not have a lot of leeway after the approval of the Preliminary Site Plan. Mr. Rogers stated all of the issues in the review letters and in the Woodlands report were laid on the table at the City Council meeting. It was his belief that if the Council had been in a position to approve the Preliminary Site Plan at that meeting, there would have been certain conditions placed on the approval. Mr. Rogers stated that he believes the two parcels of land can be separated, however, when applying for the Woodlands Permit, it should be noted that the Preliminary Site Plan will need to be revisited if it is to impact the plan in any way. Mr. Rogers stated his three conditions: 1) the Commission review of orientation of the buildings to the 45 degree angle, 2) adjusting Building 1 to observe the twenty-five foot wetland setback, 3) compliance with Woodlands Permit conditions through Ms. Lemke and Mr. Pargoff’s reports.

Dave Bluhm, JCK & Associates stated they have reviewed the plan and would like their letter to be a part of the recommendation.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant referenced the outstanding issue as identified in his letter is the secondary access, which still has not been resolved. He stated he has identified some alternatives in the letter, one being to provide for a one way in operation off of Twelve ½ Mile Road, appropriately signed. Given the size of this site, Mr. Arroyo believes a secondary emergency access is warranted and should be provided for, other than this issue Mr. Arroyo recommended approval.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated she stands on her letter dated June 12, 1996 and had nothing else to add.

Chris Pargoff, City Forester concurred with Ms. Lemke and indicated with the amount of cement and hard surfaces proposed, there is an issue of where the water will drain off after it can no longer penetrate the soil. He also stated that most of the woodland removals will not be able to be placed on the site because of the requirements for the landscaping in the 2509 Ordinance.

Sue Tepatti, JCK & Associates stated the actual Wetland Permit does not involve any actual fill, but some storm water discharges to the wetlands. She stated she stands on her letter of recommendation of approval, with conditions, which included the DEQ Permit, the use of retaining walls, the relocation of the tennis courts, if possible, as well as incorporating water quality methods into the sedimentation basins.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she has received a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. She also received a memo from Bruce Jerome, DPW Superintendent which states that Twelve ½ Mile Road is an unimproved gravel road, it is approximately 20 feet wide and has no roadside drainage system. If the proposed development is going to have access onto Twelve ½ Mile Road, he recommended major reconstruction of the roadway to bring it up to current City of Novi Collector Road Standards. He did not feel that Twelve ½ Mile Road in its current condition, could safely accommodate a major increase in traffic volume. Chairperson Lorenzo stated it is a Public Hearing and opened the floor to the public for comments. Seeing none she closed the Public Hearing and turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Member Capello stated to control the scope of the Discussion he would like to make a motion to postpone the woodlands issue if this is what the applicant would like.

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney explained, assuming the postponement of the Woodlands Permit, any recommendation that is made on the Site Plan is going to be presumably conditioned upon any changes necessitated by the ultimate Woodlands Permit otherwise it would imply that the conditions have been satisfied but appear that some issues remain.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it would be appropriate for the Commission to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the Site Plan and specify it as subject to granting any conditions of the Woodlands Permit? Then act on the Woodlands Permit and perhaps modify the Site Plan in accordance. Mr. Watson answered yes, it is always in the Commission’s prerogative.

Mr. Galvin withdrew his request to have the Woodlands Permit not acted on because he sensed a discomfort in the Commission. He asked the Commission to recommend approval of the Site Plan subject to the Consultants recommendations and consistency with the Ordinance. He also asked the Commission to issue the Woodlands Permit however, he did not expect that it would happen, so he asked that it be acted upon and made the sole issue that the recommendation excludes.

Member Capello asked the applicant if he wanted the Commission to address the three issues separately rather than lump them together into the same motion? Mr. Galvin answered yes. Member Capello stated he would like to change his motion.

PM-96-08-165 POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SP95-44D TO CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT TO ALL OF THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE GRANTING AND CONDITIONS OF A WOODLAND PERMIT.

Moved by Capello, seconded by none, MOTION FAILED due to lack of support.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, MOTION CARRIED (5-3): To send a negative recommendation of Preliminary Site Plan SP95-44D to City Council.

DISCUSSION

Member Vrettas stated that the applicant has not fulfilled the requirements of the Preliminary Site Plan according to the Ordinance because the Woodlands are a part of the requirement. He stated it is all inter-related and one cannot be done without the other. He stated all three issues have to be taken together, the woodland concerns are not something that can be passed over. Member Vrettas stated he will vote against the motion unless all three items are taken together.

Member Markham had concerns regarding the Twelve ½ Mile Road condition. She stated that an access road onto Twelve ½ Mile Road will result in people using the road as ingress and egress and did not feel that a sign would be enough to prevent it. She stated she would like to see the petitioner consider something else more aggressive, making it very clear that it is only one way in.

Member Weddington stated the reason she seconded the motion was for some of the reasons stated by Commissioners Vrettas and Markham. Environmental impacts are thoroughly integrated with the Site Plan and there is no way to approve it until the issues are resolved. In addition, she would like to see the safety issues associated with the secondary road access thoroughly addressed along with the other items mentioned in the consultants reports. She stated she is in support of the motion for these reasons.

Member Hoadley stated he is going to vote against the motion because he felt it should be postponed with no recommendation at this time. He felt that the Commission should be allowed to express their concerns and then allow the petitioner to come back with an amended Site Plan that would address these concerns. He stated he would like to hear some testimony from the Consultants in regards to how the Woodland Ordinance would impact the Site Plan. Member Hoadley stated there are a lot of issues that the Commission needs to discuss.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she agreed with Member Capello. It was her opinion that the approach needed to be reworked. She stated that the Commission has to deal with the rezoning and the PD-1 Option on this property. Chairperson Lorenzo explained her approach was to send a positive recommendation to City Council for the Site Plan since it meets all of the Ordinances according to all of the Consultants, other than the Woodlands Ordinance. Make the recommendation subject to the conditions and granting of a Woodland Permit by the Commission. The granting of the Woodland Permit will allow the removal of buildings. It was Chairperson Lorenzo’s suggestion to remove buildings 7, 8, and 10 and relocate the maintenance building as conditions under the Woodlands Permit and request City Council to support the Woodlands Permit decision.

Member Bononi agreed with Mr. Rogers and Commissioners Vrettas and Weddington, from the standpoint of looking at the land use issue, not a zone change. She expressed concerns in regard to how the proposed works together and/or does not work together, the access to Twelve ½ Mile Road was also a concern because according to her interpretation of the Ordinance, she did not feel that the applicant has met the Ordinance requirements. For these reasons she would like to see the matter reviewed in an integrated manner, this better serving the applicant.

Member Vrettas commended the applicant for obtaining the PD-1 Option stating that it helps to clear up some issues but there is still the need for more growth.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role, stating again the motion

is to send a negative recommendation to City Council for the Preliminary Site Plan for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-166 CARRIED

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Capello

No: Hoadley, Vrettas, Bononi

Member Capello stated he would like to send a positive recommendation to City Council subject to the comments and conditions stated in Ms. Tepatti’s letter dated June 13, 1996 on the Wetland Permit, SP95-44D.

PM-96-08-167 TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON THE WETLAND PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS STATED IN MS. TEPATTI’S LETTER DATED JUNE 13, 1996.

Moved by Capello, seconded by none, MOTION FAILED due to lack of support.

FOR THE WETLAND PERMIT FOR SOCIETY HILL APARTMENTS, SP95-44D.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington: CARRIED (6-2): To send a negative recommendation to City Council for the Wetland Permit for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D.

Member Vrettas stated it should be integrated and he will continue to vote no.

Member Weddington was confused regarding sending negative recommendations to City Council. She believed that nothing would move forward because it will still have to come back before the Commission.

Member Vrettas stated that the applicant needs to understand that the Planning Commission does consider woodlands an important issue. He supported the movement of the buildings. Once again, Member Vrettas stated the entire project is inter-related and all of it should be held.

Mr. Watson stated it is not appropriate to postpone an issue just because the application is not of desire. The Ordinance provides that the Planning Commission is to review the plan and make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated that each issue should be acted upon.

Member Vrettas stated he was to make a negative recommendation to City Council on the entire package. Mr. Watson asked if he wanted to vote on just a single motion? Member Vrettas answered yes, rather than dividing it up. Mr. Watson stated that is just a procedural issue. Member Vrettas expressed his concern of recommending two-thirds of the project and then the applicant would go to City Council with the woodland issue. Mr. Watson stated the Council will receive the entire minutes of the meeting and they will understand the issues before the Planning Commission and how they were thought about.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role, once again the motion is to send a negative recommendation to City Council for the Wetland Permit for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-168 CARRIED

Yes: Hodges, Lorenzo, Markham, Weddington, Bononi, Capello No: Hoadley, Vrettas

Member Capello asked the applicant which was the first parcel purchased? Mr. Galvin answered, the north piece. Member Capello asked at the time of the purchase, was it already zoned RM-1? Mr. Galvin stated it was zoned PD-1.

It was Mr. Rogers‘ belief that the rezoning, PD-1 and the Preliminary Site Plan was all approved at the same time. Member Capello asked if the applicant were to develop just that parcel without acquiring additional land as recommended, would there be more or less infringement into the woodlands? Mr. Rogers stated based upon the plan at that time, it would dramatically impact the site. Mr. Rogers stated at that time, the Woodlands Ordinance was in the first generation of the Ordinance.

Member Capello asked Mr. Pargoff if there was a place in the City where the trees that are to be replanted are needed, if a Woodland Permit is approved? Mr. Pargoff answered to the best of his knowledge, not at this point in time. He stated there are sufficient funds for Twelve Mile Road but there are always places where trees could be planted. This would be a situation where the funds would be placed into the tree planting account and used as necessary.

Member Capello stated that recently the City and its’ citizens approved funding to purchase all of the park land. This will bring an enormous amount of cars down Dixon and Twelve ½ Mile Road. He stated this will be a much greater impact on Twelve ½ Mile Road than the residents living in the northern section of this development and there is no concern about this traffic. He did not feel that this was fair.

PM-96-08-169 FOR DENIAL OF THE WOODLAND PERMIT FOR SOCIETY HILL APARTMENTS, SP95-44D FOR THE REASONS STATED BY CONSULTANTS

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it has been moved and seconded to deny the Woodland Permit for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D and asked if there was any Discussion on the motion?

DISCUSSION

Member Weddington asked if it would be better to postpone this part of the package pursuant to the applicants original request and have the Revised Preliminary Site Plan returned to the Commission at a later date.

Mr. Watson recommended that this not be done because the Woodlands issue is not a recommendation, it is directly before the Commission to be acted upon. The postponement would force it to go through another two more cycles because City Council would take action, then it would come before the Planning Commission and once again be sent back to City Council.

Member Vrettas stated that the removal of trees from the woodlands will effect the wildlife. When tree removal is talked about, it must be realized that it is also effecting the wildlife.

Member Hoadley felt that the Commission has gone about the procedure the wrong way. He stated everything is approveable subject to discussion and thought. Member Hoadley stated he is in support of the motion.

Member Capello stated that part of the woodlands may be lost for a period of time, displacing the wildlife, but years from now, the trees that are being planted today will be places for wildlife to grow into.

Chairperson Lorenzo did not feel that a denial was doing the Commission any good at this point because it would be turned over to City Council saying that the Commission is denying the entire project when there is obviously some support. She stated the Council may take the project at face value and approve it, meanwhile if the Woodlands Permit is postponed, it would have to come back to the Commission where there would be the option of making modifications. The application would then have the option of going back to the Council for an appeal. By just outright denying the project, the Commission would lose all of those opportunities.

Mr. Watson stated that the Commission has the option at this point, to make recommendations as a part of the motion.

Member Hoadley asked if the cut on Twelve ½ Mile Road could be addressed at this point in time.

Mr. Watson suggested if there are conditions or recommendations that they be made a part of the Preliminary Site Plan recommendation and if it is desired at this point, it be done as a reconsideration of the previous motion and add conditions if there are any.

Member Vrettas would like to add to the motion, the conditions of the Woodlands that were discussed, then once voted on, make some recommendations on the other issues.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated the motion on the floor is a motion to deny the Woodland Permit, however, if the motion fails, Member Vrettas will have the opportunity to make another motion. She stated again the motion on the floor is to deny Woodland Permit approval.

Member Capello amended the motion to approve Woodland Permit SP95-44D subject to the consultants recommendations and subject to relocation of the maintenance building and deletion of buildings 7, 8 and 10.

PM-96-08-170 AMEND THE MOTION TO APPROVE WOODLAND PERMIT SP95-44D SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBJECT TO RELOCATION OF THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND DELETION OF BUILDINGS 7, 8 AND 10.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Woodland Permit subject to all of the consultants comments and recommendations and subject to the deletion of buildings 7, 8 and 10 and the relocation of the maintenance building.

Member Markham asked Ms. Lemke if the motion would satisfy her concerns with compliance with the Woodlands Ordinance? Ms. Lemke answered yes.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role and again the motion is to approve the Woodland Permit subject to all of the consultants comments and recommendations and subject to the deletion of buildings 7, 8 and 10 and the relocation of the maintenance building.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-170 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

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

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

Mr. Galvin requested that the Commission reconsider the two motions of denial and make them positive motions subject to the same considerations that were in the motion concerning the denial of the Woodlands Permit.

Debbie Bundoff addressed the Society Hill project and hoped that consideration would be given, not remove the maintenance building. Secondly, she stated concerns about the Woodlands. She stated that even after several attempts by the Forester, to stop the unnecessary removal of trees, over 225 trees were removed. She stated a lot of habitat was lost as a result of this removal. She stated it is a good idea to replace trees to compensate for the lost trees.

Seeing no one else, Chairperson Lorenzo closed the Audience Participation and moved to Matters for Consideration.

Member Capello spoke in regard to Society Hill Apartments SP95-44D, based on the petitioners request, he made a motion to reconsider the motions for a negative recommendation on the Preliminary Site Plan, negative recommendation on the Wetland Permit and approval subject to conditions on the Woodland Permit.

PM-96-08-171 TO RECONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND WETLAND PERMIT FOR SOCIETY HILL APARTMENTS, SP95-44D.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider the Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D.

Mr. Watson clarified that a motion to reconsider has to be made by someone who is on the prevailing side of the motion. Mr. Watson asked Mr. Cohen if Member Capello voted on the prevailing side on each of the three motions? Mr. Cohen stated for the Preliminary Site Plan, Member Capello voted in favor of the negative recommendation, on the Wetland Permit, Member Capello voted in favor of the negative recommendation and the Woodland Permit, Member Capello voted in favor.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role.

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

No: None

PM-96-08-172 FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANTS CONCERNS AND CONDITIONS AND SUBJECT TO THE GRANTING OF THE WOODLAND PERMIT OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND WETLAND PERMIT ON SP95-44D.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Weddington.

Member Hoadley stated he is voting against the motion because he feels there needs to be some Discussion before a motion is made. He had a lot of concerns in regard to the access road on Twelve ½ Mile Road, potential stacking at the entranceway onto Novi Road, excel/decel lanes, stubbing into other potential subdivisions that may abut the property. Member Hoadley stated he would like to amend the motion to include the Discussions on the motion.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated this is the appropriate time to discuss the concerns.

Member Hoadley asked the petitioner if given a positive recommendation, would he be willing to modify the Site Plan to the extent of one-way in only, with a gate and make the road about 10-11 feet wide toaccommodate for one way. Member Hoadley also asked if he would be willing to pave Twelve ½ Mile Road, from that exit onto Novi Road?

Mr. Galvin answered, as he understood the consultants’ report, the Fire Chief and the Traffic Planner sought a solution which would include one-way-in only. He would be willing to comply with the one-way in but stated he is not prepared to pave the road.

Member Hoadley stated the applicant gave an impact statement in regard to traffic, however, he did not discuss Twelve ½ Mile Road as to the amount of traffic generated. Member Hoadley asked the applicant why this was left out?

Mr. Galvin stated initially there was not a second entrance. He believed this to be the reason for the lack of reference in the original impact statement. He stated the entranceway was added at the request of the consultants and staff and indicated his willingness to cooperate and deal with the issue. He stated there was no intentional failure to deal with an issue that was included on the original plan.

Member Hoadley asked how many vehicles would come up Dixon Road and use the access through Twelve ½ Mile Road? Mr. Galvin asked for Mr. Arroyo ‘s input if he has read the traffic report, if not, Mr. Galvin wanted to look at the report. Member Hoadley stated as he has read, no one has dealt with the issue and asked how many units would be at the northern portion of the project?

Mr. Galvin answered 60 out of 300, using a factor of 10 at 600 trips, of these trips, a cut of them would only be the in-bound, since the out-bound is restricted. Member Hoadley asked Mr. Arroyo how many trips are being generated currently?

Mr. Arroyo stated a current count is not available. He did not believe the DPW had conducted a count on Twelve ½ Mile Road because it is such a low volume roadway. Member Hoadley asked how many homes are on Dixon Road and Twelve ½ Mile Road? Mr. Arroyo answered he did not have that information at hand. Mr. Arroyo responded to Member Hoadley’s comment of earlier, he believed if the driveway were to be one-way-in, the impact onto Twelve ½ Mile Road would be fairly low, maybe less than 300 trips per day.

Mr. Galvin stated he would be willing to make accommodations to dissuade persons from using it, and subject to the staffs concurrence, put a barrier up to prevent it. Member Hoadley asked if the applicant would be willing to put up a gate that could only be accessed by the Fire Department? Mr. Galvin answered certainly, they were willing to build without it.

Member Hoadley stated on Novi Road, there is stacking of five spaces into the project, he asked the applicant if the gatehouse could be moved further inward in the event that there is not enough stacking? Mr. Galvin believes that the five spaces are sufficient but would certainly look into it, if it were proved unworkable.

Member Hoadley asked if the service house for equipment could be removed and storage of the equipment be moved under the clubhouse? Mr. Galvin understood that the storage area was necessary for the project as planned. He stated he would be willing to discuss possible alternative arrangements to reduce the size of the storage for the services that require it.

Member Hoadley asked if the stubbing to the west would invite further developments of the same type? Mr. Galvin stated it could accommodate it, however, it would not necessarily invite any particular form of development. Member Hoadley asked Mr. Rogers if it was required under the Site Plan?

Mr. Rogers stated unless there are environmental concerns that prevent a road from being extended, it was his belief that a stub had to be shown between one subdivision and another. Member Hoadley stated there are environmental concerns. Mr. Rogers agreed stating it may be running into a swamp.

Member Hoadley asked what the conditions were, immediately to the west of the subdivision?

It was Ms. Tepatti’s belief that the wetlands continued off to the west. She stated there may be some uplands in between the wetlands. There are wetlands off site however, there is a higher point in between, that may be usable in order to access a more buildable area. Member Hoadley asked if there is a stub, shouldn’t it be in a location where it would be usable instead of running into more wetlands and woodlands? Ms. Tepatti answered yes, in the review it was determined that it may be crossing a small portion of wetlands but there is additional upland further west. Member Hoadley stated it could be made a condition.

Member Hoadley asked Ms. Lemke if her concerns would be alleviated if the buildings on the northern part of the property were to be removed?

Ms. Lemke stated she was more concerned with connections of habitat in the area, which is why the three buildings in the center of the site were being looked at, buildings 7, 8 and 10 and the maintenance building. She stated she was looking more at the connections to the wetland areas in the center and how they flow across the site, as well as how they connect across Twelve ½ Mile Road. Member Hoadley asked if the road could be bridged in some way so as not to destroy the system? Ms. Lemke stated that this would work and has been recommended as a part of Ms. Tepatti’s conditions for Wetlands approval. Member Hoadley asked the petitioner if he would have a problem with this? Mr. Galvin stated he would look at it. He stated he had missed this in his review of the letter and apologized that he did not have any information to answer yes or no.

Mr. Rogers asked if the Commission was approving subject to his conditions, the action the Planning Commission takes on the 45 degree angle would mean a considerable revision of the Site Plan, if the waiver opportunity was not granted. Mr. Rogers stated the Planning Commission should recommend a waiver to Council regarding the orientation.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if it was a waiver of the Planning Commission or City Council?

Mr. Rogers stated it was the Preliminary Site Plan approval by City Council so it was his belief that it was their decision.

Member Hoadley asked Mr. Arroyo for his testimony on the entranceway to Novi Road that the excel/decel lanes are not needed even if the traffic doubles over the next ten to fifteen years.

Mr. Arroyo stated he had difficulty commenting on fifteen years down the road but based upon the near future, there would be a need for decel lanes at this entrance if the five lanes were not going in on Novi Road. With the five lane improvement, there will be two southbound lanes, Mr. Arroyo believed the southbound right turn movement is going to be significantly less than the northbound left turn movement in, therefore he did not believe any additional improvement to Novi Road was needed, to provide an additional deceleration taper.

Member Vrettas asked if concerns regarding Twelve ½ Mile Road needed to be specified in the motion?

Chairperson Lorenzo believed the motion would suffice to say, "...in accordance with the recommendations", unless there was something other than what Mr. Arroyo was recommending.

PM-96-08-173 AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT SPECIAL ATTENTION BE GIVEN TO ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF INSURING THAT Twelve ½ MILE ROAD IS ONE-WAY-IN ONLY.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Weddington.

Moved by Capello, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send a positive recommendation to City Council for Society Hill Apartments, SP95-44D for the Preliminary Site Plan and Wetland Permit subject to all of the consultants recommendations and conditions, and subject to the exploration of alternatives to the Twelve ½ Mile Road entrance ensuring that it is one-way-in only, and subject to the granting and conditions of the Woodland Permit.

Chairperson Lorenzo concurred with Mr. Rogers verbal recommendation of the 45 degree angle waiver.

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

No: None

1. GRAND PLACE COMMONS II, SP96-15A

Property located north of Grand River Avenue, between Seeley Road and Haggerty Road for possible Preliminary Site Plan approval.

George Norberg of Sieber, Keast & Associates, Inc. stated they had a chance to review all of the consultant letters and have no objections to any of the comments or recommendations that have been made. He felt the Site Plan shows most of the recommendations.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant stated the Site Plan meets the standards of the I-1 District. He stated, based upon the floor plan and computations, he finds that the parking is adequate, off-street loading and unloading is in the rear yards of the building as it should be. He had one concern pertaining to an easement of access over the westerly half of the driveway, that comes into Brewers industrial building. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval.

Dave Bluhm of JCK & Associates stated the applicant is proposing service leads for water and sanitary in the buildings, those mains exist along the western edge of the property and run north-south. The applicant has a significant amount of impervious area, the buildings and the parking areas contain a great portion of the site. Storm sewers will be provided throughout the site, catch basins in the parking areas, storm water is intended to be detained in the parking lot areas in several locations around the building, storing no more than one foot during a storm event. The storm water is then directed to the south and into a storm sewer that runs along Grand River Avenue where it will outlet at an agricultural rate and then flow east to the Seeley drain. Mr. Bluhm stated he would like to see the applicant evaluate alternatives for the storage of the storm water. An easement will be required for the sidewalk along Grand River Avenue. The storm sewer that is to be put in along the north side of Grand River Avenue will need to be shown on the plans if it is not installed by the time the plan goes to final. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrates engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant stated the applicant is proposing to add a deceleration/acceleration taper at the main boulevard entrance. Grand River is a three lane road therefore a center turn lane is in place to provide left turn access to this site. There will have to be approval by Mr. Brewer for the median breaks within the private boulevard entrance as well as the access easements. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Preliminary Site Plan subject to the comments in his letter.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she has received a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following; add fire hydrants so the development meets the 300 foot maximum spacing for commercial developments. Chairperson Lorenzo turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

PM-96-08-175 FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, SP96-15A FOR GRAND PLACE COMMONS II SUBJECT TO ALL CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE CONSULTANTS

Moved by Weddington, seconded by Vrettas, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Preliminary Site Plan, SP96-15A for Grand Place Commons II, SP96-15A subject to all of the consultants conditions and comments.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it has been moved and seconded to approve Grand Place Commons II, SP96-15A subject to all of the conditions and recommendations of the consultants and asked for any Discussion on the motion.

DISCUSSION

Member Bononi asked the applicant who owns the site?

Mark Evangelista answered Wilson/Gray Land Company is the property owner and it is currently under option.

Member Bononi asked what specific uses are proposed when the terms "shop" and "warehouse" are used?

Mr. Evangelista answered, a storage facility and 70% office/30%warehouse.

Member Bononi asked what type of materials would be warehoused?

Mr. Evangelista stated at this point it is speculative, there are no tenants proposed for the buildings yet.

Member Bononi asked the applicant if he would be able to decrease the use of some parking spaces as storm water storage if the size of the detention pond was increased?

Mr. Evangelista answered yes, however the problem with increasing the size of the detention pond limits the amount of area to be used for berming in the front or results in the loss of parking spaces.

Member Bononi hoped the size of the project could have been reduced to provide a larger detention pond.

Member Markham asked Mr. Rogers to clarify the parking requirements in his report. Mr. Rogers stated the applicant has adequate parking. He stated using 82% usable/18% non-usable space, the applicant will have enough parking with 161 spaces, plus 8 handicapped. There is no curb parking on the roadway coming in and there are no curb cuts out to Grand River.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role, again the motion is to approve the Preliminary Site Plan for Grand Place Commons II, SP96-15A subject to all of the Consultants recommendations and conditions.

VOTE PM-96-08-175 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

2. DALES & GRAPHIC SUPPLY, SP96-01B

Property located at the end of Trans-X Drive for possible Special Land Use, Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan and Revised woodland Permit approval.

Lee Mamola responded to comments made earlier in the meeting. The first dealing with zoning enforcement and the Monte Costella outdoor storage. He stated he had a survey conducted, they came to an understanding as to what the Ordinance required with respect to screening. The surveyor located a point which extended an existing masonry wall between the I-1 and I-2 zoning and continued down the zoning district line with a new fence. There was storage in that area. The order to purchase the fence had been given by an employee of Mr. Costella’s company when Mr. Costella was out of town. Mr. Costella preferred not to see the fence but instead the proper screening of the items which also included landscaping. The Monte Costella company is under court order and has complied with the order thus far to submit a plan to the City which properly screens, landscapes and fences the area. Subject to the approval of the plans, it is the intent to remove the fence take the items within the I-2 storage area and put them into a more restricted confines of his yard. Mr. Mamola stated that the statement made earlier regarding outdoor storage in an I-1 District was not true. The boundaries were carefully surveyed by a professional land surveyor. Secondly, in regard to the tree survey and the statement that the survey was about ten years old, there was a tree survey conducted a number of years ago, however Mr. Mamola did not believe it was as long as ten years ago. He stated at the beginning of the project, he asked the surveyor to resurvey the trees in the areas affected by the proposed construction. It was Mr. Mamola’s understanding that regardless of what is on a tree survey, the actual size of trees are determined by the consultants and staff in the field. Lastly, regarding the comment made in regard to fumes and odors at the Dales & Graphic Supply facility in Sterling Heights, Mr. Mamola stated he would like Don Dales to comment on it and turned the floor over to him.

Don Dales stated there is a large automotive plant with a lot of outdoor storage, drums are taken in, recycled and stored outside. He stated it is not this way in Novi and this will not be done. There are fumes in the area because there is heavy manufacturing however, there will be no manufacturing or opening of chemicals. The service is provided now, but will not be provided in Novi.

Mr. Mamola stated at the last meeting there was discussion regarding moving the building further from the residents. He stated this was looked at and it was found that the building could be moved a greater distance of ten feet. The building height remains the same, thus exceeding the setback requirement. There was also a request to come back with a more definitive, more detailed landscape plan which has been provided. The site has 218 regulated trees. There is an interior connection between the parking area and the Monte Costella property which creates somewhat of a boulevard off of Trans-X. There are no future curb cuts anticipated, traffic would work internally and a drive could be extended to service future building subject to approval.

Brandon Rogers, Planning Consultant highlighted his third review of the project dated July 22 ,1996, stating the issue of a Special Land Use in addition to Preliminary Site Plan and Phasing Plan. He states no overhead doors, pedestrian doors, windows or vents are to be located on the side facing the residential area. All loading spaces are to be on the west side, opposite residential. No outside storage is proposed. The height of the building on the east is 17-18 feet and 23 feet on the west side due to the land slope, the maximum height is 25 feet. No roof top HVAC’s are proposed on the warehouse segment, a smaller unit is proposed on the west side of the building. A berm is proposed on the east side, the setback is 105 feet. Other standards include no outside long-term parking. Utility services are at the site, the Woodlands Permit is being reviewed, which Ms. Lemke will discuss. Mr. Rogers recommended Special Land Use approval subject to conditions of the Woodlands Permit. The building complies with I-1 District setback standards, both Phase I and Phase II comply with the 5/1 ratio for east side setback. Mr. Rogers believes there is a need for 35 spaces of off-street parking, plus two handicapped spaces to meet the standards of the Ordinance. He stated there is a change in the traffic circulation from the Monte Costella property that was brought up by Mr. Mamola. South of the cul-de-sac there is a cross easement driveway into the site as well as a curb cut at the cul-de-sac. Mr. Rogers stated the Phasing Plan is acceptable and the proposed conceptual facade plan of brick would comply with standards of Section 2520. Mr. Rogers recommended Preliminary Site Plan approval and Phasing Plan approval.

Dave Bluhm, of JCK stated the applicant is proposing water service from the loop main around the cul-de-sac at Trans-X Drive. The sewer lead will be extended in from the south edge of the site. The applicant is providing storm sewers to pick up the drainage from the parking areas and then directed, with no detention, into a storm sewer that traverses to the southwest corner of the site. Ultimately, it will outlet into the regional basin that exists abutting the site to the south. Therefore no storm water storage is required on the site. One comment of significance was the negotiation for the easement of storm sewer for the Main Street Village off-site storm sewer improvements, which will partially traverse this site. The applicants’ storm sewer is fairly consistent with the location, once the easement is secured, the improvements will be made by Main Street to tie into the proposed Main Street Village improvements. Mr. Bluhm stated the plan demonstrated engineering feasibility and recommended approval.

Rod Arroyo, Traffic Consultant pointed out the two areas of access, one of which is shared. He stated the general circulation plan is acceptable given the need to provide for both vehicular and truck access, therefore approval of the Preliminary Site Plan is recommended.

Linda Lemke, Landscape Architect stated in regard to the Woodlands, the plan has not changed significantly. There have been revisions per the comments of the last letter as to the number of trees to be removed and replaced and the protective fencing location. Ms. Lemke stated there are minor items that should be included in the final engineering review. Ms. Lemke stated there has been no tree permit issued for the site. She stated she recommends approval.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Ms. Lemke if she had any comments regarding the landscaping? Ms. Lemke stated there is a berm to the rear of the building that is about 12 feet in the center and decreases from there. The landscape plan is proposing a heavy planting. There is a wall that partially encloses the parking lot to the east and there are plantings that screen the parking lot. The screening requirements are a berm and planting if there is existing vegetation, the Planning Commission can allow waiver of the berm with supplemental plantings. Ms. Lemke stated upon receipt of the final plan, she will actually visit the site to review site lines and make sure it is adequate to screen the residential yards.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated she has received a letter from Daniel W. Roy, Captain of the City of Novi Fire Department that states the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended. She then turned the matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

DISCUSSION

Dennis Watson, Assistant City Attorney stated this an I-1, Special Land Use, adjacent to residential and under Section 1905.5, if approval is being given, there are to be specific findings as to five (5) different requirements that are listed in that section. 1) The scale size building design and facade materials, landscaping and activity of the use is such that current and future adjacent residential uses will be protected from any adverse impacts. 2) Intended truck delivery service can be effectively handled without long term truck parking on the site. 3) Lighting, noise, vibration, odor and other possible impacts are in compliance with the standards and intent of this article and performance standards of Section 2519. 4) The storage indoor use of any volatile flammable or other materials shall be fully identified on the application and shall comply with any City Ordinances regarding toxic or hazardous chemicals. 5) Compliance with the City’s hazardous materials checklist per required submittal data. Mr. Watson stated if this plan is to be approved, it should be subject to making findings of these items.

PM-96-08-176 TO APPROVE SPECIAL LAND USE, REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, REVISED PHASING PLAN AND REVISED WOODLAND PERMIT FOR DALES & GRAPHIC SUPPLY, SP96-01B

Moved by Hodges, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Special Land Use, Revised Preliminary Site Plan and Revised Phasing Plan for Dales & Graphic Supply, SP96-01B.

Mr. Watson asked if the motion included the findings of the five factors under Section 1905.5 based upon the information provided to the Commission?

Member Hodges stated she stands corrected. Yes, it is to include it.

Member Hodges clarified as she understood from Mr. Dales, the information provided to the Commission regarding the Sterling Heights operation stated that he met the requirements under the Ordinances for Sterling Heights. She asked Mr. Dales if this was correct.

Mr. Dales stated he has been in Sterling Heights for not quite a year with the merger. It is on a rail facility, outdoor storage is very common, and is in the zoning.

Member Hodges asked Mr. Dales if the Commission can expect that he will adhere to the Ordinances of the City of Novi if the request is approved? Mr. Dales answered, definitely.

Member Hoadley commended the petitioner on their cooperation and revisions to the Site Plan. He stated he was in support of it.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role, again the motion is to approve Special Land Use, Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan in accordance with the required findings.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-176 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION

1. SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP96-06B

Property located south of Twelve Mile Road, east of Meadowbrook Road for possible motion to reconsider July 17, 1996 Planning Commission decision.

PM-96-08-177 MOTION TO SUSPEND ROBERTS’ RULES OF ORDER, NEWLY REVISED THAT REQUIRES TO RECONSIDER ON THE SAME DAY

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To suspend Roberts’ Rules of Order

Member Capello stated at the last meeting he made the error of making the motion to approve Sinai which did not pass and no further action was taken. He believed it was proper to suspend the rules to enable the Commission to reconsider Sinai.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-177 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To reconsider the decision for Sinai Park Development that was made on July 17, 1996.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-178 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello.

Member Capello asked if the motion included the most recent changes that are provided in the packets? Member Vrettas answered, yes.

Member Hoadley asked if it also included the $15,000 for a passing lane?

Dennis Watson clarified that Sinai has proposed, at such time the City installs a passing lane on Meadowbrook, across from the Meadowbrook entrance, they will reimburse the City for the cost of such a passing lane not to exceed $15,000. Mr. Watson stated that Mr. Arroyo was not recommending the passing lane at this time as stated in his previous comments.

Member Hoadley asked Member Vrettas if he could make the motion subject to the petitioners letter, dated August 2, 1996 or as an additional condition? Member Vrettas stated as long as Mr. Watson does not have a problem with it.

Chairperson Lorenzo asked if the site plan would also have to be revised before it comes back to the Commission for final?

Mr. Watson answered the additional items to the site plan would have to be put into the same form as the Preliminary Site Plans for the consultants.

Member Vrettas also added the Woodland approval to the motion.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated at the last meeting there were several actions that needed to be taken.

Member Vrettas stated he is making an umbrella motion that brings all of these actions together.

Chairperson Lorenzo clarified the motion, a motion to approve the Revised Preliminary Site plan, Revised Phasing Plan, Revised Woodland Permit and Revised Wetland Permit subject to all of the consultants conditions and recommendations and subject to the items listed in the August 2, 1996 letter from Mr. Hyman, to be included in the Revised Preliminary Site Plan.

Mr. Rogers stated the plan could be viewed Administratively. Chairperson Lorenzo stated unless the Commission chooses for it to come back.

Member Vrettas stated he did not choose for it to come back.

Member Weddington asked Ms. Lemke and Ms. Tepatti if they had any reservations about the plan in terms of Woodlands and Wetlands? Ms. Lemke answered, no, the plan is fine. Ms. Tepatti answered, her understanding was that it does not change any impacts to the Wetlands.

Member Hodges asked if the motion was addressing the Revised Site Plan? Mr. Watson answered the plan before the Commission at the last meeting was a Revised Site Plan because it was their second time back. Member Hodges recommended the plan come back for final.

Member Bononi stated she will not support the motion for a number of serious concerns she feels have not been addressed. 1) Primarily regarding the Wetlands, she is concerned about the density of the project and how it affects the designated wetlands, the footprint and its affect on existing and mitigated wetlands proposed. The casualness of filling in 40% of designated wetlands when other reasonable alternatives exist per the City’s Wetlands Regulations as well as Goemaere Anderson 281.79. 2) In regard to filling in the northwesterly portion of the wetlands for an aesthetic reason when no other use is proposed for the site. The cumulative affect of filling wetlands on this site as well as sites that surround concerned her, as she noted Goemaere Anderson 281.79. 3) The majority of the building project is sited on poorly drained soils which fit in with the wetland functions. 4) Approval of a three-phase program, when the third phase will affect the wetlands in a great manner. Member Bononi believed there were a lot of alternatives that the applicant could propose. She is very dissatisfied and believes the proposal from the standpoint of the use intended is a marvelous one, however, she felt it has not succeeded in addressing the wetlands sensitively.

Member Markham agreed with Member Bononi, stating she is not in support of the motion. She was disappointed to see the proposal come back with no considerable changes. Especially in the area of the third phase being proposed for construction between five and ten years from now. She would have preferred to see a motion that addressed potentially approving Phase I and/or Phase II but she cannot support the motion with all three Phases as a part of it.

Chairperson Lorenzo advised Member Markham that she could make an amendment to the motion.

PM-96-08-180 TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT SINAI PARK DEVELOPMENT, SP96-06B, PHASE I AND PHASE II AND ALL OF THE ASSOCIATED PERMITS BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE FIVE ITEMS IN THE LETTER.

Moved by Markham, seconded by Bononi, FAILED (2-6): To amend the motion to include Phase I and Phase II only.

Mr. Hyman stated that Sinai Hospital is a non-profit organization both legally and factual. If purchase of the property proceeds, it will be committing a very large sum of money. Sinai does not have approval on Phase III at this time, it has to buy the property on an "if come" basis. There is a possibility that in the future, Phase III may not receive approval, Sinai will not proceed with the deal and the matter will terminate at this meeting and seek another site elsewhere.

Member Hodges asked, in the Phasing approval process, as each phase is developed, does it have to come before the Planning Commission for approval?

Mr. Watson answered if the Commission approves a site plan that has three phases in it, then all three phases have been approved unless a motion is made only to approve a lesser portion of the plan.

Member Hodges understood Phase III to be the long-term care phase, which requires approval by agencies outside of the City, the State, etc. She stated if approval was granted by the Commission, it does not necessarily mean that the plan would receive the necessary approvals to build.

Mr. Hyman stated Sinai is confident that it will obtain the approvals necessary for building. He also pointed out when Phase III comes along, there will be revisions of what is being approved now and then those revisions will be approved, etc.

Member Hodges asked what is to be built at each phase?

Mr. Hyman stated that Art Huber of Sinai Hospital will answer her question.

Art Huber stated Phase I will be diagnostic medical offices, which is two buildings. Phase II will be a similar type of facilitiy with surgical facilities. Phase III is a short stay bed hospital which would have 200 beds, as currently reduced from previous plans, as well as 24 to 72 hour stays. The concept has not been approved at the state level to occupy this type of facility.

Member Hodges asked what were the general hours of stay, with a same-day surgical type procedure. Mr. Huber answered within the same day, less than 24 hours. Phase III will be a maximum of 72 hours of stay and this is what is being applied for.

Member Capello understood the concerns regarding Phase III, however, he stated he could also understand Sinai’s concerns. He stated he can understand how they would not want to go forward with Phases I and II.

Member Bononi had one clarification. She was not looking at not approving Phase III as a prohibitive action against having something built there, however, she felt we were the trade-off and she still did not hear anything in regard to the wetlands. She saw no reason to fill the entire wetland area of the northwesterly corner.

Mr. Rosetti stated he is not doing anything in the northwest corner. It will remain just as it is.

Member Bononi and Mr. Rosetti looked at the Preliminary Existing Environmental Features Plan dated January 16, 1996 which showed all of the wetlands areas and the areas proposed to be filled in the 1.35 acre of designated wetlands. Mr. Rosetti stated the revised plan of July 1996 reflected the move and reduction of parking as well as the elimination of the need for filling any of the wetlands in the northwest corner. Significant change has been made in the wetlands, between the initial application to the revised application made in July. Mr. Rosetti stated all of the points were not able to be answered however, the wetlands have been extended considerably by the reduction of a large amount of parking.

Member Bononi stated on the basis of the information provided and the revised plan submitted, there is not enough information for her to make a decision. Member Bononi asked Mr. Rosetti if he has affected any of the other fill areas in the general area where the building portion of Phase III is to go. Mr. Rosetti answered yes, they eliminated the necessity of cutting the whole quadrant of wetlands by moving the parking further to the east, they have also opened the woodlands area to save some existing trees.

Sue Tepatti of JCK stated the plan provided does still show the northwestern wetland as being filled. The letter from JCK referenced that and stated the parking had been taken out of that wetland but it was still shown as being filled. She stated the recommendation was that the fill not take place because there was no need for it. The changes that occurred regarding the higher quality wetland was the reduction of parking, and the decrease of wetland fill, which was down to one half of an acre.

Member Bononi asked if the 1.35 acres is going to be filled? Ms. Tepatti answered just a portion of the wetland because of the parking. They are filling the area that was shown as parking on the last plan submitted.

Chairperson Lorenzo stated it is being land-banked and will not be constructed until or if, Phase III can begin construction.

Member Bononi asked why the parking tier was being placed on the land-bank and is there another purpose intended in the future for that corner. Mr. Rosetti stated there is no plan and it would be the land-bank for Phase III parking only.

Member Hoadley asked since all of the information was not on the Revised Site Plan even though it was referred to in the consultants reports, would it be appropriate to amend the motion to have the Phases come back to the Commission for final?

Chairperson Lorenzo stated that could be made a separate amendment. She stated the motion on the floor is to amend the main motion to approve Phase I and Phase II only and asked Mr. Cohen to please call the role.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-180 FAILED

Yes: Markham, Bononi

No: Capello, Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED (6-2): To grant Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan, Revised Woodland Permit and Revised Wetland Permit approvals for Sinai Development, SP96-06B subject to all of the consultants recommendations and conditions and subject to the five revisions from the August 2, 1996 letter from Mr. Hyman being included and being shown on the Revised Site Plan which will come back to the Commission for final.

Member Capello stated he seconds the motion if it is the applicants statement that he is not going to fill more than one half of an acre in the northwest section or the southwest quadrant.

Mr. Rosetti stated the motion before the Commission is subject to the recommendations of the consultants. He stated it has already been imposed as a condition and he has agreed to accept those conditions.

Member Capello stated part of the problem is that the packets are not complete. The Commission was not provided with all of the consultants recommendations and he asked Ms. Tepatti if it was a part of her recommendation to fill only one half of an acre in the northwest and one half of an acre in the southwest quadrants.

Ms. Tepatti answered the plan showed the complete wetland site which was 1.35 acres to be filled, according to the plan, only a small portion would need to be filled for Phase III parking. In her letter of recommendation she recommended that they not fill any wetland that was outside of that parking area. Member Capello asked Ms. Tepatti what her recommendation was in regard to the fill in the southwest quadrant? Ms. Tepatti stated her most recent letter was recommending approval of the plan based on the review of alternatives regarding shifting the building and other items. Ms. Tepatti stated there are two areas of fill on the southwestern wetland. One concern was in the higher quality area but because the applicant said that the alternatives suggested were not feasible, JCK asked that the Commission consider this, and if true, JCK would recommend approval of the Wetland Permit based on a lack of alternatives.

Member Bononi stated the Commission is being asked to approve a plan where there is no plan. She also understood Ms. Tepatti to say that she suggested other alternatives and the applicant rejected them as being not feasible to their need. That does not mean that the applicant could not do that, it means they elected not to.

Chairperson Lorenzo clarified the motion once again was to grant Revised Preliminary Site Plan, Revised Phasing Plan, Revised Woodland Permit and Revised Wetland Permit approvals for Sinai Development, SP96-06B subject to all of the consultants recommendations and conditions and subject to the five revisions from the August 2, 1996 letter from Mr. Hyman being included and being shown on the Revised Site Plan which will come back to the Commission for final.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-181 CARRIED

Yes: Hoadley, Hodges, Lorenzo, Vrettas, Weddington, Capello

No: Markham, Bononi

2. DISCUSSION OF REGULATIONS ON THE LENGTH OF DECELERATION LANES

Member Vrettas asked that the Implementation Committee look at lengthening the deceleration lanes.

Mr. Watson stated it should go the Ordinance Review Committee and suggested that it be sent to the Traffic and Engineering Consultants for a recommendation to the Ordinance Review Committee.

PM-96-08-182 TO TAKE THE MATTER OF LENGTHENING THE DECELERATION LANES IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND HAVE MR. ARROYO AND MR. BLUHM LOOK INTO THE MATTER AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To take the matter of lengthening the deceleration lanes in the Design and Construction Standards and have Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Bluhm look into the matter and make a recommendation to the Ordinance Review Committee.

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

No: None

AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

None

Chairperson Lorenzo announced it is with regret and sadness that the Commission has learned Jacque Hodges will be leaving the Planning Commission. She and her family are moving to Boston as her husband is being relocated. Chairperson Lorenzo wished her and her family the best and stated the members of the Commission have enjoyed working with her and appreciated her service to the Community.

Member Hodges thanked Chairperson Lorenzo and stated she appreciated the members and would remember them fondly. She stated, unfortunately this was her last meeting as she just found out that she has to be in Boston by August 21, 1996, however, the date of her resignation will be effective August 31, 1996.

PM-96-08-183 TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT 12:00 P.M.

Moved by Vrettas, seconded by Capello, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:00 p.m.

VOTE ON PM-96-08-183 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

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

No: None

Steve Cohen - Staff Planner

Transcribed by: Diane H. Vimr

August 20, 1996