Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Canup.

PRESENT: Acting Chairperson Canup, Members Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

ABSENT/EXCUSED: Member Piccinini (excused)

ALSO PRESENT: Planning/Traffic Consultant Rod Arroyo, Staff Planner Beth Brock, Director of Planning and Community Development David Evancoe, City Attorney Gerald Fisher, Façade Architect Christian Fox, Senior Environmental Specialist Aimee Kay, Landscape Architect Linda Lemke and Engineering Consultant Victoria Weber.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any additions or changes to the Agenda.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Koneda, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the Agenda as submitted

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

None

Member Churella announced there is one (1) correspondence from Todd Stillwell, 39640 Nine Mile regarding Trillium Village. He wrote, "I live immediately south of the above mentioned project. I have reviewed the site plan and the request of the applicant. I feel that this development would be beneficial, improvement to the community and I welcome the project as neighbor and would be willing to review any variance needed to achieve this project. Please pass this letter along to the Planning Commission."

Chairperson Canup announced there were three (3) items on the Consent Agenda.

This hotel project is located in Section 14, at the northeast corner of Eleven Mile Road and Town Center Drive. The 1.87 acre site is zoned Office Service Commercial District (OSC). The applicant is seeking a one year Preliminary Site Plan extension.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any corrections to the minutes.

Member Kocan made corrections to page 8 and page 9 of the June 6, 2001 minutes. She noted that although she was late to the meeting, she did participate in the vote PM-01-06-123 and PM-01-06-124.

Churella noted that he was absent on the June 6, 2001 meeting and therefore should not be included in the minutes.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To approve the consent agenda as amended.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

An ordinance to add article 10A to Ordinance No. 97-18, the City of Novi Zoning Ordinance; to add the designation for the Exo "Exposition Overlay" District to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance; to amend footnote (h) to the Schedule of Regulations contained within Section 2400 of said ordinance, relating to off-street parking; to amend subsection 2507.3 of said ordinance, relating to off-street loading and unloading; to amend subparts 2509.6a and 2509.8b of said ordinance, relating to berming and landscaping; and to amend subsection 2519 of said ordinance, relating to performance standards, for the purpose of creating the Exo "Exposition Overlay" Zoning District, which is intended to encourage the development of an exposition, conference, and convention center, and supporting uses, in an appropriate area of the city.

David Evancoe, Planning Director announced that he would give an overview of the background that has lead to the Zoning Ordinance Text proposed. He noted that after his presentation Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Fisher would provide further details. He added that Blair Bowman and John Bowen from the Expo center are also present to answer questions. Mr. Evancoe stated that the City was approached by the Expo Center as they began to formulate their plans to relocate their facility further west on Grand River Avenue. It became more apparent to them and the City Staff that changes were needed with the existing zoning, that they currently operate under and that they would operate under, which is OST. There are a number of unique aspects to an Exposition Center that are not contemplated in many other uses. In working closely with the Expo Center, this Overlay District ordinance was developed. The Overlay District would allow for the base uses that the OST currently allows and would make provision for some additional uses that are often found in conjunction with an Expo type of use. The matter was brought before the Implementation Committee and further reviewed. Based on comments from the Implementation Committee, the City Attorney has produced the document presented. He stated that Mr. Arroyo and Mr. Fisher would address the detail of the Ordinance.

Rod Arroyo, Planning and Traffic Consultant explained the reasoning for why this Overlay District was needed verses using the existing Expo District. The idea of the district came forth from discussion between the City Staff, the Consultants and Blair Bowman and his office. Many of the provisions within the current district have carried forward to the proposed Overlay District. The current Expo District Ordinance was written for a building that would be rehabilitated from an industrial use to an Exposition use, which was "tailor made" for the situation. It was a unique development concept for a piece of property that was historically industrial and warehouse. The proposed district would be for one who is potentially interested in constructing a new Exposition Facility, which would be built from the ground up. This situation would be treated differently from an ordinance standpoint for how it might apply. For example, the current Expo District has provisions for the situation of a previously Light Industrial building use that becomes an Expo and then reverts back, which would not be applicable in the proposed situation. It has been crafted as an Overlay Provision because it would lie on top of the underlying zoning. The area that has been considered has no specific rezoning of property at this time and north of Grand River Avenue is primarily zoned OST. As the overlay district the OST would remain if a proposed Expo project did not develop or was built and possibly went away in the future. An OST use in this corridor has been the vision of the community for many years in the Master Plan.

Gerald Fisher, City Attorney spoke regarding the basic structure of the ordinance. Once a property is granted Overlay status under the ordinance, the uses in the ordinance may be permitted based upon the principal use permitted and the overlay uses permitted subject to required conditions. Frequently in an Overlay District the uses are Special Land Uses. The purpose being a large piece of property with a large variety of uses the Special Land Use treatment would give the ability to do more planning as the development goes in. This is ultimately a policy judgement call for the Commission to make as the review occurs. As it has been developed at this point, it is not a true Special Land Use situation as some of the authorized uses have special condition that need to be met. He felt the commission should be aware of this information as part of their deliberation.

Chairperson Canup announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Blair Bowman, 43700 Expo Center Drive represented Novi Expo Center Incorporated. He agreed with the information that was presented by Mr. Evancoe. He stated that they have enjoyed the opportunity to work with the Staff, the Members of the Implementation Committee and Consultants. He thanked the City Attorneys for their efforts and diligent work on the Overlay District. He noted that he is pleased to move forward with the cooperative effort that had been ongoing for ten (10) years. Approximately three (3) years ago the idea of what could occur to further and improve the business was brought forward. He noted that it is because of the Expo’s commitment and the commitment on the part of the community that the opportunities have been exhausted to make a successful relocation effort occur in Novi. It expressed his outlook to work together on infrastructure improvements ahead of the development, ensuring that road improvements are planned and grants obtained. He noted his working with City Council and the support on the Tax Abatement efforts. He stated that this is the next step to allow them to feasibly develop. He added their unique situation of being a private operator, operating in what is typically a heavily subsidized format. He stated these facilities are typically owned and operated by the tax payers pocket books. However, they have been able to come forward as a private operator and would like to continue to operate in the community successfully. He stated the readiness to move to the next level. He noted the acquiring of the 50-acre parcel located west of Taft Road, north side of Grand River Avenue and south of I-96. He presented the rendering of the work in progress. He stated that they have revised the industrial looking rendering to a more creative building plan that would be a good asset to the community and they could feasibly afford to produce.

Mr. Bowman outlined the remaining issues that would still need to be addressed. The current ordinance places the standard in 25/20 Region 1. He explained that Region 1 requires material that due to the size and nature of the building would not be practical to pursue and develop. He stated that through creative architectural concepts and use of a combination of materials, a schedule of what could be accomplished has been provided. The result would be a very attractive building that would be feasible to construct. The second item is the landscaping and parking island requirements. He indicated that they have had the opportunity to learn manage the traffic flows and parking. He felt that larger unobstructed parking areas are critical to allow the directing of traffic flows verses obstructions such as islands and bottlenecking issues. The nature of the site is buffered from Grand River Avenue by other uses, properties, future development parcels, grades and site features from the expressway. These features would allow concentration on a perimeter screening and landscaping program and the accomplishment of an internal mechanism and operation from a pedestrian and vehicle flow. He stated that the building height would become an issue if they stayed at the current level. He believed in the success of entertaining and attracting a major hotel presence on site either with the construction of the facility first or second phase. He noted if this were to occur, it would be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet. In other areas of the community special circumstance have allowed additional stories. He felt this would be an exception that could be applied in this situation, which would only be for the hotel. The façade issue would be referring to the principal exposition building. He stated the hotel and other ancillary uses would be subject to the normal standards. The current ordinance prohibits any of the ancillary uses access to Grand River Avenue. He found wisdom in integrating in the parking area, internal road systems and some ancillary uses. He requested that the access to Grand River Avenue would not be prohibited. He stated some uses might desire or need independent access to function, sold or dealt with. He requested that the Commission want to see internal access connection between the ancillary uses.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any other audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Koneda stated that typically Overlay Districts do not have a new zoning designation, instead it is typically a "bug" that is attached to an existing zoning. He gave the example of the RM-1 with the PD-1 Option. He felt that EXO is really a new zoning designation that is being called overlay. He noted that there are not any words in the text that revert it back to OST. He asked that the location of this portion of the text be made clear.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the way it is envisioned on the Zoning Map are similar to the way the PD Options appear on a map in terms of having the EXO with a dash line around the boundary of where the overlay area is over an existing district. He stated this would be one way to clarify that this is an overlay district. He stated the term overlay district is by design that it overlays the existing districts. He stated that because there is not rezoning of property associate with it there is not a map to demonstrate the zoning map change.

Member Koneda asked why this was not treated as a Special Land Use for an OST zoning verses having its own special designation.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that there was discussion regarding this as an option. When the committee discussed the matter, they derived that if enough of the standards were built into the district, specifically in Section 1002A and 1003A supplemental conditions, then A, B, C and D would need to be done to qualify. This would leave no need to go through a Special Land Use process because it could be done as a principal permitted use with the special conditions being clear. He stated that it was also not likely that it would become Expo residential district as it had been envisioned. It is not likely to be adjacent to residential with the area that it has been envisioned.

Member Koneda referred to Section 1002A Permitted Uses Subject to Required Conditions, item (E) referring to restaurants. He asked if the difference is defined between sit down and not fast food sit down.

Mr. Arroyo stated that there is a definition in the ordinance, which he would locate.

Member Koneda compared a Big Boy and Wendy’s.

Mr. Arroyo felt that the primary intent was to keep the drive through component out.

Member Koneda felt that the ordinance was tailored for this particular site. He asked if there is a vision for additional Expo center proposals.

Mr. Arroyo referred to the ordinance definition of a fast food carry out restaurant as opposed to a drive through. Carry out is a business establishment where in food is prepared or cooked on the premises to be sold in disposable or wrappers to patrons, which is not intended to be consumed on the premises or a motor vehicle park or standing on the premises. Fast food sit down restaurant is a business establishment in which a patron purchases food or beverages, which may have been previously prepared, which are served in disposable container or wrapper, which the patron consumes while seated in the restaurant. He felt the defining difference would be the disposable component of how the food is presented.

Member Koneda clarified that there was enough verbiage in the ordinance to differentiate the difference between the sit down and the not a fast food sit down.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes.

Member Koneda commented that there are some areas that are using disposable products at the nicer restaurants.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Fisher how the Expo Overlay Zoning District would be applied. He asked if it would be a separate zoning district processed through the rezoning method. He recalled discussion at the Implementation regarding how it would come forward; however, he did not find any information in the language that addresses how it would be applied.

Mr. Fisher agreed that it would be appropriate to review this issue as well. He stated that it is not a zoning district and it is not intended to be a separate zoning district. If it was, it should not be considered to be an overlay. The overlay aspect is that it would not be a legislative determination. It would be an administrative determination for a particular piece of property. For this reason, the zoning classification is not eliminated. There is not a change to the map. There is a super imposing a use authorization within the existing district. This would be an approval that meets the criteria under the ordinance. He stated that as he reread the ordinance language, he had the same question raised by Member Mutch. He stated that this should be looked at more closely.

Member Mutch agreed. He stated that the language does not explain how one would go about having it applied or making a request. He stressed that the language should have been included and was not. He asked Mr. Arroyo referring the hours of operation, light or sound, which might relate to outdoor activities. He stated the current Expo Center holds festival with music in the late hours of the night. He asked what would control these issues of light and sound of any uses on the property as the primary use as an Expo Center or a festival.

Mr. Arroyo stated the noise ordinance treats daytime and nighttime levels differently. Therefore if the activities occur beyond what is defined as a daytime activity there would be more stringent standards. Other performance standards relate to the vibration, pollution and a number of other items. He stated if there was a concern with the hours of operation, it could be specifically addressed in the ordinance. He noted that there are safeguards built in the ordinance and it would be a matter of if the commission felt that others would be more important.

Member Mutch stated if this was a Special Land Use, then restricted hours of operation and sound could be built in as part of a Special Land Use Approval. He clarified that this has been done in the past with industrial operations.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Mutch noted that he was not in support of this direction at a committee level. He stated that because this is not a Special Land Use, they could not impose any restrictions or requirements for additional improvements. For example, if a traffic study indicated the need for limited off site improvements, could they require these under the Special Land Use Approval.

Mr. Fisher stated they could indirectly. In a Special Land Use Approval, assuming the commission concluded that the off site improvement were needed in order for this use to be appropriate, the use could be denied if the off site facilities and services were not available. He stated in this case the Commission could not do either.

Member Mutch asked if there was a Special Land Use provision, what kind of requirements could be required as a Special Land Use Approval for improvements.

Mr. Fisher stated that in various parts of the ordinance are criteria considered in the review of a proposed Special Land Use. It relates to adjacency issues, traffic safety, pedestrian safety and the normal litany for items considered for protecting public health, safety and welfare.

Member Landry stated in his review, he found the ordinance to track a great deal Article 10. He stated that Section 1003A 9 on page 4, entitled Approval Process seems to track 1002 (10) taking the first sentence and eliminating the second sentence, which states that the City Council may appropriate conditions and safeguards to minimize adverse affects on the character of the surrounding area including requirements for sound proofing arenas, halls or auditoriums shielding of flood lights and surfacing of access roads or driveways. He asked why this wording was eliminated.

Mr. Arroyo recalled this being a recommendation of Mr. Schultz and Committee due to the structure of the Ordinance. There was some concern of it being established as a principle permitted use. He stated to his recollection of the City Attorney opinion was that if it was structured as a Special Land Use then these conditions may have been left in, however, if it was structured as Principle Permitted Use, then the provisions should be eliminated.

Member Landry asked why.

Mr. Arroyo stated it would be due to the difference between Special Land Use Approval and Principle Permitted Use. He recalled the City Attorney’s discussion that a Principle Permitted Use by Ordinance is limited in terms of attaching other conditions that are discretionary. Right allows a Principle Permitted Use and there would be more limitations. A Special Land Use would allow more latitude in attaching certain conditions. Since the Expo was not going in the direction of a Special Land Use, it was necessary to remove some of the language.

Member Landry clarified Mr. Arroyo’s response to earlier questions. He questioned if the language is not included to provide City Council with the means to determine sound proofing, lighting, etc… then would general sound ordinances apply for the OST District.

Mr. Arroyo stated it would be the general ordinances. He added that there have been substantial changes to the lighting ordinances and noise ordinances since the original Expo District was written. He felt these improvements to the Ordinance were a comfort level as compared to the past and therefore, would adequately apply and protect this type of site. He referred to Mr. Fisher’s comments that if the City Council felt that certain Ordinance provisions would not be met, they could deny the Site Plan.

Member Nagy agreed that language of the Overlay District reverting back to the OST District should be included. She added that this is her only objection and would like the language inserted. She questioned if the overlay is only for Mr. Bowman’s site or if it was referring to everything along the strip.

Mr. Fisher stated that technically it is a general ordinance for the whole strip.

Member Nagy referred to the aerial photograph and referred to the vehicular access portion of the text. She felt that it seemed impossible to have the areas with two (2) points of external access available at all times for emergency vehicles. She noted the existing buildings in the area of Mr. Bowman’s property and questioned how this could be enforced.

Member Mutch clarified that the provision only applies to the Exposition and Conference Facility. Therefore it would only apply to those uses. The other provisions apply to the remainder of the uses.

Mr. Arroyo added that the current Ordinance states that all uses are required two (2) points of access. Therefore, this provision is not any more stringent than any other site plan that comes before the Commission. He explained that any project, unless the Fire Marshall waivers it or it is a single cul-de-sac subdivision project, would be required two (2) points of access for Fire Department and emergency vehicle purposes.

Member Nagy stated that her concern is more focused on the site.

Member Kocan stated that it was difficult to review this as an ordinance focusing on a development. Therefore, she questioned if items were being left out unintentionally due to it being geared toward a particular development. She referred to Section 1003A 6 – "All building setbacks from the outer perimeter of an EXO Overlay District… that where the EXO Overlay District is adjacent to an interstate freeway, then the minimum yard setback on those sides shall be not less than thirty (30) feet." She stated this is "on top" of the freeway and was not certain if this is consistent with what has been done in other ordinances. She felt this was too close to the freeway. She continued – "…shall be equal to the height of the highest part of the building mass nearest to said perimeter boundary or fifty feet, whichever is greater." She asked what the setbacks were for the building along Nine Mile Road. She calculated a guess at fifty (50) or sixty (60) feet. Her concern was that the minimum setback might bring it too close to the road or other developments, mainly due to the size of the building. She explained that a smaller building close to the road is not as intrusive as a larger building. Member Kocan referred to Page 4, Part III (h) indicating that it needed to be set off appropriately. She felt that it would look better to have a building setback farther and screen the parking.

Member Kocan referred to page 5 Part IV referring to Subsection 2507.3 of Ordinance No. 97-18 in reference to loading and unloading areas. She indicated that two (2) Ordinances conflict with one another. She compared the two sections - Section 1905.4a of the Zoning Ordinance states, "…Also, the site plan and driveways shall be designed in such a manner to discourage semi-trailer truck traffic access to that portion of the lot or site that is adjacent to a residential to a residential district" and Section 2507.3 "Within any I Industrial District…all loading and unloading operations shall be conducted in the rear yard…" She suggested that the verbiage be added to state, "Within any I Industrial District, Expo Exposition District or EXO Exposition Overlay District, which does not abut a residential district, all loading and unloading operation shall be conducted in the rear yard…" She felt this additional verbiage would eliminate the conflicting ordinances and prevent having to send people to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Member Kocan indicated corrections to the text. She stated at the top of page 3, "…- (I) of Section 1002A…" should be worded as, "…(i) of Section 1002A…" She referred to the cover text "Table A" and indicated that the portion of "Table A" was not included in the verbiage. She suspected that the EXO and the OST and B-1’s would be grouped so that the decibel levels would conform to the seventy (70) sixty-five (65) as opposed to the sixty (60) fifty-five (55). She was concerned if everything was covered. She did not feel that Mr. Bowman’s requests of height; building façade and the landscaping were addressed.

Member Churella indicated his position on the Implementation Committee. He asked Mr. Fisher if it would be possible to pass the Zoning Ordinance Text and add amendments. He stated the amendments suggested by Member Kocan were good points.

Mr. Fisher stated that not wanting to impede the progress, he would like to say yes. However, he felt that some of these issues raised, relate to the basic process of review and approval, were significant enough to make it wise to hold it, review and then recommend.

Member Koneda suggested that verbiage be added to the section referring to the Principle Permitted Uses to indicate that this would be an Overlay for an OST District. He did not feel that there was a clear indication of this in the language. He felt that it appeared to be a new district and not an overlay. He commented on Member Mutch’s comments regarding the hours of operation and outdoor usage. He indicated that outdoor use is permitted in that Section. He suggested that the issue of sound level and hours of operations be added as a supplemental required condition to Section 1003A. He felt the issues raised were legitimate and that is would be premature for the Commission to act on the Zoning Text at this time.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 01-18.169 (EXPO Overlay District) to send it to the Implementation Committee and Legal Staff for review and update.

Member Churella suggested that the issues raised be placed in writing and submitted to the Implementation Committee.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

Member Koneda suggested that it return to the Commission as Matters for Consideration unless there is a significant change, because the Public Hearing was held. He referred to Mr. Fisher for a legal opinion.

Mr. Fisher answered, correct. He agreed that it would be okay unless there is a significant change.

This subdivision project is located in Sections 3 and 4, on the East Side of West Park Drive and south of South Park Drive. The 53.51 acre site is zoned One Family Residential District (R-2). The applicant is seeking a Woodland Permit and positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat and Wetland Permit.

Arnold Serlin of Novi Group L.L.C. requested Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval for Bristol Corners North and Bristol Corners South. He explained that the development was originally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council for Final Preliminary Plat Approval approximately four (4) or five (5) years ago. However, the approvals have since expired. He stated that the differences between the previous approval and the proposed project. Bristol Corners North originally had forty (40) lots and currently the proposed is for thirty-nine (39) lots. He explained that sixteen (16) of the lots in the R-4 District, which allowed for eighty (80) foot lots. He stated that they have chosen to expand the eighty (80) foot lots to ninety (90) foot lots, which conform to the R-2 District while being in the R-4 District. As a result, the change has reduced the number of lots by one (1). Additional changes were based on the recommendations of the Planner and the Traffic Consultant, such as the disconnection of the main road from South Lake Drive. Originally the approval had a connection to South Lake Drive to provide two (2) access points. Due to the traffic on South Lake Drive and West Park Drive there would be the possibility of "cut through" traffic to avoid the light at the intersection. Therefore, he felt the suggestion to disconnect the internal road with South Lake Drive to avoid this situation made sense. The Fire Department pointed out that the cul-de-sac, created by the disconnection with South Lake Drive, was longer than permitted. He stated that he would revise the plans to provide the emergency lane and gate which, is a condition of the Final Preliminary Plat Approval. He noted the negative recommendation from Ms. Lemke for landscaping. He stated this negative recommendation was due to the disruption in the berm along West Park Drive, which would need to be addressed by the ZBA. He referred to sheet L-3 of his submittal indicating the disconnection of the berm. He explained that the disconnection was due to the culvert under West Park Drive opening into a swale on Bristol Corners North. He indicated that the swale would be incorporated into the storm system. Therefore, he stated there would no longer be a need for the ZBA variance and the berm would be continuous. He added that the continuous berm would be shown on the Final Preliminary Plat.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the proposed project was formerly known as Lakewoods Preserve, which was submitted and approved as a preservation option plan. The option allowed the applicant to reduce lot sizes in exchange for the preservation of the qualified open space. The majority of the site is zoned R-2. As a result, the lot sizes could be reduced from eighteen thousand (18,000) square foot lots to fourteen thousand four hundred (14,400) square foot lots. The lot width is allowed to be reduced from one hundred ten (110) to ninety (90). Mr. Arroyo indicated that the proposed is the forth (4^th) and fifth (5^th) component of the project. The developer developed the West Side of West Park Drive first with the three (3) subdivisions, which is called Bristol Corners West. (Originally was one and was broken into three parts.) He stated the Commission is currently reviewing the remainder of the project, which are the north and the south. Originally there was a total of two hundred thirty-one (231) lots, which has been reduced to two hundred thirty (230) units. Mr. Arroyo agreed with the applicant’s comments regarding his request of the road change. He explained that when the Preservation Option Plan was approved, there was full access for the north portion to South Lake Drive with no signalization at South Lake Drive and West Park Drive. He stated the plan was approved during a time with different conditions. He indicated the efforts over the past years that have been made to calm and reduce the traffic on South Lake Drive. He stated to provide a full connection to South Lake Drive would lead to "cut through" traffic in attempt to avoid the light and would provide direct access to South Lake Drive, which would not be consistent with the goal to calm traffic and access reduction points. He indicated that the applicant has agreed to construct a cul-de-sac north of South Lake Drive to address this issue. The cul-de-sac would exceed the eight-hundred (800) maximum length permitted in the Ordinance. The review letter states the condition that there would be a gated emergency access land connection from the end of the cul-de-sac to South Lake Drive. This would provide for the emergency access drive that is required and satisfies the cul-de-sac length requirement with the provision of this connection. This would also provide the protection to South Lake Drive and the potential "cut through" traffic. Mr. Arroyo recommended approval of the Tentative Preliminary Plat subject to item #2 of the review letter dated June 28, 2001 being addressed on the Final Preliminary Plat.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated June 27, 2001 subject to the items being addressed on the Final Preliminary Plat. Additional information regarding striping and traffic control signing would need to be shown on the Final Preliminary Plat.

Ms. Weber recommended approval from an engineering perspective in the review letter dated June 29, 2001. She stated there are a number of items and easements, which she would be looking for at the time of the subdivision construction drawing submittal.

In regard to wetlands, Ms. Weber indicated that the project is a non minor use permit category and would require permit approval from the City Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. She noted that from a wetland perspective, no significant differences exist between the current and earlier Tentative Preliminary Plat Submittal. Ms. Weber continued to recommend approval conditioned upon the comments of the review letter dated May 14, 2001 being met during the subdivision construction drawing submittal.

Ms. Lemke did not recommend approval of the Conceptual Landscape Plan if a variance is required. She referred to the comments of her letter dated June 25, 2001. More shrubs are needed to meet opacity requirements. Due to the invasive nature of Honeysuckle, we recommend that the this shrub be changed to a more acceptable one such as Arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), Black Chokeberrry (Aronia melanocarpa), Smoke bush (Conttinus coggygria), or other acceptable plant materials. She added that with the items in her review letter being addressed, she would be able to recommend approval of the Conceptual Landscape Review.

In regard to Woodlands, Ms. Lemke recommended approval subject to the items of her review letter dated June 25, 2001 being addressed at Final Engineering Submittal. She required protective fencing and financial guarantees for the designated woodland areas. She added that they would be staying out of these areas. She noted three (3) trees in Bristol Corners North to be 36" d.b.h. or greater. Two (2) of these trees would be removed due to their location, one being at the center of the entry road and one at the start of the proposed Bristol Circle. She stated there would be no realistic way to save these due to the grading. A large 41" Oak and tree #54 would be saved. She indicated that there would not be any acreage of woodlands removed.

Chairperson Canup announced he has received a letter dated June 22, 2001 from Michael W. Evans, Fire Marshal for the City of Novi Fire Department, which states that the above plan has been reviewed and approval is recommended with the following items being corrected on the next plan submittal. 1) With the change of Pennington Lane to a cul-de-sac it now exceeds the 800’ maximum distance allowed for a single access point roadway. A secondary access point shall be provided.

Debbie Movsesian, 29865 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - We live on Lilley Trail and moved to this area with the understanding that the proposed area would stay wetlands forever. (Therefore no new sub.) that was a major reason we decided on this particular area. Also there have been complaints about the increased traffic already. Let’s not keep adding to it."

Corey D. Childs, 29835 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - Increased traffic flow on South Lake Drive (already an issue) endangered wildlife. Assumed when moving into my home this was protected wetlands."

Susan and Louie Iaquinta, 29755 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - Traffic congestion already an issue on South Lake Drive. Endangering wetlands. Level of noise during construction. Safety issue on proposed bike path around lake."

Tony and Pamela Gilaj, 29895 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection."

Keith A. Robinson, 1980 South Lake Court wrote "I am concerned with drainage issues near South Lake Court. Traffic and that here is no access to development from South Lake Court. Dust Control. Where exactly is the greenbelt line and how many home are being built?"

Thomas Liney objects due to the lack of information.

Dean and Debbie Assignin wrote "Where would the storm water flow? The house on the West Park Road has many times been flooded. There is also little Rouge River in this area. The spring water flows from the lake into this area. Increased traffic problems with additional homes. This area should be left as a natural preserve, the advice on their sign."

Scott Robinson, wrote "Objection – I would really like to see this area protected and preserved rather than developed."

Approval - The forth and fifth phases of Bristol Corners would be completed in the original vision of the development would be completed in the natural surroundings increasing the value of the property."

Chairperson Canup announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Susan Iaquinta, 29755 Lilley Trail, stated her concerns with the traffic issue. She clarified that there would not be an entrance located off of South Lake Drive and Bristol Corners.

Mr. Serlin stated that they are addressing Bristol Corners North at this time and there is no access there.

Susan Iaquinta stated that she received notice for both the North and South. She questioned how many lot would be built and if it would visually impact her home in the winter months due to the lack of foliage. She stated that when she purchased her home, it was with the understanding that she would have the privacy with the trees in the background. She stated her concern with the wildlife issues. She was aware of the nesting in the waterfall around the lake area.

Mike McGarry, 30475 Bristol Circle Court, stated that he is currently a resident of Phase I of the Bristol Corners subdivision. He commented on the builders performance with Phase I, II and III of the subdivision. After residing in his home for two (2) years, he indicated that he is still attempting to resolve issues that were on the thirty (30) day list. He felt the builder had proven to be uncooperative in terms of resolving issues. He stated that he is currently dealing with the fifth (5^th) builder and each time the builder changes there is no record of his comments prior. He stated that in speaking with the neighbors, he has found that this is a consistent situation. He indicated that most of the neighbors have given up due to the difficulty and lack of cooperation. He stated his concern of misrepresentation. He did not recall being told about a development to the south at the time of his purchase. He stated that he asked specifically about the north and the south at the time of purchasing his home and recalled only being told about the north. He indicated that his neighbors did not know that there would be a development across the street. He felt this was a misrepresentation by the sales representative. He was also concerned with the infrastructure. He stated that current infrastructure does not have many access points other than South Lake Drive and does have a lot of "choke points". He stated the traffic backs up from Pontiac Trail to South Lake Drive in the morning and the evening. He stated that although they could restrict people from going on South Lake Drive, he questioned where the traffic flow would go then. He was concerned with the natural features and wildlife of the land. He stated many deer live on this land. He was not opposed to the development, however, he felt the builder should properly take care of what is already existing.

La Yang, 29785 Lilley Trail, left the meeting prior to commenting.

Sarah Gray, 133 Maudlin, indicated that she is resident and a member of the ZBA. She thanked Mr. Serlin and his representatives for giving the City the preservation easement for the bluff down to the lake to guarantee nothing would be built except the tennis courts, gazebo and the boardwalk. She recalled a guarantee in the past that there would not be access to South Lake Drive. She did not recall this being approved. In her review of the diagrams, she questioned how a gate would be constructed to create an entrance to a subdivision. She questioned the same situation at the north end with the South Lake Court. She suggested that hypothetically a fire truck would need to break through the emergency access gate to gain access to the subdivision, which would not to be reconstructed resulting in "cut through" traffic. She felt that although they have the right to use South Lake Drive, it is not the best configuration for the area or the subdivision. She stated the linear footage has been addressed more than eight-hundred (800). She felt if they have to have a cul-de-sac, then it could be pulled inward. She did not feel that a cul-de-sac was the answer at any end of the subdivision. She felt that eventually the gated entrance would turn into a future request for a regular entrance. Ms. Gray stated that there is a need for the subdivision to have entrances at both ends of the subdivision. She felt that West Park Drive is designed to handle the traffic and would handle it better after the rebuilding of the Beck Road Interchange. She encouraged the Planning Commission to work with Mr. Serlin to design a better configuration. She urged the Planning Commission to deny or send a negative recommendation for the reasons that she stated.

James Korte, Shawood Lake, stated that he wanted to make sure that nothing would be happening on the seventy-five (75) foot corridor and seventeen hundred (1700) foot long lake frontage. He indicated that S.E.S. (South East & Shawood Homeowners Association) was put together to obtain the best "deal" with the understanding that Bristol Corners would be large and encompassing the area. He stated that in several meetings with the planner a good project was obtained that was not encroaching on the seventy-five (75) feet. He stated that they were told and promised "no South Lake entry". He stated in nine (9) weekly meetings, the South Lake Task Force for traffic calming would be at City Council on Monday. He felt that any further intrusion into South Lake was already impossible. He felt that although the problem has gotten better, it would never be corrected. He stated that the creation of a subdivision that requires "break throughs" to implement health, safety and welfare was not wise for any City. He stated that the City has spent eight million dollars ($8,000,000) on the Taft Connector - the re-paving improvements of West Park Drive, which the West Park Drive area is not forced to use. He assumed that the City is requesting the petitioner to place a sidewalk on the north side of the property, which would go nowhere to nowhere. He felt that this was ridiculous. He stated unless there is a change at the City Council meeting on Monday, South Lake would be re-paved and a bike and safety path would be placed on one (1) side. This side would be the land side and not the waterside. He questioned who would be placing the cross over on South Lake Drive that has been discussed. He asked if it would be the taxpayers or the builder. He suggested that the Commission not allow a sidewalk on the north side because it is a waste of money and a heath hazard.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any further audience participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Mutch was concerned with the original approval under the Preservation Option. He stated that certain properties qualified for preservation credits, including high quality wetlands, regulated woodlands and habitat area. The credits in the original concept plan allow for the lot size reduction. In reviewing the North Plan changes, he found areas with added open space along West Park Drive, which is an increase in open space from the original concept plan. He stated that this would not qualify under the Preservation Option. He noticed the habitat meadow area that extended from the accepted parcel on South Lake Drive to the top lot area, which was credited for the Preservation Option. This was not to be developed. He recalled the discussions regarding the maintaining of this area. He believed that it may have been incorporated over the original conservation easement, however, the submitted plan shows a detention pond and tennis courts (approved at some point). He stated that he was unable to visualize how the acreage could be removed from the habitat area, which qualifies for the Preservation Option credits and yet there has been no change in amount of preservation area. He asked this to be clarified because it is a primary issue with the lot reduction.

Ms. Lemke recalled reviewing the plan and the Preservation Option being met. However, she stated that she would need to confirm this. She indicated that one plan indicates the open space area, which they have been keeping track of through the revisions. She noted that there is excess acreage involved. She stated that she was not able to give a specific answer without rechecking the map. She referred to Mr. Serlin to give more detail.

Mr. Arroyo explained that when the plan was first reviewed, twenty-four and one-half percent (24.5%) of the site met the PCP credit. Twenty percent (20%) was required for the maximum reduction. Therefore, the plan was four and one-half percent (4.5%) over the required.

Mr. Serlin indicated an agreement with the City, City Council and the project that was recorded stating what would be preserved. He stated that everything that was included in that agreement has been preserved. He stated the area with the tennis courts was not part of the preservation area and was allowed in the agreement as passive activities. They agreed to not develop, build houses or create a beach. He stated that in working with the Homeowner Association during the preliminary stages of the development, they lost all that they requested. He indicated the requests: thirteen hundred (1300) feet of frontage on the lake, which they accepted the denial of the right to use the frontage based on the approval. He stated the property has an upland area along the water, which they agreed to not have a beach there. (A preservation easement in excess of the requirement.) He noted that nothing changed from the preservation agreement with the City. He stated that those that were part of the original approval should recall the approval of the access to South Lake Drive. He stressed that there was never an agreement to "no access".

Member Canup interjected Mr. Serlin and referred to the agenda, which states that no person other than a commissioner member shall address an issue of a Public Hearing following the closing of the Public Hearing by the Chairperson.

Member Mutch felt the project was "good" in comparison to several other projects in the City. He explained that the contents of the Preservation Easements and agreements are separate and distinct from the Ordinance requirements. He stated the credit for preserving certain amounts of property allowed for the lot reduction. He explained that his concern was that the area from the detention basin through the tennis courts was not indicated in the concept plan as being developed, which was credited for. The area is no longer suitable for credit under the Preservation Option in the submitted plan. He did not feel that the specific ordinance requirements of the Preservation Option have been met with Bristol Corners North.

Member Mutch asked Mr. Arroyo regarding the secondary access on South Lake Drive. He recalled the original plan showing the access as stated by Mr. Serlin. However, the residents stated there has been a change. He asked if the secondary access could incorporate a sidewalk connection as with the Churchill Crossings developmenteHE n

. He felt the pathway headed east would be more appropriate on the north side of the road. He questioned if a connection could be incorporated from the interior sidewalk to the exterior sidewalk with the proposed secondary access.

Mr. Arroyo felt that this could be easily accomplished by providing an extra five (5) foot paved area around one side of the gate to allow pedestrians to walk around. This would be a minimal amount of pavement to maintain this. He stated this would allow pedestrians to walk to the sidewalk on the north side of South Lake Drive, then to West Park Drive and use the system in place headed north or south.

Member Mutch referred to Mr. Korte’s comments regarding the path to be developed as part of the reconstruction of South Lake Drive to the east. He questioned if this was to be on the south side of the road.

Mr. Arroyo did not recall that a final decision was made. However, for the most part, the sidewalk would be on the south side. He stated there is still discussion regarding what would occur with the westerly portion due to its difference from the remainder of South Lake Drive. He stated that the plans have not been finalized. He stated that he would support the sidewalk even if it never extended to the east due to the opportunity that it would provide residents to reach West Park Drive system already in place.

Member Mutch stated that the original plan indicated the eight (8) foot path on the south side and the proposed plan indicates it on the north side. He questioned where the path should be placed.

Mr. Arroyo stated that the current discussion is for a five (5) foot path instead of an eight (8) foot path.

Member Mutch clarified if this would be on both sides.

Mr. Arroyo stated on one side of the road.

Member Mutch asked about the section being discussed.

Mr. Arroyo explained that it is difficult to give a quick and simple answer due to the many discussion and general trends. He did not believe that the City Council approved the final decision to determine the location.

Member Mutch felt this was important information because one of the two phases would incorporate the eight (8) foot path, whether its location is on the north or the south side.

Mr. Arroyo anticipated that there would be an answer when the project reaches the engineering drawing stage. He suggested that the issue of the path being five (5) foot or eight (8) foot be left open until the time of subdivision engineering drawing approval at which time it would need to be engineered for construction. He felt that by this time a policy decision would likely have been made and the plans could reflect the decision.

Member Mutch noted that the location of Lot 29 was previously part of an open space. He asked if Mr. Arroyo felt this would be consistent in terms of preserving the view shed, especially for those in the westerly subdivision across West Park Drive. He asked if the view shed would be lost with the addition of this lot.

Mr. Arroyo stated it would be difficult to answer this question.

Member Mutch continued that the original plan preserved the view of the entire lake. He stated this would be cut in half with the additional lot.

Member Koneda referred to Member Mutch’s comment of the open space calculation being incorrect. However, he had the impression that the overall plan meets the contract obligation that the developer signed with the City. He questioned, if a motion could be made conditional upon a confirmation of the open space calculations to ensure this has been met.

Mr. Fisher answered, yes. He felt this would be a reasonable means to handle the situation.

Member Koneda commented on the concern of the preservation of the site. He felt that the site meets the intent of the RUD Agreement and preserves more than half of the site. He asked if the entranceway located off of West Park Drive, the Bristol Corner extension, was in alignment with the existing Bristol Corner on the West Side.

Mr. Arroyo answered, correct.

Member Koneda clarified that if it was moved down, it would still not be possible to make both cul-de-sacs eight hundred (800) feet. He stated that one cul-de-sac would remain in excess of the eight hundred (800) feet.

Mr. Arroyo answered that this would be correct without an emergency connection.

Member Koneda clarified that an emergency connection is required by Ordinance due to the exceeding eight hundred (800) foot requirement. He clarified that the emergency connection is an eighteen (18) foot wide path that could be brick pavers or concrete.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no. He stated that the path would have to be paved. He added that it is generally asphalt surface with a metal gate with a chain. He indicated that it would not be a break away gate, which would remain open after use by an emergency vehicle. Instead, he stated that they would break the chain with bolt cutters. Only a chain and lock would need to be replaced after the emergency access. He explained that the emergency vehicle would not go through the barrier due to the damage to the equipment.

Member Koneda asked if the street connection would be curbed or a driveway.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it would not be curbed because the area along South Lake is not curbed.

Member Koneda asked Ms. Lemke regarding the north cul-de-sac running to South Lake Court. He asked if there would be additional landscaping protection along the Court for opacity.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct. She reference to the colored rendering submitted by Mr. Serlin. She stated there would be berms along this area.

Member Koneda asked if this would include evergreen trees to provide the winter opacity.

Ms. Lemke answered, yes.

Member Koneda stated his concern with the vehicle headlights. He questioned if the berming and the plant materials would block most of the light.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Koneda noted that this could not be provided on the south side due to the emergency entrance. He clarified if the cul-de-sac would create a visual problem with those that are already there.

Ms. Lemke stated the berming would exist to the cul-de-sac to the emergency access gate and taper down.

Member Koneda clarified further that there would not be berming in the area in front of the eighteen (18) foot wide roadway, which would be graded down to the road level. He noted there would be an opening here and the headlights would shine on the south side of the property. He asked if this would affect any other property other than Bristol Corners Subdivision IV.

Ms. Lemke answered, no.

Member Landry asked if two (2) access drives could be provided onto West Park Drive as opposed to a single Bristol Circle with the two (2) cul-de-sacs. He questioned if the Ordinance requirements regarding distance between intersections, entrances and opposite side distances.

Mr. Arroyo felt it would be difficult. He explained that the difficulty involved the driveway spacing.

Member Landry stated this was his point of view.

Mr. Arroyo estimated approximately eight hundred (800) feet from South Lake Court to Bristol Circle. He stated the placement of another drive would likely violate the spacing standard requirements and create an undesirable offset. He noted a greater distance, approximately over twelve hundred (1200) feet, between Bristol Circle and South Lake Drive. He noted that from a spacing perspective another drive could be placed here. However it would also raise a number of additional concerns. The signalized intersection to the south and the fact of cueing taking place for southbound vehicles on West Park Drive, which backs up due to the changes in signal times. He stated with the backup and the presented need to turn left would raise concern if a drive were placed near the intersection. He stated without a review of the concept, his unresearched determination would be that it would be difficult to have another access point to West Park Drive. He stated his determination is based on a number of factors including spacing and the close proximity to the signalized intersection.

Member Landry asked if his opinion would be the same if the current Bristol Circle was eliminated and entranceways were placed between the current Bristol Circle and South Lake and one between the current Bristol Circle and South Lake Drive.

Mr. Arroyo answered, it would be likely due to the short distance between Bristol Circle and South Lake Court. He explained that if the existing Bristol Circle were moved to the north, it would need to be offset from the Bristol Circle on the south side to avoid conflict. At the same time it would need to be kept from South Lake Court to avoid conflict. He stated there is very little area to maneuver and he felt a spacing waiver would be needed for any thing to go in there. He felt the remaining options would be the placement of a drive to the south, which would need to be at least two hundred (200) feet to the south of the Bristol Circle on the west side. This would lead to the other intersection creating additional difficulties.

Member Landry asked Mr. Serlin if he represented to the people that there would not be access from either subdivision to South Lake Drive.

Mr. Serlin answered, no.

Member Churella recalled another development that came before the Commission with the same difficulty. He stated that the residents went before Council and Council approved the plan with no emergency access. Therefore, he felt they were not accomplishing a solution in their discussion.

Member Richards clarified if there would be a key to unlock the chain in the event an emergency vehicle needed to access the gate.

Mr. Arroyo was not certain if it was common for the emergency vehicles to have a key. He felt they would cut the chain to obtain access.

Member Richards questioned if they would be responsible to re-lock the gate.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he was not sure if the emergency vehicles would carry locks for this purpose.

Member Richards agreed with the resident’s concerns that if the gate was not locked soon after the access; it would become a short cut to avoid the light. He agreed that the traffic in that area is very congested.

Mr. Arroyo stated that it would be signed for emergency vehicles only and violator could be ticketed if sited by the police. He felt it would be a short period of time until the gate was re-locked, however, he stated that he is not in a position to state their exact procedures. He suggested asking the Fire Department.

Member Richards felt that they were assuming that the twelve hundred (1200) foot would allow enough time with a red light and traffic for the those turning south from Bristol Circle. He questioned if there were any future considerations for signalization at Bristol Circle.

Mr. Arroyo did not anticipate that location, with the number of units, would warrant the traffic for a traffic light based on the Michigan Manual Uniform Traffic Control Devices Guidelines. He added that it could be monitored in the future. The traffic signal at Pontiac Trail and the traffic signal at South Lake help create gaps for the side streets. He anticipated that the volumes on West Park Drive would continue to increase. He stated it would be a difficult left turn out during the peak traffic flows as it currently is for the residents in that area.

Member Kocan stated her concern with preservation of the tree located on Lot #30. She questioned if the actual building blueprint is laid out at this stage of the process. She noted that she would like to ensure that the blueprint would not include or come within fifteen (15) feet of the tree. She wanted to avoid a situation of one claiming that their blueprint includes the tree and therefore, they could remove it.

Ms. Lemke stated this is typically done at subdivision engineering where the grades are reviewed more carefully than at the preliminary stage.

Member Kocan stated that her understanding is that it is Plat Approval.

Ms. Lemke explained that she is able to have a general idea at this stage, however additional engineering is needed to make the determination.

Member Kocan stated that she would like this to be taken in to consideration for this project as well as other projects with dedicated woodlands. She stressed that it is imperative that the building blueprint is outside and far away from the preserved woodland.

Mr. Fisher stated that the Tentative Preliminary Plat Approval contemplates primarily lot layout and road layout. He explained that the issue would be part of the Tentative Preliminary to the extent of an approval of a lot layout would force a building envelope that would be within a wetland area. However, to the extent that the decision would be made for other reasons, then it could be made later.

Member Kocan stated that once the Council approves it, then it is "in stone".

Mr. Fisher stated that to an extent, Ms. Kocan is correct. He stated that his point is that if a lot layout is being approved that forces a lot to be within an area that is to be preserved for a legitimate reason, then it would be approved now and may be difficult to go back.

Member Kocan clarified if he was stating that it could be handled later.

Mr. Fisher answered, no. He restated that it might be the time now depending upon whether or not the location of a lot is being forced within a protected area.

Member Kocan stated it is one tree.

Ms. Lemke agreed that it is one tree. She stated that she understood Mr. Fisher’s comments. She stated there is one more opportunity to review prior to it moving forward to the City Council. She stated that Member Kocan’s concern could be requested at that stage.

Member Kocan asked if the berm, to be located on South Lake Drive, could become a split berm if the cul-de-sac was pulled back. She stated this could mitigate the up and down berm.

Ms. Lemke indicated that this could be reviewed. However, she was not certain if there would be enough room while meeting the ninety (90) degree connection requirement onto South Lake Drive.

Member Nagy stated her concern regarding the traffic. She agreed that the area is very congested. She referred to Item 6 of the traffic review with the recommendation of a southbound left-turn lane be required as a condition of approval. She asked if this comment was already discussed.

Mr. Arroyo stated if the project were approved subject to the letters then it would be part of the condition. He explained that the pavement for the left turn lane currently exist. Therefore, it would be a matter of improvements, filling in corrugations, re-stripping and preparation. He stated this information would be included on the subdivision engineering drawings, which would be submitted later.

Member Nagy asked if this would be at the cost of the developer.

Mr. Arroyo answered, yes. He stated it would be the re-stripping, deceleration tapers and filling of corrugations.

Member Nagy stated that South Lake Drive and West Park Drive are under the jurisdiction of Novi. She questioned if there was any knowledge of widening of West Park Drive.

Mr. Arroyo answered, no not to his knowledge. He noted that it was recently resurfaced.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Richards, In the matter of Bristol Corners North SP 01-29A to send a positive recommendation of the Tentative Preliminary Plat to City Council subject to the consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Koneda suggested the motion be amended to include the condition of confirmation of the open space calculation.

Member Churella and Member Richards agreed.

Moved by Churella, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Bristol Corners North SP 01-29A to send a positive recommendation of the Tentative Preliminary Plat to City Council subject to the consultant’s conditions and recommendations and the confirmation of the open space calculation.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

Member Canup questioned if it would be possible to include Member Kocan’s concern regarding the preservation of the tree in the motion for Woodland Permit Approval.

Mr. Fisher stated that this could be included with the developer’s permission.

Mr. Serlin answered yes it could be included if the intent is to preserve the tree, which they discussed.

PM-01-07-174 IN THE MATTER OF BRISTOL CORNERS NORTH SP 01-29A TO GRANT WOODLAND PERMIT APPROVAL CONDITIONED UPON THE PRESERVATION OF TREE ON LOT #30 AND SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANT’S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Moved by Kocan, no second: In the matter of Bristol Corners North SP 01-29A to grant Woodland Permit Approval conditioned upon the preservation of tree on Lot #30 and subject to the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Chairperson Canup stated that Member Kocan’s motion should be more specific to which tree is to be preserved. He asked if this would be the forty (40) inch tree.

Chairperson Canup felt that it should be specific for a motion.

Member Koneda stated it would be tree #54.

Member Kocan stated it was number #84 on Lot 30.

Ms. Lemke added that it is a 44.8 inch.

Member Koneda read from the review letter – Tree #84 and #111 are proposed to be removed. He asked for clarification.

Member Mutch stated that Tree # 84 is located in the middle of Lot 30 and is the tree being discussed.

Member Kocan stated there is an error in the letter.

Member Koneda continued reading the letter – These are Tree #54 at the south side of the site, Tree #84 in the center of the proposed Lot #30 and Tree #111 at the start of the proposed Bristol Circle. Tree #84 and Tree #111 are proposed to be removed. He asked it to be clarified which tree would be saved.

Ms. Lemke stated it is Tree #78.

Member Kocan suggested that Ms. Lemke’s letter Tree #84 should be Tree #111.

Mr. Serlin stated that he would need to retract his agreement to add this to the motion. He stated Tree #84 is located in the middle of Lot #30, which was discussed with Ms. Lemke. He indicated that provisions have been made for the replacement of this tree with the number of trees required by Ordinance for a tree of its size. He stated the saving of this tree would make the lot useless.

Member Koneda indicated that according to the site plan, the tree location is in the middle of where the house would be.

Member Koneda clarified that the tree to be proposed is Tree #111, located on the south side of the property.

Ms. Lemke stated that the tree being proposed is Tree #54, which is located by South Lake Drive.

Member Mutch questioned if Member Kocan was referring to Tree #84 on Lot #30.

Member Kocan answered, correct.

Member Koneda stated this would be in the middle of the house.

Member Kocan clarified if tree was to be removed.

Ms. Lemke stated this tree is being removed.

Member Kocan stated that she recalled reading that it would be preserved.

Ms. Lemke read from her review letter dated June 25, 2001 - These are Tree #54 at the south side of the site, Tree #84 in the center of the proposed Lot #30 and Tree #111 at the start of the proposed Bristol Circle. Tree #84 and Tree #111 are proposed to be removed.

Member Koneda clarified further that Tree #54 is located south of the detention basin.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Member Kocan stated that her comments are not because it is located outside of the building area.

Ms. Lemke added that she did not feel that the grading would allow for this in the area.

PM-01-07-175 IN THE MATTER OF BRISTOL CORNERS NORTH SP 01-29A TO GRANT WOODLAND PERMIT APPROVAL WITH THE PRESERVATION OF TREE #54 AND SUBJECT TO THE CONSULTANT’S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Moved by Kocan, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Bristol Corners North SP 01-29A to grant Woodland Permit Approval with the preservation of Tree #54 tree and subject to the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Bristol Corners SP 01-29A to send a positive recommendation to the City Council for a Wetland Permit subject to the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

This subdivision project is located in Sections 3 and 4, on the East Side of West Park Drive and south of South Park Drive. The 31.65 acre site is zoned One Family Residential District (R-2). The applicant is seeking a Woodland Permit and positive recommendation to City Council for Tentative Preliminary Plat and Wetland Permit.

(Technical difficulty, no recording of applicant or consultant reports)

Debbie Movsesian, 29865 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - We live on Lilley Trail and moved to this area with the understanding that the proposed area would stay wetlands forever. (Therefore no new sub.) that was a major reason we decided on this particular area. Also there have been complaints about the increased traffic already. Let’s not keep adding to it."

Corey D. Childs, 29835 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - Increased traffic flow on South Lake Drive (already an issue) endangered wildlife. Assumed when moving into my home this was protected wetlands."

Susan and Louie Iaquinta, 29755 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection - Traffic congestion already an issue on South Lake Drive. Endangering wetlands. Level of noise during construction. Safety issue on proposed bike path around lake."

Tony and Pamela Gilaj, 29895 Lilley Trail wrote "Objection."

Misty Parence, 29710 Lilley Road "Objection – I object this proposal strongly. For the reasons of: traffic is so congested in that area that you can’t even go to the grocery store at any time during 4-6 p.m. because traffic is backed up from 13 Mile Road to West Road. Also, we in the Lilley Pond Association were lead to believe that those wetlands were protected; not to be disturbed. If at all, it would possibly be a park or golf course in which I don’t agree with either. Being a Novi resident we chose the lot that we did because of the wooded areas and wildlife. With more housing developments its leaving no place for the amenities to live. So I disagree with these plans. Thank you. Sincerely."

Chairperson Canup announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Landry felt that Bristol Corners South could have the entrance from West Park Drive. He felt there was the possibility of the solution to turn around the subdivision and place the cul-de-sac at the other end. Therefore, he stated that he would not be in support of a positive recommendation to City Council for the Tentative Preliminary Plat. He encouraged the developer to consider an entrance located off of West Park Drive.

Member Canup suggested asking the petitioner if this option could be considered and the item could be tabled.

Mr. Serlin stated felt that in the face of a denial, he would be reticent to redesign something that has been on the record for the past five (5) or six (6) years. He stated that a traffic study indicated, for this phase and the previous phase, that the traffic count on South Lake Drive has gone from eighty-six hundred (8600) cars a day prior to the Taft Road Extension down to thirty-eight hundred (3800) cars a day. This is more than a fifty percent (50%) decrease in traffic along South Lake Drive. He stated that although his subdivision is in this area, he had nothing to do with this situation. He stated that he has the right to be at this location and use South Lake Drive as it is a public street. He stated his appreciation of the fact of the generated traffic. He stated that he gave up a lot when he acquiesced to the extension of Taft Road and the signal light.

Chairperson Canup asked Mr. Serlin to only address the question that he was asked.

Mr. Serlin stated that he is attempting to address the traffic issue. He indicated that the answer to the question is no. He stated that he does not want to revisit it. He stated that a lot of time, effort and money have already been invested. He stated that it was already approved and he is ready to begin engineering drawings.

Member Nagy stated her support to Member Landry’s comments. She stated did not feel that more traffic could continue to be generated on South Lake Drive. She recognized the applicant’s right to develop his property. She asked Mr. Arroyo if it is feasible to redraw the subdivision with the entrance on West Park Drive with the same number of homes.

Mr. Arroyo did not think this would be feasible. He recalled reviewing this issue at the original submittal. He stated the location of the access is due to the severe grade coming off of West Park Drive coming toward the site. He believed that Ms. Weber would agree. He added that the access located off of South Lake Drive runs along the ridge, taking advantage of the slope to minimize the impact. He suggested deferring to Ms. Weber for further comment.

Member Nagy asked Ms. Weber if this is the only possible layout.

Ms. Weber stated in regard to an entrance this is the only possible layout. She explained that the grade is substantial along West Park Drive. She stated that according to the City standards, it would be difficult to place an entrance meeting City standards, in anything exceeding a maximum of eight percent (8%).

Member Nagy asked if she found any problems with the flooding issue along Lot #9, #11 and #13 raised by the resident.

Ms. Weber answered, no. She stated the 100-year flood plain is located to the east of that area. It runs behind the proposed detention basin. She noted it to be upland of the lots mentioned. Therefore, she did not anticipate potential flooding in the area. She added that this would be reviewed further with the submittal of the subdivision plans, with more engineering detail, to assure that the housing levels are elevated above the flood plain elevation.

Member Koneda stated that he was also uncertain with the connection with South Lake Road. He recognized the grade issues on West Park Drive. He recalled West Park Drive being constructed with the purposed to alleviate the traffic at the north end of Novi and to open up the land for development. He felt that the plan proposed had met the intent of the Preservation Option (already approved and agreed upon with City Council) and the plan completely conforms to that concept plan. He did not find a legitimate reason to deny the petitioner’s request.

PM-01-07-177 IN THE MATTER OF BRISTOL CORNERS SOUTH SP 01-30A TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND WETLAND PERMIT CONDITIONAL UPON CITY COUNCIL GRANTING THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WAIVER FOR THE OVERSIZED CUL-DE-SAC, THE ROAD ALONG SOUTH LAKE DRIVE BE CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS AND CONTINGENT UPON THE CONSULTANT’S COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, FAILED (3-5): In the matter of Bristol Corners South SP 01-30A to send a positive recommendation to City Council for Preliminary Plat Approval and Wetland Permit conditional upon City Council granting the Design and Construction Waiver for the oversized cul-de-sac, the road along South Lake Drive be constructed to City Standards and contingent upon the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Yes: Churella, Koneda, Richards

No: Canup, Kocan, Landry, Mutch, Nagy

Mr. Serlin requested that the reason for the denial be included on the record.

Chairperson Canup asked the applicant to wait and allow the Commission to handle things. He stated there was not a motion to approve or send a positive recommendation.

Mr. Arroyo stated that there has not been a recommendation made yet.

Member Koneda stated that the motion to send a positive recommendation failed and therefore no recommendation has been made to City Council.

Chairperson Canup agreed.

Member Koneda agreed with the petitioner’s request to have the reasons for denial on record.

Mr. Fisher agreed that it would be appropriate to have discussion to obtain a consensus.

Member Landry recalled the consultant’s comments regarding the existing grading and the difficulty that would be present to place an access on West Park Drive. However, he was not convinced that they would not be able to alter the grading, use fill and engineering to create an access onto West Park Drive. Although it may be more costly, it is a small phase and he did not feel that it would be burdensome to correct the grading. For this reason he stated he would send a negative recommendation to City Council.

Moved by Landry, seconded by Nagy: In the matter of Bristol Corners South SP 01-30A to send a negative recommendation to City Council on the Tentative Preliminary Plat.

Chairperson Canup stated that he would like to have continued discussion regarding the reason(s) for why it was not approved.

Member Nagy stated that she shared the same reasons as stated by Member Landry. She asked that Ms. Weber address the issue of whether or not the grading could be altered.

Ms. Weber recommended that the applicant’s engineer look into this possibility to determine if this issue could be addressed prior to making a decision for an entryway relocation. She stated it might be workable.

Chairperson Canup asked if it appears that the topography of the property would allow for grading and balancing to allow for an ingress/egress.

Ms. Weber stated that this was difficult to determine because of the large amount of existing topography. She explained that filling one area, especially areas of a lot of topography, there would be the need to make up the grade somewhere else. The result could be a domino effect with a problem created in another location, which might created a difficulty in the meeting grade. For these reasons, she stressed that the applicant’s engineer should do an evaluation to determine if it would be feasible.

Mr. Arroyo suggested tabling to allow the engineer to do this evaluation and present the information to the Commission.

Member Churella asked how much the traffic would increase on South Lake Drive from the thirteen (13) unit subdivision.

Mr. Arroyo stated the traffic report indicates a forecast of ten (10) trips during the morning peak hour, thirteen (13) during the PM peak hour and one hundred twenty-five (125) over a twenty-four (24) hour period. He added that not all of these trip generations would be traveling eastbound on South Lake Drive. He stated that a number of those would turn left to West Park Drive making their way to the freeway and others might go north on West Park Drive. He stated this is the total traffic generation on average of what would be expected from a subdivision of thirteen (13) single-family units.

Member Churella stated this is a minor amount of traffic. He indicated that everyone has approved this plan. He did not feel it was right to request the applicant to redesign his subdivision for a few trip generations.

Member Mutch understood that one hundred twenty-five (125) trips would not "make or break" most roads. He stated that the lowered amount of traffic counts is not acceptable for South Lake Drive. Therefore, he did not support placing additional trips on this road until all the alternatives have been explored. He agreed that there was a lot of money spent on West Park Drive for the purpose of directing the traffic off of South Lake Drive and the provision of a through route north and south through that area. He stated that it did impact Mr. Serlin’s property. He stated that when this plan was considered, those plans were not finalized. He did not feel that enough consideration was given to the alternative of getting the traffic off of South Lake Drive. Member Mutch felt that any additional trips on this road would be too much. Therefore, he was in support of the reasons for the denial. He did not feel that tabling would be appropriate because it is a recommendation to City Council. He felt that the engineers and consultants would have had the opportunity to evaluate the West Park Drive access prior to it reaching City Council. He felt that the City Council could make an informed decision at that point. He stated that it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation. He stated that to his understanding, there is nothing legally binding about the decision and that the City Council would have the "final say". He felt the points were made clear, the applicant could move forward, the engineers could study the issue and the decision could be made at the City Council level.

Chairperson Canup agreed with Member Mutch.

Member Koneda referred to the City Attorney. He stated that the Planning Commission is requesting that the applicant readdress the preservation plan. He questioned if the City Council would have to amend the RUD Agreement if it was changed.

Mr. Fisher stated that he was not aware if the second subdivision, the smaller subdivision, is part of the agreement. He added that the suggestion of Member Mutch might be able to be combined with the other suggestions that have been made if it was to be passed to City Council with a recommendation. He stated that it might be with the further direction to the applicant that the materials submitted to the City Council include an engineering feasibility study and possibly a cost analysis to determine if the alternate ingress/egress would be appropriate. He suggested cost analysis with the reasoning to find if it would be unreasonable to require.

Member Koneda asked if Member Landry would accept this amendment to his motion.

Member Landry and Member Nagy accepted the amendment.

Member Mutch clarified to Member Koneda that this is not an RUD Agreement and it is a Preservation Option. He stated that it is not a contractual agreement in the sense that an RUD is. He stated it is a concept plan, which they should generally follow, however, it is not "locked in" as with an RUD.

Moved by Landry, seconded by Nagy, CARRIED (6-2): In the matter of Bristol Corners South SP 01-30A to send a negative recommendation to City Council on the Tentative Preliminary Plat with an engineering feasibility study and cost analysis to determine if the alternate ingress/egress would be feasible.

Yes: Canup, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch Nagy

No: Churella, Richards

Moved by Churella, seconded by Richards, CARRIED (7-1): In the matter of matter of Bristol Corners South SP 01-30A to grant Woodland Permit Approval and send a positive recommendation to City Council for a Wetland Permit.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Richards

No: Nagy

A proposed amendment to the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use. The amendment was prepared to identify improvements and possible land use recommendations for the Novi Road Corridor. Corridor planning is a tool that permits the City to closely examine an area that is in need of a more intense planning focus.

David Evancoe stated the Grand River Area Plan and the Novi Road Corridor Plan greatly exhibit the purpose of the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff in planning out the future of the community and improve the quality of life for the citizens. He quoted Daniel Burnum "Make no small plans, for they have no magic to stir men’s souls." He stated the plans may be small in terms of geographic area, however, they are not small in terms of division, creativity and their realistic pragmatism. Mr. Evancoe thanked those involved with both of the ongoing projects; residents; property owners; business owners; members of the City Council and Planning Commission who participated in the visioning session; members of the Planning Department Staff; and consultants Birchler Arroyo, Linda Lemke and JCK. The Planning Commission approved the 20/20 Master Plan calling out certain areas that would be "special treatment" planning areas. The Grand River area and Novi Road were two (2) of these areas identified that would need further study. A Grand River Plan in 1992 called for certain actions, which the proposed plan brings up to date. The proposed plan is visionary and realistic, which he believed could be implemented over time. The planning process for both plans began with visioning sessions. He noted the input focused on three (3) questions: 1) What do we have? 2) What do we want? 3) How will it be accomplished? The responses from the participants formed the basis for visions and goals contained in writing. The plan consists of three (3) basic parts: 1) Existing conditions – This includes wetlands, woodlands, traffic counts and land use, etc…which are part of the presented documents. 2) Visions and Goals – He noted the examples of reoccurring themes, such as preserving natural features, addressing traffic concerns and improve pedestrian access, aesthetics and the improvement of the visual appeal of the two (2) areas. 3) Recommendations – He noted that these include future land use plan, access management plans and such suggestions as those.

Mr. Evancoe addressed the issue of implementation stating that the plans would only be as good as they could be implemented. He added that they would not benefit anyone if they become "plans on the shelf". He indicated that a Land Use Plan or an area plan is being implemented with a zoning hearing making a decision regarding a rezoning. Also a review of a Site Plan or a Subdivision Plat involves the implementation of a comprehensive Master Plan, reviewing issues of woodland, wetlands, sidewalks and access. He stated these are the same issues as those contained within the proposed plan. Capital Improvement Programming implements the plan with the City’s determination of how to spend public funds. If a plan is in place, the City could consider the plan as "the people’s have spoken" and spend the "people’s money" according the plan. Mr. Evancoe indicated that the plan is not "in stone" and is changeable and he requested the input of the Commission. He thanked the consultants Mr. Arroyo, Ms. Lemke and Ms. Weber for helping the Staff and the Commission to produce the presented documents.

Mr. Arroyo felt there were several key factors leading to the City’s commencing of the proposed. 1) The widening of Novi Road to five (5) lanes from Ten Mile north, which is in the design stage by the Road Commission. This is a project that is coming forward in the next couple of years, which would have an impact. 2) The potential relocation of Michigan CAT to an alternative site. They have been discussing very large holdings that they have in the Novi Road Corridor and relocating to another area. He noted that Cummings Engine also had discussion of relocation. He stated that these are both major users and major land areas being consumed within the corridor. The City felt this would be a special time to spend attention on the Novi Road Corridor to re-examine the Master Plan in a more detailed focus. He felt the goal has been achieved to produce a very visual plan with minimal text and more graphics. Detailed comments in graphic form can be found regarding woodland, wetland, habitat, flood plain, existing zoning, existing Master Plan recommendations, historic and archeological features and a wide variety of information to lead to the understanding of the current conditions of the corridor and what is important.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the Land Use element focused primarily on the area from Ten Mile north because this is the location of most of the anticipate changes. He added the corridor has been before the Master Plan and Zoning Committee, Staff and Consultants. He pointed out on the map the location of Ten Mile, Main Street and the railroad tracks. At the north end, it was suggested injecting entry features such as landscaping and signage entry features. Ms. Lemke created illustrations throughout the report. The first area crosses through the Town Center area, over the rail road tracks (location of the future bridge when the Road Commission is finished), is an excellent location for an important entryway feature into the Corridor indicating the entering into an areas other than the Town Center. He noted the existing City-owned property acquired for a Regional Detention Basin. There was a lot of input to establish this location as a City park to serve as a function to hold storm water if needed and a park function. He explained that this would create a logical place for pedestrians from residential lots to the south to stop as a refuge while walking to the Main Street location. There is a recommendation to relocate the Post Office to the preferred area discussed at Town Center Main Street area. He noted the discussion to make Main Street an activity center. A logical function of a downtown is to have governmental functions, including Post Office functions. Governmental functions would bring people into the Main Street area and help to generate traffic for the commercial businesses, retail shops and restaurants. The current location of the Post Office has poor access and is primarily a retail office, which uses a location in an industrial park in Novi for sorting. He added that the Post Office could be easily relocated. On the opposite side of Novi Road is the location of the Michigan CAT and Cummings Engine currently zoned Heavy Industrial. The recommendation is to change this to Light Industrial District (I-1). He noted the options of bringing the Main Street Concept / Downtown Gateway Concept down Novi Road were rejected. He summarized that the thought that the area is industrial and could change. It could become a high quality Light Industrial area with the outdoor storage removed and replaced with high tech buildings. Further south, he noted the northwest corner of Novi Road and Ten Mile Road natural feature of wetland "wrapping" through the area. The parcel is currently designated on the Master Plan for office and it is recommended to change it to local commercial similar to the property to the south. He stated that it seemed to be a logical "break point" to transition from retail to the office uses proposed along the West Side. He noted the natural feature that would provide for this barrier point. He indicated a parcel located at the northeast corner, which wraps around the Speedway Station. He stated this area has been evaluated by several users and does not seem to be working well as a Light Industrial. Therefore, the recommendation is to change it to local commercial, possibly B-2. A B-2 zoning would avoid fast food, however could bring a sit down restaurant or retail store. He stated that due to the lot’s orientation and location, it seem appropriate for the area to have a change to a different land use. The area surrounding the Walgreens, currently designated commercial on the Master Plan is recommended to be designated as a Special Planning Area, which would be in need of further study in the future. He indicated the discussion of a mixed-use development with some residential and some commercial. Through all of the discussions, he felt the Master Planning & Zoning Committee felt that area would need special attention beyond the Corridor Study, therefore, they have designated it as SP on the plan (SP – Special Project Area). He pointed out the number of intersection recommendations and referred the Commission to Ms. Lemke’s illustrations. He noted the excellence of her concepts of introducing the streetscape into the intersection, with water walls, landscaping, brick pavers. Mr. Arroyo indicated the Grand River Avenue and Novi Road section are the historic portion of the City and a key focal point of the community. He recalled Walgreens referring to the intersection as the two (2) major streets of the community. He felt that it should be treated as such and that it could be made more attractive. He stated that bike paths and pedestrians were also topics. Currently the entire corridor is shown with five (5) foot sidewalks. It is recommended that from Arena Drive north to Main Street have eight (8) foot bicycle paths. This would provide a connection with the Ten Mile Road paths to the Town Center area. He stated this was an attempt to encourage alternate forms of transportation and utilize the investment the City has made in sidewalks and bike paths.

Mr. Arroyo introduced an Access Management Plan, which he felt was worthy of implementation and consideration. He stated one area of focus is a change in the occurring access along the corridor. Currently there are a number of industrial driveways and commercial driveways that could be changed through a unified development. One change would be to extend an industrial collector road to Novi Road and building it as the center core for the future development. The idea would be to have the access come off an internal system, not necessarily with continuous drives onto Novi Road. The collector road location would also be a good location for traffic signalization. In looking at the spacing, roughly one-third (1/3) of a mile from the Ten Mile Road intersection there is the potential to possibility to extend traffic corridors along the back of the commercial area and serve some of existing developments. Therefore, minimizing some of the potential connections to Novi Road. There are a number of possibilities to improve access, make the road safer and provide for alternative means for safe and reasonable access to the area.

Mr. Arroyo stated the Pathway and Open Space Plan is another component to the Novi Corridor Plan. He pointed out the publicly owned property, potential park property, connections to Main Street, pedestrian connections back and forth on Ten Mile, and the use of Arena Drive as a pedestrian connection with the Ice Arena and Sports Club and areas that would likely attract those on foot or using bicycles. He continued that to the south is the area for the continuation of the five (5) foot sidewalk verses the safety path. He continued with the establishment of another pedestrian-type node at this intersection with special landscape treatment and an entry treatment at the southerly end near the Guernsey Site for additional landscaping to be incorporated to create an indication of the entrance to the City of Novi.

Mr. Arroyo reminded the Commission that both of the plans are Pubic Hearings for a Master Plan Amendments. Therefore, if they chose to act there would be an affirmative vote of six (6) members to make any changes to the Master Plan.

Chairperson Canup questioned if it would be fair to act on the Public Hearings with the Commission without a full board.

Member Mutch felt that because there is a lot of information to review they should consider the opportunity of tabling any action.

Chairperson Canup suggested continuing with the Public Hearing and table at a future meeting for action.

Chairperson Canup announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

Matt Quinn appeared on behalf of Novi Ten Associates, the owners of the property located at the southeast corner of Ten Mile and Novi Road. He stated that when Master Plan was adopted in 1999 Novi Ten and Associates met with the City to reviewed traffic studies, fiscal analysis to obtain a change in the Master Plan from light industrial for the property to local commercial. He stated that a large amount of study was done on the site at that time. He stated that over the last two (2) years nothing has occurred in that area. He stated that the study was based upon the Master Plan widening of Novi Road and the possibility of widening Ten Mile Road. He stated with the facts in place, the Planning Commission adopted the Master Plan stating it should be a local commercial area. He indicated that less than two (2) years later a re-study identifies the land as SP- Special Project planning area. He stated that it is interesting to note that nowhere in the corridor, other than this site, is there an existence of this SP designation other than as proposed. Mr. Quinn stated the owners of Novi Ten object to the change of the Master Plan due to the tremendous study that took place two (2) to three (3) years ago and do not believe there is any significant change requiring a change in the Master Plan now. He the knowledge that the Commission would not be adopting any amendments to the Master Plan at this meeting and knowledge that Novi Ten Associates has not been approached to have a meeting with the City regarding this matter. He stated that since the property was Master Planned two (2) years ago, the owner of the property has spent considerable sums of money looking at how to develop the parcel as local commercial. He stated they have been looking at putting in a pedestrian link and a walking path on the East End of their property that connects the Novi Ice Arena to Ten Mile Road to the area being discussed. He stated this property is owned by the same individual who donated 18-acres to the City where part of the Ice Arena is built on and has a remaining ten (10) acres of park land for the City to develop. He explained that this would create a connection with the apartments through the walking area, nature trail into the commercial development. Therefore, he stated a lot of work and effort has been put into this plan based upon the existing Master Plan. Mr. Quinn stated that prior to the commission adopting anything further, he requested a meeting with the property owner to review the plans and the possibilities under the current Master Plan usage. He stated they are willing to look at the SP designation. He felt that a SP designation only meant that they would determine in the future what the property is. He stated that his understanding of a Master Plan would mean that a decision would need to be made on the use to allow the property owners to make land decisions. He did not feel it meant that the property owners would be held in "limbo" for an indefinite period of time. He stated that Novi Ten and Associates is in objection to any change at this time. He indicated that they look forward to having a meeting with the City to determine how the local use Master Plan are could be used.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any other audience participant to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Member Churella announced that he has received a letter from:

Dan and Ed Manscuso wrote "I received a phone call the other day from the City. We are the owners of four (4) small parcels of vacant land just south of the Post Office. These parcels all have the same sidwell number, except the last three (3) digits are different. They are 6, 7, 19 and 20. There are approximately 24-acres. Four (4) of the acres are low and probably unbuildable. However, the remainder of the property is used for Heavy Industry with outside storage that has been grandfathered. We purchased the property in 1976 and investigated the highest and best use of for this parcel with numerous developers, real estate professionals, planners and environmentalists. In 1980 Novi rezoned the parcel to include the light industry near the railroad tracks to OS-1. At the time, the property owner at the railroad tracks presented a plan to develop the property as Light Industrial and was ultimately successful. He presently has Pepsi Cola, Johnson Controls and Rite Aid in operation in this location. Then the City purchased property between their property and the development property except for the small parcel owned by the Post Office. There is one parcel south that that is their parcel, which is 10-acres and is completely filled and wetlands. It would be virtually impossible to build on these 10-acres. From this property to Ten Mile Road, the West Side is B-3. This has been built upon as B-3. Now the only property that could be built is theirs. Their property is from Ten Mile to the railroad track is zone OST. It is possible that we would be basically "spot zoning". Further each and every one of the consultants had included that the only possible use for their parcel would be B-3 or commercial. They say that office development did not seem to have a demand because there is no freeway access and B-3 zoning would fall into the major use of what they already have on the West Side of Novi Road. It appears that this would be the best type of use for this piece of property and would like the Commission’s action to be based on the B-3 zoning.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, In the matter of Novi Road Corridor Plan to table to a future date to the next available Planning Commission meeting.

Member Nagy questioned if by tabling they would be making a decision/recommendation when it returns.

Chairperson Canup answered, correct.

Member Nagy felt that it would be appropriate to have Mr. Quinn’s client to be present and taken into consideration. She questioned if Mr. Evancoe would be willing to do this.

Mr. Evancoe answered, yes. He indicated that one hundred seventy-seven (177) notices were mailed out and he did not recall a response from this owner. He stated the interest in input, however it is difficult to make the determination of who would like to meet with the City and who would not. Therefore, it creates a dependency on those to respond if they are interested in giving input to the process.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Quinn if his client contacted the Planning Department in response to the notice that was mailed.

Mr. Quinn stated that he did not know.

Member Landry asked when the matter would be tabled to.

Member Mutch stated that a date was not included in the motion.

Chairperson Canup stated a review of the agenda would determine if it could be placed on the following agenda.

Mr. Evancoe indicated that his introductory comments should be applied to both the Novi Corridor Plan and the Grand River Area Plan minutes.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

A proposed amendment to the City of Novi Master Plan for Land Use. The amendment was prepared to identify improvements and possible land use recommendations for a geographic area of Grand River Avenue, from Beck Road to Taft Road. Area planning is a tool that permits the City to closely examine an area that is in need of a more intense planning focus.

David Evancoe stated the Grand River Area Plan and the Novi Road Corridor Plan greatly exhibit the purpose of the Planning Commission and the Planning Staff in planning out the future of the community and improve the quality of life for the citizens. He quoted Daniel Burnum "Make no small plans, for they have no magic to stir men’s souls." He stated the plans may be small in terms of geographic area, however, they are not small in terms of division, creativity and their realistic pragmatism. Mr. Evancoe thanked those involved with both of the ongoing projects; residents; property owners; business owners; members of the City Council and Planning Commission who participated in the visioning session; members of the Planning Department Staff; and consultants Birchler Arroyo, Linda Lemke and JCK. The Planning Commission approved the 20/20 Master Plan calling out certain areas that would be "special treatment" planning areas. The Grand River area and Novi Road were two (2) of these areas identified that would need further study. A Grand River Plan in 1992 called for certain actions, which the proposed plan brings up to date. The proposed plan is visionary and realistic, which he believed could be implemented over time. The planning process for both plans began with visioning sessions. He noted the input focused on three (3) questions: 1) What do we have? 2) What do we want? 3) How will it be accomplished? The responses from the participants formed the basis for visions and goals contained in writing. The plan consists of three (3) basic parts: 1) Existing conditions – This includes wetlands, woodlands, traffic counts and land use, etc…which are part of the presented documents. 2) Visions and Goals – He noted the examples of reoccurring themes, such as preserving natural features, addressing traffic concerns and improve pedestrian access, aesthetics and the improvement of the visual appeal of the two (2) areas. 3) Recommendations – He noted that these include future land use plan, access management plans and such suggestions as those.

Mr. Evancoe addressed the issue of implementation stating that the plans would only be as good as they could be implemented. He added that they would not benefit anyone if they become "plans on the shelf". He indicated that a Land Use Plan or an area plan is being implemented with a zoning hearing making a decision regarding a rezoning. Also a review of a Site Plan or a Subdivision Plat involves the implementation of a comprehensive Master Plan, reviewing issues of woodland, wetlands, sidewalks and access. He stated these are the same issues as those contained within the proposed plan. Capital Improvement Programming implements the plan with the City’s determination of how to spend public funds. If a plan is in place, the City could consider the plan as "the people’s have spoken" and spend the "people’s money" according the plan. Mr. Evancoe indicated that the plan is not "in stone" and is changeable and he requested the input of the Commission. He thanked the consultants Mr. Arroyo, Ms. Lemke and Ms. Weber for helping the Staff and the Commission to produce the presented documents.

Mr. Arroyo indicated the Grand River Area Plan is a geographic area plan distinguished from the title Corridor Study due to the previous study title Grand River Corridor Study. He stated this area plan is intended to be a focus on the area between Beck Road and Taft Road. He stated that the analysis focuses on this general area. This is another area of the City that is considering potential change with the eminent widening of Grand River Avenue to five (5) lanes moving through the design process. He noted the potential land use changes with the possible relocation of the Expo Center to the corridor. He added that a number of natural features are documented in the plan. He stated there has been a lot of public input in this process. Those that are property owners in this area and five hundred (500) feet beyond the study area were publicly notified. He indicated planning commissioners, business owners and residents participated in a visioning session. He added that drafts of the studies were made available on the website.

Mr. Arroyo stated the final outcome of the Grand River Area Plan is different than the Novi Road Study because the Grand River Area Plan is more of a land use and landscape entry feature and landscape corridor treatment recommendation than the Novi Road Study. He added that this focus was oriented in that way from the beginning. He noted the potential location for the Expo Center, which would include the taking out of the rest area along I-96 and using a portion of it for that property. He stated all of the property, with a few exceptions on the north side of Grand River Avenue, have an OST designation and is Master Planned for office. He explained that the plan recommends having the office designation to continue along the north side and that the Master Plan dictates that the area be an area for an Expo Overlay. He stated the prelude to the ultimate rezoning of that property with an Expo Overlay District that would go over the OST classification. The current OST zoning would remain and ultimately if this were to go forward then the Expo Overlay District would go over it. He noted that with the public input, it was suggested to make both sides of Grand River Avenue more cohesive. Currently there is a mix of uses on the south side of Grand River Avenue with light industrial being the predominant use. There is OST on the north side of Grand River Avenue. The area (particularly along Beck Road and approximately .5 miles east of Beck Road) is primarily designated as office in the recommended plan. A lot of the property is currently designated as light industrial. This is an attempt to tie together both sides of Grand River Avenue and allow for office development in close proximity to the Beck Road interchange. He explained that this would make it ancillary to some of the other larger users, such as the hospital and additional office uses close by. He noted the freeway exposure for the property that would make it more attractive for certain larger corporate users. He stated there would be a lot of potential application for office use within the area. The Master Planning and Zoning Committee also reviewed the easterly portion on the south side and concluded that its current designation of light industrial should remain. The Committee felt that this would follow the more established pattern of existing light industrial uses, new uses and a lot of interest in the south side particularly in the easterly portion, to continue light industrial development. He noted the key feature of the process was the attempt to give a visual perspective of Taft Road as a residential roadway. He pointed out the design recommendations from Ms. Lemke, including entry treatments. There are recommendations to minimize the width of the approach to the maximum extent practical to give the impression to those on Grand River Avenue that Taft Road has a residential orientation. He added that they encourage Expo traffic to use Grand River Avenue, the freeway, Beck Road and Novi Road and not Taft Road. The landscape treatment is another component to the plan. Mr. Arroyo pointed out the difficulty with the street tree plantings with overhead utilities. He noted the City’s attempt to bury the utilities whenever possible, however, there are financial implications are not always practical. He noted Mr. Evancoe’s suggestion to explore higher and taller towers for the utility lines, which would enable landscape plantings that would not otherwise be possible. Short of burying the lines, placing them higher and out of site might make sense. The concept of the landscaping along the corridor would create vertical elements along the roadway to calm traffic a little and present a presence. He stated there are potential recommendations to allow small decorative banners, approaching from the west, which would attach to light poles to announce events of the Expo Center. The Committee felt if this was done in an appropriate and attractive manner it would be reflective of what other communities with Convention Centers have done to welcome those visiting.

Chairperson Canup announced it was a Public Hearing and opened the Matter to the Public.

John Bowman of the Novi Expo Center thanked the Commission for their interest in the Overlay issues earlier in the evening. He stated his overwhelming support and interest in the study and recommendations that was brought forward by the visioning process. He felt this would create unique opportunities for the community to be creative with the corridor. He looked forward to working with the community to accomplish this. He cautioned that the creativity and decisions not stop at Taft Road but that it continue down to Novi Road, to integrate the retail uses at Main Street and Town Center from Beck Road to Novi Road. He felt that there would be a lot of creative uses that would come up from the north side to create a lot of enhancement to the community and the residents of the area. He supported the plan.

Debbie Bundoff, Novi and Twelve Mile Road, felt that the history of Grand River Avenue should have been given along with the plan. She stated that the community recently lost office properties and now have a hardware store located by Beck Road. She stated the area was planned for office to support a major medical facility and instead the zoning was changed to residential uses. She felt that the new commissioners should have been informed of the history. She stated they are proposing to zone to office when office did not originally work. She did not feel that losing industrial space bothered the neighbors because not too many people go slow on the expressway, therefore, opening doors would not bother them. She stated that the City is losing a lot of industrial space. She felt that it needed to exist somewhere because of the tax trade off. She did not want to lose the industrial sites not located adjacent to residential because there are not a lot left. She encouraged the commission to look "hard and long" at the loss of all or the majority of the industrial base in the community to office uses. She stated they should not lost the OST either, because it brings good quality office buildings to Novi. She was not in support of the improvements stopping at Grand River Avenue. She thought the commission should avoid another situation of the other side of Grand River Avenue and Novi Road. She indicated that there are too many sections going on their own, with a new gateway at the other end of the City. She questioned if this would be compatible all along Grand River Avenue. She did not think it was wise to expect office on the south side of Grand River Avenue when it was not able to be obtained on the north side. She questioned if they were making good sense of the land.

Sharden Anderson, owner of Slatehole Tool and Manufacturing located on Grand River Avenue, did not understand the reasoning behind increasing the Light Industrial property in Novi. He stated that the industry in Michigan is bad. He stated that tool shops are being lost in Michigan everyday. He stated the currently, the United States is in the process of losing sixteen (16) major steel mills. He that there was a loss of 2.5 million dollars of work to Mexico. He felt that that manufacturing is leaving the country and would not be coming back. He thought they should reconsider the zoning of light industrial. He stated that he has been in business for thirty-five (35) years and did not feel that his opinion was incorrect.

Chairperson Canup asked if there were any further participants to speak to the matter. Seeing no one he closed the Public Hearing and turned the Matter over to the Commission for Discussion.

Chairperson Canup asked the Commission if they wanted to handle the Grand River Area Plan as they did the Novi Plan Corridor Plan.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Kocan, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of the Grand River Area Plan to table to a future date to the next available Planning Commission meeting

Member Kocan stated that she would have preferred that the plan include more to the east and the west. She felt that the major focus of the plan is on the Expo Center area and therefore, did not present as much of the picture that she preferred.

Chairperson Canup agreed. He commented that it should go down Grand River Avenue to the end of the City limits because it would only include another mile.

Mr. Arroyo noted the detailed discussion at the time of the proposed plan. He stated the ideas were to focus on this area due to the unique characteristic and changes that were occurring. There was a broader picture of Grand River Corridor Study done a few years ago. He stated that because of the potential change in this area, it was felt that this would have more of a special focus. The Grand River Corridor Plan would hold for the rest of the corridor that would tie it all together. He indicated that the larger corridor study contains elements that address attempting to tie, in a cohesive fashion, some of the different land uses together throughout the entire City along Grand River Avenue. He stated to expand the study at this point would mean starting over in terms of redoing the analysis of a larger area. He stated that historically it was discussed by the Planning Commission and Council at the time of approval to keep the focus on this area, due to the potential change and the Grand River Corridor Study to address the remainder of the corridor.

Mr. Anderson asked if it was possible to obtain a copy of the Grand River Corridor Study to link Taft Road to Novi Road.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he could obtain a copy at the City.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

This subdivision project is located on 80 acres in Section 22, on Ten Mile Road and west of Novi Road. The proposed development is in a Single Family Residential District (R-4). The applicant is seeking a Planning Commission waiver for berming requirements.

Mike Kahm of Singh Development Company requested a Planning Commission Waiver under the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 2509.7 for the allowance of a thirty (30) inch high masonry wall along the frontage of Ten Mile Road in leu of the required berm. The proposed wall would enhance the entry for Churchill Crossings project and enhance the streetscape along Ten Mile Road. He introduced George Seiber of Seiber Keast & Associates to present the physical characteristics along the entry and the reasoning for the waiver request.

George Seiber of Seiber Keast & Associates showed the commission what the berm would look like if it were added to the site as required. He noted that it would intrude into the detention basin and physically impossible to construct the 30’ high berm in this location.

Ms. Lemke stated that often at the Engineering phase, items might be found that could not be done. She stated at Preliminary Site Plan she recalled having some concerns, however, the applicant thought they would be able to provide the berm, however they are not able to and need a waiver. The plan indicates a thirty-eight (38) inch high wall in leu of the thirty (30) inch berm. Ms. Lemke recommended approval of the waiver.

Member Churella questioned if a higher wall would be needed should the community ever to become gated.

Mr. Kahm answered, no.

Moved by Nagy, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: In the matter of Churchill Crossings SP 00-14 to grant Planning Commission Waiver to allow the thirty-eight (38) inch masonry wall in place of the required thirty (30) inch berm per the recommendation of Ms. Lemke

Member Mutch questioned if there would be plantings along the wall or if it would be bare.

Ms. Lemke indicated that there would be plantings all along the wall.

Member Mutch stated that the drawing included in his packet only indicated grass.

Ms. Lemke stated that the landscape plan indicates plantings along both sides of the wall. She added they have the protective fencing up and are preserving the trees in front of the wall.

Member Mutch questioned if this would provide enough setback from the sidewalk and there would not be any issue of conflict.

Ms. Lemke answered, correct.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

This building addition project is located in Section 35, on Novi Road and north of Eight Mile Road. The 2.97 acre site is zoned General Business District (B-3). The applicant is requesting reconsideration of the Planning Commission’s June 20, 2001 decision pertaining to required conditions for sidewalk and culvert installation adjacent to the subject property. The applicant further requests approval of the revised Preliminary / Final site plan and a Section Nine Façade Waiver.

Matt Quinn representing Guernsey Farm and Dairy recapped the previous meeting events. He indicated that after the Planning Commission meeting, they met with the City Staff and Consultants on the location to discuss the possible locations for the sidewalk proposed by the Planning Commission. He noted that Oakland County Economic Development also attended the meeting. He pointed out the sidewalk and the large tree on the rendering. He stated that the sidewalk was being proposed toward the street. He explained that to reach the street, they would have to go fifteen (15) feet to the west, where there is a ditch. He indicated that there were no previous measurements of that area because there was never any thought of a sidewalk placement. He stated that it is indicated in the review letters that it was determined that if the sidewalk was to be constructed here, the row of trees abutting Novi Road would need to be removed due to the impact on their roots. He noted that they are constructing a partial berm and would be required to dig into the berm to construct the sidewalk. Matt Quinn showed the commission photographs of the various alternatives. He noted the area from the inside of the parking area. He stated that Guernsey’s has been in the same location for 35-years and the public has been able to get to Guernsey’s without any sidewalks for those 35-years. He added that the majority of customers travel to Guernsey’s by vehicle. He noted that there is no residential on the East Side of Novi Road south of Nine Mile Road. Mr. Quinn stated they began to review options to get pedestrians across the driveway. One option was to remove the tree out and stripe the walkway to the building. Another option considered a diagonal crossing across. He reviewed the alternatives Mr. Evancoe put together that were included in the Planning Commission packets. Mr. Quinn explained that the plan shows the suggestion by Architect Lee Stevens to make the sidewalk diagonal meeting the building and a second sidewalk to meet up with the existing sidewalk. Alternative #1 (Exhibit A) – Implement the plan discussed (but not endorsed) on-site. He explained that this would involve the removal of a few of the parking spots. He designated the area it would extend, which would be the end of a traffic island and the area it would be stripped to and across. He stated that Guernsey is willing to produce either of the options. He stated that Guernsey’s is willing to stripe either of those walkways through the parking lot. Alternate #2 (Exhibit B) - Remove the western-most parking space on the northern-most bay of parking. Shift (via striping) the bay of parking immediately east of Novi Road five (5’) to the east and stripe a five (5’) wide pedestrian path on the existing asphalt parallel with Novi Road and construct an 18’ long concrete sidewalk to the north edge of the northern-most vehicular egress area. Require a public easement for the striped path and additional concrete walk. In the area between the northern and southern property ingress/egress drives install the culvert if necessary and construct the sidewalk as previously directed by the Commission and agreed to by the petitioner. This sidewalk must be at least five (5’) from the back of curb on Novi Road. Require an easement if the sidewalk is not in the ROW. He did not feel that Alternate #2 (Exhibit B) was a viable alternative. He explained that the parking spaces would need to be pushed back. He pointed out the area that is the major truck area. He stated if the parking spaces are moved back further, it would effect the vehicular circulation. Alternative #3 (Exhibit C) - Same as Alternative #2 except remove five (5’) of asphalt and replace with a five (5’) wide concrete sidewalk and require a public easement for such. The western edge of this sidewalk would be located where the current edge of pavement is along Novi Road. He stated that this would be too extensive and there would not be a gain. He stated that in both Alternate #2 (Exhibit B) and Alternative #3 (Exhibit C) would not be feasible because the trees beside them would grow wider eating up the sidewalk next to them. Alternative #4 (Exhibit D): Same as Alternative # 3 except remove nine (9’) of asphalt and construct the five (5’) wide sidewalk so that the western edge of the sidewalk if four (4’) east of the current edge of pavement along Novi Road. This would allow the existing evergreen trees room to grow and not force the pedestrian to be obstructed by branches. He stated that this is the most expensive alternative to enlarge the greenbelt on the East Side of the plantings and put in a sidewalk area. He stated this would squeeze all of the parking area further to the east area and would make turning movements difficult. He was in support of Alternative #1 (Exhibit A) whichever way the City would like to see it.

Mr. Quinn indicated that Guernsey’s is also submitting for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. He noted that they followed the suggestions to have the second floor as an office. He stated that there is currently sufficient parking on site and will remain sufficient with the modifications. He indicated there would also be a Section Nine Facade Waiver required for the side of the building adjacent to the railroad tracks and back. He reminded the commission that Guernsey’s is a local family business and not a large corporate dairy company and have a significant amount of money invested in this expansion. He indicated that the family is virtually "tapped out" with these expansions.

Mr. Arroyo stated that in his review of the revised plan, there is sufficient parking for the second floor addition. He recommended approval in the review letter dated June 29, 2001 subject to the resolution of the sidewalk issue by the Planning Commission.

In regard to traffic, Mr. Arroyo recommended approval in the review letter dated June 29, 2001 subject to the resolution of the sidewalk issue.

Ms. Weber stated that the Site Plan was reviewed relative to the feasibility of the placement of the sidewalk along the property frontage. She indicated comments from the review letter dated June 29, 2001. She stated the sidewalk placement is feasible purely from an engineering perspective, however, there are a number of items that would need to occur. The requirement of the enclosure of the existing ditch with placement of storm sewer to maintain existing drainage. In addition, several utilities including public water main and sanitary sewer are located within the limits of the existing ditch. She noted another aspect would be the location of the sidewalk from a safety perspective because Novi Road is a major thoroughfare. She recommended that the sidewalk be set twelve (12) feet back from the curbing. She noted that the placement of this would impact the existing landscaping and berm in the area. She continued that placement of the sidewalk along the property frontage would require transition from the existing off-site sidewalk located to the north. She stated that although it is feasible from an engineering perspective, there are other issues involved.

Ms. Lemke indicated the tree Mr. Quinn referred to for removal to connect from the north is an Austrian Pine. She stated that the Austrian Pine is susceptible to diplodia tip blight and therefore, she was not in objection of its removal. She noted that the applicant has agreed to replace this tree. She recommended a White Pine instead of the proposed White Spruce. She stated the alternatives other than Alternative A would require the removal of the existing trees that are a replacement. She continued to recommend approval with the comments of her review letter dated June 27, 2001 and the sidewalk being resolved.

Mr. Evancoe highlighted the four options. Exhibit A is a reflection of what the Consultants and the he understood to be the discussion that took place on the site. He noted that the petitioner seemed to be willing to work with Exhibit A. He stated that Alternative #1 (Exhibit A) is not endorsed, nor is the plan submitted by the petitioner because it is not the standard for pedestrian access as required by the City Code. He explained that his reasoning for showing Exhibit A was to inform the Commission of the discussions that took place at the on-site meeting. Alternate #2 (Exhibit B) goes across the existing parking lot. It requires the removal of one (1) space to the east, which they could afford to give up with being slightly over on the required parking. He noted that it has been argued that the trees would need to be removed if this was done. However, he pointed out that the stripping proposed in Exhibit B is where the parking is located now. Therefore, using the same logic, if stripping this for the sidewalk would require a removal of the trees then also continued use of the parking lot in its current configuration would also require the same. He stated this would also suggest that if the trees were not removed then the parking spaces would not be usable. Exhibit C is the same as Exhibit B with the exception of the proposal of a concrete sidewalk. Exhibit D provides some additional space to address the concern regarding the evergreen trees. He questioned if this would be the best compromise. He recalled the petitioner’s indication that Exhibit C and Exhibit D would be too expensive. He reminded that the commission that at the last Planning Commission meeting the petitioner agreed to do a more expensive solution, which was the enclosing of the ditch and provision of a culvert with concrete sidewalks over these. He stated the alternatives that have been suggested are less expensive than what the petitioner has already agreed to provide. Mr. Evancoe stressed that he is not trying things difficult for the applicant and that he is only laying out alternatives as the commission requested.

Member Kocan asked what the turning radius and the setback from the road would be for each of the alternatives given.

Mr. Arroyo indicated that the turning radius alternatives would need to be reviewed more closely. He identified the side loading area and explained that the truck would need to be able to swing around and get out the driveway. He noted the applicant’s concern is that (pointing to the picture) pushing "this" forward would reduce the amount of area "here", which he felt might be a legitimate concern. He stated some options could include the removal of some spaces to open up the area for more maneuvering. However, he stated it would be difficult to evaluate the impact without a scale drawing and the use of turning templates. He indicated the potential of other modifications that could be made on the site, such as the extension of the lot by one or two more spaces and the loss of two or three in another area. He stated that this could possibly still provide the radius, however a more detailed analysis would need to be done. Mr. Arroyo deferred the setback question to Ms. Weber to address.

Ms. Weber addressed Member Kocan’s question regarding the twelve (12) foot setback. In looking at the Site Plan, she noted that if the sidewalk were to be located twelve (12) feet back, it would be placed at the location of the existing landscaping.

Mr. Arroyo stated that what is shown on Exhibit B exceeds twelve (12) feet.

Chairperson Canup clarified that the concern(s) are regarding the sidewalk. Therefore, he questioned if the commissioners have been down to the site and walked on the sidewalk and through the parking lot. He asked after walking through Guernsey’s parking lot to the south, where does it go.

Member Mutch stated he did not believe that it would go anywhere past the south, however, he did not feel that the discussion is regarding the area to the south. Instead, he stated the discussion is related to the area to the north.

Chairperson Canup stated upon entering the parking lot, it is the Guernsey property.

Member Mutch explained that the pedestrian would need to arrive safely from the edge of the Guernsey property to their front door.

Chairperson Canup felt that pedestrians would be capable of arriving at the front door of the business from the edge of the parking lot without a sidewalk. Therefore, he did not find the need of the sidewalk to lead to the front door.

Member Mutch did not agree due to the safety of children.

Mr. Evancoe referred his final note on the last page. Final note: The existing Master Plan for Land Use (Page 29) as well as the proposed Novi Road Corridor Plan (Page 41) propose five (5’) wide sidewalks be placed along Novi Road in the vicinity of the subject property. He noted the sidewalk that goes west along Eight Mile Road. The sidewalk would not reach Eight Mile Road, yet, it would be one step closer to the contiguous pedestrian connection from Main Street to Eight Mile Road and pedestrians could traverse to the west. He stated that although this is Northville, they are citizens. There is a multiple family development on the West Side of Novi Road. He felt there was logic in the requirement of such an extension of sidewalks.

Member Churella questioned if the sidewalk would continue along the ditch if the ditch were filled.

Mr. Evancoe recognized that this was what was directed by the Commission at the last meeting. However on-site, he stated that it appeared to be unfeasible in terms of utility locations, vegetation, slopes and safety. He stated this was the reasoning for the exploration of alternatives to move it further away from the road.

Member Churella asked what Mr. Evancoe would recommend.

Mr. Evancoe felt that the Staff needed to stand behind the Master Plan as created by the Commission. The Master Plan suggests walkway connections as necessary and therefore, he felt that the Staff should seek to have them implemented on a case by case basis until there is a finished connection.

Member Nagy asked which exhibit Ms. Lemke would recommend. She stated that she did not want the evergreen tree roots to expand and take over the concrete/asphalt.

Ms. Lemke felt that Exhibit A would be feasible. However, she also felt that Exhibit B could work with the use of bumper blocks. She stated her concern would be the location of the parking against the sidewalk crowding the people on the sidewalk. She felt it would be inevitable if there were not bumper blocks that people would park over the stripped area. She noted the difficulty to have the knowledge of how far the evergreens would go over into that area. She added the evergreens could be trimmed and kept narrow. Ms. Lemke stated that if the existing landscaping could be preserved, she would be in support Exhibit B in terms of having the sidewalk along to Novi Road, which is the purpose of a sidewalk plan. She cautioned the placement of anything over the roots of the tree they have been attempting to preserve if they go south.

Member Nagy asked Mr. Evancoe what he would recommend.

Mr. Evancoe stated that he is sympathetic to the petitioner. He recapped prior to the last meeting in which the applicant was not required to provide any sidewalks. They received an approval from the Planning Commission with the recommendations of the staff and consultants to proceed with the project without a provision for sidewalks. He stated this is a new requirement since the last meeting. He explained that he took what the commission said to be its desire to see sidewalks. He stated that the alternatives were developed based upon what the Commission requested to see. He felt the best solution would be Exhibit D, which is also the most expensive option. He felt the key would be for the Commission to determine how strongly they feel about this requirement.

Member Nagy stated that typically she is in agreement with sidewalks and sticking to the Master Plan. However, she stated that she is very familiar with the Guernsey site. She did not feel that every site in the City required a sidewalk. She questioned if the sidewalk was place across would infringe upon the loading area.

Mr. Evancoe agreed with that possibility. He stated that the plans are conceptual.

Member Nagy felt strongly that the site is not feasible for sidewalks. She stated that it would be dangerous to place a sidewalk with a side loading area. She felt this would create a situation of pedestrians "dodging" trucks. Member Nagy clarified that her reasoning to have the applicant return to the Planning Commission was due to changes made to a Final Site Plan. She stated that she was not concerned with the sidewalk issue.

Member Koneda indicated that the applicant’s property is one of the few properties along Novi Road that has not been curbed yet. He stated the landscaping would be destroyed when the curbing occurs and the culvert is covered. At this time the sidewalk would also end up being at the location that it needs to be. Therefore, he felt that any action the Commission would take at this meeting would be a temporary measure to alleviate a potential hazardous condition that exists today. He added that children tend to not follow anything that is not a straight line. If the Commission wanted to provide pedestrians with a safer path in attempt to provide a safer environment, he felt that the diagonal stripping would be the best temporary solution. He felt that it would be unfair of the commission to ask the applicant to place concrete sidewalks where they do not belong. He was not in support of a sidewalk next to the parking spaces because he felt this would be more dangerous than having no sidewalks. He added that the placement of a 4’ greenspace is unfair because it would not be there down the road with future events. Member Koneda indicated that he would only support the diagonal sidewalk in Exhibit A on a temporary basis. He stated if this is not acceptable, then they would reach an impasse.

Chairperson Canup clarified if he was making a motion.

Member Koneda stated that when he made a motion for the plan when it originally came before the commission there were not sidewalk requirements. He stated the Planning Commission is requesting a condition that was not originally requested however, at this stage, he felt it would be a reasonable compromise.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, In the matter of Guernsey Farms Dairy SP 00-16C to approve the applicant’s Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Section Nine Facade Waiver for the materials at the end of the building, subject to the applicant putting in the sideway stripping as shown in Exhibit A, conditioned upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Mr. Evancoe recommended that the motion not refer to Exhibit A if the intention is to implement the petitioner’s solution. Instead, he suggested approving the applicant’s submittal.

Member Koneda and Member Churella accept the amendment.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, In the matter of Guernsey Farms Dairy SP 00-16C to approve the applicant’s Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Section Nine Facade Waiver for the materials at the end of the building, approval of the applicant’s submittal, conditioned upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations.

Member Mutch did not support the motion. He indicated two (2) reasons. He stated that Exhibit A is dangerous. He felt that it would be better to not have anything verses having Exhibit A because it encourages unsafe pedestrian movement. He disagreed with Member Koneda’s comment of this being a temporary solution. He did not feel the sidewalk would be in place for at least 30-years if the Planning Commission did not require it. He recalled discussions of the requirement of a sidewalk. He believed the reason for not requiring it at the last meeting was due to the fact that the level of the addition was not to the degree that would require it. However, when the Site Plan returned with the second story expansion they moved past the point to "trigger it". He stated that he walks in the area and the current situation is not safe and would continue to not be safe. Member Mutch indicated that he would not support a motion that did not place a sidewalk. He felt that Exhibit C would be an excellent compromise. He believed the elevating of the concrete to address the issue of vehicles pulling up in the spot was a requirement and would provide safe pedestrian access. He stated that people use the sidewalk along Novi Road.

Member Churella asked if he was suggesting that the applicant place the culvert and the sidewalk in the front.

Chairperson Canup stated a motion is on the floor. He stated if there are no amendments to the motion he would like to call the vote.

Member Koneda stated that he would prefer to leave the sidewalk out and allow the addition.

Chairperson Canup requested that he amend his motion to this effect.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella: In the matter of Guernsey Farms Dairy SP 00-16C to approve the applicant’s Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Section Nine Facade Waiver for the materials at the end of the building conditioned upon all consultant’s conditions and recommendations

Chairperson Canup asked if Member Churella supported the amendment to the motion.

Member Churella stated that he would like to have the sidewalk in the proper place according to the previous meeting.

Chairperson Canup indicated that if Member Churella did not support the amendment, then the vote would be on the motion prior to the amendment.

Member Churella supported the amendment.

Member Landry stated that he would not support the motion in its current form. He stated that he did not like the idea of pedestrians walking diagonally in front of the loading area. He added that this would be unsafe. He did not like the idea that the sidewalk ends with a tree.

Member Landry stated that the sidewalk further south that would allow people to walk down the sidewalk, continue to walk along the northern edge of the Guernsey parking lot and arrive at the driveway. He stated this would allow them to continue to walk along the parking lot and take a right angle to Guernsey. He stated with this option, the pedestrian would not walk in front of a loading area and it would not be expensive. He stated the applicant would only need to stripe a piece of asphalt and place a few parking blocks. Member Landry stated that he would support this condition.

Member Koneda stated that he wanted the applicant to be able to finish their project. He accepted Member Landry’s amendment and called for a vote.

Member Churella accepted the amendment.

Chairperson Canup asked for the motion to be clarified.

Member Landry stated it would be for the approval of the Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan and Section Nine Facade Waiver on SP 00-16C with the addition of removing the tree at the extreme northwest corner of the parking lot and the stripping of the asphalt at the extreme west part of the northern section of the parking lot, moving the parking spaces in that section back and applying parking blocks.

Moved by Koneda, seconded by Churella, CARRIED (7-1): In the matter of Guernsey Farms Dairy SP 00-16C to grant Revised Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Section Nine Facade Waiver with the addition of removing the tree at the extreme northwest corner of the parking lot and the stripping of the asphalt at the extreme west part of the northern section of the parking lot, moving the parking spaces in that section back and applying parking blocks, contingent upon all the consultant’s comments and recommendations.

Audience participate (unidentified) spoke out stating that Mr. Arroyo stated that trucks would not be able to turn and would need to investigate.

Chairperson Canup called order to the meeting and asked Mr. Arroyo to address the comment.

Mr. Arroyo stated that he indicated this would need to look at. He stated if the motion is passed, he assumed that this would be investigated as part of the Final Site Plan to assure that it would work.

Chairperson Canup stated that he understood the situation of the semi-trucks maneuvering the site to make a left to get around the edge of the building. Therefore, the cars on the corner would be a problem. He questioned if there would be a problem with the complete removal of the parking spaces on the corner.

Mr. Arroyo stated they could give up two (2).

Chairperson Canup stated that they could give up two (2) spaces on the corner and solve the problem.

Audience participate (unidentified) spoke out stating that he did not agree and he would use it anyway.

Chairperson Canup interjected and called for the vote on the motion.

Member Kocan clarified that there would not be a sidewalk on the other side of the driveway going to the southern most portion of their property.

Member Landry answered, correct.

Chairperson Canup indicated that this was the issue with the big tree.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Nagy, Richards

No: Mutch

Member Churella indicated that he was the only person involved by the Bylaws. He stated that he could not be the Secretary due to the fact that he has served two (2) terms. Therefore, he is the only one required to step down. He stated that the Commission could vote a new Secretary in at this time.

Chairperson Canup felt this would only take effect with the election.

Mr. Fisher stated that the Bylaws internally inconsistent if the appointment is not made. He explained that the Bylaws assume that the appointment will be made in July. The Bylaw states that the officers will be selected the first meeting in July. He stated this would mean "now". He continued that the Bylaw also states that it would be the first meeting in July after the appointments are made. He stated as it applies to this circumstance, it is internally inconsistent. Therefore, he stated that it would be for the commission to make this determination. He added that it is the Planning Commission’s Bylaw and they could interpret it as they see fit.

Chairperson Canup stated that as the Board, he interpreted that all commissioners remain "as is" until a new election take place.

Member Nagy agreed.

Member Kocan clarified if Chairperson Canup was referring to a new election at the table.

Member Nagy stated until there is an appointment or re-appointment to the Planning Commission.

Chairperson Canup questioned when this would take place.

Member Nagy stated that she was not aware.

Chairperson Canup stated that it should take place at the next meeting.

Member Mutch questioned if this was his interpretation.

Chairperson Canup answered, yes. He interpreted further that the Bylaws realistically state that it should take place at this meeting.

Member Koneda explained that last year there was a situation with the City Council not being able to determine whom they would appoint until months after the July date. He stated situation continued for a length of time. He felt that it would be unreasonable to prolong it this long and a limit should be set on a couple of months. He stated that business needs to be conducted. He agreed with Member Churella in that he could step down whenever he chooses and the Commission could elect for his position. He explained that he was attempting to avoid the situation of last year with a lot of kilter.

Member Churella clarified that all the commissioners could stay in their position, except him. He felt that they should follow the Bylaws. He stated if everyone were re-appointed then everyone would be in place. However, according to the Bylaws, he is in violation.

Chairperson Canup clarified if the Commission was in agreement to have an election of officers at the next Planning Commission meeting.

Member Landry agreed with Member Koneda that a reasonable time limit should be set. He suggested the first meeting in August.

Chairperson Canup suggested reviewing and amending the Bylaws because the July meeting has not worked for the past two (2) years. He suggested the possibility of amending the dated to the first meeting in August. He asked if it would be difficult to amend the Bylaws.

Mr. Fisher stated that it would need to be sent to the Rules Committee.

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Richards, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To send Officers Selection Section 2.1 (b) of the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures to the Rules Committee to amend the date.

Member Kocan stated that the Planning commission could also choose to suspend the Bylaws.

Mr. Fisher agreed that they could suspend the Bylaws.

Chairperson Canup felt that it should be addressed to prevent the situation from reoccurring. He felt that it is unfair to have a new commissioner have an election at their first meeting. He suggested September.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

None

None

Moved by Mutch, seconded by Churella, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY: To adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission at 12:25 a.m.

Yes: Canup, Churella, Kocan, Koneda, Landry, Mutch, Nagy, Richards

No: None

________________________________

Donna Howe - Planning Assistant

Transcribed by: Christine Otsuji

July 31, 2001

Date Approved: September 19, 2001